ENGLISHLANGUAGE LEARNER FROM WIKIPEDIA THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA JUMP TO

ENGLISHLANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS PAGE 2
ENGLISHLANGUAGE LEARNER FROM WIKIPEDIA THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA JUMP TO
HOW TO PRONOUNCE THE –ED ENDING HTTPWWWYOUTUBECOMWATCH?VEF8SD9TI6K HTTPWWWSHERTONENGLISHCOMRESOURCESESPRONUNCIATIONPRONUNCIATIONEDPHP HTTPWWWELEARNENGLISHLANGUAGECOMINGLESGRAMATICAPASADOSIMPLEPRONUNCIACIONHTML

English-language learner

English-language learner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (June 2011)

An English-language learner (often capitalized as English-Language Learner or abbreviated to ELL)is a person who is learning the English language in addition to their native language. This can refer to any learners of English as a foreign or second language, but more often the term is used to refer to learners of English as a second language in mainstream schools where English is the language of instruction. The instruction and assessment of students, their cultural background, and the attitudes of classroom teachers towards ELLs have all been found to be factors in ELL student achievement. Some ways that have been suggested to assist ELLs include bringing their home cultures into the classroom, involving them in language-appropriate content-area instruction from the beginning, and by integrating literature into the learning program. Some educational advocates, especially in the United States, prefer for a student learning any second language the term emergent bilingual.^[1]

[edit] Issues in the classroom

There are a considerable number of ESL students (English as a Second Language) in classrooms today, causing a strong need for additional programs and services. Unfortunately, there are many critical issues that relate to culturally and linguistically diverse students. Four critical issues that are found in today’s classrooms when teaching diverse learners are instruction, assessment, the role of culture, and the teacher’s attitudes. It has become vital to integrate culture, literature, and other disciplines into content and language.

[edit] Instruction

The first critical issue is focused on instruction of the ESL students within the classroom and how it is related to Standards-based content and ESL instruction. Some teachers may feel that ESL instruction many be a separate entity from standard-based instruction. On the contrary, we need to acknowledge the fact that they are intertwined with each other. TESOL Standard 3a states that teachers should “know, understand, and use evidence‐based practices and strategies related to planning, implementing, and managing standards‐based ESL and content instruction”.^[2] In a five week study by Huang, researched showed that “classroom instruction appeared to play an important role in integrating language skills development and academic content learning.” This study showed that the “students acquire linguistic/literacy skills and scientific knowledge hand in hand as they assume various communicative and social roles within carefully planned language activities”.^[3] By tying in written texts with the science content the students were able to improve their language development between drafts and build on their science content knowledge.

[edit] Assessment

The second critical issue is focused on fair and balanced assessment within the ESL classroom. Some teachers may come across being biased without even recognizing it. “All too often, though, these students are either asked to participate in tests that make unfair assumptions about their English-language proficiency in order to assess their content knowledge or conversely, are totally excluded from any testing until their English-language proficiency has reached a certain level,”.^[4] TESOL standard 4a states that’s teachers need to “demonstrate understanding of various assessment issues as they affect ELLs, such as accountability, bias, special education testing, language proficiency, and accommodations in formal testing situations”.^[5] When the teachers are capable of understanding the various assessment issues they will be able to execute reasonable, consistent, and balanced assessments. “When visual tactile, kinesthetic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal skills are equally recognized avenues of learning and intellect, CLD students have increased access to the curriculum and opportunities to demonstrate authentically internalized knowledge,”.^[6] By having a variety of assessments students will be able to perform to the best of their knowledge. Therefore, it is vital to have alternative methods of assessing ESL students.

[edit] Culture

Culture is the third issue that may not always be recognized in a mainstream classroom. Many teachers overlook culture and try to jump right into English and content knowledge without knowing their students backgrounds. Teachers need to be open to learning new cultures and having their student embrace all cultures in the classroom. By taking great strives to learn about each other’s values and beliefs the teacher and student would not only maximize the effectiveness of ESL but make it a successful learning experience for all involved. A student who is shy or reluctant to answer questions may be more outspoken when talking about their own values that tie in with their home life. An ESL teacher, in a study called Losing Strangeness to Mediate ESL Teaching, “connects culture to religious celebrations and holidays and the fusion invites students to share their knowledge”.^[7] This will encourage students to open up and talk about their cultural backgrounds and traditions within their family. “Teachers who encourage CLD students to maintain their cultural or ethnic ties promote their personal and academic success”.^[8] Students should not lose their identity but gain knowledge from their culture and the world around them. Therefore it is beneficial to bring culture into the ESL classroom in order for the students to feel a sense of worth in school and in their lives.

[edit] Teacher attitude

The fourth critical issue is the attitudes of the teachers which plays a major role in the ESL classroom. Some teachers may have a negative, unwelcoming attitude. Research shows that teachers negative attitudes may stem from “chronic lack of time to address ELLs’ unique classroom needs",^[9] "intensification of teachers workloads when ELLs are enrolled in mainstream classes",^[10] and "feels of profession inadequacy to work with ELLS”.^[11][12] Also, the lack of training will have a huge impact on their teaching practices and professional development. The teachers will then be stressed and nervous to go about a lesson. Their anxiety will roll over into the classroom and have a negative impact on the ESL students’ performances. “Teachers’ language-acquisition misconceptions may color their attitudes towards ELLs and ELL inclusion, leading educators to misdiagnose learning difficulties or misattribute student failure to lack of intelligence or effort”.^[13] By providing a good learning environment, it will have a positive effect on the students overall success in terms of linguistic, social, cognitive, and academic developments. Systematic Integration of Culture, Literature and other Disciplines

[edit] Enriching the Classroom Environment

In order to have an environment that is beneficial for the teacher and the student culture, literature, and other disciplines should be integrated systematically into the instruction. “Postponing content-area instruction until CLD students gain academic language skills widens the achievement gap between the learners and their native-English speaking peers”.^[14] Relating to culture, teachers need to integrate it into the lesson, in order for the students to feel a sense of appreciation and a feeling of self-worth. One teacher noticed that her student, Enrique does not like to embrace the fact that he is Spanish or even speak it. She took the initiative to call the parents to address the issue that he believes English is the only way. She decided to incorporate the Spanish word, facile into her lesson which means easy but can be used for both languages. She ended up making a Double Value word wall which will not only be beneficial for Enrique but also for all the learners in the classroom.^[15] The teacher was able to integrate the Spanish culture into her lesson which enriched all the learners and helped address the issue that it is okay to speak in the students’ native language.

By integrating literature into the instruction students will benefit substantially. “Reading texts that match learner interests and English proficiency provide learners with comprehensible language input--a chance to learn new vocabulary in context and to see the syntax of the language”.^[16] Students will be motivated and will make learning more enjoyable. Lastly, by integrating other disciplines into the lesson it will make the content more significant to the learners and will create higher order thinking skills across the areas. By integrating language into other contents, it focuses not only on learning a second language, but using that language as a medium to learn mathematics, science, social studies, or other academic subjects”.^[17] When language and content areas are integrated ESL students become aware “that English is not just an object of academic interest nor merely a key to passing an examination; instead, English becomes a real means of interaction and sharing among people”.^[18] Therefore, students will be able to communicate across the curriculum, acquire higher level skills, and be successful in their daily lives.

[edit] References

^ García, Ofelia; Kleifgen, Jo Anne; Falchi, Lorraine (2008). "From English Language Learners to Emergent Bilinguals". Campaign for Educational Equity. http://www.equitycampaign.org/i/a/document/6468_Ofelia_ELL__Final.pdf.
^ "TESOL/NCATE Standards for the Recognition of Initial TESOL Programs in P-12 ESL Teacher Education". Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. 2009. http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/seccss.asp?CID=219&DID=1689. Retrieved July 4, 2011.
^ Huang, J. (2000). "Integration of academic content learning and academic literacy skills development of L2 students: A case study of an ESL science class". In Shanahan, Timothy; Rodríguez-Brown, Flora V.. The 49th yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference. p. 403. ISBN 978-1-893591-02-8.
^ Anstrom, Kris (1997). Academic achievement for secondary language minority students: standards, measures, and promising practices. p. 34. OCLC 40893643. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED417596. Retrieved June 29, 2011.
^ "TESOL/NCATE Standards for the Recognition of Initial TESOL Programs in P-12 ESL Teacher Education". Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. 2009. http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/bin.asp?CID=219&DID=13040&DOC=FILE.PDF. Retrieved July 4, 2011. p.57.
^ Herrera, Socorro; Murry, Kevin; Cabral, Robin (2007). Assessment Accommodations for Classroom Teachers of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. p. 208. ISBN 978-0-205-49271-8.
^ Rowsell, J.; Sztainbok, V.; Blaney, J. (2007). "Losing Strangeness: Using Culture to Mediate ESL Teaching". Language, Culture and Curriculum 20 (2): 140–154. doi:10.2167/lcc331.0. http://uncw.edu/ed/pdfs/news/CultureandESL.pdf. Retrieved July 4, 2011. edit p147.
^ Herrera, Socorro; Murry, Kevin; Cabral, Robin (2007). Assessment Accommodations for Classroom Teachers of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-205-49271-8.
^ Youngs, Cheryl S. & Youngs, George A. Jr. (Spring 2001). "Predictors of Mainstream Teachers' Attitudes toward ESL Students". TESOL Quarterly 35 (1): 97–120. JSTOR 3587861.
^ Gitlin, A.; Buendia, E.; Crosland, K.; Doumbia, F. (2003). "The Production of Margin and Center: Welcoming-Unwelcoming of Immigrant Students". American Educational Research Journal 40: 91–122. doi:10.3102/00028312040001091. edit
^ Verplaetse, Lorrie Stoops (Autumn 1998). "How Content Teachers Interact with English Language Learners". TESOL Journal 7 (5): 24–28.
^ Reeves, Jenelle R. (2006). "Secondary Teacher Attitudes toward including English-Language Learners in Mainstream Classrooms". Journal of Educational Research 99: 131–142. ISSN ISSN-0022-0671. http://people.uncw.edu/caropresoe/EDN523/Secondary_MSAttitudes_QE%2BCS.pdf. Retrieved July 4, 2011. p136.
^ Reeves, Jenelle R. (2006). "Secondary Teacher Attitudes toward including English-Language Learners in Mainstream Classrooms". Journal of Educational Research 99: 131–142. ISSN ISSN-0022-0671. http://people.uncw.edu/caropresoe/EDN523/Secondary_MSAttitudes_QE%2BCS.pdf. Retrieved July 4, 2011. p139.
^ Herrera, Socorro; Murry, Kevin; Cabral, Robin (2007). Assessment Accommodations for Classroom Teachers of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-205-49271-8.
^ Herrera, Socorro; Murry, Kevin; Cabral, Robin (2007). Assessment Accommodations for Classroom Teachers of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. p. 87. ISBN 978-0-205-49271-8.
^ Rabideau, Dan (March 1993). "Integrating Reading and Writing into Adult ESL Instruction". ERIC Identifier: ED358749. ERIC Digests. http://www.ericdigests.org/1993/instruction.htm. Retrieved June 30, 2011.
^ Reilly Tarey (May 1988). "ESL through Content Area Instruction". Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-929/esl.htm. Retrieved July 6, 2011.
^ Oxford, Rebecca (September 2001). "Integrated Skills in the ESL/EFL Classroom". ERIC Digest. 6(1)1-7. Center for Applied Linguistics. p. 5. http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0105oxford.html. Retrieved June 30, 2011.

Interlanguage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other meanings, see Interlanguage (disambiguation).

An interlanguage is the term for a dynamic linguistic system that has been developed by a learner of a second language (or L2) who has not become fully proficient yet but is approximating the target language: preserving some features of their first language (or L1), or overgeneralizing target language rules in speaking or writing the target language and creating innovations. An interlanguage is idiosyncratically based on the learners' experiences with the L2. It can fossilize, or cease developing, in any of its developmental stages. The interlanguage rules are claimed to be shaped by several factors, including: L1 transfer, transfer of training, strategies of L2 learning (e.g. simplification), strategies of L2 communication (or communication strategies like circumlocution), and overgeneralization of the target language patterns.

Interlanguage is based on the theory that there is a "psychological structure latent in the brain" which is activated when one attempts to learn a second language. Interlanguage theory is usually credited to Larry Selinker, who coined terms such as "interlanguage" and "fossilization," but others such as Uriel Weinreich have claimed to have formulated the basic concept before Selinker's 1972 paper. Selinker noted that in a given situation the utterances produced by the learner are different from those native speakers would produce had they attempted to convey the same meaning. This comparison reveals a separate linguistic system. This system can be observed when studying the utterances of the learner who attempts to produce meaning in using the target language; it is not seen when that same learner does form-focused tasks, such as oral drills in a classroom. Interlanguage can be observed to be variable across different contexts; for example, it may be more accurate, complex and fluent in one discourse domain than in another (Tarone, 1979; Selinker & Douglas, 1985).

To study the psychological processes involved one should compare the interlanguage utterances of the learner with two things:

Utterances in the native language to convey the same message produced by the learner
Utterances in the target language to convey the same message, produced by a native speaker of that language.

Interlanguage work is a vibrant microcosm of linguistics. It is possible to apply an interlanguage perspective to learners' underlying knowledge of the target language sound system (interlanguage phonology), grammar (morphology and syntax), vocabulary (lexicon), and language-use norms found among learners (interlanguage pragmatics).

By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to universal linguistic norms, interlanguage research has contributed greatly to our understanding of linguistic universals in SLA. See below, under "linguistic universals".

[edit] Background

Before interlanguage theory rose to prominence, the principal theory of second-language development was contrastive analysis. This theory assumed that learners' errors were caused by the difference between the their first language and their second language. A further assumption followed that a sufficiently thorough analysis of the differences between learners' first and second languages could predict all of the difficulties they would face.^[1] This assumption was not based in rigorous analysis of learner language, but was often anecdotal, and researchers claims were prone to confirmation bias.^[1]

In an influential 1957 paper, Robert Lado said that the claims of contrastive analysis should be viewed as hypothetical unless they were based on systematic analyses of learner speech data.^[1] Following this, the focus of research into second-langugage acquisition shifted from hypotheses of language learning and the development of language-teaching materials to the systematic analysis of learner speech and writing with the practice of error analysis.^[1] Although this was initially done to validate the claims of contrastive analysis, researchers found that there were many utterances that could not be easily explained by transfer from learners' first languages to their second languages.^[1]

The idea that language learners' linguistic systems were different from both their first language and the second language was developed independently at around the same time by several different researchers.^[1] William Nemser called it an approximative system and Pit Corder called it transitional competence. However, it was Larry Selinker's formulation of interlanguage which came into standard use.^[1]

[edit] Fossilization

It can fossilize, or cease developing, in any of its developmental stages. Fossilization is the 'freezing' of the transition between the native language and the target language. Reasons for this phenomenon may be due to complacency or inability to overcome the obstacles to acquiring native proficiency in the target language. This phenomenon occurs often in adult language learners. Fossilization occurs when a L2 learner is capable of conveying message with current language knowledge, therefore the need to correct the form/stucture is not required. Thus, the learner fossilizes the form instead of correcting it.

[edit] Variability

Though the interlanguage perspective views learner language as a language in its own right, this language systematically varies much more than native-speaker language. Selinker noted that in a given situation the utterances produced by the learner are different from those native speakers would produce had they attempted to convey the same meaning. This comparison reveals a separate linguistic system. This system can be observed when studying the utterances of the learner who attempts to produce meaning in using the target language; it is not seen when that same learner does form-focused tasks, such as oral drills in a classroom. Interlanguage can be observed to be variable across different contexts; for example, it may be more accurate, complex and fluent in one discourse domain than in another (Tarone, 1979; Selinker & Douglas, 1985). A learner may produce a target-like variant (e.g. 'I don't') in one context and a non-target like variant (e.g. 'me no') in another. Scholars from different traditions have taken opposing views on the importance of this phenomenon. Those who bring a Chomskyan perspective to SLA typically regard variability as nothing more than "performance errors", and not worthy of systematic inquiry. On the other hand, those who approach it from a sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic orientation view variability as an inherent feature of the learner's interlanguage, where the learner's preference for one linguistic variant over another depends on accompanying a) social (contextual) variables such as the status or role of the interlocutor (see Selinker & Douglas, 1985), or b) linguistic variables such as the phonological environment or neighboring features marked for formality or informality.(Fasold & Preston, 2007; Tarone, 2009; Tarone & Liu, 1995).

Research on variability in learner language distinguishes between "free variation", which has not been shown to be systematically related to accompanying linguistic or social features, and "systematic variation", which has. Of course, the line between the two is subject to debate.

[edit] Free Variation

Free variation in the use of a language feature is usually taken as a sign that it has not been fully acquired. The learner is still trying to figure out what rules govern the use of alternate forms. This type of variability seems to be most common among beginning learners, and may be entirely absent among the more advanced.

[edit] Systematic Variation

Systematic variation is brought about by changes in the linguistic, psychological, social context. Linguistic factors are usually extremely local. For instance, the pronunciation of a difficult phoneme may depend on whether it is to be found at the beginning or end of a syllable.

[edit] Other Factors

Social factors may include a change in register or the familiarity of interlocutors. In accordance with Communication Accommodation Theory, learners may adapt their speech to either converge with, or diverge from, their interlocutor's usage. For example, they may deliberately choose to address a non-target form like "me no" to an English teacher in order to assert identity with a non-mainstream ethnic group (Rampton 1995).

The most important psychological factor is usually taken to be attention to form, which is related to planning time. The more time that learners have to plan, the more target-like their production may be. Thus, literate learners may produce much more target-like forms in a writing task for which they have 30 minutes to plan, than in conversation where they must produce language with almost no planning at all. The impact of alphabetic literacy level on an L2 learner's ability to pay attention to form is as yet unclear (see Tarone, Bigelow & Hansen, 2009).

Affective factors also play an important role in systematic variation. For example, learners in a stressful situation (such as a formal exam) may produce fewer target-like forms than they would in a comfortable setting. This clearly interacts with social factors, and attitudes toward the interlocutor and topic also play important roles.

When learners experience significant restructuring in their L2 systems, they sometimes show what has been termed U-shaped behavior. For instance, Lightbown (1983) showed that a group of English language learners moved, over time, from accurate usage of the “-ing” present progressive morpheme, to incorrectly omitting it, and finally, back to correct usage. This is explained by theorizing that learners first acquired the “-ing” form as a chunk, second, lost control of this form as their knowledge system was disrupted by expanding understandings of the tense and aspect systems of English, and third, returned to correct usage upon gaining greater control of these linguistic characteristics and forms. These data provide evidence that learners were initially producing output based on rote memory of individual words containing the present progressive morpheme. However, in the second stage their systems apparently contained the rule that they should use the bare infinitive form to express present action, without a separate rule for the use of “-ing.” Finally, their systems did contain such a rule. According to Interlanguage theory, this seeming progression and regression of language learning is an important and positive manifestation of the learner's internal understanding of the grammar of the target language.

[edit] Developmental patterns

Ellis (1994)^[^vague^] distinguished between "order" to refer to the pattern in which different language features are acquired and "sequence" to denote the pattern by which a specific language feature is acquired.

[edit] Linguistic universals

Research on universal grammar (UG) has had a significant effect on SLA theory. In particular, scholarship in the interlanguage tradition has sought to show that learner languages conform to UG at all stages of development.^[^{citation
needed}^] A number of studies have supported this claim, although the evolving state of UG theory makes any firm conclusions difficult.^[^{citation
needed}^]

[edit] Interlanguage Versus Creoles and Pidgins

The main distinction that interlanguage holds is that it often varies even between speakers of the same language seeking to learn the same target language. It is highly individualized, whereas Creoles and Pidgins are generally the product of groups of people in contact with another language. In addition, Creoles and Pidgins may be more stable, while Interlanguage often changes as the speaker improves and learns more about the target language.

The concept of interlanguage is closely related to other types of language, especially pidgins and creoles. Each of these languages has its own grammar and phonology. The difference is mostly one of variability, as a learner's interlanguage changes frequently as they become more proficient in the language. In addition, pidgins and creoles have many speakers and are developed as a group process. An interlanguage, on the other hand, is something that has only one speaker, the learner.

At the very beginning of language learning, the learner has some idea of what the foreign language is like, and how it works. According to these ideas, they produce utterances, some of which may be correct, and others which may be wrong. Then, as the learner gains more knowledge about the language, they may come up with new and better ideas of how it works.

[edit] References

Fasold, R., & Preston, D. (2007). The psycholinguistic unity of inherent variability: Old Occam whips out his razor. In R. Bayley & C. Lucas (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Variation: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 45–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. Seliger and M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 217–243). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among Adolescents. London: Longman.
Selinker, L. (1972), Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-241.
Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1985). Wrestling with 'context' in interlanguage theory. Applied Linguistics, 6, 190-204.
Tarone, E. (1979). Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning 29(1), 181-191.
Tarone, E., & Liu, G.-q. (1995). Situational context, variation and second-language acquisition theory. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and Practice in the Study of Language and Learning: A Festschrift for H.G. Widdowson (pp. 107–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tarone, Elaine (2006). "Interlanguage". In Brown, Keith. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Boston: Elsevier. pp. 747–751. ISBN 978-0-08-044361-4.
Tarone, E. (2009). A sociolinguistic perspective on interaction in SLA, in A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass. (pp. 41–56). New York: Routledge.
Tarone, E., Bigelow, M. & Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy and Second Language Oracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.[1]

[edit] Further reading

Chambers, J.K. (1995), Sociolinguistic Theory, Oxford, England: Blackwell; p249-251.
J. C. Richards, Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, Longman Press, 1974, pp. 34–36.
Tarone, E. (2001), Interlanguage. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics. (pp. 475–481) Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Definition:

The type of language (or linguistic system) used by second- and foreign-language learners who are in the process of learning a target language.

Interlanguage pragmatics is the study of the ways in which nonnative speakers acquire, comprehend, and use linguistic patterns (or speech acts) in a second language.

Interlanguage theory is generally credited to Larry Selinker, an American professor of applied linguistics, whose article "Interlanguage" appeared in the January 1972 issue of the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching.