Article published in:
Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory
Edited by Kristof Baten, Aafke Buyl, Katja Lochtman and Mieke Van Herreweghe
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 4] 2015
► pp. 239–262

Chapter 11. Implications of the Developmental Stages of Language Acquisition for Classroom Teaching

| University of Macau
In the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), there has been an ongoing debate about the role of instruction between: (1) proponents of strong interface, who are those advocating the position that explicit instruction can lead to acquisition, as supported by advocates of the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM); (2) proponents of no interface, who are those advocating the position that instruction does not lead to acquisition and that input alone through implicit techniques is sufficient; and (3) proponents of weak interface, who are those leaning towards the middle, believing that instruction can lead to acquisition only if it is geared towards the next developmental stage that the learner is ready for, as detailed in the Teachability Hypothesis of Processability Theory (PT). The Teachability Hypothesis states that instruction is most effective when it reflects the stage just beyond the learners’ current interlanguage. The current study is a mixed-method experiment which provided instruction to three English classes at a Chinese university in Macau.Instruction was explicit, implicit, or developmentally moderated. The results show that students in the developmentally-moderated group outperformed their counterparts in the explicit and the implicit groups. This finding lends support to the weak-interface hypothesis.
Published online: 11 December 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.4.11dom
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Baten, Kristof
2019.  In Widening Contexts for Processability Theory [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 7], ► pp. 301 ff. Crossref logo
Roos, Jana
2019.  In Widening Contexts for Processability Theory [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 7], ► pp. 285 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Allwright, R.L.
(1984) Why don't learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In D.M. Singleton, & D. Little (Eds.), Language learning in formal and informal contexts (pp. 3-18). Dublin: Irish Association for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bachman, L.
(1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Brown, R.
(1973) A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., & Pienemann, M.
(1983) German as a second language: The language acquisition of foreign workers [Deutsch als Zweispache: Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Corder, S.P.
(1967) The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(1995) Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deller, S. & Rinvolucri, M.
(2002) Using the mother tongue: Making the most of the learner's language. Surrey: Delta Publishing.Google Scholar
Di Biase, B.
(Ed.) (2002) Developing a second language: Acquisition, processing and pedagogy issues in Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, and Swedish. Melbourne: Language Australia.Google Scholar
(2008) Focus-on-form and development in L2 learning. In J.U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 197-220). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Doman, E.
(2005) Grammatical consciousness-raising. Modern English Teacher, 14, 22-29.Google Scholar
Doughy, C. & Williams, J.
(1998) Focus on Form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Duff, A.
(1989) Translation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(1990) Bringing translation back into the language class. Practical English Teaching, 10, 50-59.Google Scholar
Dulay, H.C., Burt, M.K. & Krashen, S.
(1982) Language and languages; second language acquisition; study and teaching. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dyson, B.
(2009) Processability Theory and the role of morphology in ESL development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research, 25, 255-376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feng, H. & Zhang, S.M.
(2012) The primary effect and transfer-of-training effect of input processing instruction and traditional grammar instruction [输入加工教学法和传统语法教学的主要效应及训练迁移效应]. Foreign Languages and their Teaching (外语与外语教学), 4, 60-65.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. & Norrby, C.
(2008) Processability Theory applied to written and oral Swedish. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 81-94). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Hong, C.
(2010) The rationality of the existence of Grammar Translation Method in China [论语法翻译法在我国长期存在的合理性]. Helongjiang Researches on Higher Education, 2, 156-158.Google Scholar
Hudson, T.
(1993) Nothing does not equal zero: Problems with applying developmental sequence findings to assessment and pedagogy. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 461-493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, L.
(2008) Acquisition of German Word Order in tutored learnerse: A cross-sectional study in a wider theoritical context. Language Learning, 58, 185–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jia, X.Y.
(2013) The discussion of the practical application of Grammar Translation Method to English teaching” [语法翻译教学法在综合英语教学的实际应用探讨]. College English (Academic Edition), 1, 8-11.Google Scholar
Johnston, M.
(1985) Second language acquisition research in the adult migrant education program. In M. Johnston & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Second language acquisition: A classroom perspective (selected papers). Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant Education Service.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.U.
(Ed.) (2008) Processability approaches to second language acquisition. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.U., Mansouri, F. & Liebner, M.
(2011) Teaching. In M. Pienemann & J.U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An introductory textbook (pp. 148-155). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S.
(1981) Second language acquisition and second language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
(1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. California: Laredo Publishing.Google Scholar
Kune, Z.
(2013) On the application of grammar translation to public English teaching [语法翻译法在公共英语教育中的应用]. The Science Education Collection, 5, 119-120.Google Scholar
Long, M.
(2007) Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lublin, N.
(2012) Texting that saves lives. From TED Talks, May. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://​www​.ted​.com​/talks​/nancy​_lublin​_texting​_that​_saves​_lives​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ma, S.L.
(2012) A brief analysis of the applicability of the Grammar Translation Method in Chinese foreign language education [浅析语法翻译法在中国外语教学中的适用性]. Literature, 11, 117-118.Google Scholar
Mansouri, F., & Duffy, L.
(2005) The pedagogic effectiveness of developmental readiness in ESL grammar instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 28, 81-99.Google Scholar
Murphy, B.
(1988) Teaching translation and teaching through translation. Modern English Teacher, 15, 33-39.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1984) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186-214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986) Psychological constraints on the teachability of language. In C.W. Pfaff (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 143-168). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1992) Teachability Theory. Paper presented at the Language Acquisition Research Centre, National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia, 43-72.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Discussing PT. In M. Pienemann (Ed.) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 61-83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M.
(1985) Towards an explanatory model of language acquisition. Paper presented at the 1985 Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum , UCLA, February 22–24.
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J.U.
(Eds.) (2011) Studying Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, P.
(1985) i + 1 defined – the Multi-Dimensional Model of language learning. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Teng, F.
(2012a) A new model for grammar teaching on the perspective of PT -A teaching experiment by comparing PT, UG and GTM [语言加工处理论基础上语法教学的新模式—项基于PT组、UG组、GTM组的教学实验比较研究]. College English Teaching and Research (大学英语教学与研究), 2, 3-7.Google Scholar
(2012b) Past-tense acquisition of non-English majors in University-A corpus study based on language processing theory [大学非英语专业学生过去式的习得研究_一项以语言加工处理论为基础的语料研究]. Journal of Tonghua Normal University (通化师范学院学报通), 6, 66-68.Google Scholar
Tudor, I.
(1987) Using translation in ESP. ELT Journal, 41, 268-273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Patten, B., & Cadierno, T.
(1993) Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yan, S., & Xue, X.
(2012) The existing value and creation of Grammar Translation Method to college English teaching in China [语法翻译法在我国大学英语教学中的存在价值及其创新]. China Economist, 5, 120-121.Google Scholar