Integrating Grammar Instruction and Communicative Language Use through Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.Grammar consciousness-raising tasks combine the development of knowledge about problematic L2 grammatical features with the provision for meaning-focused use of the target language. However, for this task type to be pedagogically useful in ESL/EFL classrooms, it must be shown that task performance is as effective as a teacherfronted grammar lesson in promoting gains in knowledge of the target structure and is comparable to performance of regular communicative tasks in terms of opportunities for communicative language exchange. This article reports an investigation of three grammar consciousness-raising tasks dealing with word order. The results indicate that the tasks successfully promoted both proficiency gains and L2 negotiated interaction in the participants, with negotiation quantity being determined by the combination of task features present rather than by the nature of the task content. Thus, grammar consciousness-raising tasks can be recommended as one way to integrate formal instruction within a communicative framework.

Pragmatic Consciousness-raising Activities and EFL Learners’ Speech Act Performance of ‘Making Suggestions’

“…Unlike Krashen (1985) and Reber (1989) who claim that unconscious learning processes are better than conscious ones and are responsible for most L2 production, some other second language acquisition researchers argue that making certain forms noticeable through consciousness raising (CR) and drawing learners' attention to these forms can help learners in the language acquisition process (R. Ellis, 1995;Rod Ellis, 2008;Schmidt, 1990Schmidt, , 1993aSchmidt, , 1993bSchmidt, , 1995Schmidt, , 2001Schmidt, , 2012Smith, 1993). In earlier research on CR, the focus was on grammar instruction and learning (Fotos, 1993(Fotos, , 1994Smith, 1993), while Rose (1994) proposed pragmatic consciousness raising (PCR) as an important approach towards teaching pragmatics. PCR is an inductive approach to raise learners' awareness about the appropriate use of language forms in specific contexts and it aims to sensitize and expose learners to pragmatic features of the target language and encourages development of tools for learners to analyze and formulate precise generalizations related to the use of language appropriately in context and encourage development of tools with which learners can analyze and formulate precise generalizations about appropriate language use in context (Rose, 1999).…”

Effect of Explicit Spoken Grammar Instruction on Raising Pre-Intermediate Iranian EFL Learners’ Competence

“…However, the terms they use for conveying the fact that learners should be provided with chances to notice features of a language might differ. Some of the widely-used terms are focus-on-form (Fotos, 1994); consciousness-raising (Ellis, 1994;Fotos, 1994;Nitta & Gardner, 2005;Yule, 1986); and input-enhancement (Sharwood, 1981).…”

Enhancing Information Language Learning with Mobile Technology - Does it Work?

“…pictures) to highlight certain aspects of the text (e.g., Doughty, 1991). Other techniques include metalinguistic explanations (e.g., Fotos, 1994), increasing the frequency of the target form (e.g., White, 1998), explicit or implicit error correction (e.g., Spada & Lightbown, 1993), or oral or written simplification of the text (e.g., Leow, 1993). These techniques differ with respect to how implicit or explicit they are; for example, metalinguistic explanation is relatively more explicit than the use of increased frequency of input or implicit error correction.…”