===================================================================== Introduction The teaching of foreign languages, practiced for centuries in classrooms in the world, has undergone quite profound changes throughout the twentieth... more
===================================================================== Introduction The teaching of foreign languages, practiced for centuries in classrooms in the world, has undergone quite profound changes throughout the twentieth century. Given the importance of language learning to the internationalization of social and economic relations in the last century, the study of the acquisition and learning of a second language has strengthened and impacted teaching practices, which are also confronted with a high level of demand in terms of learning outcomes. Despite intense research efforts dedicated to finding out how people learn a foreign language, we still do not know for sure how the process occurs (Harmer, 1991). Therefore, this teaching practice-although always subject to questions and reflections-is far from having finished answers and a working methodology that guarantees the success of the teachers and the satisfaction of the students. The research and application and verification of its results should continue to offer us insights on the constant search for an increasingly meaningful work. This part of the paper briefly describes the history of methods and approaches that have been used in language teaching over the last few centuries and indicates its legacy to current practice. The following presents the proposal of a transdisciplinary approach for the teaching and learning of foreign languages in the classroom. The Classic Method During the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the teaching of foreign languages in the West was strongly associated with the learning of the so-called classical languages, Latin and Greek, because of its strong reputation for promoting student intelligentsia (Howatt, 2000). In the study of classical languages, the focus was not on the use of language as an instrument of communication, but on the understanding of grammatical rules and the syntactic structure of language. Classroom work was based on repetitive memorization of vocabulary, on the
The combination of implicit meaning-focused input and explicit instruction has been suggested by recent research as very effective for learning L2 vocabulary; however, the time sequence for such juxtaposition has not been adequately... more
The combination of implicit meaning-focused input and explicit instruction has been suggested by recent research as very effective for learning L2 vocabulary; however, the time sequence for such juxtaposition has not been adequately examined through empirical studies. Therefore, this study sought to find the optimal time for combining explicit and implicit L2 vocabulary instruction using an explanatory mixed-method design. A convenience sample of 62 upper-intermediate EFL learners from three intact classes participated in this study. The Test of Academic Word List (Version A) that assesses Coxhead's (2000) Academic Word List (AWL) was administered as a pertest. The reading book, Focus on Vocabulary 2, that has been developed based on the AWL was used for giving meaning-forced input. The target words were explicitly pre-taught in Class A (n=22), taught concurrent with encountering them in the reading text in Class B (n=20), and post-taught in Class C (n=22). Version B of the AWL Test was used as the posttest and after a 14-day retention interval (RI) as the delayed posttest. Then, 25% of the learners were orally interviewed about their attitudes toward the treatment they received. Quantitative data analysis using one-way ANCOVA revealed that explicit teaching during the reading was the optimal time and could help learners significantly do better on the immediate and delayed post-tests followed by pre-teaching. Qualitative analysis also verified
