Journal entry 2

In the second session we were supposed to read about the empirical basis of second language teaching and learning.


The first question asked by Nunan was that ‘Is learning a second language like learning a first language?’


It was said that insofar as syntax and phonology are concerned, they are different. But Nunan claimed that there is a high level of agreement in perception of semantic and discourse relationships in written texts between first and second language readers.


But this idea of Nunan does not sound right to me. According to my experience, discourse acquisition (perception of semantic and discourse relationships) in L1 and L2 is crucially different. To the extent that learning a new language is like gaining a new self.


An interesting idea that I encountered in the Nunan’s book was the Krashen’s assertation that learning and acquisition are totally separate and in SLA we should try hard to acquire the SL and reduce the amount of learning it. And I wondered how we can do that.


Another question was asked in the book: which one is more important in SLA, instruction or interaction?


The given answer was that both were necessary, but in my point of view interaction is more rewarding. I believe in classrooms which are communicative in orientation, but contains opportunities for explicit grammar instruction.


I found a beautiful sentence in the book that shows the importance of using tasks: ‘Acquisition will be maximized when learners engage in tasks that ‘push’ them to the limits of their current competence.’


Another interesting thing that I read in the book was the research result of Pica et al. he said that learners who have opportunities to negotiate meaning (make clarification requests and check comprehension) as they listen to a set of instructions, comprehend much more than students who receive a simplified set of instruction. This idea sounded weird to me at first, but when I thought about it, I found it really interesting.





                               *     *      *      *      *      *      *


Our second session has finished and now I am tying to remember what issues were discussed.


One thing that I learned is that Krashen’s claim that ‘learning and acquisition are completely different’ is prone to severe criticism.


I also found that in acquisition learner first gains procedural knowledge and then it converts to declarative knowledge. I am thinking about this and I am wondering whether I can increase the amount of learners’ acquisition. I mean is it possible to apply this in the classroom in some way?


A very beautiful thing that I learned was that a modern teacher should have 3 kinds of competence: topic competence, pedagogical competence and personal competence. And it is the third one that makes a teacher modern. Personal competence means that a teacher should know about psychology, for instance she should know how the learners feel and so on.


Another question that was raised by the teacher was: Should we apply all the methods in our classroom or we should just choose one method?


There are 3 views:


1. Some believe that the existing theories are good and they try to use those theories.


2. Some believe that we should imitate first language acquisition and we should not bother ourselves about using methods.


3. The third view which is the correct answer is that teacher should experience and do research. She/he should do both ethnographic and experiential research. The teacher should reconcile between theory and practice and decide what to do.