Group items tagged

Work in groups and think of four questions you might ask Janet to find out more about her holiday. Try to think of one question which none of the other groups will ask.

They will say things like How you will travel? You going in plane? and so on. They will not be too concerned with formal accuracy at this stage, they will be working at getting their ideas together in a small informal group. The last part of the task is designed to stretch them in terms of both their language and their imagination. In the past we have had suggestions like Will you take your cat? and Is your grandmother going with you?

Once the class has given a list of questions the teacher might encourage more discussion Which questions are most likely to be answered in the conversation? List the five most likely questions in order.

Yes that’s a good question: Are you going by plane? Are you going by plane?’ treating the question as a useful contribution to the discourse rather than as a sample of English to be corrected.

This provides an opportunity for repetition in a natural context. It also gives learners a reason to listen at the next stage when they listen to the conversation to see how many of their predicted questions have been answered. Here is a transcript:

he text is now familiar to learners. They have listened to it and understood it and are ready to use it for language study. The text is incredibly rich. Look at it for yourself and identify: phrases containing part of the verb GO phrases containing the word TO phrases with words ending in -ing ways of referring to the future expressions of time expressions of place

In some cases there are a large number of phrases so you might split the text and ask different groups to work with different parts. Once they have made a list of phrases you can work with them to show how these phrases exemplify features of the grammar.

As learners experience text we can draw their attention to phrases containing the most frequent words in the language – determiners, prepositions, pronouns and so on – and so begin to tease out their grammar. The text above provides a number of useful insights into the word to. These can be enlarged and recycled as learners experience the same word in future text

We have also shown how to draw attention to the basic grammar. The function of articles and pronouns is to provide cohesion in a text. We can draw

ow can you begin to apply the principles I have outlined in this paper? Perhaps the first thing to notice is that this kind of lesson is familiar to you as what is often called a skills lesson. There is a lot of speaking and listening as learners work out their questions. Some of the discussion is in groups and some of it is teacher led. Learners then go on to listen to a conversation or read a transcript to check whether or not their questions have been answered. This is followed by another teacher led discussion. Secondly there is a systematic focus on language. I have offered a number of possible language items. You would probably choose no more than two of these for a given lesson. Language focus requires learners to focus on the text for themselves. You can enable them to do this by asking them to identify phrases built round a particular word (TO; GO), part of a word (-ing) or a concept (the future; time; place). Once phrases have been identified this leads into a discussion or explanation of the grammar involved. This could be followed by a look at the grammar book to provide a summary of what has been covered.

“it is easier to build prefabricated bits, with comparatively little grammatical processing, than from single words with much more processing”. Lewis, M. (1997): Implementing the Lexical Approach. Heinle.

Instead, they would count as ‘exemplar learning’, i.e. the learning of items, either individual words, multi-word phrases, or prototypical examples of ‘constructions’ – which might subsequently be analysed into their components. Cognitive accounts argue that both rule-learning and item-learning are implicated in language learning – with some competition between the two systems.

Emergentist accounts, on the other hand, argue that most, if not all, language learning is exemplar-based: “The knowledge underlying fluent language is not grammar in the sense of abstract rules or structure but a huge collection of memories of previous experienced utterances” (N. Ellis, 2002, p. 166).

One great example is using descriptions of situations which the learners have to categorise to help them understand the difference between “He told me he would meet the client today” vs. “He told me he will meet the client today”. I

but guiding them through examples and questions gets you to that “ah-ha!” moment. Using extracts from business emails and asking the learners to work out the relationship between the sender and receiver by looking at the complexity of language used is another example of th

’ve observed many teachers struggle to discover the best way to teach. They beg for the answers. However, I don’t believe there are right or wrong answers to their questions.

Very briefly, I wonder if the issue of how knowledge is arrived at – e.g. whether inductively or deductively – is of less importance than what you actually do with that knowledge. If it remains inert, then it’s of little use. In other words, (and I think I argued this in a comment on P is for PPP) language development is optimised through language use

Brumfit (2001) puts it: “We may learn the tokens of language formally, but we learn the system by using it through reading or writing, or conversing” (p. 12).

Good learners are ‘language detectives’. As Joan Rubin wrote, as long ago as 1981: “The good language learner is constantly looking for patterns in the language. He [sic] attends to the form in a particular way, constantly analyzing, categorizing and synthesizing. He is constantly trying to find schemes for classifying information” (Rubin, J. 1981. What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9).

t seems to be used in our field to connote the kind of scaffolding that is able to anticipate the learner’s inductive thought processes, and pre-empt false hypothesising.

“Another name for a scaffolding-teaching process is instructional conversation… or prolepsis. I like the concept of proleptic teaching because I now have a name for what I had done as a teacher for many years. I used to think that my teaching approach was inductive. I used a discovery process — some might call it a constructivist approach — to encourage students to come to their own understanding of a particular linguistic point.

Prolepsis requires teacher and students to achieve a degree of intersubjectivity, which makes it possible for the teacher to guide the student and for the student to be guided through the process of completing a task. In other words, both teacher and student try to come to an understanding of how each of them views the task and its solution, with the goal of helping the student reshape and extend his or her use of language.” (Teaching Language: from grammar to grammaring, 2003, p.95).

in his book The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning (2004) Leo van Lier defines prolepsis as occurring when “we assume (pretend) that learners already have the abilities we and they wish to develop. Together with this assumption we create invitational structures and spaces for learners to step into and grow into” (p.162

students looked at a number of T/F questions I had written. Rather than basing these Q’s on vocab’ as so often happens, I tried to make each one relate to the verb forms. For example, the text read: ‘When the bank realised its mistake, Bill had already spent £85,000′. So the T/F Q was: ‘Bill spent £85,000 after the bank noticed the mistake’ – false of course. Students discussed Q’s together then during feedback, I asked why it was ‘true’ or ‘false’ in each case. As we went through each Q, the students got the hang of it more and more.

Your approach, based on learners’ comprehension of sentences, is very much consistent with the way that VanPatten’s ‘Input processing’ theory is applied – sometimes known as ‘processing instruction’, and mediated by what Rod Ellis calls ‘structured input activities’:

Structured-input activities are comprehension-based grammar activities that go beyond simply presenting learners with enriched input containing the target structure (the stimulus) by means of some instruction that forces them to process it (the response). …

anPatten (1996) defines this as ‘a type of grammar instruction whose purpose is to affect the ways in which learners attend to input data. It is input-based rather than output-based.’ (p. 2)

As Ellis (2008) points out, “Explicit instruction can take the form of an inductive treatment, where learners are required to induce rules from examples given to them, or an explicit treatment, where learners are given a rule which they then practise using” (p. 882). In other words both an inductive and deductive approach can lead to explicit knowledg

I think implicit and explicit make all the difference

discovery learning in which students are presented with input and work on it for the sake of meaning, interpretation, communication, and only then are led to focus explicitly on its form, by which time part of it will have been processed implicitly

ocusing on form, students are led to notice patterns and draw conclusions, which must be later confirmed by the teacher (or the grammar chart in the book!).

As Nick Ellis (2006) reminds us “Not only are many grammatical meaning-form relationships low in salience, but they can also be redundant in the understanding of the meaning of an utterance. It is often unnecessary to interpret inflections marking grammatical meanings such as tense because they are usually accompanied by adverbs that indicate temporal reference”.

ick Schmidt (2001) argues, therefore, that “since many features of L2 input are likely to be infrequent, non-salient, and communicatively redundant, intentionally focused attention may be a practical (though not theoretical) necessity for successful language learning”.

umphrey’s role would seem to be one that teachers might adopt — drawing learners’ attention to features of their output that are still non-target like, or that threaten their communicative effectiveness – but granting the learner a degree of autonomy in terms of whether and how they deal with the issue