Interaction, Autonomy and Motivation in Teaching Articles under Grammar Tasks

Authors

  • Ahmed MOUMENE Department of English, Université Mentouri Constantine

Abstract

This article attempts to compare the effects of two approaches on the teaching of the English definite and indefinite articles: Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks and Traditional Grammar. In addition to their avowed beneficial effects on promoting explicit knowledge and grammatical accuracy as indicated in recent literature, the grammar tasks are also found in this research work to improve interaction, autonomy and motivation among students in the classroom.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Ahmed MOUMENE, Department of English, Université Mentouri Constantine

Department of English,  

References

Benati, Alessandro. 2001. A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and

output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching

Research, 5/2: 95-127.

Ellis, Rod. 1997. SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.

Ellis, Rod.1998. Evaluating and researching grammar consciousness-raising tasks.

In P. Rea-Dickins and K. P. Germaine (Eds.), Managing Evaluation and Innovation

in Language Teaching, (pp. 220-252). London: Longman.

Ellis, Rod. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: OUP.

Fotos, Sandra, S. 1993. Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form:

Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14/4: 385-407.

Fotos, Sandra S. 1994. Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language

use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL QUATERLY, 28/2: 323-351.

Fotos, Sandra S. and Ellis, Rod. 1991. Communicating about grammar: A task based

approach. TESOL QUATERLY, 25/4: 605-628.

Genesee, Fred and Upshur, John M. 1996. Classroom Evaluation in Second Language

Education. Cambridge: CUP.

Krashen, Stephen D.1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.

London: Printice Hall International.

Krashen, Stephen D. 1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New

York: Printice Hall International.

Long, Michael H. 1983a. Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of

research. TESOL QUATERLY, 17/3: 359-382.

Long, Michael H. 1983b. Native speaker/non native speaker conversation in the second

language classroom. TESOL QUATERLY, 82: 207-225.

Prabhu, N.S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: OUP.

Swain, Merrill. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input

and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Maden (Eds.), Input

and SecondLanguage Acquisition, (pp. 235-253). Rowley, M.A.: Newbury House.

VanPatten, Bill and Cadierno, Teresa.1993a. Explicit instruction and input processing.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15: 225-243.

VanPatten, Bill and Cadierno, Teresa. 1993b. Input processing and second language

acquisition: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77/1: 45-57.

Wallace, Michael J. 1998. Action Research for language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP.

Published

2009-06-01

How to Cite

MOUMENE, A. (2009). Interaction, Autonomy and Motivation in Teaching Articles under Grammar Tasks. Journal of Human Sciences , 20(1), 73–84. Retrieved from https://revue.umc.edu.dz/h/article/view/704

Issue

Section

Articles