Transcript File - Theories of Second Language Acquisition: What

THEORIES OF SECOND
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION:
Colorado
State
University
April 1 2 th , 2014
What are their implications &
applications in the writing center?
L e s l i e D av i s
D ev o n J a n c i n
M o r i a h Ke n t
K r i s te n Fo s te r
WHAT IS SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION?
The field of SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ( SLA) concerns
itself with exploring the factors and processes that contribute
to the acquisition of second and foreign languages.
“Tutors who are aware of the processes involved in the
development of second languages and second language writing
competence can be more ef fective in their conferences”
(Williams, 2002, p. 86).
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSIT Y
 INTO CSU
 Fall 2013: International student enrollment up 280 students,
or 23 percent
 Past 5 years: up 70 percent
 more than 5.5 percent of CSU’s student population
FALL 2013 STATISTICS
 1,553 clients
 493 (32%) ESL clients
 3,136 consultations
 1,316 (42%) ESL consultations
DISCUSSION GOALS
 to explore with other writing center directors and
consultants
 the implications and applicability of five SLA hypotheses
 if and how an introduction to these hypotheses should be
incorporated into writing center consultant training
SCHEDULE
 10 minutes: Introduction to five influential SLA Theories
 15 minutes: Small group discussion & brainstorm of
applications/implications in the Writing Center
 10 minutes: discuss brainstorm
 20 minutes: Should we incorporate these theories into Writing
Center training?
THEORIES OF SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION
“(The writing center) is a unique place where talk and writing
come together, where interaction nearly always focuses on
meaningful communication” (Williams, 2002, p. 86).
COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT
HYPOTHESIS
KRASHEN (1991)
COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT HYPOTHESIS
i+1
Language input should be slightly above student’s ability level
“If the pupil is at a level that we shall call ‘ i’, then the aim is for
the teacher to raise the level of his/her use of the language to
ensure that the pupil is receiving input a bit above ‘i’ and hence
pushing up acquisition to the next level ‘+1’” ( Krashen & Terrell,
1983, p. 32).
INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS
LONG (1996)
INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS
Posits that “the best kind of comprehensible input leaners can
hope to obtain is input that has been interactionally modified…
…in other words, adjusted after receiving some signal that the
interlocutor needs some help in order to fully understand the
message” (Ortega, 2009, p. 61)
interactional modifications  negotiation for meaning
INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS
Negotiation for Meaning : “moves” performed in response to either
actual or perceived comprehension problems, with the purpose of
making meaning comprehensible to both interlocutors
 Clarification requests (What do you mean? Could you say that
differently?)
 Confirmation checks (So, you’re saying that X results in Y?)
 Comprehension checks (Is that clear?)
These negotiations allow L2 learners exposure to the target
language that is individualized and, rather than overly simplified,
filled with repetitions and redundancies.
NOTICING HYPOTHESIS
SCHMIDT (1990)
NOTICING HYPOTHESIS
 students must notice gaps in their knowledge
 Learners cannot learn grammatical features unless
they notice them.
NOTICING HYPOTHESIS
 Was born out of the idea that “positive attitudes and an
optimal learning environment will af ford the linguistic data
needed for learning…[but that] grammar acquisition cannot be
successful without applying ‘interest’, ‘attention’ and ‘hard
work’. (Schmidt, 1990, pg. 58)
 The more learners notice, the more they’ll learn.
 What is “Noticing”?
- Learners should notice linguistic material.
- The brain “registers new material” (pg. 63).
- Understanding does not need to happen, as long as a
new piece of information is noticed.
- Memory of the new material is not necessarily needed,
either.
COMPREHENSIBLE OUTPUT
HYPOTHESIS
SWAIN (1995)
COMPREHENSIBLE OUTPUT HYPOTHESIS
Noticing - students recognize what they don’t know
Hypothesis testing - students test out new forms based on what they
already know
Metalinguistic reflection - using language to reflect on language
mediates learning
AFFECTIVE FILTER
KRASHEN (1987)
AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS
Motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety level of the student
must be taken into account. If their “af fective filter” is up, they
cannot acquire as much new information (Krashen, 1987, p. 3).
BRAINSTORMING
 In pairs or groups of three, discuss:
How do these hypotheses connect to the work we do in the
writing center?
How do they help clarify or explain our contributions to the
language development of non-native English speakers?
BRAINSTORMING
 Should we incorporate the presentation of these hypotheses
and/or others into Writing Center training ?
 How might they be best introduced to consultants?
WORKS CITED
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach:
Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon
Press Ltd.
Krashen, S. D. (1991). The input hypothesis: an update. In
James E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown Univer sity Roundtable on
Languages and Linguistics 1991 (p. 409-431). Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Or tega, Lourdes. (2009). Under standing Second Language
Acquisition. London: Hodder Education .
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language
learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 1 29-158.
Williams, J. (2002). Undergraduate second language writer s in the
writing classroom. Journal of Basic Writing , 21(2), 73 -91 .