Two types of interactional modification and their effect on second language comprehension

• Main Author: Mayor, Ma. Purification Gaa.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Animo Repository 2007
• Subjects: Language and languages > Study and teaching; Second language acquisition
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/3413
• Institution: De La Salle University

Overall, comprehension of the HS learners was facilitated more when interactionally modified input was provided. Thus, HS learners comprehend better when they are allowed to have a meaningful interaction with their teacher. HS participants performed better than GS participants in the production task using interactional modification perhaps because of the fact that they have had longer exposure to the target language and may have better inferencing abilities to work on their comprehension. Moreover, HS participants performed better when interactionally modified direction was provided unlike GS participants whose performance in the two tasks and two input types was comparable. The performance of GS participants in premodified treatment can be explained by the fact that they are still in the stage where they depend heavily on teachers guidance to learn. On the other hand, GS participants performance in interactionally modified treatment may be associated with the information elicited from the other participants. Though some of them did not participate actively, they may have learned simply by listening to the exchange between their teacher and their classmates. This is often true especially in the Philippine public school setting where learners do not generally participate in class. In fact, the traditional way of teaching where the teacher dominates the classroom still exists in most public schools in our country. In this regard, teachers of English have to recognize the fact that, as this study has shown, there is really a need to prompt students to participate orally as this positively influences language learning. In general, teachers should discover a teaching approach that will not just encourage students to learn but also make them realize that they are expected to learn. Allwright (1984) has mentioned in his article, The main point is that learners involvement in the management of their own learning, through the inevitable interactive process, is a way for them to get better instruction, to get instruction that is more finely tuned (Krashens phrase, 1981) than it would otherwise be, better adapted to each learners personal learning needs (p.166). Many teachers are still not aware of the role that the students play in the classroom, that students are one of the contributors to their own learning. Realizing this would actually lead the teachers to give the students all the opportunities to participate in the classroom and to work for their own learning. Further, the findings of the study that premodified input could be useful for GS participants in some aspects have implications for the teachers. As what was pointed out in the earlier discussion, this type of input helped the learners to comprehend because it contains all the necessary information suited for the lower levels. As a response, teachers must take into consideration the features of premodified input in making their lesson plans. It is necessary to ensure that the contents of lesson plans meet all the needs of the learners. This can be done by anticipating all the possible information that may be helpful for the learners and that the learners may possibly ask for. The lesson plan should adequately provide the necessary input by focusing not only on the topic itself but also by adding some authentic materials that can be linked to the featured language lesson. The choice of authentic materials depends on the creativity of the teachers, therefore they should look for something that the learners will find interesting.