Ripple Reflection

Introduction

Ripple is a new technology. It is hoped that we can enhance what we have learned by
doing Ripple assessment that is claimed to be an ‘enhanced’ version of weekly
reflection. However, I was quite confused about what couls I acquire after doing this
assessment, and why we needed to answer the questions that seem to have no definite
answer. During the process I created the learning materials, I gradually realized that
this assessment seems to focus on a specific question rather than the general content of
the course, but I soon discovered that it was not just about answering questions. When
constructing the learning materials, I needed to review the course content, organize my
viewpoints and interpretation, search for supporting materials, and think about my own
second language learning experiences. In addition, I sometimes discussed the questions
with my classmates. After creating the learning materials, I found that not only the
questions were answered, but also my understanding of the course content was
deepened. Next, I will comment on one of my learning materials and two learning
materials created by other students in the following paragraphs, and this essay will end
up with a summary and some implications.

Comment on my learning material (Week 10)

The question of this week is about scaffolding. As an important concept of sociocultural

theory for SLA, I am quite interested in scaffolding. When discussing this concept, the
concept of ZPD must be mentioned. The three concentric circles in Week 10’s slides
explain ZPD clearly. Since the concept of ZPD is always compared with the concept of
‘i+1’ in Krashen’s input hypothesis, I reviewed Week 4’s content about Krashen’s input
hypothesis before creating Week 10’s learning material. According to Vygotsky (1980),
ZPD is a distance between learners’ actual and potential developmental levels, and it
emphasizes the co-construction of learners’ knowledge and their development, whereas
the emphasis of ‘i+1’ is on the comprehensibility of input. Although I did not mention
‘i+1’ in current learning material, it helped me reviewed the previous content of this
course.

Next, I reviewed the content about scaffolding in Week 10’s slides and searched for
some other materials. Scaffolding is the support, help, assistance, or guidance provided
by knowledgeable others during social interaction that can help to expand learners’
development into ZPD (Amerian & Mehir, 2014). The examples of scaffolding in Week
10’s slides are about relatively mature learners who can communicate with teachers to
clarify meanings and vocabulary. When I searched for information for this question, I
found some people suggest that scaffolding is more suitable for beginners and young
learners. They suggest that as the development of learners’ language abilities,
scaffolding provided by knowledgeable others will diminish gradually, and learners can
learn by themselves eventually (Chang, Sung, & Chen, 2002). I also found an example
of how scaffolding might help L2 beginners to develop their language competence.
When beginners are learning how to read, and they only know to read letters and cannot
read words. In this situation, they cannot read a passage even with scaffolding. Thus,
‘read a passage’ is a skill that is out of learners’ ZPD. However, with the scaffolding of
the teacher, they can learn how to read some simple words. In this example, scaffolding
can help beginners to develop the ability to read words.

After creating the learning materials, I also correlate scaffolding with the concept of
regulation. The ultimate goal of using scaffolding in SLA is to help students to become
independent learners who have the ability of autonomous functioning, or self-regulation.
I believe other students will also understand this week’s content more deeply after
reading my material.

Comment on others’ learning material 1 (Week 4)

The question of this week is the importance of interaction for SLA. Before creating and
evaluating learning materials, I supposed that this question is quite simple because I
have learned many theories and hypotheses in the previous course (SLAT7001) and
also reviewed the knowledge in this course. However, when I started to work, I realized
that although I know the content of each theory and hypothesis, I have never understood
them in depth.

I answered this question from the perspectives of Long’s Interaction Hypothesis,

corrective feedback, Swain’s Output Hypothesis, and I also mentioned Krashen’s
Comprehensible Input Hypothesis. When evaluating this material, I found that
Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis can also help to answer this question, and I realized the
difference between two ‘noticing’ in Schmidt’s and Swain’s hypotheses. ‘Noticing’ in
Schmidt’s hypothesis is learners’ noticing of language features (Schmidt, 1990). While
‘noticing’ is one of the three functions of output in Swain’s hypothesis that refers to
learners’ noticing of the gap between what they want to express and their current L2
level.

In my own learning material, I just mentioned that L2 learners can receive corrective
feedback from interlocutors during their interaction and did not think deeply about the
difference between positive evidence and negative evidence as well as their functions
in SLA. In this material, the author said that negative feedback can help learners to
notice the difference between their existing knowledge and correct language forms,
therefore assist learners in the acquisition of grammatical competence. After evaluating
this material, I reviewed the difference between positive feedback and negative
feedback and how to use them. Positive evidence is the use of model language that
conforms to the target language. While negative evidence signals that something said
or wrote by learners does not conform to the target language. According to Lyster and
Saito (2010), they can be used individually or in combination. For example, explicit
correction provides positive evidence and also indicates learners’ error. Recasts usually
provide positive evidence and sometimes also negative evidence. Prompts only provide
negative evidence that indicates learners’ error.

The evaluation of this material helps me realized that these SLA theories and
hypotheses are not separate, and they are developed from previous ones. Therefore,
they have internal connections with each other. For example, each of them can be used
to explain the importance of interaction for SLA. In addition, I have also realized that
each theory or hypothesis has its strengths and limitations, and our understanding of
SLA develops gradually.

Comment on other’s learning material 2 (Week 11)

The question of this week is about individual differences of effect on SLA. Before
evaluating this material, I put age in the first place because I mainly thought about this
question from the perspective of ‘critical period’. Nikolov and Djigunović (2006)
suggest that age can influence learners’ acquisition of implicit linguistic competence
biologically and cognitively. Learners’ procedural memory for language is declining
with age, therefore, late L2 learners have to rely on explicit learning and it may
influence their ultimate language achievement. However, the author suggested that
some researchers believe that adult learners are more mentally mature and can control
their language learning better. Then, I reviewed Week 11’s materials, and it is
suggested that in classroom environments, older learners often outperform younger
learners. When I created my material, I thought it is because these older peers often
spend much more effort in language learning than younger peers. After reading this
material, I found that since the influence of age on SLA can be offset by other factors,
it should not be the most influential factor on SLA.

The author also helped me to review the meaning of learning style, learning strategies
as well as motivation. She put learning style/ strategies before motivation and she
suggested if learners cannot find the most appropriate learning styles/ strategies for
themselves, it is difficult for them to make progress in L2 learning. In Week 11’s
materials, it is suggested that more motivated learners tend to use more learning
strategies than less motivated students. Thus, I believe that motivation should be put
prior to learning strategies.
The author’s interpretation of language aptitude and gender is consistent with my
opinion, and we believe that they are less important than learning styles/ strategies
and motivation.

During evaluating this material, when I read the author’s viewpoints, I was recalling
my own opinions in the meantime. I found that this question can be explained from
different perspectives and then, different answers can be generated. Although I do not
agree with the author’s ideas completely, her interpretation of this question helped
me to enhance my understanding of this week’s content and also changed my view
about the importance of age on SLA.

Conclusion

The Ripple assessment is different from any other assessments I have done before.
Although there is only one question each week, I needed to review that week’s
materials comprehensively to build up the structure of my material. Then, I needed to
search for some supporting references to make my answer convincing. I also recalled
my language learning experience, which helped me to understand SLA theories and
hypotheses more deeply. During the evaluation of others’ materials, I always
compared their opinions with mine. Some of their viewpoints could help me revise
my understanding on some questions. When I did not agree with their opinions, I
would search for more materials and think about which one is more reasonable.

After completing this assessment, I realized that many issues in SLA are controversial
and there is no answer that can convince everyone. Therefore, we should not be
entangled in a specific theory or hypothesis because they all have their limitations
and they are related to each other.

In summary, this assessment can help me better understand the weekly content of this
course.

Word count: 1577 words

References

Amerian, M., & Mehri, E. (2014). Scaffolding in sociocultural theory: Definition,

steps, features, conditions, tools, and effective consideration. Scientific
Journal of Review, 3(7), 756-765. doi: 10.14196/sjr.v3i7.1505

Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., & Chen, I.-D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to
enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 71(1), 5-23. doi: 10.1080/00220970209602054

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis.
Studies in second language acquisition, 265-302. doi:
10.1017/s0272263109990520

Nikolov, M., & Djigunović, J. M. (2006). Recent research on age, second language
acquisition, and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 26, 234. doi: 10.1017/s0267190506000122

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning1.

Applied linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes: Harvard university press. doi: 10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4