I. Theories A. Communicative Competence B. Krashens Monitor Model C. Language Development Stages D.

Meaning Centered & Commonsense Approaches to Language Acquisition

Communicative Competence Hymes theory says that communicative competence, knowing a language, is a necessity to acquiring a language. A competent speaker is one who identifies when, where, and how to use language. In 1983, Canale distinguished four components of communicative competency, which are defined below. Grammatical Competence This competency emphasizes skills and knowledge that are used to speak and write correctly. In the classroom this competence becomes important to the student that is approaching the speech emergent and/or intermediate fluency stages. Socialinguistic Competence This competence emphasizes socialinguisitc context. The English language learner learns about social context and is able to communicate within different contexts. In the classroom this competency requires for social communication and for the teacher to evaluate the appropriateness of the students form and meaning. Discourse Competence The competence emphasizes spoken and written utterances and the ability to combine. In the classroom this competency requires for conversations with peers. Strategic Competence This competency emphasizes using language to meet communicative goals by using both verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Two main reasons that strategic competency is used are make up for a break down in communication and to strengthen effectiveness of communication. In the classroom this competency would require demonstration of verbal (synonyms) and non-verbal clues, and voice level. Chesterfield and Chesterfield developed strategies for building communicative competence. Repetition Memorization Formulaic expressions Verbal attention getters Answering in unison Talking to self Elaboration Anticipatory answers Monitoring Appeal for assistance Request for clarification Role play

Krashens Monitor Model Krashens theory says that people acquire second language structures if they achieve comprehensible input and their affective filters are low. Krashen defines a Monitor as one that edits language usage. The Monitor model has established the theoretical base for the natural approach, which has dramatically impacted second language instruction in the United States. Within the Monitor model there are five hypotheses, which are defined below. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis According to this hypothesis acquisition and learning are two separate processes in accomplishing fluency in a second language. Learning is defined as knowing about a language, which includes formal knowledge of the language, which is attained through formal instruction of the languages rules. Acquisition is defined as the unconscious process of using the language through social communication. In the classroom, this hypothesis would require direct instruction of language rules and interaction with communication. The Natural Order Hypothesis According to this hypothesis students acquire rules of language in a particular order. Research has shown that students use correct grammatical structure in their L1 progressively, as will students learning a second language. In the classroom, this hypothesis would require second language learners to seek patterns from input they see and hear. The learner would progress through steps to have control of the language structure. The Monitor Hypothesis According to this hypothesis a student learning a second language will develop a monitor. The monitor is a device that detects errors in order to make corrections of incorrect utterances. For example, an individual begins an utterance and the monitor edits the utterance. In the classroom, this hypothesis would require an environment that is language enriched and grammatical instruction that is integrated throughout communication The Input Hypothesis According to this hypothesis language is acquired when we understand messages. Krashen developed a measurable tool, I + 1, in order to diagnose the learners ability and justify when the learner is ready for the next level. In the classroom, this hypothesis would require caretaker speech and usage of various teaching techniques to connect to comprehensible input. The Affective Filter Hypothesis According to this hypothesis emotional variables (anxiety, motivation, and self -confidence) affect language acquisition. Less language is learned if the affective filter blocks some of the comprehensible input. In the classroom, this hypothesis requires an inviting and encouraging environment.

Language Development Stages Pre-production Sample Student Behaviors: Points to or provides other non-verbal responses Actively listens Responds to commands Sample Teacher Behaviors: Gestures Language focuses on conveying meanings and vocabulary development Repetition Questioning Techniques: Point to Find the Put the ___ next to the ____. Do you have the _____? Is this a _____? Who wants the ____? Who has the ____? Early Production Sample Student Behaviors: One word utterances Short utterances Sample Teacher Behaviors: Ask questions that can be answered by yes/no and either/or responses Models correct responses Questioning Techniques: Yes/No Either/or One word responses General questions which encourage lists of words Two-word response

Speech Emergence Sample Student Behaviors: Participates in small group activities Demonstrates comprehension in a variety of ways Sample Teacher Behaviors: Focuses content on key concepts Provides frequent comprehension checks Uses performance-based assessment Uses expanded vocabulary Asks open-ended questions that stimulate language production Questioning Techniques: Why? How? How is this like that? Tell me about Describe How would you change this part? Intermediate Fluency Sample Student Behaviors: Participates in reading and writing activities to acquire new information Sample Teacher Behaviors: Fosters conceptual development and expanded literacy through content Questioning Techniques: What would you recommend/suggest? How do you think this story will end? What is the story mainly about? What is your opinion on this matter? Describe/compare How are these similar/ different? What would happen if? Which do you prefer? Why? Create

Meaning Centered & Commonsense Approaches to Language Acquisition Top-Down Approaches According to top-down approaches students seek meaning and construct meaning based on prior knowledge. Within the top-down approaches are two approaches, which are defined below. One approach is whole language, which emphasizes reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Within whole language instruction of subsystems (phonological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic) are taught. In the classroom a whole language approach will lend itself to top down approaches. Another approach is the meaning-centered systems, which consists of creating meaning through socially shared conventions. Socially shared conventions are agreed upon meanings in a community of users, which are developed from their own experiences. In the classroom this approach requires a sense of community, which allows individuals to share their experiences. Bottom-Up Approaches According to bottom-up approaches decoding instruction or grammatical rules are key, while there is no emphases on meaning (or it will take care of itself.). Within the bottom-down approaches there are two approaches, which are defined below. One approach is the linguistic approach, which emphasizes common spelling and sound patterns to teach students to decode. The use of basal texts is encouraged to present simplified language and vocabulary. In the classroom skills for decoding and sentence patterns are taught through direct instruction. Another approach is the site word approach, which emphasizes on memorization of words that do not follow the traditional rules. In the classroom the site word approach is taught through chanting, flash cards, and word walls.