This was a nice review/ perspective that went well with the Finegan chapter read previously. I believe, like others in our class, that the sociolinguistic approach seems more viable, at least to me. This probably because language seems primarily based on interaction and communication. The word recognition approach had useful points, but it seems like memorization techniques do not work so well when placed out of a meaningful context. Chapter 8 discussed the not so useful practice of teaching ‘grammar’ (I.E : verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc.) to younger students, because this sort of ‘divorces’ the form/meaning/use interplay. Perhaps, though, a very general discussion about verbs changing form and adjectives describing things, could be useful. I mostly work with ELL student who have had some college education in their different countries, and the classification of words seems familiar and helpful to them. Having rarely worked with younger ELL students, I am curious about what my classmates who work with younger students think about this.
Additionally, I also liked the discussion about the gap between conversational English and academic English in chapt. 8. This struck me as very relevant. Last semester I focused research on how a 100 level composition class could potentially contain underprepared U.S. students. International students, and ELL students who’d been partially educated in the U.S. Each group has different strengths and needs. For example, an international student may be very adept at understanding and explaining grammar structures, but may have difficulty with producing longer pieces of written work, or with conversational / informal English. Other groups will have different needs and abilities. Of course this all varies with individuals, but Freeman and Freeman’s point about this discrepancy seemed very appropriate and indicated that all English language learners are not a homogeneous group. I agree with this and appreciate their point.
The more technical explanations RE: morphology were interesting, and as I discussed in my posting this week, they could be helpful, depending on the student’s proficiency and language background. I have had some luck with this, but only with students who were more advanced, and/or whose L1 shared some characteristics with English. For beginning learners, I think that a lot of information about prefixes, suffixes and word roots could, perhaps, interfere with learning.
Additionally, I also liked the discussion about the gap between conversational English and academic English in chapt. 8. This struck me as very relevant. Last semester I focused research on how a 100 level composition class could potentially contain underprepared U.S. students. International students, and ELL students who’d been partially educated in the U.S. Each group has different strengths and needs. For example, an international student may be very adept at understanding and explaining grammar structures, but may have difficulty with producing longer pieces of written work, or with conversational / informal English. Other groups will have different needs and abilities. Of course this all varies with individuals, but Freeman and Freeman’s point about this discrepancy seemed very appropriate and indicated that all English language learners are not a homogeneous group. I agree with this and appreciate their point.
The more technical explanations RE: morphology were interesting, and as I discussed in my posting this week, they could be helpful, depending on the student’s proficiency and language background. I have had some luck with this, but only with students who were more advanced, and/or whose L1 shared some characteristics with English. For beginning learners, I think that a lot of information about prefixes, suffixes and word roots could, perhaps, interfere with learning.
