Enhancing EFL Interaction in a Blended Learning Community of F2F Speaking Class and Student-Run Online Radio for EFL

Intercation Khairuddin

Introduction To acquire a second or foreign language is to achieve communicative competence in that language. Communicative competence which is a complex ability involving a lot of aspects in interplay is even more complex in its acquiring process itself involving discourse content, morphosyntax and lexis, discourse and information structuring, and the sound system and prosody, as well as appropriate registers and pragmalinguistic features. The present article discusses the complexity and acquisition of communicative competence through one particular view point of sociocultural perspectives. It also discusses as its conclusion the implication of sociocultural perspectives to classroom and school practices for consideration. In addition, the writer discusses the principles of interaction and meaning negotiation in second language learning. In the last part, yhe writer discussess about the concept of ICT based language learning and its developmen in blended learning strategy.

SLA and Oral Communicative Competence The end or destined goal of second or foreign language learning is communicative competence. It is the ability to function in a truly communicative settingthat is, in a dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself to the total informational input, both linguistic and paralinguistic, of one or more interlocutors. Success in communicative tasks depends largely on the individuals willingness to express himself in the foreign language, on his resourcefulness in making use of the lexical and syntactical items which he has at his command, and on his knowledge of the paralinguistic and kinetic features of the languageintonation, facial expression, gestures, and so onwhich contribute to

Page | 1

communication [Savignon 1977:8-9]. A discipline that describes and explains communicative competence is Second Language Acquisition (SLA). SLA, although cannot be easily defined, can be generally understood as the description and explanation of the learners linguistic or communicative competence which is acquired either in a naturalistic or an instructional setting (Ellis 1994:15). It is a discipline which studies the underlying theory or principles of a subset of general human learning, involves cognitive variations, is closely related to ones personality type, is interwoven with second culture learning, and involves interference, the creation of new linguistic systems, and the learning of discourse and communicative functions of language (Brown 2000). Thus, good understanding of SLA process is substantially needed in order to effectively develop communicative competence in a second or foreign language. Learning a second or foreign language speaking ability or oral communication, an aspect of communicative competence which is a very important language skill for international communication in the modern era, is a complex and cognitively demanding undertaking and process. Oral communication which means negotiating intended meanings and adjusting ones speech to produce the desired effect on the listener (OMalley & Pierce 1996), is a non-discrete, integrated skill that requires knowledge of aspects of language (such as grammatical rules and phonemic rules), production skills (such as rhythm, intonation, and vowel-to-vowel linking), and sociolinguistic or pragmatic points (such as how to take turn politely, respond to a compliment, or show that one has understood) (Hughes, 2001). It requires the learners to simultaneously attend to content, morphosyntax and lexis, discourse and information structuring, and the sound system and prosody, as well as appropriate registers and pragmalinguistic features (Tarone 2005). To have a successful communication, in addition, learners need to adjust a large number of matters to do with culture, social interaction, and the politeness in the target language (McCarthy & OKeeffe 2004). Thus,

Page | 2

speaking in a second or foreign language requires fluency, accuracy, and sufficient lexicogrammatical repertoire for meaningful communication, as well as understanding cultural, social, and political factors to speak appropriately in the new language.

Sociocultural Perspectives of Language Learning One concept on the development of communicative competence that has increasingly gained more impact on SLA over relatively recent years is sociocultural theorizing (Zuengler & Miller 2006). According to Zuengler at. al. (2006), sosiocultural perspectives on language and learning view language use in real-world situations as fundamental, not ancillary, to learning. Several main sociocultural perspectives are Vigotskian sociocultural theory, language socialization, learning as changing participation in situated practices, and Bakhtin dialogic perspective (ibid.) Vigotskyan sociocultural theory is often positioned as the primary theoretical framework in learning theory (Smith 1991). Like traditional cognitive approaches to learning, Vigotskian sociocultural theory is fundamentally concerned with understanding the development of cognitive processes. However, the social dimension of consciousness (all mental processes) is primary in time and fact, while the individual dimension of consciousness is derivative and secondary (Vigotsky in Smith 1991). Although Vigotskyan sociocultural theory does not deny a role for biological constraints, development does not proceed as the unfolding of inborn capacities, but as the transformation of innate capacities once they intertwine with socioculturally constructed mediational means (Lantolf & Pavlenko 1995). In relation to language learning, Vigotsky believes that that learners linguistic development occurs in the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The ZPD conceives the understanding that when learners appropriate mediational means, such as language, made

Page | 3

available as they interact in socioculturally meaningful activities, these learners gain control over their own mental activity and can begin to function independently ( Zuengler & Miller, 2006). An individual can accomplish better linguistic development when working with collaboration with others rather than what she or he could have accomplished without collaboration with others (Zuengler & Miller 2006). Language socialization is closely identified with Vigotskyan sociocultural approaches to learning ((Watson-Gego 2004). The theory emerges from anthropology with an interest in understanding the development of socially and culturally competent members of society. The concept of language socialization perceives that the development of intelligence and knowledge is facilitated to an extent by childrens communication with others, and emphasize that sociocultural information that is generally encoded in the organization of conversational discourse (Odd & Schefflin 1986). As such, language socialization believes that there are interconnectedness processes of linguistic and cultural learning in discourse practices, interactional routines, and participation structures and roles. Whether at home, in the classroom, at work, or in any number of other environments, language learners are embedded in and learn to become competent participants in culturally, socially, and politically shaped communicative contexts. The linguistic forms used in these contexts and their social significance affect how learners come to understand and use language (Zuengler & Miller 2006). Another sociocultural perspective of language is the concept of community of practice and legitimate peripheral participation. This perspective perceives that knowledge is not something that is incrementally stored in an individuals mind; however, it is to be understood relationally, as located in the evolving relationships between people and the settings in which they conduct their activities (Lave and Wanger 1991). Lave and Wanger believe Individuals do not simply receive, internalize and construct knowledge in their minds

Page | 4

but enact it as persons-in-the-world participating in the practices of a sociocultural community. Accordingly, learning is an intrinsic and inseparable aspect of any social practice, not the goal to be achieved, and it occurs when people engage in joint activity in a community of practice (CoP), with or without teaching (Lave & Wanger 1991). Although modes of participation in different CoPs may vary considerably, there are three defining characteristics of a community of practice which can be identified: mutual engagement, joint activity involving a collective process of negotiation, and shared repertoires (Wanger 1998). Related to the concept of changing participation in a community of practice, the concept of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) is used as a descriptor of engagement in social practice that entails learning as an integral constituent (Lave 1998). LPP describes a process in which newcomers acquire the skills to perform by actually engaging in the practice in attenuated ways and move toward full participation by mastering the knowledge and skills critical for that particular CoP. Thus, treating as LPP means that learning is seen as itself an evolving form of membership. Individuals develop identities of mastery as they change in how they participate in a CoP through the multiple social relations and roles they experience (Lave & Wanger 1991). The last sociocultural perspective of learning covered in this article is Bakhtin dialogic perspective. Bakhtin dialogic perspective stresses the sociality of intellectual processes and believes that language, for the individual consciousness, lies on the border between oneself and the other (1981). Bakhtins concept of dialogism entails the mutual participation of speakers and hearers in the constructions of utterances and the connectedness of all utterances to past and future expressions. Thus, the linguistic resources we use and learn can never be seen as merely part of a neutral and impersonal language; rather Bakhtin viewed our use of language as an appropriation of words that at one time exist(ed.) in other peoples mouth before we make them our own (Bakhtin 1981:293-294). Hall (2002) explains

Page | 5

that in this view, an utterance can only be understood fully by considering its history of use by other people, in other places for other reasons. Within this framework, Toohey (2000) describes language learning as a process in which learners try on other peoples utterances; they take words from other peoples mouths; they appropriate these utterances and gradually (but not without conflict) these utterances come to serve their needs and relay their meanings.

Interaction, Negotiation of Meaning, and Language learning The dynamics of interaction have been studied in most detail by Teresa Pica and her colleagues (Pica 1987, 1992; Pica & Doughty 1985; Pica, Young & Doughty 1987). This research which focuses on opportunities for learners to carry out repair strategies following communicative problems, has revealed various conditions that favor or disfavor such interactional modifications and has shown how it benefits comprehension. According to Pica (1987), What enable learners to move beyond their current interlanguage receptive and expressive capacities when they need to understand unfamiliar linguistic input or when required to produce a comprehensible message are opportunities to modify and restructure their interaction with their interlocutor until mutual comprehension is rached. By resolving communicative problems through the use of interactional modifications (requests for clarification or confirmation, comprehension checks, recasts, and other such repairing moves), the learner obtains comprehensible input or makes new input available for learning. Research has shown how learners actively work on the language to increase their knowledge and proficiency. Repair in interlanguage talk, might help to place repairing in the overall context of interactional language use. First, repair work and adjustments can of various kinds can be used to express convergence of perspectives among participants or to seek closure on a problem (Ruddock 1991), not necessarily to make something incomprehensible. George Yule

Page | 6

(1990) found that more-proficient interlocutors sometimes simply decide to give up on certain problematic items in a task and move on. Therefore, repair may have results other than increased comprehension, through increased comprehension can reasonably be regarded as its chief aim. Second, the preponderance of repair (in the highly visible form of interactional modifications) may be the result of the type of discourse investigated. The activities of communication tasks in which participants (often a native speaker and a nonnative speaker) need to exchange information leads to interaction that is usually both assymetrical and unequal, an environment in which explicit repair, with imbalances tends to be salient. A similar focus on repair can be seen in the analysis by Michel Moerman (1988) of interaction among native speakers of Thai. He concludes that repair is of central importance to the organization of conversation. Indeed, ethnomethodological analyses of repair and related matters in conversation indicate a strong preference for self-repair and an avoidance of overt reactive repair, that is, repair that follows communication problems (Heritage 1984). Third, the interactional activity of repairing must be placed in its social context. Repairing, an attempt to achieve mutual understanding in the face of problems is one set of actions among many that that manifest orientation toward mutual engagement (intersubjectivity) and symmetry. Repairing occurs in response to the perception of those troubles. But since troubles should be avoided in the first place, it makes sense to focus attention also on other mechanisms for achieving mutual understanding and intersubjectivity. It makes no sense, from a discourse-analytical or a pedagogical perspective, to assign special status to an activity that is undertaken only when other, more-preferred activities have been successful. To use an analogy, ice-skaters are judged more on how they skate than on how they pick themselves up after falling on the ice.

Page | 7

Success in interactionthat is, the achievement of mutual understanding, contingency, and intersubjectivityis dependant on the skillful use of all relevant social and linguistic resources, including contextualization cues and those that create contingency. These resources can be divided into three categories (van Lier 2002).

Proactive (planning, predicting) Opening sequences Cataphora Grounders and preparers Strategic moves

(By the way; do you know what?) (Now; Listen to this) (OK, three points I wanna make) (let me give you an example)

Concurrent (making signals during owns or another persons turn) Back channels (Uhuh; Hm) Gaze (eye contact, looking away) Turnover signals (let me finish; What do you think?) Empathy markers (Oh; Wow; Really) Reactive (summarizing, rephrasing, wrapping up) Repair and correction (Do you mean..? Actually its..) Demonstrations of understanding (Oh; I see) Gists and upshots (So; In a nutshell; what youre saying is)

The relation between interaction and learning are not explained by this list or, indeed any other that might be devised. But at the very least the analysis shows that the concept of negotiation may need to be expanded from Picas definition: When a listener signals to a speaker that the speakers message is not clear, and listener and speaker wor interactively to resolve this impasse (1992). Negotiation includes the proactive and concurrent resources for utterance design, as well as reactive resources other than repair. Repair is thus the only one among many forms of negotiation of meaning. A fourth and final considerations goes to the very foundations of learning and its relation to the environment. Almost all the work in applied linguistics that addresses the role of input and interaction assumes an input-output model of communication and learning (Ellis 1994). This model is based on a view of language use as the transfer of linguistic matter from

Page | 8

one person to another and largely ignores issues of reciprocity and contingency. Being basically a transmission model (as words like input and out put indicate), it does not address learning as transformation and language learning as grammaticalization. It is likely that the true role of interaction in learning and the true sense of what Vygotsky meant by the zone of proximal development can be revealed only through an organic or ecological approach (Gibson 1979; Bowers and Flinders 1990). In such an approach, notions like contingency and symmetry will be central, and overt acts of repairing will be epiphenomenal (Marcus & Zajonc 1985; Graumann 1990; Platt & Brooks 1994). Linguistic matter in the environment, to the extent that the learner has access to it (Van Lier1996), provides affordances to the active and perceptive learner. Whether or not such affordances are packaged as repair sequences is likely to be a minor issue. Interaction is particularly beneficial for learning when it is contingent. Symmetrical interaction is naturally contingent in a variety of ways, but asymmetrical interaction is deficient in contingency. Unequal discourse partners tend to find it more difficult to orient their interaction toward symmetry; as a result their interactions often look like IRF (initiation, response, feedback) sequences or interviews where one of the partners takes a controlling role. Language learning depends on the access learners have to relevant language material (affordances) in the environment and on internal conditions like motivation. Social interaction is the prime external condition to ensure access and learners active engagement. Contingent interaction provides an intrinsic motivation for listening (Sacks, Schgloff, & Jefferson 1975). Learners natural learning processes, through the desire to understand and be understood, synchronize with efficient perception and focusing. Learners will be vigilant toward linguistic features and will make an effort to be pragmatically precise yet ambiguous where ambiguity is needed. Grammaticalization is thus a natural by-product of contingent

Page | 9

interaction. To put this idea in the strongest possible (though of course hypothetical) terms: the organic, self-regulating process of contingent interaction is a necessary and sufficient condition for language development to occur. There are physical and institutional constraints that tend to minimize the possibilities for meaningful interaction between teachers and students. In Giddens structuration theory, constraints ideally direct and guide, facilitating the deployment of resources. But in a defective institution (definable as one in which constraints and resources are out of balance), constraints may obstruct the very purposes for which they were brought into being. Against constraint of this second type, the teacher must marshal all the resources, meager though they often appear to be, that are available to provide learning opportunities to students. As the history of educational reform movements shows, large scale reforms tend to achieve little transformation of the status quo. But grassroots, bottom-up innovations, usually based on individual initiative, can produce dramatic results, albeit at the local level only. Marshaling available resources to promote rich and varied interaction with and among students must be the individual responsibility of every teacher. For teacher development this responsibility means the promotion of pedagogical thoughtfulness or tact, a mindful, understanding orientation in dealings with students and an ability to act wisely. Many teachers have responded to calls for more interactive and responsive ways of teaching by reducing their teacher-fronted activities and increasing leaner-learner interaction through cooperative learning and task-based learning. In current jargon, they have become a guide on the side instead of a sage in the stage. However, before we swing the pendulum from teacher-centered entirely to teacherperipheral, it may be worth reflecting on what the optimal roles of a teacher should be. Learners need, in addition to peer interaction, direct interaction with the teacher, provided it is quality interaction. If we ask learners, many will say that they want lectures, explanations

Page | 10

and other forms of explicit teacher guidance. And we should neglect the universal power of stories (Egan 1986). The answer to a disproportionate of highly controlling and depersonalized teacher talk is not to minimize all teacher talk per se but to find ways to modify it in more contingent directions. In addition, teacher-;earner interaction, such as initiation, respond and feedback, that is designed for scaffolding learners language use (cognitively or socially)must contain within it the seeds of handover (Bruner 1983), that is, the teacher must continually be on the lookout for signs that learners are ready to be more autonomous language users. The classroom must regularly provide learners with opportunities to engage in symmetrical interactions, since such interactions immerse learners in contextualized and contingent talk, and since these interactions are intrinsically motivating and attention focusing. Symmetrical interactions are most easily achieved when the interlocutors are equal in status and proficiency, but equality is not always essential. Research also suggests that inequality in proficiency can be counterbalanced by having the less proficient speaker carry the main burden of information transfer.

Blended Learning Latest development of language learning theory of sociocultural perspectives and technology has brought language education and language education research to the whole new level of playing field in blended or hybrid learning theory where the two worlds meet like they have never done before. Blended learning theory has begun to turf or fill up significant gaps in ELT issues. Firstly, in the instructional activities, blended theory which makes optimal use of technology has drawn significant links between classroom-based instruction and activities with more dynamic and natural social constructionist principles (Jung Jung 2008). Besides acquiring knowledge in a guided classroom setting, students can also experience learning as negotiation and changing of participation in a situated community of practice. Secondly, as the result of seeing technology not as tool but as (part of) pedagogy , the attitudes of we are us and they are them between face-to-face instruction and online
Page | 11

learning have melted down. Technology related educational research orientation has shifted from emphasis or focus on differentiating and comparing the impact between traditional instruction and online learning, to incorporating and combining and maximizing the effectiveness and potentials of both environments to benefit the students learning achievement and expand learning theory (Garrison & Vaugham 2008 p. x in Martins 2011). Blended or hybrid instruction has given effective impact in enhancing language learning achievement for many types of learners from at-risk learners, low-level learners of K12 to students in graduate studies (Navehebrahim and Ghani 2011). Hybrid instruction refers to a carefully planned blend of traditional classroom instruction of both traditional classroom instruction and online learning activities and represents an innovative curricular facet that takes into account recent trends in foreign language education such as studentcentered, engaged, and active learning, enhanced proficiency, and computer-assisted language learning (ibid.) Both environments of F2F instruction and online activities present adaptive complex systems (Jung Jung et al. 2008) in hybrid learning. Distinct patterns of leadership exist in the two environments. Leadership usually centers around the teacher in the F2F classes. Classroom interactive dynamics are essentially centered on the teacher who in general controls the turn-taking dynamics, meanwhile in online activities leadership is more decentralized; there is a greater participation of learners in online classes (ibid.) Blended learning can be used to enhance EFL learners learning outcome in content subject instruction of English literature (Kraemer 2008). Pimberton (2005) designed and applied technological support systems for language learning using the facilities of interactive television in hybrid learning environment. Susanto (2010) developed hybrid learning community for scaffolding an EFL effective writing class. Olivier (2011) used blended learning for accommodating and promoting multilingualism.

Conclusion SLA and communicative competence development are a complex and cognitively demanding processes involving a vast array of interconnected aspects of language, production skills, social interaction, and culture. Various sociocultural understanding of language learning offers much different recommendations for improving language learning and developing communicative competence. Unlike the traditional cognitive perspectives which

Page | 12

focus more on individual cognition, sociocultural perspective focus more on social cognition. These sociocultural perspectives in general, see learning in concert as social, participatory, relational and interactive. For language teachers and as one himself who are concerned with the oral communicative competence of our students, the writer suggests we bring sociocultural atmospheres of language learning into every stages of learning. We should examine classroom interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifying those that facilitate student participation. As language educators we should consider how the practices of schools relate to those outside of school; how schools and classroom themselves are organized into communities of practice; what kinds of participation are made accessible to students; how we could provide teachers or experts guided or scaffolding assistance that can move students along within their zone of proximal development; how we could increase the effectiveness of goal oriented dialogue between peers to mediate learning; and how we could apply approaches to language assessment that is dialogic and contextually sensitive. In relation to interaction, language learning opportuninties should regularly engage learners in symmetrical interactions, contextualized and contingent talk, and also involve more proficient speakers too where the interlocutors are equal in status and proficiency.

Page | 13

OUTLINE OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

BLENDED LEARNING

Zone of Proximal Development, Community of Practice Interaction

Meaning Negotiation

IMPROVED SPEAKING ABILITY

References: Hugges, Rebecca. 2002. Teaching and Researching Speaking. London: Longman Markee, Numa & Kasper, Gabriele. 2004. Classroom Talks: An Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88, iv. Pp. 491-500 Candlin, Christopher & Mercer, Neil. 2001. English Language Teaching in its Social Context (Eds.) London: Routledge. Oliver, Rhonda & Mackey, Alison. 2003. Interactional Context and Feedback in Child ESL Classrooms. The Slimani, Assia. 2001. Evaluation of Classroom Interaction. In Candlin & Mercer (Eds.) 2001: 287). English Language Teaching in its Social Context (pp. 90107). London: Routledge. Long, Michael. 2001. Focus On Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology. In Candlin & Mercer (Eds.). English Language Teaching in its Social Context (pp. 180-190). London: Routledge. Lier, Leo van. 2001. Constraints and Resources in Classroom Talk: Issues of Equality and Symmetry. In Candlin & Mercer (Eds). English Language Teaching in its Social Context (pp. 90-107). London: Routledge. Atkinson, Dwight. 2002. Toward a Sociocognitive Approach to Second Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 86, iv, pp. 525-545. Ann, Watson Karen. 2004. Mind, Languege, and Epistemplogy: Toward a Language Socialization Paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 88, iii, pp. 331-345. Hedgcock. 2002. Toward a Socioliterate Approach to Second Language Teacher Education. The Modern Language Journal, 86, iii, pp. 299-317. Brown, Douglas. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Longman.
Page | 14

Breen, Michel. 2001. The Social Context for Language Learning: A Neglected Situation? In Candlin, N.C. & Mercer (Ed.) N. English Language Teaching in its Social Context. London: Routledge. Tarone, Elaine & Kuehn, Kimberly. 2000.Negotiating the Social Services Oral Intake Interview: Communicative Needs of Nonnative Speakers of English. Tesol Quarterly, 34, 1, pp. 99-126. Flowerdew, John. 2000. Discourse Community, Legitimate Peripheral Participation, and the Sandra J. Savignon. 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice Massachusetts: Addison Wesley Publishing Company Pica, Teresa. 2002. Subject-Matter Content: How Does It Assist the Interactional and Linguistic Needs of Classroom Language Learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86, 1-19. Aston, G. 1986. Trouble-shooting in interactin with learners: the more the merrier? Applied Linguistics 7:128-43. Brown, G & G. Yule. Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman Larsen-Freeman, D. 1986. Techniqes and Principles in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press. Skehan, Peter. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bongartz, Christiane & Schneider, Melanie. 2003. Linguistic Development in Social Contexts: A Study of Two Brothers Learning German. The Modern Language Journal, 87, I, pp. 13-37. Roberts, Celia.2001. Language Acquisition or Language Socialization in and through Discourse? Towards a Redefinition of the Domain of SLA. In Candlin, N.C. & Mercer (Ed.) N. Englsih Language Teaching in its Social Context. London: Routledge.

Page | 15