Listen to highlights from the latest show for more on these Second Language Acquisition (SLA) takeaways.
There are two main camps, and one outlier when it comes to the role of Input and Interaction in SLA. Both assume Input is necessary. However, there are those who believe…
1) Interaction is absolutely necessary in addition to Input.
2) Interaction is beneficial, but not necessary.
3) Interaction isn’t beneficial at all (very few believe this).
A good place to start is defining Interaction, which Bill gave us as “NOT forced speech, but 2+ people demonstrating that they are involved in meaning making (e.g. speaking, facial/eye expression, nodding, other gesturing, etc.)”
A caller brought up the point that Interaction between the teacher and students is under scrutiny by those looking for students to do more of the communicating. After all, it certainly “looks” like lecturing, but Bill’s Principle #2 of a definition for communication (i.e. interpretation, negotiation, and expression of meaning in a given context) supports the process of a teacher expressing ideas to students who interpret those ideas is, most certainly, communication! Bill’s best advice is to “talk with, not talk at” your students. He further warns “if you say 2+ sentences without involving students, you’re doing something wrong.” I see this play out well when teachers circle tactfully. The teachers asks many questions and repeats student answers in order to increase exposure to input, but the students are involved and interacting. I see this play out not-so-well when teachers frequently restart a story from the beginning, or continuously retell the events without new ideas or questions with new information. So, 2+ sentences, then checking in with students is a GOOD strategy.
So, where does Bill stand on the role of Interaction? When learners signal that input is NOT comprehensible, their interaction leads to more comprehensible input, but clarification and negotiation are not needed all the time. Like Stephen Krashen and authors of Angelika’s quote, Bill agrees that the role of Interaction does not CAUSE acquisition, but it can be beneficial, placing him in camp #2.
2 thoughts on “Input & Interaction: Tea with BVP 10.20.16”
I agree that interaction is sometimes helpful, but only if the message is not interrupted. The best way to language acquisition is to get lost in a good book, then afterwards talk about it with your friends. A retell after a story is great, but interrupting a story to ask a litany of circling questions means we expect children to immediately respond to language, so they feel they must attune to and comprehend every word. Students have a lower threshold for noise, a higher focus on form, and rarely get lost in the “flow” of a story, as with Dr Krashen’s Din In the Head Hypothesis.
Pingback: Active Latin vs. Acquisition of Latin | Magister P.