Rod Ellis
University of
Auckland
The external view
This sees teaching in terms of the overall approach
or method, curricular goals, language teaching
materials and methodological procedures.
The internal view
Teaching is viewed as an interactional event i.e.
the talk that takes place in a classroom –
‘interaction is the fundamental fact of language
pedagogy’ (Allwright, 1984)
What is the nature of the input that learners
experience in the L2 classroom?
2. What kinds of interaction take place in the L2
classroom?
3. What is the nature of learner output in the L2
classroom?
Underlying all these questions is how input,
interaction and output inhibit or facilitate L2
learning.
1.
1.
2.
3.
•
•
•
Language (i.e. L1 vs. L2 input)
Authentic input
Modified input
Premodified (simplified)
Premodified (elaborated)
Interactionally modified
Teachers can choose to exclusively use the target
language or also to use the students’ L1.
Conflicting views:
“If we use the L1 in language teaching, the learners
will become dependent on the L1 and not even try to
understand meaning from context or say what they
want to say within their limited command of the target
language”
‘A non-threatening environment is essential for L2
learners to learn the target language effectively and
the L1 can be used by the teacher to some extent”.
Morrow (1977) defined an authentic text as ‘a
stretch of real language produced by a real speaker
or writer for a real audience and designed to
convey a real message of some sort’ (p. 13). In
other words, authentic materials contrast with
‘contrived materials’ (i.e. materials consisting of
input that has been specially designed for L2
learners to teach the language).
1.
2.
“Contrived simplification of language in the preparation of
materials will always be faulty, since it is generated without
the guide and support of a communicative context. Only by
accepting the discipline of using authentic language are we
likely to come anywhere near presenting the learners with a
sample of language which is typical of real English. (Willis,
1990; 127).
Widdowson argued that it is the process of authentication
that is important, not whether a text itself is authentic:
“People make a text real by realizing it as discourse, that is
to say by relating it to specific contexts of communal cultural
values and attitudes. And this reality does not travel with
texts. (p. 98).
Input can be ‘premodified’ to make it suitable for
specific L2 learners. This involves:
• Using simple vocabulary
• Short sentences
• Avoiding complex grammatical structures
• Reducing the propositional content
Authentic input
Catfish have gills for use under water and lungs for use on land,
where they can breathe for twelve hours or more. The hot
daytime sun would dry them out, but they can slip out of their
ponds at night and still stay cool while they hunt for food.
Pre-modified input
Catfish have both gills and lungs. The gills are used for
breathing under water. The lungs are for use on land. The fish
can breathe on land for twelve hours or more. At night these fish
can slip out of ponds. They move at night so they can stay cool.
The hot sun would dry them out. They hunt at night too.
Pre-modifying the input can also take the form of elaboration
aimed at making the task of comprehending the input easier by
structuring the propositional content more clearly. Elaborated
input of this kind, however, is not necessarily more linguistically
simple.
An example:
Catfish have two systems for breathing: gills, like other fish, for
use under water, and lungs, like people, for use on land, where
they can breathe for twelve hours or more. Catfish would dry
out and die from the heat of the sun, so they stay in water during
the daytime. At night, on the other hand, they can slip out of
their ponds and stay cool while they hunt for food.
During talk interlocutors naturally modify their
input to other speakers to try to ensure
comprehension.
An example:
S1: Ah, Einstein’s scientific work helped
Americans make the nuclear bomb.
S2: Clear bomb?
S1: No nuclear, nuclear, nuclear bomb
S2: Nuclear bomb. Ah, I see.
Interactionally modified input often arises from
the negotiation of meaning.
“Teacher talk is of crucial importance, not only for
the organization and management of the
classroom but also for the processes of acquisition.
It is important for the organization and
management of the classroom because it is through
language that teachers either succeed or fail in
implementing their teaching plans. In terms of
acquisition, teacher talk is important because it is
probably the major source of comprehensible
target language input the learner is likely to
receive.” (Nunan 1991).
Characteristic
Brief description
Amount of talk
The teacher takes up about two-thirds of the total talking time.
Functions of talk
The general picture is one of teacher explaining, questioning, and
commanding. In contrast, learners mainly respond.
Speed of talking and Teachers tend to slow down their rate of speech and use longer
pausing
pauses when talking to less proficient learners.
Volume of talk
Teachers tend to speak more loudly and to make their speech
more distinct with less proficient learners.
Vocabulary
Teachers tend to use high-frequency words and vary their use of
vocabulary in accordance with the learners’ proficiency level.
Grammar
Teachers use shorter utterances and less subordination with less
proficient learners.
Ungrammatical
Teachers rarely resort to ungrammatical teacher talk. In this
speech
respect, teacher talk differs from foreigner talk where
ungrammatical input is quite common.
Repetitions
Teachers use more self-repetitions with L2 learners, in particular
when they are of low-level proficiency.
•
•
•
•
Krashen (1981) claimed that teacher-talk is optimal for
acquisition because it helps to make input
comprehensible.
However, there are some reasons to believe that
teacher-talk is not always ideal (e.g. teachers tend to
underuse past tense and also tend to use very few
words outside the most frequent word families).
Because teachers typically talk a lot they deprive
learners of the opportunity to speak.
The crucial point is the extent to which teachers adjust
their input in relation to the learners’ proficiency (i.e.
simplifying less as learners’ proficiency develops).
1.
2.
3.
4.
Initiate-respond- feedback exchanges
Negotiation of meaning sequences
Scaffolding
Off-task talk
In an IRF exchange the teacher typically initiates the
exchange, the student responds and the teacher provides
feedback.
An example:
T: Okay, can you just repeat that sentence? I'm fine thanks
and you?
L: Erm (unintelligible).
T: Sorry? Just repeat that sentence. I'm fine thanks and
you?
L: I'm fine thanks and you?
T: Yes, good.
IRF exchanges often dominate in L2 classrooms.
They enable the teacher to control the interactions
that take place by ensuring that communication
proceeds smoothly.
They enable teachers to ensure that the classroom
interaction is not dominated by one or two
learners
IRF exchanges have been criticized for affording
very limited opportunities for learner talk and
language learning:
• they allocate learners the responding role
• they restrict learner output
• they afford very few opportunities for
negotiation of meaning (Pica and Long, 1986).
The negotiation of meaning occurs when the listener
fails to fully understand what the speaker has said and
attempts to remedy the problem.
Varonis and Gass (1985) developed a framework to
describe the structure of such ‘non-understanding
routines’ where negotiation takes place. It consists of:
•
a trigger, i.e. the utterance or part of an utterance
that creates a problem of understanding,
•
an indicator which indicates that something in a
previous utterance was not understood,
•
a response to the indicator, and finally
•
a reaction to the response, which is optional.
Student 1:
Student 2:
Student 1:
Student 2:
Student 1:
And what is your mmm father’s job?
My father is now retire. (Trigger)
Retired?
(Indicator of problem)
Yes. He is retired. (Response)
Oh, I see. (Reaction to Response)
Negotiation of meaning can assist incidental
language acquisition in a number of ways:
• It can help to make input comprehensible to
learners
• It provides learners with feedback on their
errors and so helps to establish the mapping
between a target form and its meaning
• It pushes learners to use the target language
correctly.
•
•
•
•
There is often very little negotiation of meaning in
lock-step language classrooms.
It is much more likely to occur in task-based
lessons where the primary focus is on meaning.
It is more likely to occur when a learner initiates
the exchange and the teacher is positioned as the
person with the responsibility of resolving the
communication problem.
It is less likely to occur when the teacher initiates
an exchange as learners are often reluctant to
signal that that they have not understood.
Scaffolding is the process by which one speaker
(an expert or a novice) assists another speaker (a
novice) to perform a skill that they are unable to
perform independently.
Wood, Bruner and Ross’s (1976) identified the following features
of scaffolding:
1. Recruiting interest in the task
2. Simplifying the task
3. Maintaining pursuit of the goal
4. Marking critical features and discrepancies between what has
been produced and the ideal solution
5. Controlling frustration during problem solving
6. Demonstrating an idealized version of the act to be
performed.
For scaffolding to be effective in assisting learning it needs to
tuned to the learner’s developmental level (i.e. it should be
neither too much or too little).
T:
What’s that?
T:
What’s he holding?
An _____.
Don’t you remember?
We were doing um____ in the class.
Um___ for ______.
T: Um for
Remember Um___?
Umbrella.
T: Umbrella.
T:
T: A man.
Markee (2005) coined the term off-task talk to refer to ‘talk
as interaction that diverges from whatever topic(s) teachers
designate as the current class agenda’ (p. 197).
He gave an example of such talk, where one learner invited
another learner to a party during a class where the official
topic was the reunification of East and West Germany. This
off-task talk occurred as a result of the learners taking on
identities other than that of students (i.e. as ‘inviter’ and
‘invited’).
Markee argues that such ‘hybrid contexts of talk’ afford
special opportunities for language learning.
A key issue is whether such talk occurs in the target
language or the students’ L1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Interaction in the classroom needs to provide
plentiful opportunities for student talk.
Initiate-respond-feedback (IRF) exchanges restrict
learners’ opportunity to engage actively in
classroom interaction.
Negotiation of meaning affords opportunities for
incidental language learning
Scaffolding helps learners to produce linguistic
features they are unable to produce by themselves.
Off task-talk affords opportunities for learners to
use language in personal ways.
Swain (1995) suggested that production was
important in three main ways:
(1) it can trigger noticing when learners realise that
something they said does not effectively
communicate what they wanted to say,
(2) it serves a hypothesis-testing function when
learners try out a way of saying something and
then receive feedback and
(3) it provides a basis for metalinguistic reflection
when learners consciously think about what
they have said or written.
•
•
•
In many classrooms learners have only limited
opportunities for output in the L2.
Learner output is often minimal (i.e. it consists
of single words or short phrases).
If there is little negotiation of meaning or
negotiation of form learners’ output is not
‘pushed’ (i.e. they do not have help in
modifying their own utterances to make them
more target-like.
Intentional learning takes place when learners
make a conscious and deliberate attempt to learn a
new L2 item or feature.
Incidental learning takes place without any
deliberate intention to learn it. It occurs in
response to input, through interaction and by
attempts at using the target language.
SUCCESSFUL LANGUAGE LEARNING
DEPENDS TO A LARGE EXTENT ON
INCIDENTAL LEARNING.