Real Reality Revisited: An Experimental Communicative Course in ESL

Abstract

This article describes an experimental oral communication course (OCC) offered at Passaic County Community College in Paterson, New Jersey, and reports the results of a pilot study to evaluate its initial success. The OCC was designed around weekly, structured field trips to sites where students typically need to communicate in English. Each field trip unit consisted of three related classes. In the class prior to a trip, students listened to tapes, practiced functional language, and decided on what information they wanted to obtain. The trip consisted of a tour of the site, followed by a discussion with a resource person. In the subsequent class, students evaluated the trip and reviewed the new language used and the information gained. Students taking the OCC were also enrolled in a required, grammar‐based ESL course. They were compared with a control group taking only the required course. In general, the area of greatest improvement of the OCC group, as compared with the control group, was grammatical accuracy. In addition, a significantly larger number of OCC students passed the component ESL course. Learners evaluated the OCC experience favorably.

Well-formed vs. ill-formed strings in L2 metalingual tasks: specifying features of grammaticality judgements

“…Some evidence favours communicative instruction (Beretta and Davies, 1985), some evidence supports form-focused teaching (Swain, 1985;1989), while other findings argue for providing a combination of the two (Montgomery and Eisenstein, 1985).' It is therefore difficult to know which style of classroom instruction provides the most reliable L2 knowledge base.…”

“…Although the classroom environment is sometimes viewed as a highly restrictive one, these constraints are beneficial to the researcher: a formal learning environment limits the type and quantity of input and hypothesistesting which researchers need to take into account when analysing learners' L2 knowledge. A considerable amount of theoretical and empirical work has focused on the role of explicit, or form-focused, instruction as a contributor to language acquisition (Allen et al , 1990;Felix and Weigl, 1991;Higgs and Clifford, 1982;Lightbown, 1985;Lightbown and Spada, 1990;Long, 1988;Montgomery and Eisenstein, 1985;Swain, 1985;1989). Although such studies do not universally agree on the effectiveness or lasting qualities of instruction featuring explicit attention to rules or negative evidence, they all suggest a strong positive role for classroom input.…”

Communicative Language Teaching in the Yemeni EFL Classroom: Embraced or Merely Lip-serviced?

“…Similarly, Montgomery and Eisenstein (1985) report greater learner gains not only in accent, vocabulary and comprehension but also in grammar. They (1985, p.331) claim that…”

“…15 26 Students are to acquire native-like pronunciation. 24 27 The language items are ordered in the syllabus units according to their linguistic simplicity. 21 28 The teacher specifies the language the students use during classroom interaction.…”

Conceptualizing ‘Communication’ in Second Language Acquisition

“…10 Some programmes tried to remedy these limitations and create opportunities outside the classroom for further interaction(Eisenchlas & Hortiguera 1999;Montgomery & Eisenstein 1985). The organization of these programmes is too complex and therefore tends to be restricted to courses with small student intakes.Conceptualizing 'Communication' in Second Language Acquisition 53…”