Instructed SLA: Constraints, Compensation, and Enhancement

Doughty, Catherine J.

doi:10.1002/9780470756492.ch10

Cited by 344 publications

(226 citation statements)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

211

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Doughty 2003), the value of explicit learning to facilitate knowledge, not only of the explicit type, but also the procedural knowledge learners need to become fluent users of the language (N. C. Ellis 1993;Robinson 1997;Housen, Pierrard & Van Daele 2005) is implicit in LA teaching methodology, despite continued debate among SLA researchers (e.g., Doughty 2003). An ongoing issue in LA is, however, how best to stimulate and channel LA.…”

Section: Explicit and Implicit Knowledge And Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The debate includes Norris & Ortega's (2000) synthesis and analysis of 49 published studies, which concludes that on the available evidence explicit instruction is more effective than implicit instruction, and the critical reanalysis of their work by Doughty (2003), who finds the evidence insufficient (see also Norris & Ortega 2001). The LA stance in this debate is clearly for the effectiveness of explicit learning.…”

Section: Explicit and Implicit Knowledge And Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language awareness and language learning

Svalberg¹

2007

Lang. Teach.

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Explicit and Implicit Knowledge And Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explicit and Implicit Knowledge And Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language awareness and language learning

Svalberg¹

2007

Lang. Teach.

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, in the current views of Language teaching, acquisition of first and second languages are not considered the representatives of the same process, ""the cognitive processes involved in L1 and L2 acquisition do not fully overlap"" (Doughty, 2003). Consequently, in absolute absence of corrective feedback learners fail to achieve target-like accuracy and they may ""proceduralize"" some idiosyncrasies linguistic resolves for their communicative deficiencies, and as the result errors fossilization might be inevitable (Skehan & Foster, 2001).…”

Section: A Theoretical Background Regarding Corrective Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative Negotiated Feedback versus Teacher-written Feedback: Impact on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Writing

Marzban¹,

Sarjami²

2014

TPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Nowadays, having a good mastery in writing skills plays a pivotal role in achieving success. Hence, it seems that further improvement in teaching writing in general, and providing corrective feedback on students' errors in particular, might be necessary. There is no doubt that teacher written feedback plays an essential role in English writing classes. However, in spite of tremendous contribution of time and attempt from teachers and students, the feedback provision process is yet far away from ideal. Thus, a search for potential ways to improve the effectiveness of providing corrective feedback makes the motivation for this research study. The current study aimed at exploring the impact of Collaborative Negotiated Feedback on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' writing and compared it with Teacher-written feedback. The study involved two groups of Iranian Intermediate EFL learners (30 students in each), consisting male and female, aged from 19 to 25, who were chosen through convenience sampling. In both groups, the same materials regarding different kinds of essay and paragraph organization were covered and implemented. While experimental group was provided with collaborative negotiated feedback, the control group was provided with the teacher's written feedback during the sessions. After Carrying out the treatment, the mean scores of the extracted data from pre-test/post-test of both groups were compared using independent sample t-test. The present researcher came to this conclusion that participants of the experimental group, who were exposed to collaborative negotiated feedback, outperformed the other group. The triangulation of three different sources; Pre/Post-test comparison, the questionnaire and interviews provide evidences in support of the efficacy of Collaborative Negotiated Feedback.

show abstract

“…The need for a clear and explicit focus on grammatical forms within a meaningoriented approach in order to promote accurate use of the L2 has been identified as a key area for language immersion education (Doughty 2003;Lyster and Mori 2008;Met 2008;Snow, Met and Genesee 1989), including CLIL (Content-Language Integrated Learning), ( Coyle, Hood and Marsh 2010;de Graaff et al 2007;Mearns 2012). It has been often acknowledged that while comprehension skills and fluency on the part of the learners are often highly developed in many language immersion contexts because of the exposure to high levels of meaningful content and enhanced opportunities for communicative interaction, achieving high levels of grammatical accuracy in the target language is not always as successfully realised (Fortune,Tedick and Walker 2008;Nassaji and Fotos 2011;Robinson 2003;Swain 1998).…”

Section: 'Noticing' and Focus-on-form In Immersion Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

T(w)o and fro: using the L1 as a language teaching tool in the CLIL classroom

Gallagher

Colohan

2014

The Language Learning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes a small in-class study which sought to explore the effectiveness (or not) of using the emerging bilingual skills of the students as a teaching and learning tool in a Geography through English CLIL classroom in Northern Italy. In particular, the study sought to examine whether and to what extent the use of codeswitching / translanguaging between the native language and the language of instruction during content-related tasks might prove a useful technique for highlighting particular grammatical points in the CLIL vehicular language. Findings support the view that there is a place for the focused, planned and targeted use of the L1 during meaning-focused lessons in the language immersion classroom and that bilingual instructional techniques, such as the 'twisted dictation' used in the study, can be an effective means of both drawing students' attention to particular linguistic forms and of developing an enriched bilingual vocabulary. The authors suggest that the use of the L1 as a language teaching and learning tool is not limited to the CLIL or immersion classroom, but could be adapted for use in other language learning contexts.

show abstract

Instructed SLA: Constraints, Compensation, and Enhancement

Cited by 344 publications

References 93 publications

Language awareness and language learning

Language awareness and language learning

Collaborative Negotiated Feedback versus Teacher-written Feedback: Impact on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Writing

T(w)o and fro: using the L1 as a language teaching tool in the CLIL classroom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About