meeting the needs of second language and heritage learners in mixed classes without sending mixed...
TRANSCRIPT
Meeting the needs of L2 and HL learners in mixed classes without
sending mixed messages
Florencia G. Henshaw and Melissa A. Bowles
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
II Symposium on Spanish as a Heritage Language
1. Most colleges and universities have separate tracks for heritage learners of Spanish.
2. There are more SHL courses at the beginning/intermediate proficiency level than at the advanced level.
3. Research comparing uninstructed heritage speakers to instructed heritage speakers shows that instruction is beneficial for SHLs’ language acquisition.
4. Research has shown that heritage learners benefit more from instruction than L2 learners do.
5. Heritage learners do not benefit from explicit grammar instruction.
6. Pairing HL learners with L2 learners in the classroom is mutually detrimental.
7. HL learners want to have their errors corrected.
8. In mixed classes, HL and L2 learners generally have negative perceptions of each other.
Most colleges and universities have
separate
tracks for heritage learners of Spanish.
• Despite the fact that Spanish is the most widely spoken heritage language in the US, less than half of US colleges and universities have separate tracks (Beaudrie, 2012).
There are more SHL courses at the
beginning/intermediate proficiency level than at
the advanced level.
• Beginning/intermediate level SHL courses are more common than advanced level courses (Beaudrie, 2012).
• Even in colleges and universities where there are separate tracks, heritage learners and foreign language learners are together in mixed classes in higher-level content courses.
• The demographics of the place affect whether HL learners are the majority or the minority in suchupper-level courses.
Research comparing uninstructed heritage
speakers to instructed heritage speakers shows
that instruction is beneficial for SHLs’ language
acquisition.
• Early studies in second language acquisition experimentally investigated the question, “Does second language instruction promote second language acquisition?”
• Long (1983) showed that instructed L2 learners made greater gains in their language skills than uninstructed L2 learners exposed to the language only naturalistically.
• Although the differences between instructed and uninstructedlearners were not always large, they held for children and foradults, for learners at a range of proficiency levels (beginningthrough advanced), and in acquisition-rich as well as acquisition-poor environments.
• For SLA, instruction makes a difference!
• What about heritage language acquisition?
• Systematic studies comparing the skills of instructed vs. uninstructed heritage learners have not been conducted.
• A research agenda for instructed heritage language acquisition recommends such studies as a crucial first step (Bowles, in press).
• Only with such a base can we then move forward incrementally to address questions about how best to instruct HL learners.
Research has shown that heritage learners
benefit more from instruction than L2
learners do.
• A few studies have directly compared the effects of instruction on L2 and heritage learners (Bowles & Montrul, 2008; Montrul & Bowles, 2009; Potowski, Jegerski, & Morgan-Short, 2009; Torres, 2013).
Differential Object Marking / A-personal
• In a series of studies (Bowles & Montrul, 2008; Montrul & Bowles, 2009) compared the effectiveness of instruction on L2 and HL learners’ sensitivity to grammatical and ungrammatical sentences with and without a-personal on a written GJT.
• In Spanish, sentences with animate, specific direct objects get marked with a-personal; others do not.
• Fourth-semester Spanish learners completed a written GJT pretest,
instructional module (online in their hybrid course) and a GJT
posttest immediately after.
Results
• Bowles and Montrul (2008) presented results for L2 learners.
• Montrul and Bowles (2010) presented results for HL learners.
• Both groups made improvements from pretest to posttest but the size and nature of the improvements differed.
• Gains were larger for L2 learners than for HL learners.
• L2 learners’ ratings also became more targetlike in all 4 sentence types.
HL learner pre/posttest comparisons
4.07
2.63
3.6
3.9
4.86
2.83
4.7
2.24
4.95
1.2
4.96
1.1
1
2
3
4
5
grammatical ungrammatical grammatical ungrammatical
animate object inanimate object
mea
n ac
cept
abili
tyHLL pre-test
HLL post-test
native speakers
HL learners made gains in 3 of the 4 sentence types. But they were equally accepting
of ungrammatical sentences with animate objects (*Mi hermana vio Carmen ayer)
after the instruction as before it.
Imperfect subjunctive
• Potowski, Jegerski, and Morgan-Short (2009) directly compared the learning outcomes of HL and L2 learners on the use of either the imperfect subjunctive or imperfect indicative in adjective clauses.
• No había políticos que fueran honestos.
• Había mucha gente que nadaba en el mar.
• They compared four groups:
• L2 TI (traditional instruction)
• HL TI
• L2 PI (processing instruction)
• HL PI
Traditional instruction was modeled after exercises in HL textbookssuch as Nuevos mundos (Roca, 2004).
Processing instruction was carried out in keeping with Lee and VanPatten’s (2003) principles and focused on having students correctly interpret sentences with indefinite or nonexistent antecedents.
Both HL and L2
learners showed
significant pre- to
posttest
improvement on
interpretation
and production
tasks.
Results of Potowski et al. (2009)
• Both HL and L2 learners made significant gains from pre to posttest on interpretation and production (although the L2 gains were larger).
• Low statistical power made it unlikely for the researchers to be able to detect any significant difference between TI and PI groups.
Torres (2013)
• In a task-based intervention on the subjunctive in adjectival clauses (with no explicit rule presentation or focus on grammar) Torres (2013) compared HLL and L2 groups.
• L2 learners showed larger gains than HLLs from pretest to posttest.
• Orientation to the tasks was very different in the two groups:
• L2 learners were form-oriented and engaged in extensive hypothesis testing : they used the task to make form-meaning connections
• HLLs were not form-oriented and instead focused on the content
So what does this mean?
• The results of the studies suggest that instruction is beneficial for HL learners (although we need uninstructed controls to determine this with certainty).
• The discrepancies between L2 and HL learners’ gains suggest that the two groups may respond differently to instruction.
• More study is needed to determine what type of instruction most benefits HL learners.
Heritage learners do not benefit from explicit
grammar instruction.
• The findings of the studies just presented suggest that HL learners do benefit from explicit grammar instruction.
• What is not known is whether they would benefit more from some other method.
• Going back to the L2 literature, the Canadian CBI context could be a source of inspiration.
• In Quebec, from the age of 10 through the end of high school, learners are immersed in their non-dominant language, taking content classes in that language.
• This context provides them with lots of rich input (written and oral).
• At the end of high school, students have nativelike comprehension abilities but fall short in production, making many mistakes in areas where the two languages differ.
• This has been used to support the idea that L2 learners need not only positive evidence (grammatical input) but also negative evidence (evidence of what is impossible or ungrammatical).
• Since the context of acquisition is different for HL learners (reduced input), perhaps they do not need negative evidence but instead just a large quantity of positive evidence (input).
• The jury is still out on that question!
Pairing heritage learners with L2 learners in the the classroom is mutually detrimental.
• Whenever learners are paired in class, there are three possible outcomes:
a) Mutual benefit (both students learn from the interaction)
b) Mutual detriment (neither student learns from the interaction)
c) One learner benefits significantly more than the other
L2-HL interaction
• In mixed HL/L2 classes, this is of particular concern given their differing language learning backgrounds and research (e.g., Potowski, 2002) that indicates that HL learners sometimes feel mocked or marginalized by L2 classmates.
• Recent research has addressed the issue of pairing in two ways:
• Classroom studies looking at learning opportunities and outcomes for mixed pairs
• Learner perception data
• Despite concern voiced over mixing L2 and HL learners in classrooms (Carreira, 2007; Valdés et al., 2006), little research into what actually happens in such classrooms
• Only 4 studies have examined the linguistic opportunities for HL learners in mixed pairs in task-based interactions (Blake & Zyzik, 2003; Bowles, 2011; Henshaw, 2013; Bowles, Adams & Toth, 2014)
Classroom studies of learning opportunities and outcomes for mixed pairs
Blake & Zyzik (2003)
• Examined chat-based interactions of 11 HL-L2 pairs engaged in a jigsaw task (n=22 learners)
• Laboratory-based study with learners at all different proficiency levels
• Descriptive in nature (no inferential statistics)
• HL learners assisted partners more than the reverse = greater linguistic benefits for L2 learners
Bowles, Adams, and Toth (2014)
• 26 naturally-occurring learner-learner pairs in an intermediate-level(5th semester) Spanish class (n=52 learners)
• 13 L2-HL and 13 L2-L2 pairs
• Two-way information exchange (oral) task
• Pairs were similar in terms of number of LREs but LREs were more likely to be resolved in a targetlike way in L2-HL pairs than in L2-L2 pairs
• In this classroom context where proficiency was not controlled and the task was oral, there were more learning opportunities for L2 learners than for their HL peers.
• Significantly more target language talk in mixed than in matchedpairs.
(example from an L2-HL pair)
L2: Ok, alright, mm, uh, tienes una cosa para cocinar pasta, uh, tiene agua.
‘Ok, alright, mm, uh, do you have a thing to cook pasta, uh, it has water.’
HL: ¿Sartén?
‘Frying pan?’
L2: Uhh, arriba del horno.
‘Above the oven’
HL: No. ¿En qué parrilla está?
‘No. Which burner is it on?’
L2: Uhh, arriba del horno.
Uh, above the oven’
HL: ¿En qué parrilla?
‘On which burner?’
L2: ¿Qué?
‘What?’
HL: ¿De qué parilla? Hay cuatro parillas. ¿Dónde está el pollo?
‘From which burner? There are four burners. Where’s the chicken?’ [also on the stovetop]
L2: Sí, a la iz-, a la derecha del pollo.
‘Yeah, to the lef- to the right of the chicken.’
(example from an L2-L2 pair):
L2a: Tengo un, eh, una esp- . . . a spoon?
‘I have a, eh, a esp-, a spoon?’
L2b: Cuchara, cuchara
‘Spoon, spoon.’
L2a: Cuchara is fork.
L2b: No, tenedor is fork.
L2a: Oh, cuchara de sopa.
‘Oh, soup spoon.’
L2b: OK
Results of Bowles, Adams, and Toth (2014)
• In this classroom context where proficiency was not controlled and the task was oral, there were more learning opportunities for L2 learners than for their HL peers.
• Significantly more target language talk in mixed thanin matched pairs.
Bowles (2011)
• 9 L2-HL dyads (n=18 learners) completing three tasks
• Written: crossword task and a cloze/story completion task
• Oral: spot-the-differences
• Matched for proficiency using a portion of the (written) DELE test
Results of Bowles (2011)
• By linguistic focus there were statistically significant differences:
• 47/70 (67%) orthography-focused LREs were initiated by HL learners and L2 learners were able to resolve the issues in a targetlike way in 94% of cases
• 26/35 (74%) vocabulary-focused LREs were initiated by L2 learners and HL partners were able to resolve the issues in a targetlike way in 88% of cases
• L2 learners seem to have an advantage in written taskswhereas HL learners seem to have an advantage in oral tasks.
• Their skills can complement each other well.
Henshaw (2013)
• Henshaw (2013) analyzed the interactions and written texts of 8 L2-HL pairs engaged in a collaborative writing task
• All learners were enrolled in the same course but there was no other control for proficiency
• HL learners initiated more reactive form-focused episodes (FFEs), whereas L2 learners initiated more preemptive FFEs
• This suggests that HL learners were providing more corrective feedback than L2 learners, who were initiating FFEs to address gaps in their own knowledge
Reactive FFE initiated by HL learner
Preemptive FFE initiated by L2 learner
Results of Henshaw (2013)
• Her results showed that HL learners were less likely to incorporate information from their L2 partners in subsequent writing than the reverse
• In the vast majority of cases, the information not incorporated by the HL learners was orthographic in nature
• Main conclusion: Benefits are greater for L2 learners in this context (proficiency not controlled)
• Bowles and Montrul (2014) survey of HL learners’ perceptions
• When asked whether they preferred to be in a Spanish course just with other HL learners
• Course preference:• 25% with HL learners
• 75% with L2 learners/no preference
• In the task-based studies, students tend to recognize their own strengths and weaknesses and those of their partners:
• Bowles (2011): ”Put us together and we’re a great Spanish team!”
Separate or together?
What can we conclude from these studies of mixed L2-HL pairs?
• If proficiency is not controlled, L2 learners tend to benefit more than HL learners.
• If proficiency is controlled and both oral and written tasks are involved, L2 and HL learners can have mutually beneficial interactions and learning opportunities.
HL learners want to have their errors
corrected.
• Ducar’s (2008) survey of 152 students enrolled in an intensive SHL program revealed that an overwhelming majority (91%) wanted to have their errors corrected.
• This runs counter to the anecdotal belief that correction might discourage students or deter them from wanting to continue taking HL classes.
In mixed classes, HL and L2 learners
generally have negative perceptions of
each other.
• A recent study (Bello, 2014) surveyed Spanish instructors and SHL students in mixed classes.
• Students completed questionnaires on their perceptions near the beginning and end of the semester to enable comparisons to be made, whereas instructors completed just one questionnaire.
Results of Bello (2014)
• Results indicated that from the beginning to the end of the semester (during which the SHL were enrolled in mixed classes) students’ perceptions changed.
• Some students at the outset reported not liking to work with L2 learners, but by the end of the semester, 89.4% of students agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I like working with L2 learners.”
• The study did not survey L2 learners on their perceptions of HLs, but the findings suggest that the interactions were positive.
• This suggests that it may be fear of the unknown that leads HL learners to think they do not like working with L2 learners.
• Pair and group work over the semester seems to help.
1. Most colleges and universities have separate tracks for heritage learners of Spanish.
2. There are more SHL courses at the beginning/intermediate proficiency level than at the advanced level.
3. Research comparing uninstructed heritage speakers to instructed heritage speakers shows that instruction is beneficial for SHLs’ language acquisition.
4. Research has shown that heritage learners benefit more from instruction than L2 learners do.
In summary
5. Heritage learners do not benefit from explicit grammar instruction.
6. Pairing HL learners with L2 learners in the classroom is mutually detrimental.
7. HL learners want to have their errors corrected.
8. In mixed classes, HL and L2 learners generally have negative perceptions of each other.
In summary
So…
Research doesn’t yet have all the pieces to complete the puzzle of HL instruction…
but based on the pieces we have, we can make some practical recommendations for teaching.
The pink elephant in the room…
Placement
Controlling for proficiency seems to be key in the success of mixed classes… but will we ever be able to maintain proficiency equal among students?
Multilevel classes…Aren’t they all?
I wish we only had to worry about “levels”!
Multi-skills
Multi-interests
Multi-backgrounds
The mixed messages
• Unspoken expectations
• What the teacher expects of the students
• What the students expect of the teacher/class
• What the students expect of themselves
• What the teacher expect of himself/herself
• What the students think the teacher expects of them
• What the teacher thinks the students expect of the class
• The S word
“Should”
Don’t assume
What do they…
…want?
…know?
…like?
Reflect on what you do
• In class
Controlling
Grouping strategies
Feedback
Use of L1
Interpreting
Assigning (unwanted) roles
Reflect on what you do
•Outside of class
Resistance (“they should
not be in my class”)
Pre-conceived notions (“they just want an
easy A”)
How to avoid the mixed messages
• Let it all out
• Be a good observer
• Know your students
• Let go of control!
Suggestions made by Carreira (2012)
• Agendas
• Student-driven goals
• Centers
• Resources, extra practice
• Exit cards
• Private reflections
Technology can help
Flexibility
Choice
Anonymity
Activities for mixed-classes
• Ethnographic interviews
Activities for mixed-classes
• Stations
Activities for mixed-classes
• Two-way crossword puzzlesR
R E G A L A R
C
L
A
A M
L O G O T I P O C A R T E L
M
A
C V A L O R
É E
N S
T
U
A
R
I
O
M E R C A N C í A
Activities for mixed-classes
• Dictogloss
• The instructor reads a short passage.
• Students listen and try to remember as much as possible.
• Students work in groups to reconstruct the text word-for-word.
• Follow-up typically consists of questions related to the content of the text.
Activities for mixed-classes
• “Phone tag”
• Leaving & taking messages
Activities for mixed-classes
• Translating materials
• Bank brochures
• Signs around campus
Give it an authentic purpose!
Start with models!
Topics for mixed-classes
• Stereotypes
• Learning styles/strategies
• Dialectal variation / slang
• Bilingualism
• Work
• Health
• Social justice
• Relationships
• Travel / study abroad
• Film
• Music / Art
Approaches for mixed-classes
1. CBI
2. PBL
3. LSP
Why content-based?
1. Authentic input
2. Appreciation for different dialects, registers
3. Form is not divorced from meaning
Total immersion
Sheltered instruction
Theme-based
instruction
Language classes (content is
for language practice)
Examples of intermediate-levelcontent-based courses
• “Spanish in the professions”
• “Readings in Hispanic Texts”
Why project-based?
1. Authentic purpose
2. Appreciation for collaboration
3. Student voice and choice
Examples of projects
• “For the students, by the students”
• Interviewing / Surveying
• Creating / Curating content
• Reviewing / Critiquing
Examples of projects
• “Film Series”
• Selecting movies
• Captioning / Translating
• Promotional materials
Examples of projects
• “Serving the community”
• Interviewing/surveying
• Reviewing
• Raising awareness / advertising
• Translating materials
• Social media marketing
Why LSP?
1. Authentic content + authentic purpose
2. Transferrable skills
3. Personal relevance
Examples of LSP courses
• “Business Spanish”
• “Medical Spanish”
Balance projects that tap into each learner’s strengths
with those that tap into each other’s weaknesses
