Consolidating knowledge and making practice meaningful�

An Introduction to NCELP

At Language World, 2021

Association for Language Learning

​

Emma Marsden

​

Date updated: 13 March 2021

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes

Five niggles

Emma Marsden

Are these really the most useful words I could be teaching?

Do grammar and meaning have to feel so separate?

I’m jumping around! Will they ever practice that vocab and grammar again?

They seem to say and understand some impressive phrases, but what about the basics? Can they read or spell unknown words?

I feel I need to create ‘fun’ and keep saying ‘languages ARE useful!’.

Do they feel reward from ‘making progress’?

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes

Leaps in research (1): �Big data

Massive digital collections of words!

-> We know what the ‘most used and useful’ words are

The most frequent words change very little, over time or context

2,000 most common words cover 80-87% of written text

(Meara, 1995; Nation, 2001; Nation & Waring, 1997).

90+% of words in informal conversation (Nation, 2001)

Some massive FL corpora: French 23 million; Spanish 2 billion; German 20 million

These huge datasets are so useful for teaching and testing

There are about 425 hours of teaching in years 7-11

Children seem to learn an average of about 4 words per lesson (Milton, 2006)

-> Careful selection of each word to be learnt

Are these really the most useful words I could be teaching?

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes

Leaps in research (2): �Careful studies about ‘practice’

• Mere exposure (enriched input) isn’t reliable or efficient
• 6-20 (!) encounters with a word are needed
• Very variable – risky approach for many learners (45 findings analysed by Uchihara et al, 2019; Horst, Cobb & Meara, 1998)
• Explicit, intentional practice helps (22 studies analysed by Webb et al. 2020)
• Words in varied sets & diverse contexts (Johns, B. T., Dye, M., & Jones, M. N. (2016); Pagán, A., & Nation, K. (2019)).
• Spreading out learning in expanding practice routines (Nakata, 2015; Ullman & Lovelett, 2018)
• Mix grammar features (Nakata & Suzuki 201; Suzuki, Nakata, DeKeyser, 2019).

Do they ever practise that vocab and grammar again?

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes

Leaps in research (3): �Understanding core components of literacy

• We used to think that a very substantial part of reading comprehension happened ‘top-down’
• use context, your own experience, predicting what will be in the text (Goodman 1967 & 1969; Smith, 1971)
• We now know that better readers have very fast ‘bottom-up’ processes:
• fast and reliable knowledge of sound-spelling-meaning correspondences (In L1: Gough & Tunmer, 1986, ‘Simple View of Reading’)
• ‘Top down’ kicks in particularly when ‘bottom-up’ fails
• Ability to decode (sound out) in L2 seems to benefit:
• Reading comprehension, Vocabulary learning (Hamada & Koda, 2008, 2011; Li, in progress), Learner autonomy, Grammar learning (Erler, 2003), Motivation (Erler & Macaro, 2011), Speaking, Listening, Writing (Macaro, 2007)

Can they read out loud or spell new language?

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes

Leaps in research (4): �Grammar & meaning: Same coin

We used to think ‘grammar knowledge’ was separable from ‘meaning’

Grammatical knowledge ‘versus’ communicative competence debates of the 1980s.

Now, hundreds of ‘eye tracking’, ‘neurolinguistic’ and ‘reaction time’ studies show we use grammar to get meaning when we read & listen.

As we hear or read, we use word endings and word order to comprehend, and to learn new grammar

Teaching can tap into this ‘processing’

When we listen or read, our attention can be focused on grammar (‘Processing Instruction’ 50+ studies e.g. Cadierno 1995; VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993; VanPatten, 2002; Kasprowicz & Marsden, 2018 & 2019; Marsden, 2006; Marsden & Chen 2011; McManus & Marsden, 2018)

When we speak or write, we realise grammar is needed, to be precise (Long, 1983 Mackey 1999, Pica 1994, Swain, 1985)

Balance! Carefully designed comprehension AND production activities can ‘force’ learners to pay attention to grammar, to get or express meaning

(Toth, 2006; Shintani, 2015; Shintani, Li & Ellis, 2013; DeKeyser & Prieto & Botana, 2015)

Do grammar and meaning have to feel so separate?

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes

Leaps in research (5): �Understanding nature of motivation: �The sense of progression

​

The construct of ‘self-efficacy’ and the achievement/motivation cycle

​

Perceptions of ‘ease’ and sense of ‘achievement following effort’ motivate

Graham (2004)

​

Just telling learners “FLs are useful” does not influence uptake

• perceptions of lessons, difficulty/ease, and personal relevance count most

Taylor & Marsden (2014) OASIS summary

​

Not being able to ‘sound out’ words is de-motivating

Erler & Macaro (2012) OASIS summary

Do they feel any sense of reward from making progress?

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes

Research can help us to…

Emma Marsden

Define and plan an achievable body of language, so that:

​

​

Phonics

Vocabulary

Grammar

-> meaning -> interest -> motivation

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes

Alignment with the wider scene

See NCELP resources portal for ‘NCELP alignment with wider policy':

• NCELP alignment with Ofsted Inspection Framework
• NCELP alignment with Early Career Framework
• How NCELP can support the draft GCSE Subject Content
• NCELP alignment with Rosenshine’s principles of instruction

​

AND …

• NCELP’s Cultural Collection
• NCELP’s Phonics Collection

​

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes

Want to hear more from NCELP?

​

• Join the mailing list, email: enquiries@ncelp.org for regular bulletins about resources arriving on the portal

​

• To get monthly alerts to summaries of new research, sign up in 10 seconds at

https://oasis-database.org/

​

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes

In the next session (break out)…

1. Planning practice: NCELP Schemes of Work

​

• Choosing which words to teach: “high frequency”

​

• Checking consolidation: NCELP tests

​

Questions? Discussion.

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes

References

• Dekeyser, R., & Prieto Botana, G. (2015). The Effectiveness of Processing Instruction in L2 Grammar Acquisition: A Narrative Review. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu071
• Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6(4), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388076709556976
• Goodman, K. S. (1969). Analysis of Oral Reading Miscues: Applied Psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 5(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.2307/747158
• Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. M. (1998). Beyond A Clockwork Orange: Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11(2), 207–223.
• Johns, B. T., Dye, M., & Jones, M. N. (2016). The influence of contextual diversity on word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1214–1220. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0980-7
• Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and Conversational Adjustments to Non-Native Speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004848
• Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: an empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199004027
• Milton, J. (2006). Language Lite? Learning French Vocabulary in School. Journal of French Language Studies, 16(2), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269506002420
• Nakata, T. (2015). Effects of expanding and equal spacing on second language vocabulary learning: Does gradually increasing spacing increase vocabulary learning? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(4), 677–711. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000825
• Nakata, T., & Suzuki, Y. (2019). Mixing Grammar Exercises Facilitates Long‐Term Retention: Effects of Blocking, Interleaving, and Increasing Practice. The Modern Language Journal, 103(3), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12581
• Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759
• Nation, P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary Size, Text Coverage and Word Lists. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy (pp. 6–19). Cambridge University Press.
• Pagán, A., & Nation, K. (2019). Learning Words Via Reading: Contextual Diversity, Spacing, and Retrieval Effects in Adults. Cognitive Science, 43(1), e12705. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12705

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes

References

• Shintani, N. (2015). The Effectiveness of Processing Instruction and Production-based Instruction on L2 Grammar Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu067
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12001
• Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Optimizing Second Language Practice in the Classroom: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology. The Modern Language Journal, modl.12582. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12582
• Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.
• Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing Instruction and a Role for Output in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 56(2), 319–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00349.x
• Uchihara, T., Webb, S., & Yanagisawa, A. (2019). The Effects of Repetition on Incidental Vocabulary Learning: A Meta‐Analysis of Correlational Studies. Language Learning, 69(3), 559–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12343
• Ullman, M. T., & Lovelett, J. T. (2018). Implications of the declarative/procedural model for improving second language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques. Second Language Research, 34(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316675195
• VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing Instruction: An Update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00203
• Webb, S., Yanagisawa, A., & Uchihara, T. (2020). How Effective Are Intentional Vocabulary‐Learning Activities? A Meta‐Analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 104(4), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12671
• VanPatten, B. (2002).Processing Instruction: An Update. Language Learning 52 (4) 755-803
• Webb, S., Yanagisawa, A., & Uchihara, T. (2020). How effective are intentional vocabulary learning activities? A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 104 (4). https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12671

Material licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0�

Rachel Hawkes