I just came across this cute video on why animals make different 'sounds' in different languages, or rather why the onomatopoeia for animal sounds differs across languages. Yet the crucial question remains: Do animals from different countries understand each other? ;)
0 Comments
I just came across this blog post from C-SAIL regarding the lack of emphasis on (or even mention of) bilingualism in many U.S. state educational standards. They argue that in a multilingual global economy, U.S. monolingualism puts us at a disadvantage, not just in the ability to communicate across countries, but in the opportunity to learn and appreciate other cultures.
This is a loss both for English native speakers, who miss out on the cultural benefits of being bilingual, and the heritage speakers of minority languages, who are often implicitly or explicitly pressured to reject their heritage language. This blog does not delve into the cognitive effects of bilingualism, often the focus of other news pieces (though still being investigated and debated for instance, here and here). Whether bilingualism results in cognitive advantages (and whether those advantages are restricted to early bilinguals or can also be developed by late learners, which is the focus of my research line) is a topic for another post, but the social and societal good of increasing bi- and multilingualism is an important element that justly deserves attention. Though my own research focuses on cognition, when I teach courses on bilingualism, I balance attention to both areas, the cognitive and the cultural. Both are equally provocative in my mind, though I recognize that the sociopolitical and educational angles are often more accessible for students with less exposure to scientific and social scientific research. Giving students multiple access points to the idea of bilingualism exposes the complexity of the issue as well as maximizing engagement. With a heterogeneous classroom of late L2 learners and heritage bilinguals, discussions of bilingual culture and education provide the opportunity for students of diverse backgrounds to share their experiences and connect what they're reading to real people, increasing their empathy and the sense of classroom community. After reading the C-SAIL blog, an interesting assignment to connect with the unit on bilingualism in education would be to have students research what different state standards have to say about supporting/encouraging second language learning, if it's addressed at all, and how that can impact the residents of those states. Off to add some notes to my syllabus... Since my earlier #tbt post about spaced repetition, I've been thinking more about how it compares and contrasts with retrieval practice (aka the "testing effect," a term I abhor and avoid) in regards to language learning.
There is frequently overlap between the two practices, though they are not synonymous. Situations in which spaced repetition and retrieval practice co-occur: Natural language combines spaced repetition and retrieval practice, as words reoccur naturally, and each time we correctly match form to meaning (in comprehension or production), we've practiced retrieval of that form-meaning pair. When we maintain a high % of the target language in the L2 classroom, therefore, we are combining spaced repetition with retrieval practice. This is true for when students produce in the target language as well as every time a student understands what is said without being provided a translation. Situations in which they occur separately: Like a Venn diagram, while most of our natural language experience and much (hopefully) of our classroom L2 experience overlap the two practices, it is possible for each to occur independently. For instance, retrieval practice could hypothetically come in the form of massed rather than spaced repetition. This option would entail prompting retrieval of the same item over and over again, which sounds an awful lot like classic drilling. Though, as a side note, it is likely true that 'spaced' and 'massed' are relative. Even in the Bloom and Shuell (1981) study I discussed in the original post, the 'massed repetition' group was studying a collection of words, and was therefore (probably) spacing their repetitions of individual vocabulary items by a few minutes, i.e. reviewing word 1, then coming back to it after having reviewed the rest, rather than studying word 1 for 5 minutes straight, then word 2, etc. The study time itself was massed vs. spaced, but the exposure to the individual words was likely spaced to a smaller degree. Conversely, spaced repetition can occur without retrieval practice. If the answer (for instance, the translation equivalent of a word being learned) is provided immediately, then the act of retrieval is not being practiced. These repetitions would be more important at the onset of learning, to pave the way for students to be able to recall on their own. Spaced repetition alone involves providing the desired connection for the students, while to qualify as retrieval practice, students must be prompted to make the connection for themselves, either implicitly in the head through comprehension or explicitly through production. And yet, when we ask questions in the classroom, whether to confirm comprehension or elicit novel production, the only student we know for certain is practicing retrieval is the one who answers. We are then satisfied that the proper response has been provided, and move on. Other students might have also retrieved the form-meaning pair (we hope), but if some haven't had the time for that connection to take place, the response of the other student ends up providing a spaced repetition minus the completed retrieval. This isn't wholly without value, but it does somewhat rob the slower processing students the opportunity to solidify their associations. The more equitable practice is to provide sufficient time for students to think, perhaps prompting them to record their thoughts (to keep them accountable and prevent the extra time from being allocated to extra daydreaming), and only then soliciting an answer. The difference is a matter of seconds but provides a richer cognitive association to a larger portion of the class. |
AuthorThis is a place where I record thoughts on second language research and pedagogical theory Archives
June 2019
Categories |