Answer 3 questions about language learning and teaching Essay

Answer 3 questions about language learning and teaching - Essay Example Indeed, Van Patten and Cadierno’s experimental study on students learning Spanish in 1993 supported the communicative approach to L2 instruction (Morett, people.ucsc.edu). Another successful method is direct instruction or integrating L2 learning with content learning, using L2 only. One example is the implementation of French immersion teaching in Canada from the 1960s. L2 learners not only mastered content but also acquired the language of instruction (Francis, 2008). Advocates of monolingualism claim that using L1 in the classroom conflicts with SLA theories, which argue for modified input and negotiation in L2 as a way of learning (Polio, 1994 in Miles, 2004). Nation (2003) states that, when teachers use L1, students tend to follow suit and the class becomes a grammar-translation class. Besides, mixing both languages might cause confusion in the students, giving rise to interference. As L1 and L2 structures are dissimilar, they need to be separated to avoid confusion. Henc e, students listening to the teacher’s explanation in the target language get good listening and speaking practice. As they keep on hearing and listening to the language, they become more comfortable and proficient in it. Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman (1999) in Bankier (eslarticle.com) contend that language errors made by learners are caused by interference from the L1. They use the example of a Japanese student saying "He was fallen by the rain" instead of "The rain fell on him". Here, a minimal knowledge of the L1 is useful to show the difference between both, but if we are teaching the active and passive forms, it is better done in English than in Japanese. Nevertheless, new research indicates that the use of L1 allows learners to work out L2 at lower levels. As they become more proficient in L2, they gradually use it more, relying less on L1 (Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001). Mouhanna (2009) conducted a study on 124 students from three levels of English proficiency at a founda tions English programme in a UAE tertiary institution. He found that level 1 students required more L1 support (mean: 2.05) compared to Level 3 students (mean: 3.03). Similarly, Simsek’s data analysis (2010) of the achievement test of English Grammar on Turkish students found that L1-assisted learning was more effective at increasing the students’ achievement of English Grammar than monolingual grammar instruction. There was also a significant difference between the delayed post-test means of the experimental and control groups, showing that L1-assisted language learning was more lasting than monolingual grammar teaching. In an investigation on the use of L1 to generate ideas for writing among low proficiency Malaysian students, Stapa and Abdul Majid (2006) found that students using L1 generated 166 ideas, compared to 85 from students not using their L1. The first group also ‘produced better quality essays in terms of organization, vocabulary, language and mechan ics’. This is because generating ideas on a topic in a different language creates confusion and inhibits long-term memory processes. Thus, low proficiency learners should be allowed to use their L1 when communicating abstract ideas and accessing content, as it supports L2 acquisition (2006). In Holland, the mandatory Utrecht pilot was used as