Page 5 (语言的作用交流和得到身份认知；语言的获得也不仅仅是简单形式和结构的学习，而更多应该是
We must rethink our approaches to instruction as well as the content we utilize to teach languages in order to better connect with students’ lives and interests here and now.
No one can argue with the fact that a language is a tool for communication and that its use involves the development of specific skills. Nevertheless, acquisition of an additional language affords many more benefits than the mere ability to communication with other.
Today, language can no longer be viewed simply as a means to an end, a tool with which to communicate, but as an historically and socioculturally bound compex semiotic system that has a tremendous impact in shaping one's overall consciousness and social identity.
Furthermore, learning to master a language is a process that can't be defined by the simple acquisition of its form and structures, a minimalist view that fails to reflect he complex natures of language. Rather, as H explains, learning to master a language or language how expressions in a langauge should be understood requires socialization into a form of life
He who knows no foreign language does not truly know his own. Experimental studies fully endorse this. It has been shown that a child’s understanding of his native language is enhance y learning a foreign one. The child becomes more conscious and deliberate in using words as tools of this thoughts and expressive mens for his idea. As algebra liberates the child from the domination of concrete figures and elevates him to the level of generalization, the acquisition of foreign language- in its own peculiar ways- liberates him from the dependence on concrete linguistics forms and expressions.
In studying languages other than our own, we are seeking to understand (and, indeed, in at least a weak sense, to become) the Other- we are, in short, attempting to enter into realities that have, to some degree, been constructed by others and which many of the fundamental assumptions about the nature of knowledge and society may be different from our own. We are, in fact, creating new selves in an important sense.
New Goal, New Curricular and Instructional directions
Overcoming the Obsession with Linguistic Concerns and Resistance to Change
(1)Better stimulate students’ motivation to engage willingly and wholeheartedly in the study of a language within and beyond the school setting and (2) be supportive of the development of learner’s capacity to engage in deeper forms of thinking that will lead to intellectual autonomy.
Goal #1 Placing the development of critical thinking and advanced literacy skills at the forefront
2: Stimulating students intellectually and cognitively through the development of higher-order thinking skills
3: Fostering students’ intellectual sensitivity: acceptance of the unknown and the other, the ability to empathize; intellectual humility, and the capacity to reflect critically on one’s worldview when it is challenged by conflicting sociocultural experiences
Learning a language means learning to be closer t others. Learning a foreign language means equipping oneself with intellectual tools for confronting the real and the unknown, as well as personal enrichment through a knowledge of other cultures and other views of the world. Learning also means combating the ignorance that lies at the root of intolerance and racism.
4: Nurturing learner’s motivation and active participation in the learning adventure
Page 27:
The earliest theory supporting language learning in CBI program was based on Krashen’s (1981) claim that the necessary and sufficient condition for second language acquisition was comprehensive input targeted to a language level slightly beyond the students current level of language knowledge (i+1)
Based on extensive research in Canadian immersion classrooms, however, Swain documented that the provision of comprehensive input alone did not produce what was intended by the theory (1989). Although the listening comprehension exceeded their non-immersion counterparts, immersion students’ productive abilities in oral interpersonal communication and written literacy were not advancing as predicted by the theory and were replete with ungrammatical forms that hindered communicative intent. Swain proposed her now well-known output hypothesis claiming that input was necessary but alone was insufficient for language learning and that explicit attention to language production ( output) needed to be a component of immersion program for students to make steady advances in their basic interpersonal communicative skills and cognitive academic language ability.
At the same time as output hypothesis, developmental psychologists in the educational community turned attention tot the work of Vygotsky in response to a growing body of cognitive psychology that they claimed was devoid of learning, agency, intentionality, and culture.
Swain’s talk was reconceptualized from encoding and decoding messages to cognitive and metacognitive activity, that is, as a thinking tool for meaning making and for reflecting on what is said and how it is said. This turn in SLA theory (Block, 2003) lead sociocultural researchers to investigate the role of speaking in cognition, the consequence of particular forms of social interaction to SL development.
Grabe and Stoller (1997) presents the theoretical relationship of sociocultural theory to CBI: the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), private speech, and student appropriation of learning tasks. They state that, through the assistance of teachers and peers in the ZPD, students achieve support for developing greater cognitive and linguistic complexity than they could achieve alone. Through the internalization of the verbal guidance that students received from others during collaborative activity, private forms of self-directed internal talk develop and serve individual planning, evaluation, and executive functions. Interactive learning tasks become sites where students appropriate meaning (Wertsch ,1998) and control academic content, learning strategies, and language.
Few published works have embraced systematically sociocultural theory as the theoretical framework for understanding additional language instruction in the context of academic subject matter learning (e.g., Gibbons, 2003, 2015; Walqui & VanLier, 2010).
In what follows, I explain how some of the intractable challenges of CBI teachers may be resolved through a more informed understanding of sociocultural theory.
As Byrnes (2009) points out, “Although no one would argue with the need for contextualized foreign language instruction where students learn how to make meaning through the various forms that the target language offers, remarkably enough, we have not achieved instructed foreign language development in a direct and principled way.
What is lacking conceptual clarity and a cohesive pedagogy (Cenoz, Genessee, & Gorter, 2014) about what it mens to design, implement, and carry out a program that purports content and language integration. Sociocultural theory and supporting linguistic and educational theories, such as Systemic Functional Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and Dynamic Assessment may offer guidance for addressing the challenge of from and meaning integration so frequently documented in the literature.
P30
P31
that is to say, an individual’s cognitive and affetive relationship with the world and others is not direct, but rather indirecly asisted through various types of signs that have been inheritated from others throughout hisory, learned, and often transformed thought their use in recurring cycles of specific cultural and soical practices.
Page 11:
The extended example includes a thorough description of pre, during, and post phase activities and asks students to consider a variety of thoughtful questions, such as “is it even possible to talk about only one set of eating habits in the Spanish speaking world? It is worth noting that delving into cultural perspectives via questions like this affords potential for engaging students in critical thinking
History as mystery
A thoughtful approach to CBI would use these domains as vehicles for putting students in touch with content-that is , information, processes, debates, experiences, and so on
No comments:
Post a Comment