1 / 23

Ling 511 – Module 2 Form

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).

herman-frazier
Download Presentation

Ling 511 – Module 2 Form

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. Ling 511 – Module 2Form October 3, 2011

  2. Agenda • Form in instruction situated • Form in instruction – Research • Form-focused instruction and Focus on Form -- in Practice • Brief overview of M2 TPOVs

  3. 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, 2nd Edition, New York: Newbury House.

  4. 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 form-focused instruction: teach grammar before other)

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. Integrated FFI • 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)

  8. Isolated FFI • 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

  9. Factors (Iso or Int) (p.194) • 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 . . . “

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Ways of characterizing FonF • “ . . . 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

  13. Some FonF “strategies” • 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

  14. 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

  15. FonF 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

  16. More FonF 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: FonF, less practice strategy work

  17. 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 . . .”

  18. More Ways (N&F, 2004) • 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

  19. Basic requirements for FonF 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 . . .”

  20. M2 TPOVsSelected FonF/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

  21. 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"?

  22. B. Usefulness today • 1. Pedagogical (in the classroom) • 2. Professional (for persuading colleagues) • 3. Political (for persuading administrators or public "owners")

  23. 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 FonF?

More Related