Learner-Instructor Interaction:

From Comprehension to Production

Bechir Saoudi, Ph.D.

communicaon
essential
in
types
field
have
that
with
of foreign
borrowed
the
(1996).
spective
is
learners
a of
of
been
discussed:
content
interaction,
self
latter is
Hypothesis
worthwhile
repairing
breakdowns.
successful,
eld second
Interaction
environments
than
language
context
teaching
as a It
learnerson
making
engagement
their is
enhancement
Iinput,
output. the
comprehensibility
research
set
Longs
been
the out
Hypothesis,
on the
strategies
Abstract:
progress
both
Input
(1998)
Swain's In
used
Interacon,
Output,
essenal
ingredient
foreign
la+er
learning of
learner-self
interacon, to
and this
that,
to
Krashen's
Hypothesis
Output
SLA, is
ingredient
from
widely
interaction,
learner-interface
interaction,
learner-instructor
interaction
Bude, Lee,
at learner-
the
credited
learning
understanding
individuals.
interacon
teachers learners
of
foreign In
English
and per
second
between
constutes
potenal
language
Interacon
perspecve
second language
learners'
Abstract
that in
second
interacon, If anthe
learner-
a(Bonk,
Liu
core
paper,
examine
Interacon
various
interacon that focuses
have
help
(1995).
Input,
TEFL
is
(Bonk,
on an&
sense
with
rather
the
of
The concept of interaction is an essential ingredient in foreign
language learning. Various types of interaction borrowed from
the field of second language acquisition have been widely
discussed: learner-content interaction, learner-learner
interaction, learner-self interaction, learner-interface interaction,
and learner-instructor interaction (Bonk, Bude, Lee, Liu &
Magjuka, 2005). The latter is at the core of the Interaction
Hypothesis credited to Michael Long (1996). It is a perspective
on second language learning that is primarily concerned with
making sense of learners' engagement with their linguistic and
social environments rather than understanding language
learners as independent individuals. In the context of teaching
English as a foreign language, interaction between teachers and
learners constitutes a worthwhile attempt at repairing potential
communication breakdowns. If successful, interaction results in
the enhancement of both the comprehensibility of input, and
the quality of output. In this paper, I set out to examine
research that, emanating from Longs Interaction Hypothesis,
focuses on the various communicative strategies that have
been used to help the interaction progress in relation to both

1
Krashen's Input Hypothesis (1998) and Swain's Output
Hypothesis (1995).

Keywords: Interaction, Input, Output, negotiation, SLA, TEFL.

The concept of interaction has since the 1980s been a

fundamental ingredient in foreign language learning and
teaching. The Interactive Hypothesis advanced by Long states
that interaction "facilitates language acquisition because it
connects input (what learners hear and read); internal learner
capacities, particularly selective attention; and output (what
learners produce) in productive ways" (Long, 1996, pp. 451-
452). Interaction, thus, affords learners with opportunities to
obtain comprehensible input (Krashen, 1981; Pica, 1994;
Long, 1996; Gass, 1997) and improve their linguistic output
(Swain, 1995). To begin with, considering Wagners definition of
interaction as "reciprocal events that require at least two
objects and two actions" (1994, p. 8), various types of
interaction, borrowed from the field of second language
acquisition, can broadly be discussed: learner-content
interaction, resulting from students examining the course
content and from participating in class activities; Learner-self
interaction, The learners reflection on the content, learning
process, and his new understanding (Soo and Bonk, 1998, p.3);
learner-learner interaction, also referred to as collaborative
learning, cooperative learning, group learning, and situated
learning; learner-interface interaction: The learners
engagement with the technological media used in learning: A

2
process of manipulating tools to accomplish a task (Hillman et
al., 1994, p.34); Learner-instructor interaction: the assistance,
counsel, organization, stimulation and support that the
instructor provides to the learner in helping the latter construct
new understanding of the content (Soo & Bonk, 1998, p.3). It is
this last type of interaction that is under scrutiny in the present
paper.

As early as 1983, Gaies noted that research was shifting

attention away from the nature of language input towards the
"nature of interaction between learners and instructors (1983b:
208). The interaction that occurs between learners and
instructors is of utmost importance in the process of reinforcing
the understanding of language material and clarification of
meanings. Such interaction has often been related to the vital
practices in various fields of face-to-face encounters (Thurmond
et al., 2002), timely feedback (Atack & Rankin, 2002),
performance (Fredericksen et al., 2000), and instructor
presence in the learning environment (Billings et al., 2001).
Interaction with instructors is also proven to be highly valued by
learners and instructors alike (Thurmond et al., 2002). Allwright
(1988) maintains that in order for students to attain a high level
of communicative competence, instruction should rely "heavily
on the value of interaction, of live person-to-person encounters"
(156). He believes that successful pedagogy, in any subject,
necessarily involves the management of classroom interaction"
(158-159).

It is useful for a better comprehension of the study of

interaction to begin with an explanation of the Input hypothesis
3
advanced by Stephen Krashen in the 1980s and 90s, a
hypothesis that totally neglected the importance of interaction
in second language acquisition. Krashens input hypothesis
actually refers to five hypotheses he developed in the 1970s
and 80s. Following is a brief summary of the hypotheses: First,
the input hypothesis claims that learners grow knowledgeable
of the foreign/second language when they understand language
input that is a little more advanced than their current level:
(interlanguage + the next stage of language acquisition or i+1).
Second, the acquisition-learning hypothesis states that there is
a big difference between acquisition and learning, the former
being an entirely subconscious process, and the latter a
conscious one, Krashen believed that development in language
ability depended only on the former: acquisition. Third, the
monitor hypothesis upholds that language learnt consciously
can by no means trigger natural speech; it can only be used to
monitor output. Fourth, the natural order hypothesis affirms
that language is acquired in a fixed unalterable order for all
learners alike; formal instruction can do nothing about it. Finally,
the affective filter hypothesis states that learners become
relatively unable to acquire language when the affective filter
(involving negative emotions like embarrassment) is active.

All five hypotheses (the input hypothesis, the acquisition-

learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order
hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis) put primary
importance on the comprehensible input (CI) that language
learners are exposed to. The input (what learner is exposed to)
goes through the learners affective domain (emotions, feelings,

4
personality) that transforms it into intake (what the learner
actually internalizes) before being able to produce an output
(actual practice of the language). Krashen claims that, without
necessarily resorting to interactional strategies, learner
accessibility to a comprehensible input is both necessary and
sufficient for language learning to take place, with input being
set at the right level of difficulty. The hypothesis states that the
learner can only acquire or learn language s/he can understand
by attaching it to previous knowledge and concepts (provided
that the learner is willing to pay attention to the input); For
Krashen, language that is not understood is just L2 noise
(2004). Yet, comprehension of such noise has been
demonstrated by immersion education for Canadian English-
speaking children studying subjects in French (Pitt, 2005 p. 7).
Immersion, in brief, is a method of teaching a second language
in which the second language, rather than the native, is the
medium of classroom instruction.

What is peculiar to Krashens input hypothesis is its claim

that comprehensible input is sufficient for language learning to
take place, and that learners can develop a high level of
comprehension ability, without even speaking at all, let alone
writing. Krashen maintains that, unlike the conscious process of
learning, the unintentional process of acquisition takes place
when the learner focuses on meaning, rather than form, to
obtain comprehensible input (1977; 1980). However, Michael
Long (1981, 1983a, 1983b) argues that in order to fully
comprehend the nature of input, more consideration should be
given to the interactions in which learners are engaged; these

5
interactions should not be merely seen as a one-way source of
target language input, just accommodating the learner's
internal language acquisition device (LAD). Instead, when
learners engage with their instructors in finding a middle
ground around meaning, the nature of the input can be
improved in terms of quality.

Long maintains that the input should be questioned,

reprocessed and rephrased, in order to boost its
comprehensibility. The more the input is queried, recycled and
paraphrased, the greater its prospective effectiveness because
it becomes progressively more well-targeted to the meticulous
developmental needs of individual learners.

Both Longs interaction hypothesis and Krashen's input

hypothesis claim that comprehensible input is vital for language
learning. But the Interaction hypothesis proposes an extra
dimension: The efficiency of comprehensible input is
significantly augmented when learners negotiate for meaning.
For Interaction is here to be understood as the process of
communication that implies a two-way dialogue that includes
negotiation of meaning in the foreign language as expressed
not only by Long (1981), but also by Pica and Doughty (1983,
1984), Kramsch (1984), Rivers (1984), and Porter (1986). Long
stresses the importance of interactional modifications that
occur in the negotiation of meaning when a communication
breakdown occurs. One interlocutor says something that the
other cannot understand; the interlocutors then use a variety of
communicative strategies which include slowing speech,

6
speaking with the specific intent of clarification, asking for
explanation of speech, or paraphrasing (Brown, 2000 p.287).

A further justifiable defiance to Krashens hypothesis

comes from Merrill Swain (1985, 1993). Swain claims that
comprehensible input is insufficient to ensure the development
of interlanguage, the language developed by the L2 learner who
has not yet reached proficiency; it is not enough to see and
hear language in use; learners need to engage in negotiations
for meaning with the aim of producing language, not only with
the aim of comprehension. Unlike the claim that
comprehensible input leads to learning, says Swain, we wish
to suggest that what occurs in collaborative dialogues is
learning. That is, learning does not happen outside
performance; it occurs in performance. (Swain and Lapkin,
1998, p. 321) Collaborative dialogues provide the context in
which language use and language learning can co-occur. It is
language use mediating language learning. It is cognitive
activity and it is social activity (Swain, 2000, p.97). Therefore,
learners need to produce language in an environment that
assists a dynamic participation in quest for meaning that, if
grasped, allows them to master language use.

In Swains view, only second language production (i.e.

output) really empowers learners to embark on full language
processing, and thus advances second language development
in the most effective manner (Swain, 1985, 1995). The learners
endeavor to produce spoken or written utterances that are
understandable by others actually plays a major role in foreign
language development, contrary to what Krashen maintains. In
7
the context of teaching a foreign/second language, therefore,
successful interaction between teachers and learners results in
the improvement of both the comprehensibility of input and the
quality of output. In this respect, Swains notion
of comprehensible output comes into play when the second
language learner stumbles upon a linguistic gap of which he
becomes aware and tries to modify his output accordingly. In
this manner s/he is able to learn about the target language
(Swain, 1995, p. 371). Swain identifies three functions of
output: First, the learner notices the gap between what s/he
feels like to say and what s/he can actually articulate (noticing
function). Second, when the learner utters something, s/he
actually puts his/her own hypothesis about grammar, for
instance, to the test before receiving feedback from his/her
interlocutor (hypothesis-testing function). Third, the
reprocessed output makes it possible for the learner to reflect
on and internalize new knowledge of the language
(metalinguistic function) (ibid, p. 372). In fact, the absence of
sufficient evidence that comprehensible input produced high
quality learner output was at the root of the shift of the center
of attention from teachers comprehensible input towards
learners comprehensible output. It convenient to concede,
however, that researchers like Batterink and Neville (2013) refer
to partial evidence for Krashens monitor hypothesis: syntactic
processing [actually] occurs outside of conscious awareness. A
combination of Krashens comprehensible input, Longs
interaction and Swains comprehensible output hypotheses can

8
therefore pave the way for more effective second/foreign
language acquisition/learning.

The theoretical claims of the Input, Interaction and Output

Hypotheses have led to wide-ranging empirical work hunting for
an explanation of the relationship between comprehension,
interaction and production in relation to foreign language
learning. Various empirical studies investigated effects of
interaction on production (Gass, 1994), on lexical acquisition
(Ellis, 1994), on the outcomes of output (see Swain, 1995), and
on recasts (Long, 1998; and Mackey, 2016). Ellis states that,
apart from the very fruitful and positive outcomes, interaction
could also have negative effects; it can further confuse a
difficult input, especially when interlocutors make long
paraphrases or give more complicated definitions of words
(1997, p.47). Such interactional studies, whether theoretical or
empirical, have characteristically been undertaken in Western
academic institutions, and therefore a lot needs to be done for
second language interactions involving learners and instructors
in various other contexts and cultures, especially in the Arab
world. When involved in interaction, different cultures lay
emphasis on different manners of conduct, communicative
skills, and strategies; learner-instructor interaction is profoundly
entrenched in culture. No doubt that English language teachers
in Tunisia are exerting considerable efforts to smooth the
progress of interactions between themselves and their students.
Yet, even though they share this common feature, instructors all
over the country often express their interactions in different
ways. More empirical interactional studies will eventually assist

9
in discussing classrooms using a common language, which
would pave the way for more effective teacher training
programs especially at the level of higher education. Newly
recruited faculty need to be assisted in making use of
theoretical and empirical studies of classroom interactions. In
addition to learner-instructor interaction, equal attention should
also be paid to the other types of interaction, namely, learner-
learner, learner-content, learner-self and learner-interface
interactions.

References

Allwright, D. Observation in the Language Classroom. New York: Longman,

Inc., 1988.

Batterink, L. & Neville, H. (2013). The Human Brain Processes Syntax in

the Absence of

Conscious Awareness. Available at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720232/

Brown, H Douglas (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching.

White Plains, NY:

Longman.

Ellis, Rod (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Introductions to

Language Study.

Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Gaies, Stephen J. The Investigation of Classroom Language Processes.

TESOL Quarterly 17,

No.2 (1983b): 205-217.

10
Gass, S. M., and Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in
second

language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in

Second Language Acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah,

NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language

Acquisition.

Oxford: Pergamon. Retrieved from

http://sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/Principles_and_Practice.p
df

---. (1994). The Input Hypothesis and Its Rivals. Implicit and Explicit

Learning of Languages, pp.45-77. London: Academic Press.

---. (2004). Explorations in Language Acquisition & Use. Portsmouth, NH:

Heineman.

Liu Z. (2009). On the Influential Factors for L2 Learners Oral Language

Production. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 7, 26-28.

Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. Input in

Second Language Acquisition (pp. 377-393). Newbury.

---. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language

acquisition. In W.

Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language

Acquisition (pp. 413-468).

San Diego: Academic Press.

Mackey, A., Ziegler, N. & Bryfonski, L. (2016). From SLA research on

interaction to TBLT

11
 materials. In Tomlinson, B. (Ed.) Second Language Acquisition Research
and Materials

Development for Language Learning. Taylor and Francis.

Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004) Second language learning theories;

Second

edition, London, UK: New York, USA, Arnold Publishers.

Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (2016) Peer Interaction and Second Language

Learning.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Satomi K. & Yuan M. (2012) Corrective Feedback, Negotiation of Meaning

and Grammar

Development: Learner-Learner and Learner-Native Speaker Interaction

in ESL. Open

Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2, 57-70.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2012.22008

Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of

comprehensible

input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and

Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 235-256.

New

York: Newbury House

---. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition

through collaborative dialogue. In JP Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and
Second Language Learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

---. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel

(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching.

12
 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive

processes

they generate. Applied Linguistics 16: 371-391.

Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K., & Connors, H. R. (2002). Evaluation of

student satisfaction:

determining the impact of a web-based environment by controlling for

student

characteristics. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3),

169189.

Van Patten, B. & Benati, Alessandro G. (2010). Key Terms in Second

Language

Acquisition. London: Continuum.

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction.

The American

Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.

Xuemei M. (2011). Action Study of Teachers Language on EFL Classroom

Interaction. In

Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1, 98-104.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.1.1.98-

104

13