Design your own Activity-Based second language course

At the end of my last post, we came to the conclusion that we would do well to make second language learning approximate the process that had been so successful with first language learning. Here are some of the features that characterised the first language learning process:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Language was acquired incidentally while you were busy doing other things such as playing, developing relationships, getting food, etc.
2. You made use of any tools at your disposal (both verbal and non-verbal) to attempt to successfully negotiate these activities.
3. It didn’t seem to worry you (or anybody else) when you made grammatical errors.
4. The process by which you acquired the rules of your first language was largely unconscious.
5. But we can infer from your language use that it is based on a grammatical rule system that you use to generate (unconsciously) all the language you need to function within your environment.
6. Most of your language learning occurred as the result of interaction with people who were emotionally close to you, such as parents, siblings, other family members and friends.

Now, if you were able to replicate these features in the second language learning process, then it would be a reasonable assumption that you could expect to experience a level of success similar to what you achieved in the first language.

However, second language learning is different in the following ways:

1. Limited exposure to the second language – this is especially the case if the language is being learnt as a foreign language (e.g. like French being learnt in Australia where it is heard only rarely outside the classroom.)
2. Second language learners are generally older and therefore more cognitively developed than first language learners. Their tendency to engage in abstract reasoning is a major difference which may make second language learning a more conscious process than first language learning. While it is not clear whether this is an advantage or disadvantage for second language learning, it certainly cannot be ignored.
3. Issues of identity development may become relevant to the second language learning process.
4. Related to this, second language learners develop their own particular learning styles and strategies.

Combining the features of the first language learning process with the relevant differences that apply to second language learning, it is possible to suggest some potentially useful features of a second language learning course which you might design to fit your own personal situation.

Activity-based language learning

The starting point for first language learning was the activities that the child wanted to engage in. This should be the departure point for second language learning too. Ask yourself what you want to do and then seek out the language that  you will need to make it happen. This is particularly the case if you are learning in a real second language environment, such as learning French in a French-speaking country. Here, survival suggests the activities which, in turn, suggest the language you should be learning.

If you are learning in a foreign language context (e.g. French in Australia) I suggest that you imagine the activities you might need if you were in a second language context and use these as the basis for your choice of language features to be learnt.

How you acquire this language will depend on your particular circumstances. You might attend formal classes, or you might choose to supplement your more naturalistic language learning by following a commercially produced course, either in print format or audio, or via the Internet. What you choose should depend on your understanding of what best suits your individual learning style. If you are uncertain about what styles match your preferred way of learning, you can get a good idea by taking an on-line learning style test.

Whatever sources of instruction you choose, you should take responsibility for both the content of your course as well as the way you go about learning the content.

Grammar & the Second Language Learning Process

For most of us second language learning is quite different from our experience of learning our first language.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are a few obvious differences:

• Most of us were a fair bit older when we began our second language.
• We had already experienced what it was to successfully learn our first language
• We learnt the second language in a formal classroom
• We were taught by a stranger

Age

Throughout the world, second languages are  taught mainly to adolescents. It is true that the teaching of languages to infants is becoming more common and the popularity of immersion programs is growing where the distinction between formal  and more naturalistic language learning has become somewhat blurred. For convenience, however, my remarks about classroom-based second language learning will be confined to what goes on in the secondary school with adolescent learners.

grammar & formal operations

It is difficult to imagine a more complex time of life than adolescence to undertake something as cognitively demanding as second language learning. The adolescent is adapting to a new cognitive phase which Piaget termed “formal operations” or “abstract thinking”. And in addition they are experiencing the significant maturational changes of puberty which impact considerably upon the emotions. And, as if this is not enough, they are going through a period when their personal identity is struggling to emerge in its adult form. It is in this rather uncertain and at times turbulent environment that we  require the adolescent to master the complexities of a second language.

The presentation and learning of grammar at this stage is influenced by the adolescent’s developing ability to cope with abstract reasoning. And rather than allow grammar to develop unconsciously as happened during the acquisition of the first language, grammar is presented explicitly in a way that requires the learner to use abstract reasoning to generate language based on the manipulation of grammatical rules.  Teachers, of course,  have their own personal approach for the presentation of grammar, but they mostly use some variation of the inductive/deductive paradigm. This involves the presentation of selected language (usually in some sort of dialogue) into which are embedded certain grammatical structures. The teacher guides the learner to identify the structures (grammatical rules) and then sets tasks that require the student to apply the structures to generate their own language in order to complete some “real world” task (e.g. getting directions to the post office).

It is thought that this sort of process mirrors, more or less, what the learner did unconsciously in learning their first language. But what the child did unconsciously, the adolescent does consciously in keeping with their stage of cognitive development.

Previous Language Learning

We approach second language learning having experienced success with our first language. For most of us there was never any likelihood that we would not succeed. So painless and unconscious was the process that we don’t remember much about it. When we study the first language learning research, it becomes obvious that young children figure out the underlying rules and structures on which the language is built. But it’s an unconscious process and you will be disappointed if you ask a child to articulate the rules that they are quite clearly using to generate their first language. Stephen Krashen has made the distinction between acquisition (the unconscious process that results in mastering a first language) and learning, the conscious process of attempting to master a second language.

playing & learning language

Another feature about our first language learning was that the language was acquired while we were doing other things such as playing, singing, making friends, receiving affection, telling lies, fighting and arguing. In fact we couldn’t do most of these things without language and we couldn’t learn language without doing these things. This is nothing like what we experienced in attempting to learn our second language. It seems that our time was spent as a child learning to use our first language and as an adolescent we spent our time learning about our second language.

So what did we learn from these two experiences? First language acquisition taught us that we could learn a language in an enjoyable and painless fashion. Second language learning taught many of us that we could not learn a second language unless we worked hard and submitted ourselves to some very dry hours of apparently pointless masochism. There was apparently no time for playing, singing, making friends,receiving affection, telling lies, fighting and arguing. The normal things of living did not seem to be connected with second language learning. It was clear that we needed to spend our time mastering the grammar.

The Formal Language Classroom

In the formal language classroom, the focus is language. Contrast this with the naturalistic setting where the focus is what the learner is doing with the language not the language itself. And what the learner does mainly with the language is play, seek various forms of gratification by getting the mother’s attention, explore the immediate environment by interminably asking ‘why?’, making friends and fighting. In learning how to do these things the child is acquiring its first language.

Which approach is the most effective? There is really no contest. Unless the child has some serious impediment, they will not fail to acquire the first language. Unfortunately, they will not be able to tell you about the grammar which underpins their language. In fact they will look at you strangely if you seek to engage them in a metalinguistic discussion.

By contrast, it is a rare adolescent who emerges from the second language classroom able to engage you in a simple conversation in the second language. But many of the better (hard working) students may be able to tell you about the grammar rules that underpin the language that they can’t yet use. Bizarre is it not?

In my research, I found onlyone type of formal classroom in which learners came close to the fluency of the first language learner. This was the content-based classroom, one example of which is immersion. What characterises content-based teaching is that the target language is used as the medium of instruction for whatever content it has been decided is appropriate to include in the curriculum. In mastering the content, the learner acquires the language.

If you think this is based on principles similar to first language acquisition, you’ are correct. Maybe that’s why it works so well.

The Teacher-Stranger

It is perhaps inevitable that teachers do not have a close personal relationship with the learners, especially during the  adolescent period when most second language learning takes place. But, however understandable this may be, it is nevertheless a highly relevant interpersonal difference which may impact strongly on the two language learning domains.

During first language acquisition, the interpersonal function of language is crucial. It pre-dates even the most fundamental linguistic awakening of the mother-child relationship. Contrast this with the superficial utterances that herald the awakening of second language use in the formal secondary school classroom.

My name is Gary. I live at 25 High St.  I am 13 years old. I have a mother and father and my sister is called Mary.

Imagine the context in which these utterances may have been uttered! Has Gary woken up on another planet and is he to be the recipient of a brain transplant?

I don’t know if you remember the first words that were spoken to you in your first language, but I imagine they were slightly more affectionate than poor Gary’s welcome to the planet on which his interrogator has found him:

Do you have a mother and father?

What is your name?

Where do you live?

How old are you?

Do you have a mother and father?

What is your sister’s name?

No wonder second language learning is considered frightening by many learners. Either it is sinister or it’s meaningless. The fact that it is meaningless violates the very nature of language.

When we learnt our first language, we assumed we could trust the person from whom we were learning it. There was a genuine bond of affection. We were massively motivated to learn to communicate and we soon found that even the slightest effort would be rewarded. We didn’t fear the consequences of error because every attempt was valued and applauded.

It is clear that the people from whom we acquired our first language were not  language teachers. One of their characteristics was that they didn’t set about to teach the language. They saw their role as much broader since they were parents who were engaged in the formation of their young offspring and language was only part of this. But they had to teach these things through the language and in doing this they taught the language.

But in the second language classroom, teachers can’t be parents to their students. But they can be “parent-like” and adopt the role of “mentor” in its original sense. If this were to happen then the second language classroom would assume a relevance greater than just a place where languages are learnt. For example, the acquiring of a culture is often proposed as one of the important side benefits of second language learning. A second language mentor could legitimately see the teaching of the culture in which the language is embedded as part of their brief so that through the teaching of language, the second culture might be transmitted and through the acquisition of culture the learner acquires the language.

Such an approach would transform the second language classroom into an environment which mirrored more closely, in terms of function, what the learner experienced during their first language learning.

Grammar – Do you need it?

Grammar: Do you need it?

There aren’t many things that will cause the linguistic sparks to fly. But this question can usually be relied upon to provoke strong feelings among linguists and non-linguists alike.

I’ll summarise both sides of the argument.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes! We need grammar.

Language is “rule-governed behaviour.”

You only have to watch a child acquiring their first (native) language to see that they are attempting to learn and apply the rules of the language.

Some people say that they are only mimicking what their parents say. But less than a minute’s reflection should tell us that this is not true.

Me want milk

Me want milk. Is it likely that they’ve heard that from their parents? I don’t think so and even if they did, it won’t be long before they move on to I want some milk. Why? Because I want some milk is based on an English grammatical rule that the child has learnt. And when I say ‘learnt’ I don’t mean that they can recite a rule (‘The subject of a sentence takes a pronoun in the nominative case.’) This involves knowing a metalanguage (a language for talking about language). If the child grows up to become a linguist then he might also acquire the metalanguage because the linguist’s job is to talk about language. But the child is in the process of identifying the patterns (rules) that underpin their language. And by the time they are about 4 years old they’ll have worked out how the language they were born into works (i.e. they’ll have mastered the grammar of the language)..

But on the way to figuring out the rules they’ll make a lot of errors. But it’s these errors which often provide the best evidence that the child is learning grammar rules.

Tom sitted on the see-saw demonstrates that the child is building a sentence on an incorrect rule. But it’s a very intelligent error and shows that already the child knows that there are consistent patterns on which the language is based and all he needs to do to learn the language is to work out the patterns. In this example, he worked on his knowledge that very often a verb like sit will end in ed if it’s describing something that happened in the past. Mostly he’d be right (lift/lifted, fit/fitted). But he hadn’t bargained on the complexity of English and it will take a bit more experimentation before he gets it right consistently. But even when he gets it right, don’t expect him to be able to use metalanguage to explain the grammar rules on which the language is based.

Our language use is based on our knowledge of the rules. But clearly we are not talking about conscious knowledge, because if we asked most people to explain even the most elementary English sentence they would experience great difficulty and mostly would not know where to start. But they could generate all the sentences of their language without consciously thinking about the rules on which they are based.

So it seems that we have somehow internalised all the rules of our language so that when we want to express ourselves, we don’t need to consciously think of the rules before we make an utterance.

Now for the other side of the argument

No! We don’t need grammar

Although it would be hard to deny that language is based on grammatical rules, it would be equally hard to argue that we consciously consider the rules before engaging in an utterance. And if our grammatical knowledge is unconscious, why should we need to spend time consciously learning it? If a child is raised in a particular linguistic community, it is inevitable they’ll learn whatever language they hear in that community. The form that it takes may be slightly (or considerably) different from the one that is promoted in the school that the child attends. But this is another issue and probably has to do with factors such as social class, the peer group, gender, or a combination of all these (and other) factors.

Some people believe that if we want to have children use the form of the language that the school prefers, we need to teach grammar. Others have found this approach a recipe for frustration for the teacher and acute boredom for the child. My experience has been that the only students who do well in grammar are those who already use the variety of language which the school promotes and perhaps we need to wonder about the point of teaching grammar to this group if they already speak the language and did so without any special grammar lessons.

So let’s synthesise: the yes & no of grammar

Yes, grammar underpins all language. We could never learn a language without learning its rules. And it’s because of a finite number of grammar rules that we are able to comprehend and generate an infinite number of utterances some of which we may never have heard before.

No, we may not be conscious of the rules that we use to generate and to comprehend the language we use all day, every day, but yes our language use demonstrates that we are unconsciously manipulating the rules which we have unconsciously learnt.

No, the teaching and learning of grammar in schools will probably make little difference to a child who speaks a form of the language which does not have the school’s approval.

So the language children speak is determined by the language environment they have been born into and that language is based on a set of grammar rules that the child has learnt unconsciously and uses unconsciously. These rules may be different from the rules which underpin the language which is preferred by the school. Teaching grammar rules to children in a conscious way will make little difference to the language they speak.

For the observant

You will have noticed that our discussion has focused on the issue of grammar in the context of first language. And that this blog is called Second Language Mentor and is usually about second language learning. Does this make a difference? Is there a difference between first and second language acquisition? Well, the answer seems obvious. For most of us there is a vast difference.

Now if there is a difference and if grammar and language are so closely related, is there a difference between the place of grammar in first and second language learning?

Stay tuned as this question will be answered in the next posting

Qualities to Look for in a Second Language Mentor

Let’s be clear about one very important issue: your success in learning a second language ultimately depends upon you, not your mentor. However, a good teacher will make a big difference to how you learn a language.

What determines how a mentor teaches is obviously their own teaching preparation. There are so many second language teacher preparation programs on the market that if your mentor does not have a formal qualification then your alarm bells should start ringing and you should start looking for someone who does. As a bare minimum, your teacher ought to have a Certificate level qualification. But this is a minimal qualification and any second language teacher worth their salt will probably have a Masters degree. I’m not saying that a formal qualification guarantees that the teacher can teach well, but if they have only minimal qualifications you’d have to question their dedication and curiosity about the language learning process.

The language mentor’s expertise should consist of two aspects:

1. Language expertise. They should have native-like proficiency in the skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing.
2. Teaching methodology. They should be qualified in a range of approaches to the teaching of a second language so that they are able to vary their approach to suit the needs of the learner.

It is worth remembering that just as you have a particular learning style, so your mentor will have a unique teaching style. Styles depend on personality, so that the classroom of an extroverted teacher may not be a comfortable place for the introverted student. Similarly, the analytical teacher will appeal to the student who likes to be shown how the grammar of the language works, while the student who likes to be immersed in lots of communicative situations may find grammar a drag.

There is no one right way to learn a language, just as there is no one right way to teach a language. But what of the students who find themselves in the class of a teacher whose style is incompatible with theirs? My advice is to adopt a two-pronged approach:

1. Honest and polite discussion with the teacher. Talk to the teacher about your preferred learning style and ask for advice. A good teacher can accommodate a variety of student learning styles.
2. Take personal responsibility for your own learning. Be clear about what you want to achieve with the language and develop your own learning program (in consultation with the teacher).

“When the pupil is ready, the master will appear.”

I ended the previous blog with this enigmatic quotation, the key to which is the first part of the proposition (“when the pupil is ready…”).  The pupil is never ready until they take personal responsibility for their learning. When they do, they will have no trouble attracting a “master”. We often think that learners depend upon teachers but equally teachers depend upon learners – real learners; the ones who are prepared to take personal responsibility for their learning. As we said at the beginning of this post:

Let’s be clear about one very important issue: your success in learning a second language ultimately depends upon you, not your mentor.

The Role of the Second Language Teacher

No matter how you decide to go about learning a second language, it is likely that at some time you will need the help of a language teacher.

In this blog, I have been using the term “second language mentor” to describe this individual. I have chosen this phrase because it suggests to me a more advisory role than “teacher”, one that concerns itself with not just the linguistic product to be learnt, but also the language learning process that the learner might follow. A good mentor/teacher will be able to help you with both of these aspects and as a second language learner you need to realise that you are justified in asking for these two levels of help.

The Concise Macquarie Dictionary defines a “mentor” as “a wise and trusted counsellor”, emphasising a collaborative role and acknowledging that the second language learner brings their own unique contribution to the process. For example, you may have certain goals that you would hope to achieve in learning the language, certain things you want to do with the language. The mentor should be able to counsel you about what language you will need to achieve these ends based on the mentor’s understanding of your language background. They should also be able to counsel you, based on what they know about your learning style and strategy preferences, on how you should go about learning the language. In other words, the mentor should work with you to arrive at an accurate needs analysis at both the product and the process level.

The concept of “mentor” has within it the acknowledgement that ultimately you need to take responsibility for your own learning. By working collaboratively with a mentor, you will be moving towards autonomy, to the day when you will outlive the need for a mentor.

So, where do you find such mentors – these rare individuals who become successful by making themselves redundant? The answer to this question is complex and will be answered in future articles. But, I’ll leave you with a thought in which you might find the answer you are seeking: “when the pupil is ready, the master will appear.”  Sounds mystical? Not really, but I’ll leave it with you and feel free to share your thoughts in the “comments” box.