Peer Teaching Observation Report

Observation Report

Teachers : Aashi Joshi, Anu, Katrina, Kankan Das

Observer : Yanuar Dwi Prastyo

Element : Grammar

Sub-Element : Describing and Comparing People

Date : 14 October 2010

Class Level : 6

Duration : 60 minutes

Preparation Stage (Aashi)

Description of the Class Activities

The class started by teacher showing a picture to students and told them that the picture is teacher’s friend. Then teacher wrote the description of the picture on the basis of the characteristics given on the chart. After that teacher put 10 pictures with its details description on her table and asked students to come and pick up one picture as their friend. After students have chosen their friend, teacher asked students to give name to the picture and looked at the details mentioned along with the picture. Next teacher asked one student to show his/her friend to the class and teacher made comparison between student’s picture and teacher’s picture according to the given characteristics. After that teacher divided students in pairs and asked them to compare their picture with their pairs. Then teacher elicited some words used to compare different things like “tall-taller, small-smaller, big-bigger, etc”. Before the end of the stage, teacher gave summary of that stage.

Comments:

Aashi started the class with very nice and warm facial expression, voice and body movement which can motivate students to participate actively in the class. From the very beginning of the class Aashi maintained good eye contact to the students, her voice and body language also showed that she is very confident and willing to teach. The idea of making students came forward and picked up a picture on the table was very good because it can grasp students’ full attention and make students get involve totally to the class activity. Asking students to give name to their picture could make students feel that the picture is really their friend. Making students share their friend in pairs also gave students initial practice on how to describe and compare pictures’ characteristics. The only one problem which I noticed was teacher’s writing on the chart was not clear because the color choice which was similar to the chart color.

Presentation Stage (Katrina)

Description of the Class Activities

This stage was started by the teacher bringing students’ attention to the chart and then using the words on the chart and started to explain the “er” and “ier” form to the students. Teacher also elicited some more words used to compare things which end in “y” sound like “lazy, heavy, happy, etc” then focusing on the different form of “er” and “ier” in comparing things. In this stage, students were very active to participate in class activities. Next, teacher showed a cartoon video and asked the students to give attention to the words used in comparing things. Teacher explained the word “less than” and “more than” to the students and its function in comparing things. Finally teacher gave summary of the lesson on this stage.

Comments

:

Katrina started this stage by bringing students attention to the chart and explained the words. Katrina’s voice and body language was very nice. She also involved students in the class activities by giving some question and eliciting some words from the students. She also gave a good feedback for students’ participation in the class. One problem in this stage was that when eliciting some words from students, although Katrina gave good feedback to the students but she did not write students’ words on the board. There was also problem in audio visual tool which distracted students’ attention.

Practice Stage (Anu G)

Description of the Class Activities

Teacher started this stage by asking students whether they wanted to know their friends’ picture. Then, teacher asked students to stand up and go around seeing their friends’ picture and finding out the exact opposite of their picture based on the characteristics along with their picture. Students went around and compare their picture with their friends’ picture to make comparison. Then, after all students got the exact opposite of their picture, they sat in pairs and wrote down a paragraph which compares their picture. Students were given 5 minutes to write and then they were asked to present their paragraph in front of the class. While the students presented their paragraph, teacher gave feedback and encouragement.

Comments:

Anu started her part by creating curiosity in students’ mind by asking if they wanted to see their friends’ picture. She maintained good eye contact with the students and controlling the class very well. Her voice also good and all students can understand what she is saying. Her instructions to the students were also very clear. She monitored students work very well and always encouraged the students to actively participate in the class and gave good feedback.

Production Stage (Kankan)

Description of the Class Activities

Teacher started this stage by asking students to open their surprise strip in their picture. In that strip students found the number of calories needed by the picture. Then teacher divided students into two groups. After the students settled in two groups, they were asked to choose the healthiest eating habit among their group member based on the characteristics of the picture’s eating habit. Then students discussed in their group of why they chose the particular picture to be the healthiest picture. Students had 5 minutes to discuss with their group member then they compare in debate with other group. And when they were debating, one student from each group wrote down their group good point on the board. The teacher then chose the winner by looking at which group used more comparative sentences in their description.

Comments:

Kankan has a very nice smile while teaching. He was very energetic and active while teaching. But there were some problem that I found in his teaching. First, I noticed that his instruction was not clear to the students so that there were many confusion and question while students doing their task. He also gave the instruction once in each group instead of giving the instruction to the whole class, this made different understanding between the two groups. While the discussion and the debate were going on, there were only two or three students dominate the class.

Overall, the class lesson and activities were successfully done. During the class, students were actively participated and learning was taking place. The level of the lesson is appropriate with the level of the students’ ability which is in 6 grade.

The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis

The acquisition-learning distinction is perhaps the most fundamental of all hypotheses proposed by Stephen Krashen. It states that adults have two distinction and independent ways of developing competence in a second language.
The first way is language acquisition, a process similar, if not identical, to the way children develop ability in their first language. Language acquisition is a subconscious process; language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language for communication. The result of language acquisition, acquired competence, is also subconscious. We are generally not consciously aware of the rules of the languages we have acquired. Instead, we have a “feel” for correctness. Grammatical sentences “sound” right, or “feel” right, and errors feel wrong, even if we do not consciously know what rule was violated.
Other ways of describing acquisition include implicit learning, informal learning, and natural learning. In non-technical language, acquisition is “picking-up” a language.
The second way to develop competence in a second language is by language learning. We will use the term “learning” henceforth to refer to conscious knowledge of a second language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them. In non-technical terms, learning is “knowing about” a language, known to most people as “grammar” or “rules”. Some synonyms include formal knowledge of a language, or explicit learning.
Some second language theorists have assumed that children acquire, while adults can only learn. The acquisition-learning hypothesis claims, however, that adults also acquire, that the ability to “pick-up” language does not disappear at puberty. This does not mean that adults will always be able to achieve native-like levels in a second language. It does mean that adults can access the same natural “language acquisition device” that children use. As we shall see later acquisition is a very powerful process in the adult.
Error correction has little or no effect on subconscious acquisition, but is thought to be useful for conscious learning. Error correction supposedly helps the learner to induce or “figure out” the right form of a rule. If, for example, a student of English as a second language says “I goes to school every day”, and the teacher corrects him or her by repeating the utterance correctly, the learner is supposed to realize that the /s/ ending goes with the third person and not the first person, and alter his or her conscious mental representation of the rule. This appears reasonable, but it is not clear whether error correction has this impact in actual practice.
Evidence from child language acquisition confirms that error correction does not influence acquisition to any great extent. Brown and his colleagues have shown that parents actually correct only a small portion of the child’s language (occasional pronunciation problems, certain verbs and dirty words). They conclude from their research that parents attend far more to the truth value of what the child is saying rather than to the form. For example: “Her curl my hair” was approved because the mother was in fact curling Eve’s hair. On the other hand, “Walt Disney comes on Tuesday” was corrected, despite its syntactic correctness, since Walt Disney actually came on television on Wednesday. Brown conclude that it seems to be “truth value rather than syntactic well-formedness that chiefly governs explicit verbal reinforcement by parents which renders mildly paradoxical the fact that the usual product of such a training schedule is an adult whose speech is highly grammatical but not notably truthful”.

Taken from: Krashen, S. (1982). Principles & Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press Inc. p.10-11

The Monitor Hypothesis

While the acquisition-learning distinction claims that two separate processes coexist in the adult, it does not state how they are used in second language performance. The monitor hypothesis posits that acquisition and learning are used in very specific ways. Normally, acquisition “initiates” our utterances in a second language and is responsible for our fluency. Learning has only one function, and that is as a monitor, or editor. Learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of our utterance, after it has been “produced” by the acquired system. This can happen before we speak or write, or after (self-correction).
The monitor hypothesis implies that formal rules, or conscious learning, play only a limited role in second language performance. These limitations have become even clearer as research has proceeded in the last few years. This research suggests that second language performers can use conscious rules only when three conditions are met. These conditions are necessary and not sufficient, that is, a performer may not fully utilize his conscious grammar even when all three conditions are met. Those three conditions are:

a) Time
In order to think about and use conscious rules effectively, a second language performer needs to have sufficient time. For most people, normal conversation does not allow enough time to think about and use rules. The over-use of rules in conversation can lead to trouble (a hesitant style of talking and inattention to what the conversational partner is saying).

b) Focus on form
To use the monitor effectively, time is not enough. The performer must also be focused on form, or thinking about correctness. Even when we have time, we may be so involved in what we are saying that we do not attend to how we are saying it.

c) Know the rule
This is a very formidable requirement. Linguistics has taught us that the structure of language is extremely complex, and they claim to have described only a fragment of the best known languages. We can be sure that our students are exposed only to a small part of the total grammar of the language, and we know that even the best students do not learn every rule they are exposed to.

There are some differentials uses of the conscious monitor. Krashen suggests that there may be three basic types of performer.

a) Monitor Over-Users
These are people who attempt to monitor all the time, performers who are constantly checking their output with their conscious knowledge of the second language. As a result, such performers may speak hesitantly, often self-correct in the middle of utterances, and are so concerned with correctness that they cannot speak with any real fluency.
There are may be two different causes for over-user of the grammar. Over-user may first of all drive from the performer’s history of exposure to the second language. Many people, victims of grammar-only type of instruction, have simply no had the chance to acquire much of the second language, and may have no choice but to be dependent on learning. Another type may be related to personality. These over-users have had a chance to acquire, and may actually have acquired a great deal of the second language. They simply do not trust this acquired competence and only feel secure when they refer to their monitor “just to be sure”.

b) Monitor Under-Users
These are performers who have not learned, or if they have learned, prefer not to use their conscious knowledge, even when conditions allow it. Under-users are typically uninfluenced by error correction, can self correct only by using “feel” for correctness and rely completely on the acquired system.

c) The Optimal Monitor Users
Our pedagogical goal is to produce optimal users, performers who use the monitor when it is appropriate and when it does not interfere with communication. Many optimal users will not use grammar in ordinary conversation, where it might interfere. In writing, and in planned speech, however, when there is time, optimal users will typically make whatever correction they can to raise the accuracy or their output.
Optimal monitor users can therefore use their learned competence as a supplement to their acquired competence. Some optimal users who have not completely acquired their second language, who make small and occasional errors in speech, can use their conscious grammar so successfully that they can often produce the illusion of being native in their writing. This does not imply that conscious learning can entirely make up for incomplete acquisition. Some unacquired rules will be learnable and other not. The optimal user is able to fill part of the gap with conscious learning, but not all of it.

Taken from: Krashen, S. (1982). Principles & Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press Inc. p.15-20

SLA and It's Related Disciplines

The study of how second languages are learned is part of the broader study of language and language behavior. It is not more central or peripheral than any other part of linguistics study, which in turn has as its larger goal the study of the nature of the human mind. In fact the mayor goal of second language acquisition research is the determination of linguistic on the formation of second language grammar. Some related discipline of second language acquisition are:
a. Language Pedagogy
Most graduate programs whose goal is to train students in language teaching now have required course work in second language acquisition. People have come to realize that if one is to develop language methodologies, there has to be a firm basis for those methodologies in language learning. It would be counterproductive to base language teaching methodologies on something other than an understanding of how language learning does and does not take place. In other words, pedagogical decision making must reflect what is known about the process of learning, which the domain of second language acquisition. Second, rationale related to language pedagogy has to do with the expectations that teachers have of their students.
b. Cross Culture Communication and Language Use
We have noted some expectation that teachers have about students. Similarly, in interactions with speakers of another language/culture, we have certain expectations and we often produce stereotyped reactions. For example, we may find ourselves making judgments about other people based on their language. It turns out that many stereotypes of people from other cultures (e.g. rudeness, unassertiveness) are based on patterns of nonnative speech. These judgments in many instances are not justified, because many of the speech patterns that nonnative speakers use reflect their nonnativeness rather than characteristics of their personality.
c. Language Policy and Language Planning
Many issues of language policy are dependent on a knowledge of how second languages are learned. For example, issues surrounding bilingualism, such as the English Only Movement in the United States, or the many different types of bilingual education (including immersion program) can only be debated if one is properly informed about the realities and constraints of learning a second language. National language programs often involve decision making that is dependent on a). Information about second language learning, b) the kinds of instruction that can be brought to bear on issues of acquisition, and c) the realities and expectations one can have of such programs. All too often, these issues are debated without a clear understanding of the object of debate, that is, the nature of how second languages are learned.

In sum, second language acquisition is a complex field whose focus the attempt to understand the processes underlying the learning a second language. It is important to reemphasize that the study of second language acquisition is separate from the study of language pedagogy, although this does not imply that there are not implication that can be drawn from second language acquisition to the related discipline of language teaching.

Krashen's Acquisition Learning Hypothesis

The acquisition learning hypothesis is the most fundamental of all hypothesis in Stephen Krashen’s theory and the most widely known among linguists and language practitioners. According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second language performance: “the acquired system” and “the learned system”.
The acquired system or acquisition is the product of a subconscious process very similar to the process children undergo when they acquire their first language. This involves developing the skills of interacting with foreigners to understand them and speak their language. It requires meaningful interaction in the target language – natural communication – in which speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances but in the communicative act.
The learned system or learning is the product of formal instruction and it comprises conscious process which results in conscious knowledge about the language, for example knowledge of grammar rule. This process involves receiving information about the language, transforming it into knowledge through intellectual effort and storing it through memorization. According to Krashen “learning” is less important than “acquisition”.
In this theory Krashen concludes that language acquisition is more efficient than language learning for attaining functional skills in foreign language and that the efficient teaching of language is not that tied to a package course of structured lessons nor is the one that relies on technological resources. Efficient teaching is personalized, based on personal skills of facilitator in creating situations of real communication focusing on the students’ interests and taking place in bicultural environment.

Definition of Second Language Acquistion

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is the study of how second languages are learned. In other words, it is the study of the acquisition of a non-primary language; that is the acquisition of a language beyond the native language. It is the study of how learners create a new language system with only limited exposure to a second language. It is the study of what is learned of a second language and what is not learned; it is the study of why most second language learners do not achieve the same degree of knowledge and proficiency in a second language as they do in their native language; it is also the study of why only some learners appear to achieve native-like proficiency in more than one language. Additionally, second language acquisition is concerned with the nature of the hypotheses (whether conscious or unconscious) that learners come up with regarding the rules of the second language.
The study of second language acquisition draws from and impacts many other areas of study, among them linguistics, psychology, psycholinguistics, sociology, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, conversational analysis, and education, and so on. That’s why second language acquisition is truly an interdisciplinary field.