Gound Work - DR

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 16

Based on principles of second language acquisition (SLA) and Task-based Language

Teaching (TBLT), the speaking lesson included different activities. This paper aims to
indicate principles of SLA and TBLT in these sessions and discuss the effectiveness of these
principles in lesson.

What principles of second language acquisition (SLA) and Task-based Language Teaching
(TBLT) have been put into practice in the lesson you participated in?

What were the sections of the lesson and what were the SLA and TBLT principles that were in
operation in each of those sections? Were they effectively implemented in the lesson? Do include
the analysis of Focus on Forms (FoFs), Focus on Form (FoF) and Focus on Meaning (FoM), and
corrective feedback episodes (if they exist) in your analysis, too.

General in4

We will consider these options in terms of the three stages of a task cycle: pre-task, main task
and post-task (Ellis, 2003).

https://hud.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/openurl?
institution=44HUD_INST&vid=44HUD_INST:Services&%3Fgenre=book&btitle=Task-Based
%20Language%20Learning%20and%20Teaching&title=Task-Based%20Language%20Learning
%20and%20Teaching&pub=Oxford%20University%20Press&date=2003&sid=https:%2F
%2Fwww.cambridge.org

Activity 1: funny - remove affective fillers, motivate

Activity 2:

Task goal: FoM

Task type: production –based: open-ended questions

Output complexity/ fluency

Contextualization:

- Build context, raise problem


- Engage students: motivation
– The Affective Filter Hypothesis: for acquisition to take place, learners need to
be ‘open’ to the input. The ‘affective filter’ is a mental block that prevents them
from fully using input for acquisition. This happens when learners are
unmotivated, lacking in self-confidence or anxious.
Nava, Andrea, and Luciana Pedrazzini. Second Language Acquisition in Action :
Principles from Practice, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2018.
Skill Acquisition Theory - DeKeyser
• Language learning is just like other mechanisms through
progression from initial declarative knowledge to automaticity.
• Learners proceduralise their declarative knowledge through
practice. For complete fluency or spontaneity, knowledge should
be automatized.
• But this is possible only when cognitive operations involved in the
practice activity are similar to those in natural communication.
• Proceduralised knowledge has big advantage over declarative
knowledge.

Task characteristics:

According to Ellis (2009: 223) a task has to satisfy 4 criteria to qualify as a task in this context:

1. The primary focus should be on ‘meaning’ (by which is meant that learners should be mainly
concerned with processing the semantic and pragmatic meaning of utterances).
2. There should be some kind of ‘gap’ (i.e. a need to convey information, to express an opinion
or to infer meaning).
3. Learners should largely have to rely on their own resources (linguistic and non-linguistic) in
order to complete the activity.
4. There is a clearly defined outcome other than the use of language (i.e. the language serves
as the means for achieving the outcome, not as an end in its own right).
1. 2. 3. 4. Meaning focus: g
Gap: there is a requirement to express information, give an opinion or
deduce meaning. In the role-play case, some level of information needs to
be conveyed, but it is purely formulaic. No meanings need to be deduced
and no opinions expressed.

Own resources: learners are not speci fi cally taught or directed to the
language they need to complete the task (i.e., they are free to use any
language they wish to complete the task, although they may be able to
take some language directly from any provided input to help them
complete it). In this case, the interlocutors are taught the language they
need. They are not just borrowing; they are essentially replicating.

Outcome: the language is the means to reach the outcome, but not an end
in itself (i.e., learners undertaking the task are not primarily focused on
having to use language correctly but, rather, on reaching the goal
anticipated in the task). In this case, there is a greater focus on accuracy.
The goal of the activity, as previously stated, is linguistic.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching ,
Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-17 14:32:08.
Perhaps in evaluating this activity as a task we need to go a little deeper. What if
we considered this activity against Ellis and Shintani ’ s more elaborated de fi
nitions of task characteristics (see Chapter 3 and Ellis and Shintani, 2014, pp.
135 – 136)? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Meaning focus: learners should principally be focused on processing input and


creating output, rather than on grammatical form. However, in the café role-play,
as currently presented, input-processing and output-creation are e ff ectively
reliant on pre-learned language.

Gap: there is a requirement to express information, give an opinion or deduce


meaning. In the role-play case, some level of information needs to be conveyed,
but it is purely formulaic. No meanings need to be deduced and no opinions
expressed.

Own resources: learners are not speci fi cally taught or directed to the language
they need to complete the task (i.e., they are free to use any language they wish
to complete the task, although they may be able to take some language directly
from any provided input to help them complete it). In this case, the interlocutors
are taught the language they need. They are not just borrowing; they are
essentially replicating.

Outcome: the language is the means to reach the outcome, but not an end in
itself (i.e., learners undertaking the task are not primarily focused on having to
use language correctly but, rather, on reaching the goal anticipated in the task).
In this case, there is a greater focus on accuracy. The goal of the activity, as
previously stated, is linguistic.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:05:30.

Task sequencing
At the operational level, Prabhu (1987), for example, suggested that, when
sequencing the three types of task he had proposed, learners might move from
information gap to reasoning gap to opinion gap as they progressed in their
language pro fi ciency. He went on to suggest that genuine opinion gap tasks
might only be possible at the highest levels of pro fi ciency. In reality, the
sequencing of tasks in the Bangalore project was e ff ectively intuitive, with
later tasks building on earlier ones, but perhaps involving greater amounts of
information or extending the reasoning required to complete the task.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:13:08.

Task complexity
Robinson (2001) suggested that there are three sets of variables to take into
consideration when designing and sequencing tasks, which he referred to as the
triadic componential framework. Within the framework, a range of questions
might be asked (some examples are given below):

1. complexity – e.g., how many steps are involved in completing the task? How
high are the reasoning demands placed on the learners?

2. difficulty – e.g., how able or pr ficient are the learners undertaking the task?
How do they perceive the task? How do they feel about doing the task?

3. conditions – e.g., is this a one-way or two-way task? How do the learners


undertake the task? Individually? In pairs? In groups?
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:22:52.

The cognition hypothesis (Robinson 2001, 2003)


The cognition hypothesis (CH) distinguishes two dimensions of task complexity –
resource-directing and resource-dispersing (Robinson, 2003; Robinson &
Gilabert, 2007).

The resource-directing dimension is related to the linguistic concepts that need


to be expressed or understood in performing the task. That is, during task
completion learners may be “ directed ” to aspects of the language system, and
thereby pushed towards greater accuracy and complexity of L2 production. For
example, a less complex task may ask learners to refer to events in the present
taking place in the location where the task is being undertaken (what is
currently going on in the classroom); a more complex task may require learners
to refer to events in the past at a di ff erent location (what happened elsewhere).
Similarly, a less complex task may ask learners to state facts about a particular
context (e.g., what they know about how to keep fi t); a more complex task may
require learners to give reasons for particular beliefs (e.g., what they believe
about the e ff ect of smoking on health and fi tness, and why they believe this).
The resource-dispersing dimension does not direct learners to any speci fi c
aspect of the linguistic system. Rather, it makes di ff erential performative or
procedural demands on learners ’ attention and memory, thereby “ dispersing ”
learners ’ attentional resources. These dimensions may include, for example,
giving or limiting planning time; providing or not providing relevant background
knowledge; requiring the learners to complete one or several steps; or having a fi
xed sequence of steps or no required sequence.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching, Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:25:54.

Pre-task phrase – Scaffolding


The pre-task phase can serve a number of purposes. Fundamentally, it provides
the opportunity for teachers to specify the topic of the forthcoming task or
tasks, and the outcomes that are anticipated from the tasks, so that the learners
know what they are aiming at and see a purpose for what they are about to do. It
builds up expectations and facilitates both task completion and language
learning.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:36:27.

The pre-task phase can serve a number of purposes. Fundamentally, it provides


the opportunity for teachers to specify the topic of the forthcoming task or
tasks, and the outcomes that are anticipated from the tasks, so that the learners
know what they are aiming at and see a purpose for what they are about to do. It
builds up expectations and facilitates both task completion and language
learning.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:36:27.

topic. Nunan (2004) referred to this as “ schema building. ” In addition to


introducing learners to the topic and context for the task, this may serve to
introduce key words and formulaic language. Learners may, for example, do
some work with a sample of language input and thereby identify key words and
phrases. This is commensurate with Willis ’ s (1996) proposal that a teacher in
the pre-task phase “ explores the topic with the class, highlights useful words
and phrases, helps students understand task instructions and prepare ” (p. 38).
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:46:39.

Goh, 2017

Like task repetition, the rationale for pre-task planning is based on a cognitive
approach to language learning (Skehan 1998) and L2 speaking development
(Segalowitz 2010). Giving learners time to plan before a task to think of what to
say and how to say it helps to free up attentional space during speaking for
articulation of ideas, speech monitoring and self-repairs. Skehan (1998)
summarized the main benefits of pre-task planning as follows: improved
complexity in selected tasks, more complex content as a result of deeper
interpretation of task demands, more experimentation with forms to express
complex ideas, better self-monitoring during task performance and all round
improved fluency

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/
BD848E326F7761ABC789E6692B9BB6D1/S0261444816000483a.pdf/research-
into-practice-scaffolding-learning-processes-to-improve-speaking-
performance.pdf

GRAMMAR:

Di ff erences in perspective between Long and Ellis also frame considerations


about where in the task cycle attention to grammar should occur and how it
should occur. Crucially, there are those who have suggested that a direct or
explicit form focus might occur in the pre -task phase of a lesson. Kim (2013), for
example, noted that the inclusion of some kind of form focus in the pre-task
phase would essentially be “ to raise learners ’ awareness of these forms during
planning time as well as during task performance ” (p. 10). Indeed, Ellis et al.
(2019), who presented the fi rst study to investigate how pre-task grammar
instruction might in fl uence task performance and learning, went so far as to
suggest that explicit pre -teaching of the target structure may have some value
in encouraging the use of that structure in a subsequent task. Nonetheless, and
essentially following Long, Samuda and Bygate (2008) made the argument that a
“ key criterial element ” in TBLT is the timing of the grammar focus, “ arising
from task performance and not preceding it ” (p. 208, my emphases). I will return
to this argument towards the end of this chapter.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 21:14:53.

I repeat Samuda and Bygate ’ s (2008) argument that a “ key criterial element ”
of TBLT is that the language focus is positioned as a post -task activity arising
from task performance. From this perspective, the use of pre-task direct
instruction raises important issues for TBLT for which Ellis et al. (2019)
suggested that more research is needed.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 21:40:43.

Task modality:
(ATESL, 2011b, p. 10). From this perspective, the framework suggests that task
modality might progress from the receptive to the productive, thereby moving
learners towards increasingly autonomous language use, and sequenced in a
way that deliberately builds on learners ’ skills, knowledge and experience.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:50:26.

Focus on meaning:
In meaning-focused contexts, learners are required to process whole or
complete comprehensible samples of language input in contexts where they can
e ff ectively be immersed in the language. Hence focus on meaning (FonM) can
be mapped historically onto an innatist theory of learning, fi nding expression, for
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:53:52.

Speking + writing:
Learners undertaking speaking tasks could also be required to complete some
kind of co-constructed written response. This could, for example, take the form
of summarising or reporting in written form on the outcomes of the spoken task.
This enables learners to pay attention to di ff erent components of language use.
GarcíaMayo and Imaz Agirre (2019), for example, have pointed out that some
studies have indicated that tasks that elicit speaking cause learners to pay more
attention to meaning, whereas tasks that include a written element present
learners with more opportunities to focus on accuracy and grammatical form. In
comparison with speaking tasks alone, collaborative tasks that include a written
component will likely elicit more language related episodes (LREs) which (as I
pointed out in Chapter 5) constitute learners ’ discussions on and modi fi cations
of the language they are producing (Swain, 1998), with potential learning bene fi
ts in terms of accuracy. However, opportunities for collaborative (pair or group)
writing do not necessarily need to have been preceded by a speaking task (i.e., a
task could involve input processing, e.g., reading a newspaper article or
watching a televised news report on a topical theme and then co-constructing a
written position piece on its content that presents one or several perspectives).
Tasks that require some kind of written output also lend themselves to individual
work, where learners may have more time to process output and focus on
accuracy, and can be integrated with other skills. This may include, for example,
reading and responding (replying to an email or letter; opinion piece; book
review), or listening/watching and responding (listing key information from a
phone message; summarising key points from a podcast or lecture; fi lm review).
Individual writing tasks may be conducted as part of whole class work (e.g., the
class listens to or reads the same input and provides some kind of individual
written response). This could lead to pair, group or whole class work where
outcomes are shared (and feedback opportunities provided), and could be
developed into a monologic speaking task in the form of individual presentations.
Such tasks could also be completed, in whole or in part, outside class. A key
issue that underpins drawing on di ff erent task types and modalities, alongside
di ff erent structures of participation, is that they enable learners to pay
attention to di ff erent dimensions of the L2 and also to recycle language. They
also enable learner di ff erence variables to be managed in ways that will ideally
cater to the needs and learning styles of all learners in the class.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 21:19:48.

Focus on form:
Long (2000) de fi ned FonF as a procedure that entails “ brie fl y drawing
students ’ attention to linguistic elements (words, collocations, grammatical
structures, pragmatic patterns, etc.) in context , as they arise incidentally in
lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning, or communication ” (p. 185).
These brief moments where learners shift their focus of attention are prompted
by occasions when learners come up against a comprehension or production
problem during interaction. The shift in attention is designed to stimulate “
noticing ” (Schmidt, 1990, 1993, 2001), thereby raising students ’ awareness of
particular forms and their uses (see Chapter 2).

completion, FonF might be enacted through some form of corrective feedback


that draws learners ’ attention to an error, or by the teacher getting the learners
to step back from what they are doing (whether during-task or post-task) and to
interrogate an inaccurate language sample, thinking through why it may be
wrong and how it might be put right.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:56:43.

form-focused instruction ” (FFI), which may be de fi ned as “ any pedagogical e ff


ort which is used to draw the learners ’ attention to form either implicitly or
explicitly … within meaning-based approaches to L2 instruction ” (Spada, 1997,
p. 73, my emphasis). Importantly in FFI, the classroom approach being adopted is
communicative , and the purpose of the grammar focus is to enhance e ff ective
communication. However, learners can be directed to pay attention to
grammatical rules in operation either reactively (so-called integrated FFI) or
discretely (so-called isolated FFI).
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 20:58:43.

Types of FFI

As we have discussed, FFI is not a methodology or a clearly defined


technique, but it can refer to a collection of pedagogical techniques that can
be backed by SLA or pedagogic theories.
Ranta and Lyster (2017) discuss some of these techniques. Corrective
feedback is taken as reactive FFI
Lyster (2016 in Ranta & Lyster, 2017)

Lyster (2016) offers a lesson flow that starts with a focus on content.
This content provides a context for target language features to be
noticed while it is focused on through meaning-based activities. The
context is created usually by means of some input material such as
reading or listening texts, videos, etc. coupled with input enhancement
and input flood features. Therefore, there is no direct explicit teaching
of form at the beginning, unlike PPP, but opportunities are created
through noticing and awareness activities for inducing the ‘form and
meaning’ relationship with regards to target language features. At the
awareness stage, learners ‘play with’ the target forms to discover ‘rules’
and ‘usages’ and see the repeating patterns. The guided practice stage
is more explicit with metalinguistic exercises that push the learners to
use the target features in a meaningful but controlled context. When
the learners have confidence with the forms, they are returned to
content/meaning focused activities in which the target language forms
are needed for more accurate expression. At this stage, the learners
focus on the subject-matter to learn and discuss it at higher levels
(comparison, analysis, evaluation). This corresponds to the
autonomous practice stage. Ranta and Lyster (2017) underline the
importance of establishing a balance between content and language
objectives. Throughout the third phase, reactive FoF can be
implemented in the form of explicit or implicit corrective feedback and
requests for elaboration (the integration of the target form) providing
strong scaffolding to the learners.

Interaction

Group/ pair discussion


Learners undertaking speaking tasks could also be required to complete some
kind of co-constructed written response. This could, for example, take the form
of summarising or reporting in written form on the outcomes of the spoken task.
This enables learners to pay attention to di ff erent components of language use.
GarcíaMayo and Imaz Agirre (2019), for example, have pointed out that some
studies have indicated that tasks that elicit speaking cause learners to pay more
attention to meaning, whereas tasks that include a written element present
learners with more opportunities to focus on accuracy and grammatical form. In
comparison with speaking tasks alone, collaborative tasks that include a written
component will likely elicit more language related episodes (LREs) which (as I
pointed out in Chapter 5) constitute learners ’ discussions on and modi fi cations
of the language they are producing (Swain, 1998), with potential learning bene fi
ts in terms of accuracy. However, opportunities for collaborative (pair or group)
writing do not necessarily need to have been preceded by a speaking task (i.e., a
task could involve input processing, e.g., reading a newspaper article or
watching a televised news report on a topical theme and then co-constructing a
written position piece on its content that presents one or several perspectives).
Tasks that require some kind of written output also lend themselves to individual
work, where learners may have more time to process output and focus on
accuracy, and can be integrated with other skills. This may include, for example,
reading and responding (replying to an email or letter; opinion piece; book
review), or listening/watching and responding (listing key information from a
phone message; summarising key points from a podcast or lecture; fi lm review).
Individual writing tasks may be conducted as part of whole class work (e.g., the
class listens to or reads the same input and provides some kind of individual
written response). This could lead to pair, group or whole class work where
outcomes are shared (and feedback opportunities provided), and could be
developed into a monologic speaking task in the form of individual presentations.
Such tasks could also be completed, in whole or in part, outside class. A key
issue that underpins drawing on di ff erent task types and modalities, alongside
di ff erent structures of participation, is that they enable learners to pay
attention to di ff erent dimensions of the L2 and also to recycle language. They
also enable learner di ff erence variables to be managed in ways that will ideally
cater to the needs and learning styles of all learners in the class.
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 21:19:48.

Social hypothesis

PDZ ( ...zone)

Conciousness- rasing task ???

Role of teacher

Oral corrective feedback


As Lyster et al. (2013) argued, CF plays “ a pivotal role in the kind of sca ff olding
that teachers need to provide to individual learners to promote continuing L2
growth ” (p. 1). From a cognitive-interactionist perspective, CF presents
opportunities for learners to notice target features in the input during
interaction. From a sociocultural-interactionist standpoint, CF is a sca ff olding
mechanism that moves learners from what they can do only with support to what
they can do independently and unaided (see, e.g., Sato & Ballinger, 2012).
East, Martin. Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching , Taylor
& Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=6632478.
Created from hud on 2024-04-12 21:33:22.
Lyster and Ranta (1997) identi fi ed six types of CF strategy. Li (2014, p. 196)
illustrated how these categorisations might work in practice in several
responses to the incorrect utterance “ He has dog, ” where the inde fi nite article
( “ a ” ) is missing: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6

.Recast – a reformulation with the correct utterance: “ a dog. ” Explicit


correction – signalling the error to the learner and then presenting the correct
form: “ No, you should say ‘ a dog ’ . ” Clari fi cation request: “ Sorry? ”
Metalinguistic feedback: “ You need an inde fi nite article. ” Elicitation –
prompting for the correct form: “ He has … ? ” Repetition: repeating the incorrect
sentence as a question: “ He has dog? ”

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Usage-based theory

Braine (1976)—suggested a more semantic-cognitive basis for children’s early


language: the so-called semantic relations approach. The basic observation in
this case was that some of the fundamental syntactic relations apparent in
children’s early language correspond rather closely to some of the categories of
sensory-motor cognition as outlined by Piaget (1952).
Tomasello, Michael. Constructing a Language : A Usage-Based Theory of
Language Acquisition, Harvard University Press, 2003. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=3300391.
Created from hud on 2024-04-22 19:01:31.

Beginning at the beginning, for usage-based theorists the fundamental reality of


language is people making utterances to one another on particular occasions of
use. When people repeatedly use the same particular and concrete linguistic
symbols to make utterances to one another in “similar” situations, what may
emerge over time is a pattern of language use, schematized in the minds of
users as one or another kind of linguistic category or construction.
Tomasello, Michael. Constructing a Language : A Usage-Based Theory of
Language Acquisition, Harvard University Press, 2003. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=3300391.
Created from hud on 2024-04-22 19:04:10.
The most important point is that constructions are nothing more or less than
patterns of usage, which may therefore become relatively abstract if these
patterns include many different kinds of speciªc linguistic symbols. But never are
they empty rules devoid of semantic content or communicative function. In
usage-based approaches, contentless rules, principles, parameters, constraints,
features, and so forth are the formal devices of professional linguists; they
simply do not exist in the minds of speakers of a natural language.

Connectionism: Usage-based learning


(N. C. Ellis)

Connectionism is one strand of research in SLA that seeks to investigate how


simple associative learning mechanisms such as the kind of contingency
analysis mentioned above meets the complex language evidence available to a
learner in their input and output. The term “connectionist” reflects the idea that
mental and behavioral models are in essence interconnected networks of simple
units. Connectionist models are typically run as computer simulations. The
simulations are data–rich and process–light: massively parallel systems of
artificial neurons use simple learning processes to statistically generalize over
masses of input data. It is important that the input data is representative of
learners’ usage history, which is why connectionist and other input–influenced
research rests heavily upon large–scale, maximally representative digital
collections of authentic language (these are often called databanks or corpora).
Connectionist simulations show how prototypes emerge as the prominent
underlying structural regularity in the whole problem space, and how minority
subpatterns of inflection regularity, such as the English plural subpatterns
discussed above (or the much richer varieties of the German plural system, for
example), also emerge as smaller, less powerful attractors. Connectionism
provides the computational framework for testing usage–based theories as
simulations, for investigating how patterns appear from the interactions of many
language p

The Salience Hypothesis (Schmidt, 2001). Noticing hypo


g. In order to acquire pragmatics, one must attend to both the linguistic form of
utterances and the relevant social and contextual features with which they are
associated. In order to acquire morphology, one must attend to both the forms of
morphemes and their meanings, and in order to acquire syntax one must attend
to the order of words and the meanings they are associated with
Mackey (2006) used multiple measures of noticing and development to
investigate whether feedback promotes noticing of L2 forms in a classroom
context and whether there is a relationship between learners’ reports of noticing
and learning outcomes. The findings of this study were that learners reported
more noticing when feedback was provided, and learners who exhibited more
noticing developed more than those who exhibited less noticing. Izumi (2002)
conducted an experimental study to compare the effects of output and enhanced
input on noticing and development. Izumi found that subjects demonstrated more
noticing and more learning than did controls, and that enhanced input subjects
exhibited more noticing but not more learning

https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/SCHMIDT%20Attention,%20awareness,%20and%20individual
%20differences.pdf

Fluency and Accuracy

Sequence of acquisition ( Ellis, 2015, p64)

Structual and semantic simplification could help leaners use L2 in the early stages of learning (Ellis,
2015)- p70

You might also like