Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ellis - Form FOCUSED Tasks Chapter 5

    Uploaded by

    malak316
    7 views17 pages
    Focus on form in task-based language teaching

    Original Title

    Ellis.form FOCUSED tasks Chapter 5

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Focus on form in task-based language teaching

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views17 pages

    Ellis - Form FOCUSED Tasks Chapter 5

    Uploaded by

    malak316
    Focus on form in task-based language teaching

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 17
    ae fials could be used in an unfocused task of the dcision-malking kind, In mn of teacher in an Engl yy meets all the criteria of a task. In the task the learners may or may noc attend to target structure in the input data and may or may not use it in their own production. The same materials ‘could be used in a situational grammar exercise. In this case, the teacher uctural properties of the hey peefocm the task. For Ww up criteria for evaluating cessful candidate must/should rudents are primarily a specific form and (2) they are not free to iis clear that learners can the same materials in very different ways and, as we will see below, these sifferences may be of p In this chapter we w sentences the learners have to produce whi 988) sugests that student dental production of a targeted Focused communicative tasks involving both reception and production are of considerable value to both researchers and teachers. For researchers, they provide a means of measucing whether Ieamers have acquired a hey are often preferred ro tests because they provide evi iners do when they are not consciously fo rather than exp! Pienemann 1985) would consider ‘ways in which focus, procedures for implementing a tsk can afford a ling Focused tasks and SLA 143 Candidates for a Job social studies. nt a year working his may round the word Has been married twice-now divorced. Ino children. Hes been running loca) youth group for three years. BETTY, aged 45 Has been marrfed for 24 years. three children. Has. not worked Haz been constantly active in loca) government Nas been elected to local counct] twice, ROBERT, aged 27 ed, no children. in prison-killed @ man in a drunken ed no further crimes since ie. regularly goes to church: Has been working retarded in oor area-has been recomended by principal ef the CLAIRE, aged 60 been married, husband now dead, no chi laren. incipal of British Schoo) for girls in Kuala Lumpur Husband died two years ago: since thon has been in this has recently Figure 5.1: Materials for focused communication task 144 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching ‘The psycholinguistic rationale for focused tasks We will examine two psych ‘There are a number of different accounts of how skill-automatization takes place in cognitive psychology, Here we will focus on the accounts provid: ced by McLaughlin (see McLaugh 1990; McLaughlin and Heredia automatic processing involves the activation of certain nodes in ‘memory each time the appropriate inputs are present. This activation is a learned response that has been built up through consistent mapping of the same input to the same pattern of activation over many trials. Automatic processing contrasts with controlled processing (Sheiffin and Schneider 1977}, where activation of nodes involves attentional control. A key difference berween automatic and controlled processing is that where- as the former oct and in parallel form, the latter oceuts more ive. only one process can be activated at any tei Bothdypes ol proces have dels advantapes end adarmage Automatic processes are easy and rapid. They take uy flexible bur they ate very demanding on processing sho rely 0 also involves restructuring (Mela wolves the unpacking ased represent Focused tasks and SLA 145 fell’ > “falled’. Such restructuring explains follows a U-shaped pattern, ie. learners initially the use of a given feature, then low correct forms, for exam why language acquisii for example, 1 vowel sound, During the de: ral problem-solving procedures to the declarative knowledge ‘evident when learers cam use a pa without having to think about ages, In he knowlege-compiltion ‘stage, learners construct procedures that enable them to access linguistic innowledge as part of s ready-made proc cedure that enables them t0 access the ‘Given that communicative language use requires rapid online processing there is an obvious need for learners to develop automatic processes/pro- eedural knowledge. How then are these developed? According. to ‘MeLaughlin and Heredia, automatic processes develop out of controlled ‘processes. Learning involves the transfer of information from short-term to sing of any ew stage of automat Rinna theo sll develope begin wih del declarative, Also, Anderson acknowledges that the development of pro- ‘eedural knowledge does not necessarily entail the loss of declarative know- learners may be able to produce a noun phease such as ‘an hour? sdurally and by accessing declarative knowledge. 146 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching ‘and precise explanation’ (108-9), Johnson also finds support in the skill erature for ‘demonstration’, ic. providing declarative informa- iguisie features through example In order For controlled proc automatic processes/pracedural knowledge, learners need 0 practise the olve into From a practical standpoint, the necessary component is overlearning. A skill must be pracsed again and again and again, until no attention is sm to be the critical variables complex cognitive skills such as second language learning. (p. 216) “The need for practice in developing proceduralize linguistic knowledge is affirmed by Anderson. Practice is also seen as important for restracturing al repre: as it provides the means by which learners reorganize their sentational framework, that practice involves the process to produce some speci fof the mechanical d ng a structure in a meck ing it and thus does not affe any change in behaviour. To change behaviout processes) itis necessary to provide practice of the In the case of language learning, ‘behaviour’ must entail attempts ‘municate. Thus, for practice to work it must involve learners producing the in the conrext of communicative activity is view, then, communicative practice serves as a device ng knowledze hhave been fi presented declaratively (see Figure $.2). Practice canbe seen asa attempt ich decl target behaviour—or tive crutches... mn is achieved by engaging int jocedure—while temporarily leaning on_ de Focused tasks and SLA 147 Presentation of Communicative ‘ociarave knowledge > pracice tough > (controled processing) ‘ooused tasks Figure $.2: Task-supported language teaching Repeated behaviours ofthis kind allow the restructuring of declarative knowledge in ways that make it easier to proceduralize and allow the ‘combination of co-occurring elements into larger chunks that reduce the ‘working memory load. Johason (1988, 1996) also draws on skil-learning theory £0 tice. He emphasizes the importance of feedback in the lear suggesting that the jonal sequence is tional sequence of ‘learn > perform’. tunity to receive feedback. This feedback, Johnson suggests, should con: Of mistake correction, i.e. negative evidence about the misuse of features rady have knowledge of but cannot yet use auto- i! Johnson emphasizes that for feedback to be effective learners ‘need 10 see for themselves what has gone wrong, in the operating condi- sions under which they wene wro He suggests thar this can feedback, i. feedback ruational grammar exercises and end up practising “seractures’ rather than ‘behaviours’. Theories of implicit earning In Chapter 4 we ki acquired and wil Jedge in this 148 Tusk-based Language Learning and Teaching process. It should be noted from the ourset that the theoretical position dis- ‘cussed in this section conflicts with that of the previous section in a num- ber of ways. 1994; 1) provides the following definition of imy jon of knowledge about the unde ‘environment by a process which 1 we can see tl takes place unconsei development of high ight become so on by the human mind’s ability to detect regularii to store recurrent patterns. It is responsive to the frequer ‘e of different forms in the input. According to this vi learning entails a connectionist model of (see Chapter 4). ‘Whereas in the ease of L1 act is achieved primarily by mea regarding L ‘with some the re is general agree Focused tasks and SLA 149 different perspectives of ski ing theories and theories learning are often referred to in terms of the interface pv ferface position (see Chapter ig the process \g on Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis (see Chapter 2) proposcsa weak ce model where explicit knowledge implicit learning in ewo major ways. Fi hati, if learners are armed with explicit knowledge guise feature they are more likely to notice its occurrence inthe communicative input they reeive and thus (0 learn i In other make a feature sal Knowledge may asist noricing-he-gap (see Chapter 4) about a particular feature they are better equipped to det terween what they themselves are saying and how dl the inp they are exposed it easier for them study, conscious reflection on the nature nowledge or formal instruction, serves to prime the intake through noticing and to feed the internal monitoring that arises when learners notice the gap between their output and what they know consciously. ‘expt instruction — [ee | o \ ay argon 1 1ouN teckinsed pate + pict —+ mononna “Le cut input) knowiedge | (eedback) Figure 5.3: The role of explicit knowledge in im learning 190 Lask-pased Language Learning and leaching rrovides a not dissimilar account of how explicit knowledge can toyporking memory in ar relevant modality, represe ‘on the phonology, or the salient the relevant fea the phrase boundaries; king active particular units in working memory this in turn may reinforce corresponding ousput patterns of the input systems, thus allowing learaing mechanisms to tune the operation of input modules ... (1994: 17). [As both Rand N. El learning is not dependent on explicit knowledge. Rather the processes involving explicit knowledge that they describe are secondary in nature, supplementing but not replacing the processes involved in imy ‘This theory of implicit learning supports th nicative language teaching (Hi must engage learners in authentic com 5. concentrating on the 10 cope with communicatio ing to this view, aca ‘require! is the pro be provided what was described as ‘task-based language teaching” (see Chapter be conducted entirely with unfocused there is aso the poss ‘opportunities for sdge or can be translormet knowledge needs to be viewed lementary to task-based ional sequence. The kind of language curriculum this would suggest Focused tasks and SLA 151 where there are separate compone me directed at developing, (through task-base: learning and an ‘awareness component thumb derived from pedagogical grammars. However, another possi for jing explicit knowledge, examined later in this chapter, is mak- ze the content of tasks, so that learners communicate together in ‘order to discover for themselves how some feature of the language works. Summary ‘We have examined two rather different cognitive accounts of learning. One views language learning in terms of skill-learning, i.e. a process by which controlled or declarative procedures are transformed into automatic pro- cedures through practice. A theory of teaching based on such an account emphasizes: 1 The need for declarative knowledge of language to be taught, 2 The need for communicative practice, ie. practice involving ‘real operating, conditions’, to proceduralize declarative knowledge. 3 The need for feedback that shows learners where they are going weong. Focused tasks have a role to play in such a cheory by providing commu- nicative practice directed at sp istic forms, ‘The second cognitive account views learning as an cannot be directly influenced through ed by explicit knowledge. A theory of teaching based on such an account emphasizes: 1 The need for opportu learn implicitly chrough communica ing to form when communicating, i, knowledge separately as a means of fa xy obviously lends support to the use of unt also have a role to play here as they fers can be given opportunities to communi that they might be able to learn specific linguistic forms sed tasks. But ide a means by ha way Designing focused tasks In this section we will consider three principal ways in which researchers have set abour di focused tasks: based production tasks, (2) comprehension tasks, and (3) consciousnesseraising tasks 152 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching Seructure-based production tasks In a key astcle, Loschky and Bley-Vroman (1993) discuss whar they call ‘seructure-based communication tasks’. They distinguish three ways in which task can be dsged 0 incorport a pei target anguge fe In this case, the ructure may not nevertheless can be expected 10 oH different uses of grammatical features (for example, Tarone and Parrish 1988) found that a narrative task elicited frequent use of definite noun task and perhaps ensure Loschky and Bley-Vroman acknowledge, the ut existing stage of acquisition. They point ot sady achieved full mastery of a specific structure, for example, not benefit acquisitionally from producing the sr ie 9f designing a focused task is to try to ensure the ‘task- essentialness’ of the targeted fe: it may be impossible 10 Mie nanget Rateceuecnal aid an , task-essentialness can only be achieved hy receptive tasks Loschky and Bley-Veoman also coasider what aspect of struccure-based tasks are likely to influence. They express should be seen as that of automatizing e Focused tasks and SLA 153 ty moe as exe them ro practise a ‘structure’ than as a task that leads 0 “behavio the perspective of teaching based on theories of ski 2 problem frm the perspective of ing. What evidence is there that cas “behaviour” whe sentation involving demonstration and diet lle. practice ss back to back and describe a set of cards depicting clocks, which differed in terms of colour, size, and shape. Native speakers on only one out of the six students who completed the task used 1rordered adjectives for shape and colour on seventeen occasions, However, interestingly the order this student followed ‘was colour + shape, for example, ‘a red square clock’, whereas the order ‘hat had been aught was shape + colour, for example, a square red clock’ learners of English. The task about 2 problem a person writen responses 15 responses, 96 (83%) of which contained a the learners failed to use at least one modal verb. 154 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching In response to the request to indicate what they had learnet ‘none of the students indicated ‘modals’, Their responses ref various question forms. The tasks, cogether with the xd, are summarized in Table 5.1. Mackey comments that forms they speakers, 1ers often had difficulty producing a particular que: form. However if they persisted they were able to reformulate the que making it more target lke or comprehensible to their interlocutor. She ~ Desetption Structures targeted ‘complain Wirking uta story by wh-quesons, dol asking uestons ‘questons, SY ‘questons, neg second questons sequencing Discovering he order SVO questions, nogatvos of apictre story (neg. and SVO and neg. and vero) erences Igenitying te aierences _whrquestons, copula batween similar pictures inversion questions, yero ‘questions Prture drawing Deceribing or oraing wf quostons, copula sapere inversion questions, yesino Inversion questions, wise fronting questons, negatives (n09. and SVO anc ‘eg, and veo) ‘Table 5.1: Tasks used to elicit question forms (Mackey 1999: 568) Focused tasks and SLA 155 '. Flciting the use o tion forms (as in Mackey), for exa hhas been targeted other learners do not. This lends support to Loshecky and Bley-Vroms that whether a task is successful in eliciting use ofthe learners stage of developmer cits and th boned only in tes of stoma ructure ‘learnable’ in the sense Within their developmental capacity and yet also posed problem course not easy to design tasks that take learners’ stage of develops account, For one thing, learners may another, be at the same stage, while for ners have reached is a time three studies that when performing structure-based communicative tasks learners treat them as opportunities for communicating rather than for learn- ing. This was truc even in Tuz’s study where the task was preceded by direct ruction and controlled practice, Thus, am tasks shown in Table $.1 manifested clear developmental gains inthe ques- xduced, as measured by pre- and post-tests of the ‘Of the learners who performed the tasks interactively, of 14 made advances. Much may depend on whether target structure while they are performing the task. Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000) report a study that suggests that what learners notice may depend on the nature ofthe linguist featuce that 156 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching hhas been targeted. In this study, learners reported noticing lexical, semantic and phonological fearures in the feedback they received on their efforts 10 communicate, However, they generally did not notice morphosyntactic fearures.* The learners in Mackey's (1999) study may have ‘noticed? ‘questions because they were pragma 3 completing the task imary focus of attention is on meaning, istic resources when reproducing the text sm che notes they made as they listened) and there is which is d tent, The How effective are dictogloss tasks in of the targeted form? Kowal and Swain (1997) found immersion students both noticed and produced exemplars of the present tense when working in pairs to reconstruct a text thar had been devised to practise this structure. They discuss an episode in which a pair of students worked ous that the subject of ‘tracasse tracassent is not ‘nous’ but rathe verb, However, Kaw: rogloss tasks by their very nature might be expected to focus learn- sider the language they ly, however, Swain and, ly significant difference in the erved in the dialogue resulting 1} task.* Nor the students of language-related episodes dictogloss task and a two-way received a mini-lesson on the target structures prior to completing the tasks Focused tasks and SLA 187 that this served to focus their ate study bears out the point made s the presentation stage of 2 learners perform the task. lumi and Bigelow (2000) investigate a task simi lext-reconstruction tasks requited learners to read a sh equally on these forms, Thus Figure they retead and underlined che passage and reconstructed ita secon ‘These tasks were part of an extended treatment that also involved first completing an essay-writing task and reading a model essay tanger structure from the fi tasks used. However, the completed the ex procedure did not differ significantly from a comparison group ‘opportunity to comprehend bur nor to produce the targct Bigelow was more effective because the tasks were pai noticing as well as use, Hi ement that encouraged le evidence to support it ifthe _measure ofthis is performance in post-test. Comprehension tasks We ha sady noted that comprchension-based licting attention to a targeted feature than prod mers cannot avoid processing th asks that are designed to obligate learners to pri ss a speci ona owen inet Thess go ude various nee compeebenson tasks (Loschky and Bley-Vroman 1993), interpr and structured-input tasks (VanPatten 1996). 158 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching Comprehension tasks ate based on the assumption that aequisii +o understand the message cont the case of unfocused compreh sion tasks no attempe is made to structure the input to promote intake; thus learners can avoid processing syntactically by relying on semantic process- . ver, the attempted—input enrichment and input processing. Input enrichment Input enrichmer sin such a way that the target the input provided. For (as in Figure 5 structure has been graphol rag the use of under th follow-1 tigated the effects of input ion. Jourdenais etal. (1996) found that English-speaking learners of L2 Spanish were more likely 10 ference to preterite and imperfect verb forms when think- make exp! ing aloud during a ‘where the forms were grapholog learners exposed ro the enhanced forms than learners who read the non-enhanced texts had been enriched. Thi cudy suggests that his cenciched input was sufficient to learn that English per containing numerous sentences with adverbs in the three sentence positions Focused tasks and SLA 189 ruction (White 199 as well where SAV was concerned but was much less in demonstrating that it has any ly enhanced input flood ly enhanced input ree types of input. Inpue processing cares ken UC take better form-meaning ons than they would if let to theie own devices’ (p. 60). There are three key components: (1) an explanation of a form-meaning rclationship., the use of the pa lize the patient of as subject position); (2) information about process jlves a presentation VanPatten is at pains to 160 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching ‘emphasize its differences; unlike traditional instruction, it provides explicit information about processing strategies that is designed to overcome the “defaule strategies’ that characterize the way learners naturally process input in accordance with their interlanguage: and also, of course, the practice 1 rather chan ourpur " These include the 1 An interpretation task consists of a stimulus to which learners must make some kind of response. 2 The stim ce the form of spoken or 3. The response ean take various forms, for exa cheek a box, select the corcect picture, deaw a diagram, perform an action, but in each case the response will he completely nonverbal of minimally verb can be sequenced to require first attention to, function of che grammatical 1e kind of personal | Ananer the ftouing questions. 1 Dota poopie region yeu? 2 De people whe cook press you? 3 Do srt dressed poopie atvac ou? 44 Do argumentative people ay you? § Are you ftrestact in pysialy atractha poopie? 8 Are you bred by settinpetant people? 1 Ae you tated by fat poop? 8 Are you confused by clover people? ‘On tno basis of your esponsos in A. make alist he quali of people whom 1 you te 2 you dhe. Figure S.A: An example (based on Ellis 1995) Focused tasks and SLA 161 ‘gains were measured by means of both a listening comprehension test and 2 discrete-item written production test. The results showed that the input- and the control group on the ition group on the production test. These results were ‘not possible from ¢his study to determine whether the advantage found for the input-processing instruction derived from per- the US. On the comprehension test, groupe ‘group (2). There was no difference berweet ‘On the production ) did better than (2), ie. there was no difference between groups {2)and (3), VanPatten and Oikennon conclude ‘significant improvement on. the interpretation tests is due to the presence of input procesting intact 7 number clitie pronouns based commu 162 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching fow examples of rence in learning outcomes herseeen groups that received the diferent types tively some advantage for pro- duction-based instruction. However, iis important ro note tha all hese pretation tasks Were effective inthe sense that sks does result in meas able gains in ‘There isa final problem with these studies thar needs consideration. Its not always clear whether the structured inp the sense this term is being used in this book (see Chapter 1). Consider, for ‘example, the structured-input activities used in Allen (2000: 83). To induce of the French causative structure, Allen used the following kind this exercise, you will decide who is doing a particular activity. Circle ho is doing the activity. nudents hear, “Nous faisons balayer la chambee,’/ ‘We sweep the bed- nous b. someone else Such an activity does not meet two of the essential criteria of a task. Fist, it does not realy involve a primary focus on meaning in the sense 1 corporates some kind of gap’ that needs to he filled. This is because ity only requires attention ro the seman this activity is more exercise es than structured inp ming, C-R tasks are designed they ate intended to develop aware- Focused tasks and SLA 163, ness at the level of * ‘noticing’ (see Sch awareness of how s inderstanding’ rather than awareness at the l content ofa gene pinions about the ike, C-R tasks make language itself the content. tn this respect, it can be asked whether C- tasks are ned tasks. They’ are inthe sense that learn- ers are required to talk meaningfully about a language point using thei sarning is more significant if it involves greater depth processing (for example, Craik and Lockhart 1972). C-R tasks cater for discovery learning through problem solving (Bourke 1996), in accordance (1991: 234), we can identify the main characteristics of C-R. lusteate the targeted feature be provided with an explicit rule describing or and they may al explaining the featu 3 The learners are expected to utilize targeted feature, 4 Learmers may be optionally required to verbalize a rule describing the lectual effort to understand the ‘on the data in some data, che correctness or approptiareness ofthe dat ify the daca by sorting it into defined categories. By permuting data options and types of operations, a considerable variety of C-R tasks ccan be designed. A C-R task constitutes a kind of puzzle which when solved ‘enables learners to discover for themselves how a linguistic feature works, 164 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching ‘orting and further example is provided in Figure 5.6 alternation. tasks could be easily redes operation pes, For examples the appointments had attempted appointmet around checking the identified and cl Fotos and. Figure 5.5. ed to incorporate other data options and the fst task an information gap could id been correctly d and formulating a rule ro explain their usc. 1991) provide an information gap version of the task in ‘A Wats the difetence batwaon verbs Ika pve and expan’? ‘She gave a book to her ater: (= grammatical) ‘She gavo her tethor @ Book (-gyammatioa) “The potcoran explained the lw to Mary. (= gamma) “The polcoman expained Mary the law. = ungrammatial B Indicate whetor to felling sentences are grammatical or ungranaica 1 They saved Mark seat 2 His father reas Kim a story. 3. She donatod ne hospital some money 44 They suggested Mary ap onthe river 5 Thoy reported te poles the accent 10 He cooked his ota a cave, {© Work outa rule fr vers ke ‘gv’ ana expan’ 1 isthe verbo in 8 that arene (Le. perm both sentence pater) anc ose ‘hat ae ke ‘expla (2. alow ony one sentence patter). 2 Whats the fern between the verbs in your tw Ess? Figure 5.5: An example of a C-R task Focused tasks and SLA 165 ce effective in 108 and Ellis (1991) compared ing by means of grammar nese-raising by means of a C-R task to judge the grammaticality of sentences such as those in the task ‘explanations and ‘on Japanese leamers’ al involving dative aleenat found thae both metho gins in understanding of Seemed to produce the significant up study that investigated three sgeoup taught by the direct method did better in an or roup received.’ M zroup of low-intermediate le iss of C-R tasks may depend on the the target form they achieve. To investigate what learners are attending -vstoayed asrapair The barons wereee a Hank aloe nether completed the puzzle. Leow eliminated learners who provided no evidence that increased levels of meta maceptually-driven processing” such aids the process by which le communicative behavi acquire the ability to use the feacute i 166 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching explicit knowledge does not convert di to implicit knowledge (as claimed by the non-interface position), then an immediate effect on com- ‘municative behaviour cannot be expected. There are, however, obvious difficulties in designing a study to investigate whether ext acquized from completing C-R tasks aids subsequent notic targeted features, Fotos (1993) provides evidence that this is wh: the target structures. They were then asked to underline any pa of language they had paid special attention co as they did the di Fotos found that they frequently underlined the structures that had been (of CR tasks lies not just in whether they ar¢ effective in devel- snowledge and subsequently promoting noticing but also in learners to communicate. One way of answering lead to the negotiation son is by examining ee Chapter 3). Fotos task they used did ite extensive negotiation bur that much ofthis was very mechan- ical in nature, a point that has also been made of the negotiation that arises in unfocused tasks (see Seedhouse 1999). Fotos (1394) compared the amount and quality of negotiation in unfocused tasks and C-R tasks that Shared the same design fearures and found no significant this was because in the later study the forming tasks in groups. 36 opportunites ro communicate. They in some cases more effective} in developing explicit knowledge than direct consciousnessraising. They have heen shown to promote subsequent noricing ofthe ta be as effective as unfocused task in generating modifed input through the negotiation of meaning. However, as Elis (1991) and Sheen (1992) have pointed out, they also have thei limitations. They may not be well-suited to young learners, who view language as a tool for “doing” rather chan as Beginner learners Focused tasks and SLA 167 heen 1992) and thus forming and testing should be emphasized, however, that Ihave always stressed that +0 communication activities, but a supplement Implementing focused tasks So far we have considered how the design of various kinds of focused tasks sure-hased production tasks, interpretation tasks and C-R tasks) can cause learners to produce, notice and understand targeted structures. We hhave seen, however, that chis is not unproblematic. We will now consider .chieving a language focus can be over- ‘which the task is implemented. ‘ways of drawing attention t0 tiation of meaning. Thus, from the learner's perspective the feedback is directed at solving a communication problem created by something the learner has said while performing the task. From the perspective of the learner's interlocutor, however, the feedback Is targeted very specifically in rors the learner makes in using the structure that has been |. Researchers have examined two ways of providing this the past tense in an ‘oral narrative task with a request for lai in this example: Learner He pass his house. Teacher Uh? Leamer He passed, he passed, ah his sien, “They suggest that such a technique provides a way of teaching grammar ‘communicatively because the opportunities to reformulate devia ances occur in the context of trying to communicate and because the fers are not aware teacher is intentionally focusing on form. The 18. Out of the three 168 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching ‘tense in a subsequent oral narrative task one week later while the learner ‘who did not sefoemulate showed no gain in accuracy. Ellis and Takashima (1999) also provide evidence to suggest that focused feedback consisting of sts for clarification led to more accurate use of past tense forms in sequent tasks, However, in this study, learners wh cened co other students performing the tasks and reformulating did better than those learners who actually cook part. They suggest that it was the ‘modified input’ the listeners received rather than the ‘modified output’ the speakers produced that was important for lea benefit from the opportunity to modify necessary back in the form. new ke Chapter 3, involve rephea sentence components (subi ‘central meanings’ (Long 199 Learner 1.go to cinema at wee Teacher Oh, you went to the Learner Yeah, I went 10 the cinema. communication where they will be directed at a broad range of linguistic features that have caused some kind of communicative problem certainty. Recasts can be used to give a" ced at some pre-determined feature whenever learner. They provide opportunities for a learner ional characteristic that may be im- portant—(5) learner involvement in communicating, may pre dispose them to attend to any recasts they receive, ‘Seudies that have investigated the effets of recasts on acquisition have produced mixed results to date. ‘Ortega (1998) sought the aequistion of L2 Japanese and Spanish grammatical features in the context of a task. Models consisted of sentences that the learners listened to and then repeated. Focused tasks and SLA 169 Recasts provided negative fedback on the eae” own urterances, No both models and recasts proved eff post-test scores than models. Long et al, acki their study are somewhat disappoint support for the use of recasts as a way of promoting. ‘convincing evidence comes from Mackey and Phi investigated the effects of ewo kinds of interaction—one with inte recasts and one without—on the acquisition of question forms by 35 adi ose shown in Figuee nore advanced students (those who were devel- "|, the interaction with recasts proved more effective than casts in enabling them to produce advanced ques ners who were less advanced devel- “ready found that whether learners modified their output recast did not affect development. Doughty and Varela (1998) report a study of the effects of implicit feedback that consisted of repetitions and srances students produced in a series roup receiving models. are instructive. First, they demonstrate that itis possible to achieve a specific linguistic focus when learners perform a task by negoti- ating utterances that contain errors in the targeted feature. Both requests ication and recasts seem pect. A methodo- may be one way of overcoming the diff angered st 170 Task-based Language Learning and Teaching Focused tasks and SLA 171 “Third, there is growing evidence to suggest that an implicit focus on form ada found that not one of these “intrweaves’ was taken up by the in the context of negotiating for meaning aids acquisition, Explicit methodological techniques {A focus can also be given to a information relating tothe tare rare during the performance of task, An explicit focus can be provided either pre-

    You might also like