Date post: | 29-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | ethelbert-marsh |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Colorado State
University
April 12th, 2014
Leslie DavisDevon JancinMoriah Kent
Kristen Foster
THEORIES OF SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION:
What are their implications &applications in the writing center?
The field of SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SLA) concerns itself with exploring the factors and processes that contribute to the acquisition of second and foreign languages.
“Tutors who are aware of the processes involved in the development of second languages and second language writing competence can be more effective in their conferences” (Williams, 2002, p. 86).
WHAT IS SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION?
INTO CSU
Fall 2013: International student enrollment up 280 students, or 23 percent
Past 5 years: up 70 percent
more than 5.5 percent of CSU’s student population
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
1,553 clients493 (32%) ESL clients
3,136 consultations1,316 (42%) ESL consultations
FALL 2013 STATISTICS
to explore with other writing center directors and consultants
the implications and applicability of five SLA hypotheses
if and how an introduction to these hypotheses should be incorporated into writing center consultant training
DISCUSSION GOALS
10 minutes: Introduction to five influential SLA Theories
15 minutes: Small group discussion & brainstorm of applications/implications in the Writing Center
10 minutes: discuss brainstorm
20 minutes: Should we incorporate these theories into Writing Center training?
SCHEDULE
“(The writing center) is a unique place where talk and writing
come together, where interaction nearly always focuses on
meaningful communication” (Williams, 2002, p. 86).
THEORIES OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
i+1Language input should be slightly above student’s ability level
“If the pupil is at a level that we shall call ‘i’, then the aim is for the teacher to raise the level of his/her use of the language to ensure that the pupil is receiving input a bit above ‘i’ and hence pushing up acquisition to the next level ‘+1’” (Krashen & Terrell, 1983, p. 32).
COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT HYPOTHESIS
Posits that “the best kind of comprehensible input leaners can hope to obtain is input that has been interactionally modified…
…in other words, adjusted after receiving some signal that the interlocutor needs some help in order to fully understand the message” (Ortega, 2009, p. 61)
interactional modifications negotiation for meaning
INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS
Negotiation for Meaning: “moves” performed in response to either actual or perceived comprehension problems, with the purpose of making meaning comprehensible to both interlocutors
Clarification requests (What do you mean? Could you say that
differently?)
Confirmation checks (So, you’re saying that X results in Y?)
Comprehension checks (Is that clear?)
These negotiations allow L2 learners exposure to the target language that is individualized and, rather than overly simplified, filled with repetitions and redundancies.
INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS
students must notice gaps in their knowledge
Learners cannot learn grammatical features unless they notice them.
NOTICING HYPOTHESIS
Was born out of the idea that “positive attitudes and an optimal learning environment will afford the linguistic data needed for learning…[but that] grammar acquisition cannot be successful without applying ‘interest’, ‘attention’ and ‘hard work’. (Schmidt, 1990, pg. 58)
The more learners notice, the more they’ll learn.
What is “Noticing”? - Learners should notice linguistic material.- The brain “registers new material” (pg. 63). - Understanding does not need to happen, as long as a new piece of information is noticed.- Memory of the new material is not necessarily needed, either.
NOTICING HYPOTHESIS
Noticing - students recognize what they don’t know
Hypothesis testing - students test out new forms based on what
they already know
Metalinguistic reflection - using language to reflect on language
mediates learning
COMPREHENSIBLE OUTPUT HYPOTHESIS
Motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety level of the student must be taken into account. If their “affective filter” is up, they cannot acquire as much new information (Krashen, 1987, p. 3).
AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS
In pairs or groups of three, discuss:
How do these hypotheses connect to the work we do in the writing center?
How do they help clarify or explain our contributions to the language development of non-native English speakers?
BRAINSTORMING
Should we incorporate the presentation of these hypotheses and/or others into Writing Center training?
How might they be best introduced to consultants?
BRAINSTORMING
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press
Ltd.
Krashen, S. D. (1991). The input hypothesis: an update. InJames E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1991 (p. 409-431). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Ortega, Lourdes. (2009). Understanding Second LanguageAcquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Williams, J. (2002). Undergraduate second language writers in thewriting classroom. Journal of Basic Writing, 21(2), 73-91.
WORKS CITED