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.

Journal entry 1

Preparation:

For the first session, we were supposed to have a glance at introductory materials in SLA. It included schools of thoughts in SLA. Among these schools, I was more interested in constructivism. Psychologists taking this approach have been mainly concerned with ways in which individuals come to make their own sense of the world.

I automatically related constructivism with learner-autonomy, the concept that I do believe is a key one in SLA. Constructivism explains the ways in which learners make their own personal sense of learning. And the successful educator must be one who understands the complexities of the teaching-learning process and can draw upon this knowledge to act in ways which empower learners both within and beyond the classroom situation. In this way the learner is brought into central focus in learning theory and we have the idea of learner-centeredness.

Among two important figures of constructivism, Piaget and Vigotsky, the latter’s social interactionism sounded much more helpful for me as a teacher.

Social interactionists believe that children are born into a social world and learning occurs through interaction with other people. The concept of interactionism is very crucial in learning, especially in language learning. We learn a language through using the language to interact meaningfully with other people.

In the introductory part of the Nunan’s book, there was a definition of education function which was in harmony with constructivism. It was written that the education function is to create the conditions whereby learners might generate their own skills and knowledge.

Another interesting piece of information that I found in Nunan’s book was two dimensions of learner-centeredness. The first was that the curriculum is collaborative effort between teachers and learners, since learners are closely involved in decision making process regarding the context of the curriculum and how it is thought.

There is another sense in which the term learner-centeredness is often used, in which learners are actively involved in the learning process, classrooms in which the focus is on the learner in the sense in which they do all the work. This kind of classroom is in fact consistent with a particular line of SLA research that suggests acquisition is facilitated when opportunities for learners to interact are maximized.

Assistance and Application:

There are some points that I have learned during the class session which had not taken my attention before class and I will discuss them briefly below. Since the materials we covered were mainly theoretical, I preferred to have Assistance and Application parts together.

• Widdowson emphasized on the fact that a teacher is a researcher and he/she should not apply whatever that is said by the others. Teacher should have a deep understanding and should not be just a consumer of the other’s ideas and theories. He/she should be a producer too. So Widdowson rejects the idea of assimilation of Piaget and calls it source of the problems.

• Each class should have its own methodology. We can personalize the materials and teaching. We should make a connection with the real world.

• Negotiated curriculum which was vague for me was defined by the class. It was said that we, as teachers, can have options and this is the student who decides which option to choose.

• I also learned that one solution is not appropriate and functioning for all problems. In our country we do not nativize the problems and it is one of our major problems.