【Abstract】This paper analyzes the common problem existing in English online course： The text message， rather than the learning activity， is the focus of the course design； the language input is emphasized， yet the learning activity is ignored. based on the activity-based theory， Krashens input hypothesis and Swains output hypothesis， with the case study， the author elaborates how to make the input-based online activity comprehensible with PI model， and with PPP model， how to make the output-based online activities effective for English acquisition while designing the English online course.
【Key words】online English course design； activity-based； input hypothesis； output-hypothesis； PI model； PPP model
Introduction
Nowadays， the online English courses are growing in both popularity and offerings. The online English course offers convenience for the learners because it can facilitates long distance exchanges， both synchronous and asynchronous task， and students publishing， etc. However， recent surveys demonstrate that some online English courses are ineffective due to the ignorance of the learning activity and interaction. Another problem occurring in some online English course is that the language input is emphasized， yet the output is neglected. Since the fundamental nature of learning is engagement in activity （Prince， 2004）， the learning activity should be given the priority in designing an online English course. based on the activity-based theory as well as the input and output theory of second language， this paper aims to explain how to make input-based and output-based activities effective for second language acquisition in designing the online English course.
Literature review
Activity-based learning
Activity-based learning as defined by Prince （2004） is a learning method in which students are engaged in the “learning processes. According to Hardfield， Davies， Hede， Panko Kenley （2007）， in Activity-based learning teaching method， students actively participate in the learning experience rather than sit as passive listeners. Learning activities if based on “real life experience” help learners to transform knowledge or information into their personal knowledge which they can apply in different situation （Edward， 2001）. Marilyn and Higgins （1997） define activity-based learning as the learning process in which “student is actively involved in doing or in seeing something done.” According to them activity-based teaching method “frequently involved the use of manipulative materials.” According to Churchill （2003）， activity-based learning helps learners to “construct mental models that allow for “higher-order” performance such as applied problem solving and transfer of information and skills.” Activity-based learning theory is a cognitive-learning theory which is basically a “constructivist” learning theory （Hein，1991）. According to constructivist view of learning， each person construct their own knowledge and learning process based on previous experience. According to constructivism， teachers cannot transfer their knowledge to the students （Domin， 2007）. For meaningful learning to be taken place， learners require to experience an event.
Input perspective
Krashens input hypothesis states that learners progress in their knowledge of the language when they comprehend language input that is slightly more advanced than their current level. Krashen called this level of input “i+1”， where “i” is the language input and “+1” is the next stage of language acquisition. According to Krashen， comprehensible output is the result of language acquisition. When enough comprehensible input is provided， i+1 is present. If language models and teachers provide enough comprehensible input， then the structures that acquirers are ready to learn will be present in that input. According to Krashen， this is a better method of developing grammatical accuracy than direct grammar teaching.
Van pattens input processing model （2002） is based on Krashens input hypothesis. Van Patten defines input processing as the condition under which learners may attempt to make connections between form in the input and meaning. He postulates that learners are only able to process input for meaning before they can process it for form. On this theoretical basis， Van Patten （2002） developed Processing Instruction （PI）， a methodological approach to second language teaching which attempts to manipulate input to push learners away from their natural but “non-optimal processing strategies” and make better “form-meaning connections” （Van Patten， 2002， p. 764）. Processing instruction consists of 3 basic components：
● learners are given explicit information about how a linguistic structure or form works， and are presented with one form at a time.
● Learners are informed about a particular processing problem that may negatively affect the way they process a form or structure during comprehension.
● Learners are given structured input activities in the hope of pushing them away from non-optimal processing.
In Van Pattens model， input is “fundamental for acquisition” （Van Patten， 2002， p. 763）. It is during the processing of input that internal mechanisms accommodate data into the learner?s language system and restructuring occurs （2002， pp. 762-763）.
Output perspective
From the input perspective， the role of output is usually seen as secondary and indirect. However， Swain （1985， 1995） argues “ there are roles for output in second language acquisition that are independent of comprehensible input.” He believes that output may be used as way of trying out new language forms and structures as to see what works and what does not. Swain （1985） emphasized the comprehensible output very well. She inferred that producing language， as opposed to simply comprehending the language， may force the learner to move from semantic processing to syntactic processing， thereby facilitating more grammatical competence.
Swains output hypothesis （swain， 1995， 1998， 2005） assumes four roles for output in facilitating second language development： the noticing function， metalinguistic function， fluency function， and hypothesis-testing function， First， output provides opportunities for fluent and speedy used of language. This is called the fluency function of output. The second function of output is the hypothesis testing function. Output can help learners assess the comprehensibility and well-formedness of their utterances against feedback or reactions they receive from their interlocutor. Third， the noticing function of output provides opportunities for learners to notice a gap between that they intend to say and what they can say leading them to recognize what they dont know or know only partially. （swain， 1995） The fourth function of output is its metalinguistic function by which it is claimed that as learners reflect upon their own target language use， their output serves a metalinguistic function， enabling them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge. （Swain， 1995）.
based on Swains output hypothesis， Swains output-based instruction pushes the learners to produce meaningful output. The output-based instruction was operated via a meaning-focused presentation/ practice/ production （ppp） format.
● During the presentation stage， the learners are provided with explicit instruction about the target form.
● During the practice stage， learners practice the use of target form in a controlled meaningful context.
● During the production stage， learners produce the target forms in a communicative task.
Research questions
based on the activity-based theory， from the input and output perspective， this paper addresses the following questions：
（1） How is input made comprehensible for second language acquisition in designing the online English course？
（2） How are the output-based activities made effective for second language acquisition in designing the online English course？
The online input-based activity
Ellis （2012） defines input-based instruction as an instruction that “ involves the manipulation of the input that learners are exposed to or are required to process.” The online input-based instruction is based on Van Pattens PI model. The online vocabulary acquisition activity can follow Van Pattens pattern. Firstly， the learners are provided the explicit information orally or literally regarding the word or chunk with computerized aid. Compared with the traditional mode for vocabulary teaching， online input-based instruction can make the input information more salient to the learners with computerized visual enhancement， such as intra-operative video and images， animation， flash， etc. Secondly， the learners are pushed to connect the linguistic feature of word or chunk with its meaning through the structured input activities. Learners should pay attention to the meaning to complete the activity. These different types of online structured activity should involve learners in accomplishing different online tasks： identifying or matching the words by clicking on the pictures， categorizing， ordering or ranking， etc.
Case 1： Teaching aim： Acquaint the students with the following words：
hot； cold； snow； cloudy； windy； foggy； sunny/shine
Step 1： Present the words with appropriate pictures or automation （flash） in order to connect the form of the word to its meaning.
Step 2： Ask the learners to listen to the statement about the weather in the following cities： London， Cape Town， Moscow
Step 3： Ask learners to click on the appropriate words to match the weather in the different cities mentioned.
As opposed to the traditional grammar teaching， which focuses on the production， Van Pattens mode of grammar teaching focuses on input and how learner processes input. It aims to affect learners attention to input data which is in compliance with second language theories and communicative language teaching. The ultimate scope of Van Patten pedagogical approach to grammar instruction is to make learner appreciate the communicative function of a particular form. based on Van Pattens principle， the input should be attended to its message so that learners can see how grammar assists the delivery of that message. While designing the online input-based activity， a brief explanation about how a grammar form or structure works should be given to the learner in one or another way： by means of interpretation tasks （e.g. by micro-lecture directed at drawing learners attention to form-meaning mapping）；by presenting the target structure in the input material （e.g. by reading the text， listening to the conversation， watching the mini-drama）；by highlighting the target structure （e.g. by using bold or italics in written text）. After that， the learners are required to complete the structured activity which helps them overcome the interlanguage.
Case 2： Teaching aim： Acquaint the learners with how to use the present continuous tense.
Step 1： Present the micro-lecture or mini-drama in which the present continuous tense is embedded in the situational scene， in order to convey the communicative message.
Step 2： Interpret the structure of present continuous tense with micro-lecture， encouraging the learners to attend to the grammatical mark “be+verb+ing” for present continuous tense.
Step 3： Ask the learners to listen to a dialogue in which the present continuous tense is used， and then complete the sentences by filling “ing” in the blank.
The online output-based activity
The design of online output-based activity is based on Swains PPP model. Presentation is the beginning or introduction to language， which involves the introduction of the new language in a conceptual way in combination with some kind of real situation. When this is understood， the students are provided with a linguistic “model” to apply to the concept they have recognized， with this “model” in mind， the students practice the new language by means of various “control” activities. In the stages of presentation and practice， the instruction can be operated in a similar way to that of the PI model.
Production is the culmination of the learning process. It is also the stage that differentiates the PPP model from PI model. In this stage， learners move into some kind of “productive” activity， involving a situation calls for the language to be used naturally. That situation should trigger the learners to use the language which is introduced in the presentation stage. The online environment can provide a space where the situation is created for learners to interact in target language and communicative for real purpose.
The effective online productive activities include：
● writing based on a given topic
● describing a picture
● a situational role play
● online debate and discussion
● peer evaluation and review
The learners can accomplish the communicative task by electronic means， such as e-mail， chat-room， web-board， instant message and desktop conferencing.
Case 3： Teaching aims： Learn how to use “be going to” for real communicative purpose.
Step 1： Ask the learners to listen to a dialogue talking abut a plan in which the structure “be going to” is embedded.
Step 2： An interpretation about the use and structure of “be going to” is delivered by a micro-lecture.
Step 3： Ask to learners to complete the sentences with the structure of “be going to”
Example： We/ play tennis
I/ give John a hat
Step 4： Ask the learners to make a summer holiday plan using “be going to”， and discuss their plans in the online forum. The mistakes can be discussed and corrected by the peers.
Conclusion
The nature of the learning is the engagement in activity. Therefore， the design of the online English course should be based on activity-based learning theory. Also， it should be in compliance with the second language theory. based on Krashens input hypothesis and Swains output hypothesis， PI model and PPP model should be applied into the design of the online English course. The online environment can provide optimal situation for the application of PI and PPP models， which can make the learning activities more effective for English acquisition.
References：
[1]Prince，M.（2004）.Does active learning work？ A review of the research.Journal of engineering education，93（3），223-231.
[2]Harfield，T.，Davies，K.，Hede，J.，Panko，M.and Kenley，R.（2007）.“Activity-based Teaching For Unitec New Zealand Construction Students”.Emirates Journal for Engineering Research，special issue on Innovation in Engineering.12（1），57-63.
[3]Edwards，R.（2001）.Meeting individual learner needs：power， subject，subjection.In C.Paechter，M.Preedy，D.Scott，and J.Soler （Eds.），Knowledge，Power and Learning.London：SAGE.
[4]Suydam，Marilyn N；Higgins，Jon L（1997）.Activity-based Learning in Elementary School Mathematics：Recommendations from Research Information Reference Center（ERIC/IRC）.
[5]Churchill.D.（2003）.Effective design principles for activity-based learning：the crucial role of “learning objects” in Science and engineering education.Retrieved from http//www.Learnerstogether.net/ PDF/Effective-Design-Principle.pdf on 10Oct，2011.
[6]Hein，G.E.（1991）“Constructivist learning theory.” San Francisco，Calif.：Institute for Learning.Retrieved online June 24，2002，from http：//www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/constructivistlearning.html.
[7]Domin.D.S.（2007）Students perceptions of when conceptual development occurs during laboratory instruction Chemistry Education Research and Practive，2007，8（2），140-152.
[8]Krashen，S.D.（1980）.“The Input Hypothesis”.In J Alatis（ed.），Current Issues in Bilingual Education.Washington，D.C.Georgetown University Press.
[9]Krashen，S.D.（1982）Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.Oxford：Pergamon Press.
[10]Van Patten，B.（2002）Process instruction：An update.Language Learning，52，755-803.
[11]Swain，M.1995.‘Three functions of output in second language learning in G.Cook and B.Seidelhofer（eds）：Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics：Studies in honour of H.G.Widdowson.Oxford：Oxford University Press，pp.125-44.
[12]Swain，M.1998.‘Focus on form through conscious reflection in C.Doughty and J.Williams（eds）：Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.
[13]Swain，M.and S.Lapkin.2002.Talking it through：Two French immersion learners response to reformulation，International Journal of Educational Research 37：285-304.
[14]Swain，M.2005.“The output hypothesis：Theory and research”in E.Hinkel（ed，）：Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning.Mahwah，NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates，pp.471-83.
[15]Ellis，R.（2012）.Language teaching research and pedagogy.West Sussex：Wiley-Blackwell.
作者簡介：杨永芳，广西广播电视大学英语教师，副教授，主要研究方向为英语教学，远程英语教学，英语教师培训等。
