The Facilitative Role of the Interaction Hypothesis: Using Interactional Modification Techniques in the English Communicative Classroom
Resumen
English language teachers are expected to implement lessons directed by the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) into today’s classrooms. In this regard, it is pivotal to know about the theoretical framework of this key language teaching approach. The framework is partly made up of one of the most crucial Second Language Acquisition (SLA) hypotheses called the Interaction Hypothesis (IH). The IH claims that second language development is better facilitated when learners participate in negotiated interaction. From a CLT perspective, a second language is acquired more effectively through interaction and communication. When language teachers attempt to design and deliver classroom instruction grounded in CLT, it is imperative to be familiar with the essential notions behind the IH and its facilitative role in SLA. Therefore, this paper provides key information on the hypothesis at hand by analyzing its early version and updated version. In addition, Krashen’s comprehensible input and Hatch’s role of interaction and conversation on L2 learning are highlighted, because the IH evolved from these two scholars’ seminal works. This paper also deals with three key interactional modification techniques - comprehension checks, confirmation checks, and clarification requests – promoted by the IH. With the intent of facilitating language learning, the design and deliver of communicative-oriented lessons should have a central role in the classroom. However, lessons are more likely to be effective when teachers take the theory of the IH into practice by allowing learners to engage in negotiation of meaning through the use of the aforementioned interactional modifications.
Palabras clave
Referencias
Ahmad, S., & Rao, C. (2012). Does it work? Implementing communicative language teaching approach in EFL context. Journal of Education and Practice, 3(12), 28-35.
Ahmad, S., & Rao, C. (2013). Applying communicative approach in teaching English as a foreign language: A case study of Pakistan. Porta Linguarum, 20, 187-203.
Al Khateed, A. (2014). Hypothesis of interaction: Reflections on its theoretical and practical contributions for second language acquisition (SLA). Studies in English Language Teaching, 2(3), 294-305.
Al-Twairish, B. (2009). The effect of the communicative approach on the listening and speaking skills of Saudi secondary school students: An experimental study (Unpublished master’s thesis). King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.
Calle, M., Calle, S., Argudo, J., Moscoso, E., Smith, A., & Cabrera, P. (2012). Los profesores de Inglés y su práctica docente: Un estudio de caso de los colegios fiscales de la ciudad de Cuenca, Ecuador. Maskana, 3(2), 1-17.
Cummins, J., & Davison, C. (2009). International handbook of English language teaching. New York: Springer.
Ecuadorian Ministry of Education (MinEduc). (2012). National curriculum specifications: English as a foreign language. Quito, Ecuador: Author.Ecuadorian Ministry of Education. (2016). EFL curriculum. Quito, Ecuador: Author.
Efrizal, D. (2012). Improving students’ speaking through communicative language teaching method at Mts Ja-alhaq, Sentot Ali Basa Islamic boarding school of Bengkulu, Indonesia. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(20), 127-134.
Ellis, R. (1991, April). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Paper presented at the Regional Language Center Seminar, Singapore.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491.
Emeza, P. (2012). Bringing the real world into the classroom: A communicative approach to the teaching of reading and writing skills of the English language. Retrieved from Society for Research and Academic Excellence: http://academicexcellencesociety.com/bringing_the_real_world_into_the_classroom_a_communicative_approach.html
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,16, 283–302.
Gómez-Luna, E., Fernando-Navas, D., Aponte-Mayor, G., & Betancourt-Buitrago, L. (2014). Metodología para la revisión bibliográfica y la gestión de información de temas científicos, a través de su estructuración y sistematización. Dyna, 81 (184), 158-163.
Hatch, E. (1978). Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning (pp. 34–70). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hasan, A. (2008). Making input comprehensible for foreign language acquisition. Damascus University Journal, 24(2), 31-53.
Hoang-Thu, T. (2009). The interaction hypothesis: A literature review. Retrieved from ERIC Files: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507194.pdf
Hymes, D.H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (pp. 269-293). Retrieved from http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/sgramley/Hymes-2.pdf
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lee, H. (1997). The effects of the interactional modification of input on second/ foreign language acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259-278.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchke & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the Relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303-323.Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. SSLA, 21, 557–587.
Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 85-110). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., & Polio, C. (Eds.) (2009). Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass. London: Routledge.
Mohd, A., Azmin, A., Zolhani, N., & Latif, S. (2007). Adopting communicative language teaching (CLT) approach to enhance oral competencies among students: Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. Paper presented at The Second Biennial International Conference on Teaching and Learning of English in Asia: Exploring New Frontiers, Langkawi, Malaysia.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47(3), 203-210.
Nunan, D. (1991). Methods in second language classroom-oriented research: A critical review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 247-274.
Ortega, D., & Auccahuallpa, R. (2017). La educación ecuatoriana en inglés: Nivel de dominio y competencias lingüísticas de los estudiantes rurales. Revista Scientific, 2(6), 52-73.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
Prasad, B. (2013). Communicative language teaching in 21st century ESL classroom. English for Specific Purposes World, 40(14), 1-8.
Richards, J. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., & T. Rogers. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Wang, Q., & Castro, C. (2010). Classroom interaction and language output. English Language Teaching, 3(2). 175-186.
Zhang, S. (2009). The role of input, interaction and output in the development of oral fluency. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 91-100.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23857/pc.v4i3.913
Enlaces de Referencia
- Por el momento, no existen enlaces de referencia
Polo del Conocimiento
Revista Científico-Académica Multidisciplinaria
ISSN: 2550-682X
Casa Editora del Polo
Manta - Ecuador
Dirección: Ciudadela El Palmar, II Etapa, Manta - Manabí - Ecuador.
Código Postal: 130801
Teléfonos: 056051775/0991871420
Email: polodelconocimientorevista@gmail.com / director@polodelconocimiento.com
URL: https://www.polodelconocimiento.com/