A research agenda for leslla 3 mb


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • -The goal of the field of SLA research = describe and explain the cognitive processes of L2 learners, both children and adults, and the way their learner language develops over time (= acquisition)Focuses on the learner, not the teacher. How does cognition work in the mind of the learner? For example, how does the learner process corrective feedback? How does the learner formulate the rules of learner language?The primary data used in SLA research is the speech, in unrehearsed communication, of L2 learners; this gives us a window into their implicit, underlying knowledge of L2.Writing, speech in drills, and grammar tests tell us about their explicit knowledge of L2. GIVEN: Explicit knowledge in talk about L2, and implicit knowledge that underlies meaning-focused communication are usually very different, and the relationship between the two is hotly debated.
  • Wave around the Ellis and Long FAT BOOKS of research summaries. Only Ellis mentions, on 2 pages, the Bigelow delMas Hansen & Tarone study.
  • ELAINE-Pre-1968. Assumption: L2 learning was simple matter of replacing L1 forms with L2 forms; all difficulties caused by transferring L1 forms into L2Corder (1969) following Chomsky: focus on innate knowledge of language of L2 learners. ‘built-in syllabus’ for SLA, different from taught syllabi. Not justL1 transfer, but also other cognitive processes; Selinker 1972: overgeneralization of L2 rules (as in FLA), transfer of training, learning strategies-Overly cognitive orientation in the ensuing decades of research: mind of L2 learner imagined as like a computer; give it language input, it processes the input in the CPU to formulate IL rules of grammar, morphology, phonology; no attention paid to social context, or impact of contexts outside of school on the L2 learning process. All L2 learners imagined to be like those accessible to the researchers: educated learners in school contexts.
  • ELAINETelling learners the rules ,memorizing the rules, painstakingly assembling sentences rule by rule … this did not seem to result in the ability to actually USE those rules unconsciously in communication.Implicit learner knowledge seems to develop organically, like a plant. And for the educated learners studied, a balance needed to be struck between focus on explicit rules, and focus on meaning in communication, which fostered development of implicit knowledge
  • ELAINELearner leaves out a linguistic unit ‘is’. Her meaning is clear without it.Teacher adds the linguistic unit.Learner must notice she’s added that form, which doesn’t change the meaning, and add it in the right spot.
  • With literacy is there a different purpose for learning language?
  • Not at the word level at the discourse level. S[eaking with the voice of my teacher, or speaking with the voice of my big brother who’s two grades ahead of me: how would HE say this?
  • A lot of our research has been one on one, outside the classroom. How do classroom dynamics affect SLA? Record desk work, group work, reading lessons, corrective feedback in teacher fronted interaction, etc.
  • A research agenda for leslla 3 mb

    1. 1. A Research Agenda for LESLLA/A Second Language Acquisition<br />Martha Bigelow<br />Elaine Tarone<br />University of Minnesota<br />
    2. 2. An Ecology of SLA Research<br />
    3. 3. LESLLA’s Research Agendas Underway<br />
    4. 4. LESLLA’s Research Agendas Underway<br />
    5. 5. LESLLA’s Research Agendas Underway<br />
    6. 6. LESLLA’s Research Agendas Underway<br />
    7. 7. LESLLA’s Research Agendas Underway<br />
    8. 8. LESLLA’s Research Agendas Underway<br />
    9. 9. LESLLA’s Research Agendas Underway<br />
    10. 10. The Goal of SLA Research<br />Describe & explain cognitive processes<br />Document development of L2 interlanguage over time<br />Focus on the learner<br />Oral interlanguage, as used in communication<br />
    11. 11. What does SLA research tell us about LESLLA/A learners?<br />Very little in mainstream journals, conferences, books<br />The SLA of the emergent reader is little known<br />
    12. 12. Omission of LESLLA/A Risky<br />For SLA Theory<br />For Pedagogy<br />
    13. 13. 793.1 Million Illiterate Adults Worldwide<br />64% Women<br />UNESCO DATA<br />
    14. 14. Basic Literacy Classes in the U.S. (‘08-’09)<br />National Reporting Service Data<br />
    15. 15. Illiteracy and Multilingualism<br />Burkina Faso<br />21% literate<br />68 languages<br />Afghanistan<br />28% literacy<br />49 languages<br />(CIA Factsheet <br />Ethnologue.com)<br />
    16. 16. Transnationalism and Migration<br />
    17. 17. SLA Research Basics<br />Fundamental assumptions and relevant findings of SLA research<br />Why these assumptions and findings do not fit low literate L2 learners<br />
    18. 18. Fundamental Assumptions in SLA<br />1968 – S.P. Corder: L2 learner has innate cognitive implicit ‘built-in syllabus’ independent of teacher’s syllabus & of L1.<br />1972 – Selinker: interlanguage rules used implicitly to generate utterances<br />1980’s – Krashen: implicit L2 knowledge (acquired) is different from explicit L2 knowledge (learned) <br />Difference explicit and implicit L2 knowledge<br />
    19. 19. Explicit L2 Knowledge vs.Implicit L2 Knowledge<br />Explicit knowledge = derives from skills learned in formal classroom settings: grammatical syllabi, memorization of rules and vocabulary, analyzing syntax, mechanically sequencing linguistic units to construct sentences <br />Implicit knowledge = unconscious ‘built in syllabus’, organic growth of grammar through use in meaning-focused interaction<br />
    20. 20. Independence of Explicit & Implicit Language Knowledge<br />Teaching past counterfactual rule, <br /> e.g. ‘I wish I had known,’ ESL teacher says: <br />‘I wish I would have known’<br />Implicit knowledge without explicit awareness<br />Explicit knowledge without implicit ability to use the language<br />
    21. 21. Metalinguistic Cognitive Processes in SLA Theory (Educated L2 Learners)<br />Mainstream theories assume that L2 learners must be explicitly aware of linguistic units like phonemes, morphemes, words to acquire L2s<br />They must explicitly notice differences between the order of such units in the input and in their own speech (= notice the gap)<br />Consider research on corrective feedback<br />
    22. 22. Corrective feedback<br />Learner: *What she is doing? (error)<br />Teacher: What is she doing? (recast)<br />Learner: What is she doing? (uptake)<br />
    23. 23. Scaffolding = Interaction of Explicit & Implicit Knowledge<br /><ul><li>Assumes: proficiency grows through use in interaction with support of explicit corrective feedback
    24. 24. Focus on Form, ZPD: require explicit awareness of linguistic units in the midst of meaning-focused interaction</li></li></ul><li>Research with Preliterate Learners<br />Increasingly suggests that adults who aren’t alphabetically literate do not have same kind of awareness of linguistic units like phonemes, morphemes, words<br />Scholes (1993): preliterate adults view segmenting speech into words as ‘meaningless’<br />Olson (2002) & Ong (2002): awareness of ‘words’ and phonological awareness result from alphabetic literacy<br />
    25. 25. Selected LESLLA Findings:<br />Kurvers, Hout & Vallen (2006, 2007): alphabetic literacy --> awareness of the word and the phoneme as units<br />Non alphabetically literate adults viewed language as means of communication, but not a string of linguistic units<br />Onderlinden et al. (2009): degree of alphabetic literacy correlates with degree of ability to identify word boundaries <br />Young-Scholten & Strom (2006): phonemic awareness only after learning to read; notions of syllable, onset, rhyme developed independently<br />
    26. 26. Deficit or Difference?<br />Is lack of phonological awareness a deficit?<br />Bassetti (2005): different writing systems teach you to segment oral language in distinctive ways; not a deficit but definitely a difference<br />English writing represents words and Chinese writing represents monosyllabic morphemes<br />Literate English CFL learners segmented oral Chinese into “words” according to spacing conventions of the English writing system, different from segmentation conventions of literate Chinese, based on “hanzi”<br />
    27. 27. Linguistic Units Used by Pre-literate Learners to Process L2 Input<br />So into what kind of units do pre-literate adults and adolescents – who are not aware of words and phonemes – segment their oral L2 input? <br />Recall Young-Scholten & Strom (2006): they are aware of syllables and rhyme.<br />
    28. 28. Abukar<br />15 years old, in 9th grade<br />Began formal schooling in US 4.5 years earlier (after 4 yrs in refugee camp)<br />Scores show relatively low literacy level but developing oral proficiency:<br />English literacy: 6 out of 9 possible<br />Somali literacy: 4 out of 9<br />SPEAK: 50 out of 60 possible<br />Question stage: 5 out of 6 possible<br />
    29. 29. Abukar’s Common Errors with Questions<br />Abukar: … what, what he is looking?<br />Abukar: Why he is mad?<br />Abukar: … why he come this room?<br />
    30. 30. Abukar’s Common Errors with Questions<br />Abukar: … what, what he is looking?<br />Abukar: Why he is mad?<br />Abukar: … why he come this room?<br />
    31. 31. Form-Focused Recasts(1 on 1, not classroom)<br /> 1 Abukar: What he sit on, what he SIT on, or whatever?<br />2 MB: What is he sitting on?<br /> 3 Abukar: Mhm.<br />4 MB: What is he sitting on? Again. Repeat.<br /> 5 Abukar: What he sitting on?<br />6 MB: What IS he sitting on?<br /> 7 Abukar: Oh. What he sitting on?<br />8 MB: What IS he sitting on?<br /> 9 Abukar: What IS he sitting on?<br />(from Tarone & Bigelow 2007)<br />
    32. 32. Focus onSecond Syllable STRESS <br />01 Abukar: Why he is mad? Why [he], he is mad?<br />02 MB: [yeah]<br />03 MB: Why IS he mad?<br />04 Abukar: Why HE is mad? Why<br />05 MB: Why IS he mad?<br />06 Abukar: Why IS he mad? Why is, [is he]…<br />
    33. 33. Focus on Vocabulary in Recast<br />01 Abukar: OK (pause) what is barrel, what is, what is the <br />02 thing in it? What is there? Is it, is there pennies in it?<br />03 MB: Yeah. Um, again. Are pennies in the jar?<br />04 Abukar: Is, are the penny in the jar?<br />05 MB: Yes. And, um, <br />06 Abukar: (whispers) jar<br />07 MB: you know she’s a waitress, so she gets tips,<br />08 Abukar: O K<br />09 MB: at the diner, <br />10 Abukar: mhm<br />11 MB: and every day she puts her tips in a jar<br />12 Abukar: oh. (pause) (xxx xxx)<br />13 MB: Here’s the jar.<br />14 Abukar: A jar?<br />15 Abukar: (20 turns later) Is this jar have, this jar, is this jar full of money?<br />
    34. 34. Summing up: What aspect of the recasts does Abukar notice & repeat?<br />He most easily recalls:<br />New vocabulary: ‘jar’<br />Second position stress: daDAHdada<br />He struggles (=requires several turns) to recall:<br />Difference in order of words between trigger and recast: is hehe is<br />Yet he’s communicating well in English L2<br />
    35. 35. Implications & Questions<br />SLA theory says that L2 learners must ‘notice the gap’ between linguistic forms in interlanguage, and those in the input<br />Abukar may be noticing the gap in terms of his awareness of units like syllable and syllable stress, rather than in terms of units like ‘words’ and ‘word order’<br />
    36. 36. We wonder… <br /><ul><li>Do all L2 forms have to be explicitly noticed to be acquired?
    37. 37. Can LESLLA/A learners acquire some L2 forms implicitly, without explicit analysis? OR,
    38. 38. Do these learners structure their explicit working memory for language in some way that researchers don’t see?
    39. 39. Can we capitalize on what preliterate learners do notice in oral input to improve their acquisition of L2 linguistic units and their syntactic relationships?</li></li></ul><li>Strands of a SLA research agenda<br />The metalinguistic awareness emergent readers use in oral SLA<br />The longitudinal development of LESLLA/A learners’ interlanguage, including the linguistic forms they acquire before, during and after becoming literate<br />Impact of different forms of corrective feedback on noticing of different linguistic forms by preliterate learners<br />Impact of social context on cognitive processes in LESLLA/A SLA<br />Researcher access, ethical and political issues withLESLLA/A populations <br />
    40. 40. 1. Metalinguistic Awareness: Possible Hypotheses<br />The pre-literate L2 learner is not metalinguistically aware of any linguistic forms in L2 input; all processing is semantic.<br /> The pre-literate L2 learner has metalinguistic awareness of forms in oral L2 input, but this awareness is not framed in terms of phonemes, words, morphemes.<br />It may be framed in terms of other formal units like syllables, syllable stress pattern (or rhythm), or rhyme (or vowel similarity).<br />It may be framed in terms of more global units and organizations which may be detectable in memorization and recitation of long oral narratives, or the Koran<br />The pre-literate L2 learner acquires some L2 linguistic forms without metalinguistic awareness, but other L2 linguistic forms require metalinguistic processing.<br />Some can be acquired with semantic processing only.<br />Some require metalinguistic awareness.<br />
    41. 41. 2. Longitudinal Case Studies: Possible Hypotheses<br />Interlanguage develops systematically across time and social context for pre-literate learners, but not in the same way as for literate learners.<br />Longitudinal case studies with data from a range of contexts (Liu, Nicholas)<br />High quality ethnography, access<br />Look at data with fresh eyes<br />In some social contexts, some linguistic forms are acquired earlier, and spread later to other social contexts. Other linguistic forms are acquired late, beginning in different social contexts. Longitudinal case studies patterned on Liu (1991) can document the variable acquisition patterns of preliterate adult L2 learners, as well as the social factors (interlocutor, contextual cues, language use patterns) that influence this variation<br />
    42. 42. 3. Corrective Feedback: Possible Hypotheses<br />Pre-literate L2 learners notice some linguistic units and not others when corrective feedback is structured in terms of phonemes, morphemes and words.<br /> Pre-literate L2 learners notice more, or different linguistic units, when corrective feedback is structured in terms of other formal units (e.g. syllables, syllable stress patterns, or intonation).<br />Pre-literate L2 learners produce more uptake when corrective feedback represents units like words with symbols that are not script-based (e.g. colored blocks like Cuisinnaire rods). <br />Pre-literate L2 learners produce more uptake when corrective feedback is framed in sociocultural terms (e.g. speak with the “voice” of Mrs. Y)<br />
    43. 43. 4. Social Contexts of SLA: Possible Hypotheses<br />Pre-literate L2 learners engage in different patterns of participation in different social contexts (e.g. formal vs. naturalistic – classrooms vs. communities), and this affects their patterns of interlanguage use and acquisition. A variationist study can identify influential social variables and related variability in interlanguage, and awareness of these will better inform teacher decisions.<br />Pre-literate L2 learners bring unstudied assets to the process of oral SLA that derive from cultural practices such as recitation of long oral narratives, improvisation of oral poetry, or memorization and recitation of the Koran. An ethnographic case study can identify those assets and cultural practices, and the variable linguistic features of IL that benefit from exercise of those assets.<br />
    44. 44. Needed: More Research in Intact Classroom Contexts<br />
    45. 45. 5. Access, Ethics, and Politics<br />Access<br />Intercultural competence<br />Cultural outsiders<br />Positionality<br />Representation<br />Giving back<br />