De La Salle University Manila

College of Education

How is the study of classroom interaction and formal instruction important in the
learning process of the target language?
RAMSEY S. FERRER
MAELED
The study of how learners acquire and learn a target language whether in
classroom interaction or formal instruction has been the interest of several researchers
who used different traditions (e.g. Psychometric, Interaction, Ethnographic, & Discourse
Analysis, Chaudron, 1988 in Ellis, 1994) in order to account for substantive researchbased results that will inform the selection of appropriate language pedagogy in so far as
achieving communicative competence the ultimate goal of language learning is
concerned. Many language-teaching specialists attach much importance to it. Their works
(for example: Allright, 1976, 1984a, 1984b; Breen and Candlin, 1980; Long, 1981;
Selger, 1977, 1983; Swain, 1985 cited in Yu, 2008) present important suggestions for
learners language development over the last few decades. Developing communicative
competence not only focuses on achieving proficiency with the four language processes
such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing but also emphasizes the idea that
proficient language use extends beyond grammatical forms to include language functions
and the social conventions of language to achieve communication (Swain, 1985).
According to Brown (1994), In the era of communicative language teaching, interaction
is, in fact, the heart of communication; it is what communication is all about. This likely
reveals that classroom interaction can be the language pedagogy that best facilitates

language learning since it maximizes opportunities of the speakers to create dialogic

spaces (Yule, 2006) in an interaction which is also thought to be important in naturalistic
language acquisition. However, a few dimensions (e.g. fluency) in language learning
have achieved proficiency since interaction can only be scouted for naturalistic discourse
in which classroom interaction takes place. L2 learners need not only learn the rudiments
of language but they also have to be able to use it effectively and appropriately
throughout the range of social, personal, school, and work situations required for daily
living in a given society (Hymes, 1971; Canale & Swain, 1980 cited in Eisenchlas, 2011).
Indeed, language pedagogy that sets the best practices and instructions is a necessity in
language learning that will address the exigencies that may arise whether in classroom
interaction or formal instruction. To this effect, a considerable amount of studies has been
done investigating different features of language instructions that relate to learning a
target language whether in formal instruction or classroom interaction. However, no
single study has yielded the most effective language pedagogy that aims to achieve
communicative competence due to several factors (e.g. sociolinguistics, individual
differences, linguistic background, to name a few) espoused by such theories that
influence language learning. Though theories in communicative competence emphasize
the importance of interaction as learners use language in various contexts to negotiate
meaning (Choudhury, 2005), formal instructions have failed to guarantee proficiency in
some aspects of communication process. Since language teachers want their learners to
develop communicative competence using different pedagogies, a convergence of formal
instruction and classroom interaction can also be explored in this respect. It is quite
interesting to investigate how classroom interaction takes place in a formal instruction

that aims at developing communicative competence among L2 learners. Dealing with

reticent students in a second language classroom is one the major issues a language
teacher is faced with, and it becomes an exasperating experience when the students are
from multicultural background who do not know how to respond to a teachers queries.
In her study, Choudrury (2005) explored the problem of active participation in L2
classroom and sought to resolve how interaction takes place in formal instructional
settings. Similar findings with other researchers also reveal the following essential
factors: (1) cultural differences in classroom norms; (2) roles of the interactive teacher;
(3) questioning strategies for interactive learning; (4) interaction through pair/group
work; (5) monitoring/correcting student work; and (6) learners equal participation.
Choudhury (2005) has perceived that learners behaviors (e.g. being verbally
reticent or dominant) seem to be related to cultural origin and that cultural sensitivity
plays an important role in language teaching. This may be done through some classroom
events that tackle cross-cultural issues and interests; thus, using a new language will be
useful. A language teacher who is culturally sensitive paves the way in turning a class
into an interactive one. According to Brown (1994), the teacher must create a climate in
which spontaneity can thrive, in which unrehearsed language can be performed, and in
which the freedom of expression given over to students makes it impossible to predict
everything that they will say and do. In this way, interactive teachers may give L2
learners a greater chance of expressing themselves while situated in a formal instruction.
It is believed that this practice emphasizes the idea that language use extends beyond
grammatical forms to social conventions (e.g. multicultural classroom) to achieve
communication. On the other hand, teachers talk may affect the interaction situated in a

formal instruction since it is the primary means of controlling learners behavior

(Allwright & Bailey, 1996). This prompts language teachers to be more sensitive rather
than manipulative in language teaching. Choudhury (2008) emphasized that asking too
many question or spending too much on the same question (e.g. display question,
referential question) in a classroom will not by any means guarantee stimulation of
interaction and may actually discourage interactive learning. Accordingly, research
studies have indicated that additional wait-time of about 5 seconds should especially
allow second language learners a better chance to give their response, and it may fit better
with their cultural norms of interaction. Similarly, teachers different questioning
strategies may be either help or inhibit communication in classroom. On the other hand,
group or pair work can also be scouted for another strategy that boosts interaction. It has
been found out that L2 learners who are verbally reticent participate in a small
conversation that provides increased interaction in a formal instruction. Another factor
that is involved in an interaction situated in a formal instruction is error correction done
either by teachers or among learners (e.g. peer correction). Correcting ones error may
have a positive effect on L2 learners, but it has rarely been supported by research since
errors are a necessary manifestation of interlanguage development (Choudhury, 2008)
that we should not become obsessed with constant correction. Another factor in second
classroom interaction is learners equal participation. Researchers main concern in this
factor is to what extent our learners are expected to participate in as much as teachers are
able to tantamount their strategies. It is important to note, however, that L2 learning
strategies may not always parallel teachers teaching strategies. Thus, language teachers
need to be mindful of their readiness, level of proficiency, and learning styles in order

that they will be given appropriate motivations and challenges towards learning a target
language.
Studying the multi-faceted features of language pedagogy is essential in a careful
selection of an appropriate, if not the best, kind of instruction. It is best to remember that
any kind of language instruction has its own objective towards achieving competence.
With this, a convergence of interaction and formal instruction can be explored which can
gear L2 learners towards developing communicative competence. It may not be best
represented by a single instruction; however, what matters most is how L2 learners
acquire and later learn a target language beyond grammatical forms to language
functions.

List of References:

Allwright, D. & Bailey, K.M. (1996). Focus on the Language Classroom. Cambridge
University Press. London.
Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by Principles. Prentice Hall. New Jersey.
Choudhury, S. (2005). Interaction in second language classrooms. BRAC University
Journal, 2( 1), 77-82.
Eisenchlas, S. (2011). On-line interactions as a resource to raise pragmatic awareness.
Journal of Pragmatics 43, pp. 51-61
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.), Input
in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235253.
Yu, R. (2008). Interaction in EFL classes. Asian Social Science, 4(4), 48-50.
Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language. United States of America: Cambridge
University Press.