470 Fall 2010

Constructivist Grammatical
Learning: A Proposal for
Advanced Grammatical Analysis
for College Foreign
Language Students
Clara C. Mojica-Dı́az
Tennessee State University

Lourdes Sánchez-López
University of Alabama at Birmingham

Abstract: The teaching of foreign language advanced grammar (AG) at the college
level nowadays continues largely to focus on form, with little attention to its functions
and meanings. The practice agrees with neither the Standards for Foreign Language
Learning in the 21st Century (National Standards, 2006) nor the advances made in
basic language teaching pertaining to the communicative purpose and context of lan-
guage. Since both second language acquisition and pedagogical research demand more
attention to contextual use, as well as the active participation of the student in the
analysis of the forms, a revision of current practices becomes necessary. This article
proposes the study of AG based on the use of unabridged authentic texts and the appli-
cation of a Constructivist Grammatical Learning Approach.

Key words: Spanish, advanced learning, authentic texts, constructivism, foreign

language instruction, grammatical analysis

Introduction
The importance of language as a powerful and global entity that connects us to the
world was strengthened with the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st
Century (National Standards, 2006). Accordingly, the materials for teaching foreign
languages at the elementary and intermediate levels tend to concentrate increas-
ingly more on the intent and content of the message and less on memorization and

Clara C. Mojica-Dı́az (PhD, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) is

Professor of Spanish in the Department of Languages, Literature & Philosophy at
Tennessee State University.
Lourdes Sánchez-López (PhD, University of Jaén, Spain) is Associate Professor of
Spanish in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures at the University
of Alabama at Birmingham.
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 43, No. 3
mechanization of grammatical forms. This is
not yet fully reflected in the teaching of
advanced grammar (AG). Generally, Spanish
textbooks published for AG courses are nor-
mative and reference manuals. Their focus is
primarily on the explicit description of the
grammar rules of the language and on pro-
duction of correct forms by the student. This
holds true even for recent textbooks (e.g.,
Jordan & Pereiro-Otero, 2006; King & Suñer,
2004; Lunn & DeCesaris, 2007). In these
textbooks, grammatical structures are pre-
sented in context and followed by some
guiding questions to direct students to notice
the structure. But the focus is still didactic
as opposed to discovery-based.1 Such an
approach fits well with a traditional language
teaching philosophy, the objective of which is
almost exclusively the perfecting of grammar
rules. However, the change of emphasis in the
teaching at the elementary and intermediate
levels makes it necessary to develop a peda-
gogy of grammar that takes into consideration
the cognitive and linguistic characteristics of
the foreign language (FL) learner. By doing
so, one ensures continuity in learning and a
deeper understanding of the language.
This article proposes a viable alterna-
tive for teaching the AG of an FL (specifi-
cally Spanish) that offers students at an
intermediate/advanced level (third- and
fourth-year college students) the opportu-
nity to actively participate in the discovery
of grammatical patterns, their meaning, and
their functions. The proposal is based pri-
marily on constructivist2 principles (Brooks
& Brooks, 1993) and reflects current re-
search on second language (L2) and FL
teaching, learning, and advanced language
proficiency assessment (Shohamy, 2006). It
also applies National Standards (National
Standards, 2006) goals, structured mean-
ingful input strategies (Carter & McRae,
1996; Collie & Slater, 1987; Kern, 2004;
Simpson, 1997; VanPatten & Cadierno,
1993; VanPatten & Sanz, 1995, among
others), and critical-thinking skills and
peer-teaching (Carroll & Lambert, 2006;
Schultz, 2002). First, we discuss research
on L2 and FL grammar as well as AG
471
teaching and learning. Second, we present a
proposal for the teaching of AG. Third, we
include a practical application (the Con-
structive Grammatical Learning Unit) of the
proposal. This unit is applied to the teach-
ing of Spanish as a foreign language, but it
may be applied and adapted to any foreign
language and any grammatical point at the
advanced levels.
Research Background
and Discussion
Methodology and Theoretical Basis of
Current Textbooks
A number of studies have been published
dealing with the issue of grammar in L2
teaching. These studies reveal a traditional
approach to language learning by empha-
sizing form over meaning, production over
the processing of input, and a didactic
over a discovery-based approach. Based on
a review of English teaching materials,
Rutherford (1988) found that these materi-
als have in common the notion that
grammar is simply a linguistic system made
up of discrete units that should be mas-
tered or learned. Grammatical study rarely
goes beyond a handful of elements chosen
mainly because of their frequent use in
the language. Rutherford claimed that an
approach of this type ignores essential ele-
ments of the language, such as ‘‘the crucial
questions of deep grammatical organization,
of the discourse function of grammatical
rules, and of what kinds of ‘meanings’ are
conveyed by grammatical forms themselves’’
(p. 182). Likewise, Ellis (2002b), as well
as Wong and VanPatten (2003), observed
that the grammar instruction promoted in
language textbooks is based primarily on an
explicit description, followed by mechanical
practice. Ellis (2002b), in his study of English
grammar textbooks, found that few of these
textbooks provide data or independent texts
that contain the structure being studied and,
when they do provide them, they are not
authentic. The lack of data results in there
being few activities that require the students to
472
pay attention to specific grammatical struc-
tures. Ellis also stressed that contextualized
activities are used more to have the learner
produce a form rather than attend to the
use of that form in context. He claimed that
such focus on production gives learners little
opportunity to process the structures in oral
and written texts, without dealing with any
form of production. Fortune (1998) empha-
sized the predominant tendency to promote
the production of targeted forms by means
of isolated and decontextualized sentences
and practices that consist of filling in blanks
with elements that have to be adapted to
the particular text. Upon her investigation
of textbook activities, Aski (2003) con-
cluded that ‘‘meaning, context, and function
continue to take a back seat to tradi-
tional presentations and practice of gram-
mar’’ (p. 58).
Based on the previously discussed
approaches to grammar found in textbooks,
the predominant methodology in the tea-
ching of grammar has four main chara-
cteristics that correspond to a traditional
definition:
1. The teaching of grammar reflects, accord-
ing to Ellis (2002b), a combination of
audiolingual and grammar translation
methods, because ‘‘grammar constitutes a
‘content’ that can be transmitted to stu-
dents via explicit descriptions and a skill
that is developed through controlled
practice’’ (p. 161).
2. The roles of both the instructor and the
student are traditional. The instructor as
the classroom authority analyzes and
decides the practices so that the student
can mechanize the forms being studied.
The student memorizes the rules and
demonstrates having learned and under-
stood them by doing mechanical drills
provided by the instructor.
3. By emphasizing mechanical practice,
one almost completely ignores that
active participation in the analysis and
discovery of the grammar patterns
and their meanings has an important
role in language development. At the
Fall 2010
same time, one ignores the importance
that input processing has in directing
the learner’s attention toward specific
characteristics of language, and in help-
ing the learner to make form–meaning
connections.
4. As conceived, grammar is a static system
that considers language forms as fixed
and invariable elements, sufficient to
learn the language. Little or no em-
phasis is placed on the meaning of the
forms and the role they play, in either the
context or the intention of the speaker,
in the selection of said forms.
In short, the main focus is on the
description of the rules of usage and in lear-
ner production of grammar forms. There is
no active participation of the learner in the
discovery of the grammatical system and its
meaning through the analysis of authentic
texts. Consequently, as noted by Pennington
(2002), the teaching of grammar is perceived
in the classroom as dry and irrelevant.
Current Pedagogical Research
The teaching of AG in college, as one of the
components of the FL curriculum, has dif-
ferent functions. One of these functions is to
help learners develop the skills necessary to
move beyond the basic levels of grammatical
competence. Second, it helps students con-
centrate on difficult-to-acquire elements of
language. Third, it gives the students the
necessary foundations of the structure of the
target language for their academic and pro-
fessional performance.
Arguments for the inclusion of AG in
the FL curriculum could be drawn from
research findings that indicate:
1. L2 learners, when compared with L1 lear-
ners, have a weaker ability for implicit3
learning (Han, 2008).
2. Mere exposure to L2 meaningful input
is not sufficient for L2 learners to attain
advanced levels of grammatical compe-
tence (Swain, 1985).
3. L2 learners, particularly nonbeginners
(Han & Peverly, 2007), tend to process
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 43, No. 3
input based on meaning rather than
form (Sharwood Smith, 1986; VanPat-
ten, 1996) because they have lost the
ability to process input simultaneously
for both meaning and form (Han, 2008).
4. Explicit grammar instruction serves to
develop the learners’ awareness of the
target language system (Sharwood
Smith, 1993). It helps them achieve
advanced levels of grammatical compe-
tence (Ellis, 2002a), and allows them to
test and refine their hypotheses about
the second language (Richards, 2002),
among other benefits.
5. Learning about the language is as funda-
mental as learning a language, and as
learning through the language. These
three aspects of language learning become
more interrelated as learners become
more advanced. Active involvement in
learning about the language is empower-
ing and helps form a more autonomous
and lifelong learner of the language (Mat-
thiessen, 2006).
As far as how grammar should be
taught, researchers agree that the tradi-
tional approach, based solely upon explicit
descriptions and drills, does not offer lear-
ners the possibility of developing important
and long-lasting learning processes. Corder
(1988) observed that ‘‘pedagogical descrip-
tions are aids to learning, not the object of
learning; so long as we keep that firmly in
our minds we shall not get confused by the
ambiguity of the expression ‘teaching
grammar’’’ (Corder, 1988, p. 130; emphasis
in original). For him, ‘‘teaching is a matter of
providing the learner with the right data
at the right time and teaching him how to
learn, that is, developing in him appropri-
ate learning strategies and means of testing
his hypotheses’’ (Corder, 1988, p. 133).
Although Corder recognized that there is not
one categorical answer to the question of
what needs to be given first, whether it be the
rule or examples, he emphasized the impor-
tance of working with data first, as this gives
learners the opportunity to develop their
own mental strategies to perform the task.
473
The ideas discussed by Corder not only
address the effect that the change in metho-
dology has in the skills developed by the
student and the efficiency in learning, but at
the same time, they emphasize the change in
roles of the instructor and the student in
the classroom. For him, ‘‘the function of the
teacher is to provide data and examples,
and where necessary, to offer explanations
and descriptions and, more important, ver-
ification of the learner’s hypotheses (i.e.,
corrections)’’ (Corder, 1988, p. 134). On the
one hand, the instructor becomes a facil-
itator of the information and the work guide
for the student by providing the necessary
data, examples, and explanations, and ver-
ifying the hypotheses of the learner. On the
other hand, the student adopts an active role
in the learning process when analyzing the
data provided by the instructor and devel-
oping hypotheses based upon that data.
These new roles of teachers and students are
a necessary component of genre-based
approaches and constructivist classrooms.
Ellis (2002b) found the following
advantages in working directly with data:
First, it is potentially more motivating
than simply being told a grammatical
rule and, for this reason, students may
be more likely to remember what
they learn. Second, it can encourage
students to form and test hypotheses
about the grammar of the L2, processes
that are believed to be central to
ultimate acquisition . . . . Third, it can
lead to powerful insights about the
grammar of a language that cannot be
found in any published descriptions.
(pp. 164–165)
Ellis (2002b) went further than Corder
by claiming that to promote a correct
semantic interpretation of the form and,
consequently, a better assimilation or
intake, it is not enough to work with dis-
covery tasks, but it is also necessary to
produce input processing tasks. In fact,
various studies have concluded that input
and input processing, when compared to
instruction based on production, show a
474
higher level of retention and a parallel con-
tribution to the skill of producing new
structures. In one of these studies, VanPat-
ten and Cadierno (1993) explained the
phenomenon in the following terms:
Given the rather important role that
comprehensible input plays in SLA
[second language acquisition], the
value of grammar instruction as output
practice is questionable, if the intent of
the instruction is to alter the nature of
the developing system . . . it would
seem reasonable to suggest that rather
than manipulate learner output to
effect change in the developing system,
instruction might seek to change the
way that input is perceived and pro-
cessed by the learner. (p. 227)
The results of their study revealed a
positive effect in comprehension and pro-
duction after dealing with input processing,
while the control group, which dealt with
production, only had positive effects on
production. In addition, VanPatten and
Sanz (1995) found a positive effect on
grammatical correctness in interpretation
as well as oral and written production, both
at the sentence level, and in narration in the
group that did input processing. The results
seem to confirm that ‘‘altering the proces-
sing strategies used by learners when they
are processing input leads to a change in
knowledge and that this knowledge is
available for use in different kinds of pro-
duction tasks’’ (p. 183). In a more recent
article about the effect of drills in language
learning, Wong and Van Patten (2003)
concluded that ‘‘well-articulated, meaning-
based approaches predicated on what we
know about the psycholinguistics of SLA
are often better and certainly always as good
as traditional approaches that make use of
drills’’ (p. 417).
The traditional belief that grammar is a
rigid entity characterized by only one cor-
rect form that has to be memorized and
mechanized has been challenged by a num-
ber of researchers. Larsen-Freeman (2002)
argued that grammar gives speakers great
Fall 2010
flexibility in the way we express meaning:
‘‘Grammar not only consists of rules govern-
ing form; grammatical knowledge consists of
knowing when to use the forms to convey
meanings that match our intentions in parti-
cular contexts’’ (p. 105). According to Larsen-
Freeman, propositions may be formulated in a
variety of forms, and it may be taught that
each grammatical structure selected may have
a variety of pragmatic implications, such as
establishing identity, expressing power, or
showing different attitudes. Similarly, Celce-
Murcia (2002) claimed that the different
interpretations of a superficial sentence show
that contextual knowledge, as well as the
knowledge of structure and vocabulary, is
necessary for the speaker to be able to com-
municate appropriately in a variety of
situations.
Rutherford (1988) and Pennington
(2002) agreed in proposing a contextual
teaching of grammar, the elements and
structures of which are related to that
context. According to Pennington, when
grammar is taught in context ‘‘syntactic and
lexical choices are explicitly related to
pragmatic ones, and these are in turn
explicitly related to higher discursive and
nondiscursive purposes, and to social and
cultural facts about different languages’’ (p.
93). Rutherford proposed more attention
to the context where a given construc-
tion is used and to the organization of that
construction.
The approaches to grammar promoted
by the above-mentioned researchers coincide.
The researchers gave priority to the form–
meaning relationships and their function at
the discourse level. They also recommended
authentic texts, because these can contribute
to the students’ awareness of grammar usage
in context and allow them to understand its
meaning and function beyond the sentence
level and within a variety of genre or text
types.
Advanced Language Learning
The use of authentic texts becomes more
relevant when the focus is the advanced lan-
guage level, particularly when the emphasis
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 43, No. 3
is on promoting the discovery of the L2
grammar system, its meaning, and its func-
tions by L2 learners. As Byrnes (2006)
pointed out in her discussion of advanced
language learning and its affinity with the
perspectives of systemic functional linguis-
tics (SFL) and sociocultural theory (SCT),4
‘‘there is little disagreement about the claim
that [text is] what advancedness is all
about’’ (p. 19). Indeed, one of the essential
characteristics of advanced levels of lan-
guage is the ability to produce connected
discourse, because the grammatical knowl-
edge required to communicate effectively
is mostly linked to the structure of a
text rather than that of a sentence. This is
confirmed by studies on oral and written
tasks on connected discourse produced by
advanced learners. Schleppegrell (2006)
found that advanced learners who engage in
complex tasks such as expository writing
need to focus on linguistic resources that
are crucial for the effective construction of
a well-organized text. The following are
among these resources: ‘‘modality for con-
structing possibility and necessity in making
judgments,’’ ‘‘projection through verbs of
thinking and saying for citing others or tak-
ing a stance,’’ and ‘‘internal connectors for
signposting the organization of the text’’ (p.
137). Chung Cheng and Mojica-Dı́az (2006)
examined the use of modality in oral dis-
course by advanced learners of Spanish,
which in this language can be expressed by
the choice of indicative or subjunctive verb
forms. They concluded:
Knowing the mood system in Spanish
means not only knowing which form
constitutes the modality (volition, doubt/
denial, belief) of an utterance, but also
knowing how each mood selection can
be used to reveal a speaker’s intention as
well as signaling other relationships
within the larger text. (p. 33)
These researchers suggested ‘‘that direct
teaching of discourse grammar (regularities
and rules beyond sentence level) is needed’’
and argued that it is ‘‘simply’’ not enough
to emphasize sentence-bound grammatical
475
knowledge and ‘‘at the same time, expect
learners to implicitly develop awareness of
pragmatic regularities, cohesion, and com-
munication strategies in formal and informal
situations’’ (p. 33). Carroll and Lambert
(2006) conducted an empirical investigation
on the principles of information structure
applied by L2 advanced learners when per-
forming the task of retelling the content of a
film. They concluded: ‘‘Some of the principles
of information organization that drive speak-
ers’ decisions in selecting, ordering, linking,
and coding information can be linked to
grammatical form’’ (p. 71). They also argued
that ‘‘to reach native-like proficiency, L2
speakers must discover the functions of
grammatical features and unravel the impli-
cations for information structure’’ (p. 71).
The construction of particular texts and
tasks calls for a specific range of linguistic
resources that are fundamental for accom-
plishing communication goals. Therefore, it is
necessary that advanced learners be exposed
to different and new registers5 to be able to
satisfy their cognitive and linguistic demands.
The most comprehensive proposal to accom-
plish this in the classroom setting has come
from textually oriented and genre-based
approaches to FL teaching (see Crane, Liam-
kina, & Ryshina-Pankova, 2004; Hyland,
2003; Martin, 1997; Maxim, 2004; Rinner &
Weigert, 2006; Swaffar, 2004).6
Genres are developed by each speech
community and vary according to the loca-
tion of the act of communication. For the
exploration of language variation and the
pedagogical possibilities of genre, research-
ers have drawn on SFL. As Schleppegrell
(2006) explained, SFL enables language
users:
to associate linguistic choices with the
contributions they make to three kinds
of meanings; ideational meanings that
build the field, or content of a text;
interpersonal meanings that construe
the tenor, attitudes, role relationships
and evaluation in a text; and textual
meanings that construct the mode or
476
flow of information in a text. (p. 136;
emphasis in original)
Genre-based approaches also promote
pedagogical practices such as task-based, stu-
dent-centered classrooms, where the instructor
participates in the co-construction of the text
and interacts with the students to scaffold their
learning (Byrnes, 2002). These practices are
rooted in SCT and reflect constructivist princi-
ples of learning.
Regarding the construction of meaning
and the interpretation of contextual clues,
we turn to the new ideas and findings of
cognitive linguistics, which have had a major
impact on ‘‘our view of language structure,
linguistic meaning and their relationship to
cognition’’ (Langacker, 2006, p. 17). In his
discussion of the conceptual basis of the
grammatical structure of language, Lan-
gacker pointed out that cognition and
language are contextually embedded. He
also brought into focus two other important
issues that are central to our application of
constructivist principles to the teaching of
advanced grammar contained in our pre-
sent proposal. The first one has to do with
the ‘‘mental constructions that intervene
between the situations we describe and the
form and meaning of the expressions
employed . . .’’ (p. 17; emphasis in original).
In Langacker’s view, the core of cognitive
grammar has to do with the idea that lex-
icon, morphology, and syntax work in a
continuum formed by ‘‘assemblies of sym-
bolic structures’’ or constructions, and that
‘‘a symbolic structure is simply a pairing of a
semantic structure and a phonological
structure’’ (p. 17). If one considers that
semantic structures necessarily have to
involve social and cultural meanings, then
understanding and learning them will
demand advanced cognitive abilities that
are best met by advanced language learners.
Therefore, learners at this level need to be
given the opportunity to engage in the con-
struction of these symbolic structures and
their mapping with the reality of the L2
world. We believe that the application of
constructivist principles in the classroom
Fall 2010
will help us guide advanced students in that
direction.
The second issue discussed by Lan-
gacker (2006) has to do with the notion that
‘‘meaning resides in conceptualization’’ and
that conceptualization ‘‘does not just mirror
objective reality; it is a matter of how we
apprehend, conceive, and portray the real
world and the myriad worlds that we men-
tally construct’’ (p. 17). When a student has
difficulty connecting form and meaning in
L2, particularly as an adult (Han, 2008), one
source of that difficulty is the first language
(L1) semantic and conceptual system
(DeKeyser, 2005; Hakuta, 1976; Han, 2008;
Selinker, 2006; Von Stutterheim & Carroll,
2006). Therefore, we would need to use
pedagogical approaches to allow us to iden-
tify the L1 role and help learners in the
development of an appropriate L2 con-
ceptualization. We think that a constructivist
approach will be beneficial to obtain good
results in this regard.
We are aware that for a pedagogical
proposal to be complete, it needs to contain
an assessment procedure that is compati-
ble with the learner’s proficiency level and
the pedagogical principles and practices
applied in the classroom. Therefore, we end
the review of the contexts, discourse fea-
tures, and processes involved in advanced
learning by proposing the use of the fol-
lowing assessment principles suggested by
Shohamy (2006): (1) open and flexible lan-
guage, in line with dimensions of advanced
language proficiency; (2) interactiveness;
(3) multiple approaches to assessment; (4)
content; (5) integrating assessment with
instruction; (6) test accommodations; and
(7) judging the quality of language (multi-
ple levels of correctness and flexible criteria
of correctness that reflect the specific con-
text and goals are appropriate; rigid native-
like correctness criteria no longer apply).
Most of the principles outlined above
(2 and 5 are not included in our proposal)
not only are in line with advanced-level
proficiency assessment, a current popular
area of research, but also match both the
constructivist principles outlined in this
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 43, No. 3
proposal and the specific components of the
sample activity included herein.
There are many more questions to
answer in terms of the characteristics of
advanced language learning and the impact
that this knowledge would have in our
pedagogical practices. However, the fact
that SLA/FL research on this phenomenon
is only now beginning to take shape does
not allow us to go beyond the present scope
in terms of the application of more specific
theoretical and linguistic goals to the
teaching of advanced grammar. For now, we
would have to end with Byrnes’s (2006)
definition of advancedness: ‘‘We know it
when we see it, though may have difficulty
defining it’’ (p. 13).
Constructivism
The fundamental idea of constructivism is
that human beings build or ‘‘construct’’
mental models of reality based on prior
knowledge, experiences, and social inter-
action. For learning to occur, individuals
need to have a context and understand its
parts in order to accommodate their mental
models to the new experiences. Successful
instructors must understand the mental
models learners use to construct reality,
provide appropriate contexts, and encou-
rage learners to analyze and make con-
nections and predictions (Brooks & Brooks,
1993).
As to the application of constructivism
in the field of language teaching and learn-
ing, Nunan (1999) explained that in
constructivist classrooms students work in
pairs or small groups and engage in coop-
erative and task-based learning. As a result
of their work environment and type of
activities:
Students become skilled at cooperating
with others, and express their own
opinions, ideas, and feelings guided by
the teacher. They know how to solve
language problems in a systematic way
and to decide what language to use in
the different situations that their
477
teachers present in the classroom.
(pp. 83–84)
Nunan added that this type of experi-
ential learning ‘‘stimulate[s] the production
of a much richer array of language functions
than teacher-fronted modes of classroom
organization.’’ It is also conducive to ‘‘the
negotiation of meaning, something that is
largely absent in teacher-fronted tasks’’ (p.
84). Empirical research indicates that when
paired/group work requires negotiation of
meaning, learners perform more language
functions such as requests for content
clarification and confirmation (Doughty
& Pica, 1986; Long, Adams, McLean, &
Castanos, 1976; Porter, 1986; Rulon &
McCreary, 1986). These conversational ex-
changes are influential in language acquisi-
tion (Crookes & Gass, 1993; Long, 1985).
Besides the positive influence of con-
structivism in classroom interaction and
negotiation, we do not have empirical evi-
dence as to a direct beneficial effect of
constructivism in language learning. There
are, however, several studies in other dis-
ciplines that have demonstrated significant
gains in academic achievement and other
capacities. Two of the studies examined
here compared the constructivist approach
with the traditional one and were con-
ducted with 6th graders on math and
science, respectively. The results of the first
study indicated that the constructivist
approach is more effective than the tradi-
tional one in terms of student academic
achievement (Kim, 2005). The results of a t
test in the second study indicated that there
was more sustainability of the learned les-
sons when the constructivist approach was
applied (Doğru & Kalender, 2007).
In a very well documented article,
Hmelo-Silver, Golan Duncan, and Chinn
(2006) reported on the results of numerous
research studies, most related to science,
which compared the use of a traditional
approach with one of two types of approaches
that apply constructivist principles: problem-
based learning or inquiry learning. They pro-
vided evidence of superior gains over the
478
traditional approach in different learning
capacities and areas of knowledge including
clinical knowledge, knowledge application,
transference of reasoning strategies to new
problems, the production of more elaborate
explanations, and so forth.
In response to those who deny that
constructivism works because studies show
gains in some aspects of learning but not in
others, Hmelo-Silver et al. (2006) argued
that: ‘Does it work?’ is the wrong question.’’
The questions should be:
Under what circumstances do these
guided inquiry approaches work, what
are the kinds of outcomes for which
they are effective, what kinds of valued
practices do they promote, and what
kinds of support and scaffolding are
needed for different populations and
learning goals. (p. 105)
Proposal
To solve some of the problems described
above, it is necessary to develop an ad-
vanced grammar methodology that takes
into consideration the latest research on
SLA and cognition, the needs and char-
acteristics of the advanced learner, and the
changing emphasis in L2 instruction at the
elementary and intermediate levels. Such an
approach aims at a grammatical study based
upon the discursive and contextual analysis
at the advanced level that would invite the
student to hypothesize on the L2 grammar
structures and their meanings.
This article outlines an approach to
teach advanced grammar that follows
mainly constructivist principles in combi-
nation with some SLA principles and that:
1. allows the instructor to focus the gram-
matical study in an integral manner
and in concert with the goals of the
standards;
2. allows the instructor a role as facilitator
of learning;
3. is appropriate for students at the third
year of college education;
Fall 2010
4. allows the discovery process of the stu-
dent by means of active participation in
the analysis, interpretation, and under-
standing of the grammatical structures;
and
5. aims to reflect the dynamic nature of
grammar by emphasizing its functions
within a larger context by using authen-
tic literary texts.
The learning process proposed here is
based upon the use of authentic texts (literary,
journalistic, technical, etc.) that exemplify the
structures that are the object of analysis.
Although these elements have been used in
the classroom for years, their use has tradi-
tionally been descriptive or to promote the
production of new forms by the student by
means of questions, filling in the blanks, etc.
The use we propose herein is fundamentally
for the analysis and discovery of grammar
patterns and their meanings by the learner.
The constructivist principles adopted
in this proposal have been borrowed from
Brooks and Brooks (1993) and are sum-
marized in the following:
1. Use original data and primary sources,
as well as interactive and physical mate-
rials that may be manipulated.
2. Structure learning around ‘‘great ideas’’
or primary concepts, as these concepts
offer the articulation and integrity that
help make logical connections.
3. Seek and accept the students’ participa-
tion and viewpoints.
4. Describe the tasks with cognitive terms
such as classify, analyze, predict, and
create.
5. Allow the students’ answers to guide the
lessons, change the teaching strategies,
and alter content.
6. Provide experiences that may contradict
initial hypotheses and promote debate.
7. Feed the natural curiosity of the stu-
dents, offering an open opportunity for
interaction, generating questions, hy-
potheses, etc. (pp. 102–118)
The constructivist process makes the
students take part in the analysis of the
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 43, No. 3
subject being studied, which, considering
the dynamic nature of grammar is very
important for constructing context-bound
meanings. Furthermore, the active partici-
pation in the analysis may motivate the stu-
dents to make connections among various
groups of information, make associations,
and arrive at new conclusions. In addition to
treating texts globally, finding and under-
standing the different components of the fact
being studied are made easier. The latter not
only attends to the complexity of the gram-
matical fact, but also contributes to the
development of the critical and analytical
skills of the students.
Unit Rationale
The sample unit included in this article
demonstrates the Constructivist Gramma-
tical Learning Approach (CGLA) proposed
here. We designed it by considering a com-
bination of five distinctive current SLA and
foreign language teaching principles, goals,
and strategies: (1) the constructivist princi-
ples discussed above as the foundation of
the whole proposal (Brooks & Brooks,
1993), (2) the Standards for Foreign Lan-
guage Learning in the 21st Century (National
Standards, 2006), (3) structured meaningful
input (Katz, 2002; Lee & VanPatten, 1995),
(4) critical-thinking skills (Schultz, 2002),
and (5) advanced language proficiency
assessment principles (Shohamy, 2006).
These five principles, goals, and strate-
gies intertwine and support one another in
the following manner:
1. Constructivism. Our proposed sample
draws from numerous elements of the
constructivist approach, such as authen-
tic texts as the primary sources of study;
students’ participation and interaction;
classification and analysis of grammati-
cal elements, prediction of grammatical
rules, and creation of new and original
texts; and promotion of peer-teaching
and debate.
2. Standards. Each unit must include the
study of at least six standards. In this
479
case, we include a minimum of six, but
one can possibly expand it to eight.
3. Structured meaningful input. There is a
robust group of scholars who propose
this strategy to teach literature through
grammatical analysis (Carter & McRae,
1996; Collie & Slater 1987; F. Frantzen,
2002; Kern, 2004; Simpson, 1997; Swaf-
far, 2002). However, we propose to use
it inversely. We propose to teach gram-
mar through literature, among other
types of authentic texts.
4. Critical-thinking skills. One of the most
relevant elements of our proposal is
the active involvement of the students
in the learning and the teaching (peer-
teaching) processes, which in turn
directly lead the students to enhance
their critical-thinking skills (Carroll &
Lambert, 2006; Schultz, 2002).
5. Advanced language proficiency assessment
principles. Assessment is an integral part
of the whole learning process. It should
be directly related to the way we teach
and students learn. Our proposal
includes assessment elements that are
much in line with Shohamy’s principles
(2006).
Our sample unit requires the use of
authentic texts and individual and group
analysis. At the same time, it requires recog-
nition as well as production work. We have
selected the preterit and the imperfect tenses
for their relevance in the Spanish curricu-
lum. In addition, the activity targets from
six to eight Standards. Once the instructor
decides which grammatical structure to
study, the first step is to identify at least
three short and complete authentic texts,
which will be the foundation to the whole
activity. These texts can either be within the
same genre (in this case they are short lit-
erary stories, but they can be three
journalistic articles, or technical texts, or
songs, or book/film reviews), or they can be
genre-mixed (one of each, for example). We
prefer to work within the same genre, as
does a growing group of scholars who sup-
port genre-content teaching (Crane et al.,
480
2004; Martin, 1997; Maxim, 2004; Rinner &
Weigert, 2006). In our case, this sample unit
is based on three pieces of the same genre
because as Maxim (2004) stated, genre is
related to the design of advanced-level courses
because public and formal genres typically
are associated with advanced language use.
In addition, we also agree with Crane et al.
(2004), in that a genre-based pedagogical
approach permits us to focus on ‘‘rhetorical
structures as well as syntactical and lexical
choices as they relate to specific commu-
nicative purposes’’ (p. 161).
The unit has been carefully designed to
promote analysis, debate, peer-learning,
self-discovery, creation, evaluation, and re-
evaluation of previous hypotheses. It is
based on the teaching of the preterit and the
imperfect usage in Spanish but can be
applied to any grammatical feature in any
language. As D. Frantzen (1995) pointed
out: ‘‘Preterit/Imperfect has the reputation
of being one of the hardest grammatical
features of Spanish to learn . . . some of the
blame lies with misleading textbook expla-
nations which often are only half-truths . . ..
Part of the difficulty stems from the fact that
people may view the same events from dif-
ferent perspectives’’ (p. 154). In addition,
Hernán (1994) stated that ‘‘el problema que
el aprendizaje del pretérito y del imperfecto
plantea a los anglohablantes es clásico’’ [the
problem that learning the preterit and
imperfect poses to English speakers is a
classic one]’’ (p. 280). She proposed Visua-
lización del Pretérito y del Imperfecto
(Visualization of Preterit and Imperfect), an
activity to study the preterit and the imper-
fect in context by visualizing video scenes
from different perspectives in which the
students would look at the same scenes as
an outsider or an insider. As seen from the
remarks and activities proposed by these
two researchers, the use of perfective and
imperfective verbal aspect is tightly linked
to how the speaker sees and wants to render
a situation. In sum, we agree with the state-
ment that most elementary and inter-
mediate textbooks, and many advanced
textbooks as well, present only ‘‘half-true’’
Fall 2010
rules. As D. Frantzen (1995) pointed out,
when it comes to the preterit and the
imperfect, the study of these grammatical
features in context is the only viable and
long-lasting procedure. Thus, we strongly
believe that students cannot use certain
grammatical rules properly and naturally
without understanding them in authentic
and varied contexts with the aid of struc-
tured and guided input. For this, we
propose the application of the CGLA.
Constructivist Grammatical Unit
by Means of the Analysis of
Authentic Texts
1. Objectives: constructivist analysis of the
preterit and the imperfect in Spanish by
means of a variety of complete authentic
texts (short stories, songs, journalistic
articles, movie or book reviews)
2. Level: advanced; third/fourth year of
college
3. Standards: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1,
(possibly also 3.1, 3.2, 4.2)
4. Materials: El crimen perfecto (2002),
Enrique Anderson Imbert, Argentina;
Presagios (2002), José Alcántara Almán-
zar, Dominican Republic; Una carta de
familia (2002), Álvaro Menén Desleal,
El Salvador.
5. Work: individual (outside the classroom
setting) and in small groups (in the
classroom)
Instructor’s Preparation and Planning
1. Find three complete short stories (alter-
natives: children’s stories, journalistic
articles, songs, technical texts, or book/
movie reviews) that reflect the gramma-
tical element to be analyzed clearly and
frequently. The texts can either belong
to the same genre or be genre-mixed.
2. Identify the key vocabulary that the stu-
dents will need to understand the readings.
3. Prepare the cultural background of the
texts.
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 43, No. 3
4. Write reading comprehension questions
for the texts.
5. Formulate questions for grammatical
analysis.
Implementation
1. Before class: (a) pre-reading strategies:
review of key vocabulary of the text and
presentation of the cultural back-
ground; (b) reading
2. In-class: constructivist grammatical
activity
3. Assessment
Learning Outcomes
Upon completion of the constructivist
grammatical activity, the student will have:
1. analyzed the preterit and the imperfect
in Spanish by means of a variety of
complete authentic texts.
2. understood the use of the preterit and
imperfect in a specific context.
3. determined the different uses of the
preterit and the imperfect in Spanish
compared to those uses in English.
4. reached conclusions individually and in
groups, using a deductive approach.
5. applied said conclusions to two other
authentic texts for review, practice, and
reinforcement.
6. produced their text using the gramma-
tical structure studied.
Constructivist Grammatical Unit: The
Preterit and the Imperfect Choice
(Sample activity in English
translationForiginal version
in Spanish)
Before Class (individually)
Pre-reading strategies:
1. Think about the title of the activity.
What does the text mean? What do you
think the outcome of the story will be?
Can you think of films or novels about
this topic?
2. El crimen perfecto [The Perfect Crime]
(2002) was written by Enrique Ander-
son Imbert (Argentina). What do you
481
know about him? What do you know
about Argentina and South America
during the 1960s? What other narrative
stories did he write?
3. Vocabulary: Look for the meanings of
the following words or phrases within
the context of the story and study them
before reading the text.
Monjita 5 En el convento ya no habı́a
Diminutivo monjitas
de monja
Enterrar Las monjitas ya no enterraban a
monjitas
Lápida Las lápidas del cementerio eran
todas . . .
Orilla El cementerio estaba a orillas del
rı́o
Ateo El muerto habı́a sido ateo
Cavar Los policı́as cavaron y sacaron el
cadáver
Removida La tierra parecı́a recién removida
Almas Las almas de las monjitas . . .
(en pena)
Aliviado . . . volvieron aliviadas . . .
A cuestas . . . con el cementerio a cuestas
Juez El resto ya lo sabe, señor Juez.
Reading: Now read the short story El
crimen perfecto. Read it as many times as
necessary.
In Class (small groups)
A. After Reading: Comprehension:
 Who is the narrator?
 Who is listening?
 Why is this person listening?
 Why did the murderer believe that it was
a ‘‘crimen perfecto’’?
 Who was the victim?
 How did the nuns’ souls react?
B. Grammatical Analysis:
 Step 1: Underline all the verbs in the
text. In which tense are the majority of
them? Is the story narrated in present,
past, or future tense?
 Step 2: Now, with two different colors,
highlight the sentences in the preterit
and the imperfect.
482
 Step 3: Write the highlighted sentences
in the chart below.
Preterit Reason Imperfect Reason
 Step 4: Discuss with the members in
your group why (the reason) the author
chose to use either the preterit or the
imperfect in each of the sentences
according to the context. You can refer
to the rules for the use of the preterit and
the imperfect located in the appendix,
which you studied in your intermediate-
level Spanish courses. Remember that
general rules do not always apply, and
therefore, it is necessary that you analyze
them within the context of the story.
 Step 5: Share your chart with the rest of
the class.
 Step 6: Hypotheses and conclusion: In
your group, discuss and write the new
rules, as you understand them now, on
the use of the preterit and the imperfect
in narrations.
 Step 7: New application: Working with
your group and using the chart that you
created in steps 1–6, apply your conclu-
sions to a new story (Presagios [Presages]
(2002), written by José Alcántara
Almánzar (Dominican Republic).
 Step 8: Discussion and revisions (‘‘fine-
tuning’’) of initial hypotheses (peer-
teaching and learning)
 Step 9: Conclusions: Class discussion to
produce a final chart with the reasons
behind preterit and imperfect usage. At
this point the instructor becomes an
active participant and makes additions
or corrections where necessary.
 Step 10: Assessment:
a. Recognition: Read a new short
story, Una carta de familia [A
Family Letter] (2002) by Álvaro
Menen Desleal (El Salvador), and
fill in a chart like the one in step 3.
b. Production: Now, it’s your turn.
Write your own short story in the
past tense. The title for your story
is ‘‘. . .’’ (provide a title for all stu-
Fall 2010
dents; this can be one word, a
phrase, or a whole sentence).
Other Suggestions for Constructivist
Grammatical Units
As we mentioned earlier, the activity pre-
sented above is just one ready-to-implement
example of a Constructivist Grammatical
Unit. The same pattern can be applied to
other grammatical aspects of any language.
The foundation for the unit is the identifica-
tion of three authentic pieces of literature
adequate for the analysis of a particular
grammatical aspect, and then put in the form
of the Constructivist Grammatical Unit.
Below is a short selection of authentic read-
ings (poems) that work well for the analysis
of the subjunctive mode, which, like the pre-
terit and the imperfect uses, is one of the most
challenging grammatical points for learners
of Spanish:
El negro alhelı́, la maldecida [The
Black Wallflower, the Cursed One]
(Rafael Alberti, Spain, 1988)
La flor del aire [The Air Flower] (Gab-
riela Mistral, Chile, 1996)
No creo que sea tarde [I Don’t Think it’s
Too Late] (Alfonso Ramos Alva, Peru,
1998)
Un padrenuestro latinoamericano [A
Latin American Lord’s Prayer] (Mario
Benedetti, Uruguay, 1984)
Yo quiero que el agua se quede sin cauce [I
Want the Water to Remain Free Flow-
ing] (Federico Garcı́a Lorca, Spain,
2005)
Conclusion
The analysis of the current way of teaching
in textbooks as well as in the classroom
setting indicates that there is still a tradi-
tional philosophy based upon behaviorist
principles, with emphasis on the descrip-
tion of rules and the practice of patterns.
Even though it is true that recently barriers
in the teaching field have been broken, and
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 43, No. 3
various innovative techniques have been
developed in grammar teaching, these prac-
tices seem to be aimed at basic levels of
language instruction and not at the advanced
levels. Moreover, the textbooks and manuals
that try to resolve this kind of paralysis in the
teaching of AG often are too complex for
third- and fourth-year students in college. In
addition, these texts lack an approach based
on the discovery and the active participation
of the student in the process of making form
and meaning connections, crucial elements
in language learning.
The approach being proposed in this
article takes into consideration the latest
research in SLA and cognitive linguistics as
well as advanced language learning. It is
based primarily upon constructivist princi-
ples of teaching and learning as applied to
AG. It incorporates a discovery process that
allows the learner to be actively involved
in the process by forming and testing
hypotheses concerning the function and
meaning of grammatical structures in a
given context. The context used in the unit
included in this proposal is composed of
three literary texts, but they can be three
journalistic articles, or technical texts, or
songs, or book/film reviews and so on. They
can be chosen within the same genre or they
can be genre-mixed. In conclusion, we are
well aware that, unless we solve all the basic
questions about advanced language learn-
ing processes, needs, and characteristics,
our pedagogical insights always will be
approximate rather than definitive.
Acknowledgments
We want to thank the anonymous readers
who have provided us with their invaluable
comments and suggestions. We also want to
extend our gratitude to Larry Bachus and
David Taylor for their input.
Notes
1. Didactic relates to using direct explana-
tions and with an emphasis on pro-
duction. Discovery-based relates to using
483
L2 data for students to analyze and make
predictions about the target form with
an emphasis on understanding form and
meaning connections.
2. The definition of this philosophy of learn-
ing can be found in the research review of
this article.
3. Implicit learning of a language is intui-
tive and not directly explained to the
learner.
4. SFL is a theory of language developed by
M. A. K. Halliday that is paradigmatic in
nature and sees language as functional,
based on semantics, and textually em-
bedded. SCT is a sociocultural theory
developed by the social psychologist L.
S. Vygotsky. According to this theory,
social interaction plays a significant
role in the learner’s cognitive devel-
opment. These two theories are the
centerpiece of text- and genre-based
approaches.
5. The notion of register refers to language
varieties that occur according to the con-
text of the situation where the speaker
uses language.
6. Rinner and Weigert (2006) defined
genre as follows:
Each discourse community develops its
own ways of ‘‘getting things done’’ with
language by developing particular gen-
res. As Martin (1997, 13) states, ‘‘genre
represents the system of staged goal-
oriented social processes through
which social subjects in a given culture
live their lives.’’ (p. 139)
References
Alberti, R. (1988). El negro alhelı́, la mal-
decida [The black wallflower, the cursed one].
In Montero L. Garcı́a (Ed.), Obras completas
[Complete works] (p. 247). Madrid: Aguilar.
Alcántara Almánzar, J. (2002). Presagios [Pre-
sages]. In E. Olazagasti-Segovia (Ed.), Sorpre-
sas [Surprises] (pp. 42–43). Boston: Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
484
Anderson Imbert, E. (2002). El crimen per-
fecto [The perfect crime]. In E. Olazagasti-
Segovia (Ed.), Sorpresas [Surprises] (p. 4).
Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Aski, J. M. (2003). Foreign language textbook
activities: Keeping pace with second language
acquisition research. Foreign Language Annals,
36, 57–65.
Benedetti, M. (1984). Un padrenuestro
latinoamericano [A Latin American
Lord’s prayer]. In Antologı́a poética [Poetry
anthology] (pp. 65–68). Madrid: Alianza
Editorial.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In
search of understanding: The case of constructivist
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Byrnes, H. (2002). Toward academic-level
foreign language abilities: Reconsidering
foundational assumptions, expanding peda-
gogical options. In B. L. Leaver & B.
Shekhtman (Eds.), Developing professional-
level language proficiency (pp. 34–58). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byrnes, H. (2006). What kind of resource is
language and why does it matter for advanced
language learning? An introduction. In H.
Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The
contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 1–
28). London: Continuum.
Carroll, M., & Lambert, M. (2006). Reorga-
nizing principles of information structure in
advanced L2s. In H. Byrnes, H. Weger-
Guntharp, & K. A. Sprang (Eds.), Educating
for advanced foreign language capacities: Con-
structs, curriculum, instruction, assessment (pp.
54–73). Washington, DC: Georgetown Uni-
versity Press.
Carter, R., & McRae, J. (1996). Language, lit-
erature & the learner. London: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). Why it makes sense
to teach grammar in context and through dis-
course. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New
perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language classrooms (pp. 119–134). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chung Cheng, A., & Mojica-Dı́az, C. (2006).
The effects of formal instruction and study
abroad on improving proficiency. Applied
Language Learning, 16, 17–36.
Collie, J., & Slater, S. (1987). Literature in the
language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fall 2010
Corder, S. P. (1988). Pedagogic grammars. In
W. Rutherford & M. S. Smith (Eds.), Grammar
and second language teaching: A book of read-
ings (pp. 123–145). Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Crane, C., Liamkina, O., & Ryshina-Pankova,
M. (2004). Fostering advanced level language
abilities in foreign language graduate programs:
A challenge to college programs. In H. Byrnes
& H. H. Maxim (Eds.), Advanced foreign lan-
guage learning: A challenge to college programs
(pp. 151–177). Boston: Thomson/Heinle.
Crookes, G., & Gass, S. M. (1993). Tasks and
language learning: Integrating theory and prac-
tice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning
second language grammar difficult? A review
of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.
Doğru, M., & Kalender, S. (2007). Applying
the subject ‘‘cell’’ through constructivist
approach during science lessons and the tea-
cher’s view. Journal of Environmental & Science
Education, 2, 3–13.
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). Information
gap tasks: Do they facilitate acquisition?
TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–326.
Ellis, R. (2002a). The place of grammar
instruction in the second/foreign language
curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.),
New perspectives on grammar teaching in sec-
ond language classrooms (pp. 17–34).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2002b). Methodological options in
grammar teaching materials. In E. Hinkel & S.
Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar
teaching in second language classrooms (pp.
155–179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frantzen, D. (1995). Preterit/imperfect half-
truths: Problems with Spanish textbook rules
for usage. Hispania, 78, 145–158.
Frantzen, F. (2002). Rethinking foreign lan-
guage literature: Towards an integration of
literature and language at all levels. In H.
Tucker & V. M. Scott (Eds.), SLA and the lit-
erature classroom: Fostering dialogues (pp. 109–
130). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Fortune, A. (1998). Survey review: Grammar
practice books. E.L.T. Journal, 52, 67–79.
Garcı́a Lorca, F. (2005). Yo quiero que el agua
se quede sin cauce [I want the water to remain
free flowing]. In The selected poems of Federico
Garcı́a Lorca (p. 158). New York: New Direc-
tions Books.
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 43, No. 3
Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese
child learning ESL. Language Learning, 26,
321–352.
Han, Z. (2008). On the role of meaning in
focus on form. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding
second language process (pp. 45–79). Cleve-
don, UK: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Han, Z.H, & Peverly, S. T. (2007). Input pro-
cessing: A study of ab initio learners with
multilingual backgrounds. International Jour-
nal of Multilingualism, 4, 17–37.
Hernán, L. (1994). VIPI, Visualización del pre-
térito y el imperfecto [Visualization of preterit
and imperfect]. Hispania, 77, 280–286.
Hmelo-Silver, C., Golan Duncan, R., & Chinn,
C. A. (2006). Scaffolding and achievement in
problem-based and inquiry learning: A
response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark.
Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A
social response to process. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 12, 17–29.
Jordan, I., & Pereiro-Otero, J. M. (2006).
Curso de gramática avanzada del español:
Comunicación reflexive [Advanced grammar
course: Reflective communication]. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Katz, S. (2002). Teaching literary texts at the
intermediate level: A structured input
approach. In H. Tucker & V. M. Scott (Eds.),
SLA and the literature classroom: Fostering dia-
logues (pp. 155–171). Boston: Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
Kern, R. (2004). Literacy and advanced foreign
language learning: Rethinking the curriculum.
In H. Byrnes & H. H. Maxim (Eds.), Advanced
foreign language learning: A challenge to college
programs (pp. 2–18). Boston: Thomson/Heinle.
Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of a con-
structivist teaching approach on student
academic achievement, self-concept, and
learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 6, 7–19.
King, L., & Suñer, M. (2004). Gramática
española: Análisis y práctica [Spanish gram-
mar: Analysis and practice], 2nd ed. Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Langacker, R. W. (2006). The conceptual basis
of grammatical structure. In H. Byrnes, H.
Weger-Guntharp, & K. A. Sprang (Eds.),
Educating for advanced foreign language capa-
cities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction,
assessment (pp. 17–39). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
485
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The grammar of
choice. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New
perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language classrooms (pp. 103–118). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making com-
municative language teaching happen. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language
acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden
(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition
(pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Long, M., Adams, L., McLean, M., & Casta-
nos, F. (1976). Doing things with words:
Verbal interaction in lockstep and small-
group classroom situations. In R. Crymes & J.
Fanselow (Eds.), On TESOL ‘76 (pp. 137–
153). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Lunn, P. V., & DeCesaris, J. (2007). Investiga-
ción de gramática [Grammar investigation].
Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Martin, J. R. (1997). Analysing genre: Func-
tional parameters. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin
(Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes
in the workplace and school (pp. 3–39). Lon-
don: Cassell.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2006). Educating
for advanced foreign language capacities:
Exploring the meaning-making resources of
languages systemic-functionally. In H. Byrnes
(Ed.), Advanced language learning: The con-
tribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 31–57).
London: Continuum.
Maxim, H. H. (2004). Expanding visions for
collegiate advanced foreign language learning.
In H. Byrnes & H. H. Maxim (Eds.), Advanced
foreign language learning: A challenge to college
programs (pp. 178–193). Boston: Thomson/
Heinle.
Menén Desleal, A. (2002). Una carta de
familia [A family letter]. In E. Olazagasti-
Segovia (Ed.), Sorpresas [Surprises] (pp. 24–
25). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Mistral, G. (1996). La flor del aire [The
air flower]. In S. Tapscott (Ed.), Twentieth-
century Latin American poetry: A bilingual
anthology (p. 81). Austin: University of Texas
Press.
National Standards in Foreign Language Edu-
cation Project. (2006). Standards for foreign
language learning in the 21st century. Law-
rence, KS: Allen Press.
486
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teach-
ing and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Pennington, M. (2002). Grammar and com-
munication: New directions in theory and
practice. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New
perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language classrooms (pp. 77–98). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Porter, P. A. (1986). How learners talk to each
other: Input and interaction in task-centered
discussions. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to
learn: Conversation in second language acquisi-
tion (pp. 200–224). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Ramos Alva, A. (1998) No creo que sea tarde
[I don’t think it’s too late]. Escalinatas y pel-
daños: Vervir [Stairs and steps: Vervir] (p.
134). Lima: Ediciones Deara.
Richards, J. (2002). Accuracy and fluency
revisited. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New
perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language classrooms (pp. 35–53). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rinner, S., & Weigert, A. (2006). From sports
to the EU economy: Integrating curricula
through genre-based content courses. In H.
Byrnes, H. Weger-Guntharp, & K. A. Sprang
(Eds.), Educating for advanced foreign language
capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction,
assessment (pp. 136–151). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Rulon, K. A., & McCreary, J. (1986). Negotia-
tion of content: Teacher-fronted and small-
group interaction. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to
learn: Conversation in second language acquisi-
tion (pp. 182–199). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Rutherford, W. (1988). Aspects of pedagogical
grammar. In W. Rutherford & M. S. Smith
(Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching:
A book of readings (pp. 171–185). Boston:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2006). The linguistic
features of advanced language use: The gram-
mar of exposition. In H. Byrnes (Ed.),
Advanced language learning: The contribution of
Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 134–146). London:
Continuum.
Schultz, J. M. (2002). The Gordian knot: Lan-
guage, literature, and critical thinking. In H.
Tucker & V. M. Scott (Eds.), SLA and the lit-
erature classroom: Fostering dialogues (pp. 3–
31). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Fall 2010
Selinker, L. (2006). Afterword: Fossilization
‘‘or’’ does your mind mind? In Z. Han & T.
Odlin (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second
language acquisition (pp. 201–210). Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension
versus acquisition: Two ways of processing
input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–256.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhance-
ment in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15,
165–179.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Rethinking assess-
ment for advanced language proficiency.
In H. Byrnes, H. Weger-Guntharp, & K. A.
Sprang (Eds.), Educating for advanced
foreign language capacities: Constructs, curri-
culum, instruction, assessment (pp. 188–208).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Simpson, P. (1997). Language through litera-
ture. London: Routledge.
Swaffar, J. (2002). Reading the patterns of lit-
erary works: Strategies and teaching
techniques. In H. Tucker & V. M. Scott (Eds.),
SLA and the literature classroom: Fostering dia-
logues (pp. 131–154). Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Swaffar, J. (2004). A template for advanced
learner tasks: Staging genre reading and
cultural literacy through the précis. In
H. Byrnes & H. H. Maxim (Eds.), Advanced
foreign language learning: A challenge to
college programs (pp. 19–45). Boston: Heinle/
Thomson.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative compe-
tence: Some roles of comprehensible input
and comprehensible output in its develop-
ment. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 235–255).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and
grammar instruction: Theory and research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993).
Explicit instruction and input processing.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15,
225–243.
VanPatten, B., Sanz, C. (1995). From input to
output: Processing instruction and commu-
nicative tasks. In F. Eckman et al. (Eds.),
Second language acquisition theory and peda-
gogy (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Foreign Language Annals
vol. 43, No. 3
Von Stutterheim, C., & Carroll, M. (2006).
The impact of grammatical temporal cate-
gories on ultimate attainment in L2 learning.
In H. Byrnes, Weger-Guntharp, & K. A.
Sprang (Eds.), Educating for advanced foreign
language capacities: Constructs, curriculum,
487
instruction, assessment. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evi-
dence is in: Drills are out. Foreign Language
Annals, 36, 403–423.
Copyright of Foreign Language Annals is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.