AbstractDiscourse features that promote the generation of interactionally modified input and output, such as negotiation for meaning, have been shown to significantly enhance second language acquisition. Research has also identified several characteristics of instructional practices that render them more or less propitious to the generation of these discourse features. While various classroom observation studies have successfully measured the communicative orientation of classroom environments, most of the indicators of interactivity analyzed in those studies were obtained through micro-level discourse analyses and not through macro-level analyses of task-related factors shown to directly influence the interactivity of instructional practices. Such a macro-level scale has potential practical implications for teachers and administrators seeking an efficient tool for assessing and improving the interactivity afforded by a given curriculum. The objective of the present study was therefore to develop macro-level scale to determine the extent to which teachers of French and English as a second language use interaction-friendly instructional practices. Using an observation scheme designed to code data on factors shown to influence interactivity, 63 hours of FSL and ESL classes from secondary schools in the Montreal area were observed and analyzed. Results indicate clear differences between the two groups. While both ESL and FSL classes were less teacher-centered than those observed in previous studies, they were still rated as not-very-interactive. Target language differences showed that the FSL classes were more teacher-centered and characterized by fewer interaction-friendly tasks and activities than the ESL classes. Task characteristics, reasons for ESL and FSL differences and recommendations for improvement are discussed.
Allen, P., & Carroll, S. (1988). Analytic and experiential dimensions in core French classrooms. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 45, 43-64.
Allen, P., Fröhlich, M., & Spada, N. (1984). The communicative orientation of language teaching: An observation scheme. In J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem, & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL ’83 (pp. 231-252). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: Toward a more comprehensive view of second language education. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 57-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Antón, M. (1999). A learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher- learner interaction in the second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 303-18.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (2006). Dissertations and theses from start to finish: Psychology and related fields (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
Dicks, J. (1992). Analytic and experiential features of three French immersion programs: Early, middle and late. Canadian Modern Language Review, 49, 37-59.
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). “Information Gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-325.
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Talking task to task. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 147-81). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Duff, P., & Polio, C. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 74, 154-166.
Eckerth, J. (2009). Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom. Language Teaching, 42, 109-30.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449-491.
Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 10, 583-593.
Fazio, L., & Lyster, R. (1998). Immersion and submersion classrooms: A comparison of instructional practices in language arts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19, 303-317.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1-23.
Foster, P., & Otha, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402-430.
Frölich, M., Spada, N., & Allen, P. (1985). Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 27-57.
García Mayo M. P., & Lazaro Ibarrola, A. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings, System, 54, 40-54. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.12.001
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp. 180-206). New-York: Routledge.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 299-307.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575-611.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149-62). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in the language classroom. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Loewen, S. (2003). Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on form. Language Teaching Research, 7, 315-345.
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 361-377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, second-language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Long, M. H. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-194.
Long, M. H. (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bahatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Long, M. H., & Sato, C. (1983). Foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers questions. In H. Selinger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research on second language acquisition (pp. 268-285). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2011). Research methodologies in second language acquisition. London: Blackwell.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ response on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79-103.
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323-338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec (2006). Programme de formation de l’école québécoise. Enseignement secondaire, premier cycle. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation.
Mitchell, R., Parkinson, B., & Johnstone, R. (1981). The foreign language classroom: An observational study. Stirling: Department of Education, University of Stirling.
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & Van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 377-405.
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3-21.
Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the language classroom: Research perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 49-79.
Pica, T. (1996). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12, 1-22.
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115-132). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Pica, T., Doughty, C., & Young, R. (1986). Making input comprehensible: Do interactional modifications help? ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics, 72, 1-25.
Polio, C., & Duff, P. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 313-326.
Polio, C., & Gass, S. M. (1998). The role of interaction in native speaker comprehension of nonnative speaker speech. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
Quivy, R., & Campenhoudt, L. (1988). Manuel de recherche en sciences sociales. Paris: Dunod.
Sato, C. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the connection. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 23-45). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Seliger, H. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A study of interaction patterns and L2 competence. Language Learning, 27, 264-278.
Simard, D., & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61, 759-785.
Spada, N., & M. Fröhlich. (1995). Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.
Stern, H. H. (1990). Analysis and experience as variables in second language pedagogy. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of bilingual proficiency (pp. 93-109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M., & Carroll, S. (1987). The immersion observation study. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of bilingual proficiency. Final Report (Vol. II, pp. 190-263). Toronto: Modern Language Centre.
Takashima, H., & Ellis, R. (1999). Output enhancement and the acquisition of the past tense. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 173-188). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ullmann, R., & Geva, E. (1982). The target language observation scheme (TALOS). York region board of education, core French evaluation project (Unpublished report). Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Canada.
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Nonnative/nonnative conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71-90.
Wood, D., Brunner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Yuqin Zhao, S., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. System, 35, 431-447.
Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in Spanish literature courses. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 50-73.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.