Techniques in grammar instruction. Making grammar accessible to ELLs University of Alberta: EDPY 413 Presented by: Chelsea Androschuk, Nicole Mackay, and Robyn Ferguson. Historically, grammar has been considered to be (Hinkel & Fotos 2002):. The advent of other approaches:.
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Making grammar accessible to ELLs
University of Alberta: EDPY 413
Presented by: Chelsea Androschuk, Nicole Mackay, and Robyn Ferguson
-Direct approaches (audio-lingualism)
-The audiolingual method focuses on the comprehension of language at a largely mechanical level (Davidson, 1978).
-Examples of mechanically structured activities might include repetition or substitution. The teacher is in control of the lesson, and students can often successfully participate without any understanding of meaning (Davidson, 1978).
-These are usually based on situational language needs (Hinkel & Fotos, 2002).
- According to Skehan, these activities often follow a “presentation, practice, and production” protocol (cited in Hinkel & Fotos, 2002).
-These methods mimic a natural acquisition of language, for example, how a child acquires L1 (Hinkel & Fotos, 2002).
-Language is acquired using meaningful input, with no formal grammatical instruction. It is assumed that ELLs will naturally acquire the forms of language when this approach is used (Hinkel & Fotos, 2002).
- Learning a structure in grammar, is not complete unless its function is explored at the same time (Wagner-Gough, 1975).
- There are 3 dimensions to grammar instruction: form, meaning and function/use (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).
- Grammar instruction should include the answers to when and why to use any given structure (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).
-Interlanguages (ILs) appear to follow rules, and are systematic (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).
This does not mean that an ELL would be using a grammatical structure as a NS would from first exposure, but that they are still moving toward its proper use while forming rules in his/her IL.
-Though systematic, this development through an IL may not be linear (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).
-The acquisition of some structures may depend on the acquisition of others. A simple accumulation of structures, one at time, can lead to a phenomenon known as backsliding. When backsliding occurs, it is because certain elements become omitted in order to make room for new elements (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).
- In French immersion programs, where the focus is on meaning alone, students have demonstrated a less than expected understanding of grammar in the language (Harley & Swain, 1984).
- Students may develop the ability to convey meaning, without developing proper grammar. Selective form-focused instruction may therefore be necessary to ensure that as language develops, so does grammar (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).
-This study looked at 4 (primarily communicative) French immersion classes, each of which incorporated a varying level of form-based instruction in grammar.
-Their results demonstrated that the class that never focused on grammatical form performed the worst according to the assessment used.
- Part of the reason for this, according to Larsen-Freeman (1995), is that focusing student attention may facilitate learning.
-If errors are not corrected, then overgeneralizations in language tend to occur (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).
-Negative evidence might be part of the input that ELLs need, though they may not have needed it to the same extent for their L1 (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).
“Any claim to the effect that all acquisition is the product of habit formation or of rule formation, or today, of setting/resetting parameters or the strengthening of connections in complex neural networks, is an obvious oversimplification of a complex process” (Larsen-Freeman, 1995, p. 141).
(Long, 1991, pp. 45-46).
(Long & Robinson, 1999, p. 23).
(Lightbown & Spada, 1990, pp. 429-448)
Practice leads to the creation of a continuum ranging from text manipulation activities to text creation activities.
(Lightbown & Spada, 1993)
c) Post-task (language focus)
In this phase the teacher will:
Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. San Francisco University: Longman.
Davidson, D.M. (1978). Current approaches to the teaching of grammar in ESL. Language in education theory and practice, 5, 1-23.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1999). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, B. & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper & A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Harmer, Jeremy. (1998). How to teach English. Longman.
Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (2002). From theory to practice: A teacher’s view. In Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (1-12). Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1995). On the teaching and learning of grammar. In F.R. Eckman, D. Highland, P.W. Lee, J. Mileham & R. Rutkowski Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (131-148). Mahweh, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lightbown, P. (1985). ‘Great expectations: second-language acquisition research and classroom teaching’. Applied Linguistics 6: 173-89.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: effects in second language learning. SSLA, 12(4), 429-448.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1999). ‘Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition’. The modem Language Journal 83, 1, 1-22.
Long, M. (1991). ‘Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology’. Applied Linguistics 14: 225-49.
Long, M. & Robinson, M. (1999). Intervention points in second language classroom processes. Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press.
Musumeci, D. (1997). Breaking the tradition: an exploration of the historical relaationship between theory and practice in second language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. (1992). The textual outsomes of native speakers– non-native speaker negotiation: what do they reveal about second language learning in Kramsch and Mcconnell-Ginet (eds.) 1992.
Pica, T., R. Kanagy, & J. Falodun (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In. Glass and Crookes (eds.).
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wagner-Gough, J. (1975). Comparative studies in second language learning. Va: Arlington.
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, D. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
Willis, D. (1993). ‘Comments on Michael H. Long and Graham Crookes: Three approaches to task-based syllabus design’. Tesol Quarterly, 27(4), 726-729.
Wong, H. & Van Patten. (2003). ‘The best English: a claim for the superiority of received standard English’. Society for Pure English 39: 603-21.