Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
“The state of the field  effects of program type, personality, and language background of the teacher in second language classrooms”
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

“The state of the field effects of program type, personality, and language background of the teacher in second language classrooms”

767
views

Published on

Research-based presentation

Research-based presentation

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
767
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. “The state of the field: Effects of program type, personality, and language background of the teacher in second language classrooms” Amanda Brown Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Syracuse University Graduate Students: Lily Jaffie-Shupe (USA), student in MA Linguistic Studies / Certificate of Advanced Studies in Language Teaching, Syracuse University Rebecca Smith (USA), student in MA Linguistic Studies / Certificate of Advanced Studies in Language Teaching, Syracuse University Tong Wu (China),student in MA Linguistic Studies / Certificate of Advanced Studies in Language Teaching, Syracuse University
  • 2. The State of the Field Lily Jaffie-Shupe Rebecca Smith Tong Wu Amanda Brown Linguistic Studies Program (MA / CAS) Syracuse University
  • 3. Comparing Course Formats: Standard, Intensive, and Immersion Language Programs Lily Jaffie-Shupe lkjaffie@syr.edu
  • 4. Overview of Course Formats • Standard • Intensive • Immersion ● Dual/bilingual immersion ● Domestic immersion ● Foreign immersion (study abroad)
  • 5. Domestic Immersion vs. Study Abroad • Study abroad is perceived by many to be more effective, but this is not always the case (Freed, Segalowitz, & Dewey, 2004) • Domestic study may actually produce more contact hours in the TL than foreign study (Segalowitz & Freed, 2004) ● But these contact hours are primarily with instructors (Dewey, 2004) ● Contact with host family may lead to shorter utterances (Segalowitz & Freed, 2004) • Domestic immersion may be a “warm-up” for study abroad (Liskin-Gasparro, 1998)
  • 6. Standard Courses vs. Intensive/Immersion • Highly concentrated instruction seems to be more effective (McKee, 1983; Collins, Halter, Lightbown, & Spada, 1999; Serrano, 2011) ● ● Promotes group cohesion (Hinger, 2006) Need more data comparing intensive and immersion courses
  • 7. References Christian, D. (1996). Two-way immersion education: Students learning through two languages. Modern Language Journal, 80, 66-76. Collins, L., Halter, R.H., Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (1999). Time and the distribution of time in L2 instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 655-680. Dewey, D.P. (2004). A comparison of reading development by learners of Japanese in intensive domestic immersion and study abroad contexts. SSLA, 26, 303-327. Freed, B.F. (1998). An overview of issues and research in language learning in a study abroad setting. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 4, 31-60. Freed, B.F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D.P. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. SSLA, 26, 275-301. Hinger, B. (2006). The distribution of instructional time and its effect on group cohesion in the foreign language classroom: A comparison of intensive and standard format courses. System, 34, 97-118. Liskin-Gasparro, J.E. (1998). Linguistic development in an immersion context: How advanced learners of Spanish perceive their SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 159-175. McKee, E. (1983). The effects of intensive language instruction on student performance in beginning college French. (Report no. FL013910). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED233601) Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B.F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. SSLA, 26, 173-199. Serrano, R. (2011). The time factor in EFL classroom practice. Language Learning, 61, 117-145.
  • 8. The Role of Personality in the Second Language Classroom Rebecca Smith resmith@syr.edu
  • 9. Why personality? • It has been shown to impact a wide range of life outcomes ● • Many people have strong opinions about it. ● • Ozer & Benet-Martinez (2005); Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg (2007) In a survey of 51 people, 78% believe having an outgoing personality is key to language learning success. If it does impact language learning, teachers may want to alter methods.
  • 10. What does the research say? • Some studies have found tentative links between personality traits and language acquisition. ● ● ● • MacIntyre and Charos (1996) Ehrman and Oxford (1995) Verhoeven and Vermeer (2002) However . . . ● ● Many of these results are conflicting. Personality is difficult to conceptualize and measure. Different measurement systems and methods have been used, making it difficult to compare results.
  • 11. So does personality affect language acquisition? • • We really don’t know, despite all the research that has been done. No significant relationships have been found. There is some evidence that personality could affect how students learn languages because it impacts strategy use. ● Ehrman and Oxford (1989); Verhoeven and Vermeer (2002)
  • 12. Strategy Use and Personality • It may be beneficial for students to match learning strategies to their preferences, based on personality ● • Teaching students to use learning strategies, especially metacognitive strategies, can be helpful ● • Ehrman, Leaver, and Oxford, 2003 O’Malley, et al., 1985; MacIntyre, 1994; Nunan, 1997 It is unknown if there should be an explicit focus on personality, though some suggest it. Further research is needed. ● Ehrman and Oxford, 1989
  • 13. Variation in Strategy Use • Regardless of how strategies are taught, teachers should be aware of the learning strategies that underlie their classroom activities. • There should be variation in the strategies that students are asked to use. ● This ensures that students with particular personality types are not at a disadvantage (Nunan, 1997). ● Students may also learn what works best for their learning preferences through exposure to different strategies.
  • 14. Take-home Message • • Remember that despite the popular perceptions, there is no evidence that students with particular personality types are naturally predisposed to be successful at language learning. Personality may affect the strategies that students choose, but all students can learn to use strategies effectively and be successful language learners.
  • 15. References Ehrman, M.E., Leaver, B.L., & Oxford, R.L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System 31, 313-330. Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 73, 1-13. Ehrman, M.E., Oxford, R.L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89. MacIntyre, P.D. (1994). Toward a social psychological model of strategy use. Foreign Language Annals, 27, 185-95. MacIntyre, P.D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3-26. Nunan, D. (1997). Strategy training in the language classroom: An empirical investigation. RELC Journal, 28, 56-81. O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R., & Kupper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557-584. Ozer, D.J. & Benet-Martinez, V. (2005). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421. Roberts, B.W., Kuncel, N.R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L.R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313 – 345. Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2002). Communicative competence and personality dimensions in first and second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 361-374.
  • 16. A Review of Students’ Perceptions of Non-native Englishspeaking Teachers and Non-native English-speaking Teachers’ Self-perceptions Tong Wu twu25@syr.edu
  • 17. Overview Two perceptions •Students’ perceptions of NNESTs • NNESTs’ self-perceptions Comparison •A relationship between the two perceptions Two aspects •The NNESTs’ teaching practices •The NNESTs’ language proficiency
  • 18. Comparison: Teaching Practices Similarities: •Ability to anticipate the problems (language learning experience) •Good at teaching grammar •Not enough L2 culture information •Not enough opportunities for students to communicate or practice their speaking skills
  • 19. Comparison: Teaching Practices Differences: •L1 ● ● in class NNESTs: support it Students: Exposure not too much; but still helpful •Teaching ● ● ● method Some NNESTs: support the traditional teaching (grammarfocused) method Other NNESTs: do not support; focus more on communication Students: Negative attitudes towards the traditional teaching method
  • 20. Comparison: Language Proficiency Similarities: •NNESTs’ speech is lacking in accuracy and fluency
  • 21. Comparison: Language Proficiency Differences: •Accent: ● ● NNESTs: A big limitation Students: Not as much focus as for NNESTs •Grammar ● ● • knowledge: NNESTs: It is their strength Students: Not enough knowledge to use grammar accurately NNESTs are language models ● ● ● Students: Yes Some NNESTs: Yes Some NNESTs: No (Limited language proficiency)
  • 22. Take-home Message • • • Many similarities between student perceptions and teachers’ self-perceptions of non-native English speaking teacher status. But also important differences in perceptions of teaching methods and language proficiency How is this relevant for LOTE in the USA?
  • 23. References Alseweed, M. A. (2012). University students’ perceptions of the influence of native and non-native teachers. English Language Teaching. 5(12), 42-53. Beckett, G. H., & Stiefvater, A. (2009). Change in ESL graduate students’ perspectives on non-native English-speaker teachers. TESL Canada Journal, 27(1), 27-46. Benke, E., & Medgyes, P. (2005). Differences in teaching behavior between native and non-native speaker teachers: As seen by the learners. In Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp.195– 216). New York, NY: Springer. Butler, Y. G. (2007). How are nonnative-English-speaking teachers perceived by young learners? TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 731-755. Cakie, H., & Demir, Y. (2013). A comparative analysis between NESTs and NNESTs based on perceptions of student in preparation classes. International Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 36-47. Cheung, Y. L., & Braine, G. (2007). The attitudes of university students towards nonnative speakers English teachers in Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 38(3), 257-277.
  • 24. References Dimova, S. (2011). Non-native English teachers’ perspectives on teaching, accents, and varieties. TESL Reporter, 44(1/2), 65-82. Hayes, D. (2009). Non-native English-speaking teachers, context and English language teaching. System. 37(1), 1-11. Jenkins, J. (2005). Implementing an international approach to English pronunciation: The role of Teacher Attitudes and Identity. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 535-543. Kachru, B. B.(1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues, and resources. Language Teaching, 25(1), 1-14. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). What do students think about the pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher? In Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers : perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp.217–242). New York, NY: Springer. Llurda, E., & Huguet, A. (2003). Self-awareness in NNS EFL primary and secondary school teachers. Language Awareness, 12(3), 220-233. Ma, L. P. F. (2012a). Strengths and weaknesses of NESTs and NNESTs: Perceptions of
  • 25. References Ma, L. P. F. (2012b). Advantages and Disadvantages of Native- and NonnativeEnglish-Speaking Teachers: Student perceptions in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 280-305. Moussu, L. M. (2006). Native and non-native English-speaking English as a second language teachers: Student attitudes, teacher self-perceptions, and intensive English program administrator beliefs and practices. (Doctoral dissertation). ERIC Document Reproduction Service (No. ED 492 599) Paikeday, T. M. (1986). The native speaker is dead! The Modern Language Review, 81 (4), 957-959. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self image: An international survey. System, 22(3), 353–357. Todd, R. W., & Punjaporn, P. (2009). Implicit attitudes towards native and nonnative speaker teachers. System, 37(1), 23-33.

×