Reminder :Due date of our draft
Dr. Ortega extended the due date of our draft from Tuesday, November 6 to Tuesday, November 11.
Summary:
This week, we read chapter 8 on Affect on Tuesday (Hatsumi, Megumi, and Miyung, thank you for great facilitation!). On Thursday, we discuss myths about affect and L2 learning.
Tuesday
As we did last week, the facilitators give us chance to brainstorm in pairs to think about own definition on affect, one aspect of affect, and how affect relate to our second language learning. The groups mentioned about anxiety, correlation of WTC and communicative competence, personality (introvert vs. extravert), affect on self language learning (pleasure of challenging knowledge can be affect) and so on.
According to Arnold & Brown (1999), affect is “The aspects of emotion, feeling, mood, or attitude, which condition behavior.” Three dimensions of affect are personality (e.g. shyness), changeable factors (e.g. positive/negative language attitude), and constantly fluctuating states (e.g. enthusiasm, anxiety, boredom, apathy, elation.) Although we covered personality, anxiety, WTC, and strategies, the facilitator emphasized affect cover more than them.
We were divided into 4 groups in order to summarize and report influence of each affect. Scenario was given to each group.
1. Personality in L2 Learning
Scenario: In your class, you identify some talkative students dominating and some students who avoid participating in class activities. (Do you see it as problematic? If so, how do you deal with it? If not, why not?)
According to Group 1:
It ranges from slightly problematic to problematic depending on the context and expectation of the class. Solutions are preparing a variety of exercises with various topic and assign roles and so on.
2. Foreign Language anxiety
Scenario: You are in Japan studying abroad. All of your classmates are Japanese who don’t speak English well. Then you are asked to introduce yourself in Japanese. You feel very anxious. (How would you overcome the situation and survive the rest of the semester?)
According to Group 2:
•Comforting myself first and introduce myself.
•Making friends and conduct language exchange.
•Sending email to ask questions.
We argued the last point because it may be difficult for the person to write questions in Japanese.
3. Willingness to communicate
Scenario: You are taking 3 courses this semester.
Class 1. You know a lot about the topic
Class 2. You don’t know a lot but are very interested in the topic.
Class 3. You are neither knowledgeable nor interested in the topic. But the classroom atmosphere is very friendly.
(In which class do you feel most comfortable initiating the conversation? Why?)
According to Group 3:
Each group member seemed to have a different preference. One member said that she preferred the class 1 at first but in the class 3 also she could feel comfortable to initiate the conversation because of her experience. In one class which has a lot of international students, everybody nodded to whatever she said.
4. Learning strategies
Scenario: You are hosting an international student who has a poor memory for vocabulary learning. You try to introduce new words but the student keeps forgetting them. (What kind of effective strategies would you provide the student?)
According to Group 4:
Since the context was home stay, task base would be effective. The international student would not be assessed because we were a host family. (I do not want be assess when I home stayed… )
At last, we worked on WTC battery test and come up with critiques.
Thursday
We were divided into 4 groups in order to discuss myths about affect and L2 learning.
The two myths which Dr. Ortega prepared were:
Myth 1:
Extraversion is something that helps language learning; extraverted people have a good start, an advantage, and are likely to be better language learners.
Myth 2:
Concern for accuracy is a good thing, students who are accuracy-oriented (i.e., they are care about being accurate and pay attention to it) are likely to learn more and better than people who do not worry about accuracy.
Next week will continue to talk about Myths on language learning. I try to collect other myths now.
These are myths I got from each group so far
Masaki's group
Myth 1:
Intrinsic motivation is better than extrinsic motivation.
Myth 2:
Language learners cannot acquire the native-like language fluency and accuracy until they live in the foreign county where people speak the target language.
Myth 3:
Learners can dramatically improve their language skill in the second language context.
Myth 4:
Making a lot of mistakes help you learn the target language.
Myth 5:
Talking with native speakers help you learn the target language rather than talking with non-native speakers.
Myth 6:
Watching TV in the foreign language help you learn the target language.
Myth7:
The more motivation, the more participation in the class.
Ben's group
Myth 1:
The Japanese brain is neutologically wired in a way which makes speaking and understanding Enflish extremely difficult when compared to other ethnic groups.
Myth 2:
People who speak faster are smarter and better at languages.
Myth 3:
People who speak many languaegs are smarter.
People who are smart can learn language fast.
Hatsumi's group
Myth 1:
Musicality is related to languagelearning ability. People who have learned music when they were young have high aptiude in language learning.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Class Meeting Reflection: Week 10
Tuesday, October 23, 2007:
Class Discussion of Motivation in L2 Learning
Motivation has always played a crucial part in Second/Foreign language (L2) learning research since it came to the scene almost 50 years ago. Through many years of development, L2 motivation researchers have contributed a great amount of literature to this interesting yet challenging area of investigation. The problem is, despite the available scholarship and the awareness of the key role motivation plays, most L2 teachers and learners, including many of us in this class, I believe, have never been able to fully understand its nature. This chapter, therefore, was especially beneficial for us as language teachers and future researchers in that it gave us an opportunity to explore further into the components that constitute the often-talked-about notion of L2 learning motivation. For a summary of the main points in the chapter, please reread Masaki’s preview posted on September 3, 2007 on our class blog.
To better prepare participants for the discussion, the facilitators (Ben, Masaki, and Ky) had posted an L2 motivation literature review on the class blog. Then in class, the first thing they did was to have participants brainstorm in groups to answer three questions about motivation, namely its definition, its role in L2 learning and teaching, and possible ways to motivate L2 learners. This was a good way to activate participants’ knowledge and lead them into the topic. In giving out their own definition, most groups came up with something quite close to famous reseachers’ (e.g., Gardner, 1985; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991), using key words such as “desire”, “orientation”, and “goal”, etc., which showed that they had comprehended quite well chapter 7 in Dr. Ortega’s book.
In discussing Wilga Rivers’ (1997) famous statement “Motivation springs from within; it can be sparked, but not imposed from without”, the class came to a unanimous decision that this is very true about the essence of motivation. Earlier in her definition, Samantha stressed the term “innate” when describing motivation, which sparked a few disagreements from other class members and Dr. Ortega because, as they asserted, although motivation is something that begins from within the learner, it is not what they were born with but instead could develop along the course of learning.
In order to refresh participants’ knowledge of motivation from the reading, the facilitators then had the class work in 4 random groups to discuss and summarize the most important points of major parts of the chapter which included antecedents of motivation, self-determination theory and intrinsic motivation, EFL learners’ orientations and attitudes, and dynamic motivation. The group discussions and reports greatly benefited all class members because it not only provided a chance for them to review what they have read in the chapter but also helped to identify points that needed clarifying, which was immediately provided by Dr. Ortega and other participants in their follow-up comments.
Because many class members are interested in pedagogy, and also because there was unanimous agreement with Dornyei’s (2001) idea that “teacher skills in motivating learners should be seen as central to teaching effectiveness”, the last part of the class discussion was dedicated to pedagogical applications of methods to bring motivation into the L2 classroom. The facilitators provided 4 L2 classroom scenarios for which participants will have to work in groups to come up with effective ways to motivate their students. Following are the situations:
- You are teaching an EFL course in an Asian country. The students in your class almost always speak their native language both in and out of class. How would you motivate them to use English?
- You are teaching EFL in an Asian high school class and you want to bring Communicative Language Teaching (TBLT, CBLT, etc.) into your classroom, but your students are strongly resistant to the approach because their goal is to pass the university entrance exam and what they want to learn are grammar and test preparation. How would you motivate them to learn English communicatively and accept your approach?
- You are teaching Academic Writing at the ELI of an American university. The international students in your class didn’t choose to be there but they “had to”. Because these students think their English is good enough and due to their busy class schedule, they don’t participate very actively in class activities and often neglect their homework. How would you motivate them?
- You are teaching an ESL course twice a week at a community school for adult in Honolulu. Some students don’t come to the class very often and even if they do, they don’t participate in class activities as actively as you expect. How would you motivate those students?
Before this activity was carried out, there had been concern about whether there would be enough time, but the class finally insisted that the discussion be done in class that day and the reports be saved for the following meeting. As predicted, we ran out of time and the groups were therefore asked to bring their ideas back for class reports on Thursday, which, unfortunately, could not come true due to the lack of time in the following session.
All in all, the class discussion activities were well received by class members. It is undeniable that these activities have helped to consolidate and enhance participants’ knowledge of motivation in L2 learning. It is also beneficial for participants, many of whom are and will be L2 teachers, that activities to promote pedagogic applications of L2 learning motivation were brought up for discussion and reflections. I am sure the knowledge we gain from this chapter will go with us for the rest of our life.
Thursday, October 25, 2007:
IRB & Application for New Approval of a Study Involving Human Subjects
Application for IRB clearance is a complicated process, especially for student researchers who have very little experience in doing so. Dr. Ortega’s handout of the application and detailed explanation of the steps were therefore more than appreciated in the second class meeting of this week. Following is a brief summary of the main points of notice
- Project title: Make sure it is the same as your paper’s title.
- Start date: Don’t confuse this with application date. It’s a good idea to type “as soon as I get clearance from IRB” into this space instead of a specific date. Remember the start date can’t be earlier the application date!
- Summarize your proposed research. Outline objectives and methods: Word this section as a plan, i.e., use the future tenses where appropriate. In as few words as possible, try to convey the reason(s), purpose(s), and research method(s) you will use.
- Summarize all involvement of humans in this project: In this section, words such as “ideally”, “about”, “up to”, etc. should be used when referring to the number of humans involved. You should also include the frequency and procedure of involvement.
Tip: If you teach a class and do something for your teaching purpose (survey, evaluation, activities, etc.) and later want to include some of those data into the study, it is wise not to mention that in the application.
- Describe mechanism for safety monitoring: If you have any specific way to protect the privacy of participants, list them here. Useful phrases include: “there are no risks”, “voluntary”, “no names will be used”, “data will not be identifiable”, etc.
- Benefits to each human subject or to mankind: Be realistic when you write this section. It is a good idea to give participants some small remuneration, and don’t forget to include that information in this part. However, benefits of significant financial value can risk your chance of getting the clearance as they may think you are trying to “buy” participants.
In general, IRB procedures are often complicated, but it is necessary and you will have to do that sometime before your graduation (e.g., when you write your SP, thesis, or dissertation, not to mention articles for presentation at conferences and/or publication). Because your professors/advisors will have to be responsible for your application, it is important to let them know of your intention and ask them to help revise your application before submitting it.
Finally, please join me in thanking Dr. Ortega for providing us with very very helpful information and valuable advices. 
Also, thank you all for your active participation in the class discussion
Monday, October 22, 2007
Motivation Literature Review
Dear classmates,
To prepare for Tuesday's class discussion, please read the chapter in Dr. Ortega's book thoroughly. Here's some literature review by an anonymous author, which, hopefully, will help you enjoy the chapter better.
See you in class,
Ben, Masaki, & Ky
Literature review of motivation
in second and foreign language acquisition
I. Introduction
Motivation is not at all a new topic of concern in second and foreign language (L2) teaching and learning, yet it still draws much attention from the many parties who are involved in the profession, including researchers, curriculum developers, teacher trainers, and teachers themselves. After decades of research and discussion (Gardner & Lambert, 1959 & 1972; Lukmani, 1972; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Brown, 2000; Dornyei, 2001; and McGroarty, 2001, just to name a few), it has been concluded that motivation is undeniably an essential component that decides successful acquisition of an L2. As Dornyei (2001) pointed out, “'teacher skills in motivating learners should be seen as central to teaching effectiveness”, which means motivation now lies at the heart of L2 teaching and learning activities. Consequently, theorists have been trying nonstop to find out the most effective ways to motivate learners with a view to achieving a long-desired methodology which could be the most productive in the L2 classroom.
Unfortunately, as Dornyei (2001) observed, in reality, motivation still has a very limited place in the curriculum of L2 teacher education programs worldwide. It seems paradoxical that teachers are still not equipped with enough necessary skills to motivate their students while motivation’s central role in L2 acquisition has long been recognized and much research has been done in recent decades. As such, it is necessary that this issue be brought up over again so as to keep reminding teachers and teacher trainers of the benefit they can and should gain from available scholarship and findings in the field. The purpose of this report is therefore first of all to review current literature concerning motivation in L2 teaching and learning, then proposing several prerequisites for further research into one possible source of effective motivation in the language classroom which is the test preparation process.
II. The history of motivation research in L2 teaching and learning
As mentioned earlier, research into motivation in the field of L2 teaching and learning has taken place over the past 4 decades or so. During that course of development, the topic of motivation has been addressed from a wide variety of angles and perspectives and has undergone significant changes in terms of both approaches and findings. After years of intensive study and observation, Dornyei (2005) summarized the history of motivation research into three stages namely the social psychological, the cognitive-situated, and the process-oriented periods.
According to Dornyei (2005, pp.66-67), the first period lasted from 1959 to 1990 and was most active in Canada with researches done by Robert Gardner and his associates whose approach was formed through a doctrine that “students’ attitudes toward the specific language group are bound to influence how successful they will be in incorporating aspects of that language” (Gardner, 1985, quoted by Dornyei, 2005), which means that there was an integration of individual focuses and social psychology in the study of motivation in language learning. Beside distinguishing motivation in L2 teaching and learning from that in other school subjects, Gardner greatly contributed to the development of motivation research by introducing the instrumental and integrative motivation concepts and providing the attitude/motivation test battery (AMTB) which helps to define motivational factors (Gardner, 2001).
Next came the cognitive-situated period in the 1990s with the prevalence of research drawing on cognitive theories in educational psychology which encompassed two popular trends namely “the desire to catch up with advances in motivational psychology and to extend our understanding of L2 motivation by importing some of the most influential concepts of the 1980s” and “the desire to narrow down the macroperspective of L2 motivation… to a more fine-tuned and situated analysis of motivation as it operates in actual learning situations” (Dornyei, 2005, pp.74-75). Graham Crookes and Richard Schmidt (1991) were deservedly given credit for bringing up new research atmosphere in the field through their article “Motivation: Reopening the research agenda”, which incited much study into the various aspects of L2 classroom motivation components including the teacher, the curriculum, and the learner group (Williams & Burden, 1997). Still drawing on theories previously developed by Gardner, researchers in this period started to examine a broader spectrum of contextual factors that supposedly have to do with motivation, among which were multiculturalism, language globalization, and intercultural communication, etc. The three most important landmarks introduced in this period were the self-determination theory, the attribution theory, and task motivation. The first theory laid stress on the importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motives and was vigorously discussed and supported by works of Douglas Brown (1994), Deci and Ryan (2002), and Kim Noels (2001), among others. The second theory gained predominance in the 1980s as “it successfully linked people’s past experiences with their future achievement efforts” (Dornyei, 2005, p. 79). Research into task motivation, whose focus, according to Dornyei (2005), was on a task processing system consisting of task execution, appraisal, and action control, hinged around the question of “how to operationalize the dynamic interface between motivational attributes and specific language behaviors” (p. 81).
The process-oriented period in L2 learning motivation has strongly emerged in the past few years with considerable acclaim as it looks into various motivational phases which have long drawn attention from L2 acquisition researchers. This period is most clearly marked with efforts by Dornyei and his associates. Particularly, Dornyei and Otto (1998) successfully introduced a process model that explores the multi-faceted motivational evolution in L2 research, which distinguishes the three different phases in L2 motivation, namely the Preactional Stage in which motivation is generated, the Actional Stage where motivation is maintained and protected, and the Postactional Stage that focuses on the learners’ retrospective evaluation of what happened in the previous stages. However, as Dornyei (2005, p.87) admitted, because of its novelty, the process-oriented conception of L2 motivation is still in controversy and needs further testing.
III. Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation
As the term itself suggests, intrinsic motivation is motivation from within the students (Lumsden, 1994), and they learn simply because learning gives them a sense of satisfaction and self-concept. In other words, intrinsic motivation is what people will do without external inducement. Among other notable findings in intrinsic motivation research, Marlone and Lepper (1987) have succeeded in introducing a synthetic way to design intrinsically motivating learning environments which is shown through individual factors and interpersonal factors. While the former attaches importance to the situation where the student works a lone, the latter emphasizes the interaction between the student and other people. Factors usually listed as promoters of intrinsic motivation include challenge, curiosity, control, fantasy, competition, cooperation, and recognition (Vockell, 2001).
Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is motivation to engage in an activity as a means to an end. Individuals who are extrinsically motivated work on tasks because they believe that participation will result in desirable outcomes such as a reward, teacher praise, or avoidance of punishment. Usually, the students learn the language because they feel they have to do so and not because they want to do so, which means the learning process takes place somewhat reluctantly. This kind of motivation is especially emphasized by behavioral psychologists who seek to explain motivation as reinforcement theory.
Many a researcher has asserted the prevalence of intrinsic over extrinsic motivation on the ground that the former is more sustainable and voluntary while the latter can easily be eradicated once there is no more reward to be earned or the students do not feel obligated to learn any more. They say intrinsic motivation brings the learner more potential benefits and that students who are intrinsically motivated tend to try harder and think more deeply in their learning process. However, it is also widely believed that extrinsic motivation is especially important where there is no intrinsically motivated aspect within the learners because it will push them into learning even if they feel reluctant to do so.
IV. Noted Models of Motivation
IV.1. The Socio-Educational Model
This model of motivation was closely linked with studies conducted by
According to
Since the appearance of these two concepts of motivation, there have been numerous research and discussions that try to explain their roles in L2 acquisition. Many of the researchers have so far been of the opinion that integrative motivation has a more important role than its instrumental counterpart (Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972; Noels, Pelletier, Clement & Vallerand, 2000) because it represents the perception of language skills as an integral part in participating in the social groups that use the L2. Some researchers (e.g. Falk, 1978) strongly believed that the admiration of the culture and the people who speak the target language, and the possession of a desire to get familiar with or even become integrated into the target language community can bring great success to the L2 learner. Others asserted that integrative motivation has a more influential role to play in the success of L2 acquisition (Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972). McDonough (1981) even divided integrative motivation into two types: assimilative motivation, which shows a strong motivation to assimilate into the L2 group, and affiliative motivation, which simply indicates a weak motivation and wish to have greater contact with L2 speakers.
However, in recent years, further research into instrumental motivation (Dornyei 1990, 1998; Brown, 2000) has disclaimed the (falsely) notorious superiority of integrative motivation in L2 teaching and learning. Dornyei (1998) claimed that instrumental dimensions are important (extrinsic) constituents of motivation. This is especially true in situations where the target language is a foreign language. When L2 learners do not have the opportunity to integrate into the target language group, that is, they do not feel the need to learn the L2 in order to become a member of that community, instrumental motivation has the vital role in that it makes language learning happen and puts pressure on the learners to maintain their course of learning. In fact, even in countries like
Much as they have been distinguished through decades, instrumental and integrative motivation in fact mutually benefits from each other. This viewpoint is strongly supported by Brown (2000) who believes that the two types of motivation are “not necessarily mutually exclusive”. He argues that, more often than not, L2 learners tend to choose both forms of motivation instead of just one. These learners usually learn the L2 not only to fulfill their required tasks but also with the hope that they can become an integrative part of the L2 community. Some researchers even denied the possibility to practically distinguish between instrumental and integrative motivation. Again, it is important to note that integrative motivation has been attracting much more research in L2 acquisition than its counterpart, which means there could be impartiality and subjectiveness if we compare the two on the mere ground of literature available in the field.
IV.2. Some other popular theories and models until the early 1980s
After the much acclaimed introduction of Gardner and Lambert’s (1959) Socio-Educational Model of motivation in L2 learning, other researchers began to work hard on the topic, making considerable contribution to the development of L2 motivation research arena. Schumann (1978, 1986) came to the scene with his Acculturation Model, which sought to look into the effects of personal variables including relative status, attitude, integration, amount of time in the culture, size of the learning group, and cohesiveness of the group. Schumann especially paid attention to adult learners of L2 and suggested three strategies for successful L2 acquisition: assimilation, rejection of target culture, and acculturation. He also believes that the more acculturated the learners are, the more successfully they will acquire the target language.
In 1985,
"An integratively oriented learner would likely have a stronger desire to learn the language, have more positive attitudes towards the learning situation, and be more likely to expend more effort in learning the language” (Gardner, 1985).
IV.3. Dornyei and his motivation research
Dornyei is one of the first researchers to argue that instrumental motivation even has a more important role in L2 acquisition in foreign language contexts than integrative motivation (1990). He first focused his studies on the Instrumental Motivational Subsystem, the Integrative Motivational Subsystem, the Need for Achievement, and the Attribution about past failures. In 1994, Dornyei introduced his famous taxonomy of motivation which included three levels: the Language Level, the Learner Level, and the Learning Situation Level. According to Dornyei (1994), the Language Level focuses on "orientations and motives related to various aspects of the L2” which determine the language studied and the most basic learning goals. The Learner Level, which has to do with the learner’s internal characteristics, affects motivation through the learner’s need for achievement and self-confidence. The Learning Situation Level emphasizes the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motives including course specific (interest, relevance, expectancy, satisfaction), teacher specific (affiliative motive, authority type – controlling vs. autonomy, supporting, modeling, task presentation, feedback), and group specific (goal-orientedness, reward system, group cohesiveness, classroom goal structure). Later on, Dornyei suggested seven main motivational dimensions (1998) namely the Affective/ Integrative Dimension (which includes the concepts of integrative motives, affective motives, language attitudes, intrinsic motives/ attitudes towards L2, and learning/ enjoyment/ interest), the Instrumental/Pragmatic Dimension, the Macro-Context-Related Dimension (multi-cultural/ intergroup/ ethnolinguistic relations), the Self-Concept-Related Dimension (generalized/ trait-like personality factors), the Goal-Related Dimension, The Educational Context-Related Dimension (learning/ classroom/ school environment), and the Others-Related Dimension (parents, family, friends). Up until now, Dornyei has continued to make valuable contributions to the development of research in L2 acquisition (see, for example, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005, among others).
IV.4. A new turn in L2 motivation research
Following Crookes & Schmidt’s (1991) critique of traditional theory and call for a new research agenda in L2 motivation, “the climate of research interest in language learning motivation has changed quite dramatically (Ushioda, 2001). The topic interest was significantly revived in 1994 with a series of articles by Dornyei, Gardner & Tremblay,
In an effort to change the research atmosphere, Noels (2001) tried to generate a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative motivation, in which she once again distinguishes the concepts of orientations and motivation. She starts off by discussing the relations between intrinsic and extrinsic orientations and relevant language learning variables, then the relations between intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations. The role of significant others and the language learning context are also analyzed in great details before a conclusion towards an integrated model of motivation is made (2001, pp. 60-61).
Other researchers in the field have also tried to approach the topic in several new directions (see, for example, Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001; MacIntyre, MacMaster & Baker, 2001; Dornyei, 2005). Although there has been considerable initial success, much remains to be done in order to bring theories and models of motivation into real life practice and make L2 acquisition a less burdensome task for mankind.
.......
References
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principle of language learning and teaching (4th ed.).
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination.
Dornyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning, Language
Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom.
Dornyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the language learner. Mahwah:
Dornyei, Z., & Otto,
Falk, J. (1978). Linguistics and language : A survey of basic concepts and implications
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The roles of
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z.
Luckmani, Y. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language learning,
Lumsden, L. S. (1994). Student motivation to learn. ERIC Digest No. 92. ERIC
MacIntyre, P. D., MacMaster, K., & Baker, S. C. (2001). The convergence of multiple
McCroskey. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language
Marlone, T. W., & Lepper, M. (1987). Making learning fun. In A. Snow & M. J. Farr
McDonough, S.H. (1981). Psychology in Foreign Language Teaching.
McGroarty, M. (2001). Situating second language motivation. In Z. Dornyei & R.
Noels, K. A. (2001). New orientations in language learning motivation: Toward a
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R. & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you
Schmidt, R., & Watanabe, Y. (2001). Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In
Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language
Ushioda, E. (1994). L2 motivation as a qualitative construct. Teanga, 14, 76-84.
Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational
Vockell, E. L. (2001). Educational Psychology: A Practical Approach (Online Ed.).
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Week 9 Reflection
Reflection Week 9
Aptitude
(sorry, color and cool pretty effects aren't available on my computer)
Personal Issues:
I’ve always been rather fascinated with language aptitude… before I even had any clue what it was. It’s interesting stuff! I remember visiting my grandfather in Florida when I was a kid. He’d sit in the corner of his room at the old-folks home and complain about the nurses, the food… or just about anything and everything in heavily accented slightly broken English. It was funny. He was in his late eighties and had lived in the United States for over 70 years, yet his English was… well… not so great. That in itself isn’t funny. You find it a lot. The funny thing was that he spoke over 10 languages. He’d talk story with Haitian nurses in French and he rarely spoken in anything but German with my mother. According to those involved he had a greater mastery of pronunciation and fluency in these foreign languages, languages that he learned as an adult, that had little in common with his native languages.
I noticed more of the same while teaching in Japan. I had students who had worked hard at learning English for years with little growth while other students who lackadaisically attended classes and rarely studied continued to progress at a steady rate.
These examples resulted in musings and puzzlement for me. I decided aptitude is weird and complex. Before coming to UH and studying SLS I never imagined that it was as weird and complex as it. Go figure.
The rest of this post recounts what was discussed in class with some musings thrown in.
Our illustrious presenters began by dividing the issue of aptitude into 6 subsections:
-Intelligence
-Aptitude
-Learning Styles
-Personality
-Motivation & Attitudes
-Identity
In the handout “What do you think?” we rated individual qualities that we felt were related to foreign language learning aptitude. Class participants were clustered but split with:
Popular choices:
high EQ (emotional quotient)= 3 supporters
figure out grammatical rules from language samples= 5 supporters
remember new words= 5 supporters
Un-chosen qualities:
high IQ
understand the function of particular words in sentences or grammar in general
Confusion:
Identify, memorize and produce new sounds= 1 supporter (I believe) who to avoid
loneliness joined another group
In the discussion that followed…
EQ= gregarious, sociability, and bond building leads to language learning
The problem is: is it aptitude, or a disposition that puts one in a situation
where one is more likely to learn a language?
Grammar= people with a grasp of grammar rules and inductive learning skills can
learn on their own through deduction
Words= if one has a large vocabulary, yet little else, one can communicate
Aptitude tests always test vocabulary.
Vocabulary/chunking can allow for successful reading as well as speaking.
Sounds= people can learn without formal language learning
Ky spoke of the multitudes of illiterate Vietnamese who became successful French speakers. We revisited Bill who listened to and memorized sounds to become a successful English speaker. In the course of discussing these examples we agreed that a strong analytical ability and/or grammatical sensibility would enable one to gain more from sounds.
MLAT Test:
J.B. Carroll developed four components to language aptitude:
Phonetic coding ability= ability to perceive and remember distinct sounds associated with symbols
Grammatical sensitivity= ability to recognize the function of a lexical element in a sentence
Rote learning ability= ability to learn and retain associations between words in a new language and their meaning in English
Inductive learning ability= ability to infer or induce rules governing the structure of a language
Between 1953 and 1958 he devoted himself to developing the MLAT (Modern Language Aptitude Test).
After taking a sample of the test, a nice touch as we’ve all heard of the test but haven’t had experience taking it, we were presented some questions to discuss in small groups.
-How did you do?
Most of us did well. This was to be expected as we are all relatively successful language learners.
-Based on these few sample questions, what do you think about this test?
We all agreed that there were serious limitations to this particular test and discussed how some of the test items might predict ability to succeed in some areas of language learning.
-Can you guess what some of the criticisms of this test might be?
We all had nice guesses and in the discussion that followed addressed the following:
Grammar Translation= at the time (early ‘50’s) the primary method of instruction was the grammar translation method. The MLAT does a good job testing the abilities that translate well into success in a grammar translation classroom. It does not however have as much success in testing skills that would be more beneficial in a modern language classroom implementing a number of methods that weren’t conceived of in the 1950’s.
Memory= the MLAT is based on an outdated view of memory focusing on short-term memory and not dynamic/long-term memory that seems to be a better indicator of success.
Quality= the test doesn’t address high quality language users across various learning situations.
Motivation= while poking around on the internet I found a number of concerns regarding the MLAT and motivation. Learners with high results on the MLAT and low motivation will not necessarily be successful learners; conversely low results on the MLAT combined with high levels of motivation can result in successful language learners.
Day 2:
We split into groups and discussed the aspects of aptitude put forth in the text. The aspects and fruits or our discussion follow:
L1 Ability/ Predisposition (6.5, 6.6)=
-L1 ability and the grammatical sensitivity component are related
-L1 levels of automaticity and fluency relates to the same in L2
-Low L1 phonetic coding abilities lead to disfluent L2 speech with difficulties in foreign language sounds and new word memorization
-Skeehan among others state that intelligence, first language ability, and foreign language aptitude overlap and are related, but the are distinct!
-An interesting side note: + and – ability seem to carry over to L2
Memory (6.7, 6.8)
-Good memory doesn’t always lead to good L2 ability
-Those with good phonemic memory learn lots of new words quickly in the beginning. At more advanced levels, a larger vocabulary leads to quicker learning and memory plays less of a factor.
-Phonological memory seems to have no benefit for beginners but may be important to grammar later on.
Multidimensional Aptitude (6.11)=
-Aptitude is not a single factor, a learner can be good at some aspects but not at others.
-Pedagogical implications?? Differentiated instruction can tap many aspects of aptitude resulting in better learning among all students.
-Notable examples: noticing, patterning, controlling, lexicalization (chunking/decoding)
Playing it to One’s Strengths (6.12)
-Pedagogical implications?? Let L2 language users try the approach they choose. Don’t be afraid to suggest other approaches if they aren’t progressing. Eliciting preferences, determining what’s working, and making the appropriate adjustments is a teacher’s job!
Age and Aptitude (6.9)
-Does aptitude matter with young learners? Who would have known this was such a contentious issue?
YES NO
If kids younger than a certain age DON’T If kids younger than a certain age DO learn an L2 like
learn an L2 like they learn an L1… it should. they learn an L1… it shouldn’t.
Aptitude will kick in when learning an L2. Aptitude won’t kick in until they are older.
Both sides make good points, but it’s hard to figure out which side is right due to the difficulty in testing and experimentation on subjects of such a young age.
Explicit vrs Implicit Learning and Aptitude (6.10)
-Robinson found an implicit link to aptitude if left to your own devices.
-Another controversy:
Implicit Explicit
Born with a capacity to learn language. You make everyone equal by explaining everything in detail.
Students soak in the input so aptitude Students are fed the information so aptitude doesn’t come into play.
doesn’t come into play. Student’s In implicit learning some students can handle the input but others
differences in aptitude start when explicit can’t due to individual aptitude.
ways of teaching are involved.
Well, that’s about all for this week’s reflection. We laughed, we cried, we argued about aptitude. It was great fun. Stay tuned for next week and another exciting episode of SLA staring Motivation.
Aptitude
(sorry, color and cool pretty effects aren't available on my computer)
Personal Issues:
I’ve always been rather fascinated with language aptitude… before I even had any clue what it was. It’s interesting stuff! I remember visiting my grandfather in Florida when I was a kid. He’d sit in the corner of his room at the old-folks home and complain about the nurses, the food… or just about anything and everything in heavily accented slightly broken English. It was funny. He was in his late eighties and had lived in the United States for over 70 years, yet his English was… well… not so great. That in itself isn’t funny. You find it a lot. The funny thing was that he spoke over 10 languages. He’d talk story with Haitian nurses in French and he rarely spoken in anything but German with my mother. According to those involved he had a greater mastery of pronunciation and fluency in these foreign languages, languages that he learned as an adult, that had little in common with his native languages.
I noticed more of the same while teaching in Japan. I had students who had worked hard at learning English for years with little growth while other students who lackadaisically attended classes and rarely studied continued to progress at a steady rate.
These examples resulted in musings and puzzlement for me. I decided aptitude is weird and complex. Before coming to UH and studying SLS I never imagined that it was as weird and complex as it. Go figure.
The rest of this post recounts what was discussed in class with some musings thrown in.
Our illustrious presenters began by dividing the issue of aptitude into 6 subsections:
-Intelligence
-Aptitude
-Learning Styles
-Personality
-Motivation & Attitudes
-Identity
In the handout “What do you think?” we rated individual qualities that we felt were related to foreign language learning aptitude. Class participants were clustered but split with:
Popular choices:
high EQ (emotional quotient)= 3 supporters
figure out grammatical rules from language samples= 5 supporters
remember new words= 5 supporters
Un-chosen qualities:
high IQ
understand the function of particular words in sentences or grammar in general
Confusion:
Identify, memorize and produce new sounds= 1 supporter (I believe) who to avoid
loneliness joined another group
In the discussion that followed…
EQ= gregarious, sociability, and bond building leads to language learning
The problem is: is it aptitude, or a disposition that puts one in a situation
where one is more likely to learn a language?
Grammar= people with a grasp of grammar rules and inductive learning skills can
learn on their own through deduction
Words= if one has a large vocabulary, yet little else, one can communicate
Aptitude tests always test vocabulary.
Vocabulary/chunking can allow for successful reading as well as speaking.
Sounds= people can learn without formal language learning
Ky spoke of the multitudes of illiterate Vietnamese who became successful French speakers. We revisited Bill who listened to and memorized sounds to become a successful English speaker. In the course of discussing these examples we agreed that a strong analytical ability and/or grammatical sensibility would enable one to gain more from sounds.
MLAT Test:
J.B. Carroll developed four components to language aptitude:
Phonetic coding ability= ability to perceive and remember distinct sounds associated with symbols
Grammatical sensitivity= ability to recognize the function of a lexical element in a sentence
Rote learning ability= ability to learn and retain associations between words in a new language and their meaning in English
Inductive learning ability= ability to infer or induce rules governing the structure of a language
Between 1953 and 1958 he devoted himself to developing the MLAT (Modern Language Aptitude Test).
After taking a sample of the test, a nice touch as we’ve all heard of the test but haven’t had experience taking it, we were presented some questions to discuss in small groups.
-How did you do?
Most of us did well. This was to be expected as we are all relatively successful language learners.
-Based on these few sample questions, what do you think about this test?
We all agreed that there were serious limitations to this particular test and discussed how some of the test items might predict ability to succeed in some areas of language learning.
-Can you guess what some of the criticisms of this test might be?
We all had nice guesses and in the discussion that followed addressed the following:
Grammar Translation= at the time (early ‘50’s) the primary method of instruction was the grammar translation method. The MLAT does a good job testing the abilities that translate well into success in a grammar translation classroom. It does not however have as much success in testing skills that would be more beneficial in a modern language classroom implementing a number of methods that weren’t conceived of in the 1950’s.
Memory= the MLAT is based on an outdated view of memory focusing on short-term memory and not dynamic/long-term memory that seems to be a better indicator of success.
Quality= the test doesn’t address high quality language users across various learning situations.
Motivation= while poking around on the internet I found a number of concerns regarding the MLAT and motivation. Learners with high results on the MLAT and low motivation will not necessarily be successful learners; conversely low results on the MLAT combined with high levels of motivation can result in successful language learners.
Day 2:
We split into groups and discussed the aspects of aptitude put forth in the text. The aspects and fruits or our discussion follow:
L1 Ability/ Predisposition (6.5, 6.6)=
-L1 ability and the grammatical sensitivity component are related
-L1 levels of automaticity and fluency relates to the same in L2
-Low L1 phonetic coding abilities lead to disfluent L2 speech with difficulties in foreign language sounds and new word memorization
-Skeehan among others state that intelligence, first language ability, and foreign language aptitude overlap and are related, but the are distinct!
-An interesting side note: + and – ability seem to carry over to L2
Memory (6.7, 6.8)
-Good memory doesn’t always lead to good L2 ability
-Those with good phonemic memory learn lots of new words quickly in the beginning. At more advanced levels, a larger vocabulary leads to quicker learning and memory plays less of a factor.
-Phonological memory seems to have no benefit for beginners but may be important to grammar later on.
Multidimensional Aptitude (6.11)=
-Aptitude is not a single factor, a learner can be good at some aspects but not at others.
-Pedagogical implications?? Differentiated instruction can tap many aspects of aptitude resulting in better learning among all students.
-Notable examples: noticing, patterning, controlling, lexicalization (chunking/decoding)
Playing it to One’s Strengths (6.12)
-Pedagogical implications?? Let L2 language users try the approach they choose. Don’t be afraid to suggest other approaches if they aren’t progressing. Eliciting preferences, determining what’s working, and making the appropriate adjustments is a teacher’s job!
Age and Aptitude (6.9)
-Does aptitude matter with young learners? Who would have known this was such a contentious issue?
YES NO
If kids younger than a certain age DON’T If kids younger than a certain age DO learn an L2 like
learn an L2 like they learn an L1… it should. they learn an L1… it shouldn’t.
Aptitude will kick in when learning an L2. Aptitude won’t kick in until they are older.
Both sides make good points, but it’s hard to figure out which side is right due to the difficulty in testing and experimentation on subjects of such a young age.
Explicit vrs Implicit Learning and Aptitude (6.10)
-Robinson found an implicit link to aptitude if left to your own devices.
-Another controversy:
Implicit Explicit
Born with a capacity to learn language. You make everyone equal by explaining everything in detail.
Students soak in the input so aptitude Students are fed the information so aptitude doesn’t come into play.
doesn’t come into play. Student’s In implicit learning some students can handle the input but others
differences in aptitude start when explicit can’t due to individual aptitude.
ways of teaching are involved.
Well, that’s about all for this week’s reflection. We laughed, we cried, we argued about aptitude. It was great fun. Stay tuned for next week and another exciting episode of SLA staring Motivation.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Week 8 Class Summary & Reflection
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evience from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
** Catherine J. Doughty is Associate Research Director for SLA at the Center for the Advanced Study of Language at the University of Maryland and affiliate faculty in the Department of Second Language Acquisition and Application at the University of Maryland at College Park.
Week 8 Summary & Reflection:
This week, we discussed a study conducted by Catherine Doughty (1991) and implications for L2 teaching and learning.
Quasi-experimental Studies
The concept of "quasi-experiment" was first brought up since it iscrucial in understanding Doughty's study. As discussed in class onTuesday, a quasi-experiment is one of the quantitative research designs which often convert what the learners perform (e.g., via tests)into numbers. This is to compare how much the learners knew beforereceiving any treatment (or instruction) and how much they improved after receiving the treatment.
From my own further research on "quasi-experimental studies", I learned that the word "quasi" means "as if" or "almost" in Latin, which means a quasi-experiment has some but not all of the characteristics of a true experiments. It is similar to true experiments to some degree, such as having subjects, treatments, pre-& post-tests, etc. However, the missing element is random assignmentof subjects from a wider population to the control and experimental conditions. "The sampling is always non-random because intact classes or volunteers are called to participate in the study, not truly random members of whatever the "population" is thought to be. That is, we use convenience samples, rather than random samples. But then we assignment randomly to each treatment" (from Dr. Ortega's email, October 16, 07).
Dougthy's Research Design
Having said that, we discussed important processes of Dougthy's quasi-experimental study, including participants, tests, treatments,results, and interpretation.
Participants:
Doughty examined whether particular aspects of relative clauses would benefit from instruction. Twenty adult university students of ESL were divided into three groups: two experimental and one control. All groups received exposure to relative clauses over a period of ten days through computer-delivered reading lessons. During these lessons, all learners were asked to read a series of passages from "Sophie's Dilemma" and answer comprehension questions which focused on reading skills.
Treatments:
While the control group simply read the passages containing relative clauses and answered comprehension questions, for the experimental groups, two instructions were added. One experimental group received instruction which focused on rules for constructing relative clauses. Another experimental group received instruction which clarified the meaning of the relative clauses, such as vocabulary assistance. All learners were pre-tested before receiving the instructional treatment and post-tested after ten days of the instruction in relative clauses.
Results:
The results clearly illustrated that both experimental groups, who received either implicit or explicit explanations on relative clause formation, had an advantage compared to the control group. The experimental groups outperformed the control group on post-test. As the study title indicates, Doughty concluded that instruction on relative clauses made a difference. Yet, we have to understand that the instruction worked because it was given at a time when the learners were developmentally ready to acquire relative clauses. Please note that Doughty made sure her learners were ready to learn relative clauses based on their performance on placement tests.
Teachability of Particular Forms
There are more research findings in relation to teachability of particular forms in L2. Researchers who are associated with "teach what is teachable" perspective believe that certain features of a language (e.g., negation, word order) are acquired in a particular sequence, and some grammatical features develop according to the learners' natural developmental process. From his research findings on L2 German learners, Pienemann (1988) claims that learners cannot acquire what they are not developmentally ready to learn. Two groups of Australian university students who were at stage 2 in their acquisition of German word order were taught the rules at stage 3 and stage 4, respectively. The results showed that the learners who received instruction on stage 3 rules moved successfully into stage 3 from stage 2. However, those learners who received instruction on stage 4 rules did not move into stage 3. Any instruction to teach "stage 4 word order patterns" to learners at "stage 2" did not work because they have to go through "stage 3" to get to "stage 4" before they are ready to acquire what is at "stage 4". Please read Pienemann, M (1988). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. AILA Review 5(1), 40-72.
How do we know our students are ready to move on? Finding out whether our students are developmentally ready to learn a certain rule will be a challenge for all teachers. However, I personally believe that teachers' constant observations, dialogues with students, and ongoing evaluations will offer some insights.
Acquisition and Comprehension
Another interesting observation from Doughty's findings is the gap between how much the learners acquired and how much they comprehended. Although both experimental groups were equally successful in acquiring relative clauses, they performed differently on comprehension test. For example, the experimental group who received rule-based instruction comprehended less than the experimental group with meaning-oriented instruction. One possible reason would be that the former became distracted by dealing with the story and learning grammar at the same time.
Given this interesting result, we learn that acquisition and comprehension are two different learning processes. Even if the learner comprehended a lot, she or he may not have acquired the grammatical form being taught. One example would be Wes who had no problem understanding native speakers' conversations, but has not developed a good command of English grammar. Teachers and researchers should not hastily conclude that the learners acquired a certain aspect of L2 on the basis of their comprehension ability. They should measure both whether they comprehended and acquired. In addition to that, I believe we should also make sure whether the learners can produce the learned grammatical forms in the natural speech, moving beyond the simple oral excercises. Although the learners could produce more advanced forms on tests or in very restricted excercises immediately after instruction, their ability to integrate what they learned into simultaneous conversations will be limited.
Finally, in order to facilitate the learners' SLA process, it would be helpful to utilize visual aid so that they can pay attention to how grammatical rules are operated and constructed in sentence levels. It would be also helpful to encourage the learners to "notice" the grammatical element being taught by asking what they think happened in the text.
** Catherine J. Doughty is Associate Research Director for SLA at the Center for the Advanced Study of Language at the University of Maryland and affiliate faculty in the Department of Second Language Acquisition and Application at the University of Maryland at College Park.
Week 8 Summary & Reflection:
This week, we discussed a study conducted by Catherine Doughty (1991) and implications for L2 teaching and learning.
Quasi-experimental Studies
The concept of "quasi-experiment" was first brought up since it iscrucial in understanding Doughty's study. As discussed in class onTuesday, a quasi-experiment is one of the quantitative research designs which often convert what the learners perform (e.g., via tests)into numbers. This is to compare how much the learners knew beforereceiving any treatment (or instruction) and how much they improved after receiving the treatment.
From my own further research on "quasi-experimental studies", I learned that the word "quasi" means "as if" or "almost" in Latin, which means a quasi-experiment has some but not all of the characteristics of a true experiments. It is similar to true experiments to some degree, such as having subjects, treatments, pre-& post-tests, etc. However, the missing element is random assignmentof subjects from a wider population to the control and experimental conditions. "The sampling is always non-random because intact classes or volunteers are called to participate in the study, not truly random members of whatever the "population" is thought to be. That is, we use convenience samples, rather than random samples. But then we assignment randomly to each treatment" (from Dr. Ortega's email, October 16, 07).
Dougthy's Research Design
Having said that, we discussed important processes of Dougthy's quasi-experimental study, including participants, tests, treatments,results, and interpretation.
Participants:
Doughty examined whether particular aspects of relative clauses would benefit from instruction. Twenty adult university students of ESL were divided into three groups: two experimental and one control. All groups received exposure to relative clauses over a period of ten days through computer-delivered reading lessons. During these lessons, all learners were asked to read a series of passages from "Sophie's Dilemma" and answer comprehension questions which focused on reading skills.
Treatments:
While the control group simply read the passages containing relative clauses and answered comprehension questions, for the experimental groups, two instructions were added. One experimental group received instruction which focused on rules for constructing relative clauses. Another experimental group received instruction which clarified the meaning of the relative clauses, such as vocabulary assistance. All learners were pre-tested before receiving the instructional treatment and post-tested after ten days of the instruction in relative clauses.
Results:
The results clearly illustrated that both experimental groups, who received either implicit or explicit explanations on relative clause formation, had an advantage compared to the control group. The experimental groups outperformed the control group on post-test. As the study title indicates, Doughty concluded that instruction on relative clauses made a difference. Yet, we have to understand that the instruction worked because it was given at a time when the learners were developmentally ready to acquire relative clauses. Please note that Doughty made sure her learners were ready to learn relative clauses based on their performance on placement tests.
Teachability of Particular Forms
There are more research findings in relation to teachability of particular forms in L2. Researchers who are associated with "teach what is teachable" perspective believe that certain features of a language (e.g., negation, word order) are acquired in a particular sequence, and some grammatical features develop according to the learners' natural developmental process. From his research findings on L2 German learners, Pienemann (1988) claims that learners cannot acquire what they are not developmentally ready to learn. Two groups of Australian university students who were at stage 2 in their acquisition of German word order were taught the rules at stage 3 and stage 4, respectively. The results showed that the learners who received instruction on stage 3 rules moved successfully into stage 3 from stage 2. However, those learners who received instruction on stage 4 rules did not move into stage 3. Any instruction to teach "stage 4 word order patterns" to learners at "stage 2" did not work because they have to go through "stage 3" to get to "stage 4" before they are ready to acquire what is at "stage 4". Please read Pienemann, M (1988). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. AILA Review 5(1), 40-72.
How do we know our students are ready to move on? Finding out whether our students are developmentally ready to learn a certain rule will be a challenge for all teachers. However, I personally believe that teachers' constant observations, dialogues with students, and ongoing evaluations will offer some insights.
Acquisition and Comprehension
Another interesting observation from Doughty's findings is the gap between how much the learners acquired and how much they comprehended. Although both experimental groups were equally successful in acquiring relative clauses, they performed differently on comprehension test. For example, the experimental group who received rule-based instruction comprehended less than the experimental group with meaning-oriented instruction. One possible reason would be that the former became distracted by dealing with the story and learning grammar at the same time.
Given this interesting result, we learn that acquisition and comprehension are two different learning processes. Even if the learner comprehended a lot, she or he may not have acquired the grammatical form being taught. One example would be Wes who had no problem understanding native speakers' conversations, but has not developed a good command of English grammar. Teachers and researchers should not hastily conclude that the learners acquired a certain aspect of L2 on the basis of their comprehension ability. They should measure both whether they comprehended and acquired. In addition to that, I believe we should also make sure whether the learners can produce the learned grammatical forms in the natural speech, moving beyond the simple oral excercises. Although the learners could produce more advanced forms on tests or in very restricted excercises immediately after instruction, their ability to integrate what they learned into simultaneous conversations will be limited.
Finally, in order to facilitate the learners' SLA process, it would be helpful to utilize visual aid so that they can pay attention to how grammatical rules are operated and constructed in sentence levels. It would be also helpful to encourage the learners to "notice" the grammatical element being taught by asking what they think happened in the text.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Summary and Reflection on Week 6
Reminder:
DO NOT FORGET TO POST REFLECTIONS
For the blog posting assignment, we need to post a message to both summarize and reflect on our class meetings for the week. In addition to summarize, we need to post our insights. Well, I will try to include my reflections as well to this postingJ.
NEXT WEEK
Dr. Ortega kindly extended the due date of our research proposal from Tuesday, October 2 to Thursday, October 11 (WOW, 9 more days to work on, thank you Dr. Ortega!!). We will be learning Cognition from Chapter 5 next week (week 7). In the following week (week 8), we will not have any readings, but need to work hard to complete our research proposal.
Summary:
This week, we read chapter 4 on the environment and Schmidt’s (1983) article on Wes’s language learning experience. On Tuesday, September 25, we were divided into 5 groups in order to summarize and report the theories discussed in the chapter 4.
Five groups were:
1. Acculturation Hypothesis and Input Hypothesis
2. Interaction Hypothesis
3. Output Hypothesis
4. Negative Feedback
5. Limitations on the Theories
Acculturation Hypothesis was introduced by Schumann. The more acculturated is the more successful to learn the target language.
Input Hypothesis was introduced by Krashen. More comprehensible input (i+1, linguistic data slightly above learners’ current level) can help learners acquire the target language.
Interaction Hypothesis was introduced by Long. Long agrees with Krashen’s comprehension, but Long believes that language learning happens through the interactionally modified comprehensible input.
Output Hypothesis was introduced by Swain. In that theory, production is also a key to acquire the target language. Learners many need to challenge themselves in order to produce output (kind of o+1).
We are run out of time on Tuesday, so the group who discussed Negative Feedback reported on Thursday.
Negative Feedback includes clarification request, explicit corrections, recasts, and elicitations.
Lyster and Mori proposed their Counterbalance Hypothesis. In their theory, if the context is meaning oriented, the explicit feedback (focus on form) will work better. On the other hand, if the context is form oriented, the implicit feedback (focus on meaning) will do better.
On Thursday, September 27, Anne and Jung Min facilitated our discussion on Schmidt (1983).
We were divided into four groups in order to discuss Wes’s improvement among Grammatical Competence, Sociolinguistic Competence, Discourse Competence, and Strategic Competence.
Without explicit explanation or formal classroom, Wes had difficulty improving his Grammatical Competence. Since he lacked the Grammatical Competence, he had hard time to improve Sociolinguistic Competence, which requires high level of language competence.
Megumi brought up with an interesting question that whether Wes learn the Discourse Competence or know the Discourse Competence from his L1.
Strategic Competence group agreed that Wes improved his strategic competence ability for carrying out his meaning, but he could not improve accurate part of the competence.
Lastly, most of us believed that Wes was a successful language learner because he was able to communicate and was liked (and respected) by people surrounded to him. In addition to interaction and acculturation, Schmidt argues the importance of attention to learn the target language.
Reflection:
I personally liked the counterbalance hypothesis proposed by Lyster and Mori. It really makes sense to me from my experience of working at the Japanese immersion camp.
As you may know, I work at the Japanese immersion camp every summer. This summer, we made greater shift in our curriculum that we introduced a project-based instruction for our 4-week program. In theory, a project completed by the learners is the way they show what they learn, rather than tests. During the four-week session, learners completed three weekly projects and a final project. Based on this curriculum, we used projects as instruction tools; teachers actually did not give any instructions on grammar and vocabularies, but they gave guidance for students to gather information from the environment. The role of the teachers in this curriculum was one of facilitator rather than lecturer.
The Japanese immersion camp previously used a “project-based curriculum” in which the projects were used to assess learners’ progress in understanding both the Japanese language and the content of cultural material covered in the classroom. However, in this previous curriculum, teachers introduced new vocabulary items and structures in each project unit, which learners practiced in class activities. Teachers also assisted learners with their work by giving them suggestions and providing resources as needed. Teachers usually spent two hours of the instruction every morning and one hour of project time in the afternoon. However, in this new curriculum, teachers were not supposed to give any instructions on grammar and vocabularies in a classroom mode, but gives guidance through mini-lessons that they explained some grammar and vocabulary in the process of completing the projects.
Tell you the truth, the curriculum was not well-received by learners (and teachers as well). Many learners expressed they had not learn anything out of the project-based instruction because they felt they were not receiving sufficient amount of grammar instruction to improve their Japanese. One student mentioned that “the project-based approach is not working very well as it is because the projects do not allow enough time to learn grammar.”
Interestingly, based on my observation and whole-group discussion, the advanced students tended to reject the project-based way of learning since they expressed the interest of learning more complicated grammar structure. The advanced learners are able to handle the complicated context using simple sentences while the lower-level villagers learn simple sentences as new. In that case, teachers do not give any explicit grammar feedback for advanced-level students since learners could handle the target language to complete the project. On the other hand, the learners in lower levels expressed their understanding toward the project-based approach since they were receiving sufficient amount of explicit grammar explanation while they were working on their project.
Maybe, next year, it would be an important idea to incorporate the explicit feedback for the project-based instruction. However, I am wondering how we can introduce the explicit feedback at the immersion camp where we are not allowed to use English and many learners have limited ability to understand high level of Japanese.
In addition to counterbalance hypothesis, one big challenge we had is the lack of output. In an immersion camp I work, we have a lot of input that learners engaged in, but there are limited opportunities for learners actually to produce. Furthermore, many advanced students ended up with completing their projects within their language competence level (without challenging). They are not paying attention for their language learning.
I am wondering how we can promote the output in the classroom using project-based instruction. Projects learners work were proposed by learners and teachers do not know the content and organization until they start working on their project. In other words, we only have opportunities to give negative feedback, but no opportunities for modifying output from the teachers’ side.
Based on Schmidt’s findings on Wes’s successful/unsuccessful acquisition, I think that the promoting positive group dynamics where people surrounded by the learner are willing to listen to each other is important. However, it could be possible that Wes was well-received by other people because he had charisma. I wonder how we as teachers could establish a positive rapport among language learners and let the learner willing to be acculturated toward the target language as Wes did.
Hmmm, there are many things that I can think of now, but it is better to stop now since it would be tired to read the entire thread. Anyway, please give me your feedback on the curriculum at the Japanese immersion camp, I did not make this curriculum, but I was assigned to revise this curriculum for the next year. I am hoping to get your helpful feedback.
See you next week in the classroom!
DO NOT FORGET TO POST REFLECTIONS
For the blog posting assignment, we need to post a message to both summarize and reflect on our class meetings for the week. In addition to summarize, we need to post our insights. Well, I will try to include my reflections as well to this postingJ.
NEXT WEEK
Dr. Ortega kindly extended the due date of our research proposal from Tuesday, October 2 to Thursday, October 11 (WOW, 9 more days to work on, thank you Dr. Ortega!!). We will be learning Cognition from Chapter 5 next week (week 7). In the following week (week 8), we will not have any readings, but need to work hard to complete our research proposal.
Summary:
This week, we read chapter 4 on the environment and Schmidt’s (1983) article on Wes’s language learning experience. On Tuesday, September 25, we were divided into 5 groups in order to summarize and report the theories discussed in the chapter 4.
Five groups were:
1. Acculturation Hypothesis and Input Hypothesis
2. Interaction Hypothesis
3. Output Hypothesis
4. Negative Feedback
5. Limitations on the Theories
Acculturation Hypothesis was introduced by Schumann. The more acculturated is the more successful to learn the target language.
Input Hypothesis was introduced by Krashen. More comprehensible input (i+1, linguistic data slightly above learners’ current level) can help learners acquire the target language.
Interaction Hypothesis was introduced by Long. Long agrees with Krashen’s comprehension, but Long believes that language learning happens through the interactionally modified comprehensible input.
Output Hypothesis was introduced by Swain. In that theory, production is also a key to acquire the target language. Learners many need to challenge themselves in order to produce output (kind of o+1).
We are run out of time on Tuesday, so the group who discussed Negative Feedback reported on Thursday.
Negative Feedback includes clarification request, explicit corrections, recasts, and elicitations.
Lyster and Mori proposed their Counterbalance Hypothesis. In their theory, if the context is meaning oriented, the explicit feedback (focus on form) will work better. On the other hand, if the context is form oriented, the implicit feedback (focus on meaning) will do better.
On Thursday, September 27, Anne and Jung Min facilitated our discussion on Schmidt (1983).
We were divided into four groups in order to discuss Wes’s improvement among Grammatical Competence, Sociolinguistic Competence, Discourse Competence, and Strategic Competence.
Without explicit explanation or formal classroom, Wes had difficulty improving his Grammatical Competence. Since he lacked the Grammatical Competence, he had hard time to improve Sociolinguistic Competence, which requires high level of language competence.
Megumi brought up with an interesting question that whether Wes learn the Discourse Competence or know the Discourse Competence from his L1.
Strategic Competence group agreed that Wes improved his strategic competence ability for carrying out his meaning, but he could not improve accurate part of the competence.
Lastly, most of us believed that Wes was a successful language learner because he was able to communicate and was liked (and respected) by people surrounded to him. In addition to interaction and acculturation, Schmidt argues the importance of attention to learn the target language.
Reflection:
I personally liked the counterbalance hypothesis proposed by Lyster and Mori. It really makes sense to me from my experience of working at the Japanese immersion camp.
As you may know, I work at the Japanese immersion camp every summer. This summer, we made greater shift in our curriculum that we introduced a project-based instruction for our 4-week program. In theory, a project completed by the learners is the way they show what they learn, rather than tests. During the four-week session, learners completed three weekly projects and a final project. Based on this curriculum, we used projects as instruction tools; teachers actually did not give any instructions on grammar and vocabularies, but they gave guidance for students to gather information from the environment. The role of the teachers in this curriculum was one of facilitator rather than lecturer.
The Japanese immersion camp previously used a “project-based curriculum” in which the projects were used to assess learners’ progress in understanding both the Japanese language and the content of cultural material covered in the classroom. However, in this previous curriculum, teachers introduced new vocabulary items and structures in each project unit, which learners practiced in class activities. Teachers also assisted learners with their work by giving them suggestions and providing resources as needed. Teachers usually spent two hours of the instruction every morning and one hour of project time in the afternoon. However, in this new curriculum, teachers were not supposed to give any instructions on grammar and vocabularies in a classroom mode, but gives guidance through mini-lessons that they explained some grammar and vocabulary in the process of completing the projects.
Tell you the truth, the curriculum was not well-received by learners (and teachers as well). Many learners expressed they had not learn anything out of the project-based instruction because they felt they were not receiving sufficient amount of grammar instruction to improve their Japanese. One student mentioned that “the project-based approach is not working very well as it is because the projects do not allow enough time to learn grammar.”
Interestingly, based on my observation and whole-group discussion, the advanced students tended to reject the project-based way of learning since they expressed the interest of learning more complicated grammar structure. The advanced learners are able to handle the complicated context using simple sentences while the lower-level villagers learn simple sentences as new. In that case, teachers do not give any explicit grammar feedback for advanced-level students since learners could handle the target language to complete the project. On the other hand, the learners in lower levels expressed their understanding toward the project-based approach since they were receiving sufficient amount of explicit grammar explanation while they were working on their project.
Maybe, next year, it would be an important idea to incorporate the explicit feedback for the project-based instruction. However, I am wondering how we can introduce the explicit feedback at the immersion camp where we are not allowed to use English and many learners have limited ability to understand high level of Japanese.
In addition to counterbalance hypothesis, one big challenge we had is the lack of output. In an immersion camp I work, we have a lot of input that learners engaged in, but there are limited opportunities for learners actually to produce. Furthermore, many advanced students ended up with completing their projects within their language competence level (without challenging). They are not paying attention for their language learning.
I am wondering how we can promote the output in the classroom using project-based instruction. Projects learners work were proposed by learners and teachers do not know the content and organization until they start working on their project. In other words, we only have opportunities to give negative feedback, but no opportunities for modifying output from the teachers’ side.
Based on Schmidt’s findings on Wes’s successful/unsuccessful acquisition, I think that the promoting positive group dynamics where people surrounded by the learner are willing to listen to each other is important. However, it could be possible that Wes was well-received by other people because he had charisma. I wonder how we as teachers could establish a positive rapport among language learners and let the learner willing to be acculturated toward the target language as Wes did.
Hmmm, there are many things that I can think of now, but it is better to stop now since it would be tired to read the entire thread. Anyway, please give me your feedback on the curriculum at the Japanese immersion camp, I did not make this curriculum, but I was assigned to revise this curriculum for the next year. I am hoping to get your helpful feedback.
See you next week in the classroom!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)