1 / 11

TBLT and Less Commonly Taught Languages Curriculum Development

John MacDermott Director, Instructional Technology Junko Takada SLA Lexicology Specialist Project Research Assistant Albert Matthews Senior Support Specialist for Instructional Technology Edward Dixon Coordinator for Technology in Foreign Languages University of Pennsylvania, US.

yon
Download Presentation

TBLT and Less Commonly Taught Languages Curriculum Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. John MacDermott Director, Instructional Technology Junko Takada SLA Lexicology Specialist Project Research Assistant Albert Matthews Senior Support Specialist for Instructional Technology Edward Dixon Coordinator for Technology in Foreign Languages University of Pennsylvania, US Facing challenges in FL programs: phonological development automatic oral production of non salient forms ********************************************** Development of Curriculum Incorporating Web Based Oral Tasks ********************************************** Sponsored by: The Ivy League Language Learning & Teaching Consortium Junko Hondo University of Pennsylvania, US / Lancaster University, UK hondoj@sas.upenn.edu International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching September, 2005 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven TBLT and Less Commonly Taught Languages Curriculum Development

  2. Challenges in Less Commonly Taught Languages Classroom Promote oral production using non salient forms outside of the classroom → CALL? Empirical studies: Positive outcomes of CMC tasks (Kern, 1995, Kitabe, 2000, Salaberry,2000 among others) Creation of web based oral / written tasks incorporated within the existing curriculum * Task-based approach to syllabus (Breen,1987, Skehan, 1996, White, 1988) • Task-based Syllabus per se: • “its representation of communicative competence as the undertaking and achievement of a range of tasks; • its direct reliance on the contributions of learners in terms of the mobilisation of the prior communicative competence which learners bring to any task; • its emphasis upon the learning process as appropriate content during language learning”(White 1988:102) • Limited exposure to the target language outside of the classroom presents difficulties - • phonological development Phonological adjustment is said to be difficult after the critical/sensitive period • automatic oral production of non salient forms Non salient linguistic features for L2 learners are reported to be difficult to learn and are prone to fossilize universally Attempt at a solution? →

  3. Task Type and Effects: Theoretical Perspectives

  4. Tasks: 4 themes • Phonological development and self evaluation skills • Transformation of the nature of the feedback: implicitness → explicitness • Revealing the effect of synchronous and asynchronous communication • Tracking the cognitive registration of form: strong feasibility of longitudinal study

  5. Sample Self Evaluation • “sing-song”-like • dropped “N” sound • flat intonations (NS evaluation is reverse) • choppy between words (NS evaluation is reverse) • O after N was difficult (glottal – high back) • alternated sounds: Ka → Ga (Pe → Be, Za → Jya were unmentioned) • Decrease in number of mistakes from NS evaluations over 13 weeks (Chart) • Double vowel has been manifested for all subjects: no mistakes found 13 weeks later • There was no improvement in pronouncing Japanese flap “R” regardless of L1 of the subjects • Improvement was evident for both word final “N” and supra segmentation SS: Supra Segmental D. V: Omission of second vowel in double vowel F.N: Omission of word final “N” Flap R: Japanese Flap “R”

  6. Eg: Subject’s L1: English Length of Japanese study: Nine months at this stage Focused form – Particles wa, ga, ni 2. Feedback: • Recast: Implicit in nature Modified feedback with partial reformulation provided immediately following an erroneous utterance, with no adjustment in meaning • High uptake from recast (Often in the classroom, recasts are overlooked by learners. The student reformations, or uptake, is sometimes reported as low as 18% (Lyster and Ranta, 1997) • With the constraint of perceptual modality, does it become “Explicit”?

  7. 3. Synchronous vs Asynchronous Asynchronous: Higher accuracy & Comprehension * Proficiency dependent?

  8. 4. Tracking the Cognitive Registration of Form Depending on the developmental stage, the relationship between the written and oral production changes: eg Oral production: Oba-a-san to oji-i-san wa, hidari ni arimasu. (Grandmother and grandfather are on the left.) Written production: Oba-san to Oji-san wa hidari ni arimasu. (Aunt and uncle are on the left.) Subject’s L1: Korean Length of Japanese study: 3 months at this stage

  9. Cognitive Processes and Pedagogical Implications

  10. Feasibility of Longitudinal Studies: Case of L1 German 10 monthsPhonetic manifestation of the “Yu” replaced with “Jya” L1 German: feature Ja sound is pronounced Ya Periodic data correction

  11. Thank youhondoj@sas.upenn.edu John MacDermott Director, Instructional Technology Junko Takada SLA Lexicology Specialist Project Research Assistant Albert Matthews Senior Support Specialist for Instructional Technology Edward Dixon Coordinator for Technology in Foreign Languages Sponsored by: Ivy League Language Learning & Teaching Consortium Grant

More Related