chapter 10 Toward a Theory of Second Language

I enjoyed reading this chapter.  The key aspects of theories were highlighted, hypotheses, claims, etc.  The topics "hot topics" in SLA include explicit and implicit learning, awareness, input and output, frequency.  And yet again Krashen takes a hit.  SLA theory and study is new and it will be very interesting to see future progress in the understanding of how we learn/acquire a second language.  The brain is truly amazing and powerful.  The "horticultural" theory of SLA was entertaining and gave a very nice visual of the idea. 

Chapter 7

I thought that chapter 7 was very interesting.  I hadn't really considered the cultural aspect as laid out in the chapter.    We have come a long way with political correctness.  I was surprised to read how the French magazine described dealing with Americans, though was it really that far off?  As I was reading I wondered if other countries, in teaching their native language, took into account the cultures present in their classes.  In Spain do the teachers get trained much like we are?    I wonder if they have a more variety of cultures present.

Lesson 7: Waring Article

Robert Waring's article   Connectionism and Second Language Vocabulary was very understandable.  In connectionism our minds are like maps or a maze, all of our in information is interconnected.  We learn by making connections with previous knowledge.  The more well known a word is that word will have a more complicated network of interconnections, words that are less well known will have a less complicated network of interconnections.   If a particular word if forgotten the system (brain) compensates by retrieving a different word from a different area.  This forgetting is referred to as Graceful Degradation.  Waring's description of connectionism is very straight forward.   He also mentions the generalization that comes from the connectionist system.  New language learners do this often,  "if pianist, then computerist", etc.  I definitely agree with his point that knowing a word or information better, then that area of the brain that holds that information will be stronger.  Items that are more relevant or needed in everyday language has a stronger connection.

Lesson 5: Learning vs. Acquisition

I am very much a fan of Krashen and his 5 Hypotheses about SLA.  In my foreign language classroom I used a method (TPRS) that was largely based on Krashen and his research.    His first Hypothesis, acquisition vs. learning, was the backbone of my teaching.  Through stories, told or read, the students had the impression that they weren't really "learning", and that was the idea.  

The Natural Order Hypothesis was put to work by keeping the language mostly in present, unless something else was needed, and then work through past tense, future, imperfect, etc.  Generally in the first year present and past tenses were the focus.

I did not want them to use their "monitors".  This was a very difficult idea for many of the students to grasp.  They had been used to being graded on the correctness of their written or oral output.

The input was the key.  I saw a huge difference with my level 1's using this method than the "learning" method.   I would shelter vocabulary (try to only use vocab they knew) but not grammar.  If I needed to use the imperative I did.

TPRS allowed the students to have lower levels of anxiety.  To the students it felt like a very low pressure environment.  Some people know of TPRS and love it, hate it, etc.  I can only speak on my experience.  It engaged the students, they enjoyed class, I saw them really seem to enjoy the learning (acquisition).  As with any foreign language (or even math!) use it or lose it.  Now many years later I would be curious to know if my TPRS students (taught with Krashen's ideas in mind) have retained French any better than my other students.

Chapter 4 - Human Learning

When I read about CLL (Community Language Learning, p.112)  I laughed out loud.   Very touchy-feely to begin with.   No matter how "comfortable" students get with each other I can only envision giggling and laughter as they try to sputter out sentences that have no meaning to them.  An hour a day and eventually the student will learn.  I really wonder to what extent this actually was successful.  The thought of sitting around while someone translates what you want to say seems somewhat ridiculous.  I can't see learning anything in that setting.

I was relieved to see that it can remind us to make the environment comfortable, safe to make  mistakes, and to get students to initiate language.  These aspects I do deem as very important in the L2 classroom.

Chapter 3 Age & Acquisition

The idea of "implicit learning" (p.66) is very intriguing (acquisition of linguistic patterns without explicit attention or instruction).  I definitely did not learn my second language in high school this way.  Let me rephrase that, I DID LEARN French in h.s. not in this way, nor did I acquire French.  I learned what I needed to to pass the test through drills, very structure games, and forced output.  I was unable to put anything together in a meaningful way when put on the spot.

In college I studied abroad in France, lived with a family and after a few months began thinking and dreaming in French.  When I spoke on the phone with my family in the USA I would trip over words and have to really work at my English.  Dekeyser concluded in a study that "...there may very well be no exceptions to the age effect...everybody loses the mental equipment required for the implicit induction of the abstract patterns underlying a human language."  Dare I disagree? As I stated earlier, I really had to work at retrieving English in my brain.  Grammar, definitions of words I didn't know and every aspect of my life was in French.  There was constant "meaningful learning".  

I may not have understood every word, but I feel part of non-native fluency is being able to ask a question in the SL, have it answered in the SL, and understand it.

I taught middle and high school for 3 years using the method of drills, forced output, etc.  The last 3 years I used TPRS, lots of meaningful, comprehensible input, no forced speech, & low affective filter.  Classrooms were quiet for about a month and there was very little writing.  It didn't take long and students were speaking on impulse and writing like mad.  I loved the timed writings, 5 minutes, here is the topic, I will not grade you on accuracy or content, the only rule is shoot for 100 words.  My students who began this method with me from the start would write up to 150 words or more in 5 minutes.  My level 3's struggled more, they had been used to the drill, forced speech method, they were worried about correctness and took awhile to get over that.  They too eventually came around.  I really saw first hand what works and what doesn't IMHO.

Just a test

just a test