Theme: Interaction (classroom vs outside) and development of a Second language for learners of English: a sociocultural Perspective

CHAPTER II. CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
2.1 Classroom interaction that promotes second and foreign language learning
The value of the IRF for promoting student learning has been confirmed in studies of second language classrooms. In their respective studies of university-level English-as-a-second-language classrooms, for example, Boyd and Maloof (2000) and Boxer and Cortes-Conde(2000) found that teachers who were effective in stimulating cognitively and communicatively rich student participation in classroom interaction followed up on student responses in such a way as to affirm their contributions and make them available to the full class for their consideration. In so doing, the authors argue, the teachers were able to create rich communicative environments upon which students could draw for subsequent contributions. They concluded that in addition to providing models of appropriate academic discourse, such facilitative moves assisted learners’ appropriation of new words and ideas.⁴
Similar findings have emerged from studies of foreign language classrooms as well. In his examination of the interaction of nine English language classrooms in Brazil, for example, Consolo (2000) found that in classrooms characterized by rich communicative environments and ample student participation, teachers more often followed up on student responses in ways that validated student contributions and helped to create topical connections among them. Likewise, Duff’s (2000) study of a high school English immersion classroom in Hungary, Hall’s (1998)study of a high school Spanish-as-a-foreign-language classroom in the United States, and Sullivan’s (2000) study of a university-level English classroom in Vietnam revealed that in classrooms providing ample opportunities for student participation the teacher often followed up student responses with affirmations, elaborations, and other utterances that served to keep the discussion alive. They did so, for example, by repeating, re voicing, and reformulating student contributions to the interaction and offering them back to the larger discussion. Such follow ups, the authors of these studies argue, served to encourage learners’ attempts to express their own thoughts and opinions on the topics, to validate the concepts and ideas initially raised by students, and to draw their attention to key concepts and linguistic means needed for competent participation.
These findings on the value of such interaction have also been found in studies of second and foreign language classrooms for elementary-aged learners (e.g., Damhuis, 2000; Hajer, 2000; Takahashi, Austin & Morimoto, 2000; Ver plaetse, 2000). Findings from these studies reveal that student participation in cognitively and communicatively rich interactions was facilitated by teacher actions that encouraged students to elaborate on their responses, to comment on the responses of others, and to propose topics for discussion. In addition, facilitative teacher actions treated student contributions as valuable and legitimate regardless of whether they were ‘right.’ Similar to the authors noted above, these authors argue that in the kinds of questions they posed tostudents, their responses to student-posed questions and comments, and their own reflections and musing on the topics, the teachers in these classrooms were able to create cognitively and communicatively rich learning environments into which learners could be appropriated.
Importantly, regardless of the level of students’ linguistic andintellectual abilities, the issue being addressed, the grade level or, as shown in Consolo’s study, the native speaking status of the teacher, in all cases, second and foreign classroom interactions promoting student involvement in intellectually and communicatively engaging ways were topically coherent, cognitively and linguistically complex, and meaningful to the learners.
In addition to building cognitively and communicatively richinteractional contexts and facilitating the students’ appropriation of linguistic means for taking action in these contexts, findings from the various studies noted here demonstrate that teacher actions such as affirmations of student contributions through revoicings and reformulations served to promote the development of interpersonal bonds among learners.
For example, Consolo (2000), Duff (2000),Sullivan (2000), and Verplaetse (2000) found that in addition to building a collective base of knowledge, teacher revoicings of students’ utterance shelped learners to make interpersonal connections. In their interactions with their teachers and each other they became acquainted, made their perspectives known, showed support for others, and increased group solidarity. These interpersonal relationships, in turn, engendered positive emotional energy and an active interest in learning, created a safe space for students to participate in their communicative explorations, and ultimately provided them with opportunities to become more affiliated with each other and the language.
In summary, findings from studies taking a sociocultural perspective, not only on first language learning but on second and foreign language learning as well, reveal that creating conditions for language learning through classroom interaction depends, in large part, on the kinds of communicative environments teachers create in their classrooms through their interaction and on the means of assistance they provide to students to take part in these environments. Where teacher questions are cognitively and communicatively simple and where student contributions are limited to short responses to teacher questions, the classroom interaction is not likely to lead to active student involvement and complex communicative development. Rather, student participation will be limited to simple tasks such as recall, listing and labeling. However, where teacher questions and comments are probing and open-ended, and students are allowed to make significant contribution to the interactions by expanding on the talk in addition toresponding to the teacher, effectual learning environments will be created. Such environments, in turn, will help shape individual learners’ language development in ways that are meaningful and appropriate.
While writing the course work, we considered: theoretical issues of studying methods and techniques of interaction between teenagers in the classroom. forms of interaction between teenagers in the classroom were studied. Recommendations for the teacher were formulated. First of all, we studied the concept of interaction. Interaction is described using phenomena such as communication, mutual understanding, mutual influence, etc. The category “communication” is one of the central ones in psychological science, along with the categories “thinking”, “activity”, “personality”, “relationships”.
The cross-cutting nature of the problem of communication immediately becomes clear if we give one of the definitions of communication: it is a process of interaction between two persons aimed at mutual knowledge, at establishing and developing relationships, exerting mutual influence on their states, views and behavior, as well as at regulating their joint activities . You should also pay attention to the structure of communication. The structure of communication can be approached in different ways, both through identifying levels of analysis of a phenomenon and through its main functions. Three levels of analysis are distinguished: macro level (an individual’s communication with other people is considered as the most important aspect of his lifestyle), mesa level (communication is considered as a changing set of purposeful logically completed contacts or interaction situations), micro level (the main emphasis is on the analysis of elementary units of communication as related acts or transactions). ⁵
The functions of communication are varied. There are different bases for their classification. One of the generally accepted ones is to distinguish three interrelated aspects or characteristics in communication - informational, interactive and perceptual. There are two ways of communication: nonverbal (communication between individuals without the use of words, that is, without speech and language) and verbal (communication between individuals using words (speech). Next, we consider the types and forms of interaction between teenagers in the classroom. In social pedagogy, there are two types of interaction between adolescents: functional-role and emotional-interpersonal. Functional-role interaction occurs in the spheres of cognition, objective-practical and spiritual-practical activities, organized games, sports and is aimed at serving them.