论文部分内容阅读
Nowadays different kinds of activities play a great role in English language teaching （ELT） classroom. Pair work is a considerable form of activity that makes a contribution to personal second language acquisition. It is undeniable that there are many benefits of organizing pair work during the process of language teaching. For example， it increase the amount of students’ speaking time dramatically， allows students to work and interact independently and helps the classroom to become a more relaxed and friendly place for language learning （Harmer， 2007）. This essay develops gradually to show how it facilitates personal second language acquisition.
It is obvious that pair work creates more interaction opportunities for students and it is a kind of interaction approach to second language acquisition. According to Long （1996： 418）， the central concept in interaction approach is ‘negotiation of meaning’ – the process in which， in an effort to communicate， learners and competent speakers provide and interpret signals of their own and their interlocutor’s perceived comprehension’. As Mayo （2007） points out， pair work can ‘scaffolding’ the learners’ use of language because these stages have been experienced during the process of meaning negotiation in pair work. Everything about the language used in the pair work seems to be much clearer to the students after negotiating meanings. Through this way students can acquire new linguistic knowledge， which could equip them better for the coming dialogues in the future， which can help effectively promote students’ fluency development.
From another perspective， if the pairs of students in ELT classroom are grouped properly， i.e. students are grouped into cooperative pairs in which students can generate collaborative dialogues and help each other improve effectively. The process of generating collaborative dialogues， according to Swain （2000： 97） “is what allows performance to outstrip competence. It is where language use and language learning can co-occur. It is language use mediating language learning. It is cognitive activity and it is social activity”. This indicates that generating collaborative dialogues can help learners improve their language ability to a large extent.
On the other hand， this kind of dialogues can be seen as a kind of output. Through this output， students can notice problems and thus push themselves to modify their outputs （Swain， 1995）. Noticing a gap by the speaker could lead to some kinds of feedback that can guide learners in ways to improve their performance by providing information about their ability or inability to achieve success （Hattie， 1993）. Firstly it will lead to automatic self-correction， also known as self-generated feedback， or analyzing the linguistic structure of their utterance in order to fill the gap. If it cannot be achieved by self-correction， then it will call for a peer feedback in which students do not listen to teacher’s instructions， but work with their peers to do more analyzing and try to find a proper answer to fill the gap. In this case， students’ anxiety becomes lower and learning motivation can be higher. Alternatively， teacher feedback is also available at this stage. Teacher feedback is considered one of the most powerful instructional variables in terms of enhancing student achievement （Hattie 1993） According to Swain （2000）， output stimulates learners to move from semantic processing comprehension to grammatical processing that is needed for accurate production. Combined with those feedbacks mentioned above， learners’ attention has been greatly attracted to the form of language， i.e. accuracy. Thus， both output and feedback act together as a catalytic agent to promote learners’ accuracy development. Indeed， through different kinds of feedback and correction， similar with the scaffolding the use of language， it helps learners generate new knowledge and build confidence. In result， it also helps promote learners’ fluency development.
In conclusion， it can， clearly be seen that pair work makes a great difference in ELT classroom. It helps promote learners’ development in fluency and accuracy， which ultimately facilitate learners’ personal second language acquisition.
References：
[1]Harmer，J.（2007） The Practice of English Language Teaching. 4th Edition.Harlow：Pearson Longman.
[2]Hattie，J.（1993）.Measuring the effects of schooling.SET： Research Information for Teachers，2，1–4.
[3]Long，M.（1996）.The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition.In W.C.Richie
It is obvious that pair work creates more interaction opportunities for students and it is a kind of interaction approach to second language acquisition. According to Long （1996： 418）， the central concept in interaction approach is ‘negotiation of meaning’ – the process in which， in an effort to communicate， learners and competent speakers provide and interpret signals of their own and their interlocutor’s perceived comprehension’. As Mayo （2007） points out， pair work can ‘scaffolding’ the learners’ use of language because these stages have been experienced during the process of meaning negotiation in pair work. Everything about the language used in the pair work seems to be much clearer to the students after negotiating meanings. Through this way students can acquire new linguistic knowledge， which could equip them better for the coming dialogues in the future， which can help effectively promote students’ fluency development.
From another perspective， if the pairs of students in ELT classroom are grouped properly， i.e. students are grouped into cooperative pairs in which students can generate collaborative dialogues and help each other improve effectively. The process of generating collaborative dialogues， according to Swain （2000： 97） “is what allows performance to outstrip competence. It is where language use and language learning can co-occur. It is language use mediating language learning. It is cognitive activity and it is social activity”. This indicates that generating collaborative dialogues can help learners improve their language ability to a large extent.
On the other hand， this kind of dialogues can be seen as a kind of output. Through this output， students can notice problems and thus push themselves to modify their outputs （Swain， 1995）. Noticing a gap by the speaker could lead to some kinds of feedback that can guide learners in ways to improve their performance by providing information about their ability or inability to achieve success （Hattie， 1993）. Firstly it will lead to automatic self-correction， also known as self-generated feedback， or analyzing the linguistic structure of their utterance in order to fill the gap. If it cannot be achieved by self-correction， then it will call for a peer feedback in which students do not listen to teacher’s instructions， but work with their peers to do more analyzing and try to find a proper answer to fill the gap. In this case， students’ anxiety becomes lower and learning motivation can be higher. Alternatively， teacher feedback is also available at this stage. Teacher feedback is considered one of the most powerful instructional variables in terms of enhancing student achievement （Hattie 1993） According to Swain （2000）， output stimulates learners to move from semantic processing comprehension to grammatical processing that is needed for accurate production. Combined with those feedbacks mentioned above， learners’ attention has been greatly attracted to the form of language， i.e. accuracy. Thus， both output and feedback act together as a catalytic agent to promote learners’ accuracy development. Indeed， through different kinds of feedback and correction， similar with the scaffolding the use of language， it helps learners generate new knowledge and build confidence. In result， it also helps promote learners’ fluency development.
In conclusion， it can， clearly be seen that pair work makes a great difference in ELT classroom. It helps promote learners’ development in fluency and accuracy， which ultimately facilitate learners’ personal second language acquisition.
References：
[1]Harmer，J.（2007） The Practice of English Language Teaching. 4th Edition.Harlow：Pearson Longman.
[2]Hattie，J.（1993）.Measuring the effects of schooling.SET： Research Information for Teachers，2，1–4.
[3]Long，M.（1996）.The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition.In W.C.Richie