FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1530471453> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1530471453 abstract "A discussion of the for Foreign Language set by the language teaching profession in 1996 focuses on how the standards for communication skill are to be implemented in the second language classroom. Three different approaches designed to help learners reach the goals outlined in the standards document are presented: the which illustrates the average retention rate for different teaching methods; J. Lee and B. VanPatten's input processing approach, based on the natural approach, which emphasizes the need for comprehensible input; and Lev Vygotsky's theory of cognitive development, particularly the Zone of Proximal Development. Sample class activities incorporating these approaches and using the topic of the family are described. They include several activities providing comprehensible input, several processing instruction exercises, experiences capitalizing on the social nature of humans while creating meaningful contexts for language practice, and activities featuring creative repetition. Suggestions are also offered on error correction and on the translation of the Standards' goals to an applicable set of tools for the classroom. Contains 16 references. (MSE) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** FROM RHETORIC TO REALITY: APPLYING THE COMMUNICATION STANDARDS TO THE CLASSROOM INTRODUCTION: COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE DEFINED By Charlotte E. Gifford and Jeanne P. Mullaney With the publication of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning, as well as many similar documents at the state level, our field has set ambitious, but achievable goals. As we strive for programs that will allow all learners, from grades K-12 and beyond, to have access to effective language instruction, professionals have defined communicative competence as the overarching goal of the language learning experience. Let us examine several perspectives on communication, beginning with the Standards document: individuals have developed communicative competence in a language, they are able to convey and receive messages of many different types successfully. ... Learners use language to participate in everyday social interactions and to establish relationships with others. They converse, argue, criticize, request, convince, and explain effectively, taking into account the age, background, education and familiarity with the individuals with whom they are engaged in conversation (36). This idea was echoed in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, where the meaning-bearing nature of communication is emphasized: communication is the exchange of thoughts, messages, or through speech, gestures, writing, behavior, or a combination of these. It is through communication that we express ourselves and transmit or receive information (35). James Lee and Bill VanPatten, two second language acquisition researchers, also give a succinct definition of communication, saying it is ...a complex dynamic of interactions: the expression, interpretation and negotiation of meaning, both in and out of the classroom (14). While this paper will focus primarily on the communication strand of the Standards, it is important to note that the Five C's, Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons and Communities, are all essential and inextricably linked. Indeed, the definitions of communication and communicative competence noted above touch on them all. For our purposes, the communication strand serves as the organizing principle: the question of knowing how, when and why to say what to whom (Standards, 11). It must be admitted that most language programs have not yet reached the goals stated in the Standards for the communication strand. When we examine the objectives for student competency at different levels, it is clear that our students, most of whom study another language for only two years, yet perform at the indicated levels. illustrate anecdotally, it has been the authors' sad experience, more times than we care to remember, that when we are introduced on a social occasion as language teachers, we can all too often predict the response: a look of consternation crosses peoples' faces, they recoil slightly but visibly and stammer that although they took X years of language in school, they cannot say a word. Comparing this reaction to the checklist of goals for conimunicative functions quoted above from the Standards, we are left to conclude that we have a long way to go. How then, are we to meet the challenging goals set before us? turn to the Standards: To meet high communicative standards, learners must have ample opportunities to experience the second language as it is spoken and written in the target culture. Meaningful language from real contexts becomes the basis for subsequent development of expressive skills (35). In this paper, we will examine three different approaches to help our learners reach the goals outlined in the Standards'. 0,U.;PETT.T4ERT-E2g,,aliugr-121,,, PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS CENTER (ERIC) BEEN GRANTED BY ghis.document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. 2 TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Gifford and Mullaney begin by contrasting more effective and less effective techniques in order to identify which teaching and learning practices work and which do not. In the Standards, we find two observations in clear contrast; first, the 'bad news:' We now know that students do not acquire communicative competence by learning the elements of the language system first. It is not the case that learners learn best by memorizing vocabulary items in isolation and by producing limited sentences. now know that even those students who learn grammar well and are able to pass tests on nouns, verb conjugations, tense usage and the like may be quite unable to understand the language itself when it is spoken to them outside the classroom (36). Fortunately, the 'good news' is much more encouraging, reminding us that the goals we have set for ourselves are wholly attainable. The Standards go on to point out: We now know that learners learn a language best when they are provided opportunities to use the target language to communicate in a wide variety of activities. The more learners use the target language in meaningful situations, the more rapidly they achieve competency. Active use of language is central to the learning process; therefore, learners must be involved in generating utterances for themselves. They learn by doing, by trying out language, and by modifying it to serve communicative needs (36). It is therefore up to us to create and provide learning environments that offer these kinds of opportunities. If we want students to achieve communicative competency, we must emphasize the use of whole, real-world language over the exclusive analysis of its parts. THE LEARNING PYRAMID As we examine more and less effective ways learners learn a language, it is also important to reflect similarly on the delivery system: our teaching techniques. Research shows that learner retention rates vary widely depending on the teaching techniques employed. One helpful visual representation is the Learning Pyramid, formulated by the National Training Laboratory of Bethel, Maine. It illustrates the average retention rate for different teaching methodologies (fig." @default.
• W1530471453 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1530471453 creator A5023213164 @default.
• W1530471453 creator A5074445536 @default.
• W1530471453 date "1997-04-01" @default.
• W1530471453 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1530471453 title "From Rhetoric to Reality: Applying the Communication Standards to the Classroom." @default.
• W1530471453 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W1530471453 type Work @default.
• W1530471453 sameAs 1530471453 @default.
• W1530471453 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W1530471453 countsByYear W15304714532013 @default.
• W1530471453 countsByYear W15304714532015 @default.
• W1530471453 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1530471453 hasAuthorship W1530471453A5023213164 @default.
• W1530471453 hasAuthorship W1530471453A5074445536 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConcept C1370556 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConceptScore W1530471453C111472728 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConceptScore W1530471453C127413603 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConceptScore W1530471453C1370556 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConceptScore W1530471453C138885662 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConceptScore W1530471453C144024400 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConceptScore W1530471453C15744967 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConceptScore W1530471453C19417346 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConceptScore W1530471453C41008148 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConceptScore W1530471453C41895202 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConceptScore W1530471453C46312422 @default.
• W1530471453 hasConceptScore W1530471453C55587333 @default.
• W1530471453 hasLocation W15304714531 @default.
• W1530471453 hasOpenAccess W1530471453 @default.
• W1530471453 hasPrimaryLocation W15304714531 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W141922281 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W1607549176 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W1657454031 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W1664804378 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W1825362944 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W1853506374 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W1929456525 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W2046874234 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W2052491163 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W2087734793 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W2143355834 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W2143833674 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W2624215429 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W2798181547 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W281918809 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W3092581901 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W339022840 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W345149554 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W568575483 @default.
• W1530471453 hasRelatedWork W68734287 @default.
• W1530471453 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1530471453 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1530471453 magId "1530471453" @default.
• W1530471453 workType "article" @default.