TOPICS
Introduction
Beliefs
Psychological
Base
Immersion
Rationale
Immersion
Principles
Strategies
Evaluation
FLES/Elementary
Content Areas
Mary Finocchiaro and Michael Bonomo list a number of language subsystems
which, though presented as content to be learned/taught, reveal categories
of language change: the sound system, the grammar system, the lexical system
and the cultural system. The authors, also, remark about the essential
interrelationship of these subsystems. An example of the complex task of
language change is evident in the subsystem of listening which Finocchiaro
and Bonomo state as "subsidiary skills". The "learner must hear and identify
quite a variety of sounds: phonemic, sequences of sounds and their groupings,
function words, inflections, sound changes and function shifts, structural
groupings, word order, meanings of words in context, the formulas, introductory
words, etc. and the cultural meaning imbedded in various messages. (The
Foreign Language Learner, p. 106-107)
All of these "skills" are evidence of the changes that the new foreign
language learner will undergo as acquisition takes place. Trying to get
at the essence of this process, and to understand the complex context of
the transition from competence in one language to fairly equal competence
in another is a continuous task. An understanding of the complexity of
this human behavior is what I attempt to demonstrate in describing a conceptualization
for a topic.
Acquisition is a process that human beings can achieve. This contrasts
with academic language learning using a cognitive or analytical approach.
The goal of a natural approach to language learning is communication. This
goal is supported and is the key orientation of the national standards
for foreign language education, the final revision of which was adopted
by members of national language associations in 1996. Therefore, teachers
of ESOL and foreign languages need to explore actual, logically occurring,
situations in order to create appropriate contexts for natural communication.
Much of, so called, natural language teaching is not natural; i.e., teaching
items out of context, such as series of vocabulary words: colors, body
parts, etc. Language as Human Behavior and the nature of the changes that
take place in one's language behavior in acquiring a second language form
the basis for my own understanding of the acquisition process. The concept
is reinforced by years of teaching and the study of research on linguistics,
and brain & memory functioning. [Citations will be included in Notes
at the end of the article.]
Education plays a role in the process of this behavior change, especially
with regard to interdisciplinary activities and creative thinking. An orientation
on this perspective will be described later in the article. Another educational
outcome is that mastery of language for meaningful communication has an
intellectual benefit. This can be seen in learning to articulate one's
thoughts through the patterns of language behavior endemic to another people.
In other words, learning an entirely new pattern of articulation is an
intellectual gain.
The teacher who uses a natural approach becomes a facilitator of
human behavior change rather than the presenter of language forms for students
to analyze and apply in various exercises, primarily dependent on the textbook.
So, too is there a change in the role of the student as they learn from
the contexts developed out of student-teacher and student-student interaction.
The last concept, interaction, is an absolute necessity for acquisition
and the use of language for communication. This means student to student
communication in naturally occurring contexts of human interaction. I view
this as a four stage process. Communication begins with interaction (evidence
of, or within a cultural context). This leads to communication needs, which
lead to language needs and, finally, the specific language selections.
In contrast, traditional and, oddly, many natural approaches start
with language and work toward communication and meaningful interaction.
However, the activities, frequently, do not arrive at the real goal of
language!! This results in poor learning and frustration.
BELIEFS
In addition, it is important to stress the focus on interaction versus
content. Just at the moment that I was writing this section, in preparation
for my presentation for another workshop on the cultural bridge to elementary
curriculum, Paul Molitor hit a home run in the 6th inning of Game 6 of
the 1993 World Series. And, I missed it!! My focus, my attention, was on
what I was going to write. Too often, the language curriculum implies that
learners are supposed to concentrate on how they are going to put a thought
into the second language, not what is going on to begin with, what the
communicative purpose of the use of language is, the cultural context,
what they are going to say, and why, etc. The use of language to detail
or identify series of common items, such as days of the week, parts of
the body, colors, articles of clothing, etc. tends to focus language activities
on mere enumeration or listing of isolated sets of items [1] rather than
on naturally occurring communication situations in which some of the items
are used, but seldom all of them in a set. A challenge to teachers: How
many days of the week must students master, or are needed, in order to
communicate about some meaningful experience? Think of how many names of
days you have used in the past few weeks for various purposes. In remarking
about some of the sessions that you have attended at a language conference.
This leads to the most important point of a natural approach, meaningfulness.
This means that language is used to express unique perceptions about
one's life. My orientation to language acquisition turns on three keys:
Meaningfulness, Mastery and Communication. One needs to master a certain
amount of language in order to communicate with another person (meaningful
interaction.) One need not wait until the entire paradigm of language structure,
or a fairly complete set of specific vocabulary words is learned (mastered?)
in order to fulfill this basic human function. Subsequent interaction and
exposure to other language forms can stimulate more utterances based, again,
upon unique perceptions of students. As mastery of a few patterns within
a communicative context grows, new patterns can become extensions of the
students' developing control of the language needed to express a wide range
of perceptions. I believe that a context can be created within which learners
begin, intrinsically, to draw into themselves the sense and control of
the context of, and the patterns needed for, communication. This contrasts
with the more frequent instructional sequence of teacher presentation of
new, whole patterns for analysis, reiteration and testing.
As students gain control of language that stimulates their own experiences,
the quotient of available responses in the classroom goes up exponentially
since meaningful relationships with language can connect to the myriad
experiences of each person, each set of experiences is unique. The potential
is for millions of unique experiences ready for extrapolation to the new
learning context at any time! The potential of this reinforces a thesis
of mine about acquisition founded on the orientation presented here. That
is, if a student has learned a few patterns, or structures, of a new language
to the extent that these can be used, at the will of the student, to communicate
about a limited amount of the student's experiences, with slight variations
of the communicative context (including minor extensions of vocabulary)
then the student has taught the mind and the body the psychological and
physiological keys for mastering the rest of the structures of the language!!
One can understand this point of view in terms of the conceptualization
that each world language is whole unto itself. All patterns are intrinsically
connected to each other and, therefore, any pattern/structure can be developed
out of any other.
Thus far, collated evidence that I have examined is beginning to
shed insights for future substantiation of this thesis. Real evidence of
it was demonstrated by foreign language education students during a "shock
language" experience (Russian) in my methods orientation class, Language
as Human Behavior. The students mastered a few patterns of new, "shock",
language and, subsequently, were able to extend their control of language
patterns rather readily within communicative situations. In reference to
language acquisition and FLES, then, there would appear to be some essential
contexts. These are interaction, culture, communication and meaningfulness.
Interaction and meaningfulness provide for unique connections to be made
between students' experiences, perceptions and culture, language forms
and, indeed, the communicative process itself. Communicative interaction
is stressed rather than language content.
Since FLES is a variation of 2nd language immersion, a quick review
of the concepts and principles of immersion will help set a context for
seeing connections between FLES and the elementary curriculum. First, let
me state a rationale for immersion based on a number of considerations,
including the focus on the basic elementary curriculum, holistic learning,
language used as a tool of instruction and the positive results of immersion
programs. Later, some techniques of FLES implied from the principles of
immersion will be illustrated.
IMMERSION RATIONALE
English skills were as good or better than in control groups. Subject
content mastery; same results. Students developed cross-cultural understanding.
Best results were in early and total immersion. This is better than FLES.Available
amount of time for immersion is critical.
The early start and available time are both critically related with
regard to mastery (Subject content) and time for acquisition and interaction.
Also, time is needed for communication activities versus learning of specific
language content. One should put the emphasis on meaningfulness. Having
to compromise on the amount of time and the emphasis devoted to language
use and language form, one should compromise on the side of communication!
[The underlined items relate to the content orientation of the cultural
bridge, as explained below.]
What is the conceptual base of immersion / FLES? It contains psychological
aspects and learner characteristics, as well as immersion and acquisition
principles. A key principle is the emphasis or foundation of meaningfulness.
This was stated previously as the essence of the three keys to language
acquisition. In addition, it reinforces the idea of the unique complex
of experiences of the student. This concept is, further, reinforced by
research on brain and memory functioning. In particular, longer term retention
was associated with elaboration of the material to be learned and the positive
relationship or familiarity the material had for the learner. [2]
PSYCHOLOGICAL
BASE
In addition to the above, the rationale of immersion depends on factors
or characteristics of learners at different ages, their cognitive development.
Most teachers of elementary students either know these, or the characteristics
will appear very familiar.
A. Stage of pre-operational thought (2 - 7 years) See
grade level implications, below.
B. Stage of concrete operations (7 - 11 years)
C. Elementary / middle school child characteristics [Note underlined
ones especially]
K to Grades 1 & 2 Preoperational Stage continues.
IMMERSION PRINCIPLES
The next two principles relate to the preceding commentary, there
is natural use of oral language, as well as the following principle,
language is a tool, not the object of instruction. Instruction
conveys the ideas of both presentation and student learning. Language
patterns and vocabulary will receive attention in order to deal with the
content of the immersion class (the regular elementary curriculum, such
as Geography.) For example, the "shock" language experience for foreign
language majors at the University of Central Florida mentioned above included
an episode in which students acted as Russian "cosmonauts" and learned
a considerable number of names of countries in order to describe where
they were in space relative to the Earth. Later, when given a "three
week break", students went to the "travel agency" and were required to
report back where they planned to "travel" (explaining the route from country
to country utilizes two grammatical noun patterns in the language, one
of which, frequently, gives regular students of Russian considerable difficulty,
the genitive). On "returning" from the "break," they might be asked
to tell where they went. Much additional language could be attached
to this meaningful experience as extensions of their new language skill.
This example conveys the concept noted in the Introduction. That
is, new language patterns can become an extension of one's own communication
purposes and capabilities. A repetition drill using geographical names
became the basis for developing the "cosmonauts'" knowledge of the globe
as preparation for simulated "space station" assignments. The use of country
names became, essentially, part of a meaningful purpose of communication
(versus simple identification of flash cards or pointing to a map), and
students' "choices" of countries to include on their mock itinerary reflected
their own interests in these countries. The country name became an
introduction, as well, to reading for communication.
LANGUAGE
& CONTENT
Subject content is taught in the target language. Beyond
the proviso indicated above, current immersion programs are either bilingual
programs (Canada and Dade County, Florida) or they are elementary foreign
language immersion programs. There is a, potentially, powerful effect
on the rate of acquisition from the use and meaningfulness of content based
instruction. CAVEAT: this assumes that content is taught as
meaningful aspects of human competence, not just the facts of the discipline.
Also, there is the potential for interdisciplinary activities with other
teachers.
Another immersion principle is that grammar instruction follows
language arts (or as needed). This is, primarily, a consideration
for elementary foreign language or immersion programs. On this principle,
I have another caveat. That is, grammar should not drive the foreign
language immersion syllabus. (See Suggested Approach.)
Error correction focuses on meaning. This principle
relates to the meaningfulness needed to underlie the use of language versus
a concentration on correctness. Error correction should not interrupt
the communication flow. I see instruction in and for communicative
interaction as a seamless fabric. Concentration on specific rules
that are infringed when students make errors interrupts the smooth flow
of activities that are designed to lead toward control of patterns within
carefully constructed contexts of interaction. My suggestion is develop
appropriate contexts for correct forms that are used incorrectly.
Ignore aberrant forms. No need to draw attention to non-language
forms.
Teachers use the target language not the native language. First,
and foremost, the teacher should use the second language!! Teachers
should establish a model for sensible interaction so that students are
familiar with what is expected. Any language follows function.
Then, a new language should do so, as well, and not home language based
thought patterns.
Reading begins based on familiar materials. Using familiar
materials, teachers should follow the precept, as well, that the purposes
of reading in the native language and the target language should be equivalent.
First language literacy skills transfer to L2. Teachers need
to obtain information on reading materials, and develop perspectives about
reading in the second language, etc. FL teachers need to know about
the school's reading program, plus learn about their students' abilities.
Culture is an integral component of the L2 class. Even in
a standard FL class, culture should underlie and be infused into activities,
especially, communicative ones. The class/school is permeated
by the L2 atmosphere. "Permeated" does not, only, mean making
posters for "Culture Day" or having a special language activity.
Messages about L2 activities could be a regular part of school announcements.
Think of other possibilities. One might try a different idea:
1. Send students to other parts of the school as travelers and language
investigators. They should observe, learn and report on activities,
observations and uses of language in the world outside of the immersion
classroom. 2. Encourage other teachers to call on FL students
as visitors from other cultures. 3. Help students develop sensitivity
to the structure of culture and categories of cultural behavior.
STRATEGIES
Why not try the following: Open the book and examine the patterns/structures/vocabulary
which need to be taught. Close the book and open your mind to the potential
human interaction represented by the description of the rules for the structures
or by the central themes in the vocabulary that would be observed in the
behavior of the people in the target culture. Expand on the cultural context
with information that would make the situation more natural. Then, create
these conditions in the classroom, and bring the needed language into the
communicative situation thus created. Techniques should
reflect content area methods (See Content-Based Instruction.)
What is the rationale for Content-Based Instruction? It begins
with the communicative competence movement, the essence of which is that
there is some knowledge or information to be shared. The content
focus provides, potentially, for meaningful experiences with language.
[Remember the previous Caveat about a content focus and procedures in the
standard curriculum.] Second language acquisition theory includes,
as well, an orientation to content-based instruction in that content provides
what Krashen calls, comprehensible input. In addition, the language
of the content is input on which acquisition can develop. There is
a potential that language boundness of content stimulates meaningful integration,
without really trying to force connections between content and language,
or making obvious efforts to have things appear to be meaningful.
Similarly, language for Specific Purposes is, automatically, meaningful:
Occupations, Language of the waiter, Hotel reservations clerk, Mechanic,
Doctor, etc. This is, especially, true when students can identify
someone they know who are engaged in various occupations.
Holistic Education. Results are positive from the integration
of language and content. Also, the use of other skills, Reading &
Writing, and use of higher order thinking contributes to this holistic
educational experience. [CAVEAT: Higher Order Thinking does
not occur in the language. It is PRE-LANGUAGE, abstract, symbolic
functioning.] There may be cultural influences as well as subject
content influences. Consider where cognitive versus language functioning
takes place in the brain.
Time in the Curriculum is critical. Time taken to concentrate
on language patterns is, potentially, time taken away from communication.
Content based language use implies not having to learn the specific language
of the content in order to deal with the concepts. Following content
based perspectives, the question may be asked: What content,
then, does one teach in the FLES class? Well, contrary to the usual
content-based FLES programs, it is not the elementary school curriculum
content.
The answer? Culture is the natural content of the immersion
class and FLES class. The conceptualization underlying this orientation
is that a focus on culture follows the rationale that language and culture
are inseparable, there is no language of a people without the culture underlying
it. Culture is the foundation of language. Another aspect of
this is that every culture has its own validity, and a focus on culture
becomes, as well, a focus on human commonality. See an aside on
the focus on culture on another page.
The human in the process, in the context of FLES, is the child.
The child is the integrator of the curriculum, both from the elementary
and the FLES classes. This points to the centrality of a single child's
brain contrasted to the many brains in the people making up the curriculum
team. [Explained further below.] The idea of interdisciplinary
instruction or curriculum, as a concept, is not an administration function,
but rather a function of a single brain, the one in a single child.
Culture serves as the curriculum bridge between two content areas.
One should take warning, a caveat: Don't teach regular subjects!
But, what do you teach? Within the culture are components relevant
to all other subject disciplines in the curriculum. CAVEAT:
When cultural content and content from other subjects coincide, we have
a serendipitous occasion. There is no need to match the contents
of both disciplines (as is the usual focus of elementary immersion programs.)
What are appropriate strategies and techniques, then, for content
based learning? How do we stimulate and facilitate bridge building?
Again, what does one teach in FLES? One teaches valid aspects of
culture with the purpose of helping students become knowledgeable, empathetic,
WELCOME OUTSIDERS, comfortable with themselves in their own as well as
other cultures. An extension of the knowledge and skills they can
develop is to send students to "visit" other classes, and to return from
this exposure and integrate their understandings and knowledge into the
cultural exposure of the FL class.
A number of the references in this paper are from Curtain and Pesola's
book on FLES, Children and Languages: Making the Match. In
remarking about the appropriate context for language learning and content-based
instruction, the authors cite Cummins's recommendation that we use context
imbedded language with many clues. [The relevance to culture should
be readily apparent.] Interdisciplinary instruction is another component
of content-based instruction and this idea has been mentioned previously.
My suggestion about content-based curriculum is to find cultural
content to match that of the elementary curriculum. We can utilize
student competence in subjects listed below to develop bridges between
the target culture and the content of the other subjects in the curriculum.
I have spoken of a bridge. Let me explain this concept. As
mentioned, many of the elementary immersion programs imply teaching
the elementary subjects in the target language, such as in a bilingual
program. When I described the interdisciplinary function of a single
child's brain, I was referring to this idea of a bridge, a bridge between
the language curriculum and the elementary curriculum. This applies,
particularly, to FLES, non-immersion, programs in that one would teach
the valid content of the culture of the people who speak the target language.
The child, when he/she is exposed to relevant content in the elementary
curriculum, will, potentially, integrate the understanding and the components
of these new concepts into his/her ongoing understanding of the components
of the target culture. The bridge, then, as noted, is the brain of
the child, serving as a natural mediator of the many experiences to which
the child is exposed, and making sense out of them in unique, natural,
ways. We cannot do it for them!!
The graphic illustrates the idea developed above. On each side
could be listed content and culture matches. [Connections to typical
school curricula will be shown later: Social Studies, Science, Mathematics,
Other Subjects.] Teachers are to advised not to choose the elementary
subject content, first. Teach valid cultural content, then look for
other subject matter for an extension of the original concept, opening
up interdisciplinary possibilities. Every culture has its own validity
and need not, must not, be tied to the regular curriculum in order to justify
it!! Extend the cultural focus for specific bridging potentialities.
Venn diagrams have two intersecting circles containing ideas, concepts,
etc. from one domain Culture1 (C1) in one circle and another one in which
factors representing C2 appear. Commonalities of concepts are seen
in an intersecting area. A key word is illustrate. There is
a problem of attaining meaningfulness if the exercise is not tied to a
purposeful human endeavor. (A thematic map developed solely on the
color, green, is an example of a meaningless activity!!!) All of
these concepts are static. I propose a DYNAMIC approach which will
be explained later.
The skills that are being developed (listening, speaking, reading
and writing) arise, naturally, out of the use of authentic materials and
communicative purposes, interactions.
What culture to teach and how to include culture in classroom has
been the lifelong subject of a leader in the field, Ned Seelye, who
suggests tying language objectives to essential goals of cultural learning
and awareness. He proposes that objectives of foreign language learning
be tied to cultural learning and awareness. The goals of cultural
content are as follows:
Seelye suggests the following steps in designing culturally related
curricula: Identify language skills and cultural content: write objectives;design
learning activities. I think it is helpful for you to think about
the cultural aspects in the language that you teach with regard to some
foundations of cultural understanding or goals of culture. Another
well known writer on cultural is Howard Nostrand. He says to look for major
themes around which actions of a given lifestyle may be analyzed and learned
about. For example, one could use popular songs as the basis for
understanding a variety of cultural themes. The thematic approach
is what was referred to above regarding foundations. Nostrand is
known for his Emergent Model of cross-cultural competence: 1) Interaction,
Describe patterns per the typical subculture's use of them, 2) Subsistence,
Recognize patterns and the connection to behavior of the people, 3) Explain
the patterns per functional relationships to other patterns or in causal
terms, 4) Predict reactions to a situation, 5) Evaluate evidence of a generalization,
6) Describe/demonstrate methods of analysis or synthesis, and 7) Select
descriptive knowledge significant for a common human purpose.
I think that it is helpful for teachers to think about the aspects
of the target culture in the language that they teach in terms of their
relevance to some foundations or goals of culture. These can be viewed
according to a number of categories described, identified or defined by
a variety of sociologists, anthropologists or others who examine social
behavior and its cultural context and underpinnings. One of the most
well known of these is Edward Brooks. Brooks lists the following
categories of cultural manifestations: Symbolism, Values,Authority,
Order, Ceremony, Love, Honor, Humor, Spirit, and Beauty. Another
set of cultural categories is provided by Hall and Trager: Interaction,
Association, Subsistence, Bisexuality, Temporality, Territoriality, Play,
Defense, and Exploitation (of resources). One can look for
correlations between the two lists. Indeed, it does not matter whose
categories one uses as long as facets of the cultural content in the language
class are integrated in terms of valid generalizations about culture as
human behavior (cf. Emergent Model, # 7, above.) In this regard,
meaningful experiences of students with the culture will develop as students
both learn about the culture and interact in simulated, culturally appropriate,
situations. These experiences become part of the students' background
knowledge which comes into play when they have to interpret other cultural
situations or behaviors of the people who speak the language that the students
want to learn.
Another leader in the field of teaching culture, Howard Nostrand,
says to look for major themes around which actions of a given lifestyle
may be analyzed and learned about. Example, one can use songs as
the basis for understanding social themes.
Here are some examples of how concepts from the cultural content
in the FLES program can be matched with content from the elementary curriculum.
Below are two columns. Try matching concepts in column 1 with items
in column 2. See suggested content below.
Elementary Curriculum
Foreign Language Content
Habitats of animals/insects
__________________________________
HABITATS OF ANIMALS/INSECTS
Animals in South America
HOW PEOPLE DRESS IN THE WORLD
Dress for school in the target country
Observations of buying habits
FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER ITEMS
Charro clothing of Mexican horsemen
MAKE/IDENTIFY COMMON MEASUREMENTS
Metric system
Other ideas come to mind as one explores cultural information and
connections between FLES and the elementary curriculum, in particular,
games, rhymes, group and paired activities, role play, etc. Most
of these are very consistent with the learner characteristics of the FLES
age children. Games and the other activities mentioned can, also,
become an excellent means in elementary immersion and FLES programs, to
establish a bridge to the regular curriculum in that games, role
play, group activities, etc. are a common context of learning and practice
in elementary content areas. Rhymes, games, songs, etc. should be
examples of authentic cultural behavior, not made up to teach or practice
vocabulary lists, conjugations or other rules of grammar. The idea
is to teach culture, not just use culture to teach language. Role
play should reflect naturally occurring, culturally relevant, human interaction
which, as mentioned, gives rise to the need for communication and specific
language needs. These activities become an excellent means
Teachers should kept a caveat in mind, however. Games are tests,
not learning tools!! However, these can be converted to learning
exercises by having students follow instructions for playing the games
with the teacher as a facilitator, not just the person calling out the
test stimuli, such as the commands for "Simon Says." In such a game,
the teacher would move with the students as if to follow the command and,
so, demonstrate meaning within a meaningful context. Later, the commands
could be given as practice, with teacher help, before having students "play"
the game, itself. One may teach quite a few concepts within this
meaning, learning, context. There should be no need to teach the concepts
first and then test the students' competence in the game.
When emphasizing naturally occurring situations, one may ask where
to come upon such occurrences. Teachers are reminded that they know
the language, so there is no need to examine the material in the textbook
to review the res of any patterns to be learned. Why not try the
following: Open the book and examine the patterns/structures/vocabulary
which need to be taught. Close the book and open your mind to the
potential human interaction represented by the description of the rules
for the structures or by the central themes in the vocabulary that would
be observed in the behavior of the people in the target culture.
Expand on the cultural context with information that would make the situation
more natural. Then, create these conditions in the classroom, and
bring the needed language into the communicative situation thus created.
EVALUATION
At this point, it will be helpful to reiterate essential concepts
developed in the paper that were stated in the Introduction. Some of these
were stated as beliefs. 1. the need for student control of
learning; 2. participants need to share control; and, 3. teachers
need to focus on context, not content. Other concepts were stated
as highly important to the natural process of acquiring language:
meaningfulness and interaction. As an extension of the idea of making
bridges between FLES and the elementary curriculum, one may follow the
sequence indicated below. It is similar to the examples given above,
but indicates not only how to make the connection, but asks for a rationale
using immersion principles and suggests extending the idea to other activities,
content or language skill. Procedures: 1. Select items
from one's own FLES cultural content 2. Examine categories
of the elementary curriculum 3. Describe correlations between
content areas 4. State correlation to appropriate principles
Notes 1. Paul MacClean, "Evolution of the three mentalities",
in New Dimensions of Psychiatry, p. 134. MacLean describes the brain
as a unification of three types of brains, or facets of the brain:
the reptilian brain, the neomammalian brain and the neocortex. He
refers to Isopraxis as the performance of the same behavior, imitation.
He remarks that excessive imitation may close the door to creativity.
2. In memory research, a number of studies reveal a higher potential
retention when the material to be learned is familiar or has a high arousal
propensity: Kleinsmith and Kaplan, Modigilaini; Kamano & Drew,
Lott & Lott, and Tulving. In addition, learning seems to be negatively
related to states of anxiety (Taft.) 3. Klienberg and Kaufman
studied the effect of chunking on memory recall and found that learning
time is proportional to the number of chunks and that the size of the chunk
can be expanded as well as the chunk size getting bigger with age.
4. Other citations TO BE INCLUDED
Foreign
Language Education Program
Return to the Foreign
Language Education Home Page
Language grows from the behavior of people immersed in a culture.
My orientation to language grows from this conceptualization. Consider
the following proposition: a speaker of one language wants to become competent
in another. Where does that person begin? Many questions arise from this
basic question. The questions force a thorough examination of the process
of becoming proficient in another language (bilingual, as it were). The
question forces teachers of other languages to consider the nature of language
as a construct of changes that need to take place in order for this person
to be able to understand and speak a second language.
Within this context of changing human behavior and the facilitation
of such a changes by teachers, let me state some of MY beliefs. The first
one of these is the belief that students must, essentially, be in control
of their own learning. This reflects the natural process of interaction.
Natural communication allows for considerable freedom of choice in the
use of language. We must facilitate students' development of such control
with an emphasis on controlling communicative contexts within which their
mastery of language patterns can grow. The teacher, then, has the responsibility
to stimulate conditions of interaction in which students can begin to master
the patterns of communication, to facilitate the extensions of the linguistic
patterns, and to stay out of the way of students' development of the sense
of communication which teachers are trying to facilitate. It should become
apparent, then, that all participants in the process of language acquisition
and mastery of a new mode of communication must share control of the process.
[Later, you will see an approach that allows students to share control
of the development of contexts for learning and language use. This reflects
another important belief.]
The focus or first consideration of current immersion programs is
the basic elementary curriculum. This is, frequently, a major FLES component,
as well. Language is, still, taught and practiced with well designed acquisition
learning activities. Some positive results of many immersion programs are
listed below. A few are rather obvious. Second language skills, probably,
could be ranked first. Overall, this is a holistic approach to learning.
The benefit to critical thinking, as well as the teacher's role as a facilitator,
have already been described.
The psychological conceptual base includes a number of the factors
of learning. These are listed (underlined) with elaboration regarding recommended
conditions for meaningful acquisition and the use of language:
1. Students are active processors of information. Oxford
(FL ANNALS, 1994) describes a model of 6 types of strategies that learners
use. These are: memory, cognitive strategies, compensation, metacognitive
strategies, affective reactions, and social interaction. Some of
the metacognitive strategies are: focus on listening/delayed speaking;
paying attention; learning what/how materials are used; setting goals;
self monitoring; and, self evaluation. Compensation is described
as guessing intelligently; avoidance; and, adjusting the task. The
majority of these strategies have to do with processing information, such
as language rules and vocabulary identifications, usually out of context.
2. How is more important than What students learn.
This is, particularly, important for FLES level students in that an openness
to language and culture needs to be encouraged, not a specific level of
cognitive achievement. (See comment below.)
3. There is an automaticity of cognitive processes.
Unfortunately, we tend to lead to students' cognitive strength in foreign
language learning, especially in terms of learning language structure and
vocabulary. Instead, we should be helping students develop a greater
sense of the communicative contexts within which language structures become
logically integrated, and the cultural interaction patterns which drive
communication to begin with.
4. Metacognitive skills can be taught. (See Oxford,
above.) One needs to consider carefully WHAT, indeed, is being taught
in the FLES classroom to determine whether one should encourage the development
of such skills in order for students to apply them to language acquisition
activities. Certainly, guessing is appropriate, unless it implies
guessing the English meaning of target language words or utterances and
sentence patterns. Interaction is appropriate, especially in terms
of tasks which do not rely on students doing an analysis of a grammatical
rule in order to write correct forms into basic sentences.
5. Internal motivation is the most enduring kind.
This certainly relates to the concept of allowing for students to control
most of their own learning and for all participants to share control of
the contexts and content of learning. 6. Students' information
processing abilities vary widely. [FL ANNALS on strategies, FALL 94]
This is related strongly to the Overview in which it was pointed out that
not all students are ready for target language matchups with elementary
curriculum concepts at the time that such instructional integrations may
be attempted in the FLES or immersion classroom. This variability
of students' ability to process information and their readiness for tasks
is certainly not new to any teacher. It ought to be influential in
the content based orientation to FLES. That it seems not to be is confusing.
A more complex matrix of abilities should be apparent in the foreign language
class when one considers that there are four separate language skills to
be developed and controlled: understanding, speaking, reading and
writing. And, all within a new cultural context!! It should
not amaze anyone that not all students are together on any one point or
skill in most language classes, especially at the level of FLES.
Development of language; other forms
of representation and rapid conceptual development.
Children tend to be egocentric.
Ability to apply logical reasoning
to problems
Best learning takes place with concrete experiences, immediate goals.
Pupils like to name objects, define words and, especially, learn about
their own world. Learning takes place, primarily, through oral language,
and they do well through dramatic play and role play. Short attention
spans require variety, plus large muscle activities, and specific directions/structured
activities, routines.
Grades 3 - 5 (ages 8 - 10) Pupils are at a maximum
of openness to people and situations different from their own experience;
a global emphasis is important and provides information from all parts
of the world. In the concrete operations stage, they understand cause
and effect. Pupils can work well in groups and take a more systematic
approach to language learning. They still need concrete experiences
as a starting point and benefit from context embedded learning tasks.
(See Cummins, below.)
It is important to examine the principles of immersion as well as
the psychological factors and developmental characteristics of children.
One may, without much analysis, find correlations between immersion principles
and the basic learning and developmental factors. The principles
are underlined in order to offset them from commentary that follows on
each as they relate to concepts already developed in this paper. The first
principle is, communication motivates all language use. This
is, probably, the most important aspect of an immersion program, of any
variation. The urge to communicate is intrinsic, and strong.
But, all language teachers know this! We need to direct this urge
and its motivating energy to the foreign language. This relates to
the concept of the natural use of language. Communication is not
naturally sequenced. Natural stages of acquisition need to be respected,
especially, listening before speaking.
Another aspect of the principle of language becoming the
tool of instruction is the strong relationship between academic
content and the language ordinarily used to teach it. One must ask
whether, indeed, FLES students are ready for the kind of language used
with content which can give even native speakers of English difficulty
because of the level of the language in which it is taught. Explaining
the concept of multiplication, for example, uses specific vocabulary words
that may not be in the lexicon of many students.
What are some of the strategies inherent in these immersion principles?
They are listed below, again with brief commentary. Underlined items
relate to some of the underlying concepts emphasized in previous paragraphs:
meaningfulness, natural uses of language, students in
control of learning, content based orientations, etc.
The strategies are typed in ITALICS. Use of context clues: Gestures,
props, etc. That this has relevance for a language focus is without
question. One needs to expand the potential of context clues when
teaching context and content. Provide hands-on experiences.
Allow for major efforts with interactive settings. [We will
consider how in suggestions later.] Modify language for comprehension.
This refers to teacher talk: Rate of speed, choices of vocabulary,
repetition, simplification, demonstration with language, variation of context,
not changing language structure before students have control of any one
aspect of the language: Structure, meaning, vocabulary and use in
meaningful contexts!! Functional chunks accelerate communication.
Phrases that are meaningful for specific purposes; i.e., "May I be excused?".
Use these as Passwords. This can lead to a sense of one liner speech
versus real discourse. However, the more control of language a student
can attain, the more extensions of this control and the language can occur.
"Chunking has the profound potential, reflecting relevant brain
research [3], of helping to knit a sense of physiological integrity of
the entire language. The idea was mentioned previously about learning
a few structures as, potentially, the psychological and physiological keys
to the rest of the language. One should monitor comprehension in
terms of interaction. The importance of interaction has been mentioned
at some length above. Use the language experience method of reading.
Techniques reflect content area methods. [ALSO] The
following are some strategies linking immersion with acquisition considerations:
Use context clues: Gestures, props, etc. in re
Hands-on experiences. Modify language for comprehension in
re Functional chunks accelerate communication. Monitor comprehension
per in textbook to review the rest of any patterns to be learned.
A number of techniques are suggested by Curtain and Pesola,
thematic webs, semantic maps, and venn diagrams. These will be explained
individually followed by examples from the elementary curriculum.
A thematic web indicates a word or theme as a central focus from which
to develop a "web" of oral and written activities. It's an integrated/interdisciplinary
process: providing experiences in the other skills and using other
subject matter. The "web" is a graphic representation of how the
pieces of the task/unit fit together. "Webs" can develop into Semantic
Maps. Semantic maps contain structured information in graphic form,
as with the thematic web, except without the integrated activities (use
of other skills). It's a display of words, ideas or concepts in various
categories (from brainstorming and analysis by the students) and how they
relate to each other. Maps provide good ways to bridge from culture
to the standard curriculum and from the concrete to the abstract. (Taking
words and organizing them into categories.)
Language (Related to cultural interaction)
Common situations and behavior
Cultural basis of words and phrases
Evaluate statements about culture
Attitudes toward other cultures
How people dress in the world
__________________________________
Make inferences from observations
__________________________________
Food, clothing, shelter items
__________________________________
Celebrating special days
__________________________________
Neighborhood patterns
__________________________________
Recognition of shapes
__________________________________
Identify values of money
__________________________________
Measure common lengths
__________________________________
Below are some of the cultural matches one could make given the
categories of the elementary curriculum listed above.
[PARTICIPATION TO COME]
Zoological Park
Rain forest, Black Mountains
Desert animals
Geography of target country
Natural resources of target country
Women's hats in Andes; lima woolens;
Regional costumes of target country;
City and rural differences in dress;
Dress at different times of day/night
MAKE INFERENCES FROM OBSERVATIONS
Formal / informal interaction codes
Ways to "go" in Russian
"to be" in Spanish
Looking at "extended" family photos
Houses with window bars & patios
Sizes of clothing
Height, weight
Distance between major points
Now, how should this interdisciplinary, culturally focussed, FLES
program be evaluated? The conceptualization to guide teachers is that one
should evaluate communication about culture [not specific points of grammar,
nor specific cultural content or interdisciplinary match-ups.] Other important
points are: Evaluate WHAT'S taught and HOW; Discover students' current
proficiency level; Stress success in communication / culture; and maintain
a communicative context and focus for the evaluation, just as was done
for the learning activities. Some bases frequently used for evaluating
pupil performance or proficiency in FLES are listed below.
Examine these in terms of their appropriateness to the criteria
stated in the section above or implicit in the general orientation of this
presentation. IMAGINATION CONCENTRATION
VERBAL ABILITY FOLLOWING COMMANDS GIVING COMMANDS
RECITING ALOUD IDENTIFYING PLACES WEBS TEST
FOR COGNITIVE ACHIEVEMENTS TEST FOR SUCCESS
SEMANTIC MAPS
ABILITY TO USE LANGUAGE IN CONTEXT
DISCRETE POINT ITEMS NAME BODY PARTS NAMING COLORS
CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR