UNIT 5. AN ADDITIVE APPROACH TO PLANNING IN PLURILINGUAL CLASSROOMS. LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH. JSP 2010-2011

AIMS OF THE SESSION Knowing several language acquisition theories: The Common Underlying Proficiency Theory and the Iceberg Metaphor. The Interlanguage. Interactionism and the Scaffolding Recognizing the factors that affect language acquisition. JSP 2010-2011

INTRODUCTION “LANGUAGES EMBODY THE INTELLECTUAL WEALTH OF THE PEOPLE THAT SPEAK THEM. LOSING ANY OF THEM IS LIKE DROPPING A BOMB ON THE LOVRE” (Ken Hale, linguist) JSP 2010-2011

SUPPORTING MOTHER TONGUE Advantages of maintaing one’s mother language: Personal identity Cultural heritage Intercultural understanding Skills supporting cognitive development Additive bilingualism vs. Substractive bilingualism Many opportunities for schools and students European Council ideas on intercultural awareness Multilingualism JSP 2010-2011

BILINGUALISM Bilingual Kids from Parents.wmv JSP 2010-2011

BILINGUALISM ADDITIVE BILINGUALISM SUBSTRACTIVE BILINGUALISM “Social and emotional conditions for learning that value all languages and cultures and affirm the identity of each learner and promote self steem.” Does not replace the mother tongue. SUBSTRACTIVE BILINGUALISM Does not affirm identity Another language replaces the mother tongue Colonial situations or political situations in which one language is over another language. JSP 2010-2011

THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR Jim Cummins (Canada, 1980) “People who are learning a second language are not faced with a totally unmapped territory” Common framework of language structures and functions = Common underlying proficiency (CUP) JSP 2010-2011

THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR JSP 2010-2011

THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR CUP implies the interdependence hypothesis: the surface features of any two languages may be different (BICS), but the underlying cognitive proficiency skills are common across languages (CALP). Linguistic exposure and experience in two languages can promote the cognitive academic skills underlying both languages. JSP 2010-2011

THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR JSP 2010-2011

THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS): language needed to interact in social contexts, language used in everyday communication or informal settings. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP): formal academic learning. Thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, evaluation related to CALP. JSP 2010-2011

THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR CUP linked to CALP Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency Type of language that allows for the transfer of academic skills from one language to another. The aim of high quality bilingual education JSP 2010-2011

THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR Bilingual or multilingual people with meaningful exposure and experience develop CUP skills which enable the development of CALP skills in both languages. ONE CENTRAL PROCESSING SYSTEM JSP 2010-2011

THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR In summary, Child’s first language is not a hindrance Cognitive and academic skills transfer to the new language Such skills are interdependent across languages. The knowledge of one language helps to learn the second (or third) language JSP 2010-2011

THE COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY THEORY AND THE ICEBERG METAPHOR LITERACY SKILLS THAT CAN BE TRANSFERRED: Directionality Sequencing Ability to distinguish shapes and sounds Kwoledge that written symbols correspond to sounds and can be decoded in order and direction Semantic and sytantic knowledge Text structure Use of clues to predict meaning Variety of purposes Confidence in oneself JSP 2010-2011

FACTORS AFFECTING LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (I) Case study: an oral production of a 5 year old bilingual boy. At school: “Pau m’ha pushat” “I not can do this” / “I no can’t do this” “I not want to go” / “I not want go” “Lucia not goes” / “She not go” “Want you this” “Me no like this homework” At home: “M’he deixat el llibre on the table” “Estic on the carpet” “Dóna’m el apron, please” JSP 2010-2011

FACTORS AFFECTING LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (II) Language transfer: appliance of native language knowledge to a second language. Interference or negative transfer: errors originated in the application of L1 grammar rules to the construction of L2. The greater the differences between the languages, the more negative transfer will result (false friends). Interlanguage: linguistic system developed by a learner of a L2 who has not become fully proficient yet but who is approximating to the target language. (Spanglish) JSP 2010-2011

INTERACTIONISM (I) Krashen and language acquisition.wmv JSP 2010-2011

INTERACTIONISM (II) Interaction between the learner and the language environment Innate cognitive processes Adults use modified input to address children ESL learners need comprehensible input to make sense Background knowledge Language level of the lesson Production of meaningful output and reception of feedback. Differences between second language natural acquisition and second language formal acquisition. JSP 2010-2011

INTERACTIONISM (III) KRASHEN’S 5 MAIN HYPOTHESIS The natural approach: we learn in a predictable order. 5 stages: Preproduction Early production Speech emergence Intermediate fluency Advanced level The acquisition learning hypothesis: acquisition vs. learning Monitor hypothesis Input hypothesis (Positive) affective filter JSP 2010-2011

INTERACTIONISM (IV) KRASHEN’S THEORY APPLIED TO CLASSROOM: Meaningful input Real life communication Foster positive situations Limited use of grammar teaching Correction of mistakes only during learning Natural focus: communicative skills, comprehension before production, speaking and writing skills when the pupil is prepared, acquisition better than learning, low affective filter JSP 2010-2011

INTERACTIONISM (V) BRUNER VYGOTSKY Scaffolding “Provision of appropriate assistance to students so that they may achieve what alone would have been too difficult for them.” Comprehensive input Teachers predict students’ difficulties VYGOTSKY Proximal development(ZDP) Notional gap between A) the learner’s current developmental level B) the learner’s potential level JSP 2010-2011

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION SEE YOU NEXT WEEK THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION JSP 2010-2011