Classroom Activities to Facilitate Uptake and Acquisition of Hypothetical Structures

Shelley Dawson, New Zealand

Shelley teaches at the English Language Institute at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand. Her recent MA dissertation investigated the co-construction of identities of two language learners, examining the salient forces that guide this process and considering the pedagogical implications. E-mail: shelley.dawson@vuw.ac.nz

Menu

Introduction
Activity sequence - prior
Activity sequence – during
Conclusion
References
Appendix

Introduction

Form-focused instruction in language learning contexts is no longer the pariah of the classroom as it was when Krashen’s theory of comprehensible input (1982) held great sway. Debates on the relative merits of inclusion have now turned to questions involving methodology and feedback in the attempt to facilitate uptake and acquisition of grammatical structures. Given the multitude of English learning contexts in the world, it is clear that there is no ‘one size fits all’, however. What works in one learning environment will simply not work in another, which places credence on a sound understanding of context to inform all pedagogical choices.

The context used for this activity sequence is an Advanced- level ESL class in New Zealand, a particularly heterogeneous group of students whose ages range from 18-30 and who have the common goal of passing their Cambridge Advanced Examination. Mixed groups such as these provide a motivating challenge for the practitioner in terms of trying to meet the many and differing goals of the learners, and the sheer variety of learning styles, personalities, and expectations only serves to intensify this. With this in mind, all activities were selected in the light of two main aims. The first was to facilitate the acquisition of notoriously murky grammar structures expressing hypotheticality, which are unlikely to be acquired naturally or “impinge on our consciousness” (Skehan, 1998, p.49), due to their formal and semantic complexity (see Izumi & Bigelow, 2000), and lack of salience and frequency in real-life speech. This was done with a view toward the inclusion of these structures in the CAE examination where a receptive knowledge of meaning is emphasised, and the formal aspects are regularly included in Use of English questions. Use of these structures, too, provides sound evidence of grammatical competence in both the Speaking and Writing. It is unfortunate, then, that students often find the textbook exercises on these features rather confusing, draining, and ultimately unhelpful in fostering positive memory traces of these structures.

The second main principle underpinning the selection and implementation of all tasks was the need to meet the students’ subjective needs (Graves, 1996), which in my experience is crucial in terms of creating a supportive and stimulating learning environment. I find myself naturally drawn to Rogers' (1963) humanist approach with its emphasis on affect and the whole person, and this has had significant merit in my teaching context as a guiding principle. By truly valuing each learner and aiming to provide opportunities to enhance their self-concept and evolving identities, I find that students become more open to taking risks with language, question more readily, and are more likely to support their classmates. That is not to say that this is always a smooth process of course, but having this platform of trust and positivity can provide valuable support for learners to navigate out past the initial murkiness to some semblance of grammatical clarity. In selecting the activities I aimed to include many opportunities for repetition, negotiation of meaning through interaction (see Pica, 1996 ), attention to and fusion of form and meaning, and to scaffold the learners into producing the structures with more accuracy and ease. I saw the ‘pushed output’ (Swain, 1995) components as particularly important in achieving this and the plentiful opportunities for ‘noticing’ (Schmidt, 1990) as essential prerequisites in taking ownership of the structures. Nunan's (2004) principle of task dependency was also of significance in establishing a sequence which led students towards the aim of “gradual mastery” (Ellis, 1993, p.105). Overall, I aimed for a stimulating, memorable, and fun lesson sequence.

Activity sequence - prior

The 50 minute sequence aims to build on and cement students’ understanding and use of selected hypothetical structures (see appendix 1), thereby assuming a readiness on the part of these learners in terms of Pienemann’s (1998) “teachability hypothesis”. The chosen forms were based on those included in ‘CAE Gold Plus’ textbook, allowing flexibility to replace or supplement certain exercises. A class size of about 14 learners is ideal, but all activities can be managed with smaller or larger class groups.

Preferably, the sequence will follow Wajnryb's Dictogloss activity (1989), in an effort to draw learners in to the grammar focus in an inductive and engaging way. It is hoped that by using the underexploited ‘teacher’s text’ (Thornbury & Harmer, 1999) students will be more likely to buy into the activity on two levels. Firstly, the teacher design should result in accessibility of language and an appropriate level of Vygotskian challenge (1987), and secondly it may come some way to satisfying an often apparent desire to find out more about their teacher. In this way, I envisage the topic of the Dictogloss being about the teacher’s regrets about aspects of their behaviour when they were around the same age of the students, so as to create an enticing element of disclosure at the outset. Output will be ‘pushed’ (Swain, 1995), allowing for precious opportunities to test hypotheses and negotiate meanings with classmates, and leading to a collaborative conjecture of certain ‘rules’ at play , including the principle of backshifting. A level of “cognitive depth” (Thornbury & Harmer, 1999, p.57) is added by having the learners highlight the target structures themselves, and the teacher will be able to stimulate thinking about the form/function relationship through some initial concept checking questions. Ideally, at this stage, both the learners’ interest and awareness will be sufficiently roused to want to move on to the next task.

Activity sequence – during

1. “Living sentence” (10 minutes)

The level of cognitive engagement of the previous task should now point to an optimal readiness for a more explicit exploration of formal properties. The aim of the ‘living sentence’ is twofold. Firstly, it affords a timely opportunity to energise the learners by having them leave their seats, and secondly it requires the learners to work collaboratively to complete a form-focused task. The teacher will hand out a word on coloured card to each student and inform them of the aim to create a grammatically correct sentence by working together to put themselves in order. Each sentence will contain a structure from the previous task in the interests of reinforcement and reycling. This shift in focus does not need to translate into monotony, however, and should flow seamlessly from the Dictogloss. To ease the students into this, the first two sentences might usefully be taken verbatim from the previous Dictogloss text, allowing for an element of memory-based scaffolding. Four or five sentences is enough in total, as students in this context can often tire from a sustained focus on form of this nature, especially those who are more fluency-focused and non analytical in nature. One way around this, I have found, is to ensure that the subsequent sentences include students’ names and are based on an established classroom reality, which seems to heighten the level of engagement and eager cooperation. Sentences 3 and 4 (see appendix 2) might allow for some good-natured banter on Martin’s well-known smoking habit, for example, or Evie’s forthright nature. Clearly, the teacher needs to pay careful attention to personality and affective factors here to ensure the success of the activity, and I would suggest that this can only happen when a certain level of classroom camaraderie and trust has been established.

This activity allows students to solidify their understanding of these different hypothetical structures by attending to the placement of sentence elements and verb tenses, and therefore employ their “considerable intellects” (Pinker, 1994, p.29) as young adults to help them understand the complexities of expressing hypotheticality. From experience, it results in high levels of engagement and “languaging” (Swain, 2006), with all students working together to establish an accurate sentence. The teacher’s role here is primarily that of observer, and any intervention will have to be measured against the aims of creating autonomous learners and group cohesion. At times, however, such intervention can be warranted as may be the case with an overly directive student. In instances such as this, this student’s ‘expertise’ may be better employed by the teacher to help assess the accuracy of the completed version, therefore requiring the student to step out of the activity and quietly discuss his/her classmates’ progress with the teacher until this point is reached. Other such adjustments can be made for various purposes; for example by taking away the ‘living’ element and having the students lay out their cards out on a table to complete the activity, and perhaps narrowing the group focus to that of pairs to ensure a more equal access to speaking opportunities.

When a consensus has been reached, students will read their item aloud, at the instruction of the teacher or fellow student as a ‘conductor’ to form a fluent and cohesive sentence and feedback can be given. It is best to avoid any pre-emptive focus on form (Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2002) during this activity, however, despite the temptation to ‘prepare’ learners for difficulties such as the potential confusion between ‘would’ and ‘had’ in the subordinate clause of the third conditional, or the nature of the components of a mixed conditional. In this way, we can avoid overloading the learners and risk destabilising any positive encoding established by the models provided. Key concepts should be checked though, including temporality, nuances of meaning evoked by choice of modality, and register, in the case of sentence 5 (see appendix 2). These questions should be quick and upbeat and as learners move on to each new structure, the teacher can write the previous one on the board, highlighting the key grammatical components, so as to offer a salient visual reinforcement.

To segue smoothly into the next activity, a preliminary focus on pronunciation can also be introduced here. Attention can be drawn to weak sounds of the auxiliaries ‘have’ and ‘had’, for example, in both the main and subordinate clauses of the third conditional sentences, and their contracted forms. A particularly fun way to do this is to have students holding these components merge their sounds together in subsequent repetitions of the sentence until it begins to sound reasonably natural, which always results in much effort and laughter. By modelling this natural pronunciation and having the students follow this and the overall intonation pattern, learners can be sensitised to the real-life input they will receive and made aware of the meaning carried by these often inaudible discrete items.

2. “Hypothetical structures party” (20 minutes)

This activity builds on the previous one, and moves into the often difficult realm of production, by integrating the grammar into a communicative framework as per Long's (1991) Focus-on-Form model. The move from practice to production with this particular grammar point appears to be rather swift in many advanced-level textbooks given the significant cognitive load these structures entail, and I believe this activity can come some way to filling this gap and scaffolding students into more accurate and confident production. Teachers should offer a disclaimer of sorts at the beginning, advising students of the potentially lacklustre nature of the party in terms of the lack of food, drink, and music. Again, this activity will work best when a relationship of trust and camaraderie has been established, given the element of role play involved and the potential discord with cultural expectations of teaching and learning. Teachers should lay their pedagogical cards on the table to alleviate any such fears and relay their expectations and goals of the activity, emphasising in layman’s terms Nation’s (2007) idea of the significance of spaced and repeated attention to the same features.

In terms of procedure, learners will be given another coloured card with a sentence containing one of the previously-encountered hypothetical structures (see appendix 3 for examples), resulting in a layer of even richer consolidation. Students need to be given time here to process the meaning of their sentence and should call on the teacher if this is unclear at all. They will also need time to memorise their sentence and to practise the previously established pronunciation features of natural speech by whispering it to themselves. The teacher can circulate amongst the preferably separated students, and offer verbal prompting or recasts on problematic components, such as chunking and contractions to ensure a natural melody. It is important that recasts, however, are made salient to the learner through the judicious use of prosody if the desired effect on uptake is to stand any chance of occurring (R. Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006). Ideally, this preliminary focus on pronunciation and on ‘chunking’ items of the structures will help drive real-time production and therefore lessen somewhat the difficulty in attending to form and meaning simultaneously (Skehan, 1998). The students should not share their sentences at this stage, so that the element of party chit-chit is as authentic as possible, providing the most valuable scaffolding for these types of real-life encounters outside of the classroom.

Having memorised their sentence (but keeping it in their pocket as a safety net), students are now instructed to move to the party zone, where they will mix and mingle. Desks and chairs may need to be moved away to provide sufficient space here, and learners are given between 15-20 minutes to talk to every person at the party, producing their conditional or hypothetical utterance at the opportune moment, and simultaneously being exposed to repeated meaningful input (see Nassaji & Fotos, 2004) in the form of their classmates’ phrases. Brief preliminary attention can be given, too, to the nature of New Zealand cultural norms of small talk with perhaps a couple of sentences written on the board as a visual aide-memoire (“How’s it going? Long time no see.”/ “Hi, how are you? Wasn’t it a beautiful day?”/ “What’ve you been up to?”). During this stage, the teacher should mill around the periphery of the group and use their professional judgment to make decisions regarding the provision of feedback. I find that short, unobtrusive prompts can sit well here, in that they can provide just the trigger to activate the correct language. This activation is helped no doubt by the exposure and attention to these forms in previous activities, which lends clear support to R. Ellis, Erlam & Loewen (2006) findings on the pertinence of prior awareness in successful uptake of feedback. In the case of a recidivist offender of the ‘If I would...’ kind, a quick yet obvious ‘If I ...?’, or even a meaningful glance can sometimes lead to relatively fast repair, without upstaging the performance to any great degree.

The idea of a practiced, pre-fabricated sentence can, I believe, provide precious scaffolding for these young learners as they move along the path to proceduralisation by alleviating the initially inhibiting effect of the conscious mind (N. Ellis, 1996). From experience, this activity not only generates a pleasing amount of output and real engagement, but it allows students to produce a difficult structure with increasing levels of confidence. It is always extremely satisfying when outwardly shy learners take increasing ownership of their role after each repetition, using heightened intonation and body language to express their meaning, and inventing creative details to support their sentence.

Despite the communicatively rich parameters, many students show evidence of attending to form by asking for a repetition when they notice their partner’s hypothetical structure, and often repeat this themselves afterwards. This noticing, in itself, is a necessary prerequisite for learning, following Schmidt's hypothesis (1990), and learners’ noticing capacities should be encouraged in the initial setting-up of the activity. Teachers can also draw on their knowledge of personality and group dynamics here by controlling the design of the language and choosing recipients accordingly. An outgoing student might be given sentence 3, for instance, and requested to speak with a slightly ‘posh’ voice as a means to draw attention to the more formal inversion pattern. As another example, I once gave sentence 2 to Francisca, a 20-year-old Swiss student, who was relatively new to the group and hadn’t quite cemented her core member status. She was highly motivated and focused on her examination and I could sense that her peers thought her perhaps a little aloof. By completely investing in the activity, however, she was able to not only gain valuable language practice, but to offer a new side of herself to her classmates which contributed to an especially memorable lesson and the beginnings of closer classroom relationships.

An important aspect of the party activity occurs when students are seated again and asked to remember and write down their peers’ particular structures, which necessitates a higher level of cognitive engagement and a significant opportunity for collaborative “languaging” (Swain, 2006) to ideally advance these learners’ proficiency. Again, attention can be given to discrete structural components here as well as more semantic concerns raised by the learners. I generally scaffold students into this writing element by pointing at each student and eliciting their sentence verbally from the others, which effectively brings the activity back to a whole class focus, and allows for a useful reiteration of pronunciation features and an opportunity for any laughter to subside before the students can be expected to settle down into this heightened cognitive state.

Thornbury & Harmer's (1999) reminder of the powerful effect of the “right kind of laughter” is especially apt here, and is fully exemplified in this activity through the co-construction of the humour, and the flow-on effect of this enjoyment and positivity throughout other lessons. It was pleasing to see clear evidence of strong memory traces in Francisca’s graduation speech, which began with the words “If I were 10 years younger ...”, causing more than a few puzzled glances from teachers and students in other classes , yet producing knowing smiles and nods of encouragement from her CAE classmates.

3. Role-play creation (18 minutes)

It is envisaged that this sequence of activities will end with the creation and subsequent production of a role-play, another integrated-skills activity which will allow for a significant slackening of the scaffolding and more opportunities for students to take ownership of these structures. The teacher can elicit from the students the target features they feel they need most practice in, ideally manoeuvring towards those they themselves have identified from a pedagogical stance, and note these on the board (for example, ‘third conditional’, ‘It’s time’, ‘wish’ to express regret, and ‘mixed conditional’). I generally take this opportunity to include recently studied vocabulary, including idioms, phrasal verbs, and collocations, which allows students to combine item knowledge within the parameters of their grammar focus, and steers them toward the realisation that grammar encompasses meaning. The task is for students to include an accurate and realistic example of each structure within their role play topic of choice, which again pushes output (Swain, 1995) and necessitates a good deal of ‘language-related episodes’ (Swain & Lapkin, 1995), in the form of questioning and correction of the target features. Learners seem to appreciate the opportunities here for personalisation (Johnson, 2008) and topicalisation (R. Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2002) and I have often been pleasingly surprised at the high level of writing and focus this generates. The task seems to appeal to all types of learner, as evidenced in these rewarding levels of investment, and the written element and corresponding discussion acts as a final scaffolding, before the requirement to produce.

While the students are discussing their ideas and language the teacher can go from group to group and provide incidental feedback (R. Ellis et al., 2002) as necessary, within the larger parameters of the planned focus-on-form task. My experience with this activity corroborates McDonough & Mackey’s findings (2006) in that the recast, even when enhanced through prosody, often appears to benefit the other group members rather than the person who produced it, due, perhaps, to their lower levels of semantic absorption. Prompts also work well here, as does a certain level of explicit metalanguage (for example, pointing out the lack of an auxiliary in the subordinate third conditional clause), given these learners are generally well-versed in this terminology. It also presents an excellent occasion for attention to be drawn to learner-generated negative evidence, which has been established as an essential aspect of form-focused instruction (DeKeyser, 2005). Provided that the class is well-primed for the task, and understands the grammar-based objectives, teachers can use their professional judgment to offer timely, yet unobtrusive feedback in the aim of advancing proceduralisation.

Attention to grouping is paramount, too, to ensure optimal conditions for interaction, and avoiding any personality clashes or detrimental differences in ability as shown in Philp & Tognini's study (2009). If time permits, and the class is a particularly cohesive one where the above considerations are not a factor in grouping, a quick activity may be slotted in here, requiring the learner to find their partner by way of matching up sentence halves containing the hypothetical structures. This is another way of stimulating interest and marking the transition from one activity to another, as well as providing more meaningful input to encourage attention to both meaning and form within a communicative framework (Thornbury & Harmer, 1999).

While the end of the 50 minute sequence will ideally come at the end of the writing stage, it is envisaged that students will produce their role plays at the beginning of the next class session, gaining both receptive practice through listening to their classmates and being encouraged to notice the different forms as they arise, and the valuable opportunity to build their confidence in their own fluent and accurate production of these complex features.

4. Sentence chain (2 minutes)

Rather than leave the lesson hanging at the end of the writing component, the focus can be brought back to the whole group by using a sentence chain. The aim here is for the first student to begin a sentence with one word, and to continue around the class one word at a time to complete the sentence which needs to contain a teacher or student-elected hypothetical structure. As soon as a mistake is made, however, the sentence needs to begin again, and as such, there is significant pressure to perform accurately. An added incentive for this group of students is the desire to leave for their lunch break, which reinforces the value of correct production and ensures optimal focus on the discrete components of the structure. I have found this to be a highly efficient way of rounding off the lesson in a cohesive and interactive way, and it generally results in a pleasing sense of accomplishment for the learners, as they then scramble deservedly out the door towards the microwaves.

Conclusion

Through this sequence of activities, learners are afforded many opportunities for noticing both the semantic and formal components of complex hypothetical structures. Having sufficient prior acquaintance of these features, they are then challenged through a variety of stimulating activities to move along their grammatical trajectories from declarative knowledge to the beginnings of proceduralisation, with a view towards minimising the difficulties inherent in processing for meaning and form (DeKeyser, 2005). Much of the output is consciously ‘pushed’ (Swain & Lapkin, 1995) through predetermined objectives which include opportunities for regular recycling, repetition, and negotiation of meaning, and therefore fulfilling R. Ellis et al.'s criteria for promoting acquisition (2002). By integrating skills, providing essential and timely corrective feedback, and ensuring a valuable balance between intellectual effort and fun, learners can support one another to integrate these features into their linguistic repertoires in the long term and increase their chances of examination success in the more immediate future. More than that, though, students will hopefully be left with a real sense of memorability and belonging, which is not only of value in fostering proficiency, but also in nurturing their sense of self as a confident L2 speaker. Subsequent class and real-life opportunities to use and reuse these structures will, of course, be necessary to really drive home this proceduralisation, and the sheer level of complexity involved in these structures will indeed have bearing on this already long and bumpy road. By emphasising this to the learners, teachers will do them a great service in developing a realistic yet hopeful view towards the admirable aim of “gradual mastery” (R. Ellis, 1993, p.105).

References

DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.

Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA. Studies in second language acquisition, 18(01), 91–126.

Ellis, R. (1993). The Structural Syllabus and Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 91–113. doi:10.2307/3586953

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30(4), 419–432.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339.

Graves, K. (1996). Teachers as course developers. Cambridge University Press.

Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does Output Promote Noticing and Second Language Acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 239–278. doi:10.2307/3587952

Johnson, K. (2008). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching. Pearson Education.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford Pergamon.

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, 2, 39–52.

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 126–145.

Nation, P. (2007). The four strands. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 2–13.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching. A Comprehensively Revised Edition of Designing Task for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3-4), 245–266.

Pica, T. (1996). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. ERIC Clearinghouse.

Rogers, C. R. (1963). Toward a science of the person. Journal of Humanistic Psychology.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17–46.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of HG Widdowson, 125–144.

Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, 95–108.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 371–391.

Thornbury, S., & Harmer, J. (1999). How to teach grammar. Longman Harlow.

Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of proximal development. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, 52–91.

Wajnryb, R. (1989). Dicto-gloss: a text-based communicative approach to teaching and learning grammar. In English Teaching Forum (Vol. 27, pp. 16–19).

Appendix

Appendix 1

Structures to include in activity sequence (based on CAE Gold Plus)

1. Third conditional
   • including use of different modals in the main clause (e.g. ‘would’ and ‘might’), and the corresponding effects on meaning
   • including the more formal inversion pattern (Had she known he was a liar she would have never agreed to his plan)
2. Second conditional
3. Mixed conditional
4. ‘Wish’ to express regret
5. ‘It’s time’
   • It is important to note that the concept of ‘backtracking’ in the verbal element will be a common theme reinforced through the various activities, given the nature of the CAE examination. Real-life ‘irregularities’ will be addressed as they arise based on the teacher’s professional judgement, perceived need of the students, and considerations to time.

Appendix 2

Examples of sentences to use for the ‘living sentence’ activity

1. If I hadn’t spent so long chatting to my friends every night, I might’ve passed my exams.
2. I wish I hadn’t been so headstrong and argumentative, and had listened to my mother more.
3. If Martin hadn’t started smoking at such a young age, he would be able to kick the habit more easily.
4. It’s time Evie really said what’s on her mind.
5. Had Sun known there was a test yesterday, she wouldn’t have come to school.
   • If there are more words than students, then some learners can be given two or three words in a row, rather than an individual item.
   • If there are more students than words, then use these ‘leftover’ learners to assess the final product, or perhaps ‘conduct’ the sentence recital at the end.

Appendix 3

Examples of sentences to use for the ‘Hypothetical Structures Party’

1. If I hadn’t had that chili dish last night, I wouldn’t have to keep going to the loo.
2. If I were 10 years younger, I’d be interested in you.
3. Had I known he would be here, I would never have agreed to come.
4. It’s high time I got going – the babysitter’s only booked till midnight.
5. I wish I had studied more for my CAE.
6. I might’ve been a doctor if I’d studied harder.
7. I would ban you from doing that if I was Prime Minister.

Please check the Creative Methodology for the Classroom course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Methodology & Language for Secondary Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.