Dictogloss and the production of the English third person -s by CLIL and mainstream EFL learnersa comparative study

  1. Basterrechea Lozano, María
  2. García Mayo, María del Pilar
Revista:
IJES: international journal of English studies

ISSN: 1578-7044

Año de publicación: 2014

Volumen: 14

Número: 2

Páginas: 77-98

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.6018/J.177321 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: IJES: international journal of English studies

Resumen

El presente estudio compara atención a la forma en contextos de Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenido y Lengua Extranjera (AICLE) e Inglés como Lengua Extranjera (ILE) en la producción de una marca morfológica concreta, la �s de la tercera persona del singular del presente simple del inglés. La investigación llevada a cabo en contextos AICLE sobre provisión de marcas morfológicas concretas no ha sido concluyente. En este sentido, se sabe muy poco acerca de si esta aproximación metodológica afecta a la atención a aspectos formales por parte de los aprendices que completan una dictoglosia (Wajnryb, 1990). Ciento dieciséis aprendices adolescentes (AICLE, n=54; ILE, n=62) de la Comunidad Autónoma Vasca completaron una dictoglosia en grupo o de forma individual. Los resultados del estudio demostraron que los aprendices AICLE produjeron la marca morfológica más frecuentemente que los alumnos ILE, pero no de forma significativa, y que los alumnos que trabajaron de forma colaborativa en el grupo AICLE obtuvieron resultados significativamente superiores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interaction with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 29-52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Alegría de la Colina, A. & García Mayo, M.P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Settings(pp. 91-116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Artigal, J.M. (1993). Catalan and Basque immersion programmes. In H. Baetens Beardsmore (Ed.), European Models of Bilingual Education. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.
  • Basterrechea, M. & García Mayo, M. P. (2013). Language-related episodes (LREs) during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough, & A. Mackey (Eds.),Second Language Interaction in Diverse Educational Contexts (pp.25-43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Basterrechea, M., GarcíaMayo, M. P.& Leeser, M. J. (2014).Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss: task implementation in the CLIL classroom. Porta Linguarum, 22,7-22.
  • Bailey, N., Madden, C. & Krashen, S. D. (1974). Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235-243.
  • Ball, P. & Lindsay, D. (2010). Teacher training for CLIL in the Basque Country: The case of theikastolas –An expediency model. In D. Lasagabaster &Y.Ruiz de Zarobe(Eds.),CLIL in Spain(pp. 162-182). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
  • Bongartz, C. (2003). Grammar growth and L1 transfer: On accuracy development inimmersion programs. In J. Rymarczyk & H. Haudeck (Eds.), In Search of The Active Learner(pp. 99-115). FrankfurtM.: Peter Lang.
  • Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
  • Bruton, A. (2011). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusiadue to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010). Applied Linguistics,32(2),236-241.
  • Commission of European Communities (2003). Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006. Retrieved from:http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0449:FIN:EN:PDF
  • Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Toward a connected researchagenda for CLIL pedagogies. The International Journal of Bilingual EducationandBilingualism, 10, 543-562.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content-and-language-integrated Learning (CLIL)Classrooms. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U (2013). Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4),545-559.
  • DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning secondlanguage grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning,55, 1-25.
  • Dulay, H.C., & Burt, M.K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245-258.
  • Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24(1), 37–53.
  • Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair and individual work.Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1),40-58.
  • García Mayo, M. P. (2002). The effectiveness of two focus-on-form tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,12(2): 156-175.
  • García Mayo, M.P. (Ed.) (2007). Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • García Mayo, M. P. (2012). The relevance of attention to form in communicative classroom contexts. ELIA -Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada,11,11-45.
  • García Mayo, M.P., & Villarreal Olaizola, I. (2011). Thedevelopment of suppletive and affixal tense and agreement morphemes in the L3 English of Basque-Spanish bilinguals. Second Language Research, 27,129-149.
  • García Mayo, M.P., Lázaro Ibarrola, A., & Liceras. J.M. (2005). Placeholders in the English interlanguage of Bilingual (Basque/Spanish) children. Language Learning,55,445-489.
  • Goldshneider, J. & DeKeyser, R. (2005). Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 55, Supplement 1: 27-77.
  • Han, Z. (2008). On the role of meaning in focus on form. In Z. Han (Ed.),UnderstandingSecond Language Process(pp. 45-79). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • ISEI-ISVEI (2007). Alumnado trilingüe en secundaria: una nueva realidad (Trilingual students in high school: a new reality). Retrieved from: http://www.isei-ivei.net/cast/pub/Alumnado-triling-final.pdf
  • Jexenflicker, S. & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). TheCLIL potential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In C.Daton-Puffer, T. Nikula & U. Smit (Eds.), Language Use and LanguageLearningin CLIL Classrooms(pp. 169-190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2005). Noticing and the role of interaction in promoting language learning. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in Instructed SecondLanguage Learning(pp. 353-382). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory(pp. 102-129). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
  • Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFLclasses. International CLIL Research Journal,1(2), 4-17. Retrieved from:http://www.icrj.eu/index.php?vol=12&page=73
  • Lázaro Ibarrola, A. (2012). Faster and further morphosyntactic development of CLIL vs. EFL Basque-Spanish bilinguals learning English in high-school. International Journal of English Studies, 12(1),79-96.
  • Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
  • Luk, Z. P. & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural –s, articles,and possessive’s. Language Learning,59(4), 721-754.
  • Marsh, D. (Ed.) (2002). CLIL/EMILE –The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. Bruxelles: The European Commission.
  • Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in Multilingual Education.Macmillan: Oxford.
  • Moore, P. (2011). Collaborative interaction in turn-taking: a comparative study of European bilingual (CLIL) and mainstream (MS) foreign language learners in early secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,14,1-19.
  • Nikula, T. (2012). On the role of peer discussions in the learning of subject-specific language use in CLIL.In E. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont-Jordà (Eds.), Discourse and Language Learning across L2 Instructional Settings(pp.133-154). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15,315-341.
  • Prévost, P. & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research,16, 103-133.
  • Richards, J. (1973). Error analysis and second language strategies. In J. Oller & J. Richards (Eds.), Focus on the Learner: Pragmatic Perspectives for the Language Teacher.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Jiménez Catalán, R. (2009). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Evidence from Research in Europe.Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Scott, M. & Tucker,G. (1974). Error analysis and English language strategies of Arab students. Language Learning,24(1), 69-97.
  • Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for the acquisition of semantics. Second Language Research,22(3), 302-338.
  • Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the Second Language.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing,14,153-173.
  • Syndicate, U.C.L.E. (2001). Quick Placement Test.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing”. ELT Journal, 51,326-335.
  • VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction. New York: Ablex
  • VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition. An Introduction(pp. 115-135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Villarreal Olaizola, I., & García Mayo, M.P. (2009).Tense and agreement morphologyin the interlanguage of Basque-Spanish bilinguals: Content-based learning vs the learning of English as a school subject. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Evidence from Research in Europe(pp.157-175). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Zobl, H. & Liceras, J. (1994). Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning, 44, 159-180.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet