The Role of Instruction in Second Language Acquisition - Essay Example

The Role of Instruction in Second Language Acquisition I. Overview of Instruction in Second Language Acquisition II. Instruction in Second LanguageAcquisition A. Theories About Second Language Acquisition B. Guidelines in Determining the Methods of Instruction III. Role of Instruction in Classroom Language Learning A. Types of Instruction B. Differences of the Types of Instruction IV. Pedagogical Effects of SLA Instructions A. The Effects of the Instructions B. The Compatibility of the Instructions and Learners V. The Task of Instruction in Second Language Acquisition VI. Conclusion The Role of Instruction in Second Language Acquisition I. Overview of Instruction in Second Language Acquisition In the learning of a second language aside from an individual’s native tongue, the means of instruction on how to grasp it is very important, for it will be the determinant on how a person will communicate and comprehend elements using that particular language. The researches and scientific studies had probed dimensions of learning a second language and its effectiveness. It also has been an interesting field to explore for linguists. Many people contend with the stand that for the learning to be consummate, it had to be instructed the natural way; others dispute that the instruction of traditional methods in the classroom will provide a deeper understanding and comprehension of the language. The language that is the target to be learned is referred to as L2, and the acquisition; the second language acquisition is known as the L2A, or much better known as SLA. Formal instruction possesses a profound effect in the everyday endeavors of learners who are trying to gain fluency and mastery of a second language, so therefore, the rule of formal instruction in the process of learning a second language must be investigated and examined thoroughly. Moreover, it complements the best way to make instruction effective and helpful. Numerous studies have been carried out to investigate whether the ways of instruction alters the sequence of the learners’ acquisition, and also, whether the learners acquire the language in the way the naturalistic learners do. II. Instruction in Second Language Acquisition A. Theories About Second Language Acquisition One of the most emphasized concepts about second language learning is that some individuals are more inclined to learning a second language than other individuals. But there are factors to be considered before uttering such statements, such as age, motivation, ability, and socio-psychological factors. In addition to some SLA aspirants being more successful than others, there also exists the fossilization, which denotes the phenomenon of being stuck in a stagnant state of language knowledge. Zhaohong Han in 2004 stated that a “complete acquisition of a second language is impossible.” In “the course of the last 3 decades, SLA have accumulated an amazing chunk of evidence proving the empirical phenomenon of fossilization.” (Han, 2004). It is widely recognized that the “fossilization precipitated the existence of the SLA.” (Gass and Selinker, 2006). The phenomenon is disputed as true because of the theory that no matter how hard the efforts the learners exert to learn, they will be in a stage where their knowledge is “stuck” quite distant from the expected target. And also, “this phenomenon also seems to affect even the most advanced learners of L2. Fossilization is a frequently discussed and yet little misunderstood notion concerning second language. The phenomenon is thought upon as the inevitable ‘intermediate’ difference between the learners’ native language and their target language, for the implications brought about by the familiarity with the native language indirectly influences the ways in which the target language will be learned.” (Gass and Selinker, 2006). No matter the magnitude of the expertise of the instructions and means of instructions possess, there will always be a case in which fossilization seems to hamper and “hold back” the potential of the learners. Yes, it will be perfectly natural and expected of them to excel and be effective in utilizing the language, but the native language, in all aspects, holds all the advantages in terms of effectiveness and absolute comprehension. Moreover, even though the measures of intellect seem to be the most important factor in the learning of L2 instructions, they often show a relationship with differences in the society, as evidenced by individuals from the higher strata of the society as whole get higher scores in aptitude tests. B. Guidelines in Determining the Methods of Instruction The researches regarding second-language acquisition over the past decades has witnessed a “propagation of experimental studies that determine the effectiveness of varying instructional methods in SLA classrooms as well in laboratory settings.” (Ellis, 1990). The primary focus of SLA methods of instruction research have gradually evolved from whether or not instruction or the method of instruction makes a difference to what types of instruction is deemed most effective for ushering a learning of a second or foreign language in formal contexts. Ellis in 1990 determined the SLA type of instruction research to investigate the following research queries: Is the research an implicit or an explicit approach for short-term SLA instruction? Can the elevating of the learners’ metalinguistic consciousness of specific SLA forms facilitate acquisition by fostering psycholinguistic processes of form-to-function mapping? Is instruction that attracts the attention of the learners to relevant forms in the context of meaning-oriented lessons more efficient than an exclusive focus on meaning and content? III. Role of Instruction in Classroom Language Learning A. Types of Instruction The term “classroom language learning” is the exact term opposite of “naturalistic language learning”. (Ellis, 1990). Of course, the common sense that will surface immediately is the very apparent difference, which says of the “naturalistic learning” as not needing of instruction, and its referral to as the most informal but most effective way of language learning. But the real difference between these two types of learning can be viewed keenly from a sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic and an educational standpoint. In the sociolinguistic angle, the difference between classroom and naturalistic SLA learning can be referred to as the domain, which is the main element which greatly affects the way the language is being used. The domain is comprised of such factors like participants, location, topics and aims. The “slightest of the differences between these factors needs no sufficing comment because it is quite self-evident.” (Ellis, 1990). Summarily, the domain of the classroom language learning is clearly its comparison to the naturalistic method. The naturalistic method is likely to be identified by its broader range of participants, settings, aims and topics. On the other hand, the classroom language learning can give the learner a richer, and more fulfilling learning experiences. Going to the psycholinguistic angle, the main distinction is between the informal and formal approach of learning the language. First, on the aspect of formal learning, it involves a sort of a studial activity on the side of the learner; an example of which is one learner’s attempt to learn about the language by gaining information concerning grammatical rules. On the other hand, “informal learning is attained through keen observation of one’s environment and direct involvement in real conversations. In the informal aspect, the learning of the language is a process of discovery which takes place spontaneously and automatically giving conditions that had been reached by either side.” (Ellis, 1990). It will be of utter mistake to deny that classroom learning possesses informal learning and to say that naturalistic learning lacks formal lessons, the reason being is that a naturalistic learner can inquire abut the correctness of a linguistic form while in the middle of the conversation. Nevertheless, it is probably truthful when we conclude that a classroom setting provides more chances for more formal learning and naturalistic settings offer more of an informal learning. The difference psycholinguistic-wise between the two classroom and naturalistic setting may not be that solid but it nonetheless absolutely important. B. Differences of the Types of Instruction Education authorities often stress out the concept of a formal training and apprenticeship, as in the way these two are being done. Formal training is almost always occurs in classrooms or other formal venues. This type of training always involves some sort of curriculum to follow in order to mold the learning experience in the belief that by doing so the learner could more efficiently gain knowledge. Stern in 1983 denotes classroom language learning as a “learning that has been improved by a carefully organized social interference”. (Ellis, 1990). On the other hand, apprenticeship in the second language acquisition can be summarized as learning by doing. There is no curriculum, no organized plans, no classrooms, no special activities. The “apprentice gains his skills by observation and practice, and picks up his techniques from his so-called master.” (Ellis, 1990). Nonetheless, this type of knowledge acquisition can also occur in the formal classroom training, and formal training could also take place in a naturalistic setting, but however, classrooms are more suited to provide formal training while the naturalistic setting can more be of a practice field for apprenticeship. In many facets, the sheer distinction between classroom and naturalistic language learning is a rough one. It assumes that it is possible to take a broad view of the characteristics of respective domains and the types of teaching and learning that occur. But in general, the types of classrooms and naturalistic settings are vary tremendously. Thus it can be summed up that the effectiveness, disadvantages and the advantages of these two language learning types of instruction will always depend on the learner. Nonetheless, given that the innate variety of either settings is kept in mind, the distinction is a significant one. In keenly examining classroom language learning, we are thoroughly trying to determine the factors which lead to the teacher’s aims to take manage the environment in order to give chances for language learning. The most crucial questions are these, “does teacher interference help SLA learning?” and “what type of interference is the most effective?” These two are the foundation questions to be answered in building theories of instruction in the Second Language Acquisition. IV. Pedagogical Effects of SLA Instructions A. The Effects of the Instruction The examination of the effects of teaching on second language acquisition by the varying instructions aims to systematically determine or evaluate the efficiency of language teaching means and practices. Such examinations have been conducted for every language level, and for virtually every current methodology in teaching. Nevertheless, some more crucial issues have been analyzed. Researches have stated that numerous conventional language-teaching methods of instruction are absolutely ineffective, but nonetheless, an overwhelming majority of SLA scholars acknowledge that formal instruction can help much better in language learning. Another one of the more important issues to be tackled is the efficiency of explicit teaching. The question is, “can the teaching of language have a profound effect beyond giving the learners improved input?” (Han, 2004). The reason being is that explicit instruction must usually occur in the learner’s first or native language, many had disputed that it apparently deprives learners of input and chances for further practice. On a lighter note, the optimistic effect of explicit instruction at this level looks to be only confined to making students prioritize the important points of input. Landmark researches have also shown that a distinctive effect of age on the efficiency of explicit instruction as the younger the learners are, the less advantage they show. Still, researches over time have shown that a child’s exposure to a second language at a very early age enhances his capacity to learn language, and even get better at their first language. B. The Compatibility of Instructions and Learners The different and distinct types of formal and informal setting of language learning can only be applicable to those individuals whose personalities fit the setting. One such scenario is how can a language teacher teach an individual how to speak a language in a classroom where the student is not comfortable, for he quit school. Different types of formal instruction for different types of personalities is another issue that has to be stirred and be taken under utmost consideration. And also, one cannot teach a learner what he is not yet ready to learn. (Pienemann, 1951). The varying qualities of formal instruction lead to a better response by the learners. And moreover, several factors, such as language fluency, teaching and learning styles and personality of the teacher can greatly affect the response of the students. Unfortunately, studies focusing in this aspect have been scarce and possess contrasting results. V. The Task of Instruction in Second Language Acquisition A very easy-to-grasp concept of language teaching is the inseparable elements of LANGUAGE and TEACHING. Therefore, “when language educators are designing a language teaching lesson plan, they make sure that they include in the curriculum statements of what is to be taught, what is to be prioritized, how and why and moreover, these statements and lesson emphasis usually take the form of options and syllabus type and teaching method, respectively.” (Pienemann, 1951). But unfortunately and inevitably, there exist several probable conflicts between the choices in syllabus type and the method of teaching that is to be utilized. Aside from the aforementioned tensions that can arise between the syllabus and the methodology, there are several other problems existent in this way of program planning. As example, “the syllabuses are meant to decide both what is to be taught to the students and the corresponding sequence in which this will be carried out.” (Pienemann, 1951). The type of syllabus that will be used should be in perfect with the manner of grading and sequencing, naturally. The choice of the type of syllabus will be the determining factor on whether or not the language will be taught in the most efficient manner. Through these, the littlest of details “regarding the lessons will be known, such as where will the language be used and what language shall be used in teaching the second language.” (Pienemann, 1951). Moreover, just as the “syllabuses of one kind or another are not the remedy to the “what” in the teaching of language, it is the question of “how” that is the arising problem.” (Pienemann, 1951). It is widely known that teaching methods share many qualities, pros and cons in common when implemented in the classroom, and so the probable solution to this dilemma is the teachers not relying on one teaching method alone, for it can cause further differences and even misunderstanding inside the classroom. VI. Conclusion Without a shadow of a doubt, the future of mankind learning a second language besides his native tongue depends on the medium of instruction that is to be utilized, and not to mention the characteristics of teachers that will interact with the second language learners. Although there exists no clear fact, notion, concept or whatsoever regarding the “true” effectiveness of instructions in teaching language, we have to adhere to the fact that a specific teaching methods fits a specific individual or group, and the learning of a second language will not be, in any way, be hindered by the factor of where and how the language was learned. References: Gass, S. M., & Selinker, Larry (2006). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Instruction: Learning in the Classroom. Auckland, New Zealand: Blackwell Publishing. Ellis, R (1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters. Pienemann, M. (1984) Psychological constrains on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition (2): 186 – 214. Read More