1 / 13

Toward Quantifying ‘Communicative ’

Toward Quantifying ‘Communicative ’. Leander Hughes Saitama University Presented at the JACET Kanto 5 th Annual Convention. http://sustainableink.files.wordpress.com. http://jnksystem.exblog.jp/10216734/. The Problem.

dom
Download Presentation

Toward Quantifying ‘Communicative ’

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. Toward Quantifying ‘Communicative’ Leander Hughes Saitama University Presented at the JACET Kanto 5th Annual Convention http://sustainableink.files.wordpress.com

  2. http://jnksystem.exblog.jp/10216734/ The Problem How to help learners acquire the most language in the shortest time …and do so as painlessly as possible.

  3. http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi%C8%99ier:Old_book_bindings.jpg / ‘Common Knowledge’ No teaching approach is better than any another …except for communicative approaches ...that include some focus on form

  4. http://alluscion.files.wordpress.com/ But does CLT really work (better)? Nikolov & Krashen (1997) say YES! …but can we believe them? [N=29] Kuhlemeier, Mels, & van den Bergh (1996) say yes …maybe [N= 1134 to 1225]

  5. (Rodin, 1902) (Rodin, 1902) Research Question Do communicative activities lead to significantly greater language gain than non-communicative activities?

  6. ‘Communicative’ activities require: At least two people both sending and receiving messages in the TL & directly comprehending those messages (Hughes, 2008, based on Canale, 1983)

  7. Devising Our Experiment Two-way info gap One-way info gap Scripted skit Relax (do nothing)

  8. Measures Before: Language aptitude test During: Info-gap performance & language produced After: Post-test on vocabulary, grammar, and function(s), Attitude toward activity TWICE! (geneticcuckoo.blogspot.com)

  9. Hypothesis The communicative activity group will score highest on all post-tests (after controlling for language aptitude) (Young Frankenstein, 1974)

  10. Problems? Controlling for initial proficiency differences the ‘practice’ effect the teacher Assumptions short-term gain  long-term acquisition Communicative/non-communicative ratio unimportant (Escher, 1960)

  11. Your thoughts are needed!

  12. This PowerPoint: www.saitama-u.ac.jp/ceed/quantifyingcommunicative THANK YOU! Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman. Hughes, L. S. (2008). A framework for assessing the communicative potential of language learning activities. The Saitama Journal of Language,1,19-29. Kuhlemeier, H., Melse, L., & Bergh, H. van den (1996). Comparison of two German language courses in Dutch secondary education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 181–205. Nikolov, M. & Krashen, S. (1997). Need we sacrifice accuracy for fluency? System, 25, 2, 197-201. Leander Hughes (leanderhughes@gmail.com) http://sustainableink.files.wordpress.com

  13. References (again) Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman. Hughes, L. S. (2008). A framework for assessing the communicative potential of language learning activities. The Saitama Journal of Language,1,19-29. Kuhlemeier, H., Melse, L., & Bergh, H. van den (1996). Comparison of two German language courses in Dutch secondary education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 181–205. Nikolov, M. & Krashen, S. (1997). Need we sacrifice accuracy for fluency? System, 25, 2, 197-201.

More Related