Early theories in second language acquisition This article was very interesting to me. I never have known the ways to teach a new comer and the stages that they must go through. The behaviorists do have some good points. I see that we do teach are students thought some imitation and they practice the new behavior or learned skill for homework. When it comes to math lessons I see that we will imitate the correct model several times until that can follow what we do and then they imitate the correct process. I see that we they good positive reinforcement they will continue to do well. I have never had seen how a new comer learns the language but I would assume it is like building blocks from words to then learning complete sentence structure. I can see this to be the way that my own children are taught to read in their school. They practice a word and say the word several times and then it seems to be rooted in their minds. So by providing correct models and repeating several times, I could see that I would sink in for some kids. I do see that there is problem that not all kids learn the same way. I liked the point that what I teach is not always learned. That what I think has been “mastered in drills and other controlled exercise seems to disappear in activities that call for spontaneous language use” (Page 33). That is one powerful statement that I see very true for many of my students so then is really is the behaviorists view a good one. Another point that I thought was interesting and would be good for teachers to know maybe in a survey is the errors that they child mad while learning their first language, because they will make the same errors and if we knew then ahead of time we would know where to help them. The Monitor theory is actually created for SLA learners, I never even knew they had a theory to follow. I do think that I have spent too much time trying to fix the errors that my students make. I actually feel bad that I have done that. I can at least say I did not know ahead of time. I wish that I would have know that all second language learners have to goes though the predictable acquisition stages. I wish I had that a long time ago. That would have helped in the past. I feel bad for the kids that I have already had. I also need to remember to slow down when teaching. I speak quickly and that is not helping my students comprehend what I am teaching. Therefore no matter how great my lesson is they are not getting anything from it. I do think it is important to create a safe comfortable learning environment so I know that helps them with their learning. The best point I can’t take away from this article is “student who received massive amounts of comprehensible input through pleasure reading outperformed those who received traditional grammar-based instruction, as well as those individual learners in acquisition poor environments who failed to acquire in spite of instruction”(page 28)
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition I found it interesting to read about the different theories in how a person develops an acquisition in a second language. I am probably most familiar with behaviorism, from other classes I have taken. I can see how they take behaviors from learning a first language, and assume that this occurs with the development of a second language. Imitation of models in the input, practice of the new behavior, and the provision of appropriate feedback are what the behaviorism theory believes is how language is learned. They acknowledge that learning a second language is a difficult process but can be facilitated by appropriate instruction (page 20). I have never thought about behaviorism being closely linked to structural linguistics. In structural linguistics, language is based on a finite set of predictable patterns is said to be blended easily with behaviorism, which views learning as the acquisition of a discrete set of behaviors. I found it interesting as well that there is no real evidence for the behaviorist explanation of SLA. After watching the movie in class about Genie, I see how these theories are difficult to monitor when most of the data is observations. Moving on to the Monitor Theory, which I am unfamiliar with, I do see the similarities with Chomsky’s theory, which we discussed in class last weekend, having the innate ability to learn a language. I do see how this theory will explain that why what is taught is not always learned, why what is learned may not have been taught, and how individual differences among learners and learning contexts is related to the outcome of SLA (page 26). The Affective Filter Hypothesis is an area that I have seen with a child. He was an English speaking student in the Two Way Dual Language Program. He did not feel ready when speaking Spanish, and by the time he was in second grade, had developed horrible anxiety over speaking a second language. His parents decided to put him in a regular ed. classroom, and after a year, he was finally over the anxiety. This student was not comfortable in the dual classroom, therefore was not learning the second language.
I would have to say that I enjoyed the reading on Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition by VanPatten and Williams. The chapter was filled with so much insight. The section on behavioral conditioning helped further support my topic of research in ENG. 341. My research paper was on the politeness theory; my goal was to write about how a teacher behavior (the way in which they treat their students) affects students’ learning. VanPatten and Williams write, “Learning consists of developing responses to environmental stimuli. If these responses receive positive reinforcement, they will become habits” (page19). In my paper this information would have helped further prove my theory.
Reflecting back upon my work and reading of this chapter, I feel it would have helped to discuss Chomsky’s theory of language. Not fully knowing that people/students are born with the ability to acquire language would have helped further my argument, that the ways we teach have an effect on our students. Our students are going to learn language; it is my job to help them learn healthy habits as a positive role model.
Krashen’s Monitor Theory and its 5 hypotheses could also be used in my argument. In observation #1 of Krashen’s theory, “L2 learners make use of the special language acquisition faculty in their brain similarly to child L1 learners” (page 31). I believe that done with positive influence these faculties are more receptive in the brain. Meaning that without knowing a L2 student would be more open to learning without being aware based on their positive influences and emotions.
While I realize some of my thoughts may be forced on the subject, this mindset did help in my understanding of the chapter. Some of the early theories in L2 acquisition helped piece together holes I find in my own research paper.
I also felt this article was interesting. I think it was interesting to read how these theories have changed and evolved. Krashen's monitor theory is one that I can relate most to, or should I say makes the most sense to me. Mainly because this is common to what teachers see everyday, specifically the acquisition-learning hypothesis. Similar to the example in the text, teaching students rules, or lessons not in context seems to never get applied. I mostly see this with writing and spelling. In my experience, no matter what method I use, many children can not apply or transfer what was taught to their writing. The Affective Filter Hypothesis was also interesting. Students who are comfortable in their environment and have a positive attitude on learning a 2nd language will ultimately be more successful, and those not comfortable or feel stressed will block their processing. Even though we teachers try to make our classrooms as inviting and "safe" as possible, I am sure some students do feel stressed and this can affect their overall success. This is not to say that the teachers are causing the stress, there could me many other factors, peers, parents, learning style, etc.
Sam,I agree with your statement about stress inhibiting the learning process. I'd like to add this observation. Upon attending an administrator's award ceremony, several students shared with that they felt safe in their school, safer than in their homes. This speaks volumes to being able to learn in an environment that feels safer.
After reading “Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition “, a couple of things came to mind. When reading about behavioral conditioning all I could think about is PBIS in schools. Teaching continuous repetition on expected behaviors and rewarding students when they respond to the expected behaviors. We are in our second year as PBIS and one of my observations has been that student behaviors still vary. In order for it to be affecting, teachers need to be consistent with the expectations and with the reinforcement of expectations In order for students to acquire the desired behaviors. When there is a lack of consistency and reinforcement is not provided, student’s responses begin to diminish. Imitating correct models will help students learn the desired expectations and as a result positive outcomes will occur. Our Everyday Math program also uses “classical conditioning” as a strategy to help students get continuous repetition in mathematical skills to assist in their learning of concepts. Everyday Math continues to use a spiral methodology to present concepts. When students do not first understand a concept, we are to continue forward and trust the program and its repeated strategies when teaching students. Although these continued practices have worked for many, it hasn’t had the same effect on all. I also found the Affective Filter Hypothesis to be interesting. I too believe that it is important for students to feel safe and comfortable in their learning environment. Students who are comfortable tend to have their minds more open and engaged into what is happening around them. When students feel that they are in a positive environment, students will be open to learning and tapping into the knowledge of what they already know. I’ve seen how stressful environments can really have an impact on students. When students are stressed, they will shut down and often will choose not perform in the classroom.
Marty, I liked your analogy to PBIS. I think you will see over the course of time that students who began their careers at HG will be conditioned to the expectations set forth by teachers, but it will take constant reminding to teachers as well to make the program successful. ML
I found Krashen’s Monitor Theory very interesting in the Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition article. His belief that “children come to the task of language already knowing a great deal” goes along with Chomsky’s theory that children are wired for language. I found it enlightening that the Monitor Theory is referred to as a non-interface model; that learners may be able to articulate “rules” but may be unable to use them in spontaneous production. This reminds me of all the writing errors that I see in my student’s work. No matter how many times we recite that beginning of sentences and proper nouns begin with capital letters, they don’t always apply it to their writing. It proves that the Daily Oral Language that I used to do in the morning for “morning work” was really pointless. The Affective Filter Hypothesis reminds me of the Silent Period that ELL’s go through. I have many student s who would not volunteer in the beginning of the school year because they did not feel comfortable in the classroom. I don’t think they really began to participate until December or January, unless they were in a smaller group when they felt less threatened by making mistakes. I also made a connection with “roughly tuned input”. One of my students frequently responds with a “huh?” whenever I ask him a question or give him instructions. I finally asked him if he had trouble understanding me or hearing me. He replied yes. When I pursued it further by asking him which one, he told me that I was talking to fast. I make it a point now to slow down. I wonder how many of my other student’s have that same problem and just don’t speak up because they think it is rude or disrespectful. When comparing behaviorism and Monitor Theory, behaviorism is focused more on quantity of input for SLA, whereas the Monitor Theory is more about the quality of input.
Sandy, when you were relating "roughly tuned input",I too have found that some of my students feel I speak too quickly. Now that I am aware, I catch myself, and will repeat a statement, or ask a student to paraphrase what I have said so that i may self-monitor my speech speed of delivery.
Math drills: addition, multiplication, speed tests, rote memorization; it all makes sense in the confines of the subject matter, but as I have traveled the road of education, language is that fork in the road where meaning is a pertinent part of the learning process. Language must have meaning in its communication.
Chomsky’s theory that children come to language with basic language ability by nature guarantees language attainment through the triggering mechanism, direct instruction. Krashen believes that L2 acquisition is based on a similar theory. When one considers that attaining knowledge comes from understanding, it is then that Krashen’s theory holds true. Language must hold meaning for a student to acquire the capability of language. Sometimes I find myself reteaching a lesson my students did not learn probably because it had no meaning. And I learned this through diagraming sentences with my students. Parts of speech taught in isolation have no meaning. But, teach it as a part of the whole, and suddenly 29 5th graders are writing meaningful sentences with a subject, a predicate, and a prepositional phrase.
Krashen’s monitor hypothesis echoes my experience as an L2 learner many moons ago. Filling in the blanks, transcribing English sentences to Spanish was not a challenge. But when it came to thinking on my feet to participate in a conversation in Spanish, this L2 learner failed miserably. I do not recall that my speaking partner used the input hypothesis of i+1 or i+2. I do remember feeling that the conversation was too fast, but was it nerves, or was it inappropriate input?
The Affective Filter Hypothesis makes sense as it addresses the theory that when a student is comfortable in their environment, learning happens. This theory holds true to all learning, not just language acquisition, thus the implementation of PBIS. Physical and emotional safety is necessary to support making mistakes without fear of negative feedback from the classroom community. This has been a mantra of education for years.
I also found The Early Theories in Second Language Acquistion very interesting. Know what type of learner I am was proven in this article. When I am as "stree free" as I possibly can with a job and five kids, I am able to learn something new pretty quick. But when life is really crazy and full of stress, I can read the the same paragraph over and over and still get nothing out of it. I really agree with the Monitor Theory in the section with the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Krashen said it best when he said, "Learners who are comfortable and have a positive attitude toward language learning have their filters set low, allowing unfettered access to comprehensible input." I see this with my students on a daily basis. When my student is having a "stressfree" life, she is able to learn a ne concept very quickly without much rpetition. However, when she is the main caregiver to her siblings when she gets home and had to worry about taking care of herself and who mom is bringing home tonight, learning is the last place on her mind. I have another student who has just recently moved into my class. This is his third school for this year alone. Trust is something he is truly struggling with and does not want to build a relationship with anybody. He thinks that he will be moving at the end of the year again. So with all of this going on how can he open his mind to new concepts at school? I know that there are steps to learning but if you are not comfortable in your life when the learning is going on, it is difficult to retain the knowledge for long.
The Monitor Theory was the most intriguing to me as it was the theory I know the least about. I am all too familiar with Behaviorism as are most of us, but the Monitor Theory was something new. In this theory Krashen states that L1 and SLA processes are essentially the same. I found it interesting that he distinguishes between acquired knowledge and learned knowledge and the fact that these 2 knowledge stores can never interact.(p.26) As others have stated here this seems to support the fact that students who learn rules out of context with little practice really struggle to apply these rules to their work later. Krashen stated teachers should abandon error correction in favor of giving increased input and the opportunity for meaningful interaction.(paraphrased from p. 26) And the Input Hypothesis which states that learners gain knowledge more readily when they understand the input. Doesn't that make perfect sense?? Do we really have to be told that? Isn't that where building students' background knowledge comes in when approaching a new topic? I know I learn best when I can actually understand what I am being taught. Thus sometimes what is being taught in class seems like Greek to me, until I go read more about it, then I have my 'ah-ha' moment. The Affective Learning Hypothesis states that students learn best when they feel comfortable. I know this year I gained a couple students who were originally enrolled in the Dual Language 2-way program. These students were feeling very uncomfortable in those classrooms and were refusing to participate in speaking Spanish. Thus their parents made the decision to transfer them to my Gen. Ed. classroom and they have really flourished(they basically never stop speaking). These students simply weren't ready for SLA even though their parents had desired that for them. I can even relate this to an experience with my youngest daughter. We took a family trip to Italy when she was 8 and she felt very funny speaking Italian and thus did very little of it. The older 2 would attempt to do so when ordering food, etc. We were there 3 weeks and they were picking up how to order what they liked and how to speak some basic phrases. My youngest really never became comfortable. But she was my shyest and thus I feel that explained things at the time.
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition I felt I was able to relate very well to this article. I was able to think of times in my classroom that has proven what I read. I agree with the article when it said learners should be exposed to a large number of target examples of language. I believe this needs to be in many different forms where they will see it. I was able to most connect with Krashen’s Monitor theory. In the Acquisition Learning Hypothesis, the article says that learning place naturally and outside of awareness. Basically, students will not be able to learn concepts or rules in isolated incidences, but rather need to learn them in context. This can be seen in my student’s writing and spelling. I have found that when we worked on possessive –s in class as an isolated instance my students “got” the rule. Wow was I mistaken. When I let them write in their journals, I began to notice that every word that ended in an “s”, now had an apostrophe in it. I learned from this experience that we needed to use student’s actual writing to work on this concept. I was also able to relate to the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Even though I strive for a safe and nurturing environment in the classroom, I know some of my students do not come into my room with an attitude to be nurtured. This is no fault of their own, but some of the home situations are out of their control. I can immediately tell when one of my students is “off” for the day, just by how they walk through the door. I try to diffuse the situation and talk with them. This works most of the time. When it works, then I can see them relax and I know that learning can occur, but when it doesn’t work, the student does not learn until they snap out of it. I know this is the same for me. If I am stressed, I feel that I am not as effective as a teacher and could do better. But when I am relaxed, I feel that learning in my classroom can occur more easily.
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisiton I found Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition interesting and beneficial to me as an educator of ELL students. I never heard of The Monitor Theory and its hypotheses, and discovered I could relate to it very well. Reading again about Behaviorism with its imitation and practice perspectives, as well as behavioral conditioning with positive and negative responses, I couldn’t help but think of Genie in Secret of the Wild Child. The horror that child must have gone through, being punished for making a sound and learning to live in silence, is the ultimate in negative response and abandonment – never learning to speak and communicate with others. However, as I teach my ELL students, all students for that matter, I make an effort to model standard English, provide positive reinforcement, and repeated engagement through active conversational participation. One thing I have realized with students in our building is that they do not seem to engage in conversation regularly. I find myself conscientiously talking to my students during breaks, before/after school, etc. about soccer, what they did on the weekend, after school activities, etc. and teaching them how to hold a conversation through every day, non-academic topics. Sometimes there are transfer difficulties with ELL students, but for the most part the interference from L1 is limited and isn’t that big a deal. Because of this, I get the Creative Construction Hypothesis and the Monitor Theory. I can see the acquisition (acquisition-learning distinction) of vocabulary and phrases occurring through the personable conversations, and the lack of remembering grammar rules on the learning side - capital letters and past tense verbs are still an issue. Classroom conversations are rich in comprehensible input, attempting to take students beyond the BICS to the CALP, via what I learned in this reading as just beyond the learner’s current level, or the i+1 (VanPatten, Williams, 27). This is especially evident in our academic vocabulary because we discuss the words and give several examples, as well as write a ‘kid-friendly’ definition, in their own words, and draw a picture. My students love to do academic vocabulary because they don’t think they are doing work and it is an opportunity for them to collaborate with one another. The Affective Filter Hypothesis makes sense in regards to learners acquiring language and having a positive attitude when the environment is relaxed, non-threatening, and non-stressful. Learners who are comfortable and have a positive attitude toward language learning have their filters set low, allowing unfettered access to comprehensible input. (Van Patten, Williams, 28) My students are young and still learning, both socially and academically. One of the most important, and simplest, things I do in a day is talk to my students and engage each one of them in conversation. It’s so basic, but so beneficial.
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition I was happy to see some familiar terms in the reading. In our Linguistics class we briefly touched on the Natural Order Hypothesis and the Behaviorist Theory. It helps me tremendously to have some schema in my brain to attach new information to. I thought that Krashen’s Theory explained SLA very thoroughly. I think that language is a unique phenomenon and cannot be placed into an existing theory. It needs to have a theory of its own. I especially resonated with the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. I moved to Yogyakarta, Indonesia when I was 12 years old and soon after the move, we went to live in another city, Bandung, for three months of intensive language instruction. I can remember being drilled and drilled all day long, repeating words and sentences. But when I would go out with my family, I could barely speak. I had to filter everything through my L1 and translate. But then my family went on vacation to Bali and my brother and I hung out every day for two weeks with the native children who were from a nearby village and sold puka shells to the tourists. At the end of those few weeks, I was chattering away like I never had. That stuck with me where the drill and kill lessons did not. I think the Affective Filter Hypothesis also came into play. As I remember the lessons in the house, I remember being behind high walls, no one to play with, it was the monsoon season and rained all day every day, feeling lonely and isolated and having horrible florescent lights overhead in every room. In contrast, vacation at the beach…well, what more relaxed environment could there be?
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition Reading about the different theories about how people develop a second language was interesting. Behaviorist theory states that all learning, including learning of language, is seen as the acquisition of a new behavior. It is further stated that the environment is the most important factor in learning. (page 19) People respond to positive reinforcement which leads to something becoming habit. If someone receives negative reinforcements, then the expected response or behavior will be abandoned. When learning a new language, if a student is praised and encouraged, then their attitude toward learning will be positive, and they will try harder and harder. If there are negative comments, or too much correction, the student will shut down and begin to give up. Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Theory explains why what is taught is not always learned, and what is learned may not have been taught. Individual differences among learners and learning contexts have an effect on the variable outcome of SLA. (page 26) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis was very interesting to me. Krashen states that acquisition and learning are two separate systems for gaining knowledge, and makes a further distinction that these two systems never interact, thus calling this a non-interface model. Acquisition takes place naturally and comes forward instinctively when learners engage in normal interaction in the L2 where the focus is on meaning. Learning is when you are explicitly taught the rules and patterns of language. This is when the second language is the object of the lesson, not the medium of instruction. Knowledge that is learned will not necessarily become acquired knowledge to be used spontaneously. An example of something learned is when students may be able to state the rules of grammar, for instance, but they will not use it in their writing. Acquisition on the other hand would be when the students may use grammar accurately, but they are unable to explain the rule. This is interesting, and something that I often see in my classroom. I think that as teachers it is sometimes difficult to change our way of thinking, and changing. Since I have begun my studies toward the ESL endorsement, I find myself changing many of my former methods – grammar instruction being one of them.
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition Reflection: Nicole Tucker
We’ve all learned about Pavlov’s dog and the conditioning theories that have developed out of them. Behaviorism has gone way beyond the original ideas of Pavlov. According to the article, “all learning-including language learning is seen as an acquisition of new behavior.” Environment is a key component in language learning and that is evident as we witness our own children and/or students acquiring language. Habits are formed from positive reinforcement or from negative feedback. I do believe that this is true and a real component of SLA. However, the article goes on to say that there is no real evidence for SLA in the behaviorist theories. There are several factors that affect SLA and observations that have been made to suggest that L1 has an influence on L2. Exposure to input in necessary. I noticed that the article mentioned that in classrooms modeling is not enough by today’s standards. I am wondering what the authors would suggest would be sufficient to address exposure. I agree that SLA happens incidentally. I imagine that this is how many students or people who are immersed in a country that they don’t speak the language begin to acquire a language without any formal education. I also found a very significant observation made in the article that neither the behavior theory or the constrative analysis could explain errors that happen in SLA. It goes on to state that SLA is not affected by L1. However, I have to disagree. While I of course have not done any formal observations, I do see my students (and myself) make errors in second language that follow the syntax of their first language.
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition: I agree with Marty’s comparison of PBIS (Positive Behaviors Interventions and Supports) to behavioral conditioning. My school has implemented PBIS for eight years. While Marty is correct about the importance of consistent reinforcement of the positive expectations, those students who have been at Highland for several years have grown accustomed to the expectations and need fewer reminders. The most important element of success though, is the consistent delivery of instruction from the teachers.
I also found that Krashen’s Monitor Theory, especially “The Affective Filter Hypothesis” supports the popular success of language programs such as “Rosetta Stone.” When language learners are put in an environment where instruction is meaningful and their attitude is positive, then their filters are set low to allow unfettered access to comprehensible input. This makes me feel that I have to be more consciously aware of my classroom setting when it comes to language instruction. How do I keep expectation high, but at the same time not put some of my students in a “stressful” situation where they raise their “affective filter” and therefore limit their processing of input. It seems like a catch-22. If I take away anything from this it is the idea that the language from a grammatical perspective should be secondary to the meaning that a student gets from the L2 language.
This article discusses acquisition of a second language from a behaviorist’s position. Imitating sounds heard in the environment. (pg. 19) and repetition is important until habits form. The goal of behaviorist was to describe what was directly observable and not to explain the processes behind them. (pg. 21) Page 22 adds, “behaviorists claimed that mental processes were not involved at all in learning; it was purely a response to external stimuli.” I am reminded of the behavioral management program, PBIS. Perhaps, a behaviorist approach to learning correct behavior is not what PBIS is all about. In elementary schools, that is what it has been reduced to: if students follow directions teachers will give rewards for positive behaviors. There is little intrinsic motivations for doing what is right. As I read about the Monitor Theory, I was reminded of Noam Chomsky’s and other innativists who believe people are born with the capacity to learn language. There are five parts to the Monitor Theory. A few of them were of particular interest. One is the acquisition-learning hypothesis. I am trying to learn Spanish in the natural setting of school. Each day while at work, I speak at least a few sentences in Spanish to the head lunch person. She has been speaking Spanish to me all year and I am able to engage in simple conversation with her. Another hypothesis that I can relate to is the affective filter. There are many educators I’ve talked to about teaching that have given me advice particularly when I’m stressed about my job. Many have said, “the content doesn’t matter as much as the feeling a child gets from being in your classroom.” Creating a positive and accepting learning environment will allow students to feel comfortable to grow and learn.
As I read this article, I was especially interested in the observations that were directly related to first language. In class, we were divided on whether L1 was the cause of most errors in second language acquisition, so it was interesting to see what some of the research had to say. The example that was given in the text with the sentence, "I am eleven." and then the sentence in Spanish that read, "Yo soy once." was a perfect example of L1 influenced errors, I thought. It seemed that the person trying to speak Spanish when their first language was English was making a perfectly meaningful attempt, although it was not free of error.
Furthermore, I found it interesting when the article mentioned people with different L1s experiencing different learning outcomes in their L2, even if the L2 is the same. I think what I need to recognize from reading this article, is that even though students are making errors in their language, that does not mean they are not learning. Errors may actually act as evidence that learning is occurring.
I too enjoyed reading the Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition. I found that it made a lot of sense of how children develop their language. I have noticed in the last couple of articles we have read that other theories always go back to behaviorism and start from that theory and start to base their own such as the Monitor Theory. I do agree that language has to start somewhere I believe it starts in our biological endowment as Krasher mentioned in his theory. All we need is to trigger it to get it started. I believe we do this in the classroom as much as possible as we can but where is that level of that child for that trigger to begin. That is the hard part for us as teachers to find. We need to give meaningful message along with interaction for the child to comprehend the message and practice it. As I read the observation of the Monitor theory I kept reflecting own my students especially my bilingual boys and girls who come to me for math. I picture their face and names and vision to see where they’re at in this theory of language acquisition. It makes a lot of sense on what Krashen has to say, but now I have another theory to think about in what coarse does a child develop their language acquisition. I am begging to believe a little from each theory because they all overlap in some ways, but can be disproven from others which make it hard to comprehend who is right.
Like most of my classmates, I thought that this article was really interesting. It was neat to see how far we have come in the debate on language acquisition, and/or second language acquisition. I found Krashen’s monitor theory extremely fascinating. I had never really thought about the differences between acquisition and learning, but if you had asked me the difference before reading this article I would have assumed that they meant basically the same thing. The acquisition-learning hypothesis made a lot of sense to me while I was reading it. I had never really thought of how or why I know certain things when I am speaking English, or the fact that I can tell you the way something occurs in English but not the reasoning behind this “rule”. I thought that this made so much sense in why it can be so hard to learn or when learning a second language. When you are learning a second language you are still acquiring those spontaneous “rules” so you cannot be proficient in a language until those are in place. The input hypothesis also caught my attention basically because it described what should be happening when teaching another language, but basically all it said to me was we have it all wrong. My mind was blown as I started reading this part of the article and realized that I was taught foreign language in an entirely useless way! Basically American school systems focused more on conscious learning instead of letting the learners naturally acquire the knowledge. When I was in foreign language classes in high school and college there was always an emphasis on speaking. I was told that I needed to speak the language in order to learn it. This always made me feel self-conscious and dumb because it was so hard for me! Now I know that this idea is violating the affective filter hypothesis. Because I was not comfortable producing the language, but was forced to any way it actually lowered my ability to learn. Now I think that many schools are taking a step in the right direction by implementing dual language programs. This way students are learning two languages, but they are being immersed in the language and can acquire the language instead of learning it.
As I read this article I was mostly intrigued by the statement that said “many errors made appear traceable to L1. This was interesting for due to the fact that I have an L2. Many of my errors come from direct translation from L1 even if it doesn’t follow the grammatical rules of my L2. I was also interested in reading about the monitor theory which was interestingly known as the “most ambitious and influential theory in the field of SLA”. This theory was developed by Stephen Krashen in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. This theory proposes a language specific model. I find myself agreeing with this model a bit after reading the quote “according to monitor theory language acquisition takes place naturally and spontaneously when the learner is focused on meaning. As I continue to enhance my L2 I find myself focusing more on meaning especially when pertaining to my parent teacher conferences which are primarily held in my L2.
Early theories in second language acquisition
ReplyDeleteThis article was very interesting to me. I never have known the ways
to teach a new comer and the stages that they must go through. The
behaviorists do have some good points. I see that we do teach are
students thought some imitation and they practice the new behavior or
learned skill for homework. When it comes to math lessons I see that
we will imitate the correct model several times until that can follow
what we do and then they imitate the correct process. I see that we
they good positive reinforcement they will continue to do well. I have
never had seen how a new comer learns the language but I would assume
it is like building blocks from words to then learning complete
sentence structure. I can see this to be the way that my own children
are taught to read in their school. They practice a word and say the
word several times and then it seems to be rooted in their minds. So
by providing correct models and repeating several times, I could see
that I would sink in for some kids. I do see that there is problem
that not all kids learn the same way. I liked the point that what I
teach is not always learned. That what I think has been “mastered in
drills and other controlled exercise seems to disappear in activities
that call for spontaneous language use” (Page 33). That is one
powerful statement that I see very true for many of my students so
then is really is the behaviorists view a good one. Another point that
I thought was interesting and would be good for teachers to know maybe
in a survey is the errors that they child mad while learning their
first language, because they will make the same errors and if we knew
then ahead of time we would know where to help them.
The Monitor theory is actually created for SLA learners, I never even
knew they had a theory to follow. I do think that I have spent too
much time trying to fix the errors that my students make. I actually
feel bad that I have done that. I can at least say I did not know
ahead of time. I wish that I would have know that all second language
learners have to goes though the predictable acquisition stages. I
wish I had that a long time ago. That would have helped in the past. I
feel bad for the kids that I have already had. I also need to remember
to slow down when teaching. I speak quickly and that is not helping my
students comprehend what I am teaching. Therefore no matter how great
my lesson is they are not getting anything from it. I do think it is
important to create a safe comfortable learning environment so I know
that helps them with their learning. The best point I can’t take away
from this article is “student who received massive amounts of
comprehensible input through pleasure reading outperformed those who
received traditional grammar-based instruction, as well as those
individual learners in acquisition poor environments who failed to
acquire in spite of instruction”(page 28)
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting to read about the different theories in how a person develops an acquisition in a second language. I am probably most familiar with behaviorism, from other classes I have taken. I can see how they take behaviors from learning a first language, and assume that this occurs with the development of a second language. Imitation of models in the input, practice of the new behavior, and the provision of appropriate feedback are what the behaviorism theory believes is how language is learned. They acknowledge that learning a second language is a difficult process but can be facilitated by appropriate instruction (page 20). I have never thought about behaviorism being closely linked to structural linguistics. In structural linguistics, language is based on a finite set of predictable patterns is said to be blended easily with behaviorism, which views learning as the acquisition of a discrete set of behaviors. I found it interesting as well that there is no real evidence for the behaviorist explanation of SLA. After watching the movie in class about Genie, I see how these theories are difficult to monitor when most of the data is observations. Moving on to the Monitor Theory, which I am unfamiliar with, I do see the similarities with Chomsky’s theory, which we discussed in class last weekend, having the innate ability to learn a language. I do see how this theory will explain that why what is taught is not always learned, why what is learned may not have been taught, and how individual differences among learners and learning contexts is related to the outcome of SLA (page 26). The Affective Filter Hypothesis is an area that I have seen with a child. He was an English speaking student in the Two Way Dual Language Program. He did not feel ready when speaking Spanish, and by the time he was in second grade, had developed horrible anxiety over speaking a second language. His parents decided to put him in a regular ed. classroom, and after a year, he was finally over the anxiety. This student was not comfortable in the dual classroom, therefore was not learning the second language.
I would have to say that I enjoyed the reading on Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition by VanPatten and Williams. The chapter was filled with so much insight. The section on behavioral conditioning helped further support my topic of research in ENG. 341. My research paper was on the politeness theory; my goal was to write about how a teacher behavior (the way in which they treat their students) affects students’ learning. VanPatten and Williams write, “Learning consists of developing responses to environmental stimuli. If these responses receive positive reinforcement, they will become habits” (page19). In my paper this information would have helped further prove my theory.
ReplyDeleteReflecting back upon my work and reading of this chapter, I feel it would have helped to discuss Chomsky’s theory of language. Not fully knowing that people/students are born with the ability to acquire language would have helped further my argument, that the ways we teach have an effect on our students. Our students are going to learn language; it is my job to help them learn healthy habits as a positive role model.
Krashen’s Monitor Theory and its 5 hypotheses could also be used in my argument. In observation #1 of Krashen’s theory, “L2 learners make use of the special language acquisition faculty in their brain similarly to child L1 learners” (page 31). I believe that done with positive influence these faculties are more receptive in the brain. Meaning that without knowing a L2 student would be more open to learning without being aware based on their positive influences and emotions.
While I realize some of my thoughts may be forced on the subject, this mindset did help in my understanding of the chapter. Some of the early theories in L2 acquisition helped piece together holes I find in my own research paper.
I also felt this article was interesting. I think it was interesting to read how these theories have changed and evolved. Krashen's monitor theory is one that I can relate most to, or should I say makes the most sense to me. Mainly because this is common to what teachers see everyday, specifically the acquisition-learning hypothesis. Similar to the example in the text, teaching students rules, or lessons not in context seems to never get applied. I mostly see this with writing and spelling. In my experience, no matter what method I use, many children can not apply or transfer what was taught to their writing. The Affective Filter Hypothesis was also interesting. Students who are comfortable in their environment and have a positive attitude on learning a 2nd language will ultimately be more successful, and those not comfortable or feel stressed will block their processing. Even though we teachers try to make our classrooms as inviting and "safe" as possible, I am sure some students do feel stressed and this can affect their overall success. This is not to say that the teachers are causing the stress, there could me many other factors, peers, parents, learning style, etc.
ReplyDeleteSam,I agree with your statement about stress inhibiting the learning process. I'd like to add this observation. Upon attending an administrator's award ceremony, several students shared with that they felt safe in their school, safer than in their homes. This speaks volumes to being able to learn in an environment that feels safer.
DeleteAfter reading “Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition “, a couple of things came to mind. When reading about behavioral conditioning all I could think about is PBIS in schools. Teaching continuous repetition on expected behaviors and rewarding students when they respond to the expected behaviors. We are in our second year as PBIS and one of my observations has been that student behaviors still vary. In order for it to be affecting, teachers need to be consistent with the expectations and with the reinforcement of expectations In order for students to acquire the desired behaviors. When there is a lack of consistency and reinforcement is not provided, student’s responses begin to diminish. Imitating correct models will help students learn the desired expectations and as a result positive outcomes will occur.
ReplyDeleteOur Everyday Math program also uses “classical conditioning” as a strategy to help students get continuous repetition in mathematical skills to assist in their learning of concepts. Everyday Math continues to use a spiral methodology to present concepts. When students do not first understand a concept, we are to continue forward and trust the program and its repeated strategies when teaching students. Although these continued practices have worked for many, it hasn’t had the same effect on all.
I also found the Affective Filter Hypothesis to be interesting. I too believe that it is important for students to feel safe and comfortable in their learning environment. Students who are comfortable tend to have their minds more open and engaged into what is happening around them. When students feel that they are in a positive environment, students will be open to learning and tapping into the knowledge of what they already know. I’ve seen how stressful environments can really have an impact on students. When students are stressed, they will shut down and often will choose not perform in the classroom.
Marty,
DeleteI liked your analogy to PBIS. I think you will see over the course of time that students who began their careers at HG will be conditioned to the expectations set forth by teachers, but it will take constant reminding to teachers as well to make the program successful.
ML
I found Krashen’s Monitor Theory very interesting in the Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition article. His belief that “children come to the task of language already knowing a great deal” goes along with Chomsky’s theory that children are wired for language. I found it enlightening that the Monitor Theory is referred to as a non-interface model; that learners may be able to articulate “rules” but may be unable to use them in spontaneous production. This reminds me of all the writing errors that I see in my student’s work. No matter how many times we recite that beginning of sentences and proper nouns begin with capital letters, they don’t always apply it to their writing. It proves that the Daily Oral Language that I used to do in the morning for “morning work” was really pointless. The Affective Filter Hypothesis reminds me of the Silent Period that ELL’s go through. I have many student s who would not volunteer in the beginning of the school year because they did not feel comfortable in the classroom. I don’t think they really began to participate until December or January, unless they were in a smaller group when they felt less threatened by making mistakes. I also made a connection with “roughly tuned input”. One of my students frequently responds with a “huh?” whenever I ask him a question or give him instructions. I finally asked him if he had trouble understanding me or hearing me. He replied yes. When I pursued it further by asking him which one, he told me that I was talking to fast. I make it a point now to slow down. I wonder how many of my other student’s have that same problem and just don’t speak up because they think it is rude or disrespectful. When comparing behaviorism and Monitor Theory, behaviorism is focused more on quantity of input for SLA, whereas the Monitor Theory is more about the quality of input.
ReplyDeleteSandy, when you were relating "roughly tuned input",I too have found that some of my students feel I speak too quickly. Now that I am aware, I catch myself, and will repeat a statement, or ask a student to paraphrase what I have said so that i may self-monitor my speech speed of delivery.
DeleteMath drills: addition, multiplication, speed tests, rote memorization; it all makes sense in the confines of the subject matter, but as I have traveled the road of education, language is that fork in the road where meaning is a pertinent part of the learning process. Language must have meaning in its communication.
ReplyDeleteChomsky’s theory that children come to language with basic language ability by nature guarantees language attainment through the triggering mechanism, direct instruction. Krashen believes that L2 acquisition is based on a similar theory. When one considers that attaining knowledge comes from understanding, it is then that Krashen’s theory holds true. Language must hold meaning for a student to acquire the capability of language. Sometimes I find myself reteaching a lesson my students did not learn probably because it had no meaning. And I learned this through diagraming sentences with my students. Parts of speech taught in isolation have no meaning. But, teach it as a part of the whole, and suddenly 29 5th graders are writing meaningful sentences with a subject, a predicate, and a prepositional phrase.
Krashen’s monitor hypothesis echoes my experience as an L2 learner many moons ago. Filling in the blanks, transcribing English sentences to Spanish was not a challenge. But when it came to thinking on my feet to participate in a conversation in Spanish, this L2 learner failed miserably. I do not recall that my speaking partner used the input hypothesis of i+1 or i+2. I do remember feeling that the conversation was too fast, but was it nerves, or was it inappropriate input?
The Affective Filter Hypothesis makes sense as it addresses the theory that when a student is comfortable in their environment, learning happens. This theory holds true to all learning, not just language acquisition, thus the implementation of PBIS. Physical and emotional safety is necessary to support making mistakes without fear of negative feedback from the classroom community. This has been a mantra of education for years.
I also found The Early Theories in Second Language Acquistion very interesting. Know what type of learner I am was proven in this article. When I am as "stree free" as I possibly can with a job and five kids, I am able to learn something new pretty quick. But when life is really crazy and full of stress, I can read the the same paragraph over and over and still get nothing out of it. I really agree with the Monitor Theory in the section with the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Krashen said it best when he said, "Learners who are comfortable and have a positive attitude toward language learning have their filters set low, allowing unfettered access to comprehensible input."
ReplyDeleteI see this with my students on a daily basis. When my student is having a "stressfree" life, she is able to learn a ne concept very quickly without much rpetition. However, when she is the main caregiver to her siblings when she gets home and had to worry about taking care of herself and who mom is bringing home tonight, learning is the last place on her mind. I have another student who has just recently moved into my class. This is his third school for this year alone. Trust is something he is truly struggling with and does not want to build a relationship with anybody. He thinks that he will be moving at the end of the year again. So with all of this going on how can he open his mind to new concepts at school?
I know that there are steps to learning but if you are not comfortable in your life when the learning is going on, it is difficult to retain the knowledge for long.
The Monitor Theory was the most intriguing to me as it was the theory I know the least about. I am all too familiar with Behaviorism as are most of us, but the Monitor Theory was something new. In this theory Krashen states that L1 and SLA processes are essentially the same. I found it interesting that he distinguishes between acquired knowledge and learned knowledge and the fact that these 2 knowledge stores can never interact.(p.26) As others have stated here this seems to support the fact that students who learn rules out of context with little practice really struggle to apply these rules to their work later. Krashen stated teachers should abandon error correction in favor of giving increased input and the opportunity for meaningful interaction.(paraphrased from p. 26)
ReplyDeleteAnd the Input Hypothesis which states that learners gain knowledge more readily when they understand the input. Doesn't that make perfect sense?? Do we really have to be told that? Isn't that where building students' background knowledge comes in when approaching a new topic? I know I learn best when I can actually understand what I am being taught. Thus sometimes what is being taught in class seems like Greek to me, until I go read more about it, then I have my 'ah-ha' moment.
The Affective Learning Hypothesis states that students learn best when they feel comfortable. I know this year I gained a couple students who were originally enrolled in the Dual Language 2-way program. These students were feeling very uncomfortable in those classrooms and were refusing to participate in speaking Spanish. Thus their parents made the decision to transfer them to my Gen. Ed. classroom and they have really flourished(they basically never stop speaking). These students simply weren't ready for SLA even though their parents had desired that for them. I can even relate this to an experience with my youngest daughter. We took a family trip to Italy when she was 8 and she felt very funny speaking Italian and thus did very little of it. The older 2 would attempt to do so when ordering food, etc. We were there 3 weeks and they were picking up how to order what they liked and how to speak some basic phrases. My youngest really never became comfortable. But she was my shyest and thus I feel that explained things at the time.
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition
ReplyDeleteI felt I was able to relate very well to this article. I was able to think of times in my classroom that has proven what I read. I agree with the article when it said learners should be exposed to a large number of target examples of language. I believe this needs to be in many different forms where they will see it. I was able to most connect with Krashen’s Monitor theory. In the Acquisition Learning Hypothesis, the article says that learning place naturally and outside of awareness. Basically, students will not be able to learn concepts or rules in isolated incidences, but rather need to learn them in context. This can be seen in my student’s writing and spelling. I have found that when we worked on possessive –s in class as an isolated instance my students “got” the rule. Wow was I mistaken. When I let them write in their journals, I began to notice that every word that ended in an “s”, now had an apostrophe in it. I learned from this experience that we needed to use student’s actual writing to work on this concept.
I was also able to relate to the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Even though I strive for a safe and nurturing environment in the classroom, I know some of my students do not come into my room with an attitude to be nurtured. This is no fault of their own, but some of the home situations are out of their control. I can immediately tell when one of my students is “off” for the day, just by how they walk through the door. I try to diffuse the situation and talk with them. This works most of the time. When it works, then I can see them relax and I know that learning can occur, but when it doesn’t work, the student does not learn until they snap out of it. I know this is the same for me. If I am stressed, I feel that I am not as effective as a teacher and could do better. But when I am relaxed, I feel that learning in my classroom can occur more easily.
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisiton
ReplyDeleteI found Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition interesting and beneficial to me as an educator of ELL students. I never heard of The Monitor Theory and its hypotheses, and discovered I could relate to it very well. Reading again about Behaviorism with its imitation and practice perspectives, as well as behavioral conditioning with positive and negative responses, I couldn’t help but think of Genie in Secret of the Wild Child. The horror that child must have gone through, being punished for making a sound and learning to live in silence, is the ultimate in negative response and abandonment – never learning to speak and communicate with others. However, as I teach my ELL students, all students for that matter, I make an effort to model standard English, provide positive reinforcement, and repeated engagement through active conversational participation. One thing I have realized with students in our building is that they do not seem to engage in conversation regularly. I find myself conscientiously talking to my students during breaks, before/after school, etc. about soccer, what they did on the weekend, after school activities, etc. and teaching them how to hold a conversation through every day, non-academic topics. Sometimes there are transfer difficulties with ELL students, but for the most part the interference from L1 is limited and isn’t that big a deal. Because of this, I get the Creative Construction Hypothesis and the Monitor Theory. I can see the acquisition (acquisition-learning distinction) of vocabulary and phrases occurring through the personable conversations, and the lack of remembering grammar rules on the learning side - capital letters and past tense verbs are still an issue. Classroom conversations are rich in comprehensible input, attempting to take students beyond the BICS to the CALP, via what I learned in this reading as just beyond the learner’s current level, or the i+1 (VanPatten, Williams, 27). This is especially evident in our academic vocabulary because we discuss the words and give several examples, as well as write a ‘kid-friendly’ definition, in their own words, and draw a picture. My students love to do academic vocabulary because they don’t think they are doing work and it is an opportunity for them to collaborate with one another. The Affective Filter Hypothesis makes sense in regards to learners acquiring language and having a positive attitude when the environment is relaxed, non-threatening, and non-stressful. Learners who are comfortable and have a positive attitude toward language learning have their filters set low, allowing unfettered access to comprehensible input. (Van Patten, Williams, 28) My students are young and still learning, both socially and academically. One of the most important, and simplest, things I do in a day is talk to my students and engage each one of them in conversation. It’s so basic, but so beneficial.
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition
ReplyDeleteI was happy to see some familiar terms in the reading. In our Linguistics class we briefly touched on the Natural Order Hypothesis and the Behaviorist Theory. It helps me tremendously to have some schema in my brain to attach new information to. I thought that Krashen’s Theory explained SLA very thoroughly. I think that language is a unique phenomenon and cannot be placed into an existing theory. It needs to have a theory of its own. I especially resonated with the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. I moved to Yogyakarta, Indonesia when I was 12 years old and soon after the move, we went to live in another city, Bandung, for three months of intensive language instruction. I can remember being drilled and drilled all day long, repeating words and sentences. But when I would go out with my family, I could barely speak. I had to filter everything through my L1 and translate. But then my family went on vacation to Bali and my brother and I hung out every day for two weeks with the native children who were from a nearby village and sold puka shells to the tourists. At the end of those few weeks, I was chattering away like I never had. That stuck with me where the drill and kill lessons did not. I think the Affective Filter Hypothesis also came into play. As I remember the lessons in the house, I remember being behind high walls, no one to play with, it was the monsoon season and rained all day every day, feeling lonely and isolated and having horrible florescent lights overhead in every room. In contrast, vacation at the beach…well, what more relaxed environment could there be?
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition
ReplyDeleteReading about the different theories about how people develop a second language was interesting. Behaviorist theory states that all learning, including learning of language, is seen as the acquisition of a new behavior. It is further stated that the environment is the most important factor in learning. (page 19) People respond to positive reinforcement which leads to something becoming habit. If someone receives negative reinforcements, then the expected response or behavior will be abandoned. When learning a new language, if a student is praised and encouraged, then their attitude toward learning will be positive, and they will try harder and harder. If there are negative comments, or too much correction, the student will shut down and begin to give up.
Stephen Krashen’s Monitor Theory explains why what is taught is not always learned, and what is learned may not have been taught. Individual differences among learners and learning contexts have an effect on the variable outcome of SLA. (page 26) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis was very interesting to me. Krashen states that acquisition and learning are two separate systems for gaining knowledge, and makes a further distinction that these two systems never interact, thus calling this a non-interface model. Acquisition takes place naturally and comes forward instinctively when learners engage in normal interaction in the L2 where the focus is on meaning. Learning is when you are explicitly taught the rules and patterns of language. This is when the second language is the object of the lesson, not the medium of instruction. Knowledge that is learned will not necessarily become acquired knowledge to be used spontaneously. An example of something learned is when students may be able to state the rules of grammar, for instance, but they will not use it in their writing. Acquisition on the other hand would be when the students may use grammar accurately, but they are unable to explain the rule. This is interesting, and something that I often see in my classroom. I think that as teachers it is sometimes difficult to change our way of thinking, and changing. Since I have begun my studies toward the ESL endorsement, I find myself changing many of my former methods – grammar instruction being one of them.
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition
ReplyDeleteReflection: Nicole Tucker
We’ve all learned about Pavlov’s dog and the conditioning theories that have developed out of them. Behaviorism has gone way beyond the original ideas of Pavlov. According to the article, “all learning-including language learning is seen as an acquisition of new behavior.” Environment is a key component in language learning and that is evident as we witness our own children and/or students acquiring language. Habits are formed from positive reinforcement or from negative feedback. I do believe that this is true and a real component of SLA. However, the article goes on to say that there is no real evidence for SLA in the behaviorist theories. There are several factors that affect SLA and observations that have been made to suggest that L1 has an influence on L2. Exposure to input in necessary. I noticed that the article mentioned that in classrooms modeling is not enough by today’s standards. I am wondering what the authors would suggest would be sufficient to address exposure. I agree that SLA happens incidentally. I imagine that this is how many students or people who are immersed in a country that they don’t speak the language begin to acquire a language without any formal education. I also found a very significant observation made in the article that neither the behavior theory or the constrative analysis could explain errors that happen in SLA. It goes on to state that SLA is not affected by L1. However, I have to disagree. While I of course have not done any formal observations, I do see my students (and myself) make errors in second language that follow the syntax of their first language.
Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marty’s comparison of PBIS (Positive Behaviors Interventions and Supports) to behavioral conditioning. My school has implemented PBIS for eight years. While Marty is correct about the importance of consistent reinforcement of the positive expectations, those students who have been at Highland for several years have grown accustomed to the expectations and need fewer reminders. The most important element of success though, is the consistent delivery of instruction from the teachers.
I also found that Krashen’s Monitor Theory, especially “The Affective Filter Hypothesis” supports the popular success of language programs such as “Rosetta Stone.” When language learners are put in an environment where instruction is meaningful and their attitude is positive, then their filters are set low to allow unfettered access to comprehensible input. This makes me feel that I have to be more consciously aware of my classroom setting when it comes to language instruction. How do I keep expectation high, but at the same time not put some of my students in a “stressful” situation where they raise their “affective filter” and therefore limit their processing of input. It seems like a catch-22. If I take away anything from this it is the idea that the language from a grammatical perspective should be secondary to the meaning that a student gets from the L2 language.
This article discusses acquisition of a second language from a behaviorist’s position. Imitating sounds heard in the environment. (pg. 19) and repetition is important until habits form. The goal of behaviorist was to describe what was directly observable and not to explain the processes behind them. (pg. 21) Page 22 adds, “behaviorists claimed that mental processes were not involved at all in learning; it was purely a response to external stimuli.” I am reminded of the behavioral management program, PBIS. Perhaps, a behaviorist approach to learning correct behavior is not what PBIS is all about. In elementary schools, that is what it has been reduced to: if students follow directions teachers will give rewards for positive behaviors. There is little intrinsic motivations for doing what is right.
ReplyDeleteAs I read about the Monitor Theory, I was reminded of Noam Chomsky’s and other innativists who believe people are born with the capacity to learn language. There are five parts to the Monitor Theory. A few of them were of particular interest. One is the acquisition-learning hypothesis. I am trying to learn Spanish in the natural setting of school. Each day while at work, I speak at least a few sentences in Spanish to the head lunch person. She has been speaking Spanish to me all year and I am able to engage in simple conversation with her. Another hypothesis that I can relate to is the affective filter. There are many educators I’ve talked to about teaching that have given me advice particularly when I’m stressed about my job. Many have said, “the content doesn’t matter as much as the feeling a child gets from being in your classroom.” Creating a positive and accepting learning environment will allow students to feel comfortable to grow and learn.
As I read this article, I was especially interested in the observations that were directly related to first language. In class, we were divided on whether L1 was the cause of most errors in second language acquisition, so it was interesting to see what some of the research had to say. The example that was given in the text with the sentence, "I am eleven." and then the sentence in Spanish that read, "Yo soy once." was a perfect example of L1 influenced errors, I thought. It seemed that the person trying to speak Spanish when their first language was English was making a perfectly meaningful attempt, although it was not free of error.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I found it interesting when the article mentioned people with different L1s experiencing different learning outcomes in their L2, even if the L2 is the same. I think what I need to recognize from reading this article, is that even though students are making errors in their language, that does not mean they are not learning. Errors may actually act as evidence that learning is occurring.
I too enjoyed reading the Early Theories in Second Language Acquisition. I found that it made a lot of sense of how children develop their language. I have noticed in the last couple of articles we have read that other theories always go back to behaviorism and start from that theory and start to base their own such as the Monitor Theory. I do agree that language has to start somewhere I believe it starts in our biological endowment as Krasher mentioned in his theory. All we need is to trigger it to get it started. I believe we do this in the classroom as much as possible as we can but where is that level of that child for that trigger to begin. That is the hard part for us as teachers to find. We need to give meaningful message along with interaction for the child to comprehend the message and practice it. As I read the observation of the Monitor theory I kept reflecting own my students especially my bilingual boys and girls who come to me for math. I picture their face and names and vision to see where they’re at in this theory of language acquisition. It makes a lot of sense on what Krashen has to say, but now I have another theory to think about in what coarse does a child develop their language acquisition. I am begging to believe a little from each theory because they all overlap in some ways, but can be disproven from others which make it hard to comprehend who is right.
ReplyDeleteLike most of my classmates, I thought that this article was really interesting. It was neat to see how far we have come in the debate on language acquisition, and/or second language acquisition. I found Krashen’s monitor theory extremely fascinating. I had never really thought about the differences between acquisition and learning, but if you had asked me the difference before reading this article I would have assumed that they meant basically the same thing. The acquisition-learning hypothesis made a lot of sense to me while I was reading it. I had never really thought of how or why I know certain things when I am speaking English, or the fact that I can tell you the way something occurs in English but not the reasoning behind this “rule”. I thought that this made so much sense in why it can be so hard to learn or when learning a second language. When you are learning a second language you are still acquiring those spontaneous “rules” so you cannot be proficient in a language until those are in place.
ReplyDeleteThe input hypothesis also caught my attention basically because it described what should be happening when teaching another language, but basically all it said to me was we have it all wrong. My mind was blown as I started reading this part of the article and realized that I was taught foreign language in an entirely useless way! Basically American school systems focused more on conscious learning instead of letting the learners naturally acquire the knowledge. When I was in foreign language classes in high school and college there was always an emphasis on speaking. I was told that I needed to speak the language in order to learn it. This always made me feel self-conscious and dumb because it was so hard for me! Now I know that this idea is violating the affective filter hypothesis. Because I was not comfortable producing the language, but was forced to any way it actually lowered my ability to learn. Now I think that many schools are taking a step in the right direction by implementing dual language programs. This way students are learning two languages, but they are being immersed in the language and can acquire the language instead of learning it.
As I read this article I was mostly intrigued by the statement that said “many errors made appear traceable to L1. This was interesting for due to the fact that I have an L2. Many of my errors come from direct translation from L1 even if it doesn’t follow the grammatical rules of my L2. I was also interested in reading about the monitor theory which was interestingly known as the “most ambitious and influential theory in the field of SLA”. This theory was developed by Stephen Krashen in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. This theory proposes a language specific model. I find myself agreeing with this model a bit after reading the quote “according to monitor theory language acquisition takes place naturally and spontaneously when the learner is focused on meaning. As I continue to enhance my L2 I find myself focusing more on meaning especially when pertaining to my parent teacher conferences which are primarily held in my L2.
ReplyDeleteMy post was too long for this box - please see my blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://learningisbreathing.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/memorial-weekend-learning-log-chapter-2/