APPL902ass2 227KB Jun 06 2013 04:38:35 PM

Linguistics Department Assignment Coversheet

(Electronic submission)

Family Name: Hinton Given Name: Benjamin Amos

Student Number: 43061648 Year & Semester: 2013, Semester 1

Unit code: APPL902 Unit title: Research Methods in Language Study

Tutor’s name:

Associate Professor Abdolmehdi Riazi

Tutorial Day: N/A Tutorial Time: N/A

Assignment number: 2

Assignment Title: Assignment 2, Critical Review Paper

Declaration

(This declaration must be signed by the student or the assignment will not be marked.)

I certify the following:



I have read and understood the University's Plagiarism Policy, available at:

<www.student.mq.edu.au/plagiarism/>.



This assignment is my own work based on my personal study and or research.



I have acknowledged all material and sources used in the preparation of this assignment including any material generated in the course of my employment.



The assignment has not previously been submitted for assessment.



I have not copied in part or in whole or otherwise plagiarised the work of other students.



I have read and I understand the criteria used for assessment.



The assignment is within the word and page limits specified in the unit outline.



The use of any material in this assignment does not infringe the intellectual property / copyright of a third party.



I understand that this assignment may undergo electronic detection for plagiarism, and an anonymous copy of the assignment may be retained on the database and used to make comparisons with other assignments in future.



By completing this coversheet in full and submitting this assignment electronically, I am bound by the conditions of the University's Plagiarism

Policy and the declaration on this coversheet.

Signature

20 April, 2013

Date

Ben Hinton 43061648 APPL902 Assignment 2 Page 1 of 26

Introduction

This critical review pursues a newly reformulated 1 primary research question:

What do the various perspectives on the distinction between implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge reveal about the possible interactions between these two kinds of knowledge?

Definitions for the terms ‘implicit knowledge’ (hereafter IK) and ‘explicit knowledge’ (hereafter EK) have been adopted from Ellis (2009) as they encapsulate with clarity 2 the various phrases used by earlier researchers to gloss these distinctions:

‘IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE is intuitive, procedural, systematically variable, automatic, and thus available for use in fluent, unplanned language use. It is not verbalizable. According to some theorists it is only learnable before learners reach a critical age (for example, puberty).

EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE is conscious, declarative, anomalous, and inconsistent (i.e. it takes the form of ‘fuzzy’ rules inconsistently applied) and generally only accessible through controlled processing in planned language use. It is verbalizable, in which case it entails semi-technical or technical metalanguage. Like any type of factual knowledge, it is potentially learnable at any age.’ (p 418)

This review will also follow the opinion of Ellis (2009) that the ‘correlation between informal learning and natural settings on the one hand, and formal learning and educational settings on the other’ (p 288) is at best a crude one and

1 Based on the advice of Dr Judie Cross.

2 Krashen (1981; 1982) for example refers to IK as acquisition and EK as learning. Terminology that could conceivably haze the meaning of other important SLA terms such as L1 acquisition and

L2 acquisition.


so focus instead on EK/IK interactions rather than knowledge/context 3 interactions.

To provide coherent and well-developed structure for this review, ‘Cooper’s

Taxonomy of Literature Reviews’ as cited in Randolph (2009) was considered and a table of desirable characteristics for this review created (See Appendix E,

Table 2).

As regards coverage (article selection), a purposive sample approach that sought out central and pivotal research on the topic was adopted. This was considered necessary as:

 there is appears to be a relatively small body of research to select from authored by SLA researchers (as opposed to Cognitive

Psychology researchers) studying this view of L2 representation 4

 there is now as noted by Ellis (2009) widespread acceptance amongst

SLA researchers that explicit and implicit knowledge are valid constructs and so a considerable portion of the literature is now less relevant to recent research.

An effort has also been made to apply the adjectival criteria suggested by

Riazi (2013) bearing in mind that one criteria may affect another (See Appendix

D) and to provide for a balance between studies that sample literature and studies that sample learners.

3 Though for the praxis of an individual teacher an understanding of context would seem vital. I have personally gained much from reading the chapter on China in Tollefson (1991) that treats macro structural context settings.

4 This becomes apparent when reading the brief review of research on this view of L2 representation by Ellis, 2009, p 417-427.


Akakura, Motoko. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language

Teaching Research, 16(1), 9-37

Akakura examines the effectiveness of explicit instruction on L2 learners explicit but also implicit knowledge.

Considered as a way to allow learners an active role in the process, four assessment activities were delivered amongst 94 participants in New Zealand for whom English is an L2 using Computer Assisted Language Learning CALL. The activities included fairly typical activities for an EK/IK study such as grammaticality judgement tasks (based on the notion that some grammar features are difficult to infer with IK students and so clearly test EK) but were also balanced with oral production and metalinguistic knowledge tasks.

Based on results that over time (the research included in its design posttesting samples) suggested the durability and robustness of the effectiveness of explicit instruction as well as that EK could have an effect on IK, Akakura notes quite correctly that the study was limited by a need for deeper research into task complexity.


Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning.

Language Learning, 28(1), 69-83

Bialystok is an example of an early pivotal article that proposes an interface model to account for discrepancies both in individual achievement and in various aspects of second language learning.

The operation of the model is described in terms of:

 learning processes (which are mandatory and hold for all learners).

 learning strategies (optional adjustments for the individual language learner). Importantly, learning strategies determine the efficiency

(Bialystok does not use the word ‘applicability’) of the model as it applies to individual learners.

According to Bialystok the model is descriptive (incorporates ideas that arise in the literature), explanatory (suggesting processes that describe the nature of the effect and their interaction) and predictive (language learning outcomes may be predicted by considering conditions outlined in the model).

Key to the strength of the model, nonetheless is that feature which Bialystok refers to as generality. Which is to say that rather than describing the differences between individual language learners, the model describes the way in which humans may behave given certain restrictions.

As Ellis (2009) points out, Bialystok's position on L2 learning has undergone quite a bit of revision over time (see Bialystok 1981a, 1982, 1990,

1991). Ellis (2009) suggests that the model here in Bialystok (1978) considers knowledge from the dichotomous IK/EK perspective whereas revised models put forward the idea IK and EK as two intersecting continua.

With this shift in mind, it seems surprising that some theorists who have


described the model put forward by Bialystok (Ellis, 2009; Doughty, 2003) neglect to mention that Bialystok in fact proposes three representations of knowledge: Other Knowledge as well as EK and IK. For Bialystok ‘Other

Knowledge’ functions as a sort of catch all category that includes knowledge the learner brings from other languages (including their L1) as well as information learnt about the target culture. A category that importantly allows for (at least in theory) the consideration of various context settings alongside the model.


Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: constraints, compensation and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second

Language Acquisition. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell

Focusing on instructed SLA by adult learners, Doughty provides an impressive overview of empirical research in this area. In particular, Doughty covers:

 the case against L2 instruction from non-interventionists under the sway of Universal Grammar (UG) principles an as well as the non-interface monitor theory suggested by Krashen (1982, 1985).

 the case for L2 instruction including a discussion of studies such as Long

(1983) that compare its effectiveness in contrast with simple L2 exposure.

 A detailed study and critique of the effectiveness of different types of categories in L2 instruction.

For Doughty the results of these discussions suggest that any apparent advantage for explicit instruction is an artifact of cumulative bias. And that the design of many studies of L2 instruction have tended to be based on knowledge of language as object rather than the psycholinguistic process of form-meaning connection.

In all, Doughty makes a convincing case for the proposal that research should steer away from linguistic descriptions as the bases for measures of EK/IK and instead conceptualize instruction in terms of dynamic L2 processing.


Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(02), 305-

352

In this paper Ellis considers how implicit and explicit knowledge are dissociable but cooperative from the perspectives of psychology and neurolinguistics and with reference to the field of SLA. So he is able to agree with the non-interface model of Krashen (1985) and with the research of Paradis

(1994) which posits that EK does not evolve into IK - yet maintain that there is indeed interaction between EK and IK.

In the first section of this paper, Ellis draws on 10 years of advances in the understanding of consciousness and its role in learning and memory and steers the discussion through three key issues informed by the research:

 the neurobiology of implicit tallying (what SLA would describe more simplistically as exposure to language).

 the neural correlates of consciousness (how in the words of Ellis consciousness gives ‘clout’ to tasks)

 the role of consciousness in learning (a role which is predicated on the idea that while consciousness is a limited resource it acts as a gateway into all parts of the nervous system).

Adding to this rich description, Ellis narrates the processes of human cognition while highlighting for the SLA community which ideas relate to discussions that have taken place solely within the SLA literature. These include:

 how a learner failing to rely on IK must turn to EK and other human cognitive systems evolved alongside language in the human mind.

 That memory is a cognitive effort that occurs most successfully after


meaning. Which is to say that the better a single feature of a language is grasped with EK, the longer it will be remembered and available to IK.

By way of conclusion, Ellis suggests that implicit and explicit systems are like the yin and yang – dynamically involved in all cognitive and learning based tasks.


Ellis, R. (2004). The Definition and Measurement of L2 Explicit Knowledge.

Language Learning, 54(2), 227-275

Ellis (2004) investigates studies of L2 acquisition that acknowledge the role of explicit L2 knowledge.

He achieves this study in two ways. First by attempting an extensive definition of EK. Second by critically reviewing how the literature has treated the measurement of EK. The results of the review and critique are simply expressed and highlight a number of salient points not clearly highlighted by other researchers.

In his extended definition of EK Ellis puts forward:

 that EK is a mental phenomena and therefore not directly accessible except by examining the behaviors it manifests.

 that EK cannot be defined without reference to IK.

 that many of the fundamental theoretical ideas about EK arise from the literature alone and so require empirical validation.

In his critical review of the literature, Ellis turns his attention to the extensive use of grammar as an instrument to measure EK. He notes quite correctly that EK might also be measured with pronunciation, pragmatic and even (somewhat controversially) socio-critical features.


Hu, Guangwei. (2002). Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 24(03), 347-386

Hu (2002) investigates factors that affect access to EK in L2 production.

Hypothesizing that real-time access would be largely determined by three interlinked factors: attention to form (measured by a consciousness raising task), processing automaticity a (perceived by interactions between these factors) and linguistic prototypicality (measured by a writen GJT) Hu measured these factors in 64 Chinese learners of English at a University in Singapore.

The results as interpreted by Hu were that there are indeed major constraints on the utility of EK in L2 performance. And that the study produced some positive evidence that IK can be mobilized in EK as performance.

In all the research from Hu exhibits extremely careful design. Hu presents a literature review, extensive details about the selection of his participants and copious rationale regarding his instruments of measurement. It would seem, however, that the ideas of Ellis (2004) regarding the importance of measuring more than just grammar might prove useful. The learners studied by Hu were

NNS and the literature might benefit from knowledge of other forms of EK such as pronunciation and socio-critical features.


Macrory, G., & Stone, V. (2000). Pupil progress in the acquisition of the perfect tense in French: the relationship between knowledge and use.

Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 55-82

In this article Macrory & Stone investigate the role of EK in both the learning of and teaching of an L2 (French).

Carried out over two years with a small group of learners (10 students aged 15 in their fourth year of French instruction at high school in the northwest of England) Macrory & Stone were interested to test the relationship between knowing and using that students evinced when using a particular language form.

As regards method and context, MacRory & Stone are particularly conscious of their UK secondary school context (and in particular how a CLT environment appears to weaken the significance of the element of grammar in their state curriculum), note the various interface positions within the literature

(Krashen, 1982; Ellis, 1995;) and call particular attention to the need for a theory driven approach regarding the distinction of rule (grammar rule) complexity.

Explicitly signaling that their results should be considered as speculative given their small sample size, Macrory & Stone emphasize the importance suggested by Ellis (1995) of optimizing the interface between IK and EK and of students being encouraged to draw on different input sources (including the role of errors).


Schinke-Liano, L. (1990). Can foreign language learningbe like second language acquisition? The curious case of immersion. In B.

VanPatten (Ed.), Second language acquisition/foreign language learning.

Avon, England: Clevedon

In this short and philosophical article, Schinke-Llano discusses the design of language immersion courses in the hope of locating a description that satisfactorily describes how an SLA classroom 5 might be approximated within a more traditionally pedagogic Foreign Language Learning classroom.

Skipping over a considerable portion of the article which describes the specifics of particular language education courses contemporary to the 1980s and 1990s in what might be considered rather unsatisfying generalities for an audience in 2013, Schinke-Llano suggests some practical notions to facilitate her ideal classroom.

Firstly, following Krashen (1981), Schinke-Llano suggests that exposure to the L2 is necessary but not sufficient to achieve native like proficiency.

Secondly, she hints indirectly at a Zone of Proximal Development concept by recommending the importance of tasks being set just beyond students competence level.

Finally, Schinke-Llano raises the phenomena of developmental silent periods, a phenomena which is likely more at home theoretically within the bounds of discussions related to early childhood language development, but which could also be considered as a rather profound proposition in some contexts. Is it so unimaginable, for example, that Chinese students in P.R.C

5 Schinke-Llano acknowledges her somewhat eccentric use of the term SLA to refer to a classroom whose outputs are aligned with an ideal native-like competency.


classrooms might maintain their low affective filter by not losing face on mistakes and having silent period space to prepare?


Conclusion

Based on the literature reviewed above and obvious gaps in the literature,

I am excited to consider three specific research questions:

 What theories or models from within the broader SLA literature might be usefully applied in determining the appropriate complexity of tasks selected to measure IK and or EK?

 Assuming that as Ellis (2005) suggests language is a phenomena that evolved alongside other mental phenomena, what are those other mental phenomena and how do they influence EK and IK acquisition?

 On what basis is traditional grammar a stable factor to measure considering its relatively recent reformulation into discourses of communicative grammar (such as SFL)?


References

Akakura, M. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 9-

37. doi: 10.1177/1362168811423339

Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language

Learning, 28(1), 69-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1978.tb00305.x

Bialystok, E. (1981a). The role of linguistic knowledge in second language use.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 31-45.

Bialystok, E. (1982). On the relationship between knowing and using forms.

Applied Linguistics, 3, 181-206.

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of

Second-Language Use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bialystok, E. (1991). Achieving proficiency in a second language: a processing description. In R. Phillipson (Ed.), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy

Research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Dienes, Z. & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(05), 735-808. doi: doi:null

Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: constraints, compensation and enhancement.

In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language

Acquisition. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.

Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(02), 305-352.

Ellis, R. (2004). The Definition and Measurement of L2 Explicit Knowledge.

Language Learning, 54(2), 227-275. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

9922.2004.00255.x


Ellis, R. (2009). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Han, Y, & Ellis, R. (1998). Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 2(1), 1-23. doi:

10.1177/136216889800200102

Hu, G. (2002). Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 24(03), 347-386. doi: doi:10.1017/S0272263102003017

Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.

Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.

Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London:

Longman.

Long, M. (1983). Does instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-

382.

Macrory, G., & Stone, V. (2000). Pupil progress in the acquisition of the perfect tense in French: the relationship between knowledge and use. Language

Teaching Research, 4(1), 55-82.

Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory:

Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit

learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Randolph,J. (2009). A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review.

Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(13).

Riazi, M (Producer). (2013). APPL902: Third Lecture, Reviewing the Literature.


[PowerPoint slides] Retrieved from http://ilearn.mq.edu.au/pluginfile.php/1784284/mod_folder/content/0/

Third%20Lecture-

Writing%20a%20Literature%20Review.pptx?forcedownload=1 [Not freely available on the World Wide Web]

Schinke-Liano, L. (1990). Can foreign language learningbe like second language acquisition? The curious case of immersion. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Second

language acquisition/foreign language learning. Avon, England: Clevedon.

Strunk, O. (2000). The Elements of Style. Retrieved 10 April, 2013, from http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~craig/The_Elements_of_Style.html

Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning Language, Planning Inequality. London: Longman.


Relevant Concepts Map (RCM) from Glossary in Ellis, R. (2009)

6

Appendix A

212, 228t, 803, 804, 884-5, p 256-60, 262, 537-8, 627-8, 803-6, 829, 856, 870,

871t, 884-9 p 227t, 228-31t, 256-7, 262, 806, 884, 885, 897 recasts corrective feedback See also explicit correction(s) p 654 p 231-2, 805-6, 811, 830 p 882-3 p 882-3 p 905 n13 inductive language learning ability uptake deductive instruction inductive instruction achieved by means of explicit instruction p 419, 872 p 228t, 884-5 p 90-1, 236, 237t, 869, 871, 872, 876, 878-82, 892-3,

904 n 11 metalingual knowledge metalinguistic feedback linked to contrasts with explicit L2 knowledge p 417-27, 449, 470, 551-2, 587, 650, 657, 794-55,

841, 901, 915 p 7, 21, 444-5, 449-54t, 469-70 p 408, 418 proficiency explicit L2 learning explicit memory competence perf orm ance pragmatic competence p 317, 340 n4, 649-50, 674, p 6, 171,

Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) p 9-10t, 14 Use of formulaic sequences p 247, 488-90, 490-2, 499-500, 501, 514 n1 fluency p 149 proficiency definition

65n4 communicative competence explicit p 487, 499-501 p 488-92, 494-9, 499-501, 916-21 p 503, 704 p 746-9 procedural skill research studies strategies production p 461, 487-515 theories p 170-1, 188, 190, 891, 892t, 893-5, 975g p 173-5t, 176-82, 184-5, 188-9, 190, 194-7 p 584 definition

6, 975g pragmalinguistic failure and proficiency p 169-70, 171, 190, 891, 979g p 76-8 sociopragmatic failure use of formulaic sequences

See also performance pragmatic competence

See also p 25 proficiency

Universal Grammar (UG) p 6 definition native vs. non-native speakers p 194-7 pragmatic competence p 927 theories p 236, 237t, 868-9, 878-82, 892-3, 904n 11, 905n12, 965g

417-27, 551-2, 583, 587, 742, 749-55, 841, 889-91,

901, 915, 965g

Universal Grammar (UG) [ Time Constraints] See also p 7, 21, 444, 445t, 449-54t, 469, 712, 965g p 408, 418, 965g p 414, 588 linguistic competence implicit L2 knowledge implicit L2 learning implicit memory implicit

Basic Concept Map (BCM) based on the Glossary and expanded with the Index of Ellis, R. (2009).

. Oxford:

The

Oxford University Press.

context psycholinguistic context See also learning contexts social context p 196, 198, 204, 328 educational settings p 287, 288-90, 500-1, 960g majority language settings natural settings p 6, 287, 289, 292-5, 332-3, 339 p 6, 10-13t, 15-17, 42, 288-300, 499, 500-1, 510,

972g, 973g official-language settings 6, 289-90, 295-8 p 282, 324-6, 817 definition and L1 transfer

979g p 380-1, 396, 402n2, 402n4 p 958g

34t, 35, 851-5 instructed language acquisition

See also foreign language acquisition

L2 acquisition

See also

See also L2 acquisition (>instructed language acquisition) foreign language acquisition (>instructed language acquisition>See also) age factor analytical strategy case studies classroom settings educational settings effect of literacy foreigner talk p 17, 18-19, 19-27, 31-3, 114n7, 311-13, 622 p 8-19 cognitive processes communicative strategies comparative fallacy control p 841 definition p 5-7 developmental problem p 954 g p 42, 109, 301t, 302-10, 380 p 434-55 p 511 - 12 p 61, 69 p 72-105, 106-9, 195-7 p 287, 288-90, 300-10, 960g p 307, 317 -18 p 208, 213-20, 962g-3g formal models fossilization

See theories of language acquisition/learning p 28-31, 32, 364, 764-5, 963g p 963g gestalt strategy grammaticalization p 964g influence of setting instructed language acquisition p 286-7, 339, 340 p 6, 30-1, 34t, 35, 423, 966g international settings learner-external factors p 298-300 p 33, 34t logical problem majority-language settings p 594-6, 970g

See also metacognitive strategy minority-language settings

Multiple Effects Principle naturalistic vs. instructed methods p 971g p 300 p 29

851-5

Acculturation Model natural settings p6, 10-13t, 15-17, 42, 288-300, 972g, 973g p 34t, 35, 624, 729, 740-67, 973 neurolinguistic SLA official-language settings p 6, 289-90, 295-8, 380 p 33-5 psycholinguistic processes silent period p 73-5, 106, 978g situational factors social aspects p 324-6 p 279-341

See language transfer and typological universals transfer

[Time Constraints] p 20-1

L2 learning language pedagogy and age factor definition grammar p 6, 966g p 856-7 implicit vs. explicit instructions inductive vs. deductive input based instructions p 878-82, 892-3, 904n11, 905n12 p 882-3 p 869, 871t, 873-8, 897 learning definition effect of anxiety explicit vs. implicit formal vs. informal

Learning Principles self directed p 7, 21, 444-5, 449-54t, 469-70, 962g, 965g p 109 naturalistic language acquisition case studies definition sociocultural SLA p 10-13t, 15-17 p 6, 972g, 973g zone of proximal development scaffolding

Sociocultural Theory See sociocultural SLA.

socio-/social (p 979) Socio-educational Model of L2 Learning sociolinguistic variables illocutionary acts sociopragmatic failure social network speech act

6 This diagram has been prepared as a Microsoft Word compatible EMF file. This means that the diagram is vector and can be zoomed in on for closer viewing without becoming pixelated. Should this prove challenging there is a PDF version of the diagram is available here: http://benhinton.com/downloads/APPL902/RCM.pdf


Basic Concepts Map (BCM) from Glossary in Ellis, R. (2009).

7

Appendix B

' deductive instruction Deductive instruction involves providing learners with an explicit rule which they then practice in one way or another. It c ontrasts with inductive instruction . (p 959)

' inductive instruction Inductive instruction is a form of explicit instruction that involves requiring learners to induce rules from examples given to them or simply from the opportunity to practice the rules. It contrasts with deductive instruction .' (p 967)

' metalingual knowledge Metalingual knowledge is knowledge of the technical terminology needed to describe language. Metalingual knowledge helps to make L2 knowledge fully explicit.' (p 971)

' metalinguistic feedback This consists of utterances that provide comments, information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the learner's utterance.' (p 971)

' implicit knowledge See 'implicit' branch of this diagram.

linked to contrasts with

' explicit correction this is a type of feedback that provides the learner with the correct form while at the same time indicating an error was committed.' (p 961)

' explicit instruction Explicit instruction involves

'some sort of rule being thought about during the learning process' (DeKeyser 1995). That is, learners are encouraged to develop metalinguistic awareness of the rule. This can be achieved by means of deductive instruction or inductive instruction .' (p 962)

' explicit L2 knowledge Explicit L2 knowledge is the knowledge of rules and items that exists in an analysed form so that learners are able to report what they know. Explicit L2 knowledge is closely linked to metallingual knowledge . It contrasts with implicit knowledge .' (p 962) explicit

' explicit L2 learning Explicit learning is a conscious process and is also likely to be intentional. It can be investigated by giving learners an explicit rule and asking them to apply it to data or by inviting them to try and discover an explicit rule from an array of data provided.' (p 962)

' explicit memor y This is memory that is based on conscious recollections of events and phenomena.

Explicit memory houses explicit L2 knowledge.' (p

962) implicit instruction implicit L2 knowledge implicit L2 learning implicit memory implicit (p 965)

' Naturalistic/Instructed Language Acquisition'

Relevant Concepts Map (RCM) from Glossary in

Ellis, R. (2009).

The Study of Second Language

Acquisition . Oxf ord: Oxford University Press.

'context The 'context' of an utterance can mean two different things: (I) the situation in which an utterance is produced - this is the situational context; (2) the linguistic environment - the surrounding language this is the linguistic context. Both types of context influence the choice of language forms, and therefore have an effect on output. See also psycholinguistic context.' (p 958 )

'educational settings Whereas many researchers are happy to talk of 'foreign' (as opposed to 'second') language acquisition, others, including the author of this book, prefer to distinguish different types of language acquisition in terms of context or setting. A key distinction is between acquisition that takes place in 'educational settings' (such as schools) and that which takes place in 'natural settings' (such as the street or the workplace).' (p 960)

'instructed language acquisition This term refers to language acquisition that takes place as a result of attempts to teach the L2 - either directly through formal instruction or indirectly by setting up the conditions that promote natural acquisition in the classroom.' (p 966)

' 'learning' Krashen (1981) used the term 'learning' to refer to the development of conscious knowledge of an L2 through formal study. It means the same as explicit knowledge.' (p 969)

'natural settings A natural setting for L2 acquisition is one where the L2 is used normally for everyday communicative purposes (for example, in the street or the workplace). See also educational settings .' (p

973)

'naturalistic language acquisition This refers to language acquisition which takes place in natural settings . It contrasts with instructed language acquisition .' (p 972)

'psycholinguistic context This is a term used in this book to refer to the extent to which a particular context of use affords time for planning linguistic production and also whether it encourages or discourages monitoring of output.' (p 977) socio-/social (p 979) sociocult ur al SLA

Sociocult ur al Theor y

Socio- educat ional Model of L2 Lear ning sociolinguist ic var iables sociopr agm at ic f ailur e

7 This diagram has been prepared as a Microsoft Word compatible EMF file. This means that the diagram is vector and can be zoomed in on for closer viewing without becoming pixelated. Should this prove challenging there is a PDF version of the diagram is available here: http://benhinton.com/downloads/APPL902/BCM.pdf


Appendix C

Extract from Nvivo Keyword Frequency Analysis Results of Basic and Relevant Concept Maps

8

Word language instructions explicit acquisition knowledge l2 settings implicit learning see also context

Length

8

12

8

11

9

2

8

8

8

3

4

7

Count

29

27

26

23

21

21

21

18

16

16

14

13

Weighted

Percentage (%)

2.50

2.33

2.25

1.99

1.81

1.81

1.81

1.55

1.38

1.38

1.21

1.12

Similar Words language instructed,

'instructed, instruction, instructions explicit, 'explicit acquisition, acquisition' knowledge l2 setting, settings, settings' implicit, 'implicit,

'implicit' learning,

'learning' see also context, 'context,

'context', contexts

8 See Appendix A and B for these concept maps.


Appendix D

Approach to Adjectival Criteria in Riazi (2003)

1.

Relevant

Relevant keyword search sets for use with database search tools 9 were formulated by running Nvivo keyword frequency queries (See Appendix

C) on basic and relevant concept maps (See Appendix A and B) developed to orient the researcher to the subject area. Keyword search sets were then tested out and refined using Google Scholar 10 before being used with the database search tools mentioned above.

2.

Recent

Articles were gathered over the course of two intensive sessions. In the first session, articles ‘recent’ articles were considered as those published within the last 10 years. In the second session articles with any publishing date since the 1960s 11 were considered if they were either mentioned by

Ellis (2009) as relevant to current research or cited extensively in recent articles. Using ‘cited by’ functions from the database search tools other literature post Ellis (2009) was also identified.

3.

Authoritative

Not simply the authority of the journal or publisher of an article, but also its general currency and prevalence of citation within other pivotal articles.

9 Specifically DELTA, ERIC, LLBA and Scopus.

10 The speed of search results generated by Google Scholar were found to be much faster than

DELTAA, ERIC, LLBA and Scopus.

11 Ellis (2009) suggests that the field of SLA began in earnest around the 1960s.


Appendix E

Table 2

Desirable Characteristics for this Critical Review Based on Cooper (1988).

Characteristic

Focus

Categories

Research outcomes

Research methods

Theories

Practices or applications

Comment

A multi-focal approach (incorporating all categories in the column to the left) was considered necessary to meet the evaluation criteria for

Assignment 2 and the requirements it describes.


Goal

Perspective

Integration

(a) Generalization

(b) Conflict resolution

(c) Linguistic bridgebuilding

Criticism

Identification of central issues

Espousal of position

A multi-goal approach was considered necessary to meet the evaluation criteria for Assignment 2 and the requirements it describes. To compensate for any potential superficiality or artificiality of discussion an attempt has been made to follow the general style suggestion of Strunk

(2000)

12

In keeping with the qualitative tradition (Randolph, 2009, p 4) I will attempt to reveal biases and take up positions. Neutral presentation as an overall perspective will not be evinced.

12 Strunk (2000) writes: ‘Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all sentences short or avoid all detail and treat subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.’


Coverage

Organization

Central or pivotal

Conceptual

A purposive sample will be taken based on the review of the subject area in Ellis (2009, p 417-427). Close attention should be paid to these criteria outlined in Riazi (2013, p 14):

1.

Relevant

2.

Recent

3.

Authoritative

Though it is possible to consider these criteria as merely academic ‘rules of thumb’ for selection, attention will be paid to their interaction.

‘Conceptual’ organization has been chosen because this review has a specific focus on perspectives (conceptual subject matter) supplied by the area of interest and initial research question.

The opinion of Ellis (2009, p 286) that ‘social setting’ is a somewhat crude construct within SLA research was also considered and suggested that ‘Historical’ and ‘Methodological’ organization might potentially be less fruitful.


Audience Specialized scholars Though ideally this research evolves into praxis and continues after this course, the audience at this stage are specialized scholars.


APPL902ass2 227KB Jun 06 2013 04:38:35 PM

Related documents

Products

Support

APPL902ass2 227KB Jun 06 2013 04:38:35 PM

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib