VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:04:47 06/06/03 Fri
Author: Lidiane
Subject: Task five

Task 5
Krasehn's theories of language acquisition and the Fractal Model
“FRACTAL MODEL OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION”, acquisition is described as a very complex process that is influenced for a variety of causes and, therefore, cannot be easily predictable as some models of learning and teaching theories have attempted to simplify. Its complexity is compared to the theory of chaos, in which small things may cause important changes in the process of a phenomenon. Besides, it is described as a non-linear system; thus, we cannot predict it as does for instance, the behaviorist approach. Because of this unpredictability of the “edge of chaos” (zone of creativity) it is only possible to reach a point “sensitive to variations in the parts of the system: the learner who is enabled by input+1 (Krashen’s theory)”¹. Language acquisition, then, can be seen, according to Paiva, as a dynamic movement trying to reach this “edge of chaos”. Another important aspect is that, allied to this complexity, there are sub-systems in language acquisition (biological, cognitive, and affective processes; motivation; historical and social context; processes of affiliation; input processing; creation of automatic habits, and interaction) that may create constant changes in the whole system: stability and chaos and next reestablishment of order (that is different from the previous one). Because of this imbalance, the author believes that language acquisition should be seen as an unending dynamic process, which is happens differently in each student. Therefore, the Fractal Model analyses all this complexity and dynamic of language and its acquisition, considering these subsystems that are put in fractals. Successful acquisition does not, then depends not only on the comprehensible input as Krashen puts is, but on the on the connections among the various subsystems (cognitive or social ones). The author concludes that, due to these dynamic, varied and almost chaotic characteristics of language acquisition, effective teaching should be more creative instead of an imposition of teacher’s own method or beliefs.
“Stephen Krashen’s Theory of second Language Acquisition” describes his five theories of language acquisition, which have influenced studies in learning and teaching. According to Krashen he best methods are the ones that involve comprehensible input in low anxiety situations, with interaction of messages that speakers want to hear because according to him, in this natural communication, speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.” (http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html). Different from the Fractal model, his theories are based on a regularity and previsibility of steps in language acquisition. I feel this specially in his Natural Order hypotheses, in which he states that acquisition of certain elements of language follow a natural other that are not dependent of learners’ age, L1 background and exposure to language, consequently, teaching should be based on this order. But similar to Fractal Method, his Input hypothesis states learners do not achieve the level of linguistic competence at the same time, that is, learning occurs in different times in each person. However, he states that the key to make learners to receive this competence, or comprehensible input, is by this natural communicative input (“i+1” or the zone of proximal development) which does not consider dynamicity, instability and complexity of language acquisition as much as Paiva’s Fractal model.
In my opinion, language acquisition is very complex, thus language teaching cannot only be based on approaches and methods that see learning process as an instable model neither learners as objects to be modeled. Considering all the theories I have read and that have, of course, influenced my opinion about second language and foreign language studies, language itself is very complex because human beings are not easy. The complexity of biological and psychological elements of human beings with the complexity of society that surrounds us create this difficulties to acquire language and even to explain how it does work. In my opinion, all serious theories about learning have very important elements that we cannot simply neglect. Some of them can explain how some people’ learning process happened and others cannot, because each person’s language acquisition is somehow different. For instance, taking my own as example, Krashen’s Monitor hypothesis may explain how I learned English because I was a type of monitor and editor of most part of my learning, that is, I tried to be conscious of this process; however I do not believe that his Natural Order theory may work in my English learning process because it was really complex as a result of different types of teaching (from traditional to communicative one), there was no order. In this point, I believe that there is really dynamicity in this process, which is even influenced by each person’s own characteristics. When I was a teacher I was taking Phonology classes at the college and tried to take some theories of it to class to help my students to learn pronunciation. Some of them took it very fast, but others could not. For me, it was very easy to realize all those sounds and the importance of them, but some people do not pay much attention to it while they practice the language. Thus, language acquisition depends on each person and, in my opinion, the learning process is never ready. If language is dynamic, so should be teaching. Concluding, I agree with Paiva’s method and other theories that consider the importance of this chaotic and non-linear characteristic of language to teach it.

References
http://www.veramenezes.com/model.htm
http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.