please summarise the conversations so far:

""

If this app doesn't respond, consider trying our other GPT-4O app:
https://huggingface.co/spaces/yuntian-deng/ChatGPT4Turbo
Chatbot
Please summarise the following article:

“”



NewsResearchAboutJobs BoardCollectionsMore
Newsletter
Does ‘Flipped Learning’ Work? A New Analysis Dives Into the Research
TweetShare
Sign up for our newsletter
×
Flipped Classroom
Does ‘Flipped Learning’ Work? A New Analysis Dives Into the Research
By Jeffrey R. Young     Feb 16, 2023
Does ‘Flipped Learning’ Work? A New Analysis Dives Into the Research
Mimi Thian / Unsplash
TweetShareEmail
Since the pandemic, more instructors at schools and colleges appear to have embraced “flipped learning,” the approach of asking students to watch lecture videos before class so that class time can be used for active learning.

Proponents say the model improves student outcomes by encouraging more interaction among students and professors, and many studies have been conducted to measure the efficacy of the approach. So a group of professors recently performed a meta-analysis to try to assess how well flipped learning is working.

The study considered 173 studies of flipped learning, as well as 46 previous meta-analyses of the approach. And while many of the studies showed gains for learners in some cases, the researchers concluded that flipped learning isn’t living up to its promise.

The hype is convincing — it’s seductive — but the implementation of the hype is not,” he said. “It has been implemented so variably.

— John Hattie, emeritus professor at the University of Melbourne
“The current levels of enthusiasm for flipped learning are not commensurate with and far exceed the vast variability of scientific evidence in its favor,” the paper argues.

In fact, the authors made the surprising conclusion that many instances of flipped learning involve more time spent on passive learning than the traditional lecture model, because some professors both assign short video lectures and spend some time in class lecturing to prepare for class activities. As the authors put it: “Indeed, it seems that implementations of flipped learning perpetuate the things they claim to reduce, that is, passive learning.”

The far-reaching meta-analysis considered flipped learning experiments done in elementary schools, high schools and colleges, with the bulk of the studies in the higher ed setting.

The biggest surprise to the researchers as they coded each research project was realizing how many different versions of flipped learning exist, said John Hattie, an emeritus professor at the University of Melbourne who co-authored the study. “The hype is convincing — it’s seductive — but the implementation of the hype is not,” he said. “It has been implemented so variably.”

Another surprise, Hattie said, was that the more active learning done in a flipped classroom, the worse the outcome. He chalks that up to the fact that many professors using the model don’t test whether students are actually learning the material presented in lecture videos, and so some students who skip the videos or watch them on double-speed arrive in class unprepared for the activities.

The researchers do think that flipped learning has merit — if it is done carefully. They end their paper by presenting a model of flipped learning they refer to as “fail, flip, fix and feed,” which they say applies the most effective aspects they learned from their analysis. Basically they argue that students should be challenged with a problem even if they can’t properly solve it because they haven’t learned the material yet, and then the failure to solve it will motivate them to watch the lecture looking for the necessary information. Then classroom time can be used to fix student misconceptions, with a mix of a short lecture and student activities. Finally, instructors assess the student work and give feedback.

“I hope our paper does not dismiss the ideas underlying [flipped learning] because they’re very powerful ideas,” Hattie said.

‘Hey, We’re All on the Same Team Here’
Fans of flipped learning had some questions about the new study’s conclusions.

Among them is Robert Talbert, a professor in the mathematics department at Grand Valley State University and author of the book “Flipped Learning: A Guide for Higher Education Faculty.”

“It kind of takes flipped learning educators to task, and I thought that was super unnecessary,” Talbert said. “I wanted to reach out to the authors and say, ‘Hey we’re all on the same team here.’ They’re part of the group doing flipped learning.”

He says he welcomes a tough look at the research, but he argued that the study left out some well-known research on active learning. And he said that by looking at flipped learning across K-12 schools and colleges, the analysis ended up comparing apples and oranges.

“It’s a great discussion starter, and I’m never going to say we can’t publish things that are critical to flipped learning,” Talbert said. “But the paper’s overall message was, ‘All of y’all are doing flipped learning wrong, and we’re doing it right.’ I didn’t think that was fair to people practicing flipped learning.”

The lead author of the paper, Kapur Manu, a professor of learning science and higher education at ETH Zurich, responded to that critique by saying he wanted to push back against an uneven implementation of a popular teaching trend.

“I’m on team science, and this is what the empirical science is proving,” he said in an interview. “The contribution is that we actually coded the kinds of activities” that went into flipped learning efforts. “When you do that, you find that active learning was not as present as it should have been.”

Talbert praised the model the researchers presented, but he said it seems very much like a paper by Bertrand Schneider and Paulo Blikstein that the researchers cited but didn’t discuss in their meta-analysis.

Hattie, one of the co-authors of the meta-analysis, acknowledged that their model emerged in part from the experiments they examined. “The new model came particularly from the extensive work from the first author Kapur Manu, and he and I both learned from this paper and others to build the model,” he said.

And Hattie argued that the uneven results of flipped learning held true no matter which sector of education considered — K-12 or higher education.

One hope of the paper, he said, is to encourage a more detailed understanding of which parts of flipped learning work best so that those jumping into a trendy teaching strategy can be effective.

Jeffrey R. Young (@jryoung) is editor of EdSurge and producer and host of the EdSurge Podcast. He can be reached at jeff [at] edsurge [dot] com

Education Research Learning Research Flipped Classroom Higher Education
Learn more about EdSurge operations, ethics and policies here. Learn more about EdSurge supporters here.
More from EdSurge
What Future Teachers Can Tell Us About Why People Enter the Profession Today
Teacher Preparation
What Future Teachers Can Tell Us About Why People Enter the Profession Today
By Emily Tate Sullivan
Cellphone Ban, More Pay, ‘Disruptive Students’: New State Laws Address Teacher Priorities
Policy and Government
Cellphone Ban, More Pay, ‘Disruptive Students’: New State Laws Address Teacher Priorities
By Nadia Tamez-Robledo
Are We There Yet? Skills-Based Technologies, Hiring and Advancement [Infographic]
Sponsored
Are We There Yet? Skills-Based Technologies, Hiring and Advancement [Infographic]
What All High Schools Can Draw From Career and Technical Education Programs
Opinion
What All High Schools Can Draw From Career and Technical Education Programs
By Samantha Shane
Keep up to date with our email newsletterSign me up

Journalism that ignites your curiosity about education.

EdSurge is an editorially independent project ofand

WHAT WE DO
News
Research
Jobs
Product Index
COMPANY
About us
Careers
Write for us
Advertising
FOLLOW EDSURGE
Ethics Statement
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Help
© 2024 All Rights Reserved



“”
The article explores the concept of “flipped learning,” a teaching method where students watch lecture videos at home and engage in interactive activities in class, which has gained popularity since the pandemic. A recent meta-analysis of 173 studies and 46 previous meta-analyses by a group of professors suggests that while flipped learning shows potential benefits, its implementation often falls short. Many classrooms still emphasize passive learning, with professors unable to ensure students are adequately prepared for in-class activities. The study found varied implementations and noted that classes with more active learning had surprisingly worse outcomes, possibly due to students not engaging properly with lecture materials. The authors propose a “fail, flip, fix and feed” model to improve effectiveness, urging a strategic and flexible approach. Critics argue the study was unduly harsh and overlooked certain research. The lead author defends the study, emphasizing a need for scientific rigor and proper implementation within flipped learning practices.
What does Stephen Krashen say about the flipped learning model?
Stephen Krashen, a prominent linguist and educational researcher known for his theories on second language acquisition, has expressed criticism of the flipped learning model. Although I don’t have direct quotes or a specific article where he discusses flipped learning in detail up to my knowledge cutoff in October 2023, Krashen generally emphasizes the importance of meaningful, comprehensible input over formal, structured learning approaches.

Krashen advocates for teaching methods that provide students with rich, engaging input in the language they are learning, which he argues is more effective for language acquisition than traditional grammar-based or rote memorization techniques. Given this perspective, he is likely skeptical of flipped learning models if they emphasize passive consumption of lecture videos, which may not align with his belief in the necessity of real, meaningful interactions and input for effective learning.

In various talks and writings, Krashen has been critical of methods that rely heavily on decontextualized learning and formal study, suggesting that they don’t align well with how humans naturally acquire language and knowledge. Therefore, if a flipped learning environment lacks opportunities for meaningful input and interaction, it might not meet his criteria for effective pedagogy.
“As classroom is a serious place and students are pressurized with several things. They cannot be relaxed and have fun inside the classroom. On the other hand, students are relaxed when they are outside the classroom. Therefore, the flipped model suggests that students learn or explore content, which is identified by the
teacher outside the classroom using a computers, laptops, palmtops, smartphones, and so on, and inside the classroom, they perform and participate in activities designed by the teachers.”

This statement assumes that a classroom has to be serious place. Why? Why does a classroom have to be a serious place? We know from Krashen’s discussion about the affective filter that students acquire language faster when they are not in a “serious” setting. Therefore, they justification for flipped classroom, in my opinion, is made on a faulty premise.
You raise a valid point that aligns closely with Stephen Krashen’s theory of the affective filter. According to Krashen, the affective filter hypothesis posits that learners acquire language more effectively when they are in a low-anxiety environment. Stress, fear, and nervousness can raise the affective filter, making it harder for students to absorb and retain new information. Conversely, a relaxed, enjoyable setting can lower the affective filter and facilitate better learning.

The statement you quoted assumes that the classroom has to be a “serious” place where students feel pressured, which isn’t necessarily true or desirable for optimal learning. Modern educational philosophies, including Krashen’s insights, suggest that creating a supportive, engaging, and low-stress classroom environment can be more effective for learning, whether in language acquisition or other subjects.

Therefore, if the justification for flipped learning is based on the premise that classrooms must be serious and stressful, it indeed appears to be a faulty assumption. Instead of relegating all engaging and enjoyable learning activities to outside the classroom, educators could benefit from creating a classroom environment that combines structured activities with elements of fun and relaxation. This would align more closely with research suggesting that a positive emotional state is beneficial for learning.

Moreover, flipped learning could still have its advantages—such as offering more opportunities for interactive and hands-on activities during class time—without necessarily assuming that classroom environments must be inherently serious or stressful. The key takeaway might be to balance the potential strengths of flipped learning with the insights from Krashen and others about the importance of a low-anxiety, student-friendly learning environment.
Why does the classroom have to be interactive? Why is that premise naturally assumed to be correct? When students acquire language in the classroom they have ample opportunity to be interactive using the language outside the classroom.
The premise that classrooms should be interactive stems from a substantial body of educational research suggesting that interactive, student-centered learning environments generally lead to better educational outcomes. Here are some reasons why interaction in the classroom is often emphasized:

1. Active Learning:
- Research consistently shows that students learn more effectively when they are actively engaged with the material. Interaction promotes active learning as opposed to passive consumption of information, which can enhance understanding and retention.

2. Constructivist Theories:
- Constructivist theories of education, such as those proposed by Vygotsky, emphasize the importance of social interaction in learning. Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) suggests that learners benefit from guidance and collaboration with others who have more knowledge or experience.

3. Immediate Feedback:
- Interactive classrooms allow teachers to provide immediate feedback and clarification, which can address misunderstandings on the spot. This kind of feedback loop can be crucial for effective learning.

4. Engagement and Motivation:
- Interaction often leads to higher levels of engagement and motivation. When students participate in discussions, group work, and other interactive activities, they tend to be more invested in their learning.

5. Application of Knowledge:
- Interactive settings give students opportunities to apply what they have learned in real-world or simulated scenarios. This can strengthen their understanding and ability to use knowledge practically.

Regarding language acquisition specifically, Stephen Krashen’s input hypothesis argues that comprehensible input is crucial, but interaction also plays a key role. Interaction provides opportunities for learners to receive input that is tailored to their level, to negotiate meaning, and to practice language production in a meaningful and contextualized way.

However, it’s also important to recognize that interaction outside the classroom—such as in social settings, through travel, media consumption, or digital communication—complements classroom learning and provides a well-rounded language acquisition experience. Having opportunities to interact in the target language outside of class can be highly beneficial and can reinforce and extend classroom learning.

In conclusion, while interaction inside the classroom is emphasized for its numerous pedagogical benefits, it’s not to say that valuable learning can’t happen outside the classroom. An effective learning model, whether interactive or flipped, can leverage both settings to maximize student engagement and learning outcomes.
One study found that after two years in an input-based class, students performed as well (or better) than those in a more traditional class, including on measures of speaking—even though they never practiced it.
This point aligns well with Stephen Krashen’s theories, particularly his input hypothesis, which posits that learners acquire language most effectively through exposure to “comprehensible input.” According to Krashen, sufficient exposure to language that is just beyond the learner’s current proficiency level (i+1) allows for natural language acquisition, even without explicit practice in production (speaking or writing).

### Why Input-Based Learning Can Be Effective:
1. Comprehensible Input:
- Krashen argues that understanding input is the major driver of language acquisition. When students are exposed to language they can comprehend, they unconsciously pick up grammar and vocabulary, which eventually leads to improved speaking and writing skills.

2. Lowered Affective Filter:
- Input-based approaches often create low-anxiety environments, as they focus less on forced production and more on understanding. This aligns with the affective filter hypothesis, which states that learners’ emotional states can significantly impact their ability to acquire language. Lower anxiety (a lower affective filter) typically leads to more effective learning.

3. Implicit Learning:
- Students learning through input are often engaged in implicit learning, where the grammar and structure of the language are acquired unconsciously. This type of learning is argued to be more durable and fluent compared to explicit learning and practice.

4. Listening and Reading:
- Input-based methods heavily utilize listening and reading activities, which have been shown to be effective in developing language skills. These activities expose students to a wide range of vocabulary and structures that they might not encounter in a traditional, production-focused classroom.

### Traditional Approaches vs. Input-Based Methods:
While traditional language classes often emphasize a balance between input (listening and reading) and output (speaking and writing), the success of input-based methods challenges the assumption that output is necessary for effective language learning. Traditional methods might include grammar drills, rote memorization, and frequent speaking exercises, which can sometimes lead to high anxiety and reduced motivation.

### Application and Real-World Use:
It’s important to note that while input-based learning has proven effective in many contexts, the opportunity for real-world application should not be underestimated. Speaking, even if not initially practiced in the classroom, becomes a natural next step when learners have had sufficient comprehensible input. Real-world interaction and communicative use of language can solidify and extend the knowledge acquired through input.

### Balanced Approach:
Ultimately, a balanced approach might be the most beneficial. Classrooms can leverage both input-based methods to build a strong foundation and interactive activities to provide opportunities for practical application. Ensuring a low-anxiety, engaging environment—whether through input-focused lessons or interactive activities—remains crucial for language acquisition.

This study you mentioned supports the idea that exposure to comprehensible input is not only necessary but can be sufficient for effective language learning, challenging the assumption that active speaking practice is essential from the start. This can help educators design more flexible, inclusive, and low-pressure language learning environments.
please summarise the following text:

“”


Main menu

WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Appearance
Create account
Log in

Personal tools

Toggle the table of contents
Interaction hypothesis

Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history

Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The interaction hypothesis is a theory of second-language acquisition which states that the development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication.[1] Its main focus is on the role of input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition.[2] It posits that the level of language that a learner is exposed to must be such that the learner is able to comprehend it, and that a learner modifying their speech so as to make it comprehensible facilitates their ability to acquire the language in question.[3] The idea existed in the 1980s,[4][5] and has been reviewed and expanded upon by a number of other scholars but is usually credited to Michael Long.

Outline
The interaction hypothesis states that (1) Comprehensible input is a requirement for second language acquisition, and (2) Input is made comprehensible to the learner via negotiations for meaning in conversations. Later responses, i.e. from Teresa Pica, also include a third pillar stating that (3) participation in tasks in which communication is necessary and in which participants share a symmetrical role relationship promote more opportunities for meaning negotiation.[6]

Similar to Krashen’s input hypothesis, the interaction hypothesis claims that comprehensible input, which is characterized as a variety of language that can be understood by a learner,[3] is important for language learning. There are a number of ways in which input may be modified for the benefit of the learner. For example, a native speaker of a language may use foreigner talk when addressing a non-native speaker: this kind of modified input entails slowed speech, greater articulation, and simplified vocabulary.[7] In addition, it claims that the effectiveness of comprehensible input is greatly increased when learners have to negotiate for meaning.[8] This occurs when there is a breakdown in communication which interlocutors attempt to overcome.[9] One of the participants in a conversation will say something that the other does not understand; the participants will then use various communicative strategies to help the interaction progress. Many different strategies may be employed by interlocutors: for example, they may request for clarification (e.g. “What do you mean?”) or provide a comprehension check (e.g. “Do you know what I mean?”). Negotiation strategies such as clarification requests, confirmation checks, recasts (rephrasing an incorrect sentence with the correct structure), and comprehension checks are considered implicit feedback, while corrections and metalinguistic explanations are explicit feedback.[2] The difference between modified interaction and modified input is that in the latter, participants may engage with one another and their communication is dynamic, whereas in the former the information given to the learner is static and is not open for interaction.[10] As a result, the interactional structure of a two-way conversation or task then elicits the most modifications since the dynamic aspect forces the participants to negotiate for meaning.[11]

Interactions provide a context for learners to receive feedback on the correctness or incorrectness of their language use. Interactions often result in learners receiving negative evidence.[9][8] That is, if learners say something that their interlocutors do not understand or that is ungrammatical, after negotiation the interlocutors may model the correct language form. Conversely, positive evidence is confirmation that what a learner has said is grammatical. In doing this, learners can receive feedback on their production and on grammar that they have not yet mastered.[8] Individual differences may also affect negative feedback and its effectiveness when each learner has their own preferences for types of negative feedback. The process of interaction may also result in learners receiving more input from their interlocutors than they would otherwise.[9] Furthermore, if learners stop to clarify things that they do not understand, they may have more time to process the input they receive. This can lead to better understanding and possibly the acquisition of new language forms.[8] Finally, interactions may serve as a way of focusing learners’ attention on a difference between their knowledge of the target language and the reality of what they are hearing; it may also focus their attention on a part of the target language of which they are not yet aware.[12] A drawback is that in simplifying the input to make it comprehensible, modification takes away from the acquisition of complex structures.[11]

Primacy of interaction
Although there are several studies that link interaction with language acquisition,[13] not all researchers subscribe to the idea that interaction is the primary means by which language proficiency develops.[14] In a survey of the literature on the subject, Larsen-Freeman and Long say that interaction is not necessary for language acquisition; they do say, however, that it helps in certain circumstances.[15] Gass and Selinker claim that as well as interaction facilitating learning, it may also function as a priming device, “setting the stage” for learning rather than being the means by which learning takes place.[12] In addition, Ellis notes that interaction is not always positive. He says that sometimes it can make the input more complicated, or produce amounts of input which overwhelm learners. According to Ellis, this can happen if interlocutors use lengthy paraphrases or give complex definitions of a word that was not understood, and he comes to the conclusion that the role of interaction in language acquisition is a complex one.[8] This conclusion is mirrored in Stephen Krashen’s work, in his description of the affective filter. This phenomenon occurs when learners are given information too far beyond their own level of comprehension which then causes them to disengage with the L2 producing an inhibitory “filter” of information.[16]

Historical development
Stephen Krashen
In his 1980 work The Input Hypothesis,[16] Stephen Krashen proposes that second language acquisition only occurs when the learner is exposed to comprehensible input that is just beyond their current level of understanding. This input hypothesis is characterized as i + 1, in which i represents the learner’s current language level and + 1 represents the following level of language acquisition. Evidence to support this claim comes in the form of speech that is modified for a learner’s benefit, such as foreigner talk and teacher talk, in which speech is slowed or simplified for ease of listener comprehension. This hypothesis provided the groundwork that would later be further developed by Michael Long, to whom the interaction hypothesis is most closely associated.

Michael Long
Michael Long first developed the interaction hypothesis in his 1981 work titled “Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition”.[7] In this paper, based on indirect evidence, he proposes that modified input and modified interaction when combined facilitate second language acquisition more efficiently than other alternatives (e.g. modified input but unmodified interaction). In this work, similar to Krashen, Long believes comprehensible input to be a crucial factor in second language acquisition and that a lack of it will lead to little or no language acquisition at all. His views on comprehensible input later changed in his 1989 work titled “Task, group, and task-group interactions” in that comprehensible input may not be sufficient.[17]

In his 1996 work most closely associated with the formal interaction hypothesis, “The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition”,[11] Long describes the kind of positive and negative evidence supplied by interlocutors during negotiations of meaning that can facilitate second language acquisition. Indirect evidence from past studies concerning L1 acquisition and sociolinguistic characteristics of non-native speakers are used to support the theory. Along with the influence of Krashen’s work concerning the input hypothesis, Long’s interaction hypothesis was partly influenced by Evelyn Marcussen Hatch’s 1978 work on interaction and discourse analysis. Like Hatch, he notes that interaction can develop acquisition by guiding their production. This idea that negotiating for meaning when there is a breakdown in communication is beneficial to language development is also tied to Merrill Swain’s 1985 comprehensible output hypothesis which argues that the demands of negotiating ways to express output in a comprehensible manner for the interlocutor aids learners in their second language development.[18] The revised version of the interaction hypothesis that is shown in Long’s 1996 paper places more emphasis on noticing and corrective feedback. Negotiation of meaning is shown to encourage the process of noticing.[11]

Interaction is beneficial for second language acquisition because it also gives the learner opportunities to use production through conversations.[6]

Teresa Pica
In her 1987 work in collaboration with Richard Young and Catherine Doughty titled “The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension”[19] Teresa Pica describes two kinds of linguistic environments in to which the interaction hypothesis applies: in which input is modified for the learner’s comprehension, as found in instructional settings; and in which both conversation participants modify their own output so as to make themselves understood (i.e. when they both negotiate meaning) as found in naturalistic settings. According to the interaction hypothesis, the second environment leads to greater engagement with the language and thus leads to greater learner acquisition.

In her 1987 work “Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom”[20] Teresa Pica also posits that interactions including negotiations of meaning between a teacher and a student may not be as effective for the acquisition of a second language due to the imbalance of the teacher-student relationship. An example of this imbalance is students refraining from making clarification requests in effort to avoid their being perceived as challenging the teacher’s knowledge. Rather, interactions between students are thought to be more effective since their relationship to one another is equal. Thus, she submits that an additional third pillar of the core hypothesis must be added: that in addition to the requirement for (1) comprehensible input and (2) negotiation of meaning, (3) interlocutor relationship balance and shared communicative goals is also required for more effective second language acquisition.

Pica also explains that negotiations of meaning do not always elicit the modification result that is expected or intended from the learner. Some modifications in negotiation do not prompt the same kinds of modifications. A confirmation check is less likely to cause a learner to modify their sentence than a clarification request because they only have to confirm with a simple answer instead of elaborate and restructure their response for clarity.[11]

Rod Ellis
In his 1991 work titled “The Interaction Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation”,[6] Rod Ellis discusses Long’s version of the interaction hypothesis and proposed some revisions based on studies and other academic interpretations of the hypothesis that were available at the time. Notably, he introduces a revised version of the hypothesis, which is characterized as: (1) Comprehensible input is useful for learners but is neither necessary nor sufficient for L2 acquisition; (2) Acquisition is made possible via input modifications (i.e. negotiation of meaning) but only if the learners both comprehend the input and are able to adopt differences into their own output; (3) Interaction situations that force learners to modify their output promotes their L2 learning. This revision is based on the lack of direct evidence supporting the original hypothesis, but that indirect evidence is nonetheless adequate to maintain some level of the theory. Additionally, this revision would allow the theory to be tested empirically, since it more clearly defines the relationship between acquisition, comprehension, and input.

Ellis’s later 2008 work titled The study of second language acquisition[21] relates the newer version of the interaction hypothesis to Focus-on-Form instruction which uses a communicative task with a focus on meaning to bring attention to form.

Limitations and criticisms
Earlier versions of the interaction hypothesis, particularly those of Krashen and Long, argue that comprehensible input is both necessary and sufficient for language development,[7][16] but further research has provided evidence that comprehensible input is in fact not sufficient for second language acquisition by itself.[11] Comprehensible input may in some cases hinder learning because learners may be able to understand the meaning of a sentence without realizing that they do not understand all of the individual components such as lexical or grammatical items.

If input is simplified too much in order to become comprehensible, there may no longer be new complex features for the learner to notice. The learner may also focus too much on the meaning of the sentence that they have no leftover mental resources to pay attention to the linguistic features. The reasoning of when and how interactional modifications facilitate comprehension is not yet fully understood and requires more research. Rather than complete abandonment, revision of the hypothesis is proposed.[6]

Negotiation may not be as effective for beginner learners as it is for intermediate learners because beginners may not have the language knowledge needed for negotiation.[21]

See also
Dynamic approach to second language development
References
Johnson, Keith; Johnson, Helen, eds. (1999). “Interaction Hypothesis”. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics: A Handbook for Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-631-22767-0.
Gass, S. M., and Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are Learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-454126-8
Long, Michael (1985). “Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory”. In Gass, Susan; Madden, Carolyn (eds.). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. pp. 377–393. ISBN 978-0-88377-284-3.
Ellis, Rod (1984). Classroom Second Language Development: A Study of Classroom Interaction and Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-08-031516-4.
Ellis, R. (1991). The Interaction Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation. Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language, 179. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED367161.pdf#page=191
Long, Michael H. (1981). “Input, Interaction, and Second-Language Acquisition”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 379 (1): 259–278. Bibcode:1981NYASA.379…259L. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x. S2CID 85137184.
Ellis, Rod (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Introductions to Language Study. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 47–48. ISBN 978-0-19-437212-1.
Richards, Jack; Schmidt, Richard, eds. (2002). “Interaction Hypothesis”. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London New York: Longman. p. 264. ISBN 978-0-582-43825-5.
Long, M. H. (1983). “Native speaker/Non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input1”. Applied Linguistics. 4 (2): 126–141. doi:10.1093/applin/4.2.126.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press, 413 – 68.
Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York, NY: Routledge. p. 350. ISBN 978-0-8058-5497-8.
For an overview, see Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 353–355. ISBN 978-0-8058-5497-8.
Brown, H Douglas (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. White Plains, NY: Longman. pp. 287–288. ISBN 978-0-13-017816-9.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane; Long, Michael (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London, New York: Longman. pp. 143–144. ISBN 978-0-582-55377-4.
Krashen, S. (1980). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman. https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iln/LING4140/h08/The Input Hypothesis.pdf
Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii working papers in ESL, 8(2), 1-26. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED366184.pdf
Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2013), How languages are learned. pp. 114-115. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Pica, Teresa; Young, Richard; Doughty, Catherine (1987). “The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension”. TESOL Quarterly. 21 (4): 737–758. doi:10.2307/3586992. JSTOR 3586992.
Pica, T. (1987). “Second-Language Acquisition, Social Interaction, and the Classroom”. Applied Linguistics. 8: 3–21. doi:10.1093/applin/8.1.3.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
vte
Second-language acquisition
General
OutlineCommon misconceptions
Subfields
AttritionClassroom researchEducationPhonologyWriting
Learners
MultilingualismHeritage languageMulti-competence
Learner language
Contrastive analysisContrastive rhetoricError (linguistics)Error analysisError treatmentInterlanguageSilent period
Linguistic factors
Language transferLinguistic universalWord lists by frequency
Individual variation
Language-learning aptitudeCritical period hypothesisMotivationWillingness to communicateForeign language anxietyMetalinguistic awareness
Strategies
Language learning strategiesCommunication strategiesCode-switchingGood language learner studies
SLA hypotheses
Competition modelComprehensible outputConnectionismDynamic Systems TheoryGenerative second-language acquisitionInput hypothesisInteraction hypothesisInterface hypothesisInterface positionNoticing hypothesisProcessability theoryOrder of acquisitionSkill-based theories
In the classroom
Focus on formInput enhancement
Aptitude tests
MLATDLABPLABCANAL-F
Notable researchers
AldersonArgüellesBialystokCarrollCrossleyCsizérCummingde BotBrownBygateCordervan DijkDörnyeiEllisEllisErvin-TrippFlynnGassvan GeertGreenGrosjeanGuardadoHardingJarvisJohnsonKormosKrashenKrollLarsen-FreemanLiLongLowieMackeyMacWhinneyManchónMarianMatsudaMatthewsMeiselMyers-ScottonNationOrtegaPicaPolioPimsleurRiversSchmidtSchmittSilva-CorvalanSlobinStorchSwainTerrellUllmanVaidVanPattenVerspoorWhiteWrayYip
Associations
European Association for the Teaching of Academic WritingEUROSLA
Computational tools
Coh-MetrixL2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer
Journals
Applied LinguisticsBilingualism: Language and CognitionLanguage LearningLanguage TestingJournal of Second Language WritingSystemTESOL JournalTESOL QuarterlyThe Modern Language Journal
Category: Language acquisition
This page was last edited on 4 March 2024, at 22:12 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaCode of ConductDevelopersStatisticsCookie statementMobile viewWikimedia FoundationPowered by MediaWiki


“”
The Interaction Hypothesis is a theory of second language acquisition that emphasizes the importance of face-to-face interaction and communication in promoting language proficiency. Introduced by Michael Long in the 1980s and later expanded by other scholars like Teresa Pica, the hypothesis focuses on the role of comprehensible input, interaction, and output in language learning.

### Main Concepts:
1. Comprehensible Input: For second language acquisition to occur, learners must be exposed to language they can understand. Modified input, such as “foreigner talk,” helps make language comprehensible.
2. Negotiation for Meaning: Interaction that involves negotiating for meaning makes input more effective. This occurs when communicative breakdowns are resolved using strategies like clarification requests, confirmation checks, and recasts.
3. Task Participation and Role Symmetry: Pica added that tasks requiring communication and shared roles between participants provide more opportunities for meaningful interaction.

### Interaction Benefits:
- Facilitates feedback on language use.
- Provides negative evidence (when errors are pointed out) and positive evidence (confirmation of correct use).
- Encourages more input and deeper processing of language.
- Focuses learners’ attention on language gaps and new forms.

### Criticisms and Limitations:
- Interaction may not always be the primary means of language acquisition.
- Comprehensible input alone may not be sufficient.
- Excessive simplification for comprehensibility can impede the learning of complex structures.
- Interaction may not be as effective for beginners who lack the necessary language proficiency for negotiation.

### Historical Development:
- Influenced by Stephen Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, which focused on the necessity of comprehensible input.
- Long’s revised hypothesis emphasized the importance of noticing and corrective feedback during interaction.
- Merrill Swain’s Comprehensible Output Hypothesis also contributed by stressing the role of output in language development.

### Key Figures:
- Stephen Krashen: Proposed the Input Hypothesis, emphasizing comprehensible input.
- Michael Long: Developed the Interaction Hypothesis, focusing on modified interaction and its role in language acquisition.
- Teresa Pica: Expanded the hypothesis to include role symmetry and task-based interactions.

In summary, while the Interaction Hypothesis underscores the value of interaction in language learning, it acknowledges the complex interplay of input, interaction, and individual learner differences. Critics suggest that a balanced approach, incorporating both input and interaction, is necessary for effective language acquisition.
Also, Stephen Krashen argues for ‘compelling input’. In my opinion, what is more compelling than having a conversation with another speaker of the language you are trying to learn?
Stephen Krashen’s concept of ‘compelling input’ refers to language input that is so engaging and interesting to the learner that they are fully absorbed and, as a result, acquire the language more naturally and effectively. Krashen argues that compelling input lowers the affective filter, making it easier for learners to process and retain new language.

### Why Conversations Might Be Compelling:
1. Personal Relevance: Engaging in a conversation with another speaker can be highly relevant to the learner, particularly if the topics discussed are of personal interest or importance.
2. Emotional Connection: Conversations can create emotional and social connections, making the experience memorable and meaningful, which enhances language retention.
3. Immediate Feedback: Real-time interaction provides immediate feedback, helping learners correct mistakes and understand nuances in language use.
4. Contextualized Learning: Conversations often occur in a context that makes the language more comprehensible and meaningful, aiding in the acquisition of vocabulary and structures.
5. Authenticity: Conversations allow learners to experience the language in its natural form, exposing them to authentic expressions, slang, and cultural nuances.

### Why Conversation is Compelling Input:
- Dynamic Engagement: Unlike static forms of input, such as reading a book or watching a video, conversations are dynamic and interactive. They require active participation, listening, speaking, and even non-verbal communication, which can be highly engaging.
- Social Motivation: Human beings are social creatures, and the desire to communicate effectively with others provides strong intrinsic motivation to learn and use a new language.
- Customization and Adaptation: In a conversation, the input is often tailored to the learner’s current level and interests. Interlocutors naturally adjust their language to aid understanding, facilitating a more personalized learning experience.
- Opportunity for Practice: Conversations naturally incorporate both input and output, allowing learners to practice speaking and listening in a balanced manner.

### Balancing Input with Interaction:
While Krashen emphasizes the importance of compelling input, incorporating conversational practice aligns well with his theory because:
- Conversations can be compelling inputs: The interactivity, personal relevance, and immediate feedback make conversations particularly engaging and compelling.
- Interaction enhances acquisition: The Interaction Hypothesis, which complements Krashen’s views, suggests that negotiation for meaning during conversations makes input more effective and facilitates deeper learning.

### Conclusion:
Conversations with speakers of the target language can indeed serve as a form of compelling input. They combine the benefits of comprehensible input with the added advantages of interaction, making them a powerful tool for language acquisition. This aligns with both Krashen’s emphasis on compelling input and the Interaction Hypothesis’s focus on negotiation for meaning. Therefore, incorporating conversations into language learning can be highly beneficial and compelling for learners.
I have a quote from Stephen Krashen as part of a conversation. He said: “i take a test once a week i go to
ralph’s supermarket on fridays it’s old
people only that’s me
i’m usually the oldest one there and
checking out i always go to the same
checkout counter i always get the same
guy
his name is fidel the first time
i noticed his name was fidel he spoke
english with a very slight accent
and i responded to him in spanish he
responded in english of course
and then i was ready i said in spanish
my goal is to speak spanish
as well as you do you plural europe uh

he loved it he’s been speaking spanish
to me
once a week for the last few months
whenever i go into ralph’s
and i’ve noticed that his speech is now
faster
he’s using more complex vocabulary
and we’re joking around more my
hypothesis
is he’s noticed that i’m improving
he’s responding in kind the only time i
speak spanish
is those two minutes with him once a
week
i’ve been doing everything through
reading that’s why
this evidence informal evidence that i
think reading is the cause the input is
the cause
and when i’m talking i’m just enjoying
myself having a good time
and seeing if i can understand what he
says”
Stephen Krashen’s anecdote about his interactions with Fidel at the supermarket provides an excellent example of how compelling input, complemented by meaningful interaction, can facilitate language acquisition. Here is a summary of the key points from his conversation:

### Key Points from Krashen’s Quote:
1. Routine Interaction: Krashen visits Ralph’s supermarket once a week and converses with a cashier named Fidel in Spanish for about two minutes each time.
2. Positive Experience: Initially, Krashen responds to Fidel in Spanish after noticing his slight English accent. Fidel enjoys this and continues to speak to Krashen in Spanish during their weekly interactions.
3. Progress and Complexity: Over time, Fidel speaks faster and uses more complex vocabulary, indicating that he recognizes Krashen’s improvement in Spanish.
4. Limited Speaking Practice: Despite these brief conversations being his only regular speaking practice, Krashen feels that he is improving.
5. Primary Learning Through Reading: Krashen attributes his progress primarily to extensive reading in Spanish, which he considers as the primary source of comprehensible input.
6. Enjoyment and Motivation: Krashen emphasizes that the interactions are enjoyable and serve as informal testing of his comprehension, reinforcing his hypothesis that reading (input) is the main factor driving his language improvement.

### Analysis:
- Compelling Input: Krashen’s story underscores his belief in the power of compelling input. He highlights that while his primary exposure to Spanish is through reading, the enjoyable and meaningful interaction with Fidel supplements this input.
- The Role of Enjoyment: Enjoyment and a low-pressure environment play a crucial role in Krashen’s language learning experience. This ties back to his theory of the affective filter, which suggests that low anxiety enhances language acquisition.
- Combination of Input and Interaction: The story demonstrates the complementary relationship between extensive reading (input) and periodic, enjoyable conversation (interaction). While reading provides the bulk of the comprehensible input, the interactions with Fidel offer practical application and real-time feedback.
- Incremental Progress: Fidel’s increasingly complex speech serves as an informal but valuable benchmark for Krashen’s progress, illustrating how human interaction can dynamically adjust to the learner’s evolving proficiency.

### Conclusion:
Krashen’s personal anecdote illustrates how compelling input, coupled with meaningful and enjoyable interactions, can effectively facilitate language acquisition. His progress, driven primarily by reading, is enhanced by the informal, low-pressure conversations with Fidel. This story reinforces Krashen’s broader theories on language learning, particularly the importance of compelling input and the role of enjoyment in lowering the affective filter.
Does this anecdote fit in or align with the ’ Interaction Hypothesis ’ ?
Stephen Krashen’s anecdote indeed aligns with certain aspects of the Interaction Hypothesis, even though his broader emphasis is often on the importance of input rather than interaction alone. Let’s break down how the anecdote fits with the key components of the Interaction Hypothesis:

### Key Components of the Interaction Hypothesis:
1. Comprehensible Input: The hypothesis posits that learners need comprehensible input to acquire a language.
2. Negotiation for Meaning: Interaction helps make input comprehensible through strategies like clarification requests and confirmation checks.
3. Feedback: Interaction provides opportunities for feedback, which can help learners correct their errors and refine their language use.
4. Modified Input and Interaction: Interaction often involves modifications to make communication understandable and engage learners actively.

### Alignment with Krashen’s Anecdote:
1. Comprehensible Input:
- Krashen’s primary source of language acquisition is reading, which provides a vast amount of comprehensible input. However, his brief conversations with Fidel also serve as a source of input, especially as Fidel uses increasingly complex language that adapts to Krashen’s improving proficiency.

2. Negotiation for Meaning:
- While Krashen doesn’t explicitly mention negotiating for meaning in his conversations with Fidel, the dynamic nature of their interaction inevitably involves some degree of negotiation. If Krashen doesn’t understand something, he would likely seek clarification, and Fidel might rephrase or simplify his language, aiding comprehension.

3. Feedback:
- Fidel’s interactions provide implicit feedback to Krashen. As Fidel notices Krashen’s improvement, he likely adjusts his speech (e.g., speaking faster and using more complex vocabulary), indirectly indicating Krashen’s progress. This serves as positive reinforcement and feedback for Krashen.

4. Enjoyment and Low Anxiety:
- The enjoyable nature of the interaction lowers Krashen’s affective filter, making it easier for him to process and acquire the language. This aligns with how positive, low-stress interactions facilitate language learning, complementing both Krashen’s theories and the Interaction Hypothesis.

5. Modified Interaction:
- Fidel’s adjustment of his language complexity based on Krashen’s proficiency level is an example of modified interaction, a key aspect of the Interaction Hypothesis. This ensures that the input remains comprehensible while still challenging enough to promote learning.

### Conclusion:
While Krashen’s overarching argument emphasizes compelling input (primarily from reading), his anecdote about interacting with Fidel at the supermarket aligns well with the Interaction Hypothesis. The routine conversations provide real-world opportunities for receiving input, negotiating meaning, and obtaining feedback in an engaging, low-pressure context. These elements collectively contribute to Krashen’s language acquisition, illustrating how both compelling input and meaningful interaction can complement each other in fostering language proficiency.
i disagree about point three. See the following transcript for my reasoning:

“”

Hi there, <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> here. Today I want to talk about corrections, correcting people when they make mistakes in the process of learning a language. In the last few videos I’ve talked about how language learning is a subconscious process, how we learn subconsciously, gradually improve without realizing it and that a lot of our deliberate efforts at learning are somewhat futile.



I did a blog post over at my blog and I’ll leave a link up here, where I quoted some studies that showed that what they call form-based instruction, in other words teaching grammar, and corrections have relatively little impact on the learning process and I believe this to be the case. It’s funny because that’s one of the comments that seems to elicit the most sort of critical response from you the listener, so I wanted to delve a little further into this whole issue of corrections and why I think they are quite unimportant.



I’ve been learning Romanian. I’ve been at it for five weeks now and I’m doing quite well. I’ve never learned a language so quickly, mostly because it’s a romance language, partly because of how I’m using LingQ. I think I’m using it more and more efficiently, partly because of the resources that I’ve found on the Internet and having people initially translate and record a lot of basic sentences for me which I imported into LingQ which I listen to. I still listen to Radio Romania and the recourses there and so forth.



I’m now speaking to three tutors. We talk three times a week and I talk. As I mentioned earlier, one of the tutors for a while insisted on correcting me. I finally had to insist that I don’t want him to do that because, basically, it saps my enthusiasm for our conversation. I think we’re having an interesting conversation on some subject and he just wants to correct me, so we’ve stopped doing that. We just talk now and I get my report afterwards with some of my mistakes which I import and it either has some impact or it has no impact. It has some impact. It’s content. It’s part of the whole language environment.



The main reason why I think that language correction is not a good idea is because, fundamentally, I believe language learning is something that you have to do yourself. You, the learner, have to take responsibility for your own learning. It is true that a lot of people claim that they like to be corrected and, of course, they’re trained to like to be corrected because that’s how school works. You write a test, you get seven right and three wrong, you get 70%. We’re all used to that. We kind of think that if we don’t have someone looking over us, correcting us, constantly giving us feedback, that we aren’t learning.



Well, my view to that is it’s time to grow up and take responsibility for your own learning. I know as a learner which things I have trouble with. In Romanian they have three versions of the future. They have some structures where you use the infinitive and some where you use the subjunctive to express the future, for example. You can say ______, ‘I will have’, which is the infinitive. _______ or you say _______, where you are now using the subjunctive.



It’s so difficult to get that. I have looked at the rules many, many times, but the point is I know it’s a weakness, as there are many other things in Romanian that are difficult. So every so often I refer back to the grammar, but when I read and listen I try to focus on those things so that I notice them more. Then when I speak I get them wrong and then I look at the rule again and then I listen again and I read again and I pay attention, but it’s my responsibility. I know that it’s a weakness. I don’t really need anyone to correct me because I know, more or less, when I get it wrong and when I get it right.



I think where correction comes in is when we are quite advanced in the language, where we have certain things we are saying that we don’t realize we’re saying wrong. So correction can be useful when the person is already quite fluent and has certain ingrained patterns that may come from their native language which they don’t realize they’re getting wrong all the time. But for a long time in the language we know very well that we have trouble with tenses. We know that we have trouble with pronounces. We have trouble with cases in Russian. We know where our problems are, so we don’t need to be corrected all the time.



If we are speaking, then we should be enjoying the process of speaking and get some rhythm and, of course, elicit a response from the native speaker and, hopefully, pay attention to what the native speaker says and pick up on how they say things correctly. If we’re talking about a particular subject, it’s very likely that some of the same vocabulary and some of the same grammatical structures will come back to us in what the native speaker says, but I don’t think it’s constructive or productive to correct the learner and I think, particularly, the learner shouldn’t be expecting the correction all the time.



The learner should take the initiative to go there and dig. Dig into the content when they’re listening and reading, dig into whatever grammar resources they’re using, whether online or in a little book, be aware of where their problems are and then go back and dig. That sort of virtuous circle of noticing things, not being clear, not understanding, getting it wrong, going back to the grammar resource, looking at it, still not quite understanding or understanding but still getting it wrong and, gradually, over time we get better.



But it’s our responsibility, it’s not, I don’t think, that effective and the research shows that a major emphasis on grammar correction and grammar instruction doesn’t work and, of course, we’ve seen it in our schools where that’s the major emphasis. So I think that for an independent learner that correction or relying on correction is a bad habit. I have not been corrected very much in my Roman. I’ve been at it for five weeks. When I look up an article now on Radio Romania, because they have a number of news articles are printed, literally, there is hardly a word that I don’t know there. I can read all those articles. When I listen I understand a lot of it.



Now, I was recently sent an audio book and the PDF of a novel and there are a lot of words that I don’t know, so that’s a whole new area now. But because I’ve been focused on news and economics and stuff like that, I’m doing fine there. I can’t use all those words myself, but with time I will be able to and I’ve achieved that in five weeks. If I had gone to a traditional program with a traditional instructor taking us through the different parts of speech and the different structures in the language and correcting us and giving a test, I don’t that in six months I would be as far along as I am now after five weeks.



You may say, yes, you’re experienced and you’re better at languages than some people. That may be true, but more than anything I’m experienced at language learning and I know that this massive input, constantly getting more of the language in you, struggling to learn the words, starting now to use it without worrying too much about grammar.



Another one of my pet peeves is the people who ask questions. Why is it this? Why is it that? Can you also say it this way? How about this other way? They’ll come up with some totally strange way of using this language and saying is this correct. I just don’t understand people who do that. Go to the source, go the listening and reading that you’re doing, let it come in. When you have questions, by all means, have a grammar resource handy that you go to. Grammar is not a curriculum. Grammar is a reference source. It’s something you go to from time to time and often, but it’s not something that you learn one step at a time, at least not in my experience.



Of course, when I speak about language learning I talk about my own experience. Other people may do it differently, but I at least want to make it very clear as to why I feel this way about correction, how it’s not very useful and for learners to be expecting or relying on correction I think is an impediment to language learning.



There you have it. I look forward to your comments, bye for now.



To download this transcript’s audio, please sign-up for LingQ!




24
4 Comments
Katalin Pócza
Katalin Pócza
EURATOM Coordinator @ Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority | International Relations

5y

I completely agree with Steve on this very important subject. In my experience, constant correction might also lead to a loss of motivation and enthusiasm. I think that teachers should only focus on the bigger mistakes that disturb the understanding, instead of correcting pronouns. The teachers can also write down or memorize the errors and explain them the language learners after they had finished talking.

Like
Reply
1 Reaction
Leonie Swift
Leonie Swift
Plain English writing consultant; trainer; editor.

5y

I would have to agree. It is all about the learner taking responsibility for their own learning. I co-ordinate an adult literacy program which uses volunteer tutors. One of them recently told me her ESL learner lacked confidence and wasn’t engaging with much of the reading material offered. Then the tutor had to go away for 3 weeks. She wasn’t able to find a replacement tutor and was worried about her student. But when she returned she was amazed to find her student reading independently at a higher level than expected. It’s because the learner went without her ‘safety scaffold’ or trainer wheels, and took charge of her own learning in the absence of the tutor. The more effort required, the better it with embed.

“”
You make a compelling case about the limitations and potential drawbacks of corrective feedback in language learning, as illustrated by Steve Kaufmann’s perspective and experience. Here is a summary of the key points from Kaufmann’s argument, which you shared, and their relevance to the Interaction Hypothesis:

### Key Points from Steve Kaufmann’s Argument:
1. Language Learning as a Subconscious Process:
- Kaufmann emphasizes that language acquisition is largely subconscious and gradual. He suggests that deliberate grammar instruction and corrections have limited impact on learning.

2. Personal Responsibility:
- Learners need to take responsibility for their own learning. They should focus on extensive input (listening and reading) and self-directed exploration of language.

3. Impact of Constant Correction:
- Constant correction can sap enthusiasm and reduce the enjoyment of conversations. Instead, learners should immerse themselves in the language and make use of grammar resources as needed, without relying heavily on corrections.

4. Advanced Proficiency and Corrections:
- Corrections might be useful at an advanced stage for ingrained errors, but for the majority of the learning process, learners are often aware of their own weaknesses and can address them through self-study and noticing patterns in input.

5. Enjoyment and Engagement:
- Enjoyable, meaningful interactions are important for maintaining motivation and facilitating language learning. Corrections can disrupt the flow of conversation and decrease enjoyment.

### Relevance to the Interaction Hypothesis:
The Interaction Hypothesis posits that interaction, especially negotiation for meaning during communication, is crucial for making input comprehensible and facilitating language acquisition. Here’s how Kaufmann’s perspective fits into this framework:

1. Comprehensible Input vs. Output:
- Kaufmann aligns with the notion that comprehensible input is crucial for language learning. However, he challenges the emphasis on corrective feedback during output (speaking) that the Interaction Hypothesis highlights. He believes that input and self-awareness can often suffice without the need for constant corrections.

2. Negotiation for Meaning:
- While Kaufmann does not deny the value of interaction, he suggests that meaningful, enjoyable conversations where the learner is not constantly corrected can be more beneficial. This aligns with the idea that negotiating meaning helps, but he prioritizes the learner’s enjoyment and engagement over formal correction.

3. Feedback:
- Kaufmann believes informal feedback (e.g., understanding from context, self-correction) can be effective, especially when learners are responsible for noticing and addressing their own errors. This contrasts with the Interaction Hypothesis’s emphasis on more immediate and explicit corrective feedback as a primary mechanism for learning.

### Conclusion:
While Steve Kaufmann’s anecdote and perspective challenge some aspects of the Interaction Hypothesis

""