Overheads for English 435

Overheads for English 435

Note to English 435 students:

I'll use this web page to place the text of overheads that I use for presentations and discussions in class. If possible, I'll include charts and graphs, but this may not always be possible. These overheads will be added after not before the class presentation to which they refer because I prepare them usually only a day or so before using them in class. What I include is based on how much we've been able to cover in previous classes.

John C. Schafer

Overheads on Immigration

Immigration Act of 1924

• Annual quota
• National-origins system

(Quotas for each country based on number of

persons of that national origin who were living

in U.S. in 1920.)

• Result: Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany allotted more than 70% of quota
• 
  
• 
  

Above act liberalized in 1965, abolished in 1968

• First-come, first-served policy established
• Preference given to family reunification cases

(New policy favored more recent immigrants,

who came mostly from Asia and Latin America.)

Interesting Fact: According to the 2000 census, no racial or ethnic group forms a majority in California: Non-Hispanic white (47 percent), Hispanic (29), Asian (11), multi-racial (5), and African American (6). (Only in N.M., Hawaii, and Washington, D.C. are non-Hispanic whites also in the minority.

Causes:

• growing populations of Asians and Latin Americans (result of immigration, higher birth rates)
• declining white birth rate

Situation in Mid-90's

--About 1.1 million immigants arrving each year

--700,000 legal permanent residents

--family-based admissions accounted for almost three fourths of the flow

--Refugee and other humanitarian admissions (100,000--150,000)

--Undocumented immigrants (200,000--300,000)

Changing Sources of U.S. Immigrants

Between 1901 and 1910: 92.5% of immigrants to U.S. came from Europe

Between 1981 and 1990: 9.6% of immigrants came from Europe

Meanwhile the number of immigrants from Asia increased from

2.8% in 1980

to

38.4% in 1990

Click here for bar chart on Legal Immigration to the U.S. from 1986 to 1998.

Click here for chart Origin of the Immigrant Population Entering between 1951 and 1960.

Click here for chart Origin of the Immigrant Population Entering between 1981 and 1990.

1. Origin of Legal Immigrants in Fiscal year 2001
2. 
   
3. Mexico-- 206,426
4. India-- 70,290
5. People's Republic of China--56,426
6. Philippines--53,154
7. Vietnam-- 35,531

These five countries represent 40% of all immigrants in 2001.

Overheads on Proposition 227

Programs for English Learners Soon After Lau vs.Nichols, 1974

I. Regular Mainstream classroom instruction with ESL instruction in a pull-out setting

II. Structured immersion-all English instruction in a self-contained classroom consisting only of second language learners

III. Bilingual education-native tongue instruction characterized by initial literacy (i.e., reading/writing instruction) in the primary language and subject matter in the primary language with English language instruction

"All three programs have been called bilingual education by national, state and local administrators, legislators, reporters, and educators, although only the last one actually is bilingual education" (Rossell, "Dismantling Bilingual Education," p. 4).

An Often Unrealized Fact

"Prior to Proposition 227, about 2/3 of all English Learners . . . were either in

a regular classroom with no extra help,

a regular classroom with ESL pullout,

or a structured immersion classroom very similar to what Prop 227 requires.

This percentage was higher for elementary students and lower for secondary students, but the data suggest that bilingual education was not the primary cause of the low achievement of English Learners and it certainly was not the primary cause of the high school dropout rate of Hispanic students since only 13 percent of Spanish speaking English Learners . . . at that school level were enrolled in bilingual education" (Rossell, "Dismantling Bilingual Education," p. 49).

To summarize the situation before and after Prop 227:

Prior to Prop 227:

-70% of ELL's were in English only

programs

-30% of ELL's were in bilingual programs

After Prop 227:

-88% of ELL's in English only programs

-12% of ELL's in bilingual programs

A Problem in early reporting of SAT9 results:

Scores of students who switched from bilingual to English only were not "disaggregated" from those of ELL's who were in English only before Prop 227.

Four Controversial Interpretations of Prop 227 by

the Districts and the Calif. State Board of Education

I. Extent primary language can be used in a "sheltered English Immersion" or "structured English immersion" classroom

Prop 227: "nearly all classroom instruction is in English"

Districts: 30% of instruction may be in L1

II. Time period EL would remain in "sheltered English Immersion" or "structured English immersion"

Prop 227: "not normally intended to exceed one year"

State Board: one-year limit is renewable if child has not achieved a "reasonable level of Eng. proficiency"

III. Thirty-days in English language classroom

Prop 227: child cannot be waived from the English immersion program until that child has spent 30 days in an English immersion classroom

State Board: first the board ruled that if a child spends 30 days in Eng. immersion and joins a bilingual education class or other alternative program, the next year the child doesn't have to spend 30 days in an English immersion before returning to his bilingual education class. Then Unz threatened to sue and the board reversed itself. Students now have to be placed first in an English immersion classroom for 30 days every year, even if in a previous year they have already spent 30 days in such a classroom

IV. The Obtaining of Waivers

Prop 227: Parents or legal guardian [must] personally visit the school to apply for the waiver

State Board:

First decision: School administrators can initiate a waiver provided parents are informed of their right to refuse it

Second decision(after Unz said this violated the law [Prop 227] and threatened to sue): School principals and educational staff may recommend a waiver to a parent or guardian. They (parents or guardians) must be notified that they can refuse it.

Other requirements regarding waivers:

--Waivers shall be granted unless school principal and staff determine that an alternative program would NOT be good for educational development of the child.

--Schools can't deny a waiver simply because they do not offer an alternative program; pupils must be allowed to transfer to a school that has a program.

--Schools are required to operate an alternative program if 20 or more students at a given grade level receive a waiver.

Overheads on Program Alternatives

Program Alternatives

X. Submersion or Sink or Swim

Y. Submersion plus Pull-out or Inclusion

I. Sheltered Instruction ("Sheltered English Immersion" or "Structured Immersion")

II. Transitional Bilingual Education

III. Developmental Bilingual Education

IV. Foreign/Second Language Immersion

V. Two-Way Immersion

Program/Instructional Alternatives for Educating LEP

Students

X. Submersion or "Sink or Swim"

-LEP students placed in mainstream classes of native English speakers.

-Teacher does not use "sheltered" English.

-Little sensitivity to culture of LEP students

-No one defends this alternative.

Y. Submersion plus Pull-out or Inclusion Model

-English learners are taken to a separate classroom for special instruction (pull-out model) or they are given this instruction by an aide in the regular classroom (inclusion model).

-See the the following reading in your course packet for more information on this alternative: Helene Becker, "ESL Program Models in Elementary School."

I. Sheltered Instruction (or Structured English Immersion or Sheltered English Immersion)

-All students in class are LEP

-Teacher uses sheltered English (tries to make the input comprehensible by speaking clearly, using audio-visual aids, "hands on" activities, etc).

II. Transitional Bilingual Education

-Students in class are LEP students who speak same L1 (Spanish or Vietnamese, e.g.)

-Instruction begins in early primary grades in L1

-By grade 3 all instruction is in English (L2)

-Also called an "Early Exit" model

-L1 used to "transition" students to English instruction

III. Developmental Bilingual Education

-Students in class are LEP students who speak same L1

-Instruction in early grades is completely in L1 (Spanish, e.g.) except for one English Language class

-Gradually more classes are taught in English until by 5^th and 6^th grades instruction is half in English, half in students' L1

-Goal is to produce bilingual and biliterate students

-Also called "Late Exit" model of bilingual education

IV. Foreign/Second Language Immersion

--Designed for students who come to school speaking the majority language (could be "Anglo" "majority" students in U.S. who wish to learn Spanish or members of a cultural minority--for example, Chinese who wish to learn Chinese (called a heritage language) or Hawaiians who wish to learn Hawaiian (called an indigenous language).

--Canadian Immersion programs in Quebec in which native English-speaking students are immersed in French are considered Foreign/Second Language Immersion programs. Note: English is not a majority language in Quebec but it is in Canada.

V. Two-Way Immersion

-Both LEP students and native English speakers in same class

-Instruction is sometime through the non-English language and sometimes through English

-Goal is to produce bilingual and biliterate students

-Two models are used: 90-10 and 50-50

Stephen Krashen's Four Stage Model

for Language Teaching Programs for LEP Students

I. General Language Teaching

II. Sheltered Subject Matter Instruction

III. Partial Mainstream

IV. Mainstream

Stephen Krashen's Four Phase Model

for Limited English Proficient Children

in Public Schools

Mainstream

Sheltered Subject Matter Instruction

First Language

I. art, music, PE

ESL

all core subjects (math, social studies, science, etc.

II. art, music, PE

ESL, math

Social studies, language arts

II.-III.* art, music, PE, math

ESL, social studies

enrichment**

IV. all courses

enrichment**

*Stages II and III overlap. Both involve partial immersion.

**Courses to enable English learners to maintain their competence in their first language. It could be a class in Spanish literature, for example.

Three Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

I. BEHAVIORIST

A. Origins in First Language Acquisition Theory

-Nurture theory primarily

-B. F. Skinner

-Imitation, practice, reinforcement, and habit formation

-Can't account for novel utterances

-Noam Chomsky's famous review (1959) of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior

B. Behaviorist Theory in Second Language Acquisition

-A theory of language learning emphasizing

-imitation

-reinforcement

-habit formation

__Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

C. Application of Behaviorist Theory to Language Teaching Methodology

-Audio-Lingual Method

-Marriage of structural linguistics and behaviorist learning theory

-From structural linguistics came the units:

-phonemes

-morphemes

-sentence patterns

-From behaviorist learning theory came the methodology:

-drills to instill habits

-A method featuring pattern drills to instill new habits

-Pattern drills on points of contrast

II. INNATIST

A. Origins in First Language Acquisition Theory

-Nature theory primarily

-Noam Chomsky

-Language Acquisition Device (LAD)

-Universal Grammar

-Principles and Parameters

Pro-Drop Languages (+PD) (Spanish, Italian, Vietnamese, Japanese):

1. Es mi hermano. (*Is my brother.)

2. Salieron a las ocho. (*Left at eight.)

3. Lloviã mucho ayer. (*Rained a lot yesterday.)

-Most researchers think the PD parameter initially set +PD because, for example, children learning English as their first language drop subject pronouns until "it" and "there" and forms of the auxiliary verbs are incorporated into their grammar.

-Another example of parameter setting: preposition stranding

-Both are possible in English:

1. From where did you that fish?

2. Where did you get that fish from? (prep. is stranded, away from

its object)

But only #1 (no stranding of preposition) is possible in Spanish.

Hypothesis: the original setting is to not allow for stranding, as in

Spanish

-English child: originally assumes stranding not allowed, then

hears sentences in English like #2 above and adjusts parameter setting

-Spanish child: assumes stranding not allowed and never hears any sentences in Spanish to cause him/her to adjust setting

-Developmental Sequences

Example of developmental sequence for ESL Negation

Stage

1. External

No this one.

No you playing here.

2. Internal, pre-verbal (negator + verb)

I no can swim.

3. Aux. + neg.

I can't play the guitar.

Don't have job.

4. Analysed don't

She doesn't drink alcohol.

__Spanish: Pre-verbal negation: Felipe y Elena no son alemanes.

__English: Aux. + neg. with don't always analysed:

Felipe and Elena can't be Germans.

They don't like it.

-Japanese: *John ball hit not.

Innatist Theory in Second Language Acquisition Theory

-Theories of SLA like Krashen's "Monitor Model"

-comprehensible input is the driving force in language acquisition

and it carries over and to influence production

-one learns to speak by listening (not output necessary)

-only weak version of interaction hypothesis accepted by Krashen

(Two-way interaction facilitates acquisition by allowing more

negotiation of meaning and thus gives acquirer more comprehensible input.)

-strong version of interaction hypothesis rejected

(No acquisition will occur without interaction.)

-Evidence to support innatist theories:

-Learners who speak languages with very different forms of negation in their own languages pass through the above four stages when they acquire English. (Supports Universal Grammar Argument.)

__But speakers of L1's with "negator + verb" in their languages (Spanish, Russian, Italian) have more difficulty in mastering English negation than speakers of L1's with post-verbal negation (e. g., Japanese speakers). They (Spanish, etc. speakers) stay in stage 2 longer than Japanese speakers. (Suggests role of non-universal factors, the influence of particular languages

-Morpheme acquisition

ING (progressive)

PLURAL

COPULA (to be)

AUXILIARY (progressive)

ARTICLE (a, the)

IRREGULAR PAST

REGULAR PAST

III PERSON (-s)

POSSESSIVE (-s)

-Success of immersion programs

-A Problem: Is LAD available to guide SLA just as it is to guide L1 acquisition?

-Three possibilities:

-1. No longer available after critical period

-2. Available for SLA as for L1 acquisition

-3. Available SLA but its nature altered by L1 acquisition

C. Application of Innatist Theory to Language Teaching Methodology

__Natural Approach, Total Physical Response and other Comprehension-Based teaching approaches

-Role of teacher is to provide large amounts of comprehensible input

__Recognition of silent period

__Little error correction

-Little explicit grammar instruction

III. INTERACTIONIST

A. Origins in First Language Acquisition Theory

-Nature and Nurture

-Lev Vygotsky's sociocultural theory

-language development arises as a result of social interactions between individuals

-zone of proximal development

-Evelyn Hatch's research

Example: (first language data)

Child: Kimby

Adult: What about Kimby?

Child: close

Adult: Closed; What did she close, hmmm?

Example: (second language data)

Takahiro: this

broken

NS adult: Broken.

Takahiro: broken

This /s/ broken.

broken

NS adult: Upside down.

Takahiro: upside down

this broken

upside down

broken

The assumption: Out of these interactions (called "vertical structures") children develop syntax (horizontal structures). "That is, the words that the child produces one at a time are semantically linked. When the adult asks for more information with questions, he asks for a constituent to fill out the construction" (Hatch 1978). By interacting with other speakers children learn how to construct syntactic relationships.

B. Interactionist Theory in Second Language Acquisition

-Researchers Evelyn Hatch, Michael Long, Teresa Pica, and others

-Support the strong version of interaction hypothesis (accepted by many interactionists): interaction is necessary for second language acquisition

-Interest in HOW input becomes comprehensible

a. Through modifying of input by providers and by learners using linguistic and extralinguistic context (innatist perspective)

OR

b. By learners and their interlocutors negotiating the meaning of messages by modifying and restructuring their interaction in order to reach mutual understanding (interactionist perspective)

-Importance of "negotiation" or "interactional modification"

Long presents his view in this way:

1. Interactional modification makes input comprehensible;

2. Comprehensible input promotes acquisition.

Therefore,

3. Interactional modification promotes acquisition.

What is interactional modification (AKA: negotiation of meaning)?

1. Clarification requests: expressions designed to elicit clarification of the preceding utterances(s); include: wh-, yes-no, uninverted intonation, and tag questions as well as statements such as I don't understand and Try again and Could you repeat, please?

A. She is on welfare.

B. What do you mean by welfare?

A. This is very bad . . . I think she never estay home.

B. You're opposed to that? You think that's not a good idea?

2. Confirmation checks: utterances immediately following the previous speaker's utterance to confirm that the utterance has been understood or heard correctly. They are characterized by repetition, with rising intonation of all or part of the speaker's preceding utterance.

A. The homemaker woman.

B. The homemaker?

A. Mexican foods have a lot of ulcers.

B. Mexicans have a lot of ulcers? Because of the food?

3. Comprehension checks: expressions designed to establish whether the speaker's own preceding utterance has been understood by the addressee. They are usually in the form of tag questions, repetitions with rising intonation of all or part of the utterance, or by questions such as Do you understand?

There's no man present, right?

Do you know what I mean?

C. Application of Interactionist Theory to Language Teaching Methodology

-Emphasis on group work

-Emphasis on task-based instruction

-Preference for tasks (two-way information gap, jigsaw) believed to promote

interactional modification

IV. A PROBLEM WITH INNATIST AND INTERACTIONIST APPROACHES

-Students don't achieve high levels of grammatical competence

-Merrill Swain studied a French Immersion program for native English-speaking students in Canada (A Foreign/Second Language Immersion Program)

-In subject matter tests in French on history, math, science students scored well.

But revealed lower levels of:

-Grammar competence: Students did not achieve native-like control

-Discourse competence: (had to retell a story seen on film, take a test on cohesion, and write two papers) Students did not perform as well as native French-speaking students but differences were small.

-Sociolinguistic competence: (students saw slides of social situations and had to indicate what to say) Students performed significantly worse than native French speakers.

-Swain argues that students need to be pushed to use correct and appropriate language. Otherwise students learning English will continue to make mistakes like the following:

*I drink everyday coffee.

*I no must do it.

*I runned home.

-Students will hear the correct forms of the above sentences but they don't become intake for acquisition because the students process the sentences for meaning not for grammar. They don't "notice" the difference between the correct form and the wrong way they say it.

-In processing input students rely on context and co-text (what has been said) to guess the meaning.

-Solution, according to Swain and others: "Pushed Output" that forces students to attend to correct grammar.

From Method to Post-Method in ESL

The movement from Method to Post-Method in ESL is part of a larger shift from positivism to post-positivism and from behaviorist psychology and structural linguistics to cognitive, and later, socio-cognitive psychology and more contextualized, meaning-based views of language.

Positivism

--Tendency of social sciences to model themselves on the physical sciences through use of the empirical-analytic approach

--Valued the objective and quantifiable over the subjective and non-quantifiable

--Emphasis on parts and decontexualization as opposed to the whole and contextualization

--Attempt to standardize

1. Three Definitions of Method
2. 
   
3. method (lowercase "m"): smorgasbord of ideas; can refer to programs, curricula, procedures, demonstratins, modes of presentation, texts, films, materials, etc.
4. Methods (uppercase M): fixed set of classroom practices that serve as a prescription and therefore do not allow flexibility and variation
5. methods: umbrella term comprising approach, design, and procedure; organizing principles; based on a popular book by Richards and Rodgers called Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching(1986/2001).
6. 
   
7. Richards and Rodgers' Scheme (See TBP, p. 16, for diagram):
8. Method (R and R's overarching term)
9. Under "Method" they include:
10. Approach: underlying theory of language and language learning
11. Design: the syllabus, learner roles, teacher roles
12. Procedure: classroom techniques and practices
13. H. Douglas Brown's scheme used in your textbook, TBP (see pp. 15-16 and the handout given you in class) is a modification of Richards and Rodgers' scheme.
14. Is Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) an Approach, or a Method, or a Methodology?
15. Approach: a set of principles or guidelines for language teaching with no specific set of prescriptions and classroom techniques
16. Method (Definition 2 above): fixed set of classroom practices for language teaching that serve as a prescription and therefore do not allow flexibility and variation
17. Methodology: Brown uses this term to mean "pedagogical practices in general (including theoretical underpinnings and related research)" (p. 15).
18. Based on the above definitions, CLT is probably best described as an approach. It's not a Method because those who describe and advocate CLT agree on a set of principles but not on one set of classroom procedures and techniques. Using Brown's very general and loose definition of "Methodology," one could call CLT a methodology but Brown implies that a methodology has a fully-developed approach, method, syllabus, and techniques, but CLT consists mostly of a set of principles.
19. Speech Exchange Systems⁽¹⁾
20. 
    
21. 
    
22. Abbreviations
23. 
    
24. 
    
25. T= Teacher
26. L= Learner
27. 
    
28. 
    
29. Q= Question turn
30. A= Answer turn
31. C= Comment turn
32. CQ (D) Counter Question turn done as a display question
33. CQ (R) Counter Question turn done as a referential question
34. 
    
35. 
    
36. ****************************
37. 
    
38. 
    
39. I. Two Speech Exchange Systems
40. 
    
41. 
    
42. A. Equal Power Speech Exchange Systems
43. 
    
44. 
    
45. --Any party has a right to initiate a Q-A sequence
46. --Speaking turns are NOT pre-allocated
47. 
    
48. 
    
49. b. Unequal Power Speech Exchange Systems, e.g.
50. Pedagogical Talk in Traditional Classrooms
51. 
    
52. 
    
53. --Turns are pre-allocated
54. --Teachers reserve right to ask questions
55. --Typical mode of interaction: QAC sequences
56. 
    
57. 
    
58. *************************
59. 
    
60. 
    
61. Typical "Question-Answer-Comment" Sequence Commonin a Teacher-Fronted Pedagogical Speech Exchange System
62. 
    
63. 
    
64. (Q) T: Can you tell me why you eat all that food?
65. Yes
66. 
    
67. 
    
68. (A) L: To keep you strong.
69. 
    
70. 
    
71. (C) T: To, keep you strong. Yes. To keep you strong.
72. 
    
73. 
    
74. Why do you want to be strong?
75. 
    
76. 
    
77. *************************
78. 
    
79. 
    
80. Teacher Exchange with Student in a Group
81. 
    
82. 
    
83. (Note: This is not a typical exchange when a teacher joins a group.)
84. 
    
85. 
    
86. L: What spur means? How do you how do you pronounce it s-p-u-r?
87. 
    
88. 
    
89. T: Spur
90. 
    
91. 
    
92. L: Spur
93. 
    
94. 
    
95. T: Uh huh
96. 
    
97. 
    
98. L: What does this mean?
99. 
    
100. 
     
101. T: In this case it's to encourage
102. 
     
103. 
     
104. L: To encourage
105. 
     
106. 
     
107. T: To encourage
108. 
     
109. 
     
110. L: Does it have another meaning too?
111. 
     
112. 
     
113. *******************************
114. 
     
115. 
     
116. Note that the "spur" exchange above is similar to ordinary conversation in that the teacher is no longer in control of the interaction. The pattern is as follows:
117. 
     
118. 
     
119. Learner: Q
120. Teacher: A
121. Learner: C
122. 
     
123. 
     
124. Teachers rarely use this pattern. The more common pattern is :
125. 
     
126. 
     
127. Learner: Q
128. Teacher: CQ (D) counter-question of display type
129. Learner: A
130. Teacher: C
131. 
     
132. 
     
133. *************************
134. 
     
135. 
     
136. The Typical Teacher's CQ (D) Turn
137. When She/He Joins A Group
138. 
     
139. 
     
140. Q: L7: I don't understand "stake." What does it mean?
141. T: stake
142. 
     
143. 
     
144. CQ(D): T: Who can define "stake"?
145. 
     
146. 
     
147. A: L8: "Stake" is something that uh what's at stake wha-what are going to give up or
148. 
     
149. 
     
150. A: L12: What's the point
151. 
     
152. 
     
153. A: L8: How are you going to get something
154. 
     
155. 
     
156. C: T: What's th- uh huh right or what is the purpose
157. 
     
158. 
     
159. ***************************
160. 
     
161. 
     
162. Another Example of Teacher's CQ (D) Turn When She/HeJoins a Group
163. 
     
164. 
     
165. L13: . . .what's that mean (pause) coastal vulnerability?
166. L14: fulnerability is
167. L13: Q: coastal vulnera- vulnerability?
168. T: (Teacher overhears L13 and L14 as she approaches the pair)
169. CQ (D): what d'you think it means?
170. L14: uh?
171. T: CQ(D): what what d'you think a-where are areas of coastal vulnerability? (pause) if you think about uh
172. L14: A: it's not safe (pause) areas which are not safe
173. (pause) right?
174. L13: A: It's it's very easy to be (pause) damage
175. T: C: yeah (pause) especially by water, by flooding
176. 
     
177. 
     
178. *************************
179. 
     
180. 
     
181. "This Analysis shows that, during teacher-student interaction that occurs in the context of task-based, small group instruction, teachers and students prototypically orient to a speech exchange organization that is specifiably different from that of ordinary conversation and technically indistinguishable from that of traditional, teacher-fronted instruction. That is, teachers retain-indeed, forcefully re-assert-the right to ask questions and evaluate learners, while students can, as in traditional classroom talk, only properly provide answers to teachers' questions."⁽²⁾
182. 
     
183. 
     
184. In simpler language: When teachers join student groups,
185. students begin to talk in ways that are different from ordinary conversation.
186. 
     
187. 
     
188. 
     
189. 
     
190. Important considerations:
191. 
     
192. 
     
193. Both "Equal Power" and "Unequal Power" Exchange Systems can provide for scaffolding and modeling of target language structure, vocabulary, and phonology by teachers.
194. 
     
195. 
     
196. But:
197. 
     
198. 
     
199. 1. The Equal Power System provides more opportunities to initiate and restructure talk through the use of clarification requests, comprehension checks, and confirmation checks.
200. 
     
201. 
     
202. 2. In Equal Power System students ask more questions.
203. 
     
204. 
     
205. 3. In Equal Power System teachers ask more referential (new information) questions. These referential questions provoke more syntactically complex and connected student answers than do display questions.
206. 
     
207. 
     
208. The following chart from a report of an experiment by Teresa Pica⁽³⁾ reveals that more negotiation of meaning (comprehension and confirmation checks, clarification requests) occurs when the teacher is not present and when an information gap task is used rather than a decision-making discussion:
209. 
     
210. 
     
211. Comprehension and Confirmation Checks
212. and Clarification Requests in Decision-MakingDiscussion and Information-Gap Task
213. (from an experiment by Pica, 1987)
214. Activity
215. Teacher-fronted
216. Student-Student
217. Decision-making discussion
218. 79
219. 23
220. Information-exchange task
221. 127
222. 145
223. 
     
224. 
     
225. **************************
226. 
     
227. 
     
228. Conclusions:
229. 
     
230. 
     
231. 1. The Unequal Power System is "acquisitionally restrictive" for students.
232. 
     
233. 
     
234. 2. Teachers should assign group tasks which encourage an Equal Power Exchange System (the default setting for student-student interaction during small group work).
235. 
     
236. 
     
237. *************************
238. 
     
239. 
     
240. Example of Negotiation of Meaning
241. 
     
242. 
     
243. NNS: . . .so this young woman doctor
244. hope this young man doctor drive
245. car, go home . . . Now this young
246. woman boyfriend very angry . . . he
247. want have a very no- good idea for
248. this girl
249. 
     
250. 
     
251. NS: which girl? the one who can't speak?
252. [clarification request]
253. 
     
254. 
     
255. NNS: can't speak girl. and why? because
256. this this girl very angry also.
257. you know what I mean?
258. [comprehension check]
259. 
     
260. 
     
261. NS: yes
262. 
     
263. 
     
264. *************************
265. 
     
266. 
     
267. Types of Tasks
268. 
     
269. 
     
270. I. One-way information gap
271. Two-way information gap (also known as jigsaw task)
272. 
     
273. 
     
274. II. Convergent: Learners reach a consensus on a mutually acceptable solution to a problem
275. 
     
276. 
     
277. Divergent: Learners develop their own individual viewpoints on a problem, which they must defend against other learners' positions
278. 
     
279. 
     
280. Ex. of convergent task: Students must agree on six items (from a list of 20 items) that they would like to have if marooned on a desert island. (Any six items can be chosen but the group has to agree on which six.)
281. (Similar to what Brown in TBP (p. 185-6) calls a decision-making task)
282. 
     
283. 
     
284. Ex. of divergent task: Discussion of the good or bad effects of television
285. 
     
286. 
     
287. III. Closed/Open
288. 
     
289. 
     
290. Closed: require learners to arrive at single solution or restricted set of solutions
291. 
     
292. 
     
293. Open: no single predetermined solution
294. 
     
295. 
     
296. Ex. of closed task: the task you did to find out information about the new employee for the software firm.
297. 
     
298. 
     
299. Ex. of open task: the desert island task above
300. 
     
301. 
     
302. 
     
303. 
     
304. 
     
305. 
     
306. 
     
307. 
     
308. 1. Most of this information on speech exchange systems comes from Numa Markee, Conversation Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000).
309. 2. Numa Markee, Conversation Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000), p. 77.
310. 3. Teresa Pica, "Second Language Acquisition, Social Interaction, and the Classroom," Applied Linguistics 8 (1987): 3-21.
311. Models for Integrating the Four Skills of
312. Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing
313. 
     
314. 
     
315. I. Content-based instruction*
316. II. Theme-based instruction*
317. III. Experiential learning
318. IV. Episode hypothesis
319. V. Task-based teaching*
320. 
     
321. 
     
322. *These overheads will discuss these models.
323. 
     
324. 
     
325. 
     
326. 
     
327. I. Content-based instruction
328. 
     
329. 
     
330. A. Definition:
331. 
     
332. 
     
333. -the integration of content learning with language teaching aims
334. 
     
335. 
     
336. -the concurrent study of language and subject matter with the form and sequence of language presentation dictated by content material (Brinton, Snow, and Wesche; quoted by Brown, p. 49)
337. 
     
338. 
     
339. -the second language is the medium to convey informational content of interest and relevance to the learner
340. 
     
341. 
     
342. -usually term-content-based instruction-refers to academic or occupational instruction over an extended period of time at intermediate to advanced proficiency levels
343. 
     
344. 
     
345. -Beginning classes in "renting an apartment," "getting a driver's license," etc. not considered CBI
346. 
     
347. 
     
348. B. Advantages
349. 
     
350. 
     
351. -increases motivation because students are focused on subject matter that is important to their lives
352. 
     
353. 
     
354. -Learners will learn the language because it provides access to the content
355. 
     
356. 
     
357. -Language teaching should always be related to the eventual uses to which the learner will put the language. CBI does this. For school children, the need is to learn the school subjects.
358. C. Brown's distinction between strong and weak versions of CBI
359. 
     
360. 
     
361. 1. Strong version of CBI: primary purpose of course is to instruct students in a subject-matter area and language is of secondary and subordinate interest
362. 
     
363. 
     
364. Examples:
365. 
     
366. 
     
367. a. Immersion programs for elementary-school
368. children
369. b. Sheltered English programs
370. c. Writing across the curriculum programs
371. d. English for Specific Purposes (ESP) (for engineering, pharmacy, medicine, etc.)
372. 
     
373. 
     
374. 2. weak version of CBI: places equal value on content and language objectives
375. 
     
376. 
     
377. Example:
378. 
     
379. 
     
380. Theme or Topic Based Instruction
381. 
     
382. 
     
383. II. Theme-based Teaching
384. 
     
385. 
     
386. Examples:
387. 
     
388. 
     
389. -a course at an Intensive Language Institute (like the IELI) in environmental awareness, public health, world economics, American business
390. 
     
391. 
     
392. -study of corn in an elementary school
393. 
     
394. 
     
395. -"Building toothpick bridges"
396. 
     
397. 
     
398. III. Task-based Teaching
399. 
     
400. 
     
401. A. Definition
402. 
     
403. 
     
404. -meaning [not grammar] is primary
405. -there is some communication problem to solve
406. -there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities
407. -task completion has some priority
408. -the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome
409. 
     
410. 
     
411. B. Pedagogical tasks and target tasks
412. 
     
413. 
     
414. Pedagogical task: classroom activity that prepares students for a task to be performed beyond the classroom
415. 
     
416. 
     
417. Target task: task students much accomplish beyond the classroom
418. 
     
419. 
     
420. C. Difference from CBI and Theme-based Instruction
421. 
     
422. 
     
423. In Task-based Instruction the course objectives are
424. more language-based. Focus is on communication and language functions, however, not grammar or phonology
425. 
     
426. 
     
427. 
     
428. 
     
429. Three Kinds of Drill
430. Drill: a technique that focuses on a minimal number (usually one or two) of language forms (grammatical or phonological structures) through some kind of repetition (TBP, p. 131).
431. 
     
432. 
     
433. 1. Mechanical
434. 
     
435. 
     
436. -have only one correct response from a student and have no implied connection with reality;
437. -can be performed without understanding meaning of what is being said, as in this drill:
438. 
     
439. 
     
440. T: andar (tó) R: andas
441. cantar (tó) R: cantas
442. trabajar (tó) R:
443. pasar (tó) R:
444. hablar (tó) R:
445. 
     
446. 
     
447. -common mechanical drill in A-L Method: substitution drill
448. 
     
449. 
     
450. T: I went to the store yesterday.
451. T: Bank
452. S: I went to the bank yesterday.
453. -moving slot substitution drill:
454. 
     
455. 
     
456. T: I went to the store yesterday.
457. T: He
458. S: He went to the store yesterday.
459. T: In the morning
460. S: He went to the store in the morning.
461. T: will go
462. S: He will go to the store in the morning.
463. 
     
464. 
     
465. II. Meaningful
466. 
     
467. 
     
468. -may have a predicted response or a limited set of possible responses but it is connected to some form of reality
469. -students must understand meaning of the language used in drill in order to perform it correctly
470. -information to perform the drill is available in the classroom context and/or in the teaching materials (compare: display question); no new information is injected
471. 
     
472. 
     
473. T: The woman is outside.
474. Where is she, Hiro?
475. Hiro: The woman is outside.
476. T: Right, she's outside. Keiko, where is she?
477. Keiko: She's outside.
478. 
     
479. 
     
480. T: I'll give the green pen to Tesfaye and the red
481. pen to Makonnen. (hands out pens)
482. Alemu, who has the red pen?
483. 
     
484. 
     
485. 
     
486. 
     
487. III. Communicative
488. T: Good morning, class. Last weekend I went to a restaurant and I ate salmon. Juan, what did you do last weekend?
489. Juan: I went to the park and I play soccer.
490. T: Juan, "I play soccer" or "I played soccer"?
491. Juan: Oh, uh, I played soccer.
492. T: Good! Ying, did you go to the park last weekend like Juan?
493. Ying: No.
494. T: What did you do?
495. Ying: I watched a lot of TV.
496. 
     
497. 
     
498. -new personal information is injected
499. -information to perform the drill is NOT available in the classroom or teaching materials
500. 
     
501. 
     
502. Is the above activity a "drill"?
503. 
     
504. 
     
505. Brown: If activity offers a chance for open response and negotiation of meaning, then it's not a drill.
506. 
     
507. 
     
508. Overheads on Approaches to Syllabus Design
509. 
     
510. 
     
511. I. Synthetic Syllabuses⁽¹⁾
512. 
     
513. 
     
514. Syllabuses which "segment the target language into discrete linguistic items [grammar forms, communicative functions] for presentation one at a time." The learner's role in courses taught with a synthetic syllabus is to "re-synthesize the language that has been broken down into a large number of small pieces with the aim of making his [sic] learning task easier."⁽²⁾
515. 
     
516. 
     
517. II. Analytic Syllabuses
518. 
     
519. 
     
520. Syllabuses which "present the target language whole chunks at a time, without linguistic interference or control" (Long and Crookes 29). An analytic syllabus assumes that learners have an innate knowledge of linguistic universals that is activated when they are exposed to the target language. They use this knowledge to induce rules when presented with language input.
521. 
     
522. 
     
523. 
     
524. 
     
525. III. Approaches to Syllabus Design Arranged along a Continuum from Synthetic to Analytic
526. 
     
527. 
     
528. A. Structural (or Grammatical) Syllabus
529. B. Functional Syllabus (or Notional-Functional Syllabus)
530. C. Situational Syllabus
531. D. Task-Based Syllabus
532. E. Topical Syllabus
533. F. Subject-Matter Syllabus
534. 
     
535. 
     
536. 1. This distinction between synthetic and analytic syllabuses comes from Michael H. Long and Graham Crookes, "Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design," TESOL Quarterly 26 (1992): 27-56).
537. 2. D.A. Wilkins, Notional Syllabuses (Oxford: Oxford U. Pr., 1976) 2.
538. 
     
539. Definition of Syllabus
540. 
     
541. 
     
542. Syllabus: an overall specification or program of what is to be learned (or at least taught) in a particular course or series of courses
543. 
     
544. 
     
545. ********************
546. III-A: The Structural (or Grammatical) Syllabus
547. 
     
548. 
     
549. Sample "Contents" from a textbook that would be appropriate for a course using a Structural Syllabus:
550. 
     
551. 
     
552. (from the book Grammar Dimensions)
553. 
     
554. 
     
555. Unit 1 SIMPLE PRESENT
556. Habits, Routines, and Facts
557. 
     
558. 
     
559. Focus 1 Verbs in the Simple Present Tense
560. (Use)
561. Focus 2 Simple Present Tense (Form)
562. Focus 3 Showing How Often Something
563. Happens
564. Focus 4 Talking about Facts (Use)
565. 
     
566. 
     
567. Unit 2 PRESENT PROGRESSIVE AND SIMPLE PRESENT
568. 
     
569. 
     
570. Actions and States
571. 
     
572. 
     
573. Focus 1 Present Progressive: Actions in Progress (Use)
574. Focus 2 Present Progressive (Form)
575. 
     
576. 
     
577. Etc.
578. ********************
579. Criteria Used in Selecting and Sequencing GrammarStructures in a Grammar/Structural Syllabus
580. 
     
581. • Difficulty and teachability of structure
     • Frequency of use of structure
     • Degree of similarity to students' native language
582. (Determined by a Contrastive Analysis of student's native language and the target language; course developers may concentrate on target language structures that don't exist in students' native language.)
583. 
     
584. 
     
585. ********************
586. 
     
587. 
     
588. Yalden in her book The Communicative Syllabus surveyed several ESL textbooks using a Grammar Syllabus and found this ordering (or one very similar) in early chapters:
589. 
     
590. 
     
591. 1. Verb "to be"
592. 2. Personal Pronouns
593. 3. Present Tense
594. 4. Demonstrative Pronouns (This, That, These, Those)
595. 5. Indefinite article (a, an)
596. 6. Questions
597. 7. Negatives
598. 8. Possessive of Nouns
599. 9. Plurals
600. 10. Noun Modifiers
601. Etc.
602. 
     
603. 
     
604. ********************
605. 
     
606. 
     
607. III-B: The Functional (or Notional-Functional) Syllabus
608. 
     
609. 
     
610. Sample "Contents" from a textbook that would be appropriate for a course using a Functional Syllabus: (taken from Functions of American English)
611. 
     
612. 
     
613. 1. Talking about yourself, starting a conversation, making a date
614. 2. Asking for information: question techniques, answering techniques, getting more information
615. 3. Getting people to do things: requesting, attracting attention, agreeing and refusing
616. 4. Talking about past events: remembering, describing experiences, imagining What if . . .
617. 5. Conversation techniques: hesitating, preventing interruptions and interrupting politely, bringing in other people
618. 
     
619. 
     
620. ********************
621. Organizing Elements in a Notional-Functional Syllabus
622. 
     
623. 
     
624. I. Notions
625. 
     
626. 
     
627. A. General Notions: Semantic/Grammatical Concepts
628. 
     
629. 
     
630. B. Specific Notions: Vocabulary items associated with a context in which they would be used
631. 
     
632. 
     
633. II. Functions
634. 
     
635. 
     
636. III. Grammatical Forms or Exponents
637. 
     
638. 
     
639. ********************
640. 
     
641. 
     
642. Exploring These Elements of a Functional Syllabus
643. in More Detail
644. I. Notions
645. 
     
646. 
     
647. A. General notions: semantic/grammatical categories that could be needed in any situation when dealing with any topic
     • Spatial
     • Temporal
648. a. Future reference [NP + be going to + VP]
     • Etc.

1. Penny Ur (packet): Think of them as headings in
2. Roget's Thesaurus, like
3. time, size, emotion, movement, etc.
4. 
   
5. 
   
6. Ur says a general notion "overlaps with the concept of 'topic"
7. B. Specific Notions: According to Penny Ur, specific notions are "virtually the same as vocabulary":
8. 
   
9. 
   
10. dog, house, etc.
11. 
    
12. 
    
13. Usually these specific notions are related to some context or situation. The specific notions of name, address, phone number, and other personal information may be related to "personal identification." See TBP, p. 33.
14. 
    
15. 
    
16. II. Functions
17. 
    
18. 
    
19. Language functions are what we use language to do. Here is are some functions:
20. 
    
21. 
    
22. 1. Imparting and seeking factual information
23. 2. Expressing and finding out intellectual attitudes
    • Expressing and finding out emotional attitudes
    • Expressing and finding out moral attitudes
24. a. Apologizing [I'm very sorry.]⁽³⁾
25. b. Granting forgiveness [That's all right.]
    • Getting things done (suasion)
26. a. Requesting others to do something [Please + VP; VP + Please]
27. b. Warning others to take care or to refrain from something [Look out! Be careful! Don't + VP]]
28. c. Instructing or directing others to do something [imperative sentences]
    • Socializing
29. III. Forms or Exponents
30. 
    
31. 
    
32. The actual linguistic structures or forms that will be needed to do what has been specified--to express the various functions and notions. (The items in brackets above are "forms" in this sense.)
33. 
    
34. 
    
35. ********************
36. 
    
37. 
    
38. In the following chart certain items are identified as eithera notion, a function, or an exponent.
39. 
    
40. 
    
41. duration
42. notion
43. complaining
44. function
45. comparatives
46. exponent/form
47. choosing
48. function
49. narrating
50. function
51. probability
52. notion
53. guessing
54. function
55. past simple
56. exponent/form
57. futurity
58. notion
59. frequency
60. notion
61. making arrangements
62. function
63. passive
64. exponent/form
65. ********************
66. Form to Function
67. 
    
68. 
    
69. Sentence Form
70. (Grammar form)
71. Realization
72. Function
73. Imperative
74. (a) "Give me some water."
75. (b) "Release me now."
76. (c) "Buy Canada Savings Bonds."
77. (d) "Don't go in there."
78. (e) "Try this one on."
79. Giving orders
80. 
    
81. 
    
82. Pleading
83. 
    
84. 
    
85. Advising
86. 
    
87. 
    
88. Warning
89. 
    
90. 
    
91. Suggesting
92. ********************
93. 
    
94. 
    
95. Function to Form
96. 
    
97. 
    
98. Function
99. Grammar forms
100. Realization
101. Giving orders
102. (a) Imperative
103. 
     
104. (b) Conditional
105. 
     
106. 
     
107. 
     
108. 
     
109. 
     
110. 
     
111. 
     
112. 
     
113. (c) Infinitive
114. 
     
115. 
     
116. (d) Modal
117. 
     
118. 
     
119. (d) Participial
120. 
     
121. 
     
122. "Please go now."
123. "Perhaps it would be preferable if you went now."
124. "I expect you to go now."
125. "You must go now."
126. "You should be going now."
127. 
     
128. 
     
129. III-C: Situational Syllabus
130. 
     
131. 
     
132. Table of Contents from Speaking Of Survival, a textbookthat uses a situational syllabus:
133. 
     
134. 
     
135. Doctor
136. Hospital
137. Housing
138. Fire and Robbery
139. Jobs
140. Banking
141. Post Office and Phone
142. Transportation
143. Food
144. Clothes
145. Furniture
146. Repairs
147. 
     
148. 
     
149. ********************
150. 
     
151. 
     
152. III-D: Task-Based Syllabus
153. Definitions of Task
154. 
     
155. 
     
156. Brown discusses "task" on the following pages in TBP: 50-51, 129, and 242. As Brown says, "there is a a good deal of variation among experts on how to describe or define task" (p. 50), but "the common thread running through half a dozen definitions of task is its focus on the authentic use of language for meaningful communicative purposes beyond the language classroom" (p. 129).
157. 
     
158. 
     
159. Brown says that Peter Skehan's⁽⁴⁾ concept of task seems to "capture the essentials" (p. 50). Skehan defines task as an activity in which
160. 
     
161. • meaning [not grammar] is primary
     • there is some communication problem to solve
     • there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities
     • task completion has some priority
     • the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome

1. David Nunan, a leading advocate of task-based teaching, defines a task in this way:
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. A piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form.
5. 
   
6. 
   
7. ********************
8. 
   
9. 
   
10. Target Task: Giving personal information in a job interview
11. Pedagogic Tasks:
12. 
    
13. 
    
14. --Exercises in comprehension of wh-questions with do-insertion
15. When did you work at Macy's?
16. 
    
17. 
    
18. --Drills in the use of frequency adverbs
19. 
    
20. 
    
21. --Listening to extracts of job interviews
22. 
    
23. 
    
24. --Analyzing the grammar and discourse of the interviews
25. 
    
26. 
    
27. --Modeling an interview: teacher and one student
28. 
    
29. 
    
30. --Role-playing a simulated interview: students in pairs (See TBP, pp. 228-29)
31. 
    
32. 
    
33. ********************
34. 
    
35. 
    
36. Example of a Syllabus Based on Tasks
37. 
    
38. 
    
39. Communication Teaching Project in southern India⁽⁵⁾
40. (Referred to as the Bangalore-Madras Project)
41. 
    
42. 
    
43. N.S. Prabhu describes a task-based teaching project implemented in primary and secondary schools in southern India. In this task-based program the essential building blocks, the organizing "units," are tasks (not grammar items, not topics, not functions, not situations). This syllabus from southern India is perhaps the best example of a fairly pure task-based syllabus design. In this program, to accommodate Indian notions of a traditional classroom, tasks are primarily teacher-led; there is very little pair or group work. In many ESL/EFL classrooms tasks are designed as group or pair activities.
44. 
    
45. 
    
46. This project's definition of task:
47. 
    
48. 
    
49. "An activity which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given information through some process of thought, and which allowed teachers to control and regulate that process."
50. 
    
51. 
    
52. Pre-task: a task that was attempted as a whole-class activity, under the teacher's guidance and control.
53. This pre-task was similar but not identical to the main task that the students would perform independently.
54. 
    
55. 
    
56. Examples:
57. 
    
58. 
    
59. Clockfaces
60. 
    
61. 
    
62. a. Telling the time from a clockface; positioning the hands of a clock to show a given time.
63. 
    
64. 
    
65. b. Calculating durations from the movement of a clock's hands; working out inte4r5vals between given times.
66. 
    
67. 
    
68. c. Stating the time on a twelve hour clock and a twenty-four hour clock; relating times to phases of the day and night.
69. Money
70. 
    
71. 
    
72. a. Working out the money needed to buy a set of things (e.g., school stationery, vegetables) from given price lists and needs.
73. 
    
74. 
    
75. b. Deciding on quantities to be bought with the money available; inferring quantities bought from the money spent.
76. 
    
77. 
    
78. c. Discovering errors in bills; inferring when an underpayment/overpayment must have taken place.
79. 
    
80. 
    
81. d. Deciding between alternatives in shopping (e.g. between a small store nearby and a large one which involves lower prices but expenditure on transport).
82. 
    
83. 
    
84. ********************
85. 
    
86. 
    
87. III-E: Topical or Thematic Syllabus
88. 
    
89. 
    
90. Table of Contents from a textbook that would beappropriate for a course using a topical syllabus:
91. 
    
92. 
    
93. Personal background
94. Hobbies and sports
95. Pop scene: records/music, pop stars, clothes
96. Fashion
97. Entertainment and Personalities
98. TV
99. Cinema
100. Clubs/societies
101. Holidays
102. Travel/school trips, etc.
103. Bikes/cars
104. Discos and dances
105. Relationships with parents
106. Relationships with others/other sex
107. Pets
108. Shopping/prices
109. Pocket-money
110. School world
111. Teenage reading
112. Personal experiences
113. Comparisons of own country/foreign country
114. Jobs and careers
115. Events in the media
116. 
     
117. 
     
118. III-F: Subject Matter Syllabus
119. 
     
120. 
     
121. In this syllabus the units of learning become the traditional school subjects: math, social studies, science, etc. In the kind of sheltered-English or structured English immersion classroom that is called for in Prop 227, this is the main syllabus design, though, of course, the ELD component could adopt one of the other designs discussed above.
122. 
     
123. 
     
124. ********************
125. Combination of Designs
126. 
     
127. 
     
128. As you will see when you investigate some ESL/EFL teaching materials, many textbooks employ a combination of syllabus designs. Usually one design, often the topical syllabus design, becomes the overarching structure with functions and grammar and perhaps tasks included within it. You should look at the materials on reserve to see samples of materials that employ a combination of designs.
129. 
     
130. 
     
131. 
     
132. 
     
133. 
     
134. 
     
135. 
     
136. 
     
137. 
     
138. 
     
139. 1. This distinction between synthetic and analytic syllabuses comes from Michael H. Long and Graham Crookes, "Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design," TESOL Quarterly 26 (1992): 27-56).
140. 2. D.A. Wilkins, Notional Syllabuses (Oxford: Oxford U. Pr., 1976) 2.
141. 3. The items in brackets are the grammar structures or exponents that are used to realize the functions.
142. 4. Peter Skehan, A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning (Oxford: Oxford U. Pr., 1998).
143. 5. This project is described in N. S. Prabhu, Second Language Pedagogy (Hong Kong: Oxford U. Pr., 1987).
144. Overheads Related to Our Discussion of
145. Form-Based Instruction
146. 
     
147. 
     
148. We began our discussion by looking at this transcript:
149. 
     
150. 
     
151. Example of Language Used by Students During Task Work
152. 
     
153. 
     
154. This is a transcript of language used in a role-play task in an EFL secondary school English lesson.⁽¹⁾ One student is playing the role of a doctor and the other a patient, and they are discussing a health problem.
155. 
     
156. 
     
157. Speaker 1: I'm thirty-four . . . thirty-five.
158. 
     
159. 
     
160. Speaker 2: Thirty . . . five?
161. 
     
162. 
     
163. Speaker 1: Five.
164. 
     
165. 
     
166. Speaker 2: Problem?
167. 
     
168. 
     
169. Speaker 1: I have . . . a pain in my throat.
170. 
     
171. 
     
172. Speaker 2: [In Spanish: What do you have?]
173. 
     
174. 
     
175. Speaker 1: A pain.
176. 
     
177. 
     
178. Speaker 2: [In Spanish: What's that?]
179. 
     
180. 
     
181. Speaker 1: [In Spanish: A pain.] A pain.
182. 
     
183. 
     
184. Speaker 2: Ah, pain.
185. 
     
186. 
     
187. Speaker 1: Yes, and it makes a problem to me when I . . . swallow.
188. 
     
189. 
     
190. Speaker 2: When do you have . . .?
191. 
     
192. 
     
193. Speaker 1: Since yesterday morning.
194. 
     
195. 
     
196. Speaker 2: [In Spanish: No, I mean, where do you have the pain?] It has a pain in . . .?
197. 
     
198. 
     
199. Speaker 1: In my throat.
200. 
     
201. 
     
202. Speaker 2: Ah. Let it . . . getting, er . . . worse. It can be, er . . . very serious problem and you are, you will, go to New York to operate, so . . . operation, er . . . the seventh, the 27^th, er May. And treatment, you can't eat, er, big meal.
203. 
     
204. 
     
205. Speaker 1: Big meal, I er, . . . I don't know? Fish?
206. Speaker 2: Fish you have to eat, er fish, for example.
207. 
     
208. 
     
209. *************************
210. 
     
211. 
     
212. Three Options in Language Teaching:
213. Quick Overview
214. 
     
215. 
     
216. I. Focus on FormS: approach emphasizing grammar with little attention to contexts of communication
217. 
     
218. 
     
219. II. Focus on Meaning: approach emphasizing meaning and communication with no attention to grammar
220. 
     
221. 
     
222. III. Focus on Form: approach in which instruction in grammar is embedded in a teaching program that emphasizes meaning and communication
223. 
     
224. 
     
225. *************************
226. 
     
227. 
     
228. Three Options in Language Teaching⁽²⁾
229. 
     
230. 
     
231. I. Focus on FormS
232. • Synthetic syllabus (Structural or Functional or some other collection of language items)

• 
  
• • Usually a behaviorist perspective on LSA is assumed (though may not be made explicit)
• 
  
• • Methods involving explicit negative feedback (Grammar-Translation, Audio-lingual)
• 
  
• • Accuracy stressed over fluency
• 
  
• • P(resentation of a grammar rule), P(ractice), P(roduction)
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Problems
• 
  
• 
  
• -Learners have trouble transferring classroom lessons to real life situations.
• 
  
• 
  
• -The grammar syllabus of the teacher and textbook doesn't affect the "built-in" syllabus of the learner. Learners appear to learn language structures according to a "built-in syllabus," indevelopmental sequences that don't appear to be affected by the syllabus used by the teacher.
• 
  
• 
  
• Developmental Sequences for Interrogatives in ESL
• 
  
• 
  
• Stage-----------------------Sample Utterance
• 1. Rising intonation
• He work today?
• 2. Uninverted WH (+/- aux.)
• What he saying?
• What he is saying?
• 3. 'Overinversion'
• Where is it? [correct]
• Do you know where is it?
• 4. Differentiation
• Does she like where she lives?
• 
  
• 
  
• Research suggests speakers of various L1's (Spanish, Taiwanese, and Norwegian, e.g.) follow the same general pattern.
• 
  
• 
  
• Developmental Sequence Related to
• Morpheme Acquisition
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• ING (progressive)
• PLURAL
• COPULA (to be)
• AUXILIARY (progressive)
• ARTICLE (a, the)
• IRREGULAR PAST
• REGULAR PAST
• III PERSON (-s)
• POSSESSIVE
• (-s)
• 
  
• 
  
• II. Focus on Meaning
• • Comprehensible input is sufficient for adolescents and adults learning an L2 just as it is for children learning L1
• 
  
• • One learns languages best not by treating languages as objects of study but by experiencing them as mediums of communication
• 
  
• • Assumes adults like young children can subconsciously analyze input and induce rules and/or access innate knowledge of linguistic universals
  • Analytic syllabus--topics, themes, subjects (math, social studies, science as in immersion programs)
• 
  
• • Methods like the Natural Approach, Immersion, and strong versions of Task-Based Instruction
• 
  
• 
  
• -Strong version of Task-Based Instruction:
• (Students will acquire grammar forms by struggling to communicate; no need for focused instruction on forms.)
• 
  
• • Positive evidence emphasized (in other words, little explicit error correction)
• 
  
• 
  
• Problems
• 
  
• 
  
• -Some evidence suggest older learners can't obtain native norms in a new language simply from exposure to its use.
• 
  
• 
  
• -Children in immersion programs don't reach native-like control.
• 
  
• 
  
• -If communication is the focus, some errors won't be noticed and so will persist.
• 
  
• 
  
• Je bois du cafe tous les jours.
• Je bois tous les jours du cafe.
• 
  
• 
  
• I drink coffee every day.
• *I drink every day coffee.
• *He opened carefully the door.
• 
  
• 
  
• Closer Look at Some Problems
• with Focus on Meaning Option
• 
  
• • Evidence from French Immersion Programs
• 
  
• 
  
• -Pellerin and Hammerly⁽³⁾ Study: Six Vancouver, BC, area grade twelve students who had had nearly thirteen years of immersion in French were found to speak very bad French, not simply "an imperfect French, one slightly faulty and easily perfected after a few weeks or months in Quebec or France. . . ." But "a very defective and probably terminal classroom pidgin, 'Frenglish'" (1987: 397).
• 
  
• 
  
• -Merrill Swain⁽⁴⁾ studied a French Immersion program for native English-speaking students in Canada (A Foreign/Second Language Immersion Program)
• 
  
• 
  
• -Tested Grade 6 Immersion students who were taught as follows:
• 
  
• 
  
• Grade Amount of
• French Instruction
• K-1
• all French
• 2-4
• 80%
• 5
• 60%
• 6
• 50%
• -In subject matter tests in French on history, math, science students scored well. But revealed weaker grammatical competence:
• -(1) Grammar competence:
• -Areas tested were verb forms and prepositions
• 
  
• 
  
• -Students did not achieve native-like control
• 
  
• 
  
• -In comparison to students in a control group (native speakers of French in a unilingual French school in Montreal), the immersion students scored significantly lower.
• -(2) Discourse competence: (had to retell a story seen on film, take a test on cohesion, and write two papers)
• 
  
• 
  
• -Students did not perform as well as native French-speaking students but differences were small.
• 
  
• 
  
• -(3) Sociolinguistic competence: (students saw slides of social situations and had to indicate what to say)
• 
  
• 
  
• -For example, students were presented with a picture of two students in the library and were asked what they would say if they were studying in the library and two students were speaking loudly and bothering them.
• 
  
• 
  
• -Students performed significantly worse than native French speakers.
• 
  
• 
  
• -Swain argues that students need to be pushed to use correct and appropriate language. Otherwise students learning English will continue to make mistakes like the following:
• 
  
• 
  
• *I drink everyday coffee.
• *I no must do it.
• *I runned home.
• 
  
• 
  
• -Students will hear the correct forms of the above sentences but they don't become intake for acquisition because the students process the sentences for meaning not for grammar. They don't "notice" the difference between the correct form and the wrong way they say it.
• 
  
• 
  
• -In processing input students rely on context and co-text (what has been said) to guess the meaning.
• 
  
• 
  
• -Solution, according to Swain and others: "Pushed Output" that forces students to attend to correct grammar.
• 
  
• 
  
• -In other words, neither comprehensible input or interaction activities are enough because "simply getting one's message across can and does occur with grammatically deviant forms and sociolinguistically inappropriate language. Negotiating meaning needs to incorporate the notion of being pushed toward the delivery of a message that is not only conveyed, but that is conveyed precisely, coherently, and appropriately. Being 'pushed' in output, it seems to me, is a concept parallel to that of the i + 1 of comprehensible input. Indeed, one might call this the 'comprehensible output' hypothesis." (my emphasis)
• 
  
• 
  
• -In saying that both
• 
  
• 
  
• (1) comprehensible input AND
• 
  
• 
  
• (2) interaction/negotiation of meaning
• 
  
• 
  
• are inadequate to promote SLA, Swain is criticizing approaches dear to both Innatists like Stephen Krashen and some Interactionists.
• 
  
• 
  
• III. Focus on Form
• 
  
• • Overt instruction in form is embedded in a language teaching program that emphasizes meaning and communication
• 
  
• • "During an otherwise meaning-focused classroom lesson, focus n form often consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features [grammar forms]-by the teacher and/or one or more students-triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production (Long and Robinson, p. 23).
• 
  
• 
  
• Example:
• 
  
• 
  
• (Student was asking the class a question about a story)
• Student: How did Ken force the tenants move out to the village?
• Teacher: How did Ken force the tenants to move out of the village?
• 
  
• • Analytic syllabus (Tasks, Topics, or Subject Matter provide overarching framework but grammar instruction included)
• 
  
• • Methods: Weak Versions of Task-based Language Teaching (includes attention to grammar) and Content-Based Language Teaching (dual focus on content and language)
• 
  
• • Emphasizes importance of getting learners to notice departures from the TL
• 
  
• 
  
• How to Get Students to Notice Departures
• from the Target Language (Errors)
• 
  
• 
  
• 1.) Input Flooding
• 
  
• 
  
• The Frog Prince
• 
  
• 
  
• Once upon a time there was a king. He had a beautiful young daughter. For her birthday, the king gave her a golden ball that she played with every day.
• The king and his daughter lived near a dark forest.
• 
  
• 
  
• In English possessive determiners agree with the natural gender of the possessor:
• his daughter
• his son
• 
  
• 
  
• In French possessive determiners agree with the grammatical gender of the noun naming the possessed entity:
• Robert voit sa mere.
• Robert sees his mother.
• Alice voit son pere.
• Alice sees her father.
• 
  
• 
  
• 2.) Input Enhancement
• 
  
• 
  
• The Frog Prince
• 
  
• 
  
• Once upon a time there was a king. He had a beautiful young daughter. For HER birthday, the king gave HER a golden ball that she played with every day.
• The king and HIS daughter lived near a dark forest.
• 
  
• 
  
• 3.) Implicit negative feedback
• 
  
• 
  
• May be enough for some errors:
• 
  
• 
  
• Treatment:
• 
  
• 
  
• NNS: What the animal do?
• NS: They aren't there, there are no bears?
• NNS: Your picture have this sad girl?
• NS: Yes, What do you have in your picture?
• NNS: What my picture have to make her crying?
• I don't know your picture.
• NS: Yeah ok, I mean what does your picture show? What's the sign?
• NNS: No sign? . . . No, ok, What the mother say to the girl for her crying?
• NS: It's the sign "no bears" that's making her cry. What does your sign say?
• NNS: The sign? Why the girl cry?
• 
  
• 
  
• During Posttest after treatment the same NNS above produced these better formed questions:
• 
  
• 
  
• What do your picture have?
• What has the robber done?
• Where has she gone in your picture?
• 
  
• 
  
• But research suggests not enough for certain forms which are
• 
  
• 
  
• -acquired late
• -have low saliency (not easily noticed)
• -have no effect on communication
• 
  
• 
  
• Examples:
• 
  
• 
  
• The first step was to select and pick out relevant topic. (error in article use)
• 
  
• 
  
• I've found one technique that help develop communication skill very effectively.
• (error in 3^rd person singular verb form)
• 
  
• 
  
• My grandmother death had brought back a very sad memory, which is my uncle death just a few years ago. (error in possessive form)
• 
  
• 
  
• Developmental Sequence Related to
• Morpheme Acquisition
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• ING (progressive)
• PLURAL
• COPULA (to be)
• AUXILIARY (progressive)
• ARTICLE (a, the)
• IRREGULAR PAST
• REGULAR PAST
• III PERSON (-s)
• POSSESSIVE
• (-s)
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 4.) Task Design: Design a task so that the correct use of a particular grammatical form is essential to task completion.
• 
  
• 
  
• Problem: It is difficult to design a task that will ensure learners use a particular grammar from.
• 
  
• 
  
• Three Types of Involvement
• of a Grammar Structure in a Task⁽⁵⁾
• 
  
• 
  
• a.) Task-naturalness: a grammar construction may arise naturally during the performance of a task, but the task can be performed perfectly well without it.
• 
  
• 
  
• Example: Exchanging information about a travel itinerary with a travel agent.
• 
  
• 
  
• Perhaps most natural: simple present tense
• 
  
• 
  
• "You leave Honolulu at 7:30 and arrive in L.A. at 2:30."
• 
  
• 
  
• But:
• 
  
• 
  
• "You will leave . . ."
• "You are going to leave . . ."
• "Leave Honolulu . . . Arrive L.A. . . ."
• b.) Task-utility: It's possible to complete a task without the structure, but with the structure the task becomes easier.
• 
  
• 
  
• "Spot the difference" task could be completed without using prepositions like "on top of," "underneath," etc. but knowing and using these prepositions would make the task a lot easier.
• 
  
• 
  
• c.) Task-essentialness: This occurs when a task can't be completed without using a particular grammar structure; the grammar structure is the essence of what is to be tended to.
• 
  
• 
  
• It is almost impossible to design production tasks that must be completed using a particular grammar form. But task-essentialness can be achieved in comprehension tasks.
• 5). Various Forms of Teacher Corrective Feedback (see list of eight types below and on your handout)
• 
  
• 
  
• Various Forms of Error Correction
• 
  
• 
  
• English 435
• Various Forms of Error Correction⁽⁶⁾
• 
  
• 
  
• 1.) Explicit Correction: the explicit provision of the correct form; teacher not only provides the correct form, but s/he also clearly indicates that what the student had said was incorrect (e.g., by saying, "You mean . . . " "You should say . . .").
• 
  
• 
  
• (S was answering the T's question about the videotape they just watched.)
• S: Barbara wanted to investigate in the business.
• T: Not "investigate"; "invest."
• 
  
• 
  
• 2.) Recast: the teacher reformulates all or part of a student's utterance, minus the error; recasts are generally implicit in that they are not introduced by phrases such as "You mean," "Use this word," and "You should say."
• 
  
• 
  
• (S was asking the class a question about the text.)
• S: How did Ken force the tenants move out to the village?
• T: How did Ken force the tenants to move out of the village?
• 
  
• 
  
• 3.) Clarification requests: the teacher indicates to the students that their preceding utterance was not clearly understood and that a repetition or reformulation is required; a clarification request includes phrases such as "Pardon me," or "What do you mean by X?"
• 
  
• 
  
• (S was contributing in the group story telling activity)
• S: He just needs to /res/ for a while.
• T: What do you mean by /res/?
• 
  
• 
  
• 4. Metalinguistic feedback: teacher offers comments, information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the student's utterance without explicitly providing the correct form (note difference from #1 above). Teacher indicates that there is an error somewhere (e.g., by saying "No, not X," or even simply "No")
• 
  
• 
  
• (S was trying to ask a question according to the picture.)
• S: Which floor does her office on?
• T: Almost. "Does" is not right.
• 
  
• 
  
• 5. Elicitation: instead of providing the answer, the teacher tries to directly elicit the correct form from the student. Includes at least three techniques:
• 
  
• 
  
• a. Elicit completion: "No, not that. It's a_________." (Teacher elicits completion of her utterance by strategically pausing to allow students to "fill in the blank.")
• b. Elicit questions: "How do we say X in English?"
• c. Elicit reformulation: teacher asks students to reformulate their utterance.
• 
  
• 
  
• (S was answering the T's question about the audio tape they just listened to.)
• T: Who do you think got the job?
• S: /dævId/ (pronounces "David" so it rhymes with "rabid")
• S: Say it again?!
• 
  
• 
  
• 6. Repetition of error: teacher repeats, in isolation, the student's erroneous utterance; usually teacher would adjust her intonation to highlight the error.
• 
  
• 
  
• (S was asking a question about the story they read in the textbook.)
• S: Where has Ken, Butch, and Spite plan to meet?
• T: Where has? (with rising intonation at end)
• 
  
• 
  
• 7. Interruption: the teacher jumps in to correct, upon hearing it, the student's error in the middle of his/her utterance-before the student has a chance to finish the utterance.
• 
  
• 
  
• (S was reading out loud the sentence she just made.)
• S: The way people are rising their children--
• T: Are raising.
• 
  
• 
  
• 8. Body language: instead of an oral response, the teacher uses either a facial expression or a body movement to indicate to the student what s/he just said is incorrect. Includes frowning, head shaking, etc.
• 
  
• 
  
• (S was giving a specific sentence pattern.)
• S: 2 X 3 is the same with 3 X2.
• T: (Frowning at the student)
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Two Studies on Corrective Feedback
• 
  
• I. The Lyster and Ranta study of "Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms"
• –studied transcripts from six French immersion classrooms in the Montreal area, grades 4 to 5
• –classes were subject-matter classes (science, math,
• social science, etc.)
• Most popular feedback technique: RECAST
• 
  
• Feedback technique least likely to
• lead to uptake (student utterance following
• feedback): RECAST
• 
  
• ****************************************
• 
  
• Distribution of Feedback Types Used by Teachers
• RECAST 55%
• ELICITATION 14%
• CLARIFICATION REQUEST 11%
• METALINGUISTIC FEEDBACK 8%
• EXPLICIT CORRECTION 7%
• REPETITION 5%
• 
  
• ****************************************
• 
  
• Feedback Techniques that Led to Student-
• Generated repair (self-repair or peer-repair)
• ELICITATION: 43%
• (43% of all repairs were prompted by a teacher using this technique)
• METALINGUISTIC: 26%
• CLARIFICATION: 20%
• REPETITION: 11%
• 
  
• ****************************************
• Conclusions:
• 
  
• 1.) Students become more engaged when they have to correct the errors themselves. ("Student-generated repair" is a good thing.) Recasts and explicit correction, therefore, aren't as good as elicitation, metalinguistic, clarification, and repetition forms of correction.
• 
  
• 2.) None of the feedback types seemed to interrupt the flow of classroom interaction and uptake, the student's turn in the error treatment sequence, clearly does not break the communicative flow either (actually, it gives the floor to the student.
• 
  
• ****************************************
• 
  
• II. Shujen S. Yao's study: Focus on Form in the Foreign Language Classroom: EFL College Learners' Attitudes toward Error Correction
• –participants were six teachers and 18 students (three from each of the teachers' classes) at a "highly prestigious teacher training university located in northern Taiwan, the Republic of China
• 
  
• 
  
• Types of Error Correction the Six Teachers Used
• 
  
• Recast
• 34.16%
• Elicitation
• 30.74%
• Explicit
• 19.35%
• Meta-Linguistic
• 4.93%
• Clarification
• 4.74%
• Interruption
• 2.85%
• Repetition
• 2.47%
• Body Language
• 0.76%
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Student Willingness to Accept a Certain Type of
• Error Correction
• 
  
• Explicit
• 72.2%
• Repetition
• 72.2%
• Elicitation
• 66.7%
• Clarification
• 55.6%
• Meta-Linguistic
• 50%
• Recast
• 33.3%
• Body Language
• 27.8%
• Interruption
• 0%
• 
  
• Options in Focus on Form Instruction:
• Different Ways of Including Attention to Form
• in Communicative Language Teaching
• 
  
• 
  
• I. Integrated Option
• 
  
• 
  
• A. Proactive: prior to a task or other activity, teach the grammar that you predict students will need to do the task/activity. (Penny Ur's "text to task")
• 
  
• 
  
• B. Reactive:
• 
  
• 
  
• (1.) Immediate: Respond immediately to errors in grammar during a task/activity using one of the eight "Forms of Teacher Corrective Feedback" listed below.
• 
  
• 
  
• (2.) Delayed: Keep notes on errors during task/activity and discuss errors after students have completed it.
• 
  
• 
  
• II. Parallel Option
• 
  
• 
  
• In this option, there is no attempt to link or integrate
• 
  
• 
  
• -the explicit code-focused instruction (in pronunciation, syntax/ sentence grammar, and discourse structure)
• 
  
• 
  
• AND
• 
  
• 
  
• -the communicative tasks part of the course
• 
  
• 
  
• Assumption: That it is the learner not the curriculum planner that must do the integrating of grammar and communication.
• 
  
• 
  
• III. Combination of Integrated and Parallel
• 
  
• 
  
• For example, a teacher could correct (repeat, recast, etc.) errors in communicative part of course that have been explicitly taught in the grammar segment.
• 1. It's taken from D. Lubelski and M. Mathews, Looking at Language Classrooms: Trainer's Guide (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Pr., 1997)
• 2. This framework is adapted from Michael H. Long and Peter Robinson, "Focus on Form: Theory, Research, and Practice," Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, ed. Catherine Doughty and Jessica Williams (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Pr.), pp. 15-41.
• 3. Micheline Pellerin and Hector Hammerly, "L'expression orale apres treize ans d'immersion francaise," Canadian Modern Language Review 42 (1986): 592-606. Summarized in English in Hector Hammerly, "The Immersion Approach: Litmus Test of Second Language Acquisition through Classroom Communication," Modern Language Journal 71 (1987):395-401.
• 4. M. Swain, "Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in Its Development," S. Gass and C. Madden, Eds., Input in Second Language Acquisition (Rowley, MA: Newbury House), pp. 235-253.
• 5. Lester Loschky and Robert Bley-Vroman, "Grammar and Task-Based Methodology," Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice, ed. Graham Crookes and Susan M. Gass (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1983), 122-167.
• 6. This list of teacher corrective feedback options is based on Roy Lyster and Leila Ranta, "Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake," Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19 (1997): 37-66.
• Writing: Four Continua
• Writing as Means
• Writing as End
• Product
• Process
• Controlled
• Free
• Personal
• Academic
• Issues in Teaching Writing: Four Continua
• 
  
• 
  
• Terms indicating points on these continua are explained briefly below; some are explained in more detail in Chapter 19 of TBP.
• 
  
• 
  
• I. From Writing as Means (=s Display Writing) to Writing as Both Means and End to Writing as an End (=s Real or Authentic Writing) (See TBP, pp. 339-340, 344, 346)
• 
  
• 
  
• Writing as a means: writing used by teachers as a way to teach vocabulary or grammar; or to test the acquisition of some other skill (listening or reading comprehension, e.g.)
• Roughly same as Display Writing: Writing a student does to "display" his or her knowledge
• Writing as both means and end: writing in which students write to communicate but the writing also allows them to learn or practice some other skill or learn something about some subject
• Writing as an end: writing that allows students to express themselves using their own words; writing to communicate with an audience; writing in which the focus is on the meaning of what the writer says (not on the way the writer says it--not on linguistic form)
• Roughly same as Real Writing: writing when the reader really doesn't know the answer and genuinely wants information
• 
  
• 
  
• II. From Writing as a Product to Writing as a Process (See TBP, pp. 335-337)
• 
  
• 
  
• Consider the degree to which the assignment encourages a process approach to writing.
• 
  
• 
  
• Features of Product Approach
• -Little attention to prewriting; editing grammatical correctness emphasized
• -No response by peers or teacher to rough draft
• -Emphasis on expository writing
• -Teacher corrects and grades paper which isn't revised
• Features of Process Approach
• --Focus on process, particularly on prewriting (or invention) and revision phases
• --Multi-draft assignments so students can revise.
• --Feedback provided from teachers and/or peers
• throughout the process, not just on final product
• --Emphasis on personal or expressive writing
• --Fluency more important than form
• 
  
• 
  
• III. From Controlled to Guided to Free/Creative (See TBP, pp. 344)
• 
  
• 
  
• This continuum should be self-explanatory. See TBP, p. 344, for more info.
• 
  
• 
  
• IV. From Personal or Self-Writing to Writing for Academic Purposes (See TBP, pp. 344, 123)
• 
  
• 
  
• At the left of this continuum would be writing done for oneself alone-writing not read by anyone else, a secret diary, for example. At the other end would be a research paper for a history class or a lab report for a science class. The more the writing prepares students for writing tasks typically assigned by teachers of various subjects (social science, science, etc.-not just English language arts), the closer it is to the Writing for Academic Purposes end of the continuum.
• Writing as a means: writing used by teachers as a way to teach vocabulary or grammar; or to test the acquisition of some other skill (listening or reading comprehension, e.g.)
• 
  
• 
  
• Roughly same as Display Writing: Writing a student does to "display" his or her knowledge
• 
  
• 
  
• Writing as an end: writing that allows student to express themselves using their own words; writing to communicate with an audience; writing in which the focus is on the meaning of what the writer says (not on the way the writer says it--not on linguistic form)
• 
  
• 
  
• Roughly same as Real Writing: writing when the reader really doesn't know the answer and genuinely wants information
• 
  
• 
  
• Writing as both means and end: writing in which students write to communicate but the writing also allows them to learn or practice some other skill or learn something about some subject
• 
  
• 
  
• Examples:
• --Written response to a controversial newspaper article
• --writing an anecdote to illustrate meaning of an idiom
• 
  
• 
  
• Global and Local Errors
• 
  
• 
  
• Local errors: disturb only a small portion of a text--a missing article or incorrect preposition
• 
  
• 
  
• Global errors: have a greater effect on understanding.
• 
  
• 
  
• Example:
• 
  
• 
  
• English language use much people.
• 
  
• 
  
• Meaning intended:
• Many people use the English language.
• 
  
• 
  
• Two local errors: the English language and many people
• One global error: order of words
• 
  
• 
  
• If correct both local errors,
• 
  
• 
  
• *The English language use many people.
• 
  
• 
  
• the sentence is still difficult to understand.
• 
  
• 
  
• If just the global error is corrected,
• 
  
• 
  
• *Much people use English language.
• 
  
• 
  
• the sentence is more acceptable.
• 
  
• 
  
• Research on Error Gravity
• 
  
• 
  
• Attempts have been made to determine which ELL or foreign student errors are more acceptable to teachers.
• 
  
• 
  
• More acceptable: spelling, articles, comma splice, prepositions:
• 
  
• 
  
• At certain times of a year, geese are plentiful in Iowa.
• 
  
• 
  
• An example for this process is when water goes into the plant's roots from the soil.
• 
  
• 
  
• Less acceptable: tense, It-deletion, word order:
• 
  
• 
  
• Citric acid that is founded in lemons and oranges is an organic acid.
• Is necessary that a reservoir is higher than the town.
• 
  
• 
  
• Features of Process Approach
• 
  
• 
  
• --Focus on process, particularly on prewriting (or invention) and revision phases
• --Multi-draft assignments so students can revise.
• 
  
• 
  
• --Feedback provided from teachers and/or peers
• throughout the process, not just on final product
• 
  
• 
  
• --Emphasis on personal or expressive writing
• 
  
• 
  
• --Fluency more important than form
• 
  
• 
  
• Robert Kaplan's "Cultural Thought Patterns inIntercultural Education" (1966)
• 
  
• 
  
• Note: For diagrams of paragraph development in English, Semitic languages (Arabic, e.g.), Oriental languages, Romance languages (French, Spanish), and Russian, see p. 337 of TBP. Here are verbal descriptions:
• 
  
• 
  
• English paragraph development: linear; begins with topic sentence, then subdivisions of that statement, each supported with an example and illustrations
• 
  
• 
  
• Arabic (Semitic languages) paragraph development:
• "based on a complex series of parallel constructions, both positive and negative"; pattern demonstrated in King James version of the Old Testament
• 
  
• 
  
• Oriental paragraph development: indirection; "turning and turning in a widening gyre"; circling around the subject, showing it from a variety of tangential views
• 
  
• 
  
• French, Spanish: more tolerance for digression
• 
  
• 
  
• Russian: also more tolerance for digression
• 
  
• 
  
• Criticisms of Kaplan
• 
  
• 
  
• --Simplistic
• 
  
• 
  
• --Overgeneralized
• 
  
• 
  
• --Not all English paragraphs have topic sentences, e.g.
• 
  
• 
  
• --No native-speaking English control group
• 
  
• 
  
• --Patterns Chinese, Arabic, etc. writers came up with may be the result of inexperience.
• 
  
• 
  
• Brown's view in TBP:
• 
  
• 
  
• --Ring of truth: rhetorical first language interference may play a role
• --Adopt weak position: a student's cultural/literary schemata are one possible source of difficulty; don't, e.g., conclude that all Chinese writers will certainly write in circles.
• 
  
• 
  
• Implications for Teaching
• 
  
• 
  
• --ESL/EFL students literature in their own cultures may transfer L1 rhetorical patterns into their L2 writing with less than successful results.
• 
  
• 
  
• -ESL/EFL students should be aware that when they write in English, they can't assume a sympathetic reader ready and willing to work to build transitions for the writer.
•