Colorado State

University

April 12th, 2014

Leslie DavisDevon JancinMoriah Kent

Kristen Foster

THEORIES OF SECOND LANGUAGE

ACQUISITION:

What are their implications &applications in the writing center?

The field of SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SLA) concerns itself with exploring the factors and processes that contribute to the acquisition of second and foreign languages.

“Tutors who are aware of the processes involved in the development of second languages and second language writing competence can be more effective in their conferences” (Williams, 2002, p. 86).

WHAT IS SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION?

INTO CSU

Fall 2013: International student enrollment up 280 students, or 23 percent

Past 5 years: up 70 percent

more than 5.5 percent of CSU’s student population 

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

1,553 clients493 (32%) ESL clients

3,136 consultations1,316 (42%) ESL consultations

FALL 2013 STATISTICS

to explore with other writing center directors and consultants

the implications and applicability of five SLA hypotheses

if and how an introduction to these hypotheses should be incorporated into writing center consultant training

DISCUSSION GOALS

10 minutes: Introduction to five influential SLA Theories

15 minutes: Small group discussion & brainstorm of applications/implications in the Writing Center

10 minutes: discuss brainstorm

20 minutes: Should we incorporate these theories into Writing Center training?

SCHEDULE

“(The writing center) is a unique place where talk and writing

come together, where interaction nearly always focuses on

meaningful communication” (Williams, 2002, p. 86).

THEORIES OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT HYPOTHESIS

KRASHEN (1991)

i+1Language input should be slightly above student’s ability level

“If the pupil is at a level that we shall call ‘i’, then the aim is for the teacher to raise the level of his/her use of the language to ensure that the pupil is receiving input a bit above ‘i’ and hence pushing up acquisition to the next level ‘+1’” (Krashen & Terrell, 1983, p. 32).

COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT HYPOTHESIS

INTERACTION HYPOTHESISLONG (1996)

Posits that “the best kind of comprehensible input leaners can hope to obtain is input that has been interactionally modified…

…in other words, adjusted after receiving some signal that the interlocutor needs some help in order to fully understand the message” (Ortega, 2009, p. 61)

interactional modifications negotiation for meaning

INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS

Negotiation for Meaning: “moves” performed in response to either actual or perceived comprehension problems, with the purpose of making meaning comprehensible to both interlocutors

Clarification requests (What do you mean? Could you say that

differently?)

Confirmation checks (So, you’re saying that X results in Y?)

Comprehension checks (Is that clear?)

These negotiations allow L2 learners exposure to the target language that is individualized and, rather than overly simplified, filled with repetitions and redundancies.

INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS

NOTICING HYPOTHESIS

SCHMIDT (1990)

students must notice gaps in their knowledge

Learners cannot learn grammatical features unless they notice them.

NOTICING HYPOTHESIS

Was born out of the idea that “positive attitudes and an optimal learning environment will afford the linguistic data needed for learning…[but that] grammar acquisition cannot be successful without applying ‘interest’, ‘attention’ and ‘hard work’. (Schmidt, 1990, pg. 58)

The more learners notice, the more they’ll learn.

What is “Noticing”? - Learners should notice linguistic material.- The brain “registers new material” (pg. 63). - Understanding does not need to happen, as long as a new piece of information is noticed.- Memory of the new material is not necessarily needed, either.

NOTICING HYPOTHESIS

COMPREHENSIBLE OUTPUT HYPOTHESIS

SWAIN (1995)

Noticing - students recognize what they don’t know

Hypothesis testing - students test out new forms based on what

they already know

Metalinguistic reflection - using language to reflect on language

mediates learning

COMPREHENSIBLE OUTPUT HYPOTHESIS

AFFECTIVE FILTERKRASHEN (1987)

Motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety level of the student must be taken into account. If their “affective filter” is up, they cannot acquire as much new information (Krashen, 1987, p. 3).

AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS

In pairs or groups of three, discuss:

How do these hypotheses connect to the work we do in the writing center?

How do they help clarify or explain our contributions to the language development of non-native English speakers?

BRAINSTORMING

Should we incorporate the presentation of these hypotheses and/or others into Writing Center training?

How might they be best introduced to consultants?

BRAINSTORMING

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Ltd.

Krashen, S. D. (1991). The input hypothesis: an update. InJames E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1991 (p. 409-431). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Ortega, Lourdes. (2009). Understanding Second LanguageAcquisition. London: Hodder Education.

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.

Williams, J. (2002). Undergraduate second language writers in thewriting classroom. Journal of Basic Writing, 21(2), 73-91.

WORKS CITED