Week 5 - Foreign Language Teaching Methods

I could venture to say that grammar instruction is the most used L2 teaching method in schools in Brazil. Also, in universities, there are foreign language classes available (but not required) to undergraduate students that are known as "Curso de Língua Instrumental" (instrumental language). Usually there are options in English, French, German and Spanish, This kind of L2 instruction in the universities is meant to teach students reading tips regarding the structure of the foreign language, so they can mainly read texts in the target language. Usually, this is need when there are important books or articles in the students' field of study that are not translated to their native language.

In these kind of instrumental language courses, there is no level progress, only continuous practice of text analysis aiming comprehension. Needless to say that there is no speech required from the students. Only the instructor reads the text in the target language, to explain the meanings through grammar in their L1.

The reason of the instrumental language is quite acceptable, the need of having tools in the foreign language to decode texts in the foreign language. In this case, there is no need to learn how to speak the target language. But how about the schools teaching a foreign language to students using only the grammar instruction model? Since 2019, English is required in all private and public schools since the 6th grade. Before, it was taught mainly in the high school grades, but not in all schools. 

I guess there will be less English teachers than the need with the new law. But beyond this problem of qualified professionals, I wonder which teaching method will be used by this huge number of new teachers. Until now, everyone in Brazil would agree that at school English classes nobody learns English. Only in private courses someone would learn. The reason is that usually at school the method used is the grammar instruction, with no or few interaction. The focus on written language makes it more difficult to learn how to pronounce the different sounds of the foreign language.

While reading the article about Teaching Methodologies, I recalled all the language courses I made. I think I had all kinds of experiences described in the article. The most effective probably was the blend of Direct Method with the Audio-lingual Approach, with some Communicative Approach added. As far as I can remember, these three methods were used in the private English course and in one of the private French class I tried. In others, sometimes too much focus on culture made the course less a language class than some other event.

However, what made enthusiastic to keep experimenting in the classroom was the article about Whole Language Approach to Teach Grammar. Using the PACE model seems to me entirely meaningful and effective. After reading the article, I feel it had to be intuitive, but as we all know, it is not so easy to find a way of teaching a second language without experimenting a lot in the classroom. Some of my classes as an instructor were similar to the method, especially those with a song serving the base of vocabulary and grammar instruction.

Week 4 - Theories on Second Language Acquisition

Isn't it fascinating that babies worldwide go through the same stages of development in learning their mother tongue no matter what language they are leaning? Research show that children know a lot about what works and what doesn't work in a language since they are very young - around 2 years and 6 months. This leads us to the conclusion that the language is innate. But only spoken language; not written language.

If the validity of Chomsky's theories of the Universal Grammar and the Language Acquisition Device are still being discussed, maybe it would be interesting to contrast them with the humans need to intentionally learn to read and write. The written language learning is not innate. This ability is not provided in our brains and doesn't happens naturally like spoken language acquisition.

Research with babies growing in 15 different languages show that the babbling is basically the same for all of them. The babies usually use labial sounds like "p" and "b", and blend them with low sound vowels, like "a" and "ee". So, the way that kids make sounds and the way they pick up words are the same worldwide, in any language. They have the ability to recognize any nuances of sounds they hear.

The only way we can learn the second language nearly like we learn the first language is when young children are exposed to a second language before learning to read. My son has had this experience since last year, when we moved to the US. He had to learn only by listening and having to respond to everyone at school in English, entirely immersed. At home we keep speaking Portuguese. Like my experience with English, it an immersion but not complete. It would be different for my son if he had moved after having learned to read. In this case, the written language, grammar and other literacy aspects of learning would interfere in the learning. 

To learn by listening before being able to read makes the learning similar, but not the same as first language learning. The main difference is the whole phonic systems of the first language, which may interfere in the beginning. In this context of learning, as well as in older students L2 classroom, input is the most important element of teaching a foreign language. What learners mostly need is to be exposed to meaningful language situations to internalize sounds and word sequences, making sure they are following the meaning. I can see the difference between my son’s language acquisition mainly in pronunciation. While I am still stuck in my fossilized pronunciation due to the written language interference, he is internalizing the precise sounds of the second language more naturally.

Week 2 - Second Language Proficiency - my saga with foreign languages

Standardized tests represent a recent interest in my studies on Education. My personal experience with them is little, but I had tried some. I studied English from 13 to 18 years old in Brazil, in a private language course. I remember to have developed a good fluency, with not very large vocabulary, but with relatively good conversation skills after finishing the 5-6 years course. Only to check my learning level, I took one of the most renowned tests in Brazil, the Cambridge, and had my Proficiency approved.

Then, I decided to study French, while in College, again in a private course. I fell in love with the French language! In a few months all my journal notes were in French, I spoke to myself in French, and so I remember to develop a good fluency after 2-3 years studying the language. I was highly motivated, always listening to music and trying to sing or at least to sound the lyrics, trying to read French poetry and so on.

After a couple of years, I decided to study Italian in a semi-intensive private course. I made the entire course at the Italian Consulate in Rio in two years, but did not develop fluency, even though I could easily understand much more of Italian than the other languages I have studied before.

I don’t know exactly why, and I would like to ask if you have any guess. Maybe because Italian is very similar to Spanish, that is a language I did not formally studied but which I can read and have a good listening and comprehension because besides being similar to my mother tongue (Portuguese), my father always recited poems in Spanish and we have been listening to Hispanic music during my childhood and adolescence.

English kept being my first studied foreign language, and I had a few chances to practice, mostly reading complex texts on Literature Theory in my Ph.D. courses in Comparative Literature and in a few quick trips to Europe to film festivals, where I spoke basic English to communicate. During my Ph.D. years, I still made some translation from English, French and Spanish to Portuguese on different topics in the Humanities.

Continuing my saga, after around 20 years with rare opportunities to effectively practice any foreign language, I decided to move to the US. Before moving, I took a few months to awaken my English language skills, listening dozens of TED Talks on Education and correlated themes. I made the TOEFL Exam and my grade was not very promising - 81. Just for comparison, my daughter made the TOEFL too, and her final grade was 98.

The highest TOEFL IBT (Internet Based Test) score is 120, among the 4 tested areas, 30 points for each: reading, writing, listening and oral expression (we either listen to oral exercises and also record our voice responding to questions in the test). Even with my poor grade, I was happy that I got what I needed, since UNH defines the minimum accepted grade as 80. Among the US universities I researched, the proficiency requirement range between 70 and 110.

When I arrived in New Hampshire and started the classes in the Education Department Master’s Program, I felt like my English skills did not arise, instead, they seem to have vanished at all! I noticed that I didn’t have vocabulary to say what I wanted to say, and, worse, I didn’t really get the sense of the Professors’ instructions, despite I was understanding all the words and sentences they were saying. 

Since the beginning, I enjoyed the classes, but I was uncomfortable with my lack of ability to express myself. However, in face of the challenge I had voluntarily put myself in, I had no choice but to accept my limitations and try to speak, even sounding like a young child misplaced in a Graduate level class.

Here I am after one year of partial immersion in English (because at home I speak in Portuguese with my children and my husband). There were many funny moments with language issues, and I enjoy being constantly learning in a fast pace while attending to classes, reading a lot and writing in English an insane amount of texts to the courses’ assignments. I am glad I can be a student in this course on Second Language Acquisition, either because I always had many thoughts about L2 learning and because this semester I became a Portuguese Language Faculty at UNH.

  

Week 3 - Levels of Challenge, Immersion, and Motivation

Research on first and second language acquisition found that both first and second language learners follow a pattern of development. Rod Ellis (1984) outlines three developmental stages: the silent period, formulaic speech, and structural and semantic simplification. The most interesting is the silent period, that is the first stage, when the learner is mostly listening and trying to understand and not yet talking.

In case of second language learners, usually instructors require the learners to talk even in this first stage. If the silent period contributes to the second language learners or not is controversial. However, research has shown that if second language learners could, they would be silent for some time before taking the risk of speaking in the second language.

The findings in the research on comparison of the first and two language acquisition are very interesting, and I confess I never thought so deeply in the differences and similarities between them, even having studied three foreign languages and having observed two children learning to speak their first language.

Another topic I found very important in the comparison of first and second language acquisition is the role of the input. Stephen Krashen (1982) presented the Input Hypothesis, which states the learner has to receive comprehensible input to acquire language. The Hypothesis also states that "input should be slightly above the level of the language learners. Only in doing so can the second language learner move forward." (Krashen, 1982). This theory argues that the second language learner (as well as first language learners) should be exposed to the target language as much as possible (Ellis, 1994; McLaughlin, 1987).

I wonder how to measure the level of this exposure when the second language learning occurs in a classroom setting. I agree that the input must be comprehensible. However, in the first days of contact with a foreign language, the learner will understand very little or nothing if the class is all conducted in the target language. So, if to speak only in the target language would get the learners used to the language, I think at some point of the class it is useful to provide instruction in their native languages. Not only useful, but crucial to make them engage in the activities.

Even though, I agree that the input should be slightly above the level of the language learners. This is connected to Vygotsky's theory of the Zone of Proximal Development. According to this theory, it is important for the learner to be challenged, so they can ignite their emerging capacities. Of course, this challenge cannot be unbearable; in case it is too hard, instead of trying to solve the new problem by investigating or asking for collaboration, the learner would have his motivation decreased.

It is still difficult to me, as an instructor, to find the perfect level of immersion in a second language in the classroom the learners need to keep motivated (understanding what I say in the target language) and to be challenged by the foreign language unknown vocabulary and unusual word sequence.

IPEK, Hulya (2009). Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language Acquisition: Implications for Language Teachers. English Language Teaching. www.ccsenet.org/journal.html.