Interlanguage-stretching activities within a task-based empirical

pedagogyTom Means, tmeans@marlboro.edu

Marlboro College, Vermont, USA

Larry Selinker, larry.selinker@nyu.eduNew York University, NYC

Researchproductionassociates.com

Definition of Interlanguage (IL)-stretching in this study

• IL-stretching of Accuracy

• IL-stretching of Delivery (Fluency)

Definition of Empirical Pedagogy

• Following Han and Selinker (1999)

• Input-Heavy TBI (Means, 2006)

• Underpinned by Cognitive Approach (Skehan, 1998)

Input-heavy TBI(of Italian as a FL in U.S.A)

(Needs Analysis)

• Pre-task– Input floods– Task-relevant production activities

• During-task– Time pressure– Recording

• Post-task- Self-transcript

- Grammar activities

Input-Heavy TBI asEmpirical Pedagogy

• Research base

• Institutional implementation– Large US university (3rd year)– Small US university (2nd year)

• TBI as a vehicle for:– Copious input, interaction, output, feedback

The Study

• Central Hypothesis of the study:

TBI will better promote accuracy and fluency than TI of Italian as a FL.

The Study

• Ecologically valid– Representative– Intended audience: researchers, teachers,

administrators, students

• Fine-grained

• 9-week method comparison study involving TBI and TI of Italian as a FL

The Study:Who/When/Where

• Participants

• Research Setting(s)

• Subject recruitment and selection

• Treatment calendar

The Study: Treatment of TBI Group

• Research-based – Primacy of input– Psycholinguistic merits of output

• Three-phase cycle

• Types of tasks

The Study: Treatment of TI Group

• Empirical base

• 4-phase cycle

How were the independent variables manipulated consistently?

• Methodologies of language instruction– Task-based Instruction (TBI)

• Unit of analysis = 3 task cycles

– Traditional Instruction (TI)• Unit of analysis = 3 textbook chapters

Dependent variables

• Accuracy– Grammatical gender agreement in the noun phrase

• Determiner-noun agreement– un fratello; *uno fratello– Il mese; *i mese

• Noun-adjective agreement– piatto giallo; *giallo piatto– Il mese scorso; *la mesa scorsa

• Fluency– Oral fluency (spoken syllables per minute)– Written fluency (written words per minute)

Measurements

• Battery of 4 tests– Controlled-production tests

• Test 1: Create Complete Sentences• Test 2: Narrative Rewriting

– Spontaneous-production tests• Test 3: Narrative Retelling• Test 4: Family Tree

• Data collection

Results of statistical analyses

Accuracy Results

– In controlled tests• Marginal advantage for TBI group

– In spontaneous tests• Marginal advantage for TBI group

Accuracy resultsTest 4: Mean Scores of D-N GG Agreement Accuracy in Family Tree Test

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pretest Posttest Delayed PT

TBI TI

No statistical significant differences.

Fluency Results

Oral Fluency• Significant advantage for TBI group

Written Fluency• Significant advantage for TBI group (at

posttest only)

Oral fluency gains

Test 4: Family Tree Mean Scores for Oral Fluency

0.020.040.060.080.0

100.0120.0

Pretest Posttest Delayed PT

TBI TI

Statistically significant difference for TBI at both times; none for TI.

Written fluency gains

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pretest Posttest Delayed

TBI

TI

Statistical significance for TBI group at both points. For TI, only at delayed

Examples from the data

• Analysis of accuracy from Test #1

• TI subject # 5080Pretest Posttest Delayed Posttest

la forma la forma *forma

• TBI subject #3262Pretest Posttest Delayed Posttest

*il spettacolo *il spettacolo lo spettacolo

Examples from the data

• Analysis of oral fluency from Test #3

• TBI subject # 6211– Pretest performance: 58 syllables p/m– Delayed posttest performance: 107

• TI subject # 5080– Pretest performance: 80 syllables p/m– Delayed posttest performance: 82

Discussion

• Central Hypothesis of the study: TBI will better promote accuracy and fluency than TI of Italian as a FL.

• Was the central Hypothesis retained?

– Fluency mode

– Accuracy mode

Why was IL better delivered by Input-Heavy TBI?

• Teacher is decentralized

• Collaborative, structured input

• Meets head-on the challenge of producing spontaneous oral language

Why was IL better promoted with Input-Heavy TBI?

(at a marginal level)

• Language as vehicle and object

• Engagement of rule-based mode

• Problems with the language feature in question, grammatical gender (Swain, 2005)

Implications

• For language instruction in foreign language settings– a “usable” pedagogy that is empirical

• For research in Second Language Acquisition

Conclusions

• Input-Heavy TBI as an Empirical Pedagogy

– Empirical method comparison study• Analyzing fluency and accuracy improvement (IL-stretching)

– Contributes some evidence of TBI’s effectiveness

– Creation of replicable TBI model, “Input-Heavy” that is flexible and adaptable

– Initiation of a TBI line of study that is fundamentally an educationally-relevant endeavor

Bibliography

• Han, Z and Selinker, L. 1999. ‘Error Resistance: Towards an Empirical Pedagogy.’ Language Teaching Research, 3.3, 248-275.

• Means, T. 2006. A Comparative Study of Task-based and Traditional Instruction of Intermediate Italian: Findings on Accuracy and Fluency. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New Jersey

• Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: OUP

• Swain, M. 2005. ‘The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research.’ in E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.