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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Interim phases between Input Output ( Ellis 1994, Gass 1997, Schmidt 1990 ) Input Output practicing required Swain 1985; Lyster 2006 ) ( 1 Comprehension 2 Noticing : the learner pays attention to certain features in the input data 3 Intake 4 Integration : the ” new” features become part of the learner’s language system The role of prior knowledge (Gass 1997) Linguistic features noticed in input compared with learner’s mental grammar: gap (Ellis 1994; 2004) ”

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

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

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

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

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

14. Appendix Descriptive Model of Language Competence Linguistic competence Organisatory competencePragmatic competence Textling- uistic compe- tence Grammatical competence Bachman 1991