Fotos and Ellis - Communicating ABout Grammar A Task Based Approach PDF

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
(TESOL)
Communicating about Grammar: A Task-Based Approach Author(s): Sandra Fotos and Rod Ellis Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Winter, 1991), pp. 605-628 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587079 . Accessed: 28/09/2013 12:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:45:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Vol.25, No.4, Winter TESOL QUARTERLY, 1991
AboutGrammar: Communicating A Task-BasedApproach

SANDRA FOTOS and ROD ELLIS TempleUniversity Japan
Providinglearnerswith grammar problemsthey must solve with instruction for interactively grammar opportunities integrates This the results of an communication. article reports meaningful oftheuse of a communicative, grammar-based exploratory study The two research taskin the collegeEFL classroom. questions addressed arewhether thetask L2 linguistic successfully promoted and whether it produced of a specific grammar knowledge point the kind of negotiated whichhas been assumedto interaction L2 acquisition. facilitate The limited results of thisinvestigation thatthegrammar taskencouraged communication about suggest EFL and enabled learners to increase their of grammar knowledge a difficult L2 rule. A continuing controversy in second language pedagogy is whether grammarshould be taught.On the one hand, there are thosewho adopt a "zero position."They maintainthatthe teaching of grammar has onlya minimaleffect on theacquisitionof linguistic in a second Krashen competence language. (1985), for instance, that takes when are exposed learners argues acquisitiononly place to roughly tunedinputwhich theyare able to comprehendand that is limitedto a few simpleportablerules.On theotherhand, learning there are those who argue for grammarteaching. White (1987) claims thatsome grammaticalformscannot be acquired solely on the basis of comprehensibleinputand thatformalinstruction may be necessary to ensure that learnersobtain the data theyneed to acquire theseforms. In contrastto the disagreementover the role of grammarteaching, thereis now broad agreementthatlearnersneed opportunities to engage in communication based on an exchange of information. in learners Having participate a varietyof tasks which encourage themto negotiatemeaningwhen communication problems arise is considered essential, both to ensure that they obtain sufficient comprehensibleinputfor the acquisitionof linguistic competence
605
(Long, 1983), and to provide the real operatingconditionsneeded to develop the kind of strategic competence which is necessaryfor the developmentof fluency(Brumfit, 1984). The purpose of thisarticleis to demonstrate thatit is possible to of with the the integrate teaching grammar provisionof opportunities for communication involving an exchange of information. Learners are given grammartasks which they solve interactively (see Dickens & Woods, 1988). Followinga discussionof theroles of formal instruction and communicativelanguage teaching in L2 acquisition,thispaper reportson an exploratory studydesigned to whetherthiskind of taskis successfulin developing L2 investigate which thekindof interaction linguistic knowledgeand in promoting L2 acquisition. is believed to facilitate THE ROLE OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION IN L2 ACQUISITION Bialystock (1981) hypothesizes that learners formulate two distinct kinds of knowledge, "explicit"and "implicit"(p. 34). The formerrefers to knowledge that is analyzed and abstract. It is so that,if called available to learnersas a conscious representation, it is able to what that learners are say theyknow. Explicit upon, the same as is not metalinguisticknowledge (i.e., knowledge knowledge of grammaticalterms),although this may help in its articulation. Implicit knowledge refers to knowledge that is and procedural.It is not consciouslyavailable to learners. intuitive Native speakers,forexample, are generallyunable to describe the rules they use to constructactual sentences. Both explicit and but thereare implicitknowledge can be used in communication, Effectiveparticipalimitson learners'abilityto access the former. tion in face-to-faceconversation,for instance, requires implicit knowledge. A key issue is the relationshipbetween explicit and implicit whetherthe two types of knowledge are knowledge, in particular, completely distinct(Krashen, 1981) or whetherone type changes into the other (Sharwood Smith,1981). The position we wish to adopt lies somewhere in between these. Our position is based on on of formalinstruction the effects studieswhichhave investigated the acquisition of grammaticalknowledge. (For detailed reviews, see Ellis, 1990,and Long, 1988.) These studiessuggestthe following conclusions: tentative 1. Formal instruction helps to promote more rapid L2 acquisition and also contributesto higherlevels of ultimateachievement (Long, 1988).
606 TESOL QUARTERLY
which governwhether constraints 2. There are psycholinguistic learners rulesresult to teach in specificgrammatical attempts if the succeed instruction Formal may implicitknowledge. a stageinthedevelopmental havereached learners sequencethat to processthetarget structure enablesthem 1984). (Pienemann, have notreachedthe it willnotsucceediflearners Conversely, stage. requisite developmental Thereis theseconstraints. to overcome is notsufficient 3. Practice no clear evidence to suggestthathaving learnersproduce initsacquisition structure results modelthetarget sentences that Ellis(1984), Schumann Studies as implicit (1978), knowledge. by that formal instruction and Kadia (1988),amongothers, suggest structures or difficult directedat developmental grammatical in spontaneous has littleeffect on performance languageuse. here that are to structures refers (The termdevelopmental a passingthrough acquired in stagesand involvethe learner thetarget oftransitional structure. series phasesbefore mastering are negatives and Examples of developmentalstructures interrogatives.) at relainstruction 4. It is possible, thatformal directed however, rules(suchas plural and third-person tively simplegrammatical in developingimplicit -s or copula be) will be successful forms do not as such themastery ofcomplex knowledge, require (Pica, 1983;Pienemann, processing 1984). operations 5. Formalinstruction is effective in developing explicit knowledge of grammatical features. Thereis substantial tosuggest evidence if thatformal instruction is successful thelearning outcomes are measured thatallowsforcontrolled, by meansof an instrument a sentence-joining test, plannedlanguageuse (e.g., an imitation task,or a grammaticality judgment task). It is in thiskindof are able to draw on theirexplicit languageuse thatlearners Studies Kadia knowledge. (1988); Lightbown, by Spada, and Wallance(1980);Schumann and Zobl (1978); (1985) all support sucha conclusion. 6. Formal instruction may work best in promoting acquisition withopportunities whenit is linked fornatural communication (Spada, 1987). Ellis (1990) suggests thatthemainmechanism by whichformal instructionworks is by developing explicit knowledge of features toacquire which, grammatical subsequently, helpslearners
implicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge contributes to L2
COMMUNICATING ABOUT GRAMMAR 607
intwomajorways.First, abouta grammatical feaacquisition knowing turemakesthelearner morelikelyto noticethatfeature in inputand, to acquireit as implicit therefore, knowledge.Butimplicit knowledge willnotbe achieveduntil learners are readyto integrate theL2 feature intotheir and,in manycases,thiswillbe subject interlanguage systems to developmental constraints. Second,explicit knowledgecan be used to construct whichthenserveas inputforthelanplannedutterances, mechanisms. The role of explicitknowledge,howguage processing on how much ever, is a limitedone because thereare restrictions can learn.As indicatedabove, explicitknowledgethe typicallearner formal can accelerateknowledge instruction whilefailing to contribute to features.Also, directly implicitknowledge of specificlinguistic role in communicative explicitknowledgeplays only a "monitoring" This is a use. itaccelerates because the role,however, language positive of and be even process acquiringimplicit knowledge may necessary fortheacquisition of certain kindsof grammatical rulesthatevidence suggests(Hammerly,1987) cannot be acquired solely by means of communicative inputderivedfrom languageuse. This model,shownschematically in Figure1,has a number of impliinstruction. it suggests cationsforformal thatthegoal of formal First, instruction shouldbe directedat explicitrather thanimplicit knowlformal instruction edge. Although maysucceed in developingimplicit 4 above) and also of develknowledgeof simplerules(see Conclusion opmental rules if the learneris ready for these (see Conclusion 2 above), it is notpossibleto predicteasilyand withsufficient precision have been met.At the present when theseconditions time,it is more theformal to limit instruction to explicit useful, therefore, knowledge.
FIGURE 1 A Model of Instructed Second Language Acquisition
formal instruction explicit
I
input via communication
knowledge
I
1 output
implicit knowledge
608
TESOL QUARTERLY
should be Second, Ellis' model suggeststhat formalinstruction thatlearnersknow about a targetstructure directedat ensuring and can monitorwith it (i.e., consciouslycorrecttheirown erroneous output) but not at enabling them to use the structurein free communication.This in turn suggeststhat the kind of grammar teaching that is required is one thataims at consciousness-raising rather than practice. Most traditionalapproaches to grammar to teachingare based on providingthe learnerswith opportunities use the target structure, first in controlled production, and subsequently in free or communicativepractice (see Ur, 1988). These opportunities constitute "practice."The approach we have in mind is one that downplays the role of productionand, instead, One way in which emphasizes the role of cognitiveunderstanding. this can be achieved is by constructing various problem-solving tasks thatrequire learnersto consciouslyanalyze data in order to arriveat an explicitrepresentation of thetargetfeature. this model thatformalinstruction needs Third, proposed suggests to be accompanied by instruction withopporthatprovideslearners tunities forauthentic communication (see Conclusion6 above). COMMUNICATIVELANGUAGETEACHING AND SECOND IANGUAGEACQUISITION One of the main aims of communicative language teachingis to for to learners provide opportunities participate in interaction where the primary is to thanto learn goal exchangemeaningrather the L2. How does thishelp acquisition? The interaction advanced by Long (1983) claims that hypothesis the comprehensible which resultsfromattempts to negotiate input communication difficultieshelps to make salient grammatical features which are problematic to learners and thus facilitates acquisition. Long emphasizes the importance of interactional adjustments in two-way communication. Examples of such adjustmentsare comprehensionchecks (e.g., D'you know what I mean?) and clarificationrequests (e.g., What do you mean by of some communi?). Exchangeswhichinvolvetheresolution cation problem by means of such adjustmentsare believed to promote acquisition.AlthoughLong does not make the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge, it is clear from his thatby "acquisition"he is referring to implicit writings knowledge. The comprehensibleoutput hypothesishas been proposed by Swain (1985) as a complementto Long's interaction It hypothesis. claims that learnersneed the opportunity for pushed output (i.e., output that is precise, coherent,and situationally appropriate) in
order to develop advanced levels of grammatical competence. with & Cummins classrooms Swain,Harley, Allen, (1990)showthat abundantcomprehensible classrooms, input,such as immersion affordmany opportunities for such pushed may not typically Thismayexplain often fail learners learner output. whyimmersion such as the to acquire certainmarked grammatical features, and pass& compose. Pica, betweenFrenchimparfait distinction (1989) have observed that Holliday, Lewin, & Morgenthaler to respond whenthey arerequired learners producepushedoutput to clarification requests. A task-basedapproach to language pedagogy can provide which have been for the kinds of interaction opportunities suggestedto promoteacquisition.Long (1989) proposes four ofdifferent tasktypes: theeffectiveness regarding general points of meaning thanone1. Two-waytasks producemorenegotiation make the exchangeof meaning way tasks,since the former thelatter do not. whereas obligatory, about their where learners 2. Planned tasks, speechorthink prepare than more willsaybeforehand, whatthey negotiation encourage tasks. unplanned 3. Closed tasks,where thereis a definitesolutionor ending, thanopen tasks,wherethereis no producemore negotiation clearresolution. must agree on a 4. Convergent tasks,where the participants where thandivergent morenegotiation tasks, solution, promote viewsarepermitted. different in languagepedagogyis of a task-based The adoption approach work(see Nunan,1989).A closelylinkedto theuse of pair/group workconductedby Long and on pair/group of research survey Porter (1985), togetherwith the resultsof studies by other & Pica, 1986;Pica & Doughty, researchers 1985;Porter, (Doughty produce 1986; Rulon & McCreary, 1986),indicatethatlearners and do notspeak morein pair/group sentences, work,use longer lessons. thantheydo in teacher-fronted any less grammatically the task that Learnersalso negotiatemeaningmore, provided is One information though, that disadvantage, exchange. requires be less learners from other receive theinput grammatical may they from theteacher. obtain than whatthey TASKSFOR COMMUNICATION GRAMMAR can be and communicative Formalinstruction teaching language to tasksdesigned promote theuse of grammar through integrated
610 TESOL QUARTERLY
communicationabout grammar.These grammartasks have two primaryaims: to develop explicitknowledge of L2 grammatical featuresand to provide opportunities forinteraction focused on an exchange of information.They can be completed in teacherdirectedlessons or theycan be used in pair/groupworkin orderto fornegotiating increase opportunities meaning. Grammartaskswill need to aim at raisingthelearner'sconsciousness about the grammatical of the L2. The taskswill not properties be designed to provide multiple opportunities for producing sentencescontaining thetargetfeatures. thatoccurs Anyproduction will be incidentaland notdirectedat "acquiring"thetarget features, only at "learning" them. Also, the grammar tasks will need to incorporate a multiway information gap which requires the in order to reach an agreed solutionto a exchange of information The tasks will be problem. designed so that they are closed, i.e., thereis a singlesolution. An example of such a task is shown in the appendices. The task consistsof fourtaskcards (AppendixA) and a tasksheet(Appendix and ungrammatical B). The taskcards lista numberof grammatical sentencesillustrating the use of dative verbs. They specifywhich sentences are correct and which are incorrect.The task sheet provides the learners with some basic grammaticalinformation concerningdative verbs and also supplies them with some useful metalinguisticterminology(e.g., direct and indirect object). In addition, the task sheet contains a chart to fill in for each of the verbs for which data has been supplied. Finally, it instructs the learnersto formulate threerulesabout the different kindsof dative verbs in termsof the sentencepatterns theypermit.This task was designed for use in pairs or groups of four learners.It required learnersto (a) exchangetheinformation on their taskcards in order to complete the chart on the task sheet, (b) talk about the in order to agree on the results,and (c) reportto the information class the rulestheyhad formulated. The studywhichwe now reportwas based on thistask.It was set up to investigate to what extent the task was successful in of how dative verbsworkand developing an explicitunderstanding also whetherthe taskproduced the kindof interactions whichhave been suggestedto facilitate L2 acquisition. THE STUDY
Thetworesearch addressed were: questions 1. Is studyof a specific feature linguistic (dativealternation)

through performance of a grammartaskas effective as studyof
the same featurethroughtraditional, teacher-fronted grammar as measured by test scores on a grammaticality instruction, judgmenttest? 2. Is the grammarconsciousness-raising task used here interactive in the sense that its performanceresultsin the same kinds and which have been reported quantityof interactional adjustments in other studies based on two-way information-gap tasks performedin pairs/groups (see Doughty& Pica, 1986)? Subjectsand Design The subjects forthisresearchwere two groups of Japanese EFL college students:first-year English language majors at a women's to determined be intermediate level on the basis of juniorcollege, scores of the subtest listening MichiganEnglishPlacementTest and the listeningand grammar subtest scores of the Comprehensive BusinessAdministraEnglishLanguage Test (CELT), and first-year tion majors, predominantlymale, at a private 4-year university. Standardized testscores were not available forthe latter group,but these studentswere considered to be "basic level," havingreceived scores below 60% on a departmentlisteningexam. In each case, students from two Oral English classes were combined and assignedto one of threegroupson a randombasis. In one group,the and dyads by groupsof fourstudents grammartaskwas performed in one classroom,and all participationpatternswere audiotaped. (Students were divided into two participation patterns to of Doughty& Pica, 1986,who reportedthat the findings investigate to produce more negotiationsthan did of students tended pairs In another classroom, a traditional, teacher-fronted groups.) was lesson presented in English by the native-speaker grammar instructor to the second group; the lesson was audiotaped only at The remainingstudentsserved as the controlgroup the university. in a separate classroomduring and worked on a readingassignment the treatments. data sheets,and data cards The design of the pre- and posttests, As several mentioned,the problematic grammar steps. required This refers to thepositionof featureselected was dative alternation. the indirect object in the sentence. There are three patternsof indirect object placement in English verbs. The first allows placement of the indirect object either after the verb or as a prepositionalphraseat theend of thesentence(I gave herthebook; I gave the book to her). The second patternpermitsplacement of is the theindirect phraseand generally object onlyas a prepositional case withLatinateverbs (The teacherpronouncedthe word forthe
612 TESOL QUARTERLY
is applicableonlyto a limited The third set of students). pattern ask and such as the verb necessitates verbs, meaninginquire, theverb (She after of theindirect objectimmediately placement a question). askedtheteacher instudent on thebasisofobserved errors Ten verbswereselected 20 test of 2 and a sentences, usage, judgment pilotgrammaticality A was test was chosen verb, per judgment designed. grammaticality as our measure of language proficiency because, as we have instruments which allow controlled, planned suggested, testing In thepilotstudy, the use of language knowledge. promote explicit thetest was administered to 18 second-year women's college junior were then These students English majors. givena pilottasksheet whichlisted and required thestudents to theverbsused on thetest the two the of rules indirect generate explaining possibleposition under theappropriate rule.The objectand to place theverbsgiven in of students the task and two were performed groups four, groups for counts. taped negotiation was obligatory sinceeach student had a taskcard Negotiation withfivesentences or incorrect markedcorrect whichshe had to read to theother who notedtheposition of the groupmembers, indirect their on task sheets. were observed to object Negotiations consist of comprehension clarification confirmachecks, requests, tion checks,and repetitions as students to and triedto listened understand the sentences and checked whether beingread, they werecorrect or incorrect. After students the which performed task, took 30 minutes, the same testwas givenagain as a posttest. A for was difference obtained and scores significant preposttest counts weregreater than15 for df = 17,p < .001)and negotiation each group. The testwas thenredesigned to excludeitemswhichwere not the task and sheet and task cards were rewritten. problematic 2 and 3 the final form of thetasksheetand task Figures display and the cards, grammaticality judgmenttest is included in C. These were administered tothetwogroups ofsubjects Appendix describedabove. Two weeks after each grammar the treatment, same testwas administered as a final test to measure again longerterm learning. The content ofthetraditional lessonwas identical tothe grammar information on the task sheet and task cards and took the given sameamount of timeto cover-20 minutes. The teacher wrotethe correct and incorrect sentences on theboard and pointedout the of theindirect thestudents whether placement object,asking they thesentences were correct or incorrect. The teacher then thought
m = 19.17,paired t = -10.825, (n = 18, pretestm = 15.94,posttest
providedtheanswerand, at theend of thelesson,wroteout the threerules governing indirect and indicated object placement, whichverbs fiteach rule. The board was thenerased,and the administered. posttest Audio recordings were made of all groupsand dyads and, for transcribed for10 minutes from were thesamestarting consistency, on the the first all of sentence. reading Negotiations point tapes, toconsist ofthefollowing: wereconsidered 1. Clarification when theyhaven't requests,made by listeners or What is Which understood oneis correct?) (e.g., question? made by listeners whenthey believethey 2. Confirmation checks, but want to make sure (e.g., Is it incorrect have understood or Planis indirect sentence? object?) that made by thespeakerto be certain 3. Comprehension checks, or has understood thelistener (e.g.,Do youhaveanyquestions? Areyousatisfied?) whichin the data examinedconsisted 4. Repetitions, largelyof as a type of confirmation utterance of another's restatements orIs itincorrect?) check(e.g.,Correct? whichconsisted of thelistener's 5. Requestforrepetition, requests utterance forthespeakerto repeata previous (e.g., Once more pleaseor Pleaserepeat) RESULTS means in pretest and control Statistical analysesof differences of variance(ANOVA). were performed usinga one-wayanalysis of differences thesignificance Pairedt tests wereused to examine t fordetermintests and scores and between unpaired posttest prescores forthe between of differences the posttest ing significance and thecontrol and betweenthetreatments two treatments group. A one-way chi-squaretest correctedfor continuity (Hatch & of any Farhady, 1982) was used to examinethe significance countsfor the groupsand the betweennegotiation differences dyads. ofTestScores Statistical Analysis and final testscoremeansfor Table 1 givesthepretest, posttest, of thenumber Because and controls. all treatment absences, groups the differs from the test at the final of students university taking number. initial
614 TESOL QUARTERLY
TABLE 1 the and Final Test Mean Scores for Posttest, Pretest,
Pretest Women's jr.college(n=56) Tasktreatment (n=18) Grammar treatment (n=18) Control (n=20) University (n=34) Tasktreatment (n=12) Grammar treatment (n=10) Control (n=12)
a
Posttest 18.94 18.69 14.25 16.17 19.10 12.42
Final test 16.33 17.83 14.50 15.20(n=10) 16.83(n=6) 11.63(n=8)
pa
14.39 15.00 14.20 13.00 12.70 12.17
<.05 <.05 ns <.05 <.05 ns
t tests refers thepreand posttest topaired between means. Significance
For students of the women's junior college, no significant difference means as determined existedamong the threepretest by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (F [2, 53] = .5309, at the .05 level p > .05). However, differenceswere significant between themeans of thescores of thepre-and posttest forthetask treatment (paired t = -6.497, df = 17) and for the grammar treatment (paired t = -4.535, df = 17), as well as for both treatments'posttest scores compared with the control group posttest scores (task vs. control: unpaired t = 6.926, df = 36; vs. control:unpairedt = 7.644,df = 35). It is notable that grammar no significant difference was found to existbetween the means of the posttest scoresof the tasktreatment and the grammar treatment = = = t the finaltest -.0574, df 33, p .570). Regarding (unpaired 2 weeks the no after difference existed treatments, significant given between thescoresof theposttest and the finaltestforthegrammar thatno significant loss of proficiency occurred treatment, indicating = = = t for the task 1.399, df 17, p .180). However, (paired the difference between the and final the test2 treatment, posttest = = weeks later was significant t 3.803, df 17, p < .05), (paired a loss of proficiency. Nevertheless, indicating comparingtheresults of thefinaltestto theinitialpretest revealed a significant difference = = t between the scores before < -2.475, df 17, p .05) (paired the task and the 2 after weeks. performing proficiency remaining No significant difference was foundamong thecontrolgroupscores (Hotelling'sT2 = .19231,p = .590). For thestudents at theuniversity, theone-wayANOVA indicated no significant differenceexisted among the three pretestmeans (F[2, 31] = .3345, p > .05), although there was a significant differencebetween the pretest scores for the basic non-English majors and the junior college intermediate-level English majors
(unpaired t = 5.562, df = 4, p < .05), indicating a significant differencein initialproficiencylevels between the two groups of students.Differenceswere significant at the .05 level between the means of the pre- and posttestscores for both the task treatment (paired t = -3.245, df = 11) and the grammartreatment (paired t = -8.552, df = 9), as well as forboth treatments' posttestscores scores (taskvs. control: compared withthecontrolgroup'sposttest = = t vs. control:unpaired < 2.837, 22, .05; unpaired df p grammar t = 5.094, df = 20, p < .05). However, unlike the resultsobtained withtheintermediate scores Englishmajors,theimmediateposttest for the grammar treatmentwere significantly than the higher task treatment'sposttest scores (unpaired t = -2.449, df = 20, p < .05). students'finaltest scores with the Comparison of the university scores was previous complicated by the fact that fewer students took the finaltest.For the task group,the difference between the scores the final is not and test scores pretest (paired significant t = -2.141, df= 9, p = .061) at the designatedlevel of .05, although the value of p was quite close, at .061. Nor was the difference and the finaltestsignificant between the posttest (paired t = 1.118, = = that there was loss of no substantial df 9, p .293), suggesting the in two tests the between reduced proficiency sample. However, the differences between both pre- and posttestscores and the final forthe grammar testscores were significant group (pretestvs. final vs. finaltestpaired testpaired t = -2.652, df = 5, p < .05; posttest t = -2.936, df = 5, p < .05), indicating a significant gain in loss 2 proficiencyover the pretest but a subsequent significant the differences control weeks later. Again, no significant among group scores were observed (Hotelling'sT2 = .3343,p = .774). fromboth schools gives a totalof Combiningthe tasktreatments in dyads. in groups of four,and 10 students 20 studentsperforming = = = t difference No significant 362, df 28, p .362) was (unpaired found between the posttest scores of students, regardless of the taskin groupsor in dyads. whethertheyperformed ofNegotiations and Qualitative Quantitative Analysis Table 2 gives the total negotiationfrequenciesin both English frequenciesin (the L2) and Japanese (the Li), and the negotiation the for 10-minute the groupsand sample period Englishonlyduring at each and the grammartreatment the dyads forthetasktreatment school. made by in the numberof negotiations difference No significant the two types of participationpattern was found for the total
616 TESOL QUARTERLY
TABLE2 for Total theDifferent and Patterns Participation Negotiations L2-Only Negotiations Task-group Task-dyad Grammar (Total/L2 only only) (Total/L2 only) Total/L2 0 (n=18) 0 (n=10) 49/48(n=8) 44/13(n=8) 33/32(n=4) 68/50(n=4) 82/80 112/63
School Junior (n=30) college University (n=22)
numberof negotiations produced (x2 = .253,df = 1, p > .05) or for in L2 the negotiations only (X2 = 2.542, df = 1, p > .05) produced the four by groups and four dyads which were recorded the task. At the junior college three pairs and three performing in thetask,but because of mechanicalfailure the dyads participated data forone group and one dyad could not be obtained. at the women's juniorcollege Althoughthe grammartreatment was not taped, the teacher stated that no student made any comment,except to answeryes or no when asked if sentenceswere correct.The grammartreatment at the university was taped, and there was no audible participationby any studentduringthe 20minutepresentation. At the women's juniorcollege, where the studentswere strongly requested to use only English duringthe task, negotiationswere almost entirelyin English, with only one negotiation each in At the university, Japanese forthe groups and dyads respectively. where the teacher did not however, emphasize theneed to use only English,the proportionof the L1 used was much higher,with 13 in Englishand 31 in Japaneseforthe groups,and 50 in negotiations 18 in Japanese forthepairs. and English, the made by both groupswere foundto be Finally, negotiations qualitativelylimited in either language and consisted of asking whethera sentencewas corrector incorrect, askingfora repetition of a sentence,part of a sentence,or a singlelexical item,or making a comprehensioncheck, as in the followingportionsof protocols froma university group and dyad and a juniorcollege group and dyad: 1. University Group A: Ready?(Student readssentence and indicates correctness.) B: Yes. (Other in three reply unison.) A: Alright? readsnext sentence and indicates (Student correctness.) B: Huh?(One student only.) A: (Student One more time? repeats sentence.)
2. University Dyad A: (Student readssentence.) B: Correct? A: Yes. (Student readsnext sentence.) B: Pleaseagain. A: (Student sentence.) repeats B: Incorrect? A: Yes. (Student readsnext sentence.) B: Correct? A: Yes. 3. Junior CollegeGroup Areyousatisfied? A: (Student readssentence.) inunison.) B: Yes. (Other three reply Do youhaveanyquestions? A: (Student readsnext sentence.) inunison.) B: No. (Other three reply A: Ready? inunison.) B: Yes. (Other three reply A: (Student readsnext sentence.) 4. Junior CollegeDyad and indicates A: (Student readssentence correctness.) B: Is ittheanswer? correctbut does notindicate A: Yes. (Student readsnextsentence ness.) B: Is itcorrect? A: Yes. B: Once moreplease. A: (Student sentence.) repeats B: Planis indirect object? A: Yes. DISCUSSION Lesson TaskVersusthe Grammar The Grammar of a researchquestionwas to compare the effectiveness The first task approach and a traditionalgrammar lesson. It should be recalled thatno discussionof thegrammar pointwas includedin the on the task sheet and written was for what task treatment except and was gained solely form of the students' the task cards, mastery For the of thetaskactivity. fromperformance Englishmajorsat the
618 TESOL QUARTERLY
mean percent correct forthetaskgroup juniorcollege,theinitial was 72%, whichincreased to 95%on theposttest, butthen dropped to 82% after 2 weeks-a net gain in proficiency of 10%. In thegrammar-lesson students started at an initial mean comparison, of 75% correct, increasedto 93%correctafterthe lesson,then 2 weeks-a netgainof 14%. decreasedto 89% correct after Whereas theposttest scoresofthetaskgroupand thegrammar-lesson group werenotstatistically thetaskgroup's meanscoreon the different, final test2 weekslater was significantly lowerthanthemeanscore for the grammar-lesson was but nonetheless group significantly score. Thus, the task appeared to have higherthanthe pretest functioned wellas thegrammar intheshort lesson and term, equally was onlyslightly lesseffective in maintaining than proficiency the 2 weeks. lessonafter grammar For the basic level non-English-major the students, university initialmean percentcorrectforthe task group was 65%,which to 81%afterthe task,a gain of 16%.In increasedsignificantly the initial meanpercent correct was comparison, grammar group's which to increased 96% after the a of 32%. 64%, lesson, gain grammar forthetaskgroupwas significantly Thus,thegainin proficiency lowerthanforthegrammar-lesson group. Longer-term proficiency to assess gainsforthegrammar-lesson groupwere moredifficult due to absences. with even fewer the However, students, grammarlessongroupshowedmaintenance of significant proficiency gains 2 weeksalthough after thetask-treatment groupdid not. Two possibleexplanations fortheless successful results of task this with the performance by groupcompared English majorsare their lack of with and (a) work, familiarity pair/group (b) as indicatedby theircommentsand questionsduringthe audio of the goals and recordings,their imperfectunderstanding of the information which was to them in task, procedures presented the secondlanguage.It is likely, that therefore, proficiency gains would have been higher witha moredetailedexplanation of the ofthetaskandprevious inthepair/grouprequirements experience In the werefamiliar participation pattern. contrast, English majors with both group work and performance of information-gap and werebetter able to comprehend theL2 explanation activities, of thetaskprocedures. to theteacher from Furthermore, prevent formal instruction about the neither of giving grammar point, group students receivedsubsequent teacher feedbackon thesuccessof theirtask work.It is reasonableto assume thatthe learning of explicit knowledgeof a grammatical pointgained fromperformanceof a grammar taskwouldhavebeen enhanced by feedback how effectively thegroups had performed thetask. concerning
itis necessary As a final to establish was that there consideration, took test no practice effect when students the same three occurring thefavorable results above regarding the otherwise times, reported taskin promoting effectiveness of thegrammar gains proficiency test scores at arequestionable. thethree for thecontrol First, groups both the juniorcollege and the university showed no significant the final controlgroup score was variationand, furthermore, the two control lower than groupscoresat the previous actually in both test scores for a similar decline observed Second, university. is 2 additional after weeks task and grammar treatment groups theoperation ofa practice effect. evidenceagainst ofMeaning TheGrammar TaskandNegotiation is taskperformance withcommunicative One of the problems than of the nature and there that havebeenfewwaysother analysis the successof the taskin to determine of interactions frequency On theother tasktypes hand,with language acquisition. promoting tasks,the students' or readingcomprehension such as listening serves as a criterion-referenced inanswering questions performance task With thetypeofgrammar ofthesuccessofthetask. indication as well as it is to test for here, gains proficiency possible presented of interactions. The second to analyze the qualityand quantity the amount concerned research questionaddressedin thisreport the ofthenegotiations nature and qualitative by grammar produced task. in a previous of negotiations The mean number study reported informationof a for & (Doughty Pica,1986) performance two-way and three a 10-minute dyads groups periodbythree gap taskduring taskinvestigated combinedwas 64. Withthe grammar here,the and dyads inboththeL1 and L2 forgroups counts total negotiation for the and 112 were82 forthejunior combined university. college come counts theL2 negotiation are removed, If theL1 negotiations and of80 forthejunior total to a combined collegegroups dyads(2 of each) and 63 forthe university groupsand dyads (2 of each). are similarto the average combinedcount of 64 These figures of groups/dyads. number fora greater Thus, reported previously ofinteraction similar amounts to task thegrammar appears promote here. datapresented in thelimited of thatin terms also hypothesized and Pica study The Doughty followed the would of negotiations, amounts produce most, dyads withtheleast beingproducedby the teacher-fronted by groups, activity.This patternwas found in the data here, with no lesson,61 L2 negotiations producedby thegrammar negotiations
620 TESOL QUARTERLY
produced by produced by the fourgroups,and 82 L2 negotiations was between thesefigures the fourdyads. Althoughthe difference not significant, the pattern for the junior college indicates that thandyads. groupsproduced morenegotiations dyads produce so many more negotiaWhy did the university tions? Examination of the transcripts shows that the extra dyads consisted of the words negotiationsmade by the university correct or incorrectasked as confirmation checks, as shown in such usages were rare Example 2. In the juniorcollege transcripts, to the since the sentencereaders usually supplied the information As mentioned, task performance took studentswho were listening. 20 minutes,with the bulk of the negotiations occurringduringthe first10 minutes,during the reading of the sentences.During the finalportion, thestudents were relatively quiet as theywroteout the rules and did not discuss the natureof the rules in eitherlanguage. An explanationforthisfinding who had 6 years is thatthe students, of previous English study, already possessed explicit linguistic knowledge of the generalgrammarrules governing Englishdative alternation and did not have to consulton thispoint. We must now consider the broader question of whether the observed duringperformanceof qualitativelylimitednegotiations thistask can be regarded as requestsformodifications of inputin the sense thatthe termhas been used (see Doughty & Pica, 1986; Long, 1983; Pica & Doughty, 1985; & Pica, Holliday, et al., 1989). interlocutors heard their Again,it mustbe recalled thatthe students read a sentence,and requested one of the following:(a) a repetition of the sentenceor of part of the sentence,(b) an explanationof an unfamiliar word in the sentence,or (c) confirmation of theirguess thatthesentencewas eithercorrectorincorrect. Theirinterlocutors' response options were to read the sentence again, say yes or no regardingcorrectness, repeat the questionableword, or make their own comprehension checks, as shown in Examples 1 and 3. Since the students reading the sentences were not originating the of outputtakingplace and the language, therewas no modification was to the Does such limiteddiscourse extreme. language "planned" interaction? represent negotiated We suggestthatthe exchanges observed duringperformanceof this particulargrammartask are withinthe limitsof the construct because the focus of the interactionwas on meaning, and the negotiationsperformedwere essential to the comprehensionof of meaning. However, it is clear thata more detailed investigation the qualitative natureof the negotiatedinteractions promoted by differenttypes of grammar tasks in differentsettings is an future researchquestion. This point is equally truewith important
regard to the quality of interactions analyzed in other published studies.Further researchin the area of negotiatedinteraction must deal with qualitativeaspects of the data, particularly in situations where both interlocutors are nonnativespeakers. CONCLUSIONS This reporthas presentedthe case foruse of a particular type of language learning task-one which encourages communication about grammar. It has been argued that grammar tasks may contributeto L2 acquisition in two ways. They may contribute forthe kind of communication directly by providingopportunities whichis believed to promotetheacquisitionof implicit knowledge, and they may also contributeindirectly by enabling learners to the develop explicitknowledge of L2 ruleswhichwilllaterfacilitate knowledge. acquisitionof implicit The resultsof the exploratorystudy reported in the previous sectionlend some supportto theseclaims.This studydemonstrated thatJapaneseEFL learnersat thecollege level were able to increase L2 rule by completinga grammar theirknowledge of a difficult task. It also showed that the interactionwhich resulted from was characterizedby a similarquantity grammartaskperformance modifications to thosereportedto occur in other of conversational tasks. The learnersperforming thistask two-way information-gap to learn about grammarwhile takingpart in had the opportunity communication centeredon an exchangeof information. In addition,a numberof considerations have been raised. First, the grammar task used here did not resultin the same level of longer-term learning as did the traditional, teacher-fronted possible reasons forthismay have grammarlesson. As mentioned, been thelearners'lack of experiencein workingin smallgroupsand the absence of teacher feedback on their solution to the task. Clearly, though, it is important to establish that group work discussion can resultin developmentof explicitknowledge, given the importance attached to this in the theoretical framework in Figure 1. We stillneed to discover whetherand how illustrated work can be made as effective as teacher-directed group in explanations developing explicitknowledge. Second, althoughthe grammartask produced a large numberof the natureof the exchangeswhich took interactional modifications, was rather mechanical,as the examples given in the previous place This leads us to ask whetherit is the quantityof section illustrate. that is important for acquiring implicit modifications speech or whether as hypothesis, knowledge, suggestedby the interaction
622 TESOL QUARTERLY
it is some yet undetermined qualitativeaspects of communication which are more important(see Bygate, 1988). The nature of the relationshipbetween interactionand language acquisition is still poorly understood. Grammar tasks which emphasize consciousness-raising rather than practice appear to be an effective type of classroomactivity, known about the and theiruse is supported by what is currently way a second language is acquired. Furthermore,such tasks provide serious content,in contrastto the trivialcontentof many activities,and they accommodate learners who information-gap to learn about grammar.They provide believe thatit is important to communicatein theL2 in groupsor pairs,and they opportunities encouragean active,discovery-oriented approach on thepartof the which accords withcurrent views about good educational learners, practice.It shouldbe possible to develop a wide rangeof grammar tasks, including those which focus on sociolinguisticlearning problems as well as on purely formal problems, such as the grammaticalfeaturewhich was the focus of thisstudy.Hopefully, it will be possible to devise tasks which throughexperimentation, result in interactionwhich is qualitativelyricher than what we obtained in thisexploratory study. Grammar tasks also have their limitations,however. Some learnersmay not wish to talk about grammar.They may findit a to discuss because they boring topic, or theymay findit difficult lack the basic metalinguistic needed to do so. Learners knowledge to the use of theirfirst may resortextensively language duringa grammartask,as is seen in the case of the university group in this it should be study. However, with trainingin task performance, to this overcome as the limitation, possible Englishlanguage majors at the juniorcollege demonstrated. It is also possible thatgrammar tasksare less suitableforbeginners, because suchlearners are partly notable to talkin thesecond language,and partly because grammar as a discussiontopic is less appropriateat thislevel. In general,we suggest that grammar tasks seem best suited for intermediate/ advanced learnerswho are motivatedto studygrammaras subject matter. The use of communicative,problem-solvinggrammar tasks remains an intriguing proposal in need of further study. Future researchwill need to address a numberof issues.These include (a) formats forgrammar the developing different tasks,(b) examining effect of these different formatson the quality and quantityof formatson interaction,(c) examiningthe effectof the different in the effect of teacher gains explicitknowledge, (d) investigating feedback on the learner'ssolutionsto grammartasks on learning,
and (e) investigating the role of metalinguistic knowledge in task erformance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Versionsof this paper were presented by the authorsat the 16th Annual 1990in of LanguageTeachers, November of theJapanAssociation Conference TESOL Quarterly would like to thanktwo anonymous Tokyo. The authors comments on an earlier draft ofthis article. reviewers for their helpful THE AUTHORS of English at Kogakuin SandraFotosis Professor University, Tokyo.Herresearch insecondlanguage inthe instruction include theroleofformal interests acquisition EFL setting. atTempleUniversity ofApplied Rod Ellis,Professor Japan, previously Linguistics in Zambia and in Londonat St. Mary'sCollege and EalingCollege of taught in thefields of of booksand articles He is author of a number Education. Higher and teacher research secondlanguage training. acquisition
REFERENCES
Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of
viewof second a morecomprehensive Toward treatment: classroom

& M. Swain P. Allen, In B. Harley, J. Cummins, languageeducation. (pp. 57-81). proficiency of secondlanguage (Eds.), The development
Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University E. role of The knowledge in second language linguistic Bialystock, (1981).
in SecondLanguageAcquisition, use. Studies 4, 31-45. in languageteaching. C. (1984). Communicative Brumfit, methodology

Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Units of oral M. expressionand language learningin small (1988). Bygate,
Dickens, P., & Woods, E. (1988). Some criteriafor the development of tasks. TESOL Quarterly, communicativegrammar 22(3), 623-646. tasks: Do theyfacilitate "Information T. & gap" Doughty,C., Pica, (1986). second language acquisition?TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305-325.
9, 59-82. AppliedLinguistics, groups.
of formal of theeffects A study be taught? Ellis,R. (1984). Can syntax 5, 138-155. Linguistics, Oxford: Basil second language learning. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed
Blackwell.
624 TESOL QUARTERLY
on the acquisition of Wh-questionsby children. Applied instruction
Hammerly,H. (1987). The immersionapproach: Litmus test of second language acquisition through classroom communication. Modern Hatch, E., & Farhady,H. (1982). Researchdesignand statistics forapplied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. on monitored and Kadia, K. (1988). The effect of formal instruction naturalistic TESOL Quarterly, spontaneous interlanguage performance. learning.Oxford:PergamonPress. London: Longman. Krashen,S. (1985). The inputhypothesis. Lightbown, P., Spada, N., & Wallance, R. (1980). Some effects of instruction on child and adolescent ESL learners.In R. Scarcella & S.
Journal, 19,331-359. Language
S. (1981). Second languageacquisition and second language Krashen,
509-519. 22(3),
Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse. and the Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation of comprehensible 4, 126-141. negotiation input.Applied Linguistics, Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development.In L. Beebe (Ed.), 141). Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse. interactions. Long, M. (1989). Task, group and task-group University of P. (1985). Group work,interlanguage talkand second Long, M., & Porter, language acquisition.TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.
Krashen (Eds.), First and second language acquisitionprocesses.
Issuesin secondlanguage acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115-
Hawai'iWorking PapersinESL, 8, 1-26.
Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditionsof exposure.Language Learning,33, 465-499. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition.Studiesin Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233-248. L. (1989). ComprehenPica, T., Holliday, L., Lewin, N., & Morgenthaler, sible outputas an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner.Studies on the teachabilityof Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints P. (1986). How learnerstalkto each other:Inputand interaction in Porter, task-centered discussions. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn:
classroom. Nunan,D. (1989). Designingtasksfor the communicative
in SecondLanguage 11,63-90. Acquisition,
inSecondLanguage Studies languages. 6, 186-214. Acquisition,
MA: Newbury House. Rulon,K., & McCreary,J. (1986). Negotiationof content:Teacher-fronted and small-group interaction. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: MA: Newbury House. Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginizationprocess: A model for second language acquisition.Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.
COMMUNICATING ABOUT GRAMMAR
in second languageacquisition Conversation (pp. 200-222).Rowley,
in second languageacquisition Conversation (pp. 182-199). Rowley,
625
Sharwood Smith,M. (1981). Consciousness raisingand the second learner. 2, 159-168. language AppliedLinguistics, betweeninstructional differences and Spada, N. (1987). Relationships A outcomes: ofcommunicative learning process-product study language 8, 137-155. teaching. AppliedLinguistics, Some rolesof compreSwain,M. (1985). Communicative competence: hensible initsdevelopment. and comprehensible In S. Gass input output & C. Madden(Eds.),Input insecondlanguage acquisition (pp. 235-253). MA: Newbury House. Rowley, Ur, P. (1988). Grammarpracticeactivities. Cambridge:Cambridge Press. University L. (1987).Against The input and White, comprehensible input: hypothesis thedevelopment ofsecondlanguage competence. AppliedLinguistics, 8, 95-110. in searchof inputand intake. In S. Gass & Zobl, H. (1985). Grammars C. Madden(Eds.), Inputin secondlanguage MA: Rowley, acquisition. House. Newbury
APPENDIX A Task Cards Studentsin groups of 4-one different card to each member Studentsin pairs-two different cards to each member 1. Correct: I asked my friend a question. a Incorrect: asked She 1. question to her mother. 2. Correct: Kimiko reviewed the lesson forJohn. 2. Incorrect: Kimiko reviewed Johnthe lesson. 3. Correct: The teachercalculated the answersforthe students. 3. Incorrect: The teachercalculated the students the answers. 4. Correct: The secretary reportedthe problemto her boss. 4. Incorrect: The student reportedthe teacherthematter. her a cup of tea. 5. Correct: I offered I offereda cup of tea to the president. 5. Correct: 6. 6. 7. 7. 8. 8. 9. 9. 10. 10. 626 Correct: Incorrect: Correct: Correct: Correct: Correct: Correct: Incorrect: Correct: Incorrect: word forthe class. The teacherpronouncedthe difficult word. The teacherpronounced the class the difficult I boughtmanypresentsformy family. several presents. I boughtmy family She cooked a delicious dinnerforus. She cooked us a wonderfulmeal. She suggesteda plan to me. She suggestedme a good restaurant. The teacherrepeated the questionforthestudent. the question. The teacherrepeated the student TESOL QUARTERLY
APPENDIX B Task Sheets There are some verbs in Englishwhichcan have two objects. One of the objects is called the directobject. The otheris called the indirectobject. An indirect object names the person for whom the action of the verb is performed: indirectobject directobject She a wrote Susan letter. Differentverbs may have the objects in different order, and this is often a problem for students of English.The following exercisewill help you understand some confusing verbs.
Directions:
sentences to theother members! as many times as necessary! Work Onlyreadthesentences

as a group and decide on the basis of thecorrectand incorrect sentenceswhere the together directand indirect objectsshouldbe located. Fill outtherestof thispage. Choose one student to report your resultsto the rest of the class. Please speak only in English during this
In groups,you are to studycorrectand incorrect sentences verbs.You all have usingdifferent different sentences.You mustread yoursentencesto therestof the group. Do notshow your
exercise!! Verbs:
Possible correct order ofdirect andindirect object
1. asked: 2. reviewed: 3. calculated:

4. reported. 5. offered: 6. pronounced: 7. bought:
8. cooked:
9. suggested:
10. repeated:
Conclusion: Write3 rulesconcerning the possible orderof objects Rule 1verbs which follow thisrule
Rule2: Rule3:
verbs which follow thisrule
verbs which follow thisrule
COMMUNICATING ABOUT GRAMMAR
627
C APPENDIX Teston Dative Alternation Grammaticality Judgment Directions: Read thesentences. Decide ifthey orincorrect. arecorrect Write(0) ifcorrect, or (X) ifincorrect.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. She asked theclass a question. She asked a questionto the class. She reviewed the sentencesforMary. She reviewed Mary the sentences. She calculated Johnthe mathproblem. She calculated the mathproblem forJohn. She reportedthepolice the problem. She reportedtheproblem to the police. She offeredher frienda chocolate. She offereda chocolate to her friend. word forme. She pronouncedthe difficult word. She pronouncedme the difficult She boughther frienda dress. She boughta dress forher friend.
15. 16. 17. 18.

19. 20.
their friends. Theycookeda mealfor friends a meal. Theycookedtheir an idea. thechildren Theysuggested an idea to thechildren. Theysuggested
She repeated the word forme. She repeated me the word.
628
TESOL QUARTERLY

Fotos and Ellis - Communicating ABout Grammar A Task Based Approach PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fotos and Ellis - Communicating ABout Grammar A Task Based Approach PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

Vol.25, No.4, Winter TESOL QUARTERLY, 1991

AboutGrammar: Communicating A Task-BasedApproach

formal instruction explicit

Thetworesearch addressed were: questions 1. Is studyof a specific feature linguistic (dativealternation)

m = 19.17,paired t = -10.825, (n = 18, pretestm = 15.94,posttest

Posttest 18.94 18.69 14.25 16.17 19.10 12.42

Final test 16.33 17.83 14.50 15.20(n=10) 16.83(n=6) 11.63(n=8)

14.39 15.00 14.20 13.00 12.70 12.17

<.05 <.05 ns <.05 <.05 ns

t tests refers thepreand posttest topaired between means. Significance

School Junior (n=30) college University (n=22)

and (e) investigating the role of metalinguistic knowledge in task erformance.

viewof second a morecomprehensive Toward treatment: classroom

in SecondLanguageAcquisition, use. Studies 4, 31-45. in languageteaching. C. (1984). Communicative Brumfit, methodology

9, 59-82. AppliedLinguistics, groups.

on the acquisition of Wh-questionsby children. Applied instruction

Journal, 19,331-359. Language

S. (1981). Second languageacquisition and second language Krashen,

Krashen (Eds.), First and second language acquisitionprocesses.

Issuesin secondlanguage acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115-

Hawai'iWorking PapersinESL, 8, 1-26.

classroom. Nunan,D. (1989). Designingtasksfor the communicative

in SecondLanguage 11,63-90. Acquisition,

inSecondLanguage Studies languages. 6, 186-214. Acquisition,

in second languageacquisition Conversation (pp. 200-222).Rowley,

in second languageacquisition Conversation (pp. 182-199). Rowley,

sentences to theother members! as many times as necessary! Work Onlyreadthesentences

Possible correct order ofdirect andindirect object

1. asked: 2. reviewed: 3. calculated:

verbs which follow thisrule

verbs which follow thisrule

COMMUNICATING ABOUT GRAMMAR

15. 16. 17. 18.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen