Deepening the Debate - 2

(Week 11)ORAL I V

(HE281)Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez

drronmartinez@gmail.com

Goals for the week

• Work on argumentation in academic debate• Hold debate• Introduction to final presentations

Today’s agenda

• Recap articles from last week (Johnson & Newport; Piller)

• Finish article summaries (Moyer, Munoz)• Go over homework• Intro to debate and debate theme• Homework for next class

Next few weeks...

• 9/11 (Mon.) Introducing the debate• 11/11 (Wed.) Building arguments• 16/11 (Mon.) Structuring arguments• 18/11 (Wed.) Debate Day + look ahead to final

presentation• 23-25 – Reading and presentation structuring• 30/11 (Mon.) Presentation preparation• 2/12 (Wed.) Presentation preparation• 7/12 (Mon.) Final presentations begin

Article Summary

• Sit next to classmates who read the same article (1: Ana Paula, Andrey, Carmina, Patrícia; 2: Carla, Franciane, Rafaela; 3: Danielle, John, Plinio, Yasmin; 4: Tatiana, Gabriela, Anni)

• Discuss your general impressions of the article (5 minutes)• To prepare your summary, identify the following points:

– What was/were the research question(s)?– What motivated the research?– How did the researcher(s) collect data?– What are the main findings?– To what extent to you agree with the findings (and the method used)?– How does the Gisele Bundchen article fit with the research you read? Does

Gisele’s English proficiency support or weaken the research?

Summaries

• Pay close attention and take notes – you will need this information for next week’s debate!

The Debates (40 minutes each)• Objective: Warm-up and linguistic preparation for final presentation.• Teams of 2-3• Presentation of resolution + preparation (5 minutes)• The first speaker on the affirmative (“for”) team presents arguments in support of the

resolution. (3 – 5 minutes)• The first speaker on the opposing team (“against”) presents arguments opposing the

resolution. (3 – 5 minutes)• The second speaker on the affirmative team presents further arguments in support of the

resolution, identifies areas of conflict, and answers questions that may have been raised by the opposition speaker. (3 – 5 minutes)

• The second speaker on the opposing team presents further arguments against the resolution, identifies further areas of conflict, and answers questions that may have been raised by the previous affirmative speaker. (3 – 5 minutes)

• 5 minutes for rebuttal preparation.• There cannot be any interruptions. Speakers must wait their turns. The teacher may need to

enforce the rules.• Winner decided by audience.

Typical debate structure

Argumentation

‘Hedging’

• I think that the Critical Period Hypothesis is correct.• I agree with Piller’s point of view.• Adults learners are really different from children.• Kids always learn faster than adults.• All children who start learning an L2 when young ultimately surpass

people who start at later ages.

‘Hedging’

• Johnson and Newport would argue that the Critical Period Hypothesis is correct.

• I tend to agree with Piller’s point of view.• Adults learners are to some extent different from children.• Kids generally learn faster than adults.• Some children who start learning an L2 when young ultimately surpass

people who start at later ages.

Let the ‘evidence’ do the talking!

• There is evidence that…• (I think) the evidence shows…• Study after study shows…

• For example, if you look at…• According to…

Some common ingredients…

‘Hypothetical-Real’ Sequence

• Some would argue that the existence of a Critical Period Hypothesis for L2 learning depends on a number of factors. Piller, for example, presents evidence that identity can play an important role. And to some extent I think that is right. However, I think there is also compelling evidence to suggest that there may be a kind of period, linked to age, during which certain linguistic elements are harder to acquire than others in the L2. For example, if you look at Johnson and Newport’s research, while it is true that they focus purely on language facets, it is hard to deny that there are key differences between…

Some phrases from ‘Palestras’ book may help

HOMEWORK FOR TODAY

• Download the reading and worksheet online and prepare an extended argument in favor of the paper that you read for Monday's class. (Please print out the worksheet and bring it to class.)

• Send your self-evaluation (and use the special sheet!) so that you can receive your grade

Homework for Wednesday

• Build your arguments!• Read the new articles posted online, prepare

some notes (both ‘for’ and ‘against’)

DEBATE!

• “The Critical Period Hypothesis has no practical relevance to second language acquisition or language teaching.”

DEBATES!

• We don’t need teaching methods anymore.• We need to question the native speaker as a goal.• ‘English as Lingua Franca’ is ill-defined.• Grammar correction does not work.• Task Based Learning should be questioned.• Language is not an instinct.• Non-native scholars suffer from discrimination.• There is no point in teaching grammar.

TOPIC SAMPLE LITERATURE

We don’t need teaching methods anymore.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. Tesol Quarterly,35(4), 537-560.

Bell, D. M. (2003). Method and postmethod: Are they really so incompatible?.TESOL quarterly, 325-336.

Context matters more than form in language aquisition.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern language journal, 285-300.

Kasper, G. (1997). " A" Stands for Acquisition: A Response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 307-312.

There is no such thing as ‘English as Lingua Franca’.

Sowden, C. (2012). ELF on a mushroom: the overnight growth in English as a Lingua Franca. ELT journal, 66(1), 89-96.

Cogo, A. (2011). English as a Lingua Franca: concepts, use, and implications.ELT journal, ccr069.

Grammar correction does not work. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.Language learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing,8(2), 111-122.

TOPIC (SOME) LITERATURE

Language is not an instinct. Pinker, S. (1995). The language instinct: The new science of language and mind (Vol. 7529). Penguin UK.

Tomasello, M. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive development,10(1), 131-156.

Non-native scholars suffer from discrimination.

Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffman's “Stigma” tell us?. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 77-86.

Casanave, C. P. (2008). The stigmatizing effect of Goffman's stigma label: a response to John Flowerdew. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 264-267.

There is no point in teaching grammar. Krashen, S. (1992). Under what circumstances, if any, should formal grammar instruction take place. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 409-411.

Lightbown, P. M., & Pienemann, M. (1993). Comments on Stephen D. Krashen's “Teaching Issues: Formal Grammar Instruction”: Two Readers React…. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 717-722.

We need to question the native speaker as a goal.

Task Based Learning should be questioned. Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376-401.