Tag Archives: acquisition

Free “Won’t”

by

I’ve been thinking a lot about “free will” and the nature of the choices we make – both in teaching and in life.

Recent research, especially since the famous Libert experiment, suggests we make decisions before we even know we make decisions. Meaning, something, a “ghost inside the machine” is controlling us and that free will according to most neuroscientists, is an illusion.

Big claims. Big ideas. And what does this have to do with teaching?

Teaching is very transactional in nature. We make thousands of decisions during the teaching day. This is the “art” of teaching. Some studies suggest we make on average over 3,000 decisions / day – that’s around 7 or so a minute. Up there with stressful jobs like air traffic controllers and athletes on the field. Teachers are “decision beasts”. But what does this research saying to us, your decisions don’t matter, they are all preordained, what does this research mean to a teacher or student?

I think it points to the fact that freedom, free will, is by nature, “negative”. We humans make decisions based on “no” and not “yes”. Oscar Wilde’s famous dictum that, “The true freedom of man rests in the capacity to say no”, rings true.

I remember reading Isiah Berlin, a very underrated philosopher who pointed towards this same kind of negative freedom of will as being primary. (his “The Power of Ideas” is well worth reading). Our freedom is realized through interventions – that we “not” do certain things. This fits well into what a teacher does. They don’t so much make choices as negate certain choices from occurring. They break into the normal routine and outrolling of human social behavior and push it in new directions. Teachers don’t control the water in the river, they can’t decrease this water’s flow. However, they can throw things into the river and effect its direction, speed, course…..

I see the same sort of thing happening in the language student. The student takes in so much input but won’t make progress unless this input is “negated”, unless the student says, “No” to this language form/item. This partners well with the notion that language awareness, “noticing”, is so powerful and not until then, does a student learn from language input. You can spend years in a room listening to seemingly meaningless sounds and babble. But once you have a piece of the puzzle, some foothold of meaning, you can say “No” to the flow of language and begin to direct its course and find the true “flow” and “path” that is fluency.  This is why I’m a big believer in the power of instant feedback through invasive technology – something EnglishCentral does well. Giving the learner an instant comparison of their language pronunciation and form against a model. Based on this, they can express their “Free Won’t” – saying in effect, “I won’t make that mistake again!”.  Noticing.

If this all seems abstract and rambling, it is! I’m jet lagged and using my blog as a sounding board and reflective source of knowing. In any case, it is something to think about – that learning is not saying “yes” to information but rather the ability to discriminate discrete units of information and realize our freedom through the fundamental power of “Free Won’t”.

If you liked this post, you may enjoy “The four keys to language learning: Input, Input, Input, Noticing.”

Insights about SLA …..

by

I’ve recently been updating articles and resources on the TESOL Teacher Training page/course. One article that I read several years ago has always stood out for me. What do we know about learning and teaching second language – Implications for teaching. Written by Francis Mangubhai, it is somewhat technical but still can be read by teachers and gleamed for its intelligence. He sets out some things that he can be pretty sure of, after 25 or more years in the field.

I’ve listed his “insights” below but read the whole article for his own elaboration. Also, please vote here – I’d like to know your opinion on how acquisition happens. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be making a few brief comments of my own about each insight. So today let’s start with the first –

1. Adults and adolescents can “acquire” a second language

This suggests the most valuable of all knowledge for teachers – that we don’t “learn” a language but rather “acquire” a language. It is through exposure, an environment of meaningful communication that we “get” language – not by memorization or conscious, ABC building.

Take the learning to drive metaphor. Yes, you can learn to drive in the sense that you can read a book about it, attend a lecture, memorize all the parts of the car and the rules of the road, pass a test. But can you just with that alone drive a car? Not a chance. You must observe (we call this input – and see Stephen Kraschen’s work for more elaboration) for many hours, drivers in action. Further, you then must actually drive a car (see Swain’s notion of Comprehensible Output). You can’t actually drive a car through just conscious learning. It has to come in the backdoor through productive practice. Same with language – language learning always comes in the back door and not the front door.

Why do students in foreign countries take so much longer to acquire English, despite all their hours of English classes? Mostly because unlike in an ESL setting, these EFL students don’t get the necessary amount of input. They don’t encounter English enough in the public realm, in the real, non-artificial , non-classroom world. They don’t have the opportunity to “acquire” English through unconscious learning. Of course they learn something, but never enough to actually say they can “drive a car” / “speak “X” language.

But with a proper environment, both adults and adolescents can acquire a second language, especially if give sufficient input (and children do actually need less exposure to language to acquire it). Extensive reading has been shown as one method to foster language input, social media (videos, radio, TV) is another. We as teachers have to learn to “speak” to the student’s need to learn language “implicitly” and realize our “subject” is not like so many others but one which involves “tacit” and personal knowledge and knowing — not facts, blocks and unmovable knowledge.

We might also think about how this might challenge the more “nativistic” views of language acquisition in L1 – such as Chomsky’s own notion of a “language acquisition device”. This LAD according to Chomsky, is hard wired in our brain and with input, we can sort it out and “acquire” language. But do we really need a part of our brain geared to language? Isn’t our brain already powerful enough? (and new “connectivist” theorists would say it is). Chomsky says that the “poverty of input” that a child gets suggests that we do have an LAD. I’m not so sure. We can’t just define language as words or what is spoken, but it is also very non verbal and most children don’t need a lot of verbal input to still start to create connections and organize language in their heads. I’m not so convinced that in our evolutionarily short span of time as “language makers” , we would have developed this “LAD”. So I’m going to sit on the fence.

But what I suggest this “insight” really says to every day teachers is that we should teach language through inductive and playful means. There should be an effort to “hide” the instruction and for students to be unaware they are really learning English. I”m still a big cheerleader of the “keep them talking” notion. The best teachers can step away and be the guide at the side, not the sage on a stage!

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Insights into Language acquisition and learning.

1. Adults and adolescents can “acquire” a second language

2. Learners need to focus on form also in order to develop a more complete grammatical repertoire in the second langauge.

3. The learner’s developing grammatical system, the interlanguage, is often characterized by the same systematic errors as made by a child learning that language as a first language.

4. There is a predictable sequence in second lang. acquisition; learners have to acquire certain structures first before they can acquire aothers as their interlanguage develops.

5. To become fluent in a language – one must practice it! (and get extensive input)

6. Knowing a language rule and being able to use it in communication or writing are two different things.

7. Isolated, explicit error correction is usually ineffective in SL learning.

8. In meaningful contexts, learners are able to comprehend much more than can be judged by their ability to produce accurately language of comparable complexity.

9. The different rate of learning observed in our students arises out of individual differences.

10. The “pour” into a vessel view of knowledge doesn’t work.

11. Teachers’ practical theories guide their behaviour in classrooms.

Know – Do / Learn – Acquire

by

teach me

As a teacher trainer, there is one “theoretical” thing I really want all new teachers to believe and understand. It is the difference between “knowing” a language and “doing” a language. Further, the implications that suggests for our classroom practices.

In general speak, we use the word “learn” quite liberally. It is a fuzzy word and covers a lot of territory. It can mean what is supposed to happen at school, which might be just the act of sitting in a classroom, “I’m at school, I’m learning.”  It might mean the ability to recall facts and information. “Today, I learned that E=MC2″  It might mean that you can apply knowledge and have “learned” to do something. “Look, I’m driving! I’ve learned to drive.”

However, “learning”  is much  fuzzier than these examples make it appear. Why? Well, learning is something we do all the time. There is no off button for human experience. To live is to learn and most of the above examples represent a specific  subjective pigeon-holing of what learning means. A cultural  and institutional definition, if you will.

A kid plays plays a video game – he is learning. A woman bakes a cake she has made a thousand times – she is learning. I am writing this, I am learning.  We are ALWAYS learning.  So when a teacher tells me – “My students aren’t learning.”  I really have to suggest that yes they are learning, just not what the teacher intended!

In TESOL though, learning has a much narrower definition (thank god!).  It is this that teachers should be well aware of - Learning vs Acquiring a language.

Stephen Krashen popularized this ancient distinction between “knowing” and “understanding” with his Learning-Acquisition Hypothesis. He states,

“Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language – natural communication – in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.”

Krashen believes we can’t learn a language. Learning is only “having knowledge of” a language. For example, we all can think of a student who “knows” a lot of English and has an amazing TOEIC score yet can’t meaningfully communicate his/her thoughts. For Krashen, they have “learned” English but they haven’t “acquired” English. Think of it like the distinction between “hear” and “listen”. I can hear someone but I don’t necessarily need to listen. Listening, like acquiring, requires a whole new kind of brain activity, something much fuller and deeper.

I hate the word – acquire. It is beyond me why academia must couch all their terms in such stiff, mechanical and scientific language (when it is anything but more precise). I prefer “do” a language. We can “know” a language but when we are fluent, we can “do” a language. And unlike Krashen, I believe there is a gradient between the two. There isn’t as he later developed in his Natural Approach, a dark space between the two.

We do “monitor” language, but this can also lead to acquisition. There are many ways to get to fluency and teachers know this – many academics don’t. We do what works, they suggest what doesn’t. I won’t pontificate any longer – if you are interested in a critique of Krashen’s Acquisition hypothesis, no better place than Timothy Mason’s great post.

So, what are the implications for us teachers?

Well, we have to mix it up. Students need authentic models and communication in order to “do” language. They need the “real” and as teachers, we should constantly try to bring reality into the testing ground that is our classroom. Students need A Lot of tasks and activities where they must communicate real meaning. In a nutshell – the main course is CLT (Communicative Language Teaching). However, that doesn’t mean we can’t fortify this meal with grammar lessons, testing, conscious “learning” of a language. We can and we must. It too has a role. Without the “knowing” – we can’t ever get to “doing”. For example – beginning students have to memorize language!!!!! You can’t skip this. As a teacher, I stand by this claim. If not, you’ll only go from nothing to nothing.

But as teachers – we need to remember this vital distinction between “knowing” and “doing” language. It is the steering wheel that should guide us through the “learning” course.

The “disabled” language learner

by

English Language Learners and Learning Disabilities

 

Considerations and Recommendations for Effective Remediation

D. Deubelbeiss

[see this post for more - here. / Also this post is a reply to this post- The Captive Mind]

“If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his own language, that goes to his heart.”

Nelson Mandela

In classrooms all over the world, students are learning second languages in increasing numbers.  By 2030, it is estimated that 40% of the entire school population of the United States will be English language learners (ELLs) ( McKibbin and Brice, 2005).  Not only are the numbers increasing exponentially but students are not only  learning the language (in classrooms) but are more usually “pushed in” and having to learn the language “on the fly”, in classrooms where the content too has to be mastered.

Teachers are confronted with the dual task of having to teach the curriculum and also having to help students learn the language of instruction. Not an easy task for even a specialist in English language instruction. Discrepancies in test results between ELLs and non-ELLs have become alarming ( Goldenberg, 2008).  Teachers are under a lot of pressure and find it almost impossible to cope or keep up.  The result of this situation is the overrepresentation of ELLs in special education (Brown, 2005).  Teachers and administrators are too quick to refer ELLs to special education programs (for many reasons – see Appendix A). This creates not only undo stress on the educational delivery system but also a kind of “Mathew’s Effect” (Stanovich, 1986) whereby because of inadequate language instruction, those ELLs assigned to special education fall further and further behind until it is too late to catch up. On the other hand, if indeed a student does have a learning disability and not a second language acquisition issue, they too can fall further and further behind.

So we must understand more clearly the issues involved when differentiating between a learning disability and a second language acquisition issue. Both to help stem the over-referral of ELLs and also to correctly diagnose student learning disabilities.  The question is, how?  Is a student who is having difficulties remembering words or writing basic sentences in English, just in need of specific English language learning attention or do they really need special needs assessment and treatment? How do we as teachers decide? There are many important considerations that must be made.

The L1 – L2 Relationship – What causes the difficulty?

It is important to note “what” causes the difficulty in learning a language. This will help us as teachers eliminate a lot of false notions when looking for the cause of an ELL’s  difficulty in our classroom

There have been a lot of causes attributed to language acquisition difficulties, most notably; anxiety, motivation/effort, learning habits and “low” ability. However, these are most often just masks hiding the real problem. Dinklage (1971) studied why some great students at Harvard had problems learning a language. It didn’t seem right that such excellent students would fail miserably at language. He found out that the cause was not those normally assigned (effort, motivation, anxiety, access, strategies) but rather one of “disability”. Dinklage’s remedy to the student’s language learning difficulty was to have them taught in ways that worked for the learning disabled and in fact it worked.

What we need to realize is that almost all people suffer from a learning disability when it comes to learning a second language. Especially after our early years (>9). Compared to our first language (L1), our brain is clunky, our learning “stop and start”. It is no longer natural and some subconscious processes of learning are cut off. So we teachers must think of language learning ability along a continuum and further, fine tune our own classroom instruction more towards that of special education delivery (specific strategy focus, use of supports and modifications etc…).  We should assume a wider range both in terms of time and content when it comes to acquiring language.  One might even go so far as to suggest that because everyone does suffer from a second language learning disability, we should not refer any students to special education that have difficulties with language acquisition. If everyone has it, we should address the problem “systemically” and not piece meal through special education. Brown alludes to this in her finely argued work, “Reducing the Over-referral of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students (CLD) for Language Disabilities”. She writes,

“One underlying problem consistently contributes to the over-referral of CLD students for language disabilities: The characteristics of second language acquisition – a language non-disorder – are mistaken for language disabilities. In other words, some language aspects observed in CLD students who do not keep up with their peers are not necessarily disorders, difficulties, or disabilities; they are simply an inherent feature of acquiring a new language” (Brown, 2005, p. 227)

What causes a language acquisition difficulty is not precisely known. Memory, our experiences and socialization, our physiology and the very nature of thought all play a vital role. We might posit that how we learned our L1 (the deficits and nature of that process) would affect our ability to acquire an L2.  Especially concerning age (1).  The exact nature of this dynamic is unknown but what counts is that we teachers respond with instruction that takes this into account.  Further, we can say with certainty that some ELLs do have a learning disability as opposed to a language non-disorder (given that up to 15% of students will (Root, 1994) and it is this issue of how to identify such, we now must address.

Questions To Consider:

1. What is the student’s L1 literacy?

This is the most important question. In a perfect world, the teacher would speak both English and the student’s mother tongue. The teacher would also have student records from their L1 school.  Assessment would be much more precise and easier. However most often this isn’t the case and the teacher will have to interview the parents and caregivers to obtain  a more precise learner history.  Students who have significant processing difficulties in their L1 are much more likely to experience difficulties in the second language classroom than not.  Perhaps, there is no learning disability but rather a lacking in literacy in the L1 which is transferred to the L2.  This is very often the case and before any intervention takes place, the student’s literacy needs in the L1 should be addressed through sheltered and intensive instruction. Primary language instruction can provide modest gains to most students (Goldenberg, 2008).

2. Time. How long has the student been studying English?

Often, teachers don’t understand just how long it takes to become fluent in another language. Students seem to make progress in social language and the classroom teacher assumes that because he/she understands the teacher conversationally, he/she understands academically. However, that is usually far from the case. It takes at least 7 years of study to acquire the academic language needed for the classroom (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, Christian, 2006). Often, students need more time than the school system with its test driven nature will allow. Individual differences play a much stronger role in language acquisition than any other subject.  Teachers should be aware time might be a factor. It seems simplistic but too many students are wrongly referred to special education because they rightly go through a “silent period” (normal for ELLs). Education should not be run as a race, especially when it comes to language which is more organic and deep than many content based disciplines. Language is of the heart, not the mind.

3. Are there any other barriers to learning?

Second language learners in many cases, are experiencing significant social displacement. They arrive in a new language, without the traditional social supports. Teachers should ask themselves whether the student is making a smooth transition and the student’s learning is not being impeded by social factors such as social estrangement, culture shock, family problems, income disparity etc…  Very often, students are strongly affected by the transition to a new country/land. Gonzalez (2001) suggests that much over referral to special education is because of the cultural and social differences between instructors and students.  Further, perhaps the student isn’t getting enough integration into the wider community to facilitate their language development? Given the multicultural dynamic in many cities, this often is a factor dramatically slowing English language acquisition.

4. Have adequate formal assessments been done?

Too many second language students fall through the cracks in the system. They are inadequately screened for problems and don’t receive the early intervention that is imperative for success at school. Assessment should be done through a well coordinated team (see Appendix B).  Both formal and informal assessments should take place.  Assessments should be done in a culturally sensitive and appropriate (standard) manner. If possible, they should be functional (for language is all about “function” ) and about what the students “can do” and not just what they “know of”. If  possible, the gold standard of assessment in the L1 for cognitive and psychosocial development should be given. If not available, at least assessment for phonological awareness in their L1 should be provided. Ganschow and Sparks’ Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis (LCDH), states that difficulties with foreign language acquisition stem from deficiencies in one or more of the linguistic codes in the student’s native language system (Schwarz, 1997). Thus, a possible quick way to assess for underlying language processing disability would be phonological testing in the L1.

Has everything been done right to assist the student in learning the language?

Before any decision about language disability can take place, the teacher or school must assure that adequate instruction and opportunity (also time – see point 2 above) was given the student. In terms of language acquisition, children learn in so many different manners. We should ask regarding effective classroom practices;

A)    Has a variety of learning styles been accounted for in the instruction? Has the instruction been clinical and strategy based?

B)     Has there been adequate comprehensible input provided? (often not, in the U.S. over 50% of ELLs receive all-English (according to the CREDE (Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence)  in class immersive instruction and are expected to “sink or swim” in many cases)

C)    Has the curriculum / assessments  been  modified and instruction not just text or oral in nature (audio support, leveled readings, visuals etc..)?

D)    Has the curriculum been taught with a sensitivity to the student’s background and cultural experiences?

E)     Have explicit learning strategies been taught and the student / family given support in their use?

F)     Have the instructors and staff  been given training in teaching ELLs and aware of the normal phenomena and processes that accompany learning a second language?

G)    Has the student been given extra instruction and support? Was the intervention intense enough and of a long enough duration?

H)    Has peer assisted learning been put in place (we learn language through social interaction and without this, language will be only slowly been acquired)?

I)        Has the school provided the resources to make both English language learning possible and for student integration into the wider culture?

J)       Has the student been assessed and monitored enough to suggest that the  learning difficulty is not just something temporary or short term?

ELLs really face a hard struggle and we should lean on the side of caution when thinking of referral to special education. ELLs face 2 times the cognitive load in a sense – One, they must learn the content of lessons and second, they have to learn the language. This is a big task and it isn’t any surprise that many have difficulty. It is probably even more surprising that the gap between ELLs and non-ELLs in testing (mentioned at the beginning of this paper) isn’t much wider.

The nature of language acquisition is still in the early stages of being discerned. Only a few decades ago we thought that learning a language was simply a matter of repeating phrases  — how different are our assumptions nowadays!  I’ve tried to suggest some ways that teachers and all stakeholders might reflect and look into the mirror  their ELLs face  – how they might see the issues that mask the true nature of their language learning difficulties.  English language teaching would do well to borrow much of the instructional focus and philosophical ground that special education has brought to the pedagogical table.  I believe that if we can see all ELLs in a sense as “learning disabled” (or even defined by the term SLAAP (Second Language Acquisition – Associated Phenomena) which Brown (2005) uses), we’d be much better at teaching them and much better at catching those with real learning disabilities and who especially need rapid and early intervention. Part of the challenge for the future in TESL will be to more clearly delineate the line between language learning and language disability. Doing so will much benefit our students and give teachers firmer ground to stand upon.

 

NOTES

 

(1) There is most definitely a relationship between the first language of a child (L1) and their acquisition of a second (L2). However, among researchers, there is no clarity. Many believe in an innate “language window” or “critical period hypothesis” ( Lennenberg, 1967). This suggests that there is a set time for learning a language correctly and that outside this period, there is substantial difficulty in learning a second language, especially in terms of syntax. These advocates point to a biological basis for language and contend that somehow through age, we have less and less access to our “Language Acquisition Device” (Chomsky, 1959), either because the brain loses plasticity or it simply shuts off certain functions.  Others contend that language can be learned well and fluently at any age, this is known as the “Relational Frame Theory”.

References

 

Brown, C.L. (2004), “Reducing the Over-Referral of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students (CLD) for Language Disabilities. NAHE Journal of Research and Practice 2 (1): 225-43. http://njrp.tomu.edu/2004/PDFs/Brown.pdf

Burnette, J. (1998). Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of Minority Students in Special Education (ERIC/OSEP Digest #E566. Arlington, VA: The ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. http://ericec.org/digests/e566.html

Celeste Roseberry-McKibbin and Alejandro Brice, (2005), What’s “Normal”, What’s Not: Aquiring English as a Second Language,http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/5126

Chomsky, N. (1959), A Review of B.F. Skinners Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26-58, Reprinted in.Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press

Dinklage, Kenneth T. “Inability to Learn a Foreign Language” in G. Blaine & C. MacArthur(Eds.) Emotional Problems of the Student. New York, 1971: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Ganschow, Leonore, Richard Sparks & Elke Schneider. “Learning a Foreign Language: Challenges for Students with Language Learning Difficulties.” Dyslexia (Journal of the British Dyslexia Association) 1, (1995):75-95.

Genesee, F. , Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W.,and Christian, D. 2006, Educating English Language Learners. New York: Cambridge University Press

Goldenberg, Claude, (2008), Teaching English Language Learners. What the research does – and does not – say. American Educator, Summer. http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer08/goldenberg.pdf

Gonzalez, V. (2001). The role of socioeconomic and sociocultural factors in language minority children’s development: An ecological research view. Bilingual Research Journal, 25 (1&2), 1-30

Irujo, Suzanne, (2004), When an ELL has difficulty learning, is the problem a disability or the Second Language Acquisition Process?, ELL Outlook, March / April,   http://www.coursecrafters.com/ELL-Outlook/2004/mar_apr/ELLOutlookITIArticle4.htm

Lennenberg, E. (1967), Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.

Ortiz, A.A. (1997). Learning Disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 321-32.

Root, Christine, (1994), A guide to learning disabilities for the ESL Classroom Practitioner, http://ldonline.org/article/8765

Schwarz, Robin L., (1977), Learning Disabilities and Foreign Language Learning, http://www.ldonline.org/article/6065

Sparks, Richard, & Leonore Ganschow. (1993), “The Impact of Native Language Learning Problems on Foreign Language Learning: Case Study Illustrations of the Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis.” Modern Language Journal 77,i 58-74.

Appendix

A.

 

 

appendixA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.

 

appendix B

The Teenaged Language Learner

by

 

Teenage Second Language Learning

Why they are different and why that matters

[see  my workshop materials for teaching teens - here. / Also this post is a reply to this post- The Captive Mind]

The best substitute for experience is being sixteen.

                                                                                          ~Raymond Duncan

Teaching teenagers is often the dread of many language teachers. In America, middle school teachers have an alarming professional drop out rate and the frustrations are evident if one talks with any teacher teaching teens. Consider these teachers’ comments from a podcast on teaching English to teenagers (Harmer, 2003 pp. 1-5) ;

“I am teaching a class of teenagers for the first time but I find it difficult to get through to them. They are so unmotivated compared to adults.”

 

“I’ve found that when I’ve taught a good group of teens, it’s been really good, but when I got a bad group? I don’t want to remember!”

 

“It’s so difficult that (getting them to study outside of school), isn’t it? “We” know that you get along much faster if you do some self-study, but teens don’t get it.”

Frustration and classroom management issues take precedence over learning. Why is this so? Is it true they really don’t care? Or is it something to do with who they are and how they encounter classroom learning? We need to examine the reasons for teen “apathy” and also how teachers might better adapt their pedagogy to this very unique age group.

Teenagers are different. They are not children nor are they adults. They bring to the classroom and the learning situation a very unique set of cognitive, emotional, social factors which teachers must consider when delivering content. They learn differently, they are “wired” differently. This paper will outline some of the major unique features of the teenage learner and most importantly, suggest what they mean for the language teacher.

Backdrop

 

A quick review of second language acquisition literature shows a startling dearth of attention to this very important age group.  Most comparative studies focus on children and adults to the neglect of the teenage learner. Teenagers are just “sort of in the middle”. When attention is paid to teenagers, it is mostly about pedagogy and how to “entertain” them, not how they learn language differently. Other times it is with exaggerated claims. For example, that teen laziness and emotional “angst” is because of genetic or developmental differences (small frontal cortex). In fact there is no evidence to suggest such (Epstein, 2007, p. 60).

Age and Second Language Acquisition

 

There is a popular misconception (even among teachers) that children are better at languages. In fact, there is no real “innateness” about language and even children have to learn language (Singleton, 1999 pg. 56) In general, adult learners are much better at the initial learning of language (Gaas , Selinker 2001, p. 336) because of their conscious metalinguistic skills but children perform better in the later stages of language acquisition (obtaining vocabulary, accent, patterning). This may be because of great plasticity and natural acquisition strategies in the young brain. Risk taking and affective factors also play a part. In any case, it can be said that the apparent “ease” by which children learn language is because of the immense opportunity they have and also the amount of time they can spend “learning” and not from greater ability.

I argue teenagers have the best of both worlds. They still have a very flexible and still developing cognitive network. Yet, they also have more “conscious” control of language and the ability to categorize, manipulate and test logically, the language they encounter.

Recently, a good deal of attention has been paid to teenagers as digital learners or as Prensky ( 2001) in his seminal paper labeled it, “Digital Natives”.  Teenagers learn differently, they have hypertext minds. They don’t learn in a linear fashion anymore. Images are the driving force of learning and text supports. Experience teaches and changes or “trains” their brain as they spend hours upon hours using computers, watching video, text messaging. This too often is not considered by the language teacher.

The Teenage Language Learner – Main Differences.

In so many ways, teenagers are like all learners. They respond to different forms of motivation, they take in language and try to make sense of it, they struggle with pronunciation and remembering vocabulary……. Still there are some very important differences (mostly in the affective realm) that need to be highlighted and noted so that teachers can adjust their curriculum.

Learner Autonomy

Teenagers are ego driven. They are becoming adults and want more control over the learning situation. Their world revolves around one question; “What does it mean to ME?”. Anderson ( 2008)  sees a need to let students have more choice and begin to take responsibility for their own learning.  Harmer (2003 p.1) states;

“Get them to write the questions, cut up texts (a bit too primary – like sometimes), write their own grammar exercises.  I mean somehow getting the ownership of the material over to them……put them in the center of the frame”.

Harris ( 1991, pp. 1-5 )  suggests many ways on how to get students more “into the frame”. These include; giving them roles to help the teacher and the class, highlighting students in a positive fashion and using rewards.

Teenagers learn language because it is meaningful to them. Children learn language because they have a natural affinity and also there is evidence of a deep need. Adults learn languages for many intrinsic reasons (and this may be a reason why they can be so good at learning languages, all things considered). Teenagers learn a language not only for marks but because it is meaningful.  Relating the rationale and purpose of language learning is a must with teenagers. As well,  a thematic curriculum should be developed that centers on their interests and their world. Presentations, role plays, projects are all language activities that give learners more autonomy.

It should be noted here that it is very difficult to learn a second language in “a class”. There just aren’t enough hours in the school year and the classroom is also a very artificial and many times “wasteful” language learning environment. Giving students more autonomy also means giving them more opportunity to become independent learners. Teachers should direct students to resources for learning outside the classroom and provide them with these opportunities. In the present age of telephony, this will become increasingly the case with successful language classrooms. Students can learn much more efficiently by themselves through input and the classroom can be time for more social and instructional focus on language.

“The Cool Factor”

 

Teenagers are forming their social identity. As such,  they are heavily influenced by their peer groups (Waqui , 2000) . Learners of a second language want to “belong” and not be “strange”.  Speaking in a foreign language can be a scary experience and very necessary comprehensible output can be hard to achieve. Teachers must be sensitive to this and spend much time creating a very warm, inviting and risk taking atmosphere in the classroom. Teachers need to reflect upon the activities they undertake in the second language classroom and ask themselves – “Does it help or hinder peer bonding?”

Group work is essential and a less teacher centered delivery method a must. Teenagers along with control, want to learn in and by their peer group. Social networking and Web 2.0 tools are a big help for the computer literate language teacher in this area. Teachers need to move toward more richly interactive language use  and more cooperative learning.

The social nature of learning will only grow in importance. Teenagers are much more “social learners” and networking will become a larger focus of the learning paradigm. Chaos theory and everything being related to everything – knowledge growing exponentially – new technology which allows us to be “everywhere”, this will all change how we learn and live. The burgeoning field of “connection” will also play a part in describing this changing world (Siemens, 2005)

“Anxiety”

The downside of the “cool factor” is learner anxiety. Language learning can be traumatic and frustrating. Learners very often suffer from acute anxiety which effects acquisition and leads to fossilization. Many studies have concluded that anxiety and achievement are negatively correlated. (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1994). Hoffman (1986, p. 261) suggests, “affect can determine the extent to which semantic and non-semantic modes of processing are brought into play”.

Na (2003) in her study of high school students in China, found significant anxiety negatively correlated with achievement. Boys suffered more and it often became a vicious circle (anxiety – low achievement – more anxiety – low achievement ……). She suggests teachers plan appropriately and focus on making a positive classroom environment (no negative evaluations, less error correction, no ranking, less test focus, allowing students to express their own views).

Anxiety depends on the language learning situation students encounter (Gass, p. 357 ). It is situational and depends on a multitude of factors. For example, in some classrooms competition and games may be seen as “anxiety producers” whereas in others, they may be a very beneficial way to foster language acquisition.  Best practices would dictate that we give our learners the 2nd language anxiety survey (appendix) in their L1 to see if anxiety is indeed, a serious issue.

“The NOW”

Nothing dampens the spirit of the teenage learner more than drudgy, old, 30 year old language learning materials. Teenagers crave “the new” and “the now” , driven as they are by peer socialization. Content should be up to date and authentic materials promoted. Further, teachers should students more opportunity to produce materials in their classrooms and thus “ensure” current content.

We are only just now starting to understand the brain and recent efforts in SLA research into connectivism may shed light into how the teenagers use their brain and learn language. They crave rich and multimodal content. An adult might not like all the sensory input that a teenager would.

Prensky (2001, p. 3) elaborates;

Children raised with the computer “think differently from the rest of us. They develop hypertext minds. They leap around. It’s as though their cognitive structures were parallel, not sequential.”

Oblinger (2005, p.16) notes a number of differences with the “Net Generation”

Visual – ability to read visual images

Visual – Spatial skills – integrate the virtual and real

Inductive Discovery

Attentional Deployment – shift attention quickly, focus on only what concerns them.

Quick Response Time

These have important implications for the second language instructor. Teenagers brains are quite malleable and instructors need to provide very “rich” content. Text to Speech and video / music are essential for not only motivating teenagers with the “new” but also allowing them to learn effectively. Instructors should limit activity time (Anderson, 2008) . Language teachers should use more media and visual content to assist learning. More control should be given to students in terms of what they wish to study. Games will become an important component of any future successful language learning curriculum.

The “Romantic” Learner

 

Teenagers respond to the “humanistic” learning environment. They are very idealistic and emotions seem to dominate their character. “ Loving at one moment, monsters at the next”, as one teacher put it.  Waqui (2000, p.3) suggests that the success of a language teacher is partly in being a good, empathetic role model. Learners will respond to a teacher that cares, especially teenage learners who carry a romantic spirit and crave authenticity, personality and presence over content.

The affective filter can also be reduced by giving students an emotional attachment to language and words (Harmer 2006, p. 58). Language is best retained when it has personal relevance and teachers can foster this. Further, as the preeminent psychologist Carl Rogers noted , “learners need to feel what they are learning is personally relevant to them, that they have to experience learning (not being taught) and that their self image needs to be enhanced”.

Taking care of the affective side of the teaching equation can be a huge task. Further, it should not be done at the expense of attention to the cognitive and intellectual development of the equation. Still, it can be accomplished through a teacher that shares their life with the students and also encourages language learning through personal growth and sharing. Anything creative is a proven classroom winner for the teenager “romantic” learner.

Conclusion

I have briefly outlined some important considerations for teachers when teaching teens. Teenagers crave autonomy (and there are some critics who see the problems of the teen years as arising from restricting teenagers and delaying their adulthood (Epstein, 2004) ), they also want to be “cool” and desire “new” materials. Teens also need much peer interaction. Personalization of content and delivery is essential and attention must also be paid to the “anxiety” levels of language learners.

The future is like a double edged sword for today’s teenage students. The world is changing under their feet. Will technology and rich content enable them to learn languages much quicker than traditionally? Or will it be a crutch, decreasing motivation, full of translators and “help” and allow them no “drive” and need to learn the language?

We should certainly hope for the former.

(get more resources/info. about teaching teens HERE)

References

Anderson, Gary, (2008), “Teaching Teenagers English”, English in Mind, Cambridge Univ. Press, Retrieved Aug. 01, 2008, http://www.cambridge.org/elt/englishinmind/teacher_resources/teaching_teenagers.htm

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Needham Heights, MA, Allyn & Bacon.

Epstein, Robert, (2007) “The Myth of the Teen Brain”. Scientific American Mind, pg 57-63.

Epstein, Robert,. (2004), The End of Adolescence. Philip Graham. Oxford University Press.

Gardner, R., and Lambert, W. (Eds.) (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gass, M. Susan and  Selinker, Larry.  (2001). Second Language Acquisition, an introductory course, London., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Harley, B. (1986). Age in second language acquisition. London: Multilingual Matters

Harmer, Jeremy,. (2006). The Practice of English Language Teaching, 4th Edition, Essex, Pearson Longman.

Harris, Robert,. (1991) Some Ideas for motivating students, Retrieved Aug. 01, 2008, http://www.virtualsalt.com/mla.htm

Hoffman, M.L., (1986), Affect, cognition and motivation. In R.M. Sorrentino & E.T.

Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (pp.244-280). New York, Guilford.

Jeremy Harmer,.“Teaching Teenagers”, ELT Forum, Sept. 2003. Retrieved August 01, 2008 from http://www.eltforum.com/articles/free/transcripts/23.pdf

Little, D. (1999). “ Developing learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: a social-interactive view of learning and three fundamental pedagogical principles”, Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 38: 77-88.

Marc Prensky, “Do They Really Think Differently?”, On the Horizon,. MCB University Press, 9(6), 1-6. Dec. 20001.

Marc Prensky, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants”, On the Horizon,. MCB University Press, 9(5), 1-5. Oct. 20001.

Na, Zhao., (2003) “A Study of High School Students’ English Learning Anxiety.”, Asian EFL Journal 9 (3)  Article 2,

Oblinger, G. Diane and Oblinger, L. James, (2005), “Educating the Net Generation”, Educause.

Rogers, C., (1969) Freedom to Learn, Charles Merrill.

Siemens, George,. (2005) Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age, Retrieved Aug. 01, 2008, http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm

Singleton, David,. (1989), “Language Acquisition, The Age Factor.”, Multilingual Matters, Avon, England.

Twyford, Charles William,. (1988), “Age Related Factors in Second Language Acquisition”, NCBE Winter (2) 1-9.

Walqui, A. (2000). Contextual Factors in Second Language Acquisition. Washington D.C., Center for Applied Linguistics

Appendix 1

Twelve Things to Keep in Mind when Teaching Teenagers

by Gary Anderson

  • It seems that all teenagers are interested in pop songs, so exploit that interest by bringing music – and the feelings that can be expressed through songs – into the classroom.
  • Teenagers (perhaps especially the current need-to-know generation) like to be seen as cool and up-to-date, so bring in topics of current interest from IT, sport, entertainment and media, and English-speaking cultures that is personally relevant to your learners.
  • Teenagers are discovering (often with difficulty) a different relationship with others and group work allows individuals to interact with different classmates in a less stressful, collaborative atmosphere.
  • Teenagers are starting to define their proper personalities (sometimes it seems they have multiple personalities!) and role-play activities can allow them to try to express different feelings behind non-threatening, face-saving masks.
  • Part of growing up is taking responsibility for one’s acts and, in school, for one’s learning, so a measure of learner autonomy and individual choice can be helpful for teenagers.
  • It’s amazing how some teenagers will have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of a particular field, so let individual students bring their outside interests and knowledge into the classroom through cross-curricular work.
  • Variety – including surprise and humor – is the spice of classroom life (perhaps particularly with teenagers and their infamous short attention span), so try out different warmers, starters and fillers to change the pace and enliven the organization of your lessons.
  • Teenagers are discovering their (often awkward) bodies so use movement by giving students an opportunity to move around during class.
  • Teaching in secondary school often means teaching multi-level classes, but effective classroom management can help even with very large classes.
  • Use of the mother tongue can not only steer a whole class activity away from misunderstanding, confrontation and potential discipline problems (always a risk with teenagers), but also help avoid pressure on an individual by removing the impression that one person is being tested and put on the spot.
  • Games can provide not only purposeful contexts in which to use language but they also stimulate interaction, provide competition and are fun – as long as rules are clear and clearly followed by all participants.
  • Project work offers each individual a chance to use their individual talent to do something personally meaningful and motivating with the language they are learning – and the resulting posters and other visuals can be displayed around the classroom (just as teenagers decorate their rooms at home).

_____________

Extracted from -  http://www.cambridge.org/elt/englishinmind/teacher_resources/teaching_teenagers.htm

 

Appendix 2


English version of FLCAS (Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale)


1. I never feel quite sure of myself when I am speaking in my foreign language class.
2. I don’t worry about making mistakes in language class.
3. I tremble when I know that I’m going to be called on in language class.
4. It frightens me when I don’t understand what the teacher is saying in the foreign language.
5. It wouldn’t bother me at all to take more foreign language classes.
6. During language class, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing to do with the course.
7. I keep thinking that the other students are better at languages than I am.
8. I am usually at ease during tests in my language class.
9. I start to panic when I have to speak without preparation in language class.
10. I worry about the consequences of failing my foreign language class.
11. I don’t understand why some people get so upset over foreign language classes.
12. In language class, I can get so nervous when I forget things I know.
13. It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in my language class.
14. It would not be nervous speaking in the foreign language with native speakers.
15. I get upset when I don’t understand what the teacher is correcting.
16. Even if I am well prepared for language class, I feel anxious about it.
17. I often feel like not going to my language class.
18. I feel confident when I speak in foreign language class.
19. I am afraid that my language teacher is ready to correct every mistake I make.
20. I can feel my heart pounding when I’m going to be called on in language class.
21. The more I study for a language test, the more confused I get.
22. I don’t feel pressure to prepare very well for language class.
23. I always feel that the other students speak the language better than I do.
24. I feel very self-conscious about speaking the foreign language in front of other students.
25. Language class move so quickly I worry about getting left behind.
26. I feel more tense and nervous in my language class than in my other classes.
27. I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my language class.
28. When I’m on my way to language class, I feel very sure and relaxed.
29. I get nervous when I don’t understand every word the language teacher says.
30. I feel overwhelmed by the number of rules you have to learn to speak a foreign language.
31. I am afraid that the other students will laugh at me when I speak the foreign language.
32. I would probably feel comfortable around native speakers of the foreign language.
33. I get nervous when the language teacher asks questions which I haven’t prepared in advance.

The World’s Most Difficult Language?

by

languagesHere’s an article from this week’s Economist. Though I seldom agree with the writers there (mostly because they are so libertarian) – I love the intelligence and wit of their writers and so usually devour even their articles on the most boring of topics.

This article addresses the question – what is the world’s most difficult language? ( see the comments HERE – very interesting!)

That’s a tall order and the article for the most part is a primer for many beginning linguistics courses. A nice one that would be a great read for many graduate students. Still, they do come up with “the world’s most difficult language” but I think they should have qualified that with “for English speakers”. It all depends on where you are coming from, what your own language is. They don’t mention anything about this nor interference….

Also, I’m a big relativist when it comes to things so broad and “ALL consuming” as language. I believe every language is qualitatively as difficult as any other. It’s all in the nuance. Language is all about nuance….so when you look beyond the official concrete attributes of a language (sound, inflection, grammar, stress, morphology etc…) and get into its “spirit” (which is probably somewhere within the discipline of semiotics) – you see how difficult all language is. How fine and sharp is the result (meaning) and how all languages are a universe , an incomparable universe of their own….

That’s my take.

For the record – the world’s most difficult language according to the Economist was – Tuyuca – a language from the Eastern Amazon.