Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-kv2lp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T09:12:27.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development of Instructional Models in Second Language Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

J. P. B. Allen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an influential paper published in the late seventies, H. H. Stern distinguished between learning a language through a process of conscious study and practice (i.e., formally), or through use in the environment (i.e., functionally). According to Stern (1981), this aspect of language behavior can be characterized as a psycholinguistic/pedagogic continuum, or ‘P-scale.’ There is nothing inherently good or bad about activities at either end of the scale, and in organized language teaching one often finds an interplay between formal and functional approaches.

Information

Type
Sla and Classroom Instruction
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 9 , March 1988 , pp. 179 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Unannotated Bibliography

Allen, J. P. B. 1983. A three-level curriculum model for second language education. The Canadian modern language review. 40. 1. 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. P. B. 1984. General-purpose language teaching: A variable focus approach. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon. 61–74. [ELT Documents 118.]Google Scholar
Barnes, D. 1976. From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1981. Some evidence for the integrity and interaction of two knowledge sources. In R., Anderson (ed.) New dimensions in second language acquisition research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 62–74.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P. 1983. How would we recognise a communicative language classroom? In B., Coffey (ed.) Teacher training and the curriculum. London: British Council. 133–154.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P. 1984. Process syllabusses for the language classroom. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon. 47–60. [ELT Documents 118.]Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. 1980. Principle of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. F. 1984. Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N. 1984. Syllabus design as a critical process. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon. 29–46. [ELT Documents 118.]Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. 1987. Curriculum renewal in school foreign language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Connelly, E. M. and Clandinin, D. J.. 1988. Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Press.Google Scholar
Crawford-Lange, L. M. 1982. Curricular alternatives for second-language learning. In Higgs, T. V. (ed.) Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company. 81–112.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. 1984. Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dodson, C. J. 1976. Foreign language teaching and bilingualism. In Bilingualism and British education: The dimensions of diversity. London: Center for Information on Language Teaching and Research. 78–86. [CILT Reports and Papers 14.]Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, M. and Brumfit., C. 1983. The functional-notional approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fries, C. C. 1945. Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gonzales, A. 1987. On language syllabus design and development: The Philippine experience. In Tickoo, M. L. (ed.) Language syllabuses: State of the art. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 90–104. [Anthology Series 18.]Google Scholar
Hatch, E. 1978. Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E., Hatch (ed.) Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 401–435.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (eds.) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 269–293.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. 1982. Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1975. A communicative grammer of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. 1985. Great expectations: Second-language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied linguistics. 6. 2. 173–189.Google Scholar
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J. 1973. Nurseries, streets and classrooms: Some comparisons and deductions. Modern language journal. 57. 5. 250–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. 1978. The Monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language learning. 28. 2. 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmark, L. 1966. How not to interface with language learning. Internation journal of American linguistics. 32. 1. 77–83.Google Scholar
Palmer, H. E. 1921. [1968.] The principles of language study. London: Harrap. [Reprinted in Language and Language Learning series, Oxford University Press.]Google Scholar
Paulston, C. B. and Bruder, M. N. 1976. Teaching English as a second language: Techniques and procedures. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Politzer, R. L. 1965. Foreign language learning: A linguistic introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Rivers, W. M. 1981. Teaching foreign language skills. 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, W. M. 1983. Communicating naturally in a second language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. T. 1986. The use of dialogues for teaching transactional competence in foreign languages. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) The practice of communicative teaching. Oxford: Pergamon. 51–85. [ELT Documents 123.]Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. E. 1978. Notional-functional syllabuses. In Blatchford, C. H. and Schachter, J. (eds.) On TESOL'78: EFL policies, programs and practices. Washington, DC: TESOL. 20–23.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. E. and Smith, M. Sharwood. 1985. Consciousness-raising and universal grammer. Applied linguistics. 6. 3. 274–282.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. J. 1983. Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Smith, M. Sharwood 1981. Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied linguistics. 2. 2. 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, H. H. 1980. Directions in foreign language curriculum development. In American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Proceedings of the national conference on professional priorities. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL Materials Center. 12–17.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. 1981. The formal-functional distinction in language pedagogy: A conceptual clarification. In Savard, J. G. and Laforge, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th congress of the international association of applied linguistics. Montreal: University of Laval Press. 425–455.Google Scholar
Stern, H. H. 1987. Analysis and experience as variables in second language pedagogy. Paper presented at a symposium: The Development of Bilingual Proficiency. Toronto, November.Google Scholar
Stevick, E. 1980. Teaching language: A way and ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swan, M. 1985. A critical look at the communicative approach. 2 parts. ELT journal. 39. 1. 2–12; 39. 2. 76–87.Google Scholar
Trim, J. L. M. et al. , 1980. Systems development in adult language learning: A European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Ullmann, R. 1982. A broadened curriculum framework for second languages. ELT journal. 36. 4. 255–262.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. 1980. Communicative ability and syllabus design for global foreign language courses. In Müller, K. E. (ed.) Studies in second language acquisition. 3. 1. 81–96. [Special issue.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Ek, J. A. and Trim, J. L. M. (eds.) 1984. Across the threshold: Readings from the modern languages projects of the Council of Europe. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Wang, D. 1986. Optimal language learning based on the comprehension-production distinction. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) The practice of communicative teaching. Oxford: Pergamon. 99–122. [ELT Documents 124.]Google Scholar
Wells, G. 1982. Language development in the pre-school years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1984. Educational and pedagogic factors in syllabus design. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon. 23–27. [ELT Documents 118.]Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1986. Design principles for a communicative grammer. In Brumfit, C. J. (ed.) The practice of communicative teaching. Oxford: Pergamon. 41–49. [ELT Documents 124.]Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1987. Aspects of syllabus design. In Tickoo, M. L. (ed.) Language syllabuses: State of the art. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. 65–89. [Anthology Series 18.]Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. A. 1981. Notional syllabuses revisited. Applied linguistics. 2. 1. 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalden, J. 1983. The communicative syllabus: Evolution, design and implementation. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar