Analytical Research Paper
By Aining Qiu
Topic
Application of Interface Interaction in Listening Comprehension in SLA
Abstract
In view of special features of listening process, ESL learners encounter great difficulties in listening comprehension. This research discovers how the application of interface interaction improves ESL learners’ listening comprehension by processing information both bottom-up and top-down simultaneously. It also provides deep insights for further discovery.
At present, there are two theoretical models to investigate listening comprehension. They are respectively bottom-up theory and top-down theory.
However, not all learners will process information from simple word level and only a few expert learners could understand knowledge from overall situation.
As a result, there’s a strong need to do research on how to help ESL learners to locate the interface to process information both bottom-up and top-down simultaneously and thus improve listening comprehension effectively.
Research Questions:
Ø Is there a relationship between ESL learner’s gender and their response to question “interface instruction” helps me to process information accurately in listening comprehension?”
Ø Does the application of interface interaction influence ESL learners’ listening comprehension?
Definitions
In second language listening comprehension, interface interaction means the dynamic framework of default value which allows for the simultaneous interaction between bottom-up and top-down processing skills to help ESL learners effectively decode, categorize and comprehend information.
Theoretical background:
This research investigates how ESL learners identify, plan, elaborate and execute knowledge by using interface interaction during listening comprehension. It also tries to explore how learners build up instantaneous representation of incoming information to activate existing knowledge and thus improve comprehension during listening process. ESL learners of two classes in ESU participated in the experimentation. The research results showed that there are distinctive differences in students’ mind in representing information before and after instruction. And II construction enables learners to organize knowledge based on their current level and thus help them to understand and process input information in systematic way.
Over the last several
decades, while second language researchers have proposed many theories of second
language acquisition (SLA), there has been little agreement on any single SLA
theory. Language acquisition theories have traditionally centered on ‘nurture’
and ‘nature’ distinctions, advanced by the social-interactionist and nativist
camps respectively.
On the other hand, nativists’ such as Krashen assume that natural internal
mechanisms operate upon comprehensible input which leads to language competence.
This is evident in Krashen’s input hypothesis of SLA. Krashen’s input hypothesis
was first proposed over 30 years ago, expanding from Chomsky’s Language
Acquisition Device. Since that time, there have been many theories put forward
under influence Krashen’s input hypothesis.
Although Vygotsky and Krashen can be categorized into distinct positions, the
application of their theories to second language teaching shares a number of
similarities. According to Krashen’s input hypothesis, language acquisition
takes place during human interaction in the target language environment. The
learner is then exposed to rich comprehensible input in the target language.
However, in order for acquisition to occur, the input would need to be slightly
beyond the learner’s current level of linguistic competence. Both Vygotsky and
Krashen put great emphasis on the role of interaction in SLA.
Long, among other interactionists, also believes in the importance of
comprehensive input. His interaction hypothesis also stresses the importance of
comprehensible input as a major factor in second language acquisition; however,
he also believes that interactive input is more important than non-interactive
input. In addition, Long stresses the significance of interactional
modifications which occur in the negotiating meaning when communication problems
arise (Ellis, 1994).
The major distinction between interactionist and nativist theories of SLA is
that scholars such as Krashen emphasize comprehensible target language input
which is one-way input and, on the contrary, interactionists acknowledge the
importance of two-way communication in the target language.
Interactionists agree that Krashen’s comprehensible input is a crucial element
in the language acquisition process, but their emphasis is on how input is made
comprehensible. Moreover, Krashen distinguishes between language acquisition and
language learning; however, this paper will focus mainly on Long’s theory of
SLA.
This discussion will focus primarily on the interaction hypothesis proposed by
Long. The following sections will highlight the main claims advanced by Long and
discuss them critically in light of other competing perspectives on SLA and
consider its EFL pedagogical implications.
Materials links:
Literature Review:
Swain (2001), laid the foundation for the interactive view of language acquisition. According to him, interaction plays an important role in the learning process.
Ellis proposes that natural internal mechanisms operate upon incoming information which leads to interaction and learning improvement.
Gass (2003) claims interaction draws attention to bridge the gap in information processing process and thus facilitates second language Acquisition.
Long believes that interface theory is based on the notion that past experience lead to the creation of mental framework which helps us to make sense of new experience.
Result:
The research results showed that with the instruction of II, learners could observe from current situation, break away from functional fixedness, combine previous knowledge with incoming information to process information both bottom-up and top-down simultaneously and improve listening comprehension effectively.
Limitation of the research:
There are also many uncertain factors in the research. For one thing, the research is conducted in a small university with limited demographic features of respondents, so it may not be generalized to a much bigger situation. Secondly, the research only showed the significant difference between the two groups in one month, there is a strong need to test whether students could retain the ability in a long period of time. Finally, there are many interfering variables lying behind the research such as the motivation, attitude, learning styles, cultural background of the learners and the familiarity of the topic of the learners.
Future discovery:
1. Future research can focus on whether there will be a difference of interface interaction between students of different instructional levels during listening comprehension process. And will that difference cause the different results of second language listening comprehension between them?
2. Future research can try to investigate whether there will be a relationship between application of interface interaction and second language writing and reading.
Reference:
Luke, C. (1985). Television discourse processing: A theoretical approach: Communication Education. 34, 91-149
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition. W H Freeman & Co.
Meskill, C (1996). Listening skills development through multimedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 5 (2), 179-201
Oller, J.W. (1979). Language Tests at School. London: Longman
Pearson, S. (1978). Plaza Sesamo and Spanish Language Learning. ERIC Document Number ED 155890
Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1978). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69 (4):309-315.
