Skype post:
Ok.. I'm going to openly share a thought b4 I lose it..(non TPOV but something to CHEW on... like a rubber cookie...)
So, to do SFL properly, and to rate it, you need to define norms. And one thing this article notes are Norms on society. Ie. sociolinguistic competence means that when you walk in late, you need to say sorry, and then trigger the lexical language knowledge to say it.
Well... who's to say that you are to say sorry when you are late?
Granted, I agree, but what is going on is that there are some ethical values being injected into the "norm". Now without arguing what is right or wrong, the potential for abuse is then seen - for if 'Competency' includes sociatal responses, and Ss are graded for it according to that norm, who's to then alter that norm? And by so doing, they will force people (they need to demonstrate 'competency') into fitting into a certain social mold. It can easily be a control factor.
Because context is now tied in, exams can be structured to "grade" someone's cultural / societal responses. And if the wrong 'standard' are injected, testing and grading can be used to manipulate people.
The key is: by what standard does one determine the "norm" for behavior in a given setting?
This is clearly an ethical question.
My point: Ethics, values, and morals, cannot be separated from ELL. Not if we are going to start to 'grade' people on their social responses.
It's integral
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Magician's Dissapearing Act in SLA
There is an uprising these days in SLA research it seems. And much of it is to do with terminology. I remember sitting in class, hearing one day, how the words "native speaker" are no longer "acceptable". Rather, they are "novice" speakers.
I, personally, find this ridiculous. Granted, I understand the reasoning of the "local" and the need for a definition of the Community of Practice etc etc etc.. but still, to remove this 'name' seems to be more than a redefinition- it appears to be the removal of a standard; that of... what we would call a "native speaker".
(According to the new definition, I am an "expert speaker" while my non-native friends are "novice speakers". The irony is, that they are more expert than I am. I ought to be called a "native novice" and they, a "non-native expert")
I remember running across this also in one of my research articles (Hall?) about multicompetence and bilingualism. There, again, they argued that the term needs to be done away with. And in their discourse, the alluded to how the notion of interlanguage is also dismissed - for without comparison to a native speaker, the L2 learner can be seen to be competent and not 'a failed L2 native speaker'. (Citation to follow).
Ok. So you change the name Native Speaker. Does that change the fact that there does exist such a standard that is considered "native english"? NO. change the label, but the concept still exists. Yes, that standard may not be accepted by all peoples now, but does that change the fact that it exists? no! It still exists. You simply have taken away it's label.
But what will happen next? Well, if (and I doubt it) the field starts to take on the word native to mean something else (or in my article, multicompetence) people will start to use that word and start to look that 'direction'. As soon as they think in that direction, that label (concept) comes up and their minds are redirected. And the real concept.. because it no longer has a label.. disappears. Not that it really disappears - it's still there - but people will 'walk around it' because they are being 'redirected' by the new words.
See... by changing terminology, and changing words, and using certain words frequently, (and have them "accepted" in the field), you are working magic. A disappearing act.
And in the research field where authority is when big name so-and -so cites so-and-so, who cites so-and-so, you are 'bound' by a web of published material. And so the pressure is to remain 'in the stream'.
It's a subtle magic disappearing act. I suppose it's the "out of sight, out of mind", or in this case, "out of my vocab, out of my mind". The only problem is, even if one can't see it, it still exists.
I, personally, find this ridiculous. Granted, I understand the reasoning of the "local" and the need for a definition of the Community of Practice etc etc etc.. but still, to remove this 'name' seems to be more than a redefinition- it appears to be the removal of a standard; that of... what we would call a "native speaker".
(According to the new definition, I am an "expert speaker" while my non-native friends are "novice speakers". The irony is, that they are more expert than I am. I ought to be called a "native novice" and they, a "non-native expert")
I remember running across this also in one of my research articles (Hall?) about multicompetence and bilingualism. There, again, they argued that the term needs to be done away with. And in their discourse, the alluded to how the notion of interlanguage is also dismissed - for without comparison to a native speaker, the L2 learner can be seen to be competent and not 'a failed L2 native speaker'. (Citation to follow).
Ok. So you change the name Native Speaker. Does that change the fact that there does exist such a standard that is considered "native english"? NO. change the label, but the concept still exists. Yes, that standard may not be accepted by all peoples now, but does that change the fact that it exists? no! It still exists. You simply have taken away it's label.
But what will happen next? Well, if (and I doubt it) the field starts to take on the word native to mean something else (or in my article, multicompetence) people will start to use that word and start to look that 'direction'. As soon as they think in that direction, that label (concept) comes up and their minds are redirected. And the real concept.. because it no longer has a label.. disappears. Not that it really disappears - it's still there - but people will 'walk around it' because they are being 'redirected' by the new words.
See... by changing terminology, and changing words, and using certain words frequently, (and have them "accepted" in the field), you are working magic. A disappearing act.
And in the research field where authority is when big name so-and -so cites so-and-so, who cites so-and-so, you are 'bound' by a web of published material. And so the pressure is to remain 'in the stream'.
It's a subtle magic disappearing act. I suppose it's the "out of sight, out of mind", or in this case, "out of my vocab, out of my mind". The only problem is, even if one can't see it, it still exists.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Thinking structure and word order
I'm reading my Scovel textbook and there is an example cited where a student read the statement "I am eating lunch later" and said that eating here meant they were eating right now.
This leads to something interesting which ties into the idea that form relates directly to 'thinking patterns'. (This may be what could be considered UG)
My hypothesis/theory/whatever is that by teaching certain langauges, you are teaching certain ways to think. And what you can see is that as words are introduced in a certain order (according to a language's grammar) you are also taking the listener down a 'cognitive path'
This example demonstrates it very well.
Considering that fact that 'eating' really is present continuous and thus does mean eating presently, listen to the words as they roll of someone's tongue and try to map what is going on in the listener's head.
"I... (the listener is now focused on the speaker - it is about him)
I am... (he is doing...what?)
I am eating (we envision him eating ..right now.. just as the student thought)
I am eating later" (now we take that whole "mental picture" and we 'move' it in our mind, to the future; in order to apply the "later")
There is a certain 'form' of handling the thought.
Another quick example:
In English you can say "I went shopping in China". In Chinese, however, you must say "I, in China, went shopping" --> (Wo, zai Zhong Guo, mai dong xi). In English, you form the contruct in your mind of shopping, then you transport that whole mental experience into China. However in Chinese, you first, place yourself (in China), then you form the activity in your mind (shopping). For a Chinese learner, there is no possibility of doing it the English way. You cannot say "I went shopping... in China". It is forbidden. Thus, in the Chinese mind - that form of thinking pattern is not allowed.
What is the point of this? I believe that learning a new language is partly training the mind to think in a different order. A different way to 'configure' concepts. That is part of L2 acquisition.
It is also why it is NOT the same as L1. Because in L1, only one "pattern of thinking" is introduced. Thus in teaching a new language means you are also teaching a "new thinking pattern".
Likewise to train someone off the L1 is not easy. Contrary to our good friend Krashen, learning L2 will never be natural like an L1. Why? Because L1 (formation of thinking patterns) happens on fresh snow; a new mind. L2, happens when a structure is already in place. That makes a world of difference.
[Note: I am now reviewing Attention and memory and this will expose a flaw of the input hypothesis. What the child "pays attention" is completely different from the L2 learner - why? Because L1 is the child's lifeline. He *must* pay attention. The L2 learner? He doesn't have to. The motivation is completely different]
But...once l2 is acquired, and the student now is aware of how to 'rethink', l3, l4, l5 becomes easier as multilingual research shows.
This leads to something interesting which ties into the idea that form relates directly to 'thinking patterns'. (This may be what could be considered UG)
My hypothesis/theory/whatever is that by teaching certain langauges, you are teaching certain ways to think. And what you can see is that as words are introduced in a certain order (according to a language's grammar) you are also taking the listener down a 'cognitive path'
This example demonstrates it very well.
Considering that fact that 'eating' really is present continuous and thus does mean eating presently, listen to the words as they roll of someone's tongue and try to map what is going on in the listener's head.
"I... (the listener is now focused on the speaker - it is about him)
I am... (he is doing...what?)
I am eating (we envision him eating ..right now.. just as the student thought)
I am eating later" (now we take that whole "mental picture" and we 'move' it in our mind, to the future; in order to apply the "later")
There is a certain 'form' of handling the thought.
Another quick example:
In English you can say "I went shopping in China". In Chinese, however, you must say "I, in China, went shopping" --> (Wo, zai Zhong Guo, mai dong xi). In English, you form the contruct in your mind of shopping, then you transport that whole mental experience into China. However in Chinese, you first, place yourself (in China), then you form the activity in your mind (shopping). For a Chinese learner, there is no possibility of doing it the English way. You cannot say "I went shopping... in China". It is forbidden. Thus, in the Chinese mind - that form of thinking pattern is not allowed.
What is the point of this? I believe that learning a new language is partly training the mind to think in a different order. A different way to 'configure' concepts. That is part of L2 acquisition.
It is also why it is NOT the same as L1. Because in L1, only one "pattern of thinking" is introduced. Thus in teaching a new language means you are also teaching a "new thinking pattern".
Likewise to train someone off the L1 is not easy. Contrary to our good friend Krashen, learning L2 will never be natural like an L1. Why? Because L1 (formation of thinking patterns) happens on fresh snow; a new mind. L2, happens when a structure is already in place. That makes a world of difference.
[Note: I am now reviewing Attention and memory and this will expose a flaw of the input hypothesis. What the child "pays attention" is completely different from the L2 learner - why? Because L1 is the child's lifeline. He *must* pay attention. The L2 learner? He doesn't have to. The motivation is completely different]
But...once l2 is acquired, and the student now is aware of how to 'rethink', l3, l4, l5 becomes easier as multilingual research shows.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The power of the word
It's 11pm and I just got home and am licking my wounds after being beat up by SLA512 summaries. Yet.. despite my wretched state.. I feel inspired to write something before I forget it... as the blog is titled, this is uncut, raw, and unedited... so my apologies in advance!! (ok no i'm not sorry...)
I've titled this post "the power of the word" and the whole idea is summarized in what I put as my Skype 'mood':
"What is a 'word'? It is the embodiment of a construct, an idea, a doctrine. To teach words, is then, to teach much more than "mere language". It is a potent seed, if planted right, able to transform a whole person, communities, and even nations"
I'll unpack this idea by once again starting where the idea started - in China teaching.
It was the second semester again, and I was really scratching my head as to what to teach my students. Even though I was there to teach English, I felt really dissatisfied if all they learned was mere English. After all, as I had experienced (and as I am learning the 'field' also agrees), English cannot be taught without a context. Besides that, I wanted them to grow as individuals. I honestly loved my students, and what I took on as my "teacher role" was beyond that of linguistic teaching. I wanted to see them develop as people. In character. In creativity. In every aspect of life. To some degree I had achieved this by exposing them to an entirely new way to experience a classroom. In contrast to their legalistic no-error-allowed teaching experiences, they were experiencing a new atmosphere where they were aloud to laugh, have fun, and most importantly: make mistakes ....and it was ok. They had already overcome their fear of failure and began to speak openly.. which to me is much more than merely a speaking achievement. Something changed in their view of themselves, that enabled them to do that. And that, is the area I want to reach.
Yet, inside, there was frustration for there was so much more I wanted to teach. But how? I can't exactly start doing a "life seminar" class, although much of my content was revolving around real life. How can I really unload something potent? How can I teach a principle or doctrine to them... in the context of an English classroom WITHOUT making the context explicitly clear? (Which the school would realize right away I am not teaching English and may cause stirrings - ie a CBI approach)
And then... an insight came to me. I had the ability to do so. and in a powerful way. I could do so, but choosing carefully the words to teach them. The power comes from understanding, what a "word" really is.
Simply put, a word, is the embodiment of a construct, idea, concept, or doctrine. And by teaching a "word", you are teaching all the concepts that are linked to it. Choose the right concept, and you've got a powerful tool.
Let me cut to the chase with an example. If someone asked you what the word "humility" means, how would you define it? What about if someone asked you to distinguish the word "grace" from "mercy"? What about the word "mediator"? What about "freedom"? "democracy"? How would you do it?
By giving the definition, you are actually teaching (or revealing) a concept, that is represented by those words. This ties into a theory of mine (which I will post...later..when I'm awake) that behind every 'physical' word (I am speaking metaphorically), there is a linked 'concept'. (and then acquiring a language, is done by first identifying that concept you wish to express, and knowing which word to use, and what form, to best express it - learning the "association" - which can be formed by habit leading to fluency; the 'will' determines the 'words')
By teaching the word 'humility', you are exposing the students to a concept that they may not ever have seen. Of course, this assumes that the teacher knows the meaning! (Humility is not weakness! It is the opposite! Immense strength...but under control).
Let me draw on another example.
The most popular book and the most translated book in the entire history of mankind, has a one place where the alteration of a single word has caused much controversy. Yes, this is the Bible, and the place I am referring to is found in Romans 3:25. There is a word that is in the original and translated in the famous KJV but is taken out of many modern translations. It is this word "propitiation". Instead, some translations use the word "atonement" or "sacrifice". How is it, that one word, can cause such a stir?
Rom 3:25 (KJV) "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, ..."
It is because that specific word, propitiation, denotes a specific and peculiar concept - namely the appeasement or satisfaction of God's wrath. This was a doctrine revealed in the Law given to the nation of Israel where a lamb had to stand in someone's place and be slaughtered for their sins (death was the punishment) and by offering such a sacrifice, it would propitiate God's wrath. The lamb would die in the place of the man. And God's righteous requirements of that wrong doing (death)... would be satisfied. Propitiated.
This understanding has huge implications for Christians because Jesus claimed to be that lamb (metaphorically), and by dying on the cross in humanity's place, he became a propitiation for the sins of mankind. The wrath of God which the guilty conscience recognizes is relieved only when one realizes that that wrath fell on Jesus, allowing God to remain just, and let convicted sinners go free.
This is the essence of the whole Christian/gospel message which is simply states that to be 'saved' is to simply 'see' or recognize the fact that Jesus did accomplish this for us and to accept it as truth and trust in it (ie "faith in his blood").
But if that one word is taken out, the whole understanding of God's wrath being satisfied by Christ's death is obscured... which can leave a Christian miserable, always wondering what will happen because of all the wrong he has done, which he knows must incur the wrath of a just God. And hence, why there was a controversy over the exclusion or alteration of that word.
Embodied in that one word, is a concept so rich and powerful, that can lift a man crushed and burdened with guilt, into a state of complete freedom, joy and peace!
The applications of this in the classroom are enormous!
Words have power. The power is not in the linguistic word itself, it's in the concepts they represent. And as a teacher, by choosing carefully the words you teach, you can tap into the heart, mind, and soul of an individual. You can plant ideas. You can influence thinking. You can expose them to concepts they have never dreamed of!
And by choosing the right words, you can tap into their heart. You can leave an impression deeper than you ever thought possible.
And that's how, as an English teacher, one can effect deep change, .....through simply teaching "English".
(Next post, I will share some practical class activities where you can do this)
Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
I've titled this post "the power of the word" and the whole idea is summarized in what I put as my Skype 'mood':
"What is a 'word'? It is the embodiment of a construct, an idea, a doctrine. To teach words, is then, to teach much more than "mere language". It is a potent seed, if planted right, able to transform a whole person, communities, and even nations"
I'll unpack this idea by once again starting where the idea started - in China teaching.
It was the second semester again, and I was really scratching my head as to what to teach my students. Even though I was there to teach English, I felt really dissatisfied if all they learned was mere English. After all, as I had experienced (and as I am learning the 'field' also agrees), English cannot be taught without a context. Besides that, I wanted them to grow as individuals. I honestly loved my students, and what I took on as my "teacher role" was beyond that of linguistic teaching. I wanted to see them develop as people. In character. In creativity. In every aspect of life. To some degree I had achieved this by exposing them to an entirely new way to experience a classroom. In contrast to their legalistic no-error-allowed teaching experiences, they were experiencing a new atmosphere where they were aloud to laugh, have fun, and most importantly: make mistakes ....and it was ok. They had already overcome their fear of failure and began to speak openly.. which to me is much more than merely a speaking achievement. Something changed in their view of themselves, that enabled them to do that. And that, is the area I want to reach.
Yet, inside, there was frustration for there was so much more I wanted to teach. But how? I can't exactly start doing a "life seminar" class, although much of my content was revolving around real life. How can I really unload something potent? How can I teach a principle or doctrine to them... in the context of an English classroom WITHOUT making the context explicitly clear? (Which the school would realize right away I am not teaching English and may cause stirrings - ie a CBI approach)
And then... an insight came to me. I had the ability to do so. and in a powerful way. I could do so, but choosing carefully the words to teach them. The power comes from understanding, what a "word" really is.
Simply put, a word, is the embodiment of a construct, idea, concept, or doctrine. And by teaching a "word", you are teaching all the concepts that are linked to it. Choose the right concept, and you've got a powerful tool.
Let me cut to the chase with an example. If someone asked you what the word "humility" means, how would you define it? What about if someone asked you to distinguish the word "grace" from "mercy"? What about the word "mediator"? What about "freedom"? "democracy"? How would you do it?
By giving the definition, you are actually teaching (or revealing) a concept, that is represented by those words. This ties into a theory of mine (which I will post...later..when I'm awake) that behind every 'physical' word (I am speaking metaphorically), there is a linked 'concept'. (and then acquiring a language, is done by first identifying that concept you wish to express, and knowing which word to use, and what form, to best express it - learning the "association" - which can be formed by habit leading to fluency; the 'will' determines the 'words')
By teaching the word 'humility', you are exposing the students to a concept that they may not ever have seen. Of course, this assumes that the teacher knows the meaning! (Humility is not weakness! It is the opposite! Immense strength...but under control).
Let me draw on another example.
The most popular book and the most translated book in the entire history of mankind, has a one place where the alteration of a single word has caused much controversy. Yes, this is the Bible, and the place I am referring to is found in Romans 3:25. There is a word that is in the original and translated in the famous KJV but is taken out of many modern translations. It is this word "propitiation". Instead, some translations use the word "atonement" or "sacrifice". How is it, that one word, can cause such a stir?
Rom 3:25 (KJV) "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, ..."
It is because that specific word, propitiation, denotes a specific and peculiar concept - namely the appeasement or satisfaction of God's wrath. This was a doctrine revealed in the Law given to the nation of Israel where a lamb had to stand in someone's place and be slaughtered for their sins (death was the punishment) and by offering such a sacrifice, it would propitiate God's wrath. The lamb would die in the place of the man. And God's righteous requirements of that wrong doing (death)... would be satisfied. Propitiated.
This understanding has huge implications for Christians because Jesus claimed to be that lamb (metaphorically), and by dying on the cross in humanity's place, he became a propitiation for the sins of mankind. The wrath of God which the guilty conscience recognizes is relieved only when one realizes that that wrath fell on Jesus, allowing God to remain just, and let convicted sinners go free.
This is the essence of the whole Christian/gospel message which is simply states that to be 'saved' is to simply 'see' or recognize the fact that Jesus did accomplish this for us and to accept it as truth and trust in it (ie "faith in his blood").
But if that one word is taken out, the whole understanding of God's wrath being satisfied by Christ's death is obscured... which can leave a Christian miserable, always wondering what will happen because of all the wrong he has done, which he knows must incur the wrath of a just God. And hence, why there was a controversy over the exclusion or alteration of that word.
Embodied in that one word, is a concept so rich and powerful, that can lift a man crushed and burdened with guilt, into a state of complete freedom, joy and peace!
The applications of this in the classroom are enormous!
Words have power. The power is not in the linguistic word itself, it's in the concepts they represent. And as a teacher, by choosing carefully the words you teach, you can tap into the heart, mind, and soul of an individual. You can plant ideas. You can influence thinking. You can expose them to concepts they have never dreamed of!
And by choosing the right words, you can tap into their heart. You can leave an impression deeper than you ever thought possible.
And that's how, as an English teacher, one can effect deep change, .....through simply teaching "English".
(Next post, I will share some practical class activities where you can do this)
Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Children and L1
I've been pondering the SLA theories and how children develop L1 and it is becoming more and more clear to me how language is so vitally linked to 'human development'. By that, I mean, that I believe that humans are designed (intended) to communicate. We are simply, by nature, communicative beings! Language, is merely one expression or form of communication. The 'fabric' of communication if you will. But core to what it means to be human.
Pondering this and how the acquisition of L1 applies for a child, it becomes strikingly obvious how the language is not merely 'language' to the child. Rather it is the *link* to the outside world. It is the means of connection to everything outside of him or her. It is vital. It is the doorway. The access way. Their *lifeline*
Yes, there are senses to take in. sight, sound, touch etc. But how does one tap into the mind? How does one intake outside concepts? ideas? notions? feelings? arguments? instruction? guidance? etc. It is communication. Language is merely the established form, an accepted mediating tool, for that communication.
Seeing how a child is developing as a person - cognitively, emotionally, physically, and even spiritually - the presence of L1 is so vital. It is inextricably linked. Thus the context for L1 acquisition is tied so closely to the development of the person as much as the L1 development itself. It simply cannot be isolated. It must be considered as a whole.
(note: I would even argue that by teaching language form, you are teaching 'thought patterns' to the child. So even thinking patterns are 'embodied' within language. As my next post will show, the inclusion of words or exclusion, within a language, will have a profound impact on that person's development)
But compared to adults its a completely different story. They already have their "identity". They already have a means of 'intake'. They already have developed ; matured; as a person. They already 'know the outside world'. They already have a lens by which to evaluate. Their person already "formed". Their mind is already 'set in it's ways' to a large degree. So the context for learning L2 is significantly different than that of a L1. Radically different. It is not paralleled with their own development as a person.
Thus, it is no wonder that there is evidence of something such as a critical period. But instead of attributing it to a mere LAD or some biological device that loses potency over time, it can be seen to be part of the whole developmental context of a person. The development stage of an adult (as a person) is radically different from that of a child. And once that phase of life is gone, it's no wonder, that acquisition takes on a different form.
But... what if.. you could recreate that? What if... you could tie L2 in, with more than just language and communication, but the development of the person as well? Can that be done? I believe it can... it's all understand the power of the 'word'...that a mere word is the embodiment of a construct; an idea; a doctrine - that has enough power to transform a person... (next post after I do my SLA homework reading...)
--------------
Addendum: There is a principle at work here: the student must be stimulated to make the activities/learning worth engaging (which I would argue directly results in acquisition). Understanding that the adult mind is developed in many ways beyond a child, they need to learn in a context that stimulates their thinking. This could be one reason why adults prefer explicit grammar instruction. They want to know why. They want to analyze. They want to ask. They want to think. The want to be able to "build on their own". Thus the language teaching must be enveloped in a stimulating learning environment. This promotes the idea of task based learning. But it goes beyond that. Critical thinking. Creativity building. Team building. Problem solving. Analysis. Games. Simulations. I would think all that fosters growth, and L2 acquisition would fall right in place with that growth.
Pondering this and how the acquisition of L1 applies for a child, it becomes strikingly obvious how the language is not merely 'language' to the child. Rather it is the *link* to the outside world. It is the means of connection to everything outside of him or her. It is vital. It is the doorway. The access way. Their *lifeline*
Yes, there are senses to take in. sight, sound, touch etc. But how does one tap into the mind? How does one intake outside concepts? ideas? notions? feelings? arguments? instruction? guidance? etc. It is communication. Language is merely the established form, an accepted mediating tool, for that communication.
Seeing how a child is developing as a person - cognitively, emotionally, physically, and even spiritually - the presence of L1 is so vital. It is inextricably linked. Thus the context for L1 acquisition is tied so closely to the development of the person as much as the L1 development itself. It simply cannot be isolated. It must be considered as a whole.
(note: I would even argue that by teaching language form, you are teaching 'thought patterns' to the child. So even thinking patterns are 'embodied' within language. As my next post will show, the inclusion of words or exclusion, within a language, will have a profound impact on that person's development)
But compared to adults its a completely different story. They already have their "identity". They already have a means of 'intake'. They already have developed ; matured; as a person. They already 'know the outside world'. They already have a lens by which to evaluate. Their person already "formed". Their mind is already 'set in it's ways' to a large degree. So the context for learning L2 is significantly different than that of a L1. Radically different. It is not paralleled with their own development as a person.
Thus, it is no wonder that there is evidence of something such as a critical period. But instead of attributing it to a mere LAD or some biological device that loses potency over time, it can be seen to be part of the whole developmental context of a person. The development stage of an adult (as a person) is radically different from that of a child. And once that phase of life is gone, it's no wonder, that acquisition takes on a different form.
But... what if.. you could recreate that? What if... you could tie L2 in, with more than just language and communication, but the development of the person as well? Can that be done? I believe it can... it's all understand the power of the 'word'...that a mere word is the embodiment of a construct; an idea; a doctrine - that has enough power to transform a person... (next post after I do my SLA homework reading...)
--------------
Addendum: There is a principle at work here: the student must be stimulated to make the activities/learning worth engaging (which I would argue directly results in acquisition). Understanding that the adult mind is developed in many ways beyond a child, they need to learn in a context that stimulates their thinking. This could be one reason why adults prefer explicit grammar instruction. They want to know why. They want to analyze. They want to ask. They want to think. The want to be able to "build on their own". Thus the language teaching must be enveloped in a stimulating learning environment. This promotes the idea of task based learning. But it goes beyond that. Critical thinking. Creativity building. Team building. Problem solving. Analysis. Games. Simulations. I would think all that fosters growth, and L2 acquisition would fall right in place with that growth.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Grammar sequenced Communicative Task based Learning
So after reading so much about CLT and TBLT and the lack of focus on accuracy.. I'm starting to wonder.. how would I approach it? I noticed the same problem when I taught this past year in China.
It was quite interesting. I was given a "blank sheet" and told to go plan the course, and not knowing a clue about what I was doing, I went with intuition. Turns out, in the end, I did a task based communicative CBI approach...without realizing it! Amazingly it was intuition driven. But one thing that gnawed away at me the whole time was this: their form sucked.
They could talk and interact (and that was a big milestone reached I'm told as most Chinese students fear talking), but it left me feeling frustrated. Sure, they were all able to talk now, but they talked terribly! I could understand them... but I know no other native speaker could. Their form was lacking. And I knew why too...
...because I don't know grammar well myself!
So slowly towards the latter half of the 2nd semester I started to wonder - how can I approach this? How can I deal with their terrible form, while they are building the confidence to speak, and learning to put into practice the years of written/reading/exam English they had learned?
There was one idea that I had in China which I never got to try... and that was to take a grammar form, isolate it (from other forms) and then drill it... BUT... in a communicative setting. Now having learned the 'labels' and the trends, I'm wondering... if this would indeed work.
The idea would be - to have the class sequenced by form. But, rather than teach the form in isolation (that is, from context and meaning which GT does), take the form, and teach it IN context. And then, drill (habit forming) the association between the form and the context. (There is an "approach" that I am working from -and that is to 'train' the students to associate context with form. This association is key to fluency I believe - I will explain this later).
(note: although the lesson is form sequenced, the associative process is the opposite. It is identifying the situation/context first, and then choosing the appropriate form. Not the other way around. Thus the form is 'contextually' driven)
So here is a simple activity (or two) that I thought up. I'll tackle 2 forms that were terrible that I encountered. The proper use of pronouns, and the proper use of past tense...
1. pronouns
In Chinese, he/she/it is all contained in one word "ta". Thus, there are no gender associations. So when students spoke, they would always make the blunder "He is my girl friend", or "She is my father". So how does one address this?
Well, the problem is association. They need to instinctively associate the right word in the right context. So an activity that drills this association would be helpful (so I think).
The activity that I was going to do (but never got to try) was to do a quick game. The game was to flash pictures of people, and quickly the students had to say a 1 liner using the he / she to get it right.
But then.. where it gets more complicated (phase 2) is to have the students FOCUS on something other than the he/she and then indirectly associate it. For example, if I had the pictures of people but with name tags. Then they would have to say "his name is xxx", "her name is xxx".
So they are not mentally focusing on "is this a he or she?" but on something else, and subconsciously?? peripherally? focus on that form. This could further be stretched out to have them describe the picture.. ie he is taller than her, she is taller than him. The idea is to flash the pictures fast, and have them describe it, and then have them so quick to 'associate' that it becomes second nature - a habit... and that instant reflex is what I believe to cause "fluency". There is no thought. The concept is linked (solidly) to the pronoun.
This activity can then easily be adapted into a more 'communicative' style (ie interview format), and easily sequenced into a task (ie. A murder mystery, or cop identifying a mug shot, a blame game - he did it! no she did it! etc etc)
Now there is another activity that can be done, but I will demonstrate with a 2nd exercise.
2. past tense verb:
My students were terrible at getting the right past tense. They couldn't use it right. Rather than teach it in isolation (near useless imo, unless they really didn't know what a past tense looks like) and understand the metalinguistic features, I wanted them to know how to use it. So I had to brainstorm and think of instances where past tense is used. In communication, it's in retelling past stories. In reporting. In a diary. (Present would be in descriptions, stating truths, etc).
So the idea for an activity was this.
They have to describe an event / scene / that took place last week. The students would write down a list of 10 things that happened and then describe it. It would all be done using the past tense. (for beginners, a prompt would help ie. write "Start with - 'Yesterday I...'"). Once they could say the story in past tense, they are good to go.. for phase 2.
There is a projector in my room and what I was planning on doing was to project the day on the screen. It would project "YESTERDAY", or "TODAY", or "TOMORROW". The students would have to relay the information to their partner (and this can easily be adapted into a communicative activity - perhaps the 2nd half of the class) in accordance to the time shown. Suddenly, midway through their conversation, an audible bell would sound, and the time would change. The students would then have to instantly *adapt* their conversation to use the correct tense. So instead of saying "yesterday i went to the store and bought a bag" the would switch to "tomorrow I will go to the store, and buy a bag..".
An intermediate stage can take place here where the correct form is corrected. (ie, the first switch from past to future - the T can go around and make sure everyone is using it right)
Again, like the previous exercise, as then, the activity continues and as the TIME switches, the Ss must adapt their conversations accordingly. The focus is once again on associating the conversational context with the correct form (verb tense).
As for making it communicative, this activity can also be adapted. For example, instead of simply retelling the events, it can be an information type dialogue that requires one student to ask the other questions.
Habit forming once again is the key: associating when to use what form. Context driven. Not the other way around.
Thus in this way, grammar / form / is the sequencing agent. But taught in context. In a communicative setting. And easily as part of a task based lesson.
It was quite interesting. I was given a "blank sheet" and told to go plan the course, and not knowing a clue about what I was doing, I went with intuition. Turns out, in the end, I did a task based communicative CBI approach...without realizing it! Amazingly it was intuition driven. But one thing that gnawed away at me the whole time was this: their form sucked.
They could talk and interact (and that was a big milestone reached I'm told as most Chinese students fear talking), but it left me feeling frustrated. Sure, they were all able to talk now, but they talked terribly! I could understand them... but I know no other native speaker could. Their form was lacking. And I knew why too...
...because I don't know grammar well myself!
So slowly towards the latter half of the 2nd semester I started to wonder - how can I approach this? How can I deal with their terrible form, while they are building the confidence to speak, and learning to put into practice the years of written/reading/exam English they had learned?
There was one idea that I had in China which I never got to try... and that was to take a grammar form, isolate it (from other forms) and then drill it... BUT... in a communicative setting. Now having learned the 'labels' and the trends, I'm wondering... if this would indeed work.
The idea would be - to have the class sequenced by form. But, rather than teach the form in isolation (that is, from context and meaning which GT does), take the form, and teach it IN context. And then, drill (habit forming) the association between the form and the context. (There is an "approach" that I am working from -and that is to 'train' the students to associate context with form. This association is key to fluency I believe - I will explain this later).
(note: although the lesson is form sequenced, the associative process is the opposite. It is identifying the situation/context first, and then choosing the appropriate form. Not the other way around. Thus the form is 'contextually' driven)
So here is a simple activity (or two) that I thought up. I'll tackle 2 forms that were terrible that I encountered. The proper use of pronouns, and the proper use of past tense...
1. pronouns
In Chinese, he/she/it is all contained in one word "ta". Thus, there are no gender associations. So when students spoke, they would always make the blunder "He is my girl friend", or "She is my father". So how does one address this?
Well, the problem is association. They need to instinctively associate the right word in the right context. So an activity that drills this association would be helpful (so I think).
The activity that I was going to do (but never got to try) was to do a quick game. The game was to flash pictures of people, and quickly the students had to say a 1 liner using the he / she to get it right.
But then.. where it gets more complicated (phase 2) is to have the students FOCUS on something other than the he/she and then indirectly associate it. For example, if I had the pictures of people but with name tags. Then they would have to say "his name is xxx", "her name is xxx".
So they are not mentally focusing on "is this a he or she?" but on something else, and subconsciously?? peripherally? focus on that form. This could further be stretched out to have them describe the picture.. ie he is taller than her, she is taller than him. The idea is to flash the pictures fast, and have them describe it, and then have them so quick to 'associate' that it becomes second nature - a habit... and that instant reflex is what I believe to cause "fluency". There is no thought. The concept is linked (solidly) to the pronoun.
This activity can then easily be adapted into a more 'communicative' style (ie interview format), and easily sequenced into a task (ie. A murder mystery, or cop identifying a mug shot, a blame game - he did it! no she did it! etc etc)
Now there is another activity that can be done, but I will demonstrate with a 2nd exercise.
2. past tense verb:
My students were terrible at getting the right past tense. They couldn't use it right. Rather than teach it in isolation (near useless imo, unless they really didn't know what a past tense looks like) and understand the metalinguistic features, I wanted them to know how to use it. So I had to brainstorm and think of instances where past tense is used. In communication, it's in retelling past stories. In reporting. In a diary. (Present would be in descriptions, stating truths, etc).
So the idea for an activity was this.
They have to describe an event / scene / that took place last week. The students would write down a list of 10 things that happened and then describe it. It would all be done using the past tense. (for beginners, a prompt would help ie. write "Start with - 'Yesterday I...'"). Once they could say the story in past tense, they are good to go.. for phase 2.
There is a projector in my room and what I was planning on doing was to project the day on the screen. It would project "YESTERDAY", or "TODAY", or "TOMORROW". The students would have to relay the information to their partner (and this can easily be adapted into a communicative activity - perhaps the 2nd half of the class) in accordance to the time shown. Suddenly, midway through their conversation, an audible bell would sound, and the time would change. The students would then have to instantly *adapt* their conversation to use the correct tense. So instead of saying "yesterday i went to the store and bought a bag" the would switch to "tomorrow I will go to the store, and buy a bag..".
An intermediate stage can take place here where the correct form is corrected. (ie, the first switch from past to future - the T can go around and make sure everyone is using it right)
Again, like the previous exercise, as then, the activity continues and as the TIME switches, the Ss must adapt their conversations accordingly. The focus is once again on associating the conversational context with the correct form (verb tense).
As for making it communicative, this activity can also be adapted. For example, instead of simply retelling the events, it can be an information type dialogue that requires one student to ask the other questions.
Habit forming once again is the key: associating when to use what form. Context driven. Not the other way around.
Thus in this way, grammar / form / is the sequencing agent. But taught in context. In a communicative setting. And easily as part of a task based lesson.
Confidence and the "fear factor" in L2 acquisiton for adults
Hmmm I can't seem to run away from the 'confidence' and 'fear of failure' aspect of L2. A child is not afraid to speak the L1 wrong. But an adult is afraid to speak L2 wrong. The adult, will hesitate to speak and only when he has "applied" the correct monitor (grammar) and has 'reasonable confidence' in his utterance, will he speak. Self-feedback directly affects his confidence. (either self-applied grammar check, or knowing the 'correct form' and remembering it - like a memorized phrase he heard from TV or a native speaker)
... A child also has 'childlike faith' whereas an adult, needs to know why. Again - for security reasons. The adult questions what the child accepts...
... A child also has 'childlike faith' whereas an adult, needs to know why. Again - for security reasons. The adult questions what the child accepts...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)