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.