Resources

Online Resources: Digests September 2000 EDO-FL-00-05

Contextual Factors in Second Language Acquisition

Ada Walqui, West Ed, San Francisco, California
Download a PDF of this digest.

While many discussions about learning a second language focus on teaching methodologies, little emphasis is given to the contextual factors -- individual, social, and societal -- that affect students' learning. These contextual factors can be considered from the perspective of the language, the learner, and the learning process. This digest discusses these perspectives as they relate to learning any second language, with a particular focus on how they affect adolescent learners of English as a second language.

Language
Several factors related to students' first and second languages shape their second language learning. These factors include the linguistic distance between the two languages, students' level of proficiency in the native language and their knowledge of the second language, the dialect of the native language spoken by the students (i.e., whether it is standard or nonstandard), the relative status of the students' language in the community, and societal attitudes toward the students' native language.

Language distance
Specific languages can be more or less difficult to learn, depending on how different from or similar they are to the languages the learner already knows. At the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, for example, languages are placed in four categories depending on their average learning difficulty from the perspective of a native English speaker. The basic intensive language course, which brings a student to an intermediate level, can be as short as 24 weeks for languages such as Dutch or Spanish, which are Indo European languages and use the same writing system as English, or as long as 65 weeks for languages such as Arabic, Korean, or Vietnamese, which are members of other language families and use different writing systems.

Native language proficiency

The student's level of proficiency in the native language -- including not only oral language and literacy, but also metalinguistic development, training in formal and academic features of language use, and knowledge of rhetorical patterns and variations in genre and style -- affects acquisition of a second language. The more academically sophisticated the student's native language knowledge and abilities, the easier it will be for that student to learn a second language. This helps explain why foreign exchange students tend to be successful in American high school classes: They already have high school level proficiency in their native language.

Knowledge of the second language

Students' prior knowledge of the second language is of course a significant factor in their current learning. High school students learning English as a second language in a U.S. classroom may possess skills ranging from conversational fluency acquired from contacts with the English-speaking world to formal knowledge obtained in English as a foreign language classes in their countries of origin. The extent and type of prior knowledge is an essential consideration in planning instruction. For example, a student with informal conversational English skills may have little understanding of English grammatical systems and may need specific instruction in English grammar.

Dialect and register

Learners may need to learn a dialect and a formal register in school that are different from those they encounter in their daily lives. This involves acquiring speech patterns that may differ significantly from those they are familiar with and value as members of a particular social group or speech community.

Language status
Consideration of dialects and registers of a language and of the relationships between two languages includes the relative prestige of different languages and dialects and of the cultures and ethnic groups associated with them. Students whose first language has a low status vis a vis the second may lose their first language, perhaps feeling they have to give up their own linguistic and cultural background to join the more prestigious society associated with the target language.

Language attitudes
Language attitudes in the learner, the peer group, the school, the neighborhood, and society at large can have an enormous effect on the second language learning process, both positive and negative. It is vital that teachers and students examine and understand these attitudes. In particular, they need to understand that learning a second language does not mean giving up one's first language or dialect. Rather, it involves adding a new language or dialect to one's repertoire.

This is true even for students engaged in formal study of their first language. For example, students in Spanish for native speakers classes may feel bad when teachers tell them that the ways they speak Spanish are not right. Clearly, this is an issue of dialect difference. School (in this case, classroom Spanish) requires formal registers and standard dialects, while conversation with friends and relatives may call for informal registers and nonstandard dialects. If their ways of talking outside of school are valued when used in appropriate contexts, students are more likely to be open to learning a new language or dialect, knowing that the new discourses will expand their communicative repertoires rather than displace their familiar ways of communicating.

The Learner
Students come from diverse backgrounds and have diverse needs and goals. With adolescent language learners, factors such as peer pressure, the presence of role models, and the level of home support can strongly affect the desire and ability to learn a second language.

Diverse needs
A basic educational principle is that new learning should be based on prior experiences and existing skills. Although this principle is known and generally agreed upon by educators, in practice it is often overshadowed by the administrative convenience of the linear curriculum and the single textbook. Homogeneous curricula and materials are problematic enough if all learners are from a single language and cultural background, but they are indefensible given the great diversity in today's classrooms. Such diversity requires a different conception of curricula and a different approach to materials. Differentiation and individualization are not a luxury in this context: They are a necessity.

Diverse goals
Learners' goals may determine how they use the language being learned, how native-like their pronunciation will be, how lexically elaborate and grammatically accurate their utterances will be, and how much energy they will expend to understand messages in the target language. Learners' goals can vary from wholly integrative -- the desire to assimilate and become a full member of the English-speaking world -- to primarily instrumental -- oriented toward specific goals such as academic or professional success (Gardner, 1989). Educators working with English language learners must also consider whether the communities in which their students live, work, and study accept them, support their efforts, and offer them genuine English-learning opportunities.

Peer groups
Teenagers tend to be heavily influenced by their peer groups. In second language learning, peer pressure often undermines the goals set by parents and teachers. Peer pressure often reduces the desire of the

student to work toward native pronunciation, because the sounds of the target language may be regarded as strange. For learners of English as a second language, speaking like a native speaker may unconsciously be regarded as a sign of no longer belonging to their native-language peer group. In working with secondary school students, it is important to keep these peer influences in mind and to foster a positive image for proficiency in a second language.

Role models
Students need to have positive and realistic role models who demonstrate the value of being proficient in more than one language. It is also helpful for students to read literature about the personal experiences of people from diverse language and dialect backgrounds. Through discussions of the challenges experienced by others, students can develop a better understanding of their own challenges.

Home support
Support from home is very important for successful second language learning. Some educators believe that parents of English language learners should speak only English in the home (see, e.g., recommendations made in Rodriguez, 1982). However, far more important than speaking English is that parents value both the native language and English, communicate with their children in whichever language is most comfortable, and show support for and interest in their children's progress.

The Learning Process

When we think of second language development as a learning process, we need to remember that different students have different learning styles, that intrinsic motivation aids learning, and that the quality of classroom interaction matters a great deal.

Learning styles
Research has shown that individuals vary greatly in the ways they learn a second language (Skehan, 1989). Some learners are more analytically oriented and thrive on picking apart words and sentences. Others are more globally oriented, needing to experience overall patterns of language in meaningful contexts before making sense of the linguistic parts and forms. Some learners are more visually oriented, others more geared to sounds.

Motivation
According to Deci and Ryan (1985), intrinsic motivation is related to basic human needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Intrinsically motivated activities are those that the learner engages in for their own sake because of their value, interest, and challenge. Such activities present the best possible opportunities for learning.

Classroom interaction
Language learning does not occur as a result of the transmission of facts about language or from a succession of rote memorization drills. It is the result of opportunities for meaningful interaction with others in the target language. Therefore, lecturing and recitation are not the most appropriate modes of language use in the second language classroom. Teachers need to move toward more richly interactive language use, such as that found in instructional conversations (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) and collaborative classroom work (Adger, Kalyanpur, Peterson, & Bridger, 1995).

Conclusion
While this digest has focused on the second language acquisition process from the perspective of the language, the learner, and the learning process, it is important to point out that the larger social and cultural contexts of second language development have a tremendous impact on second language learning, especially for immigrant students. The status of students' ethnic groups in relation to the larger culture can help or hinder the acquisition of the language of mainstream society.

References
Adger, C., Kalyanpur, M., Peterson, D., & Bridger, T. (1995). Engaging students: Thinking, talking, cooperating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.New York: Plenum. Gardner, H. (1989). To open minds: Chinese clues to the dilemma of contemporary education. New York: Basic. Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez, an autobiography.Toronto: Bantam. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold. Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and school in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
This digest is drawn from Access and Engagement: Program Design and Instructional Approaches for Immigrant Students in Secondary Schools, by Ada Walqui, the fourth volume in the Topics in Immigrant Education series.

This digest was prepared with funding from the U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Library of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0008. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of ED, OERI, or NLE.

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0005contextual.html

Resources
Online Resources: Digests 2008

Principles of Instructed Second Language Acquisition

Rod Ellis, Professor, University of Auckland, New Zealand 2008 Ferguson Fellow, Center for Applied Linguistics
Download a PDF of this digest.

Second language acquisition (SLA) researchers do not agree how instruction can best facilitate language learning. Given this lack of consensus, it might be thought unwise to attempt to formulate a set of general principles for instructed language acquisition. However, if SLA is to offer teachers guidance, there is a need to proffer advice, providing that it is offered in the spirit of what Stenhouse (1975) called provisional specifications. The principles described in this digest, therefore, are intended to provide teachers with a basis for argument and for reflection and not as a set of prescriptions or proscriptions about how to teach. They are designed to be general in nature and therefore relevant to teachers in a variety of settings, including foreign and second language situations and content-based classrooms. Principle 1: Instruction needs to ensure that learners develop both a rich repertoire of formulaic expressions and a rule-based competence There is now widespread acceptance of the importance played by formulaic expressions in the acquisition of a second language. Examples of such formulaic expressions are shown in Figure 1. Native speakers have been shown to use a much larger number of formulaic expressions than even advanced second language learners (Foster, 2001). Formulaic expressions may also serve as a basis for the later development of a rulebased competence. Classroom studies by Ellis (1984) and Myles, Mitchell, and Hooper (1999) demonstrate that learners often internalize rote-learned material as chunks and then break them down for analysis later on. For example, a learner may learn I dont know andI dont understand as chunks and then come to see that these are made up of I dont + xwhere x is a verb. Later they may see that it is possible to substitute

the pronoun I with other pronouns such as you or we. I dont know. I dont understand. I dont want ___. Can I have __? Whats your name? Im very sorry. No thank you. How much does ___ cost?

Figure 1. Formulaic expressions in second language learning

Ultimately, however, learners need to develop knowledge of the rules that govern how language is used grammatically and appropriately. For example, they need to internalize rules for subject-verb agreement and for modifying terms of address to suit the person to whom they are speaking. Rules are generative and so enable learners to construct their own sentences to express their own ideas. They also enable them to use language creativelyfor example, for purposes of irony and humor. If formulaic chunks play a large role in early language acquisition, it may pay to focus on these initially, delaying the teaching of grammar until later. A notional-functional approach (Wilkins, 1976) lends itself perfectly to the teaching of formulaic sequences and may provide an ideal foundation for instruction in the early stages. Clearly, though, a complete language curriculum needs to cater to the development of both formulaic expressions and rule-based knowledge. Principle 2: Instruction needs to ensure that learners focus predominantly on meaning When we learn a language naturalistically, we do so by focusing primarily on what we want to say (i.e., meaning) rather than on how we say it (i.e., form). Instruction needs to cater to this capacity for learning naturally by creating contexts in which learners focus on message content. A task-based approach to language teaching is perhaps the best way of achieving this. In this approach, no attempt is made to design lessons around specific linguistic teaching points. Instead, the teacher selects a series of communicative tasks designed to create learning opportunities of a general nature. In task-based teaching, teacher and students both function as communicators and view the second language as a tool for communicating rather than as an object to be analyzed and studied. There are a number of reasons why learners need to focus on meaning:

In the eyes of many theorists (e.g., Long, 1996; Prabhu, 1987), only when learners are engaged in decoding and encoding messages in the context of actual acts of communication are the conditions created for acquisition to take place.

To develop true fluency in a second language, learners must have opportunities to engage in real communication (DeKeyser, 1998). Engaging in activities focused on creating meaning is intrinsically motivating for learners.

When learners focus on meaning, they develop both the skills needed for fluent communication and the vocabulary and grammar needed to use the language effectively. Principle 3: Instruction needs to ensure that learners also focus on form There is now widespread acceptance that acquisition also requires learners to attend to form. Indeed, according to some theories of second language acquisition, such attention is necessary for acquisition to

take place (Schmidt, 2001). Instruction can cater to a focus on form in a number of ways, as shown in Figure 2.

Teachers can achieve a focus on form through inductive or deductive grammar lessons. An inductive approach to grammar teaching is designed to encourage learners to notice pre-selected forms in the input to which they are exposed; a deductive approach seeks to make learners aware of the explicit grammatical rule. through communicative tasks designed to provide opportunities for learners to practice specific grammatical structures while focused primarily on meaning. through opportunities for learners to plan how they will perform a communicative task before they start it and/or by corrective feedback (i.e., drawing attention to learners errors during or after the performance of a task). Figure 2. Different ways of focusing on form in instruction

The term focus on form can mean different things. First, it might refer to a general orientation to language as form or to attending to specific forms (as argued by Schmidt, 2001). Second, it might be taken to suggest that learners need to attend only to the forms themselves and not to their meanings. However, theorists such as Schmidt insist that focus on form refers to form-function mappingthat is, the correlation between a particular form and the meaning(s) it realizes in communication. Third, focus on form might be assumed to refer to awareness of some underlying, abstract rule. Schmidt, however, claims that attention to form refers to the noticing of specific linguistic items as they occur in the input to which learners are exposed, not to an awareness of the underlying grammatical rules. Instruction can seek to provide an intensive focus on linguistic forms as in grammar lessons based on a structural syllabus, or it can offer incidental and extensive attention to form through corrective feedback in task-based lessons. There are pros and cons for both approaches. Grammar lessons may be needed to provide repeated practice for those structures that cause persistent problems. Incidental and extensive attention to form ensures that learners attend to a wide range of grammatical structures, many of which will not require intensive practice (i.e., they can be learned easily and quickly). However, intensive instruction is time consuming and thus there will be constraints on how many structures can be addressed. In contrast, extensive grammar instruction, where the teacher corrects the errors that learners make as they make them, affords the opportunity for large numbers of grammatical structures to be addressed. In this way, many of the structures will be attended to repeatedly over a period of time. Further, because this kind of instruction involves a response to the errors each learner makes, it is individualized. Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2001) reported that attention to form through extensive instruction occurred relatively frequently in communicative adult ESL lessons, while Loewen (2005) showed that learners who experienced this kind of instruction demonstrated subsequent learning. Principle 4: Instruction needs to focus on developing implicit knowledge of the second language while not neglecting explicit knowledge

Implicit knowledge is procedural, is held unconsciously, and can be verbalized only if it is made explicit. It is accessed rapidly and easily and thus is available for use in rapid, fluent communication. In the view of most researchers, competence in a second language is primarily a matter of implicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is conscious and declarative and can be verbalized. It is typically accessed through controlled processing when learners experience some kind of linguistic difficulty in the use of the second language. Some language learners rely primarily on their explicit knowledge. Given that implicit knowledge underlies the ability to communicate fluently and confidently in a second language, this type of knowledge should be the ultimate goal of any instructional program. How then can it be developed? There are conflicting theories regarding this. According to skill-building theory (DeKeyser, 1998), implicit knowledge arises out of explicit knowledge when the latter is automatized through practice. In contrast, emergentist theories (N. Ellis, 1998) see implicit knowledge as developing naturally out of meaning-focused communicationaided, perhaps, by some focus on form. Irrespective of these different theoretical positions, there is consensus that learners need to participate in communicative activity to develop implicit knowledge. In order to make sense of the different positions relating to the teaching of explicit knowledge it is necessary to consider two separate questions:

Is explicit knowledge of any value in and of itself? Is explicit knowledge of value in facilitating the development of implicit knowledge?

Explicit knowledge is arguably of value only if learners are able to utilize this type of knowledge in actual performance. Again, there is controversy. Krashen (1982) argues that learners can use explicit knowledge only when they monitor their language use and that this requires them to be focused on form (as opposed to meaning) and to have sufficient time to access their knowledge. However, it can also be argued that many learners are adroit in accessing their explicit knowledge while communicating (Kormos, 1999). Whether or not explicit knowledge has any value in and of itself, it may assist language development by facilitating the development of implicit knowledge. This involves consideration of what has become known as interface hypothesis, which addresses whether explicit knowledge plays a role in second language acquisition. Three positions can be identified. According to the non-interface position (Krashen, 1981), explicit and implicit knowledge are entirely distinct, and explicit knowledge cannot be converted into implicit knowledge. The interface position (DeKeyser, 1998) argues that explicit knowledge can become implicit knowledge providing learners have the opportunity for plentiful communicative practice. The weak interface position (Ellis, 1993) claims that explicit knowledge makes it more likely that learners will attend to the structure in the input, which facilitates the processes involved in acquiring implicit knowledge. The three positions support very different approaches to language teaching. The non-interface position leads to a zero grammar approach: that is, one that prioritizes meaning-centered approaches such as task-based teaching. The interface position supports PPPthe idea that a grammatical structure should be first presented explicitly and thenpracticed until it is fully proceduralized (i.e., automatized). The weak

interface position has been used to provide a basis for consciousness-raising tasks. These are grammar discovery tasks that provide learners with data that they use to work out the grammar rule for themselves. Principle 5: Instruction needs to take into account the learners built-in syllabus Early research into naturalistic second language acquisition showed that learners follow a natural order and sequence of acquisition. In other words, they master grammatical structures in a relatively fixed and universal order, and they pass through a sequence of stages of acquisition en route to mastering each grammatical structure. This led researchers like Corder (1967) to suggest that learners had their own builtin syllabus for learning grammar as implicit knowledge. There followed a number of empirical studies designed to compare the order of acquisition of instructed and naturalistic learners (e.g., Pica, 1983), compare the success of instructed and naturalistic learners (Long, 1983), and examine whether attempts to teach specific grammatical structures resulted in their acquisition (Pienemann, 1989). These studies showed that, by and large, the order and sequence of acquisition were the same for instructed and naturalistic learners, that instructed learners generally achieved higher levels of grammatical competence than naturalistic learners, and that instruction was no guarantee that learners would acquire what they had been taught. This led to the conclusion that it is beneficial to teach grammar but that it must be taught in a way that is compatible with the natural processes of acquisition. Figure 3 suggests a number of ways in which

this can be achieved. Adopt a zero grammar approach. That is, employ a task-based approach that makes no attempt to predetermine the linguistic content of a lesson. Ensure that learners are developmentally ready to acquire a specific target feature. However, this is probably impractical as teachers have no easy way of determining what individual students know. It would necessitate a highly individualized approach to cater to differences in developmental level among the students. Focus the instruction on explicit rather than implicit knowledge, as explicit knowledge is not subject to the same developmental constraints as implicit knowledge. That is, learners can learn facts about the grammar of a language in any order, but they will follow a definite sequence when mastering grammar for communicative use. Figure 3. Ways in which instruction can take account of the learners built-in syllabus

Principle 6: Successful instructed language learning requires extensive second language input Language learning, whether it occurs in a naturalistic or an instructed context, is a slow and laborious process. Children acquiring their first language take between 2 and 5 years to achieve full grammatical competence (Wells, 1985), during which time they are exposed to massive amounts of input. The same is undoubtedly true of second language acquisition. If learners do not receive exposure to the target language, they cannot acquire it. Krashen (1985) has argued that all that is needed for successful acquisition is motivation and comprehensible inputinput that is made easy to understand either by simplifying it or by using contextual props. Other researchers, however, have argued that output is also important (see Principle 7 below), but they agree about the importance of input for developing the implicit knowledge that is needed to become an effective communicator in the second language.

How can teachers ensure their students have access to sufficient input? In a second language teaching context, mostalthough not alllearners can be expected to gain access to plentiful input outside the classroom. In a foreign language teaching context (as when French or Japanese is taught in the United States), there are far fewer opportunities for extensive input. Thus, to ensure adequate access, teachers need to maximize use of the second language inside the classroom. Ideally, this means that the second language needs to become the medium as well as the object of instruction. Teachers also need to create opportunities for students to obtain input outside the classroom. This can be achieved most easily by providing extensive reading programs based on carefully selected graded readers suited to the level of the students, as recommended by Krashen (1989). Also ideally, schools need to establish self-access centers (i.e., rooms containing carefully selected language learning materials that students can use on their own time). Successful foreign language learners seek out opportunities to experience the language outside class time, but many students are unlikely to make the effort unless teachers make resources available and provide learner training in how to make effective use of the resources. If the only input students receive is in the context of a limited number of weekly language lessons based on a course book, they are unlikely to achieve high levels of second language proficiency. Principle 7: Successful instructed language learning also requires opportunities for output Contrary to Krashens insistence that acquisition is dependent entirely on comprehensible input, most researchers now acknowledge that learner output also plays a part in second language acquisition. Figure 4 summarizes the contributions that output can make. The importance of creating opportunities for output, including what Swain (1985) has called pushed output (i.e., output where the learner is stretched to express messages clearly and explicitly), constitutes one of the main reasons for incorporating communicative tasks into a language program. Controlled practice exercises typically result in output that is limited in terms of length and complexity. They do not afford students opportunities for the kind of sustained output that theorists argue is necessary for second language

development. Language production (output) serves to generate better input through the feedback elicited by learners efforts at production. Output obliges learners to pay attention to grammar. Output allows learners to test hypotheses about the target language grammar. Output helps to automatize existing knowledge. Output provides opportunities for learners to develop discourse skills, for example, by producing long turns in conversation. Output helps learners develop a personal voice by steering conversation to topics to which they are interested in contributing. Output provides the learner with auto-inputthat is, learners can attend to the input provided by their own language production.
(Based on Swain, 1985; Skehan, 1998; and Ellis, 2003)

Figure 4. The role of output in second language acquisition

Principle 8: The opportunity to interact in the second language is central to developing second language proficiency While it is useful to consider the relative contributions of input and output to acquisition, it is also important to acknowledge that both occur in oral interaction and that this plays a central role in second language acquisition. As Hatch (1978) famously put it, One learns how to do conversation, one learns how to interact verbally, and out of the interaction syntactic structures are developed (p. 404). Thus, interaction is not just a means of automatizing what the learners already know but also about helping them to acquire new language. According to the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996), interaction fosters acquisition when a communication problem arises and learners are engaged in negotiating for meaning. The interactional modifications that arise help to make input comprehensible, provide corrective feedback, and push learners to modify their own output by repairing their own errors. According to sociocultural theory, interaction serves as a form of mediation, enabling learners to construct new forms and perform new functions collaboratively (Lantolf, 2000). According to this view, learning is first evident on the social plane and only later on the psychological plane. In both theories, social interaction is viewed as a primary source of learning. Figure 5 identifies five key requirements for interaction to create an acquisition-rich classroom. Creating the right kind of interaction for acquisition constitutes a major challenge for teachers. One solution is to incorporate small group work into a lesson. When students interact among themselves, acquisition-rich discourse is more likely to ensue. However, there are also dangers in group work (e.g., excessive use of the native language in monolingual groups) that teachers need to guard against.

To create an acquisition-rich classroom, teachers need to create contexts of language use where students have a reason to attend to language, allow students to initiate topics and to control topic development, provide opportunities for learners to use the language to express their own personal meanings, help students to participate in language-related activities that are beyond their current level of proficiency, and offer a full range of contexts that provide opportunities for students to engage in a full performance in the language.
(Ellis, 1999; Johnson 1995)

Figure 5. Creating acquisition-rich interaction in the classroom

Principle 9: Instruction needs to take account of individual differences in learners While there are identifiable universal aspects of second language acquisition, there is also considerable variability in the rate of learning and in the ultimate level of achievement. In particular, learning will be more successful when the instruction is matched to students particular aptitude for learning and when the students are motivated. Teachers can cater to variation in the nature of their students aptitude by adopting a flexible teaching approach involving a variety of learning activities. They can also make use of simple learner-training

materials designed to make students more aware of their own approaches to learning and to develop awareness of alternative approaches. Studies of good language learners suggest that successful language learning requires a flexible approach to learning. Thus, increasing the range of learning strategies at learners disposal is one way in which teachers can help them to learn. Such strategy training needs to foster an understanding that language learning requires both an experiential and an analytical approach. School-based students often tend to adopt an analytical approach to learning, even if this does not accord with their natural aptitude, as this is the kind of approach generally fostered in schools. They may have greater difficulty in adopting the kind of experiential approach required by task-based language teaching. Some learner training, therefore, may be essential if learners are to perform tasks effectively. While it is probably true that teachers can do little to influence students extrinsic motivation, there is a lot they can do to enhance their intrinsic motivation. Dornyei (2001) makes the obvious point that the best motivational intervention is simply to improve the quality of our teaching (p. 26). He points in particular to the need for instructional clarity by explaining things simply and teaching at a pace that is not too fast and not too slow. Teachers also need to accept that it is their responsibility to ensure that their students stay motivated, and they should not complain that students do not bring any motivation to the classroom. Principle 10: In assessing learners second language proficiency, it is important to examine free as well as controlled production Norris and Ortega (2000) distinguished four types of measurement:

Metalinguistic judgment (e.g., a grammaticality judgment test) Selected response (e.g., multiple choice) Constrained constructed response (e.g., gap-filling exercises) Free constructed response (e.g., a communicative task)

They found that the magnitude of the effect of instruction was greatest in the case of selected response and constrained constructed response, and least in free constructed response. Yet, arguably, free constructed response constitutes the best measure of learners second language proficiency, as this corresponds most closely to the kind of language use found outside the classroom. The ability to get a multiple-choice question right amounts to very little if the student is unable to use the target feature in actual communication. Free constructed responses are best elicited by means of tasks. Task-based performance can be assessed either by means of a direct assessment of task outcomes or by external ratings. The former is possible only with tasks that have a single correct outcome. An example would be a spot-the-difference task, where learners are asked to interact in order to find a specified number of differences in two similar pictures. In this task, assessment would consist of establishing whether the learners were able to identify the differences. External ratings involve assessing different qualities of a task performance such as accuracy, complexity, and fluency. Considerable expertise is required to ensure that the ratings are valid and reliable. Conclusion

These general principles have drawn on a variety of theoretical perspectives, although predominantly on what Lantolf (1996) refers to as the computational model of second language learning. This model has its limitations and is open to criticism, in particular that it is not socially sensitive because it fails to acknowledge the importance of social context and social relations in the language learning process. It would be clearly useful to attempt to formulate a set of principles based on the broader conceptualization of second language acquisitionone that emphasizes the importance of the social as well as the cognitive aspects. References
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169. DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 42-63). New York: Cambridge University Press. Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, N. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631-664. Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon. Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27,91-113. Ellis, R. (1999). Making the classroom acquisition-rich. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 211-229). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. ( 2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318. Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in task-based language production of native and nonnative speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 75-97). London: Pearson. Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.),Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury. Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair. Language Learning, 49, 303342. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. Harlow, Essex, UK: Longman. Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464. Lantolf, J. (1996). Second language theory building: Letting all the flowers bloom! Language Learning, 46, 713-749. Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79-96.

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 36186. Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press. Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J. (1999). Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 49-80. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative metaanalysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528. Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465-97. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 5279. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction(pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.),Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235-252). Rowley, MA: Newbury. Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the pre-school years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/instructed2ndlang.html

Resources
Online Resources: Digests 2008

Integrated Content and Language Instruction

Arieh (Ari) Sherris, Center for Applied Linguistics

Download a PDF of this digest.

Integrated content and language instruction has entered its third decade and by many accounts is flourishing in both foreign language and second language instructional settings (Crandall, 1987; Krashen, 1982; Mohan, 1986; Mohan, Leung, & Davison, 2001; Snow, 2005; Stoller, 2004). Broadly defined, it is task-based instruction and assessment of knowledge, skills, and academic language within a content area. The academic language includes the concepts, key vocabulary, grammar, and discourse necessary to accomplish content-area tasks. In preK-12 educational settings in the United States, integrated content and language instruction is an approach to schooling used with bilingual and second language learners, a sector of the population that has been underserved by the educational system (Nieto, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 2002). It offers a way into mainstream classrooms and a promise of success for these learners. The challenge for teachers is to design and deliver lessons that make content comprehensible and that facilitate language acquisition. While this is no small order, we know from research and experience that it is possible to integrate language and content instruction successfully, and that when teachers do so, they have a positive impact on student learning. Through integrated content and language instruction, second language learners develop the ability to generate thoughtful spoken and written discourse about concepts in a content area, and they develop proficiency in understanding and producing the types of texts specific to that area. Students also develop the ability to carry out other content-related tasks, such as lab experiments, creative mathematical calculations, and historical inquiry. They solve problems, evaluate solutions, and collaborate effectively with one another in these activities through the use of appropriate academic language. The purpose of this digest is to introduce four key principles of practice found in classrooms in which content and language instruction effectively converge: 1. 2. Clear content and language outcomes are planned for each lesson. Learners are provided with goal-directed opportunities to interact with each other and with the teacher to jointly reflect on and build specific content knowledge and skills. 3. Teachers provide learners with tasks that promote the development of reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills within the content areas. 4. Outcomes are reviewed, consolidated, and assessed during lessons.

Historically, the convergence of content and language instruction stems from the theoretical position that communicative competence (Hymes, 1971) in a second language is facilitated by using the language as a medium for learning content rather than by studying it as a separate and distinct subject area. In an integrated approach, the emphasis on content and language will vary at different times within a lesson and across program models (Shohamy & Inbar, 2006). However, the consistent goal of this instructional approach is to assist second language learners to develop fluency and accuracy in all four language modalities in the context of content-relevant tasks and in the service of building mastery of a body of content knowledge (Gibbons, 2002). Teachers can help ensure that their learners gain proficiency in

language skills and master content knowledge by incorporating into their classroom instruction the four principles of practice listed above. The remainder of this digest is devoted to an illustration of these principles. Planning Clear Content and Language Outcomes for a Lesson To prepare clear content and language outcomes, teachers draw on a variety of resources that include standards of knowledge and skills in a content area, language proficiency standards, prior student performance assessments, and available course materials. For example, a mathematics teacher would prepare an integrated content and language lesson by first examining the mathematics standards to determine the concept and skill to be learned, and then selecting course content, tasks, and materials appropriate to the students as determined by assessments of student performance. For instance, in planning to teach the concept of quadratic equations, a teacher might construct the following possible outcome statements: Students will be able to solve quadratic equations, discuss different methods of solving the same quadratic equations, and write a summary of each method. Solve, discuss, and write are the descriptive verbs that determine whether a particular outcome addresses the knowledge and skill of a content area or specific language functions. Solving a quadratic equation describes a content outcome, whereasdiscussing and writing about the methods used to solve a quadratic equation describe language outcomes related to the content. Focusing strictly on the verbs in lesson objectives risks oversimplifying the complex process of attending to both content skills and language functions. The verbs, however, provide a sound starting point for integrating language and content in instructional planning. When teachers consciously attempt to sort the descriptive verbs used in standards documents and course materials into separately identified language and content outcomes, there are at least two key benefits. First, the teachers clarify for themselves the separate content and language foci of the lesson, which can improve their delivery of the instruction. Second, if these foci are both explicitly presented and subsequently reviewed within each lesson, students become aware of the separate content and language goals, which may help them direct and monitor their own learning. Figure 1 presents a partial list of verbs a teacher might consider in lesson planning. Each column of verbs is directly related to either mathematics outcomes or language outcomes.

Verbs that describe mathematics outcomes Solve Compute Rank Identify Graph Measure

Verbs that describe language outcomes Discuss Write Tell Listen Explain Read

Figure 1. Verbs that describe content and language outcomes Content and language outcomes for second language learners at different language proficiency levels will generally need to differ according to the students proficiency. Consequently, it will be important to modify tasks and define student grouping configurations in ways that support the growth of all learners. Providing Opportunities for Effective Interaction Effective interaction gives students multiple opportunities for the goal-directed negotiation of meaning. This is required for effective support of integrated content and language learning for two reasons. First, as they interact and create meaning, students map new content knowledge onto prior content knowledge. They do this through spoken and written discourse. Second, students notice the language used, they retrieve needed language from memory, and they generate new configurations of language through spoken and written discourse with each other and with their teacher. (See Robinson & Ellis, 2008, for a full discussion.) Research has shown that content-based tasks that involve students in noticing, retrieving, and generating language are effective in facilitating second language acquisition (Long, 1996, 2007). For example, information-gap tasks (Pica, 2005) involve pairs of students in negotiating the meaning of content-area texts and materials (e.g., problems from mathematics, questions from science, issues in social science). In information-gap tasks, two students work together to interpret and understand a text. However, each student receives a version of the text that differs in some key points from the version given to the other. The students must communicate the information they have and resolve the differences to achieve a final, accurate, joint version of the text. Figure 2 presents an example from a biology lesson. The words that differ between the two versions are in bold here, but would not be in bold in the versions given to students.

Reviewing the Source of Genetic Variation Read your paragraphs to each other line by line. Identify the differences between your texts. Discuss reasons for using one word and not another. Dont show each other your paragraphs. Once youve discussed them, work together to write one final version of the paragraph. Student A Mitosis is a type of cell division necessary for sexual reproduction. It is limited to the reproductive cells in the testes, namely the sperm cells, and the reproductive cells on the ovaries, namely the eggs. Meiosis produces four reproductive cells, or gametes. These cells contain half the number ( diploid) of chromosomes of the mother cell, and the chromosomes are not identical. There are two phases of cell division, meiosis I and meiosis II. Before meiosis begins, each pair of chromosomes replicates while the cell is in its resting phase (prophase). During meiosis I, each set of replicated chromosomes lines up with its homologous pair. The homologous pairs of chromosomes can break and exchange segments during

the crossing over process, a source of genetic variation. The homologous pairs of chromosomes separate. The cell then splits into two daughter cells, each containing one pair of the homologous chromosomes. Cytokinesis is the resting period before meiosis II begins. Student B Meiosis is a type of cell division necessary for asexual reproduction. It is limited to the reproductive cells in the testes, namely the sperm cells, and the reproductive cells in the ovaries, namely the eggs. Meiosis produces tworeproductive cells, or gametes. These cells contain half the number (haploid) of chromosomes of the mother cell, and the chromosomes are not identical. There are two phases of cell division, meiosis I and meiosis II. Before meiosis begins, each pair of chromosomes replicates while the cell is on its resting phase (interphase). During meiosis I, each set of replicated chromosomes lines up with its heterozygous pair. The homologous pairs of chromosomes can break and exchange segments during the crossing over process, a source of genetic variation. The homologous pairs of chromosomes separate. The cell then splits into two daughter cells, each containing one pair of the homologous chromosomes. Interkinesis is the resting period before meiosis II begins. Joint Copy Meiosis is a type of cell division necessary for sexual reproduction. It is limited to the reproductive cells in the testes, namely the sperm cells, and the reproductive cells in the ovaries, namely the eggs. Meiosis produces four reproductive cells, or gametes. These cells contain half the number ( haploid) of chromosomes of the mother cell, and the chromosomes are not identical. There are two phases of cell division, meiosis I and meiosis II. Before meiosis begins, each pair of chromosomes replicates while the cell is in its resting phase (interphase). During meiosis I, each set of replicated chromosomes lines up with its homologous pair. The homologous pairs of chromosomes can break and exchange segments during the crossing over process, a source of genetic variation. The homologous pairs of chromosomes separate. The cell then splits into two daughter cells, each containing one pair of the homologous chromosomes. Interkinesis is the resting period before meiosis II begins. Figure 2. Information-gap task

In this example, as two second language learners discuss whether meiosis or mitosis is necessary

for asexual or sexual reproduction, they begin to notice differences that may not have been salient prior to the discussion, retrieve prior knowledge about this topic, discuss the truth or falsity of the written text, and do all this as they generate utterances in their second language. They also explore the use of the prepositions in and on. Moreover, there are opportunities to repeat, repair, and request clarification of language while they focus on meaning and reach consensus. This sort of intense, goal-directed interaction has its antecedents in second language instruction and research (Pica, Kang, & Sauro, 2006). Another type of task that provides similar opportunities for second language learners to interact with content-area knowledge and with each other is a dictogloss (Wajnryb, 1990) task. In a dictogloss, students listen to a short talk by a content-area specialist, first for the main idea, then a second time for details. Next, students reconstruct the talk individually. Finally, they discuss their version with a partner or small group and decide on the best version. These are shared with the whole class for a peer-editing session. What students cant peer-edit, the teacher quickly teaches. In constructing task materials for both information-gap and dictogloss tasks, teachers draw on textbooks and seminal works or primary sources from their field of study so that students learn to grapple with a range of discourse styles. Through these processes, teachers and students begin to develop sensitivity for the textual demands of a variety of texts within a content area. (See Schleppegrell, Achugar, & Oteiza, 2004, for one way of developing this in a history course.) Promoting the Development and Integration of Reading, Writing, Listening, and Speaking To address the practice of integrating reading, writing, listening, and speaking, teachers must identify and work with students on two sets of discourse skillsone specific to a subject area, the other general to many areas. Some examples of discourse that are content-area specific are algebraic problems, geometry proofs, experimental studies, newspaper items, poetry, history, community surveys, and interviews. Those that are generic include summary, comparison, and outline. Teachers then provide opportunities for students to improve all four skillsreading, writing, listening, and speakingacross a variety of text types, including some specific to their subject area and others that are generic. Text-based tasks can be integrated into cooperative learning jigsaws (Aronson, Blaney, Stephin, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978), where students become experts on topics through texts that they read or listen to, take notes on, and teach to peers. Writing workshops, book study sections, student presentations, and student panels have been part of language arts classes and are encouraged in science, math, social studies, art, and music. Other approaches such as writing across the curriculum and reflective journaling have included math and science for some time and are also useful for writing development. When learners discuss their journal entries with other learners and edit and check each others written work, more opportunities come into play for oral academic language development as well. Additionally, important concepts and content-rich vocabulary need to be learned in context through tasks that provide elaborated relevant examples and visual support (Nation, 2004). By highlighting and

emphasizing new vocabulary, teachers can make new content comprehensible. Through the use of graphic organizers, students can understand text structure and organize important content-area knowledge for sharing with others and for further study (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006). Reviewing, Consolidating, and Assessing Progress Effective integration of content and language instruction occurs when there is a focus on assessing student outcomes. Instructional practice includes the review and consolidation of what has been accomplished in a lesson by comparing planned outcomes with actual ones. Such an evaluation of progress is best accomplished through multiple pathways in which both informal and formal assessments are conducted (Gottlieb, 2006; Shohamy & Inbar, 2006; Valdez-Pierce, 2003) and in which both teachers and students take responsibility for the review and evaluation. States and local school districts administer formal, standards-based, summative assessments for accountability purposes and to track student progress. More frequentand arguably more informative for instructionis the formative assessment that takes place in the classroom on an ongoing basis. Formative assessments include review activities combined with portfolios of performance-based products (e.g., project work, writing samples, video clips of role plays and interviews, Web pages, multimedia presentations, surveys) and teacher-made tests, essay assignments, and quizzes. When student outcomes are assessed through performance-based tasks, there is opportunity for rich, indepth evaluation of individual and interactive student learning. In evaluating student work, teachers develop checklists and rubrics for assessment, sometimes in collaboration with students. Rubrics can be generic within a content area or across subjects, or they can be specific to a particular task. The same or similar rubrics may be used for both summative and formative assessment. In addition, when assessment of language and content is integrated into instruction on an ongoing basis through performance-based tasks, the spoken and written discourse produced by students is often aligned to the essential questions of a content area or to identified important themes. As a consequence, instruction is shaped by meaningful questions for student-generated inquiry, study, discussion, and presentation, and learning comes full circle. Introducing performance tasks with essential questions and rubrics makes desired learning and criteria for success transparent to the students (see Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). The incorporation of review and evaluation within instruction can also focus on promoting students ongoing assessment of their own work. For example, there may be explicit instruction in learning strategies that encourages students to become aware of and monitor their own learning through activities such as predicting, visualizing, identifying main ideas, and raising critical questions about content (see Chamot & OMalley, 1994). The goal of strategy instruction is to help students become self-regulated learners and to incorporate student self- and peer assessments into the learning process, along with teacher assessments of student language and content knowledge. Conclusion

Integrated content and language instruction is a commitment to teach and assess the knowledge, skills, and language of a content area. The approach highlights the responsibility of all teachers within a school to intentionally support a dual focus on content and language because it is critical for the success of second language students. This digest has outlined four principles of instructional practice that foster integrated content and language instruction: (1) identification of content and language outcomes; (2) goal-directed interaction among learners, teachers, and others; (3) integration of reading, writing, listening, and speaking; and (4) ongoing review, consolidation, and assessment of outcomes. References
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Chamot, A., & OMalley, J. (1994). The CALLA handbook. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Crandall, J. A. (Ed.). (1987). ESL through content-area instruction: Mathematics, science, and social studies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, and Washington, DC: Prentice Hall and Center for Applied Linguistics. Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for Englishlanguage learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195-211. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods. London: Academic Press. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. J. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press. Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Davison, C. (Eds.). (2001). English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching learning and identity. New York: Longman. Nation, I. S. P. (2004). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nieto, S. (2005). Public education in the twentieth century and beyond: High hopes, broken promises, and an uncertain future. Harvard Educational Review, 75(1). Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective.Modern Language Journal, 89, 339352. Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 301-338.

Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge. Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar, M., & Oteiza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38,67-93. Shohamy, E., & Inbar, O. (2006). Assessment of advanced language proficiency: Why performance-based tasks? (CPDD 0605). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research. Available from http://calper.la.psu.edu/publications.php Snow, M. A. (2005). A model of academic literacy for integrated language and content instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning (pp. 693-712). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261-283. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Valdez-Pierce, L. (2003). Assessing English language learners. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

September 2008

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/integratedcontent.html

Resources
Online Resources: Digests 2008

Singable Books: Sing and Read Your Way to English Proficiency

Betty Ansin Smallwood, Center for Applied Linguistics Erin Flynn Haynes, University of California, Berkeley
Download a PDF of this digest.

Introduction Teachers regularly use reading aloud to bond with students, generate conversation, and introduce the joys of literacy. Reading aloud offers additional benefits for English language learners, including introduction to new vocabulary and English grammar (Ghosn, 2002; Smallwood, 1991). However, these benefits vary with

the method of delivery (Teale, 2003). This digest introduces an easy, effective method of reading aloud using singable books. Although this digest focuses on English language learners, the use of singable books can benefit all students. Smallwood (2006) defines singable books as picture books that use a song as the text. Singable books are inherently interactive and appealing to children. The melody is often familiar to American-born teachers, but in any event, the musical notation and all the words are usually included at the end of the book. Pictures help illustrate the text of the song. And the teacher does not have to be a great (or even a good) singer to succeed with this method, as the authors of this digest can testify! Benefits of Singable Books Singable books provide a simple, cost-effective way to combine the benefits of reading childrens literature aloud and singing for English language learners, as illustrated in the Venn diagram in Figure 1. The benefits of using childrens literature include increased vocabulary and phonemic awareness, which are especially important for literacy development in English language learners (August & Shanahan, 2006), linking the circles for childrens literature and for English language and literacy acquisition in Figure 1. Singing, the third circle, introduces musical benefits for English language learners (ELLs), including increased motivation (e.g., Kennedy & Scott, 2005), enhanced neurological effects, and fluency development. A number of studies (e.g., Collins, 2005; Elley, 1989) have shown that using childrens literature with English language learners enhances vocabulary development. Singing may give an additional boost to the process, linking all three circles in Figure 1. Spinner reports that guided singing provides an extremely effective way to learn new vocabulary and idioms in a meaningful context (2006, p. 14). Indeed, Medina (1993) found greater vocabulary acquisition for English language learners who had books sung to them than for similar students who had books read aloud to them. Singable books also provide numerous opportunities to develop learners phonemic awareness, further linking the circles in Figure 1. For example, in just the first page of Miss Mary Mack (see Recommended Singable Books and Activities), children are introduced to the rhyming words Mack, back, and black, allowing them to hear the distinctions among the onset sounds /m/, /b/, and /bl/. Different groups of rhyming words continue throughout the book. As students sing along, they practice new combinations of phonemes that may not occur in their native language. Inviting children to participate with singable books is an engaging approach to literature, addressing the National Reading Panels suggestion that phonemic awareness

Figure 1: The combined benefits of singing and reading aloud with English language learners

development be as relevant and exciting as possible (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000, p. 2.7). Additional benefits for language acquisition that are derived from singing are represented by the intersection of the singing and English language acquisition circles. Recent research in the field of neuroscience has shown strong connections between musical and linguistic processing in the brain (e.g., Patel, 2003). While this research has not specifically examined the neural effects of using music to teach language, it does point to the interconnectedness between music and language. Stories abound of the memory effects of song. The 93-year-old grandmother of one of the authors of this digest recalls taking Spanish classes 60 years ago. Though she barely remembers a word of the language, she can still sing the songs she learned in class. These types of anecdotes are common (see, e.g., Spinner, 2006) and further support the power of music for language learning. Singable books also provide a natural resource for encouraging fluency, because most children want to sing the songs repeatedly. For example, the lead author of this digest has experimented with both reading and singing a highly repetitive singable book, Roll Over(see Peek, 1999, under Additional Recommended Singable Books). The students, all English language learners, quickly became bored with the prose version but couldnt stop singing the musical version. Finally, children who are quiet in class for cultural or other reasons may benefit from singable books. For example, Swisher and Deyhle (1992) report that many Native American children value cooperative learning, where no one makes open displays of knowledge. Singing in unison allows children to comfortably participate as part of a group. Although singing is not appealing to all children, singable books provide an additional tool to engage students in active learning. Selection Criteria for Singable Books Important criteria for selecting picture books to use with English language learners have been well documented (e.g., Smallwood, 2002). These criteria include limited text per page, connection to curriculum, explanatory illustrations, and grammar and vocabulary compatible with students English proficiency levels. This section provides additional guidelines specifically for selecting singable books. Does the book use rhyming words? Rhymes like those in Miss Mary Mack (Hoberman, 1998) develop phonemic awareness with their focus on minimal pairs. Does the book use repeated grammatical patterns? Patterns like those in If Youre Happy and You Know It (Cabrera, 2005) (e.g., imperatives and if-then clauses) provide repeated grammatical practice. Does the book use musical features that facilitate repetition? A chorus or cumulative verse, as in The House That Jack Built (Stow, 1992), helps learners develop English fluency and intonation patterns. Is the song or melody generally familiar? If not, is a CD included with the book? Are all the words and the musical notation included at the end? These features help teachers who are not familiar with the tune or the words. For example, in No Mirrors in My Nanas House (Barnwell, 1998), Sweet Honey in the Rock reads and sings the book on a CD, which is included.

Does the author provide a new variation on a familiar song? For example, Seals on the Bus (Hort, 2003) is a creative spin on the familiar song, Wheels on the Bus. This feature allows the teacher to introduce new vocabulary and the students to practice comparing and contrasting the variations between the two songs. Recommended Singable Books and Activities When singable books are used with English language learners, language acquisition and literacy development can be strengthened through pre- and post-lesson activities. Essential pre-lesson activities include explaining unfamiliar vocabulary and introducing the tune. Several post-singing activities, based on ideas from teachers in St. Louis (Missouri) Public Schools, are described below. These books and activities reflect the research findings on phonemic awareness and vocabulary development discussed earlier in this digest. Miss Mary Mack by M. Hoberman; illustrated by N. Westcott Little, Brown and Co. (1998) Grade Level: preK3; ESL Level: Beginning This familiar hand-clapping game has been expanded into a fun storybook featuring an elephant and a little girl. Directions for the game are included along with the tune. Post-singing: Have students practice phonemic awareness skills by identifying sounds that are the same or different in rhyming groups. Transition to phonics by having students read the rhyming groups on cards. Challenge the class, even Grades 46, to create rhyming variations with Mary Mack wearing different colors (e.g., pink). No Mirrors in My Nanas House by Y. Barnwell; illustrated by S. Saint James Harcourt Brace (1998) Grade Level: 46; ESL Level: Intermediate This powerful book about self-esteem highlights African American culture and features striking illustrations. Post-singing: Teach similes and metaphors using vocabulary examples from this book. Use the books themeseeing beauty in everythingas a writing prompt. America the Beautiful by K. Bates; illustrated by W. Minor G. P. Putnams Sons (2003) Grade Level: 712; ESL Level: Advanced In this stunning version of the song, each verse is illustrated line by line. It is a complete resource for a social studies lesson, with background information provided. Post-singing:Teach students to enrich their writing through the use of modifiers (e.g., spacious to describe skies). Have students explain a line of the

text, making connections to their own experiences. Have students identify the books illustrations from their locations on the U.S. map that is provided. Conclusion This digest has introduced singable books as a simple yet effective classroom method to engage students in active English language learning. It has also presented research on the potential benefits of singable books for literacy acquisition. Unfortunately, few studies have been conducted explicitly on singable books; however, this area is very promising for future research. Currently, all available evidence points to its efficacy as a language teaching method. We hope that teachers will find this information valuable and that they, along with their students, will enjoy these books and activities. Additional Recommended Singable Books Grades PreK3
Cabrera, J. (2005). If youre happy and you know it. New York: Holiday House. Hort, L. (2003). Seals on the bus. New York: Holt. Miller, J. P., & Greene, S. M. (2005). We all sing with the same voice. New York: Harper Collins. Peek, M. (1999). Roll over! A counting song. New York: Clarion Books. Shulman, L. (2004). Old MacDonald had a woodshop. New York: G. P. Putnam. Weiss, G. D., & Thiele, B. (1995). What a wonderful world. New York: Atheneum.

Grades 46
Garriel, B. S. (2004). I know an old fellow who swallowed a cello. New York: Scholastic. Gershwin, G., Gershwin, I., Heyward, D., & Heyward, D. (2002). Summertime. New York: Aladdin. Jackson, A. (2002). I know an old lady who swallowed a pie. New York: Puffin Books. Marsh, T. J., & Ward, W. (2002). Way out in the desert. Flagstaff, AZ: Rising Moon Books.

Grades 712
Spier, P. (1990). The star-spangled banner. New York: Doubleday. Stow, J. (1992). The house that Jack built. New York: Penguin.

References
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (Executive summary). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Collins, M. F. (2005). ESL preschoolers English vocabulary acquisition from storybook reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 406-408. Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(2), 174-187. Ghosn, I. K. (2002). Four good reasons to use literature in the primary school ELT. English Language Teaching Journal, 56, 172-79.

Kennedy, R., & Scott, A. (2005). A pilot study: The effects of music therapy interventions on middle school students ESL skills. Journal of Music Therapy, 42(4), 244-261. Medina, S. (1993). The effect of music on second language vocabulary acquisition. National Network for Early Language Learning, 6(3). Retrieved September 10, 2008, fromwww.forefrontpublishers.com/eslmusic/articles/01.htm National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Patel, A. D. (2003). Language, music, syntax, and the brain. Nature Neuroscience, 6(7), 647-681. Smallwood, B. A. (1991). The literature connection: A read-aloud guide for multicultural classrooms. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Smallwood, B. A. (2002). Thematic literature and curriculum for English language learners in early childhood education (CAL Digest). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Smallwood, B. A. (2006, March). Sing and read your way to English language and literacy development. Paper presented at the Annual National Conference on Family Literacy, Louisville, KY. Spinner, P. (2006). All for a song: Using music in the ESL classroom. ESL Magazine, 52, 14-18. Swisher, K., & Deyhle, D. (1992). Adapting instruction to culture. In J. Rehyner (Ed.), Teaching American Indian students (pp. 81-95). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Teale, W. H. (2003). Reading aloud to young children as a classroom instructional activity: Insights from research and practice. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.),On reading books to children (pp.114-139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

September 2008

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/singable.html

Resources
Online Resources: Digests December 2003 EDO-FL-03-08

Action Research
Richard Donato, University of Pittsburgh
Download a PDF of this digest.

Action research can inform teachers about their practice and empower them to take leadership roles in their local teaching contexts. Mills (2003) provides the following definition of action research:

Action research is any systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers to gather information about the ways that their particular school operates, how they teach, and how well their students learn. The information is gathered with the goals of gaining insight, developing reflective practice, effecting positive changes in the school environment and on educational practices in general, and improving student outcomes. (p. 4) Action research is conducted by teachers and for teachers. It is small scale, contextualized, localized, and aimed at discovering, developing, or monitoring changes to practice (Wallace, 2000). The defining features of action research also reflect the qualities of leaders in collaborative cultures of change. These qualities include a deep understanding of the organization, vision and insight, a quest for new knowledge, a desire for improved performance, self-reflective activity, and a willingness to effect change (Fullan, 2000a, 2000b). This Digest discusses a framework for conducting action research and describes an action research study carried out in an elementary school Spanish program.

A Framework for Action Research

A review of action research frameworks reveals several common features. An action research project seeks to create knowledge, propose and implement change, and improve practice and performance (Stringer, 1996). Kemmis and McTaggert (1988) suggest that the fundamental components of action research include the following: (1) developing a plan for improvement, (2) implementing the plan, (3) observing and documenting the effects of the plan, and (4) reflecting on the effects of the plan for further planning and informed action. New knowledge gained results in changes in practice (see also, Fullan, 2000a). Action research is often conducted to discover a plan for innovation or intervention and is collaborative. Based on Kemmis and McTaggert's (1998) original formulation of action research and subsequent modifications, Mills (2003) developed the following framework for action research:

Describe the problem and area of focus. Define the factors involved in your area of focus (e.g., the curriculum, school setting, student outcomes, instructional strategies). Develop research questions. Describe the intervention or innovation to be implemented. Develop a timeline for implementation. Describe the membership of the action research group. Develop a list of resources to implement the plan. Describe the data to be collected. Develop a data collection and analysis plan. Select appropriate tools of inquiry. Carry out the plan (implementation, data collection, data analysis). Report the results.

This deductive approach implements a planned intervention, monitors its implementation, and evaluates the results. A more inductive approach, formulated by Burns (1999), is to carry out action research to explore what changes need to be made or what actions need to be taken in a specific instructional setting. Burns suggests the following interrelated activities:

Explore an issue in teaching or learning. Identify areas of concern. Observe how those areas play out in the setting of the study. Discuss how the issue might be addressed. Collect data to determine the action to be taken (e.g., student questionnaires, observation reports, journal entries). Plan strategic actions based on the data to address the issue.

Kemmis and McTaggert's approach focuses on implementing an action plan, whereas Burns focuses on planning for action. Commonly used data collection tools in action research projects include existing archival sources in schools (e.g., attendance reports, standardized test scores, lesson plans, curriculum documents,), questionnaires, interviews, observation notes and protocols, videotapes, photographs, journals and diaries, and narratives (e.g., stories told by teachers, see Hartman, 1998).

An Action Research Project in Pittsburgh: Elementary School Spanish

The following project illustrates how teachers can assume leadership roles to support their programs, contribute to the knowledge base on the teaching and learning of foreign languages in their school and school district, and promote well-informed changes in practice. In 1996, a school district in suburban Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, decided to implement a foreign language in the elementary school (FLES) program. After considerable discussion of issues such as scheduling, teacher availability, and the necessity of developing long-term articulation from one grade to the next, the decision was made to form a program steering committee and propose to the school board the implementation of a Spanish FLES program that would begin in September 1996 for all district kindergartners. The proposal recommended extending the program one grade level each year. That is, all kindergartners and first graders would participate in the program in the 1997-1998 school year, all kindergartners and first and second graders in the 1998-1999 school year, and so on. The Board of School Directors formally approved the plan and authorized a 5-year pilot project. Teachers as researchers. After 5 years of implementation, the program steering committee had to prepare a presentation for the school board that would demonstrate that the program was working, that the children were progressing, and that the approval of 5 more years of funding was warranted. Responding to this challenge called for both leadership and research. To achieve the research goal, it was decided that the five Spanish teachers needed to add a new role to their workthey would become

researchers. As researchers, they would reflect on their practice, collect information, make decisions, and develop action plans. The program steering committee needed solid information to present to the school board. They wanted to present the current state of student progress, a list of recommendations, and a plan for informed and responsible future action. The steering committee hoped the presentation would convince the board that the investment over the past 5 years had resulted in adequate growth in student language proficiency and cultural knowledge. The five FLES teachers became involved in a small-scale action research project that focused on student proficiency at each grade level in the program. The teachers felt that they were succeeding with their early foreign language instruction, but they had no clear data to support their intuition. Measuring student progress. The teachers attempted to document student progress in relation to the ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K12 Learners (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1998). Based on descriptions in the ACTFL guidelines, a can do/cant do assessment was devised. This Teacher Assessment of Student Progress asked the teachers to rate how well and how accurately their students understood and spoke Spanish, and to rate the students vocabulary knowledge, communication strategies, and cultural understanding by checking can do or cant do on the assessment. Teachers were also asked to document the quantity of language each child produced during class. Teachers completed the questionnaires individually and without consultation with their colleagues. Results. The teachers' ratings were tallied and compared across classes and grade levels. Results showed that the majority of children, regardless of grade level, had developed the ability to do the following in Spanish:

Use memorized material Imitate pronunciation well Speak with accuracy when presenting practical material Understand key words and phrases in Spanish Comprehend and say everyday vocabulary Pick up Spanish vocabulary from other sources Recite cultural facts about Spanish-speaking countries Say words, phrases, and full sentences

Additionally, it was found that items for which systematic grade-level differences did appear were those that involved complex language tasks requiring discourse-level ability, the negotiation of meaning, linguistic creativity, and literacy skills. That is, the kindergarten children were reported not to perform any of these advanced tasks, whereas the students in Grade 4 were reported to control all of them. Systematic growth in ability was observed at intervals in Grades 1 to 3. The conclusion from this study is clear. The students demonstrated progress each year in specific language skills and cultural knowledge and developed more advanced language functions throughout their language

study. Analysis indicated quite dramatically that these students advanced in their proficiency, that the curriculum was well articulated, and that with each passing year, the children could say and do more with their new language. The results of this action research led the teachers to realize the need for child language learners to have extensive opportunities to hear and produce the target language and the need for teachers to include more discourse-level tasks (e.g., story telling) in the fifth-grade curriculum. The results also indicated the need to prepare students for content-based Spanish study beginning in sixth grade and to address literacy skills even more vigorously in fifth grade. It also alerted teachers in the lower grades to include more storytelling in their classes as a means of preparing the children to understand and produce Spanish in discourse-level contexts.

Features of Action Research

This project illustrated several features of action research identified by Burns (1998) and Mills (2003). It was highly contextualized and localized in its attempt to investigate a situation in a specific school. The project converted tacit knowledge of student progress to explicit knowledge that could be communicated clearly to other constituents, such as board members and parents. The project results led to confirmation of individual opinions, observations, and intuitions based on investigation and data. The impetus for changes in practice and curriculum was based on information that was systematically collected and synthesized. This information led to the goal of expanding the language capacity of the children through a revised curriculum that involved storytelling, sentence-level production of the language, and the use of content-based discourse-level speaking tasks. The research was participatory and collaborative, involving all of the Spanish teachers, the steering committee, a university researcher, andindirectlythe school board members who reacted to the information presented. Finally, the teachers collaborated to create knowledge of their program and took leadership positions in helping the program receive an additional 5 years of funding. The instructional roles that the teachers played were enriched with leadership opportunities that directly affected their program and their professional practice. In Fullan's (2000a) terms, these teachers became participants in a collaborative culture of change.

Conclusion
Leaders for change can become learners as well when they engage in research. As a result, they become less vulnerable to and less dependent on external answers to the challenges they face (Fullan, 2000b). To respond to the challenges in their Spanish program, the teachers in the study described here took on new leadership roles and moved beyond their traditional roles. Their leadership emanated from their collaboration to understand their local situation and to bring about change that would improve their teaching and the lives of the students in their program.

References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1998). ACTFL performance guidelines for K12 learners. Yonkers, NY: Author. Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fullan, M. (2000a). Change forces. The sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (2000b). Leadership for the twenty-first century: Breaking the bonds of dependency. In The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 156-63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hartman, D. K. (1998). Stories teachers tell. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook. Kemmis, S., & McTaggert, R. (1998). The action research planner. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Stringer, E. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wallace, M. J. (2000). Action research for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
This digest was prepared with funding from the U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Library of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0008. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of ED, OERI, or NLE.

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0308donato.html

AGE EFFECTS IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: OVERVIEW

Posted: Januari 11, 2011 in Research Papers

0
AGE EFFECTS IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM Age has been regarded as an important factor in the ways in which language learners differ, and a vast amount of research has been conducted regarding age effects on second language acquisitione.g. Birdsong, 1992; DeKeyser, 2000; Oyama, 1976;

Patkowski, 1980. It is generally believed that children enjoy an advantage over adults in learning languages because of their plasticity. According to Chomsky1957, humans are equipped with a language acquisition device, which enables them to acquire the language in a way that goes beyond simple habitual formation. The universal grammar proposed by Chomsky later on1966 is thought to be an innate system of language acquisition, the socalled language acquisition device. Although Chomsky has not mentioned the possibility of applying this theoretical device in the brain to the acquisition of second languages, grammaticality judgment tests, the purpose of which is to measure learners universal grammar, have been widely used for second language acquisition researche.g. Johnson & Newport, 1989. These grammaticality judgment tests consist of morphosyntactic items, implying that the universal grammar is really about how learners organize the target languages morphosyntactic system. On the other hand, Lenneberg1967hypothesized that humans latent language structure, i.e. the cognitive structure for automatic language acquisition, might stop functioning when the human brain matures, or at the time of lateralization of the human brain, which possibly occurs around puberty. He established the critical period hypothesis, which was originally proposed by Penfield & Roberts1959, and explained the difficulty of acquiring our rst language after puberty, based on neuropsychological factorsLenneberg, 1967. In the area of second language acquisition research, the critical period hypothesis has been taken into consideration in age-related studies. There is believed to be a period up to a certain age during which learners can acquire a second language easily and achieve native-speaker-like competence. The sensitive period hypothesis, which is used by Patkowski1980, has been sometimes used as an alternative term to refer to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition, and has often been freely substituted in second language research literature. However, the critical period hypothesis has been predominantly used in first language acquisition, whilst the sensitive period hypothesis has been generally restricted to second language acquisition. RESEARCH QUESTION Does age effects the learning second language process? SUPPORTING THEORIES

We have observed that learners who start early in life to expose themselves to their second language are more likely to attain a native or native-like accent than older starters. Oyama 1976examined 60 male learners who had immigrated to the United States. Their ages ranged from 6 to 20 years old and they had lived there for between 5 and 18 years. Two adult native speakers judged the native-ness of the learners accents during a reading-aloud task and during free speech. The results showed a signicant negative correlation in age of arrival and acquisition, which meant that the younger their age of arrival was, t he more

authentic the accent they acquired. For instance, the youngest arrivals were rated the same as native speakers. However, no signicant relationship was found between the length of stay and their accent. Other studies that examined the effect s of ag e on pronunciatione.g. Tahta, Wood & Loewenthal, 1981also indicated that an earlier age of arrival or acquisition leads to better pronunciation. Similar results have been provided from studies in morphosyntax/grammar, but in their studies the cutting-off age for the critical/sensitive period is later or older than the studies on pronunciation. Patkowski1980invest igated 67 immigrants to the United States, nding that learners who had entered the United States before the age of 15 were rated as more pro cient in grammar than learners who had entered after the age of 15. There was also a significant difference in the distribution rate of scores based on a ve-point scale for the two groups. The range of adult group scores was smaller than the range of child group scores. In addition, Patkowski examined the effects of the length of the stay in the United States, the amount of informal exposure to English and the amount of formal instruction. Neither the length of the stay nor the amount of formal instruction provided a signicant effect but the amount of informal exposure did have a significant effect, though this was much less signicant than the age factor. In a similar line to Patkowski1980, Johnson & Newport 1989investigated 46 native Koreans and Chinese who had immigrated in the United States between the ages of 3 and 39, using an aural grammaticality judgment test. Half of them arrived there before the age of 15 and the other half arrived after the age of 17. The participants were asked to judge the grammaticality of 276 spoken sentences. The results indicated a negative correlation between age at arrival and judgment scores, which was 0.77, meaning that the later the learner arrived, the lower the score they got. However, one difference from Patkowskis stud y was that the scores of the younger group varied less than those of the adult group. Also, neither the number of years of exposure to English nor the amount of classroom instruction was related to the grammaticality judgment scores. Johnson1992followed up on the study by Johnson & Newport1989by using the same participants in the earlier study a year later with written tests, working on the belief that written test materials eliminated extragrammatical properties that were present in the auditory materials. The results showed a negative correlationr = 0.54between age of arrival and performance, and suggested that the grammatical knowledge of young learners is native or near-native whereas that attained by older learners is ill-formed or incomplete. Thus, the critical period effects could be found in a test of grammar with a minimum number of extragrammatical properties. This shows the robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition

DISCUSSION Whether critical/sensitive period hypothesis exists, age clearly should be regarded as an important factor that influences the

possibility of attaining native-like proficiency in a second language, though there are some differences in the learning difficulties involved because of the similarities and differences between the rst languages and s econd languages and because of given contexts such as whether or not the learners reside in the countries where their second languages are spoken Birdsong, 2007. However, the empirical studies about age as an important factor in second language acquisition, described in the previous section, have provided different positions towards the critical/sensitive period hypothesis. The first five studies Oyama, 1976; Tahta, et al., 1981; Patkowski, 1980; Johnson & Newport, 1989; Johnson, 1992 support the hypothesis, that is, second language learners will not be able to attain a level of native-like prociency if the age of arrival or acquisition is after the critical/sensitive period. The first two studies used data about phonology/pronunciation and the other three studies were based on the results of grammaticality judgment tests measuring the level of morphosyntax/grammar. Thus, the adult participants in these studies may have been in the fossilized phase of development in the areas of phonology and grammar. Regarding the critical ages for acquisition, according to several researcherse.g. Ellis, 1994; Long, 1990acquiring native-like pronunciation is possible until the age of 6 the nal age for arrival and acquisition. On the other hand, native-like grammatical/morphosyntactical competence should be possible up to the age of 15e.g. Patkowski, 1980. As Selinger1978 proposes, there may be multiple critical/sensitive periods for different aspects of language. The period during which a native accent is easily acquirable appears to end sooner than the period governing the acquisition of a languages grammar. In other words, the biological sensory acuity f or attaining native-like pronunciation terminates much earlier than the cognitive plasticity that manages grammaticality judgment. Pinker1994 makes the following note. Acquisition of a normal languagephonologyis guaranteed for children up to the age of six, is steadily compromised from then until shortly after puberty, and is rare thereafter. Maturational changes in the brain, such as the decline in metabolic rate and the number of neurons during early school-age years, and the bottoming out of the number of synapses and metabolic rate around puberty, are plausible causes.p. 293 On the other hand, the most recent neurocognitive evidence has indicated the mechanism that manages language in the brain s system. Ullman (2007) argues as follows. In first language, lexical knowledge depends on the declarative memory brain system, which underlies semantic and episodic knowledge, and is rooted in temporal-lobe structures. Grammar in rst language relies rather on the procedural memory system, which subserves motor and cognitive skills, and is rooted in frontal/basalganglia circuits. In contrast, evidence suggests that in later-learned second language, learners initially depend largely on declarative memory, not only for lexical knowledge, but also for the use of complex forms. However, with increasing experience second language learners show procedural learning of grammatical rules, becoming first language-like. Importantly, because the behavioral, computational, anatomical and physiological bases of the two memory systems are reasonably well-understood, including the nature of forgetting of knowledge and skills in these systems, we can make relatively specic predictions about

language, including with respect to language attrition.p. 9 Thus, second language learners are unable to acquire the target language as long as they use the declarative brain memory system for its grammatical rules. As Ullman2007points out, through experience, second language learners come to make use of the procedural memory system. Neurocognitive researchers have presented these findings as reliable through the use of advanced technology, which makes them persuasive. Given that rst language grammar is dealt with in this procedural memory system, the so-called universal grammar (morphosyntax in Practice) or language acquisition device presumably may refer to the process of using the procedural memory system for grammar or language rules. If so, with the possible exception of getting a native-like accent, even adult learners could attain native-like prociency in their target language if they practice it enough to make the language behavior their automatic routine like riding a bicycle, which also uses the procedural memory system and to make the procedural memory system active in utilizing the second languages mophosyntax/grammar. The maxim that practice makes perfect may hold true for acquiring a second language. In the case of child learners, or learners before the age of 15, the procedural memory system rather than the declarative memory system is more likely to be used for second language grammar. Possibly a lack of plasticity in the brains system may lead to difficulty in acquiring second languages when we are older. Regarding the subtle distinction between a critical and a sensitive period, the question is whether completely successful acquisition is deemed to be only possible within a given span of a learners life critical, or whether acquisition is just easier within this period (sensitive). Therefore, the sensitive period hypothesis seems to be more, appropriate for second language acquisition, though the critical period hypothesis has been predominantly used. The second category of studies with mixed results consists of Burstall 1975, Harley1986and Riney1990. Burstall 1975showed that the late starters excelled in writing, reading, and speaking while the early starters were better only in listening. As Ellis1994posits earlier in this article, younger learners are better in sensory acuity, which led to the better listening skills described by Burstall learners were better in all other areas writing, reading and speaking may refute the critical/sensitive period hypothesis. It holds true, indeed, that the older learners, secondary school students in this study, outperformed the younger learners because of their advanced cognition and more mature social positioning. However, in the previous literaturee.g. Ellis, 1994, the younger group was said to overtake the older group. In Burstalls study1975, at the age of 16, the older group still outperformed the younger one. As one explanation, it was assumed that 16 years old was not yet the end of the best period for acquisition. The other explanation was that the older group of learners could have practised until they reached the stage of using the procedural memory system, which enabled them to use their second language automatically like their rst languagec.f. Ullman, 2007. Also, various individual differences, not limited to age factors, played a stronger role in their performances in second language learning. His study shows that age is less

important and that the more sophisticated cognitive or possibly academic skills they had in their first language played a more meaningful role in their second language acquisition, except in the area of listening, which may be biological and less inue nced by external factors. Harleys study1986is a robust example showing that the younger learners were able to perform better in the long run, which endorses the validity of the critical/ sensitive period hypothesis. Rineys investigation 1990 showed condi t ional resul ts control led by phonological environments. Epenthesis, the insertion of schwa sounds, is a well-known phenomenon among Japanese learners of English as well as an example of negative transfer. Possible fossilization caused by having less exible physiological natures may have rendered the adult learners unable to fix the epenthesis, even after they had exposed themselves to the correct language environment. The last category of studies consisted of six studies refuting or at least not complying with the critical/sensitive period hypothesis, though the last study by Harley & Hart1997 suggested different cognitive processes among early and late learners. The rst three example studiesBailey, et al., 1974; Fathman, 1975; Harley, 1986dealt with morphology, a part of so-called grammar; however, they did not present the features of the critical/sensitive period hypothesis, which may question the validity of the hypothesis. The fourth study, by Cummins & Nakajima1987, gave clear results counter to the critical/ sensitive period hypothesis because the older learners provided better results in writing and reading tests. The interdependent principle Cummins, 1981, which emphasizes the importance of academic skills in first languages, may well support the starting age for learning English in Japan. The reality, however, is that both reading and writing are not directly related to oral communication. In other words, linguistic behaviors such as writing and reading can be classified only as a school subject, not as a part of language acquisition. Probably that is why they failed to comply with the critical/sensitive period hypothesis. On the other hand, the fifth study by Ioup, et al.1994 investigated an exceptional older learner who succeeded in acquiring a second language and its ndings should encourage adult language learners to try to gain native-like prociency. Various kinds of interpretations have been provided to account for the existence of a critical/sensitive period. For instance, Muhlhauser 1986proposes that adults and children appear to behave very much in the same manner, which indicates that activation of certain linguistic developments is dependent on the presence of specific environmental factors, rather than on different cognitive abilities of children and adults after an extensive study of the developmental stages of pidgin languages and their similarities to language acquisition1986, p. 265-266. Long1990, on the other hand, concludes that a neurological explanation is best and proposes a mental muscle model, where the language-specic faculty remains intact throughout our lives, but access to it is impeded to varying degrees and impeded progressively with age, unless the faculty is used and so kept plastic. Such a view is compatible with studies of exceptional language learners, which demonstrate that some adult learners are capable of achieving native-speaker levels of competence, as seen in the study by Ioup, et al.1994. As Birdsong1992 points out, the critical/sensitive period

hypothesis may have to be reexamined if many such learners are found. CONCLUSION The criteria for the most appropriate age to acquire a language seem to be based on phonologypronunciationand morphosyntaxgrammar. Previous age-related studies have claimed that the process of acquiring a second language grammar morphosyntaxis not substantially affected by age, but that of acquiring pronunciationphonologymay be. The critical period hypothesis that originated from first language acquisition (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield & Roberts, 1959) is based on neuropsychological factors, and the most important of these is brain maturation. It is widely known that the cognitive structures that allow for automatic language acquisition in a child deteriorate as the human brain matures. In second language acquisition, if a critical/sensitive period hypothesis does exist, adult learners or learners starting to learn after a certain agepuberty for instancemay experience fossilization in phonology and/or morphosyntax regardless of their efforts, due to neurological/physiological factors. All those who possess a rst language are certainly capable of acquiring some degree of a second language; however, second language acquisition in a mature human is not as successful as rst language acquisition in many cases. Although some researchers (e.g. Bley-Vroman, 1988) have argued that older learners no longer have access to their innate language acquisition device, consisting of the principles of universal grammar Chomsky, 1981and language-specific learning procedures, it has been found to be possible for adult learners to activate such a device by using the procedural memory system (Ullman, 2007) instead of using the declarative memory system, by following the innate grammatical structure while using the language, and by thorough practice until the struct ure is internalized in the learners minds and becomes automatic in their behavior. Ullman2001suggests that an increasing amount of experiencei.e. practicewith a second language should lead to better learning of grammatical rules in procedural memory, which in turn should result in higher proficiency in the languagep.118. Even in adult language learning, which has usually been achieved through rst language knowledge, so called universal grammar may be accessible to adult second language learners, but their second languages are eventually acquired only if they are encouraged to use the procedural memory system instead of the declarative memory system.

REFERENCES Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a natural sequence in adult se cond language learning? Language Learning, 21, 235-243. Bialystok, F. & Hakuta, K.(1999). In other words: The science and psychology of second-language acquisition. NewYork: Basic Books.

Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 68, 706-755. Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A select ive overview. Language Learning, 56, 9-49

http://www.pdf-finder.com/pdf/language-acquisition-in-young-learners-a-research.html http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/OldLectures/L4_Experiments.htm

http://wiwikyulihaningsih.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/age-effects-in-second-language-acquisitionoverview/

A Summary of Stephen Krashen's "Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition" By Reid Wilson First appeared: Language Learning #9 and 10

Bibliographic information: Krashen, Stephen D. 1981. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. English Language Teaching series. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd. 202 pages. Quote that captures the essense of the book: "What theory implies, quite simply, is that language acquisition, first or second, occurs when comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquirer is not 'on the defensive'... Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill. It does not occur overnight, however. Real language acquisition develops slowly, and speaking skills emerge significantly later than listening skills, even when conditions are perfect. The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production." (6-7) Summary of Part I. Introduction: The Relationship of Theory to Practice

In deciding how to develop language teaching methods and materials, one can take three approaches: make use of second language acquisition theory, make use of applied linguistics research, and make use of ideas and intuition from experience. These approaches should in fact support each other and lead to common conclusions. This book incorporates all three approaches, with a hope of reintroducing theory to language teachers. While "most current theory may still not be the final word on second language acquisition," it is hoped that teachers will use the ideas in this book as another source alongside of their classroom and language-learning experiences. Summary of Part II. Second Language Acquisition Theory There are five key hypotheses about second language acquisition: 1. THE ACQUISITION-LEARNING DISCTINCTION Adults have two different ways to develop compentence in a language: language acquisition and language learning. Language acquisition is a subconscious process not unlike the way a child learns language. Language acquirers are not consciously aware of the grammatical rules of the language, but rather develop a "feel" for correctness. "In non-technical language, acquisition is 'picking-up' a language." Language learning, on the other hand, refers to the "concious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them." Thus language learning can be compared to learning about a language. The acquistion-learning disctinction hypothesis claims that adults do not lose the ability to acquire languages the way that children do. Just as research shows that error correction has little effect on children learning a first language, so too error correction has little affect on language acquisition. 2. THE NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS The natural order hypothesis states that "the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predictable order." For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early, others late, regardless of the first language of a speaker. However, as will be discussed later on in the book, this does not mean that grammar should be taught in this natural order of acquisition. 3. THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS

The language that one has subconsciously acquired "initiates our utterances in a second language and is responsible for our fluency," whereas the language that we have consciously learned acts as an editor in situations where the learner has enough time to edit, is focused on form, and knows the rule, such as on a grammar test in a language classroom or when carefully writing a composition. This conscious editor is called the Monitor. Different individuals use their monitors in different ways, with different degrees of success. Monitor Over-users try to always use their Monitor, and end up "so concerned with correctness that they cannot speak with any real fluency." Monitor Under-users either have not consciously learned or choose to not use their conscious knowledge of the language. Although error correction by others has little influence on them, they can often correct themelves based on a "feel" for correctness. Teachers should aim to produce Optimal Monitor users, who "use the Monitor when it is appropriate and when it does not interfere with communication." They do not use their conscious knowledge of grammar in normal conversation, but will use it in writing and planned speech. "Optimal Monitor users can therefore use their learned competence as a supplement to their acquired competence." 4. THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS The input hypothesis answers the question of how a language acquirer develops comptency over time. It states that a language acquirer who is at "level i" must receive comprehensible input that is at "level i+1." "We acquire, in other words, only when we understand language that contains structure that is 'a little beyond' where we are now." This understanding is possible due to using the context of the language we are hearing or reading and our knowledge of the world. However, instead of aiming to receive input that is exactly at our i+1 level, or instead of having a teacher aim to teach us grammatical structure that is at our i+1 level, we should instead just focus on communication that is understandable. If we do this, and if we get enough of that kind of input, then we will in effect be receiving and thus acquiring out i+1. "Prduction ability emerges. It is not taught directly." Evidences for the input hypothesis can be found in the effectiveness of caretaker speech from an adult to a child, of teacher-talk from a teacher to a language student, and of foreigner-talk from a sympathetic conversation partner to a language learner/acquirer. One result of this hypothesis is that language students should be given a initial "silent period" where they are building up acquired competence in a language before they begin to produce it.

Whenever language acquirers try to produce language beyond what they have acquired, they tend to use the rules they have already acquired from their first language, thus allowing them to communicate but not really progress in the second language. 5. THE AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS Motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety all affect language acquisition, in effect raising or lowering the "stickiness" or "penetration" of any comprehensible input that is received. These five hypotheses of second language acquisition can be summarized: "1. Acquisition is more important than learning. 2. In order to acquire, two conditions are necessaary. The first is comprehensible (or even better, comprehended) input containing i+1, structures a bit beyond the acquier's current level, and second, a low or weak affective filter to allow the input 'in'." In view of these findings, question is raised: does classroom language teaching help? Classroom teaching helps when it provides the necessary comprehensible input to those students who are not at a level yet which allows them to receive comprehensible input from "the real world" or who do not have access to "real world" language speakers. It can also help when it provides students communication tools to make better use of the outside world, and it can provide beneficial conscious learning for optimal Monitor users. Various research studies have been done comparing the amount of language competance and the amount of exposure to the language either in classroom-years or length of residence, the age of the language acquirer, and the acculturation of the language acquirer. The results of these studies are consistent with the above acquisition hypotheses: the more comprehensible input one receives in low-stress situations, the more language competance that one will have. Summary of Part III: Providing Input for Acquisition Once it is realized that receiving comprehensible input is central to acquiring a second language, questions are immediately raised concerning the nature and sources of this type of input and the role of the second language classroom. To what extent is the second language classroom beneficial? Classrooms help when they provide the comprehensible input that the acquirer is going to receive. If acquirers have access to real world input, and if their current ability allows them understand at least some of it, then the classroom is not nearly as significant. An

informal, immersion environment has the opportunity to provide tons of input; however, that input is not always comprehensible to a beginner, and often for an adult beginner the classroom is better than the real world in providing comprehensible input. However, for the intermediate level student and above, living and interacting in an environment in which the language is spoken will likely prove to be better for the student, especially considering the fact that a language classroom will not be able to reflect the broad range of language use that the real world provides. The classroom's goal is to prepare students to be able to understand the language used outside the classroom. What role does speaking (output) play in second language acquisition? It has no direct role, since language is acquired by comprehensible input, and in fact someone who is not able to speak for physical reasons can still acquire the full ability to understand language. However, speaking does indirectly help in two ways: 1) speaking produces conversation, which produces comprehensible input, and 2) your speaking allows native speakers to judge what level you are at and then adjust their speak downward to you, providing you input that is more easily understood. What kind of input is optimal for acquisition? The best input is comprehensible, which sometimes means that it needs to be slower and more carefully articulated, using common vocabulary, less slang, and shorter sentences. Optimal input is interesting and/or relevant and allows the acquirer to focus on the meaning of the message and not on the form of the message. Optimal input is not grammatically sequenced, and a grammatical syllabus should not be used in the language classroom, in part because all students will not be at exactly the same level and because each structure is often only introduced once before moving on to something else. Finally, optimal input must focus on quantity, although most language teachers have to date seriously underestimated how much comprehensible input is actually needed for an acquirer to progress. In addition to receiving the right kind of input, students should have their affective filter kept low, meaning that classroom stress should be minimized and students "should not be put on the defensive." One result of this is that student's errors should not be corrected. Students should be taught how to gain more input from the outside world, including helping them acquire conversational competence, the means of managing conversation. Summary of Part IV: The Role of Grammar, or Putting Grammar in its Place

"As should be apparent by now, the position taken in this book is that second language teaching should focus on encouraging acquisition, on providing input that stimulates the subconscious language acquisition potential all normal human beings have. This does not mean to say, however, that there is no room at all for conscious learning. Conscious learning does have a role, but it is no longer the lead actor in the play." For starters, we must realize that learning does not turn into acquisition. While the idea that we first learn a grammar rule and then use it so much that it becomes internalized is common and may seem obvious to many, it is not supported by theory nor by the observation of second language acquirers, who often correctly use "rules" they have never been taught and don't even remember accurately the rules they have learned. However, there is a place for grammar, or the conscious learning of the rules of a language. Its major role is in the use of the Monitor, which allows Monitor users to produce more correct output when they are given the right conditions to actually use their Monitor, as in some planned speech and writing. However, for correct Monitor use the users must know the rules they are applying, and these would need to be rules that are easy to remember and apply--a very small subset of all of the grammatical rules of a language. It is not worthwhile for language acquisition to teach difficult rules which are hard to learn, harder to remember, and sometimes almost impossible to correctly apply. For many years there was controversy in language-teaching literature on whether grammar should be deductively or inductively taught. However, as both of these methods involve language learning and not language acquisition, this issue should not be central for language teaching practice. There has similarly been controversy as to whether or not errors should be corrected in language learners' speech. Second language acquisition theory suggests that errors in ordinary conversation and Monitorfree situations should not be corrected, and that errors should only be corrected when they apply to easy to apply and understand grammatical rules in situations where known Monitor-users are able to use their Monitor. There is a second way in which the teaching of grammar in a classroom can be helpful, and that is when the students are interested in learning about the language they are acquiring. This language appreciation, or linguistics, however, will only result in language acquisition when grammar is taught in the language that is being acquired, and it is actually the comprehensible input that the students are receiving, not the content of the lecture itself, that is aiding acquisition. "This is a subtle point. In effect, both teachers and students are deceiving themselves. They believe that it is the subject matter itself, the study of grammar, that is responsible for the students'

progress in second language acquisition, but in reality their progress is coming from the medium and not the message. And subject matter that held their interest would do just as well, so far as second language acquisition is concerned, as long as it required extensive use of the target language." And perhaps many students would be more interested in a different subject matter and would thus acquire more than they would in such a grammar-based classroom. Summary of Part V: Approaches to Language Teaching Popular language teaching methods today include grammar-translation, audiolingualism, cognitive-code, the direct method, the natural approach, total physical response, and Suggestopedia. How do these methods fare when they are evaluated by Second Language Acquisition theory? Each method will be evaluated using the following criteria: Requirements for optimal input -- comprehensible -- interesting/relevant -- not grammatically sequenced -- quantity -- low filter level -- provides tools for conversational management Learning restricted to: -- Rules that are easily learned and applied, and not acquired yet -- Monitor users -- Situations when the learner has adequate time and a focus on form 1. GRAMMAR-TRANSLATION Grammar-translation usually consists of an explanation of a grammatical rule, with some example sentences, a bilingual vocabulary list, a reading section exemplifying the grammatical rule and incorporating the vocabulary, and exercises to practice using the grammar and vocabulary. Most of these classes are taught in the student's first language. The grammar-translation method provides little opportunity for acquisition and relies too heavily on learning. 2. AUDIO-LINGUALISM An audio-lingual lesson usually begins with a dialogue which contains the grammar and vocabulary to be focused on in the lesson. The students mimic the dialogue and eventually memorize it. After the dialogue comes pattern drills, in which the grammatical structure introduced in the dialogue is reinforced, with these drills focusing on simple repetition, substitution, transformation, and translation. While the audio-lingual method provides opportunity for some acquisition to occur, it cannot measure up to newer methods which provide much more comprehensible input in a low-filter environment.

3. COGNITIVE-CODE Cognitive-code is similar to grammar-translation except that it focuses on developing all four skills of language: speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Communicative competence is focused upon. Since the cognitive-code approach provides more comprehensible input than grammar-translation does, it should produce more acquisition, but other newer methods provide even more and have better results. Learning is overemphasized with this method. 4. THE DIRECT METHOD Several approaches have been called the "direct method"; the approach evaluated here involves all discussion in the target language. The teacher uses examples of language in order to inductively teach grammar; students are to try to guess the rules of the language by the examples provided. Teachers interact with the students a lot, asking them questions about relevant topics and trying to use the grammatical structure of the day in the conversation. Accuracy is sought and errors are corrected. This method provides more comprehensible input than the methods discussed so far, but it still focuses too much on grammar. 5. THE NATURAL APPROACH In the Natural Approach the teacher speaks only the target language and class time is committed to providing input for acquisition. Students may use either the language being taught or their first language. Errors in speech are not corrected, however homework may include grammar exercises that will be corrected. Goals for the class emphasize the students being able use the language "to talk about ideas, perform tasks, and solve problems." This approach aims to fulfill the requirements for learning and acquisition, and does a great job in doing it. Its main weakness is that all classroom teaching is to some degree limited in its ability to be interesting and relevant to all students. 6. TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE Total Physical Response, or TPR, involves the students listening and responding to commands given by the teacher such as "sit down" and "walk," with the complexity of the commands growing over time as the class acquires more language. Student speech is delayed, and once students indicate a willingness to talk they initially give commands to other students. Theory predicts that TPR should result in substantial language acquisition. Its content may not be always interesting and relevant for the students, but should produce better results than the audio-lingual and grammartranslation methods.

7. SUGGESTOPEDIA Suggestopedia classes are small and intensive, and focus on providing a very lowstress, attractive environment (partly involving active and passive "seances" complete with music and meditation) in which acquisition can occur. Some of the students' first language is used at the beginning, but most in the target language. The role of the teacher is very important in creating the right atmosphere and in acting out the dialogues that form the core of the content. Suggestopedia seems to provide close to optimal input while not giving too much emphasis to grammar. What does applied linguistics research have to say about these methods? Applied research has examined the older methods of grammar-translation, audio-lingual, and cognitive-code much more than it has looked at the newer methods. There seems to be only small differences in the results of the older methods. While much research remains to be done, Total Physical Response and the other newer approaches "produce significantly better results than old approaches." So what is better, the classroom or the real world? "Quite simply, the role of the second or foreign language classroom is to bring a student to a point where he can begin to use the outside would for further second language acquisition.... This means we have to provide students with enough comprehensible input to bring their second language competence to the point where they can begin to understand language heard 'on the outside'.... In other words, all second language classes are transitional." In the real world, conversations with sympathetic native speakers who are willing to help the acquirer understand are very helpful. These native speakers engage in what is called "foreigner talk," not very different from the way that a parent would talk to a child. Voluntary pleasure reading is also beneficial for second language acquisition, especially as the reader is free to choose reading material that is of interest and the proper level in order to be understood. Taking content classes in the language that is being acquired can also be helpful to the more advanced learner, especially when the class is composed of students who are all acquiring the second language. How does all of the above affect our views on achievement testing? As students will gear their studying to the type of tests they expect to take, the kinds of language tests that are given is very important. "Achievement tests...should meet this requirement: preparation for the test, or studying for the test, should obviously encourage the student to do things that will provide more comprehensible input and the tools to gain

even more input when the class is over." With this in mind, general reading comprehension tests are helpful, as would be a test that would encourage students to participate in conversations and employ the tools of communicative competence. Assuming that the conclusions in this book are correct, many new classroom language materials need to be developed. These materials should focus on providing much comprehensible input to beginning and intermediate students and should provide them with the means to gain even more input outside the classroom. Such materials should only focus on grammatical rules that are easy to learn and apply. Readers should have much more reading material in them and much fewer exercises and should have enough content that students can choose which topics to read about. A quote from the conclusion: "Even if the theory presented here is totally correct, and my suggestions for application are in fact the appropriate ones, there are some serious problems that need to be mentioned before concluding. These have to do with the acceptance, by teachers and students, of language acquisition as primary, and comprehensible input as the means of encouraging language acquisition. These problems are caused by the fact that acquisition differs from learning in two major ways: acquisition is slow and subtle, while learning is fast and, for some people, obvious.... I think that I have presented a conservative view of language acquisition theory and its applications, conservative in the sense that it attempts to be consistent with all empirical data that are known to me. It is consistent with the way thousands of people have acquired second languages throughout history, and in many cases acquired them very well. They acquired second languages while they were focused on something else, while they were gaining interesting or needed information, or interacting with people they liked to be with."
http://languageimpact.com/articles/rw/krashenbk.htm

Second-Language Learning
Foertsch (1998) describes second-language learning as an important factor that influences how children learn to read: "The ways in which children communicate in their home cultures are critical to the development of written language models of reading and writing. The home language of students provides the foundation for the emergence of reading and writing behaviors. If there is a mismatch between the structures, values, and expectations of the home language and school language, children may be at a disadvantage for

success in early reading tasks, and thus spend their entire school careers attempting to catch up (Gay, 1988; Snow, 1992). As long as the number of families immigrating to the United States continues to grow, many children will be entering school with a language other than English. Snow (1992) suggests that literacy be defined in light of language variety. That is, literacy should be defined in terms of what it takes to function in one's culture on a daily basis rather than solely upon an indefinable standard language. Thus, literacy is much more than simply being able to read and write; rather, it is a set of complex tasks and behaviors that may, for some individuals, encompass the use of several languages and ways of being literate. Given this definition of literacy, learning to read in the language that encompasses those things familiar and meaningful is critical to success in learning to read in a second language. Research shows that language-minority students face many challenges in school. For example, they are 1.5 times more likely to drop out of school than native speakers (Cardenas, Robledo, & Waggoner, 1988). English-language learners also receive lower grades, are judged by their teachers to have lower academic abilities, and score below their classmates on standardized tests of reading and math (Moss & Puma, 1995). The best way to assist students as they learn English as their second language continues to be hotly debated. Collier (1995) asserts it is a mistake to believe that the first thing students must learn is English, thus isolating the language from a broad complex of other issues. Much of the debate rests exactly here: Should students know English before they are allowed to join their peers in classrooms? Both cognitive development and academic development in the first language have been found to have positive effects on second-language learning (Bialystock, 1991; Collier, 1989, 1992; Garcia, [E.] 1994; Genessee, 1987, 1994; Thomas & Collier, 1997). Academic skills, literacy development, concept formation, subject knowledge, and strategy development learned in the first language transfer to the second language. However, because literacy is socially situated, it is equally critical to provide a supportive school envirornment that allows the academic and cognitive development in the first language to flourish. Research strongly supports the idea that native language use is advantageous in English-language acquisition (August & Hakuta, 1997; Cuevas, 1997). This use is defined within a range from commitment to a bilingual program to programs in which almost all instruction takes place in English and the native language is used to clarify and extend students' understanding. Second-language students make sense of the second language by using many of the same strategies that worked so well in

acquiring the first language. What is different, however, is that second-language students already have an understanding of the meanings, uses, and purposes of language; they now must now go on to learn how the second language--oral and in print--expresses those purposes, uses, and meanings (Lindfors, 1987). It is important to understand the consequences of various program designs for students learning English. In U.S. schools where all instruction is given through the second language (i.e., English), non-native speakers with no schooling in their first language take seven to ten years to reach age- and grade-level norms (Cummins, 1981). Immigrant students who have had two to three years of schooling in their first language (in their home countries) take at least five to seven years to reach age- and grade-level norms (Cummins, 1981). Non-native speakers schooled in a second language for part or all of the day typically do reasonably well in early years; from fourth grade, however, when academic and cognitive demands of the curriculum increase rapidly, students with little or no academic and cognitive development in their first language fail to maintain positive gains (Collier, 1995). Students who have spent four to seven years in a quality bilingual program sustain academic achievement and outperform monolingually schooled students in the upper grades. Environments filled with print examples in both languages are important to successful acquisition (Hudelson, 1987). For example, children's literature in both languages should be in classroom and school libraries for children to access at both school and home; newspapers and other examples of community literacy should be available in both languages at home and at school; signs in classrooms should be in both languages, as appropriate. It also is important that a variety of opportunities to read and write in both languages be available in the classroom (Janopoulos, 1986; Moll, 1992). Learning to read and write in the first language supports success with reading and writing in the second language (August & Hakuta, 1997; Cuevas, 1997; Roberts, 1994). Also, literacy skills related to decoding tasks of reading have been found to transfer between languages (Bialystock, 1991; Goodman, Goodman, & Flores, 1979; Hudelson, 1987; Mace-Matluck, 1982). However, these skills must be contextualized within meaningful instructional contexts for full transfer to occur. English vocabulary is a primary determinant of reading comprehension for second-language readers. Those students whose first language has many cognates with English have an advantage in English vocabulary recognition, but they often require explicit instruction to optimize transfer for comprehension (Garcia & Nagy, 1993). Clearly, it is important for educators to find a potential for reciprocity between the two languages.

Many studies support a balanced literacy program as appropriate for students whose first language is not English. A balanced literacy program provides a balance of explicit instruction and student-directed activities that incorporate aspects of both traditional and meaning-based curricula (Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1991; Goldenberg & Sullivan, 1994; Moll, 1988). However, there is no one best way to teach Englishlanguage learners. Different approaches are necessary because of the great diversity of conditions faced by schools and the varying experiences of English learners with literacy and schooling in their first language (August & Hakuta, 1997). Knapp and Shields (1990) caution that instruction for cultural-, ethnic-, and linguisticminority students that is primarily skill-based may limit children's learning. Skillbased instruction fails to develop children's analytical or conceptual skills and fails to provide purposes for learning. Research suggests that instructional methods for teaching reading to these children should focus on meaning construction (Au, 1993; O'Donnell & Wood, 1992), language development (Heath & Mangiola, 1991; Ovando, 1993; Tharp, 1989), and higher-order thinking skills, including metacognition and prior knowledge (Chamot, 1993; Crawford, 1993; Cummins, 1986; Pogrow, 1992). Both Delpit (1988) and Gay (1988) advocate a 'balanced' curriculum for minority students that provides explicit and flexible instruction in English within a meaningful context." (pp. 13-15)
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/reading/li7lk12.htm

Resources
Online Resources: Digests December 2000 EDO-FL-00-12

Brain Research: Implications for Second Language Learning

Fred Genesee, McGill University
Download a PDF of this digest.

There has been a longstanding interest among second and foreign language educators in research on language and the brain. Language learning is a natural phenomenon; it occurs even without intervention. By

understanding how the brain learns naturally, language teachers may be better able to enhance their effectiveness in the classroom.

Brain Development: Can Teaching Make a Difference?

It has long been known that different regions of the brain have specialized functions. For example, the frontal lobes are involved in abstract reasoning and planning, while the posterior lobes are involved in vision. Until recently, it was believed that these specialized regions developed from a genetic blueprint that determined the structure and function of specific areas of the brain. That is, particular areas of the brain were designed for processing certain kinds of information from birth. New evidence suggests that the brain is much more malleable than previously thought. Recent findings indicate that the specialized functions of specific regions of the brain are not fixed at birth but are shaped by experience and learning. To use a computer analogy, we now think that the young brain is like a computer with incredibly sophisticated hardwiring, but no software. The software of the brain, like the software of desktop computers, harnesses the exceptional processing capacity of the brain in the service of specialized functions, like vision, smell, and language. All individuals have to acquire or develop their own software in order to harness the processing power of the brain with which they are born. A number of studies support this view. However, all were carried out on animals, because it is not possible to do such research with humans. Caution is called for when extrapolating these findings to humans. The studies discussed below reveal the incredible neural flexibility of the developing (and aging) brain. (See Chapter 5 in Elman et al., 1997). Cortical tissue transplanted from its original location to a new location in the brain of young animals takes on the structure and function of its new location and not those of its original location. More specifically, neurons in the visual cortex of rodents have been transplanted to regions of the brain that are normally linked to bodily and sensory functions. The transplanted tissue comes to function like somato-sensory neurons and loses the capacity to process visual information (O'Leary & Stanfield, 1985). Likewise, if input from the eyes is rerouted from what would normally be the visual area of the brain to what is normally the auditory area of the brain, the area receiving the visual input develops the capacity to process visual and not auditory information; in other words, it is the input that determines the function of specific areas of the brain (Sur, Pallas, & Roe, 1990). Greenenough, Black, and Wallace (1993) have shown enhanced synaptic growth in young and aging rats raised in complex environments, and Karni et al. (1995) have shown expansion of cortical involvement in performance of motor tasks following additional learningin other words, the cortical map can change even in adulthood in response to enriched environmental or learning experiences. These findings may have implications for language educators: for one thing, that teaching and teachers can make a difference in brain development, and that they shouldn't give up on older language learners.

Learning Through Connections

The understanding that the brain has areas of specialization has brought with it the tendency to teach in ways that reflect these specialized functions. For example, research concerning the specialized functions of the left and right hemispheres has led to left and right hemisphere teaching. Recent research suggests that such an approach does not reflect how the brain learns, nor how it functions once learning has occurred. To the contrary, "in most higher vertebrates (humans), brain systems interact together as a whole brain with the external world" (Elman et al., 1997, p. 340). Learning by the brain is about making connections within the brain and between the brain and the outside world. What does this mean? Until recently, the idea that the neural basis for learning resided in connections between neurons remained speculation. Now, there is direct evidence that when learning occurs, neurochemical communication between neurons is facilitated, and less input is required to activate established connections over time. New evidence also indicates that learning creates connections between not only adjacent neurons but also between distant neurons, and that connections are made from simple circuits to complex ones and from complex circuits to simple ones. For example, exposure to unfamiliar speech sounds is initially registered by the brain as undifferentiated neural activity. Neural activity is diffuse, because the brain has not learned the acoustic patterns that distinguish one sound from another. As exposure continues, the listener (and the brain) learns to differentiate among different sounds and even among short sequences of sounds that correspond to words or parts of words. Neural connections that reflect this learning process are formed in the auditory (temporal) cortex of the left hemisphere for most individuals. With further exposure, both the simple and complex circuits (corresponding to simple sounds and sequences of sounds) are activated at virtually the same time and more easily. As connections are formed among adjacent neurons to form circuits, connections also begin to form with neurons in other regions of the brain that are associated with visual, tactile, and even olfactory information related to the sound of the word. These connections give the sound of the word meaning. Some of the brain sites for these other neurons are far from the neural circuits that correspond to the component sounds of the words; they include sites in other areas of the left hemisphere and even sites in the right hemisphere. The whole complex of interconnected neurons that are activated by the word is called a neural network. The flow of neural activity is not unidirectional, from simple to complex; it also goes from complex to simple. For example, higher order neural circuits that are activated by contextual information associated with the word doggie can prime the lower order circuit associated with the sound doggie with the result that the word doggie can be retrieved with little direct input. Complex circuits can be activated at the same time as simple circuits, because the brain is receiving input from multiple external sourcesauditory, visual, spatial, motor. At the same time that the auditory circuit for the word doggie is activated, the visual circuit

associated with the sight of a dog is also activated. Simultaneous activation of circuits in different areas of the brain is called parallel processing. In early stages of learning, neural circuits are activated piecemeal, incompletely, and weakly. It is like getting a glimpse of a partially exposed and very blurry photo. With more experience, practice, and exposure, the picture becomes clearer and more detailed. As exposure is repeated, less input is needed to activate the entire network. With time, activation and recognition are relatively automatic, and the learner can direct her attention to other parts of the task. This also explains why learning takes time. Time is needed to establish new neural networks and connections between networks. This suggests that the neural mechanism for learning is essentially the same as the products of learninglearning is a process that establishes new connections among networks and the new skills or knowledge that are learned are neural circuits and networks. What are the implications of these findings for teaching? First, effective teaching should include a focus on both parts and wholes. Instructional approaches that advocate teaching parts and not wholes or wholes and not parts are misguided, because the brain naturally links local neural activity to circuits that are related to different experiential domains. For example, in initial reading instruction, teaching phonics independently of the meaning of the words and their meaningful use is likely to be less effective than teaching both in parallel. Relating the mechanics of spelling to students' meaningful use of written language to express themselves during diary writing, for example, provides important motivational incentives for learning to read and write. Second, and related to the preceding point, teaching (and learning) can proceed from the bottom up (simple to complex) and from the top down (complex to simple). Arguments for teaching simple skills in isolation assume that learners can only initially handle simple information and that the use of simple skills in more complex ways should proceed slowly and progressively. Brain research indicates that higher order brain centers that process complex, abstract information can activate and interact with lower order centers, as well as vice versa. For example, teaching students simple emotional expressions (vocabulary and idioms) can take place in the context of talking about different emotions and what situations elicit different emotions. Students' vocabulary acquisition can be enhanced when it is embedded in real-world complex contexts that are familiar to them. Third, students need time and experience ("practice") to consolidate new skills and knowledge to become fluent and articulated.

Are All Brains the Same?

Brains are not all the same. Take the early research on left-right hemispheric differences with respect to language. For most individuals, the left hemisphere is critically involved in most normal language functions. We know this because damage to the left hemisphere in adults leads to language impairment, which is often permanent. However, approximately 10% of normal right-handed individuals have a different pattern of lateralization; their right hemispheres or both hemispheres play a critical role in language (Banich, 1997, pp. 306-312). Males and females have somewhat different patterns of lateralization, with males being more left-

hemisphere dominant than females. In the domain of reading, brain maps of students with dyslexia demonstrate that there are very large individual differences in the areas of the brain that underlie their difficulties (Bigler, 1992). We also know that the areas of the brain that are important in specific domains of learning can change over the life span. There is increasing evidence of right hemisphere involvement in early language learning but less in later learning. Young children with lesions to their right hemisphere demonstrate delays in word comprehension and the use of symbolic and communicative gestures. These problems are not found in adults with right hemisphere lesions. Stiles and Thal have argued that there may be a link between the word comprehension problems of children and the right hemisphere, because "to understand the meaning of a new word, children have to integrate information from many different sources. These sources include acoustic input, but they also include visual information, tactile information, memories of the immediately preceding context, emotionsin short, a range of experiences that define the initial meaning of a word and refine that meaning over time" (Stiles and Thal, as cited in Elman et al., pp. 309-310). We know from a variety of sources that integration across domains of experience is a right-hemisphere function. By implication, brain research confirms what we know from education research: that educators must make provisions for individual differences in learning styles by providing alternative grouping arrangements, instructional materials, time frames, and so on. Instruction for beginning language learners, in particular, should take into account their need for context-rich, meaningful environments. Individual differences in learning style may not be a simple matter of personal preference, but rather of individual differences in the hardwiring of the brain and, thus, beyond individual control.

Conclusions
Our understanding of the brain is continually evolving, thus our interpretation of the implications of findings from brain-based research for teaching and learning should also continually evolve. Brain research cannot prescribe what we should teach, how we should organize complex sequences of teaching, nor how we should work with students with special needs. Educators should not abandon their traditional sources of insight and guidance when it comes to planning effective instruction. They should continue to draw on and develop their own insights about learning based on their classroom experiences and classroom-based research to complement the insights that are emerging from advances in brain research.

References
Banich, M.T. (1997). Neuropsychology: The neural bases of mental function. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Bigler, E.D. (1992). The neurobiology and neuropsychology of adult learning disorders.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 488-506.

Elman, J., Bates, E.A., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1997).Rethinking innateness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Greenenough, W.T., Black, J.E., & Wallace, C.S. (1993). Experience and brain development. In M. Johnson (Ed.), Brain development and cognition: A reader (pp. 290-322). Oxford: Blackwell. Karni, A., Meyer, G., Jezzard, P., Adams, M., Turner, R., & Ungerleider, L. (1995). Functional MRI evidence for adult motor cortex plasticity during motor skill learning. Nature, 377,155-58). O'Leary, D.D., & Stanfield, B.B. (1985). Occipital cortical neurons with transient pyramidal tract axons extend and maintain collaterals to subcortical but not intracortical targets.Brain Research, 336, 326-333. Sur, M., Pallas, S.L., & Roe, A.W. (1990). Cross-modal plasticity in cortical development: Differentiation and specification of sensory neocortex. Trends in Neuroscience, 13, 227-233.
This digest was produced jointly with the Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE).

Second language acquisition (SLA) research: its significance for learning and teaching issues
Author: Florence Myles Florence Myles

Abstract
The purpose of this general overview article is to outline how research into second language acquisition (SLA) over the last few decades has fed into our understanding of learning and teaching in foreign language classrooms. After a very brief overview of SLA research findings concerning both route and rate of L2 development, theoretical models attempting to explain these findings are presented, ranging from purely linguistic to cognitive models and social/interactionist models. The relationship between SLA research and second language pedagogy is then explored. Finally, recent developments investigating specifically the relationship between instruction and L2 development are outlined.

Table of contents
1. Introduction 2. Systematicity

3. Variability 4. Conclusion - SLA research and good practice 5. Glossary Bibliography Related links

1. Introduction
The two main, well documented findings of SLA research of the past few decades are as follows:

1. second language acquisition is highly systematic 2. second language acquisition is highly variable Although these two statements might appear contradictory at first sight, they are not. The first one primarily refers to what has been called the route of development (the nature of the stages all learners go through when acquiring the second language - L2). This route remains largely independent of both the learner's mother tongue (L1) and the context of learning (e.g. whether instructed in a classroom or acquired naturally by exposure). The second statement usually refers to either the rate of the learning process (the speed at which learners are learning the L2), or theoutcome of the learning process (how proficient learners become), or both. We all know that both speed of learning and range of outcomes are highly variable from learner to learner: some do much better much more quickly than others. Before we expand on these findings a little more, it is important to note that, traditionally, the concern for rate of learning has been the centre of teachers' and learners' attention. This is because it has obvious pedagogical implications: if we understand what makes learners learn faster and progress further, then maybe we can be better teachers or learners. However, these two lines of enquiry are both part and parcel of the same endeavour, which is to understand thoroughly how learners learn. In fact, understanding the route learners follow, and therefore having clear expectations of what learners can achieve at given points on the developmental continuum, is crucially important for both learners and teachers. Such study leads us, for example, to a better understanding of the significance of errors in the learning process. Producing them need not be seen as necessarily problematic (in fact, some errors can be evidence of a more advanced linguistic system than the equivalent correct form: for example, learners will usually produce rote-learned formulaic questions such as 'where's X?', e.g. 'where's the ball?', in which 'where's' is an unanalysed chunk, before producing the developmentally more advanced 'where the ball is?', the second stage in the development of the interrogative system before the final stage in which 'where is the ball?' is produced correctly; See e.g. Myles et al1998 and 1999 for a discussion. This is often referred to as the 'U shape of learning', typical also of L1 learners, by which learners start with the correct rote-learned form, e.g. took, before over-applying the past tense rule and producing taked, prior to learning the exception to the rule and producing took again, creatively rather than rote-learned this time.

Teachers will also be less frustrated, and their learners too, when they become aware that teaching will not cause skilful control of a linguistic structure if it is offered before a learner is developmentally ready to acquire it. Now, of course, if we can speed up progression along the route that research has identified we need to understand how to do so. But understanding this route is inseparably bound up with clarifying the question of rapid and effective teaching.

The robust research findings regarding the systematicity of the route followed by L2 learners do not have straightforward implications for language teaching, however. One logical possibility might be that curricula should closely follow developmental routes; this is not sensible however, given (a) the incomplete nature of our knowledge of these routes, (b) the fact that classrooms are typically made up of learners who are not neatly located at a single developmental stage, and (c) the fact that developmental stages typically contain non-target forms. (For example, typical stages in the acquisition of negation will be: 1. 'no want pudding'; 2. 'me no want pudding' 3. 'I don't want pudding', with forms 1 and 2 representing normal developmental stages, therefore to be expected in early L2 productions, but which will not be taught). Other possibilities are that curricula should be recursive with inbuilt redundancy, and that teachers should not expect immediate accuracy when teaching a new structure, or that they should give up on closely prescribed grammar curricula and opt instead for functional and/or task-based syllabus models. Many teachers/language educators have actively welcomed the role of 'facilitator' rather than 'shaper' of development, implied by such models.

I will now briefly summarise research findings relating to both systematicity and variability, drawing implications for teaching methodology as I go along.

2. Systematicity
A substantial part of the SLA research community has concentrated on documenting and trying to understand the discovery that language learning is highly systematic. A defining moment for the field was in the late 70s / early 80s when it became evident that L2 learners follow a fairly rigid developmental route, in the same way as children learning their L1 do, and not dissimilar in many respects from the L1 route. Moreover, this developmental route, crudely represented below as a series of interlocking linguistic systems (or interlanguages: La, Lb, Ln ), sometimes bore little resemblance to either the L1 of the learner, or the L2 being learnt.

Developmental route

Crucially, these interlanguages are linguistic systems in their own right, with their own set of rules. For example,Hernndez-Chvez (1972) showed that although the plural is realised in almost exactly the same way in Spanish and in English, Spanish children learning English still went through a phase of omitting plural marking. It had been assumed prior to this that second language learners' productions were a mixture of both L1 and L2, with the L1 either helping or hindering the process depending on whether structures are similar or different in the two languages. This was clearly shown not to be the case, even if the L1 of learners does of course play some role, especially in early stages and more persistently at the level of pronunciation (more about this later). For example, the developmental stages in the acquisition of German word-order, in both naturalistic and instructed learning contexts and irrespective of the L1 of the learners, are claimed to be as follows (Pienemann 1998): Stage 1: Canonical Order (SVO) Die kinder spielen mim ball (= the children play with the ball) Learners initially hypothesise that German is SVO, with adverbials in sentence-final position.

Stage 2:

Adverb preposing Da kinder spielen (= there children play) Learners now place the adverb in sentence initial position, but keep the SVO order (no verb-subject inversion yet).

Stage 3:

Verb separation Aller kinder muss die pause machen (= all children must the pause make) Learners place the non-finite verbal element in clause-final position.

Stage 4:

Verb-second Dann hat sie wieder die knoch gebringt (= then has she again the bone brought) Learners now place the verb in sentence-second position, resulting in verb-subject inversion.

Stage 5:

Verb-final in subordinate clauses Er sagte dass er nach hause kommt (= he said that he to home comes) Learners place the finite verb in clause-final position in subordinate clauses.

Similar sequences of acquisition have been found for a wide range of structures in a range of languages (see e.g. Ellis 1994; Mitchell & Myles 1998). After the 1980s the SLA research agenda focused on (a) documenting the route followed by learners in a range of structures and languages - although English remains by far the most studied L2, and increasingly (b) explaining this route which, if it is for the most part independent of both the L1 and the context of learning, must be due to learner-internal processes. This still remains today a crucial part of the SLA research agenda.

2.1 Learning Development Models (Universal Grammar, Cognitive models, Interactionist / Sociocultural models)
The theoretical approaches which have been used in order to investigate L2 development fall into three broad categories:

Universal Grammar (UG)

The UG approach, following in the footsteps of L1 acquisition research, applies the Chomskyan paradigm (Cook & Newson 1996; White 1989; 1996; 2000) to the study of L2 development. See papers by Adger and Sorace in this guide. In a nutshell this linguistic theory claims that humans inherit a mental language faculty which highly constrains the shape that human languages can take and therefore severely limits the kind of hypotheses that children can entertain regarding the structure of the language they are exposed to. This is why children acquire their first language easily and speedily, in spite of its complexity and abstractness, at an age when they are not cognitively equipped to deal with abstract concepts generally. In this view, the core of language is separate from other aspects of cognition, although it operates in close interaction with them of course. If the L2 developmental route is similar in many respects to the L1 route, then it must also be because the innate UG constrains L2 development. This approach has given rise to a wealth of studies (see for example White 1989, 1996, 2000; Flynn, Martohardjono & O'Neil 1998; Schwartz 1998;Archibald 2000; Herschensohn 2000; Balcom 2001; Hawkins 2001a, 2001b).

Cognitive models

The cognitive and information processing models generally, which originate from psychology (and neurolinguistics), claim, on the other hand, that language learning is no different from other types of learning, and is the result of the human brain building up networks of associations on the basis of input. Information processing models see learning as the shift from controlled processes (dealt with in the short term or working memory and under attentional control) to automatised processes stored in the long term

memory (retrieved quickly and effortlessly). Through this process, what starts as declarative knowledge (knowing 'that') becomes procedural knowledge (knowing 'how') which becomes automatic through repeated practice. Recently, connectionist models have further assumed that all learning takes place through the building of patterns which become strengthened through practice. Computer models of such processes have had some success in replicating the L1 and L2 acquisition of some linguistic patterns (e.g. past tense, gender; Sokolik & Smith 1992; Ellis & Schmidt 1997). The view of language encapsulated withinconnectionism, as this view of cognition is called, is fundamentally different from linguistic models, where language is seen as a system of rules rather than as patterned behaviour. In both the UG and cognitive models, the focus is on explaining learner-internal mechanisms, and how they interact with the input in order to give rise to learning. The emphasis on the role played by the input however, varies, with the UG approach assuming that as long as input is present learning will take place, and the other models placing a larger burden on how the input is decoded by learners, paying particular attention to concepts such as noticing or attention.

Interactionist/sociocultural models
In contrast to these models, the interactionist approach has paid particular attention to the nature of the interactions L2 learners typically engage in. It has focused on investigating, for example, the role of negotiation for meaning in the context of NS-NNS (Native Speaker - Non-Native Speaker) conversations (Gallaway & Richards 1994; Gass 1997;Gass & Varonis 1994; Pica 1994; Oliver 1995; Long 1996), in order to see how interactions are modified by both NSs and NNSs to ensure that the input the latter receive is comprehensible. The role of feedback given to learners when they make mistakes has also been the object of attention (Aljaafreh & Lantolf 1994; Lyster & Ranta 1997; Long, Inagaki & Ortega 1998). For example, Lyster & Ranta (1997) found that the most common feedback given to learners when they produce incorrect forms are recasts, i.e. a repetition of the learner's utterance minus the error; however, they also found that recasts were the kind of negative feedback learners were most likely to ignore. Researchers adopting a socio-cultural framework, following in the footsteps of Vygotsky (1978; 1986), who believed that all learning was essentially social, have explored the way in which L2s are learned through a process of co-construction between 'experts' and 'novices'. Language learning is seen as the appropriation of a tool through the shift from inter-mental to intra-mental processes. Learners first need the help of experts in order to 'scaffold' them into the next developmental stages before they can appropriate the newly acquired knowledge. This is seen as a quintessentially social process, in which interaction plays a central role, not as a source of input, but as a shaper of development (Lantolf & Appel 1994; Lantolf 2000).

2.2 Teaching implications

The implications of these models of learning for teaching methodologies are essentially as follows:

UG

If the development of the L2 linguistic system is primarily driven by learner-internal mechanisms,

requiring the learner to map the L2 input onto an innate highly constrained linguistic blueprint, then all the classroom needs to provide is linguistic input, and learning will take care of itself. In this view, the L2 acquisition process is seen as very similar to L1 acquisition, and children do not need to be taught grammar in order to become fluent native speakers. The UG view of language learning is consistent with the communicative language teaching approach, in the sense that both believe that learning will take place if rich natural input is present. It is important to stress though, that the two approaches developed independently of one another, with UG evolving out of the need to understand how children acquire their mother tongue, and then being applied to L2 acquisition, and communicative language teaching being the result of the perceived failure of grammar-translation or audiolingual methodologies by teachers, who felt that they did not prepare learners for real life communication needs. Krashen (1982, 1985) was influential in articulating the first model putting together these views of learning and teaching, and the subsequent work on the role of input and interaction helped us better to understand how different kinds of interactions may contribute to providing usable input for the learner (Gass 1997; Pica 1994; Long 1996; Swain 1995). Cognitivism The information processing or connectionist models, on the other hand, which see learning as the strengthening of associations and the automatisation of routines, lead to much more behaviourist views of learning. Thus learners are seen as central to the acquisition process, in the sense that they have to practise until patterns are well established, and external variables take on a much greater role. For example, the role of input, interaction and feedback, and how they can speed up development, is seen as much more crucial, as is the role of practice in the development of fluency and control of the L2 system. Combining the models These two apparently conflicting approaches are not the only ones that have been applied to the study of second language learning and teaching, but they have received most interest and generated most empirical work. These models might appear contradictory at first sight, but in fact they can be reconciled in so far as they are concerned with different aspects of SLA, which is, after all, a highly complex process.

Even if one accepts the view that language development is highly constrained, possibly by UG (and, after all, the robust developmental routes that learners follow, as illustrated earlier, seem to be a strong argument in favour of this view), it is not the whole picture. We also need to understand many aspects of the SLA process other than the acquisition of syntax and morphology, such as lexical acquisition or the development of pragmatic and sociolinguistic repertoires. Moreover, if developmental sequences show how learners construct the L2 linguistic system, they do not tell us anything about how learners develop their ability to access in real time the system they have constructed. In other words, if we believe UG constrains the mental grammars constructed by L2 learners, we still need to understand how learners become more fluent.

In order to understand SLA, we need to know not only what the system constructed by learners looks like, but also the procedures which enable efficient use of this system, and how the two interact in real time, as well as develop over time. The fact that these two endeavours are independent is clearly evident when we think of learners who are good system builders, i.e. they are accurate in their productions, but not necessarily good at accessing this system in real time, i.e. they are very non-fluent. The reverse is also true, with some learners developing high levels of fluency quickly, but remaining very inaccurate in their productions.

Similarly, if we are to find out what can facilitate the learning process, we need to gain a much better understanding of the kinds of interactions and social settings which promote learner development. Gass (1997), for example, argues that task-based methodologies (in which learners have to negotiate with one another in order to perform a meaning-focused activity) force learners to notice 'gaps' in their L2, a prerequisite for filling such gaps. Swain (1995), in her 'pushed output hypothesis', argues that it is when learners' own productions fail to meet their communicative goals that they are forced to revise their linguistic system. Some recent teaching methodologies have recognised the important role played by the setting of learning, and by the quality of interactions therein. Although not necessarily well-informed either theoretically or empirically, a number of humanistic teaching methodologies such as 'suggestopaedia' (which aims to relax the student through e.g. listening to music), or 'the silent way' (making use of coloured rods to express meaning), which believe that L2 learning is facilitated if the learner's inner-self is set free from inhibitions by providing a stress-free learning environment, have been very popular in some parts of the world.

3. Variability
The variability that occurs in L2 development, in terms of rate of acquisition and outcome, have received much less attention in the SLA literature until relatively recently. This was because of the very robust general findings showing that, in key respects, learners develop in similar ways no matter what their age is, whether they are learning the L2 in a classroom or in a country where the language is spoken, no matter what their L1 is, and no matter what they were actually taught. As more and more empirical research has been carried out, however, a number of important points have emerged which have meant qualifying these statements somewhat.

3.1 Variability in route

Despite the relative rigidity of the L2 learning route, transfer does occur in so far as the L1 has an impact upon L2 learning, even if it remains true that it is primarily in the sense of speeding up the learning process in the case of closely related languages or similar linguistic structures, rather than changing the

route of development itself (i.e. learners still follow the same stages, but at different speeds, depending on their L1). For example, Italian learners of French will acquire the idiosyncratic placement of object pronouns in French more quickly than say English learners because it is similar in both languages, but they will still go through the same stages, when in fact transferring their L1 structure would lead to acquisition of the correct system. In fact there is ample evidence, in the literature, of transfer not taking place when it would help, and conversely of transfer taking place when it leads to errors. Moreover, transfer often occurs one way and not the other, with English learners of French, for example, producing la souris mange le (the mouse eats it) rather than la souris le mange (the mouse it eats), but French learners of English never produce the mouse it eats in their interlanguage, which one would expect if transfer was taking place (Hawkins 2001a). But there are also areas in which the L1 gives rise to structures not found in the language of other L2 learners (see e.g. Odlin 1989; Selinker 1992). The impact of the L1 on interlanguage development needs to be better understood, even if its potential influence on SLA remains limited since we know that only a small subsection of structures from the L1 are likely candidates for transfer.

3.2 Variability in rate and outcome

In contrast to the undeniable systematicity of the route of development (bar the relatively minor differences alluded to previously) the rate of acquisition and the outcome of the acquisition process are highly variable, unlike L1 acquisition in which children seem to progress at roughly similar rates (give or take a few months), and all become native speakers of the language they are exposed to.

It is very difficult to predict in second language acquisition what makes some people learn faster and better than others. Some factors have been isolated as playing some part in this. For example, age is one such factor (Singleton & Lengyel 1995). Although the commonly held view that children are better L2 learners is a gross oversimplification if not a complete myth, differences have been found between children and adults, primarily in terms of eventual outcome. Although teenagers and adults have been found to be generally better and faster L2 learners than young children in the initial stages of the learning process (on a wide range of different measures), children, however, usually carry on progressing until they become indistinguishable from native speakers whereas adults do not, especially as far as pronunciation is concerned. Whether this is due to the process of acquisition having changed fundamentally in adulthood (e.g. because UG is not available anymore once the L1 has been acquired), or for other reasons (e.g. the process remains the same but stops short of native competence), is an issue hotly debated today, and the source of much empirical investigation (Birdsong 1999). The fact remains, though, that the route followed by young and older L2 learners is essentially the same, and is similar in many respects to that followed by children learning that language as a native language. Another salient difference when comparing L1 and L2 outcomes is that whereas native competence is the norm in the L1 context, it is the exception in the case of L2s. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as fossilisation. Some structures seem very difficult to acquire in the L2, even when there is plenty of input. In immersion programmes in Canada, in which English-speaking children are taught the normal

curriculum through French and are therefore exposed to large amounts of input within a communicative focus, end results have been mixed. Although these children become very proficient and fluent in French, their accuracy in some areas (e.g. gender, adverb placement etc.; White 1996; Harley 1998; Hawkins 1998) remains far from native-like, suggesting that some aspects of language resist spontaneous acquisition. In order to explain variability in rate and outcome, SLA researchers have focused primarily on the role of external factors in the acquisition process. As we have seen, one line of research inquiry has addressed questions about the nature of the input and the role of interaction in the learning process. Other lines of inquiry have investigated the role of learner variables, such as intelligence, aptitude, motivation, attitude, as well as the social and sociolinguistic variables which impact on them (Skehan 1989; 1998; Berry 1998; Drnyei 2001; Sawyer & Ranta 2001). These variables have been found to play an important role in determining how successful learners are. For example, recent motivation research has witnessed something of a boom since the nineties, with research questions becoming more sophisticated and addressing more directly language teaching issues. Motivation is now seen as situation-dependent as well as a relatively stable learner trait, and much work has been carried out investigating issues such as the role of tasks in motivating learners, the role of the teacher in motivating learners, or the role of learning strategies in enhancing motivation (Drnyei 2001 and 2002). If motivation, as well as other learner variables, is now widely recognised as playing a determining role in SLA, more research needs to be carried out on its pedagogical implications, i.e. on how to motivate learners. For further discussion, see article in this Guide on Learner Difference by Skehan .

4. Conclusion - SLA research and good practice

The picture emerging from research into second language development is, unsurprisingly, highly complex, and many factors have been identified as playing a role. Here I will outline more systematically the relationship which is emerging between SLA research and language pedagogy at the beginning of this century.

As SLA research has matured, and the key constructs which form its theoretical basis have become established, the field has become better able to look outwards and investigate the role of different contexts of learning. Furthermore, there has been renewed interest in grammar pedagogy (Lightbown 2000; Mitchell 2000), partly because of the perceived failure of contexts of learning promoting 'natural' communication (immersion, and Communicative Language Teaching) in producing learners who are consistently accurate in their productions. Consequently, the role of instruction and the role of the input in facilitating the L2 learning process have increasingly become foci of interest. Form-focused instruction Many researchers have used current understanding of the relationship between cognition and SLA in order to investigate what kind of instruction is most helpful (Doughty & Williams 1998; Doughty 2001; Ellis 2001; Robinson 2001). In an extensive review of the empirical literature on the effectiveness of instruction,Norris & Ortega (2000, 2001) conclude that explicit form-

focused instruction is effective in promoting learning. The object of most of these studies is to test what kind of instruction is most effective, such as 'input enhancement' (that is ways of making the input more noticeable for learners, such as e.g. having all object pronouns in bold in a text if the focus of the class is object pronouns, or 'input flood' in which learners are exposed to vast quantities of a given structure). Different ways of presenting structural input have also been explored, with explicit form-focused instruction being contrasted with implicit form-focused instruction (with learners having to work out the rule for themselves, or having the rule made explicit to them). Although the results of this increasingly rich and sophisticated new body of research are tentative at present, it has identified key themes/agendas for further research, such as the role of explicit vs. implicit instruction, the role of negative evidence or the role of noticing. This research is crucial for gaining a better understanding of the relationship between learning and teaching (Mitchell 2000). Concluding observations To conclude, SLA research is an extremely buoyant field of study which has attracted much theoretical and empirical work in the last two or three decades. Much progress has been made in gaining a better understanding of the processes involved in learning second languages, as well as the different external factors which affect this process. Although these complementary agendas remain less integrated than one might wish, bridges are being built which connect them. Similarly, the implications of SLA research for teaching are now receiving more attention, as is the specificity of the classroom context for understanding learning, but much more work remains to be done in these areas. There is still a huge gap - not unsurprisingly, given the limits of our knowledge - between the complementary agendas of understanding the psycholinguistic processes involved in the construction of L2 linguistic systems, and understanding what makes for effective classroom teaching.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Rosamond Mitchell and Emma Marsden for useful comments on an earlier version of this article, as well as Christopher Brumfit and David Bickerton for their helpful suggestions as reviewer and editor of this piece. Any remaining errors are my own.

5. Glossary
Audiolingual method The behaviourist teaching method popular in the sixties and seventies, based on the premise that you learn to speak languages through habit-formation, and therefore need to practise drills until the new habit has been learnt.

Audiolingual method

The behaviourist teaching method popular in the sixties and seventies, based on the premise that you learn to speak languages through habitformation, and therefore need to practise drills until the new habit has been learnt.

Communicative Language Teaching

This approach to teaching believes that languages are learnt through communication, and that the focus of the classroom should be on encouraging learners to engage in speaking activities which simulate 'real life' communication. This approach de-emphasises the role of a metalinguistic knowledge of the L2 linguistic system.

Fossilisation

The phenomenon by which L2 learners often stop learning even though they might be far short of native-like competence. The term is also used for specific linguistic structures which remain incorrect for lengthy periods of time in spite of plentiful input (e.g. in immigrant speakers whose fluent L2 still contains non-target like structures).

Grammartranslation method

The traditional teaching method which believed that the best way to teach languages is through the teaching of grammar and the translation of texts.

Immersion

This term refers to educational programs in which children are taught academic subjects (e.g. maths, geography etc) through the L2. These programs are well established in Canada, where many anglophone children are educated partly through the means of French (especially in the province of Quebec).

Interlanguage

A term used both to refer to the linguistic system of L2 learners at a specific point in time, and to the series of interlocking L2 systems typical of L2 development. The significance of this term is the emphasis it places on the L2 system being a linguistic system in its own right, independently of both L1 and L2.

Transfer

Use of L1 properties in the L2. Transfer can be positive, when the borrowing of an L1 structure leads to a correct form in the L2 (e.g. the German learner producing 'I am twelve years old' in English L2 as a direct translation of the German structure), or negative when it leads to an incorrect form (e.g. the French learner producing 'I have 12 years').

Bibliography
Aljaafreh, A. & J. P. Lantolf (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal 78, 4:465-83. Archibald, J. (ed.) (2000). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Balcom, P. (2001). Minimalism and beyond: Second Language Acquisition for the Twenty-first Century. Second Language Research 17, 3:306-22. Berry, J. W. (1998). Official Multiculturalism. In J. Edwards (ed.), Language in Canada, 84-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Birdsong, D. (ed.) (1999). Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cook, V., & Newson, M. (1996) Chomsky's Universal Grammar. An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Drnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Longman. Drnyei, Z. & P. Skehan (eds) (2002). Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive Underpinnings of Focus on Form. In P. Robinson. (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doughty, C. & J. Williams (eds) (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, N. C. & R. Schmidt (1997). Morphology and Longer Distance Dependencies: Laboratory Research Illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19:145-71. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (ed.) (2001). Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Flynn, S., G. Martohardjono & W. O'Neil (eds) (1998). The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Gallaway, C. & B. Richards (eds) (1994). Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gass, S. (1997) Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gass, S. & E. Varonis (1994). Input, Interaction and Second Language Production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16:283-302. Harley, B. (1998). The Role of Focus-on-form Tasks in Promoting Child L2 Acquisition. In C. W. Doughty & J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, 156-174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hawkins, R. (1998). Explaining the Difficulty of French Gender Attribution for Speakers of English. Paper presented at the EUROSLA conference, Paris. Hawkins, R. (2001a). Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Hawkins, R. (2001b). The Theoretical Significance of Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition. Second Language Research 17, 4:345-67.

Hernndez-Chvez, E. (1972). Early Code Separation in the Second Language Speech of SpanishSpeaking Children. Paper presented at the Stanford Child Language Research Forum, Stanford University. Herschensohn, J. (2000). The Second Time Around: Minimalism and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow: Longman. Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, P. & G. Appel (eds) (1994). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lightbown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA Research and Second Language Teaching. Applied Linguistics 21, 4:431-62. Long, M. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 413-68. San Diego: Academic Press. Long, M., S. Inagaki & L. Ortega (1998). The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in SLA: Models and Recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal 82:357-71. Lyster, R. & E. Ranta (1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 1:37-61. Mitchell, R. & F. Myles (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold. Mitchell, R. (2000). Applied Linguistics and Evidence-based Classroom Practice: The Case for Foreign Language Grammar Pedagogy. Applied Linguistics 21, 3:281-303. Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48(3), 323-363. Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J. (1999). Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 49-80. Norris, J. & L. Ortega (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-analysis.Language Learning 50, 417-528. Norris, J. & L. Ortega (2001). Does Type of Instruction make a Difference? Substantive Findings from a Meta-analytic Review. In R. Ellis (2001), 157-213. Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oliver, R. (1995). Negative Feedback in Child NS-NNS Conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition17:459-81. Pica, T. (1994). Research on Negotiation: What does it Reveal about Second Language Learning Conditions, Processes and Outcomes? Language Learning 44:493-527. Pienemann, M. (1998). Developmental Dynamics in L1 and L2 Acquisition: Processability Theory and Generative Entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1, 1:1-20.

Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sawyer, M. & L. Ranta (2001). Aptitude, Individual Differences, and Instructional Design. In P. Robinson (2001), 319-353. Schwartz, B. (1998). On Two Hypotheses of 'Tranfer' in L2A: Minimal Trees and Absolute L1 Influence. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono & W. O'Neil (eds), The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition, 35-60. New Jersey: Erlbaum. Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman. Singleton, D. & Z. Lengyel (eds) (1995). The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Foreign Language Learning. London: Arnold. Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sokolik, M. & M. Smith (1992). Assignment of Gender to French Nouns in Primary and Secondary Panguage: A Connectionist Model. Second Language Research 8, 1:39-58. Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (eds), Principles and practice in the study of language . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. White, L. (1996). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition: Current Trends and New Directions. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 85-120. San Diego: Academic Press. White, L. (2000). Second Language Acquisition: From Initial to Final State. In J. Archibald (2000), 130-55.

Related links
The Linguist List website http://www.linguistlist.org A general forum for academic linguists which contains a mine of information on SLA ICoSLA http://www.hw.ac.uk/langWWW/icsla/icsla.htm A site created by Michael Sharwood Smith to act as a forum of SLA academics Vivian Cook's SLA bibliography http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~vcook/slabib_front_end.htm Contains around 6000 references Applied Linguistics without tears http://members.tripod.com/ALWT/alwthome.html An ambitious site constructed by a graduate student divided into seven topic areas

Applied Linguistics Virtual Library http://alt.venus.co.uk/VL/AppLingBBK/VLPapers.html A review of these websites and others can be found in: Gottwald, S. (2002). Websites for Second Language Research. Second Language Research, 18, 1: 8394.

Referencing this article

Below are the possible formats for citing Good Practice Guide articles. If you are writing for a journal, please check the author instructions for full details before submitting your article.

MLA style: Canning, John. "Disability and Residence Abroad". Southampton, 2004. Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies Guide to Good Practice. 7 October 2008. http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2241.

Author (Date) style: Canning, J. (2004). "Disability and residence abroad." Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies Good Practice Guide. Retrieved 7 October 2008, from http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2241.

http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/421

Second Language Learning

By Melissa Lee Phillips Neuroscience for Kids Consultant August 19, 2002 Human language and its representation in the brain have fascinated scientists for many years. Progress has been made in identifying important language areas in the brain, such as Broca's and Wernicke's areas. Most research has focused on people who speak only one language. However, some researchers have become interested in the brains of people who have learned a second language. Many questions remain unanswered about the similarities and differences between first and second language learning, storage, and usage.

How Do you Say "Brain"

Broca's Area

Wernicke's Area

Substantial evidence suggests the existence of a critical learning period for first languages. A critical period for language is defined as the time period during which a person must be exposed to the spoken language in order to best learn the language. In most cases, if a person is not exposed to a language during the critical period, he or she will never be able to speak the language as well as someone who learned language normally. Although the person may be able to learn many vocabulary words, his or her syntax will probably never reach a normal level. Children who have brain damage are often able to regain their language abilities with practice. Adults, however, who suffer damage to language areas are rarely able to achieve their previous language proficiency. This observation further supports the concept that there might be a difference between learning language in childhood and adulthood. Although it is generally believed that a critical period exists for a first language, it is not known if there is a similar critical period for a second language. For example, if your first language is English, when must you start to learn Spanish, Russian, or Mandarin to be able to learn it completely? What is it about the brain that allows -- and perhaps requires -- us to learn languages at a young age? Research suggests that learning second (or third) languages is easier for young children, and some evidence indicates certain brain areas that might be involved in this learning. Several studies have related second language learning to Broca's and Wernicke's areas. In these studies, researchers compared brain function in people who spoke two languages (bilinguals) and who learned both languages early in life with brain activity of bilinguals who learned one of their languages after puberty. Early bilinguals were found to use very similar, overlapping regions of Broca's and Wernicke's areas for both languages. Late bilinguals also used overlapping regions of Wernicke's area for both languages, but they normally used different, though adjacent, regions of Broca's area for each language.

Images courtesy of Slice of Life.

Many studies suggest that the age at which a second language is learned may determine whether brain areas used for processing each language are overlapping or different. Early bilinguals seem more likely to use overlapping brain areas and late bilinguals seem more likely to use different areas for each language. Some studies have also suggested that late bilinguals are more likely to use the same cortical areas for understanding what the words mean (Wernicke's) but different areas for grammar and syntax (Broca's). Most researchers, however, emphasize that this is probably a simplified way of looking at things. It is important to remember that the brain areas that show activity during language use may not necessarily be the areas where language is stored. These areas could be used for processing or even for producing speech sounds. Practical experience tells many people that children do seem better suited to picking up new languages, but additional research is needed before we know exactly why. Information about language acquisition could be useful in determining better strategies for learning second (or third or fourth...) languages. Additionally, knowledge of the brain areas involved in language processing will almost certainly be important during neurosurgery. Surgeons need to know which brain areas are involved in language comprehension and production, so that they will not disturb these valuable centers during operations on the brain.

For references and more information, see: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CNN-Tomorrow/Today: Study sheds light on how brain processes languages The Boston Globe: Bilingualism Comes in Different Ways Technology and Bilingualism MITECS: Bilingualism and the Brain Bialystok, E. and Hakuta, K., In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of SecondLanguage Acquisition, BasicBooks, New York, 1994. 6. Chee, M.W., Caplan, D., Soon, C.S., Sriram, N., Tan., E.W., Thiel, T., and Weekes, B., Processing of visually presented sentences in Mandarin and English studied with fMRI, Neuron, Vol. 23, May 1999: 127-37. 7. Fabbro, F., The bilingual brain: cerebral representation of languages, Brain. Lang., Vol. 79, November 2001: 211-22. 8. Illes, J., Francis, W.S., Desmond,J.E., Gabrieli, J.D., Glover, G.H., Poldrack, R., Lee, C.J., and Wagner, A.D., Convergent cortical representation of semantic processing in bilinguals, Brain. Lang., Vol. 70, December 1999: 347-63. 9. Kim, K.H., Hirsch, J., Relkin, N., De Laz Paz, R., and Lee, K.M., Localization of Cortical Areas Activated by Native and Second Languages with Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI),Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 1, 1996. 10. Kim, K.H., Relkin, N.R., Lee, K.M., Hirsch, J., Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages, Nature, Vol. 388, July 10, 1997: 171-4.

11. Perani, D., Paulesu, E., Galles, N.S., Dupoux, E., Dehaene, S., Bettinardi, V., Cappa, S.F., Fazio, F., and Mehler, J., The bilingual brain. Proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language, Brain, Vol. 121, October 1998: 1841-52.
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/second.html

Context Counts in Second Language Learning

By: Aida Walqui Learning a second language is hard, but it can be made easier when the teacher knows a bit about the similarities between the first and second languages, and can successfully motivate students.

This article discusses factors that relate to learning a second language, from the perspective of the language, the learner, and the learning process.

Language
Several factors related to students' first and second languages shape their second language learning. These factors include the linguistic distance between the two languages, students' level of proficiency in the native language and their knowledge of the second language, the dialect of the native language spoken by the students (i.e., whether it is standard or nonstandard), the relative status of the students' language in the community, and societal attitudes toward the students' native language.

Language distance
Specific languages can be more or less difficult to learn, depending on how different from or similar they are to the languages the learner already knows.

Native language proficiency

The more academically sophisticated the student's native language knowledge and abilities, the easier it will be for that student to learn a second language. This helps explain why foreign exchange students tend to be successful in American high school classes: They already have high school level proficiency in their native language.

Knowledge of the second language

Students' prior knowledge of the second language is of course a significant factor in their current learning. For example, a student with informal conversational English skills may have little understanding of English grammatical systems and may need specific instruction in English grammar.

Dialect and register

Learners may need to learn a dialect and a formal register in school that are different from those they encounter in their daily lives. This involves acquiring speech patterns that may differ significantly from those they are familiar with and value as members of a particular social group or speech community.

Language status
Consideration of dialects and registers of a language and of the relationships between two languages includes the relative prestige of different languages and dialects and of the cultures and ethnic groups associated with them. Students whose first language has a low status vis a vis the second may lose their first language, perhaps feeling they have to give up their own linguistic and cultural background to join the more prestigious society associated with the target language.

Language attitudes
Language attitudes in the learner, the peer group, the school, the neighborhood, and society at large can have an enormous effect on the second language learning process, both positive and negative. It is vital that teachers and students examine and understand these attitudes. In particular, they need to understand that learning a second language does not mean giving up one's first language or dialect. Rather, it involves adding a new language or dialect to one's repertoire.

The learner
Students come from diverse backgrounds and have diverse needs and goals. With adolescent language learners, factors such as peer pressure, the presence of role models, and the level of home support can strongly affect the desire and ability to learn a second language.

Diverse needs
A basic educational principle is that new learning should be based on prior experiences and existing skills. Although this principle is known and generally agreed upon by educators, in practice it is often overshadowed by the administrative convenience of the linear curriculum and the single textbook. Differentiation and individualization are not a luxury in this context: They are a necessity.

Diverse goals
Learners' goals may determine how they use the language being learned, how native-like their pronunciation will be, how lexically elaborate and grammatically accurate their utterances will be, and how much energy they will expend to understand messages in the target language. Educators working with English language learners must also consider whether the communities in which their students live, work, and study accept them, support their efforts, and offer them genuine English-learning opportunities.

Peer groups
In second language learning, peer pressure often undermines the goals set by parents and teachers. For learners of English as a second language, speaking like a native speaker may unconsciously be regarded as a sign of no longer belonging to their native-language peer group. In working with secondary school students, it is important to keep these peer influences in mind and to foster a positive image for proficiency in a second language.

Role models
Students need to have positive and realistic role models who demonstrate the value of being proficient in more than one language. It is also helpful for students to read literature about the personal experiences of people from diverse language and dialect backgrounds. Through discussions of the challenges experienced by others, students can develop a better understanding of their own challenges.

Home support
Support from home is very important for successful second language learning. Some educators believe that parents of English language learners should speak only English in the home (see, e.g., recommendations made in Rodriguez, 1982). However, far more important than speaking English is that parents value both the native language and English, communicate with their children in whichever language is most comfortable, and show support for and interest in their children's progress.

The learning process

When we think of second language development as a learning process, we need to remember that different students have different learning styles, that intrinsic motivation aids learning, and that the quality of classroom interaction matters a great deal.

Learning styles
Research has shown that individuals vary greatly in the ways they learn a second language (Skehan, 1989). Some learners are more analytically oriented and thrive on picking apart words and sentences.

Others are more globally oriented, needing to experience overall patterns of language in meaningful contexts before making sense of the linguistic parts and forms. Some learners are more visually oriented, others more geared to sounds.

Motivation
According to Deci and Ryan (1985), intrinsic motivation is related to basic human needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Intrinsically motivated activities are those that the learner engages in for their own sake because of their value, interest, and challenge. Such activities present the best possible opportunities for learning.

Classroom interaction
Language learning does not occur as a result of the transmission of facts about language or from a succession of rote memorization drills. It is the result of opportunities for meaningful interaction with others in the target language. Teachers need to move toward more richly interactive language use, such as that found in instructional conversations (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) and collaborative classroom work (Adger, Kalyanpur, Peterson, & Bridger, 1995).

Conclusion
While this article has focused on the second language acquisition process from the perspective of the language, the learner, and the learning process, it is important to point out that the larger social and cultural contexts of second language development have a tremendous impact on second language learning, especially for immigrant students. The status of students' ethnic groups in relation to the larger culture can help or hinder the acquisition of the language of mainstream society. References
Walqui, A. (September, 2000). Contextual Factors in Second Language Acquisition. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, Center for Applied Linguistics.

Language Learning Strategies: An Overview for L2 Teachers

Michael Lessard-Clouston z95014 [at] kgupyr.kwansei.ac.jp Kwansei Gakuin University (Nishinomiya, Japan)

First published in Essays in Languages and Literatures, 8, at Kwansei Gakuin University, December 1997.
This article provides an overview of language learning strategies (LLS) for second and foreign language (L2/FL) teachers. To do so it outlines the background of LLS and LLS training, discusses a three step approach teachers may follow in using LLS in their classes, and summarises key reflections and questions for future research on this aspect of L2/FL education. It also lists helpful contacts and internet sites where readers may access up-to-date information on LLS teaching and research.

Introduction
Within the field of education over the last few decades a gradual but significant shift has taken place, resulting in less emphasis on teachers and teaching and greater stress on learners and learning. This change has been reflected in various ways in language education and applied linguistics, ranging from the Northeast Conference (1990) entitled "Shifting the Instructional

Focus to the Learner" and annual "Learners' Conferences" held in conjuction with the TESL Canada convention since 1991, to key works on "the learner-centred curriculum" (Nunan, 1988, 1995) and "learner-centredness as language education" (Tudor, 1996).

This article provides an overview of key issues concerning one consequence of the above shift: the focus on and use of language learning strategies (LLS) in second and foreign language (L2/FL) learning and teaching. In doing so, the first section outlines some background on LLS and summarises key points from the LLS literature. The second section considers some practical issues related to using LLS in the classroom, outlining a three step approach to implementing LLS training in normal L2/FL courses. The third section then briefly discusses some important issues and questions for further LLS research. In the fourth section the article ends by noting a number of contacts readers may use to locate and receive up-to-date information on LLS teaching and research in this widely developing area in L2/FL education.

1. BACKGROUND Learning Strategies

In a helpful survey article, Weinstein and Mayer (1986) defined learning strategies (LS) broadly as "behaviours and thoughts that a learner engages in during learning" which are "intended to influence the learner's encoding process" (p. 315). Later Mayer (1988) more specifically defined LS as "behaviours of a learner that are intended to influence how the learner processes information" (p. 11). These early definitions from the educational literature reflect the roots of LS in cognitive science, with its essential assumptions that human beings process information and that learning involves such information processing. Clearly, LS are involved in all learning, regardless of the content and context. LS are thus used in learning and teaching math, science, history, languages and other subjects, both in classroom settings and more informal learning environments. For insight into the literature on LS outside of language education, the works of Dansereau (1985) and Weinstein, Goetz and Alexander (1988) are key, and one recent LS study of note is that of Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes and Simmons (1997). In the rest of this paper, the focus will specifically be on language LS in L2/FL learning.

Language Learning Strategies Defined

Within L2/FL education, a number of definitions of LLS have been used by key figures in the field. Early on, Tarone (1983) defined a LS as "an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language -- to incoporate these into one's interlanguage competence" (p. 67). Rubin (1987) later wrote that LS "are strategies which contribute to the development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect learning directly" (p. 22). In their seminal study, O'Malley and Chamot (1990) defined LS as "the special thoughts or behaviours that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information" (p. 1). Finally, building on work in her book for teachers (Oxford, 1990a), Oxford (1992/1993) provides specific examples of LLS (i.e., "In learning ESL, Trang watches U.S. TV soap operas,

guessing the meaning of new expressions and predicting what will come next") and this helpful definition:
...language learning strageties -- specific actions, behaviours, steps, or techniques that students (often intentionally) use to improve their progress in developing L2 skills. These strageties can facilitate the internalization, storage, retrieval, or use of the new language. Strategies are tools for the self-directed involvement necessary for developing communicative ability. (Oxford, 1992/1993, p. 18)

From these definitions, a change over time may be noted: from the early focus on the product of LSS (linguistic or sociolinguistic competence), there is now a greater emphasis on the processes and the characteristics of LLS. At the same time, we should note that LLS are distinct from learning styles, which refer more broadly to a learner's "natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills" (Reid, 1995, p. viii), though there appears to be an obvious relationship between one's language learning style and his or her usual or preferred language learning strategies.

What are the Characteristics of LLS?

Although the terminology is not always uniform, with some writers using the terms "learner strategies" (Wendin & Rubin, 1987), others "learning strategies" (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Chamot & O'Malley, 1994), and still others "language learning strategies" (Oxford, 1990a, 1996), there are a number of basic characteristics in the generally accepted view of LLS. First, LLS are learner generated; they are steps taken by language learners. Second, LLS enhance language learning and help develop language competence, as reflected in the learner's skills in listening, speaking, reading, or writing the L2 or FL. Third, LLS may be visible (behaviours, steps, techniques, etc.) or unseen (thoughts, mental processes). Fourth, LLS involve information and memory (vocabulary knowledge, grammar rules, etc.).

Reading the LLS literature, it is clear that a number of further aspects of LLS are less uniformly accepted. When discussing LLS, Oxford (1990a) and others such as Wenden and Rubin (1987) note a desire for control and autonomy of learning on the part of the learner through LLS. Cohen (1990) insists that only conscious strategies are LLS, and that there must be a choice involved on the part of the learner. Transfer of a strategy from one language or language skill to another is a related goal of LLS, as Pearson (1988) and Skehan (1989) have discussed. In her teacher-oriented text, Oxford summarises her view of LLS by listing twelve key features. In addition to the characteristics noted above, she states that LLS:
allow learners to become more self-directed expand the role of language teachers are problem-oriented involve many aspects, not just the cognitive can be taught are flexible are influenced by a variety of factors. (Oxford, 1990a, p. 9)

Beyond this brief outline of LLS characterisitics, a helpful review of the LLS research and some of the implications of LLS training for second language acquisition may be found in Gu (1996).

Why are LLS Important for L2/FL Learning and Teaching?

Within 'communicative' approaches to language teaching a key goal is for the learner to develop communicative competence in the target L2/FL, and LLS can help students in doing so. After Canale and Swain's (1980) influencial article recognised the importance of communication strategies as a key aspect of strategic (and thus communicative) competence, a number of works appeared about communication strategies in L2/FL teaching2. An important distinction exists, however, between communication and language learning strategies. Communication strategies are used by speakers intentionally and consciously in order to cope with difficulties in communicating in a L2/FL (Bialystok, 1990). The term LLS is used more generally for all strategies that L2/FL learners use in learning the target language, and communication strategies are therefore just one type of LLS. For all L2 teachers who aim to help develop their students' communicative competence and language learning, then, an understanding of LLS is crucial. As Oxford (1990a) puts it, LLS "...are especially important for language learning because they are tools for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developing communicative competence" (p. 1).

In addition to developing students' communicative competence, LLS are important because research suggests that training students to use LLS can help them become better language learners. Early research on 'good language learners' by Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco (1978, 1996), Rubin (1975), and Stern (1975) suggested a number of positive strategies that such students employ, ranging from using an active task approach in and monitoring one's L2/FL performance to listening to the radio in the L2/FL and speaking with native speakers. A study by O'Malley and Chamot (1990) also suggests that effective L2/FL learners are aware of the LLS they use and why they use them. Graham's (1997) work in French further indicates that L2/FL teachers can help students understand good LLS and should train them to develop and use them. A caution must also be noted though, because, as Skehan (1989) states, "there is always the possibility that the 'good' language learning strategies...are also used by bad language learners, but other reasons cause them to be unsuccessful" (p. 76). In fact Vann and Abraham (1990) found evidence that suggests that both 'good' and 'unsuccessful' language learners can be active users of similar LLS, though it is important that they also discovered that their unsuccessful learners "apparently...lacked...what are often called metacognitive strategies...which would enable them to assess the task and bring to bear the necessary strategies for its completion" (p. 192). It appears, then, that a number and range of LLS are important if L2/FL teachers are to assist students both in learning the L2/FL and in becoming good language learners.

What Kinds of LLS Are There?

There are literally hundreds of different, yet often interrelated, LLS. As Oxford has developed a fairly detailed list of LLS in her taxonomy, it is useful to summarise it briefly here. First, Oxford (1990b) distinguishes between direct LLS, "which directly involve the subject matter", i.e. the L2 or FL, and indirect LLS, which "do not directly involve the subject matter itself, but are essential to language learning nonetheless" (p. 71). Second, each of these broad kinds of LLS is further divided into LLS groups. Oxford outlines three main types of direct LLS, for example. Memory strategies "aid in entering information into long-term memory and retrieving information when needed for communication". Cognitive LLS "are used for forming and revising internal mental models and receiving and producing messages in the target language". Compensation strategies "are needed to overcome any gaps in knowledge of the language" (Oxford, 1990b, p. 71). Oxford (1990a, 1990b) also describes three types of indirect LLS. Metacognitive strageties "help learners exercise 'executive control' through planning, arranging, focusing, and evaluating their own learning". Affective LLS "enable learners to control feelings, motivations, and attitudes related to language learning". Finally, social strategies "facilitate interaction with others, often in a discourse situation" (Oxford, 1990b, p. 71).

A more detailed overview of these six main types of LLS is found in Oxford (1990a, pp. 18-21), where they are further divided into 19 strategy groups and 62 subsets. Here, by way of example, we will briefly consider the social LLS that Oxford lists under indirect strategies. Three types of social LLS are noted in Oxford (1990a): asking questions, cooperating with others, and empathising with others (p. 21). General examples of LLS given in each of these categories are as follows:
Asking questions 1. Asking for clarification or verification 2. Asking for correction Co-operating with others 1. Co-operating with peers 2. Co-operating with proficient users of the new language Empathising with others 1. 2. Developing cultural understanding Becoming aware of others' thoughts and feelings (Oxford, 1990a, p. 21)

Although these examples are still rather vague, experienced L2/FL teachers may easily think of specific LLS for each of these categories. In asking questions, for example, students might ask something specific like "Do you mean...?" or "Did you say that...?" in order to clarify or verify what they think they have heard or understood. While at first glance this appears to be a relatively straightforward LLS, in this writer's experience it is one that many EFL students in Japan, for example, are either unaware of or somewhat hesitant to employ.

What is important to note here is the way LLS are interconnected, both direct and indirect, and the support they can provide one to the other (see Oxford, 1990a, pp. 1416). In the above illustration of social LLS, for example, a student might ask the questions above of his or her peers, thereby 'co-operating with others', and in response to the answer he or she receives the student might develop some aspect of L2/FL cultural understanding or become more aware of the feelings or thoughts of fellow

students, the teacher, or those in the L2/FL culture. What is learned from this experience might then be supported when the same student uses a direct, cognitive strategy such as 'practising' to repeat what he or she has learned or to integrate what was learned into a natural conversation with someone in the target L2/FL. In this case, the way LLS may be inter-connected becomes very clear.

2. USING LLS IN THE CLASSROOM

With the above background on LLS and some of the related literature, this section provides an overview of how LLS and LLS training have been or may be used in the classroom, and briefly describes a three step approach to implementing LLS training in the L2/FL classroom.

Contexts and Classes for LLS Training

LLS and LLS training may be integrated into a variety of classes for L2/FL students. One type of course that appears to be becoming more popular, especially in intensive English programmes, is one focusing on the language learning process itself. In this case, texts such as Ellis and Sinclair's (1989) Learning to Learn English: A Course in Learner Training or Rubin and Thompson's (1994) How to Be a More Successful Language Learner might be used in order to help L2/FL learners understand the language learning process, the nature of language and communication, what language learning resources are available to them, and what specific LLS they might use in order to improve their own vocabulary use, grammar knowledge, and L2/FL skills in reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Perhaps more common are integrated L2/FL courses where these four skills are taught in tandem, and in these courses those books might be considered as supplementary texts to help learners focus on the LLS that can help them learn L2/FL skills and the LLS they need to acquire them. In this writer's experience, still more common is the basic L2/FL listening, speaking, reading, or writing course where LLS training can enhance and complement the L2/FL teaching and learning. Whatever type of class you may be focusing on at this point, the three step approach to implementing LLS training in the classroom outlined below should prove useful.

Step 1: Study Your Teaching Context

At first, it is crucial for teachers to study their teaching context, paying special attention to their students, their materials, and their own teaching. If you are going to train your students in using LLS, it is crucial to know something about these individuals, their interests, motivations, learning styles, etc. By observing their behaviour in class, for example, you will be able to see what LLS they already appear to be using. Do they often ask for clarification, verification, or correction, as discussed briefly above? Do they co-operate with their peers or seem to have much contact outside of class with proficient L2/FL users? Beyond observation, however, one can prepare a short questionnaire that students can fill in at the beginning of a course, describing themselves and their language learning. Sharkey (1994/1995), for instance, asks students to complete statements such as "In this class I want to/will/won't....", "My favourite/least favourite kinds of class activities are...", "I am studying English because...", etc. (Sharkey, 1994/1995, p. 19). Talking to students informally before or after class, or more formally interviewing select students

about these topics can also provide a lot of information about one's students, their goals, motivations, and LLS, and their understanding of the particular course being taught.

Beyond the students, however, one's teaching materials are also important in considering LLS and LLS training. Textbooks, for example, should be analysed to see whether they already include LLS or LLS training. Scarcella and Oxford's (1992) Tapestry textbook series, for example, incorporates "learning strategy" boxes which highlight LLS and encourage students to use them in L2/FL tasks or skills. One example from a conversation text in the series states: "Managing Your Learning: Working with other language learners improves your listening and speaking skills" (Earle-Carlin & Proctor, 1996, p. 8). An EFL writing text I use has brief sections on making one's referents clear, outlining, and choosing the right vocabulary, all of which may be modelled and used in LLS training in my composition course. Audiotapes, videotapes, hand-outs, and other materials for the course at hand should also be examined for LLS or for specific ways that LLS training might be implemented in using them. Perhaps teachers will be surprised to find many LLS incorporated into their materials, with more possibilities than they had imagined. If not, they might look for new texts or other teaching materials that do provide such opportunities. Last, but certainly not least, teachers need to study their own teaching methods and overall classroom style. One way to do so is to consider your lesson plans. Do they incorporate various ways that students can learn the language you are modelling, practising or presenting, in order to appeal to a variety of learning styles and strategies? Does your teaching allow learners to approach the task at hand in a variety of ways? Is your LLS training implicit, explicit, or both? By audiotaping or videotaping one's classroom teaching an instructor may objectively consider just what was actually taught and modelled, and how students responded and appeared to learn. Is your class learner-centred? Do you allow students to work on their own and learn from one another? As you circulate in class, are you encouraging questions, or posing ones relevant to the learners with whom you interact? Whether formally in action research or simply for informal reflection, teachers who study their students, their materials, and their own teaching will be better prepared to focus on LLS and LLS training within their specific teaching context.

Step 2: Focus on LLS in Your Teaching

After you have studied your teaching context, begin to focus on specific LLS in your regular teaching that are relevant to your learners, your materials, and your own teaching style. If you have found 10 different LLS for writing explicitly used in your text, for example, you could highlight these as you go through the course, giving students clear examples, modelling how such LLS may be used in learning to write or in writing, and filling in the gaps with other LLS for writing that are neglected in the text but would be especially relevant for your learners.

If you tend to be teacher-centred in your approach to teaching, you might use a specific number of tasks appropriate for your context from the collection by Gardner and Miller (1996) in order to provide students with opportunities to use and develop their LLS and to encourage more independent language learning both in class and in out-of-class

activities for your course. As Graham (1997) declares, LLS training "needs to be integrated into students' regular classes if they are going to appreciate their relevance for language learning tasks; students need to constantly monitor and evaluate the strategies they develop and use; and they need to be aware of the nature, function and importance of such strategies" (p. 169). Whether it is a specific conversation, reading, writing, or other class, an organised and informed focus on LLS and LLS training will help students learn and provide more opportunities for them to take responsibility for their learning3.

Step 3: Reflect and Encourage Learner Reflection

Much of what I have suggested in this section requires teacher reflection, echoing a current trend in pedagogy and the literature in L2/FL education (see, for example, Freeman & Richards, 1996, and Richards & Lockhart, 1994). However, in implementing LLS and LLS training in the L2/FL classroom, purposeful teacher reflection and encouraging learner reflection form a necessary third step. On a basic level, it is useful for teachers to reflect on their own positive and negative experiences in L2/FL learning. As Graham suggests, "those teachers who have thought carefully about how they learned a language, about which strategies are most appropriate for which tasks, are more likely to be successful in developing 'strategic competence' in their students" (p. 170). Beyond contemplating one's own language learning, it is also crucial to reflect on one's LLS training and teaching in the classroom. After each class, for example, one might ponder the effectiveness of the lesson and the role of LLS and LLS training within it. Do students seem to have grasped the point? Did they use the LLS that was modelled in the task they were to perform? What improvements for future lessons of this type or on this topic might be gleaned from students' behaviour? An informal log of such reflections and one's personal assessment of the class, either in a notebook or on the actual lesson plans, might be used later to reflect on LLS training in the course as a whole after its completion. In my experience I have found, like Offner (1997), that rather than limiting my perspective to specific LLS such reflection helps me to see the big picture and focus on "teaching how to learn" within my L2/FL classes.

In addition to the teacher's own reflections, it is essential to encourage learner reflection, both during and after the LLS training in the class or course. In an interesting action research study involving "guided reflection" Nunan (1996) did this by asking his students to keep a journal in which they completed the following sentences: This week I studied..., I learned..., I used my English in these places..., I spoke English with these people..., I made these mistakes..., My difficulties are..., I would like to know..., I would like help with..., My learning and practising plans for the next week are... (Nunan, 1996, p. 36). Sharkey (1994/1995) asked her learners to complete simple self- evaluation forms at various points during their course. Matsumoto (1996) used student diaries, questionnaires, and interviews to carry out her research and help her students reflect on their LLS and language learning. Pickard (1996) also used questionnaires and follow-up interviews in helping students reflect on their out-of- class LLS. In a writing class, Santos (1997) has used portfolios to encourage learner reflection. These are just a few examples from the current literature of various ways to encourage learner reflection on language learning. As Graham declares, "For learners, a vital component of self-

directed learning lies in the on-going evaluation of the methods they have employed on tasks and of their achievements within the...programme" (p. 170). Whatever the context or method, it is important for L2/FL learners to have the chance to reflect on their language learning and LLS use.

An Example of LLS Training

Let me give one example of implementing LLS training within a normal L2/FL class from my experience in teaching a TOEFL preparation course in Canada. After studying my teaching context by considering my part-time, evening college students (most of whom were working) and their LLS, the course textbook and other materials, and my own teaching, I became convinced that I should not only introduce LLS but also teach them and encourage learners to reflect on them and their own learning. To make this LLS training specific and relevant to these ESL students, I gave a mini-lecture early in the course on the importance of vocabulary for the TOEFL and learning and using English, and then focused on specific vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) by highlighting them whenever they were relevant to class activities. In practising listening for the TOEFL, for example, there were exercises on multi-definition words, and after finishing the activity I introduced ways students could expand their vocabulary knowledge by learning new meanings for multi-definition words they already know. I then talked with students about ways to record such words and their meanings on vocabulary cards or in a special notebook, in order for them to reinforce and review such words and meanings they had learned.

In order to encourage learner reflection, later in the course I used a questionnaire asking students about their vocabulary learning and VLS in and outside of class, and the following week gave them a generic but individualised vocabulary knowledge test where students provided the meaning, part of speech, and an example sentence for up to 10 words each person said he or she had 'learned'. I marked these and handed them back to students the next week, summarising the class results overall and sparking interesting class discussion. For a more detailed description of this classroom activity and a copy of the questionnaire and test, see Lessard-Clouston (1994). For more information on the research that I carried out in conjunction with this activity, please refer to Lessard-Clouston (1996). What became obvious both to me and my students in that attempt at LLS training was that vocabulary learning is a very individualised activity which requires a variety of VLS for success in understanding and using English vocabulary, whether or not one is eventually 'tested' on it. Though this is just one example of implementing LLS training in a normal L2/FL class, hopefully readers will be able to see how this general three step approach to doing so may be adapted for their own classroom teaching.

3. REFLECTIONS AND QUESTIONS FOR LLS RESEARCH Important Reflections

In my thinking on LLS I am presently concerned about two important issues. The first, and most important, concerns the professionalism of teachers who use LLS and LLS training in their work.

As Davis (1997, p. 6) has aptly noted, "our actions speak louder than words", and it is therefore important for professionals who use LLS training to also model such strategies both within their classroom teaching and, especially in EFL contexts, in their own FL learning. Furthermore, LLS obviously involve individuals' unique cognitive, social, and affective learning styles and strategies. As an educator I am interested in helping my students learn and reflect on their learning, but I also question the tone and motivation reflected in some of the LLS literature. Oxford (1990a), for example, seems to describe many of my Japanese EFL students when she writes:
...many language students (even adults)...like to be told what to do, and they only do what is clearly essential to get a good grade -- even if they fail to develop useful skills in the process. Attitudes and behaviours like these make learning more difficult and must be changed, or else any effort to train learners to rely more on themselves and use better strategies is bound to fail. (Oxford, 1990a, p. 10)

Motivation is a key concern both for teachers and students. Yet while teachers hope to motivate our students and enhance their learning, professionally we must be very clear not to manipulate them in the process, recognising that ultimately learning is the student's responsibility4. If our teaching is appropriate and learner-centred, we will not manipulate our students as we encourage them to develop and use their own LLS. Instead we will take learners' motivations and learning styles into account as we teach in order for them to improve their L2/FL skills and LLS.

The second reflection pertains to the integration of LLS into both language learning/teaching theory and curriculum. The focus of this article is largely practical, noting why LLS are useful and how they can or might be included in regular L2/FL classes. These things are important. However, in reflecting on these issues and attempting to implement LLS training in my classes I am reminded that much of the L2/FL work in LLS appears to lack an undergirding theory, perhaps partially because L2/FL education is a relatively young discipline and lacks a comprehensive theory of acquisition and instruction itself. As Ellis (1994) notes, much of the research on LLS "has been based on the assumption that there are 'good' learning strategies. But this is questionable" (p. 558). As my own research (Lessard-Clouston, 1996, 1998) suggests, L2/FL learning seems to be very much influenced by numerous individual factors, and to date it is difficult to account for all individual LLS, let alone relate them to all L2/FL learning/teaching theories. The related challenge, then, is how to integrate LLS into our L2/FL curriculum, especially in places like Japan where "learner-centred" approaches or materials may not be implemented very easily. Using texts which incorporate LLS training, such as those in the Tapestry series, remains difficult in FL contexts when they are mainly oriented to L2 ones. How then may FL educators best include LLS and LLS training in the FL curriculum of their regular, everyday language (as opposed to content) classes? This final point brings us to this and other questions for future LLS research.

Questions for LLS Research

Following from these reflections, then, future L2/FL research must consider and include curriculum development and materials for LLS training which takes into account regular L2/FL classes (especially for adults) and the learning styles and motivations of the students within them. While Chamot and O'Malley (1994, 1996) and Kidd and Marquardson (1996) have developed materials for content-based school classes, it is important to consider the development and use of materials for college and university language classes, especially in FL settings. On the surface at least, it would appear that the language/content/learning strategies components of their frameworks could be easily transferred to a variety of language classroom curricula, but is this really the case? One model to consider in attempting to do so is Stern's (1992) multidimensional curriculum, which allows for the integration of LLS and LLS training into its language, culture, communicative, and general language education syllabuses.

A pressing need for further research involves developing a comprehensive theory of LLS that is also relevant to language teaching practice. Moving beyond taxonomies of LLS, various types of studies into LLS use and training must consider a wide range of questions, such as: What types of LLS appear to work best with what learners in which contexts? Does LLS or LLS training transfer easily between L2 and FL contexts? What is the role of language proficiency in LLS use and training? How long does it take to train specific learners in certain LLS? How can one best assesss and measure success in LLS use or training? Are certain LLS learnt more easily in classroom or nonclassroom contexts? What LLS should be taught at different proficiency levels? Answers to these and many other questions from research in a variety of settings will aid in the theory building that appears necessary for more LLS work to be relevant to current L2/FL teaching practice. In considering the above questions concerning LLS and LLS training, a variety of research methods should be employed. To date much of the LLS research appears to be based in North America and is largely oriented towards quantitative data and descriptions. In fact, one report on more qualitatively-oriented LLS data by LoCastro (1994) sparked an interesting response from major LLS figures Oxford and Green (1995). While calling for collaborative research in their critique, Oxford and Green's (1995) comments in many ways discourage such work, especially for those who do not work within North America or use a quantitatively oriented research approach. However, as LoCastro points out in her response,
...there are different kinds of research which produce different results which may be of interest. Research dealing with human beings is notoriously fuzzy and shows a great deal of variation. (LoCastro, 1995, p. 174).

I would concur with this observation. In listing the above questions and calling for more research on LLS, I also hope that more case studies, longitudinal studies, and learner's self-directed qualitative studies, like the one by Yu (1990), will be carried out and will receive greater attention in the literature in L2/FL education.

4. HELPFUL LLS CONTACTS AND INTERNET SITES

As readers may want to take up my challenge and address the issues and questions for research I have outlined here, in this final section I focus on where they may find additional

information and resources to help them in their LLS teaching and research. In addition to checking the sources listed in the reference section at the end of this article, there are a number of contacts which readers may find useful for obtaining more information on LLS, LLS training and/or research, and in networking with others involved with or interested in LLS within various aspects of L2/FL education. Three such contacts are noted here.

Where Can I Get More Information?

1. The Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT) Learner Development National Special Interest Group (N-SIG), formed in 1994, encourages learner development and autonomy, which involves and encompasses LLS. It publishes a quarterly, bilingual (English-Japanese) newsletter called Learning Learning and organises presentations at the annual JALT conference each autumn. For more information one can access the Learner Development N-SIG homepage or contact the co-ordinator:

http://www.ipcs.shizuoka.ac.jp/~eanaoki/LD/homeE.html
Dr. Jill Robbins Doshisha Women's College English Department Tanabe-co, Tsuzuki-gun Kyoto-fu 610-03 JAPAN Email: robbins@gol.com

2. The International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL) Learner Independence Special Interest Group (SIG) has an international network of members who are interested in learning styles and LLS, learning centres, and related topics. In addition to publishing a newsletter, Independence, it occasionally holds related events. For more information either visit the Learner Independence SIG home page or contact the co-ordinator, Jenny Timmer, through email to IATEFL at: <113017.205@compuserve.com>.

http://www.man.ac.uk/IATEFL/lisig/lihome.htm 3. The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) at the University of Minnesota publishes a newsletter, The NESSLA Report (the Network of Styles and Strategies in Language Acquisition) and maintains a Second Language Learning Strategies website. In order to subscribe to the newsletter, contact CARLA as follows: http://carla.acad.umn.edu/slstrategies.html
CARLA Suite 111, UTEC Building 1313 5th St. S.E., Minneapolis, MN 5514 U.S.A. Email: carla@tc.umn.edu

The area of LLS is a major but quickly developing aspect of L2/FL education, and interested teachers and researchers are advised to check the internet sites listed here for the most up-todate information on this topic. In accessing these WWW pages one will also find links to related sites and organisations5.

Conclusion
This paper has provided a brief overview of LLS by examining their background and summarising the relevant literature. It has also outlined some ways that LLS training has been used and offered a three step approach for teachers to consider in implementing it within their own L2/FL classes. It has also raised two important issues, posed questions for further LLS research, and noted a number of contacts that readers may use in networking on LLS in L2/FL education. In my experience, using LLS and LLS training in the L2/FL class not only encourages learners in their language learning but also helps teachers reflect on and improve their teaching. May readers also find this to be the case.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my students for their input on LLS and LLS training, and Birgit Harley and Wendy Lessard-Clouston for their input on the issues presented in this overview and for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.

Notes
1. The Author: Michael Lessard-Clouston is Associate Professor of English, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, 1-1-155 Uegahara, Nishinomiya, 662 Japan.

2. See, for example, the work of Bialystok (1990), Bongaerts & Poulisse (1989), Dornyei & Thurrell (1991), Kasper & Kellerman (1997), McDonough (1995), Poulisse (1989), and Willems (1987) on communication strategies. 3. For more examples of specific types of LLS training, refer to the works listed in the reference section. Oxford's (1990a) book, for instance, offers chapters with practical activities related to applying direct or indirect LLS to the four language skills or general management of learning. 4. For recent discussions of this issue and others related to autonomy and independence in language learning, see Benson & Voller (1997) and the articles in Ely & Pease-Alvarez (1996). 5. The contact details provided in this section are current as of autumn 1997.

References
Benson, P., & Voller, P. (Eds.). (1997). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second Language Use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Bongaerts, T., & Poulisse, N. (1989). Communication strategies in L1 and L2: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 253- 268. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. Chamot, A., & O'Malley, M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Chamot, A., & O'Malley, M. (1996). Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA). In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives (pp. 167-173). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre. Cohen, A. (1990). Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and Researchers. New York: Newbury House. Dansereau, D. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills: Relating Learning to Basic Research (pp. 209-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Davis, R. (1997). Modeling the strategies we advocate. TESOL Journal, 6(4), 5-6. Dornyei, A., & Thurrell, S. (1991). Strategic competence and how to teach it. ELT Journal, 45(1), 16-23. Earle-Carlin, S., & Proctor, S. (1996). Word of Mouth. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to Learn English: A Course in Learner Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ely, C., & Pease-Alvarez, L. (Eds.). (1996). Learning styles and strategies [Special Issue]. TESOL Journal, 6(1) [Autumn]. Freeman, D., & Richards, J. (Eds.). (1996). Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P., & Simmons, D. (1997). Peer- assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174-206.

Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (Eds.). (1996). Tasks for Independent Language Learning. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Graham, S. (1997). Effective Language Learning. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Gu, P. (1996). Robin Hood in SLA: What has the learning strategy researcher taught us? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 6, 1-29. Kasper, G., & Kellerman, E. (Eds.). (in press). Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. London: Longman. Kidd, R., & Marquardson, B. (1996). The foresee approach for ESL strategy instruction in an academic-proficiency context. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives (pp. 189-204). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre. Lessard-Clouston, M. (1994). Challenging student approaches to ESL vocabulary development. TESL Canada Journal, 12(1), 69-80. Lessard-Clouston, M. (1996). ESL vocabulary learning in a TOEFL preparation class: A case study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 97-119. Lessard-Clouston, M. (1998, March). Vocabulary Learning Strategies for Specialized Vocabulary Acquisition: A Case Study. Paper to be presented at the 3rd Pacific Second Language Research Forum (PacSLRF '98) at Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo. LoCastro, V. (1994). Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 409-414. LoCastro, V. (1995). The author responds... [A response to Oxford and Green (1995)]. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 172-174. McDonough, S. (1995). Strategy and Skill in Learning a Foreign Language. London: Edward Arnold. Matsumoto, K. (1996). Helping L2 learners reflect on classroom learning. ELT Journal, 50(2), 143-149. Mayer, R. (1988). Learning strategies: An overview. In Weinstein, C., E. Goetz, & P. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction, and Evaluation (pp. 11-22). New York: Academic Press. Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The Good Language Learner. Research in Education Series 7. Toronto: OISE Press. Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1996). The Good Language Learner. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1990, April). Shifting the Instructional Focus to the Learner. New York City. Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner-centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 133-158. Nunan, D. (1996). Learner strategy training in the classroom: An action research study. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 35-41. Offner, M. (1997). Teaching English conversation in Japan: Teaching how to learn. The Internet TESL Journal [on-line serial], 3(3) [March 1997]. Available at:www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Offner-HowToLearn.html O'Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. (1990a). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House. Oxford, R. (1990b). Styles, strategies, and aptitude: Connections for language learning. In T.S. Parry & C.W. Stansfield (Eds.), Language Aptitude Reconsidered (pp. 67-125). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Oxford, R. (1992/1993). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and ESL suggestions. TESOL Journal, 2(2), 18-22. Oxford, R. (Ed.). (1996). Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Crosscultural Perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre. Oxford, R., & Green, J. (1995). Comments on Virginia LoCastro's "Learning strategies and learning environments" -- Making sense of learning strategy assessment: Toward a higher standard of research accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 166- 171. Pearson, E. (1988). Learner strategies and learner interviews. ELT Journal, 42(3), 173178. Pickard, N. (1996). Out-of-class language learning strategies. ELT Journal, 50(2), 150159. Poulisse, N. (1989). The Use of Compensatory Strategies by Dutch Learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Reid, J. (Ed.). (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Richards, J., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51. Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies and Language Learning (pp. 15-29). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1994). How to Be a More Successful Language Learner, Second Edition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Santos, M. (1997). Portfolio assessment and the role of learner reflection. English Teaching Forum, 35(2), 10-14. Scarcella, R., & Oxford, R. (1992). The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Sharkey, J. (1994/1995). Helping students become better learners. TESOL Journal, 4(2), 18-23. Skehan, P. (1989). Language learning strategies (Chapter 5). Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning (pp. 73- 99). London: Edward Arnold. Stern, H.H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 304-318. Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of 'communication stategy'. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (pp. 61-74). London: Longman. Tutor, I. (1996). Learner-centredness as Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vann, R., & Abraham, R. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 177-198. Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd Edition (pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan. Weinstein, C., Goetz, E., & Alexander, P. (Eds.). (1988). Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction, and Evaluation. New York: Academic Press.

Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Willems, G. (1987). Communication strategies and their significance in foreign language teaching. System, 15(3), 351-364. Yu, L. (1990). The comprehensible output hypothesis and self- directed learning: A learner's perspective. TESL Canada Journal, 8(1), 9-26.

The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. III, No. 12, December 1997 http://iteslj.org/

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lessard-Clouston-Strategy.html http://www.nadasisland.com/motivation/

Identitys Playground:

Linking Second Language Use with Strategic Competence

Christopher Miles Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures at The University of Southern Mississippi,USA Abstract This case study examines how a French immigrant of Senegalese descent negotiates his L2 identity at a multicultural and multilingual workplace environment in the United States. The article is the result of a six-month qualitative case study in which the subject was shadowed and interviewed at his place of employment. The study explores the relationship between strategic competence and social identity and examines how the participants social identity and successful employment are linked to strategies of L2 language use and identity negotiation. Key Words: Identity, Second Language Identity, L2 strategies, Sociolinguistics, strategic competence

The notion of Strategic Competence as postulated by Canale and Swains (1980) communicative competence model is generally associated with L2 learners ability to employ a variety of tools that facilitate the learning of a target language. It has continuously expanded over the past few decades as researchers have explored both typologies and different systems of classification (see, e.g., Rubin 1981; OMalley & Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990). Furthermore, as Nyikos and Oxford (1993: 11) claim "strategic competence fosters competence in grammatical, discourse, sociolinguistic, and psycholinguistic areas. Thus, strategy research permeates all areas of learning, recognizing that learning is multidimensional". While it is evident that good language learners employ a variety of strategies (see, e.g., Reiss 1985; Rubin 1975; Naiman, Frohlich, & Todesco 1975; Ramirez 1986; Stern 1975) from which we can and have learned a great deal, there remains a fundamental difference between language learning strategies and language use strategies. Language use strategies often pertain to the social and affective realm of second language acquisition and, as Oxford (1994) suggests, are less frequently researched. Even current research may fall short of a truly re-conceptualized understanding of how social strategies of use develop contextually. Many researchers are content with viewing social strategies as merely devices for "getting along" in social situations such as "asking questions for clarification or verification, asking for help, and collaborating with others via language" (Hsiao & Oxford 2002: 369). In reality, these social strategies are often much more complex and contextually dependent. Part of the complexity lies in the fact that often they may be seen as developing at the subconscious level and the language user may be unaware of their use (Cohen 1998). Cohen suggests that at this level we are in fact dealing with processes. If language can be considered a tool which human beings use to engage in social acts then exploring other factors, such as social identity issues and socio-cultural strategies (see, e.g. Savignon & Sysoyev 2002) may lead to a more complete understanding of how strategies develop. Since making the shift from second language learner to second language user implies an emphasis on social factors that inherently involve identity negotiation, we cannot ignore that there may be an element of choice involved in who we present ourselves to be in certain contexts. While Cohen (1995) generally supports the "getting along in the target culture" view of social strategies, he includes the notion of choice. Specifically, he defines social strategies as "actions which learners choose to take in order to interact with other learners and with native speakers" (Cohen 1995:2). It is at this point where social identity intersects with social strategies.

An extensive amount of research has been conducted on the nexus between second language acquisition and identity (see, e.g. Gumperz 1982; McNamara 1997; Norton 1997, 1995; Miller 1999). All agree that the individual cannot be separated from the social environment with respect to language use. Dunn (1997) states that "human thought and behavior are understood as discursive practices, constituted in and through the structures and uses of language" (Dunn 1997:691). Nortons (1995) poststructuralist approach defines the language learner/user as possessing a complex and dynamic social identity that must be understood with reference to the larger context or social scene in which they occur. This implies that if identity is contextually dependent, then learners must face choices as they interact with others and these interactions are in turn dependent on the greater context. An awareness of the social context implies a choice from the existing repertoire of contextually appropriate responses. Both Norton (1995, 1997) and McNamara (1997) provide the conceptual framework for the social identity of second language users and learners and provide the theoretical basis of this investigation. Framing L2 social identity from the poststructuralist perspective intersects with the notion of strategic competence at the social level, and consequently, ushers in the questions which guide this study. First, if second language users develop strategic competence socially, how is identity negotiated in the process of using the target language? Second, how does context play a role in strategy use? Third, can we speak of strategizing L2 identity in multicultural settings? Finally, how can we better qualify the term "getting along with others" as an integral part of being socially strategically competent? Research Site and Participant This study follows the advice of Oxford and Crookall (1989) that "language learning strategy investigation should thoroughly examine less formal (non-classroom) situations in which people gain skills in a new language" (Oxford and Crookall 1989:415). One such situation can be found in the manufacturing and processing sectors of the American economy. These sectors employ many immigrant workers who come to the United States for employment opportunities. The jobs themselves, chiefly factory line work, are often low-wage entry level positions with high rates of recidivism. The research site for this study occurred in precisely what Oxford and Crookall (1989) referred to as a "less formal (non-classroom)" environment and contained a unique environment that was fecund with multiculturalism and multilingualism. Several years ago, a small processing and packaging plant in the Midwest of the United States experienced a demographic shift that radically altered its social climate. Prior to 1995, the majority of the workers in the plant were English speaking

American men and women. After 1995, there was a large influx of West Africans who spoke a variety of tribal languages such as Wolof and Fulani. The resulting pool of diverse languages was tempered by the French language which served as a lingua franca for the West Africans. The wave of new immigrants created many challenges for the traditional Anglo-American workers and managers who were now faced with a variety of new issues regarding employees such as cultural misunderstandings, miscommunications, misinterpretations, and religious differences (the majority of the West Africans are Muslims). Out of this mlange of new faces and cultures one individual emerged as the liaison between the immigrant workers and the management. He is Mamadou, a thirty-seven year old male natively born in France, but of Senegalese descent. His native language is French, and he also speaks Wolof, Fulani, and American English. Mamadou pertained to what he considered to be a "middle class" background and was educated in the French school system and ultimately graduated from a French university with a degree in electrical engineering. He came to the United States in 1997 when he knew virtually no English and had been exposed to American culture only on a few short trips to New York City. Through familial connections, he moved to the Midwest for an employment opportunity at the research site and took on a factory line worker position. Mamadous acquisition of English was rapid. He quickly proved that he was a fast learner and via his language skills moved up the corporate ladder. He currently holds the position of trainer which puts him into direct contact with all of the West African employees and all of the American managers. Mamadous case, though, is anything but typical. His French nationality and cultural background set him apart from the other West Africans, and he has become an important human resource for the plant as he is involved in problem solving, dispute resolution, translating and interpreting, in addition to training. An important factor in this study is that when he began working for the company, he spoke very little English yet rapidly acquired it and advanced in the corporate hierarchy because of his language skills and ability to relate with a variety of individuals of diverse backgrounds. Methodology Social identity and social strategic competence are inherently complex and individualistic. The ethnographic case study approach was chosen in order to fully understand the individual dynamics of the participant at his place of employment. Specifically, theory-based or operational construct sampling was chosen. According to this type of sampling, "the sample becomes by definition, representative of the phenomenon of interest" (Patton 1990:177). In this case, the phenomenon of interest is the participants social identity in his second language. The study relies on two methods of data collection, observation and interviews. The observations lasted for a period of 6 months from August, 2000 through the end of January, 2001 in which the

participant was shadowed during working hours. Through shadowing, I observe how he communicates within the speech communities of the cultures and contexts of the site. The observations serve to provide a more complete picture of the influences that are either exerted on the site by the participant or exerted on the participant by the site. The focus of the observations is Mamadous use of language in the variety of social identities that are part of his daily routine. In order to explain the phenomena on a more personal level, four interviews were conducted during the observations. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. The interviews are conceptualized with a general interview guide approach. This is a semi-structured type of interview in which the participant is able to generate talk and select the conversational path s/he chooses. The interview data are fundamentally narrative in nature. Schiffrin (1996), in addressing narrative data, believes that narrative language captures aspects of identity. She states that narrative reveals aspects of identity in relation to verbalizing and situating experiences and additionally, displays the self, position, and role that the speakers portray. She suggests that participant narrative is a vital source of data. Data Analysis The initial analysis of both the observations and the interviews were conducted through the use of coding. There are two phases of the coding process. The first phase of the analysis concerns constructing a descriptive reality of general codes that exist at the site. It also embodies the subjects interaction with the site. The codes are largely field notes and observations. Some social interaction was directly audio-taped. The second phase of the coding involves the interview data and obtains a more detailed look at the themes that have emerged from the observations. The theme of language and identity emerges recurrently throughout the coding process in both the interview and the observational data, and upon further analysis two general themes or aspects of identity surface: social awareness and the construction of relationships. In order to make sense of the data these two themes are divided into subcategories. In terms of constructing relationships both the interview and observational data highlight four distinct ways in which Mamadou built relationships at the site with both immigrants and American workers at the plant. They are: 1) the building of trust 2) developing roles 3) the issue of respect, and 4) community involvement. Social awareness is achieved through possessing knowledge of contexts and recognition of social place. Additionally, the categorizations serve to answer the questions which guide this study. Constructing Relationships Building Trust

Mamadou interacted daily with a variety of individuals from a variety of ethnolinguistic, social, and cultural backgrounds. During the course of his interactions, he established a variety of relationships with all of these individuals during working hours when he was "on the clock" in addition to the time that he spent with immigrant workers during "off the clock" lunch or break times. His position as intermediary between the line workers and the management placed him in the position of having to maintain relationships with both. Skepticism of his intentions and position with respect to the predominantly white management arose immediately with the line workers as he explains: I think the Africans they at the beginning when I started working as their leadcuz they hadthey was disappointed a lot with the guy who had my job before. He was Africana fully African and he didnt take care of them at all. And when I got there the first week, I had to go introduce myself to all of them, walk through the linetalk to them, and they didnt trust mewhen I first talk to them they heard my accent, my French accent, cuz I had to talk to them in French because, you know, I didnt know who was from where and you know what language they was speaking. I didnt want to offend anybody speaking, you know, Wolof cuz there is a lot of Fulani working there and I didnt want to ummm that they have that problem with language, you know, like Wolof trying to impose their language, so me speaking French was like more neutral. The decision to speak French with the workers is Mamadous first attempt at establishing a normal working relationship with them. More importantly, he is seen as an outsider and is attempting to build trust with them and set himself apart from the previous individual who had his job as someone who will be there for them and who understands them. He continues: What amazed them the most was the fact I wasnt sitting with Wolof or MandinkaI would sit with everybody. I would come to lunch, sit with these people, and the next time I would come sit with a different group from a different country and listen to them talk their languageyou know, like I wasnt there to to to be just with the Wolof. I sit with everybody American, African, Mexican, everybody. The break room at the company is a large room that contains sixteen large rectangular tables. Interestingly, during break times, the room is filled with employees eating or gathered together and chatting. Each table is organized by ethnic group. So, when Mamadou explains that he sits with them all, he means that during this time he joins in on many of the conversations and engages many cultures including American.

Role Development In addition to building trust, Mamadou takes on a variety of different roles. In part, the roles are associated with his position in the company. However, further analysis indicates that the roles have more to do with how he is interpreted by the other workers and how he consciously responds to them. In other words, he portrays his interpretation of what roles they assign him. As he explains: I dont know what their impression is, but you know they call me boss. They call me captain, they call me all those army stuff, you know, they call me cherno, which is the spiritual leader, they call me dugutigi which is like head of village, and they call me comandante, and they call me generaleven though Im younger than them. While the titles of general, captain, and comandante may be associated with his position of power and his job responsibilities, the role of cherno and dugutigi are of particular interest. They imply a care-giver or fatherly responsibility and in this case they are earned. Mamadou says: I feel good with everybody you know I talk to everybody. Uh, even though I help African people a lot, Im more there helping them, pushing them, you know, trying to take care of their problems. Mamadous father-like role is evident by the fact that he pushes them in the right direction and wants his employees to do the right thing. This is supported by the observational data as well. While working, he is in constant demand as a problem solver even with personal matters between employees. The field notes include many instances of employees asking for advice on personal matters. In one case, a young Wolof speaking male asks him for advice on relationships with African-American women. Mamadou stepped outside and had a conversation with the worker. In another case, an Arab man asks him for advice about health insurance. Respect Mamadous variety of roles and his building of trust are additionally achieved through the notion of respect. Respect is a two way street in the context of this workplace. Respect is earned by Mamadou because he displays it to the immigrant workers. In one instance, he reprimands a younger employee for not respecting an older employee. The younger employee was not using the proper register while addressing an older employee. Mamadou says: The other day I was having a conversation with a young boy and I said"Why you keep talking to him like that? You know this guy hes a lot older than you, why you talking

to him like that? He said, "Man, here in America, America is like everybody has the same age." I said, "No, dont forget where you are from. You know, I call that guy uncle you know, uncle the operator I call him you knowHes really proud of me calling him uncle even though he call me general and all that, he still know that I have respect for him." Respect in this community is essential for the employees in order to be able to work together well. It manifests itself in a conscious awareness of register, with addressing someone as uncle, as the previous excerpt indicates and in action as the following discussion reveals. Community Involvement Mamadou himself is very active and involved in the immigrant community during off hours and during working hours. In particular, he demonstrates his community involvement at the workplace in the form of advocacy. He often has advocated for change with respect to how the immigrants are treated. On several occasions, he earned the respect of the other West Africans through confrontations with the company management and other American employees on behalf of the West Africans. At one point the management decided to offer several mandatory seminars that dealt with West African and Hispanic cultures. These were initiated to enable the American workers to better understand the cultures of these two groups of people and to ensure a more harmonious environment. The following narrates how Mamadou defends his position in support of the immigrant community during this period. Mamadou says: A lot of em came just to to to disturb me (reference is to the American line workers). Oh, they had a problem with that because what I was doing, it was like to help develop communication between cultures, but some of them didnt like it. They wanted to be like before when black people was there and white people was here. And they didnt like that, so they came to prove me that I was wrong trying to do that. "They should be learning English before they came here." they said. And Im like man, these people found youYou dont know where they from and they know where you from and they even learning your language, so open up to them. In this case Mamadou advocates for a change of perspective from the Americans and essentially challenges them to do so. He defends the immigrant workers and, through defending them, must defend himself. He continues, "And they thought just I was one of them, you know, so they would try to dominate me, try to make out of me a puppet, you know, and I say no."

His activism began in the early days of his employment with the company as he states: When I worked on the line I was defending them already. I was going to HR you know, talk to them about stuff and one day they had only pork pizza in the break room. Everything was pork and African people couldnt eat it. I went to HR and say, "Whats that? You know we making that cheese pizza, thats the cheapest pizza you can make. How come we dont have cheese pizza? We dont eat. They dont eat all day and everybodys complaining. And that guy I talked to at HR say, "you take and eat what we give you." I say, "Man thank you very much, but you keep it, cuz we dont eat it, but thank you for your time" and I left. Mamadous confrontation with the individual in HR led to a change in the break room lunch selection. Through consciously positioning himself as an advocate for the immigrants, gaining respect, and earning titles, he consolidates and forges relationships at a variety of levels. The social construction of relationships hinges upon the other domain of interest to this study, social awareness. Social Awareness Knowledge of Context and Recognition of Social Hierarchy of Site Mamadous ability to build so many relationships at the company is due to the fact that he is aware of his surroundings. His awareness manifests itself in two fundamental ways: knowledge and recognition. He possesses knowledge of both cultural and linguistic contexts. In addition, he recognizes immediately the social hierarchy of the setting and the social class distinctions of the various workers. He is multilingual and multicultural. Yet, his awareness of the cultures and languages is not unilateral. He exerts awareness and sparks interest in others thus making it bidirectional. Until his arrival at the company there were many misunderstandings and misgivings about the immigrant population. His rapid acquisition of English, and in particular the use of register, and understanding of the culture of his workplace only aided in his capability to help people understand the immigrant population. During the course of the observational phase, one sees that not only does his ability to say the right thing make a difference in his professional development, but also it is evident in the choice of language that he produces. When speaking to the Americans at the plant, he greets them with the popular expression "Wassup?." On one occasion, when he walks over to the main offices at the company, he immediately changes register and greets the managerial staff with the noticeably articulated "Hello".

Another instance of his sociolinguistic competence occurred outside when an elderly white security guard walked by and the following jocular exchange occurred: Mamadou: How are you sir? Security: I was doin alright til I saw you. This simple exchange carries with it a lot of meaning. Mamadous use of "sir" immediately concedes authority to the security officer. In addition, it is representative of the respect he implicitly warrants the officer. The notion of language choice is important because he consciously chooses how to greet people based on both his relationship with them at the company and an understanding of their roles in the company hierarchy. The role of kinesics must be noted in describing Mamadous nonverbal interactions with employees. What is interesting to note is that again one sees his recognition and knowledge of the context. When speaking with the African employees he stands closer, leaning forward to indicate interest in what they are saying. This only occurred while speaking Wolof and French. He also clutches on to the arms of those to whom he is speaking and actually makes physical contact with them. This did not occur while addressing the American employees. He appears to be intuitively accessing the aspect of conversational style that is culturally associated with whomever he is speaking. He is socially aware and possesses knowledge of a variety of social contexts and his role in the contexts. While the preceding data are limited to acts of register, the data reveal that Mamadou has advanced in the company based on his ability to forge relationships and maintain intercultural harmony and communication at the site. Conclusion Throughout this study, Mamadou consciously negotiates his identity strategically and positions himself in relation to the other employees. By building trust, taking on a variety of different roles in the company, respecting others, and becoming an advocate for the immigrant population of the site he has constructed relationships in a unique way. This is achieved through possessing social awareness which implies knowledge of socio-cultural and sociolinguistic contexts and the recognition of the individuals place in relation to the contexts. His social strategic competence is linked directly to how he displays his identity and this ultimately has helped him in advancing in the company. Second language use and strategic competence are intricately linked to social identity and how we display ourselves in the target culture. When we engage in talk we are constantly displaying who we are and we have the ability to choose who we present

ourselves to be. Often, in Mamadous case, he positions his talk based on an understanding of who he is and, more noticeably, how others expect someone in his position to be or act. His workplace identity and speech in turn are co-constructed. His personality is meshed with his own interpretation of how to be and what others expectations of him are to be. In his case, very often they are conscious decisions that are based on his understanding of the socially co-constructed context of the workplace. Therefore, this study expands on the notion of strategic competence to include the concept of social identity and ultimately makes way for future studies regarding social identity strategies. As each individual possesses a unique identity, social identity strategies in L2 environments are extremely dynamic and context specific. This complexity then is much richer than the notion of just "getting along" in a target language and culture. It implies a highly complex system of interacting with and, in some cases, influencing the target culture. Implications This study has implications for those involved with researching strategies of second language use and learning and those involved with the training of immigrant workers. It suggests that second language social identity strategies may best be conceptualized as pertaining to the notion of communicative competence at the strategic level. By knowing how to qualify L2 social identity strategies as they occur in the sociolinguistic realm of daily life, a more complete understanding of strategic competence ensues. Furthermore, the notion of communicative competence is further extended to include what many researchers consider to be an important part of the L2 acquisition process, namely identity. Mamadous case also sheds light on what successful immigrants can achieve through learning the target language and, more importantly, understanding contexts. Merely having the ability to speak the second language is not as important socially as what one does with the language. This seems to be achieved through awareness. The research sheds light on the importance of interacting in and with the target culture. Multilingual and multicultural work environments can be harmonious places of exchange based on language and cultural awareness by all. Employee trainers in companies that have international employees stand to benefit by understanding what other immigrants have experienced, what they know, and how they have negotiated their L2 identities in the target culture and workplace environment. References Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approach to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Cohen, A.D. (1995). Second Language Learning and Use Strategies: Clarifying the issues. The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Universityof Minnesota. Dunn, R. (1997). Self, identity, and difference: Mead and the poststructuralists. The Sociological Quarterly, 38, 4, 687-706. Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hsiao, Tsung-Yuan & Oxford, R.L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 368383. McNamara, T. (1997). Theorizing social identity. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 3, 561-567. Miller, J. (1999). Becoming audible: Social identity and second language use. Journalof Intercultural Studies, 20, 2, 149-167. Naiman, Frohlich, M., & Todesco, A. (1975). The good second language learner. TESL Talk, 6, 58-75. Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 3, 409-429. Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 1, 9-30. Nyikos, M. & Oxford, R. (1993). A factor analytic study of language- learning strategy use: Interpretations from information-processing theory and social psychology. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 11-22. OMalley, J.M. & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle. Oxford, R. (1994). Language Learning Strategies: An update. ERIC Digest

Oxford, R. & Crookall, David. (1989). Research on Language Learning Strategies: Methods, findings, and instructional issues. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 404418. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications. Ramirez, A. (1986). Language learning strategies used by adolescents studying French in New York schools. Foreign Language Annals, 19, 131-141. Reiss, M.A. (1985). The good language learners: Another look. Canadian ModernLanguage Review, 41, 511-523. Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly ,9, 41-51. Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 2, 117-131. Savignon, Sandra J. & Sysoyev, Pavel V. (2002). Sociocultural strategies for a dialogue of cultures. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 508- 524. Schiffrin, D. (1996). Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic constructions of Identity. Language in Society, 25, 167-203. Stern, H.H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 304-318.
http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr13/miles.htm