The Theories and Approaches to Second Language Acquisition
There are many theories, methods, and research related to the nature of language acquisition. Thorough understanding of this knowledge can aid teachers in the creation of learning environment that support the language and literacy development and content area achievement of English language learners. The theories, approaches, and methods surrounding language instruction used over the past century have varied tremendously. When different learning approaches originally took root, they were routinely validated by researchers of the time through empirical evidence or theoretical reasoning. However, quite regularly newer theories emerged out of the older theories and new research served to supplant previously conceived ideas. This should not suggest that, as educators, we no longer should use older theories. Instead, we should take a holistic approach to language instruction. I recommend an approach that utilizes various components of different language teaching approaches depending on the specific needs of students in the classroom. This amalgamation of various theories and methods should be malleable and ever changing with constant reflection. A firm foundation in many different theories and methods acts as a mental language teaching tool kit that can be used to create varied syllabi, lessons, assignments, and assessments depending on the specific needs of the class and individuals within the class. In the following, I will provide an overview of the major theories influencing language instruction and the instructional methods proposed by various approaches to second language acquisition (SLA). I will also give examples of concrete ways in which these approaches can be utilized within the classroom. Finally, I will discuss the use of critical pedagogy, not as a method or philosophy, but instead as an overarching framework within which many methods can be used.
Major Theories influencing SLA
Three major theories of language acquisition that I will discuss: behaviorist, innatist, and constructivist. I will give an overview of these theories, the historical context in which they arose, explain the criticisms of each. The theoretical underpinnings of the methods and approaches to SLA that I will discuss there after are derived predominantly from these three theoretical positions.
Behaviorist
In the early to mid-nineteen hundreds a school of thought arose that criticized subjective interpretation of language acquisition. This school of thought advocated that linguists and psychologists should focus on objective results based on empirical analysis. This gave rise to Behaviorist theories of learning. In Verbal Behavior, Skinner (1957) introduces Behaviorist theory that involves a stimulus response method(S-R). Language , under this view, is seen as a set of structures, while language acquisition is viewed as habit formations. Learning is considered an observable behavior that is automatically acquired through stimulus responses repetition. Language learning occurs through the acquisition of automatic linguistics habits. This theory recognizes the linguistic environment and the stimuli it produces, but fails to acknowledge any internal processes or cultural influences that go in to the language acquisition process. An important criticism of behaviorism is that it cannot explain how language learners to produce original grammatically correct sentences which have not before been uttered (Chomsky, 1976). Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) explain behaviorist model offers “little promises as explanations of SLA, except for perhaps pronunciation and the rote-memorization of formulae” (p.266).
The Audio Lingual method derived from Behaviorist theories of second language acquisition. This learning method uses language drills and objective formative assessments. There is a set answer for every prompt. Errors cannot be tolerated under this method because, according to behaviorist theory, bad habits will result. Learning is the result of habit formation through imitation. L1 has no place in the audio lingual method because there is such a high value placed on imitation and recitation. Computer assisted language learning such as Rosetta Stone and similar programs would be considered very effective modes of instruction according to the audio lingual method because they offer input and immediate feedback. Audio-lingual methods of instruction have since been criticized because it was unable to provide results. Also, the method has been criticized by users for being uninteresting and boring.
While many older-style behaviorist methods are quite boring for language students to endure, there are new computer adaptive language learning systems based on behaviorist models that can be interesting and provide level one language learners much needed support. I have used Razkids.com, LearnZillion.com, Rosetta Stone, and Star Fall in my classrooms with very good results. Each program specialized in different areas, such as phonics, grammar, and conversational English and are all computer adaptive programs that use a behaviorist methods to provide positive or negative reinforces to encourage correct answers. While this should never be the only form of instruction in a language classroom and can serve as a supplemental addition to a communicative-based approach in the classroom.
Innatists
Noam Chomsky (1965) found inconsistencies in the behaviorist perspective. In response to these inconsistencies, he developed the Innatist perspective on language acquisition. Chomsky explains that cognition is inextricably involved in language development. These cognitive faculties allow learners to produce unlimited amounts of sentences with limited amounts of grammatical rules. This is called language competence which differs from performance. Universal grammar hypothesis understands SLA as an innate human capability. According to this theory, all humans are biologically endowed with a language faculty, the language acquisition device (LAD), which is responsible for language development. The UG theory explains that the input from the environment is insufficient to account for language acquisition. Mitchel and Myles (2004) state that, “The Universal Grammar approach is only interested in the learner as a processor of a mind that contains language” (p.94). Language or linguistic competence, according to Chomsky, is an idealized ability to construct language. The ability is a function of the brain. Linguistic performance, on the other hand is the actual performance of speech. According to Innatists there is a time frame in early childhood when the brain is specifically predisposed to language acquisition. The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) states that the first few years of life is the crucial time in which an individual can acquire a first language if presented with adequate stimuli. For second language acquisition, innatists argue the ideal time for learning is said to be between the ages of six and eleven (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006).According to CPH, if language input doesn't occur during this time frame, full command of the second language will not be attained. There is research that corroborates CPH showing that when language learners spend a significant amount of time immersed in the target language at an early age they have been able to reach native like levels of proficiency, in terms of grammar and pronunciation (Johnson & Newport, 1989).
However, if native like proficiency is not the primary goal, there is strong evidence that students can be successful second language learners at any age. In fact one research study suggests that second language learners, who fall into the adolescent age range, may have advanced cognitive skills that allow them to understand language forms and grammar conventions better that younger language learners (Lightbrown et al., p.74, 2006). Moreover, many factors other than age contribute to the ability to learn a language-such as, motivation, aptitude, investment, and opportunities to learn/practice the target language. Instrumental and integrative motivation theories also run counter to the CPH theory (Gardner &Lambert, 1972). Instrumental language learning motivates students of all ages to learn a language for specific reasons, like going to going to college or getting a job. While Integrative learning motivates language learners to acquire the language in order to be a part of a community. In addition, if a student makes a meaningful connection between a community and their own identity, then the student tends be more invested learning a language (Pierce, 1995). A personal investment in the language of a specific learning environment or community can serve as a major factor in students’ language acquisition regardless of age. Finally, aptitude can play a major part in students’ ability to learn a language at any age. Certain students possess proclivity to language learning that can influence the speed and rate in which language acquisition takes place.
Stephen Krashen is another important researcher also influenced by innastism. He developed a theory called the Monitor Model to explain SLA. The theory has five hypotheses: the first is the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the second is the monitor hypothesis, the third is the natural order hypothesis, the fourth is the input hypothesis, and the fifth is the affective filter hypothesis[i]. An important point of Krashen’s hypothesis is that language acquisition is an innate subconscious process. Effective teaching within this model does not emphasize explicit grammar rules or conscious learning. Language students need comprehensible input to activate the language acquisition device (LAD) and acquire language. Comprehensible input (i+1) is language that can be understood by the learner. Comprehensible input should always be one step beyond the learner’s language ability. Input becomes comprehensible when the teacher uses drama, visuals, gestures, repetitions, and so on. “By enabling students to match what they hear to what they see and experience, teachers can ensure that students have access to meaning. Experiential, hands on activities make input comprehensible” (Genesee, 1994, p.164). Designing a syllabus using the Krashen’s theories specifically takes the needs of the students in consideration.
There have been several criticisms of Krashen’s theories. Lydia White (1987) questioned the validity of Krashen’s Acquisition vs. learning hypothesis. Other researches have questioned whether these five theories could actually be tested empirically to prove their validity (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006). In spite of these criticisms, research has shown that language students can make quite a bit of progress by receiving comprehensible input alone without direct instruction. However, some students over time may reach a language learning plateau where they will fail to progress without direct instruction (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006).
Constructivist and Sociocultural Views
Jean Piaget explains that all learning including the acquisition of knowledge derives from a student’s active involvement in knowledge construction. Similarly, Vygotsky understands learning as a result of construction of knowledge. However, Vygotsky believed that social interactions and culture had a greater influence on linguistic and cognitive faculties which gave rise to Sociocultural theory. The Sociocultural theory explains learning is a semiotic process where participation in socially mediated activities is essential. Students’ understanding of language structure and function develops by using the language in social settings.
Vygotsky’s theory advocates that L2 students should be taught according to their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)[ii]. The zone of proximal development refers to the distance between what children can do by themselves, and what they can achieve with assistance from a mentor. Scaffolded teaching and learning methods in turn use the ZDP to provide support for students. The teacher provides scaffolds to support the students learning to create academic growth. Scaffolding is similar to Krashen’s comprehensible input (i+1) as it uses what the child already knows to introduce new knowledge or skills. The teacher should engage the student in a task that is just slightly more difficult that what the student can do on their own. The teacher then helps the student progress through the ZDP to attain new levels of achievement. Scaffolding can take many different forms in the classroom such as models, cues, prompts, hints, partial solutions, think-aloud modeling and direct instruction (Hartman, 2002). For my language learners I often use, semi controlled activities that include a prompt with some freedom when discussing literature. For instance, I teach my students how to participate in whole group by using phrases like, "I made a text-to-self connection when…”, or “I made an inference when…”. Each day we may focusing on mastering a different prompt and within a few weeks students no longer need to be prompted. Students can engage in whole group or small group to successfully discuss literature on their own. Slowly taking away the prompt is an important part of students achieving mastery on their own.
Communicative Competence
The communicative approach when applied to second language acquisition begins with the premise that language is communication, and the goal of language acquisition is to communicate. Hymes (1972) argues for a constructivist, communicative approach to language learning, claiming that the old innatist model does not take into account any sociocultural features of language. Hymes (1972) developed the theory of communicative competence. This theory distinguishes between linguistic competence and communicative competence. In previous years, , linguistic competence meant the ability to create well-formed sentence (Chompsky, 1965). Hymes new view of communicative competence, instead, ascribes competences to knowing what to say, when to say it, and how to say it. Communicative competence highlights the difference between knowledge about language, and knowledge that enables a person to communicate functionally and interactively. Halliday (1973) explains that the interpersonal aspect of the elements of the dialogue help to reinforce the sense that speakers are working together to negotiate meaning when they engage in conversation. Swain and Canale (1980) expanded communicative competence to include four major competence components- Grammatical, Sociolinguistic, Strategic, and Discourse[iii]. Grammatical competence, meaning grammatical capacity, “refers to what Chomsky calls linguistic competence and what Hymes calls formally possible” (Richards & Rogers, 2001, p. 160). Sociolinguistic competence refers to communication within an interactive social setting. Discourse competence refers to how a part of the discourse contributes to the whole discourse. Finally, Strategic competence refers to ways in which people use communication to “repair, initiate, redirect, or maintain communication” (Richards & Rogers, 2000, p.160).Communicative competence and good oral language skills are necessary to ensuring ELs academic success. It is not enough to teach ELs reading skills alone; extensive oral English instruction should be used in literacy instruction as this promotes reading comprehension and writing skills (August and Shanahan, p.4). Every lesson in the ESL classroom should have an oral component with an oral language objective. Cooperative group learning activities, student storytelling, role playing, debates, and oral presentations are ways to incorporate oral language practice developing communicative competence in the classroom.
Cummins (1999) introduced the idea of BICS vs CALP to explain the disparity between the language that L2 learners use for conversation and that which is used for academic purpose. BICS refers to Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills. It is everyday language that develops on the playgroup and in the lunch room. When acquiring SLA, BICS will develop within six months to two years after arrival in the U.S. However, in contrast CALPS, Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency will not fully develop for five to seven years. CALPS is that type of language required for academic success. In my teaching experiences BICS and CALPS theory can readily be verified in action with my students. I often have students that are so engaging to talk to in various conversations. However when it comes time to use academic language for literacy activities they simply are unable to do it. This is because these students have not fully developed CALPS yet. It is especially important for ESOL professionals to advocate for these students, because often they can be characterized by other content area teachers as lazy or not willing to do the work. The problem lies not in the fact that students do not want to do the work, but more so in the fact that linguistically students do not have the skills yet to do the work. Content area teachers do not realize this because they judge these students overall language proficiency on their BICS. CALPS takes much longer to master and content area teachers need to be made of aware of this discrepancy in language learning.
Popular Methods Teaching ESL Through Time
Grammar Translation Method
Nineteenth century second language instruction was dominated by the Grammar Translation Method which originated in Latin language instruction classrooms. This methodology rests on the idea that L2 is acquired through consistent, systematic translation of written words, phrases and sentences from L2 to L1 and vice versa. This method is grounded in Socratic educational philosophy and is used as a means to build up the language student’s cognitive abilities. It also utilizes the behaviorist principle of negative reinforcement by reprimanding students when errors occurred.
Within Grammar Translation Method, L2 grammar rules are taught to students in their native language. Vocabulary is memorized through bi-lingual word lists. Rote memory learning is emphasized by necessity as students are required to memorize explicit grammar rules and vast amounts of vocabulary. Importance is placed on form as opposed to meaning. Students receive very little comprehensible input and generally fail to achieve communicative competence with this method. However, it remains to be a successful tool in teaching language in situations where students only wish to learn language translation (from L2 to L1 and vice versa) as opposed to communicative competence in a language. For example, when teaching Latin, Sanskit, Pali, Classical Tibet (as opposed to colloquial Tibetan), or any other dead language this would still be an effective teaching model.
Direct Method
The Direct Method developed as a critical reaction to the Grammar Translation Method. In the late nineteenth century, language students began to learn modern languages in schools, such as French and Spanish. Language students now had very different needs when learning modern languages as opposed to learning ancient Latin. Students now needed to obtain communicative competence which Grammar Translation Method could not provide. The goal of the Direct Method is to provide students with knowledge about L2 which would allow them to speak and understand L2 to in real world situations. One important historical development that occurred during the rise of Direct Method is the creation of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). The provided students and teacher with information on how to correctly pronounce L2 sounds and words.
In contrast to the Grammar Translation Method, Direct Method teaching prescribed consistent use of L2 in the classroom. All language and grammar instruction is given in L2. Students are encouraged to not only use L2 but also begin to think in L2 as well. Instead of forcing students to memorize abstract rules of grammar and vocabulary, this new method proposed that the new language should be acquired in a natural format by using the language. There was an emphasis placed on relevant and meaningful language that students could use in the real world.
The Audio-Lingual Approach
The Audio-Lingual Approach developed as a means to produce fluent oral use of L2. It arose during the middle of the twentieth century. Oral fluency was the primary goal while literacy was relegated to a supporting role. In some ways, the Audio-Lingual method is similar to the Direct Method. Audio-linguists emphasized a practical approach to language learning that sacrificed the rigorous study of grammar and translation of GTM for a more practical approach. The method emphasized repeated drill patterns of students imitating correct speech examples uttered by the instructor. The method was said to derive from behaviorist theory and structural linguistic theory. The audio-lingual method has been criticized numerous times for relying on mechanical, call and response drills which do not prepare language learners for actual communication in real world circumstances. It has also been criticized for remaining teacher centered as opposed to student centered. I can think of only very rare occasions that I may use an audio lingual approach in my classroom. For instance, when students are learning new vocabulary words I may say the word and then ask the students to repeat the word back to me to ensure they understand how to say the word. However, this practice will not help students learn the meaning of the word or how to use it. Therefore additional methods of teaching need to be used.
Krashen’s Innatist Theories- Natural Approach
Krashen and Terrell (1983) developed the “Natural Approach” to SLA which has influence classroom language learning ever since its introduction in early 1980s. This teaching method emphasizes natural language acquisition in the classroom setting. Communication is emphasized in a stress free environment. Conscious grammar study and explicit correction of student errors are minimized. Language output is not forced in the natural approach. Instead, output is allowed to naturally and spontaneously develop after students have received large amounts of comprehensible language input. I find Krashen’s theories very useful in the classroom and often incorporate his theories into my instructional practices. I create comprehensible input in my classroom by using role plays, kinesthetic activities, scripts, and TPR. Furthermore, I always try to stay aware of my students’ affective filters inhibiting their language growth and production. When a language students’ affective filter becomes over active, anxiety can drastically stifle communication and receptivity to new information. I try to remain constantly vigil of this and create warm, relaxed, language learning environment for my students. Most of my students this semester are terrified of public speaking. Thus, as an alternative to giving an oral presentation, I designed a culminating activity where students created a digital presentation on digital story telling software and recorded their voices to the presentation. This greatly diminished their anxiety and allowed the students several opportunities to record their presentations exactly how they wanted them to sound[iv].
Communicative Language Teaching
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) or the Communicative Approach brings a major shift in language teaching in mainstream classrooms. The emphasis on syntax and grammar moved to communicative language proficiency. Speaking and communicating are the main focus of learning language. In Audio-Lingualism proper pronunciation is emphasized, in contrast, CLT emphasizes communicative language. CLT wants to know how well you can communicate not how accurately you can communicate. In this method there must be some kind of information gap, such as an open-ended question, for learning to occur. The information gap is the negotiation of meaning which prepares students to use language in the real world. This is in stark contrast to the controlled dialogue and closed questions used in Audio-Lingualism which does not allow for a negotiation of meaning on the part of the language learner. The information gap or negotiation of meaning within an exercise provides the language learner with opportunities to develop communicative competencies develop. CLT encourages students to use utterances they choose and which covey what they mean, rather than subordinately repeating prescribed utterances. In this respect, CLT provides emancipatory education to language learners by allowing classrooms to become student-focused as opposed to teacher-focused. In this model errors are tolerated as long as the student is still able to communicate effectively.
CLT derives from a constructivist view of language acquisition. Interaction between interlocutors is emphasized. This teaching method is actually an umbrella term that includes a number of teaching approaches. Developed in the 1970’s it arose as an alternative to the Audio-Lingual Method which was still pervasive in language classrooms at the time but failing to provide results. The approaches contained within CLT include Krashen’s Natural Approach, Swain and Canale’s Communicative Competence model, Cooperative Language Learning, and Content-Based Instruction. All of these approaches emphasize authentic and meaningful communicative competence.
The curriculum, I develop for my students, has a strong focus on the CLT methods that include the Natural Approach, Cooperative Learning, and Content- based learning. Cooperative Learning (CL) can be used in a wide variety of classroom scenarios that include formal and informal group formations. The can be used during simple activities as well as in task based learning. The overall goal of CL is to “foster cooperation, as opposed to competition, develop critical thinking, and communicative competence” (Richards & Rogers, 2001). Groups can be formed heterogeneously or homogeneous groups, but it is important that all students be individually responsible for accomplishing a task within the group. Giving students the opportunity to give feedback about group members can help to ensure all students are doing their part to make the group successful. Students should always be taught the specific social skills needed to carry out this type of group work before hand to ensure the group work goes smoothly. Cooperative learning groups can provide students with opportunities to engage in a wide variety of discourse, thereby facilitating their development of communicative competencies. Interaction patterns in the classroom are of crucial importance for language learning, but they also provide opportunities to teach students positive ways to engage with others. A classroom is like a miniature form of society that a student is introduced to in his early years. The forms of interactions we provide for students in the classroom will inevitably influence how the student interacts in society at large when he/she matures into adulthood.
Cooperative learning should be a major practice in every classroom because it models how a productive, co-dependent, society should interact. The traditional classroom is generally considered a class with mainly teacher-directed instruction that places students in rows and requires them to work individually. This type or structure facilitates competition and self-centered viewpoints. Due to globalization, environmental destruction, and the 2008 financial crisis, society has increasingly begun to realize that humanity’s success as a whole depends on us dispelling individualistic, competitive viewpoints and working together as one global community. Cooperative learning gives students opportunities to practice developing language skills along with skills of group cooperation at an early age by working with all members of their classroom community. This type of learning allows students to work in such a way that each group member's success is dependent on the group's success, resembling how society actually works. Extensive research has compared cooperative learning with traditional classroom instruction using the same teachers, curriculum, assessments, and the average students who engage in cooperative learning tend to learn more information, enjoy learning, are more highly motivated, and develop better critical thinking skills than their traditionally taught counterparts (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Slavin, 1991).
Instruction in the Content Areas
For most public schools in the United States, content area instruction has become the predominate mode of teaching English language learners. Within this learning environment, it is important to understand that English learners are faced with an immense challenge of learning academic content while becoming proficient in English. For content instruction, the goal in my classroom is to make content as assessable as possible for English learners while promoting written and oral language development. Oral and written English proficiency is the foundation needed to acquire the content knowledge. Content knowledge is extremely important; however written and oral language skills are necessary to master the content knowledge. It is next to impossible for students to access and master content without literacy skills. There are a number of strategies that I have used in my lessons to make content accessable to my students. I begin by creating thematic units that incorporate English language arts along with another subject such as social studies or science. I then create culturally responsive lessons that build on students funds of knowledge. I create very clear language and content objectives and expectations for all lessons with in each unit. I also incorporate a wide variety of visuals and graphic organizers as a form of scaffolding. I make a point to front load the vocabulary and language structures needed for each task[v].
Vocabulary is an important part of content area instruction. Content area reading comprehension is inextricably related to understanding vocabulary in texts. Therefore, as an ESOL professional it is imperative that I spend a portion of my instruction time with my students focused on explicit grammar instruction and vocabulary. A major obstacle that keeps English learners lagging behind their English speaking counterparts, in terms of academic success, is lack of vocabulary knowledge. Studies have repeatedly shown that students’ vocabulary knowledge is directly linked to academic performance (Baumann, Kame‘enui, & Ash, 2003). Students with more vocabulary knowledge are able to comprehend oral speak and written text more readily, thus allowing students to acquire more knowledge on a daily basis. Moreover, many studies have directly linked reading comprehension level with vocabulary knowledge (Anderson & Freebody, 1983; Baumann, Kame‘enui, & Ash, 2003; Becker, 1977). Closing the achievement gap and creating academic success in content area subjects requires strong reading comprehension skills. Therefore, it is imperative that vocabulary instruction has a strong focus in the language and content area classroom.[vi]
Task based learning is another integral teaching method rooted in communicative language teaching (CLT). The main focus of this practice is to engage language learners in classroom activities that involve authentic tasks that utilized the target language as a means for completing the task. The tasks focus on purpose and communicative competence. The cognitive strategies involved in completing task-based assignments more accurately reflect the cognitive strategies students outside of the language classroom in real world settings or content area classroom settings. By bringing these types of strategies into the language classroom with the use of task-based learning, students are better prepared use the target language in authentic settings that they will encounter. For these fore mentioned reasons, it is theorized that task-based learning provides better learning outcomes for students than solely providing grammar focused lessons (Richards & Rogers, 2001). Within an assigned task, the teacher has the ability to incorporate structural, functional, and interactional models in to language instruction. In my classroom, I use long-term inquiry based tasks as the main means of instruction. I think of language learning as more of a necessary byproduct of the completion of the assigned task. The task gives my students and opportunity to achieve an outcome through the acquisition of new language and language skills. Students are allowed choose the language they want to complete the task. There is an information gap involved in the process of completing the task. For example, a recent task based project I employed in the classroom involved students creating a multimodal informational presentation with digital story telling software to present to another class. In the project, students were able choose the topic they presented on and were placed in cooperative learning groups to share the responsibilities of the task. Students then did research, wrote a script, and produced a nonfiction digital presentation. Within this unit, we covered a variety of language skills that were directly related to students being able to be successful at the task. For instance, we covered specific grammar skills that students used to revise their scripts, main ideas and supporting details, vocabulary skills, and oral presentation skills. Students needed to acquire specific content knowledge, research skills, and vocabulary, grammar, and presentation skills in order to be successful at this project. However, the presentation was the main focus creating an authentic learning environment. The skills were developed only in order to complete the task. My students were extremely motivated during this project because choice and creativity were involved in the process. Ultimately, these types of task-based learning projects produce critically-minded, competent, and successful language learners who can use their target language successfully in a variety of situations.
Critical Pedagogy: a Philosophical Framework
Finally, all of these different theories and approaches to teaching can be used in various different circumstances depending on the needs of the individual students. However, whichever teaching methods are used by a teacher, they should all be used within one overarching framework. This framework is called critical pedagogy.
It is important to understand that there are different views on purposes of education. Traditional educators understand school as simply a way transmitting information to the youth. The information transmitted through the educational system in the United States, inherently reflects cultural-hegemonic ideologies that exist in our society. Progressive teachers generally take issue with the transmission of dominant ideologies because they reflect a broad range of societal ills related predominantly to inequalities among citizens. Therefore, progressive teachers, instead, aim to inspire students to be free thinkers and changes makers within society. Chomsky explains that the main goal of education should not be to produce students whose goals reflect the current ideologies of society “accumulation and domination” but produce students whose ideologies reflect “free association” between humans who are on “equal terms” with one another (Chomsky, 2000, p.16).There comes a point in every educator’s life when they are confronted with the question of “What is my role as a teacher?” There are many teachers who decide it is their job to simply transmit knowledge and teach students the “standards”. However, there are many of us who decide it is our job to bring about real change in the lives of their students and thus change in our society. We are the educators who strive for social justice through the use of critical pedagogy and empowering education (Freire, 1970; Shor, 1992).
When I first decided that it was my job as a woman, as a citizen, and as a teacher to affect change in this world, it was because I was inspired by critical theory. In order to fully embrace critical theory an internal, radical change must occur first within an individual through personal in-depth inquiry into critical theory (McLauren,1995). After this internal change has occurred, critical pedagogy can be employed effectively in a classroom. When I began to personally look through a critical lens at the world important insights came to light for the first time in my life. I started my journey of understanding critical theory when I became feminist. Through feminist literature, I became interested in critical race theory, Marxism, and critical pedagogy. Exploring these theories allowed me to take a deeper look at power structures among classes, genders, and races of people. It also challenged me to re-examine my own backwards thinking that condoned these inequities. Personally confronting these long unquestioned ideologies was an emotional, challenging, and ultimately empowering journey. Accomplishing this took re-education, through constant reflection, analytic analysis of myself and my world, and community activism.
For teachers and students, initially establishing a critical mind set is very difficult because cultural hegemony is so strong in our society. The views of the ruling class have become accepted as the common world view. This dominant ideology, deeply engrained within our minds, is seen as the normal way of life. When in reality, it is an artificial construct that benefits those in power (Chomsky, 2000). Embracing a truly critical mind set is an arduous task because this type of thinking is always at odds with the media, popular cultural, and the traditional education system. It is important to understand that a critical understanding of the world is not something that should be turned on when in the classroom and then off when you leave. In fact, radical thinking must pervade all aspects of life in order to produce transformative effects within a person and an environment.
Once a personal transformation had occurred within me where I deeply understood the world through a critical lens, only then was I able to genuinely bring critical pedagogy in the classroom. The personal transformative is a necessary part of becoming a critical teacher. I often hear other educators expressing that they don’t understand how to actually “do” critical pedagogy or that it “may work in high school but it cannot be used with elementary learners”. My response to this is that these colleagues have not truly adopted a critical consciousness. Once a critical consciousness is adopted, it becomes very easy to see that critical pedagogy is not a method but in fact a framework that can be applied in all educational situations regardless of age or content. Other problems with implementing critical pedagogy occur when educators implement critical pedagogy in a watered down form. For instance, using a critical lens to examine historical issues or multicultural issues but never providing any real calls to action afterwards. This situation also occurs when teachers have adopted an incomplete understanding of critical consciousness. Critical consciousness and critical pedagogy involve, not only looking through the world with a new view to gain understanding, but also using that understanding to act upon the world to create change.
While traditional education, serves as a means to indoctrinate the youth to conformity within the status quo, critical pedagogy serves to cut the bonds of oppression and empower students to engage in unfettered thinking and learning, in order to become agents of change. Freire (1970) describes critical pedagogy as “‘the practice of freedom’ the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world” (p.34). Teacher student roles are interchangeable, allowing all participants in the classroom to learn from one another. The teacher’s role as the purveyor of information is abolished, and students are asked to find sources of information within themselves and their own practice of inquiry. Giroux (2010) goes on to say that through critical pedagogy, “students develop consciousness of freedom, recognize authoritarian tendencies, and connect knowledge to power and the ability to take constructive action”. Constructive action is the key to empowering students to become active change-makers in society.
Critical education, that truly inspires students to act on the world, may be employed in the classroom in an endless variety in ways by a skillful critical pedagogist. Curriculum may include a focus on anti-racist, anti-xenophobic, anti-classist, anti –capitalist, anti-sexist, and anti-homophobic curriculum (McLauren, 1995). It may also be used as a means of exploring whose knowledge is deemed important and why we valued it over other sources of information. Students and teachers may investigate the power structures relationships that exist in school and how this structure either challenges of reinforces the power structures that exist in the community or the world. Inquiry projects, action projects, debates, presentations, whole class projects maybe use to create critical consciousness and action within the classroom.Critical pedagogy can be used to radicalize almost any content including Math, English Language Arts, Reading, History, and even Science. By radicalizing the curriculum and redefining the teacher and student roles, critical consciousness can be created within the classroom in a way that allows teachers and students to transform or create changes within themselves, their classroom, their communities, and their societies. The ultimate goal of this type of education is to empower students to take learning into their own hands and use the knowledge they gain to create a better world for all the future generations to live in[viii].
References
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Executive Summary. Developing literacy in second-language learners: report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (pp.1-8). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum .
Baumann, J. F., Kame‘enui, E. J., & Ash, G. E. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook on research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 752-785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged – What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518-543.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
Chomsky, N., & Macedo, D. P. (2000). Chomsky on miseducation. Rowman & Littlefield Pub Incorporated.
Chomsky, N. (1976). On the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 46-57.
Cummins, J. (1999). BICS and CALP: Clarifying the Distinction.
Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J. Y., Wu, S., Su, J. H., Burgess-Brigham, R., & Snow, C. (2012). What We Know About Second Language Acquisition A Synthesis From Four Perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5-60.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. University of Chicago Press, Book Orders, 5801 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637-1496 (paperbound: ISBN-0-226-75357-3, $13.95; cloth--ISBN-0-226-75356-5)..
Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading research quarterly, 277-294
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education (Vol. 163). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Giroux, H.A., 2010. Lessons from Paulo Freire. The Chronicle Review, 17 October.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning How to Mean--Explorations in the Development of Language.
Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding & Cooperative Learning. Human Learning and Instruction (pp. 23-69). New York: City College of City University of New York.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. Sociolinguistics, 269293.
Johnson, D.W. and R.T. Johnson (1989) . Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive psychology, 21(1), 60-99.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition. A Survey of Linguistic Science. Ed.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning.
Lightbown, P. M., Spada, N., Ranta, L., & Rand, J. (2006). How languages are learned (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. Arnold Publishers.
McLaren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era. Routledge.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Slavin, R.E. (1991) . Student Team Learning: A Practical Guide to Cooperative Learning (3rd Edition). National Education Association Washington DC.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1).
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society.
White, L. (1987). Against Comprehensible Input: the Input Hypothesis and the Development of Second-language Competence1. Applied linguistics, 8(2), 95-110.
[i] I have included an artifact that I created that provides a multimodal representation of Krashen’s Hypothesis. I used this artifact during a presentation I on the theories of language acquisition I presented to graduate level education students in Fall of 2012. I have also included a TPR lesson plan and graphic organizer because TPR is a great way to create (i+1) comprehensible imput for language learners.
[ii] I have included a Prezi presentation which I delivered to graduate level students in the Fall of 2012 describing ZDP and Socio Constructivist theory and how it can be used effectively in the classroom. Sociocultural prezi
[iv] As an artifact for my understanding of Krashen’s theory of affective, I have included links to a project I designed for my students that involved creating an oral presentation where they recorded their voices on digital storytelling software. Please view the following links:
https://voicethread.com/share/4278416/
https://voicethread.com/share/4278223/
[v] An example of a four week unit of culuriculum that I helped to design which demonstrates these various teaching strategies integrating into ESOL lesson plans. Critical pedagogy, Cooperative group learning, and a liturature-based approach to content instruction are included unit of work. Unit Of Work- Group project 2012
[vi] As a reflective practitioner I am always looking for way to improve my instruction. Utilizing vocabulary assessments in the classroom provide data that help to guide me towards creating more informed instruction for my students. This is artifact where I reviewed and evaluated one vocabulary assessment called the Beery Vocabulary Test. I evaluated this test to determine its possible relevancy and use in my classroom.ATTACHED
[viii] This artifact includes a video of a critical project I conducted in my 4th grade ESOL class. http://youtu.be/FNW6yBuTCn8. The project began in reaction to the mass amounts of school violence that has been taking place recently nationally and locally. I was currently working with Morehouse University as an volunteer for an up and coming event that celebrated non-violence by awarding one person a year the prestigious Gandhi, King, Ikea Community Builders prize who is a force of peace and empowerment within their communities. Morehouse College and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar the person who is receiving the award this year were creating an initiative to have people commit to acts of non-violence in conjunction with this event. I discussed with fellow colleagues working on the project about promoting a nonviolence action project in classrooms that could get the kids involved. They all thought it was a great idea. The Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s non-profit organization took up the cause whole heartedly. Everyone, we organized agroup that would work specifically on schools outreach. Everyone began sending out emails to schools and reaching out to colleagues to get people involved in the project. In the classroom I am currently student teaching in, I implemented the project with my students. I started the unit by having my students first study literature about Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Gandhi and other community builders. Then the students and I discussed and wrote in our journals about what non-violence really means to us in our lives. We can up with a broad range of what non-violence really meant to us in our lives. One student suggested non-violence was not being bullied by others another said non-violence was meant no more of his family members being locked up in jail cells and deported. Then I told students to reflect on thinking of how their schools and communities would look and feel like if they truly reflected their own non-violence ideal. Finally, the class analyzed the quote by Gandhi “Be the change you want to see in the word”. Students then discussed what kind of non-violent commitments they could make themselves to inspire change in their families, classrooms, and communities. Students then decided that they wanted to make a banner to display their personal commitments. When they finished they were so proud they presented their banner two neighboring classrooms. My students explained to the other class what the banner was about and why they made it. The classrooms my students presented to then felt inspired to make their own commitments. Students added commitments to our banner one after the other, until the banner was completely full. Then a classroom down the hall made their own banner, which they presented to other classes. More and more students in my school made commitments to non-violence. Finally, I posted an overview of the non-violence unit online with pictures. Some of the members of my critical literacy professional learning community have decided to implement the unit in their classrooms as well. Meanwhile, thanks to the other members of the schools outreach team, many classrooms implemented the non-violent unit with students all over the country.
Major Theories influencing SLA
Three major theories of language acquisition that I will discuss: behaviorist, innatist, and constructivist. I will give an overview of these theories, the historical context in which they arose, explain the criticisms of each. The theoretical underpinnings of the methods and approaches to SLA that I will discuss there after are derived predominantly from these three theoretical positions.
Behaviorist
In the early to mid-nineteen hundreds a school of thought arose that criticized subjective interpretation of language acquisition. This school of thought advocated that linguists and psychologists should focus on objective results based on empirical analysis. This gave rise to Behaviorist theories of learning. In Verbal Behavior, Skinner (1957) introduces Behaviorist theory that involves a stimulus response method(S-R). Language , under this view, is seen as a set of structures, while language acquisition is viewed as habit formations. Learning is considered an observable behavior that is automatically acquired through stimulus responses repetition. Language learning occurs through the acquisition of automatic linguistics habits. This theory recognizes the linguistic environment and the stimuli it produces, but fails to acknowledge any internal processes or cultural influences that go in to the language acquisition process. An important criticism of behaviorism is that it cannot explain how language learners to produce original grammatically correct sentences which have not before been uttered (Chomsky, 1976). Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) explain behaviorist model offers “little promises as explanations of SLA, except for perhaps pronunciation and the rote-memorization of formulae” (p.266).
The Audio Lingual method derived from Behaviorist theories of second language acquisition. This learning method uses language drills and objective formative assessments. There is a set answer for every prompt. Errors cannot be tolerated under this method because, according to behaviorist theory, bad habits will result. Learning is the result of habit formation through imitation. L1 has no place in the audio lingual method because there is such a high value placed on imitation and recitation. Computer assisted language learning such as Rosetta Stone and similar programs would be considered very effective modes of instruction according to the audio lingual method because they offer input and immediate feedback. Audio-lingual methods of instruction have since been criticized because it was unable to provide results. Also, the method has been criticized by users for being uninteresting and boring.
While many older-style behaviorist methods are quite boring for language students to endure, there are new computer adaptive language learning systems based on behaviorist models that can be interesting and provide level one language learners much needed support. I have used Razkids.com, LearnZillion.com, Rosetta Stone, and Star Fall in my classrooms with very good results. Each program specialized in different areas, such as phonics, grammar, and conversational English and are all computer adaptive programs that use a behaviorist methods to provide positive or negative reinforces to encourage correct answers. While this should never be the only form of instruction in a language classroom and can serve as a supplemental addition to a communicative-based approach in the classroom.
Innatists
Noam Chomsky (1965) found inconsistencies in the behaviorist perspective. In response to these inconsistencies, he developed the Innatist perspective on language acquisition. Chomsky explains that cognition is inextricably involved in language development. These cognitive faculties allow learners to produce unlimited amounts of sentences with limited amounts of grammatical rules. This is called language competence which differs from performance. Universal grammar hypothesis understands SLA as an innate human capability. According to this theory, all humans are biologically endowed with a language faculty, the language acquisition device (LAD), which is responsible for language development. The UG theory explains that the input from the environment is insufficient to account for language acquisition. Mitchel and Myles (2004) state that, “The Universal Grammar approach is only interested in the learner as a processor of a mind that contains language” (p.94). Language or linguistic competence, according to Chomsky, is an idealized ability to construct language. The ability is a function of the brain. Linguistic performance, on the other hand is the actual performance of speech. According to Innatists there is a time frame in early childhood when the brain is specifically predisposed to language acquisition. The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) states that the first few years of life is the crucial time in which an individual can acquire a first language if presented with adequate stimuli. For second language acquisition, innatists argue the ideal time for learning is said to be between the ages of six and eleven (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006).According to CPH, if language input doesn't occur during this time frame, full command of the second language will not be attained. There is research that corroborates CPH showing that when language learners spend a significant amount of time immersed in the target language at an early age they have been able to reach native like levels of proficiency, in terms of grammar and pronunciation (Johnson & Newport, 1989).
However, if native like proficiency is not the primary goal, there is strong evidence that students can be successful second language learners at any age. In fact one research study suggests that second language learners, who fall into the adolescent age range, may have advanced cognitive skills that allow them to understand language forms and grammar conventions better that younger language learners (Lightbrown et al., p.74, 2006). Moreover, many factors other than age contribute to the ability to learn a language-such as, motivation, aptitude, investment, and opportunities to learn/practice the target language. Instrumental and integrative motivation theories also run counter to the CPH theory (Gardner &Lambert, 1972). Instrumental language learning motivates students of all ages to learn a language for specific reasons, like going to going to college or getting a job. While Integrative learning motivates language learners to acquire the language in order to be a part of a community. In addition, if a student makes a meaningful connection between a community and their own identity, then the student tends be more invested learning a language (Pierce, 1995). A personal investment in the language of a specific learning environment or community can serve as a major factor in students’ language acquisition regardless of age. Finally, aptitude can play a major part in students’ ability to learn a language at any age. Certain students possess proclivity to language learning that can influence the speed and rate in which language acquisition takes place.
Stephen Krashen is another important researcher also influenced by innastism. He developed a theory called the Monitor Model to explain SLA. The theory has five hypotheses: the first is the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the second is the monitor hypothesis, the third is the natural order hypothesis, the fourth is the input hypothesis, and the fifth is the affective filter hypothesis[i]. An important point of Krashen’s hypothesis is that language acquisition is an innate subconscious process. Effective teaching within this model does not emphasize explicit grammar rules or conscious learning. Language students need comprehensible input to activate the language acquisition device (LAD) and acquire language. Comprehensible input (i+1) is language that can be understood by the learner. Comprehensible input should always be one step beyond the learner’s language ability. Input becomes comprehensible when the teacher uses drama, visuals, gestures, repetitions, and so on. “By enabling students to match what they hear to what they see and experience, teachers can ensure that students have access to meaning. Experiential, hands on activities make input comprehensible” (Genesee, 1994, p.164). Designing a syllabus using the Krashen’s theories specifically takes the needs of the students in consideration.
There have been several criticisms of Krashen’s theories. Lydia White (1987) questioned the validity of Krashen’s Acquisition vs. learning hypothesis. Other researches have questioned whether these five theories could actually be tested empirically to prove their validity (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006). In spite of these criticisms, research has shown that language students can make quite a bit of progress by receiving comprehensible input alone without direct instruction. However, some students over time may reach a language learning plateau where they will fail to progress without direct instruction (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006).
Constructivist and Sociocultural Views
Jean Piaget explains that all learning including the acquisition of knowledge derives from a student’s active involvement in knowledge construction. Similarly, Vygotsky understands learning as a result of construction of knowledge. However, Vygotsky believed that social interactions and culture had a greater influence on linguistic and cognitive faculties which gave rise to Sociocultural theory. The Sociocultural theory explains learning is a semiotic process where participation in socially mediated activities is essential. Students’ understanding of language structure and function develops by using the language in social settings.
Vygotsky’s theory advocates that L2 students should be taught according to their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)[ii]. The zone of proximal development refers to the distance between what children can do by themselves, and what they can achieve with assistance from a mentor. Scaffolded teaching and learning methods in turn use the ZDP to provide support for students. The teacher provides scaffolds to support the students learning to create academic growth. Scaffolding is similar to Krashen’s comprehensible input (i+1) as it uses what the child already knows to introduce new knowledge or skills. The teacher should engage the student in a task that is just slightly more difficult that what the student can do on their own. The teacher then helps the student progress through the ZDP to attain new levels of achievement. Scaffolding can take many different forms in the classroom such as models, cues, prompts, hints, partial solutions, think-aloud modeling and direct instruction (Hartman, 2002). For my language learners I often use, semi controlled activities that include a prompt with some freedom when discussing literature. For instance, I teach my students how to participate in whole group by using phrases like, "I made a text-to-self connection when…”, or “I made an inference when…”. Each day we may focusing on mastering a different prompt and within a few weeks students no longer need to be prompted. Students can engage in whole group or small group to successfully discuss literature on their own. Slowly taking away the prompt is an important part of students achieving mastery on their own.
Communicative Competence
The communicative approach when applied to second language acquisition begins with the premise that language is communication, and the goal of language acquisition is to communicate. Hymes (1972) argues for a constructivist, communicative approach to language learning, claiming that the old innatist model does not take into account any sociocultural features of language. Hymes (1972) developed the theory of communicative competence. This theory distinguishes between linguistic competence and communicative competence. In previous years, , linguistic competence meant the ability to create well-formed sentence (Chompsky, 1965). Hymes new view of communicative competence, instead, ascribes competences to knowing what to say, when to say it, and how to say it. Communicative competence highlights the difference between knowledge about language, and knowledge that enables a person to communicate functionally and interactively. Halliday (1973) explains that the interpersonal aspect of the elements of the dialogue help to reinforce the sense that speakers are working together to negotiate meaning when they engage in conversation. Swain and Canale (1980) expanded communicative competence to include four major competence components- Grammatical, Sociolinguistic, Strategic, and Discourse[iii]. Grammatical competence, meaning grammatical capacity, “refers to what Chomsky calls linguistic competence and what Hymes calls formally possible” (Richards & Rogers, 2001, p. 160). Sociolinguistic competence refers to communication within an interactive social setting. Discourse competence refers to how a part of the discourse contributes to the whole discourse. Finally, Strategic competence refers to ways in which people use communication to “repair, initiate, redirect, or maintain communication” (Richards & Rogers, 2000, p.160).Communicative competence and good oral language skills are necessary to ensuring ELs academic success. It is not enough to teach ELs reading skills alone; extensive oral English instruction should be used in literacy instruction as this promotes reading comprehension and writing skills (August and Shanahan, p.4). Every lesson in the ESL classroom should have an oral component with an oral language objective. Cooperative group learning activities, student storytelling, role playing, debates, and oral presentations are ways to incorporate oral language practice developing communicative competence in the classroom.
Cummins (1999) introduced the idea of BICS vs CALP to explain the disparity between the language that L2 learners use for conversation and that which is used for academic purpose. BICS refers to Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills. It is everyday language that develops on the playgroup and in the lunch room. When acquiring SLA, BICS will develop within six months to two years after arrival in the U.S. However, in contrast CALPS, Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency will not fully develop for five to seven years. CALPS is that type of language required for academic success. In my teaching experiences BICS and CALPS theory can readily be verified in action with my students. I often have students that are so engaging to talk to in various conversations. However when it comes time to use academic language for literacy activities they simply are unable to do it. This is because these students have not fully developed CALPS yet. It is especially important for ESOL professionals to advocate for these students, because often they can be characterized by other content area teachers as lazy or not willing to do the work. The problem lies not in the fact that students do not want to do the work, but more so in the fact that linguistically students do not have the skills yet to do the work. Content area teachers do not realize this because they judge these students overall language proficiency on their BICS. CALPS takes much longer to master and content area teachers need to be made of aware of this discrepancy in language learning.
Popular Methods Teaching ESL Through Time
Grammar Translation Method
Nineteenth century second language instruction was dominated by the Grammar Translation Method which originated in Latin language instruction classrooms. This methodology rests on the idea that L2 is acquired through consistent, systematic translation of written words, phrases and sentences from L2 to L1 and vice versa. This method is grounded in Socratic educational philosophy and is used as a means to build up the language student’s cognitive abilities. It also utilizes the behaviorist principle of negative reinforcement by reprimanding students when errors occurred.
Within Grammar Translation Method, L2 grammar rules are taught to students in their native language. Vocabulary is memorized through bi-lingual word lists. Rote memory learning is emphasized by necessity as students are required to memorize explicit grammar rules and vast amounts of vocabulary. Importance is placed on form as opposed to meaning. Students receive very little comprehensible input and generally fail to achieve communicative competence with this method. However, it remains to be a successful tool in teaching language in situations where students only wish to learn language translation (from L2 to L1 and vice versa) as opposed to communicative competence in a language. For example, when teaching Latin, Sanskit, Pali, Classical Tibet (as opposed to colloquial Tibetan), or any other dead language this would still be an effective teaching model.
Direct Method
The Direct Method developed as a critical reaction to the Grammar Translation Method. In the late nineteenth century, language students began to learn modern languages in schools, such as French and Spanish. Language students now had very different needs when learning modern languages as opposed to learning ancient Latin. Students now needed to obtain communicative competence which Grammar Translation Method could not provide. The goal of the Direct Method is to provide students with knowledge about L2 which would allow them to speak and understand L2 to in real world situations. One important historical development that occurred during the rise of Direct Method is the creation of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). The provided students and teacher with information on how to correctly pronounce L2 sounds and words.
In contrast to the Grammar Translation Method, Direct Method teaching prescribed consistent use of L2 in the classroom. All language and grammar instruction is given in L2. Students are encouraged to not only use L2 but also begin to think in L2 as well. Instead of forcing students to memorize abstract rules of grammar and vocabulary, this new method proposed that the new language should be acquired in a natural format by using the language. There was an emphasis placed on relevant and meaningful language that students could use in the real world.
The Audio-Lingual Approach
The Audio-Lingual Approach developed as a means to produce fluent oral use of L2. It arose during the middle of the twentieth century. Oral fluency was the primary goal while literacy was relegated to a supporting role. In some ways, the Audio-Lingual method is similar to the Direct Method. Audio-linguists emphasized a practical approach to language learning that sacrificed the rigorous study of grammar and translation of GTM for a more practical approach. The method emphasized repeated drill patterns of students imitating correct speech examples uttered by the instructor. The method was said to derive from behaviorist theory and structural linguistic theory. The audio-lingual method has been criticized numerous times for relying on mechanical, call and response drills which do not prepare language learners for actual communication in real world circumstances. It has also been criticized for remaining teacher centered as opposed to student centered. I can think of only very rare occasions that I may use an audio lingual approach in my classroom. For instance, when students are learning new vocabulary words I may say the word and then ask the students to repeat the word back to me to ensure they understand how to say the word. However, this practice will not help students learn the meaning of the word or how to use it. Therefore additional methods of teaching need to be used.
Krashen’s Innatist Theories- Natural Approach
Krashen and Terrell (1983) developed the “Natural Approach” to SLA which has influence classroom language learning ever since its introduction in early 1980s. This teaching method emphasizes natural language acquisition in the classroom setting. Communication is emphasized in a stress free environment. Conscious grammar study and explicit correction of student errors are minimized. Language output is not forced in the natural approach. Instead, output is allowed to naturally and spontaneously develop after students have received large amounts of comprehensible language input. I find Krashen’s theories very useful in the classroom and often incorporate his theories into my instructional practices. I create comprehensible input in my classroom by using role plays, kinesthetic activities, scripts, and TPR. Furthermore, I always try to stay aware of my students’ affective filters inhibiting their language growth and production. When a language students’ affective filter becomes over active, anxiety can drastically stifle communication and receptivity to new information. I try to remain constantly vigil of this and create warm, relaxed, language learning environment for my students. Most of my students this semester are terrified of public speaking. Thus, as an alternative to giving an oral presentation, I designed a culminating activity where students created a digital presentation on digital story telling software and recorded their voices to the presentation. This greatly diminished their anxiety and allowed the students several opportunities to record their presentations exactly how they wanted them to sound[iv].
Communicative Language Teaching
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) or the Communicative Approach brings a major shift in language teaching in mainstream classrooms. The emphasis on syntax and grammar moved to communicative language proficiency. Speaking and communicating are the main focus of learning language. In Audio-Lingualism proper pronunciation is emphasized, in contrast, CLT emphasizes communicative language. CLT wants to know how well you can communicate not how accurately you can communicate. In this method there must be some kind of information gap, such as an open-ended question, for learning to occur. The information gap is the negotiation of meaning which prepares students to use language in the real world. This is in stark contrast to the controlled dialogue and closed questions used in Audio-Lingualism which does not allow for a negotiation of meaning on the part of the language learner. The information gap or negotiation of meaning within an exercise provides the language learner with opportunities to develop communicative competencies develop. CLT encourages students to use utterances they choose and which covey what they mean, rather than subordinately repeating prescribed utterances. In this respect, CLT provides emancipatory education to language learners by allowing classrooms to become student-focused as opposed to teacher-focused. In this model errors are tolerated as long as the student is still able to communicate effectively.
CLT derives from a constructivist view of language acquisition. Interaction between interlocutors is emphasized. This teaching method is actually an umbrella term that includes a number of teaching approaches. Developed in the 1970’s it arose as an alternative to the Audio-Lingual Method which was still pervasive in language classrooms at the time but failing to provide results. The approaches contained within CLT include Krashen’s Natural Approach, Swain and Canale’s Communicative Competence model, Cooperative Language Learning, and Content-Based Instruction. All of these approaches emphasize authentic and meaningful communicative competence.
The curriculum, I develop for my students, has a strong focus on the CLT methods that include the Natural Approach, Cooperative Learning, and Content- based learning. Cooperative Learning (CL) can be used in a wide variety of classroom scenarios that include formal and informal group formations. The can be used during simple activities as well as in task based learning. The overall goal of CL is to “foster cooperation, as opposed to competition, develop critical thinking, and communicative competence” (Richards & Rogers, 2001). Groups can be formed heterogeneously or homogeneous groups, but it is important that all students be individually responsible for accomplishing a task within the group. Giving students the opportunity to give feedback about group members can help to ensure all students are doing their part to make the group successful. Students should always be taught the specific social skills needed to carry out this type of group work before hand to ensure the group work goes smoothly. Cooperative learning groups can provide students with opportunities to engage in a wide variety of discourse, thereby facilitating their development of communicative competencies. Interaction patterns in the classroom are of crucial importance for language learning, but they also provide opportunities to teach students positive ways to engage with others. A classroom is like a miniature form of society that a student is introduced to in his early years. The forms of interactions we provide for students in the classroom will inevitably influence how the student interacts in society at large when he/she matures into adulthood.
Cooperative learning should be a major practice in every classroom because it models how a productive, co-dependent, society should interact. The traditional classroom is generally considered a class with mainly teacher-directed instruction that places students in rows and requires them to work individually. This type or structure facilitates competition and self-centered viewpoints. Due to globalization, environmental destruction, and the 2008 financial crisis, society has increasingly begun to realize that humanity’s success as a whole depends on us dispelling individualistic, competitive viewpoints and working together as one global community. Cooperative learning gives students opportunities to practice developing language skills along with skills of group cooperation at an early age by working with all members of their classroom community. This type of learning allows students to work in such a way that each group member's success is dependent on the group's success, resembling how society actually works. Extensive research has compared cooperative learning with traditional classroom instruction using the same teachers, curriculum, assessments, and the average students who engage in cooperative learning tend to learn more information, enjoy learning, are more highly motivated, and develop better critical thinking skills than their traditionally taught counterparts (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Slavin, 1991).
Instruction in the Content Areas
For most public schools in the United States, content area instruction has become the predominate mode of teaching English language learners. Within this learning environment, it is important to understand that English learners are faced with an immense challenge of learning academic content while becoming proficient in English. For content instruction, the goal in my classroom is to make content as assessable as possible for English learners while promoting written and oral language development. Oral and written English proficiency is the foundation needed to acquire the content knowledge. Content knowledge is extremely important; however written and oral language skills are necessary to master the content knowledge. It is next to impossible for students to access and master content without literacy skills. There are a number of strategies that I have used in my lessons to make content accessable to my students. I begin by creating thematic units that incorporate English language arts along with another subject such as social studies or science. I then create culturally responsive lessons that build on students funds of knowledge. I create very clear language and content objectives and expectations for all lessons with in each unit. I also incorporate a wide variety of visuals and graphic organizers as a form of scaffolding. I make a point to front load the vocabulary and language structures needed for each task[v].
Vocabulary is an important part of content area instruction. Content area reading comprehension is inextricably related to understanding vocabulary in texts. Therefore, as an ESOL professional it is imperative that I spend a portion of my instruction time with my students focused on explicit grammar instruction and vocabulary. A major obstacle that keeps English learners lagging behind their English speaking counterparts, in terms of academic success, is lack of vocabulary knowledge. Studies have repeatedly shown that students’ vocabulary knowledge is directly linked to academic performance (Baumann, Kame‘enui, & Ash, 2003). Students with more vocabulary knowledge are able to comprehend oral speak and written text more readily, thus allowing students to acquire more knowledge on a daily basis. Moreover, many studies have directly linked reading comprehension level with vocabulary knowledge (Anderson & Freebody, 1983; Baumann, Kame‘enui, & Ash, 2003; Becker, 1977). Closing the achievement gap and creating academic success in content area subjects requires strong reading comprehension skills. Therefore, it is imperative that vocabulary instruction has a strong focus in the language and content area classroom.[vi]
Task based learning is another integral teaching method rooted in communicative language teaching (CLT). The main focus of this practice is to engage language learners in classroom activities that involve authentic tasks that utilized the target language as a means for completing the task. The tasks focus on purpose and communicative competence. The cognitive strategies involved in completing task-based assignments more accurately reflect the cognitive strategies students outside of the language classroom in real world settings or content area classroom settings. By bringing these types of strategies into the language classroom with the use of task-based learning, students are better prepared use the target language in authentic settings that they will encounter. For these fore mentioned reasons, it is theorized that task-based learning provides better learning outcomes for students than solely providing grammar focused lessons (Richards & Rogers, 2001). Within an assigned task, the teacher has the ability to incorporate structural, functional, and interactional models in to language instruction. In my classroom, I use long-term inquiry based tasks as the main means of instruction. I think of language learning as more of a necessary byproduct of the completion of the assigned task. The task gives my students and opportunity to achieve an outcome through the acquisition of new language and language skills. Students are allowed choose the language they want to complete the task. There is an information gap involved in the process of completing the task. For example, a recent task based project I employed in the classroom involved students creating a multimodal informational presentation with digital story telling software to present to another class. In the project, students were able choose the topic they presented on and were placed in cooperative learning groups to share the responsibilities of the task. Students then did research, wrote a script, and produced a nonfiction digital presentation. Within this unit, we covered a variety of language skills that were directly related to students being able to be successful at the task. For instance, we covered specific grammar skills that students used to revise their scripts, main ideas and supporting details, vocabulary skills, and oral presentation skills. Students needed to acquire specific content knowledge, research skills, and vocabulary, grammar, and presentation skills in order to be successful at this project. However, the presentation was the main focus creating an authentic learning environment. The skills were developed only in order to complete the task. My students were extremely motivated during this project because choice and creativity were involved in the process. Ultimately, these types of task-based learning projects produce critically-minded, competent, and successful language learners who can use their target language successfully in a variety of situations.
Critical Pedagogy: a Philosophical Framework
Finally, all of these different theories and approaches to teaching can be used in various different circumstances depending on the needs of the individual students. However, whichever teaching methods are used by a teacher, they should all be used within one overarching framework. This framework is called critical pedagogy.
It is important to understand that there are different views on purposes of education. Traditional educators understand school as simply a way transmitting information to the youth. The information transmitted through the educational system in the United States, inherently reflects cultural-hegemonic ideologies that exist in our society. Progressive teachers generally take issue with the transmission of dominant ideologies because they reflect a broad range of societal ills related predominantly to inequalities among citizens. Therefore, progressive teachers, instead, aim to inspire students to be free thinkers and changes makers within society. Chomsky explains that the main goal of education should not be to produce students whose goals reflect the current ideologies of society “accumulation and domination” but produce students whose ideologies reflect “free association” between humans who are on “equal terms” with one another (Chomsky, 2000, p.16).There comes a point in every educator’s life when they are confronted with the question of “What is my role as a teacher?” There are many teachers who decide it is their job to simply transmit knowledge and teach students the “standards”. However, there are many of us who decide it is our job to bring about real change in the lives of their students and thus change in our society. We are the educators who strive for social justice through the use of critical pedagogy and empowering education (Freire, 1970; Shor, 1992).
When I first decided that it was my job as a woman, as a citizen, and as a teacher to affect change in this world, it was because I was inspired by critical theory. In order to fully embrace critical theory an internal, radical change must occur first within an individual through personal in-depth inquiry into critical theory (McLauren,1995). After this internal change has occurred, critical pedagogy can be employed effectively in a classroom. When I began to personally look through a critical lens at the world important insights came to light for the first time in my life. I started my journey of understanding critical theory when I became feminist. Through feminist literature, I became interested in critical race theory, Marxism, and critical pedagogy. Exploring these theories allowed me to take a deeper look at power structures among classes, genders, and races of people. It also challenged me to re-examine my own backwards thinking that condoned these inequities. Personally confronting these long unquestioned ideologies was an emotional, challenging, and ultimately empowering journey. Accomplishing this took re-education, through constant reflection, analytic analysis of myself and my world, and community activism.
For teachers and students, initially establishing a critical mind set is very difficult because cultural hegemony is so strong in our society. The views of the ruling class have become accepted as the common world view. This dominant ideology, deeply engrained within our minds, is seen as the normal way of life. When in reality, it is an artificial construct that benefits those in power (Chomsky, 2000). Embracing a truly critical mind set is an arduous task because this type of thinking is always at odds with the media, popular cultural, and the traditional education system. It is important to understand that a critical understanding of the world is not something that should be turned on when in the classroom and then off when you leave. In fact, radical thinking must pervade all aspects of life in order to produce transformative effects within a person and an environment.
Once a personal transformation had occurred within me where I deeply understood the world through a critical lens, only then was I able to genuinely bring critical pedagogy in the classroom. The personal transformative is a necessary part of becoming a critical teacher. I often hear other educators expressing that they don’t understand how to actually “do” critical pedagogy or that it “may work in high school but it cannot be used with elementary learners”. My response to this is that these colleagues have not truly adopted a critical consciousness. Once a critical consciousness is adopted, it becomes very easy to see that critical pedagogy is not a method but in fact a framework that can be applied in all educational situations regardless of age or content. Other problems with implementing critical pedagogy occur when educators implement critical pedagogy in a watered down form. For instance, using a critical lens to examine historical issues or multicultural issues but never providing any real calls to action afterwards. This situation also occurs when teachers have adopted an incomplete understanding of critical consciousness. Critical consciousness and critical pedagogy involve, not only looking through the world with a new view to gain understanding, but also using that understanding to act upon the world to create change.
While traditional education, serves as a means to indoctrinate the youth to conformity within the status quo, critical pedagogy serves to cut the bonds of oppression and empower students to engage in unfettered thinking and learning, in order to become agents of change. Freire (1970) describes critical pedagogy as “‘the practice of freedom’ the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world” (p.34). Teacher student roles are interchangeable, allowing all participants in the classroom to learn from one another. The teacher’s role as the purveyor of information is abolished, and students are asked to find sources of information within themselves and their own practice of inquiry. Giroux (2010) goes on to say that through critical pedagogy, “students develop consciousness of freedom, recognize authoritarian tendencies, and connect knowledge to power and the ability to take constructive action”. Constructive action is the key to empowering students to become active change-makers in society.
Critical education, that truly inspires students to act on the world, may be employed in the classroom in an endless variety in ways by a skillful critical pedagogist. Curriculum may include a focus on anti-racist, anti-xenophobic, anti-classist, anti –capitalist, anti-sexist, and anti-homophobic curriculum (McLauren, 1995). It may also be used as a means of exploring whose knowledge is deemed important and why we valued it over other sources of information. Students and teachers may investigate the power structures relationships that exist in school and how this structure either challenges of reinforces the power structures that exist in the community or the world. Inquiry projects, action projects, debates, presentations, whole class projects maybe use to create critical consciousness and action within the classroom.Critical pedagogy can be used to radicalize almost any content including Math, English Language Arts, Reading, History, and even Science. By radicalizing the curriculum and redefining the teacher and student roles, critical consciousness can be created within the classroom in a way that allows teachers and students to transform or create changes within themselves, their classroom, their communities, and their societies. The ultimate goal of this type of education is to empower students to take learning into their own hands and use the knowledge they gain to create a better world for all the future generations to live in[viii].
References
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Executive Summary. Developing literacy in second-language learners: report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (pp.1-8). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum .
Baumann, J. F., Kame‘enui, E. J., & Ash, G. E. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook on research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 752-785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged – What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518-543.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
Chomsky, N., & Macedo, D. P. (2000). Chomsky on miseducation. Rowman & Littlefield Pub Incorporated.
Chomsky, N. (1976). On the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 46-57.
Cummins, J. (1999). BICS and CALP: Clarifying the Distinction.
Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J. Y., Wu, S., Su, J. H., Burgess-Brigham, R., & Snow, C. (2012). What We Know About Second Language Acquisition A Synthesis From Four Perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5-60.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. University of Chicago Press, Book Orders, 5801 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637-1496 (paperbound: ISBN-0-226-75357-3, $13.95; cloth--ISBN-0-226-75356-5)..
Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading research quarterly, 277-294
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education (Vol. 163). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Giroux, H.A., 2010. Lessons from Paulo Freire. The Chronicle Review, 17 October.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning How to Mean--Explorations in the Development of Language.
Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding & Cooperative Learning. Human Learning and Instruction (pp. 23-69). New York: City College of City University of New York.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. Sociolinguistics, 269293.
Johnson, D.W. and R.T. Johnson (1989) . Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive psychology, 21(1), 60-99.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition. A Survey of Linguistic Science. Ed.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning.
Lightbown, P. M., Spada, N., Ranta, L., & Rand, J. (2006). How languages are learned (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. Arnold Publishers.
McLaren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era. Routledge.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Slavin, R.E. (1991) . Student Team Learning: A Practical Guide to Cooperative Learning (3rd Edition). National Education Association Washington DC.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1).
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society.
White, L. (1987). Against Comprehensible Input: the Input Hypothesis and the Development of Second-language Competence1. Applied linguistics, 8(2), 95-110.
[i] I have included an artifact that I created that provides a multimodal representation of Krashen’s Hypothesis. I used this artifact during a presentation I on the theories of language acquisition I presented to graduate level education students in Fall of 2012. I have also included a TPR lesson plan and graphic organizer because TPR is a great way to create (i+1) comprehensible imput for language learners.
[ii] I have included a Prezi presentation which I delivered to graduate level students in the Fall of 2012 describing ZDP and Socio Constructivist theory and how it can be used effectively in the classroom. Sociocultural prezi
[iv] As an artifact for my understanding of Krashen’s theory of affective, I have included links to a project I designed for my students that involved creating an oral presentation where they recorded their voices on digital storytelling software. Please view the following links:
https://voicethread.com/share/4278416/
https://voicethread.com/share/4278223/
[v] An example of a four week unit of culuriculum that I helped to design which demonstrates these various teaching strategies integrating into ESOL lesson plans. Critical pedagogy, Cooperative group learning, and a liturature-based approach to content instruction are included unit of work. Unit Of Work- Group project 2012
[vi] As a reflective practitioner I am always looking for way to improve my instruction. Utilizing vocabulary assessments in the classroom provide data that help to guide me towards creating more informed instruction for my students. This is artifact where I reviewed and evaluated one vocabulary assessment called the Beery Vocabulary Test. I evaluated this test to determine its possible relevancy and use in my classroom.ATTACHED
[viii] This artifact includes a video of a critical project I conducted in my 4th grade ESOL class. http://youtu.be/FNW6yBuTCn8. The project began in reaction to the mass amounts of school violence that has been taking place recently nationally and locally. I was currently working with Morehouse University as an volunteer for an up and coming event that celebrated non-violence by awarding one person a year the prestigious Gandhi, King, Ikea Community Builders prize who is a force of peace and empowerment within their communities. Morehouse College and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar the person who is receiving the award this year were creating an initiative to have people commit to acts of non-violence in conjunction with this event. I discussed with fellow colleagues working on the project about promoting a nonviolence action project in classrooms that could get the kids involved. They all thought it was a great idea. The Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s non-profit organization took up the cause whole heartedly. Everyone, we organized agroup that would work specifically on schools outreach. Everyone began sending out emails to schools and reaching out to colleagues to get people involved in the project. In the classroom I am currently student teaching in, I implemented the project with my students. I started the unit by having my students first study literature about Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Gandhi and other community builders. Then the students and I discussed and wrote in our journals about what non-violence really means to us in our lives. We can up with a broad range of what non-violence really meant to us in our lives. One student suggested non-violence was not being bullied by others another said non-violence was meant no more of his family members being locked up in jail cells and deported. Then I told students to reflect on thinking of how their schools and communities would look and feel like if they truly reflected their own non-violence ideal. Finally, the class analyzed the quote by Gandhi “Be the change you want to see in the word”. Students then discussed what kind of non-violent commitments they could make themselves to inspire change in their families, classrooms, and communities. Students then decided that they wanted to make a banner to display their personal commitments. When they finished they were so proud they presented their banner two neighboring classrooms. My students explained to the other class what the banner was about and why they made it. The classrooms my students presented to then felt inspired to make their own commitments. Students added commitments to our banner one after the other, until the banner was completely full. Then a classroom down the hall made their own banner, which they presented to other classes. More and more students in my school made commitments to non-violence. Finally, I posted an overview of the non-violence unit online with pictures. Some of the members of my critical literacy professional learning community have decided to implement the unit in their classrooms as well. Meanwhile, thanks to the other members of the schools outreach team, many classrooms implemented the non-violent unit with students all over the country.