Best practices

1. Vocab - memory/forgetting curve (first exposures/repetitions of new vocab are the most important):

Start each class by reviewing vocab (or grammar points) learnt in the previous class (plus this reduces lesson planning time)

2. Vocab – vocabulary profiler (www.lextutor.ca/vp/bnc): Inferencing from context, while a popular learner strategy, is not very effective (learners only have approx. 25% success rate of guessing correct meaning – Nassaji, 2003 and Bensoussan & Laufer, 1984). Instruction in inferencing may do more to improve reading comprehension than the ability to infer word meaning from context (Walters, 2006).

Ideally need 98% (Hu & Nation, 2000) or higher coverage for both reading and listening comprehension (i.e. in order to read a wide variety of texts, sts need to know 98% of the words in those texts in order to substantially understand those texts) - maybe a few % lower for listening comprehension. More realistic goal is 95% coverage (Laufer, 1989 for written; Bonk, 2000 for listening) for both reading and listening comprehension, which translates to knowledge of approx. 2000-3000 word families (i.e. if sts know the first 3,000 most frequently occurring word families they will likely be able to understand 95% of the words in a written or oral text). N.B.: the efficiency (i.e. ratio of % coverage increase to number of word families learned) of learning word families beyond the first 3,000 most frequent ones dramatically decreases since learning the next 5,000 most frequent word families (i.e. for a grand total of 8,000 word families) only increases coverage by 3% - i.e. to 98% coverage (i.e. 98% coverage for written vocabulary translates to 8,000-9,000 word families: Nation, 2006)

Use a vocab profiler to choose texts with as many words as possible in the first 2,000-3,000 most frequently occurring word families [simply dump the electronic copy of the text into the lextutor.ca vocab bnc profiler]

3. Vocab - pre-tests:

Use vocab pre-tests to determine sts current vocab knowledge - (www.lextutor.ca/tests/)

4. Vocab – providing definitions in sts’ L1 : Research has shown that using L1 translations can be much more effective than providing L2-based meanings [Ramachandran & Rahim, 2004 study on secondary school Malaysian learners; Laufer & Shmueli, 1997 study on Hebrew students]. Using the L1 to facilitate the form-meaning linkage (by providing an easy access to meaning) may allow more cognitive resources to be focused on form (Barcroft, 2002). For more details see Schmitt, 2008 article, p. 98 in Saito Coursepack).

At the beginning stages (i.e. when a new vocab item is first introduced), research indicates that there is little disadvantage to using the sts’ L1 to establish initial meaning [In subsequent stages, however, L2 context is needed to enhance contextual word knowledge]

5. Vocab – Explicit focus : “Intentional vocabulary learning (i.e. when the specific goal is to learn vocabulary, usually with an explicit focus) almost always leads to greater and faster gains [than learning from incidental exposure], with a better chance of retention and of reaching productive levels of mastery” (Schmitt, 2008 referring to Laufer, 2005 review of research studies). Research suggests that 8-10 incidental reading exposures may give learners a reasonable chance of acquiring an initial receptive (but not productive) knowledge of words; this is the equivalent of reading 1-2 graded readers per week which is not feasible for most learners (Laufer, 2005)….

Create explicit vocabulary exercises (i.e. ones that give explicit attention to the learning of the lexical items themselves) rather than simply incidentally exposing sts to new vocab. [see point 2, above, for choice of vocab items; and remember to use frequent and repeated exposures – see point 1, above ]

6. Pronunciation – Lingua Franca Core Syllabus (Jenkins, 2002, Applied Linguistics, 23, 83-103)

Prioritize pronunciation target items for non-native speaker to non-native speaker intelligibility purposes (i.e. suprasegmentals such as word stress, stress-timed rhythm, weak forms, intonation, and other features of connected speech may be irrelevant to NNS-NNS intelligibility)

7. Instructional method – Corrective feedback : Almost all the research points to corrective feedback as improving sts’ accuracy (on both receptive and productive measures) when combined with a communicative instructional method because corrective feedback provides negative evidence (i.e. evidence of what is not possible in English) to supplement the positive evidence (i.e. evidence of what is possible) given in communicative instruction

Incorporate the principled (i.e. regular and consistent) use of corrective feedback (recasts, prompts, explicit corrections) when delivering lessons

8. Instructional method – Processing Instruction (VanPatten & Cardierno, 1993, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243): In addition to the PPP method, insert an “interpretation” stage after the initial “presentation” that explains metalinguistic features of the target structure (including where and why L2 sts commonly make errors with this structure - e.g. false similarities with the sts’ L1) and that does not require sts to produce anything but simply to demonstrate that they have understood the target language feature that was presented [e.g. if teaching the passive voice, give sts multiple examples of active and passive sentences and ask them to identify the (subject and object) or (agent and subject) of the sentence]

Use a “PiPP” model: Present à Interpret à Practice à Produce [NB: Beware, however, of making lesson too teacher-centric]

9. Instructional method – Content-based instruction : Research (Harley and Swain, 1984) has shown that while CBI (i.e. subject-matter/immersion teaching methods) can improve sts’ fluency in the L2, CBI does not generally lead to high levels of linguistic accuracy. Similarly, while sts receiving CBI may develop BICS (basic interpersonal communication skills), they do not necessarily develop CALP (cognitive academic linguistic proficiency).

Content-based language teaching is still language teaching (i.e. still need to focus on language forms – grammar, syntax, etc. - within subject-matter teaching)

10.Syllabus – Developmental Sequences : Pay attention to the research-proven developmental sequences for second language learners. Grammatical morphemes and relative clauses may be more practical to teach according to developmental sequence because their sequences seem to follow along grammatical parts of speech instead of along learners’ developing (i.e. ungrammatical) interlanguage. NB: Since only a small number of language

features have been described in terms of a developmental sequence, the developmental sequence is not in itself a template for a syllabus (Lightbown & Spada textbook, p. 165). Also, it seems that the L1 of the English language learner may have an impact on developmental sequence (i.e. different L1’s = different developmental sequences).

Research-proven developmental sequences exist for the following linguistic features: **grammatical morphemes**, negation, questions, possessive determiners, **relative clauses**, and reference to the past (see Lighbown & Spada textbook, pp. 83-92 for more details). Developmental sequences can help determine in which order the various aspects of these linguistic features are taught.