Instructed Second Language Acquisition A Literature Review AUCKLAND UNISERVICES LIMITED A wholly owned company of THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLANDPrepared for: Prepared By:Ministry of Education Professor Rod Ellis45-47 Pipitea Street Department of Applied Language Studies andPO Box 1666 LinguisticsWellington The University of Auckland
Reports from Auckland UniServices Limited should only be used for the purposes forwhich they were commissioned. If it is proposed to use a report prepared by AucklandUniServices Limited for a different purpose or in a different context from that intended atthe time of commissioning the work, then UniServices should be consulted to verifywhether the report is being correctly interpreted. In particular it is requested that, wherequoted, conclusions given in UniServices reports should be stated in full.
CONTENTSIntroduction...................................................................................................................... 1Section A: Pedagogic Approaches And General Theories of Language Learning..........3 The Oral-Situational Approach...................................................................................3 The Notional-Functional Approach ............................................................................4 The Task-Based Approach..........................................................................................5 Summary .....................................................................................................................6Section B: Classroom-Based Research Into Language Teaching And Learning .......9 Direct intervention ....................................................................................................10 Indirect intervention..................................................................................................17 Corrective feedback ..................................................................................................19 Small Groupwork ......................................................................................................22 Individual Differences and Instruction .....................................................................26Section C: General Principles For Successful Instructed Learning ...............................33 Principle 1: Instruction needs to ensure that learners develop both a rich repertoire of formulaic expressions and a rule-based competence.......................33 Principle 2: Instruction needs to ensure that learners focus predominantly on meaning................................................................................................34 Principle 3: Instruction needs to ensure that learners also focus on form ...............34 Principle 4: Instruction needs to be predominantly directed at developing implicit knowledge of the L2 while not neglecting explicit knowledge ...........36 Principle 5: Instruction needs to take into account learners’ ‘built-in syllabus’......37 Principle 6: Successful instructed language learning requires extensive L2 input.....38 Principle 7: Successful instructed language learning also requires opportunities for output ...................................................................................................39 Principle 8: The opportunity to interact in the L2 is central to developing L2 proficiency ...........................................................................................40 Principle 9: Instruction needs to take account of individual differences in learners ..41 Principle 10: In assessing learners’ L2 proficiency it is important to examine free as well as controlled production................................................................42Conclusion: Making Use of the Research.......................................................................43 Notes .........................................................................................................................44Glossary...........................................................................................................................47References.......................................................................................................................51
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 1INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this literature review is to examine theory and research that hasaddressed what constitutes effective pedagogy for the acquisition of a secondlanguage (L2) in a classroom context. In other words, the review seeks to answer thequestion: How can instruction best ensure successful language learning?This is not an easy question to answer, both because there are many competingtheories offering very different perspectives on how instruction can promote languagelearning and because the empirical research does not always afford clear cut findings.We will endeavour to reflect the different theoretical viewpoints and findings in thereview. To do otherwise would be to misrepresent the current state of research in thisfield.However, in order to avoid the pitfalls of complete relativity, we will attempt toidentify a number of general principles, based on theory and research, which webelieve can provide a guideline for designers of language curricula and for classroomteachers. In proposing these principles we do not wish to adopt a positivist stance. Wedo not believe that the research findings to date provide definitive specifications forlanguage instruction. Rather we wish to suggest, in line with Stenhouse’s (1975)arguments, that the principles be viewed as ‘provisional specifications’ bestoperationalised and then tried out by teachers in their own teaching contexts.The review begins with an examination of the learning theories that underlie threemainstream approaches to language teaching (Section A). From there, it moves on toconsider empirical studies of classroom teaching and learning (Section B). Given thevast amount of research that has taken place over the last three decades, the researchconsidered will necessarily be selective, focusing on key theoretical claims andseminal studies. These sections provide the basis for the identification of a set ofgeneral principles (Section C). The review concludes with a discussion of how theresearch can best be utilized by practitioners (Section D).Inevitably in a review of this nature, readers will be confronted with a number oftechnical terms. In some cases, where they are of central importance these will bedefined in the main text. However, in cases where they are less central, they aredefined in the glossary. All terms in bold print can be found in the glossary.
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 3SECTION A: PEDAGOGIC APPROACHES AND GENERALTHEORIES OF LANGUAGE LEARNINGThis section will examine a number of general approaches to the teaching of second/foreign languages and the theories of language learning that support them.A distinction is commonly made between general-purpose and specific-purposelanguage teaching. The former relates, in particular, to the kind of ‘foreign’ languageprogrammes that students typically experience in schools. The latter relates tolanguage programmes designed for specific groups of learners (e.g. students studyingMaths and Science through the medium of a second language). It is likely thatlanguage curricula for New Zealand schools will involve both approaches, dependingon the learners involved. Here, however, for reasons of space, we will focus ongeneral-purpose language pedagogy.Pedagogic approaches are typically informed by both a theory of language and atheory of language learning (Richards & Rogers, 1986). For example, audiolingualism(Lado, 1964), was informed by a structuralist model of language and by behaviouristlearning theory. In this review, however, we will focus on the underlying theories oflanguage learning.We will discuss three general approaches to the teaching of a second/ foreignlanguage and identify the learning theories that underpin them. The three approachesare (a) the oral-situational approach, (b) the notional-functional approach and (c) thetask-based approach. These approaches have been chosen because they are‘mainstream’ and thus probably reflect the current practice of language pedagogy inNew Zealand. There are other approaches, e.g. various humanistic approaches(Moskowitz, 1978), content-based language teaching (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche,1989) and the lexical approach (Lewis, 1993), which figure in the literature onlanguage pedagogy and also draw heavily on theories of language learning but whichhave not figured widely in school-based language teaching. As it is unlikely that thesealternative approaches will drive language curricula in New Zealand, they are notconsidered here.The Oral-Situational ApproachThe oral-situational approach was developed by British applied linguists as analternative approach to the audiolingual approach promoted in the United States. Itresembles the audiolingual approach in being based on a structural syllabus (i.e. aspecification of the linguistic structures to be taught) but differs from it in that itemphasizes the meanings realised by the different structures, not just their forms, andalso the importance of situational teaching structures (i.e. identifying situationalcontexts for practising the structures). This approach was dominant in British-influenced teaching contexts from the sixties onwards. It still underlies manytextbooks used to teach languages today (Terrell, 2002).In its original form, the oral-situational approach was based on a behaviouristlearning theory. This viewed language learning as similar to all other types oflearning, involving habit-formation. Habits were formed when learners learned thecorrect responses to stimuli through repeated practice. According to this theory,
4 Instructed Second Language Acquisitiongrammar is learned inductively; there is no need for (and no value) in explicitexplanations of grammar points.In its more recent manifestations, the oral-situational approach has drawn on skill-building theory (Anderson, 1993). This is based on a distinction between declarativeknowledge (knowing that) and procedural knowledge (knowing how). Learningcommences with declarative knowledge and then becomes procedural knowledgewhen it is automatised and restructured through practice. DeKeyser (1998)emphasizes that this practice needs to go beyond ‘language-like behaviour’ byincluding opportunities for learners to engage in activities that emphasize form-meaning mappings and that replicate the kinds of conditions of use found in everydaycommunication. Without such activities full automatisation cannot take place.In accordance with skill-learning theory, later versions of the oral-situationalapproach incorporate explicit explanations. The methodology employed is that ofpresent-practise-produce (PPP), where ‘present’ refers to the provision of explicitinformation about a grammatical structure (directed at declarative knowledge),‘practise’ refers to the use of exercises that involve controlled production of the targetstructure and ‘produce’ involves the performance of tasks designed to engage learnersin real-life behaviour and to complete automatisation. This approach figures stronglyin some of the popular handbooks used to train language teachers (e.g. Harmer, 2001;Hedge, 2000). PPP assumes an interface position on the relationship between explicitand implicit L2 knowledge (see later section).The later version of the oral-situational approach is sometimes referred to as‘communicative’ but this is misleading as it is based on a structural syllabus andinvolves a methodology that is accuracy rather than fluency oriented (see Brumfit,1984).The Notional-Functional ApproachThe notional-functional approach draws on theories and descriptions of language thatemphasize the functional and social aspects of competence (e.g. Hymes’ model ofcommunicative competence and Halliday’s functional grammar). These afford aclearly defined content for specifying what is to be taught, as in the notionalfunctional syllabuses that began to appear in Britain in the seventies (see, forexample, Van Ek, 1976). These syllabuses consist of a list of functions (e.g.apologizing and requesting) and notions (e.g. past time and possibility) together withthe linguistic exponents required to realize them in communication. The methodologyemployed was typically still PPP, i.e. it was accuracy based. Thus, this approach stillinvolves what White (1988) termed a Type A approach, i.e. one where the objectivesare defined in advance and that is essentially ‘interventionist’ and ‘other-directed’ (p.31).The notional-functional approach differs from the oral-situational approachpredominantly in terms of the content to be taught. Whereas the oral-situationalapproach was informed by a theory of linguistic competence (actually, grammaticalcompetence), the notional-functional approach was based on a theory ofcommunicative competence (Hymes, 1971) and on functional models of language(e.g. Halliday, 1973). One advantage of this is that it caters more readily to the
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 5teaching of the pragmatic aspects of language, such as the linguistic devices needed todisplay politeness, and also to the teaching of cultural/ceremonial topics, such aswhen and how to greet people.Descriptions of the notional-functional approach have had little to say about learningtheory. Richards and Rogers (1986, p. 72) suggest a number of elements implicit inthis approach, for example the task principle – ‘activities for which language is usedfor carrying out meaningful tasks to promote learning’ (p. 72). However, suchprinciples are more obviously associated with task-based teaching (discussed below)rather than the notional-functional approach. Another element implicit in theunderlying learning theory (not mentioned by Richards & Rogers) is that languagelearning involves the learning of formulaic chunks of language as much as it involveslearning rules. Many of the exponents of the functions are formulaic in nature. Forexample, requesting can be performed by ready-made expressions such as ‘Can I havea __?’ and ‘I would be grateful if you would __’. Studies (e.g. Ellis, 1984a; Myles,Hooper, & Mitchell, 1998; Myles, Mitchell, & Hooper, 1999) have shown thatclassroom learners, like naturalistic learners, store a large number of such expressions.In this respect, then, the notional-functional approach can be seen as highlycompatible with how learners learn a language.An inspection of early and late textbooks based on a notional-functional approachreveals that the underlying theory is, in fact, still skill-learning theory. Adesso(Danesi, 1997), for example, contains a mixture of explicit explanation of languagepoints and practice activities (predominantly of the controlled variety). This textbookalso manifests another underlying learning principle, namely that language learning isculture learning; this is reflected in explicit accounts of Italian culture, presented inEnglish (the students’ first language).The notional-functional approach can lay greater claim to being ‘communicative’, inthat it is meaning-centred. However, it reflects what Howatt (1984) has termed a‘weak communicative approach’ in that the methodology is still accuracy rather thanfluency oriented. The underlying learning theory reflects this.The Task-Based ApproachIn contrast to the two preceding approaches, a task-based approach to languageteaching makes no attempt to stipulate the language forms (and associated meanings)to be taught. Instead the content is specified holistically in terms of ‘tasks’. Skehan(1996) defines a task as ‘an activity in which: meaning is primary; there is some sortof relationship to the real world; task completion has some priority; and theassessment of task performance is in terms of task outcome’. Tasks can involvelistening, speaking, reading or writing or any combination of these skills. Two verycommon types of tasks found in task-based materials are information-gap tasks (e.g.Listen-and-Draw) and opinion-gap tasks (e.g. Balloon Debates). Tasks need to bedistinguished from exercises. The latter require a primary focus on form rather thanmeaning and typically ask learners to manipulate language given to them rather thanto attempt to communicate using their own linguistic and non-linguistic resources.The learning principle underlying the task-based approach is that learners will learn alanguage best if they engage in activities that have interactional authenticity(Bachman, 1990), i.e. require them to use language in ways that closely resemble how
6 Instructed Second Language Acquisitionlanguage is used naturally outside the classroom. Whereas more traditionalapproaches to language teaching (such as the two described above) assume thatlearners need to be taught some language before they can communicate, task-basedteaching is premised on the assumption that learners best learn a language throughcommunicating, as in first language acquisition and naturalistic L2 acquisition.Various learning principles underpin this view. Krashen (1981) proposed that learnerswill acquire language when they are exposed to ‘comprehensible input’ and aremotivated to attend to the input. Long (1983a; 1996) has argued that acquisition isbest served when learners participate in the negotiation of meaning (i.e. interactionalsequences that arise as a result of some communication problem). Elsewhere (Long &Robinson, 1998) he has suggested that task-based teaching affords opportunities forlearners to ‘focus-on-form’ in the context of attempts to communicate and that thisconstitutes the ideal condition for acquisition to occur. Other researchers (e.g. Ellis,2003) have suggested that task-based learning is needed to ensure the development ofimplicit knowledge. Thus, this approach to teaching has drawn on a variety oftheoretical perspectives.Task-based teaching constitutes what Howatt (1984) has termed a ‘strongcommunicative approach’. This is because it aims not just to teach communication asan object (as is the case in the notional-functional approach) but to engage learners inauthentic acts of communication in the classroom. It requires learners to treat thelanguage they are learning as a tool. It gives primacy to ‘fluency’ over ‘accuracy’ butalso claims that learners can achieve grammatical competence as a result of learningto communicate. Interestingly, however, it does not deny that learners need to attendto language form. For acquisition to take place, this has to occur in a context whereattention to meaning is primary.SummaryTable 1 below summarises the main features of these three approaches and thelearning theories that underpin them. It should be noted that many published languageteaching materials today do not adhere to a single approach but rather draweclectically on two or more approaches. Thus, while there are few purely task-basedcourses available, most modern texts books will attempt to incorporate tasks intoeither an oral-situational or a notional-functional framework (or both). In this respect,it is useful to distinguish between what Ellis (2003) has called task-based teaching(i.e. teaching based exclusively on meaning-focused tasks) and task-supportedlanguage teaching (i.e. teaching that uses tasks to practise pre-selected and presentedlinguistic forms).
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 7Table 1: The learning theories underlying three approaches to language teachingPedagogic Approach Main features Learning theory1. Oral-situational Based on a structural Originally behaviourist; syllabus; methodology currently skill-learning built around present- theory. practise-produce (PPP)2. Notional-functional Based on a notional- Communicative functional syllabus; competence; role of methodology built around formulaic chunks; skill- present-practise-produce learning theory.3. Task-based Based on a syllabus Implicit language learning; consisting of holistic tasks; Interaction Hypothesis; ‘deep-end’ approach; focus-on-form. interactional authenticityEarly research (e.g. Scherer & Wertheimer, 1964) investigating the relationshipbetween teaching and learning sought to compare the relative effectiveness ofdifferent pedagogic approaches by examining learning outcomes. However, theresults proved inconclusive (Allwright, 1988). This led researchers to focus attentionon the actual classroom processes that arise in language instruction (i.e. the teacherand learner behaviours) and to examine the impact that specific processes (e.g. thetypes of questioning used by the teacher) have on language learning. This research isconsidered in the following sections.
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 9SECTION B: CLASSROOM-BASED RESEARCH INTOLANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING In this section we will review empirical studies of classroom teaching and learning,focusing in particular on studies published in the last fifteen years (see Chaudron,1998 for an extensive review of the earlier research). These studies have adopted avariety of research approaches: a. Descriptive (i.e. studies that examined the kinds of language produced by teachers and learners in classroom contexts). b. Experimental (i.e. studies that manipulated the instructional treatment provided to learners and measured the learning outcomes of the different treatments). c. Ethnographic (i.e. studies based on field observations of classrooms and retrospective and introspective reports from teachers and learners). d. Correlational (i.e. studies that seek to establish relationships between different sets of variables).While all these studies have shed light on the kinds of learning opportunities madeavailable to learners through instruction, only the experimental studies address theeffects that instruction (in its various modes) has on language learning.The empirical research has been informed by a number of theoretical perspectives,which can be loosely grouped under two main headings (see Lantolf, 1996); thecomputational model and sociocultural theory of the mind. The former viewslanguage learning in terms of input-output, specifying the psycholinguistic processesinvolved in the development of L2 knowledge and in its use in planned and unplanneddiscourse. Key concepts in this model are input processing, intake, interlanguagedevelopment, output processing, and monitoring. An assumption of this model isthat learners have a ‘built-in syllabus’ which directs how they gradually acquire thelinguistic properties of a language (i.e. how their interlanguage develops). The latterviews language learning as something that originates in the social interaction; learnerscollaboratively produce structures that they are unable to perform independently andsubsequently internalize them. Key concepts in this theory are zone of proximaldevelopment, private speech, other regulation, self-regulation and scaffolding.Instruction can be viewed as an attempt to intervene in the process of languagelearning. This intervention can involve two broad types of curriculum. In directintervention, the instruction specifies what it is that learners will learn and when theywill learn it. This is reflected in the oral-situational and notional-functionalapproaches discussed above, i.e. in a Type A Curriculum. In indirect intervention, thepurpose of instruction is to create conditions where learners can learn experientiallythrough learning how to communicate in the L2. This is reflected in the task-basedapproach, a Type B Curriculum. The review that follows will first consider researchrelated to these two types of intervention. It will then examine studies that haveaddressed two aspects of language teaching that are currently attracting attention fromresearchers: corrective feedback and small group interaction. Finally, it will addressresearch that has investigated instruction in relation to individual learner differencefactors.
10 Instructed Second Language AcquisitionDirect interventionTo date, direct intervention studies have been based almost exclusively on thecomputational model . They seek to establish whether instruction, defined as themanipulation of input and/or output, results in inter-language development. The keyquestions here are: (1) Is direct intervention effective in the sense that learners learnwhat they are taught? and (2) Are some forms of direct intervention more effectivethan others? These questions can be addressed by examining any level of language(pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, discourse structure and functions) in any of thefour language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing). For reasons of space,this review will limit consideration to grammar (a traditional focus for directinterventional programs).Is direct intervention effective?There is now ample evidence to show that grammar instruction can help learners toperform grammatical features more accurately in experimentally elicited performance.Norris and Ortega (2000) carried out a meta-analysis of some 51 studies that utilizedeither ‘selected response’ or ‘constrained constructed response’ as the measure oflearning. They report an effect size of 1.46 and 1.20 respectively for these two typesof measure, indicating that, overall, form-focused instruction is effective when thelearning outcomes are measured in these ways. Furthermore, the beneficial effects ofinstruction are also durable, as evident in delayed post-tests. One conclusion to bedrawn from the research, then, is that learners can benefit from instruction in specificgrammatical features if their goal is to perform well on discrete-point tests like theTOEFL.The evidence relating to the effects of grammar instruction on learners’ ability to usethe targeted features in communicative language use (especially unplanned orallanguage use) is somewhat meagre. This reflects the difficulty researchers have indesigning instruments to elicit spontaneous use of specific L2 features (see Loshcky& Bley-Vroman, 1993, for a discussion of this issue). Norris and Ortega could onlylocate eight studies that included a measure of ‘free constructed response’. Instructionappears to have a much reduced effect when the learning outcome is measured in thisway, the effect size being less than half of that for ‘selected response’ and‘constrained constructed response’. They note that ‘particular outcome measure typesmay result in very different observations about the effectiveness of a treatment’ (p.199). Ellis (2002a) examined 11 studies that included a measure of free oralproduction. Instruction was found to have a significant effect in only six of these.However, this effect was also evident in delayed post-tests and, in fact, in two of thestudies, was stronger in these. Two conclusions are in order. First, grammarinstruction does not always result in more accurate use of the targeted features in freeoral production. Second, when an effect is found it is durable.Grammar instruction does not enable learners to ‘beat’ the natural route ofacquisition (i.e. the order in which learners have been found to acquire specificgrammatical features and the stages of development involved in this). Studiescomparing instructed and naturalistic learners (e.g. Ellis, 1989; Pica, 1983) report thesame order of acquisition for grammatical morphemes and the same sequence ofacquisition for syntactic structures such as English relative clauses and German word
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 11order rules. These findings led Pienemann (1985) to advance the ‘teachabilityhypothesis’, which states that for instruction to be effective it needs to target featuresthat lie within the developmental stage next to that which the learner has alreadyreached. Pienemann’s own research (e.g. Pienemann, 1989) lent support to thishypothesis. However, a more recent study (Spada & Lightbown, 1999) challenges it.Using Pienemann’s account of the five developmental stages for English questionforms, they exposed learners to an input flood of question forms at Stages 4 and 5,predicting that learners at Stage 3 would be better placed to benefit from this thanlearners at Stage 2. However, it was the latter that benefited most from the instruction,although only by advancing to Stage 3. This study, then, indicates that instructiondoes not alter the natural route of acquisition but that it may not be necessary toensure that it is ‘fine-tuned’ to the proximate developmental stage of individuallearners. This is encouraging to teachers as it suggests that they may not need toengage in the laborious task of identifying learners’ precise developmental stages as abasis for instruction. A general conclusion of these studies is that instruction enableslearners to progress more rapidly along the natural route.Finally, the effectiveness of instruction can also be determined by examining learners’metalingual knowledge. Research by Fotos (1993; 1994) indicates that grammardiscovery tasks aimed at developing metalingual knowledge are effective as measuredby learners’ ability to judge the grammaticality of sentences and also their ability tosubsequently notice the grammatical features in input. Norris and Ortega (2000),however, found that the magnitude of the effect of instruction when assessed through‘meta-linguistic judgment’ was much less than that for ‘selected response’ or‘constrained constructed response’ although notably higher than that for ‘freeconstructed response’. Few studies have investigated the effects of instruction onlearners’ ability to verbalize grammatical rules so no conclusions can be drawn.However, there would appear to be only a weak relationship between this ability andlearners’ general language proficiency (Alderson, Clapham, & Steel, 1997). Inconclusion, the extent to which instruction can help learners to an explicitunderstanding of grammatical structures remains uncertain as indeed does the value ofinstruction directed at this type of L2 knowledge.To summarise, the research that has addressed whether direct intervention is effectiveindicates: 1. Grammar instruction results in greater accuracy in test-like performance. 2. However, it is much less likely to lead to improved accuracy in spontaneous oral language use. 3. Grammar instruction does not enable learners to beat the ‘natural route’ but it is effective in helping them to progress more rapidly along it. 4. It may not be necessary to ‘fine-tune’ grammar instruction to the learner’s developmental stage. 5. Grammar instruction can contribute to learners’ metalingual understanding of L2 grammar rules but doubts exist as to the utility of this kind of knowledge. 6. When grammar instruction does have an effect, this effect is generally durable.
12 Instructed Second Language AcquisitionAre some forms of direct intervention more effective than others?To answer this question it is necessary to identify a set of instructional options andthen systematically investigate the contribution that specific options make to languagelearning, typically through experimental studies. Long (1991) distinguishes two broadtypes of form-focused instruction (FFI), which he refers to as focus-on-forms andfocus-on-form. The former requires a planned approach to FFI (i.e. the prior selectionof a specific form for treatment). Learners are required to treat forms as discreteentities that can be accumulated systematically one at a time. Such an approach, Longclaims, is incompatible with what is known about the nature of L2 acquisition. Incontrast, the latter involves attention to form in tasks, as, for example, when acommunication problem arises and attempts are made to negotiate meaning in order toresolve it. As defined by Long, then, focus-on-form is a characteristic of indirectrather than direct instructional intervention. Here, therefore, we will consider onlyoptions relating to focus-on-forms, reserving discussion of focus-on-form to laterwhen indirect instruction is considered. Table 2 describes the main focus-on-formsoptions.
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 13Table 2: The main options in focus-on-forms instructionOption Description1. Explicit instruction Instruction that requires students to pay deliberate attention to the targeted form with a view to understanding it. a. Didactic (deductive) Students are provided with an explanation of the form. b. Discovery (inductive) Students are provided with L2 data that illustrate the form and are asked to work out how the form works for themselves.2. Implicit instruction Instruction that requires learners to infer how a form works without awareness. Students are asked to memorize L2 data that illustrate the form. a. Non-enhanced input The L2 data is presented to the students without any special attempt to draw their attention to the targeted form. b. Enhanced input The targeted form is highlighted in some way (e.g. using italics) to induce noticing.3. Structured input Instruction requires learners to process L2 data that has been specially designed to induce ‘noticing’ of the targeted form and that can only be comprehended if the targeted form has been processed.4. Production practice Instruction requires learners to produce sentences containing the targeted form. a. Controlled Students are given guidance in producing sentences containing the targeted form (e.g. by filling in blanks in sentences or transforming sentences). b. Functional Students are required to produce their own sentences containing the targeted form in some kind of situational context.5. Corrective feedback Instruction consists of feedback responding to students’ efforts to produce the targeted structure. a. Implicit The feedback models the correct form without explicitly indicating that the student has made an error. b. Explicit The feedback makes it clear to the student that an error has been made.Instruction typically involves combinations of options. For example, a fairly typicalgrammar lesson might begin by asking learners to read a dialogue in which examplesof the form have been italicized (Implicit Instruction/ Enhanced Input). This might befollowed with a formal presentation of the form to be taught (i.e. ExplicitInstruction/Didactic). The students could be asked to complete a number of exercisesof the fill-in-the-blank kind (Production Practice/ Controlled) before finallyattempting a role-play to provide an opportunity to use the form they have beenpractising in free production (Production Practice/ Functional). In the production
14 Instructed Second Language Acquisitionstages of the lesson the teacher might point out and correct any errors the studentsmake (Negative Feedback/Explicit). However, in researching the effects of FFI, it isdesirable to try to isolate the different options in order to evaluate their contribution tolearning. Unfortunately, as Norris and Ortega (2000) point out, this has not alwaysbeen the way that researchers have proceeded, making it difficult to draw firmconclusions about the effectiveness of specific instructional options.A number of studies have sought to compare the relative effectiveness of explicit andimplicit instruction. These were examined in Norris and Ortega’s meta-analysis, withinstructional treatments being coded as ‘explicit’ if ‘rule explanation comprised anypart of the instruction’ and as ‘implicit’ when ‘neither rule presentation nor directionsto attend to particular forms were part of the treatment’ (p. 167). Explicit instructionproved to be significantly more effective than implicit instruction. However, they notethat the measurement of learning outcomes in many of the studies favored explicitlearning (i.e. in 90% of the studies they examined learners’ knowledge of the targetedstructures was measured through experimentally elicited responses rather than incommunicative use). They also note that the implicit treatments were typicallyoperationalised in very restrictive ways (e.g. through instructions to learners tomemorize a set of sentences) whereas the explicit treatment often involved otherinstructional options. For these reasons caution needs to be exercised in concludingthat explicit instruction is more effective than implicit.There is also the important question of how best to provide explicit instruction. Table2 suggests a distinction between ‘didactic’ and ‘discovery’ based approaches. Theformer involves the direct explanation of grammar points and thus reflects a deductiveapproach. The latter involves the use of various types of consciousness-raising tasks(Ellis, 1991) that guide learners into discovering a grammatical rule by providingthem with L2 data to analyze and instructions about how to set about this. Thus, thisapproach to explicit instruction is inductive. A number of studies have comparedthese two approaches. Fotos and Ellis (1991) found that while both were effective inpromoting understanding of a grammatical rule, as measured by a grammaticalityjudgment test, the didactic option worked best. However, they speculated that thismight be because the students in this study were unfamiliar with working in groups,as was required by the discovery option. Fotos (1993) conducted a more extensivestudy with learners who were well-rehearsed in group work. She found that bothapproaches worked equally well. She argues that the discovery option is preferablebecause it also affords opportunities for students to communicate in the targetlanguage when they do the tasks in groups. Another reason for preferring discoverytasks is that learners find them more intrinsically motivating (Mohamed, 2001).However, as Ellis (1991) has pointed out, consciousness-raising tasks have theirlimitations. Because they are directed at ‘understanding’ grammar, not using it, theirutility rests on claims that explicit knowledge of the L2 facilitates the acquisition ofimplicit knowledge, which, while theoretically defensible, has not been empiricallydemonstrated. Also, talking about grammar may not appeal to all learners (e.g. youngchildren).The relative effectiveness of structured input and production practice has alsoattracted the attention of researchers. VanPatten (1996) argues that interlanguagedevelopment occurs as a response to learners processing input and not from theirefforts at production, although the latter may help them to automatize forms they have
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 15already internalized. He proposes that attempts to intervene directly in interlanguagedevelopment be accomplished through input processing instruction. This consists of(1) explicit instruction directed at helping learners overcome ‘default’ processingstrategies (e.g. treating the first noun in a sentence like ‘The dog was bitten by Mary’as the agent of the verb) and (2) structured input as described in Table 2.VanPatten and his co-researchers carried out a number of studies designed to comparethe effects of input processing instruction and ‘traditional instruction’ involvingproduction practice. Learners receiving input-processing instruction outperformedthose receiving traditional instruction on comprehension post-tests and did as well onproduction post-tests. Furthermore, the effectiveness of input processing instructionowed more to the structured input component than to the explicit instruction(VanPatten & Oikennon, 1996). Subsequent studies (e.g. Allen, 2000) have failed toshow a clear advantage for structured input over production practice, while others(e.g. Erlam, 2003) have found that production practice that forces attention to form-meaning mappings can be more effective. VanPatten (2002), however, argues thatstudies that have failed to demonstrate an advantage for input-processing instructiondid so either because they failed to address structures subject to default processingstrategies or were methodologically flawed. Irrespective of whether input-processinginstruction is superior, the research does show that the structured input option iseffective in promoting learning, whether this is measured in terms of comprehensionor production. This finding suggests the need to revise current approaches to grammarteaching to make fuller use of this option. In particular, structured input would seemto be an appropriate option for computer-delivered instructional materials.Of all the options described in Figure 1, functional grammar teaching receives thestrongest empirical support. Studies by Harley (1989), Day and Shapson (1991),Lyster (1994) and Muranoi (2000) all testify to the effectiveness of this option.Furthermore the effectiveness is evident in measures of learning derived from bothtest-like and more communicative performance. Also, the success of the instructiondoes not appear to be dependent on the choice of target form. Hawkins and Towell(1996) argue that form-focused instruction is likely to be more effective if the targetedfeature is ‘simple and easily-explained’ (p. 208) but, in fact, in some of the studiescited above, the target structure was highly complex. For example, Day and Shapsoninvestigated French hypothetical conditionals and Muranoi targeted English articles,both of which are notoriously complex and difficult to learn, even as explicit L2knowledge. Some caveats are in order, however. In many of the studies, functionalproduction practice was combined with explicit explanation. In the case of Muranoi,functional instruction with and without explicit explanation was compared, with theformer proving the more effective. Also, a feature of most of these studies is that theinstruction provided was very intensive in nature. In Harley’s study, for example, theinstruction lasted 8 weeks and in Day and Shapson 5-7 weeks. In most teachingcontexts it is difficult to imagine that teachers will have so much time to devote to asingle grammatical feature.The role of corrective feedback in L2 acquisition is controversial. Truscott (1999),for example, has argued that correcting learners’ errors has no effect on learners’acquisition of new L2 forms. Negative feedback has been examined in bothdescriptive and experimental studies. Seedhouse (2001) offers a comprehensiveaccount of the various strategies teachers employ to repair learners’ linguistic errors.
16 Instructed Second Language AcquisitionHe reports that teachers show a strong dis-preference for direct and overt negativefeedback and instead opt for various forms of indirect, mitigated feedback. In otherwords, teachers prefer ‘implicit’ to ‘explicit’ feedback (see Table 2). This raises theimportant question as to the relative effectiveness of these two options. Seedhouseargues that teachers would do better to choose the explicit option. He comments: Teachers are avoiding direct and overt negative evaluation of learners’ linguistic errors with the best intentions in the world, namely to avoid embarrassing and demotivating them. However, in doing so, they are interactionally marking linguistic errors as embarrassing and problematic. (p. 368-369).However, there is growing evidence that corrective feedback can influenceacquisition. This evidence is considered in the section dealing with correctivefeedback below.Any conclusions relating to the effectiveness of different instructional options must betentative. In summary, the research indicates the following: 1. Explicit instruction may be more effective than implicit instruction when learning is measured in test-like performance. 2. Consciousness-raising tasks catering for discovery-based explicit instruction are as effective as didactic explicit instruction at developing explicit L2 knowledge and also afford opportunities for meaning-centered communication if performed in the L2. 3. Irrespective of whether input-processing instruction is more effective than production-based instruction, structured input clearly contributes to L2 learning and may prove a useful option for introducing new structures and for the development of self-instructional materials. 4. Functional grammar teaching results in learning whether this is measured in test-like or more communicative performance. 5. Disagreement exists regarding whether corrective feedback contributes to learning.Final comment on direct interventionMuch of the research discussed above was carried out to test the claims of differenttheories of L2 acquisition and only secondarily to address practical issues to do withteaching. As Mitchell (2000) points out this is problematic in the current educationalclimate, where outcome-driven educational models predominate and policy-makerswant to be told what ‘works’. In such a context, research that provides evidence thatcan be used as a basis for making instructional decisions is required. In this respect,Mitchell concludes that research that has investigated direct intervention throughfocus-on-forms does not measure up very well: …applied linguists are not at present in a position to make firm research-based prescriptions about the detail of ‘what works’ in FL grammar pedagogy. There has been considerable research activity …. However, the research has been
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 17 diverse in its theoretical foundations and procedures, patchy in scope, and has led to some mixed patterns of findings. (p. 296).Borg (1998) reaches a similar conclusion but argues that the problem lies with thereliance on experimental research. He proposes that research efforts be redirected atteachers’ craft beliefs about grammar teaching and their actual teaching practices.While such an approach may provide valuable insights into what constitutes ‘goodpractice’ (as teachers understand this) it will not tell us what works. For that, asMitchell emphasizes, we need carefully designed process-product studies.Indirect interventionThis section will examine research that has investigated task-based language teaching.The goal of task-based research is to identify ‘psycholinguistically motivated taskcharacteristics’ which ‘can be shown to affect the nature of language produced inperforming a task in ways which are relevant to SL processing and SL learning’(Crookes, 1986). Research based on the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) aims tofind out which types of tasks are most likely to lead to the kind of meaning negotiationhypothesized to promote language acquisition. Researchers have investigated a varietyof task variables and have been able to show that tasks that are two-way as opposed toone-way (Pica & Doughty, 1985), that have split rather than shared input (Newton,1991), and where the outcome of a task is closed rather than open (Crookes & Rulon,1985) and divergent rather than convergent (Duff, 1986) result in higher levels ofmeaning negotiation. Other research has focused on the nature of the learnersparticipation in a task, examining whether tasks performed in small groups or inlockstep with a teacher led to greater meaning negotiation (Pica & Doughty, 1985).More recently, researchers have turned their attention to tasks that require learners toproduce output. Drawing on Swain’s (1985) Output Hypothesis, Izumi (2002), forexample, conducted a study that found that learners who engaged in a reconstructiontask requiring them to produce English relative clause constructions were more likely tonotice these constructions and learn them than learners who completed acomprehension task where the same constructions were graphically enhanced.An alternative approach to investigating tasks has drawn on theories of languagecompetence and of speech production. Skehan (1998) has suggested that languagecompetence is comprised of lexis, including formulaic expressions such as ‘I dontknow’, and grammatical rules. Native speakers make use of these two different types ofknowledge by means of a ‘dual processing system’, drawing on both lexicalized andgrammatical processing but varying in which type they rely on in a given activityaccording to the communicative pressure they experience and their need to be precise.Skehan argues that when required to perform spontaneously L2 learners are likely todepend on lexicalized processing but when required to formulate messages moreprecisely they will utilize their rule-based knowledge. He suggests that it may bepossible to identify the design features that lead learners to place a differential emphasison fluency (i.e. performance free of undue pauses and false starts), complexity (i.e. theuse of a wide range of grammatical structures) and accuracy (i.e. the correct use ofgrammatical structures). Variables so far investigated include the familiarity of theinformation to be communicated, whether the task is dialogic or monologic, the degreeof structure of the information, the complexity of the outcome and the extent to which
18 Instructed Second Language Acquisitioninformation has to be transformed from one form to another (Skehan, 2001). Dialogictasks produce greater accuracy than monologic tasks. Tasks with a complex outcomepromote greater complexity. Tasks where the information to be conveyed is clearlystructured promote fluency.Some researchers have based their research on Levelt’s model of speech production(Levelt, 1989). This identifies three stages in speech production: (1) conceptualization,when the purpose and semantic content of a message is determined, (2) formulation,when the speaker maps grammatical and phonological features onto the preverbalmessage, and (3) articulation, when the phonetic plan produced by (2) is converted intoactual speech. Wendel (1997) has used this model to distinguish two types of planning -strategic or off-line planning (i.e. the planning that takes place when learners aregiven time to plan a task prior to performing it) and on-line planning (i.e. the planningthat occurs while learners are actually performing the task). Thus, strategic planning,according to Wendel, involves conceptualization; on-line planning, in contrast, isdirected at formulation and articulation and manifests itself through monitoring. Bygate(1996) also utilizes Levelt’s model to account for what effect asking learners to repeat atask has on task performance.The contribution that strategic, pre-task planning makes to task-based performance hasbeen examined in a number of studies. In an early study, Ellis (1987) found that thiskind of planning resulted in increased accuracy in the use of English regular (but notirregular) past tense forms. Other studies (e.g. Crookes, 1989), however, suggest thatthe effects of strategic planning are more evident in enhancing fluency and complexitythan accuracy. Ortega (1999) reviews a number of planning studies, concluding that theevidence that planning contributes to greater accuracy is mixed. Her own study oflearners of L2 Spanish found a positive effect for noun-modifiers but not for articles.One explanation for these mixed findings is that strategic planning only leads to greateraccuracy if learners have time to monitor their actual performance of the task, assuggested by Wendel (1997). Yuan and Ellis (2003) investigated this hypothesis in astudy that compared the effects of strategic and on-line planning on oral production in anarrative task. They found that strategic planning resulted in greater fluency andcomplexity while on-line planning led to increased accuracy and complexity. Ellis andYuan found similar results for written production on a narrative task. It would seem,then, that there is trade-off between fluency and accuracy, with learners prioritizing oneor the other, depending on the kind of planning they engage in.Not all task-based research has been motivated by theories based on a computationalmodel of L2 learning. A number of recent studies have drawn on sociocultural theory ofthe mind. These view learning as socially constructed and have led to task-based studiesthat investigate ‘scaffolding’ and ‘collaborative dialogue’, the supportive interactionsthat arise when learners communicate with others (e.g. Swain, 2000) and also to studiesthat demonstrate how the task-as-workplan is interpreted and reshaped by learners inactual performance (Coughlan & Duff, 1994). There have also been attempts to showhow learners and native speaker interlocutors vary in the way they perform a single taskdepending on the learners’ developmental stage (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Nassaji &Swain, 2000). Platt and Brooks (2002) discuss the notion of ‘task engagement’ within asociocultural theoretical framework, arguing that this enhances learners’ motivation toaccomplish a task and results in ‘transformation’ when they switch from relatively
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 19undirected to more focused activity and, thereby, create a context in which learning cantake place.The above review of task-based research addressed unfocused tasks (i.e. tasks designedto elicit general communicative use of the L2). However, there have also been a numberof studies that have investigated focused tasks (i.e. tasks designed to elicitcommunicative use of specific L2 features). Newton and Kennedy (1996), for example,provide evidence to suggest that it is possible to predict the linguistic forms that will beused when particular tasks are performed. They found that the discourse genre (i.e.description versus persuasion) elicited by tasks influenced the linguistic forms used.Bygate (1999) has also demonstrated that the processing involved in performing anarrative and an argumentation task led to learners making different linguistic choices.In summary, task-based research affords information about how the design of tasks canaffect learner performance: 1. The negotiation of meaning is enhanced if the information provided by the task is split and the outcome required is closed or convergent. 2. Task design can influence whether learners rely primarily on their lexicalized or rule-based knowledge of the L2 with the result that either fluency or complexity is prioritized. 3. Task design can also influence the specific linguistic forms that learners employ when they perform a task. 4. Providing opportunities for the strategic planning of a task promotes fluency and complexity of language use. In contrast, providing time for on-line planning (monitoring) leads to greater accuracy.It should be noted, however, that the research summarised above has investigatedlanguage use not acquisition. Researchers extrapolate from use to acquisition on thebasis of various theoretical arguments.It is widely accepted that although task-based teaching needs to ensure that learnersare principally focused on meaning, it must also find ways of helping learners toattend to form. Attention to form can be induced through the design of tasks (asdiscussed above) and also methodologically (e.g. by providing opportunities forstrategic and on-line planning). In the section that follows we consider in detail oneparticular methodological device for inducing attention to form - corrective feedback.Corrective feedbackThe corrective feedback supplied by teachers and, to a lesser extent, by students hasattracted considerable attention from researchers. The theoretical motivation for thisinterest lies in the claim that L2 learning (unlike L1 learning) requires negativeevidence as well as positive evidence (i.e. learners need to be shown what is NOTcorrect as well as provided with examples of what IS correct). Further theoreticalsupport for corrective feedback can be found in Schmidt’s (1994) claim about theimportance of noticing and noticing-the gap in L2 acquisition. Corrective feedbackmay help learners to notice linguistic forms that they might otherwise ignore and toidentify how their deviant utterances differ from the linguistic norms of the language.Corrective feedback, then, is hypothesized to play an important role in developing
20 Instructed Second Language Acquisitionaccuracy in the L2. The bulk of the studies, however, have been descriptive; that is,they have not attempted to show that correcting learners’ errors results in acquisition.Early research demonstrated the complexity of error correction. It showed thatteachers are more likely to correct some errors than others, that they vary greatly inhow frequently they correct errors and also in the manner in which they correct them.In general, teachers’ correction is characterised by imprecision and inconsistency.They have been observed to use the same overt behaviour (e.g. ‘repetition’) to bothcorrect an error and to reinforce a correct student response. Nystrom (1983) noted that‘teachers typically are unable to sort through the feedback options available to themand arrive at an appropriate response’. Inconsistency is evident in the fact thatteachers correct some students but not others (even for the same error). Allwright(1975), however, noted that this may reflect teachers’ attempts to cater to individualdifferences among the students.Recent studies (e.g. Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001; Loewen, 2003; Lyster &Ranta, 1997; Panova & Ranta, 2002; Sheen, 2004) have focused on the frequencywith which specific corrective strategies are used in communicative classrooms.These strategies vary in terms of how explicitly the correction is performed. Examplesof explicit strategies are ‘Explicit Correction’ (e.g. ‘Oh you mean ...’ or ‘You shouldsay ...’) and Metalinguistic Feedback (e.g. ‘No, it’s masculine). Examples of implicitstrategies are Recasts (i.e. the teacher reformulates all or part of the student’sutterance minus the error) and Clarification Requests (e.g. Pardon?). These studieshave also looked at student uptake (i.e. whether the student responds in some way tothe correction) and whether uptake involves repair (i.e. the student corrects his/ heroriginal error). Ohta (2001) has shown that, in Japanese as a foreign languageclassrooms, students use corrective feedback not just for uptake. They frequentlyrespond to correction through private speech rather than overt uptake. Also, Ohta’sstudy shows, importantly, that students can benefit from corrective feedbackaddressed to other students. In fact, Ohta notes, some students may be better able totake advantage of corrective feedback when they are out of the spotlight.Two general findings of these descriptive studies are that teachers tend to preferrecasts to other corrective strategies and that the level of uptake and repair followingrecasts is lower than that following more explicit strategies. However, recaststhemselves vary in terms of how explicitly they draw attention to the learner’s error(Nicholas, Lightbown, & Spada, 2001). For example, a short, partial recast that isrepeated is likely to be more salient to students than a long, complete recastperformed just once. Two advantages of recasts are that they provide learners with amodel of the correct linguistic form and they do not interfere unduly with thecommunicative flow of an activity. Thus, in general, students are more likely to attendto the feedback if it is explicit (see, for example, Samuda, 2001).A few experimental studies have examined the effects of corrective feedback onlanguage learning. Carroll and Swain (1993) found that feedback in the form ofmetalinguistic comment resulted in significantly better learning of dative alternationstructures than implicit correction strategies. Carroll, Swain and Roberge (1992)investigated the effects of corrective feedback on learners’ ability to distinguish Frenchnouns ending in –age and –ment. The found that treatment was effective with regard tothe nouns actually taught but did not result in the students’ ability to generalise to new
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 21nouns. Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1993) and Ellis and Takashima (1999) demonstrated that itis possible to push learners into using a particular grammatical form (past tense) if theyreceive requests to clarify utterances containing an error in this structure and that thishas a beneficial effect on subsequent performance. Requests for clarification, however,are only likely to help learners become more accurate in the use of structures they havealready partially learned; they will not enable them to acquire completely newstructures.Several experimental studies have investigated recasts. Long, Inagaki and Ortega(1998) found that recasts were more effective for some target structures than ‘models’(i.e. positive evidence provided to learners before they speak). Mackey and Philp(1998) showed that interaction that included recasts was more effective than interactionwithout recasts. However, both of these studies were laboratory studies. Doughty andVarela (1998) report a classroom study that examined the effect of ‘corrective recasts’(i.e. repetitions of the student utterance with emphasis on the incorrect item followed bya reformulation) directed at English past tense forms in the context of reporting scienceexperiments. They found that this treatment resulted in both improved accuracy in theuse of the past tense and in movement along the sequence of acquisition for thisstructure. Current research is directed at discovering how recasts aid acquisition.Leeman (2003), for example, conducted a laboratory study that suggested that it is theenhanced salience of specific forms that recasts afford rather than the negative evidencefollowing errors that is important for learning. This study (and Doughty & Varela’s)supports the general conclusion above, namely, that for corrective feedback to have anyeffect in the classroom it has to be sufficiently explicit for students to notice what isbeing corrected.In all of these experimental studies, the corrective feedback was intensive in nature; thatis, it was directed at a pre-selected linguistic feature. Corrective feedback also arises inlessons where there is no specific linguistic target (i.e. the kind of incidental feedbackthat occurs in an immersion classroom or in task-based language teaching). A feature ofthis incidental focus-on-form is that it is extensive rather than intensive in nature. Thatis, within the context of a single communicative task, a number of different linguisticforms (phonological, lexical, grammatical or discoursal) are likely to be attended to buteach focus-on-form episode is only very brief. Loewen (2002) has provided evidence tosuggest that extensive, incidental focus on form can result in learning. He showed thatindividual learners who demonstrated problems with specific linguistic features thatwere the topic of form-focused episodes and received corrective feedback weresubsequently able to perform the same linguistic features accurately in tailor-made tests.Summary 1. Teachers’ corrective feedback is often ambiguous and inconsistent. 2. Teachers demonstrate a general preference for the use of recasts, a relatively implicit form of feedback; this is possibly because it is less socially threatening and intrusive; recasts, however, vary in form and can be salient to students. 3. Corrective feedback is potentially of value to all students, not just to the particular student who receives it. 4. Explicit forms of feedback (including more explicit recasts) result in higher levels of uptake and repair.
22 Instructed Second Language Acquisition 5. Intensive, explicit feedback can contribute to learning. 6. Extensive corrective feedback can also assist learning.Small GroupworkBuilding on Long and Porter’s (1985) account of the advantages of group/pair workfor language pedagogy, Jacobs (1998) provides a comprehensive list of ten potentialadvantages (see Table 3), comparing the typical characteristics of groupwork withthose of teacher-centred instruction.Table 3: Ten potential advantages of group activities in language instruction (based on Jacobs 1998)Advantage Comment1. The quantity of learner speech can increase In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time.2. The variety of speech acts can increase In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning.3. There can be more individualization of instruction In teacher fronted-lessons teachers shape their instruction to the needs of the average student but in groupwork the needs of individual students can be attended to.4. Anxiety can be reduced Students feel less nervous speaking in an L2 in front of their peers than in front of the whole class.5. Motivation can increase Students will be less competitive when working in groups and are more likely to encourage each other.6. Enjoyment can increase Students are ‘social animals’ and thus enjoy interacting with others in groups; in teacher- fronted classrooms student-student interaction is often proscribed.7. Independence can increase Group activities help students to become independent learners.8. Social integration can increase Group activities enable students to get to know each other.9. Students can learn how to work together with others In typical teacher-fronted classrooms students are discouraged from helping each other; group work helps students to learn collaborative skills.10. Learning can increase Learning is enhanced by groupwork because students are willing to take risks and can scaffold each other’s efforts.Early studies of groupwork (e.g. Pica & Doughty, 1985; Porter, 1986) focused on theopportunities it provides for the negotiation of meaning, which according to Long’sInteraction Hypothesis (Long 1983a, 1996) fosters acquisition. These studiesshowed that, with the right task, groupwork resulted in extensive negotiation of
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 23meaning. In this respect, it contrasts with teacher-fronted instruction, where typicallylittle interactional modification takes place. Other research (e.g. Donato, 1994) hasdrawn on sociocultural theory to show how learners are adept at scaffolding eachother’s contributions, so that what they are able to achieve collectively in the L2exceeds what they can do as individuals. However, these studies do not demonstratethat groupwork results in acquisition; only that it affords the interactional conditionshypothesized to promote acquisition.The value of group work has also not gone unchallenged. An obvious danger is that inmonolingual groups the learners will resort to their L1 when talking to each other.Students are not always favourably disposed towards groupwork. Willing (1987)reports that the ESL learners in Australia that he surveyed included ‘pairwork andlanguage games’ among the activities they liked the least. Nunan (1989) suggests thatlearners often tend to favour ‘traditional’ over ‘communicative’ activities, showing apreference for teacher-centred over learner-centred participatory structures. Group/pairwork has also been challenged on the grounds that it does not ensure theconditions needed to achieve satisfactory task outcomes or language learning. Wells(1999) points out that the ephemeral nature of spoken discourse makes it difficult forthe participants to pursue a line of reasoning so that they can be sure progress hasbeen made and can understand the nature of that progress. He comments ‘memory forthe exact words spoken is extremely short and, without recourse to a definitive text ofwhat is said, it is difficult to work systematically to improve it and the understandingthat it embodies’ (p. 115).Prabhu (1987) did not incorporate groupwork into the methodology of theCommunicational Language Project (a task-based teaching project carried out insecondary school classrooms in southern India) on the grounds that it was less likelythat students would be exposed to the ‘good models’ of English needed to promoteinterlanguage development than if the pre-tasks were performed with the teacher: Since differences between the internal systems of different learners are much smaller than those between the internal systems of the learners as a group and that of the teacher, sustained interaction between learners is likely to provide much less opportunity for system-revision. (p. 81)According to this view, student-student interaction may result in pidginized use of theL2 and concomitant interlanguage fossilization. Prabhu also advances an affectiveargument against groupwork. Contrary to Jacob’s view that groupwork can help toreduce anxiety, Prabhu suggests that some students find it more humiliating to makemistakes in front of their peers than in front of the teacher. Perhaps this is an areawhere there are marked cultural differences.There is another reason why group/pairwork may be less effective for languagelearning than is often claimed. The importance of students attending to form duringthe performance of a task has been noted earlier. Such activity has been found tooccur regularly when the teacher performs a task with the students. Does ‘noticing’arise in student-student interaction? There is very little research that has addressedthis issue. However, a study by Williams (2001) suggests that groupwork may not beconducive to students paying attention to form. Williams found that beginner andintermediate proficiency learners rarely focused on form while performing
24 Instructed Second Language Acquisitioncommunicative tasks and when they did so it was only when the teacher was inattendance. Advanced level learners addressed form more frequently. The actualforms attended to by learners, irrespective of their proficiency, were lexical; therewere very few occasions when they addressed grammatical or phonological problems.However, the tasks in Willams’ study were entirely oral in nature. Groupworkproduces greater attention to form when a pre-task activity directs learners’ attentionto form and the outcome is a written product, as in Swain and Lapkin (2001).How can we reconcile the potential advantages of groupwork with the possibleproblems? The answer probably lies in the extent to which groupwork results incooperative learning through collaborative dialogue. Social interaction betweenstudents does not by itself guarantee either a successful outcome for the task or theconditions that promote language learning. It is not enough to simply put students intogroups to complete a task. What counts is the quality of the interaction, whether thisenables students to engage effectively with the task and to support each other’slanguage learning. A key to using group/pair work, then, lies in ensuring that studentsare able to work together effectively. Studies undertaken from a socioculturaltheoretical perspective afford important clues as to how this can be achieved.Storch (2001) bears witness to the importance of collaborative activity in groupworkfor achieving results. Storch investigated student-student interactions in a group taskthat required the learners to produce a written text in pairs. This study showed that thestudents did not always work collaboratively but that when they did so it had abeneficial effect on task performance. Storch identified the following characteristicsof collaborative interaction: 1. Predominance of first person plural pronouns. 2. Few, or absence, of directives. 3. Text co-constructed (i.e. each student adding to or extending his/her partner’s contributions). 4. Language related episodes initiated by means of a request. 5. Interactive responses that are often incorporated. 6. Evidence of scaffolding.Storch concludes by suggesting that it is the students’ attitude to working together thatmay be crucial.Wells (1999) draws on and extends Bereiter’s (1994) notion of ‘progressivediscourse’ to describe what is required for collaborative knowledge building to occur.He outlines the commitments the participants need to make to achieve such discourse: 1. To work toward a common understanding satisfactory to all. 2. To frame questions and propositions in ways that allow evidence to be brought to bear on them. 3. To expand the body of collectively valid propositions. 4. To allow any belief to be subjected to criticism if it will advance the discourse.
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 25 5. To work collaboratively to improve a knowledge artefact. (Wells, 1999, pp. 112-3).From the perspective of a sociocultural theory of the mind, the activity of ‘coming toknow’ through conversation depends crucially on the participants being able to utilizeeach other’s utterances as objects that can be extended, questioned or rejected. As wehave seen this can be accomplished much more easily if the ‘knowledge artefact’ thatthe task requires students to construct is written rather than oral. When constructing awritten text, students are able to focus on an ‘improvable object’ and, importantly,have the time and space to treat language itself as an object, thus achieving the focuson form considered crucial for acquisition. In tasks that afford such ‘improvableobjects’, the quality of the interaction is enhanced, with longer and moregrammaticalized utterances apparent, as illustrated in the task performances inSwain’s research involving dictogloss tasks  (see, for example, Swain, 2000; Swain& Lapkin, 2001). Thus again we can see that the extent to which students achieveeffective collaboration depends on the nature of the task, as much as on their ownefforts.There are, however, a number of more practical matters that teachers can attend to inorder to foster student cooperation in group/pair work. It should be noted, however,that there is little L2 research available that has directly addressed these issues. Theyinclude: 1. Students’ orientation to the task For groupwork to be effective students need to be convinced that the task is worthwhile and not simply an opportunity for some ‘fun’ (as Foster (1998) suggests was the case in the learners she investigated – see Chapter 6). Students, then, need to be serious and committed towards obtaining the best outcome possible for the task. 2. Individual accountability Each student needs to be made accountable for his/her own contribution to the completion of the task. One way in which this can be achieved is by giving each group member a specific role to perform (Jacobs, 1998). Another is by asking each student to make an explicit comment on their personal contribution in the post-task report. 3. Group composition The key questions here concern size and membership. Jacobs points out that many books of cooperative learning recommend groups of four, which can be subsequently divided into pairs. Mixed groups (in terms of ethnicity and proficiency) are considered to work better than homogeneous groups, although we know of no study that has demonstrated this. 4. Distribution of information In one-way information gap tasks involving students of differing proficiency levels, collaborativeness is enhanced if the student with the lower proficiency is put in charge of the information to be exchanged (Yule, Powers, & McDonald, 1992).
26 Instructed Second Language Acquisition 5. Physical arrangement of students Jacobs (1998) proposes that students need to be seated in a way that they can easily talk together and maintain eye contact, share resources, talk quietly and take up less space. 6. Collaborative skills Teachers can provide training in the strategies needed to engage in effective collaboration (e.g. how to disagree and how to negotiate meaning). The extent to which students are able to use these strategies in groupwork needs to be constantly monitored. 7. Group permanence and cohesion Cooperative learning requires that students have time to consider how their group is functioning and find ways of working together effectively. If groups are constantly changing, students will not have the opportunity to develop the ‘positive interdependence’ (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1993) considered essential for group cohesion. The ability to work effectively with others is a process that requires time. 8. Teacher’s role Jacobs (1998) mentions a number of possible roles for the teacher: modelling collaboration, observing and monitoring the students’ performance, and intervening when a group is experiencing obvious difficulty. Also a teacher can function as a task participant, sitting with students to do the task. The problem with this latter role, however, is that many students find it difficult to react to the teacher as a group member rather than as an instructor.In summary, group work, while important to language acquisition, is not essential,and carries with it some notable disadvantages. However, strong theoreticalarguments have been advanced to support the claim that engaging students in the‘progressive discourse’ that arises out of cooperative endeavour will fosteracquisition. To achieve such discourse is a challenge, however. It depends in part onthe choice of task and in part on ensuring that the conditions that make cooperationpossible have been met.Individual Differences and InstructionWhile L2 acquisition undoubtedly involves psycholinguistic processes of a generalnature, it is also highly varied, especially with regard to the rate of learning andultimate level of proficiency achieved. In the previous sections we focused on theuniversal properties of classroom learning; in this section we will consider individuallearner differences. We will first examine research relating to two factors have beenconsistently shown to affect learning – language aptitude and motivation. We willthen discuss research that has investigated the interaction between instruction andindividual difference factors.Individual difference research has a considerable history. Horwitz (2000), reviewingpublications in The Modern Language Journal from the 1920s up to the end of the1970s documents how interest in L2 learners’ differences evolved over the decades.She notes a marked change in the labels used to refer to individual differences:
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 27 The terms good and bad, intelligent and dull, motivated and unmotivated have given way to a myriad of new terms such as integratively and instrumentally motivated, anxious and comfortable, field independent and field sensitive, auditory and visual’ (p. 532).Thus, whereas earlier learners were seen in absolute terms, as either innately endowedwith or lacking in language learning skills, in more recent research they arecharacterized in more relative terms, as possessing different kinds of abilities andpredispositions that influence learning in complex ways.This change of perspective over the years reflects a development in the role ofindividual difference research in applied linguistics. In earlier periods, the primaryconcern was to provide a basis for selecting which learners should be chosen toreceive foreign language instruction. To this end, the main purpose of individualdifference research was to predict which learners would succeed. This led ultimatelyto the development of tests of language aptitude such as the Modern LanguageAptitude Battery (Carroll & Sapon, 1959). More recent research, however, has soughtto explain why some learners succeed more than others and has been seen ascomplementary to mainstream research on L2 acquisition.Language AptitudeLanguage aptitude is one of the ‘big two’ individual difference factors (the otherbeing motivation). Research based on tests such as the Modern Language AptitudeTest (MLAT) has revealed consistent correlations with language achievement in theorder of .40 or higher (see Carroll, 1990 and Skehan, 1989 for reviews of the earlierresearch). For example, in a recent study, Sparks, Ganschow and Patton (1995) foundthat language aptitude measured by the MLAT was one of the two best predictors ofthe grades achieved by school foreign language learners, the other being nativelanguage (English) grades.Carroll’s early research into language aptitude identified four aspects of languageaptitude: 1. Phonemic coding ability (i.e. the ability code foreign sounds in a way that they can be remembered later). 2. Grammatical sensitivity (i.e. the ability to recognize the grammatical functions of words in sentences). 3. Inductive learning ability (i.e. the ability to identify patterns of correspondence and relationships involving form and meaning). 4. Rote learning ability (i.e. the ability to form and remember associations between stimuli).Although this model of language aptitude was designed at a time when the prevailinginstructional approach was audiolingual in nature it has withstood the test of timeremarkably well, the MLAT (or tests based on a very similar model of languageaptitude) continuing to be the preferred instrument in current research. More recently,however, Skehan (2002) has suggested how a model of L2 acquisition might be used
28 Instructed Second Language Acquisitionto identify additional aptitudinal aspects, in particular the ability to attend to form inthe input and to access language material from memory.Studies have shown that aptitude scores are related to both formal, test-like measuresof L2 proficiency and to more informal measures based on communicativeperformance. Horwitz (1987), for example, found that MLAT scores correlatedsignificantly with scores on a discrete-point grammar test and with scores derivedfrom relatively spontaneous oral production. A number of recent experimental studieshave examined the relationship between language aptitude and implicit/explicitlearning. In these studies, implicit learning was operationalized as exposure tosentences exemplifying a specific structure with the instruction to memorize thesentences, while explicit learning involved asking learners to actively look for the ruleor, in some cases, to process the sentences after they have received an explanation ofthe rule. Robinson (1997) found that language aptitude is implicated in both types oflearning .It is possible, however, that different aspects of language aptitude are involved ininformal and formal learning. For example, if, as Grigorenko, Sternberg and Ehrman(2000) suggest, intelligence is a factor in explicit learning, we might expect measuresof linguistic-analytic ability to be important here, while the phonemic-coding andmemory abilities may play a bigger role in informal learning.Robinson (2002) argues for a research program that systematically examines theinteractions between task demands, language aptitude and language learning. Hesuggests that ‘the information processing demands of tasks draw differentially oncognitive abilities’ (p. 386) and that we need to discover how this affects learningoutcomes. However, there have been surprisingly few studies that have examinedlanguage aptitude in relation to specific pedagogical tasks as opposed to generalachievement. Nagata, Aline and Ellis (1999) examined learners’ performance on aone-way information gap task involving listening to and carrying out instructions thatcontained new L2 words – a task directed at incidental acquisition. They reportedmoderate but statistically significant correlations between measures of sound-symbolassociation, grammatical-semantic sensitivity and memory for words on the one handand comprehension of the instructions on the other. In contrast, only memory forwords was systematically related to post-test measures of the acquisition of the newwords. This study suggests that different aspects of language aptitude may beimplicated in different kinds of language processing.There have been proposals for new models of language aptitude. Skehan (1998)suggests that Carroll’s original four-part model can be collapsed into a three-part oneby incorporating grammatical sensitivity and inductive language learning ability into asingle ‘language analytic ability’. He argues that these three aptitudes operatedifferently during the course of adult language learning. Language analytic ability,which is closely related to general intelligence, is involved throughout, whilephonemic-coding ability plays a major role only in the early stages. Memory ability isinvolved in all stages but in the case of exceptional learners it is enhanced allowingthem to achieve a more or less native-like level of proficiency. In a later publicationSkehan (2002) suggests the need to relate different components of aptitude to fourmacro stages in language acquisition; noticing (e.g. phonemic coding and working
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 29memory), patterning (e.g. language analytic ability), controlling (memory retrievalprocesses) and lexicalising (e.g. memory abilities).Finally, Sternberg (2002) suggests that the theory of ‘successful intelligence’ he hasdeveloped through general research on native speaking students may also beapplicable to L2 learning. This theory distinguishes three types of aptitude: analyticalintelligence (i.e. the ability to analyze, compare and evaluate), creative intelligence(i.e. the ability to produce novel solutions to problems) and practical intelligence (i.e.the capacity to adapt to, to shape and to select environments suited to one’s abilities).Sternberg argues that tests have generally targeted analytic and, to a lesser extent,creative intelligence, largely because teaching methods have typically emphasizedthese.MotivationMotivation accounts for only slightly less of the variance in learners’ achievementscores than language aptitude. Not surprisingly teachers recognize the importance ofmotivation, both with regard to the motivation that students bring to the languageclassroom (extrinsic motivation) and the motivation that is generated inside theclassroom through the choice of instructional activities (intrinsic motivation).Similarly, motivation has attracted increasing attention from researchers, reflected in agrowing number of theoretical models of L2 motivation and in consequent researchstudies.The serious study of motivation in language learning began with Lambert andGardner’s work on the social psychology of language learning in the bilingual contextof Canada. The theory they developed and the research it spawned is described fullyin Gardner (1985). Crucial to understanding the socio-psychological perspective is thedistinction between ‘orientation’ and ‘motivation’. ‘Orientation’ refers to the long-range goals that learners have for learning a language. Two broad types of orientationwere distinguished: an ‘integrative orientation’ involving a wish to develop anunderstanding of and possibly become part of the target language culture and an‘instrumental orientation’ consisting of a felt need to learn the target language forsome functional purpose (e.g. obtain a job). ‘Motivation’ was defined primarily interms of ‘motivational intensity’ (i.e. the effort learners were prepared to make tolearn a language and their persistence in learning). Thus learners might demonstrateparticular orientations but be weakly and strongly motivated to achieve their goals.Lambert and Gardner’s early work in Canada suggested that integrative motivationcorrelated most strongly with measures of L2 achievement but subsequent researchhas shown that in some teaching contexts (e.g. the Philippines or India) aninstrumental motivation was more important. In his later publications, Gardneracknowledges that both motivations are important and that they can co-exist in thesame learner population. Subsequent research (e.g. Belmachi & Hummel, 1998) hasshown that learners’ orientations are varied, depending on the situational and temporalcontext, and are also dynamic. What may be important is not what orientationindividual learners have but rather the extent to which each learner is prepared topursue the learning goal (i.e. motivational intensity and perseverance).During the 1990s the socio-psychological perspective on motivation was challengedfor a number of reasons. First, it was seen as failing to acknowledge the resultative