Describe your approach to language learning from the perspective of the three schools of thought discussed this week - Structuralism/Rationalism/Constructivism?
Out of the three schools of thought I would say that my approach to language learning follows the Constructivism and Rationalism schools of thought. From my experience, I learn best when I construct meaning for myself. When I can make my learning meaningful, I tend to remember and comprehend the information more. Constructivist theory postulates that children learn new information step by step by active involvement. From my experience of learning Italian, I have noticed that I assimilate certain Italian vocab words to pre-existing schemas of Spanish words that I have learned to help me remember the meanings of the Italian words. However, I also noticed that my approach to memorizing Italian vocab words can be seen as behaviorist in the way that I use flashcards and repetition to remember the terms. Also, I noticed that I transfer certain Spanish concepts to my understanding of Italian concepts that are similar.
Influenced by the “classic teaching methodology” for many years, I think my previous language learning approaches can be defined as Audio-Lingual and Grammar-Translation. I remembered learning English through “read after me” and “write down each new word for ten times” for many years. I spent most time on remembering new words and sentences and grammar rules. These mechanical drill-and-skill methods are typical products of structuralism. Now, I believe communication is a better way to learn genuine language. It is through trial-and-error, give-and-take in communication that learners start to build their own language knowledge. Unfortunately, there is not much opportunity to learn through interaction in this on-line course itself.In my Spanish lesson, I looked at the picture and the words and made a guess at meaning first. Then, I looked at the translation and I imitated the sound for many times to reinforce memorization. Meanwhile, I compared some features of Spanish with French and English, and tried to transfer and generate some rules. My approach of learning Spanish now is a combination of structuralism and rationalism.
My approach to language learning is definitely aligned with Constructivism. I believe that teachers should be facilitators who are there for extra support while the students create their own knowledge. Constructivism takes into account the social aspect of learning a language-which I believe is the most essential. In order to learn a language and feel comfortable using it you need to be in real situations in which you use the language. Teachers need to create authentic experiences in which students can play with language and learn how to use it for their own means. My friend always discusses his experience studying abroad in Spain; he explains how he learned the language so fast because he had to. It was essential in that situation; this is what teachers need to recreate within the walls of the classroom. Constructivism takes that experience into account and focuses not only on the cognitive, but the social. In my own classroom this is how I would approach language learning. Constructivism addresses the idea that students create their own knowledge through scaffolding and a gradual release of responsibility, by doing this the students take ownership of their language learning. I feel this is the goal in any classroom, not just the language classroom. However, in my own language learning experiences with livemocha I have completely taken on the Rationalism/Cognitive approach. Considering the fact that this language learning experience is very solitary, I am focusing on mastering the vocabulary and grammar. In order to do so I’ve noticed that I have come up with various devices in order to remember what each vocabulary word means so I can perform well on the exam. For example, I remember “mulher” is woman because it starts with the letter “m” just like the word “mother.” (By the way, I ditched Italian and I have switched to Portuguese because I could access the basic class in that language). So in a very rationalism/cognitive framework I have been focusing on how I remember the words and those processes are allowing me to produce the language and vocabulary on the exams. Despite the fact that I am doing well and completing the assignments, if you asked me to hold a conversation using these words I would be very, very hesitant (or not be able to at all). This confirms to me why I believe Constructivism is the best way to learn a language. Since I am not using the language through authentic experiences, or really creating knowledge on my own through mentor texts, dialogue, or collaborative learning I am not truly learning how to use the language. I can produce enough and recall what I have learned, but I am not fully learning because I am unable to use the language for my own communicative needs. By creating devices for memorization, I am not making the language my own; therefore, am I truly learning it? Unfortunately, so far, I would have to say no.
My approach to language learning definitely falls into the Rationalism and Constructivism Schools of Thought. I think it is important for students, including myself, to have instructors educate and teach words and rules when it comes to language learning. It is necessary learn grammar rules and words, when acquiring a new language. It helps me get started. For example, I did not know how to even say they word hello in Portuguese. I had to be informed, and hear the word to recognize it. I am able to learn words and phrases, and then associate them to something I can relate with. I believe the Constructivism school of thought is most critical in the learning of a new language. The more people interact with the language they more they will acquire. When I began learning Portuguese, many words and phrases were completely foreign. I could not relate them to other languages I am fluent in. After listening and interacting with the language I was able to recognize different words and phrases, and even put sentences together. I think it is important to use the new language as much as possible. Relate to your life, try to use it in social environments. When students are able to do this, they are able to retain and make meaning of the new language. It is important to be active in the learning process of the new language. The Constructivism School of Thought allows learners to be active and engaged in the learning process.
I would have to say my approach to learning a language is linked closely with constructivism and a bit of structuralism. In structuralism much of the learning process is due to memorization, choral repetition, like you see in the Audio Lingual Method. As with most methods of teaching a language, there does exist much criticism to this approach. However, I find that in some scenarios these acts of repetition and memorization can be effective. For example, while doing the Portuguese lessons online as its a virtual instruction and no real interaction with anyone, you are doing much of the learning by memorizing previous examples and repeating what was done. In learning grammar, as now I'm working on adjectives and nouns. I look for the pattern that exists in each sentence. I then decide which article to place before the noun, to make the correct sentence. THis process involves memorizing the previous examples and following the pattern, example Ele sao uma menina. She is a girl.The previous example in this case was Ele sao um menino, so I knew that um was for the masculine form. I also contributed my learning a new language to Constructivism, as much of the language is quite similar to Spanish, which I speak fluently. As Jean Piaget's structure of constructivism notes, individuals construct new knowledge from their previous knowledge and experiences. I've assimilated my learning by incorporating the new language I'm learning with one I already know, in this case Spanish.
My approach to language learning comes from both cognitive psychology and constructivism. The part that I like about cognitive psychology is that it allows you to create your own meaning and reality out of the language, it makes the language your own. When the language is personal and really one’s own, the person is more likely to be invested in it and more likely to really try to learn it. The part of the constructivism approach that I like is that you can work in groups. When working in groups, you can construct a shared reality with the language. Not only does it make learning a language more fun, it also makes it more realistic because you are actually practicing the learned language. Sadly I don’t really see any of these approaches in my language learning. I’ve switched languages in order to actually have a chance at learning, but because I have no personal desire to learn the particular language and because it is solely through the computer and does not provide for group learning or other interaction, there’s not much investment on my part. This is not to say that I won’t learn anything, because I will. I just means that I will easily forget what I’ve learned.
My ideal approach to language learning is based on the constructivist theory. In prior learning experiences, I have found that authentic, scaffolded, and socially constructed meaning helps me to retain and feel comfortable with my language use. Even in the process of academic learning within my native language, I feel that the constructivist approach anchors meaning in a holistic way that allows me to grasp new concepts and ideas.
However, in the process of trying to learn a new language through a program such as Livemocha, I am struggling to retain understanding due to the lack of opportunities for authentic interactions and chances to speak in naturally scaffolded contexts. I find that I am employing a mix of the Rationalism and Structivist approaches. In the sense that I am using cognitive processes such as word memorization and mnemonic devices as learning strategies, my approach embodies a sense of Rationalism. I also feel that my language learning on livemocha is a prescriptive approach in that it focuses mainly on grammar and sentence structure. It is explicit, independent instruction - void of social interactions and authentic opportunities. Although I do feel like I am learning the language, I find that I am over-using cognitive strategies, whereas I wish I could sit down and have a conversation with someone about the language.
My approach to language learning is centered around a cognitive approach that has always produced sound results. Similiar to Julie and Danielle, I am a master at using mneumonic devices, patterning, repeating to increase memory, creating little flashcards, etc. I have reflected on this learning in the past and know that on the information processing system, I do not commit most of this information to long term memory and I am left with limited capacity. This might attribute to my failed attempts at Spanish and French. I also think that while Bandura and his beliefs on observation into performance stand true for many other learning opportunities, this is not true in a second language. I have long believed in- but obviously not practiced a constructivist approach. In language this is often an easy route to find that people make, due to the fact that it requires so much interaction or immersion in the L2. This can be hard to achieve. I believe that if I were teaching a second language to a student, I would require interaction. They must also take a sense of ownership and create schemas to create sense- not just memorization. These can be built with guided help at first. In the case of my own learning of Czech on LiveMocha- I found myself attempting to apply these constructivist principles. As I learned nouns I searched for the "Why" that Brown states defines constructivism. I created reasons for the characters on the screen to be using the sentences presented and within this found pragmatics that took me beyond the grammar. I practiced saying them to my family too later on to create a social story for myself in my head as I explained it to someone else. For the purposes of this learning, Berlitz's theory would be most effective for me. Treat it like a first language and let me be introduced orally with oppotunities for mistakes to occur.
Rationalism and Constructivism represent my approach to acquire a language. Rationalism approach highlights the reason behind certain human behavior rather than just describe it, as structuralism stressed, under controlled conditions. Furthermore, Rationalism emphasized that human beings have an innate ability to produce a language and there are common linguistic principles among all languages known as universal grammar. On the other hand, the structuralism prospective claimed the opposite. Regardless of the deferent approaches between both schools of thought, they are successful paradigms but that depends on the class setting or/and its nature. For instance, the methodologies of Livemocha have determined my approach under the school of structuralism. As long as my learning style is not according to this school, my learning journey is full of challenges. For instance, repetition and memorization were some of my strategies to learn new words or expressions in the absence of interaction and sociocultural norm “the children’s thinking and meaning-making is socially constructed and emerges out of their social interactions with their environment” (Kaufman, 2004, p304). In addition to the Rationalism, the Constructivism, in my case, dominates my approach in acquiring a language. Based on my experience, the cognitive factor of the constructivism plays a big role in SLA. During my Livemocha language lesson, I was trying to connect the L2 to my L1 in order to make it my own such as Como te llamas = what is your name, mucho gusto en conocetre = nice to meet you. I was imaging that I am communicating with Spanish speaker using this sentence. “Language is immersed in a social and cultural context, and its central function is to serve as medium of communication” Bakhtin (1986, 1990). In some other case, I was comparing the pronunciation of the Spanish word to a word in my native or English language like me llamo = my name is. In conclusion, all the schools of thought enrich my learning, acquiring, scholarly researching and teaching but my govern approach is the constructivism including zone of proximal development by Vygotsky. Development is reachable by scaffolding.
As a teacher, I would say that I mostly embrace constructivist techniques. I like to use activities that engage the students in making meaning and in determining the rules that govern language, rather than having it fed to them. However, I think that elements of all three approaches are useful and are apparent in my practice. As a language learner, all three approaches are apparent in my on-line experience. The structuralist approach is apparent in that I analyze the surface aspects of language when I look at masculine and feminine endings of nouns, adjectives, and determinants. The lessons are set up in a structural way in that they cover one category of language, such as nouns, in each separate lesson. I am also comparing and contrasting the surface structure of my target language (Portuguese) with other languages that I know. Because of the way the program is set up, I need to memorize in order to move along. This would be another example of a structuralist approach. The activities in the on-line language lessons provide an experience with a rational/behaviorist method. There is immediate feedback when I give a wrong answer. This is followed by opportunity for correction. The constructivist aspect of learning is evident in the interaction that occurs between the “mentors” and the students. The writing activities require me to attempt to make meaning. The feedback that I receive informs me as to the effectiveness of that meaning making. The mentors who do it well, provide just enough feedback to be helpful, but do not overwhelm me with too much. They are working in my ZPD. The lack of opportunities to use the language in real conversations inhibits my abilities to test hypothoses. In this way, there are not as many chances to approach my lessons from a constructivist point of view as I would like.
This is Ilana - I believe my school of thought rests with the constructivist approach. I believe it is important for students to construct meanings for themselves because that is how they will retain the information in the long term. If learning is perscribed, the role of the learner is diminished and they don't have as much of a say in their learning. In constructivism students have the space to discover their own knowledge and are given the opportunity to move beyond even what we expect of them. In constructivism there is also a place for social interaction and for students to learn from each other. I feel very strongly that learning from one another is an incredibly valuable part of the learning process. When students negotiate meaning in kid-language and help each other reach their ZPD, I feel that real learning is taking place that could not be reached through the direct instruction that structuralism requires.
I also think there is a place for structuralism (more minimal in my classroom), but there will be instances where rote memorization is important. I also think it is important for teacher to teach grammar rules because it helps build schemas for English learners. I don't think there is a magic theory that will work for all students, I think it is important for teachers to mix it up and use several different theories in an appropriate way to help reach all of our students.
As a teacher, I very much embrace the constructivist mentality. Since the majority of my students are hispanic, I spend a portion of my day doing ELD instruction. I strongly believe that the best kind of ELD comes from the discussions/interactions they get from each other. There's only so much they can learn from me drilling structure into their heads, the real learning comes when they put what I've said to practice. I have them get together with their literature circle groups, and just in a matter of several weeks I can hear an improvement in their English language skills. Fortunately they have a classroom setting in which to practice this. It's much harder as a student through the livemocha website. I find that there are so many vocabulary words that even when I try to find some trick to remember, I end up guessing what they mean. I suppose as a current learner I'm coming from more of the rationalist point of view. I try to associate something I don't know with something I do. What's closely assocaited enough to jog my memory without overloading it too much. I spent five years learning French, and all I managed to maintain was a list of random vocabulary. I have an extremely hard time acquiring languages so sometimes I think I revert to a structuralist point of view as well. I don't make much sense out of how languages tie together and therefore I have very little background/base knowledge to help me out. Therefore I simply rely on rote memorization.
NOTE: This was originally posted on 2-8-11 at 4:27pm. The submission was somehow deleted.
Having studied varied languages through varied contexts, I believe that I have been exposed to a myriad of the 3 schools of thought discussed this week. While many students look back on early language education with mirth for the constant drilling and testing of obscure vocabulary lists and grammatical structures, I was lucky to have a high school Spanish class that was more aligned with the Social Constructivist Approach. A large part of our daily curriculum involved working in groups creating dialogues to perform in front of the class. The dialogues were generally open to our whim and so vocabulary was diverse and plenty of social interaction was needed to negotiate plot and lines.
In contrast, when I studied Japanese and Korean through the hotel I was working for in Guam, the majority of lessons were based on drill and repeat patterns followed by multiple choice/gap fill testing. I would say this style more closely aligns with the conditioning and reinforcement of Structuralism and the systematicity of Rationalism. The famed Audiolingual method (most tightly aligned with Structural linguistics) definitely came into play in my education in these two languages.
Along with the rest of my classmates, I am now undertaking a new language through the website lovemocha.com. This is my first online education experience of any kind. I have to say that so far I have been disappointed in the methodology behind the curriculum for my Portuguese course. I especially loathe the drill which involves matching the correct phrase to the correct picture. Often I know the meaning of the phrase perfectly but can’t remember which picture the website has deemed best fitting for the phrase! I would say the material on livemocha.com is presented in a Structuralism/Rationalism manner but that I attempt to make sense of it and internalize it using some constructs of Cognitive Constructivism being that this version places a strong emphasis on the learner constructing their own representation of reality which is what I am trying to do to make sense of the language being presented to me in a way I am not entirely comfortable with. This is keeping me very active as a leaner!
Throughout my most recent Italian lesson, I tried to analyze the way I was learning and the way the lessons were taught. I believe that the Constructivist Approach to Second Language Acquisition is the best approach for me as a learner because I try to make meaning by connecting new information with my background knowledge. For example, when they discuss the phrase "io sono," I make the connection to "yo soy" in Spanish. By tying the new knowledge in with my schema and constructing meaning, I remember the phrases and understand what they mean. I find that I favor Generative over Structuralism because, as Chomsky describes, it is impossible to look at human language solely in terms of what is observable. Sometimes, a student is competent of a language ability, but does not demonstrate their ability, and it would therefore not be taken into account. In practicing the Italian podcasts with Brian, I noticed use of social constructivism because we interact with phrases, speak to each other, and correct each others mistakes. Our learning is emerging from our social interactions. I find it difficult to best categorize the type of instruction, however. Because the entire series is one-sided audio, the "instructor" cannot shape their lessons based on how well or poorly we are doing. The lessons all follow a standard format of saying the phrase quickly, then slowly for pronunciation, and then quickly again with definitions. They do not leave time for us to repeat after them, so we have to pause the tape to practice our own pronunciation. One downside to this program versus an in-class setting or cultural immersion is that we are not able to have someone tell us whether or not we are sounding correct, or what kinds of mistakes we may be making. I like to get immediate feedback when I am learning so that I know right away if I am on the right track. I feel like ItalianPod101 is attempting to have the listener memorize the phrases through drilling, but they also provide interesting grammar and cultural points that help me to construct a more meaningful understanding.
My approach to Italian is definitely based around constructivism and rationalism. In my opinion, students as well as myself should be immersed into social interactions. This allows the learner to have various representations of reality. I think there’s something to be said about being comfortable, which also plays into rationalism. We can all sit and listen to these pod-cast/books and learn to speak the language, but from my experience traveling, being in a particular place tremendously changes how you think. In actual conversation there’s not going to be a program that lets you pause to practice or someone that says it's ok if you messed that word up. It's just going to be you in that moment with a person that’s trying to process what you’re saying. This brings me to competence and performance. I believe that it is necessary for you to understand what you are saying before you actually try and speak it. Structuralism only looks at the observable responses. Structuralists judge based on what they see, not on how your brain is processing the information. I think it's important to consider how people understand language, and not only evaluate based on what you see or hear. There has to be some give and take of course. Like we discussed in class, if you are a monitor over user, you will think too much about what you say and how you are going to say it. I think that approaching it from an optimal standpoint will present some trial and error, which I feel people need to eventually become more independent as a second language speaker. Eisenstein says everyone learns differently and that there’s not one method of doing something. However, It would be nice to have someone observing us to tell us if we are pronouncing the words correctly.
The first time I tried answering this question I realized I was lying! So I erased everything and then started over again. I wanted to say that I am learning a language through constructionist methods. However, I realized that as a teacher I like to use constructionist methods, but as a learner I am really using a combination of all methods.
As a teacher I like using constructivism as a way to challenge my students. They must "individually discover and transform complex information if they are to make it on their own, [suggesting] a more active role for students in their own learning than is typical in many classrooms" (Brown, 2007, p. 12) I also want them to have enough social interaction with others so they may communicate the data they have learned.
Constructivism seems to work great in the classroom, but I have realized I don't use it very much while learning a language on Live Mocha. On Live Mocha I seem to be using a combination of language learning skills.
I can see structuralism when I am translating from my L1 to L2 language. I realize that when I say something like "I don't have shoes" in Spanish I must put "don't" before the subject. For example, I should say "No tengo zapatos."
I can see rationalism when I notice that the "a" ending is feminine because it is always pictured with a girl. And the "o" ending is masculine because it is always pictured with a boy.
And I see some constructivism when Live Mocha has the student communicate to the computer with either writing or sound recordings. Though there is two way communication, the communication does not happen directly which makes it quite limited. After my second lesson I had 6 other users on Live Mocha give me feedback on my communication. In this feedback they often continued my conversation or corrected any mistakes and offered me advice. This is something that would happen if I was communicating with another student in the classroom, it is just delayed!
My language learning experience on livemocha has been a combination of both structuralism and rationalism. I found myself using aspects of both schools of thought, namely rote memorization, choral repetition, patterning and repeating to get a grasp on both pronunciations and meanings of words and sayings. Similar to a structuralist approach, I found myself comparing and contrasting the grammar and sentence structure of my target language to both English and Japanese. On livemocha, learners have the option to receive feedback from mentors, which I selected for my study of the Spanish language. In this sense, a bit of constructivism is also evident in my language learning experience as constructivism emphasizes the use of social interaction as a means to acquiring a second language.
As a learner and soon to be teacher I strongly believe in the constructivist approach, though there are certain aspects of structuralism and rationalism I believe to be helpful. As mentioned above social constructivism emphasizes the importance of social interaction and cooperative learning as a means to acquiring a second language. This type of learning leans away from rote memorization and towards group work and meaningful interaction with both students and facilitators. I believe this type of interactive discourse is important during any kind of learning experience as it facilitates discussion and construction of meaning from a learner’s perspective. Though as a learner I benefit greatly from a constructivist approach I must make sure to be attentive to how my students learn, as they may benefit from different kinds of instruction.
I think my second language learning is a combination of the structuralism, rationalism and constructivism.
When I started to learn English in junior high school, I have spent years learning English in Classical Method, spending all the time focus on grammatical rules, vocabulary memorization, texts translation and written exercises. The class pattern is always repeating after the teacher in the classroom, reciting the word list after school, and having grammar tests. This rote memorization is boring but useful for beginners to increase vocabulary, and to distinguish and compare the grammatical rule between the L1 and target language. When I began my Japanese lesson these days, I also started from vocabulary memorization and sentence analyzing and compare Japanese with Chinese and English. The structuralism approach is helpful when I am reading passages that I have to analyze the sentence structure and translate the confusing part in to my first language to get a better understand of the meaning. And Rationalism approach is also an efficient way that by concluding and summarizing the learned grammatical rules of the target language, I can compose sentences that I have not learned accordingly in oral classes and composition writing. When I went into college, most of the time I studied English all by myself. I find that after grasp the basic rules and have a certain amount of vocabulary we have to apply constructivism approach to improve our language level. For instance, we have to emphasis the importance of social interaction that we should not only know how to speak grammatical correctly but also socially properly. And we should also pay attention to the cooperative learning, discovery learning, task-based leaning to improve well-rounded language ability and language usage accuracy and fluency. As a language teacher, I should be attentive to what student benefit most from these schools of thoughts that to project a best study strategy and curriculum for them.
I’d say my approach to learning a language is structuralism and a little bit constructivism. Last week we watched the video about how the students learned English in traditional behavioral classroom. That carried me back to my high school classroom. We learned sentences with instructors, exchanged words but never used them in real communication. In that kind of teacher- center classroom where I was from, students followed the teachers’ guild, learned what they taught without thought. I believe the structuralism is helpful to elementary students especially adults. First, structuralism emphasis stimuli- response, which could provided language learning environment to foreign language beginner learners. During the class, every student would get chances to answer questions and practice speaking, their faults of pronunciation could be remedied, and the basic structure would be clearly remembered. Second, adults could learn more in structuralism class. Adults have strong motivation, more self-discipline and learning capacity, they can concentrate your attention on what you are studying no matter the class interesting or not.
However, when I came to US and got started to teach Chinese to K-12 students, I met a lots of problems. At the beginning, I continue to use structuralism- thought to design my class, such as exchange words, read sentences together and role play. But I found the other teachers prefer to use some totally different teaching methods, such as task base teaching, activities teaching where teachers are more like a leader in the student center classroom. Due to the children do not have the capability to study by themselves yet (Slavin, 2003); their learning should in the guild of teacher. There once had an activity in our program that is “Virtual Travel in China”. As our students develop their language skills, they are promoted from being a tourist, to a resident, to a citizen. By doing authentic tasks, such as exchanging money, checking into a hotel and eating at a “Peking Duck” restaurant, the students progresses through levels of language proficiency. Each step, the player will have to learn new vocabulary, grammar and culture information to complete tasks that mirror daily activities in Beijing. I believe that constructivism school is better compare with structuralism just because my students looked interesting in learning. They said they felt what they learned in class were useful. Bakhtin claimed that language is “immersed in a social and cultural context, and its central function is to serve as a medium of communication.” Students will remember the “useful” language quickly and clearly.
All the 3 school of thoughts are important in creating balanced descriptions of second language acquisition (Brown, 2007). During the process of L2 acquisition, learners need feedbacks from teacher, from that they will know if they have known the knowledge, and improve your method of study. Structuralism emphasis feedbacks, students will be praised or blamed timely. Meanwhile, language learning is a complex process, which not only result by stimuli and response (Chomsky, 1964), but also could be pushed by private efforts and helps from teachers.
When I was a primary school student, I hated English very much. Because my teacher always asked we to recite English words and texts again and again and I need to remember a lot of grammar rules. I think almost every Chinese student has the same experience. These mechanical drill-and-skill methods are typical products of structuralism. However, this kind of experience lays the foundation of my further study of English. When I learn the Cantonese, I also recite the pronunciation and tone of the words. All these are the basic things I should acquire to use Cantonese into use. The motivation for me to learn Cantonese is to communicate with other people from HongKong and Guandong Province. I believe if you want to learn the language well, you should try your best to take practice and communicate with other people. So I take part in the organization called the” Hua Ren You Hao Hui” to communicate with others. And I learn English in the almost same way. After I have equipped the basic knowledge of English, I transfer and conductive some rules to learn the new knowledge of English. And I believe practice makes perfect. In conclusion, my approach of learning Cantonese and English now is a combination of all the 3 school thoughts.
I definitely believe that immersion is the best way to learn a language. The Spanish that I now possess is a result of living in a Spanish speaking community. While in Peru, I struggled learning things as they came, because I always wanted to learn the rules of grammar. I had no language grammar books accessible to me and so was forced into a very constructionist language learning setting. I drove the bilingual people around me crazy with all my questions and references to rules of grammar in trying to understand my new language, believing that if I uncovered the rules, I would open up language learning doors more quickly. Now that I am back in the States and trying to study Spanish with a grammar book, I realize how crazy it is. I have a good ear, and through emersion I am able to decently imitate the language around me. Reading new grammar here without my ear tuned to the language, my pronunciation is horrifying. I also thought that I would lean more heavily to the behaviorist's drilling to burn language into my brain, but alas, I do not have the attention span for this. How boring it is to try to memorize words without any real context. The few new words I have retained this way all relate to conversations or vocabulary I already posses, proving to me that relating new information to existing knowledge is key in the learning process. I still value my grammar books, but think that I will use them as back up rather than my primary learning tools from here on.
Ah...Chinese appears to be an interesting undertaking. I definitely feel I learn best via a constructivist approach, however, I am lacking the social interaction at the moment in my study and practice of Chinese. My first lesson was an online class, and for this weeks lesson, I decided to download the Berlitz program of learning Chinese in order to practice the sounds that are so foreign to me. After the first lesson, I thought I needed to practice pronunciation, immerse myself in the sounds of the language. Since I downloaded Berlitzs' Chinese on my ipod, I have spent many hours practicing articulation of pronunciation via the Berlitz (rote) method. I vacuumed, walked my dog, did the dishes, and fell asleep listening to the Chinese words blasting in my ears. I wandered the neighborhood repeating Chinese words and phrases. I still can not manufacture some of the sounds. According to Chapter 3's Critical Period Hypothesis I may be at a loss for accent, since I am past the critical age for acquiring proper accent. I think my issue has more to do with phonological aspects such as palette formation to make the sounds. Physically, I am unaccustomed to creating some of the sounds. I also use Rationalism to make discoveries in learning Chinese. I tend to relate new sounds I hear in Chinese to similar sounds in my existing schema of the English language. However, the accurate pronunciation may be different than what I think without seeing the Romanized words . It's like when someone would sing words to a song without knowing the real words they just assume what the words are because it may sound like it. I used to sing "Constant changes' to the song "Constant Cravings", because I had only listened to the song, and that's what it sounded like to me. I was surprised, and amused, when I saw the song title. Another example I saw of this type of behavior was on the show "Modern Family", the Brazilian mom used the expression, its a "doggy dog world" instead of the real expression "It"s a dog eat do world". It's what she had rationalized to be the words. As the Berlitz lesson includes counting and days of the week, I am discovering certain grammatical aspects of the language. For example, the days of the week sound to me to say day one, day two, day three, day four etc. It seems to be a well organized language. I can tell the Berlitz is helping my pronunciation, however, from not reading and practicing via social interaction, I find it hard to remember much. I am in the process of creating notecard to read as I practice with the ipod. And, of course, I will practice with my new Chinese friends in class.
My approach towards learning Portuguese has been a combination of the three schools. After my session I try to make a conscious effort of analyzing how the learning process takes place using Live Mocha. I have realized that my experience of learning Portuguese as an adult compared to me learning a language when I was younger (French) has different and similar processes. Something I have noticed that I am constantly relying translating things from Spanish to Portuguese in order to understand the structure of phrases or words (for example: alta – alta; mulher – mujer).
Although Live Mocha does not provide immediate feedback I think the tool is great for a quick language lesson and can say I have noticed overall improvement from one week to another. Having said this I believe my language experience could be improved with immediate feedback in a face to face setting. Finally, I would like to add that I firmly believe that through social interaction learning can become more meaningful and successful.
Out of the three schools of thought I would say that my approach to language learning follows the Constructivism and Rationalism schools of thought. From my experience, I learn best when I construct meaning for myself. When I can make my learning meaningful, I tend to remember and comprehend the information more. Constructivist theory postulates that children learn new information step by step by active involvement. From my experience of learning Italian, I have noticed that I assimilate certain Italian vocab words to pre-existing schemas of Spanish words that I have learned to help me remember the meanings of the Italian words. However, I also noticed that my approach to memorizing Italian vocab words can be seen as behaviorist in the way that I use flashcards and repetition to remember the terms. Also, I noticed that I transfer certain Spanish concepts to my understanding of Italian concepts that are similar.
ReplyDeleteInfluenced by the “classic teaching methodology” for many years, I think my previous language learning approaches can be defined as Audio-Lingual and Grammar-Translation. I remembered learning English through “read after me” and “write down each new word for ten times” for many years. I spent most time on remembering new words and sentences and grammar rules. These mechanical drill-and-skill methods are typical products of structuralism. Now, I believe communication is a better way to learn genuine language. It is through trial-and-error, give-and-take in communication that learners start to build their own language knowledge. Unfortunately, there is not much opportunity to learn through interaction in this on-line course itself.In my Spanish lesson, I looked at the picture and the words and made a guess at meaning first. Then, I looked at the translation and I imitated the sound for many times to reinforce memorization. Meanwhile, I compared some features of Spanish with French and English, and tried to transfer and generate some rules. My approach of learning Spanish now is a combination of structuralism and rationalism.
ReplyDeleteMy approach to language learning is definitely aligned with Constructivism. I believe that teachers should be facilitators who are there for extra support while the students create their own knowledge. Constructivism takes into account the social aspect of learning a language-which I believe is the most essential. In order to learn a language and feel comfortable using it you need to be in real situations in which you use the language. Teachers need to create authentic experiences in which students can play with language and learn how to use it for their own means. My friend always discusses his experience studying abroad in Spain; he explains how he learned the language so fast because he had to. It was essential in that situation; this is what teachers need to recreate within the walls of the classroom. Constructivism takes that experience into account and focuses not only on the cognitive, but the social. In my own classroom this is how I would approach language learning. Constructivism addresses the idea that students create their own knowledge through scaffolding and a gradual release of responsibility, by doing this the students take ownership of their language learning. I feel this is the goal in any classroom, not just the language classroom. However, in my own language learning experiences with livemocha I have completely taken on the Rationalism/Cognitive approach. Considering the fact that this language learning experience is very solitary, I am focusing on mastering the vocabulary and grammar. In order to do so I’ve noticed that I have come up with various devices in order to remember what each vocabulary word means so I can perform well on the exam. For example, I remember “mulher” is woman because it starts with the letter “m” just like the word “mother.” (By the way, I ditched Italian and I have switched to Portuguese because I could access the basic class in that language). So in a very rationalism/cognitive framework I have been focusing on how I remember the words and those processes are allowing me to produce the language and vocabulary on the exams. Despite the fact that I am doing well and completing the assignments, if you asked me to hold a conversation using these words I would be very, very hesitant (or not be able to at all). This confirms to me why I believe Constructivism is the best way to learn a language. Since I am not using the language through authentic experiences, or really creating knowledge on my own through mentor texts, dialogue, or collaborative learning I am not truly learning how to use the language. I can produce enough and recall what I have learned, but I am not fully learning because I am unable to use the language for my own communicative needs. By creating devices for memorization, I am not making the language my own; therefore, am I truly learning it? Unfortunately, so far, I would have to say no.
ReplyDeleteMy approach to language learning definitely falls into the Rationalism and Constructivism Schools of Thought. I think it is important for students, including myself, to have instructors educate and teach words and rules when it comes to language learning. It is necessary learn grammar rules and words, when acquiring a new language. It helps me get started. For example, I did not know how to even say they word hello in Portuguese. I had to be informed, and hear the word to recognize it. I am able to learn words and phrases, and then associate them to something I can relate with. I believe the Constructivism school of thought is most critical in the learning of a new language. The more people interact with the language they more they will acquire. When I began learning Portuguese, many words and phrases were completely foreign. I could not relate them to other languages I am fluent in. After listening and interacting with the language I was able to recognize different words and phrases, and even put sentences together. I think it is important to use the new language as much as possible. Relate to your life, try to use it in social environments. When students are able to do this, they are able to retain and make meaning of the new language. It is important to be active in the learning process of the new language. The Constructivism School of Thought allows learners to be active and engaged in the learning process.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say my approach to learning a language is linked closely with constructivism and a bit of structuralism. In structuralism much of the learning process is due to memorization, choral repetition, like you see in the Audio Lingual Method. As with most methods of teaching a language, there does exist much criticism to this approach. However, I find that in some scenarios these acts of repetition and memorization can be effective. For example, while doing the Portuguese lessons online as its a virtual instruction and no real interaction with anyone, you are doing much of the learning by memorizing previous examples and repeating what was done. In learning grammar, as now I'm working on adjectives and nouns. I look for the pattern that exists in each sentence. I then decide which article to place before the noun, to make the correct sentence. THis process involves memorizing the previous examples and following the pattern, example Ele sao uma menina. She is a girl.The previous example in this case was Ele sao um menino, so I knew that um was for the masculine form. I also contributed my learning a new language to Constructivism, as much of the language is quite similar to Spanish, which I speak fluently. As Jean Piaget's structure of constructivism notes, individuals construct new knowledge from their previous knowledge and experiences. I've assimilated my learning by incorporating the new language I'm learning with one I already know, in this case Spanish.
ReplyDeleteMy approach to language learning comes from both cognitive psychology and constructivism. The part that I like about cognitive psychology is that it allows you to create your own meaning and reality out of the language, it makes the language your own. When the language is personal and really one’s own, the person is more likely to be invested in it and more likely to really try to learn it. The part of the constructivism approach that I like is that you can work in groups. When working in groups, you can construct a shared reality with the language. Not only does it make learning a language more fun, it also makes it more realistic because you are actually practicing the learned language.
ReplyDeleteSadly I don’t really see any of these approaches in my language learning. I’ve switched languages in order to actually have a chance at learning, but because I have no personal desire to learn the particular language and because it is solely through the computer and does not provide for group learning or other interaction, there’s not much investment on my part. This is not to say that I won’t learn anything, because I will. I just means that I will easily forget what I’ve learned.
My ideal approach to language learning is based on the constructivist theory. In prior learning experiences, I have found that authentic, scaffolded, and socially constructed meaning helps me to retain and feel comfortable with my language use. Even in the process of academic learning within my native language, I feel that the constructivist approach anchors meaning in a holistic way that allows me to grasp new concepts and ideas.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the process of trying to learn a new language through a program such as Livemocha, I am struggling to retain understanding due to the lack of opportunities for authentic interactions and chances to speak in naturally scaffolded contexts. I find that I am employing a mix of the Rationalism and Structivist approaches. In the sense that I am using cognitive processes such as word memorization and mnemonic devices as learning strategies, my approach embodies a sense of Rationalism. I also feel that my language learning on livemocha is a prescriptive approach in that it focuses mainly on grammar and sentence structure. It is explicit, independent instruction - void of social interactions and authentic opportunities. Although I do feel like I am learning the language, I find that I am over-using cognitive strategies, whereas I wish I could sit down and have a conversation with someone about the language.
My approach to language learning is centered around a cognitive approach that has always produced sound results. Similiar to Julie and Danielle, I am a master at using mneumonic devices, patterning, repeating to increase memory, creating little flashcards, etc. I have reflected on this learning in the past and know that on the information processing system, I do not commit most of this information to long term memory and I am left with limited capacity. This might attribute to my failed attempts at Spanish and French. I also think that while Bandura and his beliefs on observation into performance stand true for many other learning opportunities, this is not true in a second language.
ReplyDeleteI have long believed in- but obviously not practiced a constructivist approach. In language this is often an easy route to find that people make, due to the fact that it requires so much interaction or immersion in the L2. This can be hard to achieve. I believe that if I were teaching a second language to a student, I would require interaction. They must also take a sense of ownership and create schemas to create sense- not just memorization. These can be built with guided help at first.
In the case of my own learning of Czech on LiveMocha- I found myself attempting to apply these constructivist principles. As I learned nouns I searched for the "Why" that Brown states defines constructivism. I created reasons for the characters on the screen to be using the sentences presented and within this found pragmatics that took me beyond the grammar. I practiced saying them to my family too later on to create a social story for myself in my head as I explained it to someone else.
For the purposes of this learning, Berlitz's theory would be most effective for me. Treat it like a first language and let me be introduced orally with oppotunities for mistakes to occur.
Rationalism and Constructivism represent my approach to acquire a language. Rationalism approach highlights the reason behind certain human behavior rather than just describe it, as structuralism stressed, under controlled conditions. Furthermore, Rationalism emphasized that human beings have an innate ability to produce a language and there are common linguistic principles among all languages known as universal grammar. On the other hand, the structuralism prospective claimed the opposite. Regardless of the deferent approaches between both schools of thought, they are successful paradigms but that depends on the class setting or/and its nature. For instance, the methodologies of Livemocha have determined my approach under the school of structuralism. As long as my learning style is not according to this school, my learning journey is full of challenges. For instance, repetition and memorization were some of my strategies to learn new words or expressions in the absence of interaction and sociocultural norm “the children’s thinking and meaning-making is socially constructed and emerges out of their social interactions with their environment” (Kaufman, 2004, p304).
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the Rationalism, the Constructivism, in my case, dominates my approach in acquiring a language. Based on my experience, the cognitive factor of the constructivism plays a big role in SLA.
During my Livemocha language lesson, I was trying to connect the L2 to my L1 in order to make it my own such as Como te llamas = what is your name, mucho gusto en conocetre = nice to meet you. I was imaging that I am communicating with Spanish speaker using this sentence. “Language is immersed in a social and cultural context, and its central function is to serve as medium of communication” Bakhtin (1986, 1990). In some other case, I was comparing the pronunciation of the Spanish word to a word in my native or English language like me llamo = my name is. In conclusion, all the schools of thought enrich my learning, acquiring, scholarly researching and teaching but my govern approach is the constructivism including zone of proximal development by Vygotsky. Development is reachable by scaffolding.
As a teacher, I would say that I mostly embrace constructivist techniques. I like to use activities that engage the students in making meaning and in determining the rules that govern language, rather than having it fed to them. However, I think that elements of all three approaches are useful and are apparent in my practice.
ReplyDeleteAs a language learner, all three approaches are apparent in my on-line experience. The structuralist approach is apparent in that I analyze the surface aspects of language when I look at masculine and feminine endings of nouns, adjectives, and determinants. The lessons are set up in a structural way in that they cover one category of language, such as nouns, in each separate lesson. I am also comparing and contrasting the surface structure of my target language (Portuguese) with other languages that I know. Because of the way the program is set up, I need to memorize in order to move along. This would be another example of a structuralist approach.
The activities in the on-line language lessons provide an experience with a rational/behaviorist method. There is immediate feedback when I give a wrong answer. This is followed by opportunity for correction.
The constructivist aspect of learning is evident in the interaction that occurs between the “mentors” and the students. The writing activities require me to attempt to make meaning. The feedback that I receive informs me as to the effectiveness of that meaning making. The mentors who do it well, provide just enough feedback to be helpful, but do not overwhelm me with too much. They are working in my ZPD. The lack of opportunities to use the language in real conversations inhibits my abilities to test hypothoses. In this way, there are not as many chances to approach my lessons from a constructivist point of view as I would like.
This is Ilana -
ReplyDeleteI believe my school of thought rests with the constructivist approach. I believe it is important for students to construct meanings for themselves because that is how they will retain the information in the long term. If learning is perscribed, the role of the learner is diminished and they don't have as much of a say in their learning. In constructivism students have the space to discover their own knowledge and are given the opportunity to move beyond even what we expect of them. In constructivism there is also a place for social interaction and for students to learn from each other. I feel very strongly that learning from one another is an incredibly valuable part of the learning process. When students negotiate meaning in kid-language and help each other reach their ZPD, I feel that real learning is taking place that could not be reached through the direct instruction that structuralism requires.
I also think there is a place for structuralism (more minimal in my classroom), but there will be instances where rote memorization is important. I also think it is important for teacher to teach grammar rules because it helps build schemas for English learners. I don't think there is a magic theory that will work for all students, I think it is important for teachers to mix it up and use several different theories in an appropriate way to help reach all of our students.
As a teacher, I very much embrace the constructivist mentality. Since the majority of my students are hispanic, I spend a portion of my day doing ELD instruction. I strongly believe that the best kind of ELD comes from the discussions/interactions they get from each other. There's only so much they can learn from me drilling structure into their heads, the real learning comes when they put what I've said to practice. I have them get together with their literature circle groups, and just in a matter of several weeks I can hear an improvement in their English language skills. Fortunately they have a classroom setting in which to practice this. It's much harder as a student through the livemocha website. I find that there are so many vocabulary words that even when I try to find some trick to remember, I end up guessing what they mean. I suppose as a current learner I'm coming from more of the rationalist point of view. I try to associate something I don't know with something I do. What's closely assocaited enough to jog my memory without overloading it too much. I spent five years learning French, and all I managed to maintain was a list of random vocabulary. I have an extremely hard time acquiring languages so sometimes I think I revert to a structuralist point of view as well. I don't make much sense out of how languages tie together and therefore I have very little background/base knowledge to help me out. Therefore I simply rely on rote memorization.
ReplyDeleteNOTE: This was originally posted on 2-8-11 at 4:27pm. The submission was somehow deleted.
ReplyDeleteHaving studied varied languages through varied contexts, I believe that I have been exposed to a myriad of the 3 schools of thought discussed this week. While many students look back on early language education with mirth for the constant drilling and testing of obscure vocabulary lists and grammatical structures, I was lucky to have a high school Spanish class that was more aligned with the Social Constructivist Approach. A large part of our daily curriculum involved working in groups creating dialogues to perform in front of the class. The dialogues were generally open to our whim and so vocabulary was diverse and plenty of social interaction was needed to negotiate plot and lines.
In contrast, when I studied Japanese and Korean through the hotel I was working for in Guam, the majority of lessons were based on drill and repeat patterns followed by multiple choice/gap fill testing. I would say this style more closely aligns with the conditioning and reinforcement of Structuralism and the systematicity of Rationalism. The famed Audiolingual method (most tightly aligned with Structural linguistics) definitely came into play in my education in these two languages.
Along with the rest of my classmates, I am now undertaking a new language through the website lovemocha.com. This is my first online education experience of any kind. I have to say that so far I have been disappointed in the methodology behind the curriculum for my Portuguese course. I especially loathe the drill which involves matching the correct phrase to the correct picture. Often I know the meaning of the phrase perfectly but can’t remember which picture the website has deemed best fitting for the phrase! I would say the material on livemocha.com is presented in a Structuralism/Rationalism manner but that I attempt to make sense of it and internalize it using some constructs of Cognitive Constructivism being that this version places a strong emphasis on the learner constructing their own representation of reality which is what I am trying to do to make sense of the language being presented to me in a way I am not entirely comfortable with. This is keeping me very active as a leaner!
Throughout my most recent Italian lesson, I tried to analyze the way I was learning and the way the lessons were taught. I believe that the Constructivist Approach to Second Language Acquisition is the best approach for me as a learner because I try to make meaning by connecting new information with my background knowledge. For example, when they discuss the phrase "io sono," I make the connection to "yo soy" in Spanish. By tying the new knowledge in with my schema and constructing meaning, I remember the phrases and understand what they mean. I find that I favor Generative over Structuralism because, as Chomsky describes, it is impossible to look at human language solely in terms of what is observable. Sometimes, a student is competent of a language ability, but does not demonstrate their ability, and it would therefore not be taken into account.
ReplyDeleteIn practicing the Italian podcasts with Brian, I noticed use of social constructivism because we interact with phrases, speak to each other, and correct each others mistakes. Our learning is emerging from our social interactions.
I find it difficult to best categorize the type of instruction, however. Because the entire series is one-sided audio, the "instructor" cannot shape their lessons based on how well or poorly we are doing. The lessons all follow a standard format of saying the phrase quickly, then slowly for pronunciation, and then quickly again with definitions. They do not leave time for us to repeat after them, so we have to pause the tape to practice our own pronunciation. One downside to this program versus an in-class setting or cultural immersion is that we are not able to have someone tell us whether or not we are sounding correct, or what kinds of mistakes we may be making. I like to get immediate feedback when I am learning so that I know right away if I am on the right track. I feel like ItalianPod101 is attempting to have the listener memorize the phrases through drilling, but they also provide interesting grammar and cultural points that help me to construct a more meaningful understanding.
My approach to Italian is definitely based around constructivism and rationalism. In my opinion, students as well as myself should be immersed into social interactions. This allows the learner to have various representations of reality. I think there’s something to be said about being comfortable, which also plays into rationalism. We can all sit and listen to these pod-cast/books and learn to speak the language, but from my experience traveling, being in a particular place tremendously changes how you think. In actual conversation there’s not going to be a program that lets you pause to practice or someone that says it's ok if you messed that word up. It's just going to be you in that moment with a person that’s trying to process what you’re saying. This brings me to competence and performance. I believe that it is necessary for you to understand what you are saying before you actually try and speak it. Structuralism only looks at the observable responses. Structuralists judge based on what they see, not on how your brain is processing the information. I think it's important to consider how people understand language, and not only evaluate based on what you see or hear.
ReplyDeleteThere has to be some give and take of course. Like we discussed in class, if you are a monitor over user, you will think too much about what you say and how you are going to say it. I think that approaching it from an optimal standpoint will present some trial and error, which I feel people need to eventually become more independent as a second language speaker.
Eisenstein says everyone learns differently and that there’s not one method of doing something. However, It would be nice to have someone observing us to tell us if we are pronouncing the words correctly.
The first time I tried answering this question I realized I was lying! So I erased everything and then started over again. I wanted to say that I am learning a language through constructionist methods. However, I realized that as a teacher I like to use constructionist methods, but as a learner I am really using a combination of all methods.
ReplyDeleteAs a teacher I like using constructivism as a way to challenge my students. They must "individually discover and transform complex information if they are to make it on their own, [suggesting] a more active role for students in their own learning than is typical in many classrooms" (Brown, 2007, p. 12) I also want them to have enough social interaction with others so they may communicate the data they have learned.
Constructivism seems to work great in the classroom, but I have realized I don't use it very much while learning a language on Live Mocha. On Live Mocha I seem to be using a combination of language learning skills.
I can see structuralism when I am translating from my L1 to L2 language. I realize that when I say something like "I don't have shoes" in Spanish I must put "don't" before the subject. For example, I should say "No tengo zapatos."
I can see rationalism when I notice that the "a" ending is feminine because it is always pictured with a girl. And the "o" ending is masculine because it is always pictured with a boy.
And I see some constructivism when Live Mocha has the student communicate to the computer with either writing or sound recordings. Though there is two way communication, the communication does not happen directly which makes it quite limited. After my second lesson I had 6 other users on Live Mocha give me feedback on my communication. In this feedback they often continued my conversation or corrected any mistakes and offered me advice. This is something that would happen if I was communicating with another student in the classroom, it is just delayed!
My language learning experience on livemocha has been a combination of both structuralism and rationalism. I found myself using aspects of both schools of thought, namely rote memorization, choral repetition, patterning and repeating to get a grasp on both pronunciations and meanings of words and sayings. Similar to a structuralist approach, I found myself comparing and contrasting the grammar and sentence structure of my target language to both English and Japanese. On livemocha, learners have the option to receive feedback from mentors, which I selected for my study of the Spanish language. In this sense, a bit of constructivism is also evident in my language learning experience as constructivism emphasizes the use of social interaction as a means to acquiring a second language.
ReplyDeleteAs a learner and soon to be teacher I strongly believe in the constructivist approach, though there are certain aspects of structuralism and rationalism I believe to be helpful. As mentioned above social constructivism emphasizes the importance of social interaction and cooperative learning as a means to acquiring a second language. This type of learning leans away from rote memorization and towards group work and meaningful interaction with both students and facilitators. I believe this type of interactive discourse is important during any kind of learning experience as it facilitates discussion and construction of meaning from a learner’s perspective. Though as a learner I benefit greatly from a constructivist approach I must make sure to be attentive to how my students learn, as they may benefit from different kinds of instruction.
I think my second language learning is a combination of the structuralism, rationalism and constructivism.
ReplyDeleteWhen I started to learn English in junior high school, I have spent years learning English in Classical Method, spending all the time focus on grammatical rules, vocabulary memorization, texts translation and written exercises. The class pattern is always repeating after the teacher in the classroom, reciting the word list after school, and having grammar tests. This rote memorization is boring but useful for beginners to increase vocabulary, and to distinguish and compare the grammatical rule between the L1 and target language. When I began my Japanese lesson these days, I also started from vocabulary memorization and sentence analyzing and compare Japanese with Chinese and English. The structuralism approach is helpful when I am reading passages that I have to analyze the sentence structure and translate the confusing part in to my first language to get a better understand of the meaning. And Rationalism approach is also an efficient way that by concluding and summarizing the learned grammatical rules of the target language, I can compose sentences that I have not learned accordingly in oral classes and composition writing. When I went into college, most of the time I studied English all by myself. I find that after grasp the basic rules and have a certain amount of vocabulary we have to apply constructivism approach to improve our language level. For instance, we have to emphasis the importance of social interaction that we should not only know how to speak grammatical correctly but also socially properly. And we should also pay attention to the cooperative learning, discovery learning, task-based leaning to improve well-rounded language ability and language usage accuracy and fluency. As a language teacher, I should be attentive to what student benefit most from these schools of thoughts that to project a best study strategy and curriculum for them.
I’d say my approach to learning a language is structuralism and a little bit constructivism. Last week we watched the video about how the students learned English in traditional behavioral classroom. That carried me back to my high school classroom. We learned sentences with instructors, exchanged words but never used them in real communication. In that kind of teacher- center classroom where I was from, students followed the teachers’ guild, learned what they taught without thought. I believe the structuralism is helpful to elementary students especially adults. First, structuralism emphasis stimuli- response, which could provided language learning environment to foreign language beginner learners. During the class, every student would get chances to answer questions and practice speaking, their faults of pronunciation could be remedied, and the basic structure would be clearly remembered. Second, adults could learn more in structuralism class. Adults have strong motivation, more self-discipline and learning capacity, they can concentrate your attention on what you are studying no matter the class interesting or not.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when I came to US and got started to teach Chinese to K-12 students, I met a lots of problems. At the beginning, I continue to use structuralism- thought to design my class, such as exchange words, read sentences together and role play. But I found the other teachers prefer to use some totally different teaching methods, such as task base teaching, activities teaching where teachers are more like a leader in the student center classroom. Due to the children do not have the capability to study by themselves yet (Slavin, 2003); their learning should in the guild of teacher. There once had an activity in our program that is “Virtual Travel in China”. As our students develop their language skills, they are promoted from being a tourist, to a resident, to a citizen. By doing authentic tasks, such as exchanging money, checking into a hotel and eating at a “Peking Duck” restaurant, the students progresses through levels of language proficiency. Each step, the player will have to learn new vocabulary, grammar and culture information to complete tasks that mirror daily activities in Beijing. I believe that constructivism school is better compare with structuralism just because my students looked interesting in learning. They said they felt what they learned in class were useful. Bakhtin claimed that language is “immersed in a social and cultural context, and its central function is to serve as a medium of communication.” Students will remember the “useful” language quickly and clearly.
All the 3 school of thoughts are important in creating balanced descriptions of second language acquisition (Brown, 2007). During the process of L2 acquisition, learners need feedbacks from teacher, from that they will know if they have known the knowledge, and improve your method of study. Structuralism emphasis feedbacks, students will be praised or blamed timely. Meanwhile, language learning is a complex process, which not only result by stimuli and response (Chomsky, 1964), but also could be pushed by private efforts and helps from teachers.
When I was a primary school student, I hated English very much. Because my teacher always asked we to recite English words and texts again and again and I need to remember a lot of grammar rules. I think almost every Chinese student has the same experience. These mechanical drill-and-skill methods are typical products of structuralism. However, this kind of experience lays the foundation of my further study of English. When I learn the Cantonese, I also recite the pronunciation and tone of the words. All these are the basic things I should acquire to use Cantonese into use. The motivation for me to learn Cantonese is to communicate with other people from HongKong and Guandong Province. I believe if you want to learn the language well, you should try your best to take practice and communicate with other people. So I take part in the organization called the” Hua Ren You Hao Hui” to communicate with others. And I learn English in the almost same way. After I have equipped the basic knowledge of English, I transfer and conductive some rules to learn the new knowledge of English. And I believe practice makes perfect. In conclusion, my approach of learning Cantonese and English now is a combination of all the 3 school thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe that immersion is the best way to learn a language. The Spanish that I now possess is a result of living in a Spanish speaking community. While in Peru, I struggled learning things as they came, because I always wanted to learn the rules of grammar. I had no language grammar books accessible to me and so was forced into a very constructionist language learning setting. I drove the bilingual people around me crazy with all my questions and references to rules of grammar in trying to understand my new language, believing that if I uncovered the rules, I would open up language learning doors more quickly. Now that I am back in the States and trying to study Spanish with a grammar book, I realize how crazy it is. I have a good ear, and through emersion I am able to decently imitate the language around me. Reading new grammar here without my ear tuned to the language, my pronunciation is horrifying. I also thought that I would lean more heavily to the behaviorist's drilling to burn language into my brain, but alas, I do not have the attention span for this. How boring it is to try to memorize words without any real context. The few new words I have retained this way all relate to conversations or vocabulary I already posses, proving to me that relating new information to existing knowledge is key in the learning process. I still value my grammar books, but think that I will use them as back up rather than my primary learning tools from here on.
ReplyDeleteAh...Chinese appears to be an interesting undertaking. I definitely feel I learn best via a constructivist approach, however, I am lacking the social interaction at the moment in my study and practice of Chinese. My first lesson was an online class, and for this weeks lesson, I decided to download the Berlitz program of learning Chinese in order to practice the sounds that are so foreign to me. After the first lesson, I thought I needed to practice pronunciation, immerse myself in the sounds of the language. Since I downloaded Berlitzs' Chinese on my ipod, I have spent many hours practicing articulation of pronunciation via the Berlitz (rote) method. I vacuumed, walked my dog, did the dishes, and fell asleep listening to the Chinese words blasting in my ears. I wandered the neighborhood repeating Chinese words and phrases. I still can not manufacture some of the sounds. According to Chapter 3's Critical Period Hypothesis I may be at a loss for accent, since I am past the critical age for acquiring proper accent. I think my issue has more to do with phonological aspects such as palette formation to make the sounds. Physically, I am unaccustomed to creating some of the sounds. I also use Rationalism to make discoveries in learning Chinese. I tend to relate new sounds I hear in Chinese to similar sounds in my existing schema of the English language. However, the accurate pronunciation may be different than what I think without seeing the Romanized words . It's like when someone would sing words to a song without knowing the real words they just assume what the words are because it may sound like it. I used to sing "Constant changes' to the song "Constant Cravings", because I had only listened to the song, and that's what it sounded like to me. I was surprised, and amused, when I saw the song title. Another example I saw of this type of behavior was on the show "Modern Family", the Brazilian mom used the expression, its a "doggy dog world" instead of the real expression "It"s a dog eat do world". It's what she had rationalized to be the words.
ReplyDeleteAs the Berlitz lesson includes counting and days of the week, I am discovering certain grammatical aspects of the language. For example, the days of the week sound to me to say day one, day two, day three, day four etc. It seems to be a well organized language.
I can tell the Berlitz is helping my pronunciation, however, from not reading and practicing via social interaction, I find it hard to remember much. I am in the process of creating notecard to read as I practice with the ipod. And, of course, I will practice with my new Chinese friends in class.
My approach towards learning Portuguese has been a combination of the three schools. After my session I try to make a conscious effort of analyzing how the learning process takes place using Live Mocha. I have realized that my experience of learning Portuguese as an adult compared to me learning a language when I was younger (French) has different and similar processes. Something I have noticed that I am constantly relying translating things from Spanish to Portuguese in order to understand the structure of phrases or words (for example: alta – alta; mulher – mujer).
ReplyDeleteAlthough Live Mocha does not provide immediate feedback I think the tool is great for a quick language lesson and can say I have noticed overall improvement from one week to another. Having said this I believe my language experience could be improved with immediate feedback in a face to face setting. Finally, I would like to add that I firmly believe that through social interaction learning can become more meaningful and successful.