INTERACTION IN THE ELL CLASSROOM 1

Interaction in the ELL Classroom

Kelsie Hutton

Youngstown State University

INTERACTION IN THE ELL CLASSROOM 2

The number of English Language Learners in the American public schools is on the rise.

According to the National Center for Education, “about 9.5 percent of public-school students

were English language learners in 2015, which had risen from 8.1 percent in 2000” (2018). Due

to the rise of English language learners in our public schools, it is essential that the school

systems seek to develop the proper academic experience for these students. This would create an

equal opportunity for all students to succeed in school. ELL’s, also known as English language

learners, are students with limited English abilities due to it being their second language

(National Center for Education, 2018). English language learners need programs that will help

them develop their English. There are many factors that can contribute to the development of

proficient English and improved educational results, one being interaction within the ELL

classroom. Interaction, or the experience of two or more people taking part in reciprocal actions

that are verbal or nonverbal, is an essential part of a classroom (Celce-Murcia, 2001).

One type of interaction demonstrated within a classroom is teacher-student interaction.

Lightbrown and Spada (2013) explained that there are different interaction types that can be

displayed within a classroom. One type of interaction discussed is genuine questions where the

teacher asks questions to the student that the teacher does not know the answer to. Another type

of interaction is display questions, which are questions asked by the teacher in which the answer

is already known by the teacher but is used as method for the students to demonstrate their

knowledge. The teacher can also negotiate for meaning by working with the student to

understand what they are saying. A teacher can provide a student with feedback on errors, which

means the teacher acknowledges the error but makes suggestions, so the student can improve.

Lightbrown and Spada (2013) discuss the following ways feedback can be provided. The

teacher can make an explicit correction to an error by clearly indicating that the student made an
INTERACTION IN THE ELL CLASSROOM 3

error in their utterance. Then, a correct form is provided by the teacher. The teacher can provide

a recast, which does not include the error directly being noticed, but instead the teacher repeats

the student’s utterance and corrects the sentence, leaving out the error. Similar to a recast is when

a teacher provides repetition. This is done by instead of correcting the error for the student, the

teacher simply repeats the student’s error, while adjusting intonation in hopes to draw attention

to the error. Elicitation is when the teacher directly evokes the correct form by asking the student

questions. This is done by pausing and allowing the student to complete the utterance, and by the

teacher asking the student to repeat the utterance. Clarification request can be implemented by

the teacher when indicating to the student that their utterance has been misunderstood or

incorrect. This can be indicated by the teacher using phrases such as “Excuse me?” or “I don’t

understand”. Metalinguistic feedback is when the teacher does not provide the correct form but

instead makes comments, asks questions, or information regarding the formation of the student’s

utterance (for example, “Do we need to use that morpheme?” “That’s not how you say it in

Spanish,” and “Is it masculine”) (Lightbrown and Spada, 2013).

Student-student interaction can include all the different types of interaction as previously

discussed. Students can provide genuine questions, display questions, negotiation for meaning,

metalinguistic comments, recast, clarification request, elicitation and repetition while interacting

with their peers. Herrera, Perez, and Escamilla (2015) elaborate on the need of ELL’s being able

to use their native language as a support when interacting within the classroom and completing

assigned tasks by the teacher. The support of native language use is also discussed when using it

to gain comprehension, especially when interacting with their peers. In the following studies,

theories and implications on the types of interaction, such as teacher-student and student-student,
INTERACTION IN THE ELL CLASSROOM 4

will be discussed along with the way it contributes to English language learning within a

classroom.

In a study done by Yoshida (2008) teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of feedback

types were researched. The research questions for this study were (1) How do teachers choose

the type of feedback in relation to the errors of particular learners? (2) Do learners prefer

receiving recasts over the other types of feedback and, if yes, why? And if not, why? When

conducting this study, two teachers and seven learners in three different classrooms were audio-

recorded. This was completed five times, resulting in a total of 30 hours of recoding. The

learners included in this study wore small clip-on microphones to record all interactions within

the classroom. The researcher who sat at the back of the classroom took detailed notes of the

classroom environment including the activities, directions written on the whiteboard and the

behavior exhibited within the classroom. The findings of this study concluded that teachers use

recasts as feedback because of the learners’ cognitive styles and the limited class time. In

addition, the teacher tends to use elicitation or metalinguistic feedback in situations where they

could assume that the leaners who made the errors could find the correct form independently.

This study was able to determine that learners preferred having the ability to think about their

errors and the correct form, instead of instantly having it provided to them by the teacher. This

study was able to conclude that recasts are beneficial, in that, they provide the students with the

correct form without interrupting the flow of conversation. It could also conclude that learners do

not always notice the errors they make when the teachers are the ones providing the correct form

without any thought being displayed by the student or interaction discussing the error.

Therefore, recasts may not be the best type of feedback when attempting to get learners to notice

their errors (Yoshida, 2008).

INTERACTION IN THE ELL CLASSROOM 5

In another study, conducted by Panova and Lyster (1997), examined the types of

feedback used by the teacher and the uptake and repair of error done by the learner. Uptake can

be explained as the learner noticing the error or the type of feedback used to bring attention to

the error by the teacher or another student (Lyster and Ranta 1997). This study was completed in

a four-week period in an adult ESL classroom located in Quebec, Canada. The observations took

place in a classroom of 25 students whose ages ranged from 17 to 55. During the observations

within the classroom, the researcher used a COLT, wrote notes including the gestures and the

teacher’s notes on the board. In addition, two microphones were placed on the wall of the

classroom to record both the teacher’s and the student’s utterances. A total of 18 hours of

recorded interaction was used to find the data in this study. The study found that the teacher used

seven different feedback types including: recasts, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback,

elicitation, explicit correction, and repetition. Of the seven different types of feedback, recast

was the most frequently used. The study also established that the overall rates of uptake in the

ESL classroom were very low. Based on the results found in this study, the research can

conclude that the low rates of uptake, may be due to the most frequently used type of feedback,

that being recasts (Lyster and Ranta 1997).

In a study done by Bruen and Kelly (2015), the benefits of the native language being used

as a support within the ELL classroom was investigated. This study was qualitative as it

examines translation in language teaching (TILT) in a Higher Education Institute (HEI) in

Ireland. This study began as interviews of 12 language learners, 6 being Japanese and 6 being

German. The data was collected by individual, structured interviews including one learner and

one researcher. These interviews were completed in 2013, which lasted between 30 and 45

minutes. During the interview, the researcher asked questions regarding attitudes towards TILT
INTERACTION IN THE ELL CLASSROOM 6

and if the participants use it. The researcher elaborated by asking the individual learners how

they used TILT in their own experience in an ELL classroom. The researchers found a positive

attitude towards the use of TILT by the ELL’s. The participants had many arguments as to why

TILT was beneficial for them within the classroom, but their main reason was that it aided the

acquisition of vocabulary. Furthermore, the research found that TILT’s value was assisting

ELL’s in developing comprehension of content as they learned the second language. The

individuals expressed that they were more likely to engage in interaction between student-to-

student and teacher-to-student. They valued TILT, because it encourages comprehension over

production, meaning they instead understood the content having meaningful interactions rather

than producing utterances they didn’t even understand. The positive attitudes towards the use of

TILT reflect the idea that supporting ELL’s with their native language may be beneficial within

the ELL classroom. The research concludes that using TILT would be a great language tool to

use within the classroom to set the language learners up for success. This research supports the

idea that second language learning does not need to be done in the same way that children learn

their first language. Further research would be beneficial when attempting to conclude the best

way for learners to acquire their second language (Bruen and Kelly, 2015).

In article by Cambridge University (2018), elaborates on the importance of peer

interaction. “The input learners hear in peer interactions is also simpler and has more errors than

native speaker input, but learners also get more chances to speak, and they produce substantially

more language in peer interactions” (Sato, 2015). This supports the idea that student-student

interaction is an important factor that contributes to producing more language. In addition, this

gives the students an opportunity to correct their own errors by negotiating for meaning before

explicitly being told the right form by the teacher. Student-student interaction plays an important
INTERACTION IN THE ELL CLASSROOM 7

role when applying individual knowledge when interacting. This gives the leaners a chance to

learn from their mistakes while they are interacting with their peers as they work together to

understand one another. Student-student interaction enables students to have meaningful

interaction using the language in a more relaxed way rather than teacher-led interaction (Cekaite

& Aronsson, 2005). To encourage students to use the language, they must be prepared to speak

which takes practice through interaction within the classroom. “Sometimes first language use

allows learners to explain aspects of the second language to one another, deepening

understanding” (Swain and Lapkin, 1998). This proves that native language use also plays a role

when interacting with peers and producing language to understand one another, which is the

ultimate goal of speaking.

Based on the studies discussed previously, it is evident that interaction is an essential part

of language production and reaching the goal of understanding one another. The different types

of interaction selected by the student or teacher may impact the uptake and the development of

an ELL’s English, such as not enough interaction for the student to notice an error they made

(Yoshida, 2008). Also, the support of an ELL’s native language may contribute to their

educational results and comprehension when learning within the classroom (Bruen and Kelly,

2015). Student-student interaction may also contribute to preparing learners to produce their

language and contribute to how much they interact in their academic future (Cambridge

University, 2018). Further research on how interaction plays a role within the classroom, how

much interaction is necessary, what the best type of feedback is between student-to-student and

teacher-to-student would be beneficial to understand how much these factors impact ELL’s

development of proficient English.

INTERACTION IN THE ELL CLASSROOM 8

References

Kelly, N., & Bruen, J. (2015). Translation as a pedagogical tool in the foreign language

classroom: A qualitative study of attitudes and behaviours. Language Teaching Research,

19(2), 150–168. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541720

Yoshida, R. (2008) Teachers' Choice and Learners' Preference of Corrective Feedback Types,

LANGUAGE AWARENESS, 17:1, 78-93. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.2167/la429.0

Herrera, S., Perez, D, & Escamilla, K. (2015). Teaching reading to English Language Learners:

Differentiated literacies (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Lightbrown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Number of English Learners in US Schools Keeps Rising. (2018, October 30). Retrieved May 5,

2019, from https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/number-of-english-learners-in-us-

schools-keeps-rising/4635659.html

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL

Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573. doi:10.2307/3588241

Adams, R. (2018). Enhancing student interaction in the language classroom: Part of the

Cambridge Papers in ELT series. [pdf] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Retrieved from

https://languageresearch.cambridge.org/images/Language_Research/CambridgePapers/C

ambridgePapersInELT_EnhancingInteraction_2018_ONLINE.pdf
INTERACTION IN THE ELL CLASSROOM 9