Evans and Green Article

This article describes a survey done in Hong Kong to test the learning of tertiary students learning English. It breaks down their successes in different areas. They find that the students have particular difficulties with vocabulary. There are other problems with their learning as well, such as grammar, but vocabulary was the main problem.

I find this problem to be very interesting. They talk about the reluctance these students have for consulting dictionaries. It seems strange to me considering I was always taught to consult a dictionary before asking for help from someone else. Asking someone else is always the easy option, but I was always told to "look it up" if i asked my teacher what a word in French was. I find that I often take the same approach with my students. It is good to see that this actually does have a benefit in teaching a foreign language. I can't imagine going through a system that would not teach you to consult a dictionary if you cannot figure out a word. Then again, if you don't have a dictionary it is certainly useful to know how to get around that and ask somebody. I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but it really stood out to me when I read the article.

Hatch et. al. on Integrated Theory

In this article, they discuss the need for an integrated theory. They start by addressing the fact that no theory includes all aspects of SLA. They say that new technology hasn't been addressed and that we could use new technology to re-evaluate SLA. They propose that we research SLA again and come up with an integrated theory.

I really liked this article. I hate when people try to make you choose a theory. If I had to make a theory of my own, I would have to include aspects of many different theories. This is, in a way, what I think they are suggesting. Why do we need to stick with the old theories? Why not just use them and new research/technology to come up with a new theory that integrates all of the aspects of language. I also see the need for this new theory to be completely flexible. After all, that is a major problem of some of the other theories we have studied in this class. Things change and so it is necessary for theory to change as well. I think the argument for an integrated theory is very valuable. However, at the same time, I can also see that there may not be such a strong need for a new theory as long as we use the integrated parts of old theories to make a new practice. Practice is by far more important than theory, in my opinion.

Alptekin on communicative competence in ELT

In this article, Alptekin talks about the importance of cultural elements and knowing native-like behaviors in English Language learning. He states facts about how widespread English is in the world. He also says that it is not necessarily important for learners of English to know all the native culture elements because they may only use the language with other non-native speakers. He concludes that English language pedagogy should consist of local and global situations, so to prepare the learner for both native-non-native interactions and non-native-non-native interactions.

He makes a very valid argument. Before reading this article, I hadn't realized how many non-native speakers use English to conduct business with other non-native English speakers. It makes sense that International learner should be introduced to both types of interaction. However, in this class we are discussing English as a Second Language in a completely different context. We teach English to students who are immersed in the native culture and they definitely need to learn our customs. I could also see the importance of dealing with other non-native speakers, but our main focus is to try to make their English as native-like as possible, is it not? Native speakers do not need to know the non-native-non-native interaction rules because they will never be placed in this situation (not in English anyway).

Ellis on UG

Reading Ellis' article, "Appraising Second Language Acquisition Theory in Relation to Language Pedagogy," left me extremely confused on his viewpoint. Ellis critiques the Universal Grammar theory using a list of pre-set rules about SLA theory. UG tends to do really well in most of the categories. Sometimes it is really unclear whether Ellis believes it is doing good in a category or not. He then says that the theory is pointless because it has no practical value in the classroom. He says that UG goals contradict the goals of the classroom. However, in his conclusion he states that the theory is not any worse than other theories. He states that it is actually a fairly good theory to go by because of its strengths in those categories.

I was left very confused. I'm not sure whether Ellis favors the theory or not. Shouldn't a theory be written with the classroom teacher in mind? If not, what use does the theory have at all. What purpose does it serve if it can do nothing for the teachers that deal with the problems of Second Language Acquisition every day? I think the theory does stand strong as a theory but it is not practical, so can it be said that it is a good theory? Ellis does explain a lot in his article, I'm just not sure of what Ellis really thinks about the theory when he contradicts himself throughout the entire article. I'm just not sure what use this theory has if it cannot do anything for the teacher.

Krashen

We have talked a lot about Krashen, especially in our small group of FL teachers. When discussing it as a whole class there are a lot of negative feelings on the subject. I think that a major reason for our disagreement deals with what subject we are teaching, FL or ESL. The goals in each are totally different. In ESL you are trying to assimilate the students into a culture as quickly as possible. In FL you are working a lot slower. You are building on language from the beginning, they will never be asked to test on something they don't know in the language. ESL students are tested on English they may or may not know every single day. There are some really valid points in the Krashen hypothesis when viewed from the FL perspective. There are also really valid arguments against it from the ESL perspective. Sometimes we treat ESL and FL like they are entirely the same thing, this is one instance where we really see the differences between the two.

Critical Period Hypothesis

I've read a lot and heard a lot about CPH. I'm certainly not an expert by any means. I do have a few theories on the reasons why things happen. I think that children definitely have an easier time learning the language, however, I don't believe that it is impossible for an adult learner to speak another language with a proper accent. I've seen people that have no problem distinguishing sounds and producing them. I think there is maybe something involving our individual intelligences that plays a role. Some people cannot produce the right sounds at all, for others it seems easier. I think that children are used to listening for noise differences and they spend most of their time mimicing what other people are saying. When we get older, i believe that we stop listening to whole words all together. We start to fill in and only listen to partial speech. I think this could be a reason why we can't differentiate between the sounds of our first language and those of a second. Another reason why adults have trouble producing other sounds is because our muscles are used to using the sounds of our first language, the ones required for a second language often are not used in the same way and need to be "worked-out" before you are able to produce those sounds naturally. Children, especially babies, use all of the muscles in their mouths when making the random sounds that seem "foreign" to the adults around them. These are just some of the observations I've had when studying and discussing this topic in the past.