Language Development in FL-Medium Learning Environment

1. Language Development in FL-Medium Learning Environment Eeva Rauto Vaasa University of Applied Sciences eeva.rauto@puv.fi

2. This Presentation Covers • Theoretical framework for interpreting the research results (current local project) • Basic concepts related to naturalistic language acquisition, drawing on SLA (Second Language Acquisition) literature

3. Two Ways of Learning a Language Nature implicit learning Nurture explicit learning expected to take place in FL-medium learning environments

4. implicit learning conditions unguided informal - learner not aware learning through language input explicit learning conditions - usually guided - formal (language classes) -learner is aware - systemic learning Implicit vs Explicit Learning cf. incidental learning vs. intentional learning (Schmidt 1994)

5. Receptive (Reading, Listening) Language Activities Interactive Mediating (CEFR 2000) • The learner mainly a recipient in FL-medium environments: effect on his/her productive skills? • At which stage? (after six months, a year…..) • What effect? Productive (Writing Speaking,)

6. Implicit Learning Process • Input – (Output) –Hypothesis (Krashen 1982) Input Lectures, reading materials Output Learner’s own language production ? 1,2,3,4 phases (updated view) Interface is NOT automatic

7. Interim phases between Input Output (Ellis 1994, Gass 1997, Schmidt 1990) • 1 Comprehension 2 Noticing: the learner pays attention to certain features in the input data 3 Intake • Integration: the ”new” features become part of the learner’s language system • Input • Output • The role of prior knowledge (Gass 1997) Linguistic features noticed in input compared with learner’s mental grammar: gap (Ellis 1994; 2004) ” practicing required Swain 1985; Lyster 2006) (

8. Output Hypothesis Why must opportunities for practice be provided? • The route from learners language knowledge to performance needs to be automated: • to reinforce integration (cf. slide 7) • moreresources will be released for receiving new knowledge (Skehan 1998; Ellis 2004) (cf. Chomsky’s competence vs. performance 1967) or CEFR 2000: communicative language competence vs. language activities)

9. Output Hypothesis Opportunities for Practice not Enough Supervisionis needed (Intervention;eg. Lyster 2006) • to unroot the learners’ faulty hypothesis (vs. target language norms) • faulty hypothesis: intake data vs input data as model (Van Patten 1996) • to prevent these hypothesis from becoming norms for him (cf. Lyster 2006) ”Nobody paid any attention to how I wrote my reports so I decided to carry on with my own system”one Vaasa engineering student participating in English-medium degree program Canadian immersion literature: ”language immersion language” (cf. Björklund 1994)”

10. Input-Output hypothesis Revisited 1.comprehension, 2.noticing 3.intake, 4.integration Output Learner’s own language production Input lecturers, reading materials Degree of comprehension: 60%? 70%? 80%?etc.

11. Releasing learners’ resources from reading comprehension towards language intake (updated input-putput hypothesis) Giving iving feed back on learners’ written work (comprehensible output) Options for Intervention (language/content teacher) Extensive teaching units, high intensity eg. degree programs Short modules low intensity

12. Thank you for your attention!

13. Literature Ellis, R. (1994). A Theory of Instructed Second Language Acquisition. In N Ellis (ed.)Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. Ellis, R. (2004) .Principles of Instructed Language Learning. Available at www.sciencedirect.com Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction and the Second language Learner. Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. .  Skehan, P. (1998). A Coginitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics 11. Swain, M. 1985. Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible In­put and Comprehensible Output in its Development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (toim.) Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235-253. VanPatten, B. 1996. Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

14. Linguistic competence Organisatory competence Pragmatic competence Grammatical competence Textling-uistic compe-tence AppendixDescriptive Model of Language Competence Bachman 1991