Upload
terena
View
46
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Ling 511 – Module 2 Form. October 3, 2011. Agenda. Form in instruction situated Form in instruction – Research Form-focused instruction and Focus on Form -- in Practice Brief overview of M2 TPOVs. FFI References (+M&B). - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
October 3, 2011
Form in instruction situated Form in instruction – Research Form-focused instruction and Focus on Form
-- in Practice
Brief overview of M2 TPOVs
Spada, N. & P. Lightbown. (2008). Form-Focused Instrution: Isolated or Integrated? TESOL Quarterly 42(2): 181-207.
Nassaji, H. & S. Fotos. (2004). Current Developments in Research on the Teaching of Grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 126-145.
Celce-Murcia, M. & D. Larsen-Freeman. (2004).The Grammar Book, 2nd Edition, New York: Newbury House.
Relationship to meaning (Laws of Form, Brown, 1969)
Form and social relationships Models Attending to form Correcting “deviant” form Form and cognitive style Krashen’s (1972) “monitor” Interlanguage & form “Focus on form: after the fact” (vs form-focused
instruction: teach grammar before other)
Children & FFI Classroom-based SLA & FFI Krashen (1982) position on underlying
grammatical development Nature of early studies related to FFI
(discrete-point & metalinguistic - talk about grammar - biases)
Essential tie in FFI to meaning
Johnson (1982) “unificationist vs separationist”
Long (1991) “focus on form” target of opportunity
Isolated FFI “ . . . Primary purpose to teach about form that would not be acquired naturally” (p. 187 spada and lightbown) esp, academic functions
Integrated – In classroom during communication.
Long (1991) FonF should be fully integrated Transfer appropriate processing (TAP), cf.
MATESOL program epistemology LB&S (1990) Young learners w/”certain” lg
features (p.190) Jean (2005) w/FFInt, learners showed more
vocab variety (All are learned vocab, grammar are
learned together)
Stern (1992) still a place for isoffi (Writing papers, essays, etc. this would be
helpful in this context) DeKeyser (1998) FFI first . . . , Trofimivich
(2005) TAP model would predict isoffi would work
better e.g., w/some types of composition instruction, especially ESP @ higher levels.
No solid empirical research comparing Int w/Iso
L1 influence◦ Iso advantageous, esp. where l2 developed
Salience◦ Iso if the features are relatively “simple”, e.g., 3rd
person singular ‘-s” Input frequency
◦ Iso useful when forms are not frequent Rule complexity
◦ Int useful when structure “too difficult to do . . . “
Communicative value◦ Int, if errors lead to clear comm errors
Learner development level◦ Int once a feature has emerged in IL
Learner age◦ Iso w/older learners (but adults more aware of
Int., Ohta, 2000) Lg-learn aptitude
◦ More working memory; more int awareness
Learner & teacher prefs◦ Mismatches, learners wanting more FFI, in
general, expectations◦ Learning styles—focus on class or group
response, not individual learners◦ Variability among instructors (Borg, 2001)◦ Burgess & Etherington (2002): Int useful, but not
sufficient◦ General variability in research
“ . . . Give students a feel for . . .aware of general rules and formulas” (CM&LF, 1984)
Bring to attention, vs. notice Noticing characterized by uptake or later
evidence to that effect (How do you know?) Question: How to make it stick. Monitoring modalities: e.g., haptic-
integrated pronunciation instruction
Hammering on FonF (repetition) Hopping on FonF (targets of opportunity) Hitting on FonF (strong sensual anchoring) Harping on FonF (comment only, w/o anchor
or follow up) Hoping on (they’ll get it w/o attention) Modalities: visual, auditory, kinesthetic,
haptic (visual + kinesthetic)management
Feedback on errors Metalinguistic terminology Statement of rules Explanations (stopping and asking for
rules.) Note: “Context” is a communicative activity
(before noticing) demonstrate or model Ask to describe or explain function (p. 413) Paraphrases Collocation Students find examples of form in text and
are required to come up w/explanation Bring to attention & manipulate
Deconstruct form Relate to other forms; relate to system Expand form Show error Correcting errors Do an activity to correct it . . . (p. 493) Note: FonF, less practice strategy work
Processing instruction – tasks that encourage comprehension, ~production
Interactional feedback, i.e., negotiation or modification strategies, recasts
Textual enhancement, elaboration Task-based instruction, esp. consciousness
raising “ . . .more research is needed . . .”
Collaborative output, “pushed output” (Swain, 1985), activities which have require FonF opportunities “engineered in”
Discourse-based approaches, esp. in written media w/cultural and rhetorical FonF strategies
Essential conditions: (p. 137)◦(1) learner noticing and continued
awareness, ◦(2) repeated meaning-focused exposure
to input containing them◦(3) opportunities for output and practice
“ . . . More research is necessary . . .”
Grammar-translation Method Audiolingual Method Silent Way Method (developed in response to
audio-lingual method) different way of seeing learner’s role.
How do they treat form
What is it? What was it's historical context? What are the principle techniques and
tasks? How does the method order the "line of
march"?
1. Pedagogical (in the classroom) 2. Professional (for persuading colleagues) 3. Political (for persuading administrators or
public "owners")
How does it deal with "form” in general? What were it’s strengths in its historical
period? What were its potential shortcomings? What evidence do you see of FonF?