FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W366993591> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W366993591 endingPage "5" @default.
• W366993591 startingPage "1" @default.
• W366993591 abstract "According to a number of prominent second language learning theories, the development of linguistic proficiency is a gradual process which proceeds in stages from a basic to a more advanced level. What is suggested here is that as learners become more proficient in a language, they are inclined to modify the linguistic information which is stored in their short term memories when communicating. This is known as interlanguage restructuring. The aim of this paper is to argue that restructuring is taking place among the learners on the English Discussion Class course. This is based on observations of learner behaviour made through the first and second semesters of the academic year. Of particular interest is the manner in which the function phrases were modified by the learners. The implications of this for both teachers and learners will also be discussed. INTRODUCTION The transition from a basic to a more advanced level of oral proficiency proceeds gradually as learners gain in confidence and are able to put what they have studied in lessons into practice. The second language learning theories proposed by McLaughlin (1987, 1990) and Anderson (1983, 1985) refer to this process as restructuring, describing it as being characterised by changes to the learner interlanguage, where learners both correctly and incorrectly modify various linguistic components of what they have studied, in the productive stages (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). Through informal observations I have made while teaching both semesters, I would argue that this has indeed been occurring. The focus of this paper will be on how learners use and modify the function phrases, and the implications of this for both teachers and students; in particular with regard to anticipating linguistic problems as well as encouraging learner autonomy. SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING THEORIES The two theories of relevance here are McLaughlin’s (1987, 1990) information processing model, and Anderson’s Adaptive Control of Thought (ACT) Model (1983, 1985). Both theories are essentially concerned with the stages of the learning process, arguing that this process proceeds gradually from simple to more complex (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). The information processing model is primarily concerned with how, through practice, information stored in the short-term memory in the early stages of learning, is transmitted to the long-term memory as learners become more proficient in the language they are studying (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). In the early stages, only a limited amount of information is available to be accessed by the learner and then used in production (Ellis, 2008). As learning proceeds, this information is then transferred to the long-term memory, where the learner is then able to access it readily at a more advanced level (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). Of particular relevance here is the re-emergence of errors made by students and changes to their interlanguage, known as restructuring. Which, according to this theory, occurs during the process (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). Anderson’s Adaptive Control of Thought (ACT) Model follows a similar view of the SECTION FOUR: Action Research Part 5Interlanguage 5-2 learning process, but identifies three distinct stages, namely a declarative stage, an associative stage and an autonomous stage (Anderson 1985, cited in Towell and Hawkins 1994). As suggested by the information processing model, while learners proceed through these stages, their ability to use their stored knowledge accurately improves. However, the model also claims that the occurrence of errors is a typical feature of the learning process as stated by Anderson (1983, cited in Ellis 2008). SEMESTER 1 OBSERVATIONS The lessons in the first semester were initially characterised by noticeable turn-taking with little evidence of spontaneity in discussions, and with students paying close attention to using the function phrases as they appeared in the text. This was particularly evident with the lower proficiency classes those classes in which the students lacked the confidence or ability to add any significant amount of 'creativity' to the discussions. In the early stages of the course, I found that there was very little experimentation with the function phrases, but this changed once the students gained in confidence and became more accustomed to their individual class dynamics. In the fluency activities and discussions, students would at times change the function phrases in order to fulfil the same function. Could you explain? or Could you give me more details? would be changed to Could you for example? or Could you give me for instance? Furthermore, the phrases would at times be used inappropriately, such as a student asking Can I make a comment? after an interrogative, instead of Can I answer that? These errors appear to correspond to what the above mentioned theories claim takes place during the transition from basic to more advanced linguistic proficiency, namely, learner interlanguage undergoes changes, and errors are frequently observed in this transition (Mitchell and Myles, 2004) and (Anderson 1983, cited in Ellis 2008). Toward the end of the first semester, I noted increasing occurrences of experimentation with the structure of the function phrases. In some instances students would change the phrases, at times, humorously, such as in Can you make comment? and Can I help you? instead of Can I make a comment? Although these were minor changes, they did possibly indicate a change, where some of the function phrases had become stored in the students’ long-term memory, and that this knowledge had become readily available for the students to access at will. A beneficial aspect of noting these occurrences and dealing with them in feedback is that this may provide variation to the feedback students receive after each practice activity or discussion. In feedback sessions, teachers typically deal with function usage and whether students are reacting or asking follow-up questions. I noticed that following the same feedback routines week after week tends to lead to a lack of attention among students, and thus varying the type of feedback given may aid in maintaining learner interest. Additionally, encouraging students to modify the different function phrases to fulfil the same communicative functions, may once more, generate interest and result in students being more creative in the lessons in terms of how they use the different phrases. SEMESTER 2 OBSERVATIONS I noted in lessons at the start of the second semester that a number of the function phrases from the first semester were used frequently in discussions. Some of these included the phrases for giving opinions, such as Personally speaking and In my opinion, the phrases for joining discussions, such as Can I make a comment? and Can I answer that?, as well as the phrases for SECTION FOUR: Action Research Part 5Interlanguage 5-3 connecting ideas and reporting information, where students used As you said, and I heard that... The use of these phrases possibly indicates that for the purposes of the discussion classes, these phrases were the ones the students found most useful. As the new phrases were introduced, a noticeable change from the first semester was the relative ease with which the students could use and modify these new phrases in discussions. However, as opposed to the first semester, the modifications resulted in far less errors. I have a similar opinion would be changed (correctly) to I have a similar idea, and My opinion is different to yours to My idea is a little different from yours. Some higher level students would also use phrases such as I totally agree with you, instead of I have a similar opinion, perhaps indicating the knowledge of such nuances denoted by these phrases could be readily accessed from the stored knowledge in the students’ long term memories. Students would also combine the Semester 2 and Semester 1 function phrases as in I see your point, but I have a different opinion... Related to this, responses to interrogatives such as Would anyone like to add something? would elicit a response such as Yes, can I add something? or Can I say something about your comment? Students would regularly alter the phrases, but as opposed to the first semester, the frequency of errors appeared to decrease. THE IMPLICATION FOR THE COURSE From my observations during the first and second semester, I believe there are implications for the course specifically relating to the function phrases taught, anticipating linguistic problems that might arise, and encouraging risk-taking. FUNCTION PHRASES In terms of the function phrases that were taught, I noted that students in most instances used those which occur frequently in spoken English, and tended to avoid phrases which seemed ‘unnatural’ or more challenging. In the first semester, the phrase Can I answer that? would be used far more frequently than I’d like to answer that, Like you said would be used more than I like the point you made, and I heard / read / saw that... would be used in favour of It’s sometimes / often said that... In the second semester Maybe... and It’s possible... would be used more than I suppose... In most classes, students tended to avoid the phrase What do you think of my idea? and typically used Does anyone have a different opinion? With regard to the phrases used for changing the topic, most students tended to use Next, let’s discuss... as opposed to Why don’t we talk about" @default.
• W366993591 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W366993591 creator A5065890352 @default.
• W366993591 date "2012-08-31" @default.
• W366993591 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W366993591 title "Interlanguage Restructuring and its Implications" @default.
• W366993591 cites W1581342146 @default.
• W366993591 cites W1708874574 @default.
• W366993591 cites W2031583323 @default.
• W366993591 cites W2089064175 @default.
• W366993591 cites W2134917048 @default.
• W366993591 cites W2785566321 @default.
• W366993591 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W366993591 type Work @default.
• W366993591 sameAs 366993591 @default.
• W366993591 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W366993591 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W366993591 hasAuthorship W366993591A5065890352 @default.
• W366993591 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W366993591 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W366993591 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W366993591 hasConcept C207489910 @default.
• W366993591 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W366993591 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W366993591 hasConcept C45237549 @default.
• W366993591 hasConceptScore W366993591C10138342 @default.
• W366993591 hasConceptScore W366993591C138885662 @default.
• W366993591 hasConceptScore W366993591C144133560 @default.
• W366993591 hasConceptScore W366993591C207489910 @default.
• W366993591 hasConceptScore W366993591C41008148 @default.
• W366993591 hasConceptScore W366993591C41895202 @default.
• W366993591 hasConceptScore W366993591C45237549 @default.
• W366993591 hasLocation W3669935911 @default.
• W366993591 hasOpenAccess W366993591 @default.
• W366993591 hasPrimaryLocation W3669935911 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W135405359 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W212456600 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W2130272857 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W2234246537 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W2329485259 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W2332477592 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W233974288 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W237885151 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W238597373 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W239005921 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W2433622257 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W2603506541 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W268250692 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W2744573848 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W295651663 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W2978389153 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W584870928 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W2595190141 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W2601399071 @default.
• W366993591 hasRelatedWork W2604084265 @default.
• W366993591 hasVolume "1" @default.
• W366993591 isParatext "false" @default.
• W366993591 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W366993591 magId "366993591" @default.
• W366993591 workType "article" @default.