Motivation
Numerous studies in a wide variety of fields have noted that motivation is one of the driving factors in enabling successful learning to take place. Clearly, Harmer is correct in asserting the primacy of motivation in English language learning. Nevertheless, as he goes on to concede motivation is complex and success in learning a language cannot be attributed solely to it. (Harmer, 2006: 51-54; Harmer, 2007, 20-22).
Gardner states that ‘The term motivation is used in the area of language learning with many definitions, processes, and measures proposed’. He continues to emphasize that recently in SLL (Second Language Learning), the focus has shifted from psychological determinants to ‘process-orientated conceptualizations, including, but not limited to curiosity, self-determination, causal attributions, and goal setting’ (2006: 348). This claim is extended by Yiying Sheng who cites a range of contemporary language researchers. Most significant, perhaps, is the quote she provides from Noam Chomsky: ‘The truth of the matter is that about 99% of teaching is making students feel interested in the material’ (2005, 17). The notion of ‘process’, which arises in Gardner and is implicit in the continuity of ‘good’ teaching over time in Chomsky, is critical. Rather than regarding motivation as an inherent, fixed and stable characteristic of the aspirant student, we are able to think it as variable, malleable and subject to external influences and inputs. This is important for the TESOL classroom as it indicates that teachers may create or enhance motivation through a variety of factors. In other words, a student with poor initial motivation could be inspired to be a very motivated language learner.
Harmer distinguishes between ‘extrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic’ motivation where the former is based of the need to be successful in an exam (for example, IELTS or TOEFL), the promise of a salary increase, or the possibility of new work and leisure opportunities; and the latter is initiated from within the individual (2006:51). Of course, motivation is derived simultaneously from both sources. Gardner, citing Dörnyei, indicates that ‘motivation concerns the direction and magnitude of behavior, and that it is “responsible for why people decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the activity, and how hard they are going to pursue it”’ (2006: 349).
Several researchers have categorized ‘motivated’ language learners in terms of several sub-traits. These include ‘positive task orientation’, ‘ego-involvement’, ‘need for achievement’, ‘high aspirations’, ‘goal orientation’, ‘perseverance’ and ‘tolerance of ambiguity’. To illustrate two of these: someone who is motivated by ‘ego’ would find it important to succeed in study in order to maintain or promote his or her own positive self-image; similarly, tolerating ‘ambiguity’ implies that the language learner is able to put up with situations where there is a lack of understanding or temporary confusion because he or she knows that understanding will come later. Of course, most students will display some or all of these characteristics to differing extents. Moreover, at times certain characteristics may be more dominant than others. They would not need to be present to the same intensity over any extended period. Further, the traits are interrelated in highly individualized ways. To personalize this: I am driven by the need to achieve. At the same time, my ‘ego’ makes it difficult for me to accept failure and so I am likely to work hard enough to be reasonably successful. But, I am wary of ambiguity. If I do not grasp something relatively quickly I tend to become stressed and to consider withdrawing. My potential for perseverance is not as high as it should be. For this reason, I avoid playing ball games like tennis, where learning to serve was a particular stumbling block which I could not overcome swiftly enough to preserve my self-image and self-esteem.
Gardner and others point to the close association between attitude and motivation. This relationship is interdependent with each affecting the other. Students who approach English from a society which values learning the language or from a personal perspective that sees English as a panacea for their aspirations are attitudinally likely to be motivated. To the contrary, if the target language is thought to have limited value, public attitudes are unlikely to be positive or motivation strong. It is important to stress that attitudes cannot be legislated. The South African Constitution protects English and ten other official languages. Of these, nine are ‘black’ African languages and one is of South African derivation. Even though English is spoken by a small minority of the population it is highly valued. Accordingly, attitudes to English are far more positive than attitudes to other constitutionally-protected languages. These attitudes are transmitted, consciously or unconsciously, by parents, peers, educators, the media, popular culture and employers. It is not surprising that most people are eager to learn English. At the same time, no amount of state promotion by the Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB) can resurrect learning (or learning in) African languages for their own sake. Even African language speakers seem disinclined to acquire advanced capabilities. On the other hand, should African language competence become linked to strong economic and social benefits, attitudes to them could shift and the motivation to learn them amongst a wide range of speakers may be enhanced.
An important issue that has to be considered is the causal link between motivation and achievement. Being highly motivated is not a guarantee that an individual will succeed in learning a target language. At the same time, though, researchers have argued that being highly motivated increases the probability of achievement. It also follows that successful students have a significantly greater probability of exhibiting high levels of motivation. This view removes simplistic causation.
Our TESOL course and almost all writing on language teaching point to the importance of the teaching and learning environment. This suggests that, whatever the initial attitude or level of motivation, the teacher can play a significant role in either maintaining or destroying both. Highly motivated students who are taught unsuitable material by someone who is indifferent and in a setting that is uninspiring almost certainly will loose their eagerness to learn – either entirely or in the present circumstances. The corollary is that students who are not particularly motivated, for whatever reason, may be jumpstarted into being active language-learning participants by good teaching in an appropriately staged programme implemented within an attractive environment.
There is no easy formula for creating favourable conditions to enhance motivation. Personally, I would suggest that the teacher’s subject mastery and his or her ability to ‘read’ and manage students’ learning experiences are important. The latter, in particular, connotes respect, clarity, empathy, listening, direction, adaptability and responsiveness. To refine these broad attributes we could argue that students will be motivated if:
• The teacher and the lessons are well-prepared;
• The subject content is appropriate and purposeful;
• The students understand the rationale for the learning activities;
• Activities are presented clearly and according to best-practice;
• The lessons and activities have variety to maintain interest, but are not so cluttered with special effects that they become a distracting sideshow;
• Students are recognized as individuals;
• Students are treated equally, fairly and consistently;
• The teacher and the students maintain a mutually respectful relationship, without being overly stuffy or formal;
• The students feel that the teacher cares about them and their progress;
• There are measurable, attainable goals to which students can aspire and against which their efforts can be measured;
• The classroom and classroom activities have an element of fun and of healthy competition about them;
• The materials are authentic and are perceived as being relevant to the real world and to students’ needs;
• The teacher encourages students to be autonomous or self-sufficient by empowering them to learn both in class and on their own;
• Students have enough time to talk, to practice what they have learnt, and to ask questions;
• The learning environment is supportive;
• The teacher is available to students (within reason);
• Feedback is useful, swift, and non-judgmental.
Of course, the list above may suggest super-human ability and dedication. Moreover, not all elements will have the same impact on all students. No matter what we as teachers do, there may be students whom we can’t reach. My Junior High School Afrikaans teacher, for example, did not have a chance. Much later in life, I felt cheated as a language learner when our homework was not checked (ever) and increasingly disinclined to devote too much time to it. Other students may have been relieved. I also find the thought of being ‘interesting’ as a fifty-year-old to twenty-something students a bit intimidating: could I ever really inhabit their world? At the same time, I think that the dictum ‘be true to yourself’ is good advice. Further, I believe that ‘practice makes perfect’. If we are not by nature excellent language teachers we can learn to become ones. More than that, I have learnt that a passion for one’s subject and a genuine desire to share that passion with someone else is strongly motivating.
Sources
Gardner, R.C., Lambert, W.E., 2006. Bilingualism, Multilingualism, and Second Language Learning. New York: Elsevier.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2006. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. How to teach English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Sheng, Yiying. 2005. ‘Motivation: A Central Factor in Foreign Language Learning,’ Sino-US English Teaching 2.2 (Series 14). February: 17-21.
Showing posts with label BASIC EFL INFORMATION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BASIC EFL INFORMATION. Show all posts
Friday, May 23, 2008
Factors Affecting Language Learning
Factors that block or prevent language learning
Aside from obvious physical impediments such as poor vision or deafness, a wide range of factors are claimed to block or to prevent language learning. These include attributes peculiar to the student: for example, age, aptitude, attitude and motivation. But, language learning is also impacted by external factors like context, culture, mother-tongue (L1) interference, teacher and teaching style, resources, time and others. In this task, I will look at both internal and external ‘blocks’.
As Jeremy Harmer notes and as we have probably experienced, young children have an amazing facility at acquiring their first language and other languages (2007: 15). By contrast, adults appear to experience more difficulty when learning languages. Age is popularly seen as the greatest impediment to language learning. This phenomenon is attributed to a number of highly contentious reasons and bears closer scrutiny.
In 1967 Eric Lenneberg popularized the idea that there is a ‘critical period’ during which children acquire language easily. This period is a function of brain physiology and is sometimes termed ‘brain plasticity’. Studies in brain-damaged subjects and feral children appear to support the biological hypothesis. More recent studies, though, are less sympathetic suggesting that even though some aspects of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) are affected by age, others are exempt. Even Krashen, the doyenne of SLA thinking, has challenged the length of time that cerebral plasticity may allow for enhanced acquisition or learning.
My own view is that children are usually less inhibited than adults and are more willing to mimic, improvise, experiment in and use a new language. Moreover, without strongly embedded L1 syntactic structures, young children are probably more amenable to actions and activities that promote productive language skills. Adults, in comparison, may be more self-conscious. Their degree of linguistic fossilization in term of their L1 is greater since they have had long exposure in and engagement with receptive and productive language use. Many will also have developed analytical or meta-grammatical L1 knowledge which may prevent them from learning L2 (or L3) structures. Furthermore, adults are more likely to have strong ideas about appropriate teaching and learning styles. These, together with other attitudes and behaviours, may serve as ‘affective’ filters in second or foreign language learning. Here, too, neurological and neurobiological evidence has been cited by researchers as suggesting physiological determinants.
Arguably, ‘affective filters’ such as attitude, personality, concern for grammar, anxiety, the need for correctness, and motivation are a greater consideration in adults learning language than in children. Thus research has shown that extroverts learn languages more easily than introverts. Similarly, shy or reserved students are more likely to avoid contact with first language speakers of the target language than outgoing, sociable students . Logic dictates that immersion in authentic language situations and a willingness to use or to practise the target language will impact on learning and fluency. I would concede this point, but argue that the onus is on the trainer or teacher to create an environment in which effective language learning can take place. Whatever the circumstances, teaching should be appropriate to the age and developmental stage of the learner. Adults should not be patronized and children or adolescents should be taught in accordance with their respective life-phases.
Although theorists disagree, motivation – to my mind – is a powerful affective factor. Having had the experience of being forced to learn a language (Afrikaans) and wanting to learn a language (Portuguese), I can attest that the latter was more pleasurable and that as a learner my response was more receptive. At the same time, motivation as a factor impacting on language learning is a contested terrain. Various studies disagree on the relative importance of integrative or instrumental and intrinsic or extrinsic motivational factors. It could be argued that the teacher is (or needs to be) able to create the right circumstances for learning to take place even if the student is not particularly motivated. In terms of research, learners studying a language for integrative and internal reasons did not necessarily perform better that those who were motivated externally and functionally. Furthermore, MacIntyre (1988) shows that highly motivated learners often remain unwilling to communicate. This is bad news for acolytes of binary categorizations, but a salutary reminder that baldly assuming rigidly defined factors prevent language learning is dangerous.
The final ‘block’ that needs to be considered when focusing on the learner’s inherent traits is ability or aptitude. Here, work done by Noam Chomsky and Dell Hymes has played a major role. Accordingly, Chomsky’s competence-performance distinction argues that ‘performance’ (speaking and writing) is not necessarily an index of competence. From this perspective, competence is modeled on grammatical ‘correctness’ and is thus problematic. This posits a separation between language knowledge (which may be good) and communicative ability (which may be less accomplished). According to Chomsky, competence or language knowledge is a better index of language ability than performance. To take the argument one step forward, if we were using aptitude or innate ability as a factor influencing language learning, we would determine the individual’s language ability on how closely the user’s utterances meet the linguistic standard (for example, Standard British English) rather than according to the effectiveness of the communicative event. To counter the syntactic bias of Chomsky’s argument, other theorists have emphasized notions of communicative competence and language proficiency. In most TESOL situations, communicative competence is primary. The point is, though, that our measure of what constitutes good language learning will influence the criteria we identify as blocks to it.
Although I am inclined to follow Harmer’s advocacy of Multiple Intelligence theory (2006: 46) for establishing aptitude or not, I would caution that just because someone may be musically or mathematically intelligent he or she is not prevented from developing significant language abilities (L1, L2, L3 and others). Indeed, as language is primary to all knowledge, we probably have to recognize that although mathematics and the arts (alongside other intelligences) have their own ‘language-like’ structures, these are linked to, or supported by, conventional linguistics abilities – that is the ability to function in English, Chinese, Ghanaian or whatever the case may be. When language aptitude is not present – as in severe autism – non-linguistic intelligences are indicators of the idiot savant. Moreover, I would argue that so-called ‘intelligences’ are strongly connected to intrinsic and extrinsic determinants including physical and physiological characteristics, contextual and environmental factors, and socio-psychological, cultural and religious orientations. Deciding what makes someone ‘good at’ something is very complex.
While TESOL classrooms and practices are ideally learner-centred, it is the teacher-as-facilitator who is the integral component in any learning situation. Language teachers need to be aware of, and to overcome, the ‘blocks’ to language learning, whatever their source. Accordingly, alongside inherent factors I have listed a number of external ones even though, for example, the distinction between L1 interference as an internal or external factor is debatable. Nevertheless, matters aligned to culture, language origin, the learning and living context, teacher training, and pedagogy, amongst others, should be considered when talking about ‘blocks’ that may prevent language learning.
While it is dangerous to generalize or to indulge in stereotyping, the learner’s society, culture, religion, location, economic status, work circumstances and family relationships are potential impediments. Certainly, mother-tongue (L1) may be a major factor blocking or assisting learning. Students who already speak a Latinate (Italian, Spanish, etc) or Indo-Germanic (German, Swedish, etc) language are likely to find it easier to learn English than students who come from Semitic or ‘Oriental’ backgrounds. Not only is there some overlap in the sound-systems (phonology) of cognate languages, but orthographic, syntactic and semantic continuities will also be encountered. The TESOL class’s experience in learning Mandarin points to this. Yaseen and Zeenat, who both speak Arabic, found Mandarin Chinese sounds and tones far less daunting than their classmates, who are predominantly L1 speakers of English and L2 speakers of Latinate or classical languages. Of course, familiarity in one language does not imply that learning a related language will ever be easy. Carmen’s victory in the Mandarin challenge attests to this.
Interpersonal and inter-generational relationships also vary in intimacy, distance, and convention between cultural, social and religious groups. More significantly, behaviours based on these ‘belief’ systems and practices are likely to have been entrenched by prior educational experiences. Students accustomed to authoritarian; knowledge-based instruction may find that interactive and communicative pedagogies pose a significant challenge to language learning. Indeed, the block may be so substantial that it not only prevents learning, but also irreparably damages trust and the student-teacher relationship. Home and economic circumstances, exposure to media (for instance, television, music and magazines) in the target language, and the time available for learning may also inhibit or promote language learning. While the optimal environment may be total immersion, this might not be feasible.
The solution, to my mind, is not to capitulate to the source culture, prevailing circumstances, and/or learning style. The language teacher and school should provide suitable opportunities for students to encounter and practice the language that they wish to learn. In addition, the teacher needs gradually to accustom students to new pedagogic strategies without compromising the recipients’ belief systems or cultural traditions. (Indeed, changing the student from a recipient into a participant may be a crucial step in ensuring the efficacy of learning.) Cultural and religious disrespect is never justified by the claim that tradition prevents learning. Instead, the teacher has to create a safe, caring, supportive and comfortable environment in the classroom in order to counteract personal and social ‘affective’ blocks. This means adjusting to the needs of individual learners and groups. It also implies ongoing cultural sensitivity. I have not found any convincing evidence for inherent or culturally-determined language competence or incompetence.
A teaching ethos that respects the student, provides scaffolded-learning opportunities, and aspires to best practice both from the perspective of the teacher and on the part of the student’s performance is required. This ethos should not be idealistic or disproportionate to the student’s requirements. Effective language teaching is teaching that meets the outcomes that have been identified for the individual, level or course. Effective learning is learning that is aligned to clearly articulated, measurable outcomes. To blur the distinction between need and method or outcome and practice is to introduce the severest form of language learning blockage. In other words, if functional receptive competence is the desired outcome, theoretical, literary and communicative mastery – especially if flamboyantly pursued – constitutes a teacher-induced block. Similarly, endless drills and parrot-like recitations will not suffice if communicative competence and reasonable, general linguistic proficiency are required.
To conclude, then, matching teaching and purpose are likely to overcome most of the blocks that have been so extensively theorized and debated. While this implies due cognizance of the factors that may prevent language learning it emphasizes praxis over theory. In my view, good language learners, like good teachers, are made, not born.
Sources
Asher, James J., Ramiro, Garcia. 1969. ‘The Optimal Age to Learn a Foreign Language,’ The Modern Language Journal, 53.5. May: 334-351.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2006. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. How to teach English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Permagon.
Lenneburg, Eric. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
MacIntyre, P.D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., and Noels, K.A. 1998. Conceptualizing Willingness to communicate in an L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation,’ The Modern Language Journal 82.4: 545-562.
Tucker, Richard G. 1976. ‘Affective, Cognitive and Social Factors in Second Language Acquisition,’ Canadian Modern Language Review 32.3. February: 214-226.
Widdowson, H.G. 1998. ‘Context, Community and Authentic Language,’ TESOL Quarterly 32.4. Winter: 705-716.
Aside from obvious physical impediments such as poor vision or deafness, a wide range of factors are claimed to block or to prevent language learning. These include attributes peculiar to the student: for example, age, aptitude, attitude and motivation. But, language learning is also impacted by external factors like context, culture, mother-tongue (L1) interference, teacher and teaching style, resources, time and others. In this task, I will look at both internal and external ‘blocks’.
As Jeremy Harmer notes and as we have probably experienced, young children have an amazing facility at acquiring their first language and other languages (2007: 15). By contrast, adults appear to experience more difficulty when learning languages. Age is popularly seen as the greatest impediment to language learning. This phenomenon is attributed to a number of highly contentious reasons and bears closer scrutiny.
In 1967 Eric Lenneberg popularized the idea that there is a ‘critical period’ during which children acquire language easily. This period is a function of brain physiology and is sometimes termed ‘brain plasticity’. Studies in brain-damaged subjects and feral children appear to support the biological hypothesis. More recent studies, though, are less sympathetic suggesting that even though some aspects of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) are affected by age, others are exempt. Even Krashen, the doyenne of SLA thinking, has challenged the length of time that cerebral plasticity may allow for enhanced acquisition or learning.
My own view is that children are usually less inhibited than adults and are more willing to mimic, improvise, experiment in and use a new language. Moreover, without strongly embedded L1 syntactic structures, young children are probably more amenable to actions and activities that promote productive language skills. Adults, in comparison, may be more self-conscious. Their degree of linguistic fossilization in term of their L1 is greater since they have had long exposure in and engagement with receptive and productive language use. Many will also have developed analytical or meta-grammatical L1 knowledge which may prevent them from learning L2 (or L3) structures. Furthermore, adults are more likely to have strong ideas about appropriate teaching and learning styles. These, together with other attitudes and behaviours, may serve as ‘affective’ filters in second or foreign language learning. Here, too, neurological and neurobiological evidence has been cited by researchers as suggesting physiological determinants.
Arguably, ‘affective filters’ such as attitude, personality, concern for grammar, anxiety, the need for correctness, and motivation are a greater consideration in adults learning language than in children. Thus research has shown that extroverts learn languages more easily than introverts. Similarly, shy or reserved students are more likely to avoid contact with first language speakers of the target language than outgoing, sociable students . Logic dictates that immersion in authentic language situations and a willingness to use or to practise the target language will impact on learning and fluency. I would concede this point, but argue that the onus is on the trainer or teacher to create an environment in which effective language learning can take place. Whatever the circumstances, teaching should be appropriate to the age and developmental stage of the learner. Adults should not be patronized and children or adolescents should be taught in accordance with their respective life-phases.
Although theorists disagree, motivation – to my mind – is a powerful affective factor. Having had the experience of being forced to learn a language (Afrikaans) and wanting to learn a language (Portuguese), I can attest that the latter was more pleasurable and that as a learner my response was more receptive. At the same time, motivation as a factor impacting on language learning is a contested terrain. Various studies disagree on the relative importance of integrative or instrumental and intrinsic or extrinsic motivational factors. It could be argued that the teacher is (or needs to be) able to create the right circumstances for learning to take place even if the student is not particularly motivated. In terms of research, learners studying a language for integrative and internal reasons did not necessarily perform better that those who were motivated externally and functionally. Furthermore, MacIntyre (1988) shows that highly motivated learners often remain unwilling to communicate. This is bad news for acolytes of binary categorizations, but a salutary reminder that baldly assuming rigidly defined factors prevent language learning is dangerous.
The final ‘block’ that needs to be considered when focusing on the learner’s inherent traits is ability or aptitude. Here, work done by Noam Chomsky and Dell Hymes has played a major role. Accordingly, Chomsky’s competence-performance distinction argues that ‘performance’ (speaking and writing) is not necessarily an index of competence. From this perspective, competence is modeled on grammatical ‘correctness’ and is thus problematic. This posits a separation between language knowledge (which may be good) and communicative ability (which may be less accomplished). According to Chomsky, competence or language knowledge is a better index of language ability than performance. To take the argument one step forward, if we were using aptitude or innate ability as a factor influencing language learning, we would determine the individual’s language ability on how closely the user’s utterances meet the linguistic standard (for example, Standard British English) rather than according to the effectiveness of the communicative event. To counter the syntactic bias of Chomsky’s argument, other theorists have emphasized notions of communicative competence and language proficiency. In most TESOL situations, communicative competence is primary. The point is, though, that our measure of what constitutes good language learning will influence the criteria we identify as blocks to it.
Although I am inclined to follow Harmer’s advocacy of Multiple Intelligence theory (2006: 46) for establishing aptitude or not, I would caution that just because someone may be musically or mathematically intelligent he or she is not prevented from developing significant language abilities (L1, L2, L3 and others). Indeed, as language is primary to all knowledge, we probably have to recognize that although mathematics and the arts (alongside other intelligences) have their own ‘language-like’ structures, these are linked to, or supported by, conventional linguistics abilities – that is the ability to function in English, Chinese, Ghanaian or whatever the case may be. When language aptitude is not present – as in severe autism – non-linguistic intelligences are indicators of the idiot savant. Moreover, I would argue that so-called ‘intelligences’ are strongly connected to intrinsic and extrinsic determinants including physical and physiological characteristics, contextual and environmental factors, and socio-psychological, cultural and religious orientations. Deciding what makes someone ‘good at’ something is very complex.
While TESOL classrooms and practices are ideally learner-centred, it is the teacher-as-facilitator who is the integral component in any learning situation. Language teachers need to be aware of, and to overcome, the ‘blocks’ to language learning, whatever their source. Accordingly, alongside inherent factors I have listed a number of external ones even though, for example, the distinction between L1 interference as an internal or external factor is debatable. Nevertheless, matters aligned to culture, language origin, the learning and living context, teacher training, and pedagogy, amongst others, should be considered when talking about ‘blocks’ that may prevent language learning.
While it is dangerous to generalize or to indulge in stereotyping, the learner’s society, culture, religion, location, economic status, work circumstances and family relationships are potential impediments. Certainly, mother-tongue (L1) may be a major factor blocking or assisting learning. Students who already speak a Latinate (Italian, Spanish, etc) or Indo-Germanic (German, Swedish, etc) language are likely to find it easier to learn English than students who come from Semitic or ‘Oriental’ backgrounds. Not only is there some overlap in the sound-systems (phonology) of cognate languages, but orthographic, syntactic and semantic continuities will also be encountered. The TESOL class’s experience in learning Mandarin points to this. Yaseen and Zeenat, who both speak Arabic, found Mandarin Chinese sounds and tones far less daunting than their classmates, who are predominantly L1 speakers of English and L2 speakers of Latinate or classical languages. Of course, familiarity in one language does not imply that learning a related language will ever be easy. Carmen’s victory in the Mandarin challenge attests to this.
Interpersonal and inter-generational relationships also vary in intimacy, distance, and convention between cultural, social and religious groups. More significantly, behaviours based on these ‘belief’ systems and practices are likely to have been entrenched by prior educational experiences. Students accustomed to authoritarian; knowledge-based instruction may find that interactive and communicative pedagogies pose a significant challenge to language learning. Indeed, the block may be so substantial that it not only prevents learning, but also irreparably damages trust and the student-teacher relationship. Home and economic circumstances, exposure to media (for instance, television, music and magazines) in the target language, and the time available for learning may also inhibit or promote language learning. While the optimal environment may be total immersion, this might not be feasible.
The solution, to my mind, is not to capitulate to the source culture, prevailing circumstances, and/or learning style. The language teacher and school should provide suitable opportunities for students to encounter and practice the language that they wish to learn. In addition, the teacher needs gradually to accustom students to new pedagogic strategies without compromising the recipients’ belief systems or cultural traditions. (Indeed, changing the student from a recipient into a participant may be a crucial step in ensuring the efficacy of learning.) Cultural and religious disrespect is never justified by the claim that tradition prevents learning. Instead, the teacher has to create a safe, caring, supportive and comfortable environment in the classroom in order to counteract personal and social ‘affective’ blocks. This means adjusting to the needs of individual learners and groups. It also implies ongoing cultural sensitivity. I have not found any convincing evidence for inherent or culturally-determined language competence or incompetence.
A teaching ethos that respects the student, provides scaffolded-learning opportunities, and aspires to best practice both from the perspective of the teacher and on the part of the student’s performance is required. This ethos should not be idealistic or disproportionate to the student’s requirements. Effective language teaching is teaching that meets the outcomes that have been identified for the individual, level or course. Effective learning is learning that is aligned to clearly articulated, measurable outcomes. To blur the distinction between need and method or outcome and practice is to introduce the severest form of language learning blockage. In other words, if functional receptive competence is the desired outcome, theoretical, literary and communicative mastery – especially if flamboyantly pursued – constitutes a teacher-induced block. Similarly, endless drills and parrot-like recitations will not suffice if communicative competence and reasonable, general linguistic proficiency are required.
To conclude, then, matching teaching and purpose are likely to overcome most of the blocks that have been so extensively theorized and debated. While this implies due cognizance of the factors that may prevent language learning it emphasizes praxis over theory. In my view, good language learners, like good teachers, are made, not born.
Sources
Asher, James J., Ramiro, Garcia. 1969. ‘The Optimal Age to Learn a Foreign Language,’ The Modern Language Journal, 53.5. May: 334-351.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2006. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. How to teach English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Permagon.
Lenneburg, Eric. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
MacIntyre, P.D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., and Noels, K.A. 1998. Conceptualizing Willingness to communicate in an L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation,’ The Modern Language Journal 82.4: 545-562.
Tucker, Richard G. 1976. ‘Affective, Cognitive and Social Factors in Second Language Acquisition,’ Canadian Modern Language Review 32.3. February: 214-226.
Widdowson, H.G. 1998. ‘Context, Community and Authentic Language,’ TESOL Quarterly 32.4. Winter: 705-716.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)