Form-focused Instruction in Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A Case for Contrastive Analysis and Translation Present by: Alfasy-Vaxcman Sara & Juma’a.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Getting to the Heart of Assessment & Evaluation
Advertisements

A didactic plan for a communicative translation class Dr. Constanza Gerding Salas Leipzig Universität - Universidad de Concepción May 2012.
How to teach heterogeneous groups
ENGLISH B HIGHER LEVEL The Mackay School – May 2014 Examinations.
Planning the Development of Reading Skills Modern Languages PGCE School of Education University of Nottingham.
Foundations for L2 Reading development William Grabe Northern Arizona University
Chapter 4 Key Concepts.
SQ3R: A Reading Technique
REFLECTION ON LANGUAGE WHAT?WHY?HOW? Caroline Moore March, 2006.
“Perhaps many teachers have too little time to allow students to form and pursue their own questions and too much ground to cover in the curriculum and.
READING – WRITING RELATIONS Are there any? 1. A GENDA The Rationale Literature Review The Purpose of the Study The Study The Research Questions The Results.
Education of English Conversation
Advisor: Dr. Raung-fu Chung Graduate: Ju-chuan Chen.
Stages of Second Language Acquisition
The Grammar – Translation Method
Should vocabulary instruction be integrated or isolated?
Reading Chapter Outline 1
CLC reading program Nguyen Thi Thu Trang. In-class activities Assignment Assessment Add your text in here Reading program Objectives Contents.
Academic Needs of L2/Bilingual Learners
Experimental Research Methods in Language Learning Chapter 16 Experimental Research Proposals.
 There must be a coherent set of links between techniques and principles.  The actions are the techniques and the thoughts are the principles.
Listening comprehension is at the core of second language acquisition. Therefore demands a much greater prominence in language teaching.
TYPE OF READINGS.
Lesson 4 Grammar - Chapter 13.
COURSE AND SYLLABUS DESIGN
Prepared by Ahmad Saleh Aljohani To Dr.Antar Abdellah.
Unit 9 Teaching Reading Welcome.
Incidental versus intentional vocabulary learning A selection of research articles.
ELL353 Welcome to Week #3 Dr. Holly Wilson. This Week’s Assignments 1. Readings 2. Discussion #1: Teaching Vocabulary 3. Discussion #2: Vocabulary Lesson.
1 Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study Maria Pigada and Norbert Schmitt ( 2006)
The Dignity of Risk A Coach’s Story Karyn Nimac Literacy Coach Daramalan College, ACT AIS-ACT Sharing Day, November 12, 2015 University of Canberra.
Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language: Do Learners Really Acquire Most Vocabulary by Reading? Some Empirical Evidence Batia Laufer.
King Faisal University جامعة الملك فيصل Deanship of E-Learning and Distance Education عمادة التعلم الإلكتروني والتعليم عن بعد [ ] 1 جامعة الملك فيصل عمادة.
*Discuss the importance of recycling vocabulary and share ideas. *Adapt reading comprehension tasks in order for our 6 th Grade students to be able to.
هناك من ضحى لأجلنا بحريتهم وأمعائهم الخاوية فلا تبخلوا عليهم بدعائكم. أسرانا البواسل.
Effects of Word Concreteness and Spacing on EFL Vocabulary Acquisition 吴翼飞 (南京工业大学,外国语言文学学院,江苏 南京211816) Introduction Vocabulary acquisition is of great.
Using Games in Teaching Vocabulary Evi Sofiawati.
An –Najah National University Submitted to : Dr. Suzan Arafat
Teaching vocabulary: Going beyond the textbook
Vocabulary Module 2 Activity 5.
Jovana Milosavljevic Ardeljan PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Theories of Language Acquisition
Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching
Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching
Ask students to write on an index card individually
Deep processing.
LECTURE 4. LEARNING AND TEACHING PROCESSES
LANGUAGE CURRICULUM DESIGN
An Overview Of Vision 1 Summer 1395.
Inferencing and retention
THE QUESTIONS—SKILLS ANALYSE EVALUATE INFER UNDERSTAND SUMMARISE
ELT. General Supervision
Learning and Teaching Principles
Using Active Learning Strategies in Teaching Reading
Sequencing Writing Assignments
Teaching Listening & Speaking
Sequencing Writing Assignments
TALIF Research Project – University of Essex BALEAP PIM at Edinburgh
Chapter 5.
SECOND LANGUAGE LISTENING Comprehension: Process and Pedagogy
National Curriculum Requirements of Language at Key Stage 2 only
Teaching Reading 主讲人:张敬彩 1.
Writing Learning Outcomes
Developing Listening strategies
ON-DEMAND Overview Elementary and Middle
Ask students to write on an index card individually
Asking the Right Questions
The Grammar – Translation Method
CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) Model CLIL lesson 12 February 2018 Explain about CLIL. Teaching History in English is more than just.
Teaching a receptive lesson
Presentation transcript:

Form-focused Instruction in Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A Case for Contrastive Analysis and Translation Present by: Alfasy-Vaxcman Sara & Juma’a Tufool Course: Vocabulary Teaching Teacher: Pro. Penny Ur Date: November, 25th, 2009 Laufer, B. & Girsai, N. (2008). Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694-716.

Introduction PART I - A Summary 2 types of FFI: Focus on form- drawing attention to lexical item within a communicative task environment. Focus on forms- practicing vocabulary in isolation or in minimal context. Both forms have been proven as beneficial to lexical learning.

Contrastive FFI of vocabulary: Leading to learners’ understanding of the differences and similarities between the words and the lexical system of their L1 and L2. Researchers’ preliminary hypothesis: Cross-linguistic FFI will benefit L2 vocabulary teaching.

3 hypotheses explaining the effectiveness in L2 learning: ‘noticing’ ‘pushed out’ ‘task-induced involvement load’ should be ‘pushed output’ not ‘pushed out’

The ‘noticing’ Hypothesis Learning language forms is achieved by consciously noticing forms and their meaning in input. For example, by a contrastive L2-L1 association. ‘noticing’ – upper-case N you should give the reference here (Schmidt), because the name is closely associated with the theory. Note that the original theory did not relate to use of L1: this is Laufer’s suggestion, so it’s not really ‘for example’, it’s more something like: By extension, this hypothesis could be applied to …etc

The ‘pushed output’ Hypothesis Language production and language development are improved by producing it and stretching the linguistic resources. For example, by translation into L2. Pushed Output (upper case first letter) Again, refer to Swain. And she, again, was not thinking of L1 use in her original theory, make it clear that this is Laufer’s extension of her ideas.

The ‘task-induced involvement load’ Hypothesis Learning lexical items by performing tasks with a high involvement load. Such tasks combine three elements: a ‘need’ motivational dimension of involvement a ‘search’ cognitive dimension of involvement an ‘evaluation’ For example, by translation tasks. You’ll need to explain to your audience what is meant by ‘motivational dimension’ and ‘cognitive dimension’ in practical terms. And show how Laufer applies these (at least the second two elements) to her ideas on L1 use.

Research in contrastive semantics, error analysis and psycholinguistics justifies the effectiveness of cross- linguistic FFI. For example, the case of collocational errors. Problem: relying too heavily on L1 collocational knowledge. Solution: raising learners’ awareness of the L1-L2 differences and practicing them through contrastive FFI would: reduce interference errors of L1 have a more effective influence on vocabulary learning. yes, you need to mention the key finding at the top of p.699, the sentence beginning ‘Dagut…’ You need to mention the two aspects of lexical items as such, and collocational connections – Laufer treats them as two separate aspects.

The study The researches’ additional hypothesis: Contrastive FFI will be as beneficial as (if not more) other types of FFI for the learning of new vocabulary. A comparison between 3 learning conditions: MFI- meaning focused instruction FFI- non-contrastive form-focused instruction CAT- contrastive analysis and translation

Research questions Will CAT lead to a larger number of acquired lexical items as opposed to the other two learning conditions? CAT’s effectiveness in lexical acquisition and learning of single words & collocations Will the differences appear on a delayed test, a week after performing the first test?

The tests examined knowledge of form- meaning relations of two kinds: Passive recall- the ability to retrieve and provide the meaning (in L1) of the target words (in L2). Active recall- the ability to retrieve and provide the form of the target words (L2) in response to their L1 translations.

Participants 75 10th graders, learners of EFL L1- Hebrew ‘5 point (advanced) stream’ of English Teaching stresses communication, but also occasional FonF Teachers do not practice translation The participants were divided into 3 classes. Each class, randomly assigned to one learning condition: The MFI group, the FFI group and the CAT group. were divided – the implication is that they were divided for the purposes of this study. Not so. They were already in three ‘intact’ (not tampered with or changed in any way) classes of roughly equal level.

Target Items 10 single, unfamiliar words and 10 verb-noun collocation in L2, chosen after conducting a pre-test and embedded in a reading passage. The pre-tests examined knowledge of: 50 words in English (L2) and 41 collocations in Hebrew (L1) which they had to translate from one language to the other. The purpose of the pre-test was to make sure that all the items to be used in the study were previously unknown.

Procedure An incidental acquisition design- investigating the acquisition of the target words and collocations without learners’ deliberate attempt to remember them. Treatment stages: The 1st stage- the same in all 3 classes. Read a passage and answer 13 true-false statements. and without learners knowing that they were going to be tested

The 2nd stage- 3 different treatments given, on the following day. Each one consisted of 2 tasks: one was with the text and the other without it. In both cases: no dictionaries were allowed. meaning of unknown words was inferred from context or provided by the teacher. Teacher went over all the answers and verified the target words.

The MFI group - 2 communicative tasks: a reading comprehension and a pair/group discussion. Both (content-oriented) tasks did not require attention to the target items. The FFI group - 2 form-focused tasks: meaning recognition of the target vocabulary (multiple choice exercise) and a text fill-in with a ‘word bank’. Both (text-based lexis) tasks focused on the target items. The CAT group – 2 translation tasks and a brief contrastive instruction: During Both (text-based translation) the teacher provided a contrastive analysis+L1 traslation of the target items. Go into more detail about the translation task: one was from hebrew into English, the other was the other way round.

Testing 2 unexpected tests (on target vocabulary) given a day after the treatment: Test 1- active recall: providing English words in response to their Hebrew translation. Test 2- passive recall: providing the meaning of L2 words in English or in Hebrew. A week later the same tests again.

Results - no decrease of scores on the delayed test. A comparison between tests: - no decrease of scores on the delayed test. - the passive recall in all tests- higher scores than the active recall tests. CAT group-highest scores. CAT: learning 72% of new passive vocabulary, 51%- active FFI: 50%- passive vocabulary, 27%- active MFI: lowest scores, almost no new learnt vocabulary The most difficult aspects of form-meaning knowledge were acquired by the CAT group.

The effectiveness of CAT can be explained by 3 L2 learning hypotheses: ‘Noticing’- according to James (2005) CA raises cross-language awareness assists in learning L2. ‘Pushed out’- L1-L2 translation task cognitively demanding task helps in remembering and producing correct words and collocations. ‘Involvement load’- translation tasks a search for meaning (L2 to L1) and form (L1 to L2), choice of a translation acquired new vocabulary. pushed output

Teaching Implications Becoming familiar with learners’ L1 and its linguistic structure. Raising students’ awareness of interlingual differences. Devoting teaching & practice time for lexical items which embody differences.

Conclusion Contrastive analysis and error analysis- vital components of language teaching. in other words Contrastive FFI in selected L2 areas is a way to achieve meaningful communication. This page does not represent Laufer’s position very accurately: think again.

PART II - Reflection Having read the article, we now realize that: L2 instruction seeks for meaningful communication, But the means for achieving it are not necessarily through communicative methods, this means that, a certain amount of contrastive analysis and translation activities should be incorporated in L2 vocabulary teaching. A strategy which was proved to be good for promoting vocabulary learning and ultimately for active recall (production) is best achieved when learners’ are asked to translate from L2 into L1 and later on from L1 into L2. requires search for meaning requires search for form The last sentence a bit odd: ‘a strategy … is best achieved?’ And I don’t like the use of ‘proved’ (Laufer doesn’t use it herself): better ‘indicate’ or ‘show’, or ‘support the hypothesis that…’

Some points to think about… Will different L1’s in class lead to different assumptions? Perhaps a longer gap (more than a week) between learning the target items and taking the delayed test, would lead to other results… Not clear what you mean by the first sentence: if students have lots of different L1s? or if the L1 isn’t Hebrew?