3 affective variables in second language acquisition
Motivation
Personality
Anxiety/Self Esteem
Motivation
•Instrumental motivation is only for a specific purpose, such as for school or work, is not necessarily interested in assimilating. Integrative motivation done for the person, themselves, is faster and better.
Personality
•(in book, includes Self-Esteem, Extroversion, and Assertiveness) Outgoing and extroverted (a friendly person who likes being with and talking to other people) kids may learn English faster than shy kids. Being assertive can also be helpful in facilitating second language learning, as they have increased opportunities for practice.
Anxiety/Self Esteem
•Kids with low self-esteem and anxiety will have issues learning a second language. There can be a “mental block” that prevents optimal learning if students have a high level of anxiety.
Additive Bilingualism
- Occurs when both languages spoken by the student are reinforced, resulting in high levels of proficiency in two languages.
- Ideal situation, where the student’s L1 is nurtured and developed along with L2.
- Research shows that additive bilingualism has great cognitive and linguistic benefits, and is a predictor of academic success.
- Children who experience additive bilingualism are also able to continue to speak with their families in their first language (unfortunately, this is uncommon in US).
- By becoming fully bilingual, individuals enhance their employability and increase their potential for making valuable contributions to society.
Subtractive Bilingualism
- The student’s first language is replaced by the second language, language loss occurs, and the student gradually becomes a monolingual speaker of English.
- Common in US schools
- Student’s L1 is not nurtured or supported
- If their L1 is replaced by L2, there will be language loss in L1
- Academic Failure - student not strong in either language
- If English skills continue to be considerably below those of their monolingual peers, the student’s cognitive and linguistic growth is likely to be negatively affected.
- Children who are sequential language learners may be especially vulnerable to subtractive bilingualism.
CILF
•Conversational Informal Language Fluency
◦Picked up relatively quickly and easily from environment
◦Oral language fluency that facilitates social interaction in daily life
◦Context-embedded, shared reality between speakers
◦There is contextual support for interaction
◦Supported by gestures and cues
◦Used in casual, informal communication
◦Formulaic language sometimes used
FALF
Formal Academic Language Fluency
◦Oral and written language
◦Gained through formal schooling; taught explicitly in academic settings
◦Little context, no shared reality between speakers, abstract
◦Assumes listener knowledge
◦Not supported by gestures or facial expressions
◦Usually used in reading, writing, and formal oral communication
◦Formulaic language rarely used
◦Focus on specialized vocabulary, grammar, and discourse patterns
◦For some ELLs, FALF takes much longer to develop than CILF
◦If an ELL is proficient and literate in his or her first language, FALF can develop more quickly
CUP
Common Underlying Proficiency
•school of thought that all language acquisition has an underlying “core” or framework that people can learn languages through; having a strong hold on one language helps to acquire a second language. Supporters of this theory encourage bilingual education, and think that building skills in ANY language help to build skills in the other language(s) the student might learn.
SUP
Separate Underlying Proficiency
- The school of thought that the development of skills within one language are entirely separate from those of a second language, and that there is limited “space” (think of the cartoon with two arrows going into kid’s head) for language
- development to occur. Basically, supporters of SUP model think that learning a second language interferes with the original language, or L1, and encourage parents to only speak to their children in English (even if they are not English proficient).
List characteristics of optimal comprehensible input that students should hear in educational settings.
- Krashen (1993) proposed that the ideal way to learn a second language is by focusing on comprehension meaning—by understanding messages, not by focusing on grammatical form.
- Optimal comprehensible input in L2 Includes:
◦“i + 1 input” that is slightly above the learner’s current level but comprehensible enough to be mostly understood.
◦Concrete referents are available (visuals, hands-on aids, etc).
◦It is interesting, meaningful and relevant to the learner.
◦It occurs naturally and the learner has practice opportunities in natural, conversational, everyday situations that are communicatively meaningful.
◦It is not grammatically sequenced, but rather, occurs naturally.
◦There are sufficient quantities of this input to ensure optimal learning.
•The comprehensible input hypothesis runs counter to the traditional language teaching approach, in which language structures are taught first. Krashen stated that language is best acquiring by aiming first for meaning. However, comprehensible input alone is not sufficient for optimal second language acquisition. when an ELL student appears to be having academic and/or linguistic difficulty, professionals should determine if the classroom language input is comprehensible to the student. If not, their difficulties may stem from a lack of comprehension
What is the Diagnostic Pie?
•Distinguish LI from language difference for ESL; consider language experience
Quadrant 1
•Typical Language-Learning Ability
◦Adequate background
◦May need: Bilingual education, Sheltered English, Instruction in English as a second language (ESL services)
Quadrant 2
•Typical Language-Learning Ability
◦Limitations of linguistic exposure and environmental experience
◦May need: Bilingual ed., Sheltered English, ESL services, additional enrichment experiences (tutoring, RtI, etc.)
Quadrant 3
• Language Impairment
◦Adequate background
◦May need: Bilingual Special Education, English SpEd with as much primary lang. input and teaching as possible
Quadrant 4
• Language Impairment
◦Limitations of linguistic experiences, environmental exposure…
◦May Need: Bilingual SpEd, English SpEd (with primary lang…), additional enrichment experiences
IDEA 2004
•We must evaluate in a nondiscriminatory manner
◦Test for LI, not their English proficiency
- Tests must be administered in the most proficient communication mode
- Testing cannot reflect limited English; it must reflect child’s ability in that area
- Traditionally, many special educators have used standardized tests because they believe a score is mandated by law– however, the law does not exclude subjective or qualitative measures.
- With IDEA, the need for IQ and performance discrepancy was eliminated
◦Now you can be more subjective in testing
◦However, these are still usually used
- IDEA increased the focus on early intervention
- IDEA does not specify use of either formal or informal tools for assessment
◦It says that we should use a variety of assessment tools, and that determination of disability should not rely on a single set or measure.
◦Based on 1 test, a kid might qualify for SPED (even though they’re deaf in one ear)– be careful.
List possible indicators of a language impairment in an ELL child.
- Compared to similar peers, LI kids learn slowly in L1 and L2
- If one child is learning slower than another ELL, then it is a red flag
- Communication problems at home and/or with similar peers (friends in the neighborhood, following directions at home, etc)
- Slower development than siblings of the same gender
- Need for lots of prompting and repetition during instruction compared to their peers
- Pragmatic, syntactic, semantic problems in L1
- Delayed language developmental milestones in L1– ask parents about these developmental milestones
Discuss the United States’ traditional and current attitudes toward bilingualism and bilingual education. Why are these attitudes so detrimental?
- In the U.S., education should be done in English and monolingualism is the norm. Those who speak another language have limited capacity.
- Comprehensible input is required.
- Children become aware that some languages have more “power” than others, i.e. English > Spanish.
- This leads to ELL students subjugating their L1 in favor of English (Subtractive bilingualism). However, this causes academic failure as the student is not strong in either language.
- Students’ experiences may differ from mainstream school expectations
After you finish your Master’s degree, you move to a school district where the SLPs regularly use standardized language tests with ELL students to differentiate language differences from language disorders. What will you share with them about why this is not ideal?
- There are problems with standardized testing, even if it is in the child’s primary language, which include: dialectal differences within the language that the tests do not account for, there is limited data on TD in other languages, different vocal and experience for U.S. born and immigrant. One cannot translate an English test into child’s L1 and use the norms for standard scores.
- One also has to consider the appropriate of test items and validity for ESL children: test content, adequacy of norms, examiners bias, situational bias, format bias, and value bias. Standardized tests also do not test for their modifiability or ability to learn, but rather, capture just one moment in time of the child’s development.
Luckily, the SLPs are open-minded and want to know more about how they can validly assess these students. ☺ What will you tell them about the pre-evaluation process that needs to happen when ELL students are being considered for special education assessment?
- Before doing formal testing, it is extremely important to carry out the following:
- Language proficiency testing
- primary language, dominant language
- Interview adults who work with ch
- Use language measures (CELDT)
- Ask about oral and written skills in both languages
- Ethnographic interviewing and case history
- Ethnographic interviewing: a data collection technique makes it possible to obtain information from the point of view of a cultural informant (originally used by anthropologists)
- Teacher evaluation of student’s classroom performance
What is the assessment wheel?
"LINT DRIP" Narrative Assessment Dynamic Assessment Informal Measures of Language Skills Evaluate RAN (Rapid Automatic Naming) Language Proficiency Testing Informal Processing Informal Assessment RTL (Response to Intervention) Thorough Case History Portfolio Assessment Reading Fluency Associated Motor Behaviors
RTI
- Uses principles of Dynamic Assessment. The child doesn’t have an IEP and isn’t in “special education” setting, but rather, given extra help (Dr. R. kept calling them “extras”) or support to help them acquire stronger skills and build their knowledge. Taken directly from her Power Point:
- “Students in regular education settings receive increasing amounts of support from teachers and Teachers’ Assistance Teams. If they do not respond to this–if they show treatment resistance–then they probably qualify for special ed.”
Dynamic Assessment
- Dynamic assessment determines the child’s capacity to learn, rather than just assessing the child’s knowledge at one point in time. DA evaluates a student’s ability to learn when provided with instruction (we look at “trainability”).
- It allows the examiner to observe how the student learns rather than focusing entirely on what the student already knows.
- There are several types of dynamic assessment: graduated prompting, testing the limits, test-teach-retest.
