Please respond to this statement:

[El_Chivo]

I heard this at an in-service today. Of 9 teachers hired to teach in a startup, Newcomer programs, 6 had never taught ESL before. A slightly more veteran teacher said, "Well, the important thing to remember is that you learn a second language the same way you learn a first language."
How would you have responded? Or, better yet, how would you like to have responded?

Chivo

[Lorikeet]

Sounds like it goes together with the one that says, "As long as you speak English you can teach it." :p

[Glenski]

I would have responded the way I would have liked to. Like this.

You are full of it. Learning a second language is completely different from learning a first one.

[guest of Japan]

You're opinion is without merit. When learning a second language it is natural to make associations rightly or wrongly with the first language. When learning a first language all associations are made with tangible objects, and experiences. When learning a first language cognitive development limits the ability for abstract reasoning. Additionally, research indicates that the brain is wired for language acquisition during the early years of childhood. During this time learning a second language is indeed similar to learning a first language. However as cognitive abilities develop, new techniques for learning are needed.

Additionally the pressures for learners of first and second languages differ. First language learners are not expected to be able to carry out transactional exchanges beyond specifying simple desires for many years. However, second language learners are striving to attain the abilities they already possess in their first language for dealing with both interactional and transactional situations. A five year old first language learner is not expected to know how to check into a hotel, but a twenty five year old second language learner is.

The natural approach which you seem to believe is a proven fallacy. Perhaps you ought to give a little more thought to the job you are paid to do.

(or perhaps I'd be more simple and just say the person obviously has no idea what he or she is talking about)

[El_Chivo]

Thanks for your replies. I have to say that it's my own neurotic need to control things that made me want to come across the table at my colleague.

Guest of Japan...your response regarding comparing input to one's native language makes me think...I was reading some research that focused on errors L2 learners make. Research consistently showed that errors were more commonly similar to those made at similar developmental stages by L1 learners, with a very small percentage being those that are called interference errors, or errors directly linked to applying L1 rules to L2. I found those studies less informative than the researchers did. Seems to me that counting errors doesn't tell us whether or not the L2 learner is at an advantage because of his or her knowledge of a L1.

Thanks for helping me get my nose back in joint.

[Duncan Powrie]

Guest of Japan...your response regarding comparing input to one's native language makes me think...I was reading some research that focused on errors L2 learners make. Research consistently showed that errors were more commonly similar to those made at similar developmental stages by L1 learners, with a very small percentage being those that are called interference errors, or errors directly linked to applying L1 rules to L2. I found those studies less informative than the researchers did. Seems to me that counting errors doesn't tell us whether or not the L2 learner is at an advantage because of his or her knowledge of a L1.

I don't know much about contrastive analysis (which is what you seem to be pointing to at the end of your post, El_Chivo), but from the general comments about it in relation to SLA, orders of acquisition and error analysis, I thought that little could be predicted either way on the basis of dissimilar L1s (that is, learners from differing L1s apparently make more or less the same mistakes, and have similar problems in acquiring the system of English) - which is why researchers tend to concentrate on analyzing errors (and have noted few are interference errors)...and if the mistakes are the same, there is presumably no advantage to be had in speaking one first language over another before coming to English.

But of course, that isn't quite satisfactory is it - same mistakes, ergo no discernable advantage. It doesn't quite chime with our feelings that languages (or should that be cultures?) have a closer or more distant relationship and affinity...

So I'm not sure what your point is exactly...how would you go about investingating what constitutes an advantage for a learner of English? (Pronunciation, obviously...).

But we still seem to come full circle. We say this learner will do better than that one...but they end up making the same mistakes, on presumably similar, controlled elicitation tasks or tests, so quite how we could evaluate "positively" rather than negatively, I don't know! I think we need to get away from these "studies" a little, or take them less seriously, anyway!

Any suggestions, El?

[Sally Olsen]

From many years of teaching remedial reading, ESL and EFL I too have noticed that L1 and L2 errors tend to follow the same patterns. It also seems to be maturational. As the students learn more, they make that level of mistakes and gradually go on to make different mistakes but correct the "younger" level ones. Some advanced learners make the same mistakes as many L1 adults who don't need to write often or L1 learners who don't use certain words often. I try to use this to encourage the students to think of language learning as steps or a natural process. Babies usually crawl before they walk and often crawl backwards. For some reason, learning a language is thought of as so much more complicated than learning a computer program or learning to tap dance and students don't often have the means to judge their progress like they would with learning to ski or scuba dive. Perhaps we need to give them more feedback on their progress so they can see the progress by taping them or having them write and then comparing their writing in three weeks or more and having them read something they read three weeks previously. What do you think is the mimimum feedback time if you did this?

[El_Chivo]

Duncan, I didn't have a point. I was mulling it over. The researchers concluded from the error counts that SLA has identical developmental stages as FLA. Some also conclude that the learning processes are the same.

Sally, I admire the perspective you hold toward our students. I'll keep it in mind.

[revel]

Good morning.

Let's make Sally's day! I agree, what she says is right on and a basic thought in my own teaching. Students like to see results and results are demonstrated through evaluation and evaluation ought to be done frequently, so that even the smallest step in the process can be seen and recognized. I remember my ballet teacher walking about the room, touching us lightly on parts of our bodies that in earlier classes she had commented (stretch those knees, revel!) and simply saying "good!" She was clearly marking our progress in the process.

Sally also asks about minimum feedback time: I think that would depend on the student. If an error for example is repeated with its correction repeated then the feedback is "you haven't quite got it" and is immediate. Then you can either sit back, shut up and let the student realize it when correcting him/herself or say "good!" when the student has said it right on the first try, in the next class. People like it a lot when other people tell them "good!". It sounds pollyanna but it's true and quite useful.

I have so often used music (I study the guitar) or sport / dance as examples in my class and my class learns "step-shuffle-ball-change" of tap as well as sings "I'm so lonesome I could cry" as part of their ESL study. They also have practice record charts that I check and comment on every class. We generally make fun of the tests and use them as evaluation exercises. In the end, though, we never stop looking at those steps in the process, something L1 learners don't seem to need to do. I agree with most, the teacher who made that comment probably needs to do some reading and try some new tricks in the classroom.

peace,
revel.

[Duncan Powrie]

I seee...thanks for clearing that up, El.

Those who say there are similar if not the same processes involved in learning an L2 and an L1 are perhaps more meaning to say that the processes sometimes can or should be the same - that is, if it is possible to make learning as seemingly painless as it is in L1s, then why not?! Thinking in this way would also seem to offer the promise of contextualizing the language more and making English less of a classroom subject.

But there isn't the time available, and as Guest of Japan implies, why not take advantage of the older learner's superior cognitive abilities, their ability to notice and remark on the language before it simply "passes them by"!

It isn't expecting too much for learners to get more mentally engaged with the input, and it would actually make the whole learning process much slower if we treated them like babies (which is what some method teachers might do, either in insisting learners only do so much, or in insisting they do "so much" i.e. even when there are tasks beyond simple input, the tasks are often not very well thought out).

[guest of Japan]

First let me apologize for the pathetic typo in my first sentence in my last post. I assure everyone it is not the result of slow cognitive development or an inference error.

Second, I must say that I am extremely impressed by all the posts I have read so far. I don't frequent this forum often, because I always feel a bit out of my league (especially when I look at the applied linguistics forum).

El_Chivo, like you I just mull things like your query over. I personally believe that second language learning is a process that needs to be supported by structure, defined goals, clear and positively framed evaluation, and a great deal of emotional support. Ironically, I have never had a teaching job that enabled me to meet all those parameters for student learning. I sincerely hope that IEP and ESL programs do a better job at these than what I have to work with in my Japanese high school.

As for what researchers say, I try to take in what I can and use the things that sound good when the situation seems right. Error analysis is a quantitive evaluation technique for practicing teachers. It's a tool we often have to use regardless of our feelings about it. If you're a fan of Krashen you probably believe that language acquisition is a process which is complemented by language learning. Language is acquired through experience and monitored and adjusted by learned content. If we as teachers concentrate on student errors then we are focusing on the monitor and not the actual acquisition of language.

As for correlation of errors between L1 learners and L2 learners I would tend to believe that the errors are dependent on cognitive factors which relate to development and/or the complexity of the language. I believe it is a huge stretch to say that the learning L1 and L2 are similar based on this correlation.

I must sign off now. It makes my brain hurt to try to keep up with you guys and girls.