Examining Deductive Versus Guided Instruction From an Interactionist Perspective

Abstract

The interactionist hypothesis holds that conversational interaction facilitates second language (L2) learning by providing learners opportunities to receive meaningful input, modify their output, and attend to language form. Although research has often explored the efficacy of different types of L2 instruction (deductive or inductive), few studies have done so from an interactionist perspective. This study explores smallgroup interactions of 19 L2 Spanish learners from two intact high school classes as they completed four communicative tasks following either deductive or PACE instruction on the pronoun se. We examined the nature of the student group interactions in each class, focusing on negotiation of meaning (NoM) strategies and language-related episodes (LREs). The deductive participants used more NoM strategies, and produced more LREs than PACE participants. Regardless of the type of instruction, the majority of LREs dealt with vocabulary and were resolved correctly. Task conditions also mediated the outcomes of feedback and LREs.

A Sociocultural Perspective: Seeking Evidence of Development in a PACE Approach to Grammar Instruction

“…Table 2 illustrates which data sources served as evidence of metalinguistic awareness and volitional use. While transcripts of metalinguistic talk about se during the small‐group Extension would also have counted as a data source for metalinguistic awareness, Diego and Raquel did not engage in talk about the form or semantic function of se during their small‐group Extension tasks, instead focusing on challenges with vocabulary, pronunciation, and a few grammatical issues other than se (see Azkarai et al., 2022).…”

“…challenges with vocabulary, pronunciation, and a few grammatical issues other than se (seeAzkarai et al, 2022).…”

Process and Product in ISLA Research: Courage, Commitment, and Tolerance for Ambiguity

“…He argues for the utility of a shared metalanguage that is owned by the class to enhance the likelihood that all parties have a common understanding in metalinguistic discussions. How does the degree to which the target structure is similar or different from the learners' L1 due to linguistic distance influence whether deductive or inductive approaches are more or less effective? Does understanding a deductive rule differ from understanding whatever results from co‐constructing with classmates and/or teacher? Is guided induction/PACE more effective for some types of target grammar and deductive than for others? For example, Gower and Walters (1983, as cited in Azkarai et al., 2022) claimed that a deductive lesson is suitable when learners have no knowledge of a target structure, but that an inductive lesson works better when learners have partial knowledge. When PACE‐based grammar instruction is a regular part of a L2 course, how does a learner's engagement and skill in co‐construction evolve over time? Similarly, how does a teacher's skill in guiding instructional conversations change over time? How do features of FFI explanations impact not only learning outcomes but also learners' attitudes towards grammar lessons and their active willingness and engagement in studying grammar?…”

“…The LRE unit was also a feature of interest to Toth and Gil‐Berrio (2022) in their examination of learners' negotiation during communicative tasks. Their interest in intersubjectivity led them to introduce an additional unit of analysis, the intersubjectivity negotiation episode (INE), which they define as “moments when learners overtly question or talk about their own or their partners’ evolving understanding of L2 discursive goals.” The data for this analysis came from the same four groups of learners as in Azkarai et al's (2022) study, that is, volunteers from both the deductive and the PACE groups at Walton School. The time spent in INEs and LREs was calculated for the individuals in each group and the discursive functions of the INEs were identified.…”

Exploring “Intersubjectivity Negotiation Episodes” and “Language Related Episodes” in Second‐Language Peer Interaction

“…Because our aim is to qualitatively document learners’ negotiation over L2 communication in the tasks rather than the grammatical accuracy of their outcomes, we will explore two learner groups in each class without considering the impact of their contrasting grammar presentations beyond their respective time spent in INEs and LREs. (See Azkarai et al., 2022, and Davin & Kushki, 2022, for qualitative analyses of accurate LRE outcomes; and see Juffs & Fang, 2022, and Moranski & Zalbidea, 2022, for quantitative analyses of all PACE vs. deductive classes in the data set overall. )…”