Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:36:45.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A priori assessment of language learning tasks by practitioners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2009

Gerard J. Westhoff
Gerard J. Westhoff*
Affiliation:
Utrecht University, The [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Teachers' competence to estimate the effectiveness of learning materials is important and often neglected in programmes for teacher education. In this lecture I will try to explore the possibilities of designing scaffolding instruments for a priori assessment of language learning tasks, based on insights from SLA and cognitive psychology, more specifically connectionist theory. I will subsequently outline the development and evaluation of a ‘yardstick’ to judge complex, integrated, life-like tasks, such as WebQuests. The possibilities will be explored of performing in-depth a priori task analyses as a learning task for teachers in order to enhance their competence in making ‘educated guesses’ about task effectiveness. Finally, an experiment will be described to determine the reliability and validity of an instrument for in-depth analysis of language learning tasks based on the theoretical framework previously described.

Type
Plenary Speeches
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 504 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th edn.). New York: Worth.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice (revised edn.). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2001). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist 56, 849–864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, C. (1991). Implications of connectionism for thinking about rules. Educational Researcher 20, 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, C. (2002). Liberal education in a knowledge society. In Smith, B. (ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society. Peru, IL: Carus, 11–34.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P. (1987). Language learning tasks. In Candlin, C. N. & Murphy, D. F. (eds.), Learner contributions to task design. London: Prentice Hall, 5–23.Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th edn.). White Plains, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
Burgess, J. & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit. System 3.4, 433–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Carroll, D. W. (2004). Psychology of language (4th edn.). London: Wadsworth.Google ScholarPubMed
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning 46.3, 529–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, & Long, (eds.), 313–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55.1, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodge, B. (1995). Some thoughts about WebQuests. http://WebQuest.sdsu.edu/materials.htm.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation and enhancement. In Doughty, & Long, (eds.), 256–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.) (2003). Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Driessen, C. (2003). Analyzing textbook tasks and the professional development of foreign language teachers. Utrecht: WCC.Google Scholar
Driessen, C., Westhoff, G., Haenen, J. & Brekelmans, M. (2008). A qualitative analysis of language learning tasks: The design of a tool. Journal of Curriculum Studies 40.1, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gasser, M. (1990). Connectionism and universals of second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12.2, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greeno, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situativity and symbols: Response to Vera and Simon. Cognitive Science 17, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (eds.) (2005). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Klausmeier, H. J. & Allen, P. S. (1978). Cognitive development of children and youth: A longitudinal study. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (revised edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language educational policy. The Modern Language Journal 91.4, 645–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communication strategy. Applied Linguistics 22.2, 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Bot, K. D., Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 40–52.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, W. E. (2001). The school textbook: Geography, history and social studies. London: Woburn Press.Google Scholar
Matos, G. de (2000). Teachers as textbook evaluators: An interdisciplinary checklist. IATEFL Issues 157, 7–9.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E. & Hinton, G. E. (1986). The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. (eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the ministructure of cognition (vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books, 3–44.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd edn.). London & NewYork: Arnold.Google Scholar
Moonen, M. (2008). Testing the multi-feature hypothesis: Tasks mental action and second language acquisition. Utrecht: IVLOS Series.Google Scholar
Moonen, M., De Graaff, R. & Westhoff, G. J. (2006). Focused tasks, mental actions and second language teaching: Cognitive and connectionist accounts of task effectiveness. ITL – International Journal on Applied Linguistics (special issue: Task-based Language Teaching) 152, 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F., Hooper, J. & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning 48.3, 323–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nobuyoshi, J. & Ellis, R. (1993). Focussed communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal 47, 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. & Ortega, L.. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50.3, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, K. (1998). Language acquisition and connectionism. In Plunkett, K. (ed.), Language acquisition and connectionism. Hove: Psychology Press, 97–105.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C. & Brewer, W. S. (eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 33–58.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J. & Montague, W. E. (eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 99–135.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In Schmitt, N. (ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., Dörnyei, Z., Adolphs, S. & Durow, V. (2004). Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequence: A longitudinal study. In Schmitt, N. (ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 55–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching 30, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–144.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16, 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, et al. (eds.), 99–118.Google Scholar
Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning 56.2, 319–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesche, M. (1993). Discipline-based approaches to language study: Research issues and outcomes. In Krueger, M. & Ryan, F. (eds.), Language and content. Lexington, MA.: D. C. Heath, 80–95.Google Scholar
Westhoff, G. J. (1991a). Increasing the effectiveness of foreign language reading instruction (part 1). ADFL Bulletin 22.2, 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westhoff, G. J. (1991b). Increasing the effectiveness of foreign language reading instruction (part 2). ADFL Bulletin 22.3, 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westhoff, G. J. (2004). The art of playing a pinball machine: Characteristics of effective SLA tasks. Babylonia 12.3, 58–63.Google Scholar
Westhoff, G. J. (2007). Challenges and opportunities of the CEFR for reimagining foreign language pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal 91.4, 676–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Baisingstoke: Longman.Google Scholar