During taking this class, I have learned different points of view about how we acquire or learn second language. Before taking this course, I have seldom thought the process of learning of language. So, I have struggled to understand various hypotheses. To me, all of them make sense. Even though I don’t know which one is the best explanation of learning second language, I kind of like Swain’s hypothesis, the output hypothesis.
Before, Swain (1985), output was considered just as a way of practicing what has previously learned. Swain suggested the crucial role for output in development of second language. I am fascinated by her view that she regarded output as a way of creating knowledge. That is, output can play a central role in the language learning process. Based on this hypothesis, I think about automaticity. In terms of output, automatization involves a learned response that has been built up through the consistent and successful mapping of grammar to output results in automatic processing. Therefore, to increase my automaticity, I need to practice more and produce more with using the target language. This hypothesis motivates me to speak in English more often. Even though I am not sure whether I can change my attitude or not, at least, I will try not to be shy to speak up in English.
I can't believe how quickly the time has gone by. I really appreciate our professor, Park. In this class, I have done many things that I’ve never done. At the first time, I had hard time to follow up the course. However, as time passed, I am pretty much used to doing things in the class. I hope that my academic attitudes would develop further through this course.
Thank you for your kind teaching!!
2010년 6월 7일 월요일
2010년 6월 2일 수요일
Feedback - Error Correction (SLA research in the classroom)
Feedback on error might be one of big issues in the EFL/ESL classroom; feedback provision allows SL learners to make progress in their ability to use the TL appropriately. Feedback is either positive or negative. Positive feedback is usually presented in the form of examples of acceptable or target-like utterances, whereas negative feedback includes information about what is not acceptable in the target language. Negative feedback may be explicit or implicit.
When I was in middle/high school, I think teacher’s feedback in classroom was mostly explicit negative feedback. However, nowadays, the emergence of communicative and content-based teaching approaches brought about some changes in the way feedback techniques are used in the classroom. There is now a shift from explicit negative feedback, which may lead to negative affective reactions on the part of the learners, to implicit negative feedback. One widely used implicit negative feedback technique in instructed second language acquisition is the recast- the teacher’s correct restatement of a learner’s incorrect utterance.
I am very interested in feedback in SLA based on my experiences. In my case, explicit negative feedback especially in interactional classroom activities made me intimidated and further increased my reluctance to use the target language. Moreover, I remembered when I received explicit feedback especially during speaking in English, sometimes, that led to negative affective reactions. I got embarrassed, demotivated, and developed passive attitudes towards the use of the target language. Those experiences urged me to try to find an alternative feedback technique that is more conducive to students. This is not to say that explicit negative feedback is useless however. In ESL class, if there is no explicit feedback, it may be increase for students encourage to use target language, but they may never learn real usege of the target language.
To satisfy my curiosity, I need to read more researches. It might be helpful to write my final paper.
When I was in middle/high school, I think teacher’s feedback in classroom was mostly explicit negative feedback. However, nowadays, the emergence of communicative and content-based teaching approaches brought about some changes in the way feedback techniques are used in the classroom. There is now a shift from explicit negative feedback, which may lead to negative affective reactions on the part of the learners, to implicit negative feedback. One widely used implicit negative feedback technique in instructed second language acquisition is the recast- the teacher’s correct restatement of a learner’s incorrect utterance.
I am very interested in feedback in SLA based on my experiences. In my case, explicit negative feedback especially in interactional classroom activities made me intimidated and further increased my reluctance to use the target language. Moreover, I remembered when I received explicit feedback especially during speaking in English, sometimes, that led to negative affective reactions. I got embarrassed, demotivated, and developed passive attitudes towards the use of the target language. Those experiences urged me to try to find an alternative feedback technique that is more conducive to students. This is not to say that explicit negative feedback is useless however. In ESL class, if there is no explicit feedback, it may be increase for students encourage to use target language, but they may never learn real usege of the target language.
To satisfy my curiosity, I need to read more researches. It might be helpful to write my final paper.
2010년 5월 26일 수요일
The Role of Attention in SLA
I think the role of attention in learning language is quite obvious to influence whether the learner success to acquire the target language or fail to. That is, how learner attention may be manipulated for the purpose of enhancing it, and hence enhancing acquisition.
According to this research (Park & Han), there are two sources of attention. One is learner-external. The other is learner-internal. The attention is related to the salience. That is, the more salient the input is, the more attention it will garner, and hence more noticing. There are also two types of salience. One is external salience which is derived by a teacher or researcher. The other is internal salience that is born from the learner. Between two types of salience, internal salience is focused in this paper. Furthermore, L1 is regarded as a contribution factor to internal salience.
In this research, there are three research questions;
(1) What features of the L2 input do novice learners notice when exposed to the TL input for the very first time?
(2) What features of the L2 input do they notice after they have been taught some linguistic items of the TL?
(3) Do learners with different L1 backgrounds exhibit differential attentional behavior, and if so, to what extents is it related to their existing knowledge of the L2?
In this research, they found that L1 affects L2 input processing, particularly in the early stage of learning. There is an interaction between such influence and the typological distance between the L1 and the L2. In other words, if the L1 is typologically distant from the L2, the input- processing approach tends to be form-oriented. In contrast, if the L1 is typologically close to the L2 it tends to be meaning-oriented.
Reading this article, I suddenly remembered when I had roommates from Italy and Brazil. One day, one of my roommates, Lagia, from Italy, had argued with her boyfriend over the telephone in Italian. After she hung up the telephone, the other roommates, Marcella, from Brazil offered words of consolation. That time, I was very surprised at how Marcella understood what Lagia said. So, I asked Marcella whether she spoke Italian or not. She told me that Italian and Spanish are very similar. So, when she tried to listen to Italian carefully, she could understand what it meant.
Now, I understand why it was possible. That because, Italian and Spanish are typologically similar. It might be alike that Koreans can learn Japanese more easily than Chinese.
After I read this article, it is interested to me that learner’s current linguistic knowledge affect learning language.
According to this research (Park & Han), there are two sources of attention. One is learner-external. The other is learner-internal. The attention is related to the salience. That is, the more salient the input is, the more attention it will garner, and hence more noticing. There are also two types of salience. One is external salience which is derived by a teacher or researcher. The other is internal salience that is born from the learner. Between two types of salience, internal salience is focused in this paper. Furthermore, L1 is regarded as a contribution factor to internal salience.
In this research, there are three research questions;
(1) What features of the L2 input do novice learners notice when exposed to the TL input for the very first time?
(2) What features of the L2 input do they notice after they have been taught some linguistic items of the TL?
(3) Do learners with different L1 backgrounds exhibit differential attentional behavior, and if so, to what extents is it related to their existing knowledge of the L2?
In this research, they found that L1 affects L2 input processing, particularly in the early stage of learning. There is an interaction between such influence and the typological distance between the L1 and the L2. In other words, if the L1 is typologically distant from the L2, the input- processing approach tends to be form-oriented. In contrast, if the L1 is typologically close to the L2 it tends to be meaning-oriented.
Reading this article, I suddenly remembered when I had roommates from Italy and Brazil. One day, one of my roommates, Lagia, from Italy, had argued with her boyfriend over the telephone in Italian. After she hung up the telephone, the other roommates, Marcella, from Brazil offered words of consolation. That time, I was very surprised at how Marcella understood what Lagia said. So, I asked Marcella whether she spoke Italian or not. She told me that Italian and Spanish are very similar. So, when she tried to listen to Italian carefully, she could understand what it meant.
Now, I understand why it was possible. That because, Italian and Spanish are typologically similar. It might be alike that Koreans can learn Japanese more easily than Chinese.
After I read this article, it is interested to me that learner’s current linguistic knowledge affect learning language.
2010년 5월 17일 월요일
The Comprehensible Output Hypothesis
What I learned last class ‘Krashen's Input Hypothesis’ is that output has no functions in acquiring the target language. However, Swain asserts that output does a lot of important functions in SLA.
In the 1980s, the word “output” was used to indicate the outcome, or product, of the language acquisition device. Output was synonymous with “what the learner/system has learned.” The output hypothesis claims that the act of producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the process of second language learning.
According to Swain, there are three functions of output. First, it is the noticing/triggering function. The claim is that while attempting to produce the target language, learners may notice that they do not know how to say or write precisely the meaning they wish to convey. Secondly, it is the hypothesis testing function. The claim is that output may sometimes be, from the learner’s perspective, a “trial run” reflecting their hypothesis of how to say or write their intent. If learners were not testing hypotheses, then changes in their output would not be expected following feedback. Furthermore, students were more likely to modify their output, and do so successfully, when they were pushed to do so. It is important for students to actually produce the targeted linguistic items correctly, supporting the notion that in these cases the learners were actively seeking feedback through hypothesis testing. Thirdly, it is the metalinguistic (reflective) function of output. The claim here is that using language to reflect on language produced by others or the self, mediates second language learning.
However, what we need do understand is that it does mean not comprehensible output is responsible for all or even most of our language competence, but under some conditions, output facilitates second language learning in ways that are different form, or enhance, those of input.
When I look back how I have learned English as a second language, I could acquire English through both sufficient comprehensible input and output with appropriate feedback from instructors. Therefore, now, it is hard for me to say whether I have learned English through only input or output. I think that it is not appropriate to consider that there is only one way to learn second language because I think there are various factors which influence for acquiring second language.
In the 1980s, the word “output” was used to indicate the outcome, or product, of the language acquisition device. Output was synonymous with “what the learner/system has learned.” The output hypothesis claims that the act of producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the process of second language learning.
According to Swain, there are three functions of output. First, it is the noticing/triggering function. The claim is that while attempting to produce the target language, learners may notice that they do not know how to say or write precisely the meaning they wish to convey. Secondly, it is the hypothesis testing function. The claim is that output may sometimes be, from the learner’s perspective, a “trial run” reflecting their hypothesis of how to say or write their intent. If learners were not testing hypotheses, then changes in their output would not be expected following feedback. Furthermore, students were more likely to modify their output, and do so successfully, when they were pushed to do so. It is important for students to actually produce the targeted linguistic items correctly, supporting the notion that in these cases the learners were actively seeking feedback through hypothesis testing. Thirdly, it is the metalinguistic (reflective) function of output. The claim here is that using language to reflect on language produced by others or the self, mediates second language learning.
However, what we need do understand is that it does mean not comprehensible output is responsible for all or even most of our language competence, but under some conditions, output facilitates second language learning in ways that are different form, or enhance, those of input.
When I look back how I have learned English as a second language, I could acquire English through both sufficient comprehensible input and output with appropriate feedback from instructors. Therefore, now, it is hard for me to say whether I have learned English through only input or output. I think that it is not appropriate to consider that there is only one way to learn second language because I think there are various factors which influence for acquiring second language.
2010년 5월 10일 월요일
Interlanguage Processing
Krashen tried to distinguish between acquisition and learning. According to Krashen, language acquisition is a subconscious process, while language learning is a conscious knowledge. It really makes sense. However, there is a controversial issue. In Krashen’s view, the acquired system is used to produce language while the learned system serves as an inspector of the acquired system. Furthermore, learned knowledge cannot lead to acquired knowledge. However, I am wondering how we can prove that there are separate systems between the acquisition and learning. When I first heard this distinguish, I agreed with that. However, I reminded that speaking is initiated through the acquired system. If Krashen’s view is true, how have learners like me ever produced L2 production?
Schmidt proposed the noticing hypothesis. Awareness through attention is necessary for noticing which in turn is essential for learning. For this hypothesis, there is the idea of noticing a gap. That is, a second language learner will begin to acquire the target like form if and only if it is present in comprehended input and ‘noticed’ in the normal sense of the word, that is consciously. However, noticing alone does not mean it is automatically acquired, but it is the essential starting point. But I am wondering whether a learner must consciously notice something.
Krashen introduces Monitor Model. The Monitor is an important term for understand Krashen’s view. The Monitor is also related to the distinction between acquisition and learning. The learned system has a special function to serve as a Monitor which alters the output of the acquired system. In other words, the Monitor is responsible for linking the acquired and learned systems in a situation of language use. The only function of the Monitor is editing utterance. For activating the monitor, there are three conditions that must be met; time, focus on form, know the rule. However, Krashen mentioned that these three conditions are necessary, but they are not necessarily sufficient. That is, the Monitor may not be activated even when all three conditions have been satisfied. But I’m wondering whether we have enough time to monitor during real conversation. And also, how do we prove where the rule used for utterance comes from.
Schmidt proposed the noticing hypothesis. Awareness through attention is necessary for noticing which in turn is essential for learning. For this hypothesis, there is the idea of noticing a gap. That is, a second language learner will begin to acquire the target like form if and only if it is present in comprehended input and ‘noticed’ in the normal sense of the word, that is consciously. However, noticing alone does not mean it is automatically acquired, but it is the essential starting point. But I am wondering whether a learner must consciously notice something.
Krashen introduces Monitor Model. The Monitor is an important term for understand Krashen’s view. The Monitor is also related to the distinction between acquisition and learning. The learned system has a special function to serve as a Monitor which alters the output of the acquired system. In other words, the Monitor is responsible for linking the acquired and learned systems in a situation of language use. The only function of the Monitor is editing utterance. For activating the monitor, there are three conditions that must be met; time, focus on form, know the rule. However, Krashen mentioned that these three conditions are necessary, but they are not necessarily sufficient. That is, the Monitor may not be activated even when all three conditions have been satisfied. But I’m wondering whether we have enough time to monitor during real conversation. And also, how do we prove where the rule used for utterance comes from.
2010년 5월 5일 수요일
Krashen's Hypothesis
What are the important factors to learn foreign language?
Many people think that learners can acquire language naturally when the learners are exposed to the target language environment as much as possible. Maybe, most parents who send their children to study abroad believe that. However, I am doubtful if the language environment is the only condition for leaning language.
Thanks to my parents, I had stayed in Canada for 5 years. However, I do not think that my English is better than those who have studied English only in Korea. In retrospect, my personality was the most chief obstacle to leaning foreign languages. I hated that someone pointed out what I was wrong about. Moreover, I really hated that I made same mistakes over and over again in front of other people. Therefore, I tried to avoid using English if possible.
According to Affective Filter Hypothesis by Krashen, a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.
Many people think that learners can acquire language naturally when the learners are exposed to the target language environment as much as possible. Maybe, most parents who send their children to study abroad believe that. However, I am doubtful if the language environment is the only condition for leaning language.
Thanks to my parents, I had stayed in Canada for 5 years. However, I do not think that my English is better than those who have studied English only in Korea. In retrospect, my personality was the most chief obstacle to leaning foreign languages. I hated that someone pointed out what I was wrong about. Moreover, I really hated that I made same mistakes over and over again in front of other people. Therefore, I tried to avoid using English if possible.
According to Affective Filter Hypothesis by Krashen, a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.
2010년 4월 21일 수요일
Schmidt and Frota, 1986
In this time, I just read the article brifely, so, I am not sure what I undersatand is right or not.
Among various contents, the word 'noticing' captured me.
The noticing Hypothesis is the claim that second language learners must consciously notice the grammatical form of their input in order to acquire grammar. That is, the hypothesis is a claim about how input becomes intake – that part of the input that is used for acquisition. It claims that conscious awareness of grammar plays an important role in the process.
Noticing the gap is learners’ awareness of a mismatch between the input and their current interlanguage. The conscious awareness of the gap is a requirement. And then, arguments that learners must compare input to their interlanguage grammar are not arguments for noticing.
Among various contents, the word 'noticing' captured me.
The noticing Hypothesis is the claim that second language learners must consciously notice the grammatical form of their input in order to acquire grammar. That is, the hypothesis is a claim about how input becomes intake – that part of the input that is used for acquisition. It claims that conscious awareness of grammar plays an important role in the process.
Noticing the gap is learners’ awareness of a mismatch between the input and their current interlanguage. The conscious awareness of the gap is a requirement. And then, arguments that learners must compare input to their interlanguage grammar are not arguments for noticing.
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)
