As previously observed (post 18-08-10), the objectives are related to distinct areas of research 1) what is learned i.e improvement in L2 communication. 2) how learning was achieved. Only relevant to the SOLE (as the direct teaching associated with the monitorial method is underpinned by behavioral theory).
James has suggested that Obj. 2 could be undertaken as post-doctoral research. However in order to define the methodology, it is important that I understand theories related L2 acquisition and the means of directing the assessment based on an appropriate toolset. This process is complicated by the specific nature of the SOLE environment:
a) no teacher: the lessions are focused on the computer
b) no predefined tasks: the learning is by nature Self Organised loosely based the immersion approach to L2 acquisition (as opposed to formal learning) as described by Krashen. In this context, Hammerly (1987) has provided a negative critique of outcomes. One has to refer to Krashen’s Natural Approach for a more definitive description.
c) No theory exists to describe SOLE. The Social Cultural approach to learning. (with or without computers) is based on specifically designed tasks and promoted by scaffolding. Simply putting children together does not necessary promote learning (Piaget). It should be noted however that Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (n+1) is not dissimilar to Vygotsky’s theory of peer learning
d) Context: The research is being undertaken in a difficult developing world context (as opposed to a conventional school environment).
Furthermore, little beyond On-Off task comparison has yet been found in relation to Behavioural analysis of the different learning approaches. It probably time to seek some assistance.
Theories associated with L2 learning are listed as follows (Krashen, 1983):
1) Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: There are 2 ways of developing langauge competence. a) formal learning. b) language acquisition through subconscious processes.
2) Natural Order Hypothesis: grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order.
3) Monitor Hypothesis: conscious learning has a limited function in adult learning; it can only be used as a monitor/editor of output.
4) Input (and net) Hypothesis: Language acquisition is achieved by understanding input that is a little beyond our current level of competence (i+1). Listening comprehension and reading are considered of primary importance. Acquisition is achieved through context and extra-linguistic information. According to Krashen (1983), optimal input maybe simply be ensuring that the students understand what is being said or read. Total Physical Response (TPR) is a derivative of the input hypothesis
5) Affective Filter Hypothesis: affective/attitudinal stance of the student is related to L2 achievement.
The Natural Approach combines a number of theory in a context-related, language acquisition technique that primarily dependent on the following factors: a) the quantity of comprehensible input. b) the strength of the affective filters. The goals of NA are to improve communicative (priority and focused on functional language) and linguistic (pronunciation, morphology and syntax) competency.
L2 acquisition activities associated with the Natural Approach have the following aims:
1) introduce new vocabulary
2) provide the comprehensible input the students will utilise for acquisition (develop listening skills is a priority, pp97). Adjustment of L2 to level is considered important though I wonder how individual children are able to learn L2 through TV and radio.
3) create opportunities for oral production
4) instill a sense of group belonging and cohesion that will contribute to lowering the affective filter
General Communicative Format
1) Personal Identification Stage: Students learn how to describe themselves and their family and friend in L2
2) Experiences: Students talk about themselves and their experiences.
3) Opinions: Students discuss political issues, current affairs etc.
The validity of language proficiency testing (p165) is judged in terms of the following criteria: a) relevance b) acceptability.
c) comparability d) economy. The tests can be classified as tests of linguistic competency or communicative competency.
Krashen suggests the following the following test structure in relation to the NA to L2 acquisition:
1) Listening Comprehension: a) pre-speaking stage: vocabulary recognition, true/false statements. b) single word stage: what…?, how many..? questions c) elementary discourse stage: listening comprehension as a result of media-based activities (audio and visual)
2) Speaking: Oral exams focused on subjective ratings (Callaway, 1980) of language characteristics such as fluency, nativeness, grammar, vocabulary, content, comprehension etc. Contexts for testing speech include a) conversational interchange. b) narrating, recounting events, giving instructions. c) formal talks and speeches. d) debating and arguing.
3) Reading & Writing: Testing is context-based can be delivered in terms of the following forms of text. a) signs/advertisements and check comprehension. b) newspapers and general interest reading. For pleasure reading the standard tests used to evaluate the scanning and gist reading skills in the L1 are useful in adapted form; the student reads a text and answers related questions. c) academic reading; detailed reading of the passage.
The writing test depends on the nature of the task, as follows i.e filling-in forms, personal letter, business letters, personal narratives etc. Writing samples are then evaluated in several ways: a) an indication of the learning competency acquired (linguistic or communicative or both). b) Measure of monitor efficiency.