THEORIES OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING THAT SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT COMMUNICATIVE INTERACTION IMPROVES L

e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020

Impact Factor- 5.354

www.irjmets.com

THEORIES OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING THAT SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT COMMUNICATIVE INTERACTION IMPROVES LANGUAGE LEARNING Saleena Shad Gil*1 *1English

Lecturer, Direct English, New Horizon, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

ABSTRACT In this article, two different theories of Second language acquisition were discussed regarding the role of interaction in language learning and the implementation of these theories in a monolingual class. Regardless of being different from each other, both theories play a virtual role in understanding the role of interaction in Second language acquisition. In line with cognitive–interactionist theories, the input and output derived from interaction lead to cognitive processes i.e. noticing to endorse inter-language development. Whereas sociocultural theories see language development as a social process, facilitated by both interpersonal and intrapersonal interaction. However, neither of these theories could offer sufficient explicit ways in which interaction leads to acquisition, that are potentially valuable assets for teachers. However, both theories agree on instructional activity. As both theories have their own pros and cons, we cannot say which theory is superior to other because these theories work as the mediators to understand and investigate the role of interaction in SLL and can enhance our conception of language pedagogy. This article will securitize the importance of ‘interaction’ in language pedagogy and Second language acquisition.

Keywords: Cognitive, Comprehension, Interaction, Paradigm, Sociocultural.

I.

INTRODUCTION

What matters in the linguistic environment is not simply ‘what’s out there’ physically or even socially surrounding learners, but rather what learners make of it, how they process (or not) the linguistic data and how they live and experience that environment Ortega (2009).

In this article, I am going to identify and discuss second language learning theories, which support the interpretation that communicative interaction improves language learning. I will discuss two theoretical perspectives on the role of communicative interaction, which support the view that communicative interaction may improve language learning. All these theories are based on hypothesises and metaphors, as until now, we do not really know how the languages are learnt. Cognitive theories see interaction as a source of input and opportunities for output, to foster the internal processing that leads to the acquisition. This is also known as ‘Input–Interaction–Output Model’ (Block 2001). However, Social theories do not see interaction as a data source but as a site where learning takes place. According to Sfard (1998), to explicit the difference ‘participation’ and ‘acquisition’, we can categorise theories depending on their hypothesis of learning as occurring from interaction or in interaction.

Thus, the vital question is ‘How does interaction facilitate language learning and if so, can some types of interaction facilitate learning more than others?’ Generally, this question does not get much consideration in mainstream accounts of language pedagogy, which uses interaction to increase student participation and to develop fluency by emphasising on quantity instead of the quality of students’ contributions by managing the interactions to create more learning opportunities. Hence, interaction has great importance in language learning. To find the answer of the previously mentioned vital question, I am going to discuss and critically evaluate two very different theoretical paradigms in SLA viewing the role of interaction and the research they have motivated separately and implementation of these theories on a monolingual group of students.

1) The cognitive interactionist paradigm: According to cognitive interactionist paradigm, internal (cognitive) and external factors combine to make language learning possible. The environment may provide learners with the data for acquisition but acquisition itself occurs inside the learner’s mind (brain) possibly because of internal processing. Communication plays a variety of roles to provide learners with data, in stimulating the cognitive processes in charge of acquisition and www.irjmets.com

@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[332]

e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020

Impact Factor- 5.354

www.irjmets.com

affording opportunities for speaking i.e. learning from interaction. In this paradigm, there are two theoretical hypotheses, which have proved enormously influential (Ellis 2013).  

Long’s (1983b, 1996) Interaction Hypothesis Swain’s (1985, 1995) Comprehensible Output Hypothesis.

a) The Interaction Hypothesis: The Interaction Hypothesis (IH) attempts to explain how incidental acquisition takes place by facilitating learning through the negotiation of meaning, which occurs when interlocutors pursue to prevent or address a communication problem i.e. grammatical mistake. However, two studies of Foster (1998) and Slimani-Rolls (2005) propose that negotiation of meaning is inadequate in a classroom setting and when it does take place not all the learners participate in it (Ellis 2013). According to Saville_Troike (2012), language input only becomes intake if it is “let in” to the mind for processing, although, comprehensible input cannot assure learning. It only increases the chances of learning (Ellis 2013).

As stated in Lightbown and Spada (2013), Hatch (1978), Long (1983, 1996), Pica (1994), Gass (1997), and many other linguists believe that conversational interaction is crucial for second language acquisition. For example, Long (1983) not only agreed with Krashen that comprehensible input is necessary for language acquisition, but he also focused on the process of how input could be made comprehensible. He claimed that modified interaction is an essential mechanism for making language comprehensible. This can be achieved by providing learners with the opportunities to interact with other speakers to reach mutual comprehension through negotiation for meaning. However, modified interaction does not always involve linguistic simplification and is not always advantageous either. It may also include embellishment, slower speech rate, gesticulation, or the provision of additional contextual prompts (Lightbown 2013). According to Ehrlich et al.

(1989), there is also, a possibility that native speaker might over-elaborate the negotiation of meaning leading detrimental effect on comprehension. Another limitation of Long’s hypothesis is that in many classrooms negotiation of form is more common rather than the negotiation of meaning (Ellis 2013).

Later, Long (1996) revised the interaction hypothesis by emphasising more on cognitive factors, for instance, ‘noticing’ and ‘corrective feedback’ during the interaction. He believed when communication gets difficult, interlocutors must ‘negotiate for meaning’ which can be the opportunity for language development.

According to Pica’s (1992), updated IH theory, the negotiation of meaning indorses acquisition by providing learners comprehensible input and by corrective feedback i.e. correct their errors by explicating correction, elicitation to try again, recasting and repeating. This will push learners to notice their mistakes and to modify their own output to make it more like target language (Ellis 2012). However, this corrective feedback might not be available for learners outside the class. Although Pica (1996) claimed that negotiation meet the learners’ best data needs can be best met through negotiation, yet, negotiation is not the only source of data for acquisition.

Like any other theory, IH also got some drawbacks. For example, Michael long’s (1983, 1996) studies are laboratory, not classroom-based. According to IH the more learners participate is better for acquisition, however, some students prefer to stay quiet and listen and still they do well in class. From the perspective of language pedagogy, the most severe criticism of the IH is probably that negotiation sequences establish only a minor part of the total classroom interaction (Ellis 1991, 2013). For example, Nakahama et al. (2001) enlightened other aspects of interaction that may be just as or more important. b) The Comprehensible Output Hypothesis: Swain (1985) developed the Comprehensible Output (CO) Hypothesis. While producing the second language, a learner will notice through internal or external feedback about a linguistic error made by him/her. This ‘noticing’ of an error then pushes the learner to modify his/ her output to be more target-like output.

Eventually, he or she will learn something new (Swain, Lapkin 2002). From this perception, comprehensible output plays a vital role in the interaction. However, Krashen (1994) argues that the basic problem with CO hypotheses is that output is rare, and comprehensible output is even rarer. The learners rarely make the sorts of adjustments that the CO hypothesis claims are useful and necessary to acquire new forms. In her CO www.irjmets.com

@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[333]

e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020

Impact Factor- 5.354

www.irjmets.com

hypothesis, she also purposed that learners should be pushed to produce language that their interlocutor can understand. As by doing this, learners probably see the limits of their second language ability and the need to find better ways to express their meaning. However, pushing students to speak in a second language may cause them anxiety and thus hamper language acquisition (Krashen 1985, 1994).

Although she developed CO hypothesis, Swain does not claim that comprehensible output is responsible for our language competence. It can only facilitate second language learning under some conditions. The Comprehensible Output Hypothesis was formulated as part of the input-output model of L2 acquisition. She proposed three specific functions of output. They are:   

‘Noticing’ i.e. learners notice gaps and try to modify their language errors to produce target-like output (convey a meaningful message).

‘Hypothesis testing function’ i.e. the modified output that learners produce following negative feedback from others or interlocutor.

‘The metalinguistic’ i.e. provide opportunities to experiment with language forms and structures.

Learners reflect on the knowledge they learn and thus the output then enables them to control and internalize the linguistic knowledge (Ellis 2013).

Different researchers have different views regarding the output role in language acquisition. For example, Krashen (1998) always claimed that output plays no role in grammar acquisition. Contradicting this, Long and Pica have claimed that modified output plays a significant role in language acquisition. However, Long (1996) later argued that it is ‘facilitative, but not necessary’ (p. 448). On the other hand, Pica (1992) argued that modified output helps learners to notice their error and modify it to produce forms that may lie at the critical edge of their linguistic ability. However, we can only reach a final decision through empirical research to find out the role of output modification on language acquisition (Ellis 2013).

2) The sociocultural paradigm: In contrast to cognitive interaction paradigm, the sociocultural (SC) paradigm learning is acquired by interaction. It also sees internal (mind) and external (environment) factors are not separate but integrated together for SLA and believe interaction is not a data source but a site where learning takes place. SC theory proposes emphasis on the interaction itself and believes that interaction not only facilitates language learning but also is an essential force rather than as merely a helpful condition for learning (Swain 2005).

Swain later in her 2000 article called ‘the output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue’, revised her CO hypothesis theory and reinterpret the role of output in second language acquisition in terms of Sociocultural Theory. She basically proposed a switch in terminology from ‘output’ to ‘collaborative dialogue’. Swain now accepted the Vygotsky’s view of learning, namely that psychological processes originate in external activities and are subsequently transformed into mental ones through the mediation of semiotic tools (Lantolf 2000).

According to SC Theory, mediation is a route to learning from one’s lower mental functions to higher-order functions afforded by language. According to this SC hypothesis, the human mind is mediated by psychological tools (mediators) to mediate his own mental abilities and control over their cognitive processes (Saville 2005).

Vygotsky (1987) argued that higher-order mental functions are derived from sociocultural experiences with the world. SCT works as a notion of mediation to bring the social and the psychological into contact.

According to this theory, language can be acquired with the help of symbolic tools for mediation (Swain 2000) in two ways. They are: 



Interpersonal interaction i.e. language assists as a mediation tool for engaging in social interaction to enable learners to produce L2 utterances beyond their individual abilities. This can occur through ‘vertical constructions’ (Scollon, 1976).

Private speech i.e. learners talk out loud to mediate their own learning through private speech. The private speech then becomes inner speech to regulate inner thoughts without talking out loud (loud thinking).

Initially, Lantolf (2000) suggested that private speech is a kind of social interaction as it enables you to talk to yourself. Thus, in private speech learner is not scared to make mistakes and this self-interaction may help in language learning. However, later, Lantolf and Thorne (2006) acknowledged that learners even quite advanced www.irjmets.com

@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[334]

e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020

Impact Factor- 5.354

www.irjmets.com

ones might have difficulty in using the L2 for private speech. Which means that second language may serve as a mediation tool for social activity but probably not for mediating mental activity or mental process (VanPatten and Williams 2015).

The Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of proximal development (ZPD) can be defined as a process in which the learner can achieve that level of potential development only with the social forms of mediation. SCT claims mental functions that an individual cannot accomplish by himself/herself must be performed with the support of someone else who has comparatively more knowledge to accomplish the task. For example, initially, a child cannot make good sentences while speaking but with the help of parents or anyone more knowledgeable than him, a child can make a sentence and later with practice can interact independently. It is however very crucial to understand that ZPD is not a psychological construct that lies inside the learner’s mind but a socio-cognitive construct that involves the psychological contributions learners make to the social interactions they contribute in. There is, however, a third level that lies beyond the learner’s mental function, where the learner is unable to perform the task even if assistance is available (Ellis 2013).

However, Lantolf (2005) overruled this interpretation of acquisition, arguing that it is incompatible with the SCT view i.e. learning is ‘revolutionary’ and ‘unpredictable’.

According to Swain (2000), internalization is a process of learning from external activities and then transforming the learning into mental processing i.e. development. For example, learning a new word from classroom activity, memorising it, and then ultimately using it in producing utterance. However, Vygotsky (1978) rejects this hypothesis and argue that ‘learning is not development’ though well-structured learning not only leads to mental development but a variety of developmental processes that are impossible to take place without learning’. According to Ohta (2001), internalization is the movement of language from the environment to the brain but did not explain under what conditions this movement takes place and how this movement of learning takes place from the environment to the brain? a) Assisted performance (Scaffolding): Scaffolding is a process of ZPD i.e. it helps learners to perform a task, which was impossible to accomplish without assistance (mediation). Scaffolding is also known as ‘assisted performance’ (Ohta, 2001).

One of the limitations of scaffolding research is that it has not focused much on ‘assistance’ and even less on ‘learning’. There was not enough evidence in scaffolding research to prove that classroom interaction leads to ‘learning’ or that the learners could produce some aspect of language that they were unable to produce autonomously (Ellis 2013). b) Languaging: According to Swain (2006), ‘languaging’ refers to the role that oral or written language production plays in making meaning when learners are faced with some problem. According to Swain et al. (2011), ‘languaging’ can take place in both private and social speech. Languaging mediates learning to develop ZPD mutually and produce output in the second language, which they could not solely. She also argued that with languaging leads to metalinguistic understanding i.e. it provides the opportunity to the learners to make a linguistic feature that they can consciously think about. Considering this, we can say that ‘languaging’ is not synonymous with ‘speaking’ or ‘writing’, used to simply convey a message instead ‘languaging’ only takes place when learners use language as a cognitive tool to mediate thinking.

II.

METHODOLOGY IMPLICATIONS OF ASPECTS OF THESE THEORIES FOR THE LEARNING OF A MONOLINGUAL GROUP OF LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN CONTEXT.

Now I am going to discuss the implications of aspects of these theories for the learning of a monolingual group of language learners. The level of this group is the Preliminary English Test (PET) from Saudi Arabia. The first language of this monolingual group is Arabic, and they are not highly motivated learners.

According to IH, interlocutors need to provide learners with the opportunities to interact with other speakers to reach mutual comprehension through negotiation for meaning. I have provided the learners with the opportunities to interact with other speakers by following the important features of the three extensive methodologies of scaffolding. www.irjmets.com

@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[335]

e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020 

 

Impact Factor- 5.354

www.irjmets.com

First of these approaches is to identify what teachers must do to scaffold learners’ participation in an interaction. Often cited is Wood et al.’s (1976) list. Teachers can assist learning through:  Engaging interest in the task.  Simplifying the task.  Sustaining accomplishment of the goal.  Highlighting critical features of what a learner has produced and the “ideal solution”.  Controlling frustration during problem-solving.  Demonstrating a model of what to be performed.

The second approach is to scrutinise actual interactions to identify the detailed aspects of discourse that assist the learner.

The third approach is to scrutinise how interaction mediates joint problem solving, where learners clearly address their linguistic difficulties.

Providing plentiful interaction opportunities to a monolingual class, I have witnessed a minimal interaction for negotiation of meaning and even if they are pushed to interact, not all the learners seem to participate in interaction as maintained by Slimani-Rolls (2005). I have also noticed that quite a few learners switch to L1 for negotiation of meaning which does not help as according to IH interaction is not merely the opportunity for learners to talk but to provide the comprehensible input as well through the negotiation of meaning.

Consequently, they keep interacting in L1 instead of L2, hence cannot produce target like L2. However, some of them produce good output in pair work by assisting each other as a speaker and listener. While speaker interacts, the listener notices errors and try to produce better output as a speaker (Ohta 2001).

One of the aspects of CO Hypothesis is that learners need opportunities for ‘pushed output’, which according to IH can be achieved by the corrective feedback from a teacher or novice. However, in a monolingual class, I struggled for pushed or modified output because most of the learners often produce very short utterances; no matter they are in pairs, small groups or by themselves. For example, a single word or a short phrase or, at most, a single clause.

According to IH, the more learners participate in the interaction, the better they learn, and i.e. those learners who participate more learn more. However, I did not experience it fully in my monolingual class. Some students who participate a lot in class are usually the better learners, however, few students participate a lot, usually are not the best learners in class (Allwright 1980). They just like to be prominent in class or like to talk more, depriving other students of the opportunity to participate and to learn more. Some good learners just prefer to listen to the class than to interact and still learn better (Reiss, 1985). Besides, there is no proof that better learners participate extensively in classrooms than not so good learners.

IRF is not always helpful in monolingual class because when learners make mistake and I try to help them, they repeat behind me or correct themselves but that is just for the time being i.e. the temporary modification as after few minutes they forget it and I have to help again. According to Pica and Long (1986), IRF provides limited opportunities for the negotiation of meaning and so rejects the IH theory. However, some students take the feedback seriously and learners perform beyond their existing competence, which maintains the hypothesis of the sociocultural theory.

III.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

In this article, two different theories of SLA were discussed in terms of the role of interaction in language learning and the implementation of these theories in a monolingual class. Both theories are different from each other but play a virtual role in understanding the role of interaction in SLA. According to cognitive– interactionist theories, the input and output derived from interaction lead to cognitive processes i.e. noticing to endorse inter-language development. While sociocultural theories see language development as a social process, facilitated by both interpersonal and intrapersonal interaction. According to Gass and Mackey (2007), cognitive theorists and researchers have been unsuccessful to provide adequate evidence to indicate that interaction can facilitate the acquisition. Neither the Interaction Hypothesis nor the Comprehensible Output Hypothesis could purpose sufficient explicit ways, in which interaction leads to acquisition, which are potentially valuable assets for teachers. However, both theories agree on instructional activity i.e. ‘tasks’, where learners use language negotiation of meaning to produce target like output instead of ‘exercises’ where www.irjmets.com

@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[336]

e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020

Impact Factor- 5.354

www.irjmets.com

learners merely exhibit correct language and that interaction contributes to fluency and a new language learning source, but they still disagree significantly in how interaction contribute in learning a new language.

As both theories have their own pros and cons, we cannot say which theory is superior to other because these theories work as the mediators to understand and investigate the role of interaction in SLL and can enhance our conception of language pedagogy. Although we can see the importance of ‘interaction’ in language pedagogy and SLA based on this article. Yet, interaction has not been discussed in detail for language pedagogy.

However, we can say that at the end of the day that interaction is a backbone of teaching.

IV. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

REFERENCES

Angell, J. 2004. Reflections on Language and Language Learning: In Honor of Arthur Van Essen. Marcel Bax and Jan-Wouter Zwart (Eds.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2001. Pp xxxiv+366.

Bialystok, E., Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S. 1983. Language Two. The Modern Language Journal, 67(3), pp. 273.

Block, N. 2011. Perceptual consciousness overflows cognitive access. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(12), pp. 567-575.

Cohen, L. 2011. Research methods in education. 7th edition. London: Routledge.

Cook, V., 2008. Second language learning and language teaching. 4th edition. London: Hodder Education.

Creswell, J. W. 2014. Educational research planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th edition. Pearson new international edition. Harlow, Essex: Pearson.

Eckerth, J. 2009. Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom. Language Teaching, 42(1), pp. 109-130.

Ehrlich, S., Avery, P. and Yorio, C., 1989. Discourse Structure and the Negotiation of Comprehensible Input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(4), pp. 397-414.

Ellis, R. 2013. Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London: Routledge.

Ellis, R. 1991. The Interaction Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation.

Erlam, R. 2005. Language Aptitude and Its Relationship to Instructional Effectiveness in Second Language Acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), pp. 147-171.

Foster, P. 1998. A Classroom Perspective on the Negotiation of Meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), pp.

1-23.

Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A., 2015. Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, pp. 180-206.

Heidi Byrnes. 2006 -last update, Advanced Language Learning the Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky.

Available: https://www.scribd.com/document/288047467/Heidi-Byrnes-AdvancedLanguage-Learning-the-Con [Feb 1, 2018].

Krashen, S. D. 1998. Comprehensible Output? System, 26(2), pp. 175-82.

Krashen, S. D. 1985. The Input hypothesis: issues and implications. London and New York: Longman.

Krashen, S. 1989. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the Input Hypothesis. Modern Language Journal 73(4), 440–64.

Krashen, S. 1994. "The Input Hypothesis and Its Rivals". Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, pp.45-77. London: Academic Press Lantolf, J. P. 2000. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lightbown, P. 2013a. How languages are learned. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lightbown, P. 2013b. How languages are learned. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lightbown, P. 2006. How languages are learned. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Long, M. H. 1983. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), pp. 126-141.

Lourdes Ortega. 2009. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.

Minami, M., 2002. Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Amy Snyder Ohta. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001. Pp. 316.

Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A. and Van Lier, L. 2001. Negotiation of Meaning in Conversational and Information Gap Activities: A Comparative Discourse Analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), pp. 377-405.

www.irjmets.com

@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[337]

e-ISSN: 2582-5208 International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science Volume:02/Issue:11/November -2020 [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

Impact Factor- 5.354

www.irjmets.com

Nassaji, H. 2007. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (Vol. 25). A Survey of Applied Linguistics Edited

by Mc GROARTY, MARY. Malden, USA. Reiss, M., 1985. The Good Language Learner: Another Look. Canadian Modern Language Review, 41(3), pp. 511-23.

ROBINSON, P. 1996. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages.

Saville-Troike, M., 2012. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scollon, R., 1976. Conversations with a one-year-old: a case study of the developmental foundation of syntax. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Sfard, A. 1998. On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One. Educational Researcher, 27(2), pp. 4-13.

Slimani-Rolls, A., 2005. Rethinking Task-Based Language Learning: What We Can Learn from the Learners. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), pp. 195-218.

Swain, M. 2013. The Inseparability of Cognition and Emotion in Second Language Learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), pp. 195-207.

Swain, M. 2011. Sociocultural theory in second language education: an introduction through narratives.

Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Swain, M., Kinnear, P. and Steinman, L. 2010. Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education: An Introduction through Narratives.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S.2002. Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), pp. 285-304.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 1995. Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They Generate: A Step Towards Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), pp. 371-91.

Vanpatten, B. and Williams, J., 2015. Theories in second language acquisition: an introduction. Second edition. New York, NY: Routledge.

VYGOTSKY, L.S. 1987. Collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol 1, Problems of general psychology. Plenum.

WOOD, D., BRUNER, J.S. and ROSS, G., 1976. The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving*. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), pp. 89-100.

www.irjmets.com

@International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[338]