Teacher- and learner-led discourse as Teacher- and learner-led discourse as tools for L2 grammatical development tools for L2 grammatical development in task-based Spanish instruction in task-based Spanish instruction Paul D. Toth University of Wisconsin-Madison [email protected]2007 TLBT Conference, University of Hawai’i
39
Embed
Teacher- and learner-led discourse as tools for L2 grammatical development in task-based Spanish instruction Paul D. Toth University of Wisconsin-Madison.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Teacher- and learner-led discourse as Teacher- and learner-led discourse as
tools for L2 grammatical development tools for L2 grammatical development
in task-based Spanish instructionin task-based Spanish instruction
Teacher- and learner-led discourse as Teacher- and learner-led discourse as
tools for L2 grammatical development tools for L2 grammatical development
in task-based Spanish instructionin task-based Spanish instruction
• Provision of comprehensible L2 input via: Modifications to instructional speech or materials Opportunities for learner negotiation
• Attention directed to L2 form-meaning relationships
via: Salience in instructional speech or materials Explicit, metalinguistic information about the L2 Feedback on learner performance
• Opportunities for L2 output (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2000) Learners “pushed” to encode meaning in morphosyntax Test hypotheses about L2 form-meaning relationships Notice gaps in L2 grammar Conceptualize L2 grammar through “metatalk”
• Strengths: More like real world communication (Nunan, 1987) Participatory structure more suitable for negotiation, especially during “information gap” tasks (Pica, 1987; Pica et al., 1993)
More discourse turns per learner = more opportunities for negotiation (Lee, 2000; Long & Porter, 1985)
Greater linguistic autonomy and self-regulation (van Lier, 1996)
Learners assist each other during task performance (Donato, 1994; Swain, 1998, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1995)
• Weaknesses: Learners often produce minimal utterances
(Seedhouse, 1999)
Learners are poor L2 models for each other (Prabhu, 1987)
Learners prefer to focus on lexical rather than morphosyntactic L2 issues when negotiating (Buckwalter, 2001; Morris, 2002; Williams, 1999)
• Suggested Remedies: Make target forms “useful” or “essential” to task performance (Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993; Fotos, 2002)
Precede tasks with pre-task warm-up to orient learners to necessary language; follow tasks with post-task activity to lend accountability to learner performance (Skehan, 1996, 1998)
Design whole-class activities as collaborative communication tasks, rather than mechanical grammar drills (DeKeyser, 1998; Wong & VanPatten, 2003)
Teachers should build their turns upon topical content of learner utterances, as “follow up” moves (Johnson, 1995; Toth, 2004; Wells, 1998)
Solicit multiple learner responses to teacher questions before moving onto another question (Toth)
Motivation for comparing TLD & LLDMotivation for comparing TLD & LLDMotivation for comparing TLD & LLDMotivation for comparing TLD & LLD
• Importance of interlocutors and interaction in L2 acquisition
• Little previous research: Pica (1987), Doughty & Pica (1986): More negotiation for
LLD in “information exchange” tasks; similar amounts of negotiation in more open-ended “collaborative discussion”
Fotos (1993, 1994): TLD and LLD classes perform nearly equally, with TLD group “noticing” one of target structures more frequently
• Calls for further research: Pica (1994): Benefits of negotiated interaction in
learner dyads need to be supported by quantitative assessments of learning outcomes
DeKeyser (2003), Doughty (2003), Pica (2005): Quantitative studies of learning outcomes through LLD negotiation need to be conducted in ecologically-valid classroom contexts, rather than only in laboratory settings.
Spanish Spanish seseSpanish Spanish sese
a. Ellos prepararon la comida.
AGENT PATIENT “They prepared the food.”
b. Ellos prepararon la comida.
AGENT PATIENT
“They prepared the food.”c.c. Ellos cocinaron la Ellos cocinaron la
comida.comida.
AGENT AGENT
PATIENTPATIENT
“ “They cooked the They cooked the
food.” food.”
Se used to derive intransitive syntax from a transitive verb (Dobrobie-Sorin, 1998; Montrul, 2004; Raposo & Uriagereka, 1996)
“anticausative se”
Ellos se prepararon.
AGENT
“They prepared themselves / each
other.”
X
X
X
Se preparó la comida.
PATIENT
“The food was prepared / One prepared
food.”
SeSe cocinó la comida. cocinó la comida. PATIENTPATIENT
Research QuestionsResearch QuestionsResearch QuestionsResearch Questions
• Question 1: Will LLD provide an advantage in grammaticality judgments for Spanish anticausative se when compared to TLD?
• Question 2: Will LLD provide an advantage over TLD in performance with anticausative se on sentence-level picture descriptions?
• Question 3: Will excerpts of classroom interactions reveal differences in the way learners in each group attend to the form-meaning relationships associated with anticausative se and use the target form for output?
6 intact classes of 2nd semester beginning L2 Spanish in two large, public American universities with identical Spanish curriculums. Each group comprised of two classes.
• Experimental Design: Pre-test, Immediate posttest Delayed posttest (24 days after instruction)
• Two test versions, piloted on two native speakers, and randomly assigned to learners. Then rotated over the three test administrations Grammaticality judgment (GJ) task Picture description task
• Lesson on “se of unplanned occurrences” recorded and transcribed in each group
a. Student 1: ¿Qué pasó? Es. . . [Student 3 indicates the windows] Ah, ok. Se, um…se, se, cerraron. (Um, I don’t know. What happened? It’s… Ah, ok. They [se], [se] closed.)
b. Student 2: ¿Cierran? (They close?)
c. Student 1: Cierre, so past tense would be ‘cerraron’. Sí. Las ventanas se cerraron. (‘It closes’ so past tense would be ‘they closed’. Yes , the windows closed.)
…
q. Student 2: En-, entonces, ¿«se cierre»? Porque— (So, so ‘it closes’ [using the form with diphthong]? Because—)
r. Student 1: Um, ‘se cerrió’, I think, is past tense. Cause you don’t, you don’t con—, like in the present tense it’s ‘cierro’, but in the past tense it’s ‘cerró’.
s. Student 3: No cambias, ah, el “root”, “root”, stem— (You don’t change the “root”, “root”, stem—)
t. Student 1: —el verbo, sí, en el pasado. Okay, so, se cerró la puerta en tu dibujo. (—the verb, yes, in the past. Okay, so the door closed in your drawing.)
a. Teacher: Venga, vamos a ver. ¿Qué ocurrió durante la tormenta? ¿Qué ocurrió? Sí. (Okay, let's see. What happened during the storm? What happened? Yes?)
b. Student 4: Um, la ventana se, um abrió. (Um, the window, [se] um opened)
c. Teacher: Bien. En el dibujo B, ¿verdad? En el dibujo B la ventana se abrió. En el dibujo A, ¿qué? (Good. In drawing B, right? In drawing B the window [se] opened. In drawing A, what?)
d. Student 4: En el dibujo A, la ventana… (In drawing A the window…)
e. Teacher: Sí…¿Se abrió? No. Se… (Yes…Did it [se] open? No. It [se]…)
f. Student 4: No, se…ce-, ce-, cerró. (No, it [se]…cl-, cl- closed.)
3. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse (cont.)g. Teacher: Perfecto…En el dibujo A se cerró la ventana y en el dibujo B, se abrió. ¿Más? Jim. (Perfect…In drawing A the window [se] closed and in drawing B it [se] opened. What else? Jim.)
h. Student 5: Um, en B, la luz, uh, ca-, uh, cayó. (Um, in B, the light, uh, f-, uh, fell [incorrect omission of se].)
i. Teacher: S— [making a falling gesture with her hands, and then pointing toward another learner with his hand up.]
5. TLD whole-class collaborative discoursea. Student 1: Um, en dibujo A, um, la lluvia— (Um in drawing A, um, the rain—)
b. Teacher: —Mm-hm—
c. Student 1: —[pause] ¿Se?— (got)
d. Teacher: No sé. Venga, venga. La lluvia ¿qué? (I don’t know. Come on, come on. The rain what?)
e. Student 1: mojó. (wet)
f. Teacher: ¿La lluvia se mojó? (The rain got wet?)
g. Student 1: Mm-hm.
h. Teacher: ¿La lluvia se mojó [making a motion with her hands back toward herself] ? Eso es muy metafísico. Eso es muy, como, misticismo. ¿Cómo que la lluvia—? La lluvia no se mojó
[again, making a motion with her hands back toward herself]. La luvia, a sí misma.
(The rain got wet [making a motion with her hands back toward herself] ? That is very metaphsyical. It’s very, like, mysticism. How could the rain—? The rain didn’t get itself
wet [again, making a motion with her hands back toward herself]. The rain, to itself.)
5. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse (cont.)i. Student 1: ¿Mojó? Mojó. It wet? It wet.
j. Teacher: La lluvia mojó [making a motion with her hands as if putting the parts of a sentence together linearly] ¿qué?
(The rain got what wet [making a motion with her hands as if putting the parts of a sentence together linearly]?)
k. Student 1: ¿Cómo se dice «carpet»? (How do you say “carpet”?)
l. Teacher: ¿Cómo se dice? (How do you say it?)
m. Student 2: El alfombro (The carpet)
n. Teacher: Alfombra. Muy bien. La alfombra. La lluvia mojó la alfombra. O ¿la alfombra? (Carpet. Ver y good. The carpet. The rain got the carpet wet. Or the carpet?)
o. Student 1: Se mojó. (Got wet.)
p. Teacher: Perfecto. La alfombra se mojó. (Perfect. The carpet got wet.)
6. LLD information gap activitya. Student 1: Ok, you could say, maybe, ‘Se, se entra viento en la casa’, like— (Ok, you could say, maybe, ‘the wind [se], [se] enters the house, like—)
b. Student 3: Se, uh, entró, ¿verdad? (It [se], uh, entered, right?)
c. Student 1: Se entró viento en la casa. (The wind [se] entered the house.)
d. Student 3: Se entró. (It [se] entered.)
e. Student 2: Oh, se— ¿Se entró? (Oh, [se]— It [se] entered?)
f. Student 1: Se entró. Oh, but would you use ‘se’ with that? (It [se] entered. Oh but would you use ‘se’ with that?)
g. Student 2: You wouldn’t.
h. Student 1: No, because that’s a subject. Right. Viento entré, entró en la casa. (Wind enter, entered the house.)
p. Student 1: Oh, para—mojar, mojar, mojar . Er, no, no, no. Moverse. That’s it. (Oh, for—to wet, to wet, to wet. Er, no, no, no. To move. That’s it.)
q. Student 3: Mo—
r. Student 1: Moverse.
s. Student 3: [writing down the spelling] Eme, o, ve,
[All three help with spelling of the verb]…
t. Student 2: Se movió la sofá— (The sofa [se] moved—)
u. Student 1: Se movió— (It [se] moved—)
v. Student 2: a la derecha. (to the right.)
w. Student 1: a la derecha. Muy bien, Raúl. Eres muy inteligente…¡Hoy! [laughs]. (to the right. Ver y good, Raúl. You’re very intelligent…Today!)
7. LLD Information gap activity (cont.)
DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussion
• Under the best circumstances, learner’s attention to target forms may be limited in LLD:
Developmental needs that focus attention other areas of L2 morphosyntax
Widely-observed tendency to focus on lexis rather than morphosyntax, and to prioritize getting meaning across over formal accuracy
Preference for self-correction rather than other-correction (Buckwalter, 2001; Seedhouse, 2004)
Participatory roles that, while increasing turn-taking, do not authorize individuals to assist in procedures for making output
DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussion
• In TLD, attention to target forms may be more consistent Provision of accurate input models and cues for using target form
Feedback centers on target form Cumulative benefit of feedback to others, if relevance is maintained across discourse turns
Participatory roles allow teacher-expert to directly assist learners in formulating utterances
Following Ohta (2001), potential for collaborative listeners to indirectly realize output benefits if they are cognitively engaged.
DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussion
• Teachers as providers of procedural assistance in output processing:
Assistance with linguistic task of utterance formulation and morphosyntactic assembly, rather than conceptual or analytical “scaffolding” (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).
Proactive, simultaneous assistance to learner rather than reactive and subsequent feedback, as in clarification requests, confirmation checks, or recasts. (Long, 1981, 1996).
Assistance utilizing L2 morphosyntax that is more complex than the learner’s extant interlanguage, OR
Useable metalinguistic information that can guide learners toward incorporating new forms into their L2 speech.
DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussion
• Hypothesized benefits of procedural assistance
Some current models of language processing hold that hierarchical morphosyntactic relationships are computed on-line, during comprehension or production (Harrington, 2001; Juffs, 2004; Pritchett, 1992)
Parsing, or processing, L2 form-meaning relationships may be key to a transition theory that explains how the L2 linguistic properties become incorporated into interlanguage grammars. (Carroll, 2001; Gregg, 2001; Pienemann, 1999)
Procedural assistance may allow learners to implement, or “proceduralize,” the declarative L2 metalinguistic knowledge they have, increasing the complexity of L2 utterances that they can process
If learners are able to assemble more complex utterances with the assistance of an expert, this may facilitate incorporation of these structures into the implicit L2 grammatical system.
ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesAdair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (1994). Foreign language explanations within the Zone of Proximal Development. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 50, 532-557. Antón, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the
second-language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83, 303-318. Brooks, F. B. (1993). Some problems and caveats in 'communicative' discourse: Toward a conceptualization of the foreign language
classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 231-242. Buckwalter, P. (2001). Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: A descriptive study. Modern Language Journal, 85, 380-
397. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks:
Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 1-20). Harlow, UK: Longman. Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 311-348). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Dobrobie-Sorin, C. (1998). Impersonal se constructions in Romance and passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 399-437. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to
second language learning (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). "Information gap" tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-
325. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction.
Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-403. Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks.
TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351. Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on
grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 135-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gregg, K. R. (2001). Learnability and second language acquisition theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 152-180). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hall, J. K. (1995). "Aw man, where you goin'?": Interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 6, 37-62. Hall, J. K. (2004). "Practicing speaking" in Spanish: Lessons from a high school foreign language classroom. In D. Boxer & A. D.
Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 68-87). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesHarrington, M. (2001). Sentence processing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 91-124).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102,
199-225. Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill. Leemann-Guthrie, E. (1984). Intake, communication, and second-language teaching. In S. Savignon & M. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in
communicative language teaching: A book of readings. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences: Vol. 379. Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language
learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-163). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. McCormick, D. E., & Donato, R. (2000). Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S.
Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 183-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Montrul, S. (2004). The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult
L2 acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41, 136-145. Nunan, D. (1990). The questions teachers ask. JALT Journal, 12, 187-202. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In J.
K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3-21. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning, processes and outcomes? Language
Learning, 44, 493-527.
ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesPica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective. Modern Language Journal, 89, 339-352. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language acquisition. In G. Crookes &
S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pienemann, M. (1999). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Raposo, E., & Uriagereka, J. (1996). Indefinite SE. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 749-810. Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53, 149-156. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development.
In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in
applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom
second language acquisition (pp. 64-82). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language
learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391. To th, P. D. (2004). When grammar instruction undermines cohesion in L2 Spanish classroom discourse. Modern Language Journal,
88, 14-30. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London: Longman. Wells, G. (1998). Some questions about direct instruction: Why? To whom? How? and When? Language Arts, 76(1), 27-35. Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583-625. Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 403-423. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,