Omar Villarreal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions
for Reflection and Discussion/April 2001
Krashen,
Stephen & Tracy Terrell.1983. The
Natural Approach. Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Hayward,
California: Alemany Press. Chapter 2
Chapter
two
1."Some individuals, it is believed, have a special aptitude for
second language study". (Krashen 1983:38) Why is this debatable? What are the
two different skills that Krashen associates to acquisition &
learning?
Many studies have shown that students who do better on language
aptitude test, in fact perform better in foreign language classes. However, the
kind of linguistic competence tapped by aptitude tests in language learning and
not language acquisition. Krashen
associates the communication skills to acquisition and the classroom
skills to learning.
2.The Role of First Language. According to Krashen, why are
interferenced errors produced? Contrast the two possible cures for this
(drilling or more input).
They are produced because our own knowledge of our first language
actually gets in the way when we try to speak a second language . The two
possible cures for this are:
a) Drilling:
Many exercises provide extra practice and drill to fight off this interference,
if that is so, on just those structures in which the first and second languages
differ.
b) More input: According to Newmark, the first language doesn´t interfere at all when we try to use a second language. We fall back on the first language when we lack a rule in our second language. The cure for interference is simply acquisition.
3.What are routines and patterns useful
for?
Although routines and patterns aren´t of direct benefit to language acquisition or to language learning , they may be of considerable indirect benefit. This premature kind of output does allow early production and thus invites input . It may also come in handy in situations where we can´t afford to wait for acquisition to produce fluent speech. Correctly used, routines an patterns can help acquirers gain more input and manage conversations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Remmendation from
Bernieh
We all know (or at least, are supposed to know) about
Stephen Krashen's thing on the "affective filter", that ominous wall that
sometimes rises between a teacher and their students to hamper the learning
processes. Basically, Stevie (should it be Steph?) posits that if you feel
emotionally good, you are able learn; if not, learning is impaired or even
impeded. A lot of pedagogical implications are derived from this.
Up to now,
what I've read about the affective filter do not provides a "scientific proof"
on Krashen's assumptions... hence, the term "hypothesis" that always comes
pre-appended to this concept. The whole thing looks pretty sound to need further
demonstration but, anyway, I was gladly surprised when I found "How emotions
affect learning", a 1994 article by Robert Sylwester, a Professor of Education
from the University of Oregon, U.S.A. Here the author, based on facts derived
from cognitive and
neurological sciences, explains -without even mentioning
it- the affective filter in terms of the molecules (peptides) that carry
emotional information, and the body and brain structures that activate and
regulate emotions. Then, he derives some interesting general principles and
their applications to the classroom. You can read Sylwester's article at: http://www.tcams.org/sylwester.htm
Regards,
Bernieh.
P.D.:
If you wish to read more on the Natural Approach, see "the Natural Approach Web
Site" at:
http://maxpages.com/thena,
which proudly quotes the very Stephen Krashen as saying "I liked the web site."
This is quite an endorsement, uh?
Bernardo Humberto Banega (h)
VISIT
BERNIEH´S WEB SITE: English Teaching/Learning, see http://bernieh.com.ar
----------------------------------------------------------------
More to come.
Articles by Stephen Krashen
Literacy
1. One Page a Year Commencement Speech
delivered at California State
University, Bakersfield, June 9, 2000
2.
The National Reading Panel Report on Phonics: Consistent with and
Supportive
of the Comprehension Hypothesis (We Learn to Read by
Reading) (2000)
3.There was no decline in California, whole language has a theoretical
base
and solid research support, developing literacy is natural, and the role
of
phonics instruction: A response to K. Anderson's Review, "The
Reading
Wars"(2000)
4. The Lexile Framework: Unnecessary and Potentially
Harmful (2000)
5. Does Phonemic Awareness Develop Without Special Training?
(2000)
6. Do Teenagers Like to Read? A Comment on Literacy Campaigns (2000)
7. The National Reading Panel: Errors and Omissions (2000)
8. Errors
Remain, New Errors Added, Omissions Not Justified: Additional
Comments on the
National Reading Panel's Report (2000)
9. Low PA Can Read OK (2000)
Bilingual Education
1. Proposition
227's Success in California Never Happened: Response to
O'Sullivan.
(2000)
2. Is One Year /180 Days Enough?(2000)
3. Does Transition Really
Happen?(2000)
4. No evidence that English immersion worked: A response to
Michael Barone
(letter to the editor of US News) (2000)
5.
Misunderstandings about bilingual education: The nature of the problem,
what
we can do about it, and a reason to be optimistic (1999)
6. Another Response
to Keith Baker(1999)
7. Bilingual Education: Arguments For and (Bogus)
Arguments Against (1999)
Language Acquisition and
Language Teaching
1. TPR: Still a Very Good Idea(1998)
2. A
Conjecture on Accent in a Second Language (1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------