Second Language Acquisition and

Materials Development

Brian TomlinsonPresented by: Mehran Daghestani

Introduction

Second language acquisition (SLA) is the process by which people acquire and/or learn any language in addition to their first language. It is also the name of the academic discipline which studies that process. Some SLA researchers use the term 'acquisition' to refer to the informal, subconscious process of gaining a language from exposure and use while reserving the term 'learning' to refer to the deliberate, conscious study of a language in order to be able to use it.

There is considerable controversy in the field as to which of these processes is the most likely to help a learner to develop the ability to use a language effectively but most researchers seem to agree that learning is insufficient and needs to be at least supplemented by acquisition.

Some researchers also differentiate between ‘acquisition’ and ‘development’. For example, Tomlinson (2007a, p. 2) says that acquisition' is the initial stage of gaining basic communicative competence in a language' and 'development' is the subsequent stage of gaining the ability to use the language successfully in a wide range of media and genres for a wide variety of purposes’.

Research and Theory

It is generally agreed that SLA is facilitated by: A rich and meaningful exposure to language in useKrashen (1981. 1994) claimed that exposure to comprehensible input was both necessary and sufficient for SLA. Ideally the input which the learners are exposed to should be rich in the sense that it contains a lot of implicit informal about how the language is actually used to achieve communicative effect and that it provides natural recycling of language features (Nation, 2011).

It should also be meaningful in the sense that it is relevant to the learner and the learner is able to understand enough of it to gain meaning from it.

Affective and cognitive engagementIt has been found that affective engagement is vital for SLA Learners who are stimulated to laugh, smile, feel joy, feel excited and feel empathetic are much more likely to acquire communicative competence than learners who are restricted to bland, safe, neutral materials which do not stimulate any emotional response. Positive emotions seem most likely to stimulate deep processing (Craik - & Lockhart, 1972) and therefore to facilitate language acquisition.

Self-confidence and self-esteem are also important aspects of affective engagement as is feeling positive about the learning environment. It is also very important that learners are cognitively engaged by the texts and tasks they are given to use. They need to use such high level mental skills as inferencing, connecting, predicting and evaluating while processing language.

If they do, they are much more likely to achieve deep processing and to eventually acquire language and develop language skills than if they are restricts to using such low level decoding and encoding skills as learning dictionary definitions, recognizing and repeating sounds, listening to and repeating utterances, learning spellings and reading aloud short phrases.

Making use of those mental resources typically used in communication in the L1

In the L1: We make full use of the resources of our

brain when we use language For example, when listening or reading we make use of our inner voice to silently echo the utterances we hear or see and to comment to ourselves about them.

We make use of visual imaging to represent the meaning of what is said or written.

Prior to speaking or writing we use visual imaging and inner speech to develop a mental representation of our intended message and inner speech to prepare whet we are going to say or write.

Yet when learning an L2 learners rarely make use of these mental resources at all.This is mainly because:

They are not encouraged to do so by their teachers and materials.

Their reluctance to tolerate ambiguityTheir 'need' to know the meaning of

everything

Noticing how the L2 is usedIt is essential for the learner to pay attention to the salient features of the language they encounter in order to eventually acquire them. The more the learner pays willing attention(either deliberately and consciously or incidentally and subconsciously) to a feature of the language the more the learner's brain is likely to notice that feature as salient in subsequent input and the readier the learner will be for acquisition.

Pienneman (1985) claims that psychological readiness is an important facilitator of acquisition and that this can be influenced by materials and teachers. One way of doing this is to draw the learner's attention to language features in use for task completion.

A very effective way of helping learners to achieve psychological readiness is to use experiential discovery approaches in which the learners first of all respond personally to the content of an engaging written or spoken text and then go back to make discoveries about the form and function of a particular feature of that text (Tomlinson, 1994, 2003b, 2007b; Bolitho et al., 2003; Bolitho and Tomlinson, 2Q05)

Another way is to make use of a form-focused approach (Long, 1991; Ellis, 2002; Williams, 2005; Fotos & Nassaji, 2007.) in which learners first focus on the meaning of a text and later focus on the form and function of a specific linguistic feature.

Being given opportunities for contextualized and purposeful communication in the L2

It has been found that output (i.e. producing language for communication) is also an important facilitator of acquisition. It can provide learners with contextual feedback, it helps to automatize language, it constitutes auto-input and it can elicit further comprehensible input too (Swam, 1995 1998; Ellis, 2008; Ortega, 2010).

It seems that pushed output (communicating something which is not easy to express) can be particularly beneficial as it stretches the learner's capabilities by making them make full use of their acquired language and of their strategic competence, as well as providing opportunities for new but comprehensible input from their interlocutors who are helping them to negotiate meaning.

Being encouraged to interact Long (1996) posited an interaction hypothesis in which he claimed that oral interaction in the L2 creates propitious conditions for its acquisition as it helps to make input more comprehensible, it provides meaningful feedback and it pushes learners to modify their output.

Being allowed to focus on meaning The learner's natural syllabus is meaning-focused and it is generally agreed upon by SLA researchers that learners are more likely to acquire forms if their primary focus is on meaning rather than form (Prabhu, 1987; Long, 1996; Ellis, 2008, 2011). However it does seem that more attention to form is needed as the learner progresses to advanced levels.

One way of helping learners to acquire language from a focus on meaning is to use an experiential approach (Kolb, 1984; Tomlinson, 2003b) in which the learners first experience an engaging text holistically, respond to it personally and then return to the text to focus discretely on a salient feature of language use.

Other generally accepted facilitators of language acquisition and development:

Being relaxed-a condition in which can be promoted by giving learners the time, silence and encouragement to use their inner voice(Tomlinson & Avila, 2007a, b) and by textbooks using a personal voice and chatting to their learners in the informal way(Beck et al., 1995; Tomlinson, 2011a).

Being motivated to participate and to learn(Dornyei, 2001, 2005; Ushioda, 2003);

Being helped to develop an emerging interlanguage which gradually moves closer to the target language.

Developing hypotheses about how the language is used for communication(Gass & Selinker, 2008);

Being catered for as an individual who might learn faster or slower than others, who has preferences for certain learning styles and who will not use language with consistent accuracy and effect (Arnold, 1999; Dornyei 2005; Ellis, 2008);

Making full use of non-linguistic means of communicating (McCafferty (2004), McCafferty & Stam (2008) ).

Being ready to acquire a focused feature.

Match between SLA theory and ELT materials

To try to gauge the match between theory and practice Tomlinson analyzed a number of recently published global coursebooks.What he found is that there is a very weak match between theory and practice.

He found that:None of the coursebooks focus on

meaning.Coursebooks are all forms-focusedThe majority of their activities are

language item practice activitiesSome of the coursebooks provide some

opportunities for noticing and most make attempt at personalization.

None of them offer choice content, route of activities.

According to Table 2.1 in giving scores out of 5 (with 5 indicating a perfect match) Tomlinson tried to be as objective as possible. A different evaluator might have given different scores but he cannot imagine anybody giving high scores for any of the categories.

It is particularly noticeable that: Very little use is made of literature(except in

global). The texts are very short and simple.Most activities involve practice rather than use.The topics and activities are bland safe The learners are rarely asked to be creativeThe learners are rarely asked to think for

themselves (except in Just Right)

The learners are rarely asked to speak or write at any length.

The learners are rarely asked to interact for a communicative purpose or at any length

The units are predominantly forms-focused.

All the units have review sections at the end but there is little evidence of actual recycling of language in use.

All the books and all the units in them are very similar in their approach and in their frequent use of conventional practice exercises.

The big question is:Why is there typically such a weak match

between SLA theory and global coursebooks?

Very often SLA researchers end the reports of their research by saying that the evidence is inconclusive or that more research needs to be done.

Often research and theory is written about in language which is only accessible to academics.

Coursebook publishers are catering mainly for teachers who do not have access to research findings.

Coursebook publishers understandably publish what they know they can sell.

Publishers are reluctant to risk innovations that threaten the face validity of their coursebooks.

Publishers understandably clone coursebooks which have been big sellers.

Some of the findings of SLA research seem difficult to apply to materials development.

SLA research is often seen as a ‘resource to inform teaching practice’(Pica 2005,p.263) rather than as a determiner of the content and format of coursebooks.

In many countries there is a massive mismatch between typical examination tasks and SLA principles.

Not all research findings are equally applicable to all materials development, contexts or teachers.(Richards, 2006)

What we would like to know about SLATheory

There are still many unanswered questions in SLA research.

For example: Is SLA primarily implicit or explicit?Some researchers (especially Krashen, 1981) argue that it is implicit acquisition which enables the learner to communicate spontaneously in an L2 and that explicit learning is only of value in monitoring output in order to achieve repair and in planned discourse when the learner has the time to make use of explicitly learned rules.

Most researchers though (e.g. Ellis, I993; Doughty & Williams,1998) claim that explicit knowledge and conscious practice can only facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge( i. e. they can help learners acquire more language from their exposure to it).

Is there a natural sequence in language acquisition?

One plausible explanation for similarities in sequences of acquisition is offered by MacWhinney (1987; 2005). His competition model claims that what learners can pay attention to at any one time is limited and that they filter out features of language when they listen to a second language.

Learners gradually get better at processing sentences and mental resources are freed up to focus on more complex features of the input. Tomlinson would argue that this inclination to learn the simplest structures first is reinforced by the learner's initial prioritizing of meaning over form. What is essential for communication is learned before what is perceived as redundant.

Are the factors which determine the effectiveness of language acquisition variable?

Much has been written on the variability of L2 use and there seems to be little doubt that learners of an L2 vary in accuracy and effectiveness from one interaction to another. A learner, for example, might be accurate but restricted in expression when talking to a teacher and less accurate but more expressive when talking to a friend.

There is even less doubt that English as an L2 varies according to the region, language group and social class that the interactants belong too and that L2 users modify their language by accommodating towards their interactants' variety of English.

Does text enhancement facilitate language acquisition?

Sharwood Smith (1993) proposed text enhancement (e. g. color coding, boldfacing, audio repetition) as a means of drawing learners’ attention to salient features of their input.

Suggestions for applying SLA theory to ELT materials development

There are a number of principled pedagogic approaches which do apply SLA theory to their practice and for which materials have been developed.

For example: Task-based approach Task-based materials (e.g. Van den Branden, 2006) provide the learner with a purpose and an outcome which can only be achieved through interaction in the L2.

Problem-based approaches(Mishan, 2010) In which learners communicate with each other to solve a problem.

Both approaches apply SLA theory to practice by providing the learners with opportunities for purposeful, pushed output, by stimulating interaction and often by helping them to notice features of their own and/or other people's use of the language.

Content and Language Integrated Learning(CLIL) (Snow, 2005)

CLIL materials help learners to acquire an L2 by teaching them a subject, topic or skill they are interested in through the medium of the L2 (e.g. Coyle et al., 2010; Tomlinson et at forthcoming). CLIL materials apply SLA theory by providing a rich and meaningful exposure to the language in use, by stimulating affective and cognitive engagement and by providing a need and purpose for learners to interact with each other.

Text-driven approach (Tomlison, 2003) This approach has the greatest potential for the application of SLA theory to materials development. Text-driven materials are determined by potentially engaging written and/or spoken texts rather than by language teaching points.

The learners’ interactions with the texts drive personal response activities, thinking activities, communication activities, creative writing activities and language awareness activities, as well as often inviting supplementation with other locally appropriate texts.

Text-driven approach :Expose the learners to rich and meaningful use of

languageEngage the learners affectively and cognitively Stimulate the learners to utilize the resources of their

brains Provide opportunities for purposeful and meaningful

communication Helping the learners to notice features of language

use

Tomlinson (2003) and Tomlinson and Masuhara (2004) outline a flexible text-driven framework which is designed to help teachers to develop principled and effective materials very quickly. Table2.2 outlines the recommended stages.

ConclusionThe commercial publishers of global coursebooks face many difficulties if they try to do the same (e.g. conflict with user expectations, teacher resistance to innovation conflict with the demands of examinations, etc. ) Nevertheless Tomlinson believes that they could make more attempt to apply generally accepted principles of SLA to their material development. Of course they would be helped to do this if global and local examiners made more attempt to apply SLA theory to their examination tasks.