In the recent years, many new fields in second language acquisition have emerged. instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) is also among them. ISLA due to Loewen (2015T is an academic subfield that is about learning a language other than the first one. cognitive-inter actionist methods offered efficient features of L2 instruction. This chapter discusses about Loewen definition of ISLA and emphasizes the roles of both native speaker-learner and learner-learner interaction.

1. Cognitive-
Interactionist
Approaches to
L2 Instruction
Chapter 8
Course Instructor
Dr. Mohammad Hasanzadeh
Presenter
Seyed Mojtaba Jafari

3. Background
In the recent years, many new fields in second language acquisition have
emerged. instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) is also among
them. ISLA due to Loewen (2015) is an academic subfield that is about
learning a language other than the first one. cognitive-interactionist
methods offered efficient features of L2 instruction. This chapter
discusses about Loewen definition of ISLA and emphasizes the roles of
both native speaker-learner and learner-learner interaction. The roots of
these approaches can be found in Long’s initial formulations of the
Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1981). The input hypothesis according to
Krashen, 1985 is the main force of L2 learning.

4. During 1980s and early 1990s, two hypothesis arose by Schmidt (1993) and
Swain(1985). Schmidt said that noticing of forms is necessary and sufficient
in learning but swain claimed that while comprehensible input is necessary for
L2 development, on its own, it is insufficient. It encourages learners to move
beyond semantic processing of language and focuses on attention.
After the emergence of the updated version of Interaction Hypothesis, SLA has
seen many empirical studies in this field and investigates the goal of how
interaction helps L2 learning. By examining the interaction between some
native and nonnative pairs, Gass and Varonis found a positive role for
negotiation of meaning among learners. Mackey(1999) used a pretest-posttest
design to examine how interaction facilitates learning. Her findings showed
that learners with greater interaction gain more development compared to
those without participation.

5. Generally, there are some concepts in the field of L2
learning.
Key Concepts
• Input : the available language to learner through any medium like listening or reading
and provides positive evidence.
• Interaction : any kind of conversation that engage learners like online or mobile
mediated.
• Output : The oral or written language that is produced by learners.
• Noticing : Paying attention to linguistic input with some level of awareness.
• Corrective feedback : A written or oral response to learners’ errors.
• Focus on form : attention to linguistic forms during meaning oriented activities.
• Modified output : Learners’ response to feedback that is more target-like than the
original utterance.

6. Current Issues
Focus on form is one of the most examined topics and it has different
techniques like input enhancement, corrective feedback that relates to both
theoretical and pedagogical motivations. Theoretical perspective, values the
role of corrective feedback that promotes noticing of language forms but
Pedagogically speaking addresses long-standing concerns related to lack of
accuracy. Some variables like feedback types, individual differences and
target linguistic features affect the role of corrective feedback. In the way to
development, interactive tasks play a major role and at last, computer
mediated communication has explored in synchronous computer-mediated
communication and learners are given opportunities to interact and produce
language and modify output (Ziegler, 2016).

7. Empirical Evidence
Native Speaker-Learner Interaction: Features of Corrective Feedback
There are some questions that relate to corrective feedback
studies:
(1) Does feedback occur naturally in the L2 classroom?
(2) What are the characteristics of naturally occurring feedback?
(3) Is feedback effective for L2 learning?
(4) What characteristics of feedback influence its effectiveness?
(5) What contextual characteristics of feedback influence its effectiveness?
These studies also identified some types of corrective feedback including recasts,
clarification, confirmation checks and metalinguistic feedback.

8. Scientists addressed the relation between corrective feedback and L2 learning
and have found that different characteristics influence the effectiveness of
feedback in relation to L2 development. For example recasts were effective
for young learners. In this area Lyster et al. (2013) claim that oral feedback is
more effective than on feedback.
In addition, young learners mostly received feedback focusing on lexis while
adults received feedback on pronunciation. And it can be concluded that
second language teachers targeted phonological errors significantly more
than foreign language teachers.

9. McDonough (2005) compared the effects of four conditions on the
development of English questions: enhanced opportunities to modify,
opportunities to modify, feedback without opportunity to modify, and
no feedback and she found that students with modified output
opportunities showed a greater degree of learning. so very scholars
investigated the role of output in L2 learning and they found various
variables like working memory (Mackey et al.,2002), language
aptitude (Li, 2013), and language anxiety (Sheen, 2008) impact the
effectiveness of corrective feedback.

10. Mackey and Sachs(2012) said that older learners who
have higher working memory can gain higher
development through interactive tasks. Shortly,
research on corrective feedback has contributed to our
understanding of the role of interaction in language
learning from both theoretical and pedagogical
perspectives.

11. Learner–Learner Interaction in Classroom Contexts:
Task Design and Implementation Variables
Researchers and language practitioners are highly interested in identifying
what may facilitate language learning through learner–learner interaction. The
development of learner–learner interaction studies has been accompanied by
task-based research. So there has been significant attention to task-based
interaction in ISLA literature. Researchers have particular interest to task
design and implementation and its subsequent outcomes. And in ISLA,
interactional features is of particular interest and studies have found positive
relationship between interactional features subsequent language learning as a
result of task-based interaction in the classroom (e.g., Adams, 2007; Newton,
2013).

12. Some hypothesis predict that complexity will promote more
interactional features such as negotiation for meaning and
corrective feedback. Kim(2009) showed that learner proficiency
and task types mediate task complexity effects. Also Révész (2011)
examined the role of task complexity in interaction-driven learning
opportunities during decision-making tasks with ESL learners. She
found that more complex task caused greater amounts of
LREs(LREs; instances in the interactions where learners talk about,
question, and/or self-or-other correct language use).

13. Some researchers examined group planning prior
to oral presentation tasks and concluded that
groups composed of mixed proficiency learners
were more interactive and focused on both
content and language issues related to the
upcoming presentation tasks during task
planning.

14. Another task implementation is task repetition. It allows
learners to allocate more cognitive resources to language
rather than task content. Such process promote interlanguage
development. It mostly accompanies with monologic oral
tasks. Patanasorn (2010) investigated the effects of different
characteristics of task repetition in the acquisition of past
tense morphology during learner–learner interaction in Thai
EFL university contexts.

15. Another recently developed topic within the research domain of
interactive task design is interactive alignment (or priming), the
phenomenon of speakers’ tendency to use linguistic structures that they
have recently heard. And researchers adopted priming mechanism as
priming may promote linguistic convergence during interaction. We can
show it by referring the use of passive and active construction which are
alternative forms. Priming recently has become significant in ISLA
research. Auditory priming refers to speakers’ tendency to process a
spoken word more quickly and to produce a word more accurately when
they have previously heard that word compared to a novel
word(McDonough & Trofimovich, 2012; Trofimovich, 2016).

16. Technology-Mediated Interaction: Synchronous computer-mediated
communication (SCMC)
The use of diverse instructional technology in educational contexts and the
creation of online courses have contributed to the expansion of interaction
research (see McDonough & Mackey, 2013). Computer- mediated
communication (CMC) have received increasing attention in interactionist
domain. SCMC has been attracting much attention in SLA literature for its
purported benefits for L2 development (Smith, 2005). These situations take
place in SCMC and unlike face to face interactions, learners have more time
to understand and process what they see or hear. In order to investigate the
role of interaction in SCMC contexts, researchers may examine the noticing
of target features compared to FTF interaction.

17. Several studies have compared the amount of negotiation of
meaning between face-to face interactions and written
SCMC, and found that FTF interactions elicit more
collaborative interaction than written SCMC mode . Loewen
and Wolff suggest that the slower pace of interaction in
written SCMC mode might allow learners to take more time
to monitor their language production, thus they may not
need to be engaged in negotiation of meaning as much as in
oral mode.

18. Another interesting finding was that the frequency of different types
of interactional features between the two modes was varied. For
instance, the most common interaction features in the oral mode
were confirmation checks and LREs, yet they were hardly occurred
in the written SCMC mode. Previous research has examined
learners’ noticing of linguistic forms in the form of LREs and form-
focused episodes (FFEs). So far the findings related to the
occurrence of LREs and FFEs between the two modes have been
mixed. They also provided some evidence of language learning after
doing posttests.

19. Pedagogical Implications
First, teachers should ideally include a variety of feedback because no single
type has been identified as the most effective type. Also teacher trainers
discuss the different focus on form techniques with student teachers.
In terms of learner–learner interaction, we have strong evidence that it is
beneficial in classrooms. What seems to be the most important at the present
stage is to train learners to become autonomous interaction participants, given
that recent training studies demonstrate the benefits of training (Fujii, Ziegler,
& Mackey, 2016; Kim, 2013a; Sato & Lyster, 2012).

20. According to cognitive-interactionist perspectives, task design
features can also impact the degree of interaction driven language
learning. tasks encourage learners to use language in meaningful
contexts in order to facilitate interaction.
Also, the use of specific techniques as a part of guided planning
seems to encourage learners to pay attention to target forms during
interaction. Finally, encouraging learners to work collaboratively to
identify gaps and actively work to identify solutions for their LREs
or FFEs may be helpful for L2 development.

21. Teaching Tips
• Teachers need to make corrective feedback salient as long as it does not interrupt natural
conversation flows in class.
• Collaborative tasks need to be designed in a way that they elicit beneficial interactional
features and they should focus on task complexity, task types, and task implementation
• Teachers want to recycle the procedure of entire tasks and/or parts of tasks with different
content to increase learners’ autonomy as task participants.
• Teachers need to provide training that focuses on how to participate in interactive tasks
effectively for their learning.
• Teachers might want to incorporate priming mechanisms in their task design so that some
linguistic models are provided naturally.

22. Future Directions
Since the 1980s, interaction research in SLA has maintained its
dynamic research agenda in terms of developing theory and
research methodology and, it has offered a number of pedagogical
implications in diverse instructional contexts. As Gass and Mackey
(2015) claim, based on a significant amount of empirical work
supporting the benefits of interaction in L2 learning, it is now
referred to as the interaction approach to language teaching.
Although considerable research has provided convincing evidence
for the benefits of interaction in the L2 classroom, much more
future research has yet to be done in the field.

23. The concept of interactive alignment (e.g., priming) has not been
explored completely in the SLA literature. Many L1 studies have
shown the occurrence of interactive alignment, and more L2
studies focusing on this topic are needed. In particular, the
delayed learning effects of priming during interaction warrant
further investigation.

24. Future studies would need to explore whether it is an
implicit language learning behavior as in L2 contexts L2
learners might explicitly try to copy other interlocutors’
utterances to pursue successful conversations (i.e., explicit
interactive alignment strategy). In terms of the literature on
L2 priming tasks, the role of priming for application to
classroom contexts is still in its infancy. Additional
classroom-based priming research is needed to identify the
most effective ways to design, sequence, and implement
such collaborative tasks.