ANOTHER STEP TO BE TAKEN

TCCRISLS 2012 - INTERLANGUAGE: 40 YEARS LATER

In her presentation, Larsen-Freeman suggested, “We should close the separation between learning and teaching and bring them back together.”

The topics on which she focused in the presentation

Part A

1- Definition of success

2- Attempted meaningful performance

3- Five processes

Second Language Learning; First Language transfer, second language learning, language transfer, transfer of training, and overgeneralization of TL rules

4- Fossilization

5- No necessary connection between units

The Ultimate Yardstick of Linguistic Success

Larsen-Freeman stated, “There is no ultimate homogeneous state to aspire to. The persistent instability of complex systems (Percival 1993) is due to the fact that a person’s use of language resources changes them, and I don’t just mean growth in the lexicon.”

Part B

Is it possible to reconcile the non-normativism of learning with the [apparent] need for normativism in language learning?

1-    Think in terms of capacity rather than competence.

2-    Think in terms of discourse domain.

3-    Think not in terms of telic conformity, but in terms of semiotic agility- the capacity for shifting “rapidly and fluently between and among semiotic words (Prior 2010, p. 233)

4-    Assess learning as a self referential way.

Part C

How does this play out in practice, you ask…

1-    Engage learners in activities that are rich in affordances (for particular discourse domain)

2-    Activity should be psychologically authentic (where the learning/ use are aligned)- making meaning

3-    Activities that can be iterated.

4-    That teach adaptation

5-    Then, stand back and respond in the service of learning.

Closing

“Knowing how to negotiate our way through a world that is not fixed and pregiven, but that is continually shaped by the types of actions in which we engage,” is a challenge of being human. (Varela, Thomson & Rosch 1991)

INSTRUCTED SLA: 40 YEARS AFTER "INTERLANGUAGE"

TCCRISLS 2012 - INTERLANGUAGE: 40 YEARS LATER

Bill VanPatten, in his presentation today, stated, “… instruction has no direct effect on competence…” In other words, explicit teaching does not affect learning. He also remarked that explicit instruction does not accelerate learning.

A participant, the owner of an ESL school in New York, asked Van Patten, “Then what do you suggest me to do as a school owner to help students learn?” He suggested a curriculum based on implicit instruction through pure communicative and task-based language teaching.

Before Larsen-Freeman’s talk tomorrow, I have several comments on his claim and suggestion:

While I support that (pure) communicative and task-based language teaching have great benefits in language learning, yet they not be left alone as mere teaching tools in ESL classrooms.

I have not yet come across any cumulative empirical data supporting that instruction does not have direct effect on learning or accelerate learning. Although VanPatten stands behind his assertion based on individual case studies, I have to make it clear that there exist not all but many ESL learners who read in English and speak to native speakers of English to a great degree and still fail to produce TL structures accurately.

Is it because they do not have the competence even though they may have processed the input or they may not notice the TL structures in the input in spite of input flood?

My answer is a big “No.” My claim based on my teaching experience is that explicit teaching should include and start with noticing/consciousness raising following redundant meaningful not pure but constructed communicative activities, in which ESL learners gradually automatize TL structures in their speeches. When I answer the question above, I remember Hinkel and Foto’s book (2002) “New Perspectibes on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms as Gass, Mackey, & Pica (1998) stated that input and interaction alone does not guarantee learner acquisition (cited in Hinkel& Fotos, 2002, p. 305).

Reflection on VanPatten’s presentation

Possible reasons why SL learners fail to produce accurate usages of TL structures:

1- Interlanguage
2- Forcing early output instead of waiting for the silent period to naturally end
3- Adult learners’ cognitive development (Intelligence, attention, perception, memory etc.)
4- Psychological reasons (Anxiety, motivation etc.)
5- Too much information that SL learners can process at a time
6- Teaching TL structures in isolation

Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.