How to plan an Italian grammar lesson through an eclectic approach

Authors

  • Peter Peltekov

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7346/SIRD-022020-P9

Keywords:

lesson planning, Italian grammar, focus on form, focus on forms, eclectic approach

Abstract

The present article describes the process of planning a grammar lesson in Italian using an eclectic approach. The lesson plan follows important grammar teaching principles and it is based on current research findings. Instead of following a specific method, it demonstrates how instructors can draw upon various approaches and theories to adapt the instruction to the learners’ needs and goals. Although the sample lesson plan is for teachers of L2 Italian, its classroom implications extend to the teaching of other languages. The main purpose of this article is to introduce novice language teachers to the activity of lesson planning and to encourage them to use research in education and applied linguistics to inform their teaching practices according to their teaching context.

References

Akther, A. (2014). Role of warm-up activity in language classroom: A tertiary scenario. [Doctoral dissertation, BRAC University, Bangladesh]. http://hdl.handle.net/10361/3553.

Alzu’bi, M. A. (2015). Effectiveness of inductive and deductive methods in teaching grammar. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(2), 187-193.

Baleghizadeh, S., & Firoozbakht, S. (2009). Gender differences in students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(4), 28-56.

DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 42-63. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499-533.

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty & Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 303-332). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 242-260.

García, O. (2008). Multilingual language awareness and teacher education. In J. Cenoz & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 6 Knowledge about language (2nd ed., pp. 385-400). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 331-360.

Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. French Review, 65(5), 708-18.

Johansen, C. (2019). Investigating the beliefs on English grammar instruction among Norwegian students and teachers in high school. [Dissertation, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø]. https://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/16107/thesis.pdf?sequence=2

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Maftoon, P. & Sarem, S. (2015). A critical look at the Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP) approach: Challenges and promises for ELT. Brain: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 3(4), 31-36.

Markina, E. (2019). Comparing focus on forms and task-based language teaching in the acquisition of Russian as a foreign language. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Barcelona, Barcelona]. http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/130175/1/ELENA%20MARKINA_PhD_THESIS.pdf

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.

Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.

Nosratinia, M., & Abdi, F. (2017). The comparative effect of portfolio and summative assessments on EFL learners’ writing ability, anxiety, and autonomy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(4), 823-834.

Pawlak, M. (2011). Cultural differences in perceptions of form-focused instruction: The case of advanced Polish and Italian learners. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.), Aspects of culture in second language acquisition and foreign language learning (pp. 77-94). Berlin: Springer.

Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EDL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318-335.

Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-methodology examination. Language Awareness, 21, 1-2 (Feb-May), 157-179.

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.

Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.

Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63(2), 296-329.

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A metaanalysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263-308.

Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: processes, outcomes and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288.

Svalberg, A. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching. 40, 287-308.

Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376-401.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 471-484. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tammenga-Helmantel, M., Arends, E., & Canrinus, E.T. (2014).The effectiveness of deductive, inductive, implicit and incidental grammatical instruction in second language classrooms. System, 45, 198-210.

Tammenga-Helmantel, M., Bazhutkina, I., Steringa, S., Hummel, I., & Suhre, C. (2016). Comparing inductive and deductive grammatical instruction in teaching German as a foreign language in Dutch classrooms. System, 63, 101-114.

Velandia, R. (2008). The role of warming up activities in adolescent students’ involvement during the English class. Profile Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 10(1), 9-26.

Whittle, A., & Lyster, R. (2016). Focus on Italian verbal morphology in multilingual classes. Language Learning, 66(1), 31-59.

Downloads

Published

2020-12-11

How to Cite

Peltekov, P. . (2020). How to plan an Italian grammar lesson through an eclectic approach. ITALIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, (25), 9-21. https://doi.org/10.7346/SIRD-022020-P9

Issue

Section

Studies