This week we are tackling two hugely influential ideas about how languages are acquired. We'll be asking "Is input alone sufficient for SLA success?"
1. Please read this short overview of Krashen's ideas -- 01 Krashen's Monitor Model
2. OPTIONAL: For a deeper look at it, you can read 02 Krashen The Comprehension Hypothesis Extended
3. For an opposing viewpoint,please read 03 Swain Output Hypothesis.
4. OPTIONAL: If you want more Swain and your French is decent, read 04 Swain More Output Hypothesis.
5. Finally, please read The Lexical Approach A Journey Without Maps. Quite frankly, the Lexical Approach is being jammed in here because there is no other place for it, but it is one of the most modern approaches to teaching a second language, so I think you'll find it interesting.
This week we are also going to start Academic Reading Circles. This idea is based on Literature Circles. Click here for Literature Circle role sheets that you can use with your own students.
Each student will be assigned to a new group and each group member will have a role, which will change each week. For example, you might be the Summarizer this week and the Discussion Leader the next.
Academic Reading Circles (ARC) Schedule.
ARC Role Descriptions. (you may have to download this as viewing it in Google drive is a little wonky)
Good morning everyone!! After reading the assigned readings, here are some questions I would like to pose:
ReplyDelete1. We have read about Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition. With respect to the five hypotheses Krashen proposed, how can a language teacher explain how two students in her/his class, who were initially at the same proficiency levels in four skills by using ACTFL guidelines, by the end of the semester, developed all four skills, however, at different rates?
2. Swain described four functions of output. Please explain, in your own words, what metalinguistic function is, as stated by Swain, and provide an example to support your explanation.
3. Why did Scott Thornbury refer to the Lexical Approach as “a journey without maps”?
I will wrap up my post with the following discussion question:
If language teachers in Korea wished to adopt a lexical approach, what problems would they face?
I am looking forward to seeing you all on Saturday. Have a great week ahead...
I am the summarizer!
DeleteSo here is a short summary:
Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of 5 hypothesis:
1: The acquisition-learning hypothesis-
acquisition is the natural exposure, such as how a child would learn it.
learning is being taught the rules of the language.
2: The monitor hypothesis-
While acquired language is for fluency, learning is used for monitoring the student's language. The focus of monitoring is not on meaning but rather on correctness.
3: The natural order hypothesis-
All languages have a natural order by which their rules are acquired, it should be noted, that most text and learning situations don't follow this order.
4: The input hypothesis-
One can only acquire language with comprehensible input.
5: the affective filter hypothesis-
This is the barrier between you and the language that are not the language itself. (moods, needs, attitudes, etc.)
Output Hypothesis
In opposition to Krashen's theory, Swain suggests that focusing on input doesn't push the student to make better output and doesn't give adequate opportunities to use the target language.
It focuses on the learner understanding their limitations, "what they can and cannot do" and how to stretch their interlanguage to meet their communicative goals "I want to say this, but I am having trouble, how can I change my language?"
Lexical Approach:
An approach that teachers can use to encourage meaningful language acquisitions. It encourages the use of chunking, using words that often go together, and teaching a more top-down approach in teaching. Teaching the students with genre-analysis and discourse-analysis.
Answers to Dee dee's questions:
Delete1. With Krashen's hypothesis we can explain the two students by studying what was different about their situations. Maybe they had a different classroom, one that focused on learning and one that focused on acquisition of the language. Maybe one student focuses too much on self monitoring, there for reducing his opportunity to use and understand the language. Maybe one student has a high affective filter and cannot acquire knowledge in the same way others can in that year due to family stress or some other outside influence.
2. Metalinguistic function of output means that the learner is thinking about the language as they are using it. For example I could notice that a certain word patter is used "broke down" When I mention "a car's engine broke" and my partner uses the words "broke down" I can then think about how those words and go together and how they share meaning. I then put it into my own vocabulary.
3. I believe he called it that because he was aiming for a teaching method that used authentic language development. And just as in language development, there is no set way to learn it. Each and every learner of the language learned it a different way that was meaningful to them.
This is a way to signal to the teacher and to the learner, that there is not set path to follow, so long as you are on the journey you are successful.
APPLIER
DeleteWhat implication does this reading have for our classrooms?
1.) This information is very useful to us as English teachers. Learning HOW students learn is vital in helping us tailor our teaching to that. If we don't know how they are learning, how can we teach them? Krashen's hypotheses, Swain's Output theory and the Lexical Theory all cover different aspects and ideas of HOW students might be learning. To quote GI Joe: "Knowing is Half the Battle."
2.) Practical Application of these readings is one of awareness. When we are doing our lesson plans, it is important to keep in mind that every student is a unique person who learns differently from the child sitting next to them. By understanding these different ideas, we can choose activities which may appeal to students who learn in those different ways. When a child has difficulties, we can see where the issue is and get an idea of what might be the problem. Our teaching methods are A way...but they may not be THE way.
For example: Two students are are of a comparable language level, but one is struggling more than the other. He/she seems tense, and withdrawn. This squares with the affective filter hypothesis. We can then try and address the issue as best we can. Another example would be how students answer the question "How are you?" Oftentimes the answer is given with students thinking hard about which memorized chunk to put into the slot (I'm Fine, I'm Good, I'm Happy, I'm Angry). This can be seen as part of the Lexical Approach.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1.) Students are each unique in their own way, and a variety of factors can be at work as to why development may unbalance. One hypothesis that can explain it is Affective Filter. Student A may be a good student with a sunny disposition, but Student B may have had a tragedy hit at home or some other personal (emotional, psychological, whatever) issue to cause him/her to stumble in their L2 acquisition.
2.) Metalinguistic function is when an L2 user reflects on their own language usage by what he/she says and how they say it. In other words, What one is saying helps them see their proficiency (or lack of it). For example: When a person engages in a conversation and mulls over what they said, comparing it to what the other person was saying. They then may see some points of error in their language usage and adjust accordingly.
3.) Simply put, it is a "journey without maps" because his approach is one that doesn't have a set guidebook or dots to connect to get you to the "Lexical Approach." It is a way of looking at language, not an applicable set of rules. It's viability is definitely a question in more than a few minds.
GROUP B
ReplyDelete1. Fill in the Blanks
a. _____________ hypothesis - Learning the target language is dependent on the learners’ state of mind.
b. _____________ hypothesis - Second language learners acquire the target language in a way that is independent of the learned system.
c. _____________ hypothesis - Comprehension and acquisition will occur when learners learn the target language at a level that is just beyond their competence.
d. _____________ hypothesis - Speakers are fluent without having learned the rules
e. _____________ hypothesis - the learned system acts as an editor that makes minor changes and polishes what the acquired system has produced
2. Which hypothesis of Krashen did Swain argue against? What are the two reasons that learners lack output opportunities?
3. In the lexical approach, Lewis insists that language does not consist of two things, what are they? What does he say it consists of? Provide examples of the things it includes.
4. We read about the input, output, and lexical approaches. Which approach do you think teachers should use when teaching Korean students, considering their age and/or level?
1.
Deletea. The affective filter hypothesis- learning the target language is dependent on the learners’ state of mind.
b. The natural order hypothesis- second language learners acquire the target language in a way that is independent of the learned system.
c. The input hypothesis- comprehension and acquisition will occur when learners learn the target language at a level that is just beyond their competence.
d. The acquisition-learning hypothesis- speakers are fluent without having learned the rules.
e. Monitor hypothesis- the learned system acts as an editor that makes minor changes and polishes what the acquired system has produced.
2. Swain argues against Krashens Comprehension hypothesis. The two reasons Swain argues against this are that learners don’t have enough opportunities for using the target language and they are not being pushed to produce output in the classroom.
3. Lewis replaces discrete-item teaching with a lexical chunk view and for PPP (presentation-practice-production) he offers OHE (observe-hypothesise-experiment). Lexical chunk view focuses on collocations, fixed and semi-fixed expressions and also idioms. In OHE student first observe the L2 in use. Then, they make a hypothesis about what they had just observed and in what way the L2 works. Finally, they experiment by creating their own utterances.
4. I believe to be a good teacher you have to take bits and pieces from different theories and approaches and apply them appropriately for each situation. When I’m teaching a lesson, I don’t normal use a chunking approach. It’s when my students need to go to the bathroom and they tell me in Korean. I ask them to ask me again in English, some of them can do it and others cannot. For these students that cannot produce the utterance, I use a chunking method with “Can I go-to-the bathroom”, chunking gotothe. I found this to be very effective. Scott Thornbury mentioned that relying on a certain method could elicit premature fossilization. Working with young children, I feel that you have to use input, output and lexical approaches to optimize classroom discourse.
Here are some definitions. Hope they are helpful!
Delete• Dual-mode processing capacity- this is when a child has acquired a phrases trough chunking. It can now be used immediately, while also being stored for future analysis. Has both short and long-term use.
• Club membership- is the inner motivation for the success of the language acquisition. Acquisition = Membership
• Contrived situation- this is when the outcome of a situation is obviously planned or forced.
• Total physical response (TPR)- using the target language and physical actions together. Giving commands and the students physically acting them out.
• Psycholinguistic- is the study of how psychology and neurobiological factors play hand in hand with the learners’ acquisition, use and understanding of a language.
• Automaticity- when you don’t have to think about doing certain things. a habit/unconscious
• Hectoring- to talk to somebody in a bullying way.
1.
Deletea. The affective filter hypothesis states that learning the target language depends on the learners' state of mind.
b. The aquisition-learning hypothesis says that second language learners acquire the target language in a different way than they learn it.
c. The input hypothesis says that learners learn the language when the material is just beyond their grasp.
d. The natural order hypothesis states that speakers are fluent without having learned the rules.
e. The monitor hypothesis says that the learned system acts as an editor that makes minor changes and polishes what the acquired system has produced.
2. Swain argued against Krashen's output hypothesis. The two reasons were that one, learners engaged in too little language production and two, they were not being pushed in their output.
3. In the lexical approach, Lewis insists that language does not consist of two things, grammar practice and the PPP paradigm. He says it consists of lexical chunks of language and observe-hypothesize-experiment (OHE). These things includes things like collocations, fixed and semi-fixed expressions and idioms.
4. I think we should be utilizing more output approaches. Most of my students are much better at understanding than they are at producing the language. It is natural to struggle with this part of language acquisition. By focusing on stretching through playing with the language in various ways, students will grow in their abilities. Input is important, but Swain is right. There isn't enough time in the classroom for them to get enough input. This is why independent reading is such an important contribution to their education.
One way we can use this information in our classrooms is that we can now notice what we're seeing. By learning about the different hypotheses, we can now realize more readily what is happening and plan or react accordingly. Swain's point that there isn't enough input for students tells me that I need to be encouraging students to gather this input themselves. With the Internet, they can find so many ways to get that precious input, via blogs, online tv shows, music videos. There are so many ways for them to be appreciating English outside of our classrooms. Ultimately, our students are responsible for their own language acquisition. We educators need to use whatever approaches possible to help them realize it is possible to learn. The lexical approach seemed the least feasible to apply in the classroom. Perhaps more time is needed before the benefits of this approach can be realized. However, teaching chunks is a great way to help students acquire different useful phrases.
DeleteGROUP C
ReplyDelete1. Which is the more important way for second language learners to improve their L2 (second language) according to Krashen: acquisition or learning? Why?
2. In your own words what is the affective filter hypothesis? Do you agree with this hypothesis? Why, why not?
3. According to Swain what is fluency function? What would be an example of fluency function in everyday life for a L2 (second language) learner?
4. Have you ever use the lexical approach in your teaching? If yes, how did you use it in your lesson? If no, would you ever consider using it in the classroom?
Hi Kevan! Thanks for the questions. Here are my answers below:
Delete1. Krashen makes the distinction between acquisition and learning, and stresses the importance of acquisition over learning. Krashen believes acquisition is language that learners pick up through exposure to and interaction with people using the TL that they understand. He believes that learners are only able to use language that they have acquired, because that language is readily available for communication. Due to the fact that the language is learned during interaction, he believes that only this language will be available for use during further interactions. Krashen believes learned language is that which comes from intentional study. He suggests that learned language cannot be turned into acquisition, and rather, learned language serves to act as a monitor to edit, polish and refine acquired language.
2. The Affective Filter Hypothesis supposes that there is are certain barriers that stop learning, even when comprehensible input is available. These barriers include things like anxiety, stress, emotional distress etc. Krashen suggests that during times when these barriers are present, learners will not be able to acquire or learn any new part of the TL.
In my opinion, the Affective Filter Hypothesis is something that does exist, and definitely plays a part in when, and what some learners are able to acquire and learn. It is sometimes easy to see when learners are distracted, and or upset about something in my own classroom. In these situations, it is often difficult for them to acquire new TL – and specifically, retention of anything we cover is low. In my own experience, when I am having a bad day, or am feeling sick, or down, I find it very difficult to “zone in” on what is happening in around me, whether it be noticing language that people are using, or taking in any input that is being presented in a classroom style situation.
3. Fluency Function is the idea that a learner should be able to interact in the TL in ‘real time.’ Swain believes that learners will benefit from being able to produce output by using their existing knowledge. Added to this, Swain believes meaningful interactions are key to learners being able to modify their interlanguage. In terms of a meaningful interaction, I would suggest learners being able to use the TL to perform some kind of function or chore that is important in their everyday lives. For example using the TL to complete a transaction at the bank, ordering something at a restaurant, or asking for directions.
4. I don’t think I’ve ever used a complete Lexical Approach in my classroom. I have definitely taught vocabulary in lexical chunks – but I have always continued with a grammar extension, and/or given dialogue, both of which were mostly sentence-based. In a purely Lexical Approach, there isn’t a focus on grammar, so I’m not sure how one would continue after the vocabulary was taught. It seems unclear, even from the article what Lewis and others would advise afterwards – other than using text and discourse. I feel as though I can’t really comment further. Can anyone help clarify for me? It certainly sounds as though it has some merits, but I’m not sure the approach (or is it an approach?) is well defined enough for me to think about how I would apply it in my classroom.
Here are my definitions to help with the readings (a little late perhaps...)
Delete*Seminal* – Something that is seminal is influential, particularly in the case of later developments in a field of study.
*Syntactic* – concerning syntax. If you look at something from a syntactic perspective, you look at its syntax and how it has been formed.
*Morpho-Syntactic* – If you look at a text from a morpho-syntactic approach, you will look at both the morphology and the syntax of the text.
*Extant* – Extant is used to describe something that exists – so extant language is language that already exists.
*Automaticity* – Automaticity is the ability to do something without having to think about it – to be able to do something automatically.
*Corpus Linguistics* – Corpus Linguistics is the study of a body of language that is found in real world examples.
*Meta-linguistics* – Meta-linguistics is about being able to think and talk about language. It is also concerned with the awareness of one’s listener, and how one can convey meaning to that listener.
Hi Amy.
DeleteExcellent answers to questions one to three.
No way I would state it better.
In regards to the affective filter hypothesis I agree that we often see it in our classrooms. Recently, one of the teachers in my training program had a health scare with her father. At the time around his illness and surgery she was often distracted in class, made mistakes and was unable to answers questions when called upon. As her father's health has improved over the last few weeks she has smiled and her output in class is much better.
For the lexical approach I teach a class called Speaking Skills and Collocations. I introduce speakings skills such as lying and the truth (You made that up/Don't stretch the truth/I swear/etc.) and collocations such as attitude (friendly attitude/helpful attitude/etc.). After introducing them I ask many CCQs about the vocabulary and also ask the students to put them into new sentences. Afterwards, we have an activity where we practice the expressions and collocations in discourse.
But to be honest I am not sure if only doing this is the most effective way. I still think they need to learn grammar and writing.
Thanks for the definitions too.
DeleteRemembering them all is my weak area.
Applying the reading material;
DeleteI think out of Krashen's model, the most applicable aspects are the ideas of affective filter, and acquisition vs learning.
Being aware of the affective filter is extremely important for us as English teachers, especially working with students in East Asia, where their is a stigma about making mistakes. In the classroom we must be calm and positive. By being calm we can reduce the affective filter or nervous students, and by being positive (a lot of encouragement) we can reduce their anxiety of making mistakes.
With regards to acquisition vs learning, we can apply this by being aware of all the "additional" teacher talk (such as giving instructions, classroom management) which takes place outside of the lesson's TL. All of this additional teacher talk can become acquired language. We should be aware of it so that we can use it in such a way that it does indeed become acquired. For example, using consistent expressions throughout the month/year so that students are exposed to it enough. Additionally, using teacher talk in a way that is comprehensible to students, not too fast or complicated
I
Hi Lawrence,
DeleteI think your point on acquisition vs learning and how we can be more mindful of it with our Ttalk is a very valid point! I think consistent exposure is key. It's something I try to do in my morning program, as much as possible!
xx
1. According to Krashen acquired language is more important than learned language because only the acquired language is readily available for natural, fluent communication.
ReplyDelete2. The affective filter is any mental or emotional "baggage" which the student brings with them into the classroom. Being stressed about things going on inside or outside the classroom, nervous to make a mistake or anything else which prevents them from comfortably participating "filters" input.
I do agree with this, mostly because I've experienced it myself as a French learner. I know the feeling of being self-conscious of sounding dumb. It really prevents output.
3. Fluency function is automaticity in language use resulting from output opportunities in meaningful contexts. An example would be asking a foreigner their name, or where they're from.
4. I use flashcards with pictures on one side, and the word on the other. The cards correspond to the month's story. I show the flashcards every class before the story. I build up their lexicon, then expand into a sentence. For example this month's flashcards consist of apple, carrot, hare, horse, bear, fox, tail, leg. I show the cards, they say the words. Then I ask them questions like "do you like apples?" or " do you have a tail?" and have them make sentences like "yes I do, I like apples" or "I don't have a tail".
Hi Kevan,
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting class you have! I feel like that's making the Lexical Approach a little clearer to me.
I'm starting to wonder if my experiences at my current school are "skewing" my ideas of EFL. I feel like your approach seems to be appropriate because it's more natural than "here's a grammar construct, let's practice it." I agree that students need the grammar, too, I think maybe I feel they'll get the grammar more from "Acquisition" than "Learning" meaning that maybe "stressing the grammar" isn't important. At least, that's how my school is teaching it, mostly.
Whatever the answer (and we now know there isn't a DEFINITE one), it is certainly food for thought! xx