Transcript Slide 1

Learning the rule system: Asking
the ‘at what cost’ question
Ernesto Macaro
University of Oxford
The Great Grammar Debate
• What do we mean by ‘teaching grammar’?
• What do we mean by ‘having knowledge of
grammar’?
• Why are we still arguing about it? Contexts?
Phases? Lack of evidence? CLT not a method?
Historical Development
Grammar-Translation
(Pre 1850s)
Direct Method
(1900 – 1940)
All EGT
No EGT
Audio-lingual (Audio-visual)
1941 - 1970
Communicative Language Teaching
1975 - ?
No EGT
Some (?) EGT
A contemporary continuum
CLT in
its purest form
+ task-based
approaches
Implicit Knowledge
Input
processing
Approach
Focus on
Form
Focus on
Forms
Explicit Knowledge
Explicit & Implicit Knowledge
• We are consciously aware (in working memory) of
Explicit Knowledge. More difficult to be aware of
Implicit Knowledge
• Explicit Knowledge is stored in long term memory as
declarative information (as facts or propositions). IK
is stored as procedural information (if situation X
then do Y)
• Big issue: can EK become IK?
Which sentences are correct?
1. I saw the man who crossed the street
2. She watched the teacher who was giving the lecture
3. He forgot the guest who he is in the kitchen
4. He saw the boy who he is in the corner of the room
5. He met the man whom you recommended
6. She likes the same girl whom I like
7. I saw the girl that the boy hit her
8. She surprised the teacher whom the boy thanked her
9. We washed the baby to whom you had given a doll
10.He married the woman to whom you wrote the letter
11.I heard the girl that the man gave a flower to
12.I saw the girl that the boy read a book to her
Did you work out whether the
sentences were right or wrong:
• “by feel” – (you just felt they were correct or
incorrect) – Implicit Knowledge
• “by rule” – (you thought about what the rule
or pattern was or might be) – Explicit
Knowledge
New Programmes of Study: Grammar is ‘up front’
• Identify and use tenses
• Use and manipulate key grammatical
structures…including voices and moods as
appropriate
• Use accurate grammar, spelling and
punctuation
• But what would be most
teachers’ expectations about
the learning of grammar?
Learners should be able to
communicate meaning.
in non-scripted talk:
• patterns of the language are sufficiently
correct for the meaning to be understood
• (e.g. hier, *je mange* au restaurant chinois
avec ma famille).
Learners should show evidence of
growing awareness of patterns.
• Expectation that over time the
pattern might become more
target-like, even if only gradually.
Should learners be able to use some of the rules of the
language correctly in focused grammar tasks?
• Task: they have to provide the correct
inflection for a verb when given in the
infinitive
• Task: put a series of words in the correct
syntactical order.
Should Learners be able to explain a
rule in their own words?
• Teacher teaches a rule
• Teacher expects that the learners should be
able to (at least) give their own rendition of
the rule back to the teacher at some later
point in time.
Should learners be able to use at least some metalanguage with
respect to the rules that they have been taught?
• they might expect learners to be able to use
the terms ‘noun’, ‘verb’ and ‘adjective’.
• Where do you stop? What about ‘adverb’? Is
an adverb something that modifies a verb? Is
‘tomorrow’ an adverb? And what about
‘tomorrow’s performance will take place....’?
• What about ‘determiners’, ‘ditransitive verbs’,
and ‘pseudo-clefts’,
• What is the research evidence about
whether morphology and syntax
should be taught ‘explicitly’?
Beware the meta-analyses!
• Norris and Ortega (2000) 45 studies
(published 1980-1998): advantage for focuson-form.
• Spada and Tomita (2010) reporting on 34
studies between 1990 and 2004: better results
for explicit instruction over implicit
Green, P. and Hecht, K. (1992)
Implicit and Explicit Grammar: An empirical study
Applied Linguistics , 13, 168-84
Questions:
• Do L2 learners know the rules they have been
taught?
• Does knowing the rule mean you can spot a
mistake?
• Context: secondary in Germany
Green, P. and Hecht, K. (1992)
Results:
• Most learners had not learnt the description
of the rules they had been taught (only 46%
produced acceptable rule descriptions)
• Even the Gymnasium (academic school)
achieved no better than 55% of acceptable
rule descriptions
• (Yet) group as a whole produced 78%
appropriate corrections -learners were able to
correct without knowing the rules
Erlam, Rosemary, (2003)
The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of Direct Object
Pronouns in French as a second language
MLJ, 87, 2, 242-260
Question:
• does teaching grammar explicitly (or deductively)
work better than teaching it inductively?
• Deductive – going from the global knowledge of
rules to the particular/individual example
• Inductive – looking at particular/individual examples
of a rule and encouraging the learner to generate
their own rule
• (Context: secondary, New Zealand)
Erlam, (2003)
Results
• In 7 out of the 12 post-treatment tests significant advantage
of Deductive group over Inductive and Control groups –
especially in productive tests rather than receptive tests.
• On production tests, Deductive group scored better on:
pronoun frequency; pronoun form; pronoun placement
• Although the Deductive group made the greatest gains, they
also showed the greatest decrease in effect size over time
(between post and delayed) on all tests. Inductive group
maintained gains over time.
• “control group showed little evidence of learning” (Learning
what????)
Klapper J. and Rees J (2003)
Reviewing the case for explicit grammar instruction in the university foreign language
learning context.
Language Teaching Research 7,3, 285-314
Question:
• Is Focus on FormS better than Focus on Form?
• (i.e. is explicit teaching of grammar better
than more implicit/embedded in interaction)
• Context: undergraduates on honours or nonhonours programmes in UK university
Klapper J. and Rees J (2003)
Results
• no significant differences at entry point (A
levels)
• end of year 2: explicit group scored
significantly higher on C-Test and grammar
test.
• beginning of year 4: Implicit significantly
outperform Explicit group on C-test and
Grammar test
Macaro & Masterman (2006 ) Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make
all the difference? Language Teaching Research, 10/3, 297-327
Research Questions:
• Does an intensive short course of explicit
grammar teaching, with high achieving first
year undergraduates, result in:
• Greater grammatical knowledge
• Fewer (written) production errors
• Context: “access” programme for
undergraduate French at Oxford
Macaro & Masterman
Results:
• Discrete point grammar test: very few significant
differences between experimental group and
controls.
• Narrative writing test: no significant differences in
elimination of grammatical errors.
Conclusion
• Intensive explicit grammar instruction is not
sufficient even with highly motivated, high-achieving
learners.
• Structural change needs time to develop
• Individual progression needs to be respected
At what cost?
• Even if you are not convinced that the jury is
still out on the effectiveness of Explicit
Grammar Teaching…….
• what is being pushed aside by lesson after
lesson which focuses on EK of grammar?
• What are the costs of focusing on accuracy?
Look at the ‘big picture’
• The case of Japan
• At what cost?
Professional Development
Consortium in MFL
Who we are
• Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC)
• University of Reading: Suzanne Graham and colleagues
• University of Oxford: Ernesto Macaro and colleagues
• The Willink School, Reading
• Cherwell School, Oxford
• Bartholomew School, Eynsham
• Larkmead School, Abingdon
• Whitecross School, Hereford
What we did
• Developed eight basic principles of language
teaching based on what we think the research
is telling us
• Started developing an assessment system
which reflects those principles
To date we have
• Held seven day-long workshops around the
country
• attended by over 300 teachers from 144
schools in 33 counties in England.
• Teacher-trainers from 28 universities also
attended.
Our principles are supported by
• A series of reports from Ofsted from the 1990s to 2011
• On-going problems with limited opportunities for:
spontaneous talk
developing effective listening, reading and writing
skills
• Concerns regarding teachers’ classroom use of the
target language (Ofsted, 2011)
Principle 1 ORAL INTERACTION
• Target language input is essential for learning
but it can be made more effective if learners
are allowed/encouraged to check their
understanding of it by asking questions of
what the teacher is saying or asking the
teacher to repeat.
Principle 2 ORAL INTERACTION
• Learners need to be encouraged to speak
spontaneously and to say things that they are
not sure are correct
Principle 3 ORAL INTERACTION
• Less spontaneous oral interaction should
nevertheless be of ‘high quality’.
• By high quality we mean including
• substantial student turns;
• adequate wait time;
• cognitive challenge [e.g. by requiring a verb
phrase or subordinate clause];
• appropriate teacher feedback;
• nominating students rather than waiting for
volunteers.
Principle 4 ORAL INTERACTION
• Students should be explicitly taught strategies
to use when faced with communication
difficulties. These should be taught alongside
techniques for developing their oral fluency.
Principle 5 READING AND LISTENING
• Learners need to be taught how to access a
greater range of more challenging spoken and
written texts, through explicit instruction in
comprehension strategies and in the
relationship between the written and spoken
forms.
Principle 6 FEEDBACK
• Learners need to develop their selfconfidence and see the link between the
strategies they use and how successful they
perform on a task.
Principle 7 WRITING
• Writing should be developed as a skill in its
own right not just as a consolidation of other
language skills.
• For this to happen students should frequently
write using the language and strategies they
already know rather than resources provided
by the teacher (e.g. textbooks, writing
frames, dictionaries, etc. )
Principle 8 (underpins all other principles)
• The principal focus of pedagogy should be on
developing language skills and, therefore, the
teaching of linguistic knowledge (knowledge
of grammar and vocabulary) should act in the
service of skill development not as an end in
itself.
Speaking and interacting
Level C – An experimenting communicator:
Can do all of A & B consistently and confidently, plus:
• Begins to produce utterances & fragments
creatively (untaught).
• Makes spontaneous contributions (for real
communication).
• Spoken productions may contain inaccuracies,
pauses, hesitations and reformulations.
• They are beginning to overcome the influence of
the English sound-spelling system when
pronouncing words in written form.
• Feels confident with a variety of topics which have
been taught.
• Can ask a range of question types (information;
requests etc.)
• Can make limited and appropriate comments
spontaneously
• Uses the TL fairly routinely to interact with the
teacher and peers. They are able to sustain
longer interactions (multiple turn exchanges but
not a sustained discussion).
•
•
•
•
Level C - Developing linguistic knowledge
1) (VBD) Can recall at least 80 noncognate words. Some may be inaccurate
in form.
2) Can recall at least 25 collocations* (e.g.
à mon avis). Can quickly recall correct
form of at least 100 cognate words. Has a
range of both concrete and abstract
vocabulary.
3) (DRS) awareness of when TL structure
differs from English; awareness of the
importance of function words in
spontaneous productions and in writing
(prepositions; articles)
•
•
Main Development Strand
(skill progression)
Supporting Strand: Linguistic
Knowledge (vocab; grammar; etc)
To be added to the
#PDC
list on twitter, follow @HeikeBruton.
Follow our PDC in MFL blog:
pdcinmfl.wordpress.com