Unit 5 an additive approach to planning in plurilingual classrooms

2,723 views

Published on

English training course for teachers who need a certification to teach through English

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,723
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
65
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Unit 5 an additive approach to planning in plurilingual classrooms

  1. 1. UNIT 5. AN ADDITIVE APPROACH TO PLANNING IN PLURILINGUAL CLASSROOMS. LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH.
  2. 2. AIMS OF THE SESSION <ul><li>Knowing several language acquisition theories: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Common Underlying Proficiency Theory and the Iceberg Metaphor. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Interlanguage. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interactionism and the Scaffolding </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recognizing the factors that affect language acquisition. </li></ul>
  3. 3. INTRODUCTION <ul><li>“ LANGUAGES EMBODY THE INTELLECTUAL WEALTH OF THE PEOPLE THAT SPEAK THEM. LOSING ANY OF THEM IS LIKE DROPPING A BOMB ON THE LOVRE” </li></ul><ul><li>(Ken Hale, linguist) </li></ul>
  4. 4. SUPPORTING MOTHER TONGUE <ul><li>Advantages of maintaing one’s mother language: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal identity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cultural heritage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Intercultural understanding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Skills supporting cognitive development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Additive bilingualism vs. Substractive bilingualism </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Many opportunities for schools and students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>European Council ideas on intercultural awareness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multilingualism </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. BILINGUALISM <ul><li>Bilingual Kids from Parents.wmv </li></ul>
  6. 6. BILINGUALISM <ul><li>ADDITIVE BILINGUALISM </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Social and emotional conditions for learning that value all languages and cultures and affirm the identity of each learner and promote self steem.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does not replace the mother tongue. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>SUBSTRACTIVE BILINGUALISM </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does not affirm identity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Another language replaces the mother tongue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Colonial situations or political situations in which one language is over another language. </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR <ul><li>Jim Cummins (Canada, 1980) </li></ul><ul><li>“ People who are learning a second language are not faced with a totally unmapped territory ” </li></ul><ul><li>Common framework of language structures and functions = Common underlying proficiency (CUP) </li></ul>
  8. 8. THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR
  9. 9. THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR <ul><li>CUP implies the interdependence hypothesis: the surface features of any two languages may be different (BICS), but the underlying cognitive proficiency skills are common across languages (CALP). </li></ul><ul><li>Linguistic exposure and experience in two languages can promote the cognitive academic skills underlying both languages. </li></ul>
  10. 10. THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR
  11. 11. THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR <ul><li>Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS): language needed to interact in social contexts, language used in everyday communication or informal settings. </li></ul><ul><li>Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP): formal academic learning. Thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, evaluation related to CALP. </li></ul>
  12. 12. THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR <ul><li>CUP linked to CALP </li></ul><ul><li>Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Type of language that allows for the transfer of academic skills from one language to another. </li></ul><ul><li>The aim of high quality bilingual education </li></ul>
  13. 13. THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR <ul><li>Bilingual or multilingual people with meaningful exposure and experience </li></ul><ul><li>develop CUP skills which enable the development of CALP skills in both languages. </li></ul><ul><li>ONE CENTRAL PROCESSING SYSTEM </li></ul>
  14. 14. THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR <ul><li>In summary, </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Child’s first language is not a hindrance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive and academic skills transfer to the new language </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Such skills are interdependent across languages. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The knowledge of one language helps to learn the second (or third) language </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR <ul><li>LITERACY SKILLS THAT CAN BE TRANSFERRED : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Directionality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sequencing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ability to distinguish shapes and sounds </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Kwoledge that written symbols correspond to sounds and can be decoded in order and direction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Semantic and sytantic knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Text structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of clues to predict meaning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Variety of purposes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Confidence in oneself </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. FACTORS AFFECTING LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (I) <ul><li>Case study: an oral production of a 5 year old bilingual boy. </li></ul><ul><li>At school: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Pau m’ha pushat” </li></ul><ul><li>“ I not can do this” / “I no can’t do this” </li></ul><ul><li>“ I not want to go” / “I not want go” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Lucia not goes” / “She not go” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Want you this” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Me no like this homework” </li></ul><ul><li>At home: </li></ul><ul><li>“ M’he deixat el llibre on the table” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Estic on the carpet” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Dóna’m el apron, please” </li></ul>
  17. 17. FACTORS AFFECTING LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (II) <ul><li>Language transfer: appliance of native language knowledge to a second language. </li></ul><ul><li>Interference or negative transfer: errors originated in the application of L1 grammar rules to the construction of L2. The greater the differences between the languages, the more negative transfer will result (false friends). </li></ul><ul><li>Interlanguage: linguistic system developed by a learner of a L2 who has not become fully proficient yet but who is approximating to the target language. (Spanglish) </li></ul>
  18. 18. INTERACTIONISM (I) <ul><li>Krashen and language acquisition.wmv </li></ul>
  19. 19. INTERACTIONISM (II) <ul><li>Interaction between the learner and the language environment </li></ul><ul><li>Innate cognitive processes </li></ul><ul><li>Adults use modified input to address children </li></ul><ul><li>ESL learners need comprehensible input to make sense </li></ul><ul><li>Background knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Language level of the lesson </li></ul><ul><li>Production of meaningful output and reception of feedback. </li></ul><ul><li>Differences between second language natural acquisition and second language formal acquisition. </li></ul>
  20. 20. INTERACTIONISM (III) <ul><li>KRASHEN’S 5 MAIN HYPOTHESIS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The natural approach: we learn in a predictable order. 5 stages: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Preproduction </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Early production </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Speech emergence </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Intermediate fluency </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Advanced level </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The acquisition learning hypothesis: acquisition vs. learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitor hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Input hypothesis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Positive) affective filter </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. INTERACTIONISM (IV) <ul><li>KRASHEN’S THEORY APPLIED TO CLASSROOM: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Meaningful input </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Real life communication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Foster positive situations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited use of grammar teaching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Correction of mistakes only during learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Natural focus: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>communicative skills, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>comprehension before production, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>speaking and writing skills when the pupil is prepared, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>acquisition better than learning, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>low affective filter </li></ul></ul></ul>
  22. 22. INTERACTIONISM (V) <ul><li>BRUNER </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scaffolding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Provision of appropriate assistance to students so that they may achieve what alone would have been too difficult for them.” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Comprehensive input </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Teachers predict students’ difficulties </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>VYGOTSKY </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proximal development(ZDP) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Notional gap between </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A) the learner’s current developmental level </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>B) the learner’s potential level </li></ul></ul></ul>
  23. 23. SEE YOU NEXT WEEK THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION

×