Come pianificare una lezione di grammatica italiana attraverso un approccio eclettico
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7346/SIRD-022020-P9Parole chiave:
piano di lezione, grammatica italiana, focus on form, focus on forms, approccio ecletticoAbstract
Il presente articolo descrive il processo di pianificazione di una lezione di grammatica italiana usando un approccio eclettico. Il piano di lezione segue alcuni importanti principi di insegnamento della grammatica e si basa sui risultati della ricerca corrente. Invece di seguire un metodo specifico, il piano della lezione dimostra come gli insegnanti possono attingere a vari approcci e teorie per adattare l'istruzione ai bisogni e agli obiettivi degli studenti. Sebbene il piano di lezione sia per insegnanti di italiano L2, le sue implicazioni didattiche si estendono all'insegnamento di altre lingue. Lo scopo principale di questo articolo è quello di introdurre i nuovi insegnanti di lingue nell'attività di pianificazione delle lezioni e di incoraggiarli a utilizzare la ricerca in educazione e linguistica applicata per informare le loro pratiche pedagogiche a seconda del contesto di insegnamento.
Riferimenti bibliografici
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.
##submission.downloads##
Pubblicato
Come citare
Licenza
Copyright (c) 2020 Peter Peltekov
TQuesto lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale.
Gli autori che pubblicano su questa rivista accettano le seguenti condizioni:
- Gli autori mantengono i diritti sulla loro opera e cedono alla rivista il diritto di prima pubblicazione dell’opera, contemporaneamente licenziata sotto una Licenza Creative Commons – Attribuzione che permette ad altri di condividere l’opera indicando la paternità intellettuale e la prima pubblicazione su questa rivista.
- Gli autori possono aderire ad altri accordi di licenza non esclusiva per la distribuzione della versione dell’opera pubblicata (es. depositarla in un archivio istituzionale o pubblicarla in una monografia), a patto di indicare che la prima pubblicazione è avvenuta su questa rivista.
- Gli autori possono diffondere la loro opera online (es. in repository istituzionali o nel loro sito web) prima e durante il processo di submission, poiché può portare a scambi produttivi e aumentare le citazioni dell’opera pubblicata (Vedi The Effect of Open Access).
