Q2: What does Long's interaction hypothesis have in common with Krashen's original input hypothesis?
Q3: Name and describe 3 strategies that are used when negotiating meaning.
Discussion: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication. Why or why not?
Q1: Long’s interaction hypothesis refers to when learners learn language through face-to-face interaction and is similar to Krashen’s input (i+1). It claims that language acquisition will be more effective when learners have to negotiate for meaning and at the same time, comprehensible input will be increased.
Q2: As I mentioned above, the commonness is that when the learners receive the input that’s slightly competent than their comprehensible level, the learners will acquire the language
Q3: 1) Confirmation checks – Speaker 1 seeks for confirmation of the speaker 2’s preceding utterance through repetition, with rising intonation. 2) Comprehension checks - Speaker 1 seeks attempts to determine whether the speaker 2 understood a preceding message. 3) Clarification requests - Speaker 1 seeks for assistance in understanding speaker 2 through asking questions.
Discussion: I do agree with the statement, not 100% but pretty strongly. It’s because by having face-to-face interaction, one can really negotiate the meaning of the new language not only through the spoken language, but also by facial expressions, gestures, and body language etc. That way the learner could be motivated to really negotiate the meaning because they have more than one way to communicate. I often find myself preferring to have face-to-face interaction when I want to have REAL conversation rather than doing it through virtual or phone communication. That way I can do confirmation checks, comprehension checks, and clarification request much clearly by adding non-verbal language.
Long’s Interaction hypothesis basically states that language proficiency is promoted by face to face interactive communication. Especially so when speakers are exposed to modified input that better enables them to negotiate for meaning in their discourse.
Q2: What does Long's interaction hypothesis have in common with Krashen's original input hypothesis? Interaction hypothesis also claims that comprehensible input is needed for second language acquisition, much the same as Krashen’s input hypothesis.
Q3: Name and describe 3 strategies that are used when negotiating meaning.
Confirmation, comprehension and clarification requests can all be used to further negotiate for meaning during a difficult discourse. Confirmation meaning double check what you heard. Comprehension checking that you understood what was said. Clarification meaning to have your interlocutor repeat or rephrase a difficult concept so as to aid understanding.
Discussion: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication. Why or why not? Yes, I agree. It is possible to learn in other ways (reading, audio books etc), but face to face interaction feels the most effective for me. Both as a teacher and as a student, I prefer personal interaction because it’s easier to negotiate for meaning with a sentient being in front of you.
Long conducted a study of 16 NS-NS pairs and 16 NS-NNS pairs. They all carried out the same set of face to face oral tasks. In order to solve communication problems the NS-NNS pairs were much more likely to make use of conversational tactics such as repetitions, confirmation checks, comprehension checks or clarification requests. L2 learners exposed to modified scripts performed better than students exposed to non-modified scripts.
Macky (1999) again showed learners who engaged in interaction progressed one or more stages in second language question formation, while non-interactors failed to do so.
Long’s Interaction hypothesis basically states that language proficiency is promoted by face to face interactive communication. Especially so when speakers are exposed to modified input that better enables them to negotiate for meaning in their discourse.
Doughty & Pica 1) Information Gap: the lack of information among people trying to work on a common goal. 2) One-way Information Gap Task: A task that doesn’t require information to be exchanged among people working on a same task. 3) Two-way Information Gap: A task that requires people to exchange the pieces of information they hold, different information and not known to others, to achieve a common goal. 4) Modified interaction: when there’s modification done to the interaction to help comprehension of message’s meaning.
SLLT 5) Interaction Hypothesis: Similar to Krashen’s input hypothesis, it insists that language acquisition will be more effective and their comprehensible input will be increased when learners are negotiating for meaning. 6) Confirmation checks: When Speaker 1 seeks for confirmation of the speaker 2’s words through repetition and/or with rising intonation.
Han & Kim 7) Corrective Recast: It’s a corrective feedback strategy used by teacher to do error-correction in the learners’ speech.
Q1: Define in your own words Long's interaction hypothesis
Q2: In the three different studies reviewed in the article, what were findings?
Q3: What were the criticisms of the interactional research?
Discussion:
The last paragraph mentions how the interaction hypothesis might be appealing to noticing. How do you think that this might also relate to Vygotsky's ZPD?
Q1: Interaction/communication in L2 leads to language acquisition even when the 'goal' of the interaction is not a language lesson.
Q2: Loschky: Negotiation of meaning helps comprehension, but does not necessarily enable increased language acquisition.
Gass and Varonis: Negotiation of meaning seems to help learners internalize communicative strategies more effectively than vocabulary and grammar.
Mackey: Communicative interactions lead to language acquisition.
Q3: The main issue is that the studies all seem to be looking for benefits of interactions/negotiations of meaning and all three come to different conclusions on how much and in what ways communication helps language acquisition.
Discussion:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. In the video we watched with the kid playing with blocks, his mother just pointed things out to him when he made a mistake. Her support was very light and fairly indirected. I guess you could say she helped him 'notice' his mistakes. In the Gass and Varonis example, the Japanese student 'notices' how the native speaker used 'eat nuts' to describe a squirrel and it was easier to retain that approach than to remember the new vocab word. I think ZPD scaffolding and the language acquisitions from the interaction hypothesis seem to be similar in that they are not really direct instruction, but more guiding to notice.
Summary
Long says that L2 interactions lead to language acquisition because the interactions between native and non-native speakers tend to naturally float around the i+1 level. Various studies have looked at the language acquisition that results from communication and the results are fairly inconclusive:
Interaction/communication may help.... ...bring input higher than i+1 down to a comprehensible level ...language learners develop L2 communication skills ...language learners develop L2 abilities (i.e. question-forming skills).
Despite being inconclusive, it's obvious that L2 interactions are beneficial on some level for the language learner.
A few other random things in my notes that I found interesting : negotiation of meaning happens in both native speaker - non-native speaker interactions AND in NNS<->NNS interactions.
in NS-NNS interactions there's a tendency to use some of our meth tricks naturally: repetitions, confirmations, comprehension checks and/or clarifications. These interactions are used to ensure comprehension, not necessarily to 'teach' language during communication.
Ans.1) Long's Input Hypothesis of SLA emphasises on learning through face to face interaction.There are STRONG and WEAK interaction hypo.In strong the interaction itself contributes to learning while in weak the learner finds opportunity to learn indirectly.
Ans.2) The researches by LOSCHKY and GASS &VARONIS stress upon negotiation of meaning.Where they help in acquiring grammar and vocabulary .While in the research by Mackey it is found that language acquisition takes place through interaction.
Ans.3) The interaction research is criticized for putting all the attention on a functional part of language acquisition and not considering the linguistic theory. They mostly revolve around the interaction and acquisition , leaving other important features neglected.
Discussion Answer The common point between ZPD and Interaction theory can be INTERACTION.Since Vygotsky found peer interaction as an essential part for learning.In ZPD the collaborative interaction between learner and trainer or peers is found helpful.
• The interaction hypothesis are integrated form of input hypothesis by Krashen and Output theory by Swain.In Input theory only input is regarded essential for acquisition,while in the Output theory, output is regarded important.While in interaction theory both are regarded important as they not only help in new learning but also help in practicing it. • Information Gap- Is the lack of information between people working together for a common goal. • Two way information gap task- is piece of knowledge held by all members of the group working for a common goal.The idea of this knowledge is not known to all but it is useful to put all that knowledge together to achieve the result. • One way information gap task- is the information which is not important to exchange in order to achieve the result .It is also termed as optional exchange tasks. • Total amount of interaction-is defined as total task and interaction variable.When there is a teacher fronted interaction,there is more interaction which results in better learning while the peer group interaction is having less exchange of information.
Hey group-members, I'm the discussion leader this week. Hope my questions don't make your brain explode.
Comprehension:
1) Define Long’s interaction hypothesis in your own words and as concisely as you can.
2) Which conversational tactics did Long find were most used when native-speakers were collaborating with non-native speakers? How did this benefit the non-native speaker’s use of language (apply Krashen’s terms here too)?
3) In the Gass and Varonis study (1994) certain non-native speakers were allowed to interact with their interviewer and negotiate for meaning. In comparison to the other studied groups that were not granted this opportunity, what communication strategies did they acquire?
Discussion:
1) Do you allow your students to negotiate for meaning when you teach them? What do you do and how do you evaluate the effectiveness of your approach?
2) Some modern researchers have criticized early interactionist methods for “neglecting linguistic theory.” What does this mean, do you think this claim holds any validity and if so, how could linguistic acquisition be better integrated into the interactive approaches described here?
1) The interaction hypothesis is an extension of the input hypothesis. Collaborative efforts to solve communication problems by negotiating meaning leads to language acquisition.
2) When NSs were collaborating with NNSs repetitions, confirmation checks, comprehension checks and clarification requests were common. This negotiation of meaning made input comprehensible.
3) NNSs who were negotiating meaning with the NSs during the first trial when NSs were giving instructions were more successful at giving instruction with the NSs when allowed to negotiate meaning during the second trial. They didn't learn the lexical meanings of the words (such as squirrel), but they learned strategies for defining it using other basic vocabulary.
Discussion: 1) I always allow my students to negotiate for meaning when I teach them. If they are asking for meaning during tests or they are asking questions about my private speech or unnecessary comments I sometimes choose not to because I don't think of these times as teaching times. I negotiate for meaning with them by using tactics such as repetition, confirmation checks, comprehension checks and clarification requests. I evaluate the effectiveness of my approach by the ahhs, L1 feedback, through their responses in L2, their willingness to volunteer, and scores on more formal evaluations.
2) I believe it means that researchers think it focused too much on the functional aspects of language. I think this holds true as language is somewhat useless if not functional. What is the point of acquiring something without a function? However there are other reasons and ways to acquire language and only focusing on interaction seems a little narrow. I do think interaction is just another thing to add to the ever growing complex notion of language acquisition. I do agree with the critics who proclaim it is not an ends to the study of how to acquire language and that stronger more complex theories are needed before any such claims can be made.
Highlighter Definitions & Terms: 1. Interaction Hypothesis: An extension of the input hypothesis where collaborative efforts to solve communication problems by negotiating meaning leads to language acquisition. * SLLT 2. Negotiate for meaning: When non-fluent speakers communicate using a language, solving problems becomes inevitable in order to modify language and make input comprehensible. *SLLT 3. Confirmation checks: When one speaker wants to confirm the other's words by repeating all or some of them with raising intonation. *SLLT 5. Modified interaction: When collaborative efforts are altered in some way to improve or ease the comprehension of the presented message. *SLLT 4. Information Gap: When there is a lack of information among people working to achieve a common goal. It is said to be two way when all participants have some necessary information not known to all the others. *Pica & Doughty 5. Total amount of interaction: The sum of all the utterances by all players in the classroom combined. *Pica & Doughty 6. Communicative recasts: Used by teachers as a strategy to maintain the conversation by scaffolding, making it more coherent and keeping the flow. *Han & Kim 7. Corrective recasts: An error correction strategy used by teachers to fix mistakes in the speech of learners. *Han & Kim
1) Define Long’s interaction hypothesis in your own words and as concisely as you can.
Negotiating for meaning when communication breaks down helps learners to develop their proficiency.
2) Which conversational tactics did Long find were most used when native-speakers were collaborating with non-native speakers? How did this benefit the non-native speaker’s use of language (apply Krashen’s terms here too)?
Basically the speakers used CI techniques like repetition, confirmation checks, or clarification request. Long mentioned confirmation checks and “confirmation checks and clarification requests,” but I assumed that was a mistake. This benefitted the non-native speaker’s because they basically received i + 1 instead of i + 2, 3, 4. . .
3) In the Gass and Varonis study (1994) certain non-native speakers were allowed to interact with their interviewer and negotiate for meaning. In comparison to the other studied groups that were not granted this opportunity, what communication strategies did they acquire?
This helped the speakers to develop their abilities to avoid communication breakdown when they didn’t know the English term for a key word they knew in their native language. In other words, they developed their strategic competence, one of the three competencies included in communicative competence.
1) Do you allow your students to negotiate for meaning when you teach them? What do you do and how do you evaluate the effectiveness of your approach?
As I explained in response to Tom’s blog questions this week:
As part of corporate Business English classes I’ve had to teach difficult vocabulary related to negotiation. One thing I had to teach was a simple list of negotiation vocabulary (actually short expressions, phrasal verbs, and idioms) that were removed from any context whatsoever. There were approximately 12 expressions, and at least 10 of them were unknown to all of the students. The vocabulary included expressions like “come to terms,” “reach common ground,” and ballpark figure.
I taught them by first putting the students in pairs and having them identify them identify the vocab they already knew, and explaining them to their partners. Then I had some example sentences which the students went through as they tried to figure out the vocabulary from context. As they went through the examples, they explained to their partner what they thought each word meant. After that, they did a matching exercise (vocabulary and meaning). After that we reviewed the answers together. This was a very teacher-centered portion of the lesson. I used a variety of MIC techniques and examples of how the vocabulary could be used in context. After that the students did a fill-in-the-blanks exercise as they tried to fit the words into proper context. Finally, for homework, I had the students write dialogues using the new vocabulary as well as recycled material like a structured framework and conditional grammar. I also made efforts to give students repeated exposure to and practice with the vocabulary over the next couple of weeks.
How do I judge the effectiveness? That’s a harder question to answer but I make sure they have the correct “worksheet or textbook answers” and I evaluate them formatively by walking around and listening in to their conversation a bit.
2) Some modern researchers have criticized early interactionist methods for “neglecting linguistic theory.” What does this mean, do you think this claim holds any validity and if so, how could linguistic acquisition be better integrated into the interactive approaches described here? I think they mean that these interactionist methods focused more on coping strategies and less on purely linguistic competence. The article indicates that research showed some participants did not remember certain vocabulary after negotiating meaning, though the coping strategies/strategic competence did improve.
I think linguistic acquisition could be better integrated by doing something like the crossword puzzle activity that was in our Harmer book this week (p. 233).
1) Define Long’s interaction hypothesis in your own words and as concisely as you can.
Long's Interaction hypothesis is an extension of Krashen's Input hypothesis with the main difference being that i + 1 is being received through interaction between speakers.
2) Which conversational tactics did Long find were most used when native-speakers were collaborating with non-native speakers? How did this benefit the non-native speaker’s use of language (apply Krashen’s terms here too)?
NS-NNS pairs were more likely to use repetition, confirmation checks, comprehension checks, and clarification requests. In the case of Jane and Hiroshi, Hiroshi learned a new way of describing something (squirrels). In Mackey's study, the NNS learned to ask questions more correctly.
Not sure where Krashen is supposed to fit in here since his name is really only mentioned as the basis for Long's hypothesis.
3) In the Gass and Varonis study (1994) certain non-native speakers were allowed to interact with their interviewer and negotiate for meaning. In comparison to the other studied groups that were not granted this opportunity, what communication strategies did they acquire?
The NS-NNS pairs who were able to interact saw a significant increase in the NNS's ability to give directions and define certain terms.
Discussion:
1) Do you allow your students to negotiate for meaning when you teach them? What do you do and how do you evaluate the effectiveness of your approach?
When I was teaching at Hongik, I didn't disallow negotiation for meaning, but I can't really say that it happened a lot during whole-class exercises like games and discussions. The students mainly looked to me as their fountain of information, so in a way I guess I was allowing myself to be used as a crutch rather than facilitating their own learning.
When they were doing pair or group conversation, however, I think there was a lot of meaning negotiation going on because the students were focused on each other rather than on me.
I can't really evaluate the effectiveness of my approach because this teaching occurred a long time ago and, to be honest, I didn't really have an approach.
2) Some modern researchers have criticized early interactionist methods for “neglecting linguistic theory.” What does this mean, do you think this claim holds any validity and if so, how could linguistic acquisition be better integrated into the interactive approaches described here?
This question seems to be a direct reference to Braidi's criticism that early interactionist theory is too preoccupied with functional aspects of SLA, so I'm going to assume that means Braidi wasn't too pleased with the lack of cognitive and/or behavioral focus. Long's theory is basically "if we do A, then B happens" and, as far as this reading is concerned, doesn't really attempt to explain why beyond a few basic ideas surrounding collaboration and negotiating for meaning. It just states that it happens under the conditions that Long described.
Sure, I guess there's some validity in Braidi's statement, but do we really need to know "why" for everything? I don't think so. If something works, and there's sufficient data to prove that it works, that's good enough for me. I don't necessarily need to know how interactionist theory correlates to behavioral conditioning or cognitive processing as long as the limitations of Long's research are understood.
Long's Interaction hypothesis is an extension of Krashen's Input hypothesis, but it relies on interaction between speakers to make i + 1 happen.
Several studies were conducted that involved the use of native speaker and non-native-speaker pairs. In each study, comparisons were made between groups that were asked to work with the same script with key differences. Some scripts were modified to make the input more comprehensible, some were not, and and some allowed for NS-NNS collaboration.
The results were somewhat mixed with one experiment where NNS participants were tasked with giving instructions to NS, and there was no difference between those allowed to interact and those who weren't. Other experiments, however, did show that interaction helped the NNS to make strides in acquisition.
So to clarify, SLLT is what will be discussed (and then applied, high-lighted, summarized, etc) in these comments?
ReplyDeleteYes. If you want to refer to anything outside of the SLLT reading, please add a page number, as Michael did last blog post.
DeleteQ1: Quickly describe Long's interaction hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteQ2: What does Long's interaction hypothesis have in common with Krashen's original input hypothesis?
Q3: Name and describe 3 strategies that are used when negotiating meaning.
Discussion: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication. Why or why not?
Q1: Long’s interaction hypothesis refers to when learners learn language through face-to-face interaction and is similar to Krashen’s input (i+1). It claims that language acquisition will be more effective when learners have to negotiate for meaning and at the same time, comprehensible input will be increased.
DeleteQ2: As I mentioned above, the commonness is that when the learners receive the input that’s slightly competent than their comprehensible level, the learners will acquire the language
Q3:
1) Confirmation checks – Speaker 1 seeks for confirmation of the speaker 2’s preceding utterance through repetition, with rising intonation.
2) Comprehension checks - Speaker 1 seeks attempts to determine whether the speaker 2 understood a preceding message.
3) Clarification requests - Speaker 1 seeks for assistance in understanding speaker 2 through asking questions.
Discussion:
I do agree with the statement, not 100% but pretty strongly. It’s because by having face-to-face interaction, one can really negotiate the meaning of the new language not only through the spoken language, but also by facial expressions, gestures, and body language etc. That way the learner could be motivated to really negotiate the meaning because they have more than one way to communicate. I often find myself preferring to have face-to-face interaction when I want to have REAL conversation rather than doing it through virtual or phone communication. That way I can do confirmation checks, comprehension checks, and clarification request much clearly by adding non-verbal language.
The reply bug strikes again. I can't reply to Julie so I will do so under Young's comment.
DeleteQ1: Quickly describe Long's interaction hypothesis.
Long’s Interaction hypothesis basically states that language proficiency is promoted by face to face interactive communication. Especially so when speakers are exposed to modified input that better enables them to negotiate for meaning in their discourse.
Q2: What does Long's interaction hypothesis have in common with Krashen's original input hypothesis?
Interaction hypothesis also claims that comprehensible input is needed for second language acquisition, much the same as Krashen’s input hypothesis.
Q3: Name and describe 3 strategies that are used when negotiating meaning.
Confirmation, comprehension and clarification requests can all be used to further negotiate for meaning during a difficult discourse. Confirmation meaning double check what you heard. Comprehension checking that you understood what was said. Clarification meaning to have your interlocutor repeat or rephrase a difficult concept so as to aid understanding.
Discussion: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication. Why or why not?
Yes, I agree. It is possible to learn in other ways (reading, audio books etc), but face to face interaction feels the most effective for me. Both as a teacher and as a student, I prefer personal interaction because it’s easier to negotiate for meaning with a sentient being in front of you.
Summary
DeleteLong conducted a study of 16 NS-NS pairs and 16 NS-NNS pairs. They all carried out the same set of face to face oral tasks. In order to solve communication problems the NS-NNS pairs were much more likely to make use of conversational tactics such as repetitions, confirmation checks, comprehension checks or clarification requests.
L2 learners exposed to modified scripts performed better than students exposed to non-modified scripts.
Macky (1999) again showed learners who engaged in interaction progressed one or more stages in second language question formation, while non-interactors failed to do so.
Long’s Interaction hypothesis basically states that language proficiency is promoted by face to face interactive communication. Especially so when speakers are exposed to modified input that better enables them to negotiate for meaning in their discourse.
I'm highlighter of this week's reading.
DeleteDoughty & Pica
1) Information Gap: the lack of information among people trying to work on a common goal.
2) One-way Information Gap Task: A task that doesn’t require information to be exchanged among people working on a same task.
3) Two-way Information Gap: A task that requires people to exchange the pieces of information they hold, different information and not known to others, to achieve a common goal.
4) Modified interaction: when there’s modification done to the interaction to help comprehension of message’s meaning.
SLLT
5) Interaction Hypothesis: Similar to Krashen’s input hypothesis, it insists that language acquisition will be more effective and their comprehensible input will be increased when learners are negotiating for meaning.
6) Confirmation checks: When Speaker 1 seeks for confirmation of the speaker 2’s words through repetition and/or with rising intonation.
Han & Kim
7) Corrective Recast: It’s a corrective feedback strategy used by teacher to do error-correction in the learners’ speech.
Q1: Define in your own words Long's interaction hypothesis
ReplyDeleteQ2: In the three different studies reviewed in the article, what were findings?
Q3: What were the criticisms of the interactional research?
Discussion:
The last paragraph mentions how the interaction hypothesis might be appealing to noticing. How do you think that this might also relate to Vygotsky's ZPD?
Q1:
DeleteInteraction/communication in L2 leads to language acquisition even when the 'goal' of the interaction is not a language lesson.
Q2:
Loschky: Negotiation of meaning helps comprehension, but does not necessarily enable increased language acquisition.
Gass and Varonis: Negotiation of meaning seems to help learners internalize communicative strategies more effectively than vocabulary and grammar.
Mackey: Communicative interactions lead to language acquisition.
Q3:
The main issue is that the studies all seem to be looking for benefits of interactions/negotiations of meaning and all three come to different conclusions on how much and in what ways communication helps language acquisition.
Discussion:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. In the video we watched with the kid playing with blocks, his mother just pointed things out to him when he made a mistake. Her support was very light and fairly indirected. I guess you could say she helped him 'notice' his mistakes. In the Gass and Varonis example, the Japanese student 'notices' how the native speaker used 'eat nuts' to describe a squirrel and it was easier to retain that approach than to remember the new vocab word. I think ZPD scaffolding and the language acquisitions from the interaction hypothesis seem to be similar in that they are not really direct instruction, but more guiding to notice.
Summary
Long says that L2 interactions lead to language acquisition because the interactions between native and non-native speakers tend to naturally float around the i+1 level. Various studies have looked at the language acquisition that results from communication and the results are fairly inconclusive:
Interaction/communication may help....
...bring input higher than i+1 down to a comprehensible level
...language learners develop L2 communication skills
...language learners develop L2 abilities (i.e. question-forming skills).
Despite being inconclusive, it's obvious that L2 interactions are beneficial on some level for the language learner.
A few other random things in my notes that I found interesting : negotiation of meaning happens in both native speaker - non-native speaker interactions AND in NNS<->NNS interactions.
in NS-NNS interactions there's a tendency to use some of our meth tricks naturally: repetitions, confirmations, comprehension checks and/or clarifications. These interactions are used to ensure comprehension, not necessarily to 'teach' language during communication.
Ans.1) Long's Input Hypothesis of SLA emphasises on learning through face to face interaction.There are STRONG and WEAK interaction hypo.In strong the interaction itself contributes to learning while in weak the learner finds opportunity to learn indirectly.
DeleteAns.2) The researches by LOSCHKY and GASS &VARONIS stress upon negotiation of meaning.Where they help in acquiring grammar and vocabulary .While in the research by Mackey it is found that language acquisition takes place through interaction.
DeleteAns.3) The interaction research is criticized for putting all the attention on a functional part of language acquisition and not considering the linguistic theory. They mostly revolve around the interaction and acquisition , leaving other important features neglected.
Discussion Answer
The common point between ZPD and Interaction theory can be INTERACTION.Since Vygotsky found peer interaction as an essential part for learning.In ZPD the collaborative interaction between learner and trainer or peers is found helpful.
HIGHLIGHTING
Delete• The interaction hypothesis are integrated form of input hypothesis by Krashen and Output theory by Swain.In Input theory only input is regarded essential for acquisition,while in the Output theory, output is regarded important.While in interaction theory both are regarded important as they not only help in new learning but also help in practicing it.
• Information Gap- Is the lack of information between people working together for a common goal.
• Two way information gap task- is piece of knowledge held by all members of the group working for a common goal.The idea of this knowledge is not known to all but it is useful to put all that knowledge together to achieve the result.
• One way information gap task- is the information which is not important to exchange in order to achieve the result .It is also termed as optional exchange tasks.
• Total amount of interaction-is defined as total task and interaction variable.When there is a teacher fronted interaction,there is more interaction which results in better learning while the peer group interaction is having less exchange of information.
Hey group-members, I'm the discussion leader this week. Hope my questions don't make your brain explode.
ReplyDeleteComprehension:
1) Define Long’s interaction hypothesis in your own words and as concisely as you can.
2) Which conversational tactics did Long find were most used when native-speakers were collaborating with non-native speakers? How did this benefit the non-native speaker’s use of language (apply Krashen’s terms here too)?
3) In the Gass and Varonis study (1994) certain non-native speakers were allowed to interact with their interviewer and negotiate for meaning. In comparison to the other studied groups that were not granted this opportunity, what communication strategies did they acquire?
Discussion:
1) Do you allow your students to negotiate for meaning when you teach them? What do you do and how do you evaluate the effectiveness of your approach?
2) Some modern researchers have criticized early interactionist methods for “neglecting linguistic theory.” What does this mean, do you think this claim holds any validity and if so, how could linguistic acquisition be better integrated into the interactive approaches described here?
1) The interaction hypothesis is an extension of the input hypothesis. Collaborative efforts to solve communication problems by negotiating meaning leads to language acquisition.
Delete2) When NSs were collaborating with NNSs repetitions, confirmation checks, comprehension checks and clarification requests were common. This negotiation of meaning made input comprehensible.
3) NNSs who were negotiating meaning with the NSs during the first trial when NSs were giving instructions were more successful at giving instruction with the NSs when allowed to negotiate meaning during the second trial. They didn't learn the lexical meanings of the words (such as squirrel), but they learned strategies for defining it using other basic vocabulary.
Discussion:
1) I always allow my students to negotiate for meaning when I teach them.
If they are asking for meaning during tests or they are asking questions about my private speech or unnecessary comments I sometimes choose not to because I don't think of these times as teaching times.
I negotiate for meaning with them by using tactics such as repetition, confirmation checks, comprehension checks and clarification requests. I evaluate the effectiveness of my approach by the ahhs, L1 feedback, through their responses in L2, their willingness to volunteer, and scores on more formal evaluations.
2) I believe it means that researchers think it focused too much on the functional aspects of language. I think this holds true as language is somewhat useless if not functional. What is the point of acquiring something without a function? However there are other reasons and ways to acquire language and only focusing on interaction seems a little narrow. I do think interaction is just another thing to add to the ever growing complex notion of language acquisition.
I do agree with the critics who proclaim it is not an ends to the study of how to acquire language and that stronger more complex theories are needed before any such claims can be made.
Highlighter Definitions & Terms:
Delete1. Interaction Hypothesis: An extension of the input hypothesis where collaborative efforts to solve communication problems by negotiating meaning leads to language acquisition. * SLLT
2. Negotiate for meaning: When non-fluent speakers communicate using a language, solving problems becomes inevitable in order to modify language and make input comprehensible. *SLLT
3. Confirmation checks: When one speaker wants to confirm the other's words by repeating all or some of them with raising intonation. *SLLT
5. Modified interaction: When collaborative efforts are altered in some way to improve or ease the comprehension of the presented message. *SLLT
4. Information Gap: When there is a lack of information among people working to achieve a common goal. It is said to be two way when all participants have some necessary information not known to all the others. *Pica & Doughty
5. Total amount of interaction: The sum of all the utterances by all players in the classroom combined. *Pica & Doughty
6. Communicative recasts: Used by teachers as a strategy to maintain the conversation by scaffolding, making it more coherent and keeping the flow. *Han & Kim
7. Corrective recasts: An error correction strategy used by teachers to fix mistakes in the speech of learners. *Han & Kim
Re Andrew's questions:
ReplyDelete1) Define Long’s interaction hypothesis in your own words and as concisely as you can.
Negotiating for meaning when communication breaks down helps learners to develop their proficiency.
2) Which conversational tactics did Long find were most used when native-speakers were collaborating with non-native speakers? How did this benefit the non-native speaker’s use of language (apply Krashen’s terms here too)?
Basically the speakers used CI techniques like repetition, confirmation checks, or clarification request. Long mentioned confirmation checks and “confirmation checks and clarification requests,” but I assumed that was a mistake. This benefitted the non-native speaker’s because they basically received i + 1 instead of i + 2, 3, 4. . .
3) In the Gass and Varonis study (1994) certain non-native speakers were allowed to interact with their interviewer and negotiate for meaning. In comparison to the other studied groups that were not granted this opportunity, what communication strategies did they acquire?
This helped the speakers to develop their abilities to avoid communication breakdown when they didn’t know the English term for a key word they knew in their native language. In other words, they developed their strategic competence, one of the three competencies included in communicative competence.
Discussion:
ReplyDelete1) Do you allow your students to negotiate for meaning when you teach them? What do you do and how do you evaluate the effectiveness of your approach?
As I explained in response to Tom’s blog questions this week:
As part of corporate Business English classes I’ve had to teach difficult vocabulary related to negotiation. One thing I had to teach was a simple list of negotiation vocabulary (actually short expressions, phrasal verbs, and idioms) that were removed from any context whatsoever. There were approximately 12 expressions, and at least 10 of them were unknown to all of the students. The vocabulary included expressions like “come to terms,” “reach common ground,” and ballpark figure.
I taught them by first putting the students in pairs and having them identify them identify the vocab they already knew, and explaining them to their partners. Then I had some example sentences which the students went through as they tried to figure out the vocabulary from context. As they went through the examples, they explained to their partner what they thought each word meant. After that, they did a matching exercise (vocabulary and meaning). After that we reviewed the answers together. This was a very teacher-centered portion of the lesson. I used a variety of MIC techniques and examples of how the vocabulary could be used in context. After that the students did a fill-in-the-blanks exercise as they tried to fit the words into proper context. Finally, for homework, I had the students write dialogues using the new vocabulary as well as recycled material like a structured framework and conditional grammar. I also made efforts to give students repeated exposure to and practice with the vocabulary over the next couple of weeks.
How do I judge the effectiveness? That’s a harder question to answer but I make sure they have the correct “worksheet or textbook answers” and I evaluate them formatively by walking around and listening in to their conversation a bit.
2) Some modern researchers have criticized early interactionist methods for “neglecting linguistic theory.” What does this mean, do you think this claim holds any validity and if so, how could linguistic acquisition be better integrated into the interactive approaches described here?
I think they mean that these interactionist methods focused more on coping strategies and less on purely linguistic competence. The article indicates that research showed some participants did not remember certain vocabulary after negotiating meaning, though the coping strategies/strategic competence did improve.
I think linguistic acquisition could be better integrated by doing something like the crossword puzzle activity that was in our Harmer book this week (p. 233).
Comprehension:
ReplyDelete1) Define Long’s interaction hypothesis in your own words and as concisely as you can.
Long's Interaction hypothesis is an extension of Krashen's Input hypothesis with the main difference being that i + 1 is being received through interaction between speakers.
2) Which conversational tactics did Long find were most used when native-speakers were collaborating with non-native speakers? How did this benefit the non-native speaker’s use of language (apply Krashen’s terms here too)?
NS-NNS pairs were more likely to use repetition, confirmation checks, comprehension checks, and clarification requests. In the case of Jane and Hiroshi, Hiroshi learned a new way of describing something (squirrels). In Mackey's study, the NNS learned to ask questions more correctly.
Not sure where Krashen is supposed to fit in here since his name is really only mentioned as the basis for Long's hypothesis.
3) In the Gass and Varonis study (1994) certain non-native speakers were allowed to interact with their interviewer and negotiate for meaning. In comparison to the other studied groups that were not granted this opportunity, what communication strategies did they acquire?
The NS-NNS pairs who were able to interact saw a significant increase in the NNS's ability to give directions and define certain terms.
Discussion:
1) Do you allow your students to negotiate for meaning when you teach them? What do you do and how do you evaluate the effectiveness of your approach?
When I was teaching at Hongik, I didn't disallow negotiation for meaning, but I can't really say that it happened a lot during whole-class exercises like games and discussions. The students mainly looked to me as their fountain of information, so in a way I guess I was allowing myself to be used as a crutch rather than facilitating their own learning.
When they were doing pair or group conversation, however, I think there was a lot of meaning negotiation going on because the students were focused on each other rather than on me.
I can't really evaluate the effectiveness of my approach because this teaching occurred a long time ago and, to be honest, I didn't really have an approach.
2) Some modern researchers have criticized early interactionist methods for “neglecting linguistic theory.” What does this mean, do you think this claim holds any validity and if so, how could linguistic acquisition be better integrated into the interactive approaches described here?
This question seems to be a direct reference to Braidi's criticism that early interactionist theory is too preoccupied with functional aspects of SLA, so I'm going to assume that means Braidi wasn't too pleased with the lack of cognitive and/or behavioral focus. Long's theory is basically "if we do A, then B happens" and, as far as this reading is concerned, doesn't really attempt to explain why beyond a few basic ideas surrounding collaboration and negotiating for meaning. It just states that it happens under the conditions that Long described.
Sure, I guess there's some validity in Braidi's statement, but do we really need to know "why" for everything? I don't think so. If something works, and there's sufficient data to prove that it works, that's good enough for me. I don't necessarily need to know how interactionist theory correlates to behavioral conditioning or cognitive processing as long as the limitations of Long's research are understood.
I'm the summarizer:
ReplyDeleteLong's Interaction hypothesis is an extension of Krashen's Input hypothesis, but it relies on interaction between speakers to make i + 1 happen.
Several studies were conducted that involved the use of native speaker and non-native-speaker pairs. In each study, comparisons were made between groups that were asked to work with the same script with key differences. Some scripts were modified to make the input more comprehensible, some were not, and and some allowed for NS-NNS collaboration.
The results were somewhat mixed with one experiment where NNS participants were tasked with giving instructions to NS, and there was no difference between those allowed to interact and those who weren't. Other experiments, however, did show that interaction helped the NNS to make strides in acquisition.