Language Learning Journal Input-based grammar

This article was downloaded by: [University of York] On: 6 December 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907746792] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language Learning Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t779637218

Input-based grammar pedagogy: a comparison of two possibilities Emma Marsden a a Department of Educational Studies, University of York,

To cite this Article Marsden, Emma'Input-based grammar pedagogy: a comparison of two possibilities', Language

Learning Journal, 31: 1, 9 — 20 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09571730585200041 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571730585200041

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Language LearningJoumal, Summer2005, No 31, 9-20

Input-based grammar pedagogy: a comparison of two possibilities Emma Marsden

Downloaded By: [University of York] At: 22:44 6 December 2009

Department of Educational Studies, University of York

This article presents arguments for using listening and reading activities as an option for techniques in grammar pedagogy. It describes two possible approaches: Processing Instruction (PI) and Enriched Input (El), and examples of their key features are included in the appendices. The article goes on to report on a classroom based quasi-experiment which compared their effectiveness for the learning of French verb inflections amongst 13- to 14-year-olds from two different secondary schools in England. The key feature of PI is that it comprises activities which systematically force learners to interpret the meaningof formal features in the input, rarely seen in published material and classroom activities. In this study, El provided brief awarenessraising strategies followed by a flood of the target features. The study suggested that PI may indeed constitute a viable and effective option for grammar pedagogy for learners who are starting to develop a verb inflection system. These results were clear in the class from school 2 but more 'fuzzy' from school 1, demonstrating the importance of taking contextual factors into account when gathering evidence regarding practice ~.

INTRODUCTION Grammar pedagogy in UK secondary Modern Foreign Language teaching remains an area of concern (see, for example, discussions in Allford (2003) and Mitchell (2000)). Studies have suggested that learners do not use certain aspects of language form (e.g. verb inflections) in target-like ways when using a foreign language creatively or in unpredicted situations (e.g. Myles, 2003 & in press; Dobson, 1998; OFSTED, 2002). Although to a certain extent these phenomena probably reflect the fairly fixed developmental routes found in language learning 2, it is likely that teaching can a) speed up the progress learners make along these routes, b) increase the range of features in learners' language and c) help learners to break down communicatively effective chunks of language in order to use the component parts creatively (see for example Mitchell & Martin, 1997; Myles, Hooper, & Mitchell, 1998). However, current UK policy documents offer little advice which has been grounded in research regarding grammar teaching (see Pachler, 2003; Allford, 2003; Mitchell, 2000 for discussions). There is a fairly wide consensus that in practice there is frequent recourse to metalinguistic instruction, grammar-

[~

No 31 Summer2005

translation methods and behaviourist and audiolingual style slot and replace activities (all with motivating design features) (see various chapters in Bygate, Tonkyn & Williams, 1994; DIES, 2003; Howe 2004). However, research has not yet demonstrated that these are necessarily the most effective means for achieving the objectives a-c mentioned above within a broadly defined communicative approach. These issues and possible solutions to them are an active area of international research, as seen in the 'Focus on Form/S' research agenda (e.g. Doughty & Williams 1998; VanPatten 2004; Norris & Ortega 2000). Several studies have suggested that instruction in explicit knowledge about language does not correlate clearly with learners' ability to articulate explicit knowledge and/or with their ability to use language creatively and spontaneously (Lightbown 2003; and see Allford 2003 and Benati 2004 for reviews). It has also been demonstrated that the relationship between the latter two can be hazy (see, for example, Green & Hecht, 19923 and the review in Truscott 1998:118). In addition, it has been suggested that grammar-translation approaches are probably most suitable for academically-oriented pupils (DeKeyser, 1998; Hawkins 1996). At the opposite side of the 'grammar pedagogy continuum', purely contentbased programmes do not seem to result in learners producing certain language features accurately (as shown in studies from Canadian immersion programmes, such as Swain 1995 & 2000; Harley 1992). It is therefore of interest to research innovative ways of helping learners develop target-like use of language within a broadly-defined communicative curriculum, particularly given that the rich and ongoing international research agenda regarding Focus-on-Form could shape the UK context. Although clear-cut, 'what works solutions' are not realistic (as Pachler, 2003, points out), this paper aims to contribute to the evidence base for foreign language teaching and learning, with the

"UK policy documents offer little advice which has been grounded in research regarding grammar teaching"

Addressfor correspondence: Emma Marsden Department of Educational Studies University of York York YO10 5DD email:[email protected]

9

E MARSOEN acknowledgement that generalisations emerging from the study may indeed be 'fuzzy' (Bassey, Hallam & Pollard, 2001).

Downloaded By: [University of York] At: 22:44 6 December 2009

RATIONALE FOR INPUT-BASED GRAMMAR TEACHING ACTIVITIES

"input-based approaches also have several characteristics which render their role in grammar teaching potentially attractive"

This article focuses particularly on the possibilities offered by input-based approaches to grammar pedagogy 4 (see Ellis, 1999, and Izumi, 2002, for reviews). Current policy documents for MFL teaching in England and Wales focus heavily on output-based (i.e. speaking and writing) grammarrelated activities (DfEE 1999; DfES 2003; QCA 2000). Data from classroom observations suggest that grammar teaching does indeed mainly consist of output-based activities (e.g. Mitchell, 1994). Nevertheless, input-based approaches also have several characteristics which render their role in grammar teaching potentially attractive, although they should not replace production practice or diminish the role of listening and reading in other aspects of language learning! Four reasons for investigating input-based approaches to teaching grammar are offered here: 1. They have the advantage that learners are not required to produce language until it has been encountered in the input (it may be dysfunctional for learners to be asked to produce language that is beyond their current stage of development). This is intuitively appealing in that input of some sort clearly has to precede acquisition of any kind, and input-based approaches are claimed to take some account of learners' developmental routes (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). 2. Some studies have shown that input-based activities can be at least as effective as more traditional styles of grammar teaching. VanPatten & Cadiemo (1993), have suggested that with the same amount of practice, learners receiving Processing Instruction (PI), which consists only of reading and listening activities, made gains in speaking and writing measures equivalent to those made by learners carrying out speaking and writing practice activities. In the measures of reading and listening, PI learners outperformed the learners who had received only speaking and writing practice. 3. Listening activities are oftefi perceived as popular activities with learners (Chambers, 2000), and are sometimes used by teachers with disciplinary objectives (see Mitchell & Hogg 2001). 4. It is possible that what we usually ask learners to do with input could be more effective in promoting the learning of language form, as discussed in the next section.

WHAT WE ASK LEARNERS TO DO WITH INPUT Listening and reading activities are usually recommended to improve macro level skills e.g. 10

pragmatic and sociolinguistic competencies, such as gist comprehension (see DfEE, 1999; DfES, 2003; QCA, 2000; Turner, 1995). Of STED (2004) reported that departments and teachers were making way for "the increased emphasis in the [MFL KS3] framework on teaching grammar" by "eschewing lengthy and ineffective listening comprehension exercises" (p47), implying that there is a perceived tension between listening and developing grammar in MFL learning. Listening and reading activities are also widely used to promote lexical acquisition. Many text book activitiesforce learners, by the nature of the response required, to attend to the meaning of 'content words' (nouns, adjectives (including quantifiers), adverbs, and verb stems), as opposed to, for example, verb inflections, particles, prepositions, certain determiners and word order. Of relevance here is that input tasks often allow learners to pay attention only to the content words even when these tasks are actually in a sequence designed to promote the learning of some aspect of grammatical form. Example 1 illustrates an activity in which learners can attend to a few lexical items to succeed. They must match sentences to the appropriate picture, but do not need to pay attention to the perfect and imperfect tense verb inflections. However, the subsequent task in the textbook requires learners to write an account using these verb inflections. Que s'est-il pass6 ? Trouve le bon texte pour chaque situation A

M m e Brzu est tombre au millieu de ravenue C16menceau, alors qu'elle sortait du supermarch~

B

William Grelier, quatre ans, qui courait apr~s son ballon a 6t6 renvers6 par une mobylette

C

Les d e u x v o i t u r e s carte four

se sont heurtres au [emphasis mine]

The pictures which these sentences match are such that: for sentence A there is only one picture with a w o m a n in it, or with supermarket shopping on

the floor; for sentence B there is only one picture with a ball in it; for sentence C there is only one picture with two ears in it.

Example 1: Reading activity allowing learners to 'ignore'verb inflections (from McNab, 1994: 113) Other listening and reading activities make more explicit attempts to encourage learners to attend to certain formal features in the input. This can be done by emphasising (with, for example, stress or altered typeface) the target features with the intention that learners will pay attention to these forms and that this kind of attention will aid their learning. Other techniques are to request learners to look at / listen out for certain forms, or ask them to underline the Language Learning Journal

INPUT-BASEDGRAMMARPEDAGOGY:A COMPARISONOF TWO POSSIBILITIES

target features or tick when they hear them (see Example 2). Ecoute: Tutoyer ou vouvoyer? (1-10) Mets un T s'ils utilisent la forme 'tu' et un V s'ils utilisent la forme 'vous'.

Downloaded By: [University of York] At: 22:44 6 December 2009

Example 2: Listening activity astdng learners to note a form (taken from McNab, 1994: 22) Again, one of the final activities in the sequence from which example 2 was taken is to produce some questions in the second person, implying that this listening activity (and the subsequent reading activity) intends to promote the learning of the second person pronouns and verb inflections. What all these techniques have in common is that they provide the learners with an input flood of examples of the target feature/s. Such tasks may have a role in raising learners' awareness of features in the input (Sharwood Smith 1993). They differ in whether or how they require learners to note the form. This could be a relatively 'explicit' process (as illustrated in Example 2), possibly providing 'advance organisers' which may help learners to segment and make categories from the input (Terrell 1991). Or input activities may engage more implicit processes, where the learner perceives/attends to, at some level, the target form without being forced to do so by the task (as illustrated in Example 1). Classroom-based research regarding input-based techniques such as these (referred to generically as input enhancement or enriched input) has produced mixed findings, with some studies showing that, for some learners, enriched input (often combined with some explicit grammar instruction) can be effective for learning certain language features. However, so far, practical advice for pedagogy emerging from these studies is indeed 'fuzzy'. One unifying feature of the input-based techniques described above is that learners are not required to interpret the meaning of the specific target features in order to be successful in the task. Learners can rely on lexical items to obtain the relevant information (Example 1 above) or they can rely on the form alone (i.e. they do not have to link the form to meaning but can carry out the task at an abstract, formal level by following a predictable pattern, Example 2 above). Lesson observation records can occasionally provide examples of classroom interaction where learners are forced to interpret the meaning of formal features in the input, as in the following two events with one teacher: i) T: repeats 'regardez' (part of the instructions she just gave to the pupils) and asks "am I talking to one of you or all of you?" P: all of us T: how do you know? P: 'cos it was regardez ii) T: "[the Assistant] va chanter - what tense?" P: future T: why? P: because you said 'va'

No 31 Summer 2005

Example 3: Examples of classroom interaction where a learner was forced to interpret the meaning of a verb inflection (extract of observation notes taken for Marsden 2004) In these interactions, the only cues available to the learner to help them respond to the task were the verb inflections for number (i) and tense (ii). Contextual cues (such as current focus of lessons or classroom routines) could not have helped, and, in any case, pupils had to explain how they knew the answer. However, most of the time in classroom (and probably also natural) interaction, learners can use cues which allow them to 'filter out' much of the input and yet still be able to interpret sufficient meaning to function communicatively at that moment. This can involve using a range o f linguistic, contextual, paralinguistic (e.g. gesture) and prosodic (e.g. stress) cues to interpret the input. Example 4 illustrates this. Written in centre of board: Quand es-tu all6(e) au cin6ma? T: asks what question on board means. Les mots cl6s sont [underlines 3 words on board and says them:] quand all6 cin6ma P 1: when do you go to the cinema? T: repeats with rising intonation and emphasis 'when do you go to the cinema?' P 1: when did you go to the cinema?

"learners can use cues which allow them to 'filter out' much of the input and yet still be able to interpret sufficient meaning to function communicatively"

Example 4: A classroom interaction where the learner may have relied on cues other than verb inflections to interpret the meaning (extract of observation notes taken for Marsden 2004). Although example 4 is similar to the scenario presented in example 3, the learner may have selfcorrected because of the stress given by the teacher to the word 'do' or because they are aware that this series of lessons relates to learning how to talk about the past - it is not necessarily the case that they have connected the form 'es' with pastness.

LINGUISTIC REDUNDANCY AND GETTING MEANING FROM THE INPUT Redundancy appears to be a feature of natural languages i.e. several linguistic features often communicate one 'meaning'. For example, when / • Q~, asked "Qu'est-ce que tu as fait le weekend aernxer. , it is possible that learners rely on the cue 'le weekend dernier' to interpret the 'pastness' of the question and on the pronoun 'tu' to interpret the person to whom the question is directed, rather than the auxiliary 'as', which also carries meaning for tense, person and number. VanPatten (1996, 2004) presents a set of hypotheses which suggest that this is indeed how

11

Downloaded By: [University of York] At: 22:44 6 December 2009

E MARSDEN

"it may be important to ensure that input activities force learners to attend to the meaning carried in formal (grammatical) features"

learners would be likely to get meaning from such input. He suggests that some language features appear to be more readily interpretable/ communicatively useful in the input than others, i.e., in the example above, 'le weekend dernier' and 'tu' would be more readily interpreted than 'as', and that this may favour the acquisition of such features. A variety of types of evidence (from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology literature) is used to support these hypotheses, and there is some agreement that learning is more likely to take place if the target forms in the input have been processed for their meaning (see, e.g. Lightbown 2001 p80). VanPatten believes that if learners do not interpret the meaning of specific features in the input, including verb inflections and syntactic features (a process called 'detection'), then those features will not become part of the learners' developing language system and therefore stand less or no chance of being integrated into a learners' productive repertoire] Pedagogically, it may be important to ensure that input activities force learners to attend to the meaning carried in formal (grammatical) features of the language. This may help them to learn what it is about feature X that makes it have a different meaning to feature Y (e.g. 'j'aime' from 'il aime', possibly helping learners to avoid productions such as 'il j'aime'). This is what Processing Instruction aims to do. The following section describes Processing Instruction (PI) as laid out in VanPatten & Cadierno 1993, and VanPatten 1996, 2002 and 2004.

WHAT IS PROCESSING INSTRUCTION? Processing Instruction has three components. One 'unit' of work would begin with a brief(one- or twominute) explanation of the target feature (Appendix 16). This includes a description of the function of the target form and a warning about what learners probably tend to do when hearing or reading this form. Following this, there are a few activities (so-called 'referential' activities, see Appendix )) that force the learners to attend to the meaning carried in the target feature. Another feature closely related to the target feature is also included in the input sentences to highlight the contrast in forms which communicates meaning (in Appendix 2, third .person singular present and perfect verb inflections are both used). There are right or wrong answers and the teacher gives immediate feedback for the first few items until it seems that the learners are making the correct connections between form and meaning. Finally PI provides a few exercises where the target feature appears in the input but where the learner is not required to focus their attention on the feature (so-called 'affective' activities). In these activities learners are exposed to numerous exemplars of the feature, but the task they are given does not require the meaning of the target feature to be interpreted. These activities resemble a kind of input flood of the target form, and they bear some resemblance to activities such as that in Example 1 in

12

that learners' attention is probably focussed elsewhere in the sentence. Learners normally express some kind of an opinion, for example: These sentences have been written about David Beckham. Tick if you think they are true: La semaine derni6re, il ajou6 au football il a lav6 la voiture il a travaill6 en Espagne

Example 5: Example of PI affective activity: an input flood of the targetform

COMPARISON: INPUT FLOOD & INCIDENTAL INPUT PROCESSING The 'referential activities' are the only part of the Processing Instruction package which actually requires the learner to interpret the meaning of target items and which reflects the hypotheses discussed earlier. It is of interest to explore whether this kind of activity really does offer better opportunities for learning verb inflections than activities, as in example 1, which provide the target feature embedded in input but allow learners to attend to them incidentally to the task set. Research into 'incidental' learning processes can be found in cognitive psychology and second language acquisition literature on implicit learning (e.g. Dienes, Broadbent & Berry 1991). However, these studies have not yet given us sufficient evidence that connecting a grammatical form in the input to a meaning is helpful or necessary for learning in the longer term. Such evidence should include a classroom-based study which essentially compares referential activities with activities which do not require learners to interpret the meaning of the target features 7. The study described here compared PI activities with a pedagogical package which was equivalent to it in most respects, including the same brief grammar explanation and the same number of tokens of target features. The main difference was that in half the activities if learners attended to the target verb inflections it would not be as a result of being forced to do so by the task but it would be incidental (see Appendix 3). These activities required learners only to understand lexical items (e.g. nouns, adjectives and verb stems) or overall sentential meaning. Language such as 'le weekend deruier' was available alongside most verb inflections so that the learner could avoid having to interpret the verb inflections to get meaning.

THE STUDY The study involved three 'top ability 8' year 9 classes in a city in England. All pupils had been exposed to approximately 180 hours of classroom instruction in French. Year 9 learners were chosen for this study for several reasons, but particularly because process studies (e.g. Mitchell & Dickson 1997, Myles 2003) Language Learning Journal

INPUT-BASEDGRAMMARPEDAGOGY:A COMPARISONOF TWO POSSIBILITIES

Figure t: The experimental design School 1 [ ClassAof29

]

[ ClassBof27

split class

/\

EI = 14

PI = 14

Merged EI group = 27

Downloaded By: [University of York] At: 22:44 6 December 2009

Class C of 30 ]

I

split class

/\ PI = 15

School 1

School 2

'Non-active Control'

Merged PI group = 29

suggest that some learners at this stage are beginning to use inflectional verb morphology in semispontaneous oral production, implying that most are likely to be developmentally ready to benefit from noticing these forms in the input 9. None of the leamers involved in the current study had had significant extra-curricular exposure to the target language (according to a brief questionnaire carried out at the start of the study). Two classes (A and C) were in one secondary school (school 1) and another class (class B) was in another similar ~° school (school 2). Classes A and B were the experimental classes - that is, they were each split into two groups (using randomised matched pairs 11) to create two similar groups, one of which had PI materials and one which had EI materials (see Figure 1). Class C was a 'parallel set' to class A and was used as a non-active control to which the results from class A were compared. In an action research project in the year prior to this study, both classes A and C experienced extensive instruction using a range of grammar teaching techniques ~2 for a similar set of verb inflections to those featured in the current study. Learners in these two classes were therefore accustomed to the teaching and testing of specific grammatical features. They were both also statistically significantly more advanced than class B in terms of their interpretation and written production of verb inflections, according to the measurements taken at the pretests (described briefly above) ~3. The experimental intervention lasted for 9 hours over a period of 7 weeks. The intervention teaching in each class alternated between the normal teacher and the researcher (i.e. one lesson the class teacher taught the PI learners and the next lesson they taught the EI learners). This went some way to ensuring that the pupils did not associate one approach with one particular teacher. Pre, post and delayed post tests were carried out to asses the impact of the teaching materials TM. The timescale of the study is shown in Figure 2. The language system being tested (and taught in

the instructional materials) was a wide range of verb inflections: regular and irregular inflections for tense, person and number in the present and perfect tenses in French. The tests consisted of a large battery of tasks which elicited a range of performance types, modes (interpretation and production) and modalities (oral and written). Listening and reading tasks assessed learners' ability to match up verb inflections with the appropriate subjects and vice versa. There were 48 items in the listening tests and 55 in the reading tests. Speaking and writing tasks assessed learners' ability to produce verb inflections and included sentences, narratives and guided conversations. Scores for the sentence-level production tasks were based on the number of test items. For the narratives and guided conversation tasks, scores were calculated by assessing the verb inflections used when each individual learner created contexts where a verb inflection was obligatory (i.e. where leamers used a verb referring to a subject). The mean total scores available were 117.3 (speaking) and 96.6 (writing). Partial scoring was used as with many other 'type of instruction' studies e.g. 0.5 points for an attempt at an auxiliary in the perfect tense. In addition to the quantitative assessment of learning gains, extensive monitoring of the teaching before, during and after the experimental intervention was carried out, using video and audio recordings of lessons. Such monitoring was to ensure that the experimental protocol was adhered to (e.g. that PI and EI were carried out reliably) and to provide rich descriptions of the different learning contexts in classes A, B and C. For the experimental intervention, teachers were provided with detailed written guidelines alongside the packs of activities. These guidelines included timings of each activity and the feedback required, e.g. for the PI learners correct answers were provided/elicited for a few items at the start of each referential activity and then no feedback (a show of hands was requested for the scores achieved, which

"extensive monitoring of the teaching before, during and after the experimental intervention was carried out"

Figure 2: Timescale of the study in weeks Pretests

Experiment: PI, E1 & class C

Post tests

Normal instruction

Delayed post tests

Duration

2

7

2

12

2

Cumulative timescale

2

9

11

23

25

No 31 Summer 2005

13

E MARSOEN

Downloaded By: [University of York] At: 22:44 6 December 2009

were invariably very high, due to the feedback at the start of the activity which served to ensure learners were making the correct form-meaning connections). The PI affective activities did not involve closed questions and so no feedback was given relating to the target forms, though occasionally an affective activity required the teacher to provide some information at the end e.g. if the activity had required prediction, guessing or opinions. This was also the case for feedback in the EI activities equivalent to the PI affective activities. In the E1 activities equivalent to the PI referential activities feedback was given at the end of the task (e.g. providing the correct ordering or combinations of pictures or phrases). Teachers' and learners' attitudes to the teaching materials were also explored, using Likert rating scales, questionnaires, focus groups and interviews, to assess whether the learners' and teachers' performance was influenced by motivational factors. This went some way to monitoring whether learners' awareness that 'something different was happening' impacted on the scores in the language tests.

"support for the idea that learners have to interpret the meaning of specific features in the language if those features are to be learned"

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION How did the experiment go? It was found that PI and EI were carried out reliably - an analysis of a sample (about 20%) of the video and audio data showed that all teachers involved followed the teaching guidelines ~s. The worksheets collected from the pupils at the end of each lesson showed that all the activities bad been carried out, with a very few minor exceptions. During the sevenweek intervention period, learners, in their intact classes with their normal class teachers, carried out a few activities which were neither PI nor EI. These activities were monitored and they were not related to the target forms, but were intended to teach nouns, adjectives or whole phrases. In addition, they did not pose a direct threat to the validity of the study as both PI and EI learners in each intact class were exposed to the same teaching. The interview, questionnaire and focus-group data showed that the teachers and the learners thought that both the PI and EI materials were motivating, enjoyable and novel; Together these findings suggested that any differences found

Measure

Listening

Reading

Writing

Speaking

Sample (n) (pre, post, dp if. differenO

between the PI and EI groups' scores at post test were due to differences between the teaching materials. In class C, between the pre and post tests the class teacher did not provide any intentional focus on the target forms. Any improvements seen here would be due to a test effect. Between the post and delayed post tests (once the experimental intervention had finished) classes A and C experienced extensive explicit teaching of the target forms, consisting principally of production practice. This meant that conclusions could not be drawn regarding the effects at delayed post test in class A of PI and El. However, in class B there was no intentional focus on the target forms in the lessons between the post and delayed post tests, so any learning gains that had been maintained from the post test were likely to be due to the PI and/or EI.

Finding patterns in the test results The test scores achieved by the PI and EI groups in class A (school l) and in class B (school 2) were compared using statistical tests (the Friedman analysis of variance test and Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks tests, see Appendix 4 for the results of these tests) ~6. The two experimental classes were analysed separately because they appeared to be from different populations in terms of their pretest results, as well as being from different contexts in terms of their experience of grammar pedagogy. In class B it was found that for all measures (listening, reading, writing and speaking) the PI learners made statistically significant gains between pre and post tests and maintained these gains at delayed post tests. However, the equivalent EI learners in class B did not make any gains in the measures taken during the study. Their scores in the tests (as percentages) are shown in Table 1. These findings offer support for the idea that learners have to interpret the meaning of specific features in the language if those features are to be learned. Listening and reading activities which provided a 'flood' of exemplars but which did not force learners to comprehend the meaning of specific forms (EI), seemed to have no impact on the learning of verb inflections, even when the input flood was preceded by a grammar explanation to direct

delayed pretest (st. dev.)

post test (st. dev.)

(st. dev.) post test

eI

(14)

40.33

(9.16)

49.11

(11.08)

48.96

(15.69)

EI

(13)

41.51

(11.04)

43.59

(5.80)

41.51

(14.35)

PI

(14)

25.32

(6.55)

36.75

(9.44)

34.16

(7.31)

E1

(13)

26.85

(9.16)

28.53

(8.95)

27.83

(13.10)

PI

(14)

6.80

(8.10)

13.47

(8.96)

17.22

(12.30)

EI

(12, 13, 13)

10.14

(5.06)

13.02

(6.18)

13.37

(14.63)

PI

(10)

14.95

(5.65)

22.78

(12.92)

20.54

(8.35)

E1

(7)

14.78

(7.30)

14.12

(3.89)

13.58

(6.69)

Table 1." Means, standard deviations and n for each measure at pre, post and delayed post tests in class B 14

Language Learning Journal

INPUT-BASEDGRAMMARPEDAGOGY:A COMPARISONOF TWOPOSSIBILITIES

Table 2: Means, standard deviations and n for each measure at pre, post and delayed post tests in class A (PI and El groups) and class C (the non-active control). Measure

Sample (n) (pre, post, differenO

@~f

Listening

Class A PI

Reading

Writing

Downloaded By: [University of York] At: 22:44 6 December 2009

Speaking

(st. dev.)

(14, 15, 15)

52.98

(17.35)

72.08

(15.94)

69.72

(20.00)

Class A EI

(14)

50.30

(16.78)

64.73

(15.88)

72.47

(14.11)

Class C

(30)

49.72

(12.62)

59.31

(13.87)

64.93

(13.8o)

ClassAPl

(14, 15, 15)

48.83

(17.81)

61.94

(20.86)

68.85

(22.43)

Class A E1

(14)

52.73

(17.69)

64.16

(19.70)

68.83

(18.89)

Class C

(30)

51.27

(18.16)

56.67

(15.66)

64.79

(19.16)

Class A PI

(15)

24.08

(18.50)

42.79

(26.08)

49.99

(25.59)

Class A E1

(14)

21.88

(17.24)

45.44

(22.09)

51.91

(22.13)

Class C

(30, 27, 28)

33.20

(23.82)

38.25

(23.10)

51.08

(24.18)

Class A, EI

(8)

19.83

(9.70)

32.32

(12.64)

38.84

(14.09)

Class A, PI

(8)

20. l 1

(20.67)

25.88

(23.84)

30.37

(26.61)

Class C

(16,16,15)

24.50

(16.51)

33.50

(18.87)

37.95

(18.93)

learners' attention to the target features in the input. Again, it is emphasised that this does not imply that all such activities should be avoided (!), simply that their purposes be more fully appreciated 17. In class A, the results were more complex to interpret. Both PI and El learners made statistically significant gains between pre and post test TM. The complication in interpreting these results arose from the fact that class C (the non-active control, a parallel set to class A with similar prior experience of grammar teaching and grammar pedagogy research) also made some gains between the pre and post tests despite the fact that class C did not have any intentional focus on the target forms between the pre and post tests. The mean test scores from these three groups are shown in Table 2. In order to tease out any differential gains made by the PI and E1 learners in class A, their learning gains between pre and post tests were compared to the gains made by class C. Between the pre and post tests, PI learners in class A had a statistically significant advantage over the class C learners in the interpretation of verb inflections, whereas the EI learners did not. This supports the findings from class B, that PI can help learners to interpret the meaning of verb inflections in listening and reading. However, in the writing of verb inflections both the EI and PI learners made statistically greater gains than the control class. This may have been because, for these learners, in teaching and assessment during years 8 and 9, considerable emphasis was placed on grammatical accuracy in written forms. The experimental interventions, (i.e. explicit grammar explanations and input activities) may then have reactivated this well-rehearsed knowledge to the same extent for both PI and El learners. Further, many SLA researchers do not consider that written production is a valid window into competence in the L2 as it allows planning time and access to general No 31 Summer 2005

post test (st. dev.)

delayed (st. dev.) post test

pretest

learning strategies that do not reflect underlying language acquisition but reflect general cognitive skills (e.g. Truscott 1998: 118). The results of the writing test should therefore be used with caution in making claims about the usefulness of EI compared to PI, or indeed of any focus-on-form technique, In the speaking measure, the control class and EI and PI learners in class A all made similar learning gains. This may have been because, in order to take the speaking pretests, the learners in class A left a lesson focussing on the perfect tense, including revision of grammar rules and oral and written practice. As learners' pretest scores perhaps reflect this concurrent instruction (representing 'overachievement', in some sense), it may have been less easy to detect learning gains and any differential improvement due to PI and EI ~. A pertinent question would be "which is the most typical class?". Given the small scale of this study, the sampling procedure for participants cannot be used to judge the generalisability of the results 20 . One way to assess the practical usefulness of the findings from the statistical tests (in Appendix 4) is to ascertain the interpretation and production of verb inflections amongst other learners from year 9 (and perhaps also from other years). (The extensive tests used in this study can be supplied on request and, along with the scores achieved (Tables 1 and 2), would give some indication of the level of the learners involved and would therefore help to assess the study's generalisability.) There is some evidence to suggest that if this experiment had been conducted on a larger scale, then the findings from class B would be the most typical. Process studies documenting pupils' ability to inflect verbs in semispontaneous oral production (Mitchell & Dickson, 1997; Myles, in press) and in writing (Macrory & Stone, 2000) provide evidence that the learners in class A probably came from an atypical context. The

"in the writing of verb inflections both the El and PI learners made statistically greater gains than the control class"

15

E MARSDEN

productions of learners in class B were more in line with the descriptions in these studies, although this remains to be explored in detail. In addition, the learners in class A (from a Language College) had participated in another research project the year before this study. Furthermore, their class teacher, in classroom and staff development activities, made uncommon efforts to improve the teaching and learning of grammar, for pupils inside and outside school 1. It is therefore possible that some of the learning gains in class A were partly due to a range of fairly uncharacteristic factors.

Downloaded By: [University of York] At: 22:44 6 December 2009

CONCLUSIONS

"a certain type of input practice alone resulted in gains not only in listening and reading but also in speaking and writing"

16

This paper has presented two styles of input-based approaches to teaching grammar, PI and one type of El. One component of PI (that based most clearly on VanPatten's theory o f Input Processing) forces learners to interpret the meaning of specific target items in order to complete the task set. El, in the study reported here, combined a brief presentation of the grammar point with a flood of the target items. E1 did not force learners to interpret the meaning of the target items but provided many opportunities to 'see' or 'hear' the target form - the extent and nature of learners' attention to these forms was not dictated by the task. In this sense the EI materials represented many current listening and reading activities. The study compared these two approaches in a quasi-experiment in two English secondary schools. The methodology and findings indicated some of the complexities o f carrying out an educational experiment, for example, taking account of contextual features and maintaining the experimental protocol throughout the study. As to PI, it was suggested that for learners who are in the early stages of developing a verb inflection system, using input activities to force them to interpret the m e a n i n g of verb inflections can offer a useful technique for improving both the interpretation and production of verb inflections. PI may also promote the interpretation of verb inflections for pupils who are mol;e advanced in terms of their emerging verb inflection system (and who are perhaps also more accustomed to grammarfocussed sequences of activities). Amongst these more advanced learners, however, the findings regarding the role of PI in the production of verb inflections were less clear cut. As to El, it was found in one class that an explanation of the target grammar point and a flood of exemplars were not helpful in promoting a verb inflection system. This suggests that learners such as those in this class do not attend to verb inflections (and possibly other items of low communicative value) during listening and reading activities which contain many exemplars of the target form but which do not actually force learners to interpret its meaning. Supporting this was the finding that in another class, with learners with a more developed verb inflection system (and who were probably more accustomed to grammar-focussed sequences of activities), E1 did not improve their interpretation of verb inflections beyond that of equivalent learners in a non-active

control class. The impact of E1 on production scores in this class was not conclusive. It is suggested that laboratory-based research would be useful to pursue further the existence and nature of 'incidental' input processing amongst learners during different types of input task and at different developmental stages. Although tentative, partly due to the small scale of the study, the findings suggest that further research into PI would be worthwhile, that it had a positive impact on all learners and no negative effects when compared with either El or a non-active control. PI and El were well-received by both pupils and teachers, and almost all learners and both teachers involved commented that they would like to continue using such materials, adapted to different topics and language features. One outcome of the study, which was perhaps not intuitively appealing for participants at the outset, was that a certain type of input practice alone resulted in gains not only in listening and reading but also in speaking and writing. This emphasises the importance of considering the role of listening and reading activities in the development of learners' productive grammars. More generally, this study has suggested that a small-scale experiment was a useful way to investigate one of the techniques suggested in the Focus-on-Form literature for incorporating grammar teaching into a broadly communicative curriculum. Further such studies may be useful for exploring the relevance of other options in the Focus-on-Form literature for MFL learning in school-aged learners. Appendix 1 Example of OHT shown and read out to PI and E1 pupils before each unit

Some Hints!! To talk about what somebody else did in the past, we usually add the sound ' a ' before the main verb. For example, Present II mange

Past ~

(=he eats, is eating) Tu manges

11 a mang~

(=he ate, has eaten) ~

Tu as mang~

v

(=you eat, are eating)

(=he ate, has eaten)

What goes wrong? Learners of French seem to find this hard - they miss out the 'a' and say things like il mangk or il m a n g e or tu mang~ - but these don't tell us they are talking about the past! Why? •

•

Learners sometimes don't notice the ' a ' sound because words like 'le w e e k e n d d e r n i e r ' or 'pendant les vacances' tell us that we are talking about the past. Sometimes it can sound like there is "a" but the verb is in the present. For example, il ach~te (compared to il a achetd in the past). tu aecepte (compared to tu as acceptd).

Language LearningJournal

INPUT-BASEDGRAMMARPEDAGOGY:A COMPARISONOF TWO POSSIBILITIES

The following activities will help you to talk about what someone else did in the past.

Appendix 3 - Enriched Input activities (comparison for the PI referential activity above)

Appendix 2 PI Referential activity focussing on the auxiliary 'a' to communicate 'pastness'

Les Visiteurs I m p o r t a n t s

Les Visiteurs I m p o r t a n t s Listen to this lady talking about what Sylvie, her maid (la dom~stique) has done for some very important visitors. She lists the things the maid has already done and also the things she is doing today.

Listen to this lady talking about the preparations her maid (la dombstique), Sylvie, must do for some very important visitors - Sylvie has done some jobs but still has some to do! Number the pictures in the order you hear them. Look at the vocabulary before the tape begins.

Downloaded By: [University of York] At: 22:44 6 December 2009

Does she say the maid has already done the job (past) or the maid is doing them today? Write P (past) or T (today) next to each picture. There will be no clues like 'yesterday' or 'today'! Some verbs have d in the past, others don't!

~

4. : listen carefully for the c l u e ~ - ~

elle (today) elle a (past)

Vocabulaire!

A_

l'aspirateur

=

hoover

la vaisselle

=

washing up

la poubelle

=

rubbish bin

les serviettes

=

towels

essuyer

=

to mop up

envoyer

=

to send

acheter

=

to buy

arranger

=

to arrange

Transcript

Transcript 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

La dom6stique fait les lits Elle a sorti la poubelle Sylvie passe l'aspirateur Elle fait le th6 Etle a fait la vaisselle La dom6stique lave les serviettes Elle a achet6 les fleurs Elle essuie Sylvie a envoy6 les invitations Elle finit les gateaux Elle arrange les fleurs

No 31 Summer 2005

1. 2. 3. 4.

Ce matin, la dom6stique fait les lits Hier elle a sorti la poubelle Sylvie passe l'aspirateur cet apr6s-midi Elle fait le th6 pour les visiteurs quand ils arrivent 5. Elle a fait la vaissette bier soir. 6. La dom6stique lave les serviettes ce matin. 7. Hier, elle a achet6 les fleurs. 8. Elle essuie, dans la cuisine. 9. Sylvie a envoy6 les invitations il y a deux semaines. 10. Elle finit les g~teaux cet apr6s-midi. 11. Ce matin, il faut qu'elle arrange les fleurs

17

E MARSDEN

Appendix 4 Results of non-parametric statistical tests to compare language test results Test Listening

Chi-Square Sig.

Reading

Chi-Square Sig.

Writing

Chi-Square Sig.

Speaking

Chi-Square Sig.

Class A, E1

Class A, PI

Class B, E1

Class B, PI

20.593

15.571

.120

.000

.000

.942

13.857

11.593

1.059

10.302

.001

.003

.589

.006

17.714

20.800

3.500

6.143

.000

.000

.174

.046

7.000

4.323

1.143

9.056

.030

.115

.565

.011

3.857 • 14521

Table 3: Friedman analyses o f variance o f pre, p o s t and delayed post test scores

POST - P R E 22 Listening

Class A, El

Z Sig.

Class A, PI

Z Sig.

Class B, PI

Z

Class A, El

Z

Class A, PI

Z

Class B, PI

Z

Class A, EI

Z

Downloaded By: [University of York] At: 22:44 6 December 2009

Sig. Reading

Sig. Sig. Sig. Writing

Sig. Class A, PI

Z Sig.

Class B, PI

Z Sig.

Speaking

Class A, El

Z Sig.

Class A, PI

Z Sig.

Class B, PI

Z Sig.

-3.235

DP - PRE Although both groups maintained significant

.001

gains, N/A due to teaching of target forms

-3.204

between post and dp tests

.001 -2.262

-1.570

.012

.058

-3.111

N/A

.001 -2.764 .003 -2.830

-2.639

.003

.004

-3.170 .001

N/A

-3.351 .001 -1.915

-2.417

.028

.008

-2.380 .009

N/A

-1.540 .062 -1.956

-1.897

.025

.029

Table 4: Wilcoxon tests o f differences between pairs o f scores

REFERENCES Allford, D. (2003), "'Grasping the nettle': aspects of grammar in the mother tongue and foreign languages", Language Learning Journal, vol. 27, pp. 24-32. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000), "Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: form, meaning, and use", Language Learning, vol. 50, no. Supplement 1. Bassey, M., Hallam, S., & Pollard, A. (2001), Fuzzy Generalisation: transforming research findings into fuzzy predictions which can inform teachers ', policy-makers ', and researchers' discourse and action. BERA Symposium at AERA, Seattle 12 April 2001. Benati, A. 2001, "A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense", Language Teaching Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 95-127. Benati, A. (2004), "The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense" in Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, 18

and Commentary, B. VanPatten, ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (1997), Quantitative Data Analysis for SPSS with Windows. London: Routledge. Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A., and Williams, E. (1994), Grammar and the Language Teacher. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Chambers, G. (2000), "Motivation and the Learners of Modem Languages," in New Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Modern Languages, S. Green, ed., Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 46-76. Corder, S. (1978), "Language-learner language," in Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning: Issues and Approaches, J. Richards, ed., Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, pp. 71-93. DeKeyser, R. (1998), "Beyond focus on form: cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing a second language grammar," in Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, C. Doughty & J. Williams, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42-63. DfEE (1999), Modern Foreign Languages: The National Language LearningJournal

Downloaded By: [University of York] At: 22:44 6 December 2009

INPUT-BASEDGRAMMARPEDAGOGY:A COMPARISONOF TWO POSSIBILITIES

Curriculum. London: DfEE. DIES (2003), Framework for teaching modern foreign languages: Years 7, 8 and 9. London: DIES. Dienes, Z., Broadbent, D., & Berry, D. (1991), "Implicit and explicit knowledge bases in artificial grammar learning", Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, vol. 17, pp. 875-887. Dobson, A. (1998), MFL Inspected: Reflections on inspection findings 1996-7. London: CILT. Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (1998), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (1999), "Input-based Approaches to Teaching Grammar: A Review of Classroom-Oriented Research", Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, voI. I9, pp. 64-80. Green, P. and Hecht, K. (1992), "Implicit and explicit grammar: an empirical study", Applied Linguistics, vo[. 13, pp. 168-184. Harley, B. 1992, "Patterns of second language development in French immersion", French Language Studies, voI. 2, pp. 159-183. Hawkins, E. (1996), 30 Years of Language Teaching. London: CILT. Hawkins, R. (2001), Second Language Syntax. Oxford, Blackwell. Howe, A. (2004), Developments in Approaches to Grammar in the Key Stage 3 National Strategy, or Touching the Void, Presentation to the Committee on Linguistics in Education, ftp://ftp.phon.ucl.ae.uk/pub/Word-Grammar/ec/howe.ppt, HMSO lzumi, S. (2002), "Output, input enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 541-577. Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1983), The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. New York: Alemany Press. Lightbown, P. (2003), "SLA research in the classroom/SLA research for the classroom", Language Learning Journal no. 28, pp. 4-13. Macrory, G. and Stone, V. (2000), "Pupil progress in the acquisition of the perfect tense in French: the relationship between knowledge and use", Language Teaching Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 44-82. McNab, R. (1994), Avantage 3. London: Heinemann Educational. Marsden, E. (2004), Teaching and Learning of French Verb Inflections: A Classroom Experiment Using Processing Instruction, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton. Mitchell, R. (1994), "Grammar and teaching," in Grammar and the Language Teacher, M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, and E. Williams, eds., Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall, pp. 215223. Mitchell, R. (2000), "Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice: the case of foreign language grammar pedagogy", Annual Review of Applied Linguistics pp. 281303. Mitchell, R. and Brumfit, C. (2001), "The place of knowledge about language," in Reflections on Language and Language Learning. In honour of Arthur van Essen, M. Bax & J.-W. Zwart, eds., Amsterdam: Benjamins pp. 27%292. Mitchell, R. and Dickson, P. (1997), "Progression in Foreign Language Learning", Centre for Language in Education Occasional Paper No.45, University of Southampton. Mitchell, R. and Hogg, I. (200I), "Evaluation of'Best Practice' Research in Modem Foreign Languages", Paper presented at the BERA Annual Meeting at the University of Leeds. Mitchell, R. and Martin, C. (1997), "Rote learning, creativity and 'understanding' in classroom foreign language teaching", Language Teaching Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp.

no. 3, pp. 323-363. Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (2000), "Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative metaanalysis", Language Learning, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 417-528. Of STED (2002), Ofsted Subject Reports: Secondary Modern Foreign Languages 2000-2001. London: Of STED. Of STED (2004), The Key Stage 3 Strategy: evaluation of the thirdyear. London: Of STED. Pachler, N. (2003), "Foreign language teaching as an evidencebased profession?", Language Learning Journal, vol. 27, pp. 4-14. Pienemann, M. (1998), Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. QCA (2000) Schemes of Work fbr Key Stage 3 French. London: Qualification and Curriculum Authority. Robinson, P. (1995), "Attention, Memory, and the 'Noticing Hypothesis'", Language Learning, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 283331. Sharwood Smith, M. (1993), "'Input enhancement in instructed SLA: theoretical bases", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 165-180. Siegel, S. (1956), Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. Swain, M. 1995, "Three functions of output in second language learning," in Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics, G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer, eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 125-144. Swain, M. 2000, "French immersion research in Canada: recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics.", Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 20, pp. 199212. TerrelI, T. (199I), "The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach", The Modern Language Journal, vol. 75, pp. 52-63. Truscott, J. (1998), "Noticing in second language acquisition: a critical review", Second Language Research, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 103-135. Turner, K. (1995), Listening in a Foreign Language: a skill we take for granted? Pathfinder 26, London: CILT. VanPalten, B. (1996), Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. VanPatten, B. (2002), "Processing Instruction: An Update", Language Learning, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 755-803. VanPatten, B. (2004), "Input Processing in SLA," in Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, g. VanPatten, ed., Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlhaum. VanPatten, B. and Cadiemo, T. (1993), "Explicit instruction and input processing", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 15, pp. 225-241.

NOTES

2

3

4

1-27.

Myles, F. (2003), "The early development of L2 narratives: a longitudinal study", Marges Linguistiques, vol. 2, no. 5, p. http://www.marges-linguistiques.com. Myles, F. in press, "The emergence of morpho-syntactic structure in French L2," in Focus on French as a Foreign Language, J. Dewaele, ed., Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Myles, F., Hooper, J., and Mitchell, R. (1998), "Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning.", Language Learning, vol. 48,

No 31 Summer 2005

5

6

This article disseminates the findings from a study carried out for an ESRC-funded PhD, in which many of the issues and claims raised here are dealt with more fully (Marsden 2004). There is wide consensus, from a range of theoretical perspectives (Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Pienemann 1998; Hawkins 2001, Lightbown 2003), regarding the existence of fairly fixed developmental routes regardless of the learning context and to some extent even of the L 1. Language competence in this study was operationalised via grammaticality judgement tests, often thought to represent 'implicit' knowledge, as is semi-spontaneous oral production. It is acknowledged that differentiating between input and output activities is difficult due to issues such as sub-vocal rehearsal and auto-input. Such issues are set aside for the purposes of this discussion. By extension, the theory also suggests that if learners make a non-target-like form-meaning connection from the input, this can lead to non-target-like productions. The material in the appendices represents a very small sample of the materials used in the study. They can be used and/or adapted by readers for their own learners, topics and grammar points. More examples are available on request.

19

E MARSDEN 7

The PI research agenda now constitutes a significant body of classroom-based studies (see, e.g. Benati 2001; VanPatten 2001 and 2004). However, previous studies have compared PI to some kind of production practice. They have generally found that PI is of equal or greater benefit for learning a range of target fornas, but these studies do not compare PI to other input-based activities.

8

The decision to use top ability sets was taken by the participating schools.

9

It is likely that learners from years 7 and 8 would not have been developmentally ready to benefit as clearly from the planned intervention.

10

In terms of A*-C passes at GCSE.

1~ Pretest scores from each class were ranked and the two learners who achieved the top two scores were randomly assigned to either the PI or El groups etc. ~2 This included various error correction strategies, translation, metalinguistic information and audio-lingual style automisation practice.

These non-parametric tests were used as they do not require the data to meet certain assumptions. Statistical analyses are presented at length in Marsden 2004 or can be provided on request. ~7 Although the El often focussed learners' attention on lexical items and therefore may be considered more suited to teaching vocabulary, it was not found that the El learners produced any more verbs than the PI learners in the speaking and writing post or delayed post tests. ~8 Although they maintained or improved these at delayed post tests, this could be attributable to the grammar teaching which occurred after the experimental intervention. ~9 This would not have affected the other pretest scores as the speaking tests were carried out last in the battery of tests. 20 Two teachers, in school 1, were invited to participate via on-going contacts with their local University and the teacher in school 2 via the local MFL advisor. 21

This is the only p value for the Friedman test for class B's PI group, which is not significant at the 95% confidence level. However, the paired Wilcoxon tests suggest that there were clear differences between pre and post tests.

22

One tailed tests were carried out to test the hypothesis that the post and dp test scores were statistically significantly higher than the pre test scores. As there was no experimental intervention between the post and dp tests, two tailed tests were carried out to test the null hypothesis that there was no statistically significant difference between these tests.

13 Even though class C did not experience the alternating teaching in split classes, it was considered a useful comparison for class A. ~4 Two versions of the tests were used to improve the range of language items being tested and to decrease the likelihood that learners were simply learning specific items in the test. T tests showed that the two versions obtained equivalent results. Downloaded By: [University of York] At: 22:44 6 December 2009

~5 It would have been preferable to obtain inter-rater reliability for this, but unfortunately time and funds did not allow.

20

Language Learning Journal