The role of interaction in second language acquisition in Japanese high schools

(1)

The role of interaction in second language acquisition in Japanese high schools

著者（英） Kenzo Takizawa

journal or

publication title

Doshisha literature

number 37

page range 207‑222

year 1994‑03‑10

権利（英） English Literary Society of Doshisha University

URL http://doi.org/10.14988/pa.2017.0000014781

(2)

THE ROLE OF INTERACTION IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION IN lAP ANESE HIGH SCHOOLS

KENZO T AKIZA WA

1. Introduction

Some critics declare that the greatest failing of English teachers in Japan is their failure to teach students to speak English ... even to carry on a simple conversation. I think most high school teachers will not deny this criticism.

Generally there is hardly any comprehensible aural input, interlanguage output, or interaction in an English classroom of a Japanese high school, so it is proper that the Japanese Ministry of Education has decided to introduce

"oral communication" subjects into its national secondary school curriculum for the teaching of English in 1994.

In this report, first I will examine some theoretical articles on input, output, and interaction. Specifically I would like to focus on three key phrases: comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and interactional modification. Then, I would like to seek a way to move Japanese high school English education, which now follows a very deductive approach (i.e.

grammar translation), toward a communicative approach.

II. Theoretical Perspective Comprehensible Input

Krashen (1981, 1985) claims that humans acquire language in only one way - by understanding messages, or by receiving 'comprehensible input'. He says that speech cannot be taught directly, but 'emerges' on its own as a result of building competence via comprehensible input. In regard to the

(207)

(3)

'acquisition' of new grammar, he says that if input that contains grammatical features a little beyond the acquirer's current level (i.e., i

+

1) is understood, and there is enough of it, the grammar is automatically 'acquired'. Krashen's viewpoint is in the same stream as Chomsky's claims that a universal grammar exists in the form of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD).

Krashen's position is that 'learnt' knowledge is not convertible into 'acquired' knowledge. Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause, and 'learnt' knowledge serves only as a Monitor.

Krashen's position has been criticized or questioned by some researchers.

As Ellis (1990) notes:

If 'learnt' knowledge is convertible into 'acquired' knowledge, if produc- tion is important for development (contrary to Krashen's insistence that only comprehension counts) and if monitoring is widespread, the theoretical foundations of the proposals are destroyed. (p.60) However, even Gregg (1984), who criticized Krashen's theory severely, agrees with Krashen on the following points:

1) Most language learning is unconscIOUS.

2) Comprehensible input is vital for learning.

3) A teacher's most important job is to provide comprehensible input.

4) Affective barriers can prevent successful acquisition of L2.

5) A teacher has the duty to try to lower affective barriers.

Comprehensible Output

It is strange that Swain's (1985) common remark "one learns to speak by speaking" sounds new. This is because of Krashen's theory that speaking is a result of acquisition via comprehensible input. Krashen expands his theory to a hypothesis that writing competence comes only from large amounts of self-motivated reading for pleasure and/or interest. In a word, his theory is that output (speaking and writing) comes only after large amounts of

(4)

comprehensible input (hearing and reading). However, Swain's remark is still essential for second language output.

Swain (1985) claims that not only comprehensible input, but also comprehensible output, contribute to second language acquisition. She states the three roles of output:

1) "Being 'pushed' in output, it seems to me, is a concept parallel to that of the i

+

1 of comprehensible input." The need to produce output that is precise, coherent and appropriate encourages the learner to develop the necessary grammatical resources.

2) Output provides an opportunity to test out hypotheses - to tryout means of expression and see if they work.

3) Output, as opposed to simply comprehending the language, may force learners to move from semantic processing to syntactic processing.

(pp.248-249)

Interactional Modification

Long (1983) emphasizes the importance of comprehensible input, and claims that the best input for acquisition occurs as a result of negotiating meaning when there is a communication problem. In order to make input comprehensible, he lists two kinds of modification:

(a) speech modification (shorter, syntactically less complex utterances) (b) interactional modification (adjustment to the interactional structure of

conversation)

His claim is that speech modifications alone are not sufficient; interactional modifications are probably more important for providing comprehensible input.

He reports on research on modifications of the interactional structure of conversation. (Note: the setting is an interaction between native speakers and second language learners; the strategies and tactics are made by the

(5)

native speakers.)

1) Strategies which serve to avoid conversational trouble:

-Relinquish topic-control -Select a salient topic -Treat the topic briefly -Make new topics salient

(e.g., "OK", "So", "Well" with a high-fall intonation contour and preceded and followed by a pause, in order to end one topic and introduce a new one.)

-Check non-native speaker's comprehension (e.g., "Right?" "Do you follow?")

2) Tactics which are- used to repair the discourse when trouble occurs:

-Accept unintentional topic-switch -Request clarification

(e.g., "I can't hear you." "Say it again.") -Confirm own comprehension

(e.g., when the teacher repeats part or whole of learner's immediately preceding utterance: "A house?")

-Tolerate ambiguity

3) Strategies and tactics, devices which serve both functions:

-Repeat own utterance -Repeat other's utterance

Long's question is how we can make input comprehensible. The answer is that only language modification is not sufficient, but interactional modification is also very important. The interactional modification will help to lessen the affective filter, too, when the learner feels the support from the teacher.

Language teachers should use these strategies and tactics intentionally.

(6)

Ill. Toward a Communicative Classroom Input in the Classroom

In a Japanese high school English classroom, the aural input which the students receive is mostly Japanese; probably 90% of the input may be Japanese. Besides, the English input will not be conversational English, but written English, which is read by the teacher. Japanese English teachers who recognize the importance of comprehensible input have to change their way of teaching. The question is how they can increase comprehensible input in English.

It is possible for any Japanese English teacher to provide appropriate input. They can provide students with comprehensible input by simplified teacher talk, since they know the students' ability well. Besides, various kinds of audio cassette tapes and video tapes are available. Though they have the crucial disadvantage that they don't provide interactional modification, there are many advantages to using audio-visual aids in the classroom.

Using audio cassette tapes will help learners to focus on sound, and they can listen to the tapes as many times as they want. It is also possible to compare one's voice and a model voice. Video tapes provide learners with visual cues which make input comprehensible. Those cues enable the lower level students to comprehend the contents.

Another important role of these two media IS that they can provide authentic input to students, while the input which Japanese English teachers produce for students is not authentic, but an interlanguage by learners.

English spoken by Japanese English teachers often has a Japanese accent more or less. So, it will be necessary for the students to listen to native speakers on audio cassette tapes and video tapes inside and outside the classroom.

Krashen says in The Input Hypothesis (1985) that Asher's Total Physical

(7)

Response, Terrell's Natural Approach and Lozanov's Suggestopedia appear to be clearly superior to both grammar-based and drill-based traditional approaches. These methods provide a great deal of comprehensible input in the second language in the classroom and aim for a low-anxiety environment.

The method that can immediately be applied in any high school classroom is Total Physical Response. Total Physical Response uses imperative drills to elicit physical actions. Japanese English teachers can use this method as a preparatory approach for interaction in the classroom. For example, all the instructions for running the classroom can be presented in English requiring a physical response from the students. "Read the second paragraph on page 25." "Come to the blackboard, and write the answer to exercise 3 in the left corner of the blackboard." These instructions in English will be the first step to the communicative classroom.

Output in the Classroom

In most cases, ,high school teachers do not teach the students even to carry on a simple conversation. They focus on providing 'learnt' knowledge which, Krashen says, works only as a Monitor. A quiet class is preferred by teachers. This phenomenon has something to do with the Japanese culture.

Shyness, or even silence, are considered as good characteristics in Japanese culture. Humbleness is highly assessed. These cultural characteristics sometimes will be barriers in a language class.

One way of facilitating learners' output is to provide students with opportunities to be 'pushed' in output. The question is how to provide such opportunities to learners.

Pica, et al. (1992) examines five types of tasks (jig-saw, information gap, problem solving, decision making, and opinion exchange), and reports that

"jig-saw and information gap tasks (with exchange of information supplier and requester roles) will provide the greatest opportunity for students to

(8)

interact 1ll seeking comprehensible input and modify their output for commnuication."(p.23) Jig-saw has the following conditions:

1. Task interactants each hold partial but crucial information necessary to meet the task goal.

2. Interaction among them is required in order to supply and receive this information.

3. Interactants would work toward convergence.

4. Only one acceptable outcome is possible.

Though this article is about the interaction between native speaker English teachers and non-native speaker students, Japanese English teachers can use these task-based approaches in their classrooms, and use speech modification and interactional modification. The two modifications will encourage learners to produce output.

Interaction in the Classroom

Generally, since Japanese English teachers rarely speak English except when reading textbooks, no interaction in English occurs in the high school English classroom. One of the teachers' problems is how they can 'interact with forty students.

There are various kinds of interaction. Different kinds of interaction have different implications for language learning. Ellis (1980) researched five different kinds of interaction: teacher-class language lessons, teacher-class subject lessons, teacher-pupil interactions, the language of classroom management (tidying up, discipline), and pupil-pupil interactions, and reported startling results as follows:

... classroom management and pupil-pupil interaction provide far greater opportunities for performing both initiating and responding moves and a wide range of speech acts. (p.43)

(9)

Explaining the above results, Ellis states that "it is the quality of opportunity to experience language as a tool for negotiating a variety of interpersonal meanings which is crucial for the development of oral fluency."

(p.44) This research indicates that the best interaction is pupil-pupil.

Rulon & McCreary (1986) examined selected aspects of negotiational interaction in small-group and teacher-fronted activities III the ESL classroom. Their experiment proved the following hypotheses:

(1) Content confirmation checks occur more frequently in small-group situations than in teacher-fronted classes.

(2) Content clarification requests occur more frequently in small-group situations than in teacher-fronted classes.

(3) The coverage of the informational content supplied in the lecture by the subjects in .the small groups is quantitatively equivalent to the coverage of informational content in the teacher-fronted classes.

Rulon & McCreary state that, in a small-group setting, the more intimate setting provides students with !he opportunity to negotiate the language they hear, free from the stress and rapid pace of the teacher-fronted classroom.

Then, the following questions will come out: What happens when students talk to each other in English? If input is crucial, particularly the input provided in communicative exchanges, then what do the students acquire via the ungrammatical input provided by the other learners?

Porter (1986) answers the question in her article. She reports that if learners can get accurate native speaker models outside the classroom, then communicating with other learners in the classro9m has certain advantages.

She found out that even if the learners provided ungrammatiacl input to each other, their input contained at least two interaction features (repairs, prompts) that may be vital to second language acquistion.

Examples of repair are:

~Confirmation check

(10)

-Clarification request -Comprehension check -Verifications of meaning -Definition request -Lexical uncertainty

e.g. Learner 1: Yes, he's very simple one. Is, is very how yow say- Learner Z: I don't know, but he take advantage of the situation.

Prompt means a word, phrase, or sentence added in the middle of the other speaker's utterance to continue or complete the utterance.

(pp.Z06-207)

A final crucial question will be asked by the teachers. Will students speak English to each other unless a foreigner is right there? Will they agree to speak English with other Japanese, or Japanese teachers of English?

Generally, they won't. Japanese may have a tendency, even English teachers, to resist speaking English to other Japanese. There may be strong cultural barriers. Since most English lessons are taught by Japanese teachers, this is a serious problem. I hope the presence of an AET (Assistant English Teacher) may break the ice. Now at public high schools, students receive a team-teaching lesson run by a JTE (Japanese Teacher of English) and an AET who is a young native speaker of English once every week or every other week.

I would like to report the results of a survey on how students feel about speaking English in the classroom. (See Appendix 1) The survey was carried out on 95 high school students by Takizawa, this writer, in July, 1993.

The aim of the survey was to find out the elements which prevent students from speaking English in the classroom.

The questions in the survey:

1) How do you (the students) feel about speaking English 1ll the

(11)

following situations?

-with a JTE in an English class without an AET -with classmates in an English class without an AET -with a JTE in a team-teaching class with an AET -with classmates in a team-teaching class with an AET -with an AET

2) Why don't you like speaking English?

This question was asked to the students who gave negative answers.

The student population:

Age: Seventeen years old.

Proficiency level: Low intermediate.

Prior experience: Four years of English lil JUnIor and senior high school

Motivation: To complete the courses of high school education.

(12)

The Results of the Survey

Chart A: How they feel about speaking English III the classroom.

Situation Without AET With AET

JTE- Student- JTE- Student- AET- Attitude student student student student student

No proQlem, I try 1 % 1 % 4 % 8 % 21 %

Neutral 35 % 36 % 38 % 35 % 32 %

I'd rather not 42 % 31 % 43 % 35 % 33 %

don't want to speak 16 % 30 % 13 % 19 % 13 %

others 1 % 2 % 2 % 3 % 1 %

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Students are a little more comfortable speaking with an AET than with other Japanese. The survey showed that more than half of the students answered "I'd rather not" or "I don't want to speak." The following chart shows the reasons for the negative answers.

(13)

Chart B: The reasons for students' reluctance to speak English

Situation Without AET With AET

JTE- Student- JTE- Student- AET- Reason student student student student student

not appropriate 14 % 23 % 9 % 15 % 2 %

feel strange 3 % 20 % 4 % 13 % 2 %

inability to speak 37 % 29 % 35 % 44 % 33 %

can't understand 29 % 8 % 33 % 15 % 51 %

fear of mistakes 14 % 3 % 14 % 4 % 7 %

feel shy 0 % 7 % 0 % 7% 0 %

avoid showing off 0 % 5 % 0 % 2 % 0 %

others 3 96 5 96 5 % o % 5 96

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

(14)

Students who don't want to speak English have different reasons 1ll

different situations. The students don't want to speak English with a JTE because of (1) their inability to speak, (2) inability to understand, or (3) fear of making mistakes. They don't want to speak English with classmates mainly because (1) they don't feel it is appropriate, (2) they feel it is strange or (3) they can't speak. They don't want to speak English with an AET mainly because of (1) their inability to understand and (2) inability to speak.

These reasons give us lots of clues for the way to encourage the students to speak English. Understanding their problems will open the way to a communicative approach.

IV. Conclusion

Generally there are hardly any communicative activities in the English classroom of a Japanese high school. The activities in the classroom are grammar explanations, translation, and drills. The students who have studied there cannot carry on even a simple conversation.

I have discussed three key phrases which may help to change the teaching situation: comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and interactional modification. Then I recommended two approaches: Total Physical Re- sponse and task-based approaches.

In a teaching situation there are many opportunities to exercise comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and interaction for second language acquisition. The teachers can study researcher's articles, research previous experiments, make hypotheses and tryout the hypotheses by themselves. A teacher can be a researcher, as well as a practitioner.

When we want to change something in the circumstance where we have to work in collaboration with our colleagues, we can apply the method of

"Action Research" (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1982). Action research, whose originator is Kurt Lewin, is described as "proceeding in a spiral of steps,

(15)

each of which is composed of planning, action and the evaluation of the result of action" (Kemmis & McTaggart, p.6). It is very suitable for teachers who are required to act flexibly in their teaching contexts.

In this article I tried to seek a way to move Japanese high school education toward a communicative approach in which there is sufficient interaction in English. Comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and interactional modification will promote interaction in English in the classroom, and contribute to second language acquisition. These notions are based on supportative interaction between teacher and learner. The effort to understand the students, suc"h as the survey on how they feel about speaking English and on why they don't want to speak English, will be a step toward interaction in English in Japanese high schools.

Appendix 1

The following is a translation of a part of the "Language Attitude Survey"

Language Attitude Survey

Please answer the following questions, which are divided into two situations: when there is no AET in the classroom and when there is an AET in the classroom. Circle the number of your answers.

(16)

Note: The students were asked to respond to the following questions in two situations,

i:::::::~:;:,-:::~:~:::::::~'-~~::::~=~~:::=:I

!Situation 2 In a Team-teaching class with an AET

._-_ ... -... -... " ... -... -.-... . ... ---... --_ ... ,-.-.... ^~

1) How do you feel about speaking English with a Japanese Teacher of English?

1) No problem, I try to speak. 4) I don't want to speak.

2) Nothing particular./ Neutral 5) Other 3) I'd rather not speak.

The next question is only for the students who circled negative answers, such as 3 and 4.

Why don't you like speaking English with a Japanese teacher of English?

A) not appropriate E) fear of mistakes

B) feel strange F) feel shy

C) inability to speak G) avoid showing-off D) inability to understand H) other

2) How do you feel about speaking English with Japanese classmates?

1) No problem, I try to speak. 4) I don't want to speak.

2) Nothing particular'! Neutral 5) Other 3) 1'd rather not speak.

(17)

The next question is only for the students who circled negative answers, such as 3 and 4.

Why don't you like speaking English with Japanese classmates?

A) not appropriate

E)

fear of mistakes

B) feel strange

F)

feel shy

C)

inability to speak G) avoid showing-off D) inability to understand

H)

other

References:

Ellis, R. (1980). Classroom Interaction and its Relation to Second Language ,

Learning. RELC Journal, 11 (2).

Ellis, R. (1990). Naturalistic Language Acquisition and Classroom Language Learning. Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Basil Blackwell.

Kemmis, D. & McTaggart, R. (1982). The Action Research Planner. Action Research in Curriculum. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. The Input Hypothesis. Longman.

Long, M. (1983). Native Speaker/ non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.

Pica, T. et al. (1992). Choosing and Using Communication Tasks for Second Language Instruction and Research. Negotiation and Conversation in the Foreign Language Classroom. Tokyo: Temple University Japan.

Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. Talking to Learn. Cambridge, Mass. : Newbury House Publishers.

Rulon K. & McCreary ]. (1986). Negotiation of content: Teacher-fronted and small-group interaction. Talking to Learn. Cambridge, Mass. : Newbury House Publishers.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass. : Newbury House Publishers.