Hello everyone, this week we'll be talking briefly about
syntax, summarizing theories of acquisition, and prepping for the week 5
quiz.
Please complete your final learner language analysis homework about developmental sequences.
Week 4 Reading: Lightbown & Spada. How Languages are Learned. Chapter2 (HLAL_Chapter 2.pdf)
Directions:
**This week you will read summaries of several L2 Acquisition theories. Choose one to support, summarize it and share learning and teaching experiences that support your choice.
Please complete your final learner language analysis homework about developmental sequences.
Week 4 Reading: Lightbown & Spada. How Languages are Learned. Chapter2 (HLAL_Chapter 2.pdf)
Directions:
**This week you will read summaries of several L2 Acquisition theories. Choose one to support, summarize it and share learning and teaching experiences that support your choice.
Attention!! Group leaders: If your name has an * in
front of it, you are the group leader for the week 4 journal. Please get
your summary and comments posted by Wednesday.
Jeff, *Amy, Jasper, Liz
Kevan, *Lawrence, Dee Dee
John, *Laura, David
Lightbown and Spada present theories aiming to explain second language acquisition (SLA). The authors introduce behaviourist, and innatist theories, and then theories born out of cognitive psychology, and socio-cultural theory.
ReplyDeleteI will be reflecting on the *Interaction Hypothesis,* which proposes that SLA demands the presence of conversational interaction. Researchers focus on how speakers modify speech in conversations to help learners participate, and find meaning from the TL. Long (1983) suggests _modified interaction_ is necessary for SLA because learners need help during interaction to make sense of, and consequently, acquire language. Modified Interaction is not ‘dumbing down’ language, but rather, making language accessible for learners to acquire and reproduce through gestures, comprehension checks, paraphrasing etc. Long (1996) also states that when meaning is unclear, parties “negotiate for meaning,” during which learners have opportunities to develop their language.
The Interaction Hypothesis resonated with me, because modified interaction is a big part of how I teach. Also, I believe speaking and conversation pave the way for students’ learning. Using gestures, facial expressions and repetition is central in how my younger students and I communicate, while they are learning. Our conversations give them a model, and our collaboration during ‘negotiating for meaning’ is invaluable for their paraphrasing skills, as well as my role in ensuring that meaning is found.
I think the example you used of your wife's language progression is enough, and awesome!
DeleteI completely agree with your comment of the important of the speaker/teacher's assessment of how much modification is necessary, and for how long. Drawing on something we mentioned last week (I think it was Lawrence) it infuriates me when I hear native English speakers talking to Korean people in language that is both, incorrect, and almost patronizing. It's not helping anyone...
Thanks for your reply, Jeff! And great job "Mrs. Jeff!"
I agree with the both of you. I too found the Interaction Hypothesis the most interesting for SLA. The article talks about comprehension checks, clarification requests, and self repetition or paraphrasing. This is what I try to do in my classes. I would often do comprehension checks but found that I would be asking closed ended questions. So I would try paraphrasing and asking them questions afterwards. There would be some students that seem confused or lost so I would try to "modify my interaction" with all my students. I would have to slow down my speech, try explaining in different situations (so they can laugh, relax, not be stressed, etc.), or use more body gestures. I have been trying to explain things in a more relaxed and less stressful manner so that the students would feel less stressed in participating.
DeleteI agree with Jeff. I believe in any SLA, you have to practice speaking. As a kyopo, I learned Korean at home, but I always spoke in English and did everything in English. I went to Korean school when I was young and I felt that helped me learn the writing aspect. It may have helped improve my Korean, but I feel my Korean didn't improve until I got a little older and started speaking to Korean friends. By speaking more with them, it was less stressful, and they would help correct me. I would chat and email with them, and I felt that helped me a lot because it not only helped with writing, but it was similar to typing what our in-person conversation would be like. Then later on with more practice, and more person to person interaction, I feel my Korean improved a lot and continues to do so.
The section of Mimicry and Memorization was interesting because that's what a teacher I work with believes in. He believes if the students memorizes more sentences, that will help them form sentences when they speak. They will speak and use the sentences that they have memorized. At first I was skeptical about that. I didn't believe that it would be very beneficial and helpful. But I realized that although it may not directly help with their speaking, I feel it helped them learn English in different ways. Such as pronunciation, learning vocabulary, grammar, and so on. With practice, they could improve their English in different ways.
I believe that you have to do many different things for SLA. But the ongoing question will be what method would be best for the students, who all learn differently. It is up to teacher to find out. I will continue to do so.
I hope you guys don't care if I crash the party... But I'm definitely crossing the bridge you guys are building!
DeleteAfter reading this article, I feel that I'm on the cognitivist/developmental perspective side of the table. Like you Amy, modified interaction is a big part of my teaching due to the age group that I work with. I just started teaching two new 4-year-old classes. One of them is at the younger end of that 4-year-old spectrum (3 years old back in the states). So, I play a lot of games where the Ss are moving around doing the certain actions as I say them. Basically it's like a big game of John Teacher Says, a way of making the input both visually and audibly comprehensible.
But... I believe the biggest example of classroom discourse with the interaction hypothesis is my song times. To me, having the Ss sing songs is by definition a "modified interaction". It's a way of modifying the L2 into comprehensible input for acquisition.
I feel that this was way too short. So, I would like to write a little bit more...
DeleteMy 7 year old class that I am currently teaching, I've been implementing John Teacher Says game since they were 5 years old. Now it's no longer called John Teacher Says (there is another reason too, but thats for another blog) because the Ss are now in control, so it's S Teacher Says. I just stand back and help if need be. These days I get pretty surprised with how well the S leads the others. Some examples of the phrases they say are "Stand up and push your chair in", "Go to the white board(or other objects)", "Pick your chair up".
I also tied plurals in, so they will say "Put your hand up" or "Touch/Point to your ears" and they do the appropriate action. This was only possible through modifying the input in a way that made it comprehensible to them for SLA!
Very insightful posts everyone!
DeleteI also Identified with the interaction hypothesis.
It equated that making language comprehensible and meaning full was the base line for language. So to make language more comprehensible we should let students and learners interact with the language.
In student form it is of asking clarification questions and expanding on what was said.
In the teacher form it is of paraphrasing, using repetition and changing dialogue when prompted by students.
I also think this mixes in with the noticing hypothesis, that something to be learned should be noticed. I think it ties in nicely with comprehension.
If I don't understand what you are saying I can't learn the phrase you are saying it in. (I could memorize it, but that isn't learning)
I will support the noticing hypothesis with my own class.
Sometimes when I recast a sentence a student has said to me, they have no idea why I recasted it. Once they understand the reason for the recast (usually a change in meaning) they use the new recast to put across their intended meaning.
This also works with patterns in the classroom, as you were saying last week. I would teach a pattern of words and let the students notice that these words almost always go together. "Would you like to..." or "Can you..."
Once they notice the pattern they are more likely to use it and will understand the language more.
I think the hypothesis presented in this paper over lap a lot and can be used together, with no ONE hypothesis being the only one to use.
Great job Amy... :)
ReplyDeleteI've just been explaining this blog and this reading to a friend, and I found myself, even now, 'talking up' other theories (Swain's Comprehensible Output model) and being interested in investigating a few more of the theories to become more informed. How about you guys? How easy was it for you to make a choice?
Delete"I've just been explaining this blog and this reading to a friend"
DeleteMy heart fluttered; I'm happy you find the content worthy enough to share with a friend.
I will summarize and comment on Behaviourism. Mostly because I don't think the article (or past research) does it justice. Behaviourism is is based on the idea that we learn by imitation, practice, reinforcement and habit formation. However the article only cites research in which classroom activities emphasized mimicry and memorization of dialogues, in order to form a sentence by heart and turn it into a habit. It was also hypothesized that habits of the first language would interfere with habit forming for the second language.
ReplyDeleteI don't really think that memorization and mimicry is at the heart of Behavioural theory, I put more emphasis on positive reinforcement. Ultimately we use language to express our needs and wants. When children learn their first language, usually the first utterances they produce relate to being hungry, they are expressing their need. When they do so correctly, they receive positively reinforcement by being given food. They mimic mom and dad, and the language becomes a habit.
Likewise, as a second language learner of Korean , some of the first things I learned were things I needed or wanted to say. It was positively reinforced when Koreans understood me, and gave me what I wanted. Certain expressions became habit.
In the classroom, Behaviourism is constantly at play. When a child produces what the teacher wants, they are praised, given a sticker or high-five. Likewise, the desire to express oneself for example- like needing to go to the bathroom, can be mimicked, reinforced, memorized, and become habit quite quickly. Behaviourism could explain why children can learn "can I go to the bathroom?" and "lets play a game" much easier than other TL which doesn't relate to their needs and wants as closely.
Obviously second language acquisition is a complex process, and several theories contain some truth to them. Which theory resonates with you?
I'm impressed by you critically analyzing the reading in respect to your own teaching.
DeleteTo all, please don't always agree.
thanks dudes.
Deletewaiting on Kevan..lets get this party (discussion) started.
Lawrence
DeleteFirst off, I agree with everyone that you did very well with the summary and related it well to your classroom and personal experience.
Second, this is serious work - no partying aloud sir..ha..ha. And being a clear individualist I feel I am only contributing for my grade not your so called party.
My own personal experience in learning Korean mimics your experience. If I was generous I would say that I am low intermediate Korean level. If I was being honest, or critical, I would say that it was high survival level with a mix of humour. My hangeul is quite good but my speaking/listening was learned in order for me to survive daily life in Korea. I mostly studied in the first three years and have been lazy since. Why? I can survive on my Korean as all of my students are high level speakers of English and most of my Korean friends have lived overseas. Ergo I can go to the store, movie theatre, restaurant/cafe and bus/train station and feel comfortable.
My positive reinforcement: I get what I want in the form of tickets, drinks or food without any hassle.
Though I do need to learn more Korean in order to better use my membership benefits and points. I guess a Korean wife could help in this manner.
I am now hungry - time for lunch. More comments to follow later.
Thanks Lawrence :)
Lawrence,
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I found the Behaviourism model the 'least attractive' and I would definitely agree that the authors did seem to paint it in an almost negative light.
Thanks for adding your insight! xx
SLA Week 4 - My comment to Lawrence's post:
ReplyDeleteI would like to start out by highlighting the aspect that behaviourism is linked to the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH). From personal experience, I can relate to the CAH, which states that aspects of the primary language and the target language, which share similarities, are acquired easier by learners compared with those aspects where the two differ. To give a personal example, it was much easier for me to pick up Malay (national language of Malaysia) in Singapore, which is heavily used by Malay Singaporians. This is because Malay alphabet also uses the same English letters with the exception of letter “x”. Hence, I experienced no difficulties with regards to reading or pronouncing words. Malay lacks tones as well unlike Chinese and has no honorific ways of speech unlike Japanese and Korean. Due to these similarities, I was less intimidated by this language and was able to acquire a much higher level of proficiency compared to Korean in the same amount of time.
I also wish to comment in favor of Connectionism. This theory talks about the importance of environment and that the ability to learn linguistic principles is not innate. Connectionists argue that how frequently specific linguistic features are encountered by learners and furthermore how frequently these linguistic features (input) occur together affect how learners expand their knowledge about a language. “Connections” or associations, if you will, are formed after learners encounter linguistic features in specific contexts several times. These associations are strengthened with repeated input over time. All knowledge is joined by these connections. Ultimately, learners attain a position where a situational or linguistic cue is sufficient to activate others in learners’ mind.
I have experienced this to an extent in my pursuit to learn Korean. I keep hearing certain patterns of speech; such as how people greet each other, how people answer phone calls, how people request help from one another, etc. at the office every day Monday through Friday. Initially, I was not able to process and comprehend any of it. However, with repeated exposure to same patterns of speech almost every day Monday through Friday, Then, over time, I gained the ability to isolate certain words/phrases and asked some colleagues/my husband what they meant. I was also able to retain these words/phrases due to the fact that I keep hearing them every day and I also use them at times.
Further research is warranted in the field of second language acquisition to continue to increase our understanding regarding how this complex process in fact takes place.
Dee Dee,
DeleteWhich theory has guided your own class so far? Of course you have mixed them, but which theory do you think is the guiding force?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI would say that my class so far has been guided by the interaction hypothesis. In class, we engage in conversations while I try to highlight certain aspects of English language at the same time. We have done some role plays, group and pairworks. I am a firm believer that meaningful engagement in target language is needed to enhance language proficiency of learners. After reading this article, I have realized that I have been practicing modified interaction in my class without knowing that this is what it is called. I have been regularly engaging in what author(s) has cited as examples of "conversational modifications": comprehension checks, clarifications and paraphrasing to enable my students to better comprehend what I was trying to get across.
ReplyDeleteLanguage is such a tricky skill to master. Why is it that many students have studied English for 10+ years and still can barely hold a conversation? The answer might lie in the Interaction Hypothesis. The idea that conversation plays such a key role in the acquisition of language seems a bit obvious but it is the modification by the teacher that allows the students to activate their prior learning and participate more fully. The Sociocultural Perspective introduced by Vygotsky also supports the Interaction Hypothesis. Vygostsky supposes that social interaction is the key way we learn to speak our first languages. The ZPD or zone of proximal development is compared with Krashen's i+1 model. The two are very similar but Krashen's i+1 model seems to rely on a challenge, with the information just beyond the student's current level. The ZPD does not appear to need that challenge. Instead, the learner is able to interact with their mentor in direct communication. Jim Lantolf (2000) and Richard Donato (1994) studied how collaboration with other novices can still have a positive affect. This idea is comforting since there is often only one native speaker available for so many students. If class sizes were smaller, speaking would probably improve. The fact remains that in public schools, English class sizes are rather large and teacher-student talk time has to be low to allow the teacher to help as many students as possible. Therefore, the teacher should use many group and pair work assignments to help the students apply their skills.
ReplyDeleteI agree totally, and Interaction is the key. At the end of the day, language is a way of communicating. To connect with another human being is the ultimate goal. If language is treated like a dry academic subject than no progress will be made, because it will all just be for the tests. The interaction hypothesis has been the undercurrent of my attempts at teaching, although I didn't connect what I was doing with the academic term until now. I am fortunate in that my smaller schools allow for more teacher-student talk time, however I still run into challenges with natural shyness combined with the Educational culture in Korea, which is geared towards test taking. This Educational culture is probably one of the biggest hinderances to effective English education in my opinion. This has made interaction with the students difficult, as they think in terms of "getting the right answer." As long as this attitude prevails, it will be an uphill battle. Please don't misunderstand me as a cynic, the way to learn is to just do it, and create those bonds. Change happens one person at a time. I put my students "On the spot" and try to put them at ease immediately with kindness and humor. If I make them comfortable talking than for me the battle has been nearly won.
DeleteGreat minds think alike! I had stated in an above blog about the importance of the interaction hypothesis and how it's basically the foundation, the bread and butter of my classroom discourse. You had also mentioned Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and it’s importance in the ASL. I believe using the ZPD with Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligence is a great way to optimize classroom discourse for LA or reach students that were perceived to be unreachable.
DeleteA student of mine, we will call Apple, is in my 7 year old class (7 yoc) and I’ve been teaching him for 3 years now. I believe that he has a mild case of Autism. When he was in the 5 yoc his learning disability wasn’t as predominant as it is now. Then he was at the same level as the other students, but as time went on a gap started forming and has now widen to the point that Apple’s fellow classmates have noticed. So simple task, like me asking him to show the flash card of a new vocabulary word is almost impossible for him. But as I mentioned about MI and ZPD being a way to reach the unreachable…
Well, when we play John Teacher says (Simone Says) he just kills it. His understanding and output of the L2 is amazing. When a student wins, it becomes their turn to lead the class. I was worried the first time I started to play with this rule and it became Apple’s turn. I didn’t know if he would be able to produce the same level of proficiency speaking as he did listening. Turned out, I had no reason to worry, he did great. He is not just uttering memorized set of phrase, instead he’s established set phrase, Go to the…, Point to the…, Put your…on/under the…, Touch the… and then finishes them with noun. Because of this, I have started to tape up the new vocabulary flashcards on the wall (if I have extra time) and play this game. Figuring out what kind of learner he is (MI) and in what situation he thrives in (ZPD), I’m modifying the L2 in a way that can reach, the otherwise unreachable!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete