Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T08:28:56.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: Implications for Grammatical Accuracy in the Classroom?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Bill VanPatten
Bill VanPatten
Affiliation:
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper discusses current literature dealing with the pedagogical implications of the ACTFL Provisional Proficiency Guidelines. In Higgs and Clifford (1982) and Omaggio (1984), for example, it is argued that grammatical accuracy needs to be stressed from the beginning of instruction. In this paper those arguments are reviewed in the light of second language acquisition research, and it is suggested that such emphasis on grammatical correctness is unwarranted.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 56 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

REFERENCES

Andersen, R.W. (ed.). 1983. Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. 1967. Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals 1; 131–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chastain, K. 1980. Native speaker reaction to instructor-identified student errors. Modern Language Journal 64; 210–15.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. & Robbins, M.. 1976. Toward assessing interlanguage performance: The relationship between selected errors, learners' characteristics, and learners' explanations. Language Learning 26; 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S.. 1982. Language two. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Freed, B. 1980. Talking to foreigners versus talking to children: Similarities and differences. In Scarcella, R. & Krashen, S.D. (eds.), Research in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gaies, S. 1977. The nature of linguistic input in normal second language learning: Linguistic and communicative strategies in ESL teachers' classroom language. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C., & Crymes, R. (eds.), Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice, pp. 204–12. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. & Lambert, W.. 1959. Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13; 266–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, R. 1972. Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Guntermann, G. 1978. A study of the frequency and communicative effects of errors in Spanish. Modern Language Journal 62; 249–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gynan, S. 1984. Attitudes toward interlanguage: What is the object of study? Modern Language Journal 68; 315–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. 1980. Second language acquisition: Avoiding the question. In Felix, S. W. (ed.), Second language development, pp. 177–84. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. 1983. Simplified input in second language acquisition. In R. W. Andersen (ed.), pp. 64–86.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. M. 1976. The effects of error correction treatments upon adequate and accurate communication in the written compositions of adult learners of ESL. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Higgs, T. V. (ed.). 1984. Teaching for proficiency, the organizing principle. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Higgs, T. V. 1985. Language acquisition and language learning: A plea for syncretism. Modern Language Journal 69; 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgs, T. V. & Clifford, R.. 1982. The push toward communication. In Higgs, T. V. (ed.). Curriculum, compelence, and the foreign language teacher, pp. 57–79. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Holley, F. & King, J.. 1971. Imitation and correction in foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal 55; 8.Google Scholar
Kalz, J. 1977. Foreigner talk input in child second language acquisition. In Henning, C. (ed.). Proceedings of the Los Angeles second language research forum. Los Angeles: UCLA.Google Scholar
Khalil, A. 1985. Communicative error evaluation: Native speaker's evaluation and interpretation of written errors of Arab EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly 19; 335–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. 1978. The monitor model for adult second language acquisition. In Gringas, Rosario C. (ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, pp. 1–26. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1979. A response to McLaughlin, “The monitor model: Some methodological considerations.” Language Learning 29; 151–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T.. 1983. The natural approach. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1976. An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning 26; 125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1983. The importance of input in second language acquisition. In R. W. Andersen (ed.), pp. 87–93.Google Scholar
Long, M. 1983. Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly 17; 359–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukmani, Y. 1972. Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language Learning 28; 309–32.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. 1978. The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning 28; 309–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omaggio, A. 1983. Methodology in transition: The new focus on proficiency. Modern Language Journal 67; 330–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omaggio, A. 1984. The proficiency-oriented classroom. In T. V. Higgs (ed.), pp. 43–84.Google Scholar
Plann, S. 1976. The Spanish immersion program: Towards native-like proficiency or a classroom dialect? Unpublished M.A. thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Postovsky, V. 1974. Effects of delay in oral practice at the beginning of second language learning. Modern Language Journal 58; 229–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savignon, S. 1983. Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. 1985. Evaluation of communicative competence: The ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines. Modern Language Journal 69.Google Scholar
Scarcella, R. and Higa, C.. 1982. Input and age differences in second language acquisition. In Krashen, S., Scarcella, R., & Long, M. eds. Child-Adult differences in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. 1978. The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. 1984. The acculturation model: The evidence. Paper presented at the annual Linguistics Symposium, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.Google Scholar
Semke, H. 1984. Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals 17; 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. 1982. Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language Learning 32; 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, B. 1975. The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary and intermediate university students learning ESL. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching, and bilingual education, pp. 55–69.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. 1985. Communicative value and information processing in second language acquisition. In Larson, P., Judd, E., & Messerschmitt, D. (eds.), On TESOL 84: A brave new world for TESOL, pp. 89–99. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Wagner-Gough, J. & Hatch, E.. 1975. The importance of input data in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning 25; 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar