Ling 511 – Module 2 Form

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?