Learning use involves developing context-related appropriateness and this is

believed to come about through experiencing the real conditions of language

use in different contexts (Johnson 1996),

By engaging in contextualized practice, the learners were able to become more accurate in their
spontaneous
production over time; in other words, the practice may have helped develop the procedural
memory of English wh-questions
(Sato & McDonough, 2019) Sato M, McDonough K. PRACTICE IS IMPORTANT BUT HOW
ABOUT ITS QUALITY?: CONTEXTUALIZED PRACTICE IN THE CLASSROOM. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition. 2019;41(5):999-1026. doi:10.1017/S0272263119000159,
This study explored the impact of contextualized practice on second language (L2) learners’
production of wh-questions in the L2 classroom

The basis for this assumption is that knowledge is separable from the context in which it is
developed, rather than a function of activity, social interactions, culture, and history (Lobato,
2006)
Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative Perspectives on the Transfer of Learning: History, Issues, and
Challenges for Future Research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 431–449.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1504_1,

In an empirical study investigating the importance of context in language comprehension, Garten

et al. (2019) emphasize that context awareness and adaptation are necessary for effective
communication.

When learners experienced a situation that present comparable affordances, and they recognize
these similarities of this situation and the one they experienced while learning, their schema
could be activated (Larsen Freeman, 2013). Hence, learners could transfer knowledge they
memorize to the language use in real life situation (Day & Goldstone, 2012), Any
lexicogrammatical item, then, is associated with specific use features
that make it more likely to be chosen in a given context. (Nava)

Regarding the important of contextualization, Nava claimed that every lexicogrammatical item,
is associated with specific use features that make should be decided in a particular context.
Moreover, when exploring the impact of contextualized practice on second language (L2)
learners’ production of wh-questions in the L2 classroom, (Sato & McDonough, 2019)
concluded that By engaging in contextualized practice, the learners were able to become more
accurate in their spontaneous production over time; in other words, the practice may have helped
develop the procedural memory of English wh-questions . This finding confirm the conclusion of
(Larsen Freeman, 2013) that when learners experienced a situation that present comparable
affordances, and they recognize these similarities of this situation and the one they experienced
while learning, their schema could be activated (Larsen Freeman, 2013). Hence, learners could
transfer knowledge they memorize to the language use in real life situation (Day & Goldstone,
2012).
As a result the students in the video do not know why they have to learn this language function.
Furthermore, they could not transfer knowledge into real-life situations because according to the
finding of (Larsen Freeman, 2013) discussed , they dont have chance to produce their own
language; in pther words they do not experiece the situation. Thus they do not how to apply the
new labgauge feature to real-life situation. In addition, there is no context to compare, they
cannot activate their schema to apply to a new context in real life.

INDUCTVE

Consciousness-raising tasks. One of the least explicit types of focus

on forms instruction is consciousness raising, which is predicated on the

assumption that inductively helping learners discover grammatical rules

and patterns for themselves will help facilitate L2 acquisition (Ellis, 2003;

Nassaji & Fotos, 2004).

VOCAB

Schmitt (2008)

states that ‘the first step in the vocabulary acquisition process is establishing
link’
an initial form-meaning
(p. 335), Loewen, S. (2020). Introduction to Instructed Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.).
Routledge. https://doi-org.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/10.4324/9781315616797

associate specific semantic concepts with specific phonologi

calor orthographic forms Loewen, S. (2020). Introduction to Instructed Second Language
Acquisition (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi-org.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/10.4324/9781315616797

GRAMMAR
For example, Krashen’s (1982, 2003) Input Hypothesis claims that
grammar is not learned as a result of any type of instruction, rather grammar
is acquired through exposure to input. Thus, if grammar cannot be learned
in the traditional sense, then there are no methods needed to teach it. What
teachers need to do instead is provide an input-rich classroom environment
in which learners are exposed to as much comprehensible input as possible.
Krashen concedes that grammar rules may be of some use in helping learners
monitor their own production; consequently, spending limited class time on
explicit grammar instruction is not without some benefit, but on the whole,
explicit instruction of grammar rules is not going to develop learners’ ability
to produce language easily for communication.

In contrast, other researchers claim that the best way for grammar learning
to occur is through direct explicit instruction (Scheffler, 2012; Sheen,
2005; Swan, 2005). For example, Scheffler (2012) argues in favor of more
traditional ways of teaching grammar, such as grammar translation, explicit
instruction, and PPP (Present, Practice, Produce). Swan (2005) argues that
explicit instruction is much more efficient in the L2 classroom than taskbased
approaches, and he also argues that task-based learning does not work
for new grammatical forms.

Consciousness-raising tasks. One of the least explicit types of focus

on forms instruction is consciousness raising, which is predicated on the
assumption that inductively helping learners discover grammatical rules
and patterns for themselves will help facilitate L2 acquisition (Ellis, 2003;
Nassaji & Fotos, 2004).

INTERATION

They are key elements of negotiation for meaning, which is the core of the interaction hypothesis
(Loewen & Sato, 2018). Loewen and Sato (2018) proposed that interaction is an essential part of
second language acquisition

Broken link because can provide the context

Counter: he object of learning – the (second) language – has also traditionally been viewed as a
monodimensional construct (Larsen-Freeman 2003) – e.g. a series of form-based structural
patterns (Audiolingualism) or morphosyntactic rules with their exceptions (Grammar
Translation). In recent decades, however, researchers have pointed to the ‘complexity’ of
language and its dynamic nature (Larsen-Freeman 1997; Ellis and Larsen-Freeman 2009).

Counter laij=> communicative compe. inductive

Context import tant to decide… => this just drills and repetition=> no puroose

If no=> stu cant link

Contextualization is a condition that replicate actual communication scenarios when

speakers engage in conversation with each other in order to achieve a communication
purpose. The goal of contextualizing language is to provide learners' exposure to it genuine
communicative situation, helping them understand the usefulness of the targeted language
that they are learning.

Turning to the activity, the aim of it is learning to talk about resolutions for new year. Students
watched a video about a conversation of four flatmates talking about their desires for the coming
year. Teacher played the video and stopped when there was new vocabularies needed to explain.
Students were supposed to understand these new vocabularies. On the one hand, the context can
provide information about place (in a flat), time (at the new year’s eve), people (4 flatmates).
The context provided is realistic because at the new year’s eve people usually share their
resolutions for the coming year. On the other hand, the created contextualization was
unsuccessful because it can not indicate the purpose or the reason why students have to watch
this video. In other words, students could not find the communication purposes in this activity.
There was no instruction telling students what to do after watching the video, or what to do with
the video. Moreover, teacher was failed to create the outcome for this activity because students
did not have chance to talk about their own resolutions, using their own languages. As a result,
although the context in this activity is relatable to real-life scenario, it could not help students
understand the reason why they have to learn this language function, and students do not have
chance to produce their own language.