- Количество слайдов: 23
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 M 2 TPOVs
FFI References (+M&B) 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, 2 nd Edition, New York: Newbury House.
Form 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 formfocused instruction: teach grammar before other)
The Role of FFI (Spada & Lightbown, 2008) 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
Isolated & Integrated 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.
Integrated FFI Long (1991) Fon. F 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)
Isolated FFI Stern (1992) still a place for isoffi (Writing papers, essays, etc. this would be helpful in this context) De. Keyser (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
Factors (Iso or Int) (p. 194) L 1 influence ◦ Iso advantageous, esp. where l 2 developed Salience ◦ Iso if the features are relatively “simple”, e. g. , 3 rd person singular ‘-s” Input frequency ◦ Iso useful when forms are not frequent Rule complexity ◦ Int useful when structure “too difficult to do. . . “
Int/Iso Factors 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
Int/iso factors 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
Ways of characterizing Fon. F “. . . 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
Some Fon. F “strategies” Hammering on Fon. F (repetition) Hopping on Fon. F (targets of opportunity) Hitting on Fon. F (strong sensual anchoring) Harping on Fon. F (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
FFI strategy types (p. 187) Feedback on errors Metalinguistic terminology Statement of rules Explanations (stopping and asking for rules. ) Note: “Context” is a communicative activity
Fon. F strategies for grammar (CM&LF, 1985) (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
More Fon. F strategies (CM&LF, 1985) Deconstruct form Relate to other forms; relate to system Expand form Show error Correcting errors Do an activity to correct it. . . (p. 493) Note: Fon. F, less practice strategy work
Ways of of treating grammar Nassaji & Fotos (2004) 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. . . ”
More Ways (N&F, 2004) Collaborative output, “pushed output” (Swain, 1985), activities which have require Fon. F opportunities “engineered in” Discourse-based approaches, esp. in written media w/cultural and rhetorical Fon. F strategies
Basic requirements for Fon. F to maybe “take” 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. . . ”
M 2 TPOVs Selected Fon. F/FFI features of 3 Methods 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
A. Definition 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"?
B. Usefulness today 1. Pedagogical (in the classroom) 2. Professional (for persuading colleagues) 3. Political (for persuading administrators or public "owners")
C. The Problem 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 Fon. F?