Korean Job Discussion Forums

[chaz47]

any thoughts?

also... how about when teaching lexically in an EFL environment would you emphasize the written or spoken corpus?

[spyro25]

for your first point - (i just wrote this for my second masters assignment so you are in luck!)

However, the main problem researchers have with the input hypothesis is where and how the level of input is determined in the learner, or in the input itself. In other words, what is i or i+1, and how is it determined? Also, at which point does a learner acquire new forms during �noticing the gap�? It is difficult to show at which point a learner noticing the gap in their knowledge actually acquires the linguistic form involved, and while understanding may occur, acquisition may sometimes not. Finally, why are there some structures that students find very difficult despite constant exposure to them through input?

I + 1 or the ZPD?

A theory developed by Vygotsky called the zone of proximal development (ZPD) may help to shed some light on this dilemma. According to Ellis, the ZPD �explains the difference between an individual�s actual and potential levels of development� (Ellis, 1998:179). In this way, a students �level� is not at a set number (n+1) but is in a zone where it may be able to expand or contract through social interaction. While similar to Krashen�s i+1, it is different in that it doesn�t focus on linguistic features within a language but focuses on the learners as people. This would explain, according to Ellis, why there are some structures that students find difficult despite a high frequency of them in input � and that is because �learners are unable to construct the ZPDs that make the performance of such structures possible� (Ellis, 2003:180). The ZPD is a more humanistic construction than the i+1 theory and allows for more factors to come into play to explain why and how students can learn from the constant input students receive in L2.

The ZPD here then allows for a socio-cultural aspect to the EFL classroom that can really shed light on L1 or L2 aquisition. I would say that it facilitates the use of group work and student / teacher scaffolding in the FL classroom as there is evidence to show that students working collaboratively can bootstrap others to achieve results they may not have gained while working alone.

as for your second point (such a loaded thread!) I would say that it depends on the context of the class, in particulary its objectives / expected outcome. for the acheivement of standardized tests, the written corpus would be the way to go, but for the objective of general conversational ability the spoken corprus has its place too.

hope this helps, PM if you have another questions

(i knew one day this MA might be useful for something, even if it is only talking about stuff on Dave's!)

[chaz47]

[ddeubel]

I think that teachers are always either consciously or subconsciously, adjusting curriculum by way of the ZPD.

It is infered when we tailor curriculum to the needs of the students either grossly by level or specifically through individual competencies. It can be stated much more simply as being -- the right content at the appropriate time.

I think a good way to "teach lexically" (in quotations because I do abhor this jargon and I also think we as teachers would do well to look at our own language and use...), a good way is something systematic like Side by Side, which allows for creativity of learner input but still provides structure and that "bootstrapping" that spyro alluded to.


I'd do wish to know what spyro means by the use of the words "more humanistic"? That had me puzzled. I see what you mean in the sense that it allows for more factors to be considered in student learning, beyond mere inputs. But I think humanistic to be the wrong word. I can't see a theory being "humanistic". But maybe that is my own "semantical" shortcoming.

DD

[chaz47]

[spyro25]

[ddeubel]

chaz,

Wasn't jawing about anything and I do think in a certain forum, people should be able to use all the jargon they want and that it does have its use. I do think as you, that at times, it tempers the ability to think clearly, which is really the goal of all wisdom/insight. "Lixically is a word and never thought otherwise. Words are not just what is in the dictionary as you well know.... cun b nething.

Spyro. Thanks for clearing that up and I did think that is what you meant. I do agree it gives more "breadth" but I really don't see how terminology and theory can be given a label of "humanistic". I would reserve that for more complete environments and not as a term for a process of thought. But I see where you are coming from and agree. It is just semantics, on my part.

DD

[tomato]

Hello, Chaz!

Sorry for the late response, but I just now noticed your thread.
I once posted a message about my own zones of proximal development as a student of the Korean language:

http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/posting.php

I realize that you are asking about the zone of proximal development for English students, but I hope this helps some.