Teacher-andlearner-leddiscourseinL2Spanishdevelopment.ppt

Teacher- and learner-led discourse as tools for L2 grammatical development in task-based Spanish instruction Paul D. Toth University of Wisconsin-Madison ptoth@wisc.edu 2007 TLBT Conference, University of Hawai’i Instruction L2 grammatical development Provision of comprehensible L2 input via: Modifications to instructional speech or materials Opportunities for learner negotiation Attention directed to L2 form-meaning relationships via: Salience in instructional speech or materials Explicit, metalinguistic information about the L2 Feedback on learner performance Opportunities for L2 output (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2000) Learners “pushed” to encode meaning in morphosyntax Test hypotheses about L2 form-meaning relationships Notice gaps in L2 grammar Conceptualize L2 grammar through “metatalk” Task-Based Instruction “Require[s] learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective” (Bygate, Skehan, Swain, 2001, p. 11) “Focused tasks” target the purposeful use of specific L2 structures to express meaning (Ellis, 2003, p. 16) Descriptions = adjective agreement Narration = past tense and aspect marking Requests of others = subjunctive mood Explaining procedures = impersonal passive Narrating spontaneous events = inchoative verbs Learner-Led Discourse Strengths: More like real world communication (Nunan, 1987) Participatory structure more suitable for negotiation, especially during “information gap” tasks (Pica, 1987; Pica et al., 1993) More discourse turns per learner = more opportunities for negotiation (Lee, 2000; Long Porter, 1985) Greater linguistic autonomy and self-regulation (van Lier, 1996) Learners assist each other during task performance (Donato, 1994; Swain, 1998, 2000; Swain Lapkin, 1995) Learner-Led Discourse Weaknesses: Learners often produce minimal utterances (Seedhouse, 1999) Learners are poor L2 models for each other (Prabhu, 1987) Learners prefer to focus on lexical rather than morphosyntactic L2 issues when negotiating (B