Sunday, July 20, 2008

Cultural factors

Do cultural factors need to be discussed separately or do you think they can all be subsumed under ‘individual differences’? Present your case.

Brown (2000, p.177) defines culture as “a context of cognitive and affective behaviour, a template for personal and social existence” which establishes how a cultural group defines the world, and determines what is valued in terms of behaviour, relationships, and attitudes. Brown (2000, p.179) points out that, “cross-cultural research has shown that there are indeed characteristics of culture that make one culture different from another” (see also Wierzbiecka, 1991). Since “language is a part of a culture, and a culture is a part of a language” (Brown, 2000, p.177) cultural factors affecting SLL need to be considered in their own right, and not simply as they relate to individual learner difference. Since any ascribing of cultural values is necessarily normative, cultural factors should not be used to stereotype individual students; rather the impact of cultural factors on SLL is valuable for both teachers and students to consider in a spirit of enquiry rather than as a simple explanatory mechanism. This essay will explore three types of impact:

1) Effects on SLL of the L1 culture’s attitudes towards the target language and culture

Attitudes of a particular culture/language group towards another can influence the integrative and instrumental motivation of target language learners. The high status of English is reflected both in the growing number of people around the world who are motivated to become proficient English users because of its necessity “in the world of work and in practical communication” (Chambers, 2000, p.71), and in the declining interest of English native speakers in learning an SL (see e.g. Graddol, 2006; Clyne, 2005), so that SL teachers in Australia now need to advocate proactively the benefits of SL learning to counteract community disinterest.
However high status languages are not universally appealing. Minority groups in countries or cultures that have been colonised (e.g. Australian indigenous peoples), due to a “history of brutal subjugation and denigration of their way of life”, may reject “the values of the dominant group and … its educational system” (Mangubhai, 1997, p.39), and consequently also its language.


2) Effect of learners’ understanding of culture on SL proficiency

For many learners, SLL involves exposure to how the embedded cultural values, behaviours and norms of the L2 culture differ to those of their own. Misunderstandings, disorientation, frustration, and anxiety are all possible features of ‘culture shock’ (Brown, 2000; Schumann, 1986) and, as Mangubhai (1997) writes, if the issue of cultural differences is left unaddressed, it may lead to a decrease in learners’ motivation and a possible rejection of SL learning.
Cultural similarity or congruence between two cultures can facilitate SLL through increased social contact (Spolsky, 1989) and positive transfer from the L1. For example, the formulae for beginning meals in German and French (Guten Appetit; bon appétit) emphasises that “eating is fundamentally a social event and an event to be shared with others” (Crozet and Liddicoat, 1997, p.10) and the lack of such a formula in English may make cause French or German people to think negatively towards the seeming lack of politeness in English-speaking cultures. Even when similar phrases exist in different languages, their pragmatic meaning may differ. Although all the above countries use a greeting followed by a health inquiry (Hello. How are you?/ Hallo. Wie geht’s?/ Allo, ça vas?), Crozet and Liddicoat (1997) point out that while it has a ritual function in Australian English, in French and German it is used as a genuine inquiry and as such can cause upset or confusion when not used sincerely.

The scope for misunderstanding is exacerbated when two cultures are very different. For example, Scollon and Wong-Scollon (1991, p.113) conclude that the Asian use of “inductive, or delayed, introduction of topics leaves Westerners confused about what the topic is”, while Western ‘deductive’ ways which “introduce topics early in a conversation” strike Asians as “abrupt or rude”. Western style academic writing, which as Mangubhai (1997, p.26, citing Matalene, 1985) points out, “values authentic voice, self-expression, stylistic innovation, …directness…, a stance, and the citation of evidence to prove one’s case” can also cause problems for students from cultures where critically evaluating ‘expert’ texts can be seen as self-promoting criticism “contributing to disharmony” (Mangubhai, 1997, p.26).
If such conflicts are not explicitly addressed in the classroom, and students gradually encouraged to adapt to and incorporate new behaviours, values, ways of thinking, and patterns of expression, students may have negative experiences (e.g. social isolation, low marks, failure to progress) which will negatively impact on their motivation to continue SLL. More positively, the SL classroom can serve as an excellent place for the exploration of the target culture, one’s own culture, and the demarcation of a ‘third place’ from which to negotiate meaning across cultures (Lo Bianco, Liddicoat and Crozet, 1999). The teacher is instrumental in assisting students to be able to “function in the new environment” (Crozet & Liddicoat, 1997, p.4) without abandoning their own cultural values and identity.

3) Effect of cultural factors in teaching and learning

Hofstede (1986) suggests four categories of cultural norms that may impact on teaching and learning. I find the first two most useful and convincing but that may reflect Australia’s position at a polar end in these two categories (see http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions). The examples given have been observed in my ESL classes in Australia:
- Individualism versus collectivism – students from countries with a tendency for collectivism (e.g. Japan, Korea, China) may speak out less in class than students from countries where individualism (e.g. Australia, Italy, France, Germany) is valued, so I need to be aware not to let the European students dominate in class and ‘teach to’ them. Debates and discussions have to be framed and organised carefully to encourage participation.
- Power Distance - students from countries with high PD (e.g. Malaysia, China, Indonesia) may be accustomed to teacher-centred classes and resist ideas of self-directed and peer learning. I came across this in delivering a TESOL teacher training course to Chinese teachers that I had constructed around the notion of us ‘exploring’ topics and learning with and from each other. The Chinese teachers resisted this saying that I was the teacher so I should teach them. After changing the structure of the course to include more ‘lectures’, I found, somewhat paradoxically, that they became more receptive to asking and answering questions and offering personal observations.
- Uncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which people are threatened by a lack of structure or by uncertain events. Students from countries with high U.A. (e.g. Japan, France, Korea) may prefer more structured classes and activities and expect teachers to provide them with ‘right’ answers.
- Masculinity versus femininity depicts the degree to which ‘masculine’ traits such as competition and the importance of success in work and academia, are preferred to ‘female characteristics’ such as cooperation and negotiation. Japan is supposedly the most ‘masculine’ country but this value is not particularly observable in the Japanese students I teach – possibly because of their youth or the fact that they are outside of (and perhaps outsiders within) Japan. This shows the importance of neither considering nor presenting cultures as monolithic, static, and stereotyped, as variations within and across cultures need to be recognised and explored.

From this brief discussion, it can be seen that cultural factors impact on SLL in a sufficiently wide range of ways to make them necessary of consideration in their own right and not simply in the context of individual learner difference.

Is motivation the best answer for explaining the success or failure of second language learning?

Is motivation the best answer for explaining the success or failure of second language learning?

Motivation has been recognised by teachers and researchers as “one of the key factors that influence the rate and success of second/foreign language (L2) learning” (Dörnyei, 1998, p.117). It can be said to be the key to success in learning a second language for the following reasons:
· Motivation is needed to start and continue the “long and often tedious process” of SLL and other individual factors generally ‘presuppose’ some form of motivation (Dörnyei, 1998, p.117)
· It is possible for a teacher to influence students’ motivation in a positive way whereas other determining factors such as intelligence, aptitude, and age are less susceptible to a teacher’s influence.
· Even the most able learners will not succeed without motivation, while high motivation on the other hand, can make up for deficiencies in aptitude and learning conditions (Dörnyei, 1998).

Recent research into psychological theories of action-control, expectancy-value, self-worth, goal orientation and setting, self-determination (see Dörnyei, 1998, for an overview) emphasises the complex character of motivation as a individual factor that is not static or stable, but rather a dynamic, cyclic process of continuous change with “at least three distinct phases” (Cohen and Dörnyei, 2002, p.140). This three-phase taxonomy (pre-actional, actional, and post-actional) will be used to discuss the centrality of motivation within the various stages of the SLL process.

Pre-actional phase or choice motivation

This relates to the initial motivation of why someone is learning an SL and also includes learners’ beliefs, perceptions, ‘linguistic self-confidence’ and goal direction (what they think they can achieve, or how they will cope). Attitudes towards an SL community, its people and language, may initiate, increase or inhibit integrative motivation SLL (Gardner, 1985). Instrumental motivation (i.e. to learn the language as a means to an end such as career advancement, academic research etc) may be more important in certain contexts (Lukmani, 1972, cited in USQ LIN8001 Study Book, 2008), so it is important for teachers to be aware of, and encourage, both integrative and instrumental motivations of students. Some students begin with a strong integrative or instrumental motivation, some develop this over time (revealing the importance of actional phase motivation), and some never develop either, nearly always resulting in them fossilising or dropping out of study. It is therefore important to get to know my students so that I can find ways to encourage the development of both integrative motivation (e.g. by organising language exchange conversation classes; using interesting authentic materials; presenting different aspects of the culture through music, movies, discussion topics etc. that fit with learners’ ages and interests), and instrumental motivation (e.g. pointing out opportunities for them to further their goals, working with them to break down larger goals into smaller more easily attainable goals, and incorporating learning activities that fit with their goals).

Actional phase or executive motivation


Dörnyei (2001, p.116) agrees with Keller (1983) that motivation is the "neglected heart" of our understanding of how to design instruction, with the teacher bearing primary responsibility for motivating or demotivating students. Even students with high initial motivation can lose their motivation if the actual learning process does not provide the following (using criteria from Crookes, 2003, citing Keller, 1983):
1) Interest – Crookes (2003) emphasises the importance of providing variety, stimulation, and explanatory mapping when beginning lessons and framing activities, and avoiding too-regular patterns of classroom routines, so that “learners’ curiosity is aroused and sustained” (p. 130).
2) Relevance – a “prerequisite for sustained motivation requires the learner to perceive that important personal needs are being met by the learning situation” (Crookes, 2003, p.130). These are not only instrumental needs, but also needs for “power, affiliation, and achievement” (Crookes, 2003, p.132). Although different cultures value these needs differently (see Q. 5), cooperative learning structures appear to reduce anxiety and increase self-confidence and motivation compared to competitive or individualistic structures of learning (Dörnyei, 2001). It is also important that learning occur within a relaxed and supportive atmosphere (Good and Brophy, 1994), with sufficient structure to ensure that the environment feels safe and non-threatening.

3) Expectancy – learners who think that they are likely to succeed and who attribute success or failure to their own efforts are more highly motivated (Crookes, 2003). Learner autonomy seems “to foster intrinsic goal orientation, task value, and self-efficacy, all of which are critical components of ‘continuing motivation’” (Garcia & Pintrich, 1996 p. 477). As Cooke (2003, p.130) writes, “(i)ntrinsic motivation can be closely related to expectancy, meaning that the teacher should ensure that materials and how they are used are pitched at the level of the learners so as to be sufficiently challenging without being frustrating and de-motivating.

Post-actional or motivational retrospection

This relates to how learners “evaluate how things went” (Cohen and Dörnyei, 2002, p.175), which influences their future actions and motivations in SLL. In an educational setting this self-evaluation may largely be determined by marks/grades, feedback or praise. Dörnyei (2001) suggests the importance of:
· fostering the belief that competence is a changeable aspect of development (e.g. by connecting students with students/community members who have successfully achieved similar goals; dialoguing with students regarding learning strategies)
· providing regular experiences of success to promote favourable self-conceptions of L2 competence (breaking large tasks down into more easily achieved smaller tasks; having students set and record weekly or even daily goals in their language learning journals so they have a sense of moving forward)
· promoting attributions to effort rather than to ability (“I can see that you’ve really been working to build up your vocabulary and you’ve been able to express more complex ideas as a result – well done” cf. “You’re good at writing”)
· providing motivational and specific feedback
Crookes (2003, p.133) adds that “teachers may need to discourage a concern with grades because otherwise unsolicited participation and risk taking will be low”.

In conclusion, it can be seen even from this very condensed discussion of its varied and interconnected impacts, that motivation is central to learner success at all stages of the SLL process. Teachers may appreciate the student who is intrinsically motivated to learn, but they cannot rely on all students possessing such motivation, nor that any initial enthusiasm for SLL will continue if students find the process itself boring or unrewarding. It is therefore essential for an SL teacher to recognise and nurture the diverse motivations learners bring to and develop both in and outside of the SL classroom.


Reference List

Cohen, A. D., & Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles, and strategies. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 170-190). London: Arnold.

Crookes, G. (2003). A practicum in TESOL: Professional development through teaching practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language
Teaching, 31, 117–135.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The effects of autonomy on motivation and performance in the college classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 477-86.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude
and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1994). Looking in classrooms (6th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

University of Southern Queensland. (2008). LIN8001 Principles of second language learning study book. Toowoomba: USQ.

Cognitive styles

Role and importance of cognitive styles

Cognitive styles can be seen as an application of cognitive abilities that have developed in a person, and are “preferred or habitual patterns of mental functioning” (Oxford, Holloway and Horton-Murillo, 1992, p.440). Cognitive styles are typical tendencies that influence how a person perceives his/her surroundings and makes sense of the world, serving as a basis for how the person gathers, organises and processes information when learning.

Applied to a classroom situation, this means that if content and learning materials are presented in a way that is at odds with an individual’s cognitive style, the individual may not be able to gather, organise and process the information in an effective way and this may “affect students’ learning potential and their attitudes toward English and toward learning in general” (Oxford et al., 1992, p.439). Cognitive style appears to be a relatively stable trait within an individual that is connected to their personality (Brown, 2000) and may also have a cultural component (Cook, 2001).

Positive effects of knowledge of cognitive styles

There are three main aspects as to how a knowledge of learners’ cognitive styles can assist a teacher to be effective in the classroom.

Style awareness

To avoid possible conflicts and enhance classroom relations and teacher-student rapport, the teacher has to be aware of his/her own cognitive style and how this may be reflected in his/her teaching style and “try to ‘overcome’ their own style tendencies because of the students’ needs” (Oxford et al., 1992, p.450) by consciously planning for the inclusion of different styles within the holistic-analytic and verbal-imagery dimensions.

It is important not just for a teacher to know her own style and the preferred styles of learners, but also for learners to develop an increased awareness of both ‘their style’, and alternative styles. This can lead them to:
· Take more responsibility for their learning through:
o Understanding and applying the learning strategies best suited to them (e.g. a visual learner producing vocabulary cards with pictures and words)
o Trying to use non-preferred styles that may be appropriate in certain situations (e.g. ‘levellers’ paying particular attention to word order or the different use of synonyms, ‘reflectives’ working on being more spontaneous in conversations and brainstorming tasks)
· Be aware of and accept differences in peers and teachers enabling them to:
o Learn from each other
o Work cooperatively and inclusively
o Reconsider when ‘failure’ can be attributable to a dissonance between their learning style and the teacher’s teaching style.

Style matching

Knowing the different cognitive styles of learners gives teachers the opportunity to increase classroom efficiency by presenting material in many different ways, in order “to offer a myriad of multisensory, abstract and concrete learning activities that meet the needs of many different learning styles” (Oxford et al., 1992, p.452). It is an aspect of a teacher’s responsibility to “modify the learning task they use in their classes in a way that may bring the best out of particular learners with particular learning styles” (Cohen and Dörnyei, 2002, p.176),

In analysing my own cognitive style, I tend to be process information visually and verbally, sharpen rather than level information, construct knowledge in a holistic type way, and alternate between analytic and relational type conceptualisation of information. So, in the classroom, I need to be aware, for example, of a tendency to analyse language beyond the point of usefulness to learners, and of an over-reliance on verbal processing, when a picture, diagram, or mindmap may be of more use. (In a recent dictagloss activity, a group of learners asked if they could draw the information and speak about their drawing, rather than write out a written composition; when they completed the task, I could see that their comprehension and language production was excellent, which I may not have seen if I had insisted on a written composition as I have done in the past.) When I am in relational mode, I can jump too quickly between tangentially related ideas meaning that I lose the understanding and attention of learners who need a sequential and serialist approach. Over time, I have also come to see the benefits of incorporating plenty of activities that cater for a haptic style of learning which I tend to avoid for myself. Although a haptic style is mainly associated with children and generally thought to become less important with age, Reid’s (1987) cross-cultural study (cited in Oxford et al., 1992, p.445) found that many ESL students, particularly “Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Thai students”, show a tendency for this style. Therefore ‘hands on’ activities such as singing, dancing, drama, games, creative arts, and ‘reality-like’ tasks, are a valuable addition to what can often be the predominantly visual and auditory verbal activities of the adult learner classroom.

Style stretching

Although it is important to provide classroom activities within a learner’s learning style, it is also necessary to help students explore other learning styles, thus promoting flexibility and opportunities for success in tasks and in contexts for which their preferred style is not naturally suited. Once students have developed some awareness of their own style, I sometimes work with them on analysing a task’s demands in order to decide what aspects of their cognitive style need to be ‘forged’ or ‘tethered’ (concepts borrowed from Johnston, 1996). For example, students who are analytic and reflective may prefer “highly structured, deductive classes with frequent corrections of small details” (Oxford et al., 1992, p.443). However, this approach will not be beneficial when brought to tasks of indeterminate structure and requiring spontaneity, such as initiating and maintaining a conversation. In this situation, I encourage learners to develop tether strategies such as “Don’t try to understand every word” and forge strategies “Listen to the key stressed words to help you get the general meaning”/ “Nod and pretend you understand even if you’re not sure” which they can then evaluate for effectiveness. Further, if all students are aware that all cognitive styles have their strengths and limitations, they can work together cooperatively to encourage and assist each other. For example, in the example above, pairing the reflective student with a student who prefers active experimentation can help if the latter is aware of and supportive of efforts of the former to modify their natural style.

In conclusion, knowledge and awareness of cognitive style is most effective when it provides opportunities for ongoing dialogue between teacher-student and student-student regarding the most effective ways for learning.

Reference List

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains,
NY: Addison, Wesley, Longman, Inc.

Cohen, A. D., & Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles, and strategies. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 170-190). London: Arnold.

Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching. (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.

Johnston, C. (1996). Unlocking the will to learn. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Oxford, R.L., Hollaway, M.E., & Horton-Murillo, D. (1992). Language learning styles: research and practical considerations for teaching the multicultural tertiary ESL/EFL classroom. System, 20 (4), pp. 439 – 456.

Krashen's Input Hypothesis

The ongoing influence of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis

There are at least forty “theories” of second language acquisition (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991). Of these theories, many look only at specific aspects of SLA and have followed on from research rather than preceded it. This research itself, arguably due to the complex and non-linear nature of SLA (Larsen-Freeman, 1997), is often inconclusive (Ellis, 1994). It is against this background that Krashen’s Input Hypothesis remains a seminal and influential theory of SLA. His theory is comprehensive, easily understood, incorporates suggestions for SL teachers, and has played “a crucial role in that it has led to research to validate or invalidate his claims” (USQ LIN8001 Study Book, 2008, p.33). This essay will firstly outline Krashen’s five interconnected hypotheses that make up the Input Hypothesis, and then critically discuss his claims and evaluate their usefulness with regard to SL teaching practice.

Outline of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis

Krashen (1985, p.6) summarises his own theory as implying that “language acquisition, first or second, occurs only when comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquirer is not “on the defensive”…”. Contained within the theory are five hypotheses on which Krashen elaborates.

1. The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis
Krashen (1982) assumes that knowledge of a second language (SL) is developed in “two distinct and independent ways” (1982, p.10). ‘Acquisition’ facilitates fluency and is a “subconscious process” (1982, p.10), whereby the learner ‘picks up’ the language in a natural, informal and implicit way. As in FLA, error correction has little or no effect. ‘Learning’ is a conscious process, with learners being aware of the rules and formal knowledge of a language. This ‘explicit learning’ is said to be capable of being used only for ‘monitoring’ and does not contribute to language fluency. Krashen (1982) does not consider that there is an interface between these two ways of developing SL knowledge, as “language cannot ‘become’ acquisition” (Brown, 2000, p.278).

2. The Monitor Hypothesis
Strongly related to the first hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis explains how acquired and learned language are used in speech production. Acquired knowledge ‘initiates’ utterances and is responsible for fluency, while learned knowledge only functions as a “Monitor, or editor” (Krashen, 1982, p.15) that checks the output of the acquired language, making alterations or corrections to its form. Necessary but not sufficient conditions for the effective use of the Monitor are a concern for correctness, knowledge of the rules, and sufficient time to employ this knowledge.

3. The Natural Order Hypothesis
Based on the findings of Dulay and Burt (1974, 1975), Krashen (1982) claims that language rules and grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable, natural, and necessary order, which underlines the previous claim of acquisition being more central to SL learning, since a ‘natural order’ is “a result of the acquired system” (Gass and Selinker, 2001, p.199) and independent of instruction.

4. The Input Hypothesis
The assumption that SL acquisition proceeds in a ‘natural order’ through informal, implicit learning, means that language input, rather than language use, assumes centrality. Providing learners with input “a bit beyond (their) current level of competence (i+1)” that can be understood “with the help of context or extra-linguistic knowledge” enables them to acquire the underlying structures (Krashen, 1982, p.21). Krashen recommends that speaking not be taught directly as it will “‘emerge’ once the acquirer has built up enough comprehensible input” (Brown, 2000, p.278).

5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
It is not sufficient for learners simply to receive comprehensible input, they also have to ‘let in’ the input for SLA to occur. Krashen (1985) claims that affective factors such as motivation, attitude, self-confidence and anxiety will affect not only the amount of comprehensible input that learners seek, but will also determine the strength of the filter, thus determining the amount of ‘comprehensible input’ reaching the LAD. Weakening of the affective filter (e.g. by strengthening self-belief, or decreasing anxiety) is therefore vital for SLA.
Krashen’s overall view of SLA
According to Krashen, learning an L2 is very much like learning an L1. No conscious effort needs to be made to focus on the language as such, since “(w)hen the filter is ‘down’ and appropriate comprehensible input is presented (and comprehended) acquisition is inevitable” (Krashen, 1985, p. 4). Therefore, Krashen not only posits the existence of a Chomskyean LAD that is available for SLA, but also denies the existence of any Critical Period after which access to UG is restricted. Instead, the reason adults may be less successful than children in acquiring a second language is that their “affective filter” is higher and they more typically use (and may erroneously be encouraged to use) their abstract problem solving skills to consciously process the grammar of an SL.

Critical discussion of Krashen’s model and evaluation of its usefulness in SL teaching

I. The Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis
Krashen’s belief that comprehensible input will lead to acquisition is based on his belief that “adults can access the same ‘language acquisition device’ that children use” (1982, p.10). The extent to which adult learners can access UG is widely disputed (see Singleton and Ryan, 1994, p.191 for a review of competing viewpoints). The evidence appears contradictory: on the one hand there is Schmidt’s (1983, cited in Schumann, 1986, p.385) case study of Wes, an adult Japanese migrant to Hawaii, who received sufficient input in a ‘natural’ setting with extensive native speaker interaction, that “did not make him a grammatically proficient speaker of English”. Similarly, in my personal experience, I have had learners in my Japanese language class, who having spent years in Japan without formal study, communicate with a wide vocabulary but in an ungrammatical fashion. On the other hand, “many people learn foreign languages without going to classes and without begin presented with the formal rules” (Mason, L5). I have also met a few such people who have successfully acquired a language as an adult; interestingly, they have all grown up bilingual or trilingual, leading me to speculate as to whether this gives them some metalinguistic knowledge or awareness that enables them more easily “to generate their own rules” (Mason, L.5, and c.f. Schmidt’s, 1993, ‘noticing’ hypothesis).

Mason’s (L.6) point that Krashen’s acquisition-learning distinction is based mainly on the observation of people learning an L2 in use in the surrounding environment and that “in other situations one may expect classroom learning, of the conscious kind, to be important”, appears valid. Brown (1990, p.280) concludes that “Krashen’s ‘zero option’ (don’t ever teach grammar)… is not supported in the literature”. If learners are adults and learning an L2 in a non-L2 environment, some conscious learning combined with plenty of practice will arguably be of more value to them than it will for a child in an immersion environment. This fits with research in cognitive science and psychology that suggests that an interface between acquisition and learning exists as a process of restructuring or assimilation, whereby new information is incorporated into existing knowledge (see Mason, L.5). It is not sufficient for learners to accumulate input passively; instead the learner will need to “actively engage with the activity”, trying out hypotheses and receiving feedback (Gagné, cited in Mason, L.5).

While rejecting an interface between acquisition and learning, Krashen (1985) accepts that learning can contribute to SLA through the mechanisms of it increasing comprehensible input to the learner, either through the learner producing their own comprehensible input which is then acquired through the LAD; through the knowledge of the rules increasing learners’ access to comprehensible input; or in so far as language study meets students’ expectations, lowering learners “affective filter” again increasing their access to comprehensible input. These mechanisms, roundabout as they are, serve to reduce some of the ramifications of a too sharp distinction between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’, but they shed no light on how to discern whether a learner’s output is the result of a conscious or unconscious process, nor indeed how to differentiate “what is conscious from what is unconscious” (McLaughlin cited in Brown, 2000, p.279), meaning that the hypothesis cannot be tested for falsifiability. However, despite these criticisms, SL teachers can often appreciate that at a simple level, the hypothesis reminds us that simply teaching students about the rules of a language will never produce competent users of the language, as can be typically witnessed when students, who have undergone years of L2 instruction that is predominantly explanation and translation via the L1, are unable to engage in even simple conversations. Instead, the teacher should maximise the use of the L2 in the classroom and engage learners in activities that focus mainly on meaning rather than simply on form.

II. Monitor Hypothesis
This hypothesis builds on the acquisition-learning distinction, allocating different functions to the separate systems. It has attracted similar criticism in that “it is frequently difficult to tell whether a person is monitoring using a ‘feel’ for the language (i.e. using the acquired system) or using the learned system (d’Anglejean, 1981; Rivers, 1980) thus making the hypothesis untestable” (USQ LIN8001 Study Book, 2008).

Krashen used the concept of the Monitor to explain individual differences in learners. While “optimal Monitor users can therefore use their learned competence as a supplement to their acquired competence” without interference in communication (Krashen, 1982, p.20), the speech of ‘over-users’ is halting and non-fluent since they are overly concerned with accuracy, while that of ‘under-users’ will concentrate on speed and fluency without concern for errors. These claims also have intuitive appeal to teachers, as it is usually quite easy to recognise which students, because of personality, culture, or cognitive style, have a tendency to over-use or under-use monitoring, and need to be encouraged to adjust their behaviour accordingly (e.g. through the area of focus of feedback). The optimal use of the Monitor will also depend on the situation, for example, in everyday conversations, time pressures do not usually allow for the use of the Monitor, so teachers need to discourage students from being overly concerned with accuracy in conversation (e.g. by responding to the message and not correcting students’ grammatical errors in the course of a speaking activity), whereas in formal writing, the greater emphasis on accuracy means that Monitor use needs to be encouraged.

III. Natural Order hypothesis
This hypothesis has been criticised for being based almost exclusively on cross-sectional morpheme studies (longitudinal studies have not always found a similar progression, Rosansky, 1976, cited in USQ LIN8001 Study Book, 2008) that lack linguistic relationship between items and which reflect accuracy of production rather than acquisition sequences (Mason, L.6). Mason concludes that there is a stronger case to be made for the existence of 'developmental sequences' i.e. “the learner makes certain predictable mistakes at each stage in the learning process, and that these mistakes follow a similar order whatever the mother tongue of the learner” (L.6). However, “other studies have shown that the language backgrounds of learners may also affect the order” (USQ LIN8001 Study Book, 2008, p.39).

Krashen uses the Natural Order hypothesis to support his arguments for providing only comprehensible input and not grammar instruction. In contrast, other commentators (e.g. Ellis, 1994; Gass and Selinker, 2001) note that formal, targeted learning can help learners to progress more rapidly through the stages. However, in keeping with Mason’s agreement with Krashen that “imposing the linguists' grammar on the learner - whether or not he needs it - does not have any appreciable effect on L2 acquisition” (L.6), it is useful for teachers to be aware of how textbooks may violate the order of acquisition (e.g. ESL textbooks tend to put the 3rd person present tense -s in the first part of an Elementary book whereas acquisition order studies reveal that 3rd person present tense –s is acquired at around the same time as the irregular past tense), and thus of the inappropriateness of spending too much time correcting such errors or waiting for the learner to ‘get it’ before moving on.

IV The Input Hypothesis
The term ‘comprehensible input’ means that input which is too simple (already acquired) or too complex (i+ 2/3/4…) will not be useful for SLA. While criticism has been made that the actual determining of level i and i+1 defies precision (Mason, L9), Krashen would not see this as particularly concerning in that “a deliberate attempt to provide i+1 is not necessary…it may even be harmful” (1982, p.22).

More controversial is Krashen’s claim that ‘input’ is not just more important than production, but is all that is necessary for acquisition. Krashen seeks support for his claim in FLA in children (caretaker language; delayed production) but the applicability to adult classroom learners is questionable. Mason (L.9) and Brown (2000) emphasise that ‘input’ is not sufficient because ‘output’ is a vital phase in language acquisition, with the active role of learners and their production being significant aspects of learner success (see Swain and Lapkin’s 1995 Output Hypothesis, cited in Brown, 2000). In summary of Mason (L. 9) points out that output enables the teacher to judge the learner’s progress, and choose and adapt learning materials appropriately; that producing language compels the student to “reorganise and elaborate upon his knowledge of the L2” and, through feedback, to test their hypotheses about the language system; and that input and output necessarily interact in negotiating meaning and extending learner’s linguistic knowledge. Output, and its link back to authentic input, can also give students a feeling of success from having engaged in genuine communication. For example, after suitable preparation, I send Japanese study tour students out on campus to do a simple survey on a topic of interest to them; although they are often nervous, they most often come back not only with a feeling of accomplishment from having engaged in meaningful communication, but also with new words and expressions to use.

Notwithstanding the value of output, it is also important to realise that students’ ability to produce output often lags behind their ability to comprehend input so for beginning students in particular, approaches such as TPR whereby students can respond in actions, gestures, drawing, can reduce the level of anxiety that the pressure to perform verbally may create.

V The Affective Filter
The concept of the ‘Affective Filter’ has been criticised for not delineating or explaining either the scope (e.g. variety and forms of motivation, self-confidence and anxiety – see Mason, L.11) or the process of what and how input is filtered out (Gass and Selinker, 2001). Krashen appears to use the affective filter as the default explanation of why SLA does not occur; for example he states there is a “strengthening of the affective filter around puberty” (1982, p.44) as the reason that children acquire languages more easily than adults whereas the reason may have more to do with changes in cognitive processes. McLaughlin (1987, p.56) concludes that Krashen has “provided no coherent explanation for the development of the affective filter and no basis for relating the affective filter to individual differences in language learning”.

On the other hand, the metaphor of the affective filter has been extremely influential in SLA, particular in its intuitive appeal to SL teachers to whom “experience suggests that high anxiety and low motivation do not produce good SL learning results” (USQ LIN8001 Study Book, 2008, p.43). An awareness and consideration of affective factors affecting the classroom dynamic in general and individual students in particular is essential for all teachers, notwithstanding that their complexity, interconnectedness, and differential effects are greater than Krashen suggests (see for example the discussion of motivation in Q.4). Krashen’s evaluation of testing with reference to the effect it has on the classroom also makes sense to teachers whose efforts to introduce communicative activities are often frustrated in countries where assessment is weighted towards grammar and arcane language knowledge. “Tests have a huge impact on classroom behavior, and need to be selected to encourage students to engage in activities that will help them acquire more language” (1982, p.177).

Conclusion

Krashen deserves credit for attempting to offer a comprehensive theory of SLA that has in turn generated wide-ranging discussion and research. However, as Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p.225) point out, Krashen’s theory relies on constructs (i +1 and the Affective Filter) that are “untestable, and so unfalsifiable”. McLaughlin (1987) agrees saying that Krashen merely demonstrates how “certain phenomena can be viewed from the perspective of his theory” (p. 36). Krashen also seems to believe that SLA can occur in the same way for all learners regardless of age, background or context of learning, leading to many of his hypotheses seeming under-defined and overgeneralised.

Yet despite the theoretically shaky ground, even MacLaughlin (1987, p.57) is moved to comment that Krashen may not be wrong in his prescriptions about language teaching, since many researchers “agree with him on basic assumptions, such as the need to move from grammar-based to communicatively orientated language instruction, the role of affective factors in language learning, and the importance of acquisitional sequences in second language development”. In responding to Krashen’s theory, it is arguably most useful to play both “the believing game and the doubting game” (Brown, 2000, p.290), so that most importantly, a dialogue about these influential ideas remains in place.


Reference List

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains,
NY: Addison, Wesley, Longman, Inc.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Gass, S.M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language learning and acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. California: Laredo
Publishing Co Inc.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. New York: Longman.

Mason, T. (n.d.). Lectures in SLA and EFL: Second language acquisition theory. Retrieved June 14, 2008 from http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/Lecture-Mainpage.htm

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language acquisition. London: Edward Arnold.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.

Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language
acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7(5), 379–392.

Singleton, D., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language acquisition: The age factor (2nd ed.). Clevedon, GBR: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Retrieved on June 10, 2008 from http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/lib/unisouthernqld/Doc?id=10096140

University of Southern Queensland. (2008). LIN8001 Principles of second language learning study book. Toowoomba: USQ.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

My teaching philosophy

Teaching Philosophy

In presenting my teaching philosophy, I turn from the research-based and somewhat reductionist approach required by the Pedagogies Framework, to a more value-laden, holistic expression of the principles guiding my work as a teacher. Some are principles that I have held since the beginning of my teaching career, while others have developed through interacting and learning from and with fellow learners and teachers. As with the Framework, I consider it a lifelong work in progress:

Education is … constantly remade in the praxis. In order to be, it must become. Its “duration” is found in the interplay of the opposites permanence and change… problem-posing education – which accepts neither a “well-behaved” present nor a pre-determined future – roots itself in the dynamic present and becomes revolutionary (Freire, 1970, p.72).

Principles
Know myself
Until recently, my first principle would have been to “know my students”. Through recent experiences and study, I have become aware of the fundamental importance of first understanding how I have come to construct myself as a teacher from my own educational experiences and my location in a specific time, place, and cultures. This is not a simple task; it is demanding of ongoing problem-posing, critical self-reflection, and the positioning of myself as lifelong learner. However, continuing on this journey of understanding is pre-requisite to engaging in dialogue with my students.

Ironically, this position may itself be at odds with the conceptions of teaching and learning of my students. Nevertheless, it puts the onus on me as teacher to understand the positioning my students, to depersonalise any resistance they may display to my teaching methods, and to engage with them in a dialogic pedagogy.

Know my students
In my job role, I design curricula for diverse groups of students. Through student profile forms and correspondence with a group’s coordinating teacher, I try to obtain as much information as possible about the ages, gender, educational background, needs, and interests of these group members prior to their arrival. However, I mostly need to rely on my generalised knowledge of the cultural and educational background of students from a particular country. This is easier when the students are from an educational system in which I have had some experience (e.g. Japan), but problematic when the educational system is relatively unfamiliar to me (e.g. China). This is another reason that the use of dialogic pedagogy is imperative; I need to position myself as a learner of cultures and languages, and my greatest resource in doing this are the students themselves. Obviously, research into differing educational systems is of help, but dialogue with students is far more personalised and specific.

Having outlined a curriculum that I think will be suited to the needs and interests of students, I work to attune myself to implicit feedback from students (e.g. engagement with tasks, facial expressions, body language) as well as seeking explicit feedback as to how better to incorporate their actual needs and interests, according to their proficiency, personalities, learning styles, and self-images as users of English. As most of the courses are of a relatively short duration, I seek to build the confidence of each student by scaffolding activities that provide them with experiences of using English for authentic communication, with the aim of facilitating the construction of themselves as successful users of English.
My philosophy of course design is that every course should be constructed for the particular needs of students; courses should have a clear structure and employ a variety of activities to keep student interest; and every lesson should have clear objectives which fulfil the goals of the course.

Create a positive and stimulating learning environment
In order to facilitate learning, I work to create an environment that is supportive, interesting, and organized. My goal is to make students feel comfortable enough to interact freely with me and with their peers. I endeavour to incorporate fun, humour, and social interaction into my lessons, while remaining sensitive to the individual personalities and needs of students. I feel a great satisfaction when my classroom exhibits a group spirit, and an atmosphere of mutual assistance and enjoyment.

A good teacher is also a motivator, so before every activity I try to present information in ways that is interesting and engaging. Students also need to understand why they are doing an activity and how the task or knowledge is important to their lives and to the real world. Students learn by thinking and doing, so my goal is to have them actively involved in the lesson at all times. I seek to activate students’ background knowledge, monitor their comprehension, and seek their input and questions. I try to lead the students from activity to activity at pace which leaves no one behind, but that is quick enough so that the lesson does not drag.

Support the personal agency of the learner
Classroom time will never provide sufficient opportunities for learners to develop themselves as proficient users of English. Classroom time is where I can provide them with tools to assist them in their interactions with the world outside the classroom: by supporting their self-identities as both users of English and human beings with something to contribute to the world; setting up tasks, projects and independent research that involve them with the world outside the classroom; and by instructing them in the use of language learning strategies that help them exert agency over their own learning.

Develop and reflect upon my professional understandings of SLA principles and praxis in collaboration with others.
Language is learned by comprehending and conveying meaningful messages. Meaningful language use is language use that is connected to real life and genuine human concerns. Meaning-focused lessons encourage students to think in the target language and tend to be intrinsically motivating because they have an authentic purpose of learning and exchange information. In order to be meaningful, language needs to be taught in linguistic, situational, and cultural contexts that are of value to the learner. As a teacher, I need to engage with SLA research, be prepared to travel out of my comfort zone from time to time to put into practice untried techniques and strategies, and to critically evaluate and reflect upon my teaching practice. Further, this points to the true nature of teaching as collaborative and communal, as a person cannot develop their teaching practice without heeding the input of others, be they students, colleagues, researchers, or community members. For me language teaching is endlessly challenging and creative, and privileges me in that I learn with and from a wonderful diversity of human beings.

There is no difference between living and learning . . . it is impossible and misleading and harmful to think of them as being separate. Teaching is human communication and like all communication, elusive and difficult...we must be wary of the feeling that we know what we are doing in class. (John Holt, 1970, What Do I Do Monday.)

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

First Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning

I. Introduction

Children’s acquisition of their first language seems remarkable given the apparent ease and rapidity with which they master its complexities. This success in developing proficiency in a first language (L1) is often contrasted to the comparative failure of adult language learners to develop a similar level of proficiency in a second language (L2). Many theorists ascribe first language acquisition (FLA) to an innate capacity, which seems neither to require explicit tuition, nor a particular social environment for its actualization. The question is then posed as to why this posited innate capacity appears to be lost or impaired in the majority of adult second language learners.

This essay will begin with a discussion of FLA, arguing that there is strong evidence for an innate linguistic capacity that assists in the acquisition of linguistic structures. However, by broadening the conception of language to include semantics and pragmatics, the child’s environmental and social interactions become increasingly important. The capacity to learn language is therefore multifarious and due to a seemingly inextricable combination of biological and environmental factors. It is with this in mind that the essay will turn to consider whether similar language learning capacities exist within second language learners, noting from the outset some difficulties that arise in making cross-learner comparisons.

The diversity among second language learners and their contexts of learning must be acknowledged. Although SLA theories encompass the acquisition of languages “by children and adults learning naturalistically or with the aid of instruction, …in second or foreign language settings” (Long, 1993, p.225 cited in Jordan, 2004, p.10), the second part of this essay will reflect the professional orientation of the author as a teacher, focusing on the comparison of child L1 learners with adult L2 learners in a foreign language classroom. It is argued that the most salient differences between these two groups are those of age, learning environment, and prior linguistic and cultural experience. By examining some of the neurological, cognitive, developmental, linguistic, and affective impacts of each of these factors, it will be seen that the question of L2 learning capacity is a complex interaction of a multiplicity of factors.

II. First Language Acquisition
II.1. Nativist theories of First Language Acquisition

The overwhelming success of L1 acquisition begs the question of how it is possible. Explanations by behaviorists that language is learned through imitation and habit formation were refuted by Chomsky as being untenable in view of ‘the poverty of the stimulus’, namely that the experiences available to children are inadequate in quantity and quality to account for “the non-random mistakes children make, the speed with which the basic rules of grammar are acquired, the ability to learn language without any formal instruction, and the regularity of the acquisition process across diverse languages and environmental circumstances” (Fromkin, Blair & Collins, 2000, p.330).

This led to the assertion that language must in some way be ‘wired into’ the human brain, a position often associated with Chomsky’s theory of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD). A correlate of the LAD is that human languages must share a Universal Grammar (UG); that is they “share the same general design characteristics, are subject to the same formal constraints, and draw on a common pool of language ‘universals’” (Singleton & Ryan, 2004, p.186). Through exposure to a particular language, nativists view FLA as “the result of imposing structure on the input data as a result of the built-in expectations” (Skehan, 1998, p.77). The linguistic environment is unimportant except as a triggering device; hence children in diverse environments appear to acquire aspects of their L1, such as morpheme acquisition, in a set order (Brown, 1973, cited in Singleton & Ryan, 2004). As Pinker (2004, p.287) observes, these innate constraints set children free to create language anew, as exemplified in Bickerton’s studies of creolization and Kegl’s studies of Nicaraguan Sign Language (cited in Herschenson, 2000, p.37).

Although input can be ‘impoverished’, it needs to occur within a ‘Critical Period’ (CP). Singleton and Ryan (2004, p.33) cite Lenneberg (1967) as seeing the critical period as beginning at age two and ending around puberty, a period coinciding with the brain lateralization process. Despite ongoing debate as to the definition and significance of the CP, research into the acquisition of language by isolated and deaf children suggests that beyond the CP, “the human brain appears to be unable to acquire much of syntax and inflectional morphology” (Fromkin et al., 2000, p.343).

However, syntax and inflectional morphology is only one, albeit important, aspect of language. By downplaying the importance of aspects of language such as semantics, pragmatics and discourse, the importance of the environment and the social interactions through which a child constructs a holistic understanding and ability to use language are overlooked.

II.2. The importance of the environment and social interactions in FLA


McLaughlin (1984, p.32) disputes Chomsky’s claim that language input to the child is “meager and degenerate”. Studies into ‘caretaker language’ reveal it be well-suited in its lexicon, intonation, and grammar to hold the attention of a child and to make meaning apparent. Brown (2000, p.40) cites Brown and Hanlon’s findings that the frequency of occurrence of a linguistic item in a mother’s speech may affect the order of linguistic development, and Krause, Duchesne and Bochner (2007) cite Hart and Risley’s (1995) study showing a positive correlation between young children’s language experience and verbal intelligence scores at ages 9 and 10.

Such data lends support to the constructivist view of language as “constructed by the child using inborn mental equipment but operating on information provided by the environment” (Hoff, 2005, p. 16). Bruner (cited in Garton & Pratt, 1998) argues that to support the LAD, there must also be appropriate social scaffolding in the form of a LASS (Language Acquisition Support System). By engaging the child in daily rituals and routines, a child’s family provides clear and emotionally charged contexts for language use. Likewise, Berko-Gleason (cited in Brown, 2000, p.42) argues that for the development of discourse competence “interaction, rather than exposure is required.” “Theory theory” (Bowerman & Levinson, 2001, p.10) also acknowledges the effects of experience on innate cognitive foundations, viewing children as being born with innate conceptual biases or “theories” that they restructure to fit with their experiences. Such a conception offers a better explanation for the extent and depth of semantic variation across languages than can nativist theories (Bowerman & Levinson, 2001).

Therefore, when looking at the development of a holistic L1 proficiency, nativist conceptions of language and linguistic capacity appear incomplete in their conceptual and explanatory power.


III. Second Language Acquisition

III.1. Characteristics of Second Language Learners

In comparing the L1 and L2 learner, it is apparent that the L1 learner nearly always begins acquiring their L1 from birth (or even in the womb) and is surrounded by other speakers of the L1 throughout their development, whereas the L2 learner can be of any age and in any environment. Given the diversity of L2 learners, this essay will narrow its focus to those learners whom the author teaches; namely adult language learners learning in a classroom. Such learners are typically characterized by their failure to learn a language to a level approaching native speaker proficiency (Han, 2003), although Widdowson (cited in Deriwianka, 2000, p.254) has pointed out that the concept of “native speaker competence” is not well-defined. Bialystok also observes that “for a particular individual, some aspects of language learning are mastered more easily than are others” (cited in Han, 2003, p.7), again highlighting that the capacity to learn a language is more usefully construed as a multiplicity of competences.

Notwithstanding these issues, in analyzing the capacity of an adult in a classroom setting to learn an L2, the common characteristics that differentiate such a learner from a child acquiring his/her L1 can be made to serve as the basis for investigation. The salient distinctions of age, learning environment, and the L2 learner’s prior knowledge of a particular language and culture, serve as factors which can be analyzed as to their neurological, cognitive, linguistic, and affective impacts on capacity.

III.2.Age related factors

Fromkin et al. (2000, p.346) notes that, “(y)oung children who are exposed to more than one language before the age of puberty seem to acquire all the languages equally well”, whereas Lightbown and Spada (1999, p. 163) note that despite the ability of adults to acquire a great deal of a second language without any formal instruction, the evidence suggests that the use of ungrammatical forms may persist for many years without such instruction (see also Schmidt, 1983). This suggests that UG, essential to many innatist conceptions of language capacity, does not operate in the same way as it does in child language acquisition and that conscious learning of aspects of syntax and structure may be needed for adult L2 learners in the absence of the child-like ability to form such rules simply from input (c.f. Krashen, 1982).
We have already seen in relation to FLA a hypothesis that unless linguistic input is provided to the child prior to the Critical Period, the ability to acquire syntax will be permanently impaired. In SLA research however, the question of a CP takes on a much wider ambit, becoming a set of deterministic explanations for the mostly nonnative like end state for late L2 acquisition (Birdsong, 1999, p.2), which while useful to consider, often defy conclusive proof. Hence, there is, for example, conflicting research regarding the effect of loss of neural plasticity in the brain on the ability to develop a native-like accent; entrenched disagreement as to the degree of access to UG; speculation as to whether language acquisition circuitry is dismantled because of age or through lack of use; and ideas that adult L2 learning may be impeded either by the ongoing strengthening of neural connections to the L1, or due to the tendency of adults to attend to too many items in the linguistic input simultaneously (Birdsong, 1999, pp.2-9). After reviewing the evidence for a CP, Singleton and Ryan (2004, p.227) conclude “the notion that age effects are exclusively a matter of neurological predetermination, that they are associated with absolute, well-defined maturational limits and that they are particular to language looks less and less plausible”. It can also be noted that under a Popperian criterion of falsifiability, reports of adult L2 learners achieving native-like proficiency (see e.g. Bongaerts, 1999; Ioup et al.,1994; Nikolov, 2000, cited in Han, 2003, p.5) are sufficient to suggest that the CPH cannot be used to predict failure for all adult L2 learners (Birdsong, 1999).

That is not to say that such age-related factors are not important to consider, simply that we should be cautious about overstating their impacts on the capacity to learn a language. Notwithstanding their conclusion above, Singleton and Ryan (2004) acknowledge that early exposure to L2 may be important simply for the amount of input a learner gains from early L2 learning. From a different angle, older adult learners may process information more slowly, and have problems with phonetic coding due to their decreased hearing acuity. Singleton (2005, p.277) also cites Krashen‘s claims that the “affective filter” is strengthened at puberty thanks to the onset of formal operations, so that “for the adult it rarely goes low enough to allow nativelike attainment”. Snow (2002) sees older learners as having both advantages and disadvantages that emerge from age-related variables, including “how much one already knows, how strategic one's learning can be, how embarrassed one is about making errors, etc”. In conclusion, it can be argued that while age-related changes to neurology, cognition, and affect cause the language learning process for adult learners to be quite different to that of children, there is little to suggest that age necessarily extinguishes any part of the capacity to learn another language.

III.3. Environmental Factors

A classroom learning environment is strikingly different to that of the environment for L1 acquisition which is characterized by constant immersion and “(c)ontextualized, appropriate, meaningful communication” (Brown, 2000, p.73). The L1 learner is usually surrounded by L1 speakers and is highly motivated to communicate due to the increased agency this brings her/him. “Impoverished” L1 input still compares favorably to the exposure of an L2 learner, hearing the L2 for only a few hours a week in a classroom. L1 exposure can be contrasted to L2 exposure not only in amount, but also in the nature of the language used. While the L1 learner has no externally imposed syllabus (c.f. Corder’s, 1967, suggestion that there may be an in-built syllabus), L2 classroom learners most commonly follow a syllabus that suggests that language is acquired in a linear and orderly fashion. Whereas parents will often give their children the opportunity to pursue topics and items of interest to them (Lightbown & Spada, 1999), L2 classroom learners are often constricted by the topics and structures of a textbook. Children learning their L1 focus on the ‘truth value’ of language rather than its grammatical forms (Brown, 2000, p.39), whereas language teachers often focus on grammatical accuracy at the expense of factual correctness (Willis, 2001, p.59). Hofstede (1986) found the classroom setting itself impedes the meaningful interaction so typical of an L1 learning context, contributing to the formation of individual attitudes and beliefs about language learning that can affect outcomes. Brown (2000, pp.64) offers a list of such affective considerations, including empathy, self-esteem, extroversion, inhibition, anxiety etc., with the observation that any affective factor can be relevant to L2 learning given “the pervasive nature of language”. Acculturation, which Schumann (1986) sees as controlling the degree to which a learner acquires a target language, is also difficult to effect in a classroom setting.

From the point of view of the second language teacher, classroom environment is the variable over which there is most control, and issues of second language teaching and learning methodology become central to assisting learners in actualizing their language learning capacity. It is however difficult to resist the conclusion that, in the absence of learners also receiving L2 input and interacting using the L2 outside of the classroom, a high level of overall language proficiency is unlikely to be achieved.

III.4. Linguistic and Cultural Considerations

Every adult L2 learner has an array of linguistic and cultural knowledges and competences, and a linguistic and cultural identity that may influence the acquisition of various aspects of the L2.

Brown (2000, p.68) suggests the L1 can be a facilitating factor, “used to bridge gaps that the adult learner cannot fill by generalization within the second language”, as well as an interference. Ringbom (2006, p.1) points out that when learning a language closely related to the L1, “prior knowledge will be consistently useful, but if the languages are very distant, not much prior knowledge is relevant”. However, great differences between L1 and L2 do not necessarily cause great difficulties or enable prediction of interference (Brown, 1990, pp. 212). L2 learners have also been shown to proceed through common phases of acquisition of certain syntactic items, regardless of their L1 (Krashen, 1982).

This has led to a view of L2 learning as a “process of creative construction of a system” (Brown, 2000, p.215) in which learners test hypotheses about the L2 from the many sources of knowledge available to them: knowledge of the L1, the L2, communicative functions, language, and life in general. This view sees learners as “creatively acting upon their linguistic environment” (Brown, 2000, p.215), by continually restructuring their individual system of language, their “interlanguage” (Selinker, 1972, cited in Han, 2004), in accordance with their learning experiences, a view reminiscent of constructivist theories of FLA.

In interlanguage terms, the study of the failure of a learner to gain mastery of an L2 in all its aspects is dealt with under the construct of “fossilization” (Han, 2004, p.4). The question then arises as to when, how, and why a particular learner fossilizes, which in turn leads back to explorations of the neurological, cognitive, developmental, environmental, linguistic, and affective components of capacity, and their intersection with individual attitudes and motivation.

IV. Conclusion

The question of language learning capacity in both FLA and SLA is complex. The multifarious nature of language itself necessarily leads to different interpretations of the idea of language learning capacity. This essay has argued for a broad and functional view of language, whereby the child relies not only on innate structures in the brain, but also on input from, and interaction with, people in the child’s environment, in order to develop various language skills and competences. This process of FLA is necessarily unique according to the age and developmental state of the child, the amount and quality of linguistic input and interaction provided within the child’s environment, and the relatively unformed state of the child’s linguistic and conceptual systems. Therefore it cannot be expected that second language acquisition will proceed in the same way and a narrow or monolithic construction of language learning capacity will be even less helpful than it is in FLA. In examining the capacity of adult learners to learn an L2 in a classroom setting, age, learning environment, and prior linguistic experience were used as the differentiating constants by which the language learning capacity of these L2 learners could be compared to child L1 learners. In reviewing some of the effects of these factors on different aspects of the capacity to learn a second language, it becomes apparent that such effects are complex, interconnected, and variable. Empirical evidence may show that the adult learner is less likely to reach the same level of ultimate attainment in the L2 as the child-turned-adult will in L1, however there is little other evidence to suggest an inevitable extinction of any part of the capacity of an adult learner to learn an L2. For language teachers, the question then becomes how to incorporate into our teaching practices our understanding of the way in which learning processes are impacted by factors relating to age, environment, and prior linguistic and cultural experience in order to better assist L2 learners.




Reference List

Birdsong, D. (1999). Introduction: Why and why nots of the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp. 1–22). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bowerman, M., & Levinson S.C. (2001). Introduction. Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Addison, Wesley, Longman, Inc.

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4), 162–170.

Derewianka, B. (2001). Pedagogical grammars: Their role in English language teaching. In A. Burns & C. Coffin (Eds.), Analysing English in a global context: A reader (pp. 240-269). London: Routledge.

Fromkin, V., Blair, D., & Collins, P. (2000). An introduction to language (4th ed.). Marrickville, N.S.W: Harcourt Australia Pty Ltd.

Garton, A., & Pratt, C. (1998). Learning to be literate: The development of spoken and written language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Han, Z. (2003). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon, GBR: Multilingual Matters Limited.

Herschenson, J. (2000). The second time around - minimalism and L2 acquisition. Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hoff, E. (2005). Language development (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,10, 301-320.

Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Philadelphia, PA,USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon Press.

Krause, K., Duchesne, S., & Bochner, S. (2006). Educational psychology for learning and teaching (2nd ed.). South Melbourne: Thomson.

Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (2nd ed.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second-language acquisition in childhood. Vol. 1: Preschool children (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: The new science of language and mind. London: Penguin Books.

Ringbom, H. (2006). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Clevedon, GBR: Multilingual Matters Limited.

Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137-174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7(5), 379–392.

Singleton, D. (2005). The Critical Period Hypothesis: A coat of many colours.
IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43 (4), 269-285.

Singleton, D., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language acquisition: The age factor (2nd ed.). Clevedon, GBR: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Snow, C. (2002, October 1). Looking closely at second language learning: an interview with Shattuck Professor Catherine Snow. HGSE News. Retrieved on 30 March, 2008 from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/snow10012002.html

Willis, D. (2001). Second Language Acquisition. Birmingham: The Centre for English
Language Studies.