Wim Gombert

132 CHAPTER 8 In the nal three years of this DUB approach, students themselves choose videos and texts to work with in online learning system systems. In videos, both phonological and orthographic forms are introduced simultaneously and paired with their meaning. In texts, only the orthographic forms are paired with their meaning. Although there is more focus on the written form at this stage, grammatical and orthographic accuracy are still expected to develop implicitly. Learning activities in class focus on discussing content to improve oral uency. In this approach, FUMMs are acquired inductively with a learner-adapted, incidental focus on certain forms. ree di erences between these approaches seem tomake the SB approach cognitively more demanding than the DUB approach. First, the simultaneous introduction of oral and written forms in an SB approach is likely to make the process of pairing forms and meaning more demanding, while, in the DUB approach, students can focus on one form at a time. A er having successfully entrenched the phonological form-use-meaning mapping through many repetitions, students can focus on pairing the orthographic form with the phonological form and its meaning. Secondly, the use of L1 equivalents makes the process of pairing forms and meaning even more complex, as even more forms are introduced in the activation process: Besides the phonological and the orthographic form in the L2, both phonological and orthographic forms of the L1 equivalent are used in the activation process, adding to the demanding nature of the entrenchment process. In a DUB approach, the L1 equivalents are replaced by meaningful gestures, which, if paired with foreign language production, are known to stimulate both the right and le side of the brain, facilitating the brain in internalizing meaning from the language (Asher, 1981). Furthermore, using gestures in the classroom invites students to use more intelligences (kinesthetic – students gesture themselves, visual – students see the teacher and their peers gesturing) in addition to the traditional cognitive intelligence which, according to Gardner (1987), is known to empower foreign language learning. As a result, foreign language learning is assumed to be cognitively less demanding. irdly, the strong focus on grammatical and orthographic accuracy in the SB approach puts a heavy cognitive burden on students for three reasons: grammatical accuracy requires a certain amount of metalinguistic awareness; orthographic accuracy requires even more cognitive e ort during the form-meaning pairing; and a heavy focus on accuracy entails more anxiety, which is known to impede cognitive processes. ese three reasons are expected to contribute even more to the cognitively demanding nature of the process of form-use-meaning mapping. As the L2 under investigation is French, in which the phoneme-grapheme transparency is rather low as compared to many other languages and more e ort is needed to pair phonological and orthographic forms, this becomes even more pronounced. When looking at di erent text measures in writing, the results of this study show that a DUB approach is more e ective than an SB approach with regard to uency