Ana has raised some very interesting points here, especially in relation to the concept of play.
In my country students can't seem to learn English at school, even being exposed to language for about 7 years. We have problems such as 40 students in a class; few or no resources; teachers who barely know the language themselves and know almost nothing about the teaching/learning process; students who do not know why they are supposed to learn English, what they are going to use that for, etc.
What I'm really concerned about is that in public schools, students normally start learning the FL when they are about 11, and teachers focus on teaching grammar. When those students get to college they complain that every year teachers started from the 'verb to be' and even then they can barely use it correctly.
It seems teachers are so worried about teaching grammar aspects that they forget to teach language. Even when the textbooks chosen contain dialogues, different contexts, activities, what is expected from students is correct grammar.
Well, now some personal experience. My daughter can communicate a little in English but normally does poorly in school tests. Some of her friends who have English classes in language institutes cannot communicate with another teenager in real life situations even after 2 or 3 years attending those courses (3 hours a week). Now we need several ramifications here related to identity, motivation, student's social milieu, participation in communities of practice or in activity systems (or chances to engage in real-life situations using the FL), cognitive development, maturity in the L1, mediation, etc.
But if we are aware that our students come from a community that does not regard FL learning as important, do not have any kind of motivation to learn another language (not even grades in some cases); do not have access to participation in communities of practice where the FL is used (for example, using the Internet, chat rooms, e-mail, etc.); do not have access to cable or dish TV, computer games; no contact with native speakers; no money to buy books or to rent films... How can we help them then?
Personally, I think students have to be able to do something with language, not 'learn' a language the way it's done here. In my opinion, in the first years there shouldn't be grammar teaching, but grammar explanations when necessary, linked to the tasks being carried out. Then the concept of play would apply perfectly.
But then we would have another problem because many teachers do not know what to do without a textbook to guide them and we would have to write new textbooks with detailed and careful explanations. And then???
Karin Quast
mktostes@uol.com.br
----- Original Message -----
From: Ana Marjanovic-Shane
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 3:51 PM
Subject: RE: Thinking in a foreign language
Hi Mike, Huong, Vera,
These are difficult topics, for a letter format, but I'll try to add some of my views: both as a "foreign" languages speaker and as someone who studies language and construction and creation of meaning.
(snip, snip, snip)
Finally, one of the media that is hugely underrepresented in the foreign language teaching and learning is play. Play is a "natural" mode for children's learning, a true Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Play is also one of the main places where children learn a foreign language. Observing my children I became aware that it was their play that FIRST became spoken in a foreign language -- long before they started using L2 with the same proficiency in "real" activities.
The closest I came to using play in learning a foreign language were those "audio-visual" labs when we re-enacted a short situations observed in a movie. Play is a great way of learning even for adults, and I think that it is grossly underrated as mode of learning language.
What do you think? (as Eugene would say)
Ana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 01 2003 - 01:00:09 PDT