approaches to grammar instruction in teaching materials

Upload: ismatmasri1817

Post on 04-Jun-2018

237 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    1/17

    Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials: A Study in Current L2 Beginning-

    level Spanish TextbooksAuthor(s): Claudia FernndezSource: Hispania, Vol. 94, No. 1 (March 2011), pp. 155-170Published by: American Association of Teachers of Spanish and PortugueseStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23032091.

    Accessed: 12/02/2014 18:02

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

    content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

    of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    .

    American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portugueseis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

    and extend access toHispania.

    http://www.jstor.org

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/23032091?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/23032091?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    2/17

    Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials:A Study in Current L2 Beginning-level Spanish Textbooks

    Claudia FernndezKnox College, USA

    Abstract: This study explores how grammar instruction is conceptualized and applied in published Spanishmaterials. It sought to answer the following questions: What are the approaches to grammar instruction incurrent, college-level, beginning Spanish textbooks? How do they reflect current perspectives on grammarteaching? Six widely adopted Spanish textbooks were examined. The chapters presenting the Spanishpreterite were arbitrarily selected for the analysis, which examined the presentation of explicit information and language data as well as the types of activities offered for learners to begin the acquisition ofthe grammatical feature. The results showed that although most of the textbooks still follow traditionalapproaches to teaching grammar, there is evidence indicating that textbooks are incorporating teachingperspectives based on what is known about L2 acquisition. This article addresses the central role of theprofession in the development of published materials that aim at the acquisition of grammar.Keywords: grammar acquisition, grammar teaching, instructed SLA, L2 acquisition, textbooks

    1. Introductionhe role that grammar instruction plays in L2 acquisition continues to be an importantissue to investigate. In the last twenty years or so, a number of studies have examinednot only whether or not explicit grammar instruction is necessary but, more relevant to

    the teaching profession, what types of teaching techniques are most helpful for learners to startbuilding a mental representation of the L2 grammar. Although the issue is not yet conclusivelyresolved, newer perspectives have emerged that seem to enjoy acceptance among scholars andpractitioners because of their theoretical or empirical rationale.

    While the premise that L2 instruction should occur in meaningful and communicativecontexts has not changed over the past two decades (Savingon 1998), SLA researchers andpractitioners have advocated for a role of grammar instruction where students' attention is drawnto formal aspects of the L2 in an effort for learners to notice and subsequently acquire them.Because this form-focused instruction is by no means devoid of meaning and communication,newer teaching techniques try to incorporate attention to form in meaningful contexts.

    According to newer perspectives to L2 teaching, it is critical to engage L2 learners'learningprocesses during form-focused instruction, including, of course, grammar instruction for learnersto begin to develop an implicit linguistic system (Doughty 2001 ; Doughty and Williams 1998;Larsen-Freeman2003; Lee and VanPatten 2003; Long 1991; Nassaji and Fotos 2004;VanPatten1996). Therefore, the traditional way of teaching grammar with the presentation-productionpractice model (PPP) (Larsen-Freeman 2003) is no longer advocated because presenting grammarrules explicitly and manipulating them through drills or decontextualized production practicedoes not engage the cognitive processes necessary for grammar acquisition. Nassaji and Fotos(2004) report that in terms of grammar instruction "learners must. . . have the opportunitiesto encounter, process, and use instructed forms in their various form-meaning relationships sothe forms can become part of the interlanguage behavior" (130). In this sense, techniques for

    AATSP Copyright 2011. Hispania 94.1 (2011): 155-170

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    3/17

    Hispania 94 March 2011

    grammar instruction that include the provision of comprehensible input, that engage L2 processes such as noticing and making form-meaning connections, and that provide opportunitiesto use the L2 in meaningful, communicative ways are seen as the most effective ways to helplearners acquire the grammar of the target language.

    In spite of the extensive and growing body of literature on grammar acquisition and teaching, there is scarce methodological investigation on whether new perspectives on grammarteaching have reached actual teaching techniques in published materials, in particular Spanishtextbooks. To my knowledge, there is not an investigation yet that addresses how grammar istaught in Spanish textbooks and whether and how these materials are incorporating grammarteaching techniques that reflect newer L2 teaching perspectives. A way of casting a light on thisquestion is by conducting a study to examine how grammar is presented and taught in thesepublished materials.The focus of thepresent study is to address this issue. The analysis consisted of identifyingthe instructional features that textbooks present to teach grammar, such as explicit information, language examples, and types of activities or tasks. It is hoped that this studywill provideinformation on the current state of commercial Spanish teaching materials regarding grammarinstruction and whether and how they reflect current teaching perspectives. Because L2 instructors have a great influence in the decision of textbook publication, it is also hoped that this studyencourages them to become critical and well-informed forces of change, as they become activelyinvolved in the development of published materials that promote the acquisition of grammar.

    2. Background2.1 Some Definitions

    Although there are several definitions of the term "grammar," in the present study grammar is defined as the underlying, implicit, and abstract knowledge that humans have in theirminds regarding the morphology and syntactic rules of their mother language(s). In the fieldof Second Language Acquisition (SLA), this is the type of knowledge that L2 learners need tobuild and develop before they can become successful L2 users.With respect to the definitions of "approach," "method," and "technique" used in this article, I have adopted Anthony's (1963) definitions (qtd. in Brown 2002). Approach, accordingto Anthony, is a set of assumptions dealing with the nature of language, learning, and teaching.Method is the overall plan for systematic presentation of language, which is based on a selectedapproach. Techniques are the specific classrooms activities to facilitate learning, which areconsistent with a method and, thus, with an approach as well. Based on these definitions, byanalyzing a set of activities of a given textbook, we shed light on the method that is selected,which, in turn, provides information on the approach followed.

    2.2 The Role of Input in Grammar AcquisitionThere are two premises upon which the field of SLA has agreed, and which have signifi

    cant implications for L2 grammar instruction. First, in order for learners to acquire and usethe language successfully, they must ultimately create an implicit linguistic system (Doughty2001, 2003; N. Ellis 2002; VanPatten 2004a; Williams 2005). Although the nature of thissystem is debatable, there is no question that L2 acquisition involves some type of underlyinglinguistic knowledge. In this sense, L2 teaching should focus on facilitating the acquisition ofthis knowledge, findingthe best ways in which learners can integrate inguistic formsand rulesinto theirdeveloping systems.The otherpoint ofagreement in SLA concerns the essential role that nput i.e., the languagethatthe learner hears, reads, and sees [in the case of sign languages]) plays in L2 acquisition.

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    4/17

    Fernndez /Approaches to Grammar Instruction

    Input provides the data or "raw material" necessary for learners' internal learning mechanisms tobegin the acquisition of the L2. Therefore, for learners to develop an L2 grammar, it is essentialthat they are exposed to significant amounts of comprehensible, meaning-bearing input (Ellis1994; Gass 1997; Krashen 1985; VanPatten 2003). However, because the input is so complexand consists of many components (morphological, phonological, syntactical, pragmatic, andlexical, to name just a few) that are all attended at the same time when interpreting a message,there is only so much that L2 learners can pay attention to, especially beginner learners. Theefforts to focus on the meaning can take up much of the attentional resources and, althoughgeneral comprehension may be achieved, there are still linguistic aspects in the input that learners do not notice, do not process (i.e., with which they do not connect meaning), and thus takelonger to acquire or do not acquire at all (VanPatten 1996; 2003). Here is where instructionalattempts can be made to facilitate acquisition so that learners become aware of forms that maybe missed iftheywere left on their own.

    2.3 Production and Grammar AcquisitionThe role that language production plays in L2 acquisition is not conclusively resolved;

    however, many scholars see language production as the result of acquisition and not its cause(Ellis 1994; Gass 1997; Krashen 1985; VanPatten 2003; Williams 2007). Production, however,seems to significantly help language development, as has been put forward by Swain (1998,2005) and other scholars within the interaction hypothesis of L2 learning (Gass and Mackey2006; Long 1996).

    According to Swain (2005), language production forces learners to engage in deep syntacticprocessing because the need to produce the L2 accurately forces learners to pay attention tolinguistic forms and their relationships, and how to organize them as a coherent whole. In addition, as a result of this deep-processing, forms are more likely to be retained in memory thaniftheywere only processed forcomprehension. Swain (2005) claims that,through production,learners have theopportunityforhypothesis testing,fornoticing formsduring input,and for thedevelopment of language awareness, which greatly contribute to L2 acquisition. According to her,communicative-based production activities that push learners to use grammar forms accuratelypromote further language development, especially in advanced language learners (Swain 1998).

    According to the interaction hypothesis, language production offers learners the opportunityto receive feedback on the (in)correctness of their utterances, thus promoting their recognitionof and reflection on what they do not know or have not mastered. Such processes may alsopromote language modifications (Gass and Mackey 2006). Production is also seen as a wayfor learners to retrieve acquired or partially acquired linguistic knowledge, which strengthensform-meaning connections and promotes automatization and fluency (N. Ellis 2002; VanPatten2003; Williams 2007).

    These positions of the SLA field on the role of production for grammar development, alongwith the tenets of the Communicative Approach, seem to imply that for production to be effective, it should occur in situations where learners have the opportunity to interpret, negotiate,and express meaningful messages; that is, it should occur in communicative contexts. Therefore,traditional production practices typically found in textbooks thatgo fromvery restrictivecontextsoften devoid of significant meaningto less-restricted ones such as drills (Paulston1972) or other ways of form manipulation are not supported by current SLA views. These typesof activities may not provide the opportunities for meaningful and purposeful interaction thatpromote language awareness, deeper syntactic processing, hypothesis testing, feedback, and thestrengthening of form-meaning connections (Larsen-Freeman 2003; Lee and VanPatten 2003;Savingon 1998; Toth 2004, in press; Walz 1989; Wong and VanPatten 2003).

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    5/17

    Hispania 94 March 2011

    2.4 Current Techniques in Grammar TeachingPerhaps one of the most widely used instructional methods for making learners aware of

    grammatical forms is providing explicit information (i.e., information about the L2 and how itworks). The issue of whether or not to provide students with explicit grammar information

    isstill debatable; however, most scholars see a beneficial role for grammar instruction that includesthis information. Ellis (1990,2002), forexample, argues that f earners have informationabouta certain grammatical form, they are more likely to notice it and connect meaning to it than ifthey do not have such information. A great number of studies have investigated whether explicitinformation is beneficial for L2 grammar acquisition. The results seem to suggest that its effectiveness is not equal across the board; rather, it depends on a number of factors such as thelinguistic forms, teaching techniques, and learners' individual differences. However, there issome indication that many activities are more effective if accompanied by grammar explanationthan if they do not have this component (for a review of many of these studies, see Norris andOrtega 2001 ; for some contrasting results, see Fernndez 2008).Larsen-Freeman (2003) and Williams (2005), however,have warned that xplicit informationsupplied by the teacher or the textbook may be obtrusive for communication because it usuallyrequires learners to focus on the form before experiencing its meaning. In addition, Doughty(2005) has warned about the kind of knowledge thatexplicit informationprovides; indeed, thisexplicit knowledge may not be the type of knowledge that learners need to develop their linguisticsystems unless it is accompanied by activities that engage natural acquisition processes.In addition, forquite some time, practitioners have addressed the inadequacy of the waytextbooks present grammar explanations (R. Ellis 2002; O'Connor di Vito 1991), and thestruggles of instructors on how much and with what level of detail grammar should be explained,mostly those who follow the "communicative" approach (Fox 1993). Katz and Blyth (2009)mention thatgiven the heterogeneity of textbook usersit is a challenge to decide the levelof detail for grammar explanations in a given lesson. What is more, in an effort to focus moreon "communication" and less on grammar rules, publishers often require that explanations beconcise. Katz and Blyth (2009) argue that this way of presenting grammar has led to superficial,linguistically unsound and incomplete information about how the language works and is used byits speakers. In light of these problems, several researchers advocate for more inference-basedtechniques, where learners discover the rules by being exposed to samples of language at thediscourse level (Celce-Murcia 2002; Fotos 1994).

    In addition to giving the explicit information that makes forms more noticeable, the fieldof instructed SLA has also seen other grammar teaching techniques emerge for learners toacquire linguistic forms. These techniques seek to engage learners in meaning-based activitiesthat attempt to work with natural linguistic processes. Because input is so essential for grammaracquisition, many of these techniques involve activities that are input-based, either directly orindirectly. They can be categorized under the umbrella of "input-enhancement" techniques, aterm first presented by Sharwood-Smith ( 1993 ) to refer to the instructional efforts to make formsduring inputnoticeable for earners. Some of these techniques include ' inputflood' (Trahey andWhite 1993; J. White 1998), 'textual enhancement' (Alanen 1995; Leow 1997; Shook 1994),and 'processing instruction'(Farley 2005; VanPatten 2004b; Wong 2004; for a complete reviewof these techniques and examples, see Wong 2005). Other techniques are based on languageproduction in an effort to make learners aware of the linguistic forms that they do not have orstill need to master in order to convey their intended meaning. Some of the activities that aimat doing this are 'dictogloss' (Swain 1998) and 'input/outputcycles' (Izumi and Bigelow 2000;Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara, and Fearnow 1999).

    There is still much more to investigate to better understand the conditions under which thesetechniques are most effective. However, they are promising because of the sound theoreticaland empirical rationale upon which theyare based.

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    6/17

    Fernndez /Approaches to Grammar Instruction3. Previous Studies on L2 Textbooks

    Even in this era of instructional technology, computer assisted language learning (CALL),and the internet, textbooks still have a central role in second language classrooms. In additionto their major purpose of instruction, they serve as a foundation for curriculum and syllabusdesign, a guide for lesson planning and assessment, a tool for defining teaching approaches,and a primary source for tasks, activities, and exercises (Bragger and Rice 2000; Byrnes 1988;Kramsch 1989; Shrum and Glisan 2005). Considering this important role, several analyses havebeen carried out to investigate how textbooks from different target languages present and teachseveral aspects of the L2 such as grammar (Aski 2003; Byrnes 1988; R. Ellis 2002; Fortune1998; Islam 2003; Lally 1998; O'Connor di Vito 1991), context(Walz 1989), culture (Chapelle2009; Frantzen 1998), writing (Lally 1998), and pragmatics (Etienne and Sax 2009; Takenoya1995). More relevant to the present study are the findings regarding the teaching of grammar,which will be reviewed in the next section.

    3.1 L2 Grammar Instruction in TextbooksFortune (1998), R. Ellis (2002), and Islam (2003) investigated how grammar instruction

    was presented in current English as a Foreign/Second Language (EFL/ESL) textbooks. Each ofthe three researchers observed similar trends in the findings of their respective studies. Fortune( 1998) found prevalence for noncontextualized, fill-in-the-gap activities, mechanical exercises,and a strong bias toward a deductive approach to teach grammar. Islam (2003) observed thatmost of the activities were for oral production, asking learners to listen and repeat. R. Ellis(2002) identified two predominant features in thetextbooks he analyzed: explicit description andcontrolled production practice. Although these three studies also found signs of development inthe instructional materials examined (e.g., input processing activities and consciousness-raisingtasks), the authors concluded that textbooks have ignored a number of teaching techniques thatare based upon what it is currently known about L2 grammar acquisition.

    Similar findings were reported by Aski (2003) on seven elementary Italian textbooks. Sheinvestigated whether textbooks were keeping pace with the instructed SLA research, and analyzed the types of activities textbooks offered in their attempts to teach two linguistic forms:the verb piacere and the passato prossimo. She found that mechanical drills were prevalent inmost of the textbooks for both of these structures, but in particular for the passato prossimo.Most textbooks included both meaningful and communicative drills, and the activities thataimed at communicative practice were just a few. She concluded that for grammar teaching,Italian textbooks lie far behind current research on teaching methods. She called for languageteachers to consider findings in SLA research that can potentially inform teaching practices,and to indicate to publishers their preference for materials that reflectthese findings.

    Other studies analyzed the way grammar is explained in textbooks and whether they reflectactual language use. O'Connor di Vito (1991), for example, analyzed three popular elementaryFrench textbooks and their explicit description of four grammatical features. She compared thetextbooks' grammar descriptions against oral and written samples of native language use (informal and informal registers) that she collected over several years. She found that textbooksinaccurately represented the native language use because they ignored context, frequency, andfunction at the levels of discourse in their descriptions. O'Connor di Vito argued that such misrepresentation prevents students from grasping the L2 as it actually occurs. She also underscoredthe importance of presenting grammar rules within the context of the discourse so learners formaccurate intuitions about native speech and acquire sociolinguistic appropriateness. Such claimshave also been echoed by several other scholars (Celce-Murcia 2002; Katz and Blyth 2009).

    Walz ( 1989) analyzed how textbooks contextualized grammar activities in French textbooksfor college level students. He reported that textbook authors contextualized mechanical drills in

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    7/17

    Hispania 94 March 2011their attempt to create communicative grammar activities and emphasized the ineffectivenessof this practice. Walz proposed grammar activities that force students to attend to the meaningand make a choice based on the situation and context in which the communicative act takesplace. In a follow-up study, Lally (1998) examined six beginning French textbooks publishedbetween 1995 and 1998 and observed the treatment of writing skills (previously addressed inByrnes 1988), and whether grammar activities had incorporated Walz's (1989) suggestions.She found that most textbooks had not incorporated the changes suggested, but that some hadshown incipient signs of change. Lally found a relatively lower percentage of drills and morecommunicative activities. She concluded that progress had taken place in the three categoriesshe analyzed; however, a need for more improvement remained.

    4. The Present StudyThere has not been a study of which I am aware that analyses the approaches to grammar

    instruction in Spanish textbooks at the post-secondary level. From previous studies on textbooksof other L2\ we see that although progress has been made from the era of the AudiolingualMethod, textbooks tend to lag behind in incorporating the updated grammar teaching techniquesgenerally advocated by researchers and practitioners in the instructed SLA field. However, wedo not have information that it is based on an actual methodological analysis of whether Spanish textbooks follow this trend or not. This is rather surprising, mostly because of the dozensof Spanish textbooks, particularly at the beginner level, thatare available in the United Statesand the strong market that Spanish learners represent for both textbook authors and publishersin the country. The present study seeks to fill this gap and to inform the profession about howgrammar teaching is currently conceptualized and applied in materials used by a large numberof instructors and students.

    The research questions that guided the study are:

    1. What are the approaches to grammar instruction in current, college, beginninglevel L2 Spanish textbooks?

    2. How do these approaches reflect current perspectives on grammar teaching?

    5. MethodThe latest editions of six US best-selling textbooks of beginning Spanish were selected

    to analyze their approaches to grammar instruction. The textbooks analyzed were Arriba(Zayas-Bazn, Bacon, and Nibert 2008), Claro que si7 (Caycedo Garner, Rusch, and Domnguez 2008), Dicho y hecho (Dawson, Potowski, and Sobral 2007), Dmelo t (Rodrguez,Samaniego, Blommers, Lagunas-Solar, and Ritzi-Marouf 2006), Puntos de Partida (Knorre,Dorwick, Prez-Girons, Glass, and Villareal 2009), and Sabas que...? (VanPatten, Lee,Ballman, and Farley 2008). The criteria for selection were based on the number of editionsthe textbooks had. A relatively high number of editions demonstrates that the textbooks (1)are popular, (2) possess an established reputation, and (3) are continuously being selected byinstructors of Spanish. Therefore, textbooks with five or more editions and from a variety ofestablished publishers (Cengage, Houghton Mifflin,JohnWiley and Sons, McGraw-Hill, andPearson-Prentice Hall) were selected, and the latest editions up to 2009 were analyzed. All theselected textbooks followed a communicative approach, according to theirdescriptions in theirprefaces. A sample of theirchapters was selected for the analysis and itwas arbitrarilydecidedto use the chapter(s) where the preterite was introduced.'

    In order to answer the research questions, the analysis was carried out in two parts. Thefirst part identified the instructional features presented to teach the preterite, such as the possible inclusion of explicit information, the types of data or samples of language, the nature of

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    8/17

    Fernndez /Approaches to Grammar Instructionthe activities offered, and the instructional suggestions given by the authors in the AnnotatedInstructor's editions used in the study. The identified instructional features would provide information on the techniques used, which would inform our understanding of the methods followedand, in turn, shed light on the approaches adopted. The second part was a quantitative analysis,which identified the number of activities according to their nature. Such analysis would helpexamine whether there was a tendency for one type or another. This information would alsoprovide further support to the first part of the analysis.The procedure that was followed was similar to the one used in R. Ellis (2002). That is,the researcher read through each of the chapters where the preterite was introduced and kept arecord of the instructional features that were used to present and teach the preterite. The featureswere codified and classified into general categories with subdivisions. This procedure resultedin the system shown in Figure 1.

    InstructionalFeatures

    explicit samples activities

    contrived discrete continuous aural written

    Figure 1. Instructional Features Employed in Six Spanish Textbooks to Teach Grammar

    The sets of characteristics thatwere identified in the materials were: (1) explicit information, (2) samples of language, and (3) activities. These features may or may not all be presentin L2 textbooks. However, they were in all the textbooks selected for this study.

    Explicit information refers to the explicit description about the target structure or form andhow it works. It is very well possible that a textbook follows inference-based techniques and doesnot explicitly explain grammar rules; rather, it allows the learner to discover them (see CelceMurcia 2002; Fotos 1994). However, none of the textbooks analyzed had this option (Figure1 ). The samples of language refer to the evidence or the data that are shown to the learners forillustrative purposes but that are not accompanied by any type of activity. For example, captionedpictures constitute "data", but fill-in-the black paragraphs were classified as activities. It was

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    9/17

    Hispania 94 March 2011found that the data could be subdivided by the source, text size, and the medium. The sourcecan be authentic, which means that it was originally created for fluent and competent speakers(e.g., native speakers) and that it was not modified to meet the needs of language learners, meaning that the data would have been contrived. As the system in Figure 1 shows, the type of sourcefound in the chapters analyzed to illustrate the L2 was only from contrived language. The textsize refers as to whether the data were presented mainly with discrete sentences or if the datawere presented continuously, as in paragraph length. Both types were found in the textbooks.The medium refers to the way the data were presented, which can be written or aural. Figure 1shows that the medium found was only written.

    A third feature, referred to as activities, were the types of operations that learners have todo in order to acquire the target form (henceforth, "main" activities). The textbooks presented arelative large variety of main activities that could be categorized under many different groups.However, regardless of their type, all these activities shared a common feature: they were eitherreception activities (i.e., input-based) or production activities (i.e., production-based). Thus, itwas decided to classify them under these two groups (Figure l).2 This division was also particularly useful for the analysis because of the roles that input processing and production playin grammar acquisition and because of the current techniques that focus on these two modalities(as explained in the background section of this article). In addition, due to the prevalence ofproduct-oriented approaches previously found in textbooks, it would seem appropriate to examinein this study as well the amount and nature of production and input-based types of activities.The criteria to identify nput-based and production activities were based on R. Ellis (2002)and are as follows. Input-based activities are the activities in which learners have to attend to theinstances of language with the target form and do something that reflects that they have noticedit and comprehended it without having to produce such a form (e.g., read about someone's typical activities and decide whether they are carried out on a regular basis or if they were done lastnight). These types of activities can be controlled or online. Controlled activities are those thatgive learners time to process the language (such as reading activities). Online activities are thosein which learners are asked to attend to and process the data at the same time it is conveyed (suchas listening activities). Production activities are those in which learners use the target languageto say, sign, or write something. These can also be controlled, as when language learners areasked to produce the target form that is provided (e.g., complete sentences using verbs froma list), or free, as when learners are left on their own to express their messages with the targetform (e.g., writing a paragraph describing what a famous actor did during his vacation). Ofcourse, in these activities, learners may not necessarily use the target form.

    It is important to note that in some of the textbooks analyzed in the present study, many ofthe main activities were constructed in several subactivities or steps (sometimes called "pasos").Each step was recorded and examined as if it were a single main activity.That is, if an activityconsisted of three steps, these were considered as three single activities. This would give us abetter picture of the number and types of operations, because each step may be of a differenttype (i.e., one step may be a production activity and another input-based, for example). Therewere activities not included in the analysis, such as those for extra grammar practice at the endof the chapters or the textbooks.

    In order to include the authors' suggestions on how to teach the preterite, the present analysisalso evaluates the additional instructions found in each of the Annotated Instructor editions.Author suggestions within these texts are limited to supplementary activities; therefore, tips orinstructions for implementing each of the main activities were also excluded from this study.For the second part of the analysis, the activities for each type of operation were quantified. Although there were single activities that asked learners to both attend to the input andproduce language (i.e., such as question/answer or interviews), and thus could be classified asboth input-based and production-based, it was decided to consider them as production activitiesbecause, ultimately, the purpose of the activity was to produce language.

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    10/17

    Fernndez /Approaches to Grammar Instruction6. Results

    There was a common trend followed by all the textbooks in the way the explicit information and the samples of language were provided. There was only one way of teaching about thepreterite and how it works and it was by supplying that information (rather than having learnersdiscover it, for example). The length and amount of detail of the information varied amongtextbooks, but it tended to be relatively brief and concise and had several contrived examplesto illustrate the explanation.

    The common way of presenting the data or samples of language (that did not involve activities) was by contrived sources, with both discrete sentences and brief paragraphs, through briefdialogues or captioned pictures, and through a written medium. None of the textbooks providedsamples of languages in an aural way (as read by the instructor or listened to through an audiofile, for example) or through authentic sources unless they involved some type of operation.

    The textbooks were also similar in the number of chapters dedicated to teach the preterite,but slightly differed at the point in the textbook's syllabus where the form was introduced for thefirst time. The total number of chapters analyzed for each book was between two and three.

    All textbooks included both input-based and production activities although they largelydiffered in the amount for each kind, as 1 will explain below. The most common input-basedactivities were based upon simple selection (e.g., true/false, yes/no, yesterday/always, etc.),relating the columns, or ordering events logically or chronologically. The common productionbased activities were overwhelmingly based upon controlled sentence formation, although alltextbooks also included interviews (both controlled and free). Other common types of productionactivities included: question and answer, fill-in-the blank, information-gap, and story narration(with or without prompts). Two textbooks, Arriba and Dmelo t had meaningful drills aspart of theirproduction-based activities.

    Textbooks largely differed regarding the amount of input-based and production activities(Table 1 ). For example, while one textbook had only one input-based activity, another includedsixteen. In addition, the amount of controlled input-based activities was considerably higherthan the online activities among textbooks. Only three textbooks out of the six had online inputbased activities, and there were differences between them in quantity as well.

    Table 1. Number of Activities by Type in SixBeginning-level Spanish Textbooks

    Textbooks Input-based Activities Production-based ActivitiesControlled Online Controlled Free

    iArriba 4 0 16 0Claro que s 1 0 12 1Dicho y hecho 5 3 9 11Dmelo t 2 3 18 12Puntos de partida 9 0 17 5Sabas que...? 15 1 12 7

    Total 36 7 84 36

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    11/17

    Hispania 94 March 2011This variation in number was also similar for the production activities. All except one

    textbook had both controlled and free production activities, but the difference in number wasample: one textbook had a total of thirteen production activities while another had thirty. Aswas the case with the input-based activities, there were more controlled than free productionactivities in all textbooks, although thedifference n number was wide-ranging as well (Table 1 .The average ratio between input-based activities and the production activities among the sixtextbooks was 7:20.

    All of the Instructor's Annotated editions of the textbooks included information on techniques and additional activities on how to teach the preterite, n addition to the main activitiesin the student's version of the text. In four of the six textbooks, the recommended techniquesfor introducing the preterite were input-based {Arriba , Dicho y hecho, Dimelo t, and Sabasque.The types of activities that were suggested contained data that were visual, aural, or both,and asked for the instructor to narrate a brief story or to describe what he/she did the previousday/week using the target forms, for example, and to check for comprehension. Other activitieswere more form-focused, asking students to process the forms by having to consider the verbform and choose the tense or the subject of the sentence, for example. Some of the textbooksunderscored the importance of doing these activities in a personalized and contextualized way.This suggested information appeared at the beginning of the grammatical presentation in allthe chapters analyzed.

    The techniques that were suggested in the other two textbooks (i.e., Puntos de partida and Claro que s ) were mainly production-based. ; Claro que s suggested chain and transformationdrills and Puntos de partida encouraged activities with some type of form manipulation (e.g.,translations or asking students to provide the infinitive form to the preterite prompt), as well as chainand transformation drills. Puntos de partida suggested some input-based activities as well.

    It is important to note that the techniques and activities recommended by the authors in themargins of the textbooks do not necessarily reflect the types of the main activities provided tostudents. That is, a textbook may suggest input-based techniques to introduce the preterite, buthave several meaningful drills as their main activities (e.g., Arriba ). Or a textbook may suggestchain and transformation drills, but present none of them as its main activities (e.g., Claro quesi ). This mlange of suggestions and activities demonstrate that some of the textbooks followdifferent approaches at the same time. On the one hand, they seem to favor acquisition-basedapproaches, where grammar learning is thought to be learned through input processing andmeaningful interaction. On the other,theyseem to follow product-oriented approaches, wheregrammar learning is thought to be learned through controlled oral practice.

    Additionally, in spite of the authors' input-based suggestions to introduce the preterite inmost of the textbooks, the notable difference between the number of main input-based activitiesand production activities is certainly prominent, indicating a trend. In most of the textbooks, themain input-based activities were practically neglected if compared to the number of productionactivities included. These numbers reflect a strong tendency toward production activities, inparticular for the controlled type, in most of the textbooks.

    7. DiscussionWith regard to our first research question, "What are the approaches to grammar instruction

    in current, college-level beginning L2 Spanish textbooks?", the results show two prominentfeatures in most of the textbooks: explicit information plus controlled production practice.These findings indicate prevalence for a product-oriented approach, reminiscent of the PPP,where grammar acquisition is assumed to occur through explicit knowledge of rules that arepracticed orally in constraint contexts. The findings of this study are similar to those found inthe previous studies addressed in section 3.1 of this paper. The product-oriented approach iseven more evident when one examines the amount of input-based activities, particularly the

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    12/17

    Fernndez /Approaches to Grammar Instructiononline type. Only three of the six textbooks included main activities in which learners wererequired to process the linguistic target aurally. Furthermore, half of the textbooks providedlimited opportunities for students to process the target form through written input. These findings indicate that at least half of the textbooks in this study overlook what is currently knownin SLA: the central role of input in the development of an L2 grammar (Ellis 1994; Gass 1997;Krashen 1985; VanPatten 2003).

    It is true, however, that in four of the six textbooks authors suggest presenting the targetform via techniques that include contextualized, input-based activities, which may indicatethat the traditional and questionable controlled production-based approach to teach grammarmay be giving way to a more theoretically sound approach, where grammar is thought to beacquired by the processing of meaningful input. Therefore, the number and nature of mainactivities presented may indicate a traditional approach still followed; however, the authors'more innovative suggestions may be a subtle sign that the approaches are changing.

    With regard to our second question, "How do these approaches reflect current perspectiveson grammar teaching?", the analysis revealed that most textbooks are not incorporating theseperspectives sufficiently. On the one hand, by offering just a few input-based activities, mosttextbooks are leaving out many of the newer approaches that encourage students to notice andconnect form with meaning (e.g., those based on input enhancement techniques, as referredto in the background section of this article; see Wong 2005) and that could be incorporatedto facilitate L2 grammar acquisition. On the other hand, by focusing on controlled practice topromote grammar development, textbooks limit opportunities for deeper syntactic processing,noticing the gap, or hypothesis testing (as suggested by Swain 1998, 2005), and the tenets ofthe interaction hypothesis (Gass and Mackey 2006; Long 1996). These observations indicatethat in terms of grammar teaching, most textbooks in the present study could incorporate moreactivities that better reflect current perspectives.

    Furthermore, the results of the analysis showed that the textbooks included similar pedagogical features to teach the preterite, without offering significant, more innovative alternative toenhance grammar learning. For example, all the textbooks in the present study provided explicitinformation and none presented inference-based techniques with opportunities for learners todiscover the grammar rules (Celce-Murcia 2002; Fotos 1994). The samples of language were alsovery similar; for example, they did not present data for illustrative purposes that were authentic,aural, and at the appropriate level of discourse. Furthermore, none of the textbooks presentedalternative types of grammar activities, such as grammaticality judgments. The reasons fornot including these options may be practical and even instructionally valid; nevertheless, theyindicate that textbooks look very similar and that they tend toward the conventional.An analysis of the methodological features, number, and nature of the main activities inmost of the textbooks in this study suggests that most texts continue to incorporate traditionalways of teaching grammar. However, the fact that three of the textbooks reviewed in this analysisdiffered from the rest by including more input-based activities, and by either having more freecommunicative production activities or a greater balance between production and input-basedactivities, indicates that some textbooks are adopting approaches based on what is currentlyknown about L2 grammar acquisition. In addition, the fact that four of the six textbooks suggest input-based techniques to introduce the grammar form indicates an acknowledgement ofthe essential role that input plays in grammar acquisition.

    These observed features may reflect a concern among the profession about the current stateof Spanish textbooks. Thus, more effective approaches to grammar teaching are making theirway into the mainstream, although in a slow and subtle way. In order to confirm whether thischange is actually taking place, it is necessary to conduct further investigations to examine notonly recent editions of best-sellers, but also new textbooks that come out into the market.

    Although the slow pace with which textbooks adopt newer perspectives on language teachinghas been addressed in previous literature Katz and Blyth 2009; Shrum and Glisan 2005), the

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    13/17

    Hispania 94 March 2011reasons why this happens are not always clear. It is certainly puzzling that current textbooks arevery innovative with the presentation of culture, the use of authentic and interesting readings,and the inclusion of the most recent technology-based materials, but have lagged behind in theirapproaches to teaching grammar. Why, in spite of the influential communicative approach ofthe eighties and the large number of publications on new perspectives of grammar teaching inthe last twenty years, has much of this been neglected in Spanish textbooks?

    Perhaps the main reason for the current state of textbooks, as addressed by several scholars,is the prevalent conservatism of the profession ( Aski 2003 ; Bragger and Rice 2000; Dorwick andGlass 2003). Language instructors are not willing yet to let go of traditional ways of teachinggrammar, and this situation is reflected in the approaches to grammar found in the textbooks.Instructors greatly influence textbook publishers because adopting a text is based on their decision. Understandably, publishers will bring out textbooks that please as many as possible toensure successful sales and, thus, will not risk publishing a too innovative textbook attractiveto just a few. Katz and Blyth (2009) report on what a reviewer expressed: "[U]nless a criticalmass of potential adopters reveals a desire for materials that incorporate more research fromSLA, textbook publishers will not take that risk. . (6). In otherwords, grammar instructionlooks the way it does because that is what instructors expect. This is one of the reasons whypopular textbooks look alike, and why innovations in grammar instruction are hardly seen(Ariew 1982; Bragger and Rice 2000).

    Why does the profession still prefer to remain with the familiar? Some scholars havereported that many language instructors tend to teach they way they were taught. A studyconducted by Borg (2003), for example, showed that the findings in the SLA field regardinggrammar instruction is not what influenced teachers, but rather the impact of prior languagelearning experiences. Lee and VanPatten (2003) report that teaching assistants often attributetheir L2 learning success to the drills, grammar explanations, and written exercises they did inthe classroom when they were L2 students.

    Another reason may be the scarcely updated training and professional development ofinstructors, including textbook authors and decision-makers in language departments, who mayrely mostly on their past experience to make decisions on teaching practices. Of course, accumulated experience is a valid asset to confer expertise in textbook design and choice; however,it is not enough. Furthermore, because many institutions do not see textbook writing as a validactivity for tenure promotion, those applied linguists who might contribute to innovations inmaterial design are not being encouraged to pursue such an activity.

    Of course, it may still be the case today what VanPatten (1999) addressed more than tenyears ago regarding the misunderstanding of the term "communicative". Language instructorsmay still relate communication with oral production only, when the term actually refers to anyongoing act in which there is interpretation, negotiation, and expression of meaning (Savignon1998). Therefore, it may occur that the "communicativeness" of the textbooks is being measured inappropriately; that is, only by the amount of production activities. Certainly, updatedtraining and professional development would clarify confusion, and would prevent the risk ofperpetuating teaching techniques based upon outdated approaches.

    8. LimitationsAlthough a study like this provides information on the current situation of grammar teaching in best-selling textbooks, it does not provide a complete picture. A limitation of this study

    is that while it tried to evaluate the most representative textbooks in the market, it certainly didnot include all the best-selling textbooks, and thus, it might have left out books that may presentdifferent approaches from what we found with the sample chosen. In addition, the study did notinclude new books recently published or less popular books which may also present differentapproaches from the well established best-sellers. Furthermore, the study focused on beginning

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    14/17

    Fernndez /Approaches to Grammar Instructionlevel Spanish textbooks and, thus, it does not report on the current state of textbooks for higherproficiency levels. In order to better observe if new approaches to grammar teaching are makingtheirway into textbook materials, further nvestigation is needed with both recently publishednew books and less popular books, as well as for audiences at different proficiency levels.

    Another limitation is thatby selecting one single grammar form,the study did not observea possible variation in teaching techniques that may appear with other types of forms. Althoughthis seems unlikely due to the teaching consistency that characterizes textbook methods, differentevidence may have been observed had more target forms been included. Finally, it is suggestedthat future material reviews on grammar teaching practices conduct analyses that further breakdown input-based and production based activities (e.g., text-enhancement, structured input,input/output cycles, fill-in-the gaps, completion of sentences, dictogloss, etc.) to provide a moredetailed picture of the types of activities that textbooks present.9. Conclusions

    The approaches to teaching grammar that most of the textbooks in the present analysis followare still reminiscent of the PPP model, which assumes thatgrammar is acquired through explicitgrammar instruction and controlled production practice. However, some signs of change wereobserved in at least half of the textbooks, as they incorporated more opportunities for learnersto acquire grammar via input processing and meaningful interaction. This change may indicatethe willingness of the profession to try newer and more theoretically sound techniques to teachgrammar that reflect what is currently known about L2 acquisition. It is hoped that this studydemonstrates the actual situation of grammar teaching in Spanish textbooks and the room forimprovement that exists. It is also hoped that these results show the need for the profession totry new teaching techniques and to be involved in the creation of published materials. In thisway, we will ensure that textbooks are effective tools to promote grammar acquisition in theSpanish language classroom.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTI am very thankful to Paul Toth for his suggestions and comments on an earlier versionof this paper.

    NOTES'It is important to note that the analysis was limited to the instruction of the preterite and not of thedifference between the preterite and the imperfect or the uses of the Spanish aspect. Also, the preteriteform was arbitrarily selected and was used as a sample to shed light on textbooks' grammar approaches.No claims will be made about the most or least effective techniques to teach this specific target form in

    particular.2R. Ellis (2002), for example, found a third type of operation in his analysis: grammaticality judgments, a type of acceptability judgments (Mackey and Gass 2005) commonly used in SLA research wherelearners are required to discriminate between what is grammatical and what is not by applying their linguistic knowledge. These types of activities were not found in the chapters examined in the present study.WORKS CITEDAlanen, Riikka. (1995). "Input Enhancement and Rule Presentation in Second Language Acquisition."Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Ed. Richard Schmidt. Honolulu: U of Hawaii R 259-302. Print.Anthony, Edward. ( 1963). "Approach, Method, and Technique." English Language Teaching 17.2:63-67.Print.

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    15/17

    Hispania 94 March 2011Ariew, Robert. ( 1982). "The Textbook as Curriculum." Curriculum, Competence, and the Foreign LanguageTeacher. Ed. Theodore Higgs. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. 11-33. Print.Aski, Janice. (2003). "Foreign Language Textbook Activities: Keeping Pace with Second Language

    Acquisition Research." Foreign Language Annals 36.1: 57-65. Print.Borg, Simon. (2003). "Teacher Cognition in Grammar Teaching: A Literature Review." Language Awareness 12.22: 96-108. Print.Bragger, Jeannette, and Donald Rice. (2000). "Foreign Language Materials: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow." Agents of Change in a Changing Age. Ed. Robert Terry. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook

    Company. 10740. Print.Brown, H. Douglas. (2002). "English Language Teaching in the 'Post-Method' Era: Towards Better

    Diagnosis, Treatment, and Assessment." Methodology in Language Teaching. Ed. Jack C. Richardsand Willy A. Renandya. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 9-18. Print.Byrnes, Heidi. (1988). "Wither Foreign Language Pedagogy: Reflections in Textbooks-Reflections onTextbooks." Die Unterrichtspraxis 21.11: 29-36. Print.Caycedo Garner, Lucia, Debbie Rusch, and Marcela Domnguez. (2008). Claro que s 6th ed. Boston:

    Houghton Mifflin. Print.Celce-Murcia, Marianne. (2002). "Why it Makes Sense to Teach Grammar in Context and Through Dis

    course." New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Ed. Elli Hinkeland Sandra Fotos. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 119-33. Print.Chapelle, Carol. (2009). "A Hidden Curriculum in Language Textbooks: Are Beginning Learners of Frenchat U.S. Universities Taught about Canada?" The Modern Language Journal 93.2: 139-52. Print.Dawson, Laila, Kim Potowski, and Silvia Sobral. (2007). Dicho y hecho. 8th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.PrintDorwick, Thalia, and William R. Glass. (2003). "Language Education Policies: One Publisher's Perspective." The Modern Language Journal 87.4: 592-94. Print.Doughty, Catherine. (2001). "Cognitive Underpinnings of Focus on Form." Cognition and Second Lan

    guage Instruction. Ed. Peter Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 206-57. Print.. (2003). "Instructed SLA: Constraints, Compensation, and Enhancement." The Handbook of SecondLanguage Acquisition. Ed. Catherine Doughty and Michael Long. Maiden, MA: Blackwell. 256-310.Print.Doughty, Catherine, and Jessica Williams. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Ac

    quisition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Print.Ellis, Nick. (2002). "Frequency Effects in Language Acquisition: A Review with Implications for Theo

    ries of Implicit and Explicit Language Acquisition." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24.2:143-48. Print.Ellis, Rod. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford UP. Print.. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford UP. Print.. (2002). "Methodological Options in Grammar Teaching." New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching inSecond Language Classrooms. Ed. Eli Heinkel and Sandra Fotos. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    155-79. Print.Etienne, Corinee, and Kelly Sax. (2009). "Stylistic Variation in French: Bridging the Gap between Researchand Textbooks." The Modern Language Journal 93.4: 584-606. Print.Farley, Andrew. (2005). Structured Input: Grammar Instruction for the Acquisition-Oriented Classroom.New York: McGraw-Hill. Print.Fernndez, Claudia. (2008). "Re-Examining the Role of Explicit Information in Processing Instruction."Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30.3: 277-305. Print.Fortune, Alan. (1998). "Survey Review: Grammar Practice Books." ELT Journal 52.1: 67-79. Print.Fotos, Sandra. (1994). "Integrating Grammar Instruction and Communicative Language Use throughGrammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks." TESOL Quarterly 28.2: 323-51. Print.Fox, Cynthia. ( 1993). "Communicative Competence and Beliefs about Language among Graduate Teach

    ing Assistants of French." Modern Language Journal 77.3: 313-24. Print.Frantzen, Diana. (1998). "Focusing on Form while Conveying a Cultural Message." Hispania 81.1:134-45. Print.Gass, Susan. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum. Print.Gass, Susan, and Alison Mackey. (2006). "Input, Interaction and Output." Themes in SLA Research. Ed.Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig and Zoltn Drnyei. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2-17. Print.

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    16/17

    Fernndez /Approaches to Grammar InstructionIslam, Carlos. (2003). "Materials for Beginners." Developing Materials for Language Teaching. Ed. BrianTomlinson. London: Continuum. 257-74. Print.Izumi, Shinichi, and Martha Bigelow. (2000). "Does Output Promote Noticing in Second Language Ac

    quisition ?" TESOL Quarterly 34.2: 239-78. Print.Izumi, Shinichi, Martha Bigelow, Miho Fujiwara, and Sarah Fearnow. ( 1999). "Testing the Output Hypothesis: Effects of Output on Noticing and Second Language Acquisition." Studies in Second Language

    Acquisition 21.3: 421-52. Print.Katz, Stacey, and Carl Blyth. (2009). "What is Grammar?" AA USC 2008 Volume, Conceptions of L2

    Grammar: Theoretical Approaches and Their Application in the L2 Classroom. Ed. Stacey Katz andCarl Blyth. Boston, MA: Heinle. 2-14. Print.Knorre, Marty, Thalia Dorwick, Ana Maria Prez-Girons, William R. Glass, and Hildebrando Villarreal.

    (2009). Puntos de Partida. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Print.Kramsch, Claire. (1989). "The Cultural Discourse of Foreign Language Textbooks." Toward a New Inte

    gration of Language and Culture. Ed. Alan J. Singerman. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference.63-88. Print.Krashen, Steven. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman. Print.Lally, Carolyn. (1998). "Back to the Future: A Look at Present Textbooks and Past Recommendations."

    Foreign Language Annals 31.3: 307-14. Print.Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2003). Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammarian. Boston: ThomsonHeinle. Print.Lee, James F., and Bill VanPatten. (2003). Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill. Print.Leow, Ronald P. ( 1997). "The Effects of Input Enhancement and Text Length on Adult Readers' Comprehen

    sion and Intake in Second Language Acquisition." Applied Language Learning 8.2: 151-82. Print.Long, Michael. (1991). "Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology." Foreign

    Language Research in Crosscultural Perspective. Ed. Kees de Bot, Ralph . Ginsberg, and ClaireKramsch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 39-52. Print.. (1996). "The Role of Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition." Handbook of LanguageAcquisition. Ed. William Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia. New York: Academic. 413-68. Print.Mackey, Alison, and Susan Gass. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Print.Nassaji, Hosein, and Sandra Fotos. (2004). "Current Developments in Research on the Teaching of Grammar." Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 12645. Print.Norris, John, and Lourdes Ortega. (2001). "Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and

    Quantitative Meta-Analysis." Language Learning 50.3: 417-528. Print.O'Connor di Vito, Nadine. ( 1991 ). "Incorporating Native Speaker Norms in Second Language TeachingMaterials." Applied Linguistics 12.4: 383-95. Print.Paulston, Christina. ( 1972). "The Sequencing of Structural Pattern Drills." TESOL Quarterly 5.3:197-208.Print.Rodriguez, Francisco, Fabian Samaniego, Thomas Blommers, Magaly Lagunas-Solar, and Viviane RitziMarouf. (2006). Dimelo t 5th ed. Boston: Thomson-Heinle. Print.Savingon, Sandra J. (1998). Communicative Competence. Theory and Classroom Practice. 2nd ed. NewYork: McGraw-Hill. Print.Sharwood-Smith, Michael. (1993). "Input Enhancement in Instructed SLA: Theoretical Bases." Studies

    in Second Language Acquisition 15.2: 165-79. Print.Shook, David J. ( 1994). "FL/L2 Reading, Grammatical Information, and the Input-to-intake Phenomenon."

    Applied Language Learning 5.2: 57-93. Print.Shrum, Judith, and Eileen Glisan. (2005). Teacher's Handbook: ContextualizedLanguage Instruction.

    Boston: Thomson-Heinle. Print.Swain, Merrill. (1998). "Focus on Form through Conscious Reflection." Focus on Form in Classroom

    Second Language Acquisition. Ed. Catherine Doughty and Jessica Williams. Cambridge: CambridgeUP. 64-81 Print.. (2005). "The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research." Handbook on Research in Second LanguageLearning and Teaching. Ed. Eli Hinkel. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 471-83. Print.

    Takenoya, Miyuki. (1995). "Acquisition of Pragmatic Rules: The Gap between What the Language Textbooks Present and How Learners Perform." The Foreign Language Classroom: Bridging Theoryand Practice. Ed. Margaret A. Haggstrom, Leslie Zarker Morgan, and Joseph A. Wieczorek. NewYork: Garland. 149-64. Print.

    This content downloaded from 193.130.15.83 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:02:42 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/13/2019 Approaches to Grammar Instruction in Teaching Materials

    17/17

    Hispania 94 March 2011Toth, Paul. (2004). "When Grammar Instruction Undermines Cohesion in L2 Spanish Classroom Discourse." Modern Language Journal 88.1: 14-30. Print.. (In press). "Output-based Instructional Approaches." The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics:

    Language, Learning and Teaching. Ed. Carol Chapelle and Lourdes Ortega. Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlackwell. Print.Trahey, Martha, and Lydia White. (1993). "Positive Evidence and Preemption in the Second LanguageClassroom." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15.2: 181-204. Print.VanPatten, Bill. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction. New York: Ablex. Print.. ( 1998). "Perceptions of and Perspectives on the Term 'Communicative.'" Hispania 81.4:925-32. Print.. (2003). From Input to Output: A Teacher's Guide to Second Language Acquisition. New York:McGraw-Hill. Print.. (2004a). "Input Processing in SLA." Processing Instruction: Theoiy, Research, and Commentary. Ed.Bill VanPatten. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 5-31. Print., ed. (2004b). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum. Print.VanPatten, Bill, James Lee, Terry Ballman, and Andrew P. Farley. (2008). Sabas que...? 5th ed. NewYork: McGraw-Hill. Print.Walz, Joel. (1989). "Context and Contextualized Language Practice in Foreign Language Teaching." TheModern Language Journal 73.2: 160-68. Print.White, Joanna. (1998). "Getting the Learners'Attention: A Typographical Input-Enhancement Study."Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Ed. Catherine Doughty and JessicaWilliams. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 91-128. Print.White, Lydia. (1991). "Adverb Placement in Second Language Acquisition: Some Positive and NegativeEvidence in the Classroom." Second Language Research 7.2: 133-61. Print.Williams, Jessica. (2005). "Form-Focused Instruction." Handbook of Research in Second Language Teach

    ing and Learning. Ed. Elli Hinkel. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 671-91. Print.. (2007). "The Speaking-Writing Connection in Second Language and Academic Literacy Development."The Oral/Literal Connection: Perspectives on L2 Speaking, Writing, and Other Media Interactions.Ed. Diane Belcher and Alan Hirvela. Ann Harbor: U of Michigan P. 10-25. Print.Wong Wynne. (2004). "The Nature of Processing Instruction." Processing Instruction: Theory, Research,and Commentary. Ed. Bill VanPatten. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 33-63. Print.. (2005). Input Enhancement: From Theory and Research to the Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.Print.

    Wong, Wynne, and Bill VanPatten. (2003). "The Evidence is IN: Drills are OUT." Foreign LanguageAnnals 36.3: 403-23. Print.Zayas-Bazn, Eduardo, Susan Bacon, and Holly Nibert. (2008). Arriba 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.