Ellis (1992:2) describes classroom interaction as the “fundamental fact of pedagogy” which provides opportunities for negotiating comprehensible input. Comprehensible input refers to input that can be understood by other people involved in the communication process. For effective interaction and learning in the classroom in a foreign language, Shrum & Glisan (2000:14-15) suggest that learners should be provided with the following:
• comprehensible input in the TL.
• an interactive environment that models and presents a variety of social, linguistic and cognitive tools for structuring and interpreting participation in talk.
• opportunities for learners to negotiate meaning in the TL, with assistance from the teacher and one another.
• opportunities for learners to interact communicatively with one another in the TL.
• conversations and tasks that are purposeful and meaningful to the learner.
• a non-threatening environment that encourages self-expression.
Firstly, classroom interaction is guided by a certain goal or purpose. Ellis (1985:148; 1992:2) mentions three basic pedagogic goals of interaction in the L2 classroom: (i) core goals, (ii) framework goals and (iii) social goals. The core goal relates to the actual purpose of the lesson e.g. teaching a specific aspect of the lesson while framework goals are concerned with the necessary requirements to organize the lesson (e.g. giving out materials or classroom management). Social goals refer to the use of language for personal purposes such as greeting, apologizing, etc. All these goals influence the kind
of communication or interaction in the language classroom because the language (TL) can be used as a medium of instruction or as a means of managing lessons (Shrum & Glisan, 2000:7).
In line with the goals of language learning, Ellis (1992:2) mentions the setting as another factor that may influence SLA. For instance, the language used by learners differs according to settings such as the classroom, playground, recess, etc. In some cases learners tend to use formal language, e.g. in the classrooms while they may use informal language in the playground or with friends.
In an L2 classroom there are many challenges that confront both teachers and learners in terms of accessing comprehensible input. Firstly, if the teacher is the native speaker of the TL, she may encounter problems communicating effectively and negotiating meaning if the learners are not native speakers of the TL. There may be communication breakdowns that may have negative effects on the learning process. Secondly, the learners may be anxious about making mistakes and remain silent or passive in the classroom. Anxiety is one of the factors that have a negative influence on L2 learning. It often occurs because learners have fears of communicating in a language in which they are not fluent; hence anxiety and silence are common among L2 learners who have low proficiency in the L2. It must be noted, however, that silence in the class may be due to language learning anxiety, rather than incompetence in learning the subject matter. For instance, Tsui (1996:154) makes the following comments about her observation of English L2 students in Hong Kong:
Most students in Hong Kong will not ask the teacher even if they do not understand what the teacher is saying, especially if the students have to ask in English. When the students remain silent, the teacher has no way of knowing what the problem is. Hence no remedial measures are taken. This leads to further incomprehension, resulting in further silence.
Likewise, if both the teachers and learners are non-native speakers of the TL more problems in terms of language interaction may be expected. The teachers themselves may find it difficult to communicate in the medium of the L2, while the learners may not understand lessons in the L2. The input that the learners get is likely to be
incomprehensible (e.g. incorrect utterances, vague questions, etc.). In such a situation both the teachers and learners resort to the L1 as a communicative resort through code- switching. Adendorff (1996:389) describes code-switching as a spontaneous and functional communicative resource that assists the teacher and students to accomplish educational objectives.
As stated above, the learning of science involves learning the language of science such as grammatical metaphors or condensation of words to explain cause and effect such as “photosynthesis, polymerization, etc.” (Keys, 1999:1046; Monk & Dillon, 1995:95). The language of science also involves pictures, graphs, tables, unfamiliar vocabulary, etc. Classroom communication often involves speaking, reading and writing (literacy) to convey meaning. Urquhart & Weir (1998) refer to literacy as reading, writing, numeracy and document processing. A minimal level of literacy is needed to enable one to read and write simple messages, but functional literacy is necessary for sophisticated functions such as comprehension, interacting and interpreting written data (Urquhart & Weir, 1998:20). In most cases the learners are functionally literate in the L1, and may have a minimal level of literacy in the L2. According to Keys (1999), writing fosters the generation of knowledge in science, and written language encourages learners to make connections between concepts, to discover and extend their knowledge. Given the fact that science has a special language as stated above, and it is a subject that demands learners to investigate, observe experiments, and interpret data, learners may experience difficulties in performing these functions effectively if they have limited literacy in the language used in learning.
Classroom interaction is also influenced by the three phases of discourse exchange, namely, initiate-respond-feedback (IRF) (Ellis, 1992:2). IRF reflects the three types of address in communication: the speaker, the listener and the hearer. IRF exchange restricts the learners to perform the language acts as they have to respond to roles assigned to them (Ellis, 1990:2). In IRF exchange, the pupils normally respond to the teacher’s questions and such kind of interaction does not equip the learners for communication outside the classroom. This kind of interaction is associated with
transmission or traditional mode of teaching where the teacher takes control of the lesson content and management. In the science classroom, particularly, it inhibits learners from working out relationships and meanings of scientific concepts (Jones, 2000; Ellis, 1985:147).
In relation to IRF exchange in classroom interaction, Tsui (1996:149), in her study of factors that caused reticence and anxiety among L2 learners in Hong Kong noted that English L2 students showed less confidence in initiating questions or providing answers due to their low English proficiency. The students were not willing to take risks, and they only answered when they were asked by the teacher. He also noticed that there was an uneven allocation of turns to students in terms of answering questions. In other words, the teachers tended to ask brighter students more often. They used this strategy to get the correct answers and to avoid not getting responses from other students (Tsui, 1996:154). In cases where there were no responses from students, the teachers provided the answers themselves instead of showing patience by giving more time for students to think. In relation to this study, an analysis of classroom interaction is discussed at length in Chapter 7. In the next section, I present the actual classroom interactions that may be employed to enhance teaching and learning. The interactions are discussed from the sociocultural perspective based on Vygotsky’s (1987) sociocultural theory.