THE ROLE OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION IN SLA

By Group A

A. The Effects of Formal Instruction on the Route of SLA

The route of SLA was considered in term of general sequence of development and
the order in which specific grammatical features were acquired. The evidence for the
reported universality of the sequence and the minor differences in the order come from:

1. Morpheme studies of classroom SLA

Perkins and Larsen freeman (1975) investigated the morpheme; they used two
tasks to collect data;

1. A translation test.
2. A description task based on a non-dialogue film.

On (1) the morpheme orders before and after instruction differed significantly, but
on (2) there was no significant difference. In other words, the teaching and learning
orders were different. Taken together, these studies suggest but do not prove that formal
instruction does not alter the order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes when the
learners is engaged in language use and is focused on meaning.

This general conclusion holds true irrespective of whether the learners are
children or adults and most interestingly, irrespective of whether the learners are in
foreign or second language environments. Formal instruction appears, then to have only a
negligible effect on the morpheme order manifest in spontaneous language use. However,
morpheme orders measure accuracy rather than acquisition. In order to obtain a more
reliable picture of the effects of instruction on L2 development, it is necessary to turn to
the longitudinal studies of translation structures.

2. Longitudinal studies of classroom SLA

Curiously the case-study approach, so central to the methodological baggage of

first and second language acquisition researchers has not typically, been thought sensible
for learners in class. There are very few longitudinal studies of classroom SLA. The three
that will be discussed here are Felix (1981), Ellis (1984a) and Schumann (1978b). The
available longitudinal evidence, therefore is even slighter that provided by the morpheme
studies. The general teaching method was a traditional audio-lingual one, the grammatical
structures that Felix report on are negation, interrogation, sentence types, and pronoun.
For each structure, parallels were found between tutored and naturalistic SLA. In a
classroom where the instruction is very formal, learners are constantly being forced to
 produce structures they are not ready for. Felix suggests that they solve the problem that
this poses for them in one of two ways. Either they select random from the structures in
their repertoire, irrespective of syntactic or semantic appropriateness, or they follow the
same rules that characterize the early stages of naturalistic language acquisition.

Ellis examined negatives, interrogatives, and a number of verb phrase morpheme.

All of these structures were formally taught at one time. When the communicative speech
produced by the learners in the classroom was analysed, it was shown to display a pattern
of development more or less identical to that observed in naturalistic SLA.

In Schumann’s study a deliberate attempt was made to teach an adult L2 learner

how to negate. This took place in the context of a longitudinal study of what was
otherwise naturalistic SLA. Prior to the instructional experiment the learner’s negative
utterances were collected, Schumann concluded that the instruction influenced the
learner’s production only in test-like situations, while normal communication remained
unaffected.

Taking these studies together, the following can be hypothesized:

1. Instruction does not circumvent the processes responsible for the sequence of
development evident in transitional structures such as negatives an interrogative in
naturalistic SLA.
2. When classroom learners are required to produce structures beyond their competence,
idiosyncratic forms are likely to result.

3. The distorted input may prolong certain stages of development and slow down the
emergence of some grammatical features.

4. Classroom learners are able to make use of knowledge acquired through formal
instruction when they are focused on form.

B. The Effects of Formal Instruction on the Rate/Success of SLA

Formal instruction does not seem able to alter acquisition sequence, neither the
order of acquisition. It may influence at the careful end (form of the language in use, e.g.
grammar work) of the interlanguage stylistic continuum, not the vernacular end (message
or meaning delivered). On the other hand, instruction has what are possibly positive
effects on the rate at which learners acquire the language, and probably positive effects
on their ultimate level of attainment. Formal instruction provides opportunities to receive
comprehensible input, and in so doing enables the classroom learners to perform a wider
range of linguistic tasks than the naturalistic learners and therefore accelerate the rate of
acquisition.

C. The Absolute Effects of Formal Instruction in SLA

 The kind of studies reported above do not shed any light on what actually happens
when formal instruction takes place. If it does aid SLA, how does it do so? Ellis (1984e)
set out to examine this. He measured the effects of three hours of instruction on the form
and meaning of WH questions to a group of thirteen elementary L2 learners aged
between ten and fifteen years. Two of the subjects were the learners investigated in the
longitudinal study discussed earlier. This showed that at the time of the instruction, WH
interrogative had begun the appear in their communicative speech. As these two children
were gauged to be slightly below average for the group as a whole, it could be surmised
that WH interrogatives had begun to appear in their communicative speech. As these two
children were gauged to be slightly below average for the group as a whole, it could be
surmised that WH interrogatives were within the subject’ ‘zones of proximal
development’ (Vygotsky 1962); that is, the learners were developmentally ‘ready’ for WH
questions. However, the result showed that for the group as a whole there was no
significant increase in the children’s ability to use semantically appropriate and
grammatically well-formed WH questions as a result of the instruction. Some of the
children, though, did show a marked individual improvement. To establish whether this
could be put down to the instruction they received, Ellis measured the participation of
each pupil in instructional exchanges in one of the lesson. He found that it was the low
interactors who progressed in ability to use the WH question which was the target of this
lesson. Thus active involvement in formal language instruction did not appear to facilities
SLA.
This study cannot claim to show that formal instruction has no absolute effect—
many more confirmatory studies would be required to reach such a conclusion—but it
does indicate that the relative utility of instruction may not result from the acquisition of
those structures that constitute the pedagogic targets of lessons. This point is taken up
later.
D. The Role of Instruction in SLA
Formal instruction has on the route of SLA and on the rate/ successes of SLA.
Where the route is concerned, formal instruction appears to have no major effect. The
overall sequence of development associated with natural communicative language use
does not change, while only a few minor and temporary differences in the acquisition of
specific grammatical features have been observed. Thus classroom SLA appears to
involve the same processing strategies as naturalistic SLA. Where the rate/ successes is
concerned, instruction is facilitative, although only in terms of relative utility, not in
terms of absolute effects. These results must be treated tentatively, as there has been little
empirical research.

There different positions have been advanced to explain classroom SLA. The non
interface position, associated with Krashen (1982), distinguishes ‘acquired’ and ‘learnt’
knowledge and argues that they are separate. This position offers a convincing
explanation a why formal instruction fails to influence the natural route of SLA, as this is
a reflection of ‘acquisition’. The explanation it gives for why formal instruction aids the
rate/ successes of SLA is less clear. The interface position, associated with Stevick (1980)
and Sharwood-Smith (1981) among others, claim that ’learnt’ or explicit knowledge can
turn into ‘acquired’ or implicit knowledge if there is enough practice. This position offers
an explanation for the rate/ successes finding, but it less convincing about the route
finding. The variability position, associated with Tarone (1983) and Bialystok (1982),
sees acquisition and language use closely linked, such that different types of knowledge
arise from and are required for the performance of different language tasks.

This position deals comfortably with the route finding (which occurs in a
particular kind performance) and can explain the rate/ success finding if it is assumed that
the learner who has access to a variety of different knowledge types will outperform one
who is more reliant on a single kind of knowledge. However, it is premature to choose
from among these positions.

The study of the role of instruction in SLA has implications for both SLA theory
and language pedagogy. In the case of the former, is stresses in importance of act
knowledge the structural properties of SLA which are relatively immune to
environmental differences. Where language pedagogy is concerned, it sheds light on the
code-communications dilemma, although once again it would be premature to come to
any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of formal grammar teaching.

Second language acquisition theory

Studying the role of instruction can throw on the contribution of environmental

factors in SLA. The classroom environment provides a different kind of input from a
natural setting. If environmental factors are important of SLA, it might be predicted that
(1) The acquisitional route in the two setting will be different, and (2) the rate/ success of
SLA in the two setting will also differ. The research reviewed in the earlier sections
shows that (1) does not arise, while (2) may. The failure of the classroom setting to
influence the route of SLA can be explained in two ways. First, it might be taken to show
the real determinants of SLA are learner-internal rather than environmental factors. That
is, despite differences in input, the L2 learner will follow the same developmental path,
because, although there are differences in the types of input to be found in each setting,
there are also similarities.

The natural sequence is the product of one type language use-spontaneous

communication-which, although restricted in classroom context, does take place. The first
explanation follows a native’s interpretation. What is the quite clear, whatever
interpretation is adopted, is that SLA possesses certain structural properties which are
immune to environmental differences in learnt in classroom and natural setting. The
effect of environmental factors appears to be restricted largely to how quickly and how
much of the L2 the learner acquires.

Language pedagogy
 Looking at instruction from the view point of the learner rather than the teacher is
salutary. It puts into perspective the widely held view that if instruction is based on a
sound syllabus and employs motivating techniques, acquisition will result. Unless
account is taken of the structural properties of SLA, success is by no means certain.

Teacher ought not to feel obligated to ensure that his teaching also follows it, as it
is far more important that the teacher works from a syllabus which he finds logically
acceptable. Brumfit argues that language teaching will be most successful when it follows
as well-worked out plan which directs and organizes what the teacher does. The second
reason for reticence is that, although there is a fair degree of agreement among SLA
researches concerning what happens in SLA.

There is a far less agreement about why it happens in the why it does. This has
been evident in the different positions adopted to explain the result of research into the
effects of formal instruction. Briefly outline what attitude to the code-communication
dilemma is held by protagonists of each of the three positions considered in the previous
section

1. The non-interface position.

Krashen (1982) pays close attention to the role of grammar teaching in classroom
SLA. He sees two uses for it. First, it enables the monitor to function by providing for
‘learning’. However, monitor use is restricted to occasions when the learner has time to
access his ‘learnt’ knowledge, and is also restricted by the fact that only a small sub-
section of total rules of a L2 are ‘learnable’. The second use of grammar teaching is to
satisfy learners’ curiosity about the nature of the L2 grammatical system ‘grammar
appreciation’. The use of conscious grammar is limited, therefore, that the role of
teaching is to afford opportunities for communications, rather than to draw attention to
the L2 code.

Krashen (1981b) lists the defining characteristic of what he considers an effective

pedagogical programme;

1. The classroom input must be comprehensible.

2. The programme must consist of ‘communicative activities’, as only these will ensure
that he input is interesting and relevant.

3. There should be no attempt to follow a grammatically sequenced programme.

4. The input must be of sufficient quantity (hence importance of extensive reading).

Formal instruction affects only learning. So formal instruction can not change the
route or sequence of development. But why formal instruction can benefit the rate of
learning, especially for adult beginners? Because formal instruction can provide intake-
like environment for adult beginners (comprehensible for acquisition, to achieve at least
intermediate levels rapidly). Yet, in the natural setting, many adults are likely to experience
 exposure-like environment, (input may be comprehensible and incomprehensible input, so
the rate of learning is not as good as the classroom input).

2. The interface position

The interface position says that the acquired or implicit knowledge and the
learned knowledge are not completely separate, but related, and in communication the
acquired or implicit knowledge plays the primary function and the explicit the secondary
function. There are two versions.

The weak interface position is proposed by Seliger. He hypothesizes that the

learned knowledge and the acquired knowledge are different, and learned knowledge is
nor communication, but acquired knowledge is.

Therefore, formal instruction will not alter the sequence of acquisitions is done
through natural communication. However the two kinds of knowledge are not separate
but related and learning can facilities acquisition, because the learned knowledge can
help to make the hypothesis testing process more efficient and help learners to take less
time to acquired the rules.

Why the strong position can explain the rate advantages of formal instruction :

Because it can increase the implicit or acquired knowledge in two ways:

1. The intake environment created in the classroom.

2. Automat zing the explicit knowledge the explicit knowledge through practice.

3. The variability position

The variability position stresses importance of matching the learning process with
the type of instruction. Instruction must consider the specific goals of the learner and
attempt to provide the appropriate form of knowledge to achieve those goals. The ‘goals’
refer to the type of language use that the learner needs (or wants) to engage in. if the goal
is to participate in natural conversation, the learner will need to develop his vernacular
style by acquiring L2 knowledge that is automatic but unanalyzed.
This can be achieved directly by means of instruction that emphasizes
communication in the classroom. It may also be achieved indirectly by teaching that
focuses on the code, if there are also sufficient practice opportunities to trigger the
passage of knowledge from the careful to the vernacular style.

E. Question – Answer Section

Question:
Give an example concerning the role of formal instruction in accelerating the rate of
development!
Answer:
For example, a teacher who instructs his/her students to memorize grammar and then
make a written test as the requirement in achieving upper level of their study, his
instruction finally acts as accelerator to the rate of development.