class notes

Different versions of CLT

1. Strong version: exclusive focus on meaning, no attention to form (created by Comprehensible input hypothesis + interaction hypothesis)

Content-based programs (Task-based English teaching)

CLT programs with children and adults

Comprehension-based programs with children and adults (describing what they are doing – I am opening the door, standing in the class…)

=> research findings about strong version of CLT: learners develop comprehension skills, vocabulary knowledge, communicative ability and communicative confidence

BUT… they continue to experience difficulties with grammatical accuracy

1. Weak version: attention to form and meaning (theory of communicative competence + form-focused instruction)

• Johnson: places importance on the role of message focus in the language practice

• It attempts to simulate processes of language use by employing techniques like information gap or transfer (p. 78)

• It does not avoid teaching rules and formal aspects of L2

• Spada: weak version of CLT is compatible with FFI

• FFI: aby effort to draw learner’s attention to form within communicative and meaning-based contexts

• Explicit or implicit focus on form

• Direct instruction or corrective feedback (Yes, but always provided within the context of meaningful practise)

• Results of FFI research: instruction that is meaning-based and includes attention to form is more effective that instruction which focuses exclusively on meaning or exclusively on form

Question regarding to teaching form, what is more important?

TYPE of form-focused instruction (explicit versus implicit)

• Explicit attention to form is more effective than implicit

• But it depends on what type of L2 knowledge is measured in the studies (implicit instruction seems less effective because post-tests measure learners’ explicit knowledge) – it is not fair to measure explicit knowledge when one group was taught only implicitly

TIMING of form-focused instruction (integrated or isolated)

• Integrated: embedded in communicative practice (arguments for: two for one – student can communicate and receiving feedback at the same time, immediate help is available precisely when it is needed)

• Isolated: attention to form is always separate from communicative practice (arguments for: presentation-practise-production = natural way to teach, you can’t pay attention to everything at once, no interruption of communicative interaction)

• CONCLUSION: L2 instruction that focuses on meaning but not to the exclusion of attention to form is most effective for L2 learning

Criteria for selecting Isolated or Integrated FFI for L2 instruction

• Learners’ level of proficiency e.g. difficult for low proficient learners to focus on form and meaning at the same time. Thus, Isolated FFI might be best for this group of learners.

• Type of language feature e.g. some language forms are easier to elicit in communicative activities than others

• L1 background of learners e.g. L2 structures that learners experience difficulty with because of L1 influence may be more salient (i.e. noticeable)

• Learner preferences for instruction e.g. Some learners may have a preference to focus their attention on form either separately from or embedded within communicative practice.