30 problems arise. It’s plausible that teacher does not rigidly use I-R-F patterns in a
straightforward way. There must modified structure of interactions as to result in comprehensible inputs i.e. understandably posed-questions.
Furthermore, both Krashen 1985 and Long 1983 emphasize that two way- interaction is a particularly favorable way of catering comprehensible input since it
facilitate the learner with an ability to attain additional contextual information and optimally modified input when meaning has to be negotiated owing to
communication problems. So, when teacher-student interactions take place, teacher-posed questions actually
serve as main sources of input in classroom learning. Teachers make the questions comprehensible by employing modification techniques on the spot.
2.5.2 Swain’s Output Hypothesis and Hatch’s collaborative discourse hypothesis
Krashen’s Input Theory and its key notion of ‘comprehensible input’ have been criticized. One core objection is relative to the fact that despite the pivotal role of
comprehensible inputs in language learning, it is not sufficient. Swain 1985 asserted that in order to develop native-speaker levels of grammatical proficiency,
‘comprehensible input’ by itself is not enough. The learners need the opportunity for meaningful use of linguistic resources for accurate ‘comprehensible input’.
Swain attributes three roles to output: 1 output provides contextualized ‘pushed language use’ through the process of negotiating meaning, which encourages the
31 learner to develop grammatical competence; 2 output provides the learner with the
opportunity to test out hypothesis about the TL; 3 production may help learners to move from a purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of it.
Therefore, a comprehensible question conveyed by a teacher triggers learners to produce the language. When using the language, they are actually examining whether
their produced language is understood by others. In other word, learners “try out means of expression and see if they work”. Also, learners exert themselves to
practice combining words into sentences as well as governing the formation of possible sentences in a proper context.
Eventually, from the view point of cognitive psychology, Hatch 1978 argued that learners can produce new syntactic structure in two-way interaction. Learners
can expand discourse with the help of ‘scaffolding’ provided by interlocutors. As a matter of fact, teacher scaffold learners to generate more prolific utterances by
utilizing, among other things, to slow down the dialogue between teacher and student. Slowing down can be achieved by two ways Gibbons, 2002: First, teacher can
increase wait-time – the time you wait for the learners to respond. Second, teacher can allow more turn before he evaluates or recasts rewords what the learner said.
Thus, teacher employs a simple strategy to ask students for clarifying meaning by saying such expressions as:” Can you explain that a bit more?” , “What do you
mean?” , “Can you tell me that again?” Etc.
32 In brief, teacher should have an ability to pose comprehensible questions as
accessible language inputs so that students are ‘pushed’ to produce oral TL. In addition, teacher should self avail themselves with strategies to help out the learners
to expand their utterances. In so-doing, teacher facilitates students with the enhancement of language acquisition.
2.6 The place of comprehensible questions in classroom interaction
