Sunday, July 4, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Two for One
"Two for One" refers to language teaching that is content-based. The expectation of this approach is that students can get "two for one", learning the subject matter and a new language at the same time (page 155).
Canadian French immersion programs are a popular example of "Two for One". Studies have found that students develop high levels of listening comprehension and confidence using their second language. Students also seem to be able to achieve academic success comparable to their peers who stayed in course taught in English. Cr tics claimed that over time, these students failed to achieve proper French grammar and that students didn't have enough opportunities to engage in language production because courses were teacher-centered.
Late immersion programs were analyzed in Study #26. Late immersion refers to programs where students are taught in their native language at the primary level and then switch to an immersion program at the secondary level. These "late immersion" programs were popular in Hong Kong during the 1960's when Chinese parents began to push their children to learn English in order to prepare them for the international community. Although the programs were popular, research found that students didn't seem to have the English proficiency the needed to follow the curriculum successfully. As a result, teachers spoke mostly in Chinese, or a "mix" to try and help students comprehend the subject matter.
In Study #27, the authors of our book, Nina Spada and Patsy Lightbrown observed children in content-based programs in an aboriginal community in Canada. The children were educated in their first language, Inuktitut from kindergarten to Grade 2. From that point on, children were taught in either French or English. L&S found that nearly all students struggled with the subject matter when it was taught in their second language. Teachers tried to help students comprehend the subject matter in many ways, but because students lacked knowledge of the necessary vocabulary, L&S found the program to be unsuccessful (page 159).
Conclusion
The findings in "Two for One" surprised me because I had assumed that students who were proficient in their first language would be able to transfer their knowledge to the content they learned in the second language. However, I can see how content-based vocabulary could be a problem for many students and teacher-centered classrooms may not provide enough time for interaction. As our class has discussed during our "Wednesday Chats", a balance of structured language teaching with time for natural interaction seems to be the key for successful long term language acquisition.
Canadian French immersion programs are a popular example of "Two for One". Studies have found that students develop high levels of listening comprehension and confidence using their second language. Students also seem to be able to achieve academic success comparable to their peers who stayed in course taught in English. Cr tics claimed that over time, these students failed to achieve proper French grammar and that students didn't have enough opportunities to engage in language production because courses were teacher-centered.
Late immersion programs were analyzed in Study #26. Late immersion refers to programs where students are taught in their native language at the primary level and then switch to an immersion program at the secondary level. These "late immersion" programs were popular in Hong Kong during the 1960's when Chinese parents began to push their children to learn English in order to prepare them for the international community. Although the programs were popular, research found that students didn't seem to have the English proficiency the needed to follow the curriculum successfully. As a result, teachers spoke mostly in Chinese, or a "mix" to try and help students comprehend the subject matter.
In Study #27, the authors of our book, Nina Spada and Patsy Lightbrown observed children in content-based programs in an aboriginal community in Canada. The children were educated in their first language, Inuktitut from kindergarten to Grade 2. From that point on, children were taught in either French or English. L&S found that nearly all students struggled with the subject matter when it was taught in their second language. Teachers tried to help students comprehend the subject matter in many ways, but because students lacked knowledge of the necessary vocabulary, L&S found the program to be unsuccessful (page 159).
Conclusion
The findings in "Two for One" surprised me because I had assumed that students who were proficient in their first language would be able to transfer their knowledge to the content they learned in the second language. However, I can see how content-based vocabulary could be a problem for many students and teacher-centered classrooms may not provide enough time for interaction. As our class has discussed during our "Wednesday Chats", a balance of structured language teaching with time for natural interaction seems to be the key for successful long term language acquisition.
Get it Right at the End
Interesting points in “Get It Right at the End “ proposal for teaching L2 (Ch. 6)
- The authors recognize the important role of the form-focused instruction, but they do not assume that everything has to be taught.
- They consider meaning-focused instruction as crucial for language learning, but think that learners will do better if they also have form-focused instruction.
- Some aspects of language need to be taught explicitly - in certain situations form-focused instruction or corrective feedback are extremely important.
- Teachers have to look for the right moment to create increased awareness on the part of the learner, ideally at a time when the learner is motivated to say something as clearly and correctly, as possible.
- Much of language acquisition will develop naturally out of meaningful language use. Through a study in a context-based classroom, focused on the verb forms, it was conformed that students who received corrective feedback made more progress in using the correct verb forms.
My conclusion:
After reading the 6 proposals to teaching L2, I believe that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback are important, but the student should be given multiple opportunities for continuous exposure to the linguistic features taught, and should be continuously practicing them through collaborative talk with the teacher and classmates, which eventually will lead to a greater understanding of their correct use.
I personally don’t understand why they say “Get it right at the End”. What end? End of a class or school? Isn’t the L2 learning a life long experience? Even if you start at a very early age, you can master fluency in the L2, but is that the end? One can always work on improving their language even if it’s L1.(Emilia)
Let's Talk
Advocates of "Let's Talk" emphasize the importance of access of both comprehensible input and conversational interactions with teachers and other students. They argue that when learners are given the opportunity to engage in interaction, they are compelled to "negotiate meaning" in a way that allows them to arrive at a mutual understanding. Proponents of "Let's Talk" feel that this is especially true when learners work together to accomplish a specific goal or task. (page 150).
Study 20: "Learners Talking to Learners"
In this study, individuals participated in separate discussions with a speaker from three different levels of English proficiency (intermediate learners, advanced-level speakers and native English speakers). Researchers analyzed the differences in conversations between varied levels of English speakers. They learned that language learners spoke more with other learners than they did with native speakers. They also found that there was no difference in learner speech errors when they spoke with other learners, compared to when they spoke with an advanced or native speaker (page 152).
I found these findings to be very interesting and surprising. I usually try to pair language learners in my classroom with more advanced learners or native speakers so that they have a model to interact with. The research findings told me that although learners don't always provide each other with correct grammatical input, their interaction does allow for authentic practice of communication and opportunity to negotiate meaning.
However, other studies in the "Let's Talk" section of Chapter 6 suggested that teachers pair advanced learners and/or dominant personalities in less dominant roles when assigning partner tasks. This allows for more opportunities for negotiation of meaning and a greater variety of interaction. When an expert speaker was paired with a novice speaker in a role that encouraged the novice in meeting the task objectives, the novice speaker appeared to maintain more of the new language knowledge over time. This combination of personalities and language proficiency was the most successful when compared to pairs of students that either had two dominant personalities or one dominant personality paired with a student that was described as passive (page 153).
In Study #24, researchers examined how interaction can facilitate language learning through negative feedback (recasts, clarification requests and explicit correction) and modified output (a more accurate reformulation of previous utterances). The study found taht over time, implicit corrective feedback (recasts) was beneficial to language learners through paired interaction (page 155).
Study 20: "Learners Talking to Learners"
In this study, individuals participated in separate discussions with a speaker from three different levels of English proficiency (intermediate learners, advanced-level speakers and native English speakers). Researchers analyzed the differences in conversations between varied levels of English speakers. They learned that language learners spoke more with other learners than they did with native speakers. They also found that there was no difference in learner speech errors when they spoke with other learners, compared to when they spoke with an advanced or native speaker (page 152).
I found these findings to be very interesting and surprising. I usually try to pair language learners in my classroom with more advanced learners or native speakers so that they have a model to interact with. The research findings told me that although learners don't always provide each other with correct grammatical input, their interaction does allow for authentic practice of communication and opportunity to negotiate meaning.
However, other studies in the "Let's Talk" section of Chapter 6 suggested that teachers pair advanced learners and/or dominant personalities in less dominant roles when assigning partner tasks. This allows for more opportunities for negotiation of meaning and a greater variety of interaction. When an expert speaker was paired with a novice speaker in a role that encouraged the novice in meeting the task objectives, the novice speaker appeared to maintain more of the new language knowledge over time. This combination of personalities and language proficiency was the most successful when compared to pairs of students that either had two dominant personalities or one dominant personality paired with a student that was described as passive (page 153).
In Study #24, researchers examined how interaction can facilitate language learning through negative feedback (recasts, clarification requests and explicit correction) and modified output (a more accurate reformulation of previous utterances). The study found taht over time, implicit corrective feedback (recasts) was beneficial to language learners through paired interaction (page 155).
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
TEACH WHAT IS TEACHABLE.
TEACH WHAT IS TEACHABLE.
By JOSE
1. Manfred Pienemannn Hypothesis: "Why it is often seems that some things can be taught successfully whereas other things, even after extensive or intensive teaching, seem to remaind unacquired". According to this hypothesis any attempt to learn something new in the English learning proccess need to follow the different stages(1 to 5) explained on chapter 4. step by step, otherwise it does not work, because whatever is learned needs to be "integrated into their interlanguage systems" Page 160. There are exceptions like individual vocabulary items.
2. On page 162 Research Findings say: Teach what is teachable view suggest that while some features of the language can be taught successfully at various points in the learner's development, other features develop according to the learners' internal schedule. Futhermore, although learners may be able to produce more advanced forms on tests or in very restricted pedagogical exercises, instruction cannot change the 'natural' developmental course". "The recomendation is to assess the learners' developmental level and teach what would naturally come next".
3. Teach what is teachable position is suggested to be used for syllabus planners and teachers. L&S suggetions: "It is important primarily for helping teachers understand why students don't always learn what they are taught -at least not inmediatelly" (page165)
Interpretation: According to this hypothesis sequences in the English learning proccess need to be followed, otherwise learners are not going to learn if they 'not ready developmentally to learn'.
By JOSE
1. Manfred Pienemannn Hypothesis: "Why it is often seems that some things can be taught successfully whereas other things, even after extensive or intensive teaching, seem to remaind unacquired". According to this hypothesis any attempt to learn something new in the English learning proccess need to follow the different stages(1 to 5) explained on chapter 4. step by step, otherwise it does not work, because whatever is learned needs to be "integrated into their interlanguage systems" Page 160. There are exceptions like individual vocabulary items.
2. On page 162 Research Findings say: Teach what is teachable view suggest that while some features of the language can be taught successfully at various points in the learner's development, other features develop according to the learners' internal schedule. Futhermore, although learners may be able to produce more advanced forms on tests or in very restricted pedagogical exercises, instruction cannot change the 'natural' developmental course". "The recomendation is to assess the learners' developmental level and teach what would naturally come next".
3. Teach what is teachable position is suggested to be used for syllabus planners and teachers. L&S suggetions: "It is important primarily for helping teachers understand why students don't always learn what they are taught -at least not inmediatelly" (page165)
Interpretation: According to this hypothesis sequences in the English learning proccess need to be followed, otherwise learners are not going to learn if they 'not ready developmentally to learn'.
Get It Right from The Beginning
Proposal #1: 'Get it right from the beginning' focuses on grammatical rules. Students learn to write and say the language correctly and learn to "train" their ears on how 'the correct form' of a verb sounds.
Teachers refrain from allowing their students to make an error; they propose, "Better for the L2s to learn it CORRECTLY from the ONSET".
Example 1
- T: Repeat after me. Is there any butter in the refrigerator.
- Class: Is there any butter in the refrigerator?
- T: There's very little, Mom.
- Class: There's very little, Mom.
- T: Are there any tomatoes in the refrigerator?
- Class: Are there any tomatoes in the refrigerator?
- T: There are very few, Mom.
- Class: There are very few, Mom.
What immediately comes to mind is BRAINLESS ROBOT! Don't get me wrong, in the right context, repetive language drills work. Yet, from our readings, we have learned that language learning involves a lot more than language repetition. "The students have no reason to get involved or to think about what they are saying", (L&S, p. 138).
Research
- Sandra Savignon (1972) studied three subgroups: a Communicative Group, a Culture Group, and a Crontrol Group.
- Four hours of weekly instruction including audiolingual instruction and grammar teaching occurred.
- An additional hour of "special activities" occured in each subgroup.
- Savignon's research findings stress that "accuracy and form do not give students sufficient opportunity to develop communication abilities in a second language", (L&S, p. 143).
- Out of three subgroups, the Communicative Group maintained higher scores than the other subgroups consistently. (L&S, p. 142).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)