Commentary from Hoa (Week 14-15)

Dear class,

Due to some technical problems, Hoa asked me to post her commentary for her!!

In the last three class sections, we had chances to present our projects, view other’s empirical studies and get or give comments to each other. Below is my short review of each presenter’s topics. I had only ten minutes to take notes from each presenter so there can be some misunderstandings or it could not express as much as the presenters did so please feel free to give comments or corrections.

1. Shu-Ling: Learning to Express Motion Events in L2 Chinese

Shu Ling designed her own items to investigate student’s expression of movement when learning Chinese. The items are very well-designed with pictures demonstrated for each question. She also made several insightful suggestions for teachers who teach Chinese. For example, teachers should direct students’ attention to certain grammatical points and may need to teach these points first.

2. Eric: Multiple Choice Discourse Completion Items on a Nationwide University Entrance Exam: Investigating the Reliability of Japan’s University Entrance Exam in English

Eric did a great job in making his presentation understandable to all of our classmates. As his project has a lot to do with quantitative methods that not many of us are familiar with, he used simple statistical words and gave a lot of examples in the presentation. His project showed his great effort in designing, testing and analyzing research items.

3. Tanny: The Effectiveness of Reading Supplemented with Word-Focused Activities on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition and Retention

Similar to Shu Ling and Eric, Tanny also designed great research material. She made 5 different tests to investigate the effectiveness of word-focused activities in teaching reading. I agreed with Man-chiu’s comments that Tanny’s items which used Hawaiian vocabulary are very interesting.

4. Sachiyo: Japanese learners’ Perception and Attitude toward English Accent

Sachiyo used both survey methods and qualitative approach in her research. I really liked the way she integrated charts in presenting the research result which made it much easier for others to understand her points.

5. Man-chiu: Dynamics in Accent Familiarity, Comprehensibility, and Attitudes in Intercultural Acculturation —An investigation in an International Students’ Dormitory

Machiu is a great presenter. She was so energetic and I really like the way she used different font sizes in one slide in her power point. By doing that, her point of emphasizing L2 learner’s accent familiarity, comprehensibility and attitudes were really clearly distinguished from each other.

6. Hoa: Personality and Second Language Learning Belief: Two Sides of a Coin?

In this research, I used two questionnaire sets to investigate Vietnamese students’ personality and their L2 learning beliefs. The process of looking for those questionnaires was challenging but really helpful for me because I experienced the methods of doing survey research.

7. Ann: Comparing Teacher and Student Perceptions about Second Language Writing Feedback

Ann’s study was very interesting and showed a surprising result in which she showed that it was not the students at ELI who were concerned about teacher’s feedback but the English teachers themselves who were actually more concerned about how to give writing feedback to their students. Ann’s conclusion is that there is no best method in giving student’s feedback. As long as the teacher gives very consistent feedback (i.e.: they let the students know in advance what they are going to look at for each writing and give feedback to those points), the students are happy with that.

8. Ju-Young: Errors in Second Language Students’ Written and Spoken Texts: A Case Study of ESL College Students

The topic about student’s errors in L2 written and spoken texts has always been of great interest to language researchers and educators. Ju-Young had an intensive literature review on this topic. By examining L2 performance of two international students, she investigated the frequency and types of written and spoken errors produced by these two students.

9. Kyunghee: Becoming a Graduate Student: L2 Socialization and Acquisition of Appropriate Uses in a Graduate Program

Kyunghee raised a very interesting issue regarding a teacher’s role in students’ motivation through a case study of a graduate student in the US. The student’s changing motivation strongly related to her teacher’s feedback and attitude towards her. She suggested that teacher’s positive feedback to students is very important in shaping their students’ learning success. I totally agree with that and I also think that it is very crucial that the teacher give students’ constructive feedback. The teacher should point out both strengths and weaknesses of the students’ performance and give suggestions so that the students can improve their weaknesses.

10. Amelia: Same Same but Different: NNS and NS Students in a Tutoring Session

Amelia looked at the different dynamic in English writing tutoring sections among native speaker tutors and NS and NNS tutee. The tutors’ authority was investigated through 5 different kinds of questions during their conversation with their tutee and showed that the tutors showed more authority towards NNS tutee than towards NS tutee.


11. Kaz: Proficient & Less-Proficient Readers? How Metacognitive Knowledge Contributes to L2 Reading Performance

In this study, Kaz used a very interesting research approach in which he asked his participants to think aloud about the strategies that they use while they were doing a reading task. He was brave to take initiative to try out this well knowndifficult to conduct-method. It was very challenging for him to explain the think-aloud task to the participants and make sure that they did it in a correct way.

12. Atsumi: “I want to fit in”: Narratives of Japanese International Students in Adolescence -to Be a Successful Second Language Learner

As a high school English teacher in Japan herself, Atsumi realized the need for guidance of a huge population of Japanese high school students before they go to study abroad, which so far is not mentioned in the formal school setting. Through the Narrative approach with two Japanese students, she thinks that it is necessary that language teachers help raise awareness of identity negotiation to make a student successfully acquire knowledge in a foreign country.

Seeing those presentations, I was amazed of the diversity and quality of our classmate’s research papers. Not only were the topics very diverse but also the research methods. Some of us might have no idea of the research method that we are using now at the beginning of the semester but we have tried our best and learned a lot. The research showed great effort that we have made and great knowledge that we have gained over the last fifteen weeks. Thank you Dr. Ortega for being such a supportive and insightful teacher. I wish everyone luck with your final papers and have a great great summer!

Week 13: Social dimensions of SLA in FL education & Theories in SLA

This week, we continued the discussion on social dimensions in L2 learning by focusing on foreign language education context on Tuesday, and we had discussed contemporary theories of second language acquisition based on Ortega (2007) on Thursday.


Social dimensions of L2 learning in foreign language education

We had three discussion questions that were prepared by Dr. Ortega. The first one was to define what context is in SLA and to identify social context of L2 learning. The second question was that pointed out how context matter in foreign language settings. The discussion was concluded by the last question, which asked the possibility and necessity of changing contexts of L2 learning in foreign language education.

First, the macro level of L2 learning context was discussed. We came up with broad dichotomous contexts: second language (SL) context and foreign language (FL) context. Such distinction is based on L2 learning environment from a perspective that how the target language(s) is(are) related to linguistic environment of the L2 learner(s). We also discussed smaller L2 learning contexts; classroom or school, home, and workplace was identified as existing L2 learning contexts, and school context includes different sub-contexts by its educational level like K-12 and college. The national policy, public discourses, and ideologies were also discussed in terms of their influence on constitution of the social context of L2 learning. Socioeconomic factors, ethnicity and race, neighborhood (e.g., urban vs. suburban) and a school district were also discussed as social contexts of L2 learning.

These numerous social contexts of L2 learning in FL settings matter in terms of interaction, use, and practice. The aspect of interaction, use, and practice in the target language are different and limited in the FL context. There is a problem of accessibility to resources like native speakers of the target language, materials, and motivating media since they are less available in the FL context. The degree of exposure to the target language and its authenticity are also much less in the FL context. Such limitations and insufficiency of the social context in the FL settings are easy to limit L2 learning. In the FL context, its linguistically homogeneity among the members makes elective bilingualism more salient than circumstantial bilingualism, and it leads to a situation that higher social status is given to the target language speakers or users in the FL setting society compared to the SL context that L2 learners are forced to use the target language.

Such social context in SLA is socially constructed, and they are contested against each other and interplaying within the society. The meaningful discussion point was how social context can be theorized. The theories related to the significance of social contexts in L2 learning were mentioned as Systemic-functional linguistics, conversation analysis, Vygotskian theory, language socialization, and identity theory. The context, education, and research in SLA connected to each other. The social context affects L2 education in FL settings, and SLA research needs to incorporate the values and social impact of the social context of L2 learning. To facilitate L2 learning in FL education, it is necessary to change the social contexts into more L2 friendly environment so that L2 learning can be facilitated in that social context.



Contemporary SLA theories

The discussion on contemporary theories of SLA covered nine theories: Universal Grammar Theory (UG), Autonomous Induction Theory (AIT), Associative-Cognitive CREED Framework, Skill Acquisition Theory, Input Processing Theory, Processability Theory, Concept-Oriented Approach, Interaction Framework, and Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory. We discussed their characteristics and main concepts based on Ortega (2007). Each theory or approach was examined in terms of how it views or understands cognition, interlanguage, the role of L1, linguistic environment, and instruction. These nine contemporary theories were matched with the main researchers in that area.

UG and AIT are very linguistic approach to SLA and cognition. Associative-Cognitive CREED is emergentist approach to SLA and it explains language learning as usage-based, input-driven, and statistical learning patterns. All of Skill Acquisition Theory, Input Processing Theory, Processability Theory, Concept-Oriented Approach, and Interaction Framework are cognitive-interaction SLA perspective. As most of these theories are very psychological, we added socio-approach theories in SLA research which are not mentioned in the chapter: Situated learning with language socialization and community of practice, poststructuralist, dialogism, conversation analysis, and systemic functional linguistics. These were already discussed somewhat in previous classes. These various theories help us to understand second language acquisition in depth. There is no absolute perfect and right theory, however, we can get some valuable insights from each theory and their own perspectives. We will continue the discussion on these theories in the next class.

Harklau

The main approaches to SLA research that have a social orientation identified by the article by Deters and Swain and complemented by Professor Ortega in class were: the sociocultural theory of mind, situated learning, poststructural theories, dialogism, conversation analysis and systemic functional linguistics. Although they are all emphatic on how sociocultural and contextual factors are part of language acquisition, each approach places a different component of language acquisition as being constructed and embedded in the social milieu.

“Cognition as a social phenomenon”: Sociocultural theory of mind

This approach originated in psycholinguistics by Vygotsky in the late 70’s, and argued that to understand cognition it was necessary to understand human culture and history. Human thought is no longer an independent process; it is a product of its social environment and it is manifested by our use of the mediational means available to the individual in a social context. For SLA, the most relevant mediational means are speaking and writing. So we use language as a means to interact and understand/ internalize the environment. For SCT it is also important to look at the history of a process, or in other words at how our meaning-making interaction with the environment changes over time.

Scholars who have done research in SLA using this framework: Lantolff, Swain, Hall.

“Learning as a social phenomenon”: Situated learning

In this approach learning is social because it is the process of becoming part of a community by constructing an identity in which the individual is able to communicate using the community’s language and resources.

Situated learning uses two different frameworks: language socialization and community of practice. They differ in their explicitness about the power differential present in learning. Language socialization is concerned with the process experienced by novice acquiring the knowledge, orientations and practices to participate in a community, manifested primarily through the use of language. The community of practice framework brings the concept of peripherality and legitimacy into play to problematize the different degrees of access and acceptance an individual will have to participate in the community depending on their competence. It is also concerned with the construction of identity through membership, and the how participation is capable of changing the community.

Scholars who have done research in SLA using this framework: Toohey, Duff.

“Sense of self as a social phenomenon”: Poststructuralism

Poststructuralism sees language as a means to construct reality and identity; it implies that individuals have agency in constructing their identity and creating meanings but that they are constricted by discourses and social practices. Every time individuals use language they are reconstructing their subjectivity and depending on how they are positioned in the discourse they will be more or less audible to negotiate their identity.

Scholars who have done research in SLA using this framework: Weedon, Norton Peirce, Higgins

“Discourse as a social phenomenon”: Dialogism

In this view, language has the feature of heteroglossia, meaning that it can simultaneously have several meanings, perspectives and values which are contextually and historically constructed. This framework focuses more on the individual’s agency and the dialogue that he constantly participates in during any instance of language use, whether it is internal or public. And it is through this dialogue that individuals become subjects and author themselves. The voices that they choose are also in dialogue with the environment and history, so language use is an interaction in the present which is borrowing from the past and from other dialogues.

Scholars who have done research in SLA using this framework: Hall, Vitanova, Lee

The last two social frameworks which were omitted in the article were Conversation Analysis, which portrays interaction and conversation as a social phenomenon and communication as something that arises from the social event where it occurs. The other framework, Systemic functional linguistics, redefines grammar as a social phenomenon.

Scholars who have done research in SLA using CA: Kasper
Scholars who have done research in SLA using this Systemic Functional Linguistics: Haliday

Presentation on Harklau’s: From the “ Good Kids” to the “ Worst”: Representations of English Language Learners Across Educational Settings.

The presentation was about Harklau’s ethnographic study about non-native English speakers who have lived in the United States for an extensive period of time and how they are represented differently when they go from one educational context to another. The study was motivated by the “ invisibility” of these students regarding research, policy and pedagogy specially at the postsecondary context.

The author uses the concepts of identity, representation and discourse and she uses a poststructuralist approach. For Harklau, identities are variable, fragmentary and multiple; so in our desire to stabilize and homogenize the fleeting images of identity, we make representations. The range these representations can take is constricted by discourse, which determines what is normal, and it is also subject to the power differential that exists within. In the case of educational discourse, instructors and the institution may have a greater say constructing a student’s representation, and may also have more resources to enforce it (i.e. curriculum). As a representation is legitimized, it is taken for granted and it is through classroom interaction that we can see how representations are enacted and reconstructed, or resisted.

In the study we learn how the same students are represented in opposite ways as they transition from one educational context to another, and how the representation of them in the college setting negatively affects their attitude towards language learning.

During their high school years, the students were seen as hard-working, dedicated and well-behaved, especially when they were placed in low-track classes (classes for underachieving students). Yet, although their cognitive ability was still questioned partly because of their language proficiency, the prevailing representation of the students was positive and as a consequence they were engaged in classroom learning.

As the students entered college, their representation took a turn for the worst. Enacting their self-representation of being dedicated and determined, they enroll in ESL classes to further their language learning. To their surprise, in the eyes of the institution there were two possible representations they should fit into: the international student or the ESL student who has all the bad academic habits of an “American” student. Neither seems like a viable alternative and it seems that in their efforts to cope and resist the available representation of the international student, they seem to reinforce the latter negative representation of being a problem case.

Throughout her study we can see the power representations can have when they become unquestionable truths, and I think it takes very reflective individuals to question what appears to be obvious. In both contexts we see how the image of these students may lead to patronizing attitudes or to the rejection of behaviors the institution is planning to teach: these students already behave like Americans and yet, their behavior is rejected in a class that intends to teach about American culture.

At the college level the problem is especially serious because there is no presence of a positive representation for these students, because the existing one does not really include them, and the one that fits them is negative. If we claim that these students are somewhat invisible in that educational discourse, because the curriculum is ignoring what they have to bring to the classroom, they have no valid academic resources to resist their prevailing negative representation. If the needs of these students were identified and addressed, they would be able to construct and negotiate a more accurate representation of themselves, which would again improve their attitude towards continuing their language learning.

Week 10: The Social in SLA Ⅰ

The theme of the week is “The Social in SLA”, which approaches language learners from sociocultural and poststructural perspective. Whereas traditional SLA understand language learners as a static object, Nortion (1995), Toohey (2001), and Norton and Toohey (2001) attempt to explain why sometimes language learners are motivated, extroverted, and courageous but sometimes unmotivated, introverted, and anxious.

On Tuesday, studies of Norton (1995) and Toohey (2001) were addressed in class. Norton (1995) suggests that language learners possesses social identity which is “multiple, a site of struggle, and subject to change” (p. 9). She investigates five immigrant women in Canada, especially Martina and Eva, both of who succeeded to generate counter discourse in order to reframe power relations with native speakers. She argues that language learners become to be able to speak up even with high affective filter as long as they have investment reflected on multiple, changing, and sometimes contradictory identities. Toohey (2001) unpacked children’s dispute in relations of power. She investigates two children, Julie, a successful learner, and Surgeet, an unsuccessful learner. She suggests that teachers should assist students’ progress considering power relations in classroom. In order to explain two learners’ different levels of success in SLA, she hints that racism had a big impact on Surgeet’s failure of building relationship with her classmates. Through drawing activity, four focal language learners’ social identities were clearly explained visually and the concept of social identity seemed to be understood well by all folks.

On Thursday, Norton and Toohey’s (2001) study was explored. They attempt to reconceptualize good language learners because traditional SLA does not explain why not all learners with good personality and strategies succeed in language acquisition. Focusing on successful two language learners, Eva and Julie, from their previously addressed studies, they argue that both human agency and positive reception to resources from communities of practice are necessary for successful L2 learning. In the activity, we talked about what kind of resources we made visible in order to gain access to members of target community. Reflecting on this discussion, I assume that successful language learners are those who are good at making resources visible. Meanwhile, it might be important that teachers encourage minority students to take advantage of their resources and support them to generate situations where weak they can display their resources in front of peers.

Whereas I believe that there are what teachers can do to support students, I wonder whether the implications which Norton (1995) and Toohey (2001) addressed, especially “classroom-based social research” (Norton, 1995, p. 26), were feasible because through my experience as a high school teacher it is too much pressure to ask schools to challenge social power relations. Schools function involved in a social community where racism, politics, money, authority, and all other massive power factors exist. I suppose that it is important to ask not only teachers to challenge those issues but also researchers to continue to address unfairness for minority language learners and to appeal to public.

As Dr. Ortega suggested at the end of class, we as teachers should enact our power as much as possible to facilitate minority students to reframe power relations. At least, we, teachers can reconceptualize language learners in power relations as multiple, sometimes contradictory, and changing over time in order to shine students in respective ways.

Week 9: Individual differences II

Individual Differences II:

Motivation, and Affect and Other Sources of Individual Differences

Last week we learned that there are three concepts to understand the study of individual differences in L2 learning, and we have already examined “language aptitude”, the issue of cognition (thinking). This week we have investigated “motivation” and “affect and other sources of individual differences,” covering the issues of conation (trying or wanting) and affect (feeling).

On Tuesday, we were divided into five groups, and each group worked on a different topic within motivation, (a) traditional approach vs. the most recent approach (the L2 motivational self-system), (b) theoretical renewal: self-determination and dynamic motivation, (c) contexts; and within affect and other sources of individual differences, (d) personality, anxiety, and willingness to communicate, (e) cognitive styles, strategies, and self-regulation.

Traditional approach on motivation focuses on its quantity than quality. Then it faced the crisis during the 90’s because Gardner’s AMTB model does not work in EFL context although it works in Canadian French-speaking context, and there was a call for research on motivational quality. The most important finding is that L2 motivation is not static, but dynamic, considering the issues of time, context, and behavior. It looks at learner’s future: the ideal self. Also, related to affect, it is important to keep in mind that affect cannot be separated from cognition and from conation, since they influence one another.

We discussed Gan, Humphreys and Hamp-Lyons’s (2004) study, “Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese universities” and Lamb’s (2008) study, “The impact of school on EFL learning motivation: An Indonesian case study”on Thursday.

In Gan, Humphreys and Hamp-Lyons’s (2004) article, we investigated the successful learners and the unsuccessful learners within six themes emerged from the collected data such as conceptualizing English language learning, perceptions of the college English course, learning and practicing strategies, self-management, internal drive, and English proficiency tests. The study shows the interaction of learner difference factors (strategies, attitudes, and motivation) and contextual factors (instrumental importance of English, teacher’s teaching styles, and graduation requirement). Also, successful learners generally showed a broader view of English learning than unsuccessful learners did. From this study, we language teachers can teach students not only the language knowledge, but also the strategies characterizing their more successful peers.

Furthermore, in Lamb’s research, we examined how Indonesian students’ reported motivation change and how internal and external factors are related with the changes, focusing on Dornyei’s (2005) L2 motivational self system (ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self and L2 learning experience). The data shows that two contrasting results. One is that enthusiasm for the process of formal learning in school fall down; the other is that attitudes toward language and of actual learning activity in informal contexts stay very positive. Since the main problems reported by learners are English teachers related to their monotonous classroom procedures and incomprehensible lessons, it provides us how important teachers’ roles are.

Two studies have important pedagogical advice for teachers to help students. Language teachers may pay attention to the students’ needs in order to achieve high academic standards and provide more integrative and personally relevant curricula and learning assessment along with learners’ language learning and strategy training. Also, teachers need to provide simple explanations, supportive feedback, and advices on independent ways to learn. Based on my experience, considering myself as an EFL learner and an EFL teacher, students’ positive feelings toward a teacher and instruction really influence students’ motivation in learning and interest in classes. In this respect, we have really important roles to play as a teacher.

Chapter 7 Foreign Language Aptitude

This week we have dealt with individual differences. When we discuss individual differences, we have to be aware that there are three areas in this domain as psychologists have traditionally made a distinction: cognition, conation and affect. In this chapter language aptitude, an issue of learners’ cognitive feature is mainly discussed. With respect to the two contrastive cases of Kaplan, a successful L2 French learner and Watson, who is judged as an unsuccessful learner despite his high L2 literacy, it is persuasive that some people are born with gifts in language learning ability. However, should language aptitude be prioritized as the absoluteness in language leaning? The answer is that it is not necessarily be so, but it could predict L2 learning rate, which was revealed by the result of MLAT (Modern Language Aptitude Test). It has been acknowledged that most privileged component of L2 aptitude is memory capacity although the emerged picture of memory and differential L2 facility is complex.

Regarding age and aptitude, the most striking finding is that language aptitude only matters to adults and adolescents, but not for young learners and that difference in proficiency among younger learners correlated to individual differences in memory ability, whereas for older learners, proficiency differences were more related to individual differences in analytical ability.

On Thursday, we read two articles regarding this issue and had discussions facilitated by a group leader. The study conducted by Fitzparick et al. (2006) investigated the effectiveness of L2 memorization in a real conversation. Although memorizing as one of the strategies to enhance learners’ idiomaticity has been considered to be effective, what they found is that despite their well-prepared memorized strings, there existed some hindrances in real conversations, depending upon personality, motivation, identity, and preferences to a specific strategy, which impeded learners from displaying their memorized materials. Given the fact that higher level learners tend to modify memorized materials in a real conversations, we can acknowledge that the degree of deviation from memorized material can be predictive of learner’s language proficiency.

The study of Irena O’ Brien et al. (2007) examined the correlation between development of aural fluency, phonological memory and learning context. Based on the theoretical framework of phonological loop and working memory, ample studies have been conducted focusing on the impact of phonological memory on children’s oral production skills. Given that, this study shed light on the degree of contribution of phonological memory to adults’ L2 learning. The finding was that those with better phonological memory in an immersion environment made even greater gains in L2 fluency development than those who stayed at home. Further, this relationship between phonological memory and L2 learning is not constrained by age but extends into adulthood.

Reflecting common issues in both studies in discussion, we concluded that learners’ individual differences, namely biological factors such as phonological memory, learning context and learners’ motivation and personality are tightly intertwined and each of these factors equally plays a significant role in language learning. In the future, based on the findings from the ample studies, what is expected to be examined is that how instructional approaches can be designed to facilitate L2 learning, taking individual differences into consideration.

Lastly, on behalf of the group leaders, I would like to express our deepest gratitude for everyone that you were all well-prepared, contributing to the activities and discussions that we had in the class. Hopefully everyone enjoyed the time and the content we presented.

Week 7: Learner language

     This week we dealt with learner language.  First conceived as interlanguage (Selinker, 1972), defined later as an interim competence constrained from the L1 and L2 grammar,  it has drawn many researchers scrutinizing its nature and the mental representations of L2 speakers. The findings have been revealing in many respects: cross-linguistically, there exist a systematicity in its developmental sequences, morpheme orders, negation, and relative clauses, for instance. To know where learners are most likely to make errors cross-linguistically would give pedagogical implication to practitioners, be it in the ESL, or EFL context.  By instruction practitioners would be able to facilitate and foster the learning processes, though special care has to be taken of when learners are developmentally ready and what area of language development is being dealt with.  

     On Thursday, we zeroed in on F on F, F on FS, and F on Meaning, along with the concepts of implicit teaching and explicit teaching.  Well-founded upon the previously-earned knowledge of the nature of  interlanguage, we ascertained that instruction can function positively for the betterment of L2 learners, though it may hugely depend upon how you go about the instruction.  The study conducted by Doughty & Varela (1998) revealed that it is more effective and productive when pedagogical provision is made and incorporated in facilitating learners than otherwise.  On the meaning-based classroom, recast can effectively be implemented as one way of Focus on Form.  

     Coincidentally, after the class, we could hear HELP instructors sharing their content-based teaching at the institution.  I was impressed by the young and ambitious teachers trying to bring about a change in their teaching, though I felt a sense of doubt about the method.  Most practitioners in my country share the same thought that ALTs  have not accomplished much in the sense that they were expected to.  Communicative teaching (CT) have failed and many institutions are not actually conducting classes, totally meaning-based instruction any longer; they would have to spend many hours preparing materials for meaning-based classes because of the dearth of materials.  

     I had happened to visit the very institution to observe one of the content-based classes the day before that day.  The teacher, one of my classmates, was energetically engaged in teaching a class.  He prepared a variety of materials for content-based purpose, while I was looking on somewhat unmotivated learners.  I intuitively sensed that students had never learned the language, paying attention to linguistic elements throughout their learning experiences.  

     I question the validity of the content-based teaching.  One professor also inquired what it was that made them decide to shift from skill-based to the presently on-going content-based teaching, though I assumed he might have meant the total retreat to F on FS.   As Daughty & Verela (1998) point out, "the feasibility and effectiveness of incorporating a relatively implicit FonF technique into a content-based and, therefore, communicative language classroom" (p. 137) needs to be reconsidered once again by stakeholders, so that learners will benefit more from the classes and flourish in whatever paths they may tread in the future.   

Week 6 IRB & ethics

This week we talked about ethical issues in research involving human participants. An IRB approval should be obtained for any research which is going to involve participants.

Research in second language field usually goes to the category of “Exempt”. To apply for an IRB approval, you can go to the website http://www.hawaii.edu/irb/ to download the application forms. The application package includes: a. Declaration of Exemption Forms; b. Application for New Approval; c. Consent Forms; and d. any appendix, such as tests or questionnaires.

The form of Application for New Approval provides IRBs necessary information in the format they are familiar with. There are three tips in preparing the form: a. You can put “as soon as approved” as the start date. If you want to give a specific date, please allow at least two weeks for IRBs to work on your application. b. Never go beyond the space on the application forms. Keep it short and simple. c. It is important to mention benefit. No one wants to waste time on research without any benefits to your participants or your society in general.

The consent form should be written in a language comprehensible and simple enough to be understood by participants. It is important to emphasize voluntary participation. Participants may choose to accept or refuse the invitation to participate in research and they can withdraw anytime without any consequences. It is also important to ensure confidentiality of the participants. Avoid mentioning the name of the program where you collect data, because people may be able to know who your participants are. You can also change the detailed description of your participants as long as it will not affect your study.

An IRB approval should be obtained before you start to recruit your participants. Different universities may have different requirements for IRB. If you plan to collect data from universities other than UH, please double check with the local authorization to see whether they have additional requirements.

Ethnic issues are something we should always keep in mind when we are planning research involving human participants. The process of IRB application helps us to ensure that necessary steps have been taken to protect our participants. In addition, it helps us to think through and plan out the steps involved in research design.

Week 5 Cognition

We examined second language acquisition from a cognitive perspective this week. On Tuesday, we separated into four groups. Each group worked on a topic and had a brief report to the class afterward. The topics that were introduced under the framework of cognition included: information processing and skill acquisition theory, memory and language learning, the role of attention in language learning, and finally the imminent trend of emergentism.
Grounding on information processing theories, skill acquisition theory defines L2 learning as the gradual transformation of performance from controlled to automatic. Controlled processing takes more efforts and resources than automatic processing does. Through practice over many trials, learners are expected to be able to convert their explicit knowledge into implicit-procedural knowledge, which allows learners to use their L2 automatically. Note that automaticity does not simply equate to speedy behavior. The qualitative changes in the knowledge representation, such as making the stored knowledge become more elaborated, specified, and analyzed, are essential in proceduralization as well.

The idea of knowledge representation is related to the studies on long-term memory. A well-studied area is how L2 vocabulary knowledge is stored and represented in long-term memory. However, memory is not just about passively recording things. The other type of memory is called working memory, which allows us to manipulate information as we hold it in our minds. Researchers have concluded that working memory capacity is smaller in the L2 than the L1, possibly due to the reason that processing of L2 materials costs more cognitive resources than that of L1. The working memory capacity, as pointed out by Randall Engle, is not directly about memory, but about the ability to control attention to maintain information in an active, quickly retrievable state. Specifically, attention heightens the activation level of input and thus makes it available for entering long-term memory. However, the quality of attention required for L2 learning is still under debate. SLA researchers have investigated whether L2 learning is possible without intention (i.e. incidental learning), without attention (i.e. implicit learning), and without rules. Supporting the idea of learning without rules, emergentists view L2 acquisition as an associative, probabilistic, rational, usage-based, and grounded learning process. Such interpretations have guided us to reconsider the nature of L2 acquisition.

Centering on the issue of awareness, we examined Rosa and O’Neill’s study on Thursday. Rosa and O’Neill’s clever research designs tackled the questions about: a) how explicit and implicit learning influence what is intaken, b) whether different levels of awareness have a differential effect on intake, and c) whether the above two factors (explicit/implicit leaning vs. levels of awareness) interact. The results supported Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis—more awareness leads to more learning. Explicit formal instruction associated with high-level awareness (understanding) and was superior to implicit learning. Also, the surprising performance of the treatment-only group demonstrated that task essentialness was important. A good task design could lead to a similar effect as what formal instruction could achieve.

The study of cognition has important implications for L2 acquisition. It not only provides us with another perspective to study how people acquire L2, but also shed lights on classroom teaching. Learners go through successive stages of cognitive analysis and representation of the input. Aware of the findings in cognitive science, teachers can adjust their teaching methods and designs of activity and curriculum to better meet learners’ needs. For instance, as demonstrated in Rosa and O’Neill’s investigation, immediate task-essential feedback can contribute to learning as well as explicit rule explanation. Teacher may also organize the content in ways that facilitate information retrieval and integration. By activating learners’ existing knowledge that is related to the new content, teachers can start a lesson from what the learners have known to help them make connections between old and new information. Besides, teachers need to draw students’ attention to the target structures in order to help learners to convert input to intake.

Week 3 The Linguistic Environment

The theme of the week is “the linguistic environment,” focusing on the relationship between the learning environment and human cognition from a cognitive-interactionist approach. We discuss the five influential hypotheses mostly initiated in the 1980s—Acculturation Model (Schumann, 1976), Comprehensible Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985), Pushed Output Hypothesis (1985), Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996), and Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1995)—with the former two hypotheses seriously challenged by the latter ones.

Firstly, Acculturation Model hypostasizes that the less a learner acculturates or assimilates into the target language group, socially and psychologically, the less likely one will acquire the target language, and vice versa. Nevertheless, this model has been refuted by Schmidt’s study on Wes’ English language development (1983). Wes is a Japanese artist immigrating to Hawaii. Enjoying a rather high socio-economic status, along with a sociable personality, Wes is expected to acquire English well based on the acculturation model. Surprisingly, with his little attention or care for grammatical accuracy, Wes has progressed very little in grammatical competence and sociolinguistic repertoires marked by grammatical forms throughout the 3-year observation period, despite the fact that he has advanced significantly in sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence. Schmidt later concludes that grammar acquisition cannot be successful without sensitivity to form.

Secondly, same as the acculturation model, the Input Hypothesis has been proven untenable in guaranteeing successful language acquisition. According to Krashen, L2 learners are believed to acquire the target language naturally like L1 learners if an abundant amount of comprehensible input (i+1) is provided. Yet, counter examples from French immersion school have proven that input is a necessary but not sufficient factor(Swain, 1985; Sato, 1990). Swain then proposes that output can raise learners’ attention to their language use, such as sentence construction (i.e. syntactic processing). Another strand of research complementing the Input Hypothesis is Long’s Interaction Hypothesis, which lays greater emphasis on modified input through interaction. According to Long, during the communication, a two-way process, learners are enabled to focus on both meaning and form.

Following Long’s work, researchers like Swain, Loschky, and Pica, try to establish the link between interaction and acquisition. Supportive and counter examples are both found. One of the possible reasons is the presence of another variable--‘the design of the task’-- in the empirical research. Seemingly, it is not easy to design a task that requires both meaning negotiation and close attention to structure for task completion. Later research on interaction addresses more specific issues related to different types of negotiations of form and the role of negative feedback during negotiation in classroom settings.

From the ample studies reviewed in the reading, one controversial issue centering our classroom discussion this week is: How can teachers adjust the degree of explicitness in form instruction in response to the change of classroom setting? It seems that in ESL setting, the trend goes from 'focusing on meaning' to 'focusing on form' whereas in EFL setting, there is a move going from focusing on ‘forms’ to focusing on ‘form.’ Given that the effectiveness of form-focused instruction has been established, the next challenge posed is: How do teachers design tasks that engage learners in both meaning and form negotiations, which are saliently enough to raise learners’ meta-linguistic awareness? This is a challenge to both SLA researchers and frontline teachers.

After this week’s discussion, one thing that really pops into my mind is the danger of adopting a hypothesis without appropriating it. When I was a teacher back home, I focused so much on implementing communicative language teaching that the grammatical points in class were not highlighted saliently enough for learners to notice or identify. (I did not know about Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis back then.) One of the students I tutored turned out to be one neither good at fluency nor accuracy. Now, as I learn about the historical development of each hypothesis, I realize how each hypothesis has undergone a lot of revision and replaced by later research findings. Indeed, the process of second language acquisition involves so many variables that instructors need to learn how to appropriate and synthesis different research findings to suit their own teaching contexts.

Week 2: Crosslinguistic Influences

This week we investigated the evidence of crosslinguistic influences in language learning. For Tuesday, we read chapter 3 in Ortega’s Understanding SLA. Some of the things we talked about in class are: “error” vs. “transfer solution”, our own experiences with crosslinguistic influences, and L1 transfer vs. UG. L1 can speed up or slow L2 learning down, so there can be both positive and negative effects of transfer. Positive transfer is typically less-studied because positive transfer is difficult to pinpoint.

Early researchers thought that most mistakes in L2 were directly related to the learner ‘leaning on’ the grammar of the L1. We now know that this is sometimes the case but it is not a given. Therefore, in researching this phenomenon we focus on the nature of the cognitive processes in the mind and the systematic grammar rules that language learners tend to make, the learner’s perceptions of the relationship between the L1 and L2, and the learner’s proficiency level.

Learners tend to acquire language in a pattern. For example, they tend to acquire question forms in a certain order. The L1 can put learners on the fast track or slow track to learning the L2, depending on how marked the L1’s form is versus the markedness of the L2 form. Learners also tend to learn in a U-shaped pattern, performing well when unaware of grammar structure, making more errors when becoming aware, and improving after learning the form. When learners learn three or more languages, they will tend to transfer patterns from the language that is more typologically similar.

On Thursday, we discussed the Spada and Lightbown study of francophone children in an intensive English program in Canada. We began by discussing the stages of question acquisition. Each stage builds upon the other, adding to the repertoire of question forms that the learner can use. It seems that only when learners use a certain stage (around stage 5) a domino effect can occur, so if the learner acquires that stage first, the other stages will naturally be acquired.

In this study, the researchers used the “input flood” treatment in the classroom. Most of the treatment was input related, while only some was in eliciting the target form. In the testing, two of the tasks were input related, and two were production related.

They found that the learners improved more on written production tasks than oral production tasks. They were also surprised to find that there seemed to be a sub-stage in the acquisition pattern related to the inversion of the noun phrase. They infer that this is due to L1 transfer because French has this rule and English does not. However, as they note at the end, this conclusion cannot be reached unless there is more proof that learners from different L1 backgrounds do not make the same transfer error.

Week 2: Age

AGE

The topic for this week was “Age and Second Language Acquisition (SLA).” We discussed various issues relating to the critical period in SLA. We also addressed the following concerns in our discussion: Is there really an age limit in second language learning? Is it absolutely impossible for adolescents or adults to acquire a second language (L2)? Is the earlier a person learns a L2, the better? Age may affect which areas in L2 learning? (ex. morphosyntax, phonology, learning rate…etc)

Critical Period in SLA is still a debatable topic in the field of second language studies. There are many researchers on each side of the debate (as mentioned in the last section of chapter 2), some supports and praises the critical period in SLA while the others disagree with the raised issue.

Some studies argued that SLA would be relatively efficient and successful only if it occurs before the age of puberty. After the onset of puberty it becomes impossible to acquire a native-like proficiency in the L2. Thus, many scholars argued that the incapability in pronunciation and grammar among the older learners may be subjected to neuro-biological constraints. Many findings demonstrated that children have an innate capacity for language learning and possess greater potentials to achieve ultimate attainment in SLA. Evidences for the critical period of an individual often showed that younger learners outperform older learners in the eventual language learning outcome. Also, adults are more likely to fail in the learning of pronunciation and grammar in L2 while children have more advantage in ultimate attainment in both. These scholars concluded that the main reason for the loss of the ability to acquire a L2 is due to the decline of the mental equipment required for language learning.

On the contrary, some studies have shown that critical period do not exist among the adult second language learners. There are abundant evidences referring to late beginners who were able to attain native-like proficiency in one or several areas in second languages. The most striking example on the critical period for SLA was done by Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi, and Moselle (1994). The study was to investigate an English learner of Arabic, Julie, an exceptionally successful second language user who started to learn Arabic at the age of 21. The studies on successful adult learners’ ultimate attainment have contradicted the traditional critical period theory in SLA. The case study of Julie demonstrated that age does not have relation to ultimate L2 attainment and it is possible to acquire a second language after puberty.

Many empirical researches have stated that most of the adults or adolescents acquire the L2 at a faster rate and outperform the children initially, but children usually surpass the older learners eventually and become superior in terms of ultimate attainment. Yet, this theory somehow may be true for some people but does not apply to all adult learners. There are a numerous number of findings that showed that older individuals are able to learn L2s after the critical period. However, for those learners who learn another language after puberty may acquire the language eventually, but at a different rate.

There are also other factors (social environment, motivation, and talent) that may lead to the success or failure in SLA besides the age of a language learner.

As for social factor, younger learners tend to have more time to devote to language learning as opposed to older learners. They often obtain greater opportunities to hear and use the target language at school or in play settings. They are more likely to use the L2 in the environments without having strong pressure to speak fluently and accurately. On the contrary, older learners rarely have access to the same quantity and quality of language inputs as that of the children. They often require using much more complex language in various settings. Therefore, it seems to be easier and more efficient for younger learners to acquire a L2. However, a younger person exposed to a L2 does not mean that the person would definitely attain a native-like proficiency level in the target language. It is also related to the learning context, whether if it is an ESL or EFL setting.

I think that the eventual success in language learning is also closely related to the way in which an individual approaches second language learning, the motivation to learn, as well as individual differences in aptitude for language learning. Less motivated L2 learners would not become advanced L2 speakers no matter how young they were when they began learning the language. I believed that age is not the only cause of the success or failure in SLA and that there are also other significant elements, as mentioned previously, that may affect the outcome of language learning. It may seem that younger learners possess more advantages in acquiring a second language, but the highly motivated adult learners can also acquire a native-like proficiency in the target language.

In conclusion, it is evident that there are some neural benefits that assist greater language learning abilities among young learners, yet, it should not be interpreted to mean that there is a critical period for SLA. There are abundant evidences showed that many adults can achieve high levels of L2 competence. However, since the Critical Period Hypothesis is still an ongoing debate, it is difficult to draw a conclusion on the existence or absence of the critical period in SLA.

Welcome to the SLS 650 class blog!

Please join the blog if you received my invitation and create a profile.

For ideas on your profile, you can also visit the blog for last semester's class and see their profiles and postings.

Lourdes