Making grammar accessible to ELLs

1
Techniques in grammar instruction

• Making grammar accessible to ELLs
• University of Alberta EDPY 413
• Presented by Chelsea Androschuk, Nicole Mackay,
  and Robyn Ferguson

2
(No Transcript)
3
Historically, grammar has been considered to be
(Hinkel Fotos 2002)
-nouns -verbs -participles -articles -pronouns -prepositions -adverbs -conjunctions
4
The advent of other approaches

• -Direct approaches (audio-lingualism)
• -Functional approaches
• -Communicative approaches

5
The Audiolingual Method

• -The audiolingual method focuses on the
  comprehension of language at a largely mechanical
  level (Davidson, 1978).
• -Examples of mechanically structured activities
  might include repetition or substitution. The
  teacher is in control of the lesson, and students
  can often successfully participate without any
  understanding of meaning (Davidson, 1978).

6
Functional Approaches

• -These are usually based on situational language
  needs (Hinkel Fotos, 2002).
• - According to Skehan, these activities often
  follow a presentation, practice, and production
  protocol (cited in Hinkel Fotos, 2002).

7
Communicative/Humanistic Approaches

• -These methods mimic a natural acquisition of
  language, for example, how a child acquires L1
  (Hinkel Fotos, 2002).
• -Language is acquired using meaningful input,
  with no formal grammatical instruction. It is
  assumed that ELLs will naturally acquire the
  forms of language when this approach is used
  (Hinkel Fotos, 2002).

8
Myth Grammar structures are meaningless forms
(Larsen-Freeman, 1995)

• - Learning a structure in grammar, is not
  complete unless its function is explored at the
  same time (Wagner-Gough, 1975).
• - There are 3 dimensions to grammar instruction
  form, meaning and function/use (Larsen-Freeman,
  1995).
• - Grammar instruction should include the answers
  to when and why to use any given structure
  (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).

9
Myth Grammar acquisition consists of arbitrary
rules (Larsen-Freeman, 1995)

• -Interlanguages (ILs) appear to follow rules, and
  are systematic (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).
• This does not mean that an ELL would be using a
  grammatical structure as a NS would from first
  exposure, but that they are still moving toward
  its proper use while forming rules in his/her IL.
• -Though systematic, this development through an
  IL may not be linear (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).

10
Myth Grammar structures are learned one at a
time (Larsen-Freeman, 1995)

• -The acquisition of some structures may depend on
  the acquisition of others. A simple accumulation
  of structures, one at time, can lead to a
  phenomenon known as backsliding. When backsliding
  occurs, it is because certain elements become
  omitted in order to make room for new elements
  (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).

11
Myth Grammar is acquired naturally, and doesnt
have to be taught (Larsen-Freeman, 1995)

• - In French immersion programs, where the focus
  is on meaning alone, students have demonstrated a
  less than expected understanding of grammar in
  the language (Harley Swain, 1984).
• - Students may develop the ability to convey
  meaning, without developing proper grammar.
  Selective form-focused instruction may therefore
  be necessary to ensure that as language develops,
  so does grammar (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).

12
Lightbrown and Spada (1990)research (cited in
Larsen-Freeman, 1995)

• -This study looked at 4 (primarily communicative)
  French immersion classes, each of which
  incorporated a varying level of form-based
  instruction in grammar.
• -Their results demonstrated that the class that
  never focused on grammatical form performed the
  worst according to the assessment used.
• - Part of the reason for this, according to
  Larsen-Freeman (1995), is that focusing student
  attention may facilitate learning.

13
Myth Error correction and negative evidence
might be unnecessary when instructing grammar
(Larsen-Freeman, 1995)

• -If errors are not corrected, then
  overgeneralizations in language tend to occur
  (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).
• -Negative evidence might be part of the input
  that ELLs need, though they may not have needed
  it to the same extent for their L1
  (Larsen-Freeman, 1995).

14
Myth All grammatical structures are learned in
the same way (Larsen-Freeman, 1995)

• Any claim to the effect that all acquisition is
  the product of habit formation or of rule
  formation, or today, of setting/resetting
  parameters or the strengthening of connections in
  complex neural networks, is an obvious
  oversimplification of a complex process
  (Larsen-Freeman, 1995, p. 141).

15
3 options in language teaching

• Focus on Forms
• Focus on meaning
• Focus on form

16
Focus on Forms

• Parts of the language are taught separately and
  step by step so that the acquisition is a process
  of gradual accumulation of parts until the whole
  structure of language has been built upAt any
  one time the learner is being exposed to a
  deliberate limited sample of language (Wilkins,
  1976, p. 2).

17
Focus on Meaning

• The essential claim is that people of all ages
  learn language best, inside or outside the
  classroom, not by treating the languages as the
  object of study, but by experiencing them as a
  medium of communication language is organized
  in terms of the purpose for which people are
  learning language and the kinds of language
  performance that are necessary to meet those
  purposes (Wilkins, 1976, p. 13).

18
Focus on Form

• Overtly draws students attention to linguistic
  elements as they arise incidentally in lessons
  whose overriding focus is on meaning or
  communication
• (Long, 1991, pp. 45-46).
• Often consists of an occasional shift of
  attention to linguistic code features by the
  teacher and/or one or more of the students
  triggered by perceived problems with
  comprehension or production
• (Long Robinson, 1999, p. 23).

19
Advantage of Focus on Form

• The learners attention is drawn precisely to a
  linguistic feature as necessitated by a
  communicative demand (Doughty Williams, 1999,
  p. 3).

20
Arguments against Grammar Instruction

• The study of grammar promotes knowledge about
  language not how to use the language (Krashen,
  1983, p. 10).
• We acquire our first language without any
  explicit knowledge of grammar (Krashen, 1983, p.
  10).
• The natural order (Krashen, 1983, pp. 12-36) in
  which languages are learned precludes the
  influence of instruction.
• If communicative competence is the goal, then
  classroom time is better spent engaging in
  language use (Krashen, 1983, p. 37).

21
Arguments for Grammar Instruction

• Without explicit instruction learners
  interlanguage often fossilizes.
• Grammar instruction may act as an advanced
  organizer helping learners to notice features of
  language when they are ready.
• Learning finite rules can help to simplify an
  otherwise daunting and complex task by organizing
  it into neat categories.
• Older students expectation about language
  learning often includes grammar instruction.
• Learning grammar structures allows for more
  creative applications of language.
• (Lightbown Spada, 1990, pp. 429-448)

22
Teaching Grammar

• Teachers need to consider how to present grammar
  to their students (approach), what options for
  dealing with the grammar should be used, and
  which area they will focus on during practice
  (accuracy, fluency, or restructuring).

23
Approaches

• Deductive teaching through rules (the rule is
  provided followed by the provision of examples in
  which the rule is applied).
• Inductive teaching through examples (students
  are provided with several examples from which a
  rule is inferred).

24
Sources of inductive instruction

• Realia / Actions
• Worksheets (can often be structured to
  inductively lead students to a grammar rule)
• Authentic texts (after listening to a dialogue or
  reading a text, students can answer questions to
  highlight certain grammatical structures these
  may then be used to derive rules)
• Dialogues
• Recorded Conversations

25
Options

• Teaching through practice
• Drills activities that are structured to allow
  only one correct answer
• Exercises Open-ended grammar activities
• Practice leads to the creation of a continuum
  ranging from text manipulation activities to text
  creation activities.

26
Practice

• Text manipulation activities Provide students
  with sentences that they will be required to
  operate on in some limited manner such as
  fill-in-the blank, make a choice from items
  provided, substitute another item, or transform
  into another pattern.

27
Practice

• Text creation activities Require learners to
  produce language creatively using the target
  structure (these activities are not truly
  communicative because the students are aware that
  the purpose of the activity is to practice a
  specific structure).

28
Communicative grammar tasks

• Provide students with genuine opportunities to
  communicate using language that is known.
• These tasks differ from text creation activities
  in that the students are not restricted in the
  language that is used.
• As a result, because students are not focused on
  the use of a particular structure, tasks must be
  designed to ensure that the desired structure is
  utilized.
• Refer to Penny Urs Grammar Practice Activities,
  1988.
• (Lightbown Spada, 1993)

29
Integrative Grammar Teaching

• Combines a form-based with a meaning-based focus.
• form focused instruction and corrective
  feedback provided within the context of
  communicative interaction can contribute
  positively to a second language development in
  both the short and long term (Lightbown Spada,
  1993, p. 205).
• Students should be able to learn explicit grammar
  rules as well as have a chance to practice them
  in communication in the authentic or simulated
  tasks (Musumeci, 1997).

30
PPPPresentation / Practice/ Production

• based on the Grammar-Translation Method in which
  grammar explanations are followed by exercises.
• follows the premise that knowledge becomes skill
  through successive practice and that language is
  learned in small chunks leading to the whole.
• views accuracy as a precursor to fluency.

31
PPP- Stage 1

• In the first stage of the sequence the teacher
  introduces the language and forms to be studied.

32
PPP- Stage 2

• In the second stage students practice using the
  language and grammar introduced by the teacher.
  This stage is often characterized by
  decontextualized drills.
• The focus of this stage is the accurate use of
  language.

33
PPP- Stage 3

• After students have demonstrated that they can
  accurately use the language and forms introduced,
  fluency is developed by providing opportunities
  for students to use what they have learned in a
  less controlled environment.

34
Criticism of PPP

• SLA research demonstrates that practice does not
  lead to perfection (Lightbown, 1985).
• Language learning does not occur in a linear
  fashion influenced directly by the instruction
  that takes place (Ellis 1993 Skehan, 1996).
• Relies heavily on the use of decontextualized and
  meaningless drills (Wong Van Pattten, 2003).

35
Task Based Language Teaching

• Accuracy and fluency are addressed in TBLT with a
  linguistic focus supporting the task or emerging
  out of difficulties experienced during the task.
• This maintains the focus on communication rather
  than learning particular forms and promotes the
  relevancy of grammatical instruction.

36
Willis (1996) Model

• Pre-Task lexicon is introduced and learners are
  engaged in brief activities to activate their
  schemata about a particular topic or to equip
  them to participate in the main task.
• Task learners are actively engaged in completing
  a communicative task.
• Language Focus learners errors are highlighted
  and specific activities are utilized to allow
  them to practice using the correct language
  forms.

37
Accuracy Addressed Through Focused Tasks

• Focused tasks are tasks that are likely to
  require the use of a particular form.
• For example, writing a recipe will require the
  use of the imperative and decorating a room will
  require the use of prepositions.

38
Willis TBLT Framework

• Willis (1996) advocated addressing accuracy
  through the structure of lessons
• a) Pre-task
• b) Task
• c) Post-task (language focus)

39
Pre-task Phase

• In this phase the teacher will
• Introduce and define the topic
• Use activities to help students recall or learn
  vocabulary and phrases
• Provide examples of how the task may be completed
• Provide instructions for completing the task

40
Task Phase

• During this stage the students complete the
  central task of the cycle individually (in pairs
  or groups).
• While the students work, the teacher ensures
  students understand the task and are being
  productive.
• The teacher monitors time closely and observes
  how groups are functioning. This information may
  be relayed to students to promote effective group
  functioning or may be used in formulating future
  groups.

41
Language focus phase

• In this phase students move from a focus on
  meaning to a focus on form.
• The purpose of this phase is to develop accuracy
  by directing students attention to particular
  language forms and usage.

42
Tasks to Promote Negotiation

• Negotiation contributes to language acquisition
  by making input more comprehensible (Long, 1985)
  and by providing opportunities to attend to form
  (Pica, 1994).

43
Types of Tasks Willis (1996)

• Listing brainstorming, fact-finding
• Ordering and Sorting sequencing, ranking,
  categorizing, classifying
• Comparing matching, finding differences and
  similarities
• Problem Solving
• Sharing Personal Experiences
• Creative Tasks

44
Types of Tasks Pica, Kanagy, Falodun (1993)

• Jigsaw learners combine different pieces of
  information to create a whole
• Information-Gap learners have different
  information. They negotiate to find the other
  individuals information
• Problem-Solving students must find a solution
  for a problem (typically there is one resolution)
• Decision-Making students solve an open-ended
  problem by discussing multiple options and
  choosing the best
• Opinion Exchange learners exchange ideas
  without needing to come to a consensus

45
Some benefits of TBLT

• Current educational research outlines that
  learners engage in the learning process using a
  variety of styles and intelligences.
• TBLT provides an inductive approach to
  instruction and addresses different learning
  styles than PPP.
• TBLT encourages more meaningful learning
  experiences that are relevant to students.

46
Some benefits of TBLT (Willis, 1996)

• PPP is a form of the banking model of education
  whereas TBLT is a student-centered approach that
  provides a voice to students (content and
  language usage).
• Principles of democracy are more reflective of a
  TBLT classroom.

47
Comparison

• PPP
• Textbook language
• Official content valuable
• Views students as unknowing
• Learning content not problematic
• Power difference inherent

• TBLT
• Communicative language
• Process valuable
• Students are valuable contributors
• Learning opportunities
• Students are given a voice

48
Social Rationale

• TBLT empowers learners by giving them agency and
  recognizing the value of their language
  (non-standard forms of English).

49
References

• Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by
  principles An interactive approach to language
  pedagogy. San Francisco University Longman.
• Davidson, D.M. (1978). Current approaches to the
  teaching of grammar in ESL. Language in education
  theory and practice, 5, 1-23.
• Doughty, C. Williams, J. (1999). Focus on form
  in classroom second language acquisition. New
  York Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning
  and teaching. Oxford Oxford University Press.
• Harley, B. Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage
  of immersion students and its implications for
  second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper
  A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311).
  Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press.
• Harmer, Jeremy. (1998). How to teach English.
  Longman.
• Hinkel, E. Fotos, S. (2002). From theory to
  practice A teachers view. In Hinkel, E.
  Fotos, S. (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar
  teaching in second language classrooms (1-12).
  Mahweh, New Jersey Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
  Inc.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (1995). On the teaching and
  learning of grammar. In F.R. Eckman, D. Highland,
  P.W. Lee, J. Mileham R. Rutkowski Weber (Eds.),
  Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy
  (131-148). Mahweh, New Jersey Lawrence Erlbaum
  Associates, Inc.
• Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations
  second-language acquisition research and
  classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics 6
  173-89.
• Lightbown, P. Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form
  and corrective feedback in communicative language
  teaching effects in second language learning.
  SSLA, 12(4), 429-448.
• Lightbown, P. Spada, N. (1993). How languages
  are learned. Oxford Oxford University Press.
• Lightbown, P. Spada, N. (1999). Instruction,
  first language influence, and developmental
  readiness in second language acquisition. The
  modem Language Journal 83, 1, 1-22.

50
References

• Long, M. (1991). Focus on form a design feature
  in language teaching methodology. Applied
  Linguistics 14 225-49.
• Long, M. Robinson, M. (1999). Intervention
  points in second language classroom processes.
  Edinburgh Edinburg University Press.
• Musumeci, D. (1997). Breaking the tradition an
  exploration of the historical relaationship
  between theory and practice in second language
  teaching. New York McGraw-Hill.
• Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching.
  Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
• Pica, T. (1992). The textual outsomes of native
  speakers non-native speaker negotiation what do
  they reveal about second language learning in
  Kramsch and Mcconnell-Ginet (eds.) 1992.
• Pica, T., R. Kanagy, J. Falodun (1993).
  Choosing and using communication tasks for second
  language research and instruction. In. Glass and
  Crookes (eds.).
• Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to
  language learning. Oxford Oxford University
  Press.
• Wagner-Gough, J. (1975). Comparative studies in
  second language learning. Va Arlington.
• Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional Syllabuses. Oxford
  Oxford University Press.
• Willis, D. (1996). A framework for task-based
  learning. Harlow Addison Wesley Longman.
• Willis, D. (1993). Comments on Michael H. Long
  and Graham Crookes Three approaches to
  task-based syllabus design. Tesol Quarterly,
  27(4), 726-729.
• Wong, H. Van Patten. (2003). The best English
  a claim for the superiority of received standard
  English. Society for Pure English 39 603-21.