|
Reference: Timothy Brockley, The Language Works Articles, It's All Academic, Socio-cultural and Ecological Perspectives in Second Language Learning, 3-30-2008. |
|
ESL and EFL Articles ~ It's All Academic |
|
Forum
|
|
Socio-cultural and Ecological Perspectives in Second Language Learning |
|
Click the icon to Go to the Main Page |
|
The Language Works recommends these excellent sources for more ESL/EFL related articles, papers, essays and the like... |
|
Click the icon to Return to the Table of Contents |
|
~Welcome to The Language Works Articles~
|
|
Blog |
|
“There is no reason to look under the skull since nothing of interest is to be found there but brains”
Garfinkel, H. (1963) "A conception of, and experiments with, 'trust' as a condition of stable concerted actions." in Motivation and social interaction. Edited by O.J. Harvey, 187-238. New York: The Ronald Press.
“Harold Garfinkel ” in Wikipedia |
|
next page→ |
|
The ideas and opinions presented here are not intended as challenges to individuals or differing schools of thought, but rather as food for further ideas and opinions. Please feel free to use these articles as you see fit and post your opinions on the forum (below) or via the blog (right)... |
|
The following speculation has been developed along the lines of an ‘information processing model’ of SLA: THREE KINDS OF NOTICING ~ 1) A ‘gap’ is noticed between the output form— initiated by the ‘interlanguage’ which is a developing cognitive system with only partial target language competence— and a new form which may or may not be correct but is presented to the learner as ‘input’. 2) A ‘hole’ is noticed in a learner’s output: this could be via the learners themselves (as in a writing exercise) or in communication with others. A ‘hole’ in this case is described by Swain (1998): ‘while attempting to produce the target language (vocally or subvocally) learners may notice that they do not know how to say (or write) the meaning they wish to convey’. 3) A feature of the target language is noticed simply because of its frequency or its salience. COGNITIVE PROCESSES ~ 1) The learner becomes conscious of the new form, the intake process is set in motion and the new form becomes a potential candidate for short-term memory. 2) The new form becomes salient enough for acquisition and is integrated into the interlanguage/long-term memory. How this may transpire is still a matter of speculation, perhaps through repetition/memorization, a 'matching' L1 transfer or through other cognitive processes such as a form of connectionism whereby memory is created by modifying the strength/weight of the connections between neural units in the brain. A note on ‘comprehended input’: ‘what is comprehended can either feed into the intake component or, alternatively, it may not be used by the learner for anything but communication’ (Gass, 1988:205 via Ellis). It is possible, given the somewhat arbitrary nature of input, for learners to acquire ‘wrong’ or ‘incorrect’ forms as well as native-like forms depending on the source and comprehension of the input. You may have noticed that the above process is loaded with terms from the computer age and has aptly been named ‘the computer model’. It is also known as the ‘information processing model’. The main criticism of this model is its exclusion of the role of context (immediate social, cultural and historical influences) and its exclusion of the mediation of language by tools (books, computers, images) and others (peers, teachers and even emails and chats) which is an essential consideration in social constructivist points of view. Van Lier (2004) also points out the pitfalls of the computer model: ‘Like a computer, the brain runs programs (rules, dictionaries, scripts of different kinds) to process incoming and outgoing data, connecting linguistic raw material to stored mental concepts and schemata, and vice versa…’ and that ‘the focus is primarily on what goes on inside the brain’. So if we are ‘information processors’, what we have been seeing reflected in the mirror for the past 30 years or so is something akin to a talking machine with text recognition software. From a research perspective, there is also the problem of reductionism— analyzing parts of language and ‘boiling down’ data to the simplest possible explanation. ‘The whole cannot be explained on the basis of its parts. Therefore, any analysis of details must be intimately and continually connected to the whole. The detail must project to the whole, as it were’ (van Lier, 2004, p. 199). What's more surprising is that an abundance of very popular theories and approaches to second language pedagogy have been informed by the information processing model within a reductionist framework. To date, most research in SLA has proceeded from a marriage of the computer metaphor and scientific reductionism. This should give us some pause.... An alternative model that has for some time been the focus of interest and debate is a ‘socio-cultural’ (also known as ‘cultural-historical’) approach derived from the work of Lev Vygotsky. Kozulin, Lantolf and Wertsch are among the many who have been strong proponents and contributors to its development (see articles 1 and 2 below). Merrill Swain has given a strong, articulate and eloquent voice to developments along these lines as well... (see articles 3 and 4 below). Additionally, an ‘ecological perspective’ (also a Vygotskian offshoot) has been receiving considerable attention. This approach is well-informed by Leo van Lier who has been pursuing his own very sound and illuminating ideas and elaborating on an eclectic sample of historical thinkers and academics (5 and 6 below). The following articles serve to pave and pace the way for a broader approach to SLA or perhaps Second Language Mediation (SLM) as the new paradigm would have it. It is my belief that the intention of this ‘movement’ is to develop a bridge between the previous cognitive/connectionist framework and the more comprehensive social constructivist approach to experiencing the world. This wider scope of understanding has the potential to open the field of SLA to more exciting and effective means for learners to become successful in second languages. 1) Click. Lantolf, J. (2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press. pp. 1-18. 2) Click. Lantolf, J. and Thorne, S. (2007) Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In B. van Patten & J. Williams. 'Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction'. New York: Rutledge. 3) Click. Swain, M. (1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection in Doughty and Williams: ‘Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition’. Cambridge, 1998. pp. 64-81. 4) Click. Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf: ‘Sociocultural theory and second language learning’. Oxford University Press. pp. 97-114. 5) Click. van Lier, L. (2000) From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In Lantolf: ‘Sociocultural theory and second language learning’. Oxford University Press. pp. 245-259. 6) van Lier, L. (2004) The ecology and semiotics of language learning. Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Buy it!)
The Language Works Online Curriculum
|
|
From Ellis, R. (1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press. p. 349. |