In second language
acquisition, the abovementioned reciprocal understanding is affected during
interaction because some people are still in the process of acquiring a second
language which makes difficult for them to express their ideas, so they resort
to a set of linguistic strategies to communicate with their interlocutors. These
strategies are part of a linguistic phenomenon known as negotiation of meaning.
Gass & Selinker (2001:318) define this concept as “those instances in
conversation when participants need to interrupt the flow of the conversation
in order for both parties to understand what the conversation is about”
a) Corrective
feedback
Every language learner has received some sort of
correction when communicating with a native speaker or a more advanced language
user. This type of correction is known as corrective feedback which according
to Gass & Selinker (2001:330) provides “information about the success…of
their utterances and gives additional opportunities to focus on production and
comprehension.. In teaching, the
Longman’s linguistics dictionary defines it as “comments or other information
that learners receive concerning their success on learning tasks or tests,
either from the teacher or other person (p. 217)
In second language teaching, there are two main type of
corrective feedback: implicit and explicit.
i)
Implicit feedback: It
is a type of correction in which the learner is expected to modify their output
inductively. Some types of implicit
feedback involve prompts, elicitation, clarification requests, repetitions and
recast. Rassei,
E; Moinzadeh, A; Youhannaee, M (2012:101) in their study of Iranian EFL
learners pay special attention to recasts since they claim they are the most
popular type of corrective feedback. The authors discovered that recasts are likely
to be more effective when learners modify their output immediately after
correction. They also suggests than any type of recast can be potentially useful
if there is immediate response or not. Long (1996) as cited in Rassei, E; Mozaffari,
F (2011:22) had already claimed its effectiveness in SLA and mentioned that it
usually occurs in meaning focused activities. .
ii)
Explicit
feedback: It is a type of correction in which the
problem of communication is stated directly so the learner can know what part
of his output must modify. Carrol and
Swain (1993) and Carrol (2001) as cited in Rassei, E; Moinzadeh, A (2011:98) in
their researches discovered that the learners who received explicit feedback
outperformed those who only received implicit correction. It is arguable then
that spotting errors directly can result in higher levels of learners’ uptake.
In interactive task-based activities, the students
working collaboratively must use different communicative strategies in order to
discover information, solve a problem or make a decision. The nature of the
interaction during the communicative act is mostly based on meaning, calling
upon correction when the learners estimate it is necessary to do it or when it
severally affects the understanding of the utterances produced. Theoretically
speaking, the modified output resulting from successful uptake promotes second
language acquisition. Below there is a summary list of the most important assumptions
that Gass and Selinker (2001) mention according to studies of input,
interaction and output. This studies claim that:
·
Negotiation of meaning can
facilitate L2 language acquisition.
·
Interaction can have a
significant effect in the development of L2 syntax and morphology.
·
Conversation has positive
effects on motivation because it stimulates later learning.
·
Adults tend to receive more
correction than children.
II) THE
SOCIO-CULTURAL THEORY.
This theory finds its origins in the works of the
Behaviorist Russian psychologist Vygotsky who believed that human beings were
able to learn thanks to the interactional relationship that exists between the
mind and the social context. In second language acquisition, SCT claims that
humans beings are able to learn a second language through interaction given
that humans unlike any other species can mediate the relationship they have
with the objects available in the social context such as typical local
expressions or concrete vocabulary which allow them to modify and enhance their
own behavior with respect to themselves, to others and to the environment.
A) Mediation:
Regulation, other regulation and self-regulation.
The following text is based on the example given by
Lantolf, J & Thorne, S (2006:199-200) on how people learn according to the
sociocultural theory which has been adapted to how the students learn a foreign
language in the interactive classroom.
Let’s imagine an adult EFL beginner student who takes his
first English lesson. He does not know much about the target language, so he
uses his limited pre-existing knowledge of it to interact with his peers. As it
is normal, in this stage known as object regulation, he cannot express all the
ideas he would like to communicate using words, so he uses body language as a
tool to get the meaning across. Constant exposure to this type of interaction
will eventually help the learner create the necessary connections to communicate
more efficiently. In the stage known as
other regulation, the teachers can enhance the quality of these peers’
interaction by providing the students with scaffolding, so they help the
students make the connections more easily through the use of pictorial
vocabulary or body gestures. The third
stage arrives when the learner no longer requires scaffolding and can
communicate in the target language using his own linguistic artifacts.
B) Internalization:
Once the learners do not need any type of internal or
external assistance, they have internalized that knowledge. Winegar (1997:31)
as cited in Lantolf, J & Thorne, S
(2006: 200) expresses that internalization is a negotiated process that
reorganizes the relationship of the individual to her or his social environment
and generally carries it into future performance.
C) Zone of proximal
development:
As building blocks, the knowledge that learners have
internalized becomes additional information that has modified the pre-existing
knowledge, turning it into a more developed version of it. Before teaching, teachers must consider this
aspect in order to know how much their students know and what they need to
learn. Lantolf, J & Thorne, S (2006: 207) state that “when used
proactively, teachers using the ZPD as a diagnostic have the potential to
create conditions for learning that may rise to specific forms of development
in the future.
III) THE INPUT
PROCESSING THEORY.
a) Language acquisition.
This theoretical perspective based on the works of
Professor Van Patten conceives language acquisition as a phenomenon that occurs
in the mind. For acquisition to be possible and provided that the human brain cannot
process all the input received at once due to memory constrains, the input to
which the learners are exposed is selected by following the principles of
attention and input processing. Fernandez, M (1999:200) summarizes these
principles as follows:
·
Learners process meaning
before form.
·
Learners process content
words before any other type of words.
·
Learners prefer to process
lexical elements to grammar elements so as to find semantic information.
·
If learners want to process
morphology, they will stand for the type of morphology that offers them a
higher amount of meaning.
·
Meaningless forms can be
process once the meaningful ones have already been processed.
In conclusion, learners are always looking to make
meaning-connections which can explain why a person can achieve communicative
competence in a second language and still ignore some syntactic or
morphological aspects of it. Eventually, less or not meaningful forms might be
processed too.
The order in which input is processed according to
Professor Van Patten & Fernandez would first go from input to intake (which
is the information selected by attention), then it would pass through a process
of new data accommodation until it incorporates into the L2 developing system.
b) Structured input in the language classroom.
In the second language classroom, teachers can facilitate
the process of their students’ acquisition by providing structured input in
their lesson. In other words, it is input that is carefully selected for its
presentation so the students find it easier to understand and process.
According to Professor Van Patten (1993:438-439) some
criteria to structure the input consider to:
·
Teach one content at a time.
·
Keep the focus on meaning
(according to the principles)
·
Move from sentences to
connected discourse.
·
Have the learner do
something with the input.
·
Keep the learners`
processing strategies in mind.
Pereira, I (1995:302) concludes that this type of
teaching method is meant to “manipulate the students’ interpretation strategies
instead of the production strategies. The student’s attention is then directed
to a determined structure in a linguistic context which has been previously
manipulated on purpose [by the teacher]”
SOME
ASPECTS OF THE INTERACTIVE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
Before starting this chapter, it is necessary to ask: how
do language teachers promote interaction in their language lessons? If interaction is an activity that
necessarily requires two participants, the answer is group work. This concept
is defined by Brown (2007:224) as an activity which “two or more students are
assigned a task that involves collaboration and self-initiated language.
Recent research has discovered that group work seems
beneficial to promote second language acquisition. According to Liang, X;
Mohan, B; Early, M (1998:21) cooperative learning “…can maximize second
language acquisition by offering opportunities for both input and output”
Supporting this claim, Brown (2007:225) lists some of the benefits that group
work offers in the language classroom. This list has been complemented with
additional information from personal experiences and information from other
authors.
1.
It
generates interactive language: Most research has
demonstrated that group work is potentially effective for the students to
develop their writing and oral skills. However, to have the students work in
groups does not always guarantee success.
Nation, P (1989:20) states that many teachers generally use group work
in “unprincipled ways” which makes teachers’ preparation essential for the
success of the activity.
2. It offers an embracing
affective climate: Some students are shy and afraid of making mistakes when
trying to communicate in a second language. In my experience as a teacher, this
generally happens in teacher-fronted lessons in which interaction is barely
reduced to teachers asking questions and students replying them. Nonetheless,
group work offers a chance for learners to “play safer” because they work with
peers with relatively equal skills, who work to achieve common objectives.
Brown (2007:225) in his many observations of “countless lessons” has noticed
that apparent “reticent students become vocal participants of the process” when
it comes to work collaboratively. Lightbown & Spada (1993:85) claim that
“learners take the initiative to express themselves, they are more spontaneous”
3.
It
promotes learner responsibility and autonomy: In
the teacher-centered approach to teaching, the educators are in charge of the
lesson which encourages the students only to follow instructions and do work as
expected. Consequently, when students encounter a difficulty to complete a
task, their first reaction might be probably ask the teacher. This lack of students’ autonomy represents a
heavy load that teachers must carry which can be reduced by promoting group
work. In the beginning it may be time-consuming and challenging because it
requires to make clear a set of procedures that traditional students do not
know, but as Gorgon, A (2008:1) expresses “in the long run group work develops
learners’ independence” thus facilitating the teachers’ job in the classroom. With
more leaders available per class, there are more opportunities for the students
to interact with each other, ask questions and share opinions.
4.
It
is a step forward toward individualizing instruction: In countries where
teachers are in charge of large group of students, it is very difficult for teachers
to assist each of their students’ unique personalities and learning needs so
working in groups become a valuable option to make the lesson more
individualized. Brown (2007:226)
explains that “small groups can help students with varying abilities to
accomplish separate goals. In addition he adds that “the teacher can capitalize
upon their differences by careful selection of small groups…”
Principles of group
work.
Professor Paul Nation identifies at least five principles
that must be taken into account to promote collaborative group work. In the
chart below, there is a summary of this information:
In a simplistic overview, some teachers tend to think
that group work is just letting students sitting together so they can help each
other. Hopefully, if some conditions meet such motivation, they can have some
quality interaction that allows them to develop their L2 skills. As you can
see, working in groups is far beyond that and requires well-planned strategies
to be successful.
An example.
In a task-based interactive lesson, two students are
given a picture where each of them has some information that the other student
needs to complete the task. (A jigsaw activity)
According to the principles indicated above, the teacher determines that
the activity requires a “combining” approach meaning that 1) students should
work in pairs,2) place the seats facing
each other so none of them can read their interlocutor’s information, 3) pair
students with similar or equal conditions of mutual dependence, 4) put an
emphasis on meaning over form (the idea is to practice simultaneous unplanned
interaction) 5) to discover the hidden information and complete the task as if
it were a real life situation.
TASK
BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING
What is a task?
From a pedagogical perspective, Richards (1986:289) as
cited in Nunan, D (2004:2) defines task “as an activity or action which is
carried out as the result of processing or understanding the language” In this
way, if some students need to color some pictures in a worksheet depending on
what an interlocutor has said, they are doing a task.
What is an
information gap task?
Among the varied type of task based activities, the
information gap tasks have gained significant popularity in recent years since
its introduction in the 80’s by Long. The reason for its endurance as Pica, T;
Kang, H & Sauro, S (2006) express is proof of its potential as a source of
motivation and opportunities for target language interaction. The correct presentation and design of these
opportunities may help learners to modify their output eventually and therefore
contribute to develop their L2 systems.
Bilash, B (2011) explains that an information gap task is
a type of student-student activity in which the participants do know their
interlocutor answers which are essential for the successful completion of the
task. According to Neu, H; Reeser, T
(1997) as cited in Raptou, V (2001) for an activity to be an information gap
task it needs that “one person has certain information that must be shared with
others in order to solve a problem, gather information or make decisions” The idea is to generate genuine desire for
communication as it is usually brought in a real life conversation. Brown (2007:233)
expresses that the primary focus of this activities is based on meaning rather
than form and the necessity to reach an objective, that is, the language
presents itself as a bridge not as an end.
Some evidence of information
gap task contribution to SLA.
But
do information gap tasks really facilitate language acquisition? In a study
carried out by Doughty, C & Pica, T. (1986) the researchers discovered that
it is possible for non-native speaking students to modify their interaction in
the L2 by working collaboratively to do information gap tasks. This study also reveals that information gap
tasks can be potentially effective in bringing up attention to meaning,
function and form as long as the teacher can adapt its content to the intended
goal, that is, mere pair or group work might lead to non-modifying interaction
if the conditions set for the activities do not meet. Watami, K & Gholami, J (2012:279)
supporting this claim, explain that “If these tasks are presented appropriately
and carefully in the classroom, the students will acquire a good command of
communicating in English” This gives language teachers a great deal of the
responsibility to set the most adequate conditions for the development of the
tasks. Brown (2007:214-15) states that the interactive teacher must act as a
controller, director, manager, facilitator and a resource of grammaticality.
Raptou,
V (2001) researcher and teacher of French as a foreign language explains that
this technique had a great potential in increasing the students’ motivation
towards language learning. Since its
goals seem to go beyond the mere production of target language, students appear
to engage and participate in the activities because they feel entertained and seek
to complete an objective because it is intrinsically motivating. In her observations, the author registered a
15-20 minute of uninterrupted students’ interaction in the target language
which represents a great deal of language in use.
Watamni,
K; Gholami, J (2012) assert that “the atmosphere of the classroom in which
students work in groups to complete a task is much more desirable than those
which do not have this characteristic”
One of the aspects of this atmosphere is motivation. As these tasks are mainly focused on meaning,
students who participate collaboratively with their peers seem to reduce the
stress of producing accurate utterances, focusing on reaching the goal which is
usually interesting for them. This is a
big challenge for the language teacher who must find activities that are
appealing and attractive for the students.
Regarding
the social implication of these tasks in the development of oral skills,
Foster, P; Snyder, A (2005) in an interesting research noticed that the
learners appeared to help each other in order to solve the communicative
problem in which they did not only support linguistically, but also emotionally
when dealing with frustrations caused during the interaction. They registered some interaction modification
which was mainly directed to form; apparently the learners did not want to let
a mistake go without an attempt to correct it first so it did not fossilize.
An
aspect to take into account when talking about the effectiveness of this type
of tasks is the orientation of some research that considers immediate learners’
uptake a concrete example of learners’ interaction modification which can be
short or long lasting as well as relevant or irrelevant for the development of
the L2 system.
Type
of information gap tasks
Brown,
D (2007) identifies at least three types of information gap tasks. These are
usually employed to teach adults but they can be adapted to target a younger
audience too. These tasks are:
a) Jigsaw activities: These tasks need that each person a in a pair
or group has some information that their interlocutors do not know and need to
finish the task. Since none of them can show their information, they have to
work collaboratively to reach a common understanding. As an example, imagine a
pair of students with a map, each of them contains the name of the places their
interlocutor needs to know to get there.
They have to ask each other questions to find out that missing
information.
b)
Problem-solving
tasks: It
needs that all the students in a group work together in order to solve a
problematic situation such a political or moral dilemma. The idea is to reach a
collective consensus.
c) Decision- making task:
It requires that the students discuss about a topic in order to make a
decision. For example, two students are given a brochure with information about
several hotels in the city, according to certain criteria they have to decide
which one is more convenient to stay in.
It
goes without saying that Doughty, C & Pica, T. (1986) discovered that some
type of information gap tasks such as the jigsaw activities can be more
communication-encouraging than other type of tasks. The reason lies on the fact
that one way gap tasks does not make an interlocutor’s contribution necessary
whereas two or multi-way gap task makes each interlocutor’s contribution essential
to solve the problem.
Pica,
T; Kang, H & Sauro, S. (2006) in analyzing the multiple roles and
contributions of information gap tasks to research methodology employed an
activity that focused on form called “Grammar communicative task” which required that students compare their
utterances with a partner so as to choose the most precise or accurate one. According to Pica, T (1996:242) the
professionals of the field advocate for “best of both worlds” approach “which
emphasizes the focus on communication but also on grammar.
CONCLUSION
The rationale to encourage the implementation of
task-based activities in the English language classroom is based on the
assumption that interaction is key for developing English speaking skills in
second language acquisition given that it allows learners to count on language
evidence through “negotiation of meaning”, context and a set of interpretation
strategies which cannot be obtained in its total dimension by the input
hypothesis-based approaches.
In student-centered approaches to teaching, Information
gap tasks have proven an effective type of interactive activity in which the
students find genuine opportunities to communicate with their peers in a second
language almost as if they were in a real world situation. This promotes
motivation towards second language acquisition and a desire to work
collaboratively to reach common goals.
REFERENCES.
Bilash, B. (2011)
“Information gap tasks” University of Alberta.
Source obtained from: http://www.educ.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka.bilash/best%20of%20bilash/info%20gap%20activities.html
Last modified January 2011.
Brown, D (2007)”Teaching by principles: An
interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy
3rd edition” Pearson Longman. White Plains, New York.
Doughty, C; Pica, T.
(1986) “Information gap” Tasks: do they facilitate Second Language Acquisition?
Tesol Quartely, vol 20, No 2, June.
Fernandez, M (1999) “Procesamiento del Input E
Instrucción Gramatical. Apuntes sobre el trabajo del profesor Van Patten”
Centro Granadí de Español. pp, 245-249.
Foster,
P; Snyder, A (2005) “Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second
language classrooms” Applied linguistics 26/ , pp. 402 – 430.
Gass,
S; Selinker, L (2001) “Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course”
Third edition. Routledge, New York and
London.
Lightbown,
P; Spada, N (1993) “How languages are learned” Oxford University Press.
Nation,
P (1989) “Group Work and Language Learning” English teaching forum. Pp,
20-24.
Nunan,
D (2004) “Task-based language teaching” Cambridge University Press.
Pereira, I (1995) “El uso del input estructuras en
actividad de clase” Centro virtual cervantes, pp-297-303.
Pica, T; Kang, H
& Sauro, S. (2006) “Information gap tasks: their multiple Roles and
Contributions to Interaction Research Methodology” Scholarly commons.
University of Pennsylvania, graduate school of education. GSE publications,
Cambridge university press. pp, 301-338.
Raptou, V. (2001)
“Using information gap activities in the second language classroom” Canadian
association of second language teachers.
Source obtained from: http://www.caslt.org/Print/gapp.htm
Rassaei,
E & Moinzadeh, A (2011) “Investigating the effects of Three Types of
Corrective Feedback on the Acquisition of English wh-questions forms by Iranian
EFL Learners” English language teaching, Vol.4, No 2, pp. 97-106.
Rassei,
E; Moinzadeh, A; Youhannaee, M (2012) hj “Recasts, Modified Output and L2
Development: A case of Persian EFL Learners” English language literature
studies. Vol.2, No 1, March 2012.
Rezaei,
S & Mozaffari, F ( 2011) “Corrective Feedback in SLA: Classroom Practice
and Future Directions” International
Journal of English Linguistics. Vol.1,
No 1, pp.21- 29.
Richards,
J; Schmidt, R (2010) “”Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics
fourth edition” Longman. United Kingdom, London.
Ur,
P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory.
Cambridge.
Van
Patten, B (2006) “Processing instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary.
TESL-EJ Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Vol, 9. No, 3.
Watamni,
K; Gholami, J (2012) “The effect of implementing information gap tasks on EFL
learners’s speaking ability” MJAL 4:4, pp. 267- 283.
