The Role of Interaction in Selected Studies on Second Language Acquisition
Nov. 17, 1997By Khalid M. Abalhassan
The distance between theory and practice of research is sensed in this assignment. The different forms of the major research approaches were not accurately embodied in the studies reviewed for this paper. Although the authors of the reviewed studies claimed their studies were empirical, the characteristics of empirical research were not entirely exhibited in the studies. This paper reviews 22 studies on SLA and interaction to find patterns in their research design. A further purpose of this paper is to investigate the general drawbacks or problems that are found common in those studies.
Interaction and SLA
The studies in this paper have tested empirically the hypothesis of interaction and its role in SLA. Interaction has attracted more interest in the second language acquisition (SLA) research in the last decade. Attention to pedagogical processes is responsible in part for that growing interest in studying the influence of interaction on second language acquisition.
The type of interaction that influences SLA occurs among non-native speakers of L2 (NNS) and, more importantly, between NNS and native speakers (NS). Long (1990) proposed that interaction is necessary for SLA (but insufficient). He points out that it is essential for such a valid description of SLA to have a "synthesis of well-attested empirical findings about process and product in interlanguage development related to universals and variance in learners and learning environments" (Long, 1990, p.650). In his sample of well-established findings, Long discussed several aspects of linguistic environment: The amount and kind of verbal interaction that are important factors in SLA. The interactional features are supposed to promote SLA. Three aspects of verbal interaction can be distinguished: input, production, and feedback. Input is the language offered to the language learner by native speakers (or by other learners); the L2 learners use the input to form hypotheses about the language. Production (or output) is the language spoken by the language learners themselves. Feedback is the reaction offered by the conversational partners to the production of the language learner. Optimizing the interaction implies improving the quantity and quality of input, production, and feedback.
This paper will examine a selected number of empirical studies that participated in researching the interaction hypothesis in empirical methods. It will look for global methodological patterns in the design of those studies. This review will include a brief discussion of the research processes that this study has gone through.
SLA Research Design
Research has universal characteristics, which consumers expect to find. However, every field has its character which researchers in that field attempt to maintain. Given that, it is important to have a glance at the way SLA specialists view/conduct research in their field. Numerous SLA researchers have written books that characterize research in SLA. Among these researchers are J. D. Brown, D. T. Campbell, S. M. Gass, Donna M. Johnson, Dian Larsen-Freeman, M. Long, L. Selinker, P. Selinker, and B. W. Tuckman. These researchers have formulated most of the research designs that characterize SLA research nowadays.
Gass, S. M. (1994) suggests an anatomy or format that is typical in SLA research papers which she claims is expected to be exhibited in them:
In general, this format is reflected in the studies reviewed in this paper. Perhaps the unity between these studies in audience, scope, and theme has caused them to have almost the same format.
Brown (1988) provides a straightforward model of research in SLA. This model best serves the purpose of this study, which is to compare the design and research methodology of a number of selected SLA studies.
J. D. Brown (1988) described thoroughly the statistical research which "fits into the framework of different types of research and describes the characteristics of sound statistical research." He put research in two categories: (1) secondary research and (2) primary research. He explains that the primary research is derived from primary sources of information like a group of students who are learning a language, whereas the secondary research is derived from secondary sources like books about students who are learning a language. The secondary research covers straightforward insights into SLA and analyses of theoretical movements. Primary research covers case studies (longitudinal) and statistical studies (cross-sectional). The statistical studies have two categories: surveys and experimental studies. Brown (1988) characterizes the statistical studies as being systematic, logical, tangible, replicable, and reductive.
As this paper spans the selected empirical SLA studies, it will be noticed that the study of interaction and SLA involves interrelated aspects like language pedagogy, discourse analysis, communication, sequencing, repair, feedback, attention to errors, and error correction. The involvement of these aspects is due to the nature of interaction, which is a complicated process that SLA researchers attempt to break into smaller processes.
The studies reviewed in this paper cover most of the areas which SLA researchers consider legitimate and typical areas which SLA research is usually expected to address (Brown, 1988; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1992; Johnson, 1992). The major components that typical SLA research design has are exhibited in the studies reviewed in this paper. However, these studies differ in the details of research procedures like grouping and subject selection. Some studies did not report the process of selecting subjects for the study or the way they were assigned to their groups. Moreover, some studies reported that statistical analysis was used to analyze data but no statistical tests are named or reported except for some frequencies.
Abstracts are varied in so many ways. Some abstracts are wordy and provide unnecessary theoretical arguments that are not needed by research consumers. Therefore, I had to use the original articles which I found for all abstracts except for two dissertations. Some abstracts had no mention of subjects or research methodology. Abstract writing is very critically important.
Most of the studies are experimental which means that a theoretical concept is tested by comparing the scores of a control group to those of an experimental group. Most of the studies used native speakers for control.
A considerable number of the reviewed studies did not show adequate control over a critical element of SLA research which is testing tools used to collect data. Pilot testing of instruments is an aspect I noticed neglected in both the research process and the research report of a number of studies I reviewed (table 1.). Pilot testing of tools gives more reliability to the tool to be used to collect data. Some studies used some forms of standardized tests like TOEFL to measure the L2 proficiency of L2 speaking participants. The ongoing controversy in SLA research now is whether standardized tests are reliable enough as a measurement of L2 proficiency or not. Some researchers prefer to find their way out of that mess by constructing their pilot-testing own tools which is more reliable if compared to standardized tests.
The dominant analysis approach toward SLA in the reviewed studies is the discourse analysis approach (DA). Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) provided a chronological review of the history of data analysis in SLA research. They indicated that attention is directed to discourse analysis approach (DA) in SLA research especially in the late 1980s (pp. 52-80). Only four studies used theperformananalysis approach (PA) and no studies were found using the contrastive analysis (CA) or error analysis (EA) approaches to analyze the data collected.
Audiotaping and videotaping are used in most of the studies in this paper. The studies have used transcription using different conventions that are accredited in the field of discourse analysis. Interviews are used in some studies as a supplement for the audiotaped conversations. They are used to provide background information about the participants.
The studies used for this review paper have used combinations of research methods and tools. Some studies have more than one experiment carried out at the same time. Therefore, they are, in other words, combinations of a number of mini-studies that collaborate to make one major project. The combining approach is justified and practiced increasingly in SLA research, which supports combining qualitative with quantitative approaches and using more than one approach in one study. Team research has contributed to this trend practiced in SLA research.
In general, examining SLA in a controlled experimental environment has a number of merits, the first of which is the ability to draw causal inferences by looking at effect on the dependant caused by the manipulation of the independent variable. Second, replication of results is open for future researchers. The third merit is the ability to select a limited number of variables for the study. However, one of the problems noticed in SLA studies is the number of interacting variables. The studies reviewed in this paper have reflected that problem. In addition, the question of validity is a problem haunting SLA researchers since it comes to mind when working either with an artificial language or in a controlled lab setting.
As required for this paper, this part will address the research process I went through to complete it.
American Psychological Association (1994). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (fourth edition). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of Academic Talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 (3), 279-304.
Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning. London: Cambridge University Press.
Cholmondeley, S. (1997, Nov. 22). The importance of informal language and slang in TESOL: A survey of Thanet. [On-line], ELI Dissertation Abstracts. Available: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ELI/cholmond.html.
Damhuis, R. (1993). Immigrant children in infant-class interactions: Opportunities for second language acquisition of young multi-lingual children in Dutch infant classes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 (3), 305-331.
Dabene, L., & Billiez, J. (1986). Code-switching in the speech of adolescents born of immigrant parents. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8 (3), 309-325.
Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 435-458.
Gaies, S. J. (1981). Learner feedback and its effects on communication tasks: A pilot study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4(1),46-59.
Gaies, S. J. (1982). Native speaker-nonnative speaker interaction among academic peers (research note). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(1), 74-81
Gass, S. M. (1994). Second Language Acquisition Course Packet. A graduate course packet, Michigan State University.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,7(1), 37-57.
De Heredia, C. (1986). Asymmetric communication in bilingual exchanges. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(3), 369-389.
Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (1997, Nov. 22). Possible Effects of Pre-writing Oral Activities on the L2 Writing Process: an SLA perspective. [On-line], ELI Dissertation Abstracts. Available: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ELI/alatriste.html
Hancin-Bhatt, B., Bhatt, R. (1997). Optimal L2 syllables: Interaction of transfer and developmental effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 331-378.
Johnson, D. M. (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. London, Longman.
Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (2), 200-215.
Labarca, A., & Khanji, R. (1986). On communication strategies: Focus on interaction (Research Note). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8 (1), 68-79.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M.(1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 649-666.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459-481.
Pica, T., Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second LanguagAc, 7(2), 233-248.
Pica, T. et al. (1991). Language Learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13 (3), 343-376.
Pica, T. et al. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11 (1), 63-90.
Reynolds, D. (1995). Repetition in nonnative speaker writing: More than quantity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 185-209.
Rong, Liu (1992). An Exploratory study of Interaction patterns in an ESL classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana.
Tyler, A. (1995). The coconstruction of cross-cultural miscommunication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 129-152.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 205-224.
Whyte, S. (1995). Specialist knowledge and interlanguage development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 153-183.
Wintergerst, A. C. (1994). Second-language classroom interaction: Questions and answers in ESL classes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
(c) 1998. Copyrights by Khalid Abalhassan, IUP.