LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Searle, Clari (2008)
Publisher: Univesity of Warwick
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: LB
In my ten years of teaching, I’ve spent a\ud considerable amount of time devising the best\ud ways to teach linguistic elements, such as grammar\ud or pronunciation targets. Increasingly it seems to\ud me that this vantage could be fundamentally\ud flawed, as it focuses too heavily on product rather\ud than process. Here, I’m thinking of classes where\ud teachers strive to develop ‘authentic’ practice\ud situations that require the use of certain targets or\ud products. Their lesson plan focuses on the target\ud and the learners are encouraged to do the same\ud with practice activities. It begs the question,\ud wouldn’t it be more authentic to start with the\ud process? To start with the task and see what kind\ud of linguistic structures this engenders?
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
    • Feez, S. 1998. Text-Based Syllabus Design. Sydney: National Centre for English Teaching and Research.
    • Gass, S. M. 1991. 'Grammar instruction, selective attention and learning processes'. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith and M. Swain (eds), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research (pp.134-141). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    • Gass, S. M. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Gass, S. M. & E. M. Varonis. 1994. 'Input, interaction, and second language production'. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 283-302.
    • Holt, J. 1993. 'We learn by doing'. In J. Canfield & M. V. Hansen (compiled by), Chicken Soup for the Soul: 101 Stories to Open the Heart and Rekindle the Spirit (p.29). Deerfield Beach, FL: HCI.
    • Long, M. H. 1996. 'The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition'. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    • Mitchell, R. & F. Myles. 1998. Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold.
    • Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Richards, J. C. & T. S. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Schmidt, R. 1990. 'The role of consciousness in second language learning'. Applied Linguistics 11: 17- 46.
    • Schmidt, R. & S. N. Frota. 1986. Developing basic conversation ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp.237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    • Sharwood Smith, M. 1993. 'Input enhancement in instructed SLA: theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 165-179.
    • Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Learning Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Willis, J. & D. Willis. (eds) 1996. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article