Second Language Teaching and Learning - Assignment Example

 Content 1. Introduction 2. Teaching situation 2.1 Socio-cultural background 2.2 Institutional background 2.3 Individual back ground 3. Learners situation 3.1 Needs analysis 4. Teaching approaches 4.1 Natural approach 4.2 Whole language approach (WLA) 4.3 Situational approach 4.4 Communicative language teaching (CLT) 4.5 Task-based language teaching (TBLT) 4.6 Community language learning (CLL) 5. Conclusion 200 References 1. Introduction Language learning has become a crucial element of one’s educational journey, with many individuals beginning second language learning in their early ages. Learning a language requires a multitude of skills. Some of these include degree of affective filter, interest, intelligence, motivation and emotional response toward the language acquisition. Students may learn a language in order to secure a better job, while others take language classes to fulfill their learning requirements (Harmer, 2001). No matter what kind of motivation and interest they have, when they are in the language classroom, their goal is ultimately to speak fluently and use the target language accurately. Because a language contains the culture, history, and spirit of society where spoken, learning a language requires understanding emotional and cultural differences (Brown, 1994). Therefore, a teacher should be asking basic questions related to his/her own language teaching to help learners to achieve the goal effectively. Some basic question from Brown, H.D (1994) are shown as below: What do they want to learn? Who are the learners? Why they learn? When and where they learn? This paper presents basic questions that the instructor should bear in mind with a particular teaching situation by introducing learners’ social, institutional, and individual backgrounds. I will then move on to the learners’ needs; their most needed skills are classified as listening, reading, writing and speaking. Finally, this paper will cover ‘how to teach the skill?’ through suggesting effective methods supported by theoretical approaches. 2. Teaching situation This section describes a teaching situation often come across in language teaching. The paper first examines the particular teaching situation by analysing the learners’ social, institutional, and individual backgrounds. The section is divided into three different variables. 2.1 Socio-cultural background To narrow down the learners, this paper focuses on learners with an Asian cultural background, especially Korean learners. Nobody lives in society without a cultural identity (Ortega, 2009). Cultures determine the cognitive and affective filters of the individuals who live in it; these elements are strongly related to language performance. Hofstede (1986) argued that there are different dimensions of cultural interaction for both teachers and learners. These dimensions have been articulated as collectivist and individual societies. Hofstede analyzed fifty countries and three regions by using paper-and-pencil answers on 32 value questions. He argued that some countries are characteristically collectivist while others exhibit individualism. However, cultural diversity is not something that can be seen as black and white, as people who live in the same society will not always share the same characteristics of interaction. For this reason, we will also assume our learners have mixed qualities in terms of individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and masculine matters (see Hofstede, 1986 for further details). We will also assume that our learners come from different classes of society. 2.2 Institutional background Many institutions including state and private schools, colleges, universities, and academies put efforts into minimizing class size (Bourke, 1986; Odden, 1990; Glass & Smith, 1979). In empirical studies it was claimed that reducing class size is a key method for increasing academic performance. According to Robinson (1990), small classes are effective when dealing with primary school students. Consequently, Nye et al. (2000) limited classes to fewer than 25 students; similarly, Glass & Smith (1979) suggested that a student size below 20 would be more effective for learners. In my personal experience, this is not always the case for adult learners. According to my limited teaching experience, some learners would rather not take a class that requires much participation. Consequently, there exists an adult language class of almost 100 people. This is general in Korea when teaching receptive skills. However, students tend to prefer smaller size classes when learning specific types of skills. Glass & Smith (1979) argued that teachers generally feel less stressed by a class of ‘feasible size’ of class, but the question remains how to determine class size feasibility. In fact, it depends on what kind of learners are with what kind of teachers. Considering the effectiveness of the small size learning group when learning productive skills, our target group will be composed of 16 - 20 learners. Moreover, when teaching in language classrooms, considering every individual can be effective. 2.3 Individual background As mentioned above, considering every individual’s capacity of the language can be effective in teaching second languages. Such a technique requires knowing the learner’s level, learning style and goals. Learners grouped with similar language levels are important since they will stimulate each other towards new goals (King, et al., 1998). This is also effective for Korean learners since they are known as competitive. Most adult learners in Korea have at least nine years of previous English learning experience. Due to their formal language learning experience, our adult learners are generally low to intermediate level, with everyone having unique learning styles. One interesting thing is many would not be able to produce a language, though they may be able to find the grammatical errors within written sentences. In these regards, they have limited ability in productive skills due to the teacher centred approach implemented in their previous learning system. 3. Learner situation In Asian countries, students start learning English in their childhood. In Korea they begin to learn English as a second language in the 4th grade of elementary school. Middle school and high schools also teach English, but considering the demands of the college entrance examination they don’t go over intermediate level. In many cases, as mentioned above, students tend to end up being grammarian but have difficulties in productive skills, such as speaking and writing. To some extent, since the restriction of the law keeps them from getting personalized classes (the curriculum of dividing students into groups of similar levels was used in the 1990s), it is not easy to move on to an advanced level. The above mentioned learner groups are summed below: - Adults from multi-classes (social) - Same cultural background but mixed social distance - Nine years of previous learning in low to intermediate levels - Having a hard time in productive skills - Group sizes of 16 - 20 - Sharing similar goals 3.1 Needs analysis After nine years of previous language learning in Korea, many students are likely to question their language ability. In many cases, whether the student is a good achiever in the language is simply determined by their productive skills, such as pronunciation and general fluency (Norton, 2000; Toohey, 2000). Additionally, when seeking a job in Korea, many companies require English proficiency tests, such as the English as foreign language (TOEFL), test of English for international communications (TOEIC) and international English language testing system (IELTS), along with an English only interview. English speaking proficiency has always been highlighted in college years, not only for English job interviews but also for the future career. Therefore, the target learner in this paper will mainly focus on speaking skills. When learning ‘how to speak in another language’, the language itself makes an important role in communication. Therefore, it will be very suitable if we teach speaking by using the following approaches: - Natural approach - Whole language approach (WLA) - Situational approach - Communicative language teaching (CLT) - Task-based language teaching (TBLT) - Community language learning (CLL) 4. Teaching Approaches In this section, I would like to introduce teaching methods and present the reason for using the method. I will first start with the natural approach, stated by Krashen & Terrel (1983). Secondly, the whole language approach (Goodman, 1986) that indicates language is more than the accumulation of words is examined. After introducing the situational approach, communicative language teaching (CLT), which highlights the fluency of the language over its accuracy, is presented. Next, task-based language teaching (TBLT), influenced by communicative language teaching (CLT), will be introduced, followed by community language learning (CLL). 4.1 Natural approach The natural approach by Krashen & Terrel (1983) puts importance on the interactive role of the language and stresses the communicative skills in language learning. In their approach Krashen & Terrel (1983) introduces five (5) theoretical models in language learning. Among the above five theoretical models I would like to highlight the acquisition-learning hypothesis, input hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis since these three hypotheses are generally related to learning how to speak. The acquisition-learning hypothesis crosses line between ‘learning’ and ‘acquiring’. It reveals that ‘language learning’ is learning a language with aware of being educated. Like learning a language in school or academic schools where their first language is not English. ‘Language acquiring’ is learning it without noticing the fact that he/she is being educated. For example, like learning their first language in their first language speaking country. In this hypothesis, the importance does not lie on where the learners are but lie on how much they can absorb the language like their mother tongue. The input hypothesis illustrates the importance of ‘comprehensible input’. That is to say, the quality of teaching resources has more importance than the quantity. Input should not be over complicated, but rather comprehensible for the learners; Krashen & Terrel (1983) note this as i+1. For example, assuming the learner has the language level of 10, another 1 level of knowledge will do. This new level of comprehensible input will help learners upgrade their language proficiency while using their existing knowledge. However, if the given knowledge is non-comprehensible, the whole procedure would lose its meaning. The affective filter hypothesis by Krashen & Terrel (1983) states that language acquisition is highly related to learners’ so called affective filter. Affective filter determines the amount of input that the learner would accept. This affective filter is closely related with the motivation, confidence and nervousness of the learner, so pulling down the affective filter plays a key role in effective language learning. The above mentioned hypotheses take an important role in the teaching of English speaking. The acquisition-learning hypothesis gives teachers the idea of teaching naturally. This can be done by giving students mass exposure to the language by being taught by native speakers, or perhaps by watching English speaking movies or news. According to the input hypothesis, teaching material for language classes should be comprehensible. For instance, it will be not helpful for learners if instructors discuss the political issues in a beginning class. Therefore, the discussion topics for students in low to intermediate levels should be less complex topics, such their family or work. The affective filter hypothesis suggests that the learners lower the affective filter in order to increase the quality of learning. When teaching speaking this also plays a crucial role for low to intermediate level learners. Although the affective filter hypothesis is known as very efficient when teaching young learners, it is also useful for young leveled learners. 4.2 Whole language approach (WLA) The whole language approach (WLA) was developed when teachers and researchers sought student centered education. Established by Goodman (1986), the whole language approach highlights language as a whole rather than decoding the target language. This approach suggests instructors teach language by using a top down system instead of first teaching phonetics and vocabulary. The following are some characteristics of the whole language approach: Student centered education Acquiring language depends on the meaning of the language instead of the language itself Focus on the real natural events Encourage students to do risk taking Accept the errors from students as a sign of risk taking The whole language approach is often used as a teaching approach for listening, reading and writing. Even though it does not consist of a clear class curriculum, this method helps learners acquire language from a whole to a fragment, general to specific, ambiguous to apparent. The main focus of this teaching method is the learner’s reaction rather than the practice of language by repentances. At the age of nine, the author was in America to learn English. I attended elementary class the day after I arrived in America. The only six phrases I was able to speak in English were, “Hi”, “Good bye”, “Thank you”, “Sorry”, “My name is…” and “apple”. By guessing and looking carefully at other’s reactions I was able to enhance my English language proficiency. Not only vocabulary, intonation and phonetics, but I was able to insert other vocabulary in the acquired sentence structure. When using the whole language teaching method, instructors will offer study material, make the study atmosphere positive and help learners achieve their goal in studying. The weakness of using the whole language approach is that the outcome may not be very evident until the learner reaches a certain period of learning. However, if we use this approach in low to intermediate level speaking classes, their progress is likely to be tracked by the fact that 1) they already have been studying English for a while so they are easier to make reaction; 2) they have reached certain age to state their opinion; and 3) they are attending classes to enhance their speaking proficiency (share the same goal), as they will learn from each other. Ultimately, using the whole language approach can help learners upgrade their language ability in low to intermediate level speaking classes. 4.3 Situational approach The situational approach considers speech as a fundamental aspect of language learning and structure as a key point for speaking ability. The situational approach includes habit learning theory which stresses process over condition. For instance, when learners are not familiar with new skills or expressions teachers would not directly give answers but help learners solve the problem themselves by using situational examples. Very similar to childhood first language acquisition, Palmer & Blandford (1969) claimed that grammar is a fundamental aspect of speaking. Due to disagreement on Palmer’s view, communicative language teaching (CLT) approach emerged. While I agree that grammar should not be a priority in teaching speaking, it also should not be neglected. When learning to speak a language, we study its use since grammar is already in the sentence. 4.4 Communicative language teaching (CLT) Developed from situational language teaching (SLT), communicative language teaching (CLT) can be described as language learning through interaction using the authentic language. Hymes (1972) presented four segments for better communicative competence: grammaticality, feasibility, appropriateness and practicality. Bachman (1990) defined ‘communicative competence’ as organizing competence to put language into context. Canale & Swain (1980) defined it as a sum of grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic competencies. However, communicative language teaching (CLT) focuses on the functions of communicative vocabulary and language ‘fluency’ rather ‘accuracy’. Hymes (1971), influenced by Chomsky’s ‘ideal native speaker,’ developed the term ‘communicative competence,’ introducing language not only as a mean of interaction but also as social communication. The characteristics of communicative language teaching (CLT) are illustrated as follows: Main goal is to achieve communicative competence ‘Form’ is a tool for communication while ‘meaning’ is a goal of communication Studying materials are selected authentic material with care Student scaffold the meaning through interaction Students should find their own learning strategies As presented above, communicative language teaching (CLT) stresses language for communication in a social context rather than the traditional teaching method of emphasizing grammatical structures and verb transfers. Instructors for communicative language teaching (CLT) facilitate listening, speaking and discussion. Therefore, communicative language teaching (CLT) is suitable for students in low to intermediate level speaking classes. Korean learners are usually passive learners in high school, but after graduation they tend to become active learners. For this reason, using communicative language teaching (CLT) involves authentic language and instructors should be able to motivate students. My experience supports the idea that well designed communicative language teaching (CLT) can help students enhance their speaking ability. In addition, when Korean students graduate high school they tend to look for more freedom. Since communicative language teaching (CLT) does not pay attention to the learner’s errors, but encourages them to make errors in order to improve themselves, it can be used to teach speaking for low to intermediate level learners (Brown, 2007). 4.5 Task-based language teaching (TBLT) Task-based language teaching (TBLT), influenced by communicative language teaching (CLT), was first developed for second language learners in the 1980s (Long, 1989; Long & Crookes, 1992). This approach to language understands meaning and discourse as key concept in language acquisition. Definition of the task varies between researchers, but there is a general agreement that the tasks should be closely related to the real world, and have a clear goal and meaning (Ellis, 2009; Long, 1989; Nunan, 1989; Richards et al., 1986). Some characteristics included in task-based language teaching (TBLT) are presented below (see Feez, 1998; Nunan, 1989): Process or meaning is more important than the product or form Basic elements are communication, meaningful activities and tasks Learners learn through interactive activities by completing the tasks Activities and tasks may include real life activities or educational purposes Composed by sequenced levels, including previous experience, complexity, target language and degree of support Theories of task-based language teaching (TBLT) include discourse as a basic principle in language acquisition and language as a means of creating the meaning. There are pre-task activities and post-task activities. When doing post-activity tasks, teachers ask students to record the group work, listen to other’s work, and then use these elements as a topic of discussion to help learners enhance their speaking activities. According to Willis & Willis (2007) the role of a teacher during the tasks is as a leader and organizer of discussions, manager of group/pair work, facilitator, motivator, language knower and adviser and language teacher. When teaching speaking in low to intermediate level classes, teachers should not be overly involved in learners’ conversations. The activities (tasks) do not always have to be done within the class time. For example, learners might continue doing a task in order to reach their goal. That is, according to my limited experience in America, I was told to memorize simple sentences from the book during the weekend. After figuring out in which situation I could use the expressions, I would write down the sentences on small word cards (in case others did not understand my sentences) then I tried to use two sentences, five times each a day. After getting signatures from students who heard me saying it, I was able to get rewards for the following weekend. By using task-based language teaching (TBLT), instructors are able to enhance learners’ speaking abilities. 4.6 Community language learning (CLL) Community language learning (CLL) began in the 1970s when teachers and researchers started to pay more attention to learners’ affective filters. The community language learning approach (CLL) is based on the idea of language as a means of conveying. In the community language learning approach (CLL), teachers view students as clients. The method was developed to create a non–threatening atmosphere by giving students essential psychological conditions such as security, attention and aggression, retention and reflection and discrimination. The process of using the community language learning approach (CLL) is that students decide the topic under instruction teachers. Second, learners sit in circles and record the words they say in the target language. Next, when learners are not familiar with the expression or words in the target language, they raise their hands, speak in their mother tongue, and listen to the sentences from the teacher. Then the learner will record his/her ideas in the target language. Finally, teachers stop the group and give them lessons for the day. In these cases, the instructor must be bilingual. However, there would not be too much pressure on the instructors who are teaching low to intermediate level students. Through this method, learners are able to learn not only speaking but also translation, group work, recording, transcription, analysis, reflection, observation, listening, and free conversation. Therefore, this approach would work out very effectively in learning speaking with well prepared bilingual instructors and motivated intermediate level students. A class size of 16-20 can be divided into two groups, making one group of 8-10. 5. Conclusion Throughout the paper, I attempt to introduce a language class group, analyzing it by socio-cultural, institutional and individual backgrounds. The group was adult learners with nine years of previous learning experience, but lacked speaking ability. In order to play an important role in a future career, English proficiency is required by Asian companies. Therefore, speaking was shown as a main skill needed to be acquired from language classes. To teach effectively, the natural approach, whole language approach (WLA), situational approach, communicative language teaching (CLT), task-based language teaching (TBLT) and community language learning (CLL) were presented as approaches in teaching speaking. However, it is hard to find a student who is only good at one skill; this means it is inappropriate for teachers (also learners) to focus only on one skill, since language skills are all connected to each other (Florez, 1999). By using the proper approach and not neglecting any skills, learners will be able to listen, understand and respond accurately. References Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bourke, S. (1986). How smaller is better: Some relationships between class size, teaching practices and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 558– 571. Brown, H. D. (1994). Principle of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 5th Edition. NY: Pearson Education. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Approaches to communicative competence. Singapore: Seameo Regional Language Centre. Ellis, Rod. (2009). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Feez, S. (1998) Text-based Syllabus Design. New South Wales, Australia: AMES and Macquarie University. Florez, M. A. C. (1999) Improving Adult English Language Learners’ Speaking Skills. National Center for ESL Literacy Education. Online. Available from: http://www.marshalladulteducation.org/pdf/briefs/Imprvg%20ELLspkg.Florez.pdf (Accessed on 10 January, 2011) Glass, G. V., & Smith, M. L. (1979). Meta-analysis of research on the relationship of class size and achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(1), 2-16. Harmer, J. (2001) The practice of English language teaching. Essex: Pearson Education. Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301-320. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.) Sociolinguistics, 169-93. King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual Peer Tutoring: Effects of Structuring Tutorial Interaction to Scaffold Peer Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 134-152. Krashen, S. D., & Terrel, T. D.(1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long, M. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interaction. University of Hawaii Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 8, 1-26. Long, M. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London: Longman/Pearson Education. Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000). The effects of small classes on academic achievement: The results of the Tennessee Class Size Experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 123-151. Odden, A. (1990). Education funding changes during the 1980s. Educational Policy, 4(1), 33–47. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Education. Palmer, H. E., & Blandford, F. G. (1969) A grammar of spoken English. 3rd Ed. Kingdon, R. Cambridge: Heffer. Richards, J., & Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1986). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London: Longman. Robinson, G. E. (1990). Synthesis of research on effects of class size. Educational Leadership, 47(7), 80-90. Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More