Słowa kluczowe
podejście zadaniowe
podejście wspierane zadaniami
zadania komunikacyjne
Jak cytować
Abstrakt
While there is a consensus that teaching grammar is now indispensable in most educational contexts, there still exist numerous controversies as to how this should most beneficially be done. They concern, among others, such issues as the choice of instructional options to be used in order to introduce and practice grammar structures or to provide corrective feedback on errors made in the use of such structures (cf. Loewen, 2020; Nassaji, 2017; Pawlak, 2014, 2020a). On a more general level, a question arises as to the optimal way of organizing the material to be taught, with consequences for the overall approach to grammar instruction. One influential alternative to a structural syllabus, in which case grammar structures are carefully preselected and sequenced, is task-based language teaching, which can be conceptualized and implemented in various ways (cf. Ellis, 2017, 2018). The paper discusses the role of grammar in the task-based approach, also taking into account techniques and procedures that can be employed for this purpose. An overview of existing empirical evidence will be presented and an attempt will be made to highlight the way in which communicative tasks can be used to assist grammar teaching in the Polish educational context.
Bibliografia
Baralt M., Gilabert R., Robinson P. (2014), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury.
Breen M. (1989), The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks, (w:) Johnson R. K. (red.), The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 187-206.
Broszkiewicz A. (2011), The effect of focused communication tasks on instructed acquisition of English past counterfactual conditionals. „Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching”, nr 1, s. 335-363.
DeKeyser R. (1998), Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. (w:) Williams J., Doughty C. (red.), Focus on form in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 42-63.
DeKeyser R. (2010), Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning, (w:) Long M. H., Doughty C. J. (red.), The handbook of language teaching. London: Wiley-Blackwell, s. 117-138.
DeKeyser R. (2017), Knowledge and skill in SLA, (w:) Loewen S., Sato M. (red.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, s. 15-32.
DeKeyser R., Juffs A. (2005), Cognitive considerations in L2 learning, (w:) Hinkel E. (red.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, s. 437-454.
Doughty C. J., Williams J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form, (w:) Doughty C. J., Williams J. (red.), Focus on form in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 197-261.
Ellis N. C., Wulff J. (2015), Usage-based approaches to SLA, (w:) VanPatten B., Williams J. (red.), Theories in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, s. 75-93.
Ellis R. (1997), SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis R. (2003), Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis R. (2006), Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. „TESOL Quarterly”, nr 40, s. 83-107.
Ellis R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis R. (2009), The differential effects of three types of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. „Applied Linguistics”, nr 30, s. 474-509.
Ellis R. (2016), Focus on form: A critical review. „Language Teaching Research”, nr 20, s. 405-428.
Ellis R. (2017), Task-based language teaching, (w:) Loewen S., Sato M. (red.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, s. 108-125.
Ellis R. (2018), Reflections on task-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis R., Shintani N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London: Routledge.
Harmer J. (2015), The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Hinkel E. (2017), Prioritizing grammar to teach and not to teach: A research perspective, (w:) Hinkel E. (red.), The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (vol. 3). New York: Routledge, s. 369-383.
Howatt A. P. R. (1984), A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jean G., Simard D. (2011), Grammar teaching and learning in L2: Necessary, but boring?. „Foreign Language Annals”, nr 44, s. 467-494.
Kim Y.-J. (2017), Cognitive-interactionist approaches to L2 instruction, (w:) Loewen S., Sato M. (red.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, s. 126-145.
Krashen S. (1981), Second language acquisition and second language learning. London: Pergamon.
Krashen S. (1985), The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman D. (2003), Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Thomson & Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman D. (2010), Teaching and testing grammar, (w:) Long M. H., Doughty C. J. (red.), The handbook of language teaching. London: Blackwell, s. 518-542.
Larsen-Freeman D. (2014), Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching. „Language Teaching”, nr 48, s. 263-280.
Larsen-Freeman D. (2015). Complexity theory, (w:) VanPatten B., Williams J. (red.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. New York: Routledge, s. 227-243.
Lee J. (2000), Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Littlewood W. (2011), Communicative language teaching: An expanding concept for a changing world, (w:) Hinkel E. (red.), The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (vol. 2). New York: Routledge, s. 541-557.
Loewen S. (2011), Focus on form, (w:) Hinkel E. (red.), The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (vol. 2). New York: Routledge, s. 576-592.
Loewen S. (2020), Introduction to instructed second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Long M. H. (1985), A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching, (w:) Hyltenstam K., Pienemann M. (red.), Modeling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, s. 77-99.
Long M. H. (1996), The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. (w:) Ritchie, W., Bhatia, T. (red.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press, s. 413-468.
Long M. H. (2015), Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York: Wiley.
Mackey A., Goo J. (2007), Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis, (w:) Mackey A. (red.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 407-453.
Michel M. (2017), Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 production, (w:) Loewen S., Sato M. (red.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, s. 50-68.
Nassaji H. (2017), Grammar acquisition, (w:) Loewen S., Sato M. (red.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, s. 205-223.
Nassaji H., Fotos S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.
Nunan D. (1989), Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan D. (2004), Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pawlak M. (2004), Describing and researching interactive processes in the foreign language classroom. Konin: Wydawnictwo PWSZ w Koninie.
Pawlak M. (2005). Jak oceniać gramatykę. „Języki Obce w Szkole”, nr 6, s. 34-41
Pawlak M. (2006), The place of form-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom. Kalisz – Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
Pawlak M. (2011), Cultural differences in perceptions of form/focused instruction: The case of advanced Polish and Italian learners, (w:) Wojtaszek A., Arabski J. (red.), Aspects of culture in second language acquisition and foreign language learning. Heidelberg: Springer, s. 77-94.
Pawlak M. (2012), The effects of focus on forms and focus on form in teaching complex grammatical structures. „Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics”, nr 38, s. 35-56.
Pawlak M. (2013a), Comparing learners’ and teachers’ beliefs about form-focused instruction, (w:) Gabryś-Barker D., Piechurska-Kuciel E., Zybert J. (red.), Investigations in teaching and learning languages: Studies in honor of Hanna Komorowska. Heidelberg: Springer, s. 109-131.
Pawlak M. (2013b), Principles of instructed language learning revisited: Guidelines for effective grammar teaching in the foreign language classroom, (w:) Droździał-Szelest K., Pawlak M. (red.), Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives on second language learning and teaching: Studies in honor of Waldemar Marton. Heidelberg: Springer, s. 199-220.
Pawlak M. (2014), Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Heidelberg: Springer.
Pawlak M. (2016), The role of autonomy in learning and teaching foreign language grammar, (w:) Pawlak M., Mystkowska-Wiertelak A., Bielak J. (red.), Autonomy in second language learning: Managing the resources. Heidelberg: Springer, s. 3-19.
Pawlak M. (2017), Individual differences variables as mediating influences on success and failure in form-focused instruction, (w:) Piechurska-Kuciel E., Szyszka M. (red.), At the crossroads: Challenges of foreign language learning. Heidelberg: Springer, s.75-92.
Pawlak M. (2019), Tapping the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge: Methodological issues, (w:) Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk B. (red.), Contacts & contrasts in educational contexts and translation. Cham: Springer Nature, s. 45-60.
Pawlak M. (2020a), Grammar and good language teachers, (w:) Griffiths C., Tajeddin Z. (red.), Grammar and good language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 219-231.
Pawlak M. (2020b), Grammar learning strategies as a key to mastering second language grammar: A research agenda. „Language Teaching”, nr 53, s. 358-370.
Pawlak M. (2021a), Exploring the interface between individual difference variables and the knowledge of second language grammar. Cham: Springer Nature.
Pawlak M. (2021b), Teaching foreign language grammar to children: The role of individual differences. (w:) Rokita-Jaśkow J., Wolanin A. (red.), Facing diversity in child foreign language education. Cham: Springer, s. 56-71.
Pawlak M. (2021c), Teaching foreign language grammar: New solutions, old problems. „Foreign Language Annals”. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12563
Prabhu N. S. (1987), Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson P. (2003), Syllabus design, (w:) Long M. H. Doughty C. J. (red.), The handbook of language teaching. London: Blackwell, s. 294-310.
Shintani N. (2015), The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young, beginner learners. „TESOL Quarterly”, nr 49, s. 115-140.
Skehan P. (1996), A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. „Applied Linguistics”, nr 17, s. 38-62.
Skehan P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan P. (2009), Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. „Applied Linguistics”, nr 30, s. 510-532.
Swain M. (1995), Three functions of output in second language learning, (w:) Cook G., Seidlhofer B. (red.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125-144.
VanPatten B. (2015), Input processing in adult SLA, (w:) VanPatten B. Williams J. (red.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. New York: Routledge, s. 113-134.
Willis D., Willis J. (2007), Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis J. (1996), A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2021 Mirosław Pawlak
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
Przedstawiany utwór (artykuł) upubliczniany jest na podstawie umowy z autorem i na licencji Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0).
Użytkownicy mają obowiązek podania wraz z rozpowszechnionym utworem, informacji o autorstwie, tytule, źródle (odnośniki do oryginalnego utworu, DOI) oraz samej licencji;
- bez tworzenia utworów zależnych,
- utwór musi być zachowany w oryginalnej postaci.
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu zachowuje prawo do czasopisma jako całości (układ, forma graficzna, tytuł, projekt okładki, logo itp.).