Second Language Acquisition - Literature review Example

School: Topic: A report and critical review of second language acquisition articles Lecturer: Contents Introduction 2 Literature review 3 Attitude and aptitude in SLA and SLL 4 Formal and informal linguistics environments in SLA and SLL 5 Summary of the 1st article 6 Summary of 2nd article 7 Commentary 9 Evaluation and interpretation of SLA and SLL theories 9 Noticing hypothesis 9 Semantic theory 10 Analysis of learning styles and learner strategies and their relation to learning practices 11 How individual differences affect second language learning and acquisition 14 Conclusion 16 References 17 Introduction As globalization becomes a very important concept in personal and national development, the need for people to acquire different international languages has also increased tremendously. There are now lesser restrictions with cross-border movement, creating a situation where people have easy access to foreign countries. As people settle in foreign countries for different purposes including education, job, business, and marriage, the need to acquire second language becomes very relevant (Kaplan & Berman, 2010). It is for reasons like this that second language acquisition (SLA) and second language learning (SLL) continues to be a very important practice across all levels of educational learning (Aziz & Rozaidi, 2005). The paper is a report and critical review of two articles on SLA and SLL. Both articles focus on the broad concept of listening comprehension. The articles however present different approaches and strategies to acquiring listening comprehension. The articles were selected to bridge the gap in SLA and SLL skills where greater emphasis has often been placed on oral comprehension which is a productive skill to the neglect of hearing comprehension, which is a receptive skill (Mendelsohn, 2002). The paper therefore helps in outlining the important role of hearing comprehension to SLA and SLL from the perspective of different writers. Literature review There are a number of existing studies on SLA and SLL, which can be used as theoretical evidence and framework for the report. The literature review therefore compares and contrasts major arguments made by some researchers in the field of language acquisition. The literature review looks at two general themes on factors that influence second language achievement, which are attitude and aptitude in SLA and SLL, and formal and informal linguistics environments in SLA and SLL. Attitude and aptitude in SLA and SLL The acquisition-learning hypothesis has been used very extensively in interpreting the relationship between language aptitude and attitude (VanPatten & Benati, 2010). In a study by Strauss (2002), a group of students undertaking second language learning were evaluated for their learning achieving by the use of attitude and aptitude. Aptitude was measured through the use of standard tests whiles attitude was measured through the use of affective variables. Results from the study showed that both aptitude and attitude are independently related to second language achievement. The confirmation of this result was given in a different study by Vandergrift (2004) where it was mentioned that the independent relationship comes because aptitude is needed in promoting conscious learning. Meanwhile, because SLA is always presented as a set of new language concepts that must be accommodated in addition to an existing first language, conscious learning is very important in ensuring success with SLL (Kaplan & Berman, 2010). One other evidence which has been used to support the position that attitude is related to second language achievement is the fact that attitudinal factors including motivation, anxiety, self-image, and empathy are needed for language acquisition (Williams, 2009). With these facts noted, Ullman (2011) argued that even though aptitude and attitude may influence second language achievement, the two phenomena do not relate positively. This means that a person who has high aptitude may not necessarily have high attitude. Formal and informal linguistics environments in SLA and SLL Linguistics environment has long been a focus for knowing how formal and informal environments influence second language achievement. Mendelsohn (2002) explained the formal linguistics environment as the artificial environment where careful planning goes on to create a classroom with variations of learning resources. The informal linguistics environment on the other hand is the natural environment where no careful planning of the setting (Slabakova, 2010). In a study by Hulstijn (2005), the formal linguistic environment was found to be very ideal for second language achievement because it offers the teacher the necessary language teaching systems needed to be utilized by the learner. Because of the presence of such language teaching systems, Aziz and Rozaidi (2005) emphasized that it is always possible and easy to create rules and offer feedback, all of which are very necessary for monitoring language learning progress. Strauss (2002) however led a study which presented the qualities second language learning in an informal environment, where it was stressed that such an environment offers increased exposure. Meanwhile, the level of exposure that a learner has with the language being learned has been noted to be very ideal for encouraging second language proficiency. To sum it, would be said that both formal and informal linguistics environments have their advantages for promoting second language achievement. Teachers must therefore so dynamism in handling these two different environments. Summary of the 1st article The first article titled “Enhancing listening comprehension: The role of metacognitive strategy instruction (MetSI)” was by Selemat and Sidhu (2013) with the aim of finding the impact of metacognitive strategies on student listening comprehension achievement. The setting for the study was a Malaysian first year undergraduate faculty and involved respondents who had English as their second language. The research method used was an action research. This means that the researchers identified a unique problem within the research setting and used an intervention to curtail the problem with the direct involvement of the people affected by the problem. The problem was that most of the respondents had it difficult adapting to the listening of lecturers as English was their second language. An intervention involving the use of MetSI in teaching was therefore devised. The intervention was used in teaching students after pretest scores had been collected (Selamat & Sidhu, 2013). After the intervention was administered, questionnaire, listening test, and semi-structured interview were designed as data collection instruments. Results from the data collection process showed that students who used the intervention frequently by adopting the metacognitive strategies when listening to lectures in English had higher marks when tested for listening than those who used the intervention less. For example the pretest for listening, the mean score produced was 61.00% whiles the mean score for the post test for listening was 75.26% (Rahimi & Abedi, 2014). This line of results helps in drawing the conclusion that metacognitive strategies which comprise the use of various listening tasks including listening to stories help students to overcome their weaknesses with listening to lectures. The results from the interview also confirmed what had been reviewed in literature that both aptitude and attitude impacts on second language achievement. This is because data collected on student personal knowledge was found to have a direct relation with their achievement. The personal knowledge of students included the ideas that listening to English is more difficult than reading, speaking or writing in English, and that listening comprehension in English is a challenge. Summary of 2nd article The second article was a correlational study which looked at the relationship between listening self-efficacy and metacognitive awareness of listening strategies. The study was undertaken by Rahimi and Abedi (2014) with the aim of finding key factors that help second language learners to become proficient and successful with listening. To achieve the aim of the study, an Iranian university was used as the research setting where undergraduate students with English as second language were used as a sample. The approach to the study was to relate the learners’ listening self-efficacy to their metacognitive awareness of listening strategies. In effect, the impact of metacognitive listening strategies awareness on student listening self-efficacy was measured. Data collection took place by the use of two questionnaires which were listening self-efficacy questionnaire and metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire. With each questionnaire came a listening proficiency test which was used to know how results from the first two variables related to listening proficiency. The results from the study helped in establishing that there is a positive relationship between listening self-efficacy and metacognitive awareness of listening strategies. This is because the rating of student responses on listening self-efficiency was found to be very similar to the rating of their response on metacognitive awareness of listening strategies. It was further noted that student listening self-efficacy impacted positively on English language listening outcomes such as planning-evaluation and problem solving. Inversely though, students did not need to exhibit any special self-efficacy potentials to do well with mental translation strategies. The line of findings helps in concluding that self-efficacy is indeed necessary second language listening achievement. This is because students with higher self-efficacy gain maximum control over listening tasks and can manipulate the strategies they used in enhancing their listening proficiency. This second article has a lot of relation with the literature review as self-efficacy can be noted to be a form of attitudinal variable which was found in literature to promote SLA and SLL. Commentary As the two articles being reviewed are related to listening as a SLA and SLL skill, this section is used to evaluate two major SLA and SLL theories which throws more light on listening comprehension. This is done with the aim of creating a theoretical evidence for the findings of the articles. The selected theories are noticing hypothesis and semantic theory, and they are also used to gain understanding on learning styles and learner strategies. Evaluation and interpretation of SLA and SLL theories Noticing hypothesis The noticing hypothesis was proposed by Richard Schmidt which posited that in order for learners to gain second language proficiency, they must notice different ways in which their inter-language structures differ from target norms (Anderson, 1992). By implication, learners are expected to identify a noticing gap between their structure of their first language and that of the target second language. This is because with such gaps noticed, it is possible for the learner to focus very directly on acquiring or learning language by filling the gaps that have been found. This was for this reason that Hulstijn (2005) stressed that the noticing hypothesis is important for ensuring that SLA and SLL becomes much focused on specific learning outcomes. This is because the identified gaps ensures that learners’ internal language processing is restructured to the learners’ internal representation of any rules that come with the second language (Anderson, 1992). In both articles, the noticing hypothesis was not explicitly used but it could be seen as having major influence in the approach used by the researchers and results that was produced. For example in the first article, the researcher used an intervention involving metacognitive strategies in helping respondents improve their listening comprehension. Indeed because of the variety of listening activities that is involved in metacognitive strategies, it is possible for learners to clearly notice gaps from the different strategies that make it possible to restructure their internal representation of rules of the second language. In the second article also, metacognitive awareness was identified to be a major requirement for listening self-efficacy, which means that an awareness created through noticing hypothesis is relevant to building SLA and SLL through listening comprehension. Semantic theory Semantic theory is another second language theory which focuses on the acquisition of meaning (Bialystok, 1994). Semantic theorists argue that meaning is the nucleus of language acquisition rather than the exotic sounds and elegant sentence structure that come with languages (Ellis, 2005). By implication, the first step to gaining second language competence and proficiency is by seeking to learn the meaning of any collective production of language outcome. It is however held that meaning comes in several forms and types including grammatical, lexical, semantic, and pragmatic. A learner of second language is therefore expected to master all these forms of meanings for any given language in order to comprehend the outputs of a second language. According to Vandergrift (2004), the ability to gain listening comprehension is a major test for achieving the semantic theory. This is because in listening comprehension, the language is often produced by someone with proficiency in the language being learned. In effect, the learner will have to exhibit the existence of the semantic theory by gaining meaning to the various outputs of the second language that is produced. This was indeed seen in all two articles that have been summarized above. This is because both articles focused on listening skills development among the students who have English as a second language. Through the application of the various learning interventions that were put in place in the studies, it was possible for learners to master the meaning of English language through the various types of Analysis of learning styles and learner strategies and their relation to learning practices Apart from SLA and SLL theories which have been used to explain how the acquisition and learning of second language takes place, learning practices that yield second language acquisition have been explained by the use of learning styles and learner strategies. In one such study, Hulstijn (2005) noted that two learning styles that produce different outcomes with second learning practices studial learning style and experiential learning style. The studial learning style has been explained as a situation where a student’s learning is characterized by strict adherence to linguistic accuracy and the need to avoid free expression (Bialystok, 1994). in effect, studial learning style is related to rote learning because memorization is encouraged by students as a way of remembering linguistic rules they must stick to in order to ensure linguistic accuracy (Pienemann, 1998). Experiential learning style on the other hand is more liberal in nature as it is field dependent, allowing students to learn from their environment (Ellis, 2005). As far as second language acquisition is concerned, using experiential learning has been noted to be exhibited through the use of spoken medium where learners base on spoken language from their surroundings to build their own language framework. Relating the outcomes of the two learning styles to learning practice, Slabakova (2010) opined that students who adopt the studial learning style are very comfortable with learning taking place in a formal linguistic environment. This is because such an environment presents them with the opportunity of accessing learning materials and other resources which encourage strict studial learning. On the other hand, students who prefer the use of experiential learning style have been noted to be very comfortable with the informal linguistic environment as that is the environment within which they are able to acquire as many field based and naturally occurring scenarios to promote learning as possible. The debate has gone on in literature as to the impact of the two learning styles on the acquisition of second language. Using the outcome of a study by Pienemann (1998), it can be explained that consistency is always paramount rather than the choice of learning style. This is because the outcome of the study showed that studies who attempted to abandon their original learning style which was experiential for studial learning had very slow progression with language acquisition. Meanwhile, both those students who practiced experiential and studial independently from the beginning acquired second language very rapidly. Ullman (2011) posited that the learning style used by a second language learner directly impacts of learner strategy. This is because different learning styles have been noted to work best when accompanying learner strategies that best suit the premise of learning is used. For example where studial learning style is used, a learner needs to use a learning strategy which depends more on memory and mnemonic devices as such devices information retention, which is an important aspect of studial learning style (VanPatten & Benati, 2010). Relating the two learning styles and various learner strategies to the articles which where critiqued, it would be noted that both researchers emphasized the use of an eclectic approach for students. Such eclectic approach combined the two learning styles and various learner strategies in a well befitting manner. This point is made in relation to the interventions used which were metacognitive strategies. This is because metacognition basically focuses on building knowledge about when and how to use particular strategies in learning (Williams, 2009). In effect, there must be a variation of learning styles and learner strategies before preferential selections can be done to claim that a student has gained metacognition by knowing when and how to use which strategy. How individual differences affect second language learning and acquisition There are a number of researchers who have based on the variations that exist in SLA and SLL theories, learning styles and learner strategies to claim that individual differences is an important factor that affects SLA and SLL. There are two schools of thought about the how theories, strategies and styles relate to individual differences in SLA and SLL. The first school of thought posits that no single theory, strategy or style can be said to produce the same line of results for every other student that uses it (Slabakova, 2010). The second school of thought states that the same theory, strategy or style can guarantee the same line of results for all students with similar learning difficulty (Ullman, 2011). The outcome of the first article is one which supports the second school of thought. This is because in the study of the first article, it was noted that all students who took to the use of the MetSI recorded an upward performance in their listening comprehension. By implication, as an independent instructional strategy, MetSI can serve the learning needs of all students with listening comprehension difficulties for a particular second language. In such a situation, individual difference is best exhibited in SLA and SLL by ensuring that the right theory, strategy or style is selected by a student and rightly applied. The outcome of the second article on the other hand supports the first school of thought, which states that no theory, strategy or style can guarantee the same line of results for students and that results will be based on how individual students apply the theories, strategies and styles. This is because in the second article, three major variables were measured and related to listening self-efficacy. These were planning-evaluation, problem solving and mental translation strategies. Meanwhile in the same set of students who had used metacognitive awareness to build listening self-efficacy, it was found that the listening self-efficacy could only relate positively to planning-evaluation and problem solving but inversely to mental translation strategies. The indication that such results show is that a student of second language cannot rely on a single theory, learner strategy or learning style to overcome difficulties with listening comprehension. Rather, the student ought to have a very critical evaluation of his or her individual needs to know the exact learning variables that are paramount to be developed. With such areas of learning known, the right theory, strategy or style can then be applied to overcome the problem. Conclusion The report and article critique has been helpful in gaining very detailed understanding of SLA and SLL and the factors that influence success of students with these endeavours. The literature review has been useful in proofing that the linguistic environment presented at the time of learning as well as the attitude and aptitude of learners are all influential in determining the outcome with second language achievement. What is more, the theories, learning styles and learner strategies that were evaluated have also confirmed that variations exist with how each student acquires second language and that the ability to rightly identify a student’s problem and a diagnostic theory, strategy or style that addresses the problem is the way out to successful second language acquisition and learning. Interestingly, the two articles that were critiqued also supported most of the positions held in literature. For example, the application of metacognitive strategies in both articles confirm that it is important to have variations with any interventions met to correcting learner problems associated with SLA and SLL. This is particularly important when the problem has to do with listening as a skill. This is because metacognitive strategies were proven to be effective for improving listening comprehension as well as listening self-efficacy. Based on all these, it can be concluded that SLA and SLL is a highly individualised concept, where the best results that can be attributed to their proficiency is sufficient research that makes it possible to know the exact problem of student that needs to be corrected. This is because until the individual diagnosis is performed, selection of the right theory, strategy or style will be very difficult. References Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT theory. American Journal of Psychology, 105 (2), 165–180. Aziz R. A. & Rozaidi I. M. (2005). Comprehending Academic Lectures. Shah Alam: Pusat Penerbitan Universiti, UiTM. Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16 (2), 157–168. Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 141–172. Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 129–140. Kaplan, S. & Berman, M.G. (2010). Directed Attention as a Common Resource for Executive Functioning and Self-Regulation, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 43-57. Mendelsohn, D. (2002). The lecture buddy project: An experiment in EAP listening comprehension. TESL Canada Journal, 20(1), 64-73. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rahimi M. & Abedi S. (2014). The relationship between listening self-efficacy and metacognitive awareness of listening strategies. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1454-1460. Selamat S. & Sidhu G. K. (2013). Enhancing listening comprehension: The role of metacognitive strategy instruction (MetSI). Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 421-430. Slabakova, R. (2010). Semantic Theory and Second Language Acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30, 231–247. Strauss, L. (2002). The lecturer doesn’t have a rewind button – Addressing listening difficulties of L2 mainstream students at a New Zealand university. Journal for Language Teaching, 36(2), 91-98. Ullman, M. T. (2011). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30 (1), 37–69. Vandergrift, L. (2004). Learning to listen or listening to learn. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3-25. VanPatten, B. & Benati, A. G. (2010). Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. London: Continuum. Williams, J. (2009). "Memory, attention and inductive learning". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 1–48. Read More