PDF
Published
01.11.2020
Section
Research Articles
How to Cite
Creating Interactional Opportunities in the Indian ESL Classroom
Dr. Sushma Parvathini
Keywords: ESL Classroom, Interactions in the classroom
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to examine the nature of interaction in the Indian ESL context in the light of ‘Interaction Approach’ (Gass and Mackey, 2015:180). Interaction approach subsumes some aspects of input, interaction hypothesis, and output hypothesis. Therefore, in order to gain an understanding of these factors, an effort has been made to explore classroom interaction in Indian CBSE schools in terms of negotiation of meaning, the functions of output and collaborative dialogue, and their importance in SLA. The present study adopted a descriptive classroom-based approach. This investigation required observation to gain an insight into interactions in the ESL classroom. In addition, the perspectives of learners and teachers were felt to be important to understand the issue under study.
Author Biography
Dr. Sushma Parvathini
Dr. Sushma Parvathini, now a freelancer, got her PhD degree from the English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad.
References
Allwright, R.1984. ‘The importance of interaction in classroom language learning’. Applied Linguistics 5,156-171.
Gass, S. and A. Mackey. 2012.The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. USA: Routledge Books.
Gass, S. and A. Mackey. 2015. ‘Input, interaction and output in SLA’. In Patten, V. and J. Williams, Theories in SLA: An Introduction. USA: Routledge Books.
Gass, S. M., and Varonis, E. M. 1994. Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.
Long, M.1983. ‘Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input’. Applied Linguistics 4/2, 126-141.
Long, M. 1985. Input and second language acquisition theory in S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley. MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition in W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press.
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 and J. Philp. 1998. ‘Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings?’ Modern Language Journal 82/3: 338-356.
McDonough, K and A. Mackey. 2006. ‘Responses to Recasts: Repetitions, Primed Production, and Linguistic Development’. Language Learning 56/4: 693-720.
Pica, T. 1992. The textual outcomes of native speaker-non-native speaker negotiation. In C. Kramsch & S.
McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development in S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Landolf, J. M. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. 2005.The output hypothesis: theory and research. In Hinkel, E. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Swain, M. 2006. Languaging, agency, and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In Byrnes, H. Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. New York: Continuum.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1998. ‘Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together’. Modern Language Journal 82/2: 320-337.
