Advertisement

Reconciling SLA Theories with Classroom Practice: Designing a Principled Eclectic Bridge

  • Magdalena WalentaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

The relationship between second/foreign language acquisition (SLA) theory and classroom practice is not straightforward. While some SLA theorists claim that they have no obligation to look for pedagogical gains, others believe that their research outcomes should ultimately be tested against the needs of genuine classrooms. Meanwhile, teachers and teacher educators find it difficult to translate the plethora of abstract theoretical proposals into the hands-on experience of teaching. The paper explores the theory/practice interface with the aim of arguing that SLA research has a lot to offer to language pedagogy, as long as the theory-laden and often conflicting proposals are reconciled into pedagogically-adequate, classroom-relevant answers—a scenario calling for principled eclecticism. The design guidelines for principled integration are discussed in terms of three design axes—language axis, learning axis and learner axis—encouraging theoretical pluralism, yet preventing its unconstrained growth and potential incoherence. The theoretical discussion is related to the hands-on experience of designing activities for a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) course, where an attempt has been made at organizing varied SLA theories along the three proposed axes.

Keywords

Classroom Practice Language Teaching Theoretical Proposal Language Classroom Learning Route 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Basista, A. (1995). Architektura: dlaczego jest jaka jest. [Architecture: Why it is what it is]. Kraków: Znak.Google Scholar
  2. Bialystok, E. (2001). Language, literacy, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bialystok, E. (2002). Cognitive processes of L2 users. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 145–165). Clevedon: Mulitilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  4. Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogusławski, A. (2006). Pedagogical paradoxes of linguistics. In R. Gozdawa-Gołębiowski (Ed.), Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny. JęzykKulturaTożsamość [Pedagogic Quarterly. LanguageCultureIdentity] (pp. 13–25). Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, H. D. (2002). English language teaching in the “post-method” era: Toward better diagnosis, treatment, and assessment. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching. An anthology of current practice (pp. 9–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cook, V. J. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  10. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fleming, J., Honour, H., & Pevsner, N. (1999). The Penguin dictionary of architecture and landscape architecture. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  12. Gass, S., & Schachter, J. (Eds.). (1989). Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gozdawa-Gołębiowski, R. (2003). Interlanguage formation. A study of the triggering mechanisms. Warszawa: Institute of English.Google Scholar
  14. Gozdawa-Gołębiowski, R. (2010). Integracja czy dezintegracja? O roli systemu gramatycznego w kształceniu typu CLIL. [Integration or disintegration? On the role of the grammatical subsystem in CLIL pedagogy]. Języki Obce w Szkole [Foreign Languages in School], 6, 47–55.Google Scholar
  15. Gozdawa-Gołębiowski, R. (2013). Basic dichotomies in foreign language teaching and learning: A case of formulaic language. In D. Gabryś-Barker, E. Piechurska-Kuciel, & J. Zybert (Eds.), Investigations in teaching and learning languages (pp. 35–50). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gregg, K. R. (2005). SLA theory: Construction and assessment. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 1–26). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (2002). From theory to practice: A teacher’s view. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 1–15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  19. Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  20. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching. From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, J. F., & Benati, A. G. (2009). Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lester, M. (1967). The value of transformational grammar in teaching composition. College Composition and Communication, 18, 227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Little, D. (1994). Words and their properties: Arguments for a lexical approach to pedagogical grammar. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 99–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lowe, C. (2003). Integration not eclecticism: A brief history of language teaching, 1853–2003. (http://ihjournal.com/?s=lowe).
  27. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching language through content. A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. Mellow, J. D. (2002). Toward principled eclecticism in language teaching: The two-dimensional model and the centering principle. TESL-EJ, 5, 1–19.Google Scholar
  29. Newmark, L. (1971). Grammatical theory and the teaching of English as a foreign language. In M. Lester (Ed.), Readings in applied transformational grammar (pp. 201–218). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  30. Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods is language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nunan, D. (1994). Linguistic theory and pedagogic practice. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 253–271). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Gorman, J. F. (1998). ABC of architecture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  33. Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Polomska, M., & Wekker, H. (1995). Linguistic evidence in L2 acquisition. In J. Fisiak & P. Tajsner (Eds.), Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics (pp. 97–117). Poznań: Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicz.Google Scholar
  35. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sharwood Smith, M. (2004). In two minds about grammar: On the interaction of linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge in performance. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Skehan, P. (1994). Second language acquisition strategies, interlanguage development and task-based Learning. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 75–199). London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Strozer, J. R. (1994). Language acquisition after puberty. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Towell, R., & Hawkins, D. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  41. Uriagereka, J. (2000). Rhyme and reason. An introduction to minimalist syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. van Lier, L. (1994). Forks and hope: Pursuing understanding in different ways. Applied Linguistics, 15, 28–46.Google Scholar
  43. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  44. Vitruvius, M. (1999). O architekturze ksiąg dziesięć [Ten books on architecture] (K. Kumaniecki, Trans.). Warszawa: Prószyński i S-ka. (Original work c. 10 BC)Google Scholar
  45. Walenta, M. (2016). Interlanguage stretching. Processing form through meaningful input. In M. Wysocka, D. Gałajda, A. Kijak, & P. Zakrajewski (Eds.), Young scholars on theoretical and applied linguistics: Research projects. Sosnowiec: Oficyna Wydawnicza Wyższej Szkoły Humanitas.Google Scholar
  46. White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Whong, M. (2011). Language teaching. Linguistic theory in practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Yu, X. (2013). From memorized chunks to rule formation: A study of adult Chinese learners of English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2, 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations