INTERACTIVE ACTIVITIES: PROMOTING NATURALISTIC EXCHANCES

lNSIDEIOUTSIDE THE SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

by

Kimiko Teratani-Goto

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Master of Arts

Graduate Department of East Asian Studies

University of Toronto

O Copyright by Kimiko Teratani-Goto 1997

National Library l*l of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

uisitions and Acquisitions et Bib iographic SeMces sewkes bibliographiques "9- 305 WelUngton Street 395, nie Wellington ûîtawaON KIAON4 OmiwaON K 1 A W canda Canada

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence dowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or seil copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothhque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

Interactive Activities: Promothg Naturalistic Exchauges

InsideIOutside the Second Lanpage Classroom

Master of Arts, 1997

Kimiko Teratani-Goto

Department of East Asian Studies

University of Toronto

Abstract

One of the ultimate goals of second language education is to cnable the leamers to

communicate with native speakers of the target language. This thesis provides some

rnethods of guiding leamers to interact with various types of interlocuton, such as peer-

learners, teachers, students of other classrooms or native speaken. The interaction starts in

the classroom and extends gradually to that in a real environment outside the campus.

Studies on second language acquisition and interaction inside a classroom are reviewed in

order to familiarize the reader with underlying theories of 'interactive activities' and with

research studies of the impacts of such activities. Then optimal conditions for second

language learning through interaction are extracted. Eight examples of 'interactive activities'

for learners at different levels are presented and integrated in proposais for a mode1 syllabus

of univenity-level Japanese as a second language, and for a mode1 the-year cmiculurn.

L Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

. ................................................*.*.*...........*......,...*...............,....*......*....... A Background 1

................. .....*.......................................................... . B Purpose of the Thesis .... 4

KI. Background Theories and Approacha .................................................................. 6

. A Communicative Approach in L2 Teaching ..................... .. .................................... 6

................................................. I . De finition of Communicative Language Teaching 6 . . .................................................................................. 2 . Communicative Cornpetence 8

.......................................................................... 3 . Proficiency-Oriented Approach 9

.................................................................................... . B Theories of Human Learning 1 1

................................................................................... 1 . Humanistic Psychology 11

................................................. 2 . Humanistic Education and L2 Learning ........... .. 12

....................................... C . New Waves in Education: the Leamer as a Whole Person 14 . . ................................................................................................ 1 . Holistrc Education 15

............................................................................... 2 . Cooperative Leaming Theory 16

In . Reearch on Second Language Classroom and Interaction ............................. 19

............................................................ A . Second Language Acquisition in Classroom 19

........................ 1 . Second Language Acquisition Theones in Classroom Interaction 19

.................................................................................................... 2 . Studies of Input 22

a . Tacher-talk and Input Modification ............................................................... 22

b . Teacher's Questions ......................................................................................... 23

................................................................................................ c . Error Treatment 2 5

3 . Studies of Interaction ........................................................................................... 26

a . The Interaction Hypothesis and 'Negotiation of Meaning' .............................. 26

b . Classrmm Research on Interaction: Group Work ............................................ 29

4 . Studies of Output ............................................................................................. 3 1

.................................................................................... a . The Output Hypothesis 3 1

......................... .....**.*.. b . Research for homo ting 'Comprehensible Output' .. 3 2

.................................................................... B . Examining L2 Classrmm Interaction 3 4

............................................................................................... . 1 Rote of Interaction 34

....................................................................... 2 . Patterns of Classroorn Interaction 38

............................................................................ . a Teacher-Student Interaction 3 8

.......................................... b . Student-Student Interaction: 'Interlanguage Talk' 41

........................ 3 . Optimal Conditions for Classroom Leaming through Interaction 44

.......................................................... TV . Classroom Interaction in L2 Curriculum 47

A . L2 Curriculum for Leaming to Comrnunicate .......................................................... 47

................................................................... 1 . Interactional Discourse in Classroom 47

........................................................................................... 2 . Expenential Leaming 51

B . The Design of a Syllabus for Interaction ................... .. ....................................... 56

1 . Communicative Activity Syllabus .................................................................... 56

.................................................... 2 . Designing Practice for Classroom Interaction 5 9

.............................................................. C . Characteristics of lnteractive Activities 6 1

V . Eight Examples of Interactive Activity in L2 Leaming .................................. 67

A . Original Dialogue Project ........................................................................................ 68

B . Intewiewing-Japanese-People Project .................................................................... 71

C . University Brochure and Class Newspaper ........................................................... 73

D . Journal Wnting for Learning Strategies ............................................................. 77

........................................................................................... E . E-mail Conespondence 81

F . Desktop Video Conferencing .................................................................................... 85

G . Tape Correspondence ............................................................................................. 88

H . CoViCa .................................................................................................................... 91

VI. Discussion .. . ,. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5

A. The Conditions for Interactive Activity for Linking Inside and Outside the L2 Classroom and Characterization of the Eight Activities ........ ...................... 95

B. A Proposa1 for a Syllabus and a Curriculum Integrating Interactive Activities ...... 106

1. Relationship of the Eight Interactive Adivities .................................................. 106

2. A Sample Syllabus for Interactive Activity in JSL ............................................ 108

3. A Mdel of Three-Year Curriculum/Syllabus for Interactive Activities in a L2 . I l0

4. Conciusion ....... ................... .... ........................................... 1 1 1

Appendix A Participants' Responses to the Interviewing-Japanese-People Project.. 1 13

Appendix B Participants' Responses to the E-mail Exchange in Japanese ................ 1 II

Refe rences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 5

NS a Native Speaker of the target ianguage

WS a Non-Native Speaker of the target language

L2 Second Language

LI First Language

TL Target Language

JSL Japanese as a Second Language

SS interaction between two students

S-T interaction between a student and a teacher

NS-NNS interaction between a Native Speaker of the target language and a Non-Native Speaker of the target language

NNS-NNS interaction between two Non-Native Speakers of the target language

Table 3-1 : Interactional Modifications lnvolvcd in the Negotiation of Meaning

in Foreigner-Talk ............................ .......................... ......... ........... ......... 27

Table 4 4 : Continuum of Classroom Interaction. ........ ... ............... .......... .. ...... ....,.......... ,. 49

Table 4-2: Traditional and Experiential Models of Education and L2 Leamhg ............... 55

Table 4-3: Four Principles of 'Communicative Activity Syllabus' and . .

Activity Prototypes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8

Table 6- 1 : Eiyht Interactive Activities and Optimal Environment for L2 Leaminy ...... .. 97

Table 6-2: A Sample Syllabus for Interactive Activities in a University

JSL Program ............................................................................................... 109

Table 6-3: A Model Curriculum for Interactive Activities in University L2 Programs ... 1 10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2 -1- 1 : The Johari Window Mode1 ....................................................................... 14

Figure 2- 1-2: Effects of sharing and feedback ................................................................ 14

Figure 2-2: Three models of cumiculum and student ....................... ... .................... 16

Figure 3- 1 : Theories and hypothesis of classroom leaming based on instruction as .............. ......,,,.,.............,..........,........,.*.........,....,.................... interaction ... 19

Figure 3-2: The role of interaction .................................................................................. 35

Figure 3-3: The Zone of Proximal Development ....................... .. ........................... 37

Figure 4- 1 : Processes involvecl in learning to communiate ........................................... 48

Figure 4-2: Treatment options in language teaching: teaching strategies ....................... 50

Figure 4-3: Experiential leaming as learner education in L2 learning .............................. 53

Figure 4-4: Four types of practice .............................................................................. 6 0

........................................................ Figure 6-1 : Map of the eight interactive activities 108

viii

Cbapter I

1nti.Oduction A. Background

The purpose of leamhg a second language (L2) is not only to master the linguistic features of

the language such as grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation, but also to gain the ability to

comrnunicate with the native speakers (NSs) of the language. Yet, in general, L2 tceching and

learning of a target language (TL) in school curTiculum are conducted in a classroorn. Thus

students leam a L2 outside the country or community where it is spoken, and it is not an

exaggeration to Say that the classroom is often the only place where they snidy the language.

Chaudron (1988) pointed out that "the average L2 leamer is seldom able to engage naturally and

extensive1 y in a target language environment, because the leamer either lives in another country

or is isolated socially or economicdly from full participation with L2 speakers, the potential

value of instructional access to the L2 increases by default" (p. 4).

Leaming a L2 normally involves gaining the ability to comprehcnd what is said or read;

fùnher, to produce naturally and relevantiy in the LZ whether it is in speech or writing, as well

as to use strategies effectively to cornmunicate with the NSs of the language. When L2 leamers

do not live in the country or community where it is spoken, what can the teacher do to help

them learn?

In a Canadian university in which 1 had taught for several years, 1 adrninistered a

questionnaire, at the begi~ing of every school year to coliect information on the students'

needs and goals of leamhg Japanese. The students had a number of goals as follows:

1) IMMEDIATE NEED FOR COMMUNICATTON. They want to leam Japanese

simply as a communication tool, because they have plans to go to Japan for study, work, travel,

or leisure.

2 ) NEED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. Some snidents need to study Japanese for

academic purposes, e.g., to study the language for research purposes.

3) PREPARATION FOR FUTURE JOBS. Some students think that it will be useful if

they can cornmunicate in Japanese in their future careers.

4) CULTLlRAL MTEREST. They are interested in Japanese culture, for example

martial arts (karate, judo), fine arts (literahire, movie, pottery), music and animation. They

want to leam Japanese to have better understanding of their interest areas.

5 ) PERSONAL NEED FOR COMMUNICATION. They want to communicate with

their fiiends, family memben and relatives who are NSs of Japanese.

6) LiNGUlSTiC MTEREST AND IMPROVEMENT. Some of them are simply

interested in the language of Japan, especially those who have spent time in Japan for work or

study want to maintain and improve their ability in the language.

Most of the reasons listed above for learning Japanese are consistent with an ultimate

purpose of acquinng good skills of communication in the language in a natural environment, i.e.,

outside the classroorn. Demand for communication in a natural environment is common in any

second-language study in the modem world. Thus L2 teachen need to give serious consideration

of what they can do in their classrooms to 'bridge the gap' between classroom and natural

environment. In classroom setting, it is true that "before the lesson the leamers came fiom

- somewhere, and after the lesson they go somewhere else" (van Lier, 1988, p. xi). Then, as

teachers of a L2, what can we do best for Our students before they leave the classroom, or even

after today's lesson?

In order to foster the leamers' ability to communicate in L2, it is necessary to bring the

learnen into interactive practice in the classroom, such as practice between teacher and students

(T-S) and student and student (S-S), as well as to cover linguistic features and conduct tessons

on them in small chunks. Yet in preparing students for an authentic use of the TL in a natural

outside-class discourse, some questions mise:

How much can the students becorne involved in interaction with one another or with outside

people in a spontaneous, autonomous marner?

How can the teacher raise awareness and motivation of each student for learning to

communicate and maintain each characteristics throughout al1 class activities?

What is the best way to guide students to access genuine communication in the L2?

How can the classroom ttaching lead the students to perfonn in the TL without having them

feel embarrassed and confiised, especially in a naniral environment?

How can we teachers bring the students up to the level of successful communication in the L2

with NSs?

If one can find sorne answers and solutions for these questions, it would help to bridge the gap

and guide the students to overall communicative cornpetence.

Attempting to answer these questions, 1 have ûied several advities and projects in

addition to the regular classmm teaching: an Original Dialogue Project (leamer-made dialogue

project); an Interviewing-Japanese-People project, making a University Brochure and Class

Newspper, and Journal Wnting on the students' learning strategies. For several years in a

Japanese language program of a moderate size at a tmiversity in Canada, 1 was able flexibly to

to plan, implement, observe, and evaluate such activities; some have been implemented year

after year for improvement. My strong impression is that these activities have been effective to

help answer the questions above. Dunng search for opportunities in which midents experience

natural communication inside and outside of the classroom, 1 have also become acquainted wit h

some other teachers' similar effons. They are as follows: E-mail Conespondence, Desktop

Video Conferencing, Tape Correspondence, and CoViCa (a language learning system in which a

computer, a video and a carnera are used for role-play practice. It also enhances leamer's

performance in interaction by self- and peer-observation).

These i~ovations in teaching a L2 and my own irials aim at learning the TL through

interactions which actually link the classroom to a natural environment of outside, which

connect the students and participants not only in the classroom but also the mdents and NSs

who may even be in Japan, though our students remain in Canada Thadcs to the development

of information technologies such as computer and e-mail, distance communication has corne to

be possible. Implementing these activities is likely to be effective to raise leamers' awareness

of various types of interaction in a variety of environment, to m*se leamers' motivation to

comrnunicate and maintain their attitudes to leam autonomously in mastenng the L2.

B. Purpose of the Thesis

The activities aiming to enhance leamers' ability to interact in a L2 are uilled hereafter

'interactive activities'. They are to guide learnen to participate in various types of interaction

taking place in the classroom, as well as out of the classroom. Interactive activities may take

place between L2 leamers or between the learners and other participants such as teachers,

students of other classrooms or NSs. In this thesis, 1 intend to examine the characteristics of

effective interactive activities for linking the classroom to the outside environment, focusing on

the univenity-level L2 programs. Theones in L2 teaching and leaming, particularly stuàies in

classroom L2 interaction, will be exarnined in order to provide a basis for optimal conditions for

interactive activities which derive from classroom L2 learning. Eight interactive activities will be

examined; they arc: exarnples for the case of Japanese as a second language (JSL).

Among the eight interactive activities, a half have been implemented by the author,

targeting the leamen at beginning to intermediate levels; the other half are from other instructon

mainly for the leamen of intermediate levels. They have been carried out not for research

purposes - Le., to prove efficacy - but genuinely for leaming purposes. Based on this

background, the contents of this thesis are apioraturypropsuIs for connecting theories and

practices. Evidence for the theones/hypotheses is bnefly reviewed with respect to a variety of

L2 settings, none of them are of JSL. Evidential support for these proposais is, at present,

mostly impressionistic, and relative and quantitative evaluations of them are beyond the scope

of the thesis.

nie approach taken in the eight concrete activities is categorized as action research.

Action reseurch is characterized as follows: 1) it is carried out by practitioners (classroom

teachers) rather than outside researchen; 2) it is collaborative; and 3) it aims at changing things

(Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988). What needed to be changed were Iimited opponunities for the

leamers to interact, including input and output in the TL. Kemmis and McTaggart (1982)

asserted that "action research provides a way of working which links theory and practice into

the one whole: ideas-in-action7' (p. 5). Van Lier (1996) described action research to link

theoretical and pedagogical concems by identifying for matment c l a s s m problems or

practices selected by the teacher through self-monitoring; such research is ultimately, of course,

subject to evaluation.

In Chapter II, 1 will first discuss basic theories and approaches of L2 teaching, learning

and education, Le., communicative approach, huma. leaming, and some curent educational

theories in which leamen are considered as whoie human beings who work cooperatively.

Chapter III will deal with studies of L2 classroom and interaction from a viewpoint of 'second

language acquisition'. There will be a discussion of some ment studies in input, interaction and

output, and of investigations to clan@ classroom interaction and its optimal conditions.

Chapter IV will explore the subject of L2 curriculum for promoting classrmm interaction.

There will be an explanation of the position and characteristics of interactive activities in the

curriculum and syllabus. Then, in Chapter V, the eight interactive activities will be examined and

assessed in detail, followed by related research to provide variations and further possibilities.

Finally, based on the eight examples and summary of the preceding discussions, Chapter VI

concludes by extracting optimal conditions, essential components, for the interactive activities

for linking inside and outside of the L2 classroom. As well, a sample syllabus of university-

level JSL and a model three-year curriculurn/syllabus for L2 programs in general to prornote

interactive activities will be proposed.

Chapter II

Background Theories and Approaches

The idea of interactive activities, of fostering interactions between L2 learners and between

leamen and NSs to bridge the gap between inside and outside the classroom is not entirely

new. It will be helpfbl, however, to grasp the current movements in the L2 learning and

teaching and their underlying theories in order to understand the characteristics of interactive

activities in L2 leaming. In this chapter an ovewiew of supporting theories and approches will

be provided. First, 'communicative language teaching' and 'communicative cornpetence' will be

reviewed frorn the standpoint of L2 teaching; then the 'proficiency-oriented approach' will be

examined for its relationship to interactive activities. Then some theories fiom the learners'

side, humanistic psychology and humanistic education in relation to L2 leaming will be

discussed. Finally, some genenil educational theories will be briefly introduced to reinforce L2

instructions for interaction: They are 'holistic education' and 'cmpenitive learning'.

A. Communicative Approach in L2 Terching

1. Definition of Communicative Laoguage Teaching

In the field of L2 teaching, the 'communicative approach' has been the mainswarn since

the early 1970s. its basic goal is to foster learners' communicative ability in the TL. The

characteristics of communicative language teaching are as follows:

1 ) In organiUng and sequencing lessons, not ody language structures but aiso

communicativefMcrionî that the language performs are combine4 and both elements

constitute the framework of the syllabus. In other words, items mastered as part of a

linguistic system must also be understood as part of a communicative system.

2) Classroom goals are focused on dl of the components of comm~icutive

cornpetence of leamen and are not restncted to their grammatical or linguistic

cornpetence. It is not enough to teach the learners how to manipulate the structure of the

TL: the learners must also develop strategies for relating communicative functions in the

language in red situations in real time.

3) Therefore ultimately, the leaners have to use the language receptively and

productive1 y in unrehearsed contexts to satisfy immediate conununicati ve needs.

Learnen need ample opportunities to use the language themselves for conununicative

purposes in concrete situations.

4) The ultimate criterion for communicative success is the actual transmission and

reception of intended meaning. Thus, ucmrucy is secondary to convey ing a message;

jluenq may be of more importance. This implies a great deal of use of an authentic

language to build such fluency (Brown 1987, Littlewood 198 1 ).

To implement this approach, a nurnber of communicative activities have been

developed. Littlewood ( 198 1 ) surnmarized what communicative activities can contribute to

ianguage leaming : 1 ) Communicative activities provide 'wholr- tosk pract ice ' by integrating the

training in the pan-skills which constitute the peifonnance and practice in the total-skills.

2) Such activities improve motivution. The leamen atm to participate in communication with

others. Their motivations to leam are likely to be sustained if they can see how their classroom

leaming is related to this objective and helps to achieve it with increasing success. 3) They

allow narwal learning. Language leaming takes place inside the learner, and many aspects of it

are beyond teachers' pedagogical control. It is likely tbat many aspects of language leaming can

take place oniy through natural processes, which operate when a person is involved in using the

language for communication. 4) Communicative activities provide a context which supports

leamhg through positive personal relationîhips to develop among learners and between leamen

and teachen. These relationships cm help to 'humanize' the classroom to create an

environment that supports individual efforts to leam.

In Littlewood's description of communicative activity, it may be recognized that

'communicative activities' overlap with 'interactive activities', Yet, Linlewood did not suggest

how to link a classroom to a natural environment outside the classroom. A 'communicative

approach' has often been seen conducted only in the classroom.

2. Commuoicative Cornpetence

In order to understand the communicative approach, it is necessary to clarify what

'communicative competence' is. Canale and Swain (1 980) and Canale ( 1983) defined four

components of communicative competence.

I j Grammatical competence: the degree to which the language user has manired in the

linguistic code, i.e., knowledge of lexical items and of ~ l e s of morphology , syntax,

sentence-grammar sequences, and phonology :

2) Discourse cornpetence: the ability to combine ideas to achieve cohesion in form and

coherence in thoughts. Discourse means everything frorn simple spoken conversation to

lengthy written texts, in stretches of discourse; discourse includes recognizing a

'meaningful' whole in a series of utterances, properly using pronoms and grammatical

connectors;

3) Socroiinguistrc cornpetence: the knowledge of the soc iocu l~ l niles of language and of

discourse in vanous cuntexts to convey specific communicative functions of interaction,

such as peauading, describing, narrating, and giving comrnands. Understanding and

choosing appropriate style or register, topic and role of the participants are also

important;

4) Straregic competence: this corn petence is described as the verbal and nonverbal

communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate for breakdowns

in communication due to performance variables or due to insuscient competence. In

other words, it is the competence underiying ability to make repairs, to cope with

imperfkct knowledge, and to maintain communication through paraphrase,

circumlocution, repetition, hesitation, avoidance, and questioning, as well as shifts in

register and style.

In addition to Canale and Swah's definition of communicative cornpetence, some

additional points addressed by Littlewood ( 198 1 ) appear to be important. Communicative

cornpetence in L2 must be developed to the point where the learner cm use his or her linguistic

competence spontaneously and flexibly in order to express ideas. As well, developing skills and

strategies for using language to exchange meanings must be done effectively in practical

situations. Moreover, the leamers must leam io use feedback to judge and modify production

in the L2 in order to convey hisher meanings correctly.

The potential drawbacks of communicative language teaching can be seen in its emphasis

on fluency over accuracy. A failure to acquire such as accurate linguistic foms and

pronunciation may result, for the price of fluency, in an inappropriate usage of the TL and

fossilization (entrenching of bad habits), unless the teacher is careful to maintain the balance

between accuracy and fluency. The teachers' job is to plan a smooth sequence of the linguistic

items and opportunities for the students to practice them in an authentic situation, as well as to

give effective feedback to every student while maintaining the harmony of the whole class.

3. Proficiency-Oriented Approacb

Communicative language teaching suggests general directions to follow; yet, it does not

offer concrete visions as to what to be achieved and when to do it in the classroom.' They are

illustrated more clearly in the proficiency-oriented approach. It is a goal-oriented approach in

which a leaming goal can be defined as a desired funire state of competence or mastey.

Omaggio ( 1 987) explained that "the term pro/iciency includes speci fications about the levels of

competence attained in ternis offMictiom performed, the contex~s in which the language user can

fùnction, and the accwacy with which the ianguage is used. Thus, the notion ofprofciency

enables us to broaden our understanding of communicutNe competence to include more than the

'threshold level' needed to simply get one's message across" (p. 8). The concept of proficiency

is chosen as an organizing principle for classrcmm iastniction, reflecting existing guidelines such

' Researchers such as Littiewood (1 981 ) pmvide some examples of activity in communicative appmch wilh their underl yin? rationales; howei.er, few of them are ciearl y explained as to implemen ration.

as ACTFL ~uidelines.' These guidelines describe how lwimers of second languages typically

function along the whole range of possible levels of competence, fiom novice to superior. They

represent actual language production, so that teachers can arnend their expectations for

students' linguistic and communicative development to conforni to reality (Ommagio 1986.

pp. 34-35).

The following hypotheses are put forward by advocates of the proficiency-oriented

approach with respect to how classroom instruction might best be organized (Ornrnagio 1986,

pp. 35-36):

&puthesis 1. Oppomuiities must be provided for students to practice using language in a ange of contexts likely to be encountered in the target culture.

Corolkav 1. Students should be encouraged to express their own rneaning as early as possible after productive skills have been introduced in the course of instruction.

C DrolZury 2. A proficiency-oriented approac h promotes active communicative interaction arnong students.

Corollury 3. Creative language practice (as opposed to exclusively manipulative or convergent practice) must be encouraged.

ïorollmy 4. Aut hentic language should be used in instruction whenever possible.

Hypothesis 2. Oppomuiities should be provided for students to practice carrying out a range of fùnctions (task universals) likely to be necessary in dealing with othen in the target culture.

Hvpothesis 3. There should be concem for the development of linguistic accuracy starting fiom the first instructional session.

Hypothesis 4. Proficiency-oriented approaches should respond to the affective needs of students as well as to their cognitive needs. Students should feel motivated to leam and must be given oppomuiities to express their own meanings in a nonthtening environment.

ACTFL (the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign L;uipges) proficiency guidelines rcpresent a hiemhy of @obi characterizatiom of integrated performance in spaiang, listening, reaâïnp and writing. Each description is a representative sample of a particuliu rang of ability.

Hvpothesis 5. Cultural understanding mut be promottd in various ways so that students are prepared to live more harmoniousl y in the target language community .

In the above hypotheses, the notion described as 'in the target culture' or 'in the iarget

language community' refers the situations in which learnen may encounter outside the

classroom, in a natural environment. The above-mentioned five hypotheses in L2 learning

provide M e r suggestions and implications for designing nuitful interactive activities.

B. Tbeories o f Human Learniag

1. Humanistic Psychology

Humanistic psychology is an important foundation of L2 leaming. It aims to enhance

communication and interaction among students and teachers: each participants' (student or

teacher) psychological condition directly influences the quality of communication. When

interacting in LZ leaming activities, the participants influence each other by teaching and

learning; thus if everybody is open-minded and feels at ease, there is a positive impact on

individuals' L2 learning. A psychological perspective advocated by Car1 Rogers, a humanistic

psychologist, has been a significant influence on human learning in educational and pedagogical

contexts. He emphasized affective sides in human learning more than cognitive sides. His

principles are centered on the development of an individual's self-concept and personal sense of

reality drawn by the intemal forces of primarily emotional power, as well as physical and

cognitive power which causes a person to act. According to Rogers (195 1), the 'fully

functioning penon' lives at peace with al1 of his feelings and reactions: he is able to be what he

potentially is; he exists as a process of king and becorning himself

Rogers's assum pion for education focuses on ' leaming ' rather than 'teaching' : the goal

of education is the facilitation of change and leaming. When teachers provide only

programmatic feeding quantities of howledge to students, it fosters a climate of defernive

leaming in which leamers try to protect themselves from failure, criticism, cornpetition, and

punishment. On the other han& if teachen provide a nurturing context for leaming, then

leamers will Ieam what they n e 4 to. This notion of human leaming is especially significant in

leamer-centred L2 instruction which emphasizes communication and interaction.

When considering learner's motivation, Maslow's views are useful. Maslow ( 1956)

studied characteristics of self-actualizing persans, those who were judged as living to their

fullest capacities and making the best use of theù potentials. Such penons are identified as

those who accept themselves and others; are natural, spontaneous, independent; have a strong

sense of responsibility and great empathy and affection for humanity; experience pleasurable

feelings related to everyday life; are not prejudiced; and are creative in their approach to things.

Nurturing these characteristics of L2 learnen would presumably be educationally beneficial and

lead more effective L2 leaming.

Maslow affirmed that schools can give students a sense of accomplishment and that

teachers should be joyful and self-acnialized themselves. Maslow ( 197 1) proposed that

teachen must not only accept students, but help them leam about what kind of persons they

are. In an interactive classroom, not only the students but also the teachers should be

psychologically stable so that the teachers are open to engage in interaction with the students,

as well as manage interaction between students. In Maslow's ( 1968) fkamework, it is vital to

satisfy the basic psychological needs of individual perron. His views of a hierarchy of needs are

as follows: 1. physical needs; 2. security; 3. social acceptance; 4. self-esteem; and 5. self-

realization. To have self-realization, the other lower order needs must have ken mostly

satisfied. In L2 leaming situations, leamers' physical, psychological and social conditions and

the above needs directly affect their motivation.

2. Humanistic Education and L2 Learning

Humanistic education is based on humanistic psychology. The principle of humanistic

education is to raise leamers' motivation by promothg their emotion, self-esteem, and self-

actualization into leaming. Moskowitz ( 1978) emphasized the importance of these

-' Moskowiiz ( 1978) provided several esamples of esercises which aim al hummistic eduution in L2 leruning. The themes include relating to ohers; discoverinp myseic my smngths and self-image; expressing mu feelings; sharing rnysclf; my values.

dimensions in learning L2: learning and expressing more about oneseif is a motivating factor in

learning itself. She points out that "when students do taik about what related to thern, there is

increased attentionT'(p. 8). Education must deal with both cognitiv Jintellectual and

affective/emotional sides of human dimension. For leaming to be significant, feelings must be

recognized and put to use: when students are aware of their feelings while learning, and their

feelings are taken into account, they can incrwise their self-esteem, enhancing their learning. In

addition, nurturing personal growth and sel f-actdization i s vital in educat ion, because human

beings intrinsically desire to actualize their potential. Therefore, if a L2 class provides students

with activities aiming at self-enhancement, it will positively relate to their personal lives. The

students will then become more motivateci to leam to use the TL, and as a result, they will be

more likely to leam.

Afféctive education helps increase skills in developing and maintaining g o d

relationships with others, showing concem and support for othen, and receiving these as well:

it is a special type of interaction (Moskowitz, 1978). When this type of interaction occurs, the

leamen are giving and receiving feedback and selfdisclosing to each other. According to

Kokubu ( 1992), 'feedback' involves having a partner being aware of his or her blind spots. The

mechanism of sharing and feedback can be explained by the Johari Window 'l as in Figure

2- 1-1 and Figure 2- 1-3.

The mode1 represents a communication window through which information about

oneself and othea is given and received. The Open Area (A) contains infomation which 1

know about myself and you also know. The Blind Spot (B) consists of these things you know

about me but that 1 am unaware of The Hidden Area (C) comprises those things about me that

1 keep to myself, and 1 do not want you to know. The Unknown Ares (D) has data about me

that neither you nor I am aware of; some may be at the unconscious level.

The name 'Johan' was coined h m the tint m e s ol' the psychologïsts who developed it, Joseph Luft and Himy lngham (Lufi, 1%9).

Things 1 Know Things 1

Don't know

Things

They Know

Things They

Don't Know

(A) Open Area (B) Blind Spot

(C) Hidden (D) Unknown

Ar ea Ar ea

(A)

Open Area

(Cl Hidden Area

(BI Blind

Spn (D)Unkn

Area - Figure 2- 1 - 1 The Johari Window Model Figure 2- 1-2 Effects of sharing

and feedback

In an interaction, the largest area should be the Open Area (A) in order to focus on

one's affective dimension. By giving feedback, the partner can help the person to reduce the

Blind Spot (B). Then by opening oneself more to the pariner, the Hidden Area (C) becomes

smaller. Consequently, the shared information about oneself which dominates the Open Area

(A) becomes much larger (Figure 2-1-2). In short, by sharing things about oneself with the

panner and receiving feedback, the person may deepen insight into himself or herself that was

once in the Unknown Area (D). Through sharing and givingireceiving feedback, the Open Area

(A ) increases, while the other three areas decrease. (Moskowitz, 1987; Kokubu, 1997). Here a

hypothesis is proposed by the present author that in this kind of interaction, i.e., self-opening

and givingreceiving feedback by observing and sharing one another, L2 learning becomes more

significant for each participant. This is one of the important elements which self- and perr-

observationheflection can provide during interaction.

C. New Waves in L2 Education: the Learner as a Wbole Person

Compared to traditional models of teaching a L2, a current approach has more

emphasized communication, which may include humanistic elements as discussed above. This

movement directs teachers' attention more to the leamen. The Iearner-centred approach implies

change in some phases of instruction such as roles of teacher and leamers, motivation for

leaming, leaming expenences, and ways of assessrnent of leamers' outcornes. When one looks

at these variations in L2 education, it is helpN to have a wider view of the environment of

education itself. Such a view includes a paradigrnatic shifi in society and its influence on

education. In this section, two educational theories which relate to classroom L2 education:

'holistic education' and 'cooperative learning' theory are discussed. These theories have been

developed mainly for children educated in schools. Although the main topic of this thesis is

university-level L2 education, 1 will examine these theories to illustrate the possibilities of what

can be done in a L2 classroom, in search of better instruction.

1. Holistic Education

Miller ( 1996) advocates that a holistic cumculum focus on the objective of bringing

education into aligunent with the fundarnenial realities of nature? "Nature as its core is

interrelated and dynarnic ...,[ but] unfortunately the human world since the industrial revolution

has stmsed compartmentalization and standardization. The result has been the fragmentation

of life" (p. 1 ). He points to the fragmentation in environment, society, within education system,

and the economic crisis of the present-day world.

In the field of education, those advocating a holistic approach claim that several factors

in cumculum need to be kept in balance: Individual-Group; Content-Process; Knowledge-

Imagination; Rational-Intuition; Quantitative Assessment-Qualitative Assessment; Technology-

Vision; Assessment-Learning; and Technology-Program. The notion of whole-part is essential

as holistic education seeks to keep the two in balance. For education in general, Miller stresses

that school cumcula have been broken into subjects, imits, and lessons, thus an encompassing

vision that inspires us is missing. The goal of holistic education is to link the unit and lesson to

such a vision. Holistic education is to Iùik together various educational orientations. Three

orientations - Transmission, Transaction, and Transformation - are identi fied to depict the

The holistic ducation theory is not totally new: it can bc traccd back to educational philosop hers such as Socrates and Plato of ancient Greece, and Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Froebel of the 18-19 cmtury Europe. 'The common k y concepts among thm arc self~aminlom. deveiopment of human's full potmtial and a belidin development of intrinsic human nature (Miiler, 1996).

nlationshi p between curriculum and students (Figure 2-2).

Cumculum Students Cumculum Studen t s Curriculum Students

(1) Tmsmission Position (2) Transaction Position (3) Transformation position

Figure 2-2 Three models of curriculum and student (Miller, 1996, pp. 5-7)

( 1 ) The transmission model represents a situation in which students receive and accumulate

lcnowledge and skills. This is a teacher-centered and written-test-driven curriculum. (2) The

transaction model is more interactive than ( 1) although interaction is mainly cognitive. The

student in transaction leaming is often solving problem or puning some fom of inquiry. This

model can be characterized by an emphasis on dialogues between teachen and students;

however, this dialogue stresses cognitive interaction since analysis is typically stressed more

than sy nthesis and thinking more than feeling. (3) The transformational leming encourages the

wholeness of the student. This rnodel aims at the development of the whole peson. The

snident is not reduced to a set of leaming competencies or thinking skills but is recogiized as a

whole being. The teacher who takes this position will use strategies such as creative problem-

solving and 'cooperative leaming', which encourage students to make various types of

connections. These connections make learning peaonally and socially meaningful to the

student (Miller, 1996, pp. 5-7).

2. Cooperative Lerrning Thcory

'Cooperative leaming ' is a structure in which leamers leam cooperatively in small

groups in classes of any subject. The work in cooperative leamhg tearns is structured in such a

way that it taises positive interdependence arnong the members of the group: the leaners work

together for mutual benefit. In a well-hctioning cooperative group there is a sense of joint

responsibility where learnen care about and get comrnitted to each others' success as well as

their own in a sense of 'sinking or swimming together'. A team environment where leamen

celebrate each othen' success and provide assistance to each other is likely to promote

academic achievement, higher selfssteem, more positive peer relationships among students of

di fferent ethnic backgrounds, and positive attitudes towards school (Slavin, 1980; Kohonen,

1992; Holt, 1993).

The cooperative leaming approach originated in the United States since the early 1980s.

It strongly reflects social change, and it appears as a response to the social needs for education

for the future generation. Kagan (1992) pointed out that current radical soci~economic shifi

requires urgent educational restnicniring for children to be prepared for their hture in tems of

communication and social skills; capability for information-baseà, high-technology , and an

interdependent world econorny; children need flexibility to work in a culturally more diverse

society .

Although a cooperative leaming structure itself may promote educational and social

value, some preconditions should be provided by the teachen. Fint, teachers must connol how

leaming goals are stmctured. Classroorns should be flexibly combinai with cooperative,

cornpetitive and individualistic social interaction situations, depending on the teachers'

instructional goals as well as the type of interaction between students they want to promote

(Johnson and Johnson, 1979; Kagan 1992). Second, teachers must effectvely manage the

conflicts that are inevitable in student groups. Johnson and Johnson (1979) propose that

cognitive conflict among students cm be highly constructive, leading to increased motivation

and to higher levels of cognitive development. When students are exposed to alternative or

contradictory viewpoints from their peers, they are ofien encouraged to seek more information

Kagan (1992) lists a number of rcasons for cooperative Icarning: changes in family structure (two.income families where mothers have left home to enter the job-world and an increasing divorce rate significandy influences children's social ability); rapid social and econornic changes (which forces students to lem how to get and produce necessary i nfonnation ); and the population shift (the most radical example is seen in California, where i t is estimated that by year 2000 half of the elementaxy and secondary schooi audents will corne h m non-English speaking families). Kagan warns that without structures that promote positive interactions among students and strategies for irnproving their relationship, d e n t s may rernain detached from one another, unable to benefit fiom the resources their peers present. Cooperative leaming techniques have been developed in order to provide ample input fiom other students, opportunities for output over abject matter, and interaction through the negotiation process, dl of which would bendt for al1 language levels ofstudents.

or alternative perspectives. In this way, new or reorganized conclusions can be reached that

often include the reasoning of others. In order to help this kind of cognitive conflict be

constructive, teachers need to establish a supportive clirnate.

Johnson (1995) discussed several techniques to implement cooperative learning in L2

classroorns. Cooperative learning based on peer-tutoring is to function through an aggregate of

groups who rehearse teacher-taught matenals, act as both a teacher and a learner, and focus on

tasks that emphasize the acquisition of infonnation or specific skills. For example, the Jigsaw

Method in which teachers divide the academic content to be learned into parts and delegate

individual parts to each group member. Thus, group members are responsible for leaming only

one part of the content and then teaching that part to the rest of the group to complete the

whole figure.

Cooperative leaming techniques based on group investigation methods focus on

problem-solving tasks in which students gather necessary information, engage in the exchange

and interpretation of ideas, and produce a final product that is generateû collaboratively. For

instance, the Group Investigation technique ( Sharan & Lazarowitz, 1 W8), which involves

students to organize groups by particular interests, allows the groups to gather necessary

infornation, analyze and evaluate that information, and finally summarite the essential features

of the information in a forma1 presentation made to the class.

Slavin ( 1980) proposed that a peer-tutoring technique may be better suited for low-level

learning outcomes. Other evidence suggests that a group investigation technique may be better

suited for high-level cognitive concept, such as problem-solving, identifiing concepts and

evaluating information which require a higher level of autonomy and involvement in the

generation of know ledge, as wel 1 as active participation in the decision-making process. These

techniques of cooperative learning seem to be well adaptable into L2 learning.

7 m e r esampfes are the Studcnt Tearns and the Academic Divisions technique (Slavin, 1978), in which teachers rank students by their level of academic abilities and then mate groups of students nith different levels of abilities so that the' cm tutor each other within each p u p . Teachers present the academic material, allow p u p s to w o k cmpentivel y to corn ple te assigned iasks, and provide f'olIow -up with i ndividual assessmen t.

Chapter III

Research on Second Language Classroom and Interaction

The goal of this chapter is to introduce research on L2 classrwrn and interaction in order to

extract implications for classroom instruction and interactive activities. Fint, 1 will provide

an overview of L2 acquisition theories and concentrate on three major studies of input,

interaction and output. Then focus will be on L2 classroom interaction.

A. Second Language Acquisition in Classroom

1. Second Language Acquisition Theories rad Classroom Interaction

In this section, 1 will consider ciassroom interaction and the L2 leaming that derives

fiom interaction in the classroom. Ellis (1990) pointed out that interaction can be

hypothesized to contribute to learning in two modes: (1 ) by the leamer's reception and

comprehension of the L2, and (2) by the leamer's attempts to produce samples of the L7.

There are several hyptheses belonging to each mode (Le., category) of the reception-based

and the production-based theories as shown in Figure 3- 1.

(1 ) Frequency hypothesis I ~eception-bas&& (2) Input hypothesis 1 theories L (3) Interaction hypothesis

Instruction as 1 interaction (4) Output hypothesis L Production-based 1 (5) Discourse hypothesis

theori es ,+ (6) Collaborativediscourse hypothesis

(7) 'ïopicalization hypothesis

Figure 3- 1 Theories and hypothesis of classroom learning based on instruction as interaction (Ellis, 1990, p. 96)

The following are bief description of each hypothesis.

Reception-based theones:

( 1 ) The frequency hypothesis: Learnen acquire linguistic features according to t hei r

fiequency in the input; features which occur frequently are leamt before those which

occur infrequently (Krashen, 1977). ' (2) The input hypothesis: Krashen ( 1985) maintains that leamers' hterlanguage

develops only when leamers are exposed to 'comprehensible input' that contains

linguistic features 'a little beyond' their current level of competence. Input is made

comprehensible through leamen' use of context, knowledge of the world and other

extralinguistic cues directed to them.

(3) The interaction hypothesis: Long (1983) proposed that input is made

cornprehensible as a result of moditication of the interactional structure in

conversations when communication problems arise.

Production-based theories:

(1) The output hypothesis: Swain ( 1985) asserted that in order to develop native-

speaker levels of grammatical proficiency, 'comprehensible input' by itself i s not

enough. The leamer needs the opportunity for meaningful use of her lin y istic

resources for accurate 'comprehensible output'. Swain attributes three roles to

output: 1 ) output provides contextualized 'pushed language use' through the process

of negotiatinç rneaning, which encourages the learner to develop grammatical

competence; 2) output provides the learner with the opportunity to test out

' Sevcnl studics have ken reportcd concerning frequcncy orrier in tcms of acquisitjon of morphemes (cg.. Krihen, lm: Long md Sato, 1983). Ellis (1990) pointed out, however, that classroom discourse is non- authentic and the= is an overiap between frequency, stnictunl complexity and cognitive leaming difficulb. Thcefore. the frquency hymthesis is vaiuable from the point of view of laquage pedagogy.

Krashen' s Moni tor Model is "undoubteâly the best known theory of E acquisition" (Ellis. lm, p.56). In a number ofarikles in various awdernic and educationd journals and book (Krashen, 1981,1983, 1985; Krashen and Terrell, 1984). Krasben has proposeci five hypheses: 1) 'Acquisition' is the subconscious prwess which is different from 'learning,' Le. the conscious process (Acquisition - Leaminp hypotfiesis); 2) Gmmûtical structures are acquired in a predictabie order (Natural Oder hypothesis); 3) 'Leamt' (consciousi> p i e d ) knowledge can be used to edi t utterances generated by means of 'acquired' (subconsciousl y yned) knowiedge either belore or dter the iatkr occurs in the output (Monitor hypthesis); 4) Input mode1 hypothesis (as mentioned as above); and 5) Learners wiîh Optimal attitudes have a low affective filter. The affective filier controls the rate and ultimate Ievel of sucxess of 'acquisition' (Affective Filter hypothesis).

hypotheses about the TL; 3) production may help leamen to move fiom a

purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of it.

(5) The discourse hypothesis: Ellis ( 1984) proposed the link between input and

production. He also asserted that output is essential for leaming as does Swain

( 1985). The nature of the linguistic cornpetence which leamen acquire depends on

the nature of the discourse in which they participate. In order to acquire a full

linguistic repertoire, the leamers need opporhinities for formai and plamed language

use. In other words, the process of 'gnunmaticaiization' requires both exposure to

formal language and also the opportunity to produce it.'

(6) The collabonitive discourse hypothesis: Frorn the view point of cognitive

psychology, Hatch ( 1978) argued that leamers can produce new syntactic structures

in two-way interaction. Leamers can expand discoune with the help of 'scaffolding'

provided by interlocutors' .)

(7) The topicalization hypothesis: Ellis ( 1984,1986) clairned that acquisition is

facilitated if the learner is able to select, nominate and control the topic of

conversation. A topic initiated and controlled by a student can serve as valuable

input for other leamen.'

-' Açcording to Ellis ( 1984). Second Lünguage Deuelopmeni can be divided into p r i m q (unplmncd. non- d y t i c ) anci secon- (planned, andytic) process. The former applies to the child's and the Iüiter to the dulits of L2 dcvelopmeni.

What Hatch (1978) caIls 'dfolding' refers to the provision through conversation of linguistic stnicturcs ihat promote a lamer' s recogni tion/produc tion of those structures. In various task-relatcd i ntcraction. the 'vertid' discourse - the sequence OC nirns taken with conversanl~ -ai& the leamer in praduaily incorporating portions of sentences, lexical items, reproducing sounds, in meaningful ways rathcr than in mechanid repetition or lengthy monologues; for example,

P. Oh-oh! J: Wht? I? this (point at an ant) f: It's an ant. Pr ant.

(Hatch, 1978. p. 40t) Slimani's ( 1981) study also points out that a learner would benefit from a topic initiated by another student

to a much p a t e r estent than frorn a topic initiatexi by teacher. As well. she supgests that learnets ma! benefit more from listenine to exchanges in which oifier students are involved than in participatine in exchanges themselves.

The above seven hypotheses are important to undentand L2 acquisition in the classrmm.

Among these, particularly the input, the interaction, and the output hypotheses have

attracted considerable mearch intwest and have setved as the bais for a number of strongly

argued pedagogical prescriptions. In the next sections, some of the most important studies

related to these three hypotheses will be examined in detail, in order to clari6 how

instruction and leaming take place in the L2 classroom.

2. Studia of Input

Studies on input refer to analysis of the features of input which learnen receive

during L2 learning. Krashen and his 'input hypothesis' may be the most well known, but

other investigaton have examined the relationship between learner comprehension and

modified input such as teacher-talk, teacher-question and error correction in the classroom.

In the following section these three models of modified input by teachen are examined.

a. Teacher-talk and Input Modification

In classrooms, teachers generall y dominate interaction. Teacher-talk ( i .e., teacher's

talk to leamen) is largely a product of the discourse rights that are given to the teacher.

Teachers have the right to initiate, controi, participate in, and close exchanges, as well as

connol al1 the participants' contributions (Ellis, 1990). The actual process in most

classrooms (which are pre- or non- communicative) is that teachers talk more than leamers:

tracher-talk dominates approximately 70 per cent of the time. Also, teachers typically

perform a greater variety of acts, while students are resnicted to replying (Gremmo et al.,

1977).

The nature of the acts found in teacher-talk also differs from that found in foreigner-

taik (i.e., the term refen to the language used by NSs to address NNSs in natudistic

conte-). Long and Sato ( 1983) investigated the language use of six ESL teachers in

beginning-level classes, and compared it to die laquage used in NS-NNS (a Native Speaker

and a NonoNative Speaker of the target lmguage) conversations. They found that questiom

were more frequent in foreigner-talk than in teacher-talk: in T-S (teacher-dent) classroom

conversation, stufements accounted for most of the teacher-talk (54%), followed by

questions (35%), and imperatives (1 1%). By contrast for NS-NNS conversations outside

the classroorn analysis yielded thae respective figures: statements (33%), question (66%),

and impenitives (1%).

Chaudron (1985,1988) summarized the nature of modification patterns of teachen'

classroorn speech to NNS of lower levels: 1) Rate of speech appears to be slower 6 ; 2)

pauses, which may be evidence of the speaker doing more planning, are apparently more

fiequent and longer; 3) pronunciation tends to be exaggerated and simpli fied; 4) vocabulay

use is more basic; 5) degree of subordination i s lower; 6) more deciaratives and statements

are used than questions; and 7) teachers may self-repeat more frequently.

ûverall, teachers' language use have a great influence on leamen' comprehension.

Long ( 1985) investigated the effects of a nurnber of modifications of lecture input on L2

university students' comprehension. The significant factors found were syntactic

complexity, rate of speech and the addition of rephrasings and restatements. Long concluded

that one or more of the speech adjustments that NSs make when addressing NNSs facilitates

NNS comprehension, although he did not detemine the relative contribution of different

kinds and combination of adjustments. Among the elements that Long proposed, Pica et al.

( 1987) studied the type of modification most effective for comprehension. They found that

comprehension was assisted by the interactional modifications (e.g. clarification requests,

confinnation/comprehension checks), but reduction of linguistic cornplexity in the pre-

modified input had no effect. This study suggests that it is Iikely that revisions of teacher

input such as interactional moditicaîions and contextual knowledge would be more significant

sources of comprehensibility rather tban linguistic compiexity.

b. Teacher's Questions

Teacher's questions are one of the major interactional features in teacher-talk.

" The rate of speech of the teachen to beginning lemm is a t m d 100 w.p.m, while intermediate and advanced lemers receive speech which is 30-40 w.p.m. faster (Chaudron, 1985, 1988).

23

Generally, teacher's questions are identified as 'closed questions' which are designed to have

only one acceptable answer opposed to 'open questions' which permit a number of possible

answen. As well, 'display questions' for which the questioner knows the answer, are

contrasted with 'referential questions' for which the answer is unlcnown. Barns (1969)

fouci, in a study of teacher's questions in secondary school subject classrooms, a

prodominance of factual questions as opposed to reasoning questions. In other words,

closed questions were very common, whereas open questions were very rare. Long and Sato

( 1983) reported that 79 per cent of the questions which requested information from the

students were closed or display questions. This fact contrasts with the use of questions by

NSs in naturalistic discourse with NNSs, in such situations 'display questions' occurred

only rarely.'

The extent to which the teacher's language promotes or inhibits acquisition of the L2

is largely a matter of consideration. Some researchers regard teacher's talk as an important as

central classroom resource which provides models in the TL (Mitchell, 1988; Gaies, 1977).

Mers, however, see the teacher's language, in particular her use of closed questions, as

restrictive (e.g., Long and Sato, 1983). Ellis ( 1990) commenteci that there is a general

conviction that teachers talk too much. Politzer et al. (1981) suggested that the more

successful teachen in their study dominated classroom talk to a lesser extent than the more

unsuccessfiil teachers.

From the learnen point of view, replying to a teacher's question is a major

communicative act in a classroom. Politzer et al. (198 1 ) reported that 90 per cent of

students' moves in their data were tesponses. Brock (1986) found that learnen' responses

were longer and syntactically more complex when they followed 'referential questions' than

when they followed 'display as well, referential questions resulted in responses

Long and Sato (1983) pointed out chat 'ths resuit suggcsts that, contmy to the recommendations of man! writers on L2 teachng methodoIoeu, communicative use of the target languap rnakes up only a minor pan of tvpical ciassroom activities. ' 1s the clock on the wall?' and 'Are you a snident?' are still the staple diet at I a s r for beginners" (p. 280). 8 The responses of universi~4evel ESL students aveqed 10 words in the case of 'referential questions,' and ody 4.23 words in the case of the 'display questions'.

with more sentential connectives. Long et al. ( 1984) found that open questions induced

more syntactically complex answen from the students than closed questions. Also, there

was a tendency for 'display (or closed) questions' to elicit more students' turns and for

' referential question' to elicit more and longer utterances. El lis ( 1 984, 1 986) argued that i t is

likely that learners' contributions will be more ample and syntactically complex if they have

topic control, as topicalization hypothesis advocates. nius, teachers should keep in mind

that giving the learners opportunities to initiate and control topics enhances L2 learning,

rather than simply having them answer questions initiated by the teacher which normally

induce only lirnited production frorn the learners.

c Error Treatment

Chaudron ( 1988) argued that "a number of L2 research have pointed out that many

teachers' attempts to 'correct' leamers' enors are in fact ambiguous, misleading, and

potentially inconsistent'' (p. 135). Yet Chaudron ( 1977) distinguished four types of

'treatment': 1 ) treatment thai results in the leamers independent ability to correct herself: 2)

treatment that results in the elicitation of a correct response fiom the leamer; 3) any reaction

by the teacher that clearly transforms, disapprovingly refen to, or demands improvement:

and 4) positive or negative reinforcement involving expressions of approval or disapproval.

Most researchers appear to have adopted 3) as a bais for research (Ellis, 1990). Long ( 1977)

proposed a distinction beween - feedback' and -correctiony. According to Long, -feedbac k '

is used in the case of teachers' attempts to supply leamers with information about the

correctness of their production, while 'correction' should be used to refer to the result of

f&ac k.

Recent error-treatment studies have discussed the whole concept of repair? Such an

approach is claimed to provide 'a process-centred approach to error' in place of one that

concentrates on the discrete products of linguistic failm (Bruton and Samuda, 1980).

The study of 'rcpr' derives h m the work of Schegloff. Jefferson anâ Sacks ( 19'77) which investipteâ how NSs were able to sort out potential communication problems.

Kasper ( 1985) reporied that in the message-focused phase of the Iesson, self-initiated and

self-completed re@n were preferred by both learners and teachers, while in the language-

centred stage, trouble sources in the learners' utterances were identified by the teacher and

were either corrected by the teacher or by another leamer.

In classroom research, a nwnber of characteristics of error treatment have been

observed, but a diversity of evidence exists regarding how and when to repair students

errors, and what to repir depending on the teachen' experience and belief. Sorne teachen

feel that it is important to correct every linguistic error that occurs, while othen feel that

linguistic errors should be ignored and only content m o n corrected (Ellis 190). It has also

ken argued that NS teachers tend to be more tolerant of enor than NNS teachers (Hughes

and Lascaratou, 1982). The research reported above has provided some insights into the

nature of error treatment. It is used as a process of negotiation, one of several ways in which

the teacher and the learners may collaborate in managing interactional tasks in the classroorn.

In summary, teachen' actions in the classroom are powerful and essential for

iearnen' L? learning. Teachen' control of input, eiicitation by questioning and error

treatment have great influence on the development of the learners' linguistic ability.

3. Studies of Interaction

In the preceding section of the studies on input, it has been reported that negotiation

of meaning elicited by teacher's questions and interactional modifications can foster the

learners' comprehensibility and productivity. In this section, the nature of various foms of

interactions taking place in the L2 classrmm will be exarnined.

a. The Interaction Hypothesis and 6Negotiation of Meaning'

Studies of the interaction hypothesis recognize the importance of comprehensible

input, seek to explain how acquisition of a L2 cornes about, and rnakes claims regarding what

kinds of interaction will best promote L2 acquisition. Long (1983a) proposed three ways of

making input comprehensible: 1 ) by means of input simplifications; 2) through the use of

linguistic and extra-linguistic conte* and 3) through modification of the interactional

features. The second argument concems the interactional modifications that occw when

there is a comrn unication di fficulty . Long ( 1 98%) provided an example of exc hange between

a NS and a M\JS as below.

I NS: When did you finish? 2 NNS: Um? 3 NS: When did you finish? 4 NNS: Ten o'clock. 5 NS: Ten o'clock? 6 NNS: Yeah.

The NS's re-positing (tum 3) was a response to the leamer's apparent lack of

comprehension, but the request (tum 5) was made because the NS wished to make ceriain

that she had understood correctly. These modifications serve to rnake input comprehensible

to the learner, and through them, it is argued, the leamer's attention is drawn to new

linguistic material, which then becomes intake. (In the above example the learner may be

helped to focus attention on how past tense interrogatives are formed.)

Pica et al. ( 1987) focused on the question of which interactional adj ustments facilitate

comprehension. They found that 73% of the repetitions in the NS's two-way lecturette

were triggered by interactional modification moves (requests for clarification, confirmation

checks and comprehension checks), while only 27 % were not triggered by some sort of

interactional move. They concluded that it was likely that comprehension was assisted by

these interactionally motivated repetitions rather than reduction of linguistic complexity in

the premodified input. Varonis and Gass ( 1985) found evidence that interaction between

leamers might be more valuable than NS-NNS interaction, because NNS-NNS dyadic

interactions involved more meaning-nego tiatmg exchanges than did NS-NNS interactions.

They argued that NNSs would feel more fiee with one another to indicate non-

comprehension (Le., expressing that they cüd not understand what they had heard), thus

more negotiation for meanhg took place.

In summary, negotiation of meaning which occurs in different types of interaction

( i.e., NS-NS, NS-NNS, and NNS-NNS) ne& to be examined and strongly considered for

the purpose of pedagogic application. In the above studies, the NNS as a L2 leamer seems

benefit from both types of interaction, i.e., interaction with NS and NNS.

b. Classroom Research on Interaction: Group Work

The general assumption in classroom research on the interaction hypothesis is that

the greater the amount of interactionai modification (i.e., 'negotiation of meaning'), the more

rapid and successful is acquisition. Pica and Long (1986) examined the nature of

interactional modifications in the classroom and found t b t in classroom discourse

negotiation of meaning occun less than in naturally occurring conversation; as a resuit, there

is Iess comprehensible input in the classroom. Crookes ( 1986) and Long ( 1988) argued that

task type detennine a quality of interaction: a two-way information gap task equipped al1

the participants with information which they had to share in order to solve problem, while

one-way information gap did not require participants to pool information, although the

effect of task type on the amount of interactional adjustment that takes place was not

conclusive. Doughty and Pica ( 1986) and Pica and Doughty ( 1985) also compared task

types. They found that ' conversational adjusûnents' ' O occurred signi ficantl y more

fiequently in the group work than in the teacher-fionted classroorn. The important

implication from these studies is that there is some evidence that the task type is the critical

factor for negotiating meaning.

Long and his colleagues have also argued that group work provides leamers with

opportunities for negotiation of meaning. Long et al. (1976) reported that there were a

significantly greater number of students' moves, and use of social skills and rhetorical acts in

group work than in a tacher-fronted classroom: dyads jwhcularly exhibited a significantly

greater variety of pedagogical moves and social skilills. Long and Porter ( 1985) argued that

group work results in greater quantity of output; there is mon negotiation of meaning than in

'O They include self-repetition (repeaVrephrase some pan of her own utterance: repairing, preventive, and mcting), and der-repetition (tepeatlrephrase some part of other speakers utterance: repeatinp or reacting) in addition to comprehension checks, d ~ r m a t i o n requests, clarification requests.

a teacher-fronted classroorn. Porter ( 1986) concluded that grouping of mixed levels of

learnen is effective for group work except at the beginning level." The fmding is that al1

leamen get more practice and input of better quality and quantity fiom advanced learners

than fiom intemediates. On the other hand, all learnen get more practice in repair work

with intermediate-level leamers, thus a higher-level leamer may benefit fiom king paired

with a lower-level leamer: the learnen will have ample opportunities to produce

cornprehensible output and more opportunities to practice the negotiation of meaning than

with a partner of the same level.

Pica and Long (1986) compared, in ESL elementary school seîting, the differences in

the arnount of interactional adjustments undertaken by experienced and inexperienced

teachers. The experienced teachen did use more other-repetitions" and WH questions (as

opposed to YesNo questions). As well, Long et al. (1984) suggested that teacher can be

trained to use more referential questions rather than display questions and to allow more

time for students to respond. These studies suggest that in order for negotiation of meaning

to take place in classroom L2 leaming, patterns of interaction, as well as roles of teacher and

leamers need to be varied by integrating group work.

In sum, the studies of task types have found evidence indicating that teachen s hould

encourage two-way tasks in order to enhance leamen' interactional competence. Such

results have provided valuable implications for designing activities for interaction in

classrooms. The studies of interaction emphasize the importance of conversational

adjustments which occur in attempts to negotiate rneaning when there are communication

problems.

'' She compartd productions by teamers of intcnncdiate-lcvei and thwt of advanced-lcvcl when speaking to different levels of interlocutors (Le. intermediate-level, advanced-Ievel, and NSs) in discussion. She found that the learners talked more and got more practice in 'prompting' (Le., providing a word, phrase, or sentence added in the middle of the other speaker's utterance to continue or compIete the utterance) when ta1 king to other learners than to NSs, although their level of accuracy and arnount of repair work and monitoring were virtually the same whether talking to NSs or to learners. " The spker repeaWpaphnses m e pan of the o k r speakers utterance in order to help ovenome a communication pmblem or CO help esiablish or develop the topic of conversations. k r instance. for repairing: A: 1 think the fourth farnilv. B: Not the fourth Jmiïv, the third fmiiy. For reactinp: A: 1 think s k Iias t h m clu&ire~l. B: This is the thing. Shu lm three chiIdref~ (Pica and Doughe, 1985).

4. Studies of Output

In order to guide L2 leamers to higher levels of proficiency, the role of output cannot

be overlooked. In this section, the featwes of output in the L2 learning in the classroom are

examined.

a. The Output Hypothesis

Swain (1985) asserted that although the acquisition of a L2 'comprehensible input'

(Krashen, 1982, 1985) and the role of interaction which induces negotiation of meaning may

be essential, such processes alone are no/ enough to ensure that the outcome will be native-

like performance; the impact of grammatical development lias been considered too little in

the input and interaction hypotheses. Swain reached her conclusion from studies of the

nature of language proficiency achieved by immersion students leaming French as a L2 in

Canada. " She found that they had achieved a level of discoune and sociolinguistic

competence, which do not rely heavily on grarnmar, similarly to NSs; nevertheless, the): had

failed to achieve NS levels of grammatical competence. From this evidence, Swain

hypothesized three functions for output: 1 ) to provide the opportunity for rneaningful use

of one's linpuistic resources '" it tan be referred to as 'contextural ized' and 'pushed'

language use): 2) to test out hypotheses about the TL (to try out means of expression and

see if they work); and 3) to help the leamer to move from semantic processing to syntactic

processing. It is possible to comprehend a message without any syntactic analysis, but

production is the trigger that forces leamen to pay attention to syntactic analysis (Swain,

1985).

In this study, Swain ( 1985) observed that the leamen in the immersion classroom

were not pushed to be more comprehensible than they already were, because the leamers

l3 In this study. students of grade 6 were investigated and Swain found that these children made tnfrequeni use of the TL outside of school, thus the L2 inpui ro these students was largely that OC NS ieactier tak and non- native peer talk. as weil as experience with litency activities. Afwr 7 years of comprehensible input, they understood what they were k i n g tau@, that thcy I'ocused on nieaning. Yet the q e t linguistic system has not k e n fuiiy acquired. '" Mmingful use of the language implies "one-io-one conversational exchanges [whichl provide ;ui excellent opponuni ty .... Even betier are chose interactions where ihere has been a communicative breakdown - where leamers has received some negative input" (Swain, 1985, p. 348).

were simply understood by their teachea and peers. Although the immersion students did

receive comprehensible input. they no longer received much negative input.' Ellis (1990)

commented that the important implication of the output hypothesis is that it predicts that

produciion w ill aid ucquisitron on& when the learner 1s pushed.

According to Swain (1 985), grammatical acquisition is made possible partly through

conversational exchanges in which meaning is negotiated Yet, these exchanges are not

themselves the source of acquisition derived fiom comprehensible input. Rather they are the

source of acquisition derived from comprehensible output, output that extends the linguistic

repertoire of the learner as he or she attempts to create precisely and appropriately the

meaning desired. Comprehensible output is a necessary mechanism of acquisition

independently of the role of comprehensible input. She concludes, "comprehensible output

is, unfortunately, generally missing in typical classroom settings" (p. 252).

b. Research for Promoting 'Comprehensible Output'

One way of investigating learners' 'cornprehensible output' is to study leamen'

production in response to a NS's sipals of comprehension dif'fïculty. Pica ( 1988) examined

the interactions between a NS and ten NNSs of English, and found evidence to suppon that

the 'pushed output' became more grammatical. Nevertheless, she also found that it did so in

less than half of the total learner responses, although NNSs produced grammatical

utterances in 90 per cent of their self-correction. Thus when a L2 leamer is aware of an

inaccuracy in her production, she cm correct mostly by herself: provididing ample

oppominities to produce output from her linguistic resources, therefore, is necessary.

Pica et al. ( 1989) have supporteci the comprehensible output strongly. They found

that the nature of the NS's signal of comprehension difficulty is crucial for producing

comprehensible output. Ten NNSs (Japanese adults) proved much more likely to produce

output modifications in response to clarification requests, e.g., "Huh?", than to confirmation

'' Ncpiii~e input is "feedback to the leamer which indicates that hisher output has bcm unsuccesdul in m e way" which includes explicit corrections, confirmation checks and clarification checks (Swain. 1985, p. 345).

32

requests, e.g. "Did you say ... ?" Clarification requests presumably demand syntactically

complex and appropriate utterances, but to confirmation requests the leamers could respond

with simply "Yes" or "No." In the same study, investigaton also compared three task

types of (i) information gap, (ii) jig-saw, and (iii) discussion. The findings were as follows:

1) Compared to (ii) jig-saw and (iii) discussion, (i) information gap provided more

opportunity for output modification, because the NNSs had to convey al1 the necessary

information by describing the content in detail and use various linguistic foms

independently in order to complete the task. 2) In (iii) discussion, morpho-syntactic

adjustrnents occurred more than semantic adjustment (e.g., when the topic was past events,

the use of the past tense was required.)

Ellis ( 1990) commented on Pica and her colleagues' findings. He argued that their

evidence that learnen improve the grammaticality of their utterances when pushed does not

dernonstrate that leamers ucquire the knowledge of new L2 items. As with the input and

interactional hypotheses, there is, as yet, no direct evidence to support the claim that

'pushed output' promotes acquisition in the TL. "The real contribution of pushed output,

[however,] may be to encourage leamers to make use of those variants in their current

interlanguage systems which are [pushed to become] more target-like" (p. 1 19).

The implication fiom these studies of L? leaming is that there is evidence that more

'comprehensible output' is crucial to invite more negotiation of meaning necessary for

advanced grammatical competence. The interaction between NS-NNS is effective because a

NS signals comprehension difficulty. When a NS signals comprehension dificulty,

opportunities for leamen' self-correction are also increased. In addition, information gap

tasks in two-way or group work in which NNS-NNS interaction occun are effective for

creating a similar environment for clarification request as in NS-NNS interaction, thus there

is some evidence that such tasks might profitably be integrated into classroom aaivities in

order to enhance learnen L2 ability.

B. Exam ining L2 Clauroom Interaction

1. Role of Interaction

Theories that explain the relationship between classroorn interaction and L2

acquisition are besed on the following assumptions that: 1) a classroom represents an

environment that is conductive to L2 acquisition; and 2) what happens in the classroom

involves some forms of interaction. In the preceding section, Ellis (1990) described both

reception- and production-based theones of classroom interaction. AH aspects of the

linguistic acquisition prwess, including input, interaction, and output, rnust be considered in

determining how classroom interaction cm best be organized in order to create oppomuiities

for L2 acquisition.

In order to analyze clsssroom interaction, it is necessary to investipate whui i s suid,

as well as whut is done (van Lier, 1988). Whar i.v said includes such issues as the use of

negation, question, formation, and a number of grammatical items used in the context for the

purpose of communication. On the other hand, a focus of whur is done requires detailed

attention to the interaction that occun in the L3 classroom. Classroom process research

such as that introduced in the preceding sections has yielded a great deal of data indicating

how leaming oppominities are made available to the leamen, but it has not been able to

show how interaction results in L2 learning. It is not easy to identi@ the relationship

between leamer3 language acquisition and observed behavior.

When observing an L2 classroom in action it is clear that no direct linli can be made between obseivable behavior and language developrnent. Learning is not generally directly and immediately observable. In the first place, it is characterized by improved performance or increased knowledge, and manifested by the leamer's behavior at some point of t h e (wispecified) afier the learning has occuned. Secondly, the leaming itself may not be produced by one specifically identifiable event, but rather by the cumulative effect of a nurnber of events, and how these events are related is not always immediately visible. (van Lier, 1988, p. 9 1 )

In other words, "learning can be measured ody afier the student has demonstrated his ability

to use [the] 'right' responses in a variety of contexts, on a nurnber of different occasions"

(Rivers, 1964, p. 72). In order for leaming to occur in L2 classroom, a variety of

interactional events, contexts and occasions rnust be supplied.

It would be helpful to clariS, the role of interaction in L2 classroom. Van Lier ( 1988)

illustrates two routes of interaction in classroom leaniing (Figure 3-2).

Input

cugnit ive interuct ion I I

interaction with I sociai interaction existing I interaction with other(s) loiowledge I

systern 1 1

Intake Figure 3-2 The role of interaction (based on van Lier, 1988, p. 93)

In this figure, route A is a direct route of cognitive interaction within a leamer, in which

input becomes intake%without social interaction. For example, time for private and quiet

activities such as reading a text, doing tasks individually or taking tests, during which each

leamer separately works on his or her own and processes some input cognitively. Yet,

normally we expect at least part of time in a classroom to be taken up by purposeful

interaction between the participants on tasks which involve working with the TL, indicated

as route B.

Route A, cognitive interaction, may be applied to Krashen's 'i + 1 ' hypothesis: the

'i' represents leamer's existing level of language proficiency, ' 1 ' for linguistic foms or

functions that are a little beyond this level, and 'i + 1' constitutes the process that 'input'

becomes 'intake.' On the other hand, route B which involves social use of interaction can be

explained by Vygonkyos notion (fiom his developmental psychology), that the teaching-

learning process talces place in social interaction.

'' Van Lier defines 'intake' as 'the intemion of new knowiedge with esisting knowfedge"(1988, p. 93).

35

The sociaCcognitive view put forth by Vygotsky ( 1978) focuses on the social

processes that contribute to cognitive development, His notion of the zone of proximal

developrnent (ZPD) is defined as "the distance between the actual developmental level as

detemined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as

detemined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more

capable peen" (p. 86). In other words, Vygotsky asserts, "What a child can do witb

assistance today, she will be able to do by henelf tornorrow" (p. 87). He proposes that

"learning awakens a variety of intemal developmental processes that are able to operate only

when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperation with his

peen" (p. 90). Once these processes are intemalized, they become pan of the child's

independent developmental achievement.

For Vygotslry, the child's language use represents the actual level of cognitive

development; however, since he proposes that cognitive development lags behind leaming

(or making efforts to leam), the language of instmction should be geared beyond the actual

level of development, to the zone of proximal development (Johnson, 1995). His notion of

leamer as a child rnay be applied to any age of leamer, either an adolescent or an adult. In

any type of leaming, the implication of ZPD is that instructions should integrate the

leamer's potential abilities, by creating opportunities for the leamers to assume joint

responsibility for leaming tasks that could not be completed on their own, but with the

assistance of the other participants, the teacher or peer leaners.

This Vygotskian notion has influenced many investigators' insights into the role of

social interaction and language use in learning (e.g., van Lier, 1996; Ellis, 1984; Donato, 1994;

Johnson, 1995). Van Lier ( 1996) illustrates the ZPD in a simple way as shown in Figure

3-3. At any given point of t h e , there are acts that a peaon can perform confidently on

his/her own, these constitute, for van Lier the 'ara of self-regulated action. ' Beyond that

there is a range of knowledge and skills which the penon can only access with assistance of

someone more capable. Sorne cornpiex actions can be performed only with such help. For

some types of knowledge, reaching higher levels becornes achievable through king linked to

existing knowledge or experiences. This material which, with guidance, is within reach

constitutes the ZPD.

Figure 3-3 The Zone of Proximal Development (van Lier, 1996, p. 190)

If we agree with Vygotsky 's notion of the ZPD, we, the teachers must think about

how we can promote work that falls within the ZPD and that extends the leamers' area of

self-regulation outwards, pulling students hto challenging but attainable levels of work.

Vygotsky stresses that the guidance provided by a more capable person is necessary for

leamers to work within the ZPD. Van Lier ( 1996), however, has argued that productive

work in the ZPD can be accomplished by the leamers using a variety of resources which are

characterized not only by assistance from more capable peen or adults but also bp

interaction with equal level of peers, with less capable peers, and even inner resources of

leamer himself He has assened that conversational interaction arnong language leamers of

roughly equal ability is particuiarly useful. Language learning is enhanced by certain kinds of

social interaction which induce engagement, intrinsic motivation, and self-detemination. One

of the crucial elements in interaction is contingency, which is easiest to achieve when

interactants are oriented towards symmetry: learners of equal level serve as effective

resources in certain circumstances. Interacting with learners with lower level of proficiency,

argues van Lier, may also be beneficial for the learners, since this encourages the creation of

different kinds of contingencies and discourse management strategies. As well, adult/mature

leamers have imer resources on which they can rely to provide guidance and support to

themselves.

As a means of expanding leamers capcity from the 'area of self-regulation' to the

ZPD, a notion of 'scafEolding7 by Bruner (1983)' an Amencan psychologist, provides

guidelines for L2 learning. Bruner studied the social interaction between mothen and very

young children. According to him, 'scaffolding' is "a process of 'setting up' the situation to

make the child's enûy easy and successful and then gradually pulling back and handing the

role to the child as he becomes skilled enough to manage it" (p. 60). Van Lier (1 9%) has

proposed that the notion of 'scaffolding' provides an idea of the dynamism of working

within the ZPD which has a nurnber of features: 1) continuity (a complex action, repetition

and variations occur repeatedly over a period of time); 2) contextual support (in which

participation of the leamer is encouraged); 3) intersubjectivity (the emphasis on mutual

engagement); 4) contingency (the action of change, deletion, or repetition, depends on the

participants); 5) handover (the leamer is observed closely by a caretakerlteacher for

opportunities to hand over parts of the action); and 6) flow (action of participants are

jointly orchestrated, or synchronized in rhythmic ternis, so that the interaction flows in a

natural way ).

2. Patterns of Classroom Interaction

There are patterns of interaction which occur in LZ classrooms. One is teacher-

student (T-S) interaction and another is student-student (S-S) interaction. This section

reviews the characteristics of these two types of interaction in classrooms.

a. Teacher-Student Interaction

In traditional classrooms, exchange between teacher and student is characterized as

RF, which begins with teacher's initiation in the form of question or elicitation, followed by

student's Response, and ends with teacher's Feedback or evaluation to the audent's

nsponse. The sequence of RF is an instructional technique for teac hers to guide their

midents in a direction pre-planned by the teachers. The iRF patterns are very commonly

used in classrooms throughout the world. For example, data taken at a secondary-school

(where the focus is on transmission of information) between 50 and 60 % of exchanges

consisted of IRF patterns (Sinclair and Coutharâ, 1975). In an IRF sequence, students wait

for a nomination from the teacher before spealung and confine the content of their responses

to a specific set of information. The teacher's feedback differs depending on the student's

response, but the student nomally knows immediately whether his/her response was correct

or incorrect by the teacher's feedback.

When the IRF is employed appropriateiy, the IRF interaction pushes the students to

think critically and possibly to clariQ grounds for theù answen. The teacher can use the

IRF format for eliciting certain types of production From the students, such as repetition,

recitation, cognition, or expression (van Lier, 1996). Ellis ( l984), however, daims that in the

IW format, students as responder are provided relatively few opportunities to 'test? the

lirnits of their productive competence. Also, where the teacher is not especially good at

'teacher-talk', the leamers may not be exposed to any 'intake' that they can use to extend

their receptive competence.

A good example of skilled teacher-talk may be, for example, as Johnson ( 1995)

illustrates, that the teacher allows a group of students to initiate the topic of conversation

and encourages them to offer their own opinions, as well as select themselves when to

participate. The teacher maintains the social participation structures by asking open

questions, receiving students' contributions, and reacting to them so that he or she also

allows the students to respond directly to one another.

Van Lier (1996) summarizes: *'the [RF can only be seen as advantageous if it is

designed as a way of scaffolding interaction, and if this is so, then it must contain visible

efforts to promote hand-over, so that students can grow out of IW and into true dialogue

whenever the oppominity arises. Since 1W is strictly other-regulated, it cm only be

pedagogically beneficial if it contauis within itself the seeh of self-regdation ..." (p. 152). In

my opinion, such studies as those above suggest that interaction pattems between teacher

and student are relatively fixed and ofien not flexible enough to pmvide students with a

variety of situation for pmcticiag interactions in which they are likely to engage outside the

classroom.

As a variation of teacher-talk in L2 classroom, 'pedagogical scaffolding' may be

employed by teachen by using a classroom event which natural ly occurs in L2 classrooms.

Van Lier (1996) gives an exarnple in which the teacher verbalizes the instructions for how to

set up an overhead projector and hands the process gradually over to the students." This

activity constitutes three different levels of scaffolding, ranging fiom global to local. In the

beginning at the global level, the teacher enwucages studems to use a variety of phrasal verbs

in fonns of instruction. This level intends repetition and giving variations with increasing

snident participation and control as this becornes possible, in order to draw the students into

ZPD, so that they gradually become more confident and independent language usen. The

second level is the activity itself which continues throughout the plotted sequence in the

several steps to set the equipment. The teacher asks a student to act following the other

students' instruction. Finally, the activity is also scaffolded at a local and interactional level:

the teacher decides from moment to moment when to prompt, help, pause, correct, while

trying to encourage the students' participation. This last level of scaffolding cannot be

planned, since it relies on on-the-spot decision-making in reaction to often unexpecteâ.,

students' utterances. At every level, the teacher must pay attention to what is difficult and

what is easy for the students.

Van Lier's ( 1996) mode1 of 'pedagogical scaffolding' has at lest two problems.

Fint, it has limitations in linguistic fünctions and range of vocabulary which classroom

activities can offer. Second, it rnay not be relevant to some types of leamers. Some learnen

may act positively in these kinds of 'garnes', while others may not feel cornfortable to act in

the situation in which they already know what to do with the equipment to set up, even

though they are not yet capable of expressing-the phrasa of instruction relevantly. Yet, van

Lier has provided an example of what 'pedagogical sdolding' in L2 leamhg couid be.

" In an ESL grammar class, the teacher accmpanied the riaial of sating up the OHP by a monologue, in which he asked himself questions such as "Let's see, what should 1 do next?," answering to himself "Ah, switch it on" (van Lier, 19%, p. 197). The intended context bcre is the teacher wants to use the disconnected OHP in a corner ofthe classroom, enlisting the help of a student, as well as asking 0 t h students to give directions by using phrasal verbs which are the grammatical focus of a lesson (e.g., "Put the OHP on the tablen, '"hm it on").

b. Student-Student Interaction: blaterlanguage TaIk'

For a long time, 'interlanguage talk', i.e., interaction between L2 students, has been

vimuilly ignored in much of the classroom-based educational research. For instance, Krashen

(198 1) found that teachen and researchea generally do not consider interlanguage-talk a

suitable mode1 for L2 development: Fillmore (1982), for instance, argues that learnen appear

to need exposure to the standard speech of the teacher and that interlanguage-talk could lead

to a pidgin-like cornpetence. Such opinions mise the question whether real learning occurs

only throug h T-S interaction; whether S-S interaction represents off-task behavior,

discourages achievement, and leads to classroom disruptions.

Yet as seen in preceding sections, cooperative learning in group work is beneficial. A

number of recent studies in L2 learning, in fact, have indicated that group work and

collaborative learning are effective for L2 acquisition. Ellis ( 1984) has supported

interlanguage-talk as it affords oppominities for language use not typically available in T-S

talk. Long and Porter ( 1985) found that interlanguage talk in group work provided several

features more than teacher-led structures; they are 1 ) quanti@ and quality of practice; 2)

accuracy of prod~ction'~; 3) peer-correction; and 4) negotiation of meaning. Varonis and

Gass ( 1985) argued, as noted earlier, that NNS-NNS interaction may be more valuable than

NS-NNS interaction: NNS-NNS dyadic interactions involve more meaning-negotiating

exchanges than NS-NNS interaction, because NNSs perhaps feel less intimidated toward

NNS interlocutors when indicating non-comprehensibility ( ie., expressing that they do not

understand) when negotiating for meaning.

Johnson (1995) has stressed that S-S interaction can play an important role in

snidents' cognitive development, educational achievement, and development of social skills.

S-S interaction can induce cognitive conflict, and thus it fosten cognitive restnicnuing and

Qvelopment. This situation encourages the use of more exploratory language by the

students as well as informal learning styles and strategies among students. Johnson

-- --

'' Long and Rxter ( 1985) report h t inccracîion betwcen leamers of similar pmficiency levels pmvides Iow e m r rates on Lhe basis of their study.

examined three types of S-S interaction in the task of 1) peer tutonng; 2) group investigation;

and 3) peer writing conference. It was found that S-S interaction in these tasks created

opportunities for the students to participate in spontaneous language use and a range of

language hctions; to negotiate meaning, self-select when to participate, control the topic of

discussion, and draw on their own pnor knowledge and interactional cornpetencies to

actively communicate with others. n ie students showed highly positive behaviour through

interacting with one another in these tasks; the tasks were found to be effective in promoting

each participant's development in L2 abilities.I9

In a senes of recent studies on the output hypothesis (Swain, 1988, 1993, 1995a;

Kowal and Swain, 1994; Swain and Lapkin, 1995), Swain also has emphasized the

importance of collaborative leaming in S-S interaction. She studied collaborative work arnong

learners in terms of output, and argued that collaborative tasks play important roles in L2

development as follows:

1 ) Collaborative learning pushes ' leurners tu prodm to the limit of leamers'

capacity. Learners may use the output as a way of trying out new language forms

and structures as they stretch their interlanguage to meet communicative needs;

2) Col laborative tasks provide the learnen wi t h opporîuni~ies to tes1 'hyprtheses '

which have emerged in the leamer's linguistic resources;

3) When leamers are involved in collaborative tasks which are designed io enhance

learnea' awareness of linguistic f o m and functions of the TL, learners'

consciousness on linguistic forms can be raised by negotiation ;f meaning taking

place between the learnen. (These tasks are cooperative language production tasks

in which leamers 'notice the gap' between what they want to express and what they

can express. As well, these tasks require leamers to 'verbalize' their problems on

linguistic foxms. Such tasks stimulate their awareness on linguistic foms).

l9 Yet Johnson (1995) sugpts that the tasks designed for S-S interaction may still be shared by teacher and students: teachtr can choose to cmml the structure and content of S-S interadon based on their instnictional goais, the nature of their classrmm cvents and the type of S-S interaction they hope to promote.

4) Leamers can receivefeedback which can encourage spontaneous production and

linguistic modrfication such as revision and editing. Self- and peer-monitoring are as

important as teacher feedback .

In such collaborative tasks, leamers are enwuraged to negotiate forms of the TL.

Negotiation helps students to focus their attention and test hypotheses. As well, such tasks

function as metalinguistic tools. Swain (1995) points out that "the output brought about

through the collaborative dialogue may allow leamers the necessary support to outpefionn

their cornpetence and in the process to develop their interlanguage" (p. 137). In other words,

in certain types of classroom activity in which pair of students work together to solve

'form-based' problems, they become more aware of the problems and try to solve them

together through discussion."

Another effort to examine dialogic interaction was that of Donato (1 994). who sought

to dari@ how students CO-consmict language learning experiences in a classroom setting and

to uncover how L2 development was brought about on the social plane. Donato examined

'scaffolding' that is "in social interaction a knowledgeable participant can create, by means

of speech, supportive conditions in which the novice cm participate in and extend current

skills and knowledge to higher levels of cornpetence" (p. 40). Specifically he focused on the

question of whether leamers can exert a developmental influence on each otherts

interlanguage system in observable ways. In a project of French as a L2, the students were

obsewed while working on an open-ended task that was farniliar to them. In a planning

session, the students should decide on what happens between a husband and his wife when

the wife discovea her husband has purchased a fur coat for another woman. (They were not

ailowed to use notes in their presentation followùig the planning, nor were they to mernorire

their scenario, but they could make notes while preparing.)

?O One example of this type of task is 'dictogioss' in which students in pair dictate what bey listen, and write down fmiliar words and phrases. They reccmstmct the text fiom their s h a d fesources. Quality of interadon observeci in this task was quite good, and this task was found to encouqc students to move fiom the semantic processing to the synîactic processing needed for production. It is suggcsted that grouping which is not hiyhly heterogeneous has apparcntly led to more production discussion for dl students (Kowal & Swain, 1994).

The results of the study showed that the learners were capable of providing guided

support to their peen during collaborative L2 interactions. It was also suggested that

collabotative scaffolding may have resulted in linguistic development in the individual

leamer, although this proposition requires independent validation. In al1 of the occurrences

of scaffolded help made by the -dents for their pers in the planning session, 75 per cent

of cases were observed to be used correctly at a later time when help was no longer available.

Donato (1994) stated that this finding is not surprishg "in light of Vygotskian theory which

argues that individual knowledge is socially and dialogically derived, the genesis of which can

be observed directly in the interactions among speakers during problem-solving tasks" (p.

5 1 ). This result indicates that the L2 learners may provide the sarne level of support and

guidance for each other as adults provide for children.

In conclusion, the outcornes of the studies mentioned above have provided evidence

supporting the effectiveness of interactive practice between students, if such practice is well

structured and managed appropriately . Swain (1 988, 1995a) suggesu that cumcul um needs

to include, in at least part of the lesson, opportunities for students to produce extended, i.e.

longer, more complex and coherent, output in collaborative circurnstances.

3. Optimal Conditions for CIassroom Learning through Interaction

In the preceding sections, a number of characteristics of interaction have been

mentioned. Now, for teachers of a L2, it is necessary to advance toward designing tasks for

effective coilaborative interaction. Some researchers have provided their visions of optimal

conditions for classroom L2 learning and teaching for interaction, by integrating related

studies, such as those mentioned previously. Eilis (1990) has sumrnarized eight optimal

conditions for L2 acquisition, based on both the reception- and production-based theones:

1) The learners have the need and desire to communzcaie in the L2.

2) The learners are involved and hterested in what is king talked about, and they are

given opportunities to seljlinitiate and wnhd the topic of conversation in the class.

3) Teachers and students m k e eflorts to be tmderstood by negotiating meuning using

repeated use of language patterns, routines, and strategies.

4) The students must be chaIIenged to opercte slighrly beyond their current ievel of

language proficiency, and are encouraged to produce utterances as well as have

opportunities to perform a range of language fun~tion.~'

5) The students have opportuni ties to part ici'te in both planned and unpianne J

discourse, which correspond to their communicative needs outside the classroom.

6) The teacher helps, especially in the beginning level, to provide scaffoiding for

students to try out new linguistic structures and language fùnctions that are beyond

their current level of proficiency . 7) At the intemediate- and upper-levels, the students also have adequate uccess lo

plunned<lrscour.se. Teachers must provide them with many examples of the

linguistic features that they are try ing to lem.

8) The students' output should nut be forcrd. They must be fiee to choose when to

produce.

Ellis stated that optimal interaction of this kind is most likely to occur in meaning-focused

instructions, although some features of them can also be found in fom-focused instruction.

Van Lier ( 1 996) stressed that social interaction is what primarily initiates the

movement in the mechanisrn of interaction in L2 learning and curriculum. He argwd that in

the L2 cumculum, awareness, autonomy and authenticity play important roles. He

summarized several points for the growth of L2 proficiency:

1 ) Quality of exposure is more important than quantity of exposure.

2) Quality is determined by acwss. Comprehensibility, contextuaIity, farniliarity,

assistance, affective factors, and participatability (for want of a better terni) are ail

part of the quality of exposure.

'' In ordcr to achieve this, "it will be necessary for teachers to vary the type of question asked to suit thc students' level of proftciency, [as well as] for students to be able to initiate discourse, so that they have opportunities to perform a mge of speech acts, quiring variai linguistic resources. Teachers should aiso encourage students to reformulate their own utterances that cause compre hension problerns. ... by means of clitrifiation requests." (Ellis, 1990, p. 127)

3) In engagement with language, percephial processes (including attending and

focusing) are of centrai importance. The application of these processes presupposes

receptivity.

4) In order to hun language affordances into intake, both social and cognitive

processing are required. Two kinds of understanding are involved: apprehension and

comprehension. These processes require cognitive, emotionai, and physical

investment on the part of the leamer.

5) For intake to become uptake [(mastery)], i.e. language that is retained in memory

and can be effectively and appropriately accessed, various kinds of practice,

including rehearsal, may be necessary. (van Lier, 1996, p. 66)

To synthesize conditions that Ellis and van Lier emphasize regarding optimal conditions for

classroom L 2 leaming, the following main points have been extracted:

1 ) Teachen should create opportunities for students to have need and reason to

attend the learning.

2) Teachers must provide ample opportunities to use the language.

3) Learnea need to receive adequate instructional support from the teacher and peer

leamers.

4) Leamen require oppominities to interact with the teacher and pers to be able to

participate successfuli y in language related advities that are bey ond their existi ng

level of proficiency.

5) Teachen should promote opportunities for students to attend a range of authentic

contexts that allow Ml performance in the language.

It is necessary for teachers to design activities which would meet these conditions in order to

enhance learners' L2 learning through interaction. When planning suc h interactive activities

in a L2 curriculum, it is important to consider that different subsysterns of language may

require different learning procedures.

Cbapter IV

Classroom Interaction in L2 Curriculum

In the previous chapter, the studies of L2 acquisition in relation to classroom interaction

were exarnined. This chapter is to clanfi the characteristics of interactive activities for

linking processes inside and outside of the L2 classroom. The discussion begins fiom Ader

and proceeds to specific issues, i.e., curriculum, syllabus, and practice. Then, characteristics

of interactive activities are analyzed.

A. L2 Curriculum for Learning to Communicate

In planning L2 teaching and learning, cumculwn and syllabus must be distinguished.

Curriculum refers to "the plan for teaching a language", and syllabus refers to "content

components of the cumculum" (Stem, 1992, p.20). In this section, the global scope of the

L2 curriculum particularly for promoting interaction is discussed: a mode1 of leamer-centred

experiential learning is then presented.

1. Discourse for Classroom Interaction

Conceming the types of L2 leaming, Klein ( 1986) introduced the distinction between

rutord and un!u~orc.rl language leaming, which correspond respectively to pided and

spontuneous language acquisition. Klein stated that the 'guided' learning is the type in which

material is supplied in 'digestecl' form which emphasizes grammatical importance. At one

extreme, the leamer is initially offered no more tban a description of the material. On the

other hand, the spntaneous leaming occm in the situation where the language leamer has

access to the TL in the coune of everyday communication in a naturai fashion, fiee from

syntactic guidance. This type of leaming is to extract the niles for the use of the language

fiom the relevant situational context. Klein suggested that the most radical and perhaps

most successful form of communicative instruction could be described as "guided second

lanpge acquisition in which the learner is guided to leam in a spontaneous, and - so the

assumption - very efficient, marner" (p. 20).

To plan a sequence which guides leamers in such a successN rnanwr as Klein

described, it is necessary to analyze classroom instnictional discoune in detail. McTear

( 1975) obsewed EFL lessons; it was found that classrwm discoune is reflected in four

types of language use:

1) mechanical (ix. no exchange of meaning involved);

2) meaningful (i.e. meaning is contexnJalized but there is still no new information

conveyed);

3) pseudo-communication (i.e., new information is conveyed but in a manner that

would be unlikely to occur outside the classroom);

4) rra1 communication (e.g., spontaneous speech resulting from the exchange of

opinions, joke, classroom management).

Among the four types of language use, 1) and 2) are characterized as pedagogic discourse,

and 4) is natural discourse; 3) falls somewhere in-between.

Riven ( 1972, 1978, 1983) illustrated a model of processes of L2 leaminy

emphasizing communication. The model comprises 'skill-getting' and 'sliill-using'

processes, as show in figure 4- 1.

T Skill- gerting

I t

Skill- using

1

- /

Perception (of units, categories, and functions) Cognition (Knowledge) \

Abstraction (intemalizing rules relating cateçories and functions)

/ Articulation (practice of sequences of sounds) Production (or pseudo- oommunican> Construction (practice in formulating communications I -

Reception (comprehension of a message) Interaction ,/ / Motivation (or real to uimmunieatio\ \ communicate

Expression (conveying personal meaning)

Figure 4- 1 Processes involved in learning to communicate (Riven, 1978, p. 4)

This model cm be contrasted with McTear's fou stages of language use: The

'cognition' stage of Rivers's mode1 in 'skill-getting ' corresponds to McTear's

' I ) mechanical' and '2) meaninghil' language use. Rivers's 'Production' stage is like

McTear's '3) pseudo-communication' itsel f; 'skill-using ' matches McTearY s last stage of

'4) real communication'.

Rivers ( 1978) emphasized that this schema is not sequential but paraIlel. Thus,

'skili-using' should not be delayed: 'skill-getting' and 'skiIl-using' should be introduced

together ". . . in the sense that 'skill gening ' and 'skiIl using' are continually processing hand

in hand. There is genuine 'interaction fiom the beginning', with students exploring the full

scope of what is being leamed" (p. 4). Teachers must consider ' bridging the gap' between

'ski1 1-getting' and ' skill-using', because it does not happen automatically. "Skiil-getting

act ivities must be so designed as to be already 'pseudo-communication', t hus leadi ng

naturallp into spontaneous communicative activities"(p. 5). Knowledge and intensive

pract ice in the 'skill-getting ' stage are not enough to ensure confident interaction. 'Skill-

using' requires practice in actual, purposeful conversational exchange with othea.

Kramsch ( 1985) discussed instructional and natural discourse as two poles of a

continuum rather than alternatives (see Table 4- 1).

Table 4- 1 Continuum of Classroom Interaction (Based on Krarnsch, 1985, p. 18)

1 Roles 1 Fixed statuses 1 Negotiated roles

In this continuum, instructional discourse occurs when the teacher and the students

act out instructional roles: the tasks are concerned with the transmission and reception of

information controlled by the teacher. There is a focus on knowledge as a product or on

accuracy . The mode is focused on code, or linguistic features. On the other hand, nutwal

Tas ks

Knowledge

r

Mode .

-- -

~eacher-oriented Position-centered Focus on content Accuracy of facts Code (medium oriented)

~rouponented Person-centered Focus on process Fluency of interaction Communication (message oriented)

discourse represents much more fluid roles; it is established through interaction and tasks

which encourage e q d vcipat ion in the negotiation of meaning. The focus is on the

interactional process itself and on fluency. The mode is communication itself for exchanging

message. In a large scale, instructional discourse moves between the MO poles of the

continuum; at the same time, the process of l m i n g is progressing upward, in a spiral

movement, toward higher levels of proficiency. Rivers's two dimensions of 'skill-getting'

and 'skill-using' may correspond to the two pola of Kramsch's model.

Kramsch's model identifies what Stem calls 'treatment options in language teaching'

( 1 992, p. 3 1). Stem's scheme of 'teaching smitegies' in treatment options comprises three

d e s : 'crosslingual-intralingual ', ' 'analytic-expenential ', and 'explici t-impl ici t ',' as show

in Figure 4-2.

(a) Crosslingual 1 ntralingual

~r~swltural (comparative) ~nterculturaf(non-comparative)

(b) Analytic Expetiential

Objective Formal Language-cen tered

Communicative Functional Message-centered, Participatory

Implicit P

'Acquisition' intuitive Automatic

Figure 4-2 Treatment options in language teaching: teaching strategies (Stem 1992, p. 3 1 )

' The scale of 'crosslingual-invalingual' is to distinguish whether the techniques use L 1 or anothct language as points of comparisonlreference which are crosslingual used when the rnediating skicills (translation and intwpreting) are the goal, or the techniques are intended to build up the L2 as a relatively independent systern. such as in L2 communication. which represents Uitrslingual.

The dichotomy of the 'esplicit-implicii' dimension can be enplaind by nhether the learner should k tau@ to approach leamine task consciously as an intellectuai exercise, or he or she should be encourageci to avoid thinking about the lanpge and absorb it intuitiveiy. The expkit tearhing techniques include obsenation. conceptuaiîzation, explanaiion, mnernonic devices, rolediscovery, rational-thinking, uial-and-errnr, eaplicit practice, and monitoring. The implicit teaching techniques are those which minimize thinEüng about ihe language; the! involve experiential appmaches thai locus the leamers' attention on interesting activities and content, but without focusine on the languagc system and its niles.

In the three scales of teaching strategies, the 'analytic-experiential' dimension is most

directly related to classrmm discoune. The analytic strategy is based on techniques of

snidy and practice, which treats the L2 and culture as objectives to be studied or examined

The expericntial strategy is global and non-analytic, which invites the learner to use the

language for a purpose, and to focus on the message rather than any specific aspect of the

code. Some kind of combination of these two approaches may be the bea policy for the

teachen. However, Stem (1992) has pointed out, "in practice ... there are biases in the

analytic or experiential direction. Traditional teaching approaches are heavily analytic.

Classroom observation studies in searc h of experiential teaching.. . have tended to conclude

that analytic teaching is dominant and an emphasis of experiential teaching is the exception ....

The experiential cornponent is ofien viewed as an extra-cumcular addition, to be

accomplished, for example, through studenü exchanges, travel, or residence and work in the

TL community" (p. 322). He also argued that "teachen do not deny the value of experiential

activities: but very ofien they do not see them as pan of an organized language course ... they

do not know exactly how to implement an experiential strategy" (p. 322). As Stem

suggested, integrating flexibly both of the analytic and experiential elements seems not to bc

easily achieved by the teachen in practice. Yet, ideally as mentioned, a balanced combination

of the two strategies apparently needs to be considered by L2 teachers.

In this section. I have presented several researchers' views which are helpful for

planning a cumculum. Dichotomous elements are included in each model, and these

investigatoa agree with that balancing is necessary when planning a curriculum for L?

leaming.

2. Experiential Learning

Under Stem's ( 1992) 'experiential-analyticxl' approach in teaching L2, there is a

distinction whether the content of teaching focus on language itself or message delivered by

means of language. Stem assem that the experiential principie is a variation of teaching

technique which enhances language for communication, and emphasizes methods which

engender awareness and help the leamer reflect on and incorporate his or her experiences.

Kohonen ( 1992) included experiential language leaming and cooperative leamer

education into L2 cwicula. Expaientiai leaniing theory, he proposeci, invites conscious

attention to the importance of the learnen' subjective experiences, attitudes, and feelings

about their own learning. The leaming experiences gained will have a cumulative effe* on

the development of the learners' cognitive and affective charactenstics, as well as their view

of themselves as learners.

Kohonen ( 1992) agrees with Kolb ( 1984) who advocated a model of experiential

leaming as a general educational theory. Kolbts model of experiential learning consists of

four stages: 1) concrete experience, 2) reflective observation, 3) abstract conceptualization,

and 4) active experimentation. The process of leaming is seen as the recycling of experience

at deeper levels of understanding and interpretation. Kohonen argues that 'Uheoretical

concepts will not become pan of the individual's h e of reference until they have been

experienced meaningfùlly on a subjective emotional level. Reflection plqs an important role

in this process by providing a bndge between experience and theoretical conceptualization"

( 1992, p. 17).

An important notion in experiential learning is that of intrinsic motivation and self-

directed leaming. Inm'nsic motivation:

1. satisfies needs such as belonging, acceptance, satisfaction fiom work, self- actualizat ion, pwer and self-control;

2. rnanifests itself prirnarily in the form of feelings, e.g. feelings of success and corn petence;

3. is comected with work, involving feelings of reievance of work, satisfaction derived fiom work, feelings of progiess and achievement, and feelings of growth as a person. (Kohonen, 1992, p. 18)

By designing leaming experiences that can promote such feelings, it is possible to enhance

learnen' feelings of self&ection. Accordingly , Kohonen ( 1992) pointed out that learnen

will find school motivating to the extent that it satisfies their needs. "Satisfying work gives

them feelings of belonging, sharing, pwer, importance and fieedom regarding what to do,

and it is also fun" (p. 18). Cooperative leaming provides grounds for learnea' cornmitment

and need-fulfilling for them. At the sarne tirne, Kohonen (1992) considered, experiential

leaming facilitates penonal growth, helps learners adapt to social change, takes account of

differences in leaming ability and responds to the leamen' needs and pmctical pedagogical

considerat ions.

It is n o d l y recognized that communicative use of L2 resuits in irnpiicit knowledge;

presentation of rules yields explicit knowledge. The explicit knowledge can become implicit

through automatization, just as implicit knowledge can become explicit through

consciousness-raising. Experiential leaming suggests that the rules-as-leamed might be seen

as constituents of a recycling process gradually leading to their intemalization. Kohonen's

model of L2 language leaming as learner education is shown in Figure 4-3.

1 ) Personal growth: selfconcept, self esteem \ selfdirection, social skills

3 ) Learning task: Lan y uage

Task corn petence: 'Map' of task

- 2) Learning process:

Process cornpetence: control of learning tool s

empowment of the leamer

Figure 4-3 Expenential leaming as learner education in L2 learning (modified version of Kohonen, 1992, p. 22)

In this model, three aras of knowledge and awareness suppiement each other: 1) penonal

growth, 2) leamllig process, and 3) leaming task (knowledge, skills). These areas can be

seen as the three angles of a triangle that consti~es the notion of hnguage îeaming as leamer

education. Kolb's ( 1984) model of experientiai leamhg is placed on the centre of the îriangle

as the mode of leaming. As the figure suggests, developing the leamers' awareness of al1

these aspects of leaming is seen as a way of empowering the learner to become a more

comptent person and learner.

Kohonen ( 1992) proposed that leaming rquires a continuous recycling of experience,

reflection, conceptualization and active experimentation. Learning experiences that are not

reflected u p n and conceptuaiized will not yield controlled leaming, and reflections must in

tum aim at testing the newly refined understanding of the system by M e r experience.

Language leaming is thus a continuous process of recycling the input data, aiming at a more

sophisticated understanding and incremental automatization of the system. In applying this

to LZ learning, experiential leaming theory suggests that effective L2 leaming might involve

1) abundant, comprehended input; 2) learner reflection on leaming structure and an explicit

teaching of the systematic structure aiming at a conscious control of the learning; 3)

comprehensible output, leamers productive use of the TL; and 4) corrective feedback by the

teacher and peers, Le., information about the development of the cornpetence in the TL,

aiming at an internalization of the criteria of acceptable and accurate language use through

self-assessment and reflection in cooperative learning teams.

The model of experiential leaming can be also analyzed by the polar ends of

pedagogically relevant dimensions (Table 4-2). In the traditional transmission model of

teaching, the teacher's role is to impart knowledge and skills to the learnen. This model

involves vanous suggestions to ensure leaming; however, there are limitations to what the

teachea can provide for the leamen to leam, particularly when leamers do not experience

satisfaction in the works in which they tend to be passive, as represented in the transmission

model.

The experiential model, on the other hand, offers a leaming atrnosphere of more

s h e d partnership, a common purpose and a joint management as well as self-management

in leming. The teacher is recognized as a member of the whoie class as a tearn. Al1 students

share the responsibility for decisions and their own leaniing. Knowledge is open to

negotiation, Le., leming can become a discovery of new understanding. Leamers' energy can

be tunied more into creative pursuits. Kohonen (1992) regards cooperabve learning as a

means of implementing experientiai leaming; it enables the leamen to becorne more self-

di rected and res ponsible for their own learning. The process of experiential leaming indicates

a gradua1 shifi of the initiative h m the teacher to the leamers, encouraging them to bring in

personal contributions and experiences into leaming.

Table 4-2 Traditional and Experiential Models of Education and L2 Leaming (Kohonen, 1992, p.3 1 )

I I Traditional m d e l

1 1. View of leming 1 Transmission of lcnowledge

2. Power relation

3. Teacher 's role

Teacher's authority

Frontal instruction; professiondism

4. Leamers' role I

as individual autono& Passive recipient ; individual work

1 5. View of know ledge

6. View of curriculum

Presented as 'certain'; application, problem solvinp Static; hierarchical grading of subiect matter, predefined contents

7. Leaming experiences

1 Transformation of knowledge

Knowledge of facts, concepts and skills; focus on content and proàuct

8. Use of L2

1 Teacha as a leamer arnong learnen

Medi um-orienteà, focus on accuracy non-contingcnt (predictable) monologue

Facilitating learning; collaborative , professiondism Active participation, largely in

, ccoperative mal1 moups Consûuction of personal knowledge: , identification of problents Dyiiamic; lwser organization of subject matter, including open parts and integration

Emphasis on process: learning skills, self-inquiry, social and communication skills

9. Control of process Tacher-stnicturod learning

Message-orienteâ, focus on fluency contingent (unpredictablc)

1

1 0. Motivation

conversational Learna sel f-directcd l eaming

Mainiy extrinsic

Rocess-oriented: reflection on proccss, self-assessrnent

In a L2 curriculum in which the goal is to enhance the leamers' ability and dynarnism

in the language, the mode1 of expenential leamhg contains important elements. At a certain

point of the process of learning, the leamers would actively participate in group work,

which encourages their intrinsic motivation to leam a L2 in order to express meaning: they

would as well monitor themselves and peers by king more nflective on their own leaming.

B. The Design of i Syllabus for Interaction

1. Communicative Activity Syliabus

If the goals of L2 leaming are to enable the learners to be proficient in the TL, it is

necessaiy to integrate communicative activities. For teachers designing communicative

activitia, Stern's 'communicative activity syllabus' is helpful. In his 'multidimensional

cuniculum' which is proposed as the basis for the curriculum for any type of L2 teaching,

Stem (1992) identifies four kinds of syllabus each of which represents four main content

areas of L2 learning. They are language syllabus, culture syllabus, communicative activity

syllabus, and general language education syllabus.' In these syllabi, the communicative

activity syllabus represenu global and integrated activities which involve the use of the

language in sociocultural context. This syllabus provides direct implication for interactive

activities for linking the classroom to the outside, natural environment.

Stem's ( 1992) approach to 'communicative activity syllabus' is to enhance leamers'

interactional competence in L2 leaming. According to Stem,

this syllabus represents a reiatively new concept. Teachers have been familiar with communicative activities for many yeaa; but the idea of making use of them systematically and of developing a distinct syllabus of such activities is certainly not widely known and probabiy even less widely applieà, although ths type of syllabus is one of the most important recent developments in the L2 curriculum. (p. 177)

Stem regards 'communicative activity' as motivated activities, topics, and themes which

involve the learners in authentic communication. The characteristics of the communicative

syllabus may be descnbed as holistic and authentic, and the teaching stnitegy associated with

this syllabus is experiential, thus non-analytic. In a communicative syllabus the main focus

is on the activities themselves, the topic or experience, but not on the language itseit The

leamers are involved in 'real' communication, and they will find themselves in various r d -

iife situations in which the TL must be used.

The language syllabus and culture syllabus irnply the symmatic saidy of language and culture. The general language education syllabus reaches beond the pamcular languqe being leamt, which "invites the teaniers to k i k a wider and more detached view of their invdvement and to ~eflect in a generaiized way about languages, cuitures and learning" (Stem, lm, p. 103). including leamer's metalinguistic awareness of L.2 leaming.

As for theoretical assumptions for 'bridging the gap' between the two ples of

discourse, i.e. shifting fiom medium-oriented to message-oriented approaches, Stem (1 992)

listed several points of argument in favour of a communicative activity, which can be

summarized as follows:

a) There is need for subconscious learning;

b) The move fiom fornial study to language use has to occur repeatedly;

C) If the language is only presented as a code through formal exercises, the leamer is

never confronted with the totality of language (which is needed as a kind of constant

reality test);

d) Communicative activities offer the opportunity to develop coping techniques that

are needed when the leamen are on their own in the naniral language environment:

e) Communicative activities provide an opportunity for the leamers to develop a

personal reiationship with the target language, culture, and country through direct

contact with individual native speakers and there to experience and define his statu

as a 'foreigner'.

From these asswnptions, a natural setting provides the best possible conditions for leaming

the TL communicatively. Yet "the classroom can not, and indeed should not, offer

everything the natural setting does but it can approximate it in several respects" (Stem,

1992, p.181).

What the classroom can create for the leamer, thus, is not al1 the characteristics the

natural environment provides but some of them. The following is a summary list of

communicative activities that can be carrieci out in the classroom, which is based on Stem's

( 1 992) description:

1) Classroom management: student-teacher interaction (e.g., apologizing for king

late);

2) m e r routines in classroom: instructions, rubrics for exercises, explmations and

verbal exchanges arising h m other syiiabi;

3) Invited native guest speakers;

4) Topics and activities arising front learners' personal life; self7personal

background, daily li fe events, SC hooling, farnily , personal interestdacti vities,

professional activities, bel iefs/opinions/values;

5) Substantial topics - total@mtial immersion, subject matter content taught

through L2, snidy of literatwe;

6) Classroom exercises - giving and following instructions, information trawfer,

information gap, jigsaw, problem solving, informal talk tasks, role-play/drama/

scenanos.

Activities in 1 ), 2) and 3) represent interaction with NSs including a teacher. Activities in 4)

and 6) rnay fdl into *pseudoi~>mmunication', which involves motivated language use and the

transfer of real infonnation (these activities resemble natural communication). Activities in

6) may lack the motivated interest of gpseudo-communication~ as in 4), but still have certain

communicative features such as unpredictability of discourse or information gap. Activities

in 5) may provide authentic language use.

Table 4-3 Four Pnnciples of 'Communicative Activity Syllabus' and Activity Prototypes (Based on Stem, 1992, pp. 184- 1 88)

Four Principles

1

ii) Contact with NSs

i i ) Access to TL setting

iii) Opportunity for authentic language use

vi) Capacity for persona1 involvernent

- --

Limitation of classroom activity nonnally T-S only

Activity prototype

NS guests, conespondence

controlled by textbooW stereotype, fewer nurnbea of situations

pnority put on 'code'

conversation practice in the TL

L2 schmUL2 campil? day immersion programmes, other subjects taught through L2 (sheltered classes) Special purposes ( swival, business, academic), interesting topic exchanging personal experiences, stirnulating leamers' motivation

The major principles of a communicative activity syllabus can be summarized into

the following four categories based on Stem (1992): i) contact with a variety of the TL

speakers; ii) access to various TL setting; iii) opportunity for authentic language use;

iv) capacity for personal involvement. The four categories are illustrated in relation to

limitation of classroom activity and activity prototype as in Table 4-3.

in surn, Stem's communicative activity syllabus has provided directions and ideas for

what should be included in planning a syllabus for enhancing interaction.

2. Designing Practice for Classroom Interaction

In designing a syllabus for communicative activities for linking inside and outside the

classroom, from a practical view of classroom teaching, the next step is to clarify what types

of practice are relevant for the leamen. Such practice should be attainable for the leamers

and provide natural communication.

Ellis ( 1988) provided a description for 'practice': practice is '30 activate the new

knowledge to the point where it can be used automatically and correctly in normal

communication .... The leamer is required to engage in 'extensive production' of utterances

containing the new smicture'? (p. 21). Ellis made a distinction between 'focused practice'

and ' free practice', which may correspond to the nom of 'skill-getting' and 'skill-using' of

Riven ( 1978): 'Focused practice' indicates practice focusing on 'fonn' as opposed to

'meaning' or 'function'.

In addition to 'focus on form', practice in the L2 varies in the degree of 'control' over

the linguistic actions, as to who controls a learner's or a group of leamers' actions. Van Lier

( 1996)' for instance proposed four types of practice which can be cbcterized by using the

axes of ' focus on form' and 'leamer's cmtrol'. Hence the four types correspond

respectively to four areas as follows:

focus on form

+

+ leamer's control

- Figure 4-4 Four types of practice (based on van Lier, 1996, p. 6 1)

1. Leurner has Iess confrol a n d p ~ i c e is narrowiy fucused on form : There are, for

instance, mechanical and audiolingual drills, fill-in exercises, transfoning or

translating sentences. What, how and when to practice is controlled by the syllabus,

the teacher, or the textbook,

II. Leorner hus more control and engages in pract ice focused on fim: There are

self-regulatedhelected types of tasks such as imer speech, private rehearsal, planning

and language play. The leamer has the choice of what to practice, and when and

how to practice it in the TL."

111. Learner hus less control bu! is not focused on form: There are guideci dialogues,

role taking, simulations, information-gap tasks, etc. The choice of activity is made

by the teacher, but the range of verbal actions that are appropriate may be broad and

varied. The focus may well fluctuate unpredictably between fom and meaning or

some combination.

VI. Learner has control and is na focured onform: There is, for example, frce

conversation."

'' 'This type of practice ma) actually. on the surface. Imk li&e practicing the type 1. but it may also umir coved y. Thus, this type of prac tice escape a teacher or researcher's notice" (van Lier, 19%. p. 6 1).

"Free conversation in the type VI rnight not nomally k reganleci as prsftice at d l , although ol'coune it is a way of practicing" (van Lier, 1996, p. 6 1).

Observing practice fiom a perspective of 'focus' and 'control', as in Figure 4-4, may

be helpful to determine whether a specific task or activity fits leamers' current level of

capability of the language. Linking inside and outside of the classmm requires that the

types of practice in the lesson structure shiA from type 1, in which teacher controls most, to

type VI, in which the Ieamer controls most. This shift can be made possible by going

through practice of types II and III. Type III represents practice normally implemented in

the classroom; however, practice of area II should not be overlooked, in which each learner

regulates his or her process of learning for enhancing acquisition of the TL both inside and

outside the classroom.

C. C ha racteristics of interactive Activities

In the previous section, a syllabus for interactive activities was examined within the

scope of Stem's ( 1992) communicative activity syllabus and Ellis's ( 1988) analysis of

practice for classroom interaction. Vital considerations in designing L2 lessons which focus

on interaction have been clarified. This section will focus on characteristics of activities

thmugh collaborative interaction, based on Rivea ( 1972, 1983, 1987).

The proposai of the pnnciple of 'skill-getting' and 'skill-using' by Rivers ( 1978).

discussed in the previous section, is a sequence of stages of learning processes in which

fiom the early stage of learning, situations should be devised so that the student use the TL

for communication. This is because the type of practice which requires use of the TL

provides the student with opportunities to struggle to put his or her meaning across. This

experience expands language ability with regular and fiequent oppominities for autonomous

interaction. By contrast, practice in 'pseudo-communication' only is never adequate as a goal

of L2 leaming: M e r pctice in 'real cornmwcation' is necessary. Riven ( 1972) stressed

that wnsfer fiom 'pseudo-~ommu~cation' to 'real communication' does not occur

As mentioned before, collaborative activity should be the nom from the beginning of

language study, becaw "communication [whether in speech or writing,] derives essentially

fiom interaction" (Riven, 1987, p. xiii) which takes place in a collaborative work among

students. lnreraction meaw that "students achieve facility in 'using' a Ianguage when their

attention is focused on conveying and receiving authentic messages (that is, messages that

contain information of interest to speaker and listener in a situation of importance to both)"

(p. 4). Interaction in language leaming situation is important, because

Through interaction, students can increase their language store as they listen to or read authentic material, or even the output of their fellow students in discussions, skits, joint problem-solving tasks, or dialogue joumals (as teachers, we fiequently overlook how much students learn from their peen.) In interaction, students can use al l they possess of the language - al l they have leamed or casually absorbed - in real-life exchanges where expressing their real meaning is important to them. They thus have experience in creating messages fiom what they heu, since comprehension is a process of creation, and in creating discoune that conveys their intentions. (Rivers, 1987, pp. 4-5)

In the previous sections, it has been argued that scaffolding provided by CO-leamers is

efiective since it diffen From the scaffolding offered by the teacher (Varonis and Gass, 1985:

Long and Poner, 1985; Donato, 1994); thus it is desirable to integrate in the curriculum

(Swain, 1 988,1995; Johnson, 1 995; van Lier, 19%).

L2 activities should move from T-S to S-S, in which students can engage in small and

large group activity. In such an environment, the students are given oppottunities to clarify

their knowledge and leam fiom each other, and so carry on cooperative leaming, while the

teacher listens to see what M e r directed practice may be required. This kind of

collaborative structure of classroom leamhg can lead the student to autonomous

productions. The conscious and intentional progress fiom teacher-directed demonstration to

student-directed application or to autonomous student production makes the fûrther step to

* Rivers (1971) points out the fact that the majon'ty of students would remain in the area of 'pseudo- communi~tion', feeling insecure in their knowledge of the language.

62

communicutive interaction naniral and amiinable (Riven, 1983).

Practice in autonomous interacthn should be individuali:ed, because it should allow

for different ways and paces, problems to solve and things to l e m or create. Thus, students

should be offered a chice of tasks, as well as the way, place, time and Company for handling

them. Motivation to communicate must dso be aroused, and particularly it will need to be

fostered by the intrinsic interest of the task. The quality of the interaction will be judged by

outcomes of the students' ability: to receive and express meaning; to understand and convey

intentions; to perforrn acceptably in situations and in relations with &ers (Riven 1972).

In reflecting on the role of teachers, Rivers ( 1987) maintained that teachen need to be

flexible with a repertoire of techniques they can employ as circumstances dictate, at the same

time, they should make interaction central: interaction can be between T-S, S-S, student-

author of texts, and student-community that speaks the language, and even student-

computer. As well, interaction can be two-way, three-way, or four-way , but never one-

way.

In a classroom situation where genuine, naturalistic, interaction is carried out, the

teacher cedes a full role to the students in developing and carrying though activities, and

accepts al1 kinds of opinions; the teacher is tolerant of erron the student makes while

attempting to communicate. Interactive lanyage teaching for teachers means "elicitation of

willing student participation and initiative; [interactive language teaching] requires a high

degree of indirect leadership, also with emotional maturity, perceptiveness and sensitivity to

the feelings of others. When a teacher demonsuates these qualities, students lose their fear

of embarrassrnent and are willing to ay to express themselves .... Once students feel

appreciated and valued, they are anxious to show what they can do, to propose and

participate in activities " (Rivers, 1987, pp. 9- 10).

Rivers ( 1987) gave specific suggestions for interactive classrooms in twelve points

wtiich may be sumrnarized as follows:

1) Much use of authentic materials is integraîed, such as tacher-talk, audio- and

video tapes for reaâing, and newspapers, magazines, letters, instruction for products for

reading. These materials will always be used in sorne productive activities: background for a

research project, a role-play i ng situation wit h a problem-solving component, a dramatization

or skit, or input for a small-group discussioddebate.

2) From the beginning of the course, students listen and speak in responding to

pictures, objects, in role plays, through acting out, and in discussion: they conduct radio talk

shows, class flea market (for buying, selling, negotiating, explaining, penuading, reba~ting),

simulation such as party, job interviews or report on newscasts, providing their personal

commentary from their own cultural viewpoint.

3) Students are involved in joint tasks: purposeful activities where they work

together doingimaking things, making arrangements, entertaining, preparing materials.

4) Students watch films and videotapes of NSs interacting Video taping is also

useful for peer critiques which are often sufiicient to draw attention to problems of

cornprehension due to weakness in pronunciation or syntax.

5) Pronunciation may be improved in poetq reading and creation or while preparins

dialogues, plays, or skits where reading the material over and over with each other in the

leaming procedure.

6) Cross-cultural interaction is important in language use in the real worid. Students

share their values and viewpoints, ways of activities and reacting, and their speech styles.

They recognize the stereotypes they hold of speakers of the TL and of each othen' culture.

7) In reading activities, there should be lively interaction of reader and text:

interaction, expansion, discussion, alternative possibilities or other conclusions.

8) What is written should be something that will be read by somebody, as with a

group composition or an item in a class newspaper or on a bulletin board. Dialogue journals

are an excellent example of interactive writhg. Students write to the tacher or to each other,

and the reader responds with a further message, thus combining reading and writing in a

puxposefid activity?

' "Students becorne bolder and bolder in expressing theif reai faling in joumals, w h m the interaction is not face-to-face. A similar rcduction of inhibitions takes place when students correspond with a NS of their own age" (Rivers, 1987, pp. 12-1 3).

64

9) Students interact better if they understand and express nuances of meaning that

require carefbl syntactic choices. Leanwig grarnmar, however, is inductively developing rules

Rom living language material and then pefloming rules. This process cm and should be

interactive, with students intemaliring d e s through experience of their effectiveness in

expressing essential meaning. Many activities can be developed so that students use

prticular structures wiihout feeling they are 'learning grammar'.

10) Testing too should be interactive and proficiency-orientai, rather than a sterile,

taxonornic process. Tests should replicate nomal uses of language as mush as it is feasible.

1 1 ) Interacting with the community that speaks the language is valuable, for example,

a project that involves talking with NSs for finding out information, joining some groups or

festivals, offering help to and accepting help frorn the community. If there is no TL

communi ty nearby , it rnay be possible through its newspapers, magazines, radio programs,

films, cartoons, jokes, as well as the occasionai visiting NSs. Correspondence also becomes

important: written account may be illustrateci and enlivened with photographs, tapes, songs,

or even small artifacts of the region, for instance between 'twinned classroom'.

12) Special-purpose language classes can also be interactive. Students preparing for

careers or already in careen for which they need access to sources in the TL can supply

much of the context.

Riven's list contains valuable specific suggestions for designing interactive

activities in which leamers take initiative to communicate autonomously, through

interactions between leamers and interactions with outside people who rnay be NSs or L2

learnen in some other classrooms. To amplifi the opportunities and variation of

interaction, it may be possible, figuratively at least, to remove the four walls of the

classroom in terms of tirne and space. Further, the leamers can self-evaluate to enhance

their ability in the L2. While still maintaining the role of monitoring the leamen'

Riven (1987) indicated that dl that is necded is a decision to ûy, to overcome a Eatain timidity. even nervousness for trying somabing new: activities such as in this list should be gradually introduccd and transformed. She conciuded that in these interactive classrooms, "an atmosphere of excitement and trust can be created where confident studeats iaitiate and coopcrate in imaginative activities, sharing wi th each other real messages in authentic and exhiiarating interaction" (p. 1 5).

performances, the teacher should provide necessary support, expecting that the leamen

becorne able to manage communication effectveiy in the L2 with NSs, and continue leming

on their own even afler the period of classrmm kaming.

In the next chapter, eight concrete examples of interactive activities are proposed. At

the same time, efforts will be made to identify what can be done in a L2 curriculum and

syUabus to link inside and outside the classrmm.

Chapter V

Eigbt Examples of Interactive Activities in L2 Learning

As explicated in the previous chapter, Rivers (1987) proposed a comprehensive list of

characteristics of interactive activity and gave a number of examples. Some of the features of

the activities in Rivers's list coincide with those of activities implemented by the author to

promote development of interactive competence in Japanese as a second language (JSL), in her

classrooms at a univenity in Canada. Four activities -an Original Dialogue Project, an

Interviewing-Japanese-People Project, a University BrochureMewspaper, and Journal Wnting

on the students' learning strategies - were designed and implemented at beginning to early-

intermediate levels. The effectiveness of these activities was assessed mainly qualitatively by

the ieacher, the learnen and other participants: the activities appeared to be helpful to enhance

the leamers' L2 competence through interaction, as indicated in informa1 and formal class

assessments and observation. Further, during my search for variations of interactive activities,

I have also become acquainted with other exarnples designed and impiemented by other JSL

instructors, targeting the intermediate level. Among them, E-mail Conespondence, Deshiop

Video Conferencing, Tape Correspondence, CoViCa (a videerecording system for role-play

practice, using a cornputer, a video, and a camera) were reported to be beneficial at a univenity

outside Japan where a Iack of quality and quantity of L2 input, output and interaction is a

serious obstacle to be overcome.

The activities mentioned above, four of the author's and four of other teachers' are

selected to be discussed in this section because these eight activities seem to have specific

strengths respectively to foster different interactive skills of learnen at various levels. In the

following, each of the eight examples will be descn'bed and assessed. Rigorous prwfs of

eficacy were not attempted, because such demonstration, which would probably require a mass

of quantitative data, is beyond the scope of the present thesis. Related research will also be

discussed in order to clmîfy the basic concept of each activity.

A. Original Dialogue Projeet

(a)Descri ptioa

In this leamer-initiated dialogue project, students collaboratively create their own short

dialogues and act them out in the classroom. The goal of this project is two-fold: First, this

activity provides the leamers with oppommities to review spontaneously the linguistic features

which have beea introàuced in the course work, assuming that the process of integrating the

linguistic features into a new dialogue of a self-selected topic would lead the learnen to

syntactic awareness and help intemalize the linguistic items in deeper levels of cognition.

Second, group work will likely induce exchanging opinions, cooperation, and shared

responsibility which would decrease uncertainty and anxiety within each student. It would

help for the teacher to assess each student flexibly, in the fom of creative use of assipned

linguistic items, e.g. grarnmar, pronunciation, communication and writing, somewhat different

from regular oral tests. It also provides opportunities for cultural awareness and listeninp to

the presented work of others in the TL (Teratani, 1997).

From 1992 to 1995, the students of beginning-level Japanese at Queen's University had

experienced such a project at the end of each terni, when the students had studied Japanese for

48 houn (for fall term), and 96 hours (for winter term). They took three weeks to prepare their

original dialogues in group work in dyads (for 2 minutes-long presentation) or triads (for 3.5

minutes). In the begiming, a list of grammatical items to be integrated was given to the

students, then each group chose a topic and a situation for their own stories, and decided each

goup member's role(s) and necessary props use- in the dialogue. The scripts were checked by

the teacher and then memorized and peifonned by the students. Evaluation was made not oniy

by the teacher but also by the students who watched the performances. In this activity, learners

play roles of managers of self-study and groupwork; scenarist; actor; dnuna producer, and

evaluator. The teacher serves as resowce (checker for the use of language items); facilitator and

an assessor (i.e., person providing assessrnent of language skills).

(b) A m m e n t

Teratani (1997) has reported that the students were successfùl in making a variety of

unique, persona1 and amusing dialogues; they also performed well in front of the classrnata.

Since they chose the topic of their own dialogues, the project was successful in drawing their

attention and maintain their motivation very well throughout the process. The goals of

spontaneous learning and group work were satisfied, The students were evaluated for both

individual and group work to the extent of achievement of the requued linguistic items: use of

linguistic items, pronunciation, acting-out, and writing a script, as well as originality. (Some

students seemed to enjoy showing part of their talents such as drawing and singing, which they

seldom expressed in the regular class work.)

The range of the topics that students selected was wider than expected by the teacher:

for instance, everyday schooVpenonai life; vacation/travel; meeting farnous people; parody

from TV/radio shows: commercial tilms and farnous stories. The production of this project

work was pre-pianneci, thus grammatical and lexical accuracy was relatively high. Yet. a

remaining problem was found in the weakness in pronunciation which cannot be mastered

easily. This activity is natural in terms of the language use in a variety of context chosen at the

level of pseudo-communication. The task of memorization may enable the learners to reach the

level of natural communication. ' This activity may be applied to upper levels by providing leamen with a wider range of

decision-making. Teacher may choose, for example, only one category from topic, roles,

situation, or speech style, then the leamers would mate dialogues freely (e.g. teacher provides

roles of a policeman and a driver, or a situation of m'ving at Tokyo international airport). In

this way, specific areas of L2 ability will be reinforceâ, such as linguistic hctions and

appropriateness of language use.

' According to Stern, however. il activities such as a de-play require the leamers to focus on some specilic grammar points, these are for the form and n a so much for the interaction. 'This type of exercise ma' be skillfully designed CO emM pnctice in a nanirai context, but nevertheless the motivation is to pnrtise (i point of pmmar. In a communicative activi ty... grammûr is nor the organizing aiterion" (Stem, lW, p. 1%).

(c) Related Research

Ford ( 1995) implemented a similar (learner-centred skit) project to the Original Dialogue

Roject. She has stated that the process of revision (i.e., the teacher indicates incorrect usage of

the language and guides the students to correct it by thernselves and use it in a meaningful

context) induces reorganization of d e s ; thus, the d e s used in this process seem to be retained

longer within the students. As well, the activity of creating a skit made the learners aware of

their pronunciation. Al1 the students partxipated in this activity, and 82 per cent agreed that it

was effective. She suggests that modeling by NSs is ideal if available.

Creating and playing a dialogue includes role-play which is widely used and proposed

by many teachers as an effective L2 leaming iactivity (Littlewood, 1981; Omaggio, 1986; Riven,

1972; Swain, 1995). Linlewood (198 1 ) asserted that role-play, as a variation of simulation, is a

way of creating more varied foms of interaction in the classroom where the teacher can provide

learners with the varied social contexu in which they will need to perfonn outside the

classroom. In a role-play activity, the focus should be firmly on the communication of

messages. Thus the leamers m u t identify themselves with their roles for interacting at deeper

levei than they do during connolled practices, and they must create interactions on the basis of

their roles and the meaning that arises from them.

Leamer-made dialogues comprise similar kinds of elements to role-play activities, but

the difference between the two types of activity is as follows: creative dialogue provides more

choices for the leamen than role-play (in the latter roles and directions are ofien set by the

teacher); however, the dialogue project lacks spontaneity because of its feature of predictability

as to what and how to Say the words and sentences in pre-planned exchange: responses in a

role-play may be incidentally diverse depending on the parnier's utterances.

Anderson ( 1989) identifieci several effects of using pre-planned role-play in the context

of drama in teaching and leaming a L2: 1) Leamers are given the opportunity to show more

than they nonnally express of themselves, by aeating characten which may represent other

parts of their penonality; 2) D m a lowen learners' affective filter: 3) In drama, they are

freely playing with and having fun with the concept of roles; 4) Drarna provides a process of

learning the L2, and it can help the learners in the process of cultural observation, expression

and adaptation by having leamers act the role of people in the target culture; and lastly 5) drama

activity provides oppomuiities of group work toward communal goal.

B. Interviewing - Japanese - People Project

(a) DoJeription

In this activity, the students invite NSs to the classroom and conduct an interview in

pain with one of the guests. Pnor to this main activity, the students have gone through a series

of pre-activities including brainstorming about the interview, and concluded peer-interviews in

which they could reheane how to conduct an interview with the NS guests in the TL. A variety

of additional oral and written activities can be integrated, such as inviting the guests by

telephone, and writing a thank-you letter after the interview. As well, the students' reports on

each interview provide the classrnates with authentic reading materials; they cm follow a mode1

of interview-report chosen h m magazines or newspaper of the TL (Teratani, 1996). The

written reports may be made into a booklet which would be sent to the NS interviewees. The

final report may be dune also orally. This project has been carried out in the third year

Japanese course at Queens' University, when the students have leamed 200 houn of Japanese.

Leamers' roles include intervieweriinte~ewee, reporter, editor and reader. Teachers' roles are

monitor, resource, facilitator, (incidental) contact persodnegotiator with NSs.

(b) Assessrnent

In spite of the preparatory work in pie-interview, Teratani ( 1996) asserted that

interviewing the NSs appeared higbly chalienging to the students, even though they helped with

each other. Several reasons may be considered: the lemers' unfamilianty with the NS guests

whose ways of speech in the TL are different fiom that of the teacher's; further, the NSs were

It hdps the leomen to overcome the feeling of being unsure of thanselves in the new Ianguage. When they arc less at nsk of appearing foolish they are mon wiliing to take risks with the language (Anderson. 1989).

also unf'iliar with foreigner-talk (their nahualistic speech to NNSs). This activity provided

leamen with (i) a chance to meet and tak to unf'amiliar NSs in the community in the classroom

environment, (ii) oppomuiities to practice their linguistic and strategic resources of the TL to

the maximum extent, (iii) authentic and meaningfbi context to use the TL, and (iv) an ample

input of the TL and culnual information directly fiom the NSs. This activity provides genuine

communication. The results fiom a questionnaire filled in by parhcipants indicates that both

the students and the guests were highly satisfied with the activity, in spite of linguistic

difficulties on the leamers' part (see Appendix A).

(c) Related mearcb

Stem (1992) included 'invited native guest speakers' in his list of communicative

activities in classroom as shown in Chapter IV. Rivers (1 987) referred to 'Cross-cultural

interaction' in which students share their values and viewpoints to recognize the stereotypes

they hold of speakers of the TL and each othea' culture. Swain ( 1995b) asserted that

interviewing with peer and NSs is a 'sociolinguistic variation' of classroom LZ teaching/leaming,

arnong other activities such as role-play, talk shows and radio announcements, in the context of

enhancing the use of ~ 2 . j

Muraoka ( 1992) reporteci a case of 'visitor session' which was camed out in Monash

University's Japanese program. In one hour session, several groups of four students had an

interview with a NS ' for ten minutes in tum, while other students obsewed the interview at the

back of the classroom. This visitor session was designed to go beyond traditional classroom

situation in order to increase the arnount of authentic interaction. He concluded that ( 1 )

learnea' attitudes toward the visitor sessions were relatively positive (even though their

interactive cornpetence was Iower than expected), (2) the effectiveness of using authentic

3 Swain's daim is made for encoumghg the use of the E in vemacular among the leamers of grade 5 and 6 in French immersion program in Canada

' Sevm NSs were to meet 180 students who had studied 140 hows of Japmese. It was reponed that iRa a few sessions of interview, the NSs becamc used to forugner-talk and bccame able to anticipate the studens' questions. 54% of the students responded that it was &&rive (because of the su- in tbeir utterances and converrational managemen4 as well as selfcvaluation of the acquisition of the TL), but 21% of the students doubted the effectiveness, by expressing difficulty in compnheading utterances of the unf ' l iar NSs. as well as the pressure of being watched by other studcnts and the teacher.

situations in a course was confirmai, and (3) the topic of conversation management, such as

functions and roles of conversational strategies, should be stressed more in the syllabus. In

addition, management skills should be studied fiom the lemers' position: as well as with

regard to the reaction of NSs to NNSs' management in contact situations.

The activity of interviewing NSs may be reoognized as a variation of meeting NSs.

Arrangements could be made to meet hem outside classroom, with options of various topics.

Visiting NS's home could be designed, if possible, depending on the circumstances and leamers'

level.

C. a. University Brochure b. Clam Newspaper

(a) Description

a. University Brochure. Students in srnall groups write articles for a guidebook of the

universityiinstitution to which they belong. They choose topics by themselves and gather

information about university-life and the neighbouring commwiity which is familiar to them and

would be useful for NS visitors, such as exchange students and visiting NS researchers to the

university. Topics in this small guidebook in Japanese would include, e.g., library, bank, shops,

transportation, hospital and other services on and off campus. The students may need to

collect information from real brochures and use their own schematic knowiedge about the facts.

The major task is to assemble the collected information in Japanese in order to provide useful

and amactive information for the NS visitors, i.e., the audiences of the target culture. This

activity was part of the experiment at Queen's University in 1993, with students who had

studied Japanese for 1 50 hours.

b. Class Newspawr. Writing articles for a class newspaper is done in small groups, but

individual work may be possible for upper-level students. The writing work consists of

gathering information and describing the facts, or the writer's own opinion (differences in style -- -

Leamers' pmblems were round in the speed, voabulaq- and expression in t k i r poduction, lack of ability to improvise utterances to maintain conversation and to lead conversation by the leamers' part, When they met difficulty in comprehending NSs unerances. 7 out of 10 cases used avoidance suategy and a few cases dealt with the problem by asking for repetitian. Some students felt hesitation in asking for fepetition of what the' did not unders tand.

for description and stating opinions should be introduced beforehand). In the process of

writing, the students go through composing a draft, discussing with the teacher as a resource

person of the TL, editing, printing, and distnbuting the outcorne. Each group can choose topics

fiom their own interest, events which happened in their school or personai lives. In addition,

research could be done, for example, about the L2 culture and current issues fiom books, media

(e.g., newspaper, magazine and information through Intemet) as weil as by interviewing NSs.

At Queen's University, this activity was conducted at the end of the second year (1 80 hours of

Japanese) and the third year (270 hours). Leamers play the roles of writer, reporter and editor.

The teacher serves as a resource person, a monitor and a facilitator

(b) Assessmen t

The goal of these activities is to write articles precisely and clearly in the L2 in a ceriain

format, such as in the style of guidebooks or newspaper, in order to provide authentic

information to the specific audience. In the project of university brochures, there are some

factors that seem to strengthen the motivation of students: students' choice of topics which

. relate to their personal interests and which could be also useful to others; and targeting a

specific audience, i.e., NSs who have newly arrived to the university cornmunity, apparently in

need of first-hand information of the comrnunity. Further, a class newspaper provides a wider

variety of topics and format, e.g., news report, interview report, editorial, as well as other

articles such as cartoon, book review, fortune telling, cooking recipes. Inserting some pictures

and illustrations provided by the students would eMch the content. At the final stage, both

types of activities requùe concluding editing by putting al1 pieces of information together into a

piece. Then printing and distributhg require additional teamwork. The completed piece become

a substantial record of students progress in the L2.

From the teacher's point of view, both of the activities can be employed without any

technical dificulty (except editing on Japanese word processon, if desired). Because of their

authentic purposes, the students in the experiments appeared to be very well motivated and

devoted themselves to creating something genuine. For die upper-level students, it would be

possible, in the fiiture, to înclude discussion session in editing cornmittee for making decisions

by which learning can be expandeci fûrther. One option cm be chosen, if a computer which is

connected to the Intemet is used to create a homepage and write for it to be posted on the

World Wide Web (Nakajima, 1996) which has basically the same principle as the University

Brochure. A homepage provides potentiai of enonnous number of audience members who are

interested in the posted infornation, and from whom feedback (such as comrnents and

questions about the content) could be received.

Small group work for writing articles was mostly done in dyads (pair work) in which

NNS-NNS interaction occurred. There was negotiation of meaning when students read each

other's draft for an article, which was brought about by requesting clarification and error

correction amonp them. Students' writings were based on the integrarion of their own

(linguistic) resources and new information which they collected. Final editing should be held in a

teacher-student(s) negotiation as much as possible, because the article would be read by NS

readers in the community outside the classroom, NS hends of family memben of the students.

Lexical and grammatical accuracy in the final work (a brochure or a newspper) was surely of

importance as much as the reliability of the content.

(c) Related resea rch

In a study of peer revision in the L2 learning, Villamil and de Guerrero ( 1996)

ernphasized the importance of NNS-NNS interaction in w-riting. They pointed out that

writer's self-correction by reading aloud was important at the initial stage of writing because it

"initiated revision as the writer stopped to make repain, while providing the writer with a

sense of audience'' (p.66), while the reader should be a critic role for which relevant training is

necessq. They compared the approach of their experiment with Vygotsky's (1978,

1 9341 1 986) concept of zone of proximal development. Villamii and de Guerrero argue, in

contrast to Vygotsky for that the notion of 'mutual scafFolding' (Donato 1994) by which two

novices - rather than an expert and a novice -are capable of providing guided support to each

other through dialogic interaction. They also support dyadic peer revision which

offers an oppomuiity for bilateral participation and leaming.. . both pers may give and receive help, both peen may 'teach' and leam how to revise. Peer revision fosten a myriad of communicative be havioa, fiom reading and composing, . . . [and] Oves students a chance to explain, defend and clatify their points of view, open the students limitations and creating awareness. (p. 69)

The swdy suggests that a systematic use of peer revision by the students of even the same level

of novice ability is worthwhile if they take hims in playing the roles of writer and r d e r

equall y.

Rothschild and Klingerberg ( 1990) conducted self- and peer- evaluation of writing in the

interactive ESL classroom for adult. The goals of peer-evaluation are as follows: (i) raise

leamers' awareness of criteria for good m'ting; (ii) provide a useful instructional and diagnostic

tool; (iii) reinforce in-process feedback with end-of-process evaluation; and (iv) foster more

positive attitude towards writing. The students of the experimental group received training for

an appropriate evaluation scale (in the categones of content, organization, structure and

mechanics (i.e. spelling, punctuation, capitalization or paragraphing)) and used the scale

throughout the terni to evaluate their own and their peerso writing. It was found that the

students trained in the use of the sarne scale tended to have a concept of good writing more

con v e n t with that of insmictors, and students used a different set of criteria in judging

compositions than a control group. Some possible disadvantages of peer-tutorhg include a lack

of expertise, faulty corrections, or fear of hurting each other's feelings. As Chaudron (. 1983)

pointed out, "students are cautious about the value of peer feedback as a source of aid in

revising their writing"; nevertheless, the experimental group responded more positively to a

writing amtude survey. The report of Rothschild and Klingererg provides evidence that if

relevant training for evaluating writing is provided to the snidents, peer-tutoring may be

effective not only in fostering the ability to mite, but also to evaluate writing.

D. Journal Writing for Learning Strategiea

(a) De~cription

The technique of wn'ting joumals in L2 education is effective not only for writing itself

but also for eliciting personal information from the leamen. The topics for Journal Writing can

Vary, but the main focus in this particular activity is on raising meta-linguistic awareness, i.e.

students observing their own progress in L2 leaming and use of learning strategies airning at

automaticity and self-management in learning the TL. This activity has been conducted at

Queen's University (from 1994 to 1996), when the students' snidy time was between 200 and

270 houn. In the beginning of the school year, students of the third year univenity-level JSL

program were given an oppominity to reflect on their own L2 learning strategies: they

responded to a questionnaire based on Strategy Inventory for Language Leaming (SILL) by

Oxford ( 1990), in order to dari@ what kind of strategies they had k e n using, and at the same

tirne to expose them to a list of possible strategies they might try. Throughout the year, the

students wrote journal entries once a month for the length of one page on average about the

content of the lessons, one's own specific problems while leaming, strategies used to overcome

the problems, observations on how these strategies fitted for him or herself, as well as progress

in the L2 leaming overall. They were also encouraged to write freely on topics such as their

feelings, opinions and ideas about leaming Japanese inside and outside the classroom, as well as

comments about their peen and the instnictor.

The teacher provided feedback to each entry focusing on the content, but generally no

evaluative feedback was given concerning linguistic emrs, in order to enhance real

communication with the students. This process was indeed interaction between the students

and the teacher in the form of written conversation. When the teacher fourid some common

problems arnong the students which they faced while learning the language in the same course,

such problems would become a topic of a classdiscussion so that they would notice that they

were not alone in their difficulty. As well, some solutions to the common problems or

successfùl trials while learning were to be open to everybody. Leamers' roles in this activity

are as follows: writer, reader, manager and planner of one's own learning; teacher's roles are

reader, commentator, counselor and supporter of learning

(b) Assessrnent

Since the major purpose of Journal Writing is to provide the leamers with opportunities

for expressing themselves while leaming the TL, they may not be able to express what they

want to Say, pmicularly in the earlier period of this activity: use of L I is pemitted in such a

case in order to convey meani'ngs. Yet, the students of this level, in the case mentioned above,

seemed ready to try to handle resources such as dictionaries.

The Journal Writing is carried out through a humanistic approach which Moskowitz

( 1978) advocated (as discussed in Chapter II): the students talk about themselves and receive

feedback from the teacher. This activity has appeared to be effective, for the students are given

opportunities to express or 'verbalize' particularly their negative feelings while learning a L2.

Such feelings include anxiety, embmassment, shyness, confusion and stress, especially when

listening and speaking in the language. In traditional classrooms individuai leamen tend to keep

such negative feelings within; the feelings are rarely shared with others. Uncovering and sharing

these feelings seems to be effective in decreasing the leamers' 'affective filter'. Exchange and

interaction between the students and the teacher occur about personal experiences in learning

under both formal and informal topics in a range of L2 learning inside and outside the classroom:

test and homework, cultural aspects such as Japanese cartoons, animations, and novels,

including their cultural understanding and personal interests. In this way, boundaries of teacher-

leamer roles occasionally loosen, and this approach may also be effective to elicit the students'

personality and interests. The teacher could also expect feedback fiom the audents about his or

her everyday teaching7: it is usefûl as '"on-line' information for instructional planning that

responds to students' cunent and changing needs" (Genessee & Upshur, 1996, p. 12 1 ).

' The studem' comment shown in ihe Journal Writing were, Cor e m p l e , the p r e of the lesxin (e.?., tm lh), the use of teachinp materiais. hou. they smdy at home, their concern and anxiety particularl y before tests. Thcse pieces of information were usehi for the teacher.

78

The technique of conespondence in writing between a student and a teacher might be

applied to other topics or styles of journal entries, such as letter, short essay, or other fonns of

cmtive Wnting.

(c) Relited research

Genessee & Upshur ( 1996) discussed 'dialogue j o d s ' with respect to evaluation.

They 1 ist advantage of implementing dialogue journals : (i ) usefûi information for individualizing

instruction, (ii) it provides opportunities for functional communication between students and

teachers, (iii) it provides oppominities to use language for genuine communication and

personalized reading, (iv) it permits the teacher to individualize language teaching by modeling

wn'ting skills, (v) it promotes the developrnent of certain writing skills, especially if it is done

by regular entries, and (vi) it enhances students involvement in and ownership of leaming.

They wam teachers, however, on some points: teachers should set aside regular time for

students to write in their joumals, and teachen must collect, read, and respond to students'

entries. Moreover, "Candid, spontaneous feedback fiom students in their joumals dernands

acceptance and openness on the part of teachen" (p. 120). They also point out that journal

writing should be diflerent fiom other writing tasks such as essays and reports, since joumals

require less structure and less lirnits in terms of topic and style.

With respect to awareness in L2 leaming, Matsumoto ( 1996) compared three methods

of self-reflection in learning strategies: (i) daily dairy with weekly self-analysis, (ii)

questionnaires on leamer strategies, and (iii) interviews on leamer beliefs. She concludecl that

the combination of diary plus either questionnaire or interview provides learnen with optimal

self-reflection. In the previously descnbed Journal Wnting activity, a questionnaire was

provided in the beginning followed by writing diary throughout the year. Matsumoto's report

provides corroborating evidence that the above mentioned Journal Writing aaivity likely

includes conditions conducive to the deep self-reflection, moreover it includes efféctive direct

S-T and indirect S-S interactions @y sharùig common problerns and innovative ideas arnong

students ).

Do11 y ( 1990) has obsewed 'dialogue jounral ' actively in adult ESL as a variation of

"two-way tasks" (Long and Porter 1985) between a reader and a writer. She discussed the

'dialogue joumal' as a writer-reader transaction in wtiich the lemers can be more direct4 to

make sense of what they read, and more likely to monitor their comprehension, because the

purpose of this activity is genuine communication. CambelI (1996) experimented herself as a

L2 learner8 and came to a conclusion that "their students [of the program] may benefit

affectvely and sociolinguistically fiom communicative opportunities where the teacher sheds

hisher teaching role," (p. 22 1) since students need to be treated respecffilly 'peen' by the

teachers. She emphasized " a teacher needs to become so familiar with each individual student

that the teacher cm guide student's language leaniing progress working with each leamer as a

whole person," (p.22 1) thus, student diaries are crucial in language leaming. Yet she wamed

that teachers should take patience to assess an individual's leaming style fully in order to tailor

teaching and feedback accordingly.

In order to overcome a lack of input of the TL in a university-level Sapanese program in

- the United States, Traphargan ( 1994) implemented computer assisted 'dialogue journals' in

teaching JSL. In this project, students and the teacher share one computer set in a lab to write

joumal entries and provide feedback. She stressed that "leamen need to be pushed to

consciously direct their attention to accuracy and given output oppomuiities suited for

utilization of the engaged linguistic elements in their own production" (p. 82), which coincides

with Swain's output hypothesis. Traphargan drew the foilowing implications of her snidy, for

instruction of JSL wrîting: I)dialogue journai is a fluency- enhancing activity in combination

with acc wacy-enhancing activities; 2) the dialogue journal is practical, because of the

combination of meaning-delivery skills and accuracy-enhancing activities; 3) this activity

encourages the development of other skills, i.e., reading and speaking; and 4) it provides the

potential of using a Japanese word-processor in JSL instruction.

' Ciunpbell ( 1996) participated in a sumer intensive Spanish coursc in Mexico as a learncr of LZ. One of the negative features of practicality is time constraints for the teachers when responding to students' messages which may present problerns. As a solution, e-mail correspondence beiween non-teacher NSs and ER Ifearners can serve and makes the writing context more authentic, aithough management of the environment ma! become more diflicult for instnictors (Traphagan, 1994, pp. 90-91).

Conceming the use of Japanese word-processor, her study indicates that it facilitated a

great improvement in writing performance, and it may be a useful skill to some learners for its

own sake (e.g., for the students majoring in business). As well, a good effect which appeared

was that the leamen tended to have positive attitude toward writing with the word-processing

program because of the successful outcornes of interaction.

E. E-mail Correspondence

(a) Description

This is an activity in which L2 learners and NSs correspond through e-mail. The

leamen of Japanese language who are outside Japan type texts using a Japanese word-

procrssor and send them to the NSs by e-mail; the Japanese NSs type messages in English and

send them by e-mail. The activity has been implemented between the third and founh year

students of Japanese at the University of Toronto and the third year students at the University

of Tokyo 'O (Nakajima, 1989, 1993). The students of both sides served as writers and readers

of one another, and often discussed topics of common interest. Students in both sides wrote

messages in their L2, i.e., they corrrsponded with their own interlanguages; thus focus was put

on the content rather than linguistic fbtures of the languages. Although both stuâents received

the messages wrinen in their L 1, they could express sympathy for writing in their L2s to one

another.

Students of the University of Toronto prticipated in this project as a part of Japanese

composition class which features a process-miting approach. The students went through the

following processes: 1) pre-writing for choosing a topic and style, 2) âdting (in hand writing)

and typing, 3) peer-interaction and conferencing with the instnictor, 4) editing and revising for a

few times, and 5) printing and circulating each student's writing. (The writing was put up on

the bulletin board accompanied with English translation so that it would attract comment ftom

their pers, as well as hansmitted by amail to the students in Tokyo.) The students' study

I O The students of the University of Toronto were major or minor in Japanese studies, while the major of the students of h e Universil of Tokyo were international studies, British studies, Asian studies, and comparative Japanese culture.

tirne of Japanese was 300 houn and more. Leamers' roles were writer, messenger, reader

(audience) and cornrnentator; teacher's roles were resource and facilitator.

(b) Assessrnent

Exchanging e-mail provides an authentic setting for reading and writing in the L2 for the

students of both parties. The fact that students of both sides write and send texts in their L2 is

likely to make them generous toward the partner's writings; the efforts and responses of the

partner stimulate their motivation to keep conespondence. According to Nakajima (1993), there

were several apparent gains in this project: 1) Cultural experience through exchange with the

NSs of the same generation provided excellent oppomuiities for the students to talk with them

at a relatively deeplevel. '' 2) Improvement of students' ability in the TL was found in several

aspects. For instance, the students became more familiar with Kanji characters, typing

Japanese script into a Japanese word-processor made them aware of pronunciation (because

they type in romanized Japanese), and conversation and self-monitorfself-correction skills

improved. 3) The students found themselves becoming better in writing also in English. As well,

4) the students' attitude toward learning the TL became more positive while panicipating in

this project.

There were, however, some problems: First, the requirement of authentic interaction

made time-management difficult: differences in academic calendar behveen the rwo universities

influenced the organization of the project "; Second, exchanging messages in English by e-mail is

easy, but Japanese texts still have technical problems in king exchanged through e-mail.

Occasionally unsuccessful e-mail exchange occurred due to mec hanical troubles which were a big

burden for both sides. Also, choosing correspondence parnier," topic '' and style in writing e-

mail '' were not straightforward.

Il Nakajima ( lm) suesseci b t the experience of e-mail comspondence was diffetent from face-to-face communication. In e-mail exchange, writing is the only medium in which studentî can get rid of stereotyp and prejudice such as age, sex and ethnicity.

" Canadian universities begin in Sepember, while Japanese universities stan in late Octokr. '' There were disaepancy in the numkr of students panicipating (e.g., 8 students in Tomnto us. 16 students in

Tokyo). Severai efforts for solution were tned such as that euerybody could read al1 the mail sent to them and anyone cwuld repIy to an' lenem. Another way was io chouie partners Iirst, and everybody read any mail sent to them. and if there was an intereshg peœ of mail to other p u p s , it was al1 ri@ to reply them tw.

Recent technologies provide options in e-mail correspondence. Inserting pictures taken

by digital carnera may add vivid images to the written information. For the leamen of upper

levels, 'chat' session (simultaneous correspondence on e-mail) would be possible. If romanized

characters are used as a script of Japanese, there are no technical problems; however, if three

different kinds of Japanese characters (Hiragana, Katakana and Kanji) are used for typing texts,

there are still enonnous obstacles for the leamen in e-mail, particularly in simultaneous

correspondence such as 'chat' session. (Japanese characters are entered by romanized

characters first to be converted into Hiragana or Katakana. Then, some words need to be

converted into Kanji characten. This procedure requires time, careful input as well as good

typing skills. )

(c) Rela ted resea rc h

Cummins ( 1988) proposed that the computer can allow interactive and experiential

approaches to teaching. His three basic premises are as follows: 1 ) leaming is an active process

of constnicting cognitive schemata through the integration of old and new experiences: 2) this

process is strongly enhanced through social interaction; and 3) ways of teaching language

include the encouragement of meaningful language use by snidents rather than exclusive focus

on correcmess of sufiace forms. E-mail exchange seems to satisfy these premises.

In a summer intensive Japanese language program at University of Toronto, where a

situationalipractical use of the language was a main focus, e-mail exchange was conducted

benveen Canadian students and NS teacher trainees who were coming to the univeaity. E-mail

was used for introductions before students and NSs met each other. Resdt of a survey indicate

that the rnajonty of participants on both sides recognized e-mail exchange as useful and

pleasant. NSs in Japan have found that there are still some technical dificdties in exchanging

Japanese e-mail, but it was complemented by uskg fax (see Appendix B).

Japanese studenk are cornfortable with beinp provided a iopic for each week; on the oiher hand, Canadian students prefer choosing topes on one's own.

l5 Problems in style in e-mail includes simplirication, distinction of the diffennce becween speech and wnring styles.

Dundon and Sherif (1994) reported a case of exchange using the Intemet to link

students in an univenity in the United States and students of a Japanese univenity." The goal

of the project was to give students on both campuses an opportunity to intemt directly with

their peers overseas in the exchange of both linguistic and cultural information. In the beginning,

îhey exchange 'self-introduction' by electronic 'albums' that include texnial information,

photographs and voice recordings of every student pariicipating. Then the students were

assigned to newsgroups for srna11 group discussions and joint projects. The students also

communicated with their peer-students overseas individually via e-mail. Dundon and Shenf

concluded that the project provided an invaluable supplement to more traditional instruction,

strenphening students' motivation and confidence, and building a sense of tearnwork: but it \vas

difticult to determine the effect on the development of the students' Japanese language skills.

Sanaoui and Lapkin (1992) stated that a L2 in classroom settings is difficult to sustain in

the absence of extended, direct and penonal contact with memben of the L2 culture. For a

solution, they have integrated computer networking in an FSL senior secondary course." They

argued that the computer networking project provides asynchronous (delayed) interactions

among the students to enhance an experiential process through discussions, planning, revising

and respondinç; such a process is more beneficial than synchronous communication for students

writing (also in Lafer, 1996) According to them, writing through cornputer-networking provides

multiple functions: 1 ) it is a means by which students benefit together from what they have

learned and demonstrate the content of Iearning to the teacher and the peen; 2) it is a means of

communication by which they wite more about issues covered in the course; 3) it is a means of

experiencing the L2 culture. Sanaoui and Lapkin conclude that the project provided possibilities

for a kind of cultural rapprochement, as well as linguistic '' and motivational benetits.

Trenchs (1996) also reported on cornputer-networking in LAN (Local Area Network)

'" Studenis in Japanese language and culture courses at Case Western Reserve University and students in human sciences at W& University participated in this project durinp 1993- 1994.

" The projcct has been done between anglophone students d grade II in Toronto and native French-spalüng peers in Montrcal.

'" Considerable growth were obsewed in the students' TL spesking rliills. Possible improvement in listening and reading cornprehension was a h mentioned.

through which exchanges were made between three students in grade-six Spatush as a L2 and

their teacher. She stressed that the conespondent afTected registers, styles and topics of the

students' writing. T-S exchange might help break through barriers between them, in which the

student reads modeled structures and vocabulary fiom messages received by the teacher. In

exchange between the students of the same level of L2 ability, the teacher c m monitor the

modeling and rnake writers aware that their reading should be focuseci on content rather than

the form. She also reporteci that contact between students of different leveldgrades of L2

ability, often resulted in positive collaboration. However, the teacher ne& to provide

guidelines on how to collaborate so that more proficient students lave room for less proficient

leamers to make use of their own knowledge. In such a situation, peer collaboration may be

camed out with the teacher's rnonitor throughout the process of drafiing, editing and revisions.

Lafer ( 1996) commented that the ability and desire to undentand the thoughts of othen

are essential for the development in the ability of critical thinking. In a way, critical thinking is

made possible by the intemalization of the audience. Correspondence through e-mail is one of

the ways that nurture such critical thinking in a slower pace of process than conversation. E-

mai l exchanp integrates social cognition, through which the learnen can get nd of egocentncity ,

which Lafer claims that the biggest single cause of problems in comprehension and composition.

He pointed out that the typical classroom fails to provide students with audiences appropriate

for the kind of interaction that leads one beyond the egocentric. For its solution, he

recommends e-mail exchange between students rather than between T-S, becaw in the former

the student rids himself or heaelf of cognitive egocentrism although supervision and

monitoring provided by the teacher.

F. Desktop Video Coaferencing

(a) Description

Video conference is another variation of exchanging meanîngfid information, focusing on

the skills of spealung and listening in real-time communication. Students on two different sites

carry out a discussion in which they exchange ideas and opinions. Images and sounds are

exchanged synchronously, by using CUSee-Mee software, a Connectrix QuickCam digitized

carnera, and audio recorder with Macintosh computers (Nakajima, 1996). This deshop video

conferencing involves participants in the aspects of interaction in the L2 which include

pronunciation, tum-taking, and non-verbal expressions. Nakajima ( 1 9%) has reported that

this project was experirnentally carried out between students of Japanese at the University

of Toronto and those at Haverford College in 1995- 1996 as part of an expenmental

composition course, using the mode of one-to-one on-line chat. The persons at the Toronto

site were third and fourth year students whose study houn of Japanese were 300 hours and

up. When participating in this activity, leamen play the role of discussant, and the teacher

is resource and a facilitator.

(b) Assessrnent

The video conferencing in L2 has not developed fully yet. Time-arrangement

between the two sites is a key issue, particularly if it is done between schools in North

America and Japan: time difference (of 10 to 13-houn) causes a serious dificulty to oqanize

synchronous communication. Also, there are still technical limitations of computer and the .

Intemet as systems for the Desktop Video Conferencing: the images shown on the computer

monitor are monochrome and movements are quite slow (because the camera processes only

10 to 20 pictures per second). The quality of sound still to be improved as well.

Moreover, the system puts strains on the participants during the conferencing, because they

have to push a mouse when they take tums in talking, and the images of themselves appear

on the monitor throughout the conference (Nakajima, 1996).

Nevertheless, king able to communicate while watching and listening to their

interiocutors far-away creates an opportmity of real communication. Nakajima has asserted

that this attempt at interactive conversation for sources of writing activity gives an incentive

to continue conversation through writing. This technique has also potential for other uses of

distance communication, such as interviewhg and distance education

(c) Related research

Ody a few cases have been reporteci for video conferencing. Synchronous interaction

has k e n implemented mainly through e-mail, not yet through video, at present. In the

project behveen Case Western Reserve University and Waseda University, which was

mentioned in the previous section, a 'chat' session was also attanpted in which snidents

'talk' at the keyboard in Japanese to the parnier overseas in red time over the 1ntemet.19

Another example is Leppiinen and Kalaja's (1995) report on computer-mediated

conferences, in a forum for classroom discussions es a part of process writing.1° In this

project, a tutor provides questions, and students answer them by means of e-mail. The

students also have access to other students' writing, and they can discuss the content for

providing feedback with one another. This attempt has provided the charactenshcs of

argument by the students: they had freedom for choosing when, where, and how much to

write; it appeared to be student-dominated discussion; the tutor served as a consultant.

The process of students' production comprised an initial outline, and the first and

the second revisions. The initial outline of each students' essay was put in the e-mail forum

for free discussion in which the students gave cornments on one another's writings in terms

of content. Feedback on linguistic elernents in the initial outline was given by the tutor afier

the discussion (a hard copy of the initial outline was submitted to the tutor). Then the first

revision took the same cycle followed by the cycle for the second revision.

Lepptinen and Kalaja concluded that, in this project, the role change of teacher and

students was drastic, i.e., teacher had less control and gave less feedback during the

computer-forum: most of the feedback was made by the students' free choice. In this sense,

the group dynarnics in the class changed a great deal. As well, the students came to do most

of the 'talking' on their own alrnost without feedback fiom the nitor. It appeared that the

students were aware of the groups as a particular social unit in which they can exchange

In this project, the students on both carnpws have used the Hypercard utility together with orher pphic, audio and vider, applications for special collaborative projects induding the development of illustrated electronic h k u albums, animated guides to their respective campuses, and a 'hyper-caktmic' (DunQn & Sherif, 1994). 'O This was in a class of Engiish for academic purposes in Finland.

feedback mutuaily. An implication of this report is that there are dificulties in maintaining

the balance between the power of the teacher and that of the students, i.e., administrating the

forum and canying out discussion through e-mail. For the teacher it would be very difficult

to control the students' attendance becaw they have freedom in participation. Leppiinen

and Kalaja (1995) suggested that process writing could be improved by using a checklist on,

for example, content, organization, and grammat.

Synchronous interaction by exchanging images and sounds seems to have the same

problems as Leppiinen and Kalaja (1 995) mentioned, i.e., how to administer and how to givr

the leamers effective feedback. Whether by video or e-mail, use of the real-time

communication in L2 still needs to be studied for technique and pedagogy.

G. Tape Correspoadence

(a) Description

This is a kind of sound version of Journal Writing. The goal is to improve the

students' formal speech. Ueda ( 1995) conducted the Tape Correspondence at the City

University of Hong Kong for third year students of Japanese language who had studird 270

to 300 houn. Ueda stated that she canied out this activity in order to overcome a lack of

both quantity and quality in learning the TL where the language is leaned outside Japan in

an environment that the learnen have only limited time in the classroom. Individual students

corresponded with the teacher by exchanging an audio tape on which the student's speeches

and feedback by the teacher were recorded. In one cycle of correspondence, each student

recorded a three-minute speech about a topic selecied by the teacher and subrnitted it. The

teacher listened to it and recorded some coments on the content of the speech. While

listening to the recorded speech, the teacher noted down erroneous points in pronunciation,

grarnmar or expressions, as well as the content of the speech on individual student's card.

Then the teacher recorded feedback for three minutes on the same tape nght after the

student's speech, focusing on the content?' Al1 the recordings were kept, and a new

" When it was neceuaiy. written naes for mor correction was attached to the tape.

88

recording followed. During one terni, this cycle was completed six times for four months.

This activity provided both the students and the teacher with opportunities to talk to each

other peaonally outside classroom in the fom of recorded speech. In the Tape

Correspondence leaners played roles of writer, speaker and Mener, while teacher played

roles of a resource person, a facilitator, a mode1 of natural speech and an interlocutor.

(b) Assessrnent

The S-T exchange continuai as a senes of correspondence. After the first recording

by a student, the teacher gave a response and comments on the content as well as requests

for clarification. When it is retumed to the student, he or she responded to the teacher's

comment before beginning another entry. It was observed that the teachen tended to avoid

using teacher-talk, so that they talked to the students naturally as in one-toone

conversation. It was also reponed that several effects occurred during the process for the

recording students ' speech compared to the ones without this activity : (1) recording ouiside

classroom was effective in providing a relaxed atrnosphere while recording; (ii) speech

production developed in ternis of fl uency , accuracy and overall proficiency ; ( iii ) transfer

fiom 'readinç' to 'speaking ' appeared: and (iv) discourse length has been prolonged fiom a

sentence level to a paragraph level. Strategies employed by the students were borrowing

fiom the teacher's responses and utterances, such as in initiating and closing a speech,

inserting smooth response cues while talking,?' and taking pauses naturally during the

speech. As well, the leamers came to speak more like talking to the teacher as an audience

rather than a monologue. It was also effective tu raise awareness of their own pronunciation

problems within the leamers. Ueda (1995) asserted that this activity helps to involve the

students a geat deal in the transfoming mode in L2 leaming fiom receptive to productive.

The Tape Correspondence provides students with individualized input for each

student, which is a variation of interactional mode1 between a student and the teacher. This

A conversational mponse cue ' Aizuchi ' is used more ~ f k n in Japanese than in other languages such as English and Chinese. Examples (that employed by the students) are "soo desu ne, ..." "en0 ..." (Ueda 1995). It is very imporrant Tor the leamers to master 'Aizuchi ' when the goal is to converse effectively with Japanese Pople.

model could be applied to some other types of interaction such as one that between a few

students and the teacher, or between a student and another student. These variations would

create different fonns of interaction depending on the combination of interlocuton, and

would become effective when feedback is given by the teacher. The prominent difference

between this type of recorded speech and real-time speech is the time-lag between the

interlocuton' responses. The implication of time-lag by recorded voice to L2 learning is that

time-lag provides the speakers with time to think about what to Say or how to respond. In

this sense, the Tape Correspondence allows learners to prepare and rehearse their speech in

the TL. As well, the leamen can listen to the message as many times as they like, and thus

they have opponunities to borrow or mimic some utterances from the model's speech, as

was mentioned in Ueda ( 1995). They can also listen to their own voice, which may lead to

self-reflection by companng their own speech with that of the model. Accumulated

recordings of correspondence will become each student's portfolio by medium of voice

which illustrates his or her progress throughout the project. This activity could be used not

only for exchange of message, but also for meta-linguistic awareness as in Journal Writing.

(c) Related research

In a book on teaching pronunciation, Celce-Murcia et al. (1996) introduced an 'oral

dialogue journal', as one of the innovative techniques, which aims at "promoting oral fluency

and providing feedback on selected aspects of accuracy" (p. 3 12)'' They commented on this

activity, 'bdthough responding is somewhat time-consuming for the teacher, many teachen

believe that the individualized feedback on students' oral production achieved through this

means is well wonh the time spent, as is the opportunity the journais provide for students

to communicate about matters of personal importance" (p. 3 12).

Allan (1 99 1 ) also conducte- 'tape joumals' as a means of providing non-threatening

feedback in a university class for oral Engiish skills. Her students " recorded five-to-ten-

minutes' speech on a topic of their own choice, as non-compulsory homework exercises.

Celcc-Murcia et al. (1996) mention a case of eorrespondence betwecn students and an anooymoru native- speaker (a graduate student) rather than a teacher, which resulted in grcat success. " 36 univenity-level Japanese raidents of English participated in dus pmject voluntaril y.

Every week half of the students submitted the recorded tapes over 16 weeks. While

listening to the tapes, the teacher kept notes on individual students' pronunciation mistakes

as well as syntactic and lexical emrs. Recording of the teacher's comments and corrections

per each entq took about five minutes. In the result of a survey of this project, 80% of the

students indicatcd that they likeâ this project very much, 86% found the 'tape joumds'

very useful. As for their improvement, 65% thought it had improved at least some areas of

their production, and rnany commented that they had become aware of certain mistakes for

the first time. Also, most thought that they had improved their flwncy in some way. Allan

stated that the students who were least fluent seemed to benefit most.

From the students' point of view, many remarked that they always looked forward

to listening to the comments fiom the teachet, and most were happy to hear the comments

because they were able to confimi that they had got their messages across. This activity was

recognized also as providing the opportunities to ask questions, expand one's vocabulary, as

well as assess one's own development over time. The teacher was able to l e m a great deal

about the students, both personally and culturally, although it was tirne-consuming to

comment on each entry every week. Allan regarded this activity as a supplernent, because it

lacks the real-time interaction and spontaneity of a conversation.

A. CoViCa (Compter-Video-Camera)

(a) Description

The CoViCa 25 is a language leaming system, in which a computer, video and a

camera are connected. On the computer, Japanese Role Play Cards '6 are installed. This

system was developed for the leamers to practice coaversation and communicative skills by

Func tions of CoViCa pro- include the followiag: USTEN to sample conversations, Hl NTS for vocabulq and expressions, VIDEû CLiP which provides mode1 conversations and other nferential video materials, RECORD for recordin& REVIEW to watch recordeci picture, CAMERA for rwning on/off the camera, SCRIPT for providinp sample scripts of conversation with vocabulary and expmsions. Other screens for conversational tesrs, and a template for self-made role play are included (Nakajima, 1995). " A set of Role Play Cards is desïped for intemediate-level leamers of Japanese. There are 18 car& for Intermediate-Lw, 33 carâs for Intemediate Mid, and 20 car& for Intermediate Hi&. Sndents can select car& which suit their ability.

self- and peer-observation. The CoViCa system cm be used for several purposes: (1) fiee

conversational practice by individual students; (2) conversational practice dong with the

Role Play Cards; (3) testing learners' wnversatiod ability in the L2; (4) instruction for

conversation in the classroom; (5) projects such as skit production (Nakajima, 1995). The

leamers cm see mode1 exchanges baween NSs on the video monitor and practice role-play

wing the Role Play Cards, or with other teacher-made tole cards. When they are ready to

record their role play afier practicing, they can do so with the vida carnera. The system

enables the learners to record and play-back their performance immdiately after recording

just by clicking icons on the cornputer screen. Students can critique their own performance

by means of observing themselves and the partners' verbal and non-verbal productions, and

thus become aware of their weaknesses and strengths in their production in the TL. This

system allows the leamers to improve their oral production and communicative cornpetence

in a leamer-centred way. At the University of Toronto, the CoViCa is used by the students

of Japanese after 300 hours of study. In using this system, leamen can be actor, observer

or evaluator, white teacher is a facilitatot and an assessor.

(b) Assessrnent

Recording and replaying the leamen' perfomances in role play enables the learners

to watch objectively their own verbal and non-verbal production. By observing themselves,

they can become aware of erroneous pronunciation, grammatical use of the L2, and body

actions: it provides the learners with opportunities to improve abilities to monitor their own

productions by way of self- and peer-obsecvations, rather than by king observed and

criticized by the teacher. Unless using vida-recording, it may be difficult for the teacher to

evaluate fairly the students' verbal and non-verbal productions. As well, without a system

like the CoViCa, it is very difficult for the students to observe and evaluate theu own

production in the L2 individually: the CoViCa provides oppommitia to improve their

performances irnrnediately and spontaneously. Furthenme, the CoViCa provides an option

for testing: the stuâents practice with the system until they feel satisfied aud cornfortable

with their own production, then they can choose the best recording to submit to the teacher

for evaluation. This allows the students more opportunities to practice, and lowers their

anxiety when taking an oral test, which normally is experienced as enormous pressure on the

students by forcing them to communicate in the TL.

(c) Rehted research

nie use of video in L2 classrooms is comrnon and widely ernployed. Vida can be

used for both input and output of a L2. It is a vital tool for presenting models of various

aspects of communication in the TL and its culture."

Using video-recording of leamen' productions is reported by several investigaton

(Lonergan, 1984; Katchen, 199 1 ; Bowman, 1995; Orban and McLean, 1990; Whybra and

Prinzing, 1984). They argue advantages of video-recording such as the following: 1) it

provides both snidents and the teacher with excellent faedback on students' language

performance and cornpetence which can be used for evaluating both fluency and

communicative ability: 2) students can leam to become more self-critical and motivated; 3)

active use of recording promotes substantial gains in language skills and know~edge.~~ There

are. however, some wamings for the teachen to bear in mind when using video-recordin?:

Katchen (1991) points out that "students are initially shocked when they see their weak

areas in speaking"( p. 7), thus helping them is necessary : for example, the teacher might

identiS, specific problems and work to overcome them one by one together with the

students. As well, evaluative feedback by the teacher should be selective and sympathetic

(Lonergan, 1984). Orban and McLean (1990) provide examples for introducing video-

recording smoothly: initial introduction to the video-recordhg should be done by recording a

demonstration by the teacher, and it should be gradually shifted to the students' recording.

" Lonergan (1984) suggests many idus for iue dvidco in L2 leaMng, such as using video for vocabuluy practice, practice in context, cqying gesture and intonation, prediction in controilcd situations, practice using information gap (sound only vs. picbre only), and using video fof rolt play. Baltova (1994) emphasizes the impact of v i d a on the comprehension skills, cornpaxhg to sowid-only input. She concludes that the visual cues are informative and enhances comprehension in gend: teaching with video had advantagc in terms of affection and attention over teaching only with audio.

Videwecording as the main pro@ is o h intcgrated in a curriculum; Tot example, Katchen (1991) in EFL classrooms in Taiwan, Orban and McLean (1990) in French classroorns at the University of Chicago, Bowman (1985) in high school French claszmioms in Ohio wbcre the students begin with 10-15 second ski& and Whybra and Prinzing (1984) in tacher training courses in Germany.

They propose several cycles of recoràing and self evaluation in 1) text supported speech, 2)

speech supported by a near-native intedocutor, and 3) speech without extemal support.

They also commentcd on self-image and its impact on the leamers' mind as "videocamera is

a powerful psychological tool because it forces the individuals to corne to ternis with the

split between their intedized self-image and the refîection of the other, a split usually

acknowledge by the age of eighteen months" (p.654). The leamers' anxiety which rnay be

caused by the split image within a person can be minimized as much as possible insofar as

the teachen understand the effècts of self-recording.

In the Johari Window discussed in Chapter II, using video recording may provide

opportunities to decrease the a r a of Blind Spot, i.e., 'the things that 1 do not realize about

myself but which others realize.' These items in the Blind Spot may be parts of natuml

behaviour or of some personal feanires when producing the TL, such as pronunciatlon and

non-verbal actions. The more the Blind Spot is uncovered, the more the open ara- 'the

things both 1 and others realize about myself - increases. This means that the learner is

more aware of what he or she does when producing in the TL, and thus will likely gain more

control.

In sum, tacher's support, gradua1 use of video-recording in a small group, taking

small steps towards the goal in which the Iearners would be able to produce more competent

L2 without extemal support, as well as observing self-image are important considerations

when using video-recording for L2 learning.

Cbapter VI

Discussion

In Chapters II, III and IV, 1 have discussed undetlying theories and studies about interactive

activities from various aspects of L2 leamhg including educational theories, L2 acquisition

theones and curriculum. In Chapter V, eight examples of interactive activity aiming to

develop leamen' L2 ability and autonomous lesming were described and assessed; related

studies were also briefly reviewed to help undentand each type of interactive activity, and

consider preliminary evidence regarding the impact of such activity.

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the characteristics of interactive

activities for linking L2 leaming inside and outside the classroom by integrating findings fiom

the previous chaptea. 1 will s m a r i z e the conditions to be satisfied by the interactive

activities. At the sarne time, 1 will apply the conditions to the eight activities, in order to

dari@ and chanicterize how much each activity meets the conditions. Then, I will present a

sampie syllabus integrating these interactive activities for JSL, followed by a proposal of a

mode1 curriculum/syllabus for a L2.

A. The Conditions for Interactive Activities for Linking Iaside and Outside the L2

Classroom and Chancterization of tbe Eight Activities

As introduced in Chapter III, Ellis (1 990) summarized an optimal communicative

environment for classroom L 2 acquisition based on the nception-based and the production-

based theories in eight categories. 1 will use Ellis's summary as a basis, and integrate into 17

conditions for the communicative environment fiom the previously discussed theories.

General information for critical aspects of each activity (skills, level, required the, and so

on) is @en followed by the conditions to be met for L2 learning. 1 will also attmept to

clariS> and characterire the fames of the eight interactive activities in relation to each

condition for optimal environment in L2 leaming. This is in order to consider how to apply

these activities in a syllabus of various settings. Abbreviations are used to discuss the eight

activities as follows: A (Dialogue) = Original Dialogue Project, B (Interview) = Inte~ewing-

with-JapanesePeople Project, C (Brochure & Newspaper) = University Brochure and

Class Newspaper, D (Journal) = Journal Writing for Leaming Strategies, E (E-mail) = E-mail

Correspondence, F (Video) = Destop Video Conferencing, G (Tape) = Tape

Correspondence, and H (CoViCa) = CoViCa Table 6-1 assesses the eight interactive

activities in relation to the conditions of optimal envùommt for L2 learning.

General information on the activity

a) Skiils emphusi:ed. Major skills as evidenced in specific activities are the ones mainly

focused on, and minor skills are supportive ones to accomplish these task. The skills

indicated in the table 6-1 are exarnples in each of the eight activities in specific cases as

described in Chapter V: A (Dialogue), B (Interview) and E (E-mail) integrate the al1 four

skills throughout the process. ûther activities are mainly for either writing or speaking;

reading and listening skills may be also needed in the process of collecting information and

editing. Depending on teacher's decision, each activity can be modified to emphasize

different skills.

b) Linguistic Level. This represents the required minimum level of the targeted learners' L2

ability in order to make these sctivities beneficial. As described in Chaper V, the eight

activities Vary in targeted level (degree of proficiency) of learners. A (Dialogue) can be

irnplemented nom novice-level. C (Brochure & Newspaper) and E (E-mail) suit for the

novice-high to intermediate and the others are for the students of an intermediate level and

upper.

c) Activity m. An interactive activity can be characterized either as a project work or a

tool. A project work aims to create a piece of work in the L2, by integrating four skills

throughout the process, as in A (Dialogue), B (Intewiew) and C (Brochure & Newpaper).

An interactive activity as a tool is to enhance a specific feature of the leamers' L2 ability, as

Envi ronment for L2

Original

~ities and Op1 B c D

University Journal Brochuer, News W r i t i n ~ Paper

W, R W, ---------a.--------

(S, L) Novice-high Intermediate

E E-m ai l Correspondene

aJ Maior skills S. W . -- -C-ICC,-----LIIC--.

Minor skills L, R b) Linguistic Novice Level c)Timeperiod Project work d) Place of in (and OU^ of ) activitv classrmm

lntennediate Intemediate Intermediate

Project work in and out of classroom classroom classroom

Tool Tool - - C I r - r - - .

in classroom (lab) corn puter, video, camefa - mid - (high)

in and out of classroom

in classroom (lab) Intemet video, camera -

out of classroom

e) Medium (audio/video recorder)

(audiolv ideo recorder)

audio recorder

mid-high 1) Authenticity 1 :ni for communication 2) Need for L2 mid-high high high in

audio-record high in role-play 3

- - - - -

possible possible mid-possible 1 hi& mid-high mid-high possible motivation 1

- - . .

mid ,--------

high S-S, SS-N (S-S') with T, P

- - - -

mid L I 1 I - I - I .

hi& S-S (S-T, SN) with T, P (seff-cmiection)

P-peer

z v e n e d s -II-IIII- 1:; ----II--

itive n d s

7) Paîtem of SS, S-SS interaction

mid hl@ C I - - - - - - - - . - ---O--

hi& hi& S-S, S-N, S-T (S-S', ST) - -

with T, P with T with T,(P?) N-possi ble

other class *

(cont inued) A

Chigi na1 Dialogue

Journal

mid mid

H CoViCa

9) Negotiation of meminp: in L2

mid (in revision) mid

- - - -

mid (in revision) mid

high (in conference) mid-high

high (in interview) high

low in revision k-j-z- - -

10) Demand for mduc t ion

- -

rnid mid

1 1 ) Demand for linguistic accuracy 12) Dernand for immediate production 13) Choice of

I midligh (in revision) l low

mid-high

mid-high high I ( real-ti me) rnid

-

mid (delay ed)

high (ml-ti me)

midhigh (rd-time)

mid (delayed)

high mid-high high mid rnid - high low- high topic & topic initiation 14) Pla~edfun- planned discourse

planned ( planned Bt planned planned (Br planned & -.

planned & un-planned

planned un- lanned

-7- un-planned) rnid -hi@ (when

un-planned

high 15) Cont ingency

mid low-mid

i

indirect

process & outcome

mid -high (when receive feed back)

mid-high (when receive feed back) direct with NS process

receive feed back)

16) Cultural exchange 17) Assessrnent of leaming

indirect ( Nec' with . - .

dit& with NS process

direct with NS

indirect direct with NS process process &

outcome process (a outcome)

process & outcome, self- assesment

process

in E (E-mail) for writing, and F (Viâeo) and G (Tape) for speaiang. These tools may be w d

throughout a certain pend of time e.g., for a tem or a year. H (CoViCa) can be canied out

anytime for role-play/dnuna/s kit practice.

d) Place of ac!iviity. The location where the activity is carried out - inside or outside the

classroom. In the examples, In the examples described in the preceding chapter, A

(Dialogue) and H (CoViCa) are generally carried out in the classroom. B (Interview), C

(Brochure & Newspaper), E (E-mail), and F (Vida) wnnect inside and outside. D (Journal)

and G (Tapc) are done basically at home. Combining activities carried out in different places

would be necessary to complement one another.

e) Mrdim The tenn refers to means of communication, e.g., tape recording. Necessary

equipment for the activity is included A (Dialogue), B (Iate~ew), C (Brochure &

Newspaper), D (Journal) cm be perfonned with paper and pencil; however, tape-recorders

are useful, and a Japanese word processor is a suppiement. Othen need equipment of high-

technology. It is desirable to have access to technologies such as cornputer and video; yet,

still interactive activities are possible to implement. When equipment is available, how to

uti l ize i t always depends on teachers.

Conditions

1 ) Autheniicityfir cominuntmtion. This represents the degree of genuineness of the

attempted communication. If a task includes real communication, pdcularly when

communication is made ôetween leamers and NSs, the degree of authenticity is high (in B

(Interview), D (Journai), E (E-mail), F (Vida) and G (Tape)). However, gradua1

introduction to such activities would be necessary in order for the leamers to get used to

different types of authentic communication.

2) Need/or communicution in the L2. This is the first in the list in Ellis (1990)'s optimal

conditions for L2 learning in classroom. "Separation of the students' L 1 and the L2 is

required so that the students feel the need to cornmunicete in the L2" (p. 126). This

category overlaps with 1) authenticity. It is normally rated high in the main task of an

activity, but during the supportive tasks the degree may be lower (e.g., performing the final

skia in A@ialogue) must be in the L2, but at the stages of planning and weating a dialogue

may be part1 y done in the L 1 ). The eight activities can provide a high degree of satisfaction

in this category .

3) Learner's rule. It is assumed that the more various roles (persans-in-situations) the

leamers play, the richer the leaming experiences they have. Most of the activities provide

leamers with several diffemt positions. A (Dialogue) provides most roles (five). Leamen'

role in F (Video) is only one as discussant, so far. More possibilities, however, may be

created, for example, if this activity targets the students of an advanced level, conducting a

vida conference with a group of NSs would provide an excellent opportunities for distance

communication; by recording it, the lemers can do selfsbservation/reflection for cornparhg

verbal and non-verbal actions during the conference.

4 ) lnîrirnic motivation by tndividuufi~ation. Theories of human leming suggest that

motivation for any action, including leaming, derives from self-esteem and social factors, Le.,

opportunities for socialize with othea naturally, spontaneously and independently. As

Moskowitz (1978) proposes, leaming is enhanceci when opportunities are given for talking

about oneself and for self-enhancing. As well, giving and receiving feedback h m peer or

the teacher encourages munial understanding, self-esteem and social abilities of the leamers.

This variable is deterrnined by individualization: individuaîized topics may offer the highest

motivation as in D (Journal). E (E-mail) and G (Tape) are possible to give the next highest

degree of individualization if the leamers are involveci in the topics relateû to themselves. A

(Dialogue) allows a certain degree of possibility of expressing themselves if they wish.

5 ) Affective neeb. How much an activity cm satisfi each leamer's requirements for

expressing and exchanging their o m feelings while learning. This is linked with category 4).

If the topic is about the learners themselves and the task stimulate self-opening, they would

be more emotionally satisfied: the state of affective satisfaction can k recognized by their

positive feelings. Thus, D ( J o d ) is rated high, and E (E-mail) and G (Tape) follow.

Affective needs can also be fulfilled through participating in communication or expressing

one's own ideas. In this sense, al1 of the other activities are guaranteed with a certain level of

afktive satisfaction.

6) Cognitive needr. This includes not only the degree of linguistic dificulty but also how

much it requires of leamers' intellectual abilities. In the al1 eight activities, learners cm be

challenged to utilire their cognhive abilities to the maximum.

7) Pattern of intcrac~ion. These are structured combinations of specific interactions during

the activity. Participants include a student (S), a peer-student (S), a tacher (T), a native

speaker (N), and a student of other classrooms (S'). Interaction might be between two

persons, e.g., S-S, or arnong three, e g , SS-T. Any possible combinations other than those

in the eight examples are specified in the parenthesis, e.g., (S-S'). The more diverse the

pattern is, the more complex the required tasks are. S-S interaction is the most familiar as

well as S-T interaction in in-class anivities as in A (Dialogue), H (CoViCa), D (Journal) and

G (Tape). lntegrating interactions with students of other classrooms and NSs would be

more challenging as seen in other activities.

8) Scaffofding. The tenn indicates how the interiocutor in exchange provides pedagogic

support for the leamer's own efforts. Teachers are stable providers of challenging input and

structure. Peer students can also be effective for providing scaffolding. NSs may Vary in

providing relevant scaffolding support to the leamers, depending on the degree of the

commitment and farniliarity to interactions with L2 leamers. The view of the possibility of

genuine scaffolding between leamers varies among several researchers. Ellis (1 984) specifies

that leamer needs to comrnunicate with someone who has sufficient proficiency in the TL to

ensure an input slightly beyond the learners' level. By contrat, Van Lier (1996) emphasized

that al1 kinds of interlocutors can provide scaffolding to the lemers. (See dso Poter (1986),

Kowal and Swain (1994), Donato (1 994)). Al1 eight activities provide scaffdding by the

teachers, particularly in D (Journal) and G (Tape). The leamers also receive scafTolding fiom

their peer(s). In B (Interview) and E (E-mail), a NS may provide scaffolding.

9) Negotiation of meaning. This tenn describes mutual process of establishing shared

meaning which occm during communication. Negotiation of meanhg (e.g., signaling

comprehension di ficulty ) takes place when communication dificul tia arise. Interactional

modifications arise and contextual knowledge increases by means of negotiation for meaning.

Activities which require a direct contact with a NS, i.e., B (Interview) and G (Tape), or with

other students, Le., A (Dialogue), E (E-mail) and F (Video), provide a high degree of

negotiation of meaning. It occun also in C(Brochure & Newspaper) in revising works. In D

(Journal) and H (CoViCa), it is possible for negotiation of meaning to occur when the

interlocuton signal communication dificulty.

10) Demand for production. The reference is to the degree of required speech or writing in

the TL. For the development of leamen' L2 ability, they are encouraged to produce

utterances which 'k their linguistic resources - at lest sorne of the tirne" (Ellis, 1990, p.

127) - for example, king asked various types of questions (e.g., open questions),

initiating discourse, reformulating their own utterances that have caused comprehension

problerns in the process of cornrnunic8tion. AU activities challenge a leamer's abilities to

express himself or henelf in the L2. It is especidly high through the rd-time duect

interaction with an interlocutor who is NS in B (Inte~ew). Particularly, answering to open

or referential questions strongly demand the lemers to produce utterances.

1 1 ) Demandior linguistic acwacy. This is necessary for the âevelopmmt of grammatical

competence. Development of grammatical competence is made possible by 'pushed output'

for grammatical and syntactic proficiency as Swah (1985) advocates. Some activities (A

(Original), C (Brochure & Newspaper), G (Tape), and H (CoViCa)) require grammatical and

syntactic cofcectness in production, although they are desigmd to convey meaning as well.

Others are mainly focused on message, thus they moderately demand linguistic accuracy. In

message-oriented activities, teachers may provide a monitor on linguistic accuracy and help

revising leamers' productions. Linguistic accuracy is an important element to enhance the

leamen' L2 abilities, thus this must be considered to be integrated as part of the process of

implementing activities.

1 2 ) Demand for inimcdiate production. This category is divided into two: s ynchronous or

delayed communication. Synchronous communication with a NS is the most demanding in B

(Interview), followed by that with a student in other place as in F(Video); delayed

communication allows the leamen to plan, thus would be less in this category. Writing

tasks are relatively moderate in this category, since they mostly allow the learnea to take

necessary amount of time.

13) Choice of topic and topic initiation by the leamer. When the learnea can control the

topic of conversation, they are involved and interested in the context (Ellis, 1990). There are

leamers' decisions about the topic and bringing it into A (Dialogue), C (Brochure &

Newspaper), D (Journal) and E (E-mail). In other words, in these activities the leamers have

more control of their production.

14) Planned and unpIanned discourse. Both kinds of discourse is necessary for L2 leaming.

Ellis (1990) proposai that the students have the opportunity to participate in the kinds of

discourse, pre-set and spontamous/improvised which correspond to theu communicative

needs outside the classroom. Ellis (1990) asserted that leamers n d to access to planned

discourse rich in marked linguistic features: al1 eight activities satisfy the mess to planned

discourse. B (InteMew) and F (Video) provides real-the communication with a NS or other

midents which require the ability to cope with unplmed discourse.

15) Contingency. The tenn indicates dependency and uncertainty (van Lier, 19%). This is

contrasted with planned discoune in which students h o w what to expect. Van Lier (1 9%)

pointed out that "in order to leam, a person m u t be active, and the activity m u t be psrtly

fiuniliar and p t l y new, so that attention can be focused on usehl changes and knowledge

can be increased" (p. 171 ). Context dependency and uncertainty are high in real-tirne

communication such as direct conversation with a NS (in B (Interview)) and with other

learnea (in F (Video)). When feedback is provided in the process of exchange (in D

(Journal), E (E-mail) and G (Tape)), something new might be integrated when the

interlocutor stretches the familiar knowleâge of the leamer.

16) C:uliural exchange. The terni indicates how leamers give and receive their own cultural

information and that of interlocuton. Direct contact with the person of different culture

offers the highest degree of cultural exchange (in B (Interview), D (Journal), E (E-mail), F

(Video), and G (Tape)).

17) Assessrnent of learning. The way of examihg process and outcorne should be

determined. A process-oriented approach is not test-driven, but the process of an activity

drives assessment (i.e., determination of valued outcornes). Besides regular quiples and

tests, interactive activities would be s a aside for evaluating the leamers' progress

throughout the pend of the project. An option may be given to an idea of portfolio which

several mearchers recommend (van Lier, 19%; Gardner, 199 1 ; Herbert, 1992; Chiseri-

Strater, 1992). In portfolio, each lesmer has his or ber own choie for the pieces of work to

be evaluated, for example, some pieces from E-mail correspondence, and the best production

in Tape Conespondence. This process actually offets opportunities for self-evaluation.

Each leamer's selection for his or her own works may not be the same as the teacher's, but

the final evaluation must be made for the leamers' benefit. Other approaches to self-

monitoring and self-assessrnent are also possible to integrate as a part of sssessment.

Some of the above categories may overlap one another, however, al1 conditions

provide usehl checkpoints for assessing characteristics of an interactive activity. To

summarize, an ideal mode1 of interactive activity which satisfies these conditions would be

as follows: The activity is high in authenticity and need for communication in the L2, in

which learners play several different roles. The learners are motivated in the activity,

because the task includes individualized communication. The leamers would intetact with a

variety of interlocuton who would provide relevant scaffolding to the leamers for the

development of their L2 abilities; the uisks require negotiation of meaning, and encourage the

leamers to produce by means of variety of natural stimuli, while linguistic accuracy is also

demanded throughout the activity. The learners can choose and initiate a topic of discussion;

the process of communication provides planned discourse as well as unplanned discoune,

Le., a cenain degree of contingency. Assessment of leaming can be made by a process

approach, and the learners themselves are also involved in evaluating the development of

their own leaming.

This section has examined the conditions for optimal L2 environment in relation to

different interactive activities. Each activity has its own specific purpose, thus it is not easy

to determine whether a certain activity is likely better tban others solely because the degree

of fui fülment of some conditions are higher. Rather, it is necessary to understand the goals

of each activity, and if a selected one is lower in respect to some conditions, supplement by

others may be necessary when planning to impiement these activities in a syllabus. In this

sense, the order of implernenting these activities is important and needs to be careMly

considered.

B. A Proposai for a Syllabus and a Curriculum Integrating Interactive Activitia

In this section, I will present a sample syliabw which is designed to include the

implemented eight activities; thereafter 1 propose a mode1 of three-year curriculum/syllabus

for interactive activities in a L2, illustrated by general terms to describe the essence of each

type of interactive activity. These are proposed to enhance leamers' ability to communicate

in various kinds of settings with various types of interlocutors. They are designed to

involve the leamers in classmom interactions which may be transferred @ually to a real

environrnent outside classroom, outside campus, or even in the country of the target language

and culture. Implementing al1 or some of the activities in the syllabus/cumculum would help

the learnea to achieve their goals of becoming able to communicate confidently with NSs in a

natural environrnent; at the same time, they enhance the leamers' ability to monitor their

own leaming as independent leamers of the L2.

in the following section, fint 1 will consider what relationships the previously

exarnined eight activities have with one another, in order to clarify what kind of

combinations cm be made. Then I will identiQ when to implement the diffenng types of

activity in a sample syllabus of a university-level JSL program.

1. Relationship of the Eight In teractive Activities

In a broad view, the eight activities can be divided into two categories in terms of

their purpose, whether primarily linguistic or metalinguistic. Most of them aim at the

development of linguistic elements through meaningful use of the L2, but D (Journal),

specifically in the given example, is mainly for metalinguistic pirposes: journal writing is

used for exchanging messages about individual student's L2 leamhg between a student and

hisher teacher. G (Tape) is designed for the development of speaking ability by exchanging

recorded messages between a student and the teachet, but it could dso be applied for

exchanging metalinguistic elements. This technique codd be used dm for, for instance, part

of a series of interview or information-collection widi an interlocutor living far way (this

kind of voice exchange can be done by telephone with recording hction, and it would

become possible soon by using cornputen).

Furthemore, among the eight interactive activities, there appear to be four sub-

groups: (1 ) D (Journal) and G (Tape); (2) A (Dialogue) and H (CoViCa); (3) B (Interview)

and F (Video); and (4) C (Brochure & Newspaper) and E (E-mail).

A (Dialogue) is closely related to H (CoViCa): both are for practicing role-play,

although role-play is part of the process in A (Dialogue). In A (Dialogue), the leamers'

performance can be recorded for further development of the leamen' skills as in H

(CoViCa).

L i n g u i s t i c M e t a - l i n g u i s t i c

(2) *A (Dialogue) ,-y (CoViCa)

*C (Brochure & '

Figure 6- 1 Map of the eight interactive activities (* indicates project work)

B (Interview) and F (Video) cm be categorized as real-time verbal interaction which

challenge the leamen with a high &gree of pressure for production and negotiation of

meaning in the TL, and provide them with a high degree of contingency when un-phmned

discourses arise. On the other hand, C (Brochure & Newspaper) and E (E-mail) are for

written interactions, which provide leamen with tirne for pladng, but demand a high level

of linguistic accuracy of the L2. These four activities rnay be used interdependently.

B (Interview) can be used for C (Brochure & Newspeper) or as a topic of E (E-mail). B

(Interview) may also be done by using F (Video). E (E-mail) cm be used to pre- and pst-

activity for an interview with people outsiâe the classroom, or as a tool of gathenng

information for C (Brochure & Newspaper). E (E-mail) can be alw used for F (Video), for

example, to choose a topic of discussion, set tirne scheduie, exchange the participants'

profiles, and after the video conference, to continue exchanging opinions on the same or

related topics.

2. A Sample Syllabus for Interactive Activity in JSL

Using the analysis with the 17 conditions in the preceding section, 1 will propose a

sample syllabus for a univenity-level JSL prograrn following an existing c ~ c u l u r n of

Japanese laquage program offered at Department of East Asian Studies of the University of

Toronto. The prograrn consists of courses of three levels, and each level is to offer 130

houn of classroom instruction in two terms (over 8 months). This mode1 syllabus is show

in Table 6-2.

In the first year, A (Dialogue) is carried out at the end of each tem. H (CoViCa) can

be used simultaneously. In the second year, B (Interview) is put in the first tenn, and G

(Tape) is to be implemented for 10 weeks in the second tem. C (Brochure & Newspaper)

may be inserted between the two activities of B (Interview) and G (Tape), so that the

students have extra time for collccting information during the Christmas vacation. In this

second year, D (Journal) can be used as a metalinguistic tool with which the teacha can

obtain information on the individual students to understand them better, and feedback on the

on-going activities fiom each leamer can be obtained throughout the year as well.

Table 6-2 A Sample Syllabus for Interactive Activities in a University JSL Program ( * is for project work)

Year

First

m.-.. ......a... ".I

Second .....................

Third .....................

Study hours (weeks) 65 hrs (13 wkJ

,...u-ni.rn . 130 hrs (26 wk) 195 hrs (39 wk)

P........ W.... ...... 260 hrs (52 wk) 325 tus (65 wk) ).*......*....*"..*.. 390 hrs (78 wk)

Main activities

A: O r i n D i d o ~ e (3 weeksll ... W........ .....U... .... W.... .- ."....WH...... .. ".....M..H.WW.."..."

A: Onginal Dialogue *(3 weeks) 2 B: Interview with Japamse (10 wks) C: University Brochur ewsppeP (6 wks) .. .. U"..."......".."......." ..... Y............" a... "..--.+. ............... r-."I.i.-. r" G: Tape Correspondence (1 O wks) E: E-mail Correspondence (10 wks)

wks) -.. .............

F: ( Video conference) ( 8 w k s )

Sub activities

..."W...." .. W..........." ...W..."...".........".". l I H: ~ a i ~ a 1 D: Journal

H: CoViCa 1 D: Journal

Ln the third year, first, the students exchangee-mail with people outside the

.......W. W.. I classroom. The second term is for F (Video) in which the partners could be the same group

.............................................. I of students as in E (E-mail) or could be m g e d with a different group. In between the two

activities, again C (Newspaper) can be inserted. As an option, the students may write an

article for the homepage of the university's Japanese language program in which they are

enrolling. Writing for a homepage is intended to provide information of the univenity and

its neighbouring community. This homepage will be posted wodd-wide.

This is an example of what can be implementeâ and when to implement it. Al1 of the

activities in this example, of course, need not be carried out; achieving them depends on what

other elements corne together in the course work in a prognun. However, the timing of

implementing each aaivity in this example (as shown in Table 6-2) would likely provide the

best effects for the learning outcornes. A (Dialogue) can be employed fiorn the beginning of

learning a L2 along with H (CoViCa). Activities for upper levels, C (Brochure &

Newspaper), E (E-mail), F (Video) and G (Tape) may be interchangeable or some can be

selected so as not to provide too many loaàs for the students. In reality, implernenting al1

the eight activities is not practical due to a shortage of necessary time and equipment. What

is presented here, is a sample syllabus that would be beneficial for the leamers of JSL.

3. A Model of Th-Year Curriculum/Syüabus for Ioteractive Activitia in r LZ

The presented sample of JSL syllabus for interactive activities c m be generalized for

possibilities which may propose a mode1 of L2 curriculwn/syllabus for interactive activities.

Depending on the environment which surround a L2 classroom, such as accessibility to NSs,

students of other classrooms, accessibility to equipment, and needs of the learners would

become a basis for the teacher's decisions on what should be done as well as what can be

done. In order to provide an overall idea for designhg a syllabus for interactive activities, a

generalized three-year curriculum~syllabus for univenity-level L2 learners is proposed in

Table 6-3.

Table 6-3 A Model of Curriculum for Interactive Activities in University L2 Prograrns

In Table 6-3, general tenns are used for each type of activity rather than specific

Year

First

Second

1

Third

names as used in the preceding sections: in accordance with the sample syllabus for JSL,

Sample st udy houn

130hrs (26 wk)

260 hrs (52 wk)

390 hrs (78 wk)

t

Main activities

(linguistic) 1 ) Leamer-

initiated skitproject

2) Meeting T A

NSs 3)

Publishing 5) Interacting

with distant

audience

v

Sub activities (meta-

(linguistic) linguistic) 6) Refleaing sel f-image

4) Dialogue J o d

activities would be summarized into five categories of: 1) Perfoming leamer-initiated skit

project; 2) Meeting NSs; 3) Publishing; 4) Making a dialogue joumal; 5) Interacting with

distant audience (by exchanging voices/scrips/images); and 6) Reflecting self-image.

1 ) The lemer-initiated skit project cm be done in any classrooms whose students

have lirnited mastery of linguistic items. It can be also employed for the leamers of upper

levels, if more choices are given to the leamers. 2) Meeting NSs can be done bath inside and

outside a classroom. Topic rnay be varied as personal interview, tdking on a select4 topics

with NSs, such as about the target culture. Outcome of 3) publishing may be more formal

than meeting NSs, thus preparing through systematic process would be necessary . Styles

could Vary depending on what media is chosen, i.e. brochures, newspaper or homepage. 5 )

lnteracting with distant audience relies on technology. It contains many choices of medium:

by voice, scripts, images or combinations of them. This mode1 would be applied to any

university-level L2 program in general.

4. Conclusion

In the field of L2 education, interaction has recently attmcted a great deal of teachers'

and researchers' attention. This trend of focusing on interaction appears to have created

sub-fields of study in language and language pedagogy. From the perspective of L2

pedagogy, knowledge and technique for effective ways of teaching interaction need to be

studied further, because L2 leamers' needs are becoming more and more communication-

oriented, influenced by recent development of information technology and economic changes

which demand more interdependence of persons around the globe. Standing in the middle of

this trend of rapid changes, teaching how to interact with other leamen and NSs of the TL

should remain one of the most important issues in L2 pcdagogy. Thus, needs for studies of

curriculum and syllabus design for interaction should be inaeaseû, along with studies on

interaction in related fields such as appîied-linguistics, sociolinguistics, second language

acquisition, and anthropology.

As cornputer and information technology is pmgressing rapidly, it will becorne easier

to integrate new technologies into interactive activities in the L2 classroom airning at

enhancing communication for LUùring a classroom to the real world For exampie,

technologies for gathering and exchanging v i s d information dong with voice messages could

invite the learners for a joint project in which d e n t s on two cüfferent sites par&icipate.

Communication technologies wiU surely enrich environment for L2 l d n g . By using

technologies, the leamers will becorne able to obtain idonnation mon directly fiom NSs.

Interacting with them would work for decreasing uncertainty, unfamiliarity and

embarrassrnent to contact with people speaking in the TL. Yet, communication based on

sophisticated technologies should not replace face-to-face communication with people in a

real environment: classroom activities are still important, of course, as a basis of the

development of the learners' L2 ability at al1 levels. Pwticularly at the earlier levels, the

teachers' primary job is to numire the learners' basic skills in the L2.

In L2 pedagogy, teachen' awareness of possibilities for interaction which rnay exist

inside and outside their classrooms needs to be raised. For this purpose, training for both

pre-service and in-service teachen would be necessary. In addition, methods for evaiuating

interactive activities, which tend to be flexible thus recog'zed to be difficult to assess,

require more studies. In order to encourage the leamers to interact with a variety of

interlocutors, the teachen need to develop networking with other teachers and NSs who are

outside the classroom : planning and im plementing interactive activities for the leamen,

wtiich is worthwhile and challenging, must begin with the teachers.

Participants' Responses to tbe Intervieuing4apan~PeopIe Project

I 1 Response of the Students 1 Response of the NSs I The project success

Peer-cooperat ion

Motivation

......... intmded to expnss 37% 1 understood the NS's

.................... Japanese.. .38% ........... ..... to some extent 50%

............. It was difficult 76%

When 1 did not understand, I ............. spoke in English. 50% .......... ..... to some extent ,40%

We cooperate each other ... when we met difficulty 62%

1 want to see the NS again ...................................... .76%

1 want to talk with other .............................. NSs ..87%

............ It was interesthg 100% 1 understood what the students

................... intended to say -75% ................ ... to some extent .13%

The studcnts seemed to ...... understand what 1 said.. .38%

................ ... to some extent. .50% king intervieweû was dificult

..................... to some extent 38%. ........ ......... was not difficult, ..63%

1 was canfid about choosing ................................ words .76%

1 want to participate in the .. same kind of oppominity .100%

*Dificulty: the Iearners felt dificulty when listening to the NS's utterance in particular

tense (e.g., future plans) or in which the NS used unfamiliar words and expressions; when

the NS spoke quickly; when king asked to rephrase the meaning of pre-planned questions;

during fiee conversation time after the pre-planned intmiew (because thinking quickly was

+*Srrategies: other matcgies used by the leamers were as follows: asking for the meanhg of

the word; arking to repest(slowly)/explain the worcUexpression; using diaionaries; speaking

English; and drawing pictures.

Participants' Respoascs to the E-mail Exchaage in Japanese

1 Feeling whik 1 pleasant, exciting.. .75% 1 plarpnt ... 100% 1 1 use email

1 writindsending e-mail was: 1 troublesome/difficuit.. .25% 1 I 1 Was receiving replay 1 Yes ... 75%* 1 Yes.. .75%** 1

Response of the students

ofien.. .50%, every day . . .25%

Responses of the NSs

often . .5W, mer.. .50%

usefiil? Feeling when receivdread repiy was: Do you want to continue comsponding with them? Do you want to correspond with other NSs?

* The students' cornments on the usefulness of e-mail exchange included: 1 an leam the

pleasant, happy, delightful.. .88%,

Do you think e-mail is

Japanese way of writing/some new words from NSs' replies; it was usehl for

reading'grammar/writing practice; it gives an a W setting betwccn two correspondents.

pleasant.. .100% dificuit ... 12% Yes ... 50%

Yes ... 88%

** The NSs' comments on the usefulness of e-mail exchange included: 1 could obtain

Yes.. .75%

I

wful in learning Japanese? A

-- -

Yes ... 88%'

information about the students beforehand (thus it helpeû me finding topics when talking

with them at the fint meeting; it helped me to grasp the students' levels of Japanese before 1

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Yes ... 75%**

taught hem; It increased my interest in individual students before teaching); e-mail enables

the leamers of a L2 to exchange with NSs easily; there are actually some teachers of Japanese

in Japan who want to teach the language though e-mail, e.g., for composition.

Refe rences

Allan, D. ( 199 1 ). Tape journals: Bridging the gap between communication and correction. ELT Journd, 45 (l), 61-66.

Anderson, M. ( 1 989). Theater techniques for language learning: Assumplions and u suggestedprogression ofactivities. Unpublished master's thesis, School for International Training, Brattletoro, Vermont.

Baltova, 1. (1994). The impact of video on the comprehension skills of core French students. Canadian Mociern Language Review, 50 (3), 507-53 1.

Bams, D. ( 1969). Language in the secondary classroorn. In Barns, D. (Ed.). Languge. the iearner and the school. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Bowman, C. L. (1985). So you want to be in pictures: Videotaping in the foreign language classroorn. 0il.g TA Journui, 2 1 -27.

Brock, C. ( 1 986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse, TESOL Qurterly, 20,4739.

Brown, H. D. ( 1 987). Principles of lungtcage learning and teaclchig (second edit ion). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Rentice Hall.

Bruner, J. ( 1983). Chiid '.Y talk: Learning to use longuugc. New York: Norton.

Bruton, A. & Sarnuda, V. (1980). Leamer and teacher roles in the treatment of oral error in group work. RELC Jownal, 1 1,49-63.

Cambell, C. (1 996). Socializing with the teacher and prior language leaming experience: A diary study . In Bailey, K. M. & Nunan, D. Voicesfrom the language classroom (pp . 20 1-223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Canale, M. ( 1983). From communicative cornpetence to communicative langusge pedagogy. In Richard & Schmidt (Eds.) Language a& communication. London: Longman.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicattve approaches to second Zanguage ieuching und testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 , 1-47.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. ( 1 996). Teachingpronunciaîion: A refrencefor teachers of English to speakers oforher languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive modei of discome in the corrective treatment of leamers' errors. Language Learning, 2 7 , 2 9 4 .

Chaudron, C. (1 983). Evahating writing, Effects offiedback on revision. (Revised version of a pper presented at the seventeen annual TESOL convention.) Toronto.

Chaudron, C. (1985). Comprehension, comprehensibility and leaming in the second language classroom . SI udies Nt second language acquisition, 7,2 1 6-232.

Chaudron, C. ( 1988). Second language clessroomî: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chiseri-Süater, E. (1 992). College sophomores reopen the closed portfolio. In Graves, G. & Sunstein, B. (Eds.). Porrfolio Portraits ( p p . 61-72). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Crookes, G. ( 1 986). Task classification: A cross-dixiplinary review. Technical Report NO..(. Honolulu: Center for second language classroom research, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Cummins, J. (1988). From the inner city of the global village: The microcornputer as a cataly st for collaborative learning and cultural interchange. Lunguuge. Culrure und Curriculum, 1 ( 1 ) , 1 -1 3.

Dolly, M. R. (1990). lntegrating ESL reading and writing through authentic discourse. Journal ofReading 33 (5),360-365.

Donato, R. ( 1 994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantol f, J. P. & Appel, G. (Eds. ), bjgoïskiun upproaches ro second lungaage research ( pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Abiex.

Doughty, C. & Pica, T. (1986). Information gap tssks: An aid to second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (2), 305-325.

Dundon, A. L. & Sherif, A. (1994). Networking with a Japnese tmiversity: The Waseda CWRUproject. Paper presented at MIT/ATJ conference on teaching and leaming of Japanese. Massachusetîs lnstitute of Technology .

El1 is, R. ( 1 984). Clussroorn second language development . Oxford: Pergamon.

Eliis, R. ( 1 986). Developing interlanguage through fluency. Focus, 4,23039.

Ellis, R. ( 1 988). The role of ptactice in classroom Ianguage leaming. Revue de L 'A ILA.' IALA Revïm, 5,20039.

Ellis, R. ( 1990). Instructed second Ianguage acquisition: Learning in the cfassroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fillmore, W. ( 1982). Instructional language as linguistic input: Second language learning in classrooms. In Wilkinson, L. (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom New York: Academia Press.

Ford, F. (1 995). Syokyuu, cyuukyuu koosu ni toriireta gakusyuusya cyuushin no pwojekuto 'skit' no kouka ni tsuite [The effect of a learnw-centred 'skit' project for introductory/intermediate level courses]. Proc. of Nihongo Kyouiku Gakkai Syunki Taikui (Nt Tokyo), pp. 19-24.

Gaies, S. (1 977). The nature of linguistic input in f o d second language leaming: linguistic and communication strategies. In Brown, Y., Yorio, C. & Crymes, R. (Eds.). On 7'ESOL '77, Washington, DC: T'SOL.

Gardner, R. C. ( 199 1 ). Second-language learning in adults: Correlates of proficiency . Language Learning, 2 (1 ), 1-28.

Genesee, F. & Upshur, J. A. ( 1996). Clrrwoorn-based evuluation in second lunguage eduwtiun. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gremmo, M., Holec, H., & Riley, P. (1 977). Interactional structure: The role of role. Mélunges P&dagogiques, University of Nancy, CRAPEL .

Hatch, E. ( 1978). Discoune analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second languuge acquisitiun. Rowley , MA: Newbury House.

Herbert. E. A. (1992). Portfolio invite reflection - fkom students and staff. EducationaZ Leadership, May, 1992, 58-6 1.

Holt, D. D. ( 1993). Cooperative leurning: A response to finguistic and culrurai diversity. Washington: Center for applied linguistics .

Hughes, A. & Lascarato y C. (1 982). Competing criteria for error gravity. EL T Journal, 36, 175-1 82.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and Iearning. Review of ed2rcatzo~I research, 49,5 1-70,

Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding communication in second kunguage cluvsrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative Leurning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Leaming.

Kasper, G. ( 1 985). Repair in foreip laquage teaching. SI d i e s in Second LAInguage Acquisit ion, 7,200-2 1 5 .

Katchen, J. E. (1 99 1 ). Video cameras in EFL classrooms: utiliztng the new technology. Paper presented at the Chulalongkom University Language Institute, second international conference on explorations and innovations in Englis h t anguage teaching rnethodology, Bangkok, Thailand.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggait, R. (1982). The action reseurch plunner. Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. ( 1988). The uctiun reseurch pkunner. 3rd ed. Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Klein, W. ( 1986). Smmd Iunguuge ucyuisitiun. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kohonen, V. ( 1 9%). Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education. In Nunan, D. (Ed.). Cooperative lunguuge feurning und teucl~ing (pp. 14-4 1 ) . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kokubu, Y. ( 1992). Katcsriteki Gruupu Enkuuntua [Structural Group Encounter]. Tokyo: Seishin Shobo.

Kol b, D. ( 1 984). Lkpwiientiui lecrrning: Erperience us the source of lrorning und J~veIuprnent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awureness, 3 (2), 73-93.

Kramsch, C . ( 1 985). Classroom interaction and discoune options. Stdies in Second Language Acquisition, 7,169- 1 83.

Krashen, S. (1 977). The monitor mode1 for adult second language performance. h But, M., Dulay , H., & Fincc hiaro M. (Eds. ), Viewpoints on Enghh as a second lunguage. New York. Regents.

Krashen, S. ( 1 98 1 ). Second languuge ucquisition und second fanguuge Ieurning. Onford: Pergarnon.

Kras hen, S . ( 1 982). Principles und pruct ice in second Iangtcage acquisition. Oxford, Pergarnon.

Krashen, S . (1985). The input hypothe.~h,. London: Longman.

Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1984). The naturai meîhod: Lunguuge acquisition in the clus.sroom. Oxford: Pergamon.

Lafer, S. (1996). Audience, the cornputer, and the development of writing ability. Cornputers in the School.~, 12 (1/2), 141-152.

Lepptine, S. & Kalaja, P. (1995). Experimenting with computer conferencing in English for academic purposes. EL T Journal, 40 ( 1 ), 26-36.

Littlewood, W. ( 1 98 1 ). Communicative languuge teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lonergan, J. ( 1 984). Video in ianguuge teuching. Cambridge: Cambridge Univenity Press.

Long, M. ( 1977). Teacher feedback on leamer error: Mapping cognitions. In Brown, H., Yorio, C., & Crymes, R. (Eds.). On TESOL '77, Washington, DC: TESOL.

Long, M . ( 1 981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition, Annuls of the New York Acude~ny uf Sciences, 3 79.

Long, M. ( l983a). Native speakednon-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In Clarke, M. & Handscombe, J. (Eds.). On TESOL '82: Pacrfic perspectives on langtruge learning und teaching. Washington, DC : TE SOL

Long, M. ( l983b). Does second language instruction make a difference?: A review of the research. TESOL Quarteriy, 17,359-382.

Long, M. (1 983c). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of mcaning. Applied Linguistia, 4 , 1 264 -41.

Long, M. (1 985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Long, M. ( 1 988). Focus on fonn: A design feature in Ianguage teaching methodology. Paper presented at the conference on empirical research on second language learning in institutional setting, Bellagio, Italy.

Long, M., Adarno, L., McLeam, M., & Castaiios, F. (1976). Doing things with words: verbal interaction in lockstep and smaU group classroom situations. In Fanselow, J & Crymes, R. (Eâs.), On TESOL '76 (pp. 137-1 53). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Long, M., Brock, C., Crooks, O., Deicke, C., Potter, L., & Zhang, S. (19û4). The effkct of teachers' questioning patterns and wait-time on pupil participation in public high school in Hawaii for students of limited English proficiency , Technicaf R e m No. 1, Honolulu, Center for second language classroom research, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Long, M. & Porter, R. (1985). Group work, interlanguage tdk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (2), 207-227.

Long, M. & Sato, C. (1 983). Classroom foreigner talk discoune: Forms and functions of teachers' questions. In Seliger, H. & Long, M. (Eds.), Classroom oriented reseorch rn second langage acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury Houx.

Luft, J . ( 1969). Of Humun Inreruction. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing.

Maslow, A. H. (1956). Self-actualizing people: A study of psychological health. in Clark, E. M. (Ed. ) Thc sep ErpIorations in personal growth (pp. 160- 194). New York: Harper and Row.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Towards ci psychology ofbeing. Second edition. Princeton: Van Nostrad.

Maslow, A. H. (1 97 1 ). The Farther Reaches of Humon Nature. New York: Viking Press.

Matsumoto, K. ( 1996). Helping L2 leamen refiect on classroom leaming. ELT Jownal, 50 (2), 143-149.

McTear, M. (1 975). Smchue and categories of foreign language teaching sequences. In Allwrîght, T. (Ed. ), Workzng papers: Langage teaching classroom research. University of Essex, ûepartment of Language and Linguistics.

Miller, J. P. ( 1 996). The Holistic CwricuIum (Reviset3 and Expanded Edition). Toronto: OISE Press.

Mitchell, R. ( 1 988). Communicative language teaching in practice. London: CILT.

Mizoguchi, H. ( 1995). Interaction taiken O tooshita nihongo, nihongoj ij you kyouiku: 'Nihonjin katei hournon' no baai [Interactive lessons in Japanese language and culture- leaming h u g h visiting Japanese homes]. Nihongo kyouiku, 87, 1 14- 125.

Moskowitz, G. ( 1978). Caring and sharing in the foreign language class: A sourcebook on humanistic techniques. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Muraoka, H. (1992). Jissai shiyou bamen de no gakusyuusya no intaaakusyon nouryoku ni tsuite: 'Visiter session' bamen no bunseki Dnteractive cornpetence of leamers of Japanese in an authentic situation: A case study of a "Visitor Session" at Monash University]. Current Report on Japonese Language Educution around the Globe, Vol. 2, (pp. 1 1 5- 1 28). Urawa, Japan: the Japan Foundation.

Nakajima, K. (1 989). AudiLnceori~ed compsitiun in Jupanese and internuiional e-mail erchange. Paper presented at South Modem Language Association annual conference. Atlanta.

Nakajima, K. (1993). Pasokon tsuushin O katsuyoo shita nihongo kyouiku -- kaku chikara O

cyuushin ni [Computer application to the teaching of Japanese -- the development of the writing skill]. Nihongogoku, December, 1993, pp. 22-30. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.

Nakajima, K. ( 1995). Co Vira lunguge leaming Aystem with Japanese rule play curds. Paper presented at CALE spring seminar. Université de Montréal.

Nakaj ima, K. ( 1 996). Video conferencing in Li (Japanese) writ ing program. Paper presented at the conference on global learning networks in the language curriculum. University of Toronto.

Omaggio, A. C. (1 986). Teaching language in cuntext: Profciency-oriented instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Orban, C. & McLean, A.M. (1990). A working mode1 for video camera use in the foreign language classroom. The French Review, 63 (4), 652663.

Odord, R. (1 990). Lunguage leaming strutegies: What evety teacher should h w . New York: Newbury House.

Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an ouicorne of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning, 3 8,45-73.

Pica, T & Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (2), 23 3-248.

Pica, T, Holliday, L. Lewis, N., & Morgantbaîer, L. (1989). Compreknsible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the leamer. Studies in second language acquisition, 1 1,6340.

Pica, T. & Long, M. (1986). The linguistic and conversational performance of experienced and inexperienced teachen. In Day, R. R (Ed.) Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 85-98). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Pica, T., Young, R., Br Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarteriy, 2 1,737-758.

Politzer, R., Ramireg A., & Lewis, S. (1981). Teaching standard English in the third grade: Classroom fiinctions of language. Languoge Learning, 3 1,17 1 - 193.

Porter, P. (1986). How leamers talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centred discussions. In Day , R. R. (Ed. ) Tufking to learn: Cortversat~on in second language acquisition ( pp. 200-222). Rowley , MA: Newbury House.

Riven, W. M.( 1 964). The psychologist and the fureign-fanguuge teacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rivers, W. M. (1972). Talking off the tops of their heads. TESOL Quarferly, 6(1), 7 1-8 1.

Rivea, W. M. ( 1 978). A practiccil guide to the teaching of English as a second or foreign Ianguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Riven, W. M. (1983). Communicafing natwalfy in a second language : Theos, andpructice ln langüage teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rivers, W. M. ( 1 987). Interactive language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rogers, C. ( 1 95 1 ). Client cenfered therup. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. (1956). What it mauis to become a person. In Moustakas, C. E. (Ed.) The se& Explorafions in persona/ growth. New York: Harper and Row.

Rothschild, D. & Klingenberg, F. ( IWO). Self and peer evaluation of h g in the interactive ESL classroom: An exploratory study. TESL Canada Journui, 8 (l), 5265.

Sanaoui, R & Lapkh, S. (1992). A case study of an FSL senior secondary course integrating computer networking. Cumdian M d e m Languoge Review, 48 (3), 525- 552.

Scarcella, R. & Higa, CC. (1981). Input, negotiation and age ciifferences in second language acquisition. Longuage Learning, 3 1,409-437.

Schegloff, E., Jefferson, O., & Sacks, H. (1 977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repiiir in conversation. Language, 53,36 1-382.

Sharan, S. & Lazarowik, R. (1978). Cmperation and communication in schml. Tel-Aviv and Jenisalem: Shocken.

Sinclair, J & Couthard, M. ( 1975). Towarh an anolysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Slavin, R. E. ( 1978). Student teams and achievement divisions. Journal of Research and Deveiopment in E d ~ i o n , 1 2,3949.

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of educatioml research, 50,3 15-342.

Slirnani, A. ( 1 987). The teaching-iearning relat ionFhp: Learning opport unit ies and ieurning outcornes, and Algerian case study. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Lancaster.

Slimani, A. ( 1 989). The role of topicalization in classrwm language learning. System, 1 7 (2), 223-234.

Stem, H. (1992). issues and optionî in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. ( 1985). Communicative cornpetence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass S. & Madden C. (Eds.). Inpui in second langwge acquisition @p. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and aimplementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6 ( 1 ), 68-83.

Swain, M. (1 993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 5O(l), 1 58- 164.

Swain, M. (1995a). Thm firnctions of output in second language learning. In Cook G. & Seidhofer B (Eds.). Principle & practice in applied linguistia: Sndes in honour of H. G. Widdowson @p. 125- 144). Oxford: Odord University Press.

Swain, M. (199%)). A Swiolinguistic perspective on second language use in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 79 (2), 166- 178.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Roblem in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language leaming. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3). 371-391.

Teratani, K. ( 1 996). Niho yin ni irilabyuu pcaojehto [Interviewing-Japane-People Roject] . Paper presented at CAJLE sprîng seminar, Université de MontréaVCAJLE summer workshop, Toronto: the Japan Foundation.

Teratani, K. (1 997). Onginal Dialogue Roject. la Iungue japonaise: Diductique et linguistique, 9ICAJLE Nihongo Kyouiku Kenkymronpu, 1,75-89. Cahiers du Centre d'études de l'Asie de l'Est, Universitd de Montréal.

Traphagan, T. W. ( 1 994). EBct iwness of cornputer ussisted dialogue jourmls for developing writing skills in Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Pittsburgh.

Trenchs, M. (1996). Writing smegies in a second language: Three case studies of leamen using electronic mail. Canadian Modem Language Review, 52 (3), 464-49 1.

Ueâa, K. 1995. 'Teepu tsuushin' O mochiita nihongo koosu no kokoromi: Hong Kong deno business Japanese no b a i ['Tape correspondence' used in a lapanese language course: A case of business Japanese program in Hong Kong]. Current Reporr ofJapannce- Languuge Education arounci the Globe. Vol. 5. (pp. 45-60). Urawa, Japan: The Japan Foundation.

van Lier, L. (1988). The CIaswoom and the languuge learnec Ethnogruphy and second- languuge classroom research. London: Longman.

van L ier, L. ( 1 9%). Interaction in the language curriculum: A wareness, autonomy and authenficiîy . London: Longman.

Varonis, E. M. & Gass, S. (1985). Non-nativehon-native conversations: A mode1 for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6 ( 1 ), 7 1 -90.

Villamil, O. S. & de Guemro, M. C. (19%). Peer revision in the L2 classmm social- cognitive activities, mediating strategîes, and aspects of social ôehavior. Journal of Second Lungiroge Wr it ing, 5 ( 1 ), 5 1 -75.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought adangtcage (Kozulin, A. Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (ûriginal work published 1934.)

Whybra, D. & Prinzing, J. (1984). Video sequeaces and creativity in t~amunicabve foreign language teaching. In Willems, G (Ed) Communicative foreign language teaching and the training of foreign langinge teachen @p. 186199).

TEST TARGET (QA-3)

APPLIED IWGE , lnc a 1853EastMeinSlieet -

=A Rochester, NY 14609 USA -0 --a Phone: 7161482.0300 -- --= Fax: 71 6/288-5Q89