45111980-The-Impact-of-Second-Language-Acquisition-Research-on-Language-Practice-Activities

8/7/2019 45111980-The-Impact-of-Second-Language-Acquisition-Research-on-Language-Practice-Activities

1/22

The impact of second language acquisition research on language practice activities.

When refining instructional materials and techniques, it is easy to rely on intuition rather

than consult research in second language acquisition or applied linguistics. Intuition maybe a valid and useful resource, but since it relies heavily on personal experiences, it is

limited. An instructor's approach or methodology often reflects that of the institutionwhere s/he was trained, and his/her teaching experience may be centered on one or a few

institutions, and thus a particular demographic of student. Research studies that employdifferent approaches/methodologies and involve different types of students can provide

insights that may not have been considered by the instructor and can help drive learning

objectives.

At the same time, SLA researchers do not claim to have all the answers. In fact, Mackey

and Abbuhl (219) note that SLA researchers (such as Lightbown 431-462; R. Ellis, Task-Based) have pointed out that "given the relative infancy of SLA as a field of inquiry,

language teachers should apply the results of both quantitative and qualitative studies

carefully in relation to their own classrooms and, at the same time, heed their owncounsel regarding what works and what does not work." Instructor experience andintuition cannot be discounted, but at the same time research is meant to provide a new

level of awareness that can enhance creative teaching practices.

The goal of this study is to give instructors a sense of what research indicates are the

most effective language practice activities, together with the way that activities and their

format affect the language that students produce and their L2 development. With thisinformation, instructors will be better informed to select or create engaging activities that

are targeted at the feature of language processing and production that they wish to

develop. The following section briefly assesses research on input (the language that

learners hear and read) and output (the language that learners produce), and explores theconnections between input and output in language processing and L2 development. This

introduction to the theory of input and output processing is followed by the pedagogical

implications of the research and how they contribute to best practices in the classroom.

Overview of the research

By now everyone agrees that, as Gass and Mackey (177) put if, "input is the sine qua non

of acquisition," that is, in order to acquire a language, learners have to be exposed to thelanguage, or the 'evidence' on which they base their linguistic hypotheses that then form

their interlanguage system (the linguistic system that learners are constructing in their

mind as they acquire the L2). Learners gather linguistic evidence by noticing language

structure. The overall findings of empirical studies indicate that the noticing of andattention to structures facilitate adult L2 learners' subsequent processing, intake, and

learning of targeted L2 forms or structures embedded in the L2 data (Leow and Bowles

190). (1) This research may appear to state the obvious. However, the exploration ofnoticing, attention and awareness has led to fruitful research on how and when learners

notice structures, if and how noticing and attention lead to restructuring of the


2/22

interlanguage system, and how to facilitate this process. These skills are all part of

learners' analytic abilities, or "the capacity to infer rules of language and make linguistic

generalizations or extrapolations" (Skehan, A Cognitive Approach 207), which areimportant for language acquisition. In fact, "[r]esearch evidence suggests that aptitude,

including language analytic ability, does have an impact on L2 learning outcomes even in

communicative teaching contexts ..." (Ranta 102).

Research, such as VanPatten's theory of Input Processing (most recently VanPatten, Input

Processing, see therein for previous research), aires to identify what learners do withlanguage input. More specifically, VanPatten and his colleagues examine how learners

process input, or make connections between structures and the meanings they convey,

and how learners parse sentences. The results of their research indicate that by providing

activities that guide learners to make form-meaning connections, comprehension andlearning improve. Surprisingly, despite the fact that these activities do not include output

practice, they also appear to improve oral production. VanPatten derived a practical

pedagogical application of his Input Processing theory known as Structured Input.

Structured Input activities are constructed to respect the findings of input processingresearch and are meant to be incorporated into instruction to facilitate and develop

language processing. In light of the positive research results on input processing, R. Ellis(Instructed Language Learning 718) highlights the need to "revise current approaches to

grammar teaching to make fuller use of this [structured input] option."

Comprehensible input provides the positive evidence that is essential for learners as theyconstruct their interlanguage system. However, in order to evolve and restructure, the

language system also needs negative evidence, or feedback on unacceptable structures

that language learners produce. Thus, language production plays a significant role in L2acquisition. There are several research programs that explore learner output to different

degrees. The two that focus directly on language production and have the potential to

impact classroom practice the most are Swain's Output Hypothesis (2) and the InteractionHypothesis, which began with research by Long (3) and incorporates many aspects of

Swain's model. (4) The basis for research in language production is the notion that output

is part of the learning process; it is not the end result, and so 'output' must be interpretedas a verb (an action or process), not as a noun. The consensus is that learners need to be

pushed to not only convey their message, but to do so precisely, coherently and

appropriately (Swain, The Output Hypothesis 471-483). Ortega (189) draws a parallel to

Krashen's (The Input Hypothesis) concept of i + 1 when she states that "[p]ractice needsto be facilitated at an output plus one level, slightly beyond what the learner currently can

handle in writing and speaking."

The research on output practice highlights the ways in which production practice serves

the learner:

1) Speaking practice promotes automatization and encourages learners to process

language syntactically, not just semantically.

2) During interactions, learners notice lexical items or structures that they do not have in


3/22

their developing system (holes) or mismatches between their language and the native

target (gaps).

3) Output practice provides an opportunity to test hypotheses about the language.

Learners try out structures to see if they work and/or match the native target.

4) Language use leads to language related episodes (LREs), or moments in which the

learner reflects on the structure of his/her L2. The moment in which output is modified by

feedback from the interlocutor (an instructor, classmate or native speaker) is consideredto be the most significant for restructuring the learner's interlanguage system. "[I]n

general, the argument is that interaction provides a forum for feedback, which serves to

alert learners to problems providing them with opportunities to focus their attention on

language. That is, interaction may prime learners to "search" for more information, to bemore sensitive to future input (e.g., uses of a word, structure, pronunciation, spelling), or

to be more aware of their hypotheses about language" (Gass and Mackey 12). (5)

Conclusions to be drawn from SLA research

This brief overview of recent research on foreign language acquisition brings to the fore akey feature of language acquisition that has significant implications for language

instruction: in order for language development to occur, the learner must be cognitively

engaged in all stages of comprehension and production. That is, learners must be directed

to process language input effectively in order to develop their language aptitude andmodify their interlanguage system. To the same end, learners must be pushed not only to

test their language hypotheses while producing comprehensible, coherent and appropriate

output, but also to attend to the language they hear, the language they produce and thefeedback they receive for mismatches between their language and the target. In essence,

no aspect of language acquisition and learning is passive and the learner must be guided

to take responsibility for the learning process and take initiative during classroomactivities. It is up to the instructor to find the most effective and efficient means to

facilitate the development of active comprehension and production skills by engaging

students cognitively with the input they receive and the output they produce. The nextsection explores the pedagogical applications for input processing and language

production that SLA research indicates can accomplish these goals.

Language practice activities

Instructors (and students) often feel satisfied if, during their lesson, students are talking a

lot in the target language. Indeed, interaction is a goal of communicative instruction andresearch has highlighted the importance of output practice. However, exclusive focus on

production eliminates the opportunity to develop learners' analytic skills by providing

rich, comprehensible input which they process in order to identify the connectionbetween structures and the meaning they convey or the formal contexts in which they

appear. That is, prior to producing language, learners need to process the structures that

they will eventually use. This section explores two types of language practice activities:

1) those that are best suited to developing learners' ability to process L2 input and 2)


4/22

those that promote effective, meaningful L2 production through oral interaction.

Input activities

Van Patten's research in input processing has highlighted the importance of giving

learners an opportunity to analyze the connection between forms and the meanings thatthey convey. The pedagogical application of this research is Structured Input activities,

which direct learners to process input "that is manipulated in particular ways to push

learners to become dependent on form and structure to get meaning and/or to privilegethe form or structure in the input so that learners have a better chance of attending to

it ..." (Lee and VanPatten 142). (6) Consider the following example.

A. La parola precisa. Parte prima. Quali parole completano queste frasi?Maria parla....

seriamente impegnata

liberamente buona

bene giovane

Maria ha una sorella ...

lentamente sincera

bella gentilmente

sinceramente seria

Parte seconda. In base alle frasi nella Parte prima, quali delle seguenti conclusioni sono

vere?

1. La sorella di Maria ha sempre molte cose da fare.

2. La sorella di Maria dice molte bugie.

3. Maria e timida.

4. Maria non conosce bene la grammatica e spesso fa errori quando parla.

(Aski and Musumeci, Avanti! 2nd ed.)

This activity targets one grammar point: adverbs, and the processing of this structure isessential to completing the task of drawing conclusions about Maria and her sister. In the

first phase of the activity, the student must be able to distinguish an adverb from an

adjective. The form is 'privileged' in that the items are isolated from the rest of thesentence and the learner must focus on the form in order to make the connection to its

appropriate use. In the second part of the activity, the student must process the meanings

of the forms by identifying the appropriate conclusions based on the statements created inthe first phase. Since the objective is input processing, the learner never produces (orally


5/22

or in writing) the targeted form.

Structured input activities are effective for forms that contribute meaning to the utterance,such as -mente, which expresses how an action is carried out. However, what happens

when a structure lacks communicative value, (7) in that it contributes little or no meaning

to the utterance? For example, when forming the regular present perfect in Italian,learners must attend to two features: the appropriate auxiliary (have vs. be) and

gender/number agreement between the subject and the ending of the past participle of

verbs that take the auxiliary be. (8) The traditional explanation of the distribution of theauxiliaries in the present perfect is that transitive verbs take have and intransitives take

be. Even if students comprehend the metalanguage in this explanation, they soon

encounter some very common intransitive verbs that take have as their auxiliary, such as:

viaggiare 'to travel,' dormire 'to sleep,' nuotare 'to swim,' correre 'to run,' (9) parlare 'totalk,' cenare 'to have dinner,' pranzare 'to have lunch,' camminare 'to walk,' lavorare 'to

work.' (10) The exceptional nature of the choice of auxiliary renders the grammatical

pattern opaque. Moreover, the use of have vs. be has no impact on the propositional

content of the utterance in any way. Similarly, the agreement of the past participle withthe subject of the verb with verbs that take be but not with those that take have is

semantically vacuous. Thus, in both cases there are no form-meaning connections to bemade.

Aski (338-340) proposes activities that force learners to attend to these formal alternation

patterns and provide a way for learners to actively operationalize their understanding ofthe grammatical rule. Instead of making form-meaning connections, learners must be

guided to link forms to their (grammatical or phonetic) conditioning environment.

Activities that link forms to their formal contexts are called Form-Form activities. Form-Form activities, like Structured Input activities, can be viewed as a type of input

enhancement (Sharwood Smith 16-179). (11) Like Structured Input activities, Form-

Form activities do not require that the learner produce the form; rather the learner ispushed to notice the feature and the phonetic or grammatical contexts in which it

alternates.

Consider the following two (abbreviated) activities that each focus on one feature of the

present perfect.

B. Avere o essere? Trova tutti i verbi con l'ausiliare essere al passato prossimo.(Attenzione! Ci sono 12 verbi.)ascoltare essere leggere festeggiare avere giocare

uscire andare navigare entrare ballare aprire pulire

venire scrivere partire arrivare mettere lavare nasceretelefonare vedere seguire stare tornare sapere lavorare

perdere morire dare rimanere nuotare dipingere offrire

(Aski and Musumeci, Avanti! 169)

C. Chi ha cantato? Decidi chi e il soggetto dei seguenti verbi. Attenzione! In alcuni casi

piu di una risposta e possibile.


6/22

Maria Mario Silvia e Marcella

Luciano e Roberto Chiara e Mohamed

1. ha comprato 3. hanno cantato 5. e uscita

2. sono andati 4. sono arrivate 6. e partito

etc.

(Aski 338)

In both Form-Form activities, noticing is facilitated by practicing each aspect of the

multifaceted structure separately. Initially, the structures are not embedded in meaning-

bearing contexts (e.g. sentences), since the forms are devoid of meaning and the goal is to

direct learners attention to the connection between the forms and their grammatical orphonetic conditioning environments. The context can eventually be expanded as long as

the structure to be analyzed is prominent, as in activity D, where it occupies the first

position in every sentence. (12)

D. L'esame di fisica. Lunedi Marina e Lisa hanno un esame d'italiano e Rocco e Martino

hanno un esame di fisica. Guarda le frasi e decidi chi ha fatto le varie attivita il weekendprima dell'esame. Secondo te, chi ha preso il voto piu alto (received the highest grade)?

Perche?

Marina e Lisa

Rocco e Martino

1. Sono uscite con gli amici domenica sera.

2. Sono stati a casa sabato sera e sono andati a letto presto.

3. Sono tomate a casa alle 3.00 di mattina sabato sera.

4. Sono andati a studiare in biblioteca venerdi sera. etc.


Structured Input and Form-Form activities cognitively engage learners by directing them

to process the target language in such a way that they actively attend to the meaning and

form and/or use of structures. The ultimate goal is to modify learners' developinglanguage system. In addition, it is possible that Structured Input and Form-Form activities

develop learners' analytical skills and possibly improve their language aptitude, thusmaking them more effective learners/ acquirers of the L2. The bottom line is thatultimately language production is enhanced when students are given the opportunity to

cognitively process forms before they are asked to produce them.

Output activities

Once learners have had the opportunity to process a new structure and the context in


7/22

which it is used, they are prepared to produce it orally and in writing. The key question is

what type of activity has the strongest impact on L2 development. Mackey and Abbuhl

(207-33) point out that a potential overlap in teachers' communicative approaches andrecent output theories regarding L2 development can be found in task-based language

teaching. (13) Although many scholars have characterized tasks differently, Pica, Kanagy

& Falodun (11) point out that within the different definitions that are found in theliterature, two features stand out. Firstly, tasks are oriented toward a goal. Learners are

expected to arrive at an outcome, or accomplish a goal through interaction. Secondly, a

task is a type of workplan, (14) which suggests that participants take an active role incarrying out the task.

Another feature that recurs in descriptions of tasks is highlighted by Nunan's (10)

definition when he states that a task is "[a] piece of classroom work which involveslearners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language

while their attention is primarily focused on meaning rather than form." That is, tasks are

not constructed to favor or guarantee the use of one particular structure. Rather, learners

are encouraged to make use of all their linguistic (and extralinguistic) resources in orderto complete the task. This feature potentially limits the use of tasks in programs and

textbooks that follow a structural syllabus, since curricula structured in this way usuallypresent forms one at a time, and thus practice each separately. However, there is debate in

the literature over whether tasks can be constructed in such a way that they naturally

result in the use of a particular form or structure. Bygate (208) points out that "[i]n

pedagogic terms ... it would be wrong to expect specific linguistic formulations becauseunscripted tasks are by definition not able to determine fully any aspect of a learner's

performance ... yet, there are clear reasons why the rejection of total predictability cannot

imply the belief in total unpredictability" (my emphasis).

Loschky and Bley-Vroman (123-67) suggest that tasks can achieve three degrees of usage

of a structure. A particular structure may be useful but not necessary to the completion ofthe task, a structure may arise naturally during the task, or use of a structure can be

essential to the task. The authors also note that structure essentialness is most easily

attained in comprehension activities because the designer can build tight relationshipsbetween form and meaning and, as a result, these activities should be more conducive to

learners' interlanguage hypothesis testing. Indeed, the input activities discussed in the

previous section require learners to analyse forms closely in order to understand the

meanings they convey or the contexts in which they are used.

Structure essentialness can also be achieved in production activities that satisfy the key

features of tasks, in that they provide a workplan to guide learners to achieve a specificgoal. In order to guarantee the use of a targeted structure in tasks, the context must be

tightly controlled. Consider the following information-gap activity that targets present

indicative verbs.

E. Pina, Sandra, Alberto e Franco. Parte prima. With the class, create appropriate

descriptions of Pina, Sandra, Alberto, and Franco using the structures you learned in

Capitolo 2. Remember to include their ages, physical and emotional characteristics, and


8/22

likes / dislikes. (Visuals of Pina, Sandra, Alberto and Franco are provided in the Avanti!

Instructor's Manual, 56.)

Parte seconda. Work in pairs. Your instructor will give you two agendas. One partner

completes the weekly agenda for Pina and Sandra, and the other completes the agenda for

Alberto and Franco. (Blank agendas are provided in the Avanti! Instructor's Manual, 56.)

Parte terza. Complete the second agenda by asking your partner questions about the

agenda s/he completed in the Parte seconda.

ESEMPIO:

S1: Cosa fanno Alberto e Franco sabato sera?

S2: Studiano e poi vanno a letto presto.

(Aski and Musumeci, Avanti! Instructor's Manual 56)

Notice that the workplan is divided into stages, the first of which is carried out by theclass, the second individually, and the third in pairs. In the first phase of the task, students

work together to create the characters, and this information guides the creative process in

the second stage. During the final stage, the ultimate goal is accomplished in a context

that requires use of the targeted structure (the present indicative). Although a samplescript is provided, one can argue that this task is not scripted since the structure employed

is the only one that can logically be used to complete the task. As a result, this modified

task practices one structure in a natural context and thus satisfies the needs ofprograms/texts with a structural syllabus.

This analysis proposes that there are two types of tasks: those that target particularstructures for contextualized output practice (hereafter referred to as 'controlled tasks'),

(15) and traditional tasks, as defined by Nunan above, that allow learners to employ all

their linguistic and extralinguistic skills to accomplish the designated goal. Althoughcontrolled tasks are necessary features of structure-based curricula, they should not be the

end-point of language practice, because they limit output to the phrase level. Rather,

learners need to be pushed beyond the phrase level toward the discourse level with

traditional tasks. This does not mean, however, that all (traditional) tasks are equallyeffective. In fact, since learner language is not constrained, one must pay careful attention

to the structure of tasks because it directly affects three aspects of production: 1) how

much interaction and oral production is generated among the participants, 2) what type oflanguage learners produce, and 3) how much attention learners direct to language form.

Each of these consequences of the structure of traditional tasks is examined in the

following sections.

1. Degree of interaction

One measure of the potential success of output activities is the degree to which they


9/22

provide opportunities for learners to comprehend input, receive feedback on output (or

interact) and modify their interlanguage (Pica, Kanagy and Falodun 20). There is a

consensus in the research that as learners process meaningful input during interactions,they are attending to form or noticing structures, which will allow them to assimilate the

structures into their interlanguage (Griggs 408-9). The features of tasks that Pica, Kanagy

and Falodun (20) high-light as those that are most likely to achieve these interactive goalsare the following:

1) both participants supply and request information;

2) each participant holds a different portion of the information that must be shared and

manipulated;

3) the participants have the same goal and they must reach a consensus on only one

outcome.

Pica, Kanagy and Falodun (25) examined rive task types in order to identify those thatmeet these criteria and therefore would be most likely to have a positive influence on L2

development. They considered the following tasks, examples of which are presented inAppendix A:

* jigsaw tasks

* information gap tasks

* problem-solving tasks

* decision-making tasks

* opinion-exchange tasks

They found that jigsaw tasks and 2-way information gap activities are the bestrepresentatives of effective tasks because they incorporate all three features of highly

interactives tasks. (16) The dictogloss (Wajnryb), in which learners listen to a story

several times, take notes, and then work in pairs or small groups to reproduce the text

they heard as accurately as possible, (17) may also fall in the 'most effective tasks'category, since in order to achieve a common goal learners must comprehend input,

attend to forms, and form hypotheses and test them by sharing and manipulating forms

(Swain and Lapkin 99-118). According to Muranoi (65), "having learners reconstruct atext (story) that they have comprehended is one of the most effective instructional

techniques that ellicit learner output and eventually promote L2 learning."

The other tasks that the authors examined (problem-solving, decision-making and

opinion-exchange) generate interaction but fall short in terms of maximum effectiveness.

Problem-solving tasks with a single possible outcome are more likely to generate

productive interactions than decision-making or opinion-exchange tasks, but since in all


10/22

three task types learners are typically given the information they need to work with up

front, they are all less effective than jigsaw or two-way information gap (or dictogloss)

activities. For example, in Appendix A, the visuals that accompany the problem-solvingactivity provide all the information necessary for completing the task. The same is true of

the lists of items provided with the decision-making and opinion-exchange tasks. In

addition, decision-making activities that allow more than one outcome reduce interactionbecause learners can choose to withhold information in order to achieve consensus. The

fewest opportunities for interaction are opinion-exchange tasks, because one student may

dominate. Moreover, if there is no need for persuasion in order to achieve consensus,there is no motivation to interact.

When creating or selecting tasks with the goal of maximizing oral interaction, one cannot

expect all learners to be self-motivated, fully engaged and willing to interact. For thisreason, tasks must require the participants to interact in order to achieve a specified goal.

This does not mean, however, that tasks that provide the information for learners to

manipulate or allow more than one outcome are not useful and should be eliminated from

the classroom. Rather, the goals of these tasks are different and therefore serve differentpurposes. That is, when the information is provided up front, the learners must interpret

the input, which may enhance vocabulary acquisition or reading skills, depending on thestructure of the task. Open-ended tasks that do not have one outcome may function well

for certain students, particularly those that are self-motivated, and may trigger higher

degrees of creativity in others. It is up to the instructor to make informed decisions about

which tasks to use in any particular moment.

Since the structure of the task dictates the amount of interaction that can potentially take

place, tasks can be restructured to increase potential interaction. As in the controlled taskE above, learners can be asked to generate the information that will be used in the later

phases of the activity and/or the activity can be adjusted so that one outcome is achieved

by consensus. Consider the following problem-solving task.

F. Il regalo che fa per te. (Your ideal girl.) Lavorate in due per creare una lista di cinque

persone a cui (to whom) volete fare dei regali. Queste persone possono essere vostricompagni di classe o personaggi famosi. Scrivete i nomi delle persone su un foglio. Poi,

parlate della personalita, delle caratteristiche e dello stile di vita delle persone e decidete

cosa regalare loro. I regali possono essere concreti (una nuova automobile, una casa al

mare) o astratti (un bel voto in chimica, l'eloquenza). Su un altro foglio scrivete tutti iregali, ma non nello stesso ordine dei nomi. Poi scambiatevi i fogli con un'altra coppia e

cercate di abbinare le persone con i regali. In bocca al lupo!

Esempio:

S1: La macchina deve essere il regalo per Amanda.

S2: Perche?

S1: Perche la sua e vecchia.


11/22

S2: Allora, qual e il regalo per Jose?


In this problem-solving task, the participants are responsible for creating the list ofrecipients and deciding the gifts for each. The next group works with this information to

recreate the original gift list. Students reason with each other to arrive at the one possible

outcome/solution. Similarly, the following opinion-exchange task has two phases. In thefirst phase (Scriviamo!) learners write lists of the advantages of living in the city and the

country. In the second (oral) phase of the activity (Parliamo!), the materials produced are

used to generate debate. Although by definition an opinion-exchange does not have one

outcome, this activity promotes involvement by requiring the students to provide theinformation that will be manipulated during the task and to persuade others to change

their opinion.

G. SCRIVIAMO! Dov'e meglio abitare? Lavora con un compagno / una compagna.

Su un foglio scrivete tutti i vantaggi di abitare in citta.

Esempio: E meglio abitare in citta perche ... ci sono piu servizi (gli ospedali, le scuole, i

negozi).

Su un altro foglio scrivete i vantaggi di abitare in campagna.

Esempio: E meglio abitare in campagna perche ... c'e meno smog e inquinamento.

PARLIAMO! Dibattito. In citta o in campagna? Dov'e meglio abitare? I compagni che

hanno lavorato insieme per Scriviamo! si dividono e ciascuno prende uno dei foglipreparati. Tutti gli studenti che hanno una lista di vantaggi si mettono da una

parte dell'aula; quelli con i vantaggi si mettono dall'altra. Ogni gruppo

cerca di convincere gli studenti dell'altro sui vantaggi della vita in citta o campagna. Glistudenti, che alla fine si convincono che hanno ragione gli altri, si spostano dalla loro

parte. Secondo la maggioranza degli studenti, dov'e meglio abitare? (Aski and Musumeci,

Avanti! 351-352)

If the goal is to maximize oral interaction and engagement with the task, jigsaw tasks,

two-way information gap tasks and dictoglosses are ideal. Other activities can approach

maximum effectiveness by asking learners to generate the information that they or theirclassmates will manipulate in order to arrive at a solution or outcome.

2. Types of language produced by learners

Another measure of the potential success of language tasks is identified by examining the

types of language that tasks yield from the participants in terms of fluency (the flow of

the language in terms of the number of false starts and hesitations), complexity (the


12/22

variety of syntactic forms used) and accuracy (the use of appropriate forms). Skehan

(Tasks and Language 167-185) performed a meta-analysis of task characteristics and

their influence on performance in six research studies. He found that dialogic vs.monologic tasks, or tasks that require the participants to alternate the person who holds

the floor, compared to those that require little interaction other than listening and waiting

for one's turn, generated more accurate and slightly more complex language. Tasks with aclear over-arching structure and a fairly clear underlying time sequence resulted in more

fluent production. (18) He also found that tasks involving multifaceted judgements "in

which the case or position a learner argues during a task can only be effective if itanticipates other possible outcomes, and other learners' contributions" (Skehan, Tasks

and Language 173) generated more complex language structures than tasks with

straightforward outcomes in which a simple decision was made. In addition, tasks that

require participants to operate on the information presented or retrieved, i.e., change thestate or relationship of the elements in the task rather than simply reproduce the

information, affected the complexity of learners' language if the learners had time to plan

their interactions. That is, when learners are asked to manipulate information rather than

simply reproduce it, the language they produce is more complex if they have time to plantheir interactions.

In short, this research suggests that if you want your students to produce more complex

language, they must be given time to plan their interactions and the task must be

relatively more complex in terms of the judgements they are required to make and the

ways in which they reach their conclusions. If the primary goal is accuracy, make sureparticipants are required to extract information from each other. In doing so, they express

themselves as accurately and clearly as possible. Finally, for more fluent language

production, the task must have a clear structure and reasonable time limits.

3. Attention to form

One of the primary goals of language tasks is to direct learners to attend to form or notice

language structures, which will facilitate the assimilation of the structures into their

interlanguage. There are several strategies in the literature that encourage learners tofocus on form during task-based interactions:

1) Recycle task types. If learners are familiar with a task, they will need less time to

process the actual mechanics of the activity and therefore have more time to devote toworking on their language skills. This does not mean that task types cannot vary, but it

does mean that there need not be (and should not be) an infinite number of different

activities for learners to practice their production skills (Bygate 207).

2) Rehearse and plan task performance. Give learners time to practice and plan their

interactions prior to task performance. As noted above, planning may generate morecomplex language and may improve language use over-all (Bygate 207).

4) Hold students accountable. Task activities have a goal or purpose, but the stakes can

be raised by holding students accountable to the rest of the class or in some other way


13/22

that increases the learner's responsibility and his/her dedication to the task (Ortega 189).

5) Include unexpected gaps in the information. If the learner is taken by surprise byinformation that must be processed, s/he will have to apply her/himself at a higher degree

cognitively (Ortega 189).

6) Push learners to work collaboratively on mastery of language. Students should be

required to do more than just confirm mutual understanding. Research indicates that

"successful learners will be the ones who attempt to use their language resourcesoptimally while pursuing their communicative aims, who work collaboratively to solve

language problems as they arise, and who may consciously exploit the communicative

activity they are involved in to improve mastery of language structures" (Griggs 413).

One way to push students to optimize their language practice time in this way is to simplytell them that this is your aim and that it should be their goal as well. There is no reason

why the insights gleaned from SLA research should be kept a secret from students. The

more they know about the acquisition process, the more likely they will be proactive in

their learning.

Final thoughts

This overview of SLA research and effective language practice activities has significant

implications for instructors and their students. Most students study a foreign language

because they want to speak it, and instructors who have embraced the communicativeapproach to language teaching feel that they are successful when their students are

talking in the L2. However, jumping straight into production activities may not

necessarily be the most effective means for achieving acquisition. Research indicates thatproduction should not be the sole focus of language practice activities, and that learners

benefit from opportunities to analyze and process language input before being asked to

speak. It is imperative that input activities, such as Structured Input and Form-Formactivities, be incorporated into the language practice sequence. (19) The sequence is

logical: language practice should begin with tasks/activities that guide students to process

the form, its meaning, and its usage without having to produce the structure. This inputphase should be followed by two types of production tasks: first, by controlled tasks, in

which use of the form is essential or ensured to arise naturally from the context, and

second by traditional tasks in which learners use all of their language strategies to

communicate and no one structure is emphasized. (20) All tasks, whether input or outputoriented, should actively engage learners cognitively and push learners to attend to

language form while they are completing the activity/ task.

This study has employed SLA research that explores how instructional techniques

interact with learning and acquisition in order to refine current approaches to language

practice activities. While research in SLA can provide insights into which featuresinteract with or impact particular aspects of participant interactions and language

production, each group of students is different, instructors vary, and each learning

environment is unique. As a result, each instructor must become a researcher by thinking

about which factors to focus on in every activity or task and then observing whether those


14/22

factors interact with student performance. Care must be taken in applying research

findings directly to classroom practices. However, the questions researchers ask in their

analyses of input processing and learners' production together with the results of theirresearch can guide classroom practice by informing instructors of the issues involved

with the language practice tasks and activities that they select or create. Instructors who

are aware of these issues are more likely to create effective and efficient learningenvironments.

Appendix A

Jigsaw task

Mamma! What if you were trying to find long-lost family members and you had somepieces of information, but not many, to go on? Your instructor will give each student a

card with information about an imaginary person on it (nome, stato civile, citta dove

abita, professione, eccetera). Everyone will go around the room, meet each other and ask

and answer questions in Italian to find the other members of their imaginary families.When you think you've found everyone, sit down together in a group. When everyone is

seated, be prepared to introduce your family member(s) to the rest of the class. (Aski andMusumeci, Avanti! 116)

Information gap

Your instructor will tape the name of a famous person on your back. You must go around

the room asking yes/no questions to figure out who you are. Two rules: you can only ask

questions whose answers are either si or no, and everyone must only speak Italian. Whenyou think you know who you are, check with your instructor. If you are right, you may sit

down. (Aski and Musumeci, Avanti! 55)

Problem solving

Students are given two pictures of a student's dorm room that are slightly different. Theyare instructed to find the differences. (Aski and Musumeci, Avanti! 304.)

Decision making task

Una casa su misura (customized). Con un compagno / una compagna progettate una casa.

Potete scegliere tra le seguenti stanze e comodita, ma non potete averle tutte! Ogni

elemento vale un certo numero di punti e insieme avete solo 25 punti da .Come sara la vostra casa?

la cucina: piccola (2), grande (4)

il salotto (3)

il bagno con vasca (2), con doccia (3) con idromassaggio (whirlpool) (4)


15/22

la camera (3)

lo studio (2)

la sala da pranzo (4)

la terrazza (4)

il balcone (2)

il giardino privato (5)

la piscina (7)

il garage (5)

il frigorifero (1)

la cucina a gas (1), con forno (2)

il forno a microonde (2)

la lavastoviglie (4)

la lavatrice (3) (Aski and Musumeci, Avanti! 319)

Opinion exchange

Citta o provincia?

Parte prima. Collega i contrari (opposites). Attenzione! Alcuni aggettivi hanno piu di uncontrario.1. caotico a. calmo

2. complicato b. divertente

3. frenetico c. piacevole (pleasing)

4. monotono d. sicuro (safe)

5. noioso e. silenzioso

6. pericoloso (dangerous) f. stimolante

7. rumoroso g. semplice (simple)

8. stressante h. tranquillo

Parte seconda. Adesso, completa queste frasi secondo la tua opinione. Nel primo spazioinserisci degli aggettivi, poi spiega la tua scelta (choice). Discuti le tue opinioni con i

compagni.

Secondo me, la vita in un centro urbano e ... perche ... Secondo me, la vita in un paese di


16/22

provincia e ... perche ... (Aski and Musumeci, Avanti! 332)

Appendix B

Qui si parla italiano. Parte prima. L'insegnante leggera un breve testo due volte. La prima

volta, ascolta soltanto. La seconda volta, prendi appunti mentre l'insegnante legge.

Parte seconda. Collabora con un compagno/una compagna di classe. Usando i vostri

appunti, cercate di riscrivere in modo preciso il testo che avete sentito.

Instructor's script: Si parla italiano in moite localita degli Stati Uniti, sia a New York,

dove esiste un quartiere chiamato Little Italy, sia in altre citta americane, dove vivono

milioni di italiani. Secondo le statistiche la maggior parte di questi italo-americani parlainglese, preferisce pero andare a fare spese in negozi dove si parla italiano. Per questo

motivo nelle vetrine di molti negozi si legge una scritta: Qui si parla italiano. (Aski and

Musumeci, Avanti! 452).

WORKS CITED

Aski, Janice M., and Diane Musumeci. Avanti!. San Francisco: McGraw Hill, 2006.

--, Avanti!. 2nd ed. San Francisco: McGraw Hill, 2009.

Aski, Janice M. "Alternatives to Mechanical Drills for the Early Stages of Language

Practice in Foreign Language Textbooks." Foreign Language Annals 38.3 (2005): 333-

343.

Branciforte, Suzanne, and Anna Grassi. Parliamo Italiano. 3rd edition. Boston: Houton

Mifflin, 2006.

Bygate, M. "Quality of Language and Purpose of Task: Patterns of Learners' Language

on Two Oral Communication Tasks. Language Teaching Research 3.3 (1999): 185-214.

Ellis, Rod. "Instructed Language Learning and Task-Based Teaching." Handbook of

Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Ed. E. Hinkel. Mahway, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005. 713-728.

--, Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford U.K.: Oxford University Press,

2003.

--"Interpretation Tasks for Grammar Teaching." TESOL Quarterly, 29.1 (1995): 87-105.

--, Interpretation-Based Grammar Teaching. System, 21 (1993): 69-78. Fotos, Sandra.

"Integrating Grammar Instruction and Communicative Language Use through Grammar

Consciousness-Raising Tasks." TESOL Quarterly, 28.2 (1994): 323-351.


17/22

--, "Structure-Based Interactive Tasks for the EFL Grammar Lesson." New Perspectives

on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Eds. E. Hinkel and S. Fotos.

Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 2002. 135-154.

Fotos, Sandra and Rod Ellis. "Communicating about Grammar." Learning a Second

Language through Interaction. Ed. Rod Ellis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999. 189-208.

Gass, Susan M. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.

Gass, Susan M., and Allison Mackey. "Input Interaction and Output in SLA." Theories in

Second Language Acquistion: An Introduction. Eds. Jessica Williams and BillVanPatten. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007. 175-199.

Griggs, Peter. "Assessment of the Role of Communicative Tasks in the Development of

Second Language Oral Production Skills." Investigations in Instructed Second LanguageAcquisition. Eds. Alex Housen and Michel Pierrard. Berlin: Mouton, 2005. 407-433.

Italiano, Francesca, and Irene Marchegiani. Percorsi: L'Italia attraverso la lingua e la

cultura. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2008.

Krashen, Steven. The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman, 1985.

Lazzarino, Graziana, Maria Cristina Peccianti, and Andrea Dini. Prego! An Invitation to

Italian. 7th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2008.

Lee, James E, and Bill VanPatten. Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen.

San Francisco: McGraw Hill, 2003.

Leow, Ronald, and Melissa A. Bowles. "Attention and Awareness in SLA." Adult

Second Language Acquisition: Methods, Theory, and Practice. Ed. Cristina Sanz.Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2005. 179-206.

Lightbown, Patsy. M. "Anniversary Article: Classroom SLA Research and Second

Language Teaching." Applied Linguistics 21.4 (2000): 431-462.

Long, Michael H. "The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language

Acquisition." Handbook of Second Language Acquisition: Vol. 2. Second LanguageAcquisition. Eds. W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia. New York: Academic Press, 1996.

423-468.

--, "Input, Interaction and Second Language." Native Language and Foreign Language

Acquisition. Ed. H. Winitz. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,

1981. 259-278.


18/22

Loschky, Lester, and Robert Bley-Vroman. "Grammar and Task-Based Methodology."

Tasks and Second Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice.

Eds. Graham Crookes and Susan M. Gass. Clevedon, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters,

1993. 123-167.

Mackey, Alison. "Interaction as Practice." Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives

from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Ed. Robert M. DeKeyser.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 85-110.

Mackey, Alison, and Rebekha Abbuhl. "Input and Interaction" Adult Second Language

Acquisition: Methods, Theory, and Practice. Ed. Cristina Sanz. Washington D.C.:

Georgetown University Press, 2005. 207-233.

Merlonghi, Franca Celli, et al. Oggi in Italia. 8th edition. Boston: Houghton Miffiin,

2007.

Muranoi, Hitoshi. "Output Practice in the L2 Classroom." Practice in a Second Language:

Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Ed. Robert M.DeKeyser. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 51-84.

Nunan, David. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Ortega, Lourdes. "Meaningful L2 Practice in Foreign Language Classrooms: A

Cognitive-Interactionist SLA Perspective." Practice in a Second Language: Perspectivesfrom Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Ed. Robert M. DeKeyser.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 85-110.

Pica, Teresa. "Research on Negotiation: What Does it Reveal about Second Language

Learning Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes?" Language Learning, 44 (1994): 493-

527.

Pica, Teresa, Ruth Kanagy, and Joseph Falodun. "Choosing and Using Communicative

Tasks for Second Language Instruction and Research." Tasks and Second Language

Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Eds. Graham Crookes and Susan M. Gass.Clevedon, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 1993.9-34.

Ranta, Leila. "Language Analytic Ability and Oral Production in a Second Language: IsThere a Connection?" Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Eds.

Alex Housen and Michel Pierrard. Berlin: Mouton, 2005.99-130.

Riga, Carla Larese, and Chiara Maria Dal Martello. Ciao! 6th edition. Boston: Thomson

Higher Education, 2007.

Schmidt, R. W. "The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning." Applied


19/22

Linguistics 11(1990): 129-158.

Sharwood Smith, M. "Input Enhancement in Instructed SLA: Theoretical Bases." Studiesin Second Language Acquisition 15 (1993): 165-179.

Skehan, Peter. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press, 1998.

Skehan, Peter. "Tasks and Language Performance Assessment." Researching PedagogicalTasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Eds. Martin Bygate, Peter

Skehan and Merrill Swain. London: Longman, 2001. 167185.

Swain, Merrill. "The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research." Handbook of Researchin Second Language Teaching and Learning. Ed. E. Hinkel. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum, 2005. 471-483

--, "Focus on Form through Conscious Reflection." Focus on Form in Classroom SecondLanguage Acquisition. Eds. C. Doughty and Jessica Williams. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press, 1998. 64-81.

--, "Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning." Principle and Practice in

Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson. Eds. G. Cook and B.

Seidlhofer. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1995. 124-144.

--, "Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and

Comprehensible Output in its Development." Input in Second Language Acquisition.Eds. S. Gass and C. Madden Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985.235-253.

Swain, Merrill, and Sharon Lapkin. "Focus on Form through Collaborative Dialogue:Exploring Task Effects." Researching Pedagogical Tasks: Second Language Learning,

Teaching and Testing. Eds. Martin Bygate, Peter Skehan and Merrill Swain. London:

Longman, 2001.99-118.

Tomlin, R., and V. Villa. "Attention in Cognitive Science and Second Language

Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16 (1994): 183-203.

Wajnryb, R. Grammar Dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Van den Branden, Kris. Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambride University Press, 2006.

VanPatten, Bill. "Input Processing in Adult Second Language Acquisition." Theories inSecond Language Acquistion: An Introduction. Eds. Bill VanPatten and Jessica

Williams. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007. 115-136.

VanPatten, B. "Thirty Years of Input (or Intake, the Neglected Sibling)." Social and


20/22

Cognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition. Eds. B. Swierzbin, E Morris, M. E.

Anderson, C. A. Klee, and E. Tarone. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 2000. 287-311.

NOTES

* I would like to thank Elissa Tognozzi for her insightful comments on an earlier versionof this paper. I also thank my co-author, Diane Musumeci, who, during our years of

collaboration on Avanti!, bas helped refine and focus my ideas about second language

acquisition and instructional techniques. I, however, assume sole responsibility for thecontents of this paper.

(1) The cornerstones of research on noticing, attention and awareness are Schmidt (129-

158); Sharwood Smith (165-179); Tomlin and Villa (183-203).

(2) See Swain (Communicative Competence; Three Functions; Focus on Form; The

Output Hypothesis).

(3) See Long (The Linguistic Environment; Input, Interaction).

(4) The Interaction Hypothesis continues to be explored by others (Gass; Gass and

Mackey 175-199; Pica 493-527; Mackey 85-110; Mackey and Abbuhl 207-233).

(5) Research suggests that the best type of feedback that pushes learners to modify theirlanguage and thus refine their interlanguage system is asking open-ended clarification

questions, such as "What?" or "Could you say that again?" rather than confirmation

checks, such as "Books, did you say books?" which only require a yes/no response (Pica,Kanagy and Falodun 32).

(6) Structured Input activities are part of the model of Processing Instruction, in whichlearners are first given information about the linguistic structure and are then informed

about a processing strategy that may negatively affect how they learn/acquire the form.

This is followed by the structured input activities. For an introduction to the techniques ofProcessing Instruction, see Lee & Van Patten (chap. 7).

(7) VanPatten (298) has explored the nature of form-meaning relationships, and has

developed the notion of communicative value to represent "the degree to which a formalfeature of language contributes to overall comprehension of a sentence's referential

meaning."

(8) Learners also have to form the past participle based on the infinitive -are, -ere-, -ire.

This feature is not examined here. See Aski (338-340) for examples of other structures

that lack communicative value.

(9) Although some verbs, such as correre, may be either transitive or intransi tive (e.g.

passare 'to spend (time) or stop at,' salire 'to board or climb,' scendere 'to go down,'

cambiare 'to change,' cominciare 'to begin,' finire 'to end, finish,' saltare 'to jump,' volare


21/22

'to fly'), both forms are not frequent enough in the input at the elementary level to create

confusion for low-proficiency learners.

(10) Another common approach is to categorize intransitives as verbs of motion, which is

also confusing for students who point out that eating involves motion, or that the

relatively frequent verbs 'to run,' 'to walk,' 'to travel,' and 'to swim' should take be.

(11) Fotos (Integrating Grammar; Structure-Based), R. Ellis (Interpretation-Based;

Interpretation Tasks), and Fotos and R. Ellis (189-208) propose consciousness-raisinggrammar tasks, in which the focus is on "... constructing various problem-solving tasks

that require learners to consciously analyze data in order to arrive at an explicit

representation of the target structure" (Fotos and Ellis 192-193). In this model grammar is

the task, in that learners analyze examples and communicate and interact with each otherabout the data in order to discover rules. However, Fotos and Ellis suggest these activities

for the intermediate level, when students are better able to communicate in the L2.

(12) Activity C can be expanded by adding a second phase to the activity in whichstudents form complete sentences using the phrases created in the first phase.

(13) Task-based language teaching can be a curricular choice (see Van den Branden chap.

2 for a discussion of a variety of aspects of task-based language teaching) or a particular

type of activity. This study deals with the latter.

(14) Ellis (9-10), who outlines the features of meaning-based tasks, points out that this

workplan may require the learner to engage in an activity that is found in the real world

(such as filling in a form) and may require learners to use all four skills, as well ascognitive processes such as selecting, classifying, ordering, reasoning and evaluating

information.

(15) Notice that in some phases of controlled tasks learners use structures other than the

one that is targeted.

(16) If an information gap activity is one-way (only one person seeks and finds

information) it no longer falls into this category because only one participant is

manipulating the information.

(17) An example of a dictogloss is provided in Appendix B.

(18) Tasks in which the information was familiar to the participants because it was part oftheir personal experience resulted in only slightly greater fluency and no measurable

difference in accuracy or complexity.

(19) The language practice activities in most Italian textbooks focus on output. In fact, an

analysis of the grammar practice activities of the first rive chapters of four popular Italian

textbooks (Parliamo Italiano!, Oggi in Italia, Ciao! and Prego!) reveals that input

activities are not part of the language practice sequence in any of the texts. Parliamo


22/22

Italiano! (Branciforte and Grassi) uses recognition activities sporadically to practice

vocabulary, and in the first rive chapters there are two recognition activities to practice

grammar. In Prego! (Lazzarino, Dini and Peccianti) there are four recognition activities topractice grammar in the first rive chapters. One of the most recent texts on the market,

Percorsi (Italiano and Marchegiani), incorporates activities into grammar practice that

require learners to listen for information (not necessarily the structure examined) andsporadically employs matching activities. Structured Input and Form-Form activities are

not provided. Avanti! (Aski and Musumeci) is the first text to systematically include

input activities of the Structured Input/ Form-Form type in both vocabulary and grammarpractice activities.

(20) This sequence of activity types is employed in the elementary Italian text, Avanti!

(Aski and Musumeci)--which is the source of the sample activities that appear in thisarticle. In Avant! the practice of each grammatical structure begins with input activities

and progresses from word-level to phrase-level output. Traditional tasks appear at the end

of each chapter (the Parliamo! task), when learners have had adequate exposure to the

vocabulary and structures and are ready to work toward more discourse-like language.COPYRIGHT 2009 American Association of Teachers of Italian

No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission fromthe copyright holder.

Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

45111980-The-Impact-of-Second-Language-Acquisition-Research-on-Language-Practice-Activities

Documents