Advertisement

Interaction in the Language Classroom: A Systems Approach

  • Yoshitaka KatoEmail author
  • David Dalsky
Chapter
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 17)

Abstract

Interaction has long been considered to be one of the key factors in language learning and teaching. Previous studies have investigated how interaction influences second or foreign language (L2) development in the language classroom; however, the nature of “interaction” itself is still elusive. This lack of a holistic picture makes it difficult to apply research findings in the classroom. Here, we attempt to clarify the system of the interactive language classroom, especially by applying a soft systems approach. First, we propose that interaction can be defined as a system consisting of the two core elements: tasks and participants. Assuming that language pedagogy is a human activity system, we argue that interaction can be viewed as something created through the negotiation of worldviews among the class participants. We then demonstrate how participants’ worldviews can affect decision-making processes in the classroom, specifically by exemplifying two core values of interaction: cooperation and collaboration. We believe that this attempt to understand interaction from a systems approach has the potential to help practitioners realize meaningful interaction in their own unique classrooms.

Keywords

Interaction A systems approach Worldview Value Cooperation Collaboration 

References

  1. Allwright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 156–171.  https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.2.156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Breen, M. P. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Information, systems, and information systems: Making sense of the field. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: A short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use, for practitioners, teachers and students. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative writing. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  8. Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813519730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dobao, A. F. (2014). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 497–520.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813519730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dobao, A. F., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365–378.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00318.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanks, J. (2017). Exploratory practice in language teaching: Puzzling about principles and practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kato, Y., Watari, H., & Bolstad, F. (2018). Voices from “practitioners”: A collaborative exploration of MAP grammar in an EFL classroom. In A. Tajino (Ed.), A new approach to English pedagogical grammar: The order of meanings (pp. 160–171). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kozar, O. (2010). Towards better group work: Seeing the difference between cooperation and collaboration. English Teaching Forum, 48(2), 16–23.Google Scholar
  18. Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–82.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr134oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Oxford Dictionary of English. (2003). Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 9–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  22. Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method—Why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161–176.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3586897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (Eds.). (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  25. Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–286.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tajino, A., & Tajino, Y. (2000). Native and non-native: What can they offer? Lessons from team-teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 54(1), 3–11.  https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tajino, A., Stewart, T., & Dalsky, D. (Eds.). (2016). Team teaching and team learning in the language classroom: Collaboration for innovation in ELT. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Tan, L. L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: Comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.2104/aral1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142.  https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Willis, J., & Willis, D. (2007). Doing task-based teaching: A practical guide to task-based teaching for ELT training courses and practicing teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of General EducationChubu UniversityKasugaiJapan
  2. 2.Institute for Liberal Arts and SciencesKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations