Student-student interaction       Student-student interaction includes all learning situations where students work in grou...
learn from each others experiences and knowledge. The scaffolding is shared by each memberand changes constantly as the gr...
Involve details;       Center on a problem, especially an ethical one, such as deciding in a small group who       should ...
The potential advantages of group activities in language instruction (based on Jacobs 1998)Advantage                      ...
From these it seems reasonable to conclude that group work can provide the interactionalconditions which have been hypothe...
feedback, in the form of clarification requests and negotiation for meaning. Kowal and Swain(1994) have found that adolesc...
Incidental focus on form in student-student interactionConducted by Morris and Taone (2003), first study reveals that inci...
context. Focus on form in contrast, constitutes attention to linguistic structures within the contextof meaning-focused, c...
errors. The teacher can model the targeted language alone or with a student or have two studentsact out the language.2. Co...
manipulated. These activities are not meant to be used in isolation; rather they should be part ofthe task. They allow for...
language form (rather than immediately supplying the correct form). The retrieval andsubsequent production stimulates the ...
Study            Participants        Target structure          Design                     Tests                  ResultsCa...
Leeman (2003)   74 first-year            Spanish noun-         Four groups             Post and delayed post   Only groups...
Ellis, Loewen, and   34 intermediate-level   Regular past tense –ed Classroom-based             1. oral imitation tests   ...
A frequently cited study of corrective feedback is doughty and Varela (1998). A numberof other studies have compared the e...
teacher but repair by learners or by other learners. In the content phase of the same lesson; self-initiated and self-comp...
Less important < focus on form > more importantLearner variablesAge                                  Children             ...
The characteristics of L2 learnersEight to twelve years old will benefit from some grammatical focus only if their age, pr...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Student student interaction-writeup

558 views
463 views

Published on

I think this is an excerpt I took from someone online.. If it is yours sorry.. Plz PM to take it down. For now, I am just leaving it here to share with other fellow friends who are developing themselves professionally. TQ

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
558
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Student student interaction-writeup

  1. 1. Student-student interaction Student-student interaction includes all learning situations where students work in groupsto accomplish particular learning objectives and are interdependent for successful completion ofthe objective. There will be a lot of pair and group work in the classroom, as well as genuinelanguage input from the "real world" for meaningful communication. Learning English is better when the students use it for what it was designed for:communication. Peer interaction may facilitate acquisition through fostering learner production,feedback, and noticing of form. Thus far, much of our attention has focused on understandingclassroom communication by looking at the interaction occurs between teachers and students.However, by doing so we have ignored another important dimension of classroom interaction,that is, the interaction that occurs between students themselves, and the impact that student-student interaction has on the patterns of communication, classroom learning, and opportunitiesfor second language acquisition. Many studies (e.g. Barnard, 2002; Pica, 1998; Swain, Brooks & Toralli-Beller, 2002) aredone on peer cooperation learning and peer tutoring. Drawing results from these studies, manyscholars hold the position that students can obtain benefits from their peers by negotiatingmeanings or receiving scaffolding information. Such interactions among students do facilitatestudents‘ second language acquisition because while negotiating with or scaffold to peers,students experience the input enhancement and output production by reformulating theirlinguistic forms. Reciprocal scaffolding, a method first coined by Holton and Thomas, is a method thatinvolves a group of two or more collaboratively working together. In this situation, the group can
  2. 2. learn from each others experiences and knowledge. The scaffolding is shared by each memberand changes constantly as the group work on a task (Holton and Clarke, 2006). According toVygotsky, students develop higher-level thinking skills when scaffolding occurs with an adultexpert or with a peer of higher capabilities (Stone, 1998). Conversely, Piaget believes thatstudents discard their ideas when paired with an adult or student of more expertise (Piaget,1928). Instead, students should be paired with others who have different perspectives. Conflictswould then take place between students allowing them to think constructively at a higher level. Empirical research with second language supports the contention that engaging inlanguage interactions facilitates second language development. Findings from a study todetermine how conversational interaction affects the acquisition of question formation indicatethat interaction can increase the pace of acquisition (Mackey, 1999).Task-based learningResearchers have used tasks to understand both the second language learning and teachingprocesses. Task-based teaching provides learners with opportunities for learner-to-learnerinteractions that encourage authentic use of language and meaningful communication. The goalof a task is to ―exchange meaning rather than to learn the second language‖ (Ellis, 1999, p. 193).Research suggests that learners produce longer sentences and negotiate meaning more often inpair and group work than in teacher-fronted instruction. Interactive tasks may be mostsuccessful when they contain elements that Are new or unfamiliar to the participants; Require learners to exchange information with their partners or group members; Have a specific outcome;
  3. 3. Involve details; Center on a problem, especially an ethical one, such as deciding in a small group who should take the last spot in a lifeboat, a nuclear physicist or a pregnant woman; Involve the use of naturally occurring conversation and narrative discourse. (Ellis, 2000)Student-student interaction strategiesLeaner-centered learning: This kind of instruction involves the giving over of some "power" inthe language learning process to the learners themselves. It also strives to allow for personalcreativity and input from the students, as well as taking into account their learning needs andobjectives. Cooperative Learning: This concept stresses the "team" like nature of the classroomand emphasizes cooperation as opposed to competition. Students share information and help,and achieve their learning goals as a group.Let‘s talk is one of the 6 proposals to promote language learning in the classroom.a. When learners talk to each other… by Micheal Long and Patricia Porter (1985) learners can offer each other genuine communicative practiceb. learner language and proficiency level by George Yule and Doris Macdonald (1990) ‗sender‘ – low-proficiency learners, interactions were longer ‗receiver‘ – low-proficiency learners, almost forced to play a very passive role and said very littlec. when pair work comes in by Naomi Storch (2002) When pair work functions collaboratively and learners are in an expert-novice relationship, they can successfully engage in the co-construction of knowledged. interaction and second language development by Alison Mackey (1999) produced more advanced question forms with native speakers
  4. 4. The potential advantages of group activities in language instruction (based on Jacobs 1998)Advantage Comment In the teacher-fronted classroom, the teacher typically1. The quantity of learner speech can speaks 80% of the time; in group work more studentsincrease. talk for more of the time. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a2. The variety of speech acts can responsive role, but in group work they can perform aincrease. wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. In teacher-fronted lessons teachers shape their3. There can be more individualization instruction to the needs of the average student but inof instruction. group work the needs of individual students can be attended to. Students feel less nervous speaking in an L2 in front of4. Anxiety can be reduced. their peers than in front of the whole class. Students will be less competitive when working with5. Motivation can increase. groups and are more likely to encourage each other. Students are ‗social animals‘ and thus enjoy interacting6. Enjoyment can increase. with others in groups; in teacher-fronted classrooms student-student interaction is often proscribed. Group activities help students to become independent7. Independence can increase. learners. Group activities enable students to get to know each8. Social integration can increase. other. In typical teacher-fronted classrooms students are9. Students can learn how to work discouraged from helping each other; group work helpstogether with others. students to learn collaborative skills. Learning is enhanced by group work because students10. Learning can increase. are willing to take risks and can scaffold each other‘s effort.
  5. 5. From these it seems reasonable to conclude that group work can provide the interactionalconditions which have been hypothesized to facilitate acquisition more readily than caninteraction involving teachers.When we compare adult and children interaction (Kowal & Swain, 1994) Interaction gives opportunities for children to learn language from each other and topractice what they have learned elsewhere. This process of learning affects all levels oflanguage; prosody and sound, vocabulary, syntax, the verb system, social markers and stylisticfeatures, and organized routines. The process of learning through interaction with other childrenprobably is similar in first language to observations in second-language contexts. Childrenimitate their models, receive corrections, copy predictable routines, figure out meanings fromcontext, and then permute and recombine what they have learned. The opportunity to practicenew forms is particularly available in interaction, because in peer contexts children are requiredto negotiate what they want, to argue for their positions, and to explain ideas. In doinginteraction, they have the chance to acquire and practice strategic language used in socialrelations where adults or more powerful partners do not control them. Unlike children—who are fascinated with learning and willing to engage with learningpurely because it‘s fun, new and different—adults like to learn when it makes a difference intheir lives. Adults learn languages for many intrinsic reasons (and this may be a reason why theycan be so good at learning languages, all things considered). Their self-directedness, lifeexperiences, independence as learners, and motivation to learn provide them with advantages inlanguage learning. Peer interaction has shown that adult learners are able to give each othersecond language input and opportunities for interaction. It also can provide each other with
  6. 6. feedback, in the form of clarification requests and negotiation for meaning. Kowal and Swain(1994) have found that adolescents are able to benefit from pair work activities in which studentswork together to reconstruct dictated texts. Adult learners usually make word errors, factualerrors, syntactic errors and discourse errors in order in the student-student interaction. Then, theygive their partners such feedback as repetition, clarification requests, recast and explicitcorrections. They are using repetition as feedback, and then perceive their errors whileinteracting with their partners. According to the types of errors, factual errors usually inviteclarification request and word errors usually invite repetition. Adult learners usually do self-repair (self-correction).Self-correction: After the students recognize what is incorrect in his/her response, s/he should beable to correct him/herself. This is the best technique, because the student will remember it betterPeer correction: Sometimes the student cannot self-correct (although they should always begiven the opportunity). In this case teacher can prompt another student to provide the correction.After doing this, teacher needs to return to the original student to get the self-correction.Teacher needs to be aware of allowing two or three students in the class to become the ones whoalways provide peer correction. Correction of mistakes should be a task shared by all the studentsin the class. Sometimes it is a good idea just to let students speak and not worry about mistakes –help them develop some degree of fluency.
  7. 7. Incidental focus on form in student-student interactionConducted by Morris and Taone (2003), first study reveals that incidental focus on form doesoccur among students‘ interaction, especially between NS (native speaker) students and NNS(nonnative speaker) students. However‘ the results show that NNS students sometimes do notregard their NS peers‘ feedback as helpful input enhancement, but as criticism and evenmockery. It seems that in some cases the social dynamics of the language classroom maydramatically alter the way cognitive processes of attention or noticing are deployed oncooperative learning activities in which feedback occurred, and this in turn appears to affectacquisition. While the findings of another research conducted by ZHAO (2005) show that incidentalFFREs occur very frequently in student-student interactions and frequency of immediate uptakeof these FFEs are very high, which may be indirectly effective for L2 learning? Thus, learnersare able to work as knowledge sources to each other in their L2 learning. Therefore, ZHAOsuggests that spoken interactions should be encouraged between students themselves.What is FFI?  is an umbrella term for ―any planned or incidental instructional activity that is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic form‖ (Ellis, 2001)  FFI has been seen as consisting of two broad types: focus on forms and focus on form (Long, 1991, 1996)Focus on forms is characterized by ―division of the language according to lexis, structures,notions or functions, which are selected and sequenced for students to learn in a uniform andincremental way‖ (Klapper & Rees, 2003), and by the general absence of a communicative
  8. 8. context. Focus on form in contrast, constitutes attention to linguistic structures within the contextof meaning-focused, communicative activities (Ellis, 2001; Long, 1991, 1996). It may involvethe negotiation of meaning, as well as the planned or incidental targeting of problematiclinguistic items, often in the form of some type of error correction. Although there is stillconsiderable debate regarding the most effective type(s) of FFI, there is some consensus that it isbeneficial, and even necessary, for L2 learners (Russell & Spada, 2006). Incidental and planned,whatever shape it takes, focus on form: Does not interrupt the natural flow of a communicative task Is closely linked to students‘ needs to carry out the task Is not done in an isolated fashion Draws the student‘s attention to structures in situations where primary focus is meaningful communicationPlanned focus on formIn light of the teacher‘s past experience and students‘ needs in carrying out a given task, theteacher carefully plans a communicative task that includes some form-focused activities. Thistype of activity is integrated into the flow of the task. Planned form-focused interventionsinclude:1. Providing access to resources: Teacher can plan student access to resources such as word andexpression banks, posters, and models for speaking and writing tasks. Providing essentiallanguage in the form of posters or word banks will help students speak sooner and moreaccurately. Modeling of speaking activities and functional language will diminish the number of
  9. 9. errors. The teacher can model the targeted language alone or with a student or have two studentsact out the language.2. Consciousness-raising: Teacher can point out certain structural features. For instance, ateacher uses a story as a lead up to a speaking activity in which students share their dailyroutines. The teacher highlights the third person singular of the present tense in a story about apre-teen‘s unusual day by writing on the board a few verbs that correspond to the character‘sactions: gets up, has, goes, travels… The students then reinvest their understanding byexchanging their daily routines. Each student the reports his partner‘s daily routine to the othermembers of the group.Student: Kevin gets up at 7:00. He has breakfast at 7:30. At 8:00, he takes the bus to school…3. Monitoring the writing process: Teachers can improve writing accuracy by monitoring theirstudents as they perform the writing process. Students can refer to a writing checklist thatoutlines the steps before, during, and after the actual writing. Also, throughout the writingprocess, students should have access the resources: model, word banks, peers and the teacher.4. Presenting brief explanations or mini-lessons Teachers can plan for very short explanations ormini-lessons when the task requires such an intervention. If possible, these presentations shouldbe visual. Avoid lengthy explanations of rules and complicated exceptions.5. Interactive grammar activities: Interactive grammar activities allow students to participate incommunicative-type activities while practicing grammatical structures. The main focus is on theinteraction (production and understanding) of meaning with an eye on the structure being
  10. 10. manipulated. These activities are not meant to be used in isolation; rather they should be part ofthe task. They allow for personalization and student input.Incidental focus on formIncidental focus on form takes place during a communicative task with no prior planning.Teachers decide to intervene when some structural problem arises and has to be attended to inorder to carry out the task at hand efficiently. This type of intervention is brief and to the point;the natural progression of the task is not impeded. Incidental form-focused interventions include:1. Brief impromptu explanations and mini-lessons: Sometimes a brief explanation is neededwhen a particular aspect of grammar is giving many students problems or impeding theirunderstanding of the message. The teacher can intervene quickly to point out the problem.2. Answering questions: Student questions on structural signal an emerging awareness andinterest on how the English language works. Answer should be short. For instance:Student: Why two feet and not two foot?Teacher: Foot is different; it is an exception. One foot, but two feet.3. Corrective feedback: Corrective feedback is any indication to learners by teachers, nativespeakers, or non-native speaker interlocutors that their use of the target language is incorrect(Lighbown and Spada 1999). A teacher´s role in the language classroom is to give feedback onerrors, but different corrective feedback has different rates of language uptake.Language learners will benefit from corrective feedback that makes them retrieve the target
  11. 11. language form (rather than immediately supplying the correct form). The retrieval andsubsequent production stimulates the development of connections in the learner‘s memory.These are the various ways of supplying the students with corrective feedback: Explicit correction: The teacher supplies the correct form to the student and clearly indicates that what was said was incorrect. This is common corrective feedback in large groups of students where the teacher‘s time is limited. Explicit correction has a very low rate of uptake since the student doesn‘t have to self-correct and the mistake could be easily forgotten. Recasts: Often used for grammatical and phonological errors. The teacher implicitly reformulates all or part of the student‘s output. Recasts result in the lowest rate of uptake since they don‘t lead to any self-repair.(Neither recasts nor explicit correction lead to any peer or self-repair because they alreadyprovide correct forms to learners). Elicitation: Teacher asks for a reformulation, ‗How do you say that in Spanish?‘ or pausing to allow student to complete teacher‘s utterance. ‘I went on a holiday and...‘ Metalinguistic clues: Teacher provides comments, information, or questions related to student output. For instance, ‗You need past tense‘ Clarification: Teacher uses phrases such as, ‗I don‘t understand‘, or ‗What do you mean?‘Repetition: Teacher repeats the mistake adjusting intonation to highlight the error. For instance,‗You buyed the car?‘, ‗You goed yesterday?‘
  12. 12. Study Participants Target structure Design Tests ResultsCarroll and Swain 100 Spanish adult Dative verbs Five groups: Recall production All the treatment(1993) ESL learners (low (A) direct tasks following each groups performed intermediate) metalinguistic feedback session better than the control feedback. (B) explicit group on both recall rejection. (C) recast. tasks. Group A (direct (D) indirect metalinguistic metalinguistic feedback) feedback. (E) control, outperformed the treatment consisted of other groups. two feedback sessions, each followed by recall (i.e. production without feedback)Kim and Mathes 20 Korean adult ESL Dative verb One group receive Controlled production Differences between(2001) learners (high explicit metalinguistic tasks (as in the performance on first beginners and feedback; the other treatment) without and second production intermediate) recasts; feedback was feedback tasks not significant; presented in two differences between sessions one week groups for gains in apart each followed production not by production with no significant. Learners feedback expressed preference for explicit feedback.
  13. 13. Leeman (2003) 74 first-year Spanish noun- Four groups Post and delayed post Only groups A and C university learners of adjective agreement performing picture description outperformed the Spanish communicative task tasks control group on any one-on-one with post-test measure. No researcher difference between A (A) recast group and C (B) negative evidence group (source or problem indicated but not corrected) (C) enhanced salience with no feedback (D) control groupLyster (2004) 148 (Grade 5) 10-11 French grammatical Group 1 received Four test FFI-prompt group year-olds in a French gender (articles + form-focused 1. binary choice was only group to immersion nouns) instruction (FFI) + test outperform control programme recasts; Group 2 FFI + 2. text completion group on all 8 1. prompts (including test, (oral measures (PT1 and explicit feedback; production PT2). Group 3 FFI only. tasks) FFI-recast group Control group 3. object outperformed control identification group on 5 out of 8 test measures 4. picture FFI-only group description test outperformed control Two post-tests (PT) group on 4 out of 8 with PT2 measures administered 8 weeks Statically significant after PT1 differences between FFI-recast and FFI- prompt
  14. 14. Ellis, Loewen, and 34 intermediate-level Regular past tense –ed Classroom-based 1. oral imitation tests No effect evident forErlam (2006) adult ESL students in exposure to either – OIT (designed to CF on the immediate private language recasts or measure implicit post-test but the group college metalingustic knowledge) receiving feedback (without 2. untimed metalinguistic correction of the grammatically feedback error) judgment test – outperformed both the UGJT (to measure recast and control explicit knowledge) group on both the 3. metalinguistic delayed OIT and knowledge test (to UGJT. measure explicit knowledge)Sheen (2006b) Low-intermediate Indefinite and definite Classroom-based 1. dictation test Whereas the ESL learners in a articles exposure to recasts 2. written narrative metalinguistic community college in and correction – test correction resulted in the USA metalinguistic 3. error corrections significant gains in explanation in the test learning in both context of performing immediate and post- an oral narrative task tests, the recasts did notAmmar and Spada 64 mixed-proficiency Third-person Classroom-based 1. written passage high-proficiency(2006) learners in three possessive corrective feedback correction task learners benefited Grade 6 intensive determiners (‗his‘ and consisting of recast 2. oral picture equally from recasts ESL classes ‗her‘) and prompts description task and prompts; Low- proficiency learners benefited more from prompts
  15. 15. A frequently cited study of corrective feedback is doughty and Varela (1998). A numberof other studies have compared the effect of different types of corrective feedback on acquisition.Cathcart and Olsen (1976) found that the ESL learners they investigated liked to be correctedand wanted more correction. Chenoweth et al. (1983) found that learners liked to be correctednot during form-focused activities, but also when they were conversing with NS. This liking forcorrection contrasts with the warnings of Krashen (1982) that correction is both useless forACQUISITION, may lead to a negative affective response. Krashen may be partly right, though,as Cathcart and Olsen also reported that when a teacher attempted to provide the kind ofcorrection the learners in their studies said they liked it, it led to communication which the classfound undesirable. Other studies have investigated which type of corrective feedback students prefer. Kimand Mathes (2001) and Nagata (1993) reported a clear preference for more EXPLICITFEEDBACK. Learners, however, are likely to differ in how much, when, and in what way theywant to be corrected in specific instructional activities; to date, the studies investigating learners‘viewpoints about error correction have failed to explore this variation in any depth. There is alsoa considerable variation among teachers regarding how frequently error treatment takes place.Edmondson (1985) pointed out teachers sometimes correct ‗errors‘ that have not in fact beenmade! In general, it is teachers (rather than students) who correct errors. Studies of repair innaturally-occurring conversations have shown a preference for self-initiated and self-completedrepair. However, in classroom contexts, where, as we have seen, discourse rights are unevenlyinvested in the teacher, other-initiated and other-completed repair are predominant. Other patternof repair can also occur; Kasper (1985) found that the trouble sources were identified by the
  16. 16. teacher but repair by learners or by other learners. In the content phase of the same lesson; self-initiated and self-completed repair was evident, although the learners were inclined to appeal forassistance from the teacher. However, as with corrective feedback strategies, variation in the rateand nature of uptake has been found.Types of uptake following corrective feedback (from Lyster and Ranta 1997)A Repair1 Repetition (i.e. the student repeats the teacher‘s feedback).2 Incorporation (i.e. the student incorporates repetition of the correct form in a longer utterance).3 Self-repair (i.e. the student corrects the error in response to teacher feedback that did notsupply the correct form).4 Peer-repair (i.e. a student other than the student who produced the error corrects it in responseto teacher feedback).B Needs repair1 Acknowledgement (e.g. a student says ‗yes‘ or ‗no‘).2 Same error (i.e. the student produces the same error again).3 Different error (i.e. the student fails to correct the original error and in addition produces adifferent error).4 Off target (i.e. the student responds by circumventing the teacher‘s linguistic focus).5 Hesitation (i.e. the student hesitates in response to the teacher feedback).6 Partial repair (i.e. the student partly corrects the initial error).
  17. 17. Less important < focus on form > more importantLearner variablesAge Children Adolescents AdultsProficiency level Beginning Intermediate Advanced Semiliterate, some formalEducational background Preliterate, no formal education Literate, well-educated educationInstructional variablesSkill Listening, reading Speaking WritingNeed/use Survival Vocational Professional
  18. 18. The characteristics of L2 learnersEight to twelve years old will benefit from some grammatical focus only if their age, proficiencylevel, and characteristics are taken into account. The following grid is helpful for judging theimportance of grammar for a given group. Young learners are clearly identified on the left sideof the grid, showing that focus on form is less important for them that it is for adolescents andadults. They are just starting out. Taking risks and making errors are part of their learningprocess. Teachers must be tolerant and not try to correct all errors. An overly strong focus onform will inhibit risk-taking. Children tend to view language in a holistic manner, getting the bigpicture, rather than analytically like adults. Adults usually attempt to break up language into littlebits. Little explicit grammar instruction is need for children. Long grammar presentation andexplanations or complicated grammar rules are boring.Several studies have shown that implicit corrective feedback in pair-work situations is beneficial.Nicholas, Lightbrown, and Spada 2001 stated that recasts are more salient in pair work,particularly if only one form is recast consistently. But recast may not always be perceived bythe learners as an attempt to correct their language form but rather as just another way of sayingthe same thing. So, as a teacher… we need to make an appropriate method of teaching fordifferent group of age and also the task that teacher can focus on….

×