Inteaction determines and affects the conditions of language acquisition especially in contexts where exposure to the target language is limited. This is believed to be successful only within the context of small classes (Chavez, 2009). This paper examines learners’ progress resulting from interaction in large classes. Using pre-, post-, and delayed post-test, results from two groups of participants (n=78 and 83) involved in the study do not show any significant difference at post- and delayed post-test. The study, therefore, rejects the argument that class size constrains interaction and instead argues that the durability of knowledge gained from interaction appears to have a stronger correlation with type of interaction, learners’ previous learning styles, proficiency, and the wider context of learning. The paper also argues that teacher-led interaction is not only possible with low proficiency, but could lead to outcomes which actually define the purpose for which language is learnt.
AdamsR (2007) Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In: MackeyA (ed.) Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29–51.
2.
Centre National d’Appui a l’Action Pedagogique (nd) English Language Syllabus for Francophone Secondary Schools in Cameroon. Yaounde: Ministry of National Education.
3.
ChavezM (2006) Classroom-language use in teacher-led instruction and teachers’ self-perceived roles. IRAL44(1): 49–107.
4.
ColemanH (2009) Some recent thoughts on class size issues. Letter to the IATEFL conference at Cardiff, www.iatefl.org
5.
DasBAlmekhlafySA (2012) Teaching English in disadvantaged contexts. International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow1(3). Available at: www.ijsst.com
6.
De GraaffRHousenA (2009) Investigating the effects and effectiveness of L2 instruction. In: LongMDoughtyC (eds.) The Handbook of Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell, 726–55.
7.
DuffPA (2007) Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: insights and issues. Language Teaching40(4): 309–19.
8.
EllisR (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
EllisRBarkhuizenG (2005) Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
EllisRTanakaYYamazakiA (1994) Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meaning. Language Learning44(3): 449–91.
11.
FillmoreWL (1982) Instructional language as linguistic input: second-language learning in classrooms. In: WilkinsonLC (ed.) Communicating in the Classroom. New York: Academic Press, 283–96.
12.
FujiiAMackeyA (2009) Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. IRAL47(3/4): 267–301.
13.
GassS (1997) Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
GassS (2003) Input and interaction. In: DoughtyCLongMH (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 224–55. Oxford: Blackwell.
15.
GassS (2005) Input and interaction. In: DoughtyCLongMH (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 176–200.
16.
GassSMackeyA (2006) Input, interaction and output: an overview. AILA Review19(1): : 3–17.
17.
GassSVaronisME (1994) Input interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition16(3): 283–302.
18.
GassSMMackeyAPicaT (1998) The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal82(3): 299–307.
19.
HedgeT (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
IwashitaN (2003) Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition25:1–36.
21.
Kuchah KuchahHSmithR (2011) Pedagogy of autonomy for difficult circumstances: from practice to principles. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching5(2): 119–40. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com
22.
LongMHRobinsonP (1998) Focus on form: theory, research and practice. In: DoughtyCWilliamsJ (eds) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, 15–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
MackeyA (1999) Input, interaction, and second language development: an empirical study on question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition21(4): 557–87.
24.
MaleyA (2001) The teaching of English in difficult circumstances: who needs a health farm when they’re starving?Humanising Language Teaching3(6). Available at: http://www.hltmag.co.uk/nov01/martnov014.rtf
25.
MoriJHasegawaA (2009) Doing being a foreign language learner in a classroom: embodiment of cognitive states as social events. IRAL47(1): 65–94.
26.
NakamuraD (2008) Awareness, input frequency, and construction learning: a replication and extension of Casenhiser and Goldberg (2005) to adult second language acquisition. In: Linguistic LAUD Agency (ed.), 33rd International Symposium: Cognitive Approaches to Second/Foreign Language Processing: Theory and Pedagogy. Essen: University of Duisburg-Essen, 464–81.
27.
PhilpJTogniniR (2009) Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. IRAL47(3/4): 245–66.
28.
PooleA (2003) Types of forms ESL students focus on during classroom interaction. Unpublished PhD thesis, Oklahoma State University, USA.
29.
PooleA (2005) The kinds of forms learners attend to during focus on form instruction: a description of an advanced ESL writing class. Asian EFL Journal7(3): 1–13.
30.
RichardsJCRodgersT (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
SatoCJ (1986) Conversation and interlanguage development: rethinking the connection. In: DayRR (ed.) ‘Talking to learn’: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 5–22.
32.
SatoCJ (1990) The Syntax of Conversation in Interlanguage Development. Tu¨bingen: Narr.
33.
SavignonSJ (2000) Communicative language teaching. In: ByramM (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge, 124–29.
34.
SeedhouseP (2007) Interaction and constructs. In: HuaZSeedhousePWeL.CookV (eds) Language Learning and Teaching as Social Inter-action. New York: Palgrave, 9–21.
35.
ShaminFNegashNChukuCDemewozN (2007) Maximizing Learning in Large Classes. British Council.
36.
SheenY (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research8(3): 263–300.
37.
SkehanP (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University.
38.
SmithR (2011) Teaching English in difficult circumstances: a new research agenda. Available at: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/go/telc
39.
ToledoP (2001) A modest proposal revisited: teaching in the real world. IATEFL Issues159.
40.
TothPD (2008) Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: providing procedural assistance for L2morphosyntactic development. Language Learning58(2): 237–83.
41.
WellsG (1981) Learning through Interaction: the Study of Language Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
42.
WilliamsJ (1999) Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning49(4): 583–625.
