Classroom dialogues are rarely considered when examining student proficiency in SL/FL classes. Most researchers focus on evaluative measures that seem to be used as indicators of effective language teaching, without taking into account the didactics and interactions that occur inside the walls of the classroom (e.g.: Préfontaine & Kormos, 2015; Germain, Netten,
& Movassat, 2004; Courtney, Graham, Tonkyn, & Marinis, 2017; Lindgren & Muñoz, 2013).
While individual differences are present in all students, pedagogical practices that occur inside classrooms may serve to equalize learning opportunities for all students. With this in mind, this section dives into theories involved in classroom interactions in SL/FL classes that are theoretically described to be conducive to students’ comprehension and production of the target language. Johnson’s (1995) framework for Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms is used in this section to study classroom interactions.
In her framework, Johnson (1995) discusses the notion that teachers play a dominant role in classrooms by virtue of their status and thus determine the structure of classroom communication that take place (p. 4). She states that teachers’ control of classroom communication is shaped by their own frames of reference, stemming from their “prior experiences as students and as second language learners, the nature of their professional knowledge and how that knowledge develops over time, the theoretical beliefs they hold about how second languages are learned and how they should be taught, and the ways in which they make sense of their own teaching experiences” (Johnson, 1995, p. 11). This, she explains, then translates into students’ own perceptions of the patterns of classroom communication, which comprise of unwritten rules and codes of behaviour since the norms of communicative behaviour inside the walls of a classroom are not explicitly taught (Johnson, 1995, p. 12-13). Students also thus rely on their prior experiences in classrooms in order to conform to what they think is appropriate behaviour in their language classrooms (Johnson, 1995, p. 8-9).
While Johnson (1995) covers both teacher and student perspectives in classroom communication patterns that lend themselves to language acquisition, this study focuses primarily on the student perspective of her framework. Specifically, this study centers on the concept that by drawing attention to students’ knowledge and use of language through their own frames of reference in the language classroom, this may lead to students using the target language for classroom learning and second language acquisition (see Figure 5 on page 38on
page 30). As Johnson (1995) further reiterates, “since student-student interaction provides a more meaningful social environment for promoting language use than traditional teacher-directed instruction, student-student interaction in second language classrooms can increase students’ opportunities to use language for second language acquisition” (p. 116-117). In this sense, teachers must be aware of the importance peer interaction among students while using the target language, and should consciously plan for and integrate these types of activities during SL/FL lessons. Students, then, must be given opportunities to interact with each other and use the target language in authentic communicative situations, in order to acquire the language.
Figure 5. Framework for Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms (Johnson, 1995, p. 8)
According to Gass, Selinker, and Plonsky (2013), “the interaction approach accounts for learning through input (exposure to language), production of language (output), and feedback that comes as a result of interaction” (p. 348-349). These components comprise of the different factors that are involved when students engage in peer interactions with one another.
Furthermore, as Johnson (1995) suggests that target language use is conducive to target language acquisition in the second language classroom, she articulates that “students must have the opportunities to use language for both planned and unplanned discourse” (p. 85) and
Teachers’ Control
to allow “for more spontaneous, adaptive patterns of communication in which the structure and content of the interaction can be constructed and controlled as much by the students as the teacher” (p. 167). Because teachers dominate and determine classroom dialogue and communication patterns, they must consciously plan and allow for student interactions in second language classrooms in order for students to acquire the target language.
However, it is also important to note the increasingly diverse nature of classrooms in the 21st century and the diverse backgrounds that students come with at school. As students make sense of teacher-controlled patterns of classroom communication in which they participate in, teachers must be aware of the different culturally engrained ways of communicating that all students come with in the classroom. Johnson (1995) addresses that “culturally learned ways of communicating that differ from those expected in school can create discontinuity between the home and the school, and ultimately inhibit students’ abilities to fully participate in and learn from classroom events” (p. 61). Teachers need to be cognizant of the different cultural backgrounds that students come with in order to provide appropriate opportunities for student input, output, and interaction in a language classroom.
By focusing on students’ knowledge and use of the target language in the classroom, Johnson’s (1995) framework thus leads us into interactionist approaches to language teaching. Therefore, interaction hypotheses and theories are examined in the following sections and their influence on classroom interactions that are theorized to contribute to second language acquisition.
3.4.1 INTERACTION HYPOTHESES
In viewing these interactionist approaches to language learning, Johnson’s framework references a number of interactionist theories. Language, at its core, plays an interactional role when in use, and thus involves interlocutors as language is used to communicate with others. In this section, Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (1981, 1982, 1985), Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1985), Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1981, 1983, 1985), Ellis’ Collaborative Discourse Hypothesis (1990), and Givon’s Discourse Hypothesis (1979) form the foundations of the interactionist approaches described in this framework.
To begin, in participating in discourse, students must develop their listening comprehension.
For this, Krashen’s (1981, 1982, 1985) Input Hypothesis is highlighted in this study which
states that learners’ language development depends on comprehensible input of the target language, and is represented as i+1, where i represents that student’s current level and where 1 represents language that is just above the learner’s level, similar to Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development. Consequently, in order for students to develop their listening comprehension, they must receive considerable exposure to the target language during instruction (see Flege & Liu, 2001; Jia & Aaronson, 2003; Muñoz, 2012; Pfenninger &
Singleton, 2017; Muñoz, 2014, see also the Barcelona Age Project; White & Turner, 2005), since “high level speech production presupposes highly developed listening comprehension”
(Dunkel, 1986; Mordaunt & Olson, 2010). As Netten and Germain (2012) state in the Neurolinguistic Approach, intense exposure to language is necessary in order to develop implicit competence, a skill required for spontaneous oral communication.
When referring to students’ language output, I refer to Swain’s (1985, 2005) Output Hypothesis which stipulates that learners must have opportunities to produce the language and participate in meaningful interactions in order to acquire the target language. Through the Output Hypothesis, students are able to test out their own theories about the target language in question through:
1) the noticing function where learners “may notice that they do not know how to say (or write) precisely the meaning they wish to convey” (Swain, 2005, p. 474) and prompt learners to activate their cognitive processes that “generate linguistic knowledge that is new for them, or that consolidate their current existing knowledge” (Swain, 2005, p. 474),
2) the hypothesis testing function where learners engage in “trial run[s] […] of how to say or write their intent” (Swain, 2005, p. 476), or
3) the metalinguistic function where learners use “language to reflect on language produced by others or the self” (Swain, 2005, p. 478).
Moreover, Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1981, 1983, 1985) refers to the need to use the target language for communication. Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1981, 1983, 1985) stipulates the comprehensible use of the target language and the adjustments that need to occur in conversation in order to communicate appropriately, thereby increasing opportunities for language acquisition. As Gass et al. (2013) state, “crucial to the success of any conversation is the ability to understand and be understood” (p. 343). In student interactions, learners have the chance to negotiate meaning and direct their attention to the different parts of language, whether that may be meaning-focused or form-focused, “with the
possible consequence that that element/those elements will be incorporated into a learner’s developing system” (Gass et al., 2013, p. 359).
Furthermore, Ellis’ (1990) Collaborative Discourse Hypothesis is also referenced in Johnson’s (1995) framework, which suggests that in order for less proficient speakers to produce the desired level of the target language, they must have dialogical opportunities which may lead to second language acquisition. As Gass et al. (2013) summarize,
“conversational interaction in an L2 forms the basis for the development of language, rather than being only a forum for practice of specific language features” (p. 378). Collaborative dialogue is seen as a way to develop learners’ language systems where students are given a space to test different language hypotheses as they make sense of the TL (Swain, 2005; Gass et al., 2013, p. 370).
Equally, Givon’s (1979) Discourse Hypothesis further articulates that learners must participate in a variety of communicative contexts if they are to acquire a full range of linguistic competencies. It is important to note that L2 learning “occurs in interaction, not as a result of interaction” (Swain, Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002, p. 173), therefore students need to participate in discourse in order to develop their language systems. Students need to take an active role in their language learning as interlocutors and are seen as active agents in developing their language competencies through interaction.
Thus, classroom dialogues that occur between students are hypothesized to lead to second language acquisition in this framework, if teachers plan for and allow students to engage in such authentic conversations. When taken together, these theories point to the importance of student-centred language learning in providing students with opportunities for dialogic interactions in language classrooms.
3.4.2 INITIATION, RESPONSE, EVALUATION (IRE) SEQUENCE
In line with the interactionist theories previously mentioned, patterns of communication which Mehan (1979) and Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) refer to as the Initiation, Response, Evaluation (IRE) sequence that is typical in classroom dialogues is also addressed in this study. The IRE sequence outlines the order and process in which conversations are usually mediated between teacher and students in that teachers typically initiate classroom dialogues with a question, followed by a student’s response, and then an evaluation of that response (Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). If teachers act as pedagogical and language
scaffolds for students, student interactions in the target language should also work in the same manner, allowing students to control the content and structure of their interactions, thereby catalyzing their second language acquisition (Johnson, 1995).
3.4.3 LANGUAGING AND COLLABORATIVE DIALOGUE
Additionally, Swain and Watanabe (2013) discuss languaging (see also CEFR, 2018, p. 33) as a process and a result of collaborative dialogue. They state that “speakers (or writers) are using language as a cognitive tool to mediate their own thinking and that of others” (Swain &
Watanabe, 2013, p.1). Because speaking produces utterances (Olson, 1977, in Ellis, 1990, p.
128-129), Swain and Watanabe (2013) argue that speech or text that arise from collaborative dialogue has a chance to be “questioned, added to, [and] discredited” (p. 1) which is a source of language learning and development as learners co-construct meaning (p. 1-3). The interaction approach to language teaching “accounts for learning through input (exposure to language), production of language (output), and feedback that comes as a result of interaction” (Gass et al., 2013, p. 348-349). This argument is supported by a number of studies using language-related episodes (LREs), where learners “seek out and provide assistance” (Swain and Watanabe, 2013, p. 3) to their peers to solve language-related problems (e.g.: Swain & Lapkin, 2002; Watanabe & Swain, 2007; Brooks & Swain, 2009).
LREs are defined as “any part of a dialogue where the students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others” (Swain &
Lapkin, 1998, p. 326). It is important to note that these studies were conducted in French Immersion contexts, and research in FSL classes is warranted when it comes to studying student target language use in peer-peer interactions.
3.4.4 GROUP DYNAMICS
However, it is also perhaps worth highlighting that collaborative dialogue and student interaction alone do not necessarily facilitate SLA. Group dynamics are another dimension that come into play when examining student interactions. In Storch’s (2002) study on dyadic interactions in an adult ESL class, she found that different groupings and patterns of interaction shaped the collaboration and learning opportunities for each pair. Her data revealed four distinct patterns of interaction labeled as “collaborative, dominant/dominant, dominant/passive, and expert/novice” (Storch, 2002, p. 147). The findings from the study indicated that opportunities for learning increased in the collaborative pairs while the other
dyads assumed no transfer of knowledge or missed opportunities (Storch, 2002, p. 148) for language development and SLA.
3.4.5 PROFICIENCY DIFFERENCES
Watanabe and Swain (2007), in another study, focused on proficiency differences during pair interactions. They concluded that “proficiency difference in pairs does not necessarily affect the nature of peer assistance and L2 learning” (p. 138) but that the “proficiency difference may create a different pattern of interaction” (p. 138). In a different study comparing collaborative and individual tasks on the acquisition of L2 vocabulary, Kim (2008) found that
“exposure to more LREs through the contribution of a partner may lead to L2 vocabulary learning, especially if those LREs were resolved correctly” (p. 124) through pair interactions.
Kim (2008) also alluded to languaging that occurred during the interactions where learners
“were able to support learning through questioning, proposing possible solutions, repeating, and negotiating” (p.124; see Swain et al., 2002; Swain & Watanabe, 2013). In Villamil &
Guerrero’s (1998) study on Assessing the Impact of Peer Revision on L2 Writing, results showed that “peer assistance had a substantial effect on revising” (p. 501) but that
“ultimately, it was the writer’s prerogative to choose from the suggestions and exercise authorial control” (p. 501-503). This suggests that students determine the extent to which peer suggestions are internalized, and that the dynamics of the pair interactions may also come into play when examining how pair interactions facilitate SLA.
3.4.6 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK LIMITATIONS ON STUDENT INTERACTIONS
While there are other variables that are ever present during student interactions in SL/FL classes, they are beyond the scope of this current study. These may be factors such as the use of metalanguage (e.g.: Amman & Hassan, 2018), communicative orientations of L2 classrooms (e.g.: Frölich, Spada, & Allen, 1985), task-design (e.g.: Nunan, 1989), task-based language learning (e.g.: Ellis, 2003), communication strategy teaching (e.g.: Saeidi, 2015), and task-difficulty (Préfontaine & Kormos, 2015) to name a few. For the purposes of this thesis, the primary focus in examining student interactions rests on students’ functional use of the TL in the classroom.
3.4.7 SUMMARY
In summary, student interactions and collaborative approaches to language learning and teaching provide a foundation for Johnson’s (1995) framework of patterns of classroom
communication. Together, these congruent theories provide the foundations for the interactionist approaches to teaching and learning that are at the heart of this Master’s thesis.
As students make sense of the TL, they may be able to test out hypotheses through languaging practices as they use the L2 to negotiate and mediate their learning. Providing students with opportunities to engage in peer-peer interaction may facilitate SLA. Thus, examining target language use in student-student interactions in the Grade 4 FSL classroom is of primary importance in order to gain insights into whether target language use is promoted in the early stages of language learning in developing the foundations necessary for second language acquisition (e.g.: Neu, 2013; Dockrell et al., 2010; Saeidi, 2015; Haj-Broussard et al., 2017). However, student groupings alone do not facilitate L2 learning and development and thus teachers need to be cognizant of student pairings in order to maximize collaborative learning opportunities in class, rather than missing opportunities due to mismatched pairings.
3.5 LANGUAGE PRACTICES