Many different factors impact the acquisition of second language. I thought it might be useful for us to discuss in depth, how (based on the material you read, class discussion, and your personal experience) does input and interactions impact output? and how does output reflect second language acquisition and to what degree?
By clarifying this, we might be able, as teachers, to better design and deliver input that maximizes learning, and seek such input as learners. It might also help us better interpret the students' output to ensure that both instruction and material used meet the specific needs of the students.
Please feel free to incorporate in your answers whatever concepts, theories, methods or approaches you think are relevant to the discussion. The purpose is to understand how second language acquisition might inform classroom practices.
We look forward to reading your comments.
~Nesreen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I think most importantly, when we're talking about interaction and output, we have to think about ways that we can get students interacting with the language in context. A lot of teachers rely on methods that emphasize verb charts and rote conjugation of verbs, or rote memorization of vocabulary. I think that has its place, but to be MOST successful, students have to synthesize this within a communicative context. This syncs too with what we know about output - a student could theoretically have all the verb conjugations and tenses correctly memorized to compute and regurgitate, they "know the rule," but when they actually produce a spontaneous utterance, then it seems like they learned nothing. So getting practice with language beyond just computing within the "rules" is what's most necessary I think.
-KRISTINA METROPULOS
In order to produce output I do think that grammar rules and a large vocabulary need to be obtained. But I agree with Ellen and her idea that the true test of output is through communicating through the langauge. Also, adding on to this I think that when communicating through the language it needs to be done in a meaningful setting that students have interest in or can relate to. In one of my previous Spanish classes we were learning vocabulary and phrases used in phone conversations. Once we learned and reviewed it, the teacher wanted us to practice it in a way that related to us or that we could connect to, rather than just reading a phone conversation dialogue in the text. The way my teacher let us practice this was by assigning everyone a partner and instructing us to exchange our real cell phone numbers. Then partners went to opposite corners of the room and one would dial the other and begin a phone conversation in Spanish. The class really liked this activity and could relate to it because we were able to understand the context as we were involved in it. This was a great test and way for our teacher to assess our understanding. The class was able to produce output from information we had previously learned in a meaningful context.
-KRISTINA METROPULOS
Thanks Kristina. The cell phone conversation is an excellent idea. I am going to use it in my language classes and suggest it to my teachers. Keep these innovative ideas coming!
~Nesreen
The input, the interaction and the output are all equally important in language acquisition. The problem is that the comprehensive output practice can be difficult to provide sometimes in classroom. I have seen and experienced a language class where teacher mostly provided input with only few output opportunities. I didn’t learn much, not even much of the input was retained because the input did not form any meaning to me. So I think the comprehensive output opportunities is vital to language acquisition. Teachers could use things like web cam and have some kind of interview (or discussion) session with people who speak the target language. If the technology is not available they can always invite the person to school. Or, they can plan a fieldtrip to local community where people interact with their native language. The everyday life situations are very important for the learners so the output will have meaningful connection to them.
I think the role of the output is to define the existed input as meaningful knowledge. The language acquisition require physical mastery of the language. The learners have to be able to form a correct sentence and carry out in physical way. In addition, the comprehensive output forces the learners to examine the language they produced, and they will be able to test out whether the product (the language they formed) was successful or not. This process will make learners to actively engage in meta-cognition that will lead to meta-linguistic skills they have been building up.
Knowledge of how the L2 is acquired is certainly important to the L2 classroom. One hypothesis mentioned is that of Natural Order, which we have been discussing throughout this class. One must learn simpler concepts before moving on the more complext concepts. As much as educators can, I think they should try to incorporate as much "real world" context as possible, even at the lower levels of proficiency. Students need to see how what they are learning is both relevant and connected to their own lives. Although learners may use the "monitor" to sort of filter their output to make sure it is correct, it is important that the instructor also explain to them not only if and why their output is incorrect, but I think it is just as important to let the learner know why their output was correct. I think one of the most effective ways to see if a student has acquired any part of the L2 is by trying to elicit a spontaneous utterance by, for example, placing them in a conversation with a native speaker, such as an "intercambio" situation. As the learner's proficiency elevates, he can really begin to focus on form and notice the gaps that exist between his use of the L2 and a native speaker of the L2. Teachers need to be aware of difference nuances of teaching beginners and advanced learners and how to incorporate "real world" context at every level because it affects the quality of output.
I think that the information in Chapter 12 could probably play a role in this, too. After students have achieved a certain level of second-language mastery, it is probably best for teachers to create as immersive a classroom as possible, using the target language almost exclusively. This would maximize the amount of input, and eventually (and hopefully) the amount of successful output. However, it might be difficult for the teacher to gauge the intake/input ratio. So certain students—especially “non-risk-takers”—might feel anxiety or language shock if they are bombarded with a lot of information that they cannot understand. Such anxiety might be compounded if they are expected to produce correct output, too.
So while teachers ought to provide ample input and encourage frequent output, they also need to keep in mind these social aspects of learning a foreign language. How to do this? I’m not sure. Subtly correcting mistakes, taking time to ask the class how they feel they are doing, and ultimately maintaining a comfortable classroom experience are means to this end, I guess.
-sarah landor
i agree with ellen's point. a studnet can learn/memorize all of the vocabulary and grammar possible, but he/she is still not synthesizing the material. there is no true interactive experience and without this the langauge learning is not able to produce a strong output. the input needs to be structured so that the student can create a well-rounded view of language and how it's used. the problem with many language classrooms is thier ability to neglect this critical detail and focus input into tedious activities that don't provide students with actual language interaction situations. how can a teacher expect the students to know how to apply the language, if it is not taught in an applicable setting/manner?
When it comes to L2 acquisition, the interaction as well as the input and output are equally important. The student will not e able to perform if the input is not presented in a form that can be easily comprehended. I agree that the students needs to learn all the grammar rules, but they also need to be able to synthesize everything they are learning and memorizing. The teachers must find a way to put all these grammar rules etc..together in a way that the students are able to see the language as a whole. Put everything you have learned into action. This is very hard, but teachers should find a way in which they can relate the language material to the students. It is also very important not to overwhelm them with information. teachers should teach in a timely mannar and constantly be self analysing themselves to check that her students are understanding the material. Practicing the conversation skills in class and out of class is very important for language acquisition. Having exposure to the language will make things a lot easier and comfortable. Maybe a teacher could let the students choose their topic and conversate in the language they are learning. This way the students will be interested in the subject and just maybe they will try their best to communicate their opinions in the language being acquired.
I see we all agree that input and output are very important in the acquisition of a second language. The most important way to see how much a language has been acquired is through the output of a student. However, it is the input that the teachers provide that can steer this output. It is all connected and equally important. I feel that the memorization method is not effective when it comes to acquiring a language. While it is very important to learn grammer rules and how to use them, I think conversation is the best way to work input and output together. It is the best way to really test if the student has mastered the grammer rules and structure. Like we talked about in class, there is a very big difference between learning a language and acquiring one. Language is acquired by continuous practice of it. Even in beginner levels, the teacher should speak the target language as much as possible. This will allow the student to learn through listening and master the hurdle of pronunciation as well. I strongly believe that language courses in any level should never be boring or robotic because every person learns differently.Again, the most effective way to learn a language is by putting it into play. Focusing on bettering the output by having the students speak the language as much as possible. There definitely needs to be more conversation courses offered to students of different levels.
-Nadine
So I think that generally we can all agree that interaction is a critical part of genuine acquisition... I'd like to complicate the discussion a little bit with a counter-example. In the high school I'm observing in, the students are in three sections of beginning-level Spanish, and the teacher does not give them any opportunities to use spoken, conversational Spanish. The students generally have issues constructing full sentences and never use spoken Spanish beyond single-word utterances. When I ask students questions using the material they're studying, no one responds verbally or if they do, it's it English.
So my question is - is there a threshold they need to cross, either in terms of time or in terms of scaffolded knowledge - after which they can handle spontaneous speech? Or should conversational interaction, no matter how rudimentary, be encouraged from the very beginning? How much can we count classroom participation for the most beginning classes?
Ellen
In agreement with many of the previous posts, I personally believe that output is extremely important in the learning process. We all know that teachers need to create their classroom activities and work based on the students individual needs. It is critical to teach using all methods available in order to accommodate every type of learner. Although grammar drills may be effective for certain learners in the classroom, we must incorporate real life situations to appeal to all of the learners. Our goal is that our students will be able to produce the language. I feel that many of the Spanish teachers I had in high school lacked real life communication experiences, which did not allow me to practice producing the language. Although grammar is essential to learning I believe that conversation and communication is one of the most helpful ways to achieve our goal as educators.
I think the idea of discourse elaboration is constructive here. As the text points out, for native speakers there's a tendency to simplify the way we talk to non-native speakers in our daily interactions. In the instructional setting, instead of 'dumbing down' the language, we need to remember that expanding the range of input available to learners actually aids in comprehension and acquisition.
I also feel that output is crucial to the language learning process. As many of us had said, we thought we could travel to foreign country and start communicating and having conversations with the native speakers, only to realize that we had no idea how to actually talk. That happened to me when I first moved here. I had only learned theory and grammar in the classroom and if we practiced conversation, it was very staged role-play. Once I got here I was completely tongue tied. We need to use any resources we can find that actually get us to "speak" naturally.
I'd like to respond to Ellen's second post in this discussion. I have seen this too, sadly even within my college classes. I think sometimes the problem here is expectation. Although it does create a sort of pressure in the classroom, I think this pressure is necessary for learning. If a teacher only expects a yes or a no answer to a question posed in the L2, or accepts incomplete sentences, the students can become lazy in a way, knowing that they can get by without becoming truly competent. As much as I hate that scrambling that comes from knowing I could be called upon to create extended output in class, I know that it is forcing me to formulate a response from my IL, which is good. Sometimes this sort of anxiety is necessary to encourage thinking and therefore language development. I mean, this is exactly what goes on in dialogue between an NS and a NNS. The NNS is forced to compute input and formulate output as efficiently as possible, as their conversation partner is awaiting a response. So I guess I'd say that the only "threshold" that needs to be crossed is that the student has become armed with the basic structure of a sentence, and a few basic nouns and verbs. Even if the verb is unconjugated or whatever, basic meaning can still be conveyed and that is the point of language and learning a language.
Post a Comment