Pdifficult to find, and significant cultural differences and participant expectations in and out of the classroom interfere with learning (Abrams, 2008).
The Communicative Approach
The 1980’s observed another alteration in the teaching of foreign language and the incorporation of grammar and sound to symbol relationships. Researchers like Krashen (2014) helped to pave the way to a new methodology referred to as the Whole Language Approach. This was based on the notion that language acquisition was truly achieved when students were able to obtain coherent input. In other words, students would learn a language in the same manner as a young child. First, the students would listen to a set language and then follow-up by orally producing what they hear. After students would grasp the instructor’s illustration, they would utilize the language to express needs, wants, ideas, and feelings. Additionally, students would be put into pair or small groups to complete specified communication activities. Meanwhile, the educator would facilitate and monitor this process. At the end, feedback on the verbal presentation would be given (Bowen, 2007).
Now in the new millennium, many educators and theorists in the foreign language field have moved away from direct learning instruction partly due to Krashen’s findings. At this point, the foreign language community has been led to believe that a communicative approach holds the most validity as it makes students interact with real-life situations in the target language (Banjeree, 2015). Indeed, many supporters claim that Krashen’s methodology helps students absorb language in a natural manner without the artificial enforcement of out of context grammar rules. Yet there are certain opponents who claim that this method of learning is too centered on the educator instead of the student. Therefore, students have difficulty communicating in the target language because they do not possess the grammatical foundation necessary to diverse learning styles.
The Multi-Sensory Approach
The latter part of the century brought forth yet another approach to instruction that focused heavily on the idea of differentiated instruction. Linking these theories with researchers like Dunn and Dunn, multiple intelligences and multi-sensory modalities were at the forefront of this new movement. With the Multiple Intelligence Method, it was hypothesized that human performance could be associated with nine identified intellectual variables: Existential, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Kinesthetic, Linguistic, Mathematical, Musical, Naturalistic, and Visual (Gardner, 1983). This theory is supported by the contention that human conscious thinking, remembering, and behaving is controlled by the modular units found in the human brain’s frontal cerebral cortex (Castro & Peck, 2005). An educator using this type of method would design a class session around a specified topic of learning that would engage students in a multitude of games and activities that would resonate with multiple learning intelligences. The downfall of this method is the duration of activities and the lack of connection to real-world usefulness.
From this, another multi-sensory approach originated from the Buck Institute. Project Based Learning (PBL) honed in on the idea of real-world activities that would be meaningful to the levels of students. The argument behind this theory was that students of any learning ability will find more relevance in a foreign language setting if they can conduct real-world investigations and conduct in-depth investigations on topics of significance to them. An example of a PBL assignment could include a small group collaboration utilizing technology and other multi-disciplinary components. The educator could spear-head a current event issue that might evoke conversation because students find it relent to their existence. The problem with PBL is the time dedicated to group work and allotment dedicated to the project itself. In addition, if an educational facility has poor technological resources, the commitment to this type of learning is not conducive (Bowen, 2007). Therefore, a methodology incorporating various strategies in a fluid progression was needed. This realization among the learning community led to the idea of “hybriding” select parts of older methods to effectively teach students.
Hybrid Methodology
As foreign language teaching shifted into the 21st century, methodologies on the integration of various methods of instruction looked at how multiple intelligences, senses, and technologies could be accessed during instruction simultaneously. Students in this type of format are expected to communicate as in a traditional foreign language setting. However, aspects of lexical and grammar instruction are included as a means of providing a solid base in which students achieve. Additionally, activities, text reading, and assessment of materials are performed in a communicative way and draw a connection to real-world application.
One approach is called the Focus-On-Form Approach. According to Sheen (2002), this method strikes a balance between a traditional grammar program and a communicative program. More precisely, focus on form draws upon “students’ attention to linguistic elements as they are incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on the meaning or communication” (p. 1). Sheen asserts that focus on form is developed from a presumed level of understanding between a student’s native language and their second language. With this pre-knowledge, it is posited that this process is based on an exposure to comprehensible input that arises from organic interaction. While there is strong emphasis geared toward grammar concepts, it is a pedagogically based medium that mixes explicit techniques that are in relation to certain communicative and grammar related tasks. However, focus on form can have more than one interpretation.
Ellis (2003) wrote that focus on form can refer to generalized orientations in language as a procedure. Second, it can be suggested that focus on form requires that learners need to attend to specific forms of linguistic instruction through the use of graphics or phonetic instantiations. Through designed grammar lessons, specific input and output processing techniques are taught so students establish awareness of grammatical rules. Furthermore, Ellis posits that focus on form requires learners to comprehend and process specific grammatical structures through the performance of a specific task. By means of methodological options that induce attention to form, context is given to the specified performance task. Indeed, the two methodological options that focus on 1) the provisions of time allotted for strategic planning and 2) corrective feedback given to the student for firmer understanding of the language concepts taught.
In relationship to foreign language acquisition, Ellis observes that educators can provide extensive input to their students with the inclusion of outside classroom resources. Ellis cites a specific study conducted on adult Japanese students learning English in Auckland, Australia. It was noted that not all learners were successful in achieving a base foundation in the target language due to the lack of opportunities for extensive, authentic learning inputs. Therefore, educators must ideally maximize their use of the target language inside a classroom, as outside environments may not always yield proper language opportunities of assimilation. As for output strategies, Ellis (2003) is quick to assert that, “it provides the learner with ‘auto-input’ (i.e. learners can attend to the ‘input’ provided by their own productions” (p.9, 2003).
An additional approach that is fairly new to the hybrid methodology is the Inter-hemispheric Foreign Language Learning Approach. Proponents of this style of learning insist that this approach stimulates the right hemisphere of the human brain which enhances interaction between both hemispheres of the brain. According to these researchers, this is in far contrast to traditional foreign language teaching which focuses on vocabulary and grammar which works the left hemisphere only (Hassan & Fateme, 2012). Additionally, this newer approach to learning utilizes TRP and a certain rhythm of speaking along with mental visualization, partner dialogue, sketches, and role-playing. As research on the utilization of working both hemispheres of the brain becomes more evident, researchers and practitioners of foreign language are looking at how to incorporate teaching methods and activities that allow for both left-side and right-side thinking.
Conclusion
As the foreign language community continues to vacillate between tried and true methods and those labeled as innovative, new, or experimental, there still is discord when it comes to identifying one way to structure a foreign language curriculum. The review of articles for this strand indicates that studies cannot determine a superior method for foreign language acquisition for all learners. Though communicative methods are on the burner at the moment, there has not been enough support to show that natural methods of learning are more effective than other methods listed. However, there is evidence, as pointed out by Ganschow, Sparks, & Javorsky, 1998) that multi-sensory and direct instruction of sound to symbols in relationship to rules of grammar are beneficial to at-risk and learning disabled students in foreign language courses. The next strand of literature will reveal how educators can incorporate phonological methods within specified approaches to best serve the needs of their at-risk and learning disabled population.
Evidence of Foreign Language Aptitude Connected to Phonological Methodologies
With various methods of foreign language being offered to students in public and private sectors, educators now must consider the idea of individualized learning styles and how to connect successful literacy strategies that benefit even the at-risk or learning disabled student. This final strand acknowledges the integration of various phonics approaches with meaning methods that have a track record of success with language acquisition.
Multi-sensory Structural Language & Phonics
Looking at various methods in teaching LD students, many evocative studies concentrating on the efficacy of establishing a multi-sensory language approach in a foreign language classroom shows marked improvements in areas like native language phonological processing, verbal memory, and vocabulary (Sparks & Ganchow, 1993). In another analysis. Sparks and Miller (2000) detailed techniques that dealt with orthography, phonology, grammar, and vocabulary. The data authors provided lends positive insight as to the improved success rates of language acquisition among at-risk and on target students. Research conducted looked at three groups of at-risk students within their first year of Spanish. The data collected from studies included both multi-sensory language initiatives juxtaposed to traditional textbook methods with marked success leaning to the MSL approaches. This is a helpful source in providing evidence regarding phonology and foreign language acquisition.
In another analysis, researchers Campbell, Helf, and Cooke (2008) discussed the use of adding multisensory components into a supplemental phonics program to help at-risk students, known as treatment resisters, with decoding. The goal was to add multisensory elements like audio listening and hand tapping activities into a systematic phonics program already in place. Study results revealed that decoding fluency of vowel-consonant and consonant-vowel-consonant words did improve with multisensory techniques. Fluency also increased with sound recognition and oral reading fluency. This study, although not rooted in foreign language acquisition for at-risk and learning disabled students, provided insight into techniques that could successfully transfer into the foreign language arena.
In Schneider’s (1999) work focusing on multi-sensory learning and foreign language acquisition for students with diagnosed dyslexia, reference to documentation recorded by neurologists studying brain structure differences pays specific attention to the theory of applying
Schneider mentions that the MSL approach, based on the work of Gillingham and Stillman (1960), is not dissimilar the nature of methodology suggested for training native language skills to special education students like dyslexic students. Schneider (1999) lists areas of concentration, like grammar, composition, and phonology necessitate being instructed through programs that underscore MSL areas such as auditory, visual, communicative and written. However, Schneider also asserts that educators face a key challenge in determining how such practices can be engaged in mainstream modern languages classroom. It is postulated that a viable option is to employ MSL systems with aggregate groups of students so that explicit teaching can be given and that students can utilize these techniques individually as a means of retaining material taught. Schneider (1999) stresses the importance of utilizing MSL Methods so students can successfully make correlations between written features and the sounds they form.
Morphological Problem Solving and Decoding
Researchers Pacheco and Goodwin (2013) looked at school students and their use of morphological problem-solving strategies for unknown words. Researchers wanted to see if intervention strategies that focused on areas of roots, affixes, and word structures would provide students with problem-solving strategies they could use in a second language environment. The sample population involved 20 seventh and eighth-grade students from the Southeastern United States. Data was collected through 20 minute interviews that required students to use part to whole, whole to part and multiple strategy problem-solving skills for morphologically complex words. Researchers determined that students were able to successfully problem solve complex word structures with the strategies listed. Dependent upon the student’s native language background and foundation in literacy in their language helped to determine whether or not certain morphological strategies could be transferred cross-linguistically (Bowers, 2010).
Looking at the idea of decoding in relationship to phonics instruction and the acquisition of a foreign language, researchers Min-Chin & Shu-Hui (2014) compared the effects of phonics teaching to 117 Taiwanese students learning English as a second language through decodable text instruction and without decodable text instruction. Though researchers cited evidence that supports the ability to associate visual print with letter sounds, blends and whole words in alphabetic languages like English, there is a question as to whether or not the effect of phonics plus decodable text will have positive effects on kids with a “cross-linguistic” language processing style. Findings revealed that the phonics group with decodable text instruction did score higher on post-test reading. However, the results were not significantly higher. Researchers alluded that recognition of letter sounds and patterns was not critical to students with a native language background that is not alphabetically based. Though languages like English depend heavily on phonology, cross-linguistic languages do not. Therefore, educators must think critically as to how they will incorporate phonology into language learning in order to yield so modicum of success.
Literacy Skills
So how do instructors set about explaining the efficacy of student’s literacy in their native language in order to measure their capacity in a second language? Scholars like Cárdenas, Carlson, & Pollard-Durodola, (2007) executed a study on a population sample of pupils in order to look at the influences of initial first and second language aptitudes juxtaposed to their native language ability and their early literacy skill development and the foreign language. More precisely, their investigation looked at letter identification and sound recognition, phonological awareness, and verbal language skills in their native and second languages. Bearing in mind the phonological awareness component, researchers discovered that students with early Spanish skills could employ literacy strategies to their second language. It was considered that supplying precise training in phonological awareness could support transitioning students in their language acquisition. Nevertheless, the scholars were perceptive to call attention to the issue of student foundational literacy abilities and how they were varied so distinct levels of performance would not be indistinguishable in progress or diminution of language acquisition.
Research gathered by Saunders (2015) on the effects of literacy within an English Language Learner (ELL) classroom yielded results focused on the multi-literacy of foreign language and English foreign language in the context of conversational and computer literacy. Saunders (2015) defines multi-literacy as “the inclusion of literacy in conjunction with 21-century skills” (p. 54) such as computer aptitude, navigating the Internet, as well as incorporating other forms of technology. Saunders research focused on a mixed gender population sample of 1,224 students from 90 different countries. Age ranges were from 18-69 years. It was noted that multi-literacy approaches drew on a wide range of abilities that afforded many in the population sample to utilize prior knowledge of both written and spoken language and cultural knowledge. Utilization of diverse literacy modes such as audio, visual, linguistic, and spatial allowed these students to learn and improve their own literacy skills through a diverse set of strategies that move away from traditional reading and writing.
Conclusion
Judging by the research data collected from studies on multi-sensory learning, morphological problem solving and decoding it is clear that student literacy can improve with specified phonemic strategies geared to aid in foreign language instruction. By incorporating the aforementioned multisensory techniques in foreign language acquisition to help student decoding, sound recognition, and overall speaking, students will not only show improvement in their native language but be able to apply these concepts to their second language learning. As long as the foreign language teacher is mindful of his/her student population and is attentive to their strengths and weaknesses in their native language, teachers will have a firmer grasp on what phonological methods will suit his/her class.
Implications for Future Research
The acquisition of a foreign language can be a gift that bears the fruit of cultural awareness, the ability to speak and travel somewhat freely, as well as improve one’s own literacy in their native language. Yet, for many individuals, the idea of taking on another language is wrought with fear, insecurity, and dread because of the difficulty encountered in speaking, reading, writing, and memorizing. For learning disabled students living in a world that demands the acquisition of a foreign language just to enter a college or university, the pressure can feel insurmountable. Therefore, it is the mission of foreign language educators to help students labeled as LD acquire a proficient understanding of foreign language literacy by focusing on phonemic awareness within the target language.
Looking back over the past century, approaches to foreign language application and acquisition have moved from one scheme to another due to method limitations affecting student learning along with population interests. While theories on varied learning styles and multiple intelligences have been identified by researchers like Gardner, there has also been argument as to whether or not true foreign language disabilities exist or whether the underlying issues harken back to poor phonological skills in the native language. In response to meeting these critical learning needs, educators in foreign language have to look at aspects of incorporating a strong phonics program to help at- risk and learning disabled students so as to help them identify and comprehend the auditory and visual schema of a language successfully.
For those who enjoy foreign language learning and/or are looking to go on to a four-year institution, second language learning can reveal specific language learning issues that are traced back to a student’s understating of their native language. More precisely, poor understanding of phonics and phonemic awareness in their mother tongue. To combat this dilemma, research needs to be made useful for foreign language educators so they can find a phonological method to assist their field of practice. Foreign language ducators’ are trained to some degree and expected to recognize when it is necessary to help students labeled as LD acquire a proficient understanding of foreign language literacy by focusing on phonemic awareness within the target language. If specific standards can be implemented and utilized by those who work with LD students in a foreign language setting, then linking the research to classroom practices will facilitate success. Utilizing current research data as a viable resource in the classroom can lead to revisions to the scholar-practitioner’s district improvement plan and possibly set the stage for differentiated foreign language instruction for all student audiences.
aste your essay in here…