Seminar 6.

Language Learning and Language Teaching

1. Language teaching/learning in Applied Linguistics: claims and history.

2. Institutional problems and factors of language teaching and learning in AL.
3. Optimum age of starting to learn a foreign language.
4. Immersion in language teaching.
5. The changing world of English language teaching: the role of technology.
6. Visioning the future of ELT:

6.1 The technologist’s vision.

6.2 Social pragmatist’s view of situated reality.

6.3 Critical analyst’s perspective of technology as not neutral.

Get ready for the discussion: How much technology should be involved in ELT classroom? Can computers
substitute teachers in the future?

References:

Davies, A (2007) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh: EUP, pp. 63-74

Chapelle, C., A. (2003) English Language Learning and Technology. Lectures on applied linguistics in the age
of information and communication technology. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1-10

2) APPLIED LINGUISTICS AND INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMSIn Chapter 3 we suggested that

‘language problems’ are the key to understandingapplied linguistics. Many of these problems
will manifest themselves in individualinteractions (my failure to make myself understood when
asking directions in aforeign language, your hasty judgement about your interlocutor’s social
status in thefirst few seconds of a telephone conversation, and so on) but the applied
linguisticsenterprise engages itself with such problems only when they are considered by societyto
be matters of institutional concern. The applied linguist is therefore called on intervene, to train,
to explain and possibly to solve recurring problems in the school,the hospital, the workplace, the
law court or the television studio.Applied linguistics as an enterprise is therefore a research and
development activitythat sets out to make use of theoretical insights and collect empirical data
which canbe of use in dealing with institutional language problems. It is not primarily a formof
social work with immediate access to individuals in the happenstance of theirongoing social
communication, although its findings may of course be helpful tocounsellors and teachers
faced with these particular problems.The starting-point is typically to be presented with an
institutional languageproblem. The purpose of the activity is to provide relevant information
which willhelp those involved understand the issues better; in some cases on the basis of
theinformation it will be possible to offer a solution to the problem. More likely is anexplanation
of what is involved, setting out the choices available, along with theirimplications. In earlier
chapters we have discussed some of these language problemsand indicated certain of the
choices that would face those interested in finding asolution. We have suggested that if they
are to contribute to a solution, all choicesmust be fully informed by the local context.We
distinguish this problem-based view of applied linguistics from other viewswhich begin from
theory. The applied linguist is deliberately eclectic, drawing onany source of knowledge that
may illuminate the language problem. Proceedingeclectically is legitimate because for the
applied linguist language problems involvemore than language. They involve (some or all of ) these
factors:
• the educational (including the psychometric or measurement)
• the social (and its interface with the linguistic, the sociolinguistic)
• the psychological (and its interface, the psycho-linguistic)
• the anthropological (for insights on cultural matters)
• the political
• the religious
• the economic
• the business
• the planning and policy aspect
• and, of course, the linguistic, including the phonetic.
We turn now to a consideration of two ‘problems’, that of the optimum age forstarting to learn a
foreign language and that of the validation of a language pro -ficiency test so as to consider
the factors that the applied linguist needs to take intoaccount when faced with a language-
learning problem.
3) First the age of starting a foreign language. What is the right age to start languagelearning? This
is a question often asked by administrators, politicians, parents, asthough there is one right
answer. Is there – other things being equal? We can onlyattempt an answer when we have asked
some preliminary questions, such as what the language learning for? Which students are to be
involved? Is there one throughsystem or are there several (for example primary, secondary,
tertiary)? If there areseveral, do they interlock with one another? What method is envisaged,
will it beforeign language instruction, content based, immersion, and if immersion,
whichversion (see below)? Which language is being studied? Has the choice been made onthe basis
of its prestige or its distance from the students’ home language, which maydetermine how difficult
they find it? What prospects do successful language learnersin this situation have of further study,
use of the language(s), jobs and so on. Whatpossibilities exist for visits to the target language
country? How is success measured?Who are the teachers? Are they well trained, and how proficient
are they in the targetlanguage?One approach to the optimum age question has been the appeal to the
sensitiveage or critical period view: this view considers that developments in the brain
atpuberty change the way in which we learn. Before puberty we acquire languages (oneor in a
bilingual setting two or more) as native speakers. After puberty we learn in amore intellectual
manner as second- or foreign-language speakers. This idea, basedon the sensitive or critical
period hypothesis, if true (and it has been difficult torefute), would support a universal
optimum age for starting a second or foreignlanguage, namely as early as possible, in order to
allow for possible acquisition as anative speaker. (See the discussion in Chapter 2 of research by
Bialystok.)An early start for second- and foreign-language learning at school is not
unusual.Foreign-language teaching in the elementary school in the USA, French in the UKprimary
school, languages other than English in the Australian primary school: theseare well-known
examples of the willingness among educational planners to (1)extend the length of explicit
language learning and (2) take advantage of the greaterplasticity of young children in
automatising new skills and internalising newknowledge. Such aims are plausible. Why then the
doubts and the reversals of policysuch as the on–off programmes found in the UK? Why the
doubt, among pro -fessional language educators as much as among administrators, that spending
longerteaching a language and starting earlier are not necessarily beneficial? How couldthey
not be?Research into second-language learning suggests that there may be no optimumage since
adults can learn as efficiently as children and indeed more quickly. Whatmatters are local
conditions. To illustrate the applied linguist’s insistence on theneed to take account of local
conditions I refer to three very different contexts: anAustralian private girls’ school; the Nepal
government school system; and Frenchimmersion in Canada.

4) Over the last twenty years, immersion language teaching in Canada has been widelycelebrated as
a success story in bilingual education (Johnson and Swain 1997). Whatimmersion means is the
teaching of the second language as the medium ofinstruction. This use of the second
language as medium is much older than theCanadian enterprise, and is still the prac tice in
many colonial situations such asanglophone and francophone ex-colonies.But it is important to
examine carefully just what is claimed for this Canadianversion of bilingual education. Its
applied linguistic evaluators are very careful tomake clear just what those claims are and just
what constraints must be put on thoseclaims (Swain and Lapkin 1982). These restrictions
remind us that immersion
education cannot easily be transferred to other situations where the same conditionsdo not
pertain.Canadian immersion programmes of various types (early total, early partial, latepartial,
beginning in Grade 8) have all been shown to be successful in terms of theirobjectives. But they
require the presence of four factors:1. The parents of the students need to be involved in
establishing and ensuringthe continuation of the immersion programme.2. The immersion students
(and their parents) must be members of the majoritycommunity in the local bilingual setting.3.
Both students and their parents must have a positive attitude towards thetarget language and
its speakers.4. The immersion programme must be optional.In other words, immersion language
teaching has worked well in Canada (primarilyin Ontario) not only because it has offered the
kind of resource-rich exposure toFrench that is not possible for English in Nepal, but also
because the learners, liketheir parents, are members of the majority community of English
speakers whodesire to learn the language of the minority French-Canadian community. Trans
-posing the immersion project to a country like Nepal would be hazardous. Onceagain we
can observe that the role of applied linguistics is to describe and evaluatelanguage problems within
their own contexts.
5) The changing world of Englishlanguage teachingAs technologies embed themselves in everyday
discourse and activity, a curi-ous thing happens. The more we look, the more they slip into the
background.Despite our attention, we lose sight of the way they shape our daily lives.(Bruce &
Hogan 1998: 270)This observation about the embedding of technology into daily life may notseem
profound. Phenomena that occur gradually, such as corn growing in thesummer, or a city
expanding over the course of ten years are considered un-remarkable and unproblematic to most
people. Things change. However, astechnology becomes the normal and expected means of
communication andeducation, Bruce and Hogan (1998) point out, important changes occur in ex-
pectations about the abilities students have to acquire to be successful languageusers. The
abilities required by English language users should be directly rele-vant to English language
teachers. Moreover, the bond between technology andlanguage use in the modern world should
prompt all language professionals toreflect on the ways in which technology is changing the
profession of Englishlanguage teaching in particular, and applied linguistics as a whole. But
howdoes one reflect on something that is invisible?If technology has, as Bruce and Hogan
suggest, slipped into the back-ground, it may be necessary to attempt to bring it back into the
foregroundto explore its implications for language teachers and researchers.
Explicittreatment of technology as an object of inquiry invites examination of thetechnology-
related practices associated with language use, but it also affordsthe opportunity to position
oneself with respect to technology within societyin general and specifically within language
teaching. At least three perspectivesare useful to consider and perhaps ultimately to synthesize to
begin to see therole of technology in English language teaching and applied linguistics.
6) Visioning the future of ELTA vision of the future of English language teaching and applied
linguistics needsto be informed by the contributions of all three of the perspectives. All agreethat
technology is a force worthy of consideration, whether one wishes to fo-cus on the technological
potential, to examine pragmatic technology use, or tocriticize both. But how can the three
perspectives inform a new vision of theprofession? The three positions need to be balanced to
suggest implications forthe profession, as shown in Table 1.1. The picture that the technologist
paintsseems to have enough credibility and significance for teachers and researchersin ELT that
it would seem responsible to seek knowledge about technologi-cal possibilities that could
change the profession for the better or worse. Atthe same time, teachers and researchers should
remain skeptical of the precisepredictions made within the technologist’s “tunnel vision” (Brown &
Duguid2000: 1), and should carefully analyze real options in view of the experienceof others and
their own context and experience. Perhaps even more so thanany other professionals, ELT
practitioners need to be critically aware of theconnections among technology, culture, and
ideology, and specifically aboutthe ways in which technology amplifies and constrains aspects
of languagelearning and research. In short, a balanced perspective for English languageteaching
today might be a critical, technologically-informed pragmatism. Ele-ments of such a perspective
are evident in analyses that examine the complexof factors that make computer-mediated
communication different from face-to-face communication for language teaching (e.g.,
Salaberry 2000) in con-trast to the one-sided advocacy for computer-mediated
communication forlanguage teaching.
These perspectives on technology hint at the broader context where workin applied linguistics is
situated, but to see how critical, technologically-informed pragmatism plays out, it needs to be
linked to the specifics of En-glish language teaching. In particular, we need to examine the ways in
whichtechnology touches English language learners, their teachers, and teachereducation.