Volume 7 (2016) Issue 1
and
Interactional Modification Strategies
in
the Tanzanian English-Language Classroom
Adriano Utenga (Dodoma, Tanzania)
Hashim Issa Mohamed (Morogoro, Tanzania)
Onesmo Simon Nyinondi (Morogoro, Tanzania)
Abdulkarim Shaban Mhandeni (Morogoro, Tanzania)
Abstract
(English)
This
paper presents a classroom-based research on input simplification and
interactional modification strategies used by English language
teachers to make their oral input comprehensible to their learners.
The main objective was to examine the input simplification and
interactional modification strategies used by English language
teachers in EFL classrooms, focusing on lexical and syntactical
aspects of the language. Data were collected from four English
language teachers and 183 students from four selected classrooms and
a review of English language syllabi in Tanzania. The study was
carried out by means of audio recordings, classroom observations and
interviews.The findings show that teachers employ different
linguistic simplifications and interactional modification strategies
in EFL classrooms to enhance students’ comprehension and
interlanguage development. The findings further
revealed that the use of input simplification and interactional
modification strategies is crucial for students’ comprehension and
language development. A combination of factors - personal style of
teaching, lesson content, methodology, students’ proficiency level
and linguistic background - was found to influence foreigner talk
(FT) strategies. In the present paper, it is recommended
that linguistic simplifications and interactional modification
strategies in EFL classrooms be systematically used and streamlined
in the methodology of teaching EFL.
The authors also recommend that the knowledge of native
speakers' (NS) / non native Speakers' (NNS)
discourse
for various contexts, tasks and addressees need to be explored to
establish triggers of FT, and then discover which discourse
modifications, if any, actually facilitate foreign language learning.
Key
words: Input simplification, strategies, English as a foreign
language
1
Perspectives on Input Simplification in the
Language Classroom
1.1
Introduction
When teaching
English, teachers use different strategies, including different kinds
of feedback in second language interaction in order to mould
students’ interlanguage and thus assist them to approximate the
grammar of the target language (Cabrera
& Martinez 2001, Martinez & Cabrera 2002).
In
this way, language teachers create an opportunity for learners to
acquire or learn the foreign language because the EFL classroom is
one of the few areas where English is used for communication. Outside
the classroom, English use is limited to areas such as international
relations and trade, commerce, the hospitality industry, the media
(e.g. newspapers, Radio and TV stations), higher courts of law, and
information communications technologies (e.g. Internet services,
which are still concentrated in the urban areas) (Rubagumya 1990,
Rugemalira 2005)
According to the input-and-interaction
hypothesis,
there is a widespread conviction that input must be comprehended by
the learner if it is to assist the acquisition / learning process
(Park 2002). As
Long (1982) observes linguistics input in both spoken and written
modes has to be comprehensible in order to facilitate the process of
second or foreign language acquisition.
Thus, several
methods have been proposed for making input comprehensible. Among
others, these include simplified (input) simplification or linguistic
adjustments (Krashen
1985), interactional adjustments / interactional modifications or
negotiation strategies (Sarab & Karimi 2008). Simplified input
means the use of simplified code by the native speaker (NS) or L2
teacher. Interactional modifications / adjustments, on the other
hand, mean that an NS or a more competent speaker interacts with an
NNS, and that both parties modify and restructure their interaction
to arrive at a mutual understanding (Park 2002). These are the
attempts of a teacher / native speaker and a learner to overcome
comprehension difficulties so that incomprehensible or partly
comprehensible input becomes comprehensible through negotiation of
meaning.
With regard to the
input-and-interaction hypothesis, several studies (Chaudron 1983,
Young & Doughty 1987,
cited in Oh 2001, Cabrera & Martinez 2001, Park 2002, Sarab &
Karimi 2008, Shirinzarii 2011 cited in Maleki & Pazhakh 2012)
have been conducted
in different
parts of the world, regarding the
sources or ways of making input comprehensible so as to facilitate
learners’ comprehension and, subsequently, language acquisition or
development. The main focus
has been on the question
of what makes input comprehensible
to learners?
The majority of these studies have
focused on comparing the results of the three potential sources of
comprehensible input (i.e. simplified / elaborated input,
interactionally modified input and modified output in interactions).
Unlike interactional studies, the majority of these studies have
predominantly considered modification of written texts and little on
modifications of oral input.
Thus, based on these grounds, the present study on investigation of
oral input and an examination of individual input simplification as
well as interactional modification strategies was carried out in
2013.
1.2 English Language Teaching and Learning in Tanzania
Ever since its
independence in 1961, both English and Kiswahili have remained
official languages and languages of instruction in Tanzania.
Kiswahili is the language of instruction in all public and some
private primary schools, and English is meant to be used in secondary
schools and higher education. However, this practice is in contrast
with the language policy statement which requires Kiswahili to be
the language of instruction in all primary education, and English in
secondary and post-secondary education (United Republic of Tanzania
1995). This
is because the
government legalized the introduction of
English-based schools for both public and private primary schools in
the 1990s (Swilla 2009).
Although the
government introduced English as a medium of instruction in secondary
schools and above, the teaching and learning of English at these
levels has
continued posing challenges to teachers and learners of English,
leading to an even poorer performance of learners.
Several factors were cited as a source
of students’ poor performance
in English; these
include a lack of appropriate teaching methods and techniques, a
shortage of instructional resources, a shortage / lack of qualified
English language teachers, a poor teaching and learning environment
in the classrooms and a limited home-supporting environment
(United Republic of Tanzania 2010, Komba, Kafanabo, Njabili &
Kira 2012, Mosha 2014).
However,
studies (e.g. Wilson & Komba 2012, Kinyaduka & Kiwara 2013,
Mosha 2014)
on the teaching of English in Tanzania, which students’ poor
English
language performance did not pay attention to the actual English
language teaching and learning processes in secondary schools in
Tanzania.
Instead, these
studies were, according to Numi (1991), product-oriented in that they
tended to focus on the outcomes, such
as national examination results and falling standards of English,
which were judged in terms of students’ performance in national
examinations. Researchers did not investigate what went on during the
process of English language learning in the classroom. A relative
small number of studies that tackled the practical perspective of the
English language teaching and learning process in secondary schools
in Tanzania include Mbaga (2015), who investigated classroom
practices in order to understand how teachers facilitate learners
participation in the lesson as a siginifcant aspect in language
learning, and Kapoli (1998),
who investigated the impact of teachers’ oral input on the pupils’
written products. Accordingly, the need to investigate the process
of English language learning in the classroom is the trigger that
motivated
the current study.
1.3 Theories and Concepts
Most of the studies about input were
considered important during the era of behaviourism. During the
era of innatist theories, interest shifted to the internal mechanisms
that a learner brings to language learning situations. Learners were
therefore viewed as creators of language systems and the language
input they received was considered as being of minor importance.
With the emergence of social theories in language learning, however,
the role of input once again became an area of research interest
(Gass &
Selinker 2008).
Corder (1967)
distinguishes between input
and intake
in that
input
refers to a string of information which the learner is exposed to,
whereas the intake refers to that amount of input which forms part of
learners’ uptake (or is ‘taken in’) and
is utilised by the learner in some ways. Gass & Selinker add that
“input can be thought of as that language (in both spoken and
written forms) to which the learner is exposed” (Gass &
Selinker 2008: 305). Gass & Selinker (2008) further point out
that the nature of such an input takes the feature of the speech
directed towards linguistically deficient individuals, for example,
young children or NNSs of a language whereby NSs or L2-teachers make
adjustments to their speech in the areas of pronunciation, grammar
and lexicon. This is done in order to make input comprehensible.
Generally,
studies on input are essentially based on the input
hypothesis,
developed by Krashen in the 1980s as part of his overall sketch of
language acquisition. The input hypothesis is linked to the natural
order hypothesis
in that it claims that we move along the developmental continuum by
receiving comprehensible input. The basic claim of the input
hypothesis is that the availability of input, which is comprehensible
to the learner, is the only necessary condition1
for language learning to take place - provided that the learner is
predisposed to pay attention to it (Mitchell & Myles 2004).
According to the
input hypothesis, in order for L2 acquisition to proceed, learners
must be exposed to target language data which they can access. This
is what Krashen termed comprehensible
input.
According to Krashen (1985), comprehensible input is the second
language input just beyond the learner’s current second language
competence in terms of its syntactic complexity, arguing that if a
learner’s current competence is i,
and then comprehensible input is i+1,
which is the next step in the developmental sequence; and if the
input is either too simple (already acquired) or too complex
(i+2/3/4...),
it will not be useful for acquisition. Linked to this hypothesis,
Krashen added two further ideas:
- Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause. Speech cannot be taught directly but ‘emerges’ on its own as a result of building competence via comprehensible input. (Krashen, 1985: 2)
- If input is understood, and there is enough of it, necessary grammar is automatically provided. The language teacher needs not attempt deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order - it will be provided in just the right qualities and automatically reviewed if the student receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985: 2).
Despite the significant influence the
input hypothesis has had on second and foreign language acquisition
research, it was found to have limitations and received strong
criticisms from some researchers (e.g. Gregg 1984, Swain 1985, White
1987, Gass 1988). For example, White (1987) contends that
incomprehensibility or comprehension difficulties
can provide important negative feedback to the learner and is of the
opinion
that such negative feedback is necessary for L2 acquisition.
Gass (1988, 1997) holds that crucial
attention should be given to the concept of comprehended
input2
rather than comprehensible
input; and as Swain (1985)
argues, comprehensible output was no less important for the success
of language acquisition than comprehensible input. Moreover, Long
(1983, 1996), in his interaction
hypothesis, holds the
position that input is most effective when it is modified through
negotiation of meaning between
the interlocutors.
Notwithstanding the fact that
Krashen’s input hypothesis has been challenged by a number of
researchers (e.g. Long
1983 and 1996, Gregg
1984, White 1987, Gass 1988), it has
by far been the most influential
theory on the role of input and has had a huge impact on the history
of second language literature, providing
many valuable empirical
studies on input interaction
(e.g. Park 2002, Long
1996). In
summary, it is now
widely recognized that the presence of input is not, in itself,
sufficient for successful language acquisition among second and
foreign language learners. .
The limitations
and criticisms against Krashen’s input hypothesis led to its review
and modification by other linguists through the addition of other
hypotheses. For example, in the early 1980s, Long (1982) advanced the
interaction
hypothesis. According
to this hypothesis, interaction is seen as a multidirectional source
of information, whereby learners are actively involved in modifying
the input they get. The more the learners question and rephrase this
input, the more it will become comprehensible and useful to them.
The second extended inspiration from
Krashen’s work is that
of the output
hypothesis developed
by
Swain (1985). Swain argues that a student may be able to roughly
understand second language texts while only making sense out of them
in part. In Swain’s point, output is what actually compels learners
to completely process language forms and thereby develop second
language syntax and morphology. According to Swain, this means that
the oral output of learners has the function of creating the
necessity for them to analyse the target language syntactically.
In short, Swain (1985) argues that in
addition to comprehensible input, comprehensible output is also
necessary for second language acquisition, and that learners will be
obliged, and therefore, making their
output more comprehensible
if communicative demands
are put on them. Swain’s (1985
All the three theoretical claims (i.e.
input hypothesis, interaction hypothesis and output hypothesis) have
led to extensive empirical work examining the detail of target
language input, output and interaction, involving second language
learners, and seeking to explain its relationship with interlanguage
development. These theoretical claims are also closely related and
interdependent: separating one from
the other would be difficult. However, the present study adopted and
has been guided by the
theoretical underpinnings of Long’s (1982) interaction hypothesis.
As established ealier, Long’s
interaction
hypothesis
puts much emphasis on learners’ involvement
in interaction. Long (1982) conducted a comparative study between two
sets of speakers, one set involving sixteen pairs of native speakers
only and another set involving sixteen pairs of both native and
non-native speakers. His findings showed that although there were
minor linguistic
differences in the conversations between the two sets in terms of
grammatical complexity, there was significant difference between
these two sets of speakers in terms of conversational
management and language functions, whereby the set of native and
non-native speakers was found to have communication difficulties
which did not occur in the set of native speakers only. Therefore the
set of native and non-native speakers frequently used conversational
tactics such as repetitions, confirmation checks, comprehension
checks or clarification requests to solve communication problems.
These
conversational tactics, were found to be mainly applied by native
speakers to seek clarification from their non native counterparts.
These collaborative efforts are quite useful for language teaching
(Long 1982) as they struggle to maximize comprehension and enable
NS-NNS to negotiate their way through trouble spots. EFL teachers
also use these
conversational tactics to facilitate
learners' language development. That is, they collaborate to ensure
that the learner receives i+1,
in Krashen’s terms, rather than i+3,
or, as the other extreme, i+0
(Mitchell & Myles 2004). Also, as Mitchell & Myles (2004) put
it,
Modification
of the interactional structure of conversation
(...) is a better candidate for a necessary (not sufficient)
condition for acquisition. The role it plays in negotiation for
meaning helps to make input comprehensible while still containing
unknown linguistic elements and, hence, potential intake for
acquisition. (Mitchell & Myles 2004: 144)
Given the importance of input
comprehension in language acquisition, the majority of current SLA
research has tried to
identify what is it that makes input comprehensible (or
incomprehensible) to the learner, and its role in the language
learning process. Of particular interest has been the effect of the
input that is provided to learners, the interactions which learners
are engage with, and how input and interactions facilitate
comprehension and foster SLA (Park 2002).
The use of input / linguistic
adjustments (or simplified speech code) is called foreigner
talk (FT) when occurring at
natural settings and is named teacher
talk when taking place in
second / foreign language classroom (Ellis 1985,
Bruhart 1986).
Input
in both spoken and written mode to (NNSs) or L2 learners is modified
in various ways to make it comprehensible. Two of these ways as
suggested by Krashen (1985) include “the use of context
by the learner and the use of simplified
input
by the teacher”. (Krashen 1985, cited in Sarab & Karimi, 2008:
30)
Long
(1983) distinguishes between interactional
modification
and linguistic
modification.
The former entails modification of inputs at higher level such as the
discourse level, while the latter entails the type of modification
identified by Krashen (1985) as simplified
input
or input
modification.
Unlike
the two identified ways of making input comprehensible highlighted in
the previous paragraphs, other researchers (e.g., Park 2002, Hasan
2008, Maleki & Pazhakh 2012) have considered comprehensible
output
or modified
output as
the third way of making input comprehensible. The theoretical basis
of the importance of output was first put forth by Swain’s (1985)
comprehensible
output hypothesis.
This
hypothesis holds that comprehensible input, interactional negotiation
as well as interactional exchanges are all essential in second
language acquisition (Park 2002), whereby learners strive to refine
their own spoken or written texts.
Therefore, with regard to what or how
input is made comprehensible, three ways have been identified:
- pre-modified input or input simplification, which constitutes an environment characterised by input that has been modified or simplified “in some way before the learner sees or hears it” (Park, 2002:2)
- “interactionally modified input, in which NS or a more competent speaker interacts with an NNS and where both parties modify and restructure the interaction to arrive at mutual understanding”(Park, 2002:3).
- “Modified output, in which a learner modifies his / her output to make it more target-like, thereby making it more comprehensible to the interlocutor”. (Park 2002:3).
After
having identified the ways of making input comprehensible, in
the following sections, we will discuss how each way facilitates
comprehension, and subsequently, leads to acquisition or language
development. This discussion is based on both theoretical and
empirical evidence from studies that have been conducted thus far.
1.4 Input Simplification
It has been noted in section 1.3 that
second and foreign language researchers have attempted to identify
what it takes to make input comprehensible to the learner by
investigating input comprehension in different kinds of linguistic
environments.
In describing modifications /
simplifications that different speakers make, researchers analyse, in
particular, the adjustments to input that are usually made by native
speakers of a language during their interactions with learners of
that language. That is, the analysis
is refers to what is termed
caretaker talk or motherese,
which is frequently used by adult caretakers or mothers in
conversations with young children learning their first language, and
to foreigner talk, which
is used in conversations with NNS. The paper focuses a little bit
more on the latter, that is, foreigner talk .
Foreigner talk
(FT) contains linguistic modifications that are believed to make a
given message easier to understand. FT may be characterised by short
simple sentences, or even bullet-form communication, stylistically
neutral
high-frequency vocabulary
items (idioms and low-frequency vocabulary items are avoided), and
regular grammatical forms that are familiar to the learner. Other
salient features specific to foreigner talk include
a slower rate of speech, a louder volume, longer pauses, more
deliberate articulation and a greater use of gestures (Park 2002).
These linguistic and non-linguistic modifications found in foreigner
talk may ostensibly assist non-native speakers in the immediate
comprehension of the message (Cobb 2004).
Similarly,
as Bruhart (1986) argues, two aspects need to be borne in mind when
discussing what role input modification
can play: What is input and how is it modified?
With respect to what
(target of modification), different linguistic levels of modification
have been
investigated, namely phonology, lexis, syntax, and higher level
discourse.
For
example, at the phonological level, it was found that Native speakers
are more cautious when talking to non-native speakers (Bruhart 1986).
Similarly, at the lexical level, researchers (e.g. Chaudron 1983,
Bruhart 1986) found that NS teachers used more 'basic' vocabulary
with NNS learners as opposed to NS learners.
Further,
in several several studies (e.g. Chaudron 1983, Ellis 1994), it has
been found that, at the level of syntax, native speakers prefer
shorter utterances when speaking to non-native speakers than they do
when speaking to native speakers. They added further that EFL
teachers or native speakers simplify their speech in accordance with
language proficiency of the learners.
As
to the question of how input is modified,
two different aspects, namely
simplification
and elaboration,
are involved (Kim 2006, Maleki & Pazhakh 2012). Simplification is
defined as “a kind of intralingual translation whereby a piece of
discourse is reduced to a version written in the supposed
interlanguage of the learner” (Moradian, Naserpoor & Tamri
2013: 133). Publishers of second-language reading materials have made
frequent use of this approach. As it has been observed (e.g.
Moradian, Naserpoor & Tamri 2013: 133), “simplification has
been and is still very extensively used to prepare materials for
second language learners” with the assumption that the
comprehension of the input depends on how simple or complex the input
is at the word or sentence level.
Another
aspect of input modification is elaboration,
whereby repetition, paraphrasing and apposition are used instead of a
removal of complex structures (Chaudron 198). Chaudron (1983: 439)
distinguishes between simplification and elaboration
as follows. Simplification
is more in the linguistic
sense
(shortening of sentences, artificial simplification of syntactic
structures, deletion or regularisation of irregular forms etc.).
Elaboration
is more in the cognitive
sense
(building cognitively more explicit speech through redundancy and
other clarifying modifications). Thus, elaboration can be viewed more
as modification of input that adds redundancy and clarifying elements
to the input.
Both
simplification and elaboration are said to facilitate second and
foreign language comprehension. However, much credit is given to the
latter by many researchers since in elaboration, the unfamiliar word
/ item is not removed, but it is given a word which is well-known or
of high frequency of use in appositions. Therefore,
through these appositions and paraphrases, the learner has an
opportunity to comprehend simplified texts while learning the unknown
vocabulary.
Even
though the notion of providing L2 learners with such modified input
is intuitively appealing, relatively little is known about which type
of modification actually facilitates or possibly hinders
comprehension. For example, Cabrera & Martinez (2001) observe
that not all language features found in teachers speech facilitates
understanding. In this regard, there is a desideratum to conduct a
study to investigate which features support learners’
comprehension.
2 The Study
2.1 Statement of the
Problem
There is no doubt that students in
secondary
school, who are exposed to English language instructions for the
first or second time in their lives, face some difficulties in
understanding the subjects taught in the classrooms. Thus, it is
common to hear secondary school students complain that they do not
understand the subjects taught because their English proficiency is
poor as they are used to Kiswahili as the medium of instruction in
primary schools.
This
problem is exacerbated by the fact that English is not widely used as
a functional language in communication
outside the classroom
The question is what actually takes
place in
classrooms between the teacher and students - in a situation in which
learners have little knowledge about the language of instruction?.The
question is even more complicated, given the Tanzanian language
learning context where learners have different language needs in ESL
and EFL situations because of students' different degrees of exposure
to the language outside school and the different roles English plays
both within the education system and in the wider community. Linked
with studies of input and
interactional hypothesis, in which oral input / modification was
given little
attention than modifications of written input / texts, there was need
to examine teachers’ oral input modifications (i.e. input
simplification and interactional modifications) when trying
to render their language intelligible to form-one and form-two
students experiencing English
instructions for the first and second time, respective-ly.
Therefore, the current study examines
the input-simplification and interactional-modification strategies
used by English language teachers to EFL learners. The study also
makes an assessment of the roles played by each of these linguistic
and interactional modification strategies to enhance learners’
comprehension and language development.
2.2 Methodology
The
present study was carried out
for form-one and form-two classes
in two secondary schools in Dar es Salaam. School A, which is located
in Temeke District, was chosen to represent public (i.e.
government-owned) secondary schools. School B, which is locsted in
Kinondoni District, was chosen to represent non-governmental (i.e.
private) secondary schools.
The
target population in this study included English-language teachers
and students of form-one and form-two classes. The study sample
comprised 187 respondents. There were a total number of four
English-language teachers from both schools (two from each school).
In each school, one teacher was selected from a form-one class and
the other one from a form-two class. Among these teachers, three were
women and one was a man. Students’ respondents were 183 in total,
whereby eighty six were from School A, and ninety seven from School
B. Among these students, ninety five were boys, and eighty eight were
girls.
The
choice of form-one and form-two classes was deliberate and purposive.
These classes constitute the majority of students who are not used to
English language instructions, with the exception of those who
attended English medium primary schools. Thus, the researchers
believed that the language addressed to this group in the classroom
would be accompanied by input simplification and interactional
modification strategies to enable students to comprehend what
is being presented by
their teachers.
Teachers were selected purposely for
observation and the recording of their behaviours / activities during
classroom interactions to explore their input simplification and
interactional modification strategies as demanded by the study.
Students were recorded together with their teachers during classroom
interactions. Their views during the interviews also provided useful
information about their listening strategies / processes, the
problems and the strategies they found useful from
their teachers while speaking and interacting with them. Students'
interactions with teachers in the classroom and their written
classroom activities or compositions revealed their linguistic
characteristics
and depicted that for their linguistic level, the use of input
simplification and interactional modification strategies was
inevitable for them to comprehend the language and classroom
instructions given by their teachers.
Several data gathering techniques were
employed in this study. These included observation, audio recordings
and
interviews. In the present study, the researchers used two classroom
observation forms as observational guides. The first one was
specifically designed to guide the researchers in observing input
simplification strategies (linguistic adjustments) used by English
language teachers in the
classroom with regard to aspects of syntax, lexicon and phonology.
The second one enabled the researchers to observe teachers’
interactional modification strategies (interactional adjustments) in
trying to make their oral input comprehensible to learners.
In
addition to note-taking, the researchers also recorded non-linguistic
behaviours in a notebook, that
occurred during the lessons. These included, for example, students'
clapping hands, laughing, a raise of hands before responding to
questions, teachers randomly picking students to answer questions,
teachers walking around the classroom so as to encourage students to
respond, and also the sitting
arrangement. The researchers managed to attend three lessons for
each teacher in School B, and four lessons for each teacher in School
A. This makes a total of
six lessons for school B (with two were teachers being involved) and
eight lessons for school A (with two teachers being involved). In the
two schools, different numbers of sessions were attended due to the
availability of teachers. On the average, each observation was
conducted for 55 minutes.
Classroom
verbal interactions were also audio-recorded, using a
high-tech
V-25 8-GB Digital Voice Recorder with MP3 to
obtain extracts which were later transcribed to analyse different
input simplification and interactional modification strategies in the
teachers’ talk.
Since recording went
hand in hand with observation, two classroom sessions / lessons were
recorded for each teacher in School B; and three lessons were
recorded for each teacher in School A3.
Interviews
were conducted to enable the respondents to express themselves in
depth with regard to input simplification and interactional
modification strategies. Each teacher whose lesson was observed was
interviewed for the purpose of understanding his or her knowledge
about input simplification strategies and also for soliciting
his or her views and opinions regarding the role of input
simplification and interactional modification strategies to their
learners.
Five
students from each classroom were purposively
selected and interviewed for the purpose of soliciting
their views and opinions on their listening strategies,
their possible problems and the question of if they noticed and
preferred any strategy
used by their English-language teachers while speaking and
interacting with them. NThe note-taking technique was mainly used to
record the interviews. Each individual respondent was interviewed
individually.
The
data were analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. For
example, information regarding input simplification and interactional
modification strategies were qualitatively presented from observation
and interviews through detailed descriptions of key themes. The data
from transcribed extracts were accompanied with quantitative
explanations through the use of tables and figures showing
frequencies and percentages.
Technically,
the (audio) recordings were listened to and transformed into written
text verbatim.
Thereafter, the transformed texts were organised into utterances,
using a definition of utterance by Shewan (1988, cited in Crookes
1990), according to which an utterance is “a complete thought,
usually expressed in a connected grouping of words, which is
separated from other utterances in the basis of content, intonation
contour and / or pauses.” (Shewan 1988, cited in Crookes 1990:
188). In the text, utterances are distinguished by double slashes.
Once the transcripts had
been organised into utterances, the researchers began to analyse each
utterance, searching for features of input simplification such as
paraphrase, repetition, apposition, and simple vocabulary. The
analysis also involved search for interactional modification
strategies, such as confirmation checks and comprehension checks or
clarification requests.
Then,
students’ written compositions were analysed so as to study and
characterise their interlanguage. An assessment of the role of the
teachers' input simplification
and interactional modification strategies in making their input
comprehensible for the development of learners’ interlanguage, was
then taken into account.
3 Findings and
Discussion
3.1 Teachers’ Input Simplification Strategies
This
section addresses the first research objective which aimed at
identifying input simplification strategies used by English language
teachers to make their oral input comprehensible. Under this
category, an examination of syntactic and lexical aspects of the
language was done.
3.1.1 Syntax
As
far as syntax is concerned, the researchers found that the speech
used by the English language teachers when talking to students
appeared to be simple. This is because, at first sight, these
utterances were short. The sample of this study ranged from 688 to
850 utterances (teachers' utterances) in the lessons recorded in the
classrooms. The
mean number of words per of utterance (MLU)
was measured was as follows:
-
TeacherMLU (normal teaching)MLU (story telling)T15.026.5T25.588.84T35.575.52T45.759.16
Table
1:
Mean Length of Teachers' Utterances
As
can be seen in Table 1, the four subjects of this study used
relatively short utterances.
Also, there are more outstanding
features in Table 1 that need to be depicted:
- Teacher 1 (T1) used the shortest utterance of all during normal teaching, and through examining students’ particulars; it was found that this group comprised the youngest children (aged from 12 to 15 years).
- When teachers were telling a story, the utterances became longer as can be seen in T2 and T4 (Table 1). However, T3 showed a different result with respect to this aspect because of her unusual style of segmenting written sentences into two to three shorter utterances in order to enable students to comprehend and drill those utterances. She paused even in areas where there were no punctuation marks. Other teachers (T2 & T4) showed a different approach. They only paused where there were punctuation marks and read full sentences where they appeared to be so in the story. This can be subject to students’ proficiency level, that is, T3 had form-one students while T2 and T4 had form-two students.
These
findings are in line with Chaudron's (1983) findings which show that
teachers use shorter utterances and slow speaking pace of when
teaching.
The teachers
favoured the use of simple syntactic structures instead of complex
ones by avoiding an excessive use of subordinate clauses, subordinate
clauses being rarely used. By studying the examples in the
example below, it was found that each teacher always used the same
kind of subordinate clause(s):
Example
1: Teachers’ Use of Subordinate Clauses
T1: //If
you want to be out, I can say yes! //
//When
we are talking about ‘Am I’, you are talking of yourself.//
T2:
//If you have already marked it, it's
ok! //
T3:
//If
you know ‘own’, you know ‘possess’//
//If
they get them correct, then we are finished with possessive
pronouns.//
T4:
//When we have many people gathering somewhere, is called a crowd.//
//If
the answer is true or false, you raise up your hand.//
Therefore, it was found that these
subordinate clauses had become “routines” of the teacher talk
because teachers did not intend students to learn these subordinate
clauses but just happened
to use them in the way of elaborating on other aspects.
In other classes (C3) and (C4), the
teachers’ utterances were accompanied by occasional code switching
and mixing between English and Kiswahili as teachers were giving
different explanations. Each
utterance is a mixture of Kiswahili and English expressions, the
Kiswahili expressions in each utterance being represented in
bold-face, and the English version of each utterance being provided
in brackets):
Example
2: Teachers’ Code-Switching
(a)
(T3): //naomba
mtu atuthibitishie kwenye stori kwamba,
the
student did not allow the teacher to take the bicycle.//
(I
ask somebody to prove to us from the story that the student did not
allow the teacher to take the bicycle)
//you
come here, kututhibitishia
kama kweli,
a half minus a quarter equals a quarter.
(You
come here to prove to us if really a half minus a quarter equals a
quarter)
(b)
(T4): //What
does it mean? / ina
maana gani?//
//sasa
sisi tunasema/,
helping verb, and main verb// lakini
main verbyetu
inatakiwa
in past-participle.//
(Now,
we say helping
verb and main verb, but the main verb must be in the past participle)
The
findings of this study also reveal that teachers make some
Wh-questions by fronting the Wh-words at the end of the English
language sentence as shown in example 3 below:
Example
3: Teachers’ Wh-Questions
//Can
you borrow what?
//
//To
blow
a whistle
means what?
//
//They
have spoken what?
//
//Could you like what?
//
Other syntactic modifications
presented through omission, expansion and replacements or
rearrangements as predicted by SLA researchers were not used by these
teachers.
Teachers’
attributes (i.e. sex and educational level) also had an influence on
the use of some syntactic simplification strategies. For example,
with regard to educational level, teachers of C3 and C4 employed more
code-switching, mixing and translations in their utterances (example
2) than teachers of C1 and C2. Teachers in the first group (i.e. C3
and C4 - who were found to code switch more frequently - were mostly
those who had a earned diploma level of education; in Tanzania a
Diploma
is a qualification below the Bachelor's degree, but above a
university-certificate level. Teachers in the second group (i.e. C1
and C2 - who were found to code switch less frequently - were mostly
those who had earned a Bachelor’s degree. These findings imply that
the level of education of teachers also determined the strategy they
used. Gender, however, was found to have no impact on the teacher’s
use of syntactic simplification strategies.
3.1.2 Lexicon
The
findings of this study reveal that teachers frequently used very
simple vocabulary. The words were basic to learners because the
classroom topics covered aspects and events which are frequently and
immediately witnessed by students in their daily lives, for example,
describing things / characteristics of different objects (C1),
talking about celebrations / ceremonies (C2), describing an accident
(C3) and talking about events (C4).
During
an interview, students were asked to cite problems which they faced
in listening to their teachers. Fourteen out of twenty students
interviewed, i.e. 70%, reported that understanding new or difficult
vocabulary was their major problem in listening. The other six
students (30%) reported that the English language as a whole was a
problem to them because of their poor English
language background. Teachers were also asked to reflect on the
problems that might affect students’ listening skills and then
hamper their comprehension. All teachers stated that, among other
things, new or difficult vocabulary was a challenge to many students.
The observation of teachers’
lessons, however,
revealed relatively few words that could be claimed to be difficult
or too technical for students to understand (e.g. confirmation,
Good
Friday,
obviously,
to
be worn out,
spectators
or suitor).
Even though, for students, many words were counted as difficult or
too technical. In relation to this problem of new or difficult
vocabulary, the findings of this study revealed that teacher
talk was characterised by the occasional use of words from other
languages (translations to Swahili), the substitution of items by
synonyms and paraphrases, or vocabulary elaborations as shown in
example 4 below:
Example
4: Teachers’ Lexicon Simplification Strategies
T1: //These are possessive pronouns, / ni
‘pronoun’ zinazoonesha
umiliki//
(These are possessive pronouns are pronouns which show
ownership)
T1:
// Do you know make-ups? / urembo,
ok!
(Do
you know make-ups? Adornments, ok!)
T2: // Good Friday/. On that day we are not celebrating because we are
sad, / We remember that our Lord was crucified. // (elaborating more
about the concept of celebration by showing the contrast)
T1:
// When
you say ‘pleasure’, it is the same as ‘happy’ ok! / or glad//
However,
teachers behaved differently with respect to these alternatives of
simplifying the lexicon. For example, when asked to name the
strategies they used to simplify the vocabulary, the teachers of C3
and C4 stated that among other methods, like elaboration, and
avoiding the use of a high number of unfamiliar words, translating
some words to Swahili was inevitable to learners in their classes.
This aspect also shows
in the teachers’ responses they gave when being asked to give
their opinions regarding the use of Kiswahili in their classes.
Example
5: Teachers’
Responses to Code-Switching
T1:
As teachers, we need to improve our English and avoid direct
translation. I don’t think
if it helps students to learn English. We need to give elaborations
rather than translate English words to Kiswahili.
T2:
I totally discourage the use of Kiswahili in my classes, and even
myself, I don’t use it when teaching.
T3:
I use Kiswahili because students have different levels of English,
and the majority do not understand the language.
T4:
Translating to Kiswahili is inevitable because our students do not
understand the English language. In reality, we can’t focus on English
only without
switching to Kiswahili for Tanzanian students.
The
teachers of C1 and C2, on the other hand, discouraged the practice of
translating English words to Swahili in EFL classrooms despite the
fact that all students interviewed (100%) proposed that their
teachers should elaborate new or difficult words through translating
them to Swahili. Instead, T1 and T2 advised each teacher of English
to be as elaborative as possible to make sure that students
comprehend
the content through the
target language (English).
Concomitantly,
the researchers developed interest in examining teachers’
code-switching in EFL classrooms when simplifying vocabulary so as to
make its acquisition easier for learners. The percentages of
teachers’ code-mixing or code-switching were calculated from the
first 200 words introduce by each teacher. The results are presented
in the following table:
|
Teachers
|
Percent
(based
on the word level)
|
|
T1
|
0.5
|
|
T2
|
0.5
|
|
T3
|
46
|
|
T4
|
7.5
|
Table
2: Percentage of Teachers’ Code-Switching in EFL Classrooms
As
can be seen in Table 2, T3 had the highest rate of code-switching in
the EFL classroom, followed by T4. The other teachers, T1 and T2,
displayed the lowest (one word in
200 words) rate of code-switching or translating English words into
Swahili in their classrooms (also consider the data in example 6
below). These
responses are consistent with the findings the from teachers’
answers provided during the interview with the researchers. For
example, T3 almost
translated nearly half of the utterances that were made in English,
trying to simplify her oral input.
Example
6: Teachers’ Code-Switching / Code Mixing
T4:
//Yes/, do you know the meaning of confirmation? / kipaimara,
right!//
T3: //An accident, / ajali!
//
//Today, I witnessed an accident / leo
nimeshuhudia nini?
/... ajali!
// kwahiyo
‘silent’ maana
yake nini?
/ not shouting, si
ndiyo
eh?/
Kwa
neno moja la Kiswahili
‘silent’ ni? / ...“kukaa
kimya!’//
(Therefore,
what is the meaning of silent? Not shouting, is it? In a single
Swahili word, silent is....?)
T1: // A crowd of people, / tunasema
watu wengi
//
(A
crowd of people, we mean many people).
//ukiwa
na
‘speak’, / past participle yake
inakuwa nini?
//
(When
you have ‘speak’, what is its past participle?)
As
in syntactic simplification strategies, the teachers’ educational
level in conjunction with his or her personal teaching style was
found to have an influence on the use of vocabulary elaboration,
paraphrases and the translation of English words to Swahili. For
instance, as examples 5, 6 and Table 2 show, the teachers of C3 &
C4 displayed a greater percentage of code-switching and translation
of English words to Swahili than their counterparts (T1 & T2).
3.2 Teachers’ Interactional Modification Strategies
Another
communicative strategy employed by the teachers in this study to make
their input more comprehensible for FL learners was the modification
of learners’ utterances. In the transcripts, the modification of
learners’ utterances took the form of paraphrasing or adding
information to
what the learners had said. Here, it was found that the teachers
tried to put the learners’ utterances into the appropriate form. In
other words, the teachers cited the students' model utterances and
transformed them into their appropriate form by paraphrasing and / or
adding new information
(e.g. grammatical function(s)) to the preceding utterances, as in
example 7 below:
Example
7: Modification of Learners’ Utterances
(C1) Teacher: What
did we learn last period?
Student: To make questions!
Teacher: How to make questions!
(C2) Teacher: What
is taking place during some different celebrations or parties?
Student: Eating!
Teacher: Yes,
people are eating, kind of a buffet, serving yourselves.
(C3) Teacher: This
is called a purse /pɜ:s/. Say purse!/ /pɜ:s/.
Students: Purse!
/pɑs/
Teacher: Not
purse, /pɑs/ purse! /pɜ:s/
Students:
That’s
correct.
(C4) Students:
Crowd!
Teacher: Yeah. This means a large number of people in one place, right?
These
examples show how the four subjects expanded the learners’
utterances. However, as has been witnessed in other strategies,
teachers also did not behave consistently as a group in using
modifications. They used significantly different numbers of
modifications of learners’ utterances, as shown in Table 3 below:
|
Teachers
|
Learners’
Utterances Expanded
|
|
T1
|
13
|
|
T2
|
27
|
|
T3
|
3
|
|
T4
|
2
|
Table
3: Number of Learners’ Utterances Expanded by each Teacher
As
can be seen in Table 3, these expansions were determined by the
teachers' personal teaching style and the respective content of the
lesson. The occurrence of many expansions for Teacher 2, for example,
was due to the use of a student-centred approach, as opposed to
Teacher 4, whose lesson was structured in such a way that chances
for students to speak were reduced.
3.3 The Role of Input Simplification and Interactional Modification Strategies
In
this section, an examination of the role of teachers’ input
simplification and interactional modification strategies will be
presented. This aspect addresses the third research objective as
stated in Section 2. To arrive at this goal, data were obtained
through a combination of classroom observation, interviews and the
examination of transcripts.
3.3.1
Syntax
With
regard to syntax, for example, in this study, it was found found that
teachers used simple and short utterances accompanied by a lot of
pauses. They avoided subordinate clauses, and some used occasional
switches and mixings between Kiswahili and English. Through an
observation and examination of teachers’ transcripts, the use of
simple, shorter utterances, accompanied by a lot of pauses, was found
to be done deliberately by the four teachers for the purpose of
enabling students to comprehend and to make a follow-up on what was
being presented. Simple and short utterances, accompanied by a lot of
pauses, were found to facilitate students’ easier processing,
retrieval and understanding of the intended message.
Above all, this
practice was found to be going hand in hand with students’
proficiency level and their linguistic background. That is, in
form-one classes, teachers' utterances were found to be shorter as
compared to their fellow counterparts, as shown in Table 1. In
appealing to the researchers’ question which inquired teachers to
explain the role of their use of simple and short utterances, the
following were some of
their arguments:
Example
8: Teachers’ Responses to Their Use of Simple and Shorter Sentence
T1:
To build a long term memory in their minds and
then comprehension.
T2:
It helps them (students) to understand the subject.
T3:
To ensure comprehension since students have a poor level of English.
T4:
To ensure comprehension and class participation.
In
addition, through classroom observation and a thorough examination of
the transcripts, occasional code switching and mixing between
Kiswahili and English, as shown in example 2, was done for the
purpose of making students comprehend the topic or question
addressed. Also, it was found that this tendency of switching was
employed so as to emphasise and boost the flow of conversation
between the teacher and his or her students.
This was built on the grounds that teachers found their students
unable to comprehend them fully through English.
3.3.2 Lexicon
Under
this aspect, the findings have shown that teachers used simple and
basic vocabulary, gave elaborations to some words and also simplified
the input through translating words into Kiswahili. Through classroom
observation and an examination of the transcripts, lexical
simplification strategies were found to be employed for the sole
purpose of ensuring that students comprehend the topic under
discussion.
It was
also found that the use of different lexical simplification
strategies was influenced by the fact that students at this level
comprehended content from the meanings of individual words, not from
the whole utterances as done by adults. Some of these strategies,
such as vocabulary elaboration or paraphrases and the use of
synonyms, were found to be highly useful for students to build their
own lexicon and learn through the target language. This is shown in
example 9 below:
Example
9: Teachers’ Vocabulary Elaboration
T1:
//Wave,
you
do like this / (demonstrating), as if you are saying goodbye, / it is
one way of greeting people. //
T1:
//Crowded,
means
having large number of people. / When we have many people gathering
somewhere is called a crowd.
//
T3:
//Good
Friday/. We remember the day our Lord was crucified. //
T4.
//When you say pleasure, this is the same as happy, ok! / or glad!//
Unlike
other factors, such as the teachers' teaching style, students’
linguistic level and background knowledge, were found to be the major
factors for the teachers’ use of various lexical simplification
strategies. For example, in their interviews, T3 and T4, explained
that their students had different linguistic and education
backgrounds hence the use of Kiswahili for some words (i.e.
translating) was inevitable to make their students comprehend, as the
majority did not understand English (Example 5).
The
study findings also show that code-switching and / or translation
into Kiswahili were also found to play other roles
(in square
brackets), such as giving and clarifying instructions for classroom
activities,
putting emphasis
and giving additional instructions, and checking for students'
understanding and as shown in Example 10:
Example
10: Different Roles of Teachers’ Translation in EFL Classrooms
T3: //naomba
mtu atuthibitishie kwenye stori,
/ kwamba the student did not tell the teacher to take the bicycle.
[emphasis
and additional instructions[)
(I
want someone to prove to us from the story that the student did not
tell the teacher to take the bicycle.)
T3: //Today,
I witnessed an accident, / leo
nimeshuhudia nini /...ajali!
// [repetition
and emphasis[
T3:
//I want you to remember, / accident ni
nini?
/ .....ajali!
// [emphasis[
(I
want you to remember, what an accident is...)
T2:
//crush maana
yake nini?
/ pondaponda
si ndiyo
eh! [direct
translation[
(What
is the meaning of the crush?...grind, is it?)
However, in this study, it was also
found that code-switching played a negative role in students'
comprehension and learning of the target language. Through classroom
observations, in classes in which Kiswahili was widely used (e.g. C3
and C4), it was found that this tendency hindered students’
creativity since they also
responded and interacted with their teachers in Kiswahili.
Code-switching also cultivated a habit of fear among students when
trying to respond in English, unlike in other classes (G1 and G2),
where students actively interacted with and responded to their
teachers in English.
3.4. The Role of Interactional Modification Strategies
The
modification of learners’ utterances was also found to be an
important interactional strategy to enhance students' comprehension
and interlanguage development. An examination of the transcripts and
classroom observations showed that the modification of the learners’
utterances was of high potential for EFL learning. It was found that
such modifications were used to correct students' pronunciation and
grammar. Through this form of recast, the students
were also given the chance to reformulate their utterances in an
appropriate form. The modification of students' utterances was
therefore found to have a positive impact on their comprehension and
interlanguage development because teachers demonstrated to students
how their utterances were encoded by native speakers of English
(Example11).
Example
11: The Role of Expanding Learners’ Utterances
C3: Teacher:
What did we learn last period?
Student:
To make questions!
Teacher:
How to make questions!
C1: Student:
Excuse me aunt, can you give your bag?
Teacher:
Can you give me!
Student:
Can you give me your bag?
C2:
Teacher:
What is taking place during some different celebrations or parties?
Student:
Eating!
Teacher:
Yes, people are eating, kind of a buffet, serving yourselves.
This finding is similar to Hasan's
(2008), who commented that modification has the potential for
language acquisition since modifications that restate learner’s
utterances may enhance their syntactic development by providing new
or alternate
language acquisition.
Teachers’ modifications of learners'
utterances were also found to be done by giving more elaborations and
explanations to the concepts discussed so as to enable students to
learn more about these concepts (Example 11c). In connection to this,
Hasan (2008) argues that modification is used to adjust and evaluate
the learners’ responses and,
in consequence, to make
teacher-student interaction
more comprehensible. He adds that in this sense, such modifications
can be considered as some sort of a repair strategy of incomplete
responses. And this sort of formulation is usually used for
negotiation of meaning, and it helps in the development of learners’
utterances.
Considering
the information presented, the findings indicate that teachers
simplify input through various linguistic features so as to make
their oral input comprehensible to EFL students. They use simple and
short utterances accompanied by numerous long and short pauses; they
use occasional code switching and mixing between languages and avoid
overusing subordinate clauses. Also, simple, basic and frequently
used words accompanied by direct translations and
vocabulary elaborations
or paraphrasing were witnessed.
Lexical
features were found to enable students to comprehend the given topic
and build their own lexicon via vocabulary elaboration. In addition,
code-switching and translating, as lexical simplification strategies,
were found to be used for clarifying instructions, for emphasis,
checking students' understanding. However, code-switching and
translating were also found to hinder students’ creativity and
cultivated a habit of fear among students to respond in the target
language.
4 Recommendations
In
this section some recommendations based on the findings and the
discussion presented in Section 4, are presented.
Teachers
should avoid,
or at least reduce, code-switching and direct translation of English
words to Kiswahili by trying to employ input simplifications and
input elaborations in the target language. Our findings have shown
that excessive code-switching and translation are not helpful for
foreign language
learning.
Teachers
should employ student-centred approaches and teaching methods, which
give students more chances to exercise what they hear from their
teachers and peers. Through interaction (negotiation of meaning),
students’ interlanguage is tested, and they have direct or indirect
chances to correct their errors.
While
it seems to be generally agreed that the learner’s linguistic
environment represents an important aspect of the acquisition
process, it seems that teachers are not aware of the linguistic
adjustments they make with their foreign language students; neither
do teacher training curricula address input and interactional
adjustments and the types of lessons which affect them. Therefore, we
also recommend these adjustments to be taken into teacher trainings.
Despite that, the variations in the teachers’ use of adjustments in
this study suggest that some teachers may have
an intuitive ability to fine-tune their lesson activities so as to
promote discourse patterns to suit the language learners’ needs.
However, other teachers may need to be taught how to do so optimally.
References
Bahrani,
Taher (2012). Informal
Language Learning Setting: Technology or Social Interaction?.In:
The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 11(2012)
2, 142-149.(http://www.tojet.net/articles/v11i2/11215.pdf.:
25.03.2013).
Bruhart,
Marilyn (1986). Foreign Talk in ESL classroom: Interaction
adjustments to Adult students at two language Proficiency levels. In:
TESL
Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada
(1986) 1, 29-42.
(file:///C:/Users/HP/Downloads/992/1019/1/PB%20.pdf.;
05.05.2016).
Cabrera,
Marcos Penate & Martinez, Placido Bazo (2001).The
Effects of Repetition, Comprehension Checks, and Gestures on Primary
School Children in an EFL Situation. In: ELT
Journal 55
(2001) 3, 281-288.
Chaudron,
Craig (1983). Simplification of Input: Topic Teinstatements and their
Effects on L2 Learners’ Recognition and Recall. In: TESOL
QUARTERLY:
A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and
of Standard English as a Second Dialect 17
(1983) 3, 437-458.
Cobb,
Marina (2004). Input Elaboration in Second and Foreign Language
Teaching. In: Dialog
on Language Instruction 16
(2004) 1&2, 13-23.
Corder,
Pitt (1967). The Significance of Learners’ Errors. In: IRAL
-
International
Review of Applied Linguistics (1967)
5, 161-170.
Crookes,
Graham (1990). The Utterance, and Other Basic Units for Second
Language Discourse Analysis. In:Applied
Linguistics
11(1990) 2, 184-199.
(http://sls.Hawaii.edu/Gblog/wp-content/uploads/211/08/1990-Crookes-utterance1.pdf.;
30.03.2016)
Ellis,
Rod (1985). Understanding
Second Language Acquisition,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gass,
Susan & Selinker, Laryy (2008). Second
Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. 3rd
Edition, New York: Routledge.
Gass,
Susan (1988). Integrating Research Areas: A Framework for Second
Language Studies. In: Journal
of Applied Linguistics (1988)
9, 198-217.
Gass,
Susan (1997). Input,
Interaction, and the Second Language Learner.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gregg,
Keliv (1984). Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s Razor. In: Journal
of Applied Linguistics
(1984) 5, 79-100.
Hasan,
Ali Saud (2008).
Making
Input Comprehensible for Foreign Language Acquisition. In: Damascus
University Journal 24
(2008) 2, 31-53.
Kapoli,
Ireneus (1998). Teacher Control and Language Input in ESL Writing: An
Exploration of Classroom Discourse and Writing in secondary schools.
In: Journal
of Linguistics and Language in Education (1998)
4, 53-74.
Kim,
Youngkyu (2006).
Effects
of Input Elaboration on Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading by
Korean Learners of English as a Foreign Language. In: TESOL
QUARTERLY: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Others
Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect 40
(2006) 2, 341-373.
Kinyaduka,
Bryson & Kiwara, Joyce (2013). Language of Instruction and its
Impact on Quality of Education in Secondary Schools: Experiences from
Morogoro Region, Tanzania. In: Journal
of Education and Practice
4 (2013) 9, 90-95.
(http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/viewFile/5752/5915.:
20.04.2016).
Komba,
Sotco, Eugenia Kafanabo, Agnes Njabili & Ernest Kira (2012)
Comparison between students’ academic performance and their
abilities in written English language skills: A Tanzanian
perspective. In international Journal of Development and
Sustainability 1(2012)2.305-325 (www.isdsnet.com/ijds.:
29.04.2016).
Krashen,
Stephen (1985). The
Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications.
Harlow: Longman.
Long,
Mike (1982). Native Speaker / Non-Native Speaker Conversation in the
Second Language Classroom. In: Long, Mike & Richards, Jack (Eds.)
(1982). Methodology
in TESOL: A Book of Readings.
New York: Newbury House, 339-354.
Long,
Mike (1983). Native Speaker / Non-Native Speaker Conversation and the
Negotiation of Comprehensible Input. In: Journal
of Applied Linguistics
(1983) 4, 126-141.
Long,
Mike (1996).The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language
Acquisition. In: Ritchie, William & Bhatia, Tej (Eds.) (1996).
Handbook
of Second Language Acquisition.
New York: Academic Press, 6413-6468.
Maleki,
Zinat & Pazhakh, AbdolReza (2012). The Effects of Pre-Modified
Input Interactionally Modified Input, and Modified Output on EFL
Learners’ Comprehension of New Vocabularies. In: International
Journal of Higher Education 1(2012),
128-137.
Martinez,
Placido Bazo & Cabrera, Marcos Penate (2002). Input
and Interlanguage in the EFL Classroom: A Case Study with Primary
School Teachers. In: CAUCE,
Revista de Filologia y
su
Didactica (2002) 25,
459-474.
Mbaga,
Sharifa (2015) Classroom interaction: A key to effective Teaching and
Learning in Secondary Schools in Tanzania. A Case of Arusha City. In:
Gender
Education Journal,
4(2015) 1, 44-52. (www.mmu.ac.tz/uploads/article3.pdf.:05.05.2016).
Mitchell,
Rosamund & Myles, Florence (2004). Second
Language Learning Theories (2nd
Ed).
London:
Hodder Arnold.
Moradian,
Mahmood Rezar, Azam Naserpoor & Mohamad Sadegh Tamri
(2013). Effects of Lexical Simplication and Elaboration of ESP Texts
on Iranian EFL University Students’ Reading Comprehension. In:
International
Journal psychology and Behavioural Research,
2 (2013) 6, 332-338. (http://www.igpbrjournal.com.: 05.05.2016).
Mosha,
Mary.A. (2014). Factors Affecting Students’ Performance in English
Language Subject in Zanzibar Rural and Urban “O”-Level Secondary
Schools. In: Journal
of Education and Practice
5(2014)35, 64-76. (ww.iiste.org.:29.04.2016).
Oh,
Sun-Young (2001). Two Types of Input Modification and EFL Reading
Comprehension: Simplification versus Elaboration. In: TESOL
QUARTERLY: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Others
Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect (2001)
35, 69-97.
Park,
Eun Sung
(2002). On Three Potential Sources of Comprehensible Input for Second
Language Acquisition. 2 (2002) 3, 1-21.
(http://tesol-dev.journals.cdrs.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2015/05/3.-Park-2002.pdf.:
25.03.2013).
Rubagumya,
Casmir (1990). Language Use in Tanzania. In: Rubagumya, Casmir (Ed)
(1990),
Language
in Education in Africa: A Tanzanian Perspective.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Rugemalira,
Josephat (2005). Theoretical and practical challenges in a Tanzanian
English medium primary school. In: Africa
& Asia Journal
(2005) 5, 66-84.
Sarab,
Amani &
Karimi,
Mohammad (2008). The Impact of Simplified and Interactionally
Modified Input on Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL Learners. In:
The
Journal of Human Sciences
(2008) 56‚ 29 – 42
(http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/j_pdf/94420075602.pdf.: 27.03.2016).
Shirinzarii,
Maryam. (2011). Two Types of Text Modification and Incidental
Vocabulary Acquisition: Simplification vs. Elaboration. In: Iranian
EFL Journal, 7 (2011) 1, 51-66.
Swain,
Merrill (1985). Communicative Competence: Some Roles of
Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development.
In: Gass, Susan & Madden, Carolyn (Eds.) (1985). Input
in second language acquisition.
Rowley: Newbury House, 235-252.
Swilla,
Nitike (2009). Language of Instruction in Tanzania: Contradictions
between Ideology, Policy, and Implementation. In: Journal
for
African
Study Monographs 30
(2009) 1, 1-14.
United
Republic of Tanzania (1995). Education
and Training Policy.
Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Education and Culture.
United
Republic of Tanzania, (2010). Education Sector Development Programme:
Secondary
Education Development Programme II (July 2010 – June 2015).
Dar es Salaam Ministry of Education and Vocational Training.
White,
Lydia (1987). Against comprehensible input: The Input Hypothesis and
the Development of L2 Competence. In: Journal
of Applied Linguistics
(1987) 8, 95-110.
Wilson,
Job & Komba, Sotco (2012). The Link between English Language
Proficiency and Academic Performance: A Pedagogical Perspective in
Tanzanian Secondary Schools. In: World
Journal of English Language
2 (2012) 4,1-10.
Authors:
Adriano Utenga
Assistant
Lecturer
University
of Dodoma
School
of Humanities
P.O.Box
626
Dodoma
Tanzania
E-mail:
adriano.utenga@udom.ac.tz
Onesmo Simon Nyinondi
Assistant
Lecturer
Sokoine
University of Agriculture,
College
of Social Sciences and Humanities
P.O.Box
3038
Morogoro
Tanzania
Email;
onesmon@suanet.ac.tz
Abdulkarim
Shaban Mhandeni
Lecturer
Sokoine
University of Agriculture,
College
of Social Sciences and Humanities
P.O.Box
3038
Morogoro
Tanzania
Email:
mhandeni@suanet.ac.tz
Hashim Issa Mohamed, PhD
Senior
Lecturer
Sokoine
University of Agriculture,
College of Social Sciences and Humanities
P.O.Box 3038
Morogoro
Tanzania
E-Mail: mohhashim@suanet.ac.tz
1
Krashen
originally claimed that comprehensible input alone was both
necessary and sufficient for SLA. Later on, after criticisms,
comprehensible input has been held to be a necessary, though not a
sufficient condition for SLA (Long 1983, Krashen1985, Park 2002).
2
Gass
(1988, 1997, cited in Park 2002) distinguishes comprehensible
input
from comprehended
input.
The former implies that the speaker controls comprehensibility,
whereas in the latter, the focus is on the learner and the extent to
which the learner understands.
3 The
variation of recording in the two schools resulted from the fact that
the audio recorder developed a technical problem before finishing a
third recording for school B. In order to have a balanced data from
teachers in the two schools, only two audio recording from each
teacher were analysed from each school.