(50, what's happening here? What's the cifer three, examples?) 2. Si: Etre. (Tobe) 1: Ere, oui, on utlize le verbe Bite, n’estce pas? Pour former le passé composé, n’estce pas? Estce quilly a d'autres dfférences que vous pouvez remarquer? {To be, yes, we use the verb fo be, righ? In order to orm the past, righl? Any other cl Ference you can see? 4, 82: New verb. 5. T Oui, renter c’est nouveay, n’estce pas? Renter for the verb to return, right? Renter. Dioutres, ily a d'autres différences que vous pouvez remarquer® .. Si non, c’es! pas un probléme. On va essayer la réponse & ces questions... {Yes,rentreris new, right? Renirer fr the verb fo return, right® Any other, is there any ‘other difference that you can see? ... IFnot, no problem. We are going to practice ‘answers fo these questions... {p. 307) [Students and teacher orally procice some questions that include étre in the past Then the folowing dialogue occurs] { $3: There is something new inthe thd form, they add an 7. That's good, that’s good, the third one [reading] Paul et Korine ... 8, $3: Because, becouse it’s plural 9% T: That's good. 10. $3: That's new. 11. 1: Good, so she is seeing here Poul et Karine, righ® Good, $0 sors, notice, there is an s atthe end of sorts, s0 they are showing agreement now. The end of your .. . right® Your ost portcipl, now they show agreement, there is on s because she knows is Poul et Karine, so is plural, s0 we add an s, that’s good, that’s what’ happening (p. 307). 1 con you see in these Scenario I: In this scenario,.an lalian insiuctor has presented some new vocabulary and read several times 0 dialogue that students have repeated choraly. 1, T In this lesson, you are doing two important things. We are learning possessive adjec tives and another post tense. You've already had the Passoto Prossimo. They are both past tenses but they have diferent uses in Icon. Intricate for the speaker of English, not so ricate for speakers of other Romance languages. Let's talk about possessves fist. What's the word for book? 2. Ss: Libro, 3, T: What's the word for house? 5: Cosa 5. T.OK. lets got o masculine and singular. The book? 6 Ss: Mlibro, 7. 1: The house 5: La caso, 1: That's correct. Now we have masculine and feminine. Masculine article i, feminine la We've olso learnt that adjectives agree with nouns they modify [louder]. An adjective ‘agrees with the noun it modifies, That wos important until now, butt becomes more impor font now inthis lesson, so, the . . . beautiful book, il bel libro, the beautiful house, la bella asa. Now we are going to adjectives, possessive adjectives. Adjectives ore words which describe other words, other nouns, pronouns, or other adjectives. In the beautiful book, ;beautfilis on adjective, the red book, red is an adjective modilying book. Possessives in English ond ltalion ore clso adjectives, possessive adjectives. My house, my is @ posses- sive in lian, i's next to the noun, i is also an adjective. Now, what did we [ust say? ‘Adjectives agree wih'he thing modified. My book, il mio libro, This book is red, il mio Discuss ond Rellect 209libro & rosso. My house is white, la mio cosa, adjectives agree with the noun they modify [louder]. So, when you are saying my book and my house, adjectives agree with the noun they modify. Okay, that goes for all of them: my things, your things, his ‘or her things, our things, your things, and their things. [Writing the paradigm on the board) I! mio libro, il uo libro, il suo libro, fo mia caso, la wa cosa, la sua casa. (My book, your book, i miei i miei libri, i loi libri, 1 suoi libri, le mie case, le tue cose. (pp. 308-309), Guide your discussion ofthe preceding scenarios with the fllowing questions: 1. Identify the “expert” and the “novice” players in each scenario. 2 How does the expert draw novices’ attention fo the forms in each scenario 3, How do the novices show thei atenton to forms? ‘4, How does the role of the teacher in Scenario 1 lifer fom that of the teacher in Scenario 28 5. Which scenario illusnates guided assistance, scaffolding, and development through the PDE Cite specific examples of each from the scenario. Describe the role of interaction and collaboration in each ofthese scenarios. ‘What do you think would be the result of student learning in each ofthese scenarios? How might students ceact as learners engaged in each ofthese scencios® ‘To prepare the case: 1. Consult the following sources dealing with student interaction, and classroom talk: Antén, 1999; Brooks & Donato, 1994; Brooks, Donato, & McGlone, 1997; Donato, 2004; Hall, 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1987; Plat & Brooks, 2002. 2. Observe a language lesson in which studenls are ineracting with one another and iden- {fy howe they bring their sociocultural identities to bear on their group tasks. To prepare for css discussion: 1. Imagine that you are a student in the French class in scenario | Wile on enlry in your journal reflecting on what you learned in the scenario above. 2. Imagine that you are a student inthe italian class in scenorio Il. Write a journal entry reflecting on wha! you learned in thot scenario, ‘3. Using these wo scenarios as examples, write a brief description comparing « tradional implicit opproach to teaching grammar and an approach thet is based upon guided par- licipotion and collaboration of teacher ond learners REFERENCES. ‘American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1999), ACTPL Proficiency Guidelines—Speabing, ‘Yonkers, NY: Author, Adi Hauck, B. (1983). A descriptive anabsts of a whole Tanguagetguided partspatory versus explicit each ing) strargies tn foreign language Instruction, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pinsburgh, Pa Adair Hauek, B. (1995). Are all grammar errors created ‘equal? Seminar presented at Millersville University Summer Graduate Program In French, Millersville, PA, AdaiHauck, 8. (1996). Practical whole language strategies for secondary and university level FLleamners. Foren Janguage Annals, 29, 253-270. AdniHauck, B, & Cumo-Johanssen,P. (1997), Commun cation goal: Meaning making tough whole lan ‘guage approach. In J. Philips (Ed), Collaborations Meeting new goals, nw realitles (pp. 35-96). Nort>= feast Conference Reports Lincolnwood, Ils NTC/Con temporary Publishing Group. ‘AdairHauck, B., & Donato, R. (194), Forelgn language explanations within the one of proximal development Canadian Moder Language Reve 50, 532-557 210 Chapter 7 Using a StoryBased Approach to Teach Grammari : t | AdaicHavc, B., & Donato, R (2002). The PACE Mode: A ‘song-based approach to meaning and form for stan- ardbased language learning, The French Review, 76, 265-296, Ajpafre, A. (1992), The role ofimplicivexpict error cor ‘ection and the learners zone of praximal develop» ‘ment, Unpublished doctoral diseration. Unversity of Delaware, Newark Alfa, A. Lan}. (1994). Negative feedback a8 rep. ‘ulition and second-language Tearing inthe zone of proximal development, The Modern Language Jour. ual, 78, 465-483, Alvermann, D, (1991). The discussion webs: A graphic ald for leaming across the curculum, Tbe Reading Teacher, 45, 92-58 Aniéa, M, (1998), The discourse ofa learner-centered class= ‘oom; Sociocultural perspectives on teacherlearner Interactions in the second-language classroom. The ‘Modern Language Journal, 83, 303-318. Ask, J. M. (2008), Foreign language textbook activites: ‘Keeping pace wit second language acquisition research, reign Language Annals, 36 57-65. ‘Ausubel, D., Novak, & Hanesian, H. (2968). Educational Upaychology: A cognitive ofew. New York: Ho, Rinehart '& Winston, Bames, D, (1992). From communication to curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook ‘ialystok, E, (2982), On the relationship beeween knowing tnd using forns. 4pped Linguist, 3, 181-206 Bloome, D, & Egan-Robenson, A. (1993). The social con- “snicion of intetextualy in classroom reading ane writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 305-38. Brooks, F, & Donato, R. (1994), Vygotskyan approaches ‘understanding foreign language learner discourse ‘uring communicative tasks, Hispanta, 77, 262-274 Brooks, F, Donato, R, & McGlone, J. (1997), When are they going to say leigh Understanding learner talk during Dairwork activity, Foreign Language Annals, 30, 524-541. CCele-Murca, M. (1985). Making informed decisions about the role of grammar in language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 97-30. Celce- Murcia M (1991), Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459-479, CChammaky, N. (1968) Aspects ofthe tbeory of syntax. Cams bridge, MA: MIT Press. ‘Chsenbury,L. (1996), The great debate (agin) Teaching ‘grammar and usage. English Journal, 85, 1-12. CChrisenbury, L, & Kelly, P. (1985), Questioning: A path 0. * ‘tical thinking, In TRIP: Theory and research in practice, Urbana, Il: National Council of Teaching of English, (Erie Document Reproduction Service No. D226 372) (Coe, M (1985). The zone of proximal development: here ‘cle and cognition create each other. In]. V. Wersch (64), Ctr, communication and ction: Ya shia preci (op. 146-161) New York: Cambridge Univers Pres. Cooper, D. (998. Lee: Helping cilren const ‘meaning Sexton Howgon Min. Cummins J. 0984, Language profiler, lingam ‘and academic acbetmen.Bliognlism an Spec ection ntes in Asewment and Pedagony S40 Diego: Calpe Hl Dey, R & Sokal, K (1996) The diferent sole of Comprehension and. pradation pce, Language Learning, 46, 613-642. onto, R C2000. Aspects of ealboratn in pedagogic ‘ducouse. In M. McGroaty (E4), nna Rees of ‘opted Lingutstes (Vol. 20, Advances in language pedaguay (pp. 84-30, We Nyack NY: Cambridge ‘Univers res. Donato, R, & Adio, B, (992, Dicoure pepe tea a formal ingen. Language Asaroes, 2 Te. Donato, R, & Adsiauck, B. 0900. PACE: A made focus on fxm, Paper presented at the aval metag tf the Anerean Covnel on the Teaching of Foreign Tangages, in Antonio, TH Duley, 11, & Bor M. (1973) Should we teach eiken Tynan? Language Learning, 23, 26-258 edwards, A C95), Venn dagrm for many ses. New ‘Selo, 121, 51-5. is, R (1980, Classroom secondlanguage deeepment Englewood cif Nf Prentice Hal ils R996. Teaching and research; Options a grammar teaching, TOL Quarter, 32, 38-0 Forman, f, Minick, N, & Son, A (959). Cotes for learning New Yok: Oxford Uriverky ress sos, 8, 998) Integrin pramearinsnction andl com Tminkatve language se trough grammar conscious tenrasing tsa TESOL Qua, 28, 323-35. Fotos, Bis, R 99D, Communica host grammar "A tskchsed approach TESOL Quarry, 25, 605-828 Fours, 1, & Hannigan 1 (986). Making sense of whole Tanguage: The pus of informed teaching. Chid- rod Bdcation, 65, 138-137. Freeman, ¥, & Peeman, D. (952). Whole language for Secon language laren, Potsmouth, NH Henan caonl Books Calloway, Vs tabare, A 2990 From ident student ‘Style, process and strategy, In D. Birckbichler (Ed), New penctier and maw diction foreign an fruage education (pp. Mi-156) Lncolawood, Hk FTe/Contemporny Pushing Group. Glan, Adsictlack,B, & Gadbos N2O00, Deion inward tad eseoment tsk A etsy Paper presented athe ann mecing ofthe Ame fan Counc onthe Teaching of Foegn Langusies Bowon, oatman, X. (986). Whats ubole mn whole language ‘onto, NH Heineman Eaveatiorl Books References 211Hadley, A. ©. (2001), Teacing language in contest (3% ed. ‘Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Hall J. K. 0995), “Aw, man, where we goin?” Classroom interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence, dsues tn Applied Linguists, 6, 37-62. Hal, J. K. (1999), The communication standard. In J Philips (Ed, Foreign language standards Linking research, theories, and practices (pp. 15-56). Linco wood, I: NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group. Hatch, E. 1983). Pyebolinguistics A secondslanguage per- spective, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, Hawkins, B. (1988). Seafflded clasroom interaction and lus ‘relation 0 second-language acquisition for ‘minority cbilden. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universky of Cafornia, Los Angeles. Herron, C., & Tomasllo, M1992). Acquiring grammatical ‘structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65, 708-718 Hinkel, E, & Fotos, 8 (Bds) (2002). New perspectives on ‘grammar teaching s second language classrooms Mahwah, Nir Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ‘Hughes, R, & McCarthy, M. (1998) From sentence to dis- ‘course; Discourse grammar snd English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 263-287. John-Seiner, V. (2000), Creative collaboration, New Yorks ‘Oxford Univesity Press Johnson, D.D., & Johnson, R. T: (1987). Learning tagetber ‘and alone: Cooperation, competition, and indivtdual- zation, Englewood Cis, N}: Peatice Hall Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative lan- ‘Bvage production tasks to promote learners language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73-53. Kramsch, C. (1993). Gontext and culture language teach- ‘ng, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krathen, 8 (1985. The tnputbypoess. New York: Longsnan, Lalande, J (1981. Reducing composition errs: An exper: ‘ment, Foreign Language Annals, 17, 109-117 Larsen-Freeman, D. 2991). Teaching grammar. nM. Celoe- ‘Murcia (Bd), Toaching lnglish as a second or foreign language (pp. 279-295). Boston: Heinle & Heinle arsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From ‘grammar to grammaring Boston: Thomson Heinte. Lave, J. (1977). Cognitive consequences of waditonal appren- ‘Nesp tsning in West Afia. Anthropology and ‘Bducation Quarterly, 8, 177-180. ave, J, & Wenger, E (1991). Situated learning: Lagtimate ‘periperal partiipavion. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Pres. Lee, J & VanPatten, B. (2008). Making communicative lan- “guage teaching bappen (2 ed). New York: McGraw ul, Leoatiey, A. (1981). The problem of activity In psychol- ‘ogy. In. V. Wertsch (B8.), The concept of activity tm soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe Lightbown,P, & Spada, N. 2990). Focus on form and cor rective feedback in communicative language teaching ‘Studies tn Second-language Acquisition, 12, 429-48. Lghibown P, & Spada, N. (2003). How languages are learned (2 ed), New York: Oxford University Press LUskin-Gasparro, J. (1999). Personal communication as reviewer of Teacber’ Handbook ong, M. (1991), The least a second-language acquistion theory needs to explain, TESOL Quarter, 24 649-666, ‘Meban, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Camb, MA: Harvard University Press. ‘Navonal Standards in Foreign Language Education Project (NSFLEP), (1999). Standards for foreign language earning in the 21st century. Laweence, KS; Allen Press. Newman, D., Grillin, P, & Cole, M. (1989). The consruc: ton zone. Working for cognitive change in school. [New York: Gambldge Universy Press. [Nunan, D. (1991), Language teaching metbodology. New ‘York: Preotice Hal (Olle, J, Jt. C1983), Some working ideas for language teach ing. In}, Oller, jr and P. Richard Amato (Els), Methods that work (pp. 3-19). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Pearson, D. (1989). Reading the whole-language move- ‘ment. Elementary Schoo! journal, $0, 231-241, Plat, E, & Brooks, FB (2002). Task engagement: A turn- ‘ng pont in foreign language development, Language earning, 52, 368-400. Polete, N. (1991). Litrature-based reading, O'Fallon, MO: Book ices Redmond, ML. (1994. The whole language approach in the FLES classroom: Adapting strategies to teach read Ing and ring. Foretgn Language Annals, 27, 48-444, Rogol, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in learning. Oxfor: ‘Oxford University Pres ‘Rutherford, W. (1988), Grammatical consciousness raising ‘in brief historical perspective. In W. Rutherford & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds), Grammar and socond- Tanguage teaching (pp. 15-18). New York: Harpes Salabery,R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second-language acquisition, Ganadian Modern Language Review, 53, 42-453, Shaffer, C1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching freiga languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 395-403. Spada, Ny & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the ‘evelopment of questions in L2 classrooms, Studies Second-Language Acquistion, 15, 205-224, ‘Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second- language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidholfer (Bés.), Principles and practices n applied linguistics (pp. 125-148). Oxfond, UK: Oxford Universy Press. Swain, M. (1998). The output bypesbesis and beyond. ‘Unpublished manuscript Universky of Toronto, OISE. 212 chapter 7 Using o StoryBosed Approach fo Teach Grammarwai M. & Lapkin, § (2002), Talking through: Two Trench immersion learns response to reformulation. International journal of Educational Research, 37, 235-204, ‘Tarone, #. (1988). On the varsity of interanguage sy tems. ppl Lingus, 4, 142-163. ‘Tenell, (1977). & natural approach to secondlanguage aoqulson and learning, The Modern Language Jour na 6, 325-387 Ten, RM, (1986). Zot Cinderella andl Luke Skywalker ‘help you teach the pass composé and the impart. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL Matesals Center ‘Tharp, R, & Gallmore, R. (198A). Rousing minds 0 fe Teaching, learning and schooling in social context ‘New York: Cambridge Universy Press ‘Thasp, R, & Galimore,R (1991. The instructional conver: ‘sation: Teaching and learning in socal acy. Wash Ington, DC: National Center for Research on Cull Diversity and Second-Language learning. VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T (1998). Explicit instnuction and input processing. Studies tm Second.Language Acqui- ‘son, 15, 225-241 NOTES ‘avr, E1996, On not teaching grammar Bgl Journal, 85, 32-37 ysis, L$. (1978). Mind i scl The development of gher pecbologial process, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres. Vygotsky, LS. 0986). Thought and Language. Camtrlege, Mas Mr Press. Wal, J (1989), Conte ane contextualized! language prac: lice in foreign language teaching. Tbe Modern Lan- ‘guage Journal, 73, 161-168, ‘Wenger, F (1958). Commumises ef practice, New York Cambrge University Pres ‘Wersch, J. (99D. Voices of the mond, Cambekige, MA: Harvard University Press. ‘West, M, & Donato, . (2995). Sores and stances: Cross ‘cultural encounters with Aftcan folktales, Foreign Language Annals, 28, 32-406. ‘Wong, W, & VanPatten, B (2003) The evidence is IN: Dis ‘tre OUT, Foreign Language Antal, 36, 403-423 4, These indviduals were asked to co-author this chapter since their researc in the teaching of grammar support the premise of contextualized language instruction espoused a Teachers Handiook 2, For a discussion ofthe implicvexplic dichotomy, see ‘AdaieHauck (1998) & AdaieHauck & Donato 199). 3. All work in this area is to some degre rooted in the esearch of theoras such as Vygotsky (197) and Leoatey (A980, For examples of sippotng research, see Cole (1985), Kowal & Swain (1954; Lave (1977); Newman, Grin, & Cole (A989, Rogott 4999); Swain (1995), Tharp & Gallimore (4988, 1991; Wersch (1590. 4. The term guided pariipaton was fs coined by Rogott 990 5. As cal asthe first quater ofthis century, Vygotsky and Piaget, both consinctionsis of sons, stressed that the ‘hole is always greater than ad gives meaning to ls pacts. However, unlike Piaget, Vygotsky sessed that asst per. formance in learning actives led to development rather than development being a prerequisite to learning 6, KW activities re a way to organize classroom tasks round leeners’ background knowledge ad thet goals for learning. Hom the leamers’ perspective, K sands for what Tow already: W stands for what | want to know; and 1 stands for what | have leaned. For instance f the topic i frashoppers, the K actives might include making ston the board of everthing leamers know about grasshoppers the W activites might inch the creation of a list of que tons students have about grasshoppers, (eg, “How long do grasshoppers live” and the L activites might Include & videotaped presentation ofa sit students wrote about the fe ofa grasshopper. 17. Thanks to Dr. Bonnie Ads Hauck forte ingprtion for this activ. Notes 213