The implications of brain plasticity research on ESL teaching are many and far reaching. The revolation that adult minds continue to form new brain pathways has begun to start a revolution in second language acquisition (learning) research and education. The findings of neuro-scientists has provided hard evidence to back up what social-interactions have been saying for years, namely that adults can learn a second or multiple languages all throughout the adult years of life. Yet, what happens when the neuro-scientists, such as Dr. Michael Merzenich, begin impeding on the social-interactionists' turf by designing their own educational teaching methods by way of learning computer programs that are rooted on a classist belief, that lower class students underperform because they have not yet developed the neuropathways that middle and upper class students already have in place? Will this new scientific based education deem more effective than the multiculturally sensitive, communicative, collaborative teaching techniques of the social-interactionists?
To examine this question, let's first review the differing beliefs of inatists and social-interactionists. The following excerpt from wikipedia.org describes the different opinions held by inatists and social-interactionists regarding I-language and E-language:
In Chomskian linguistics, a distinction is drawn between I-language (internal language) and E-language (external language). In this context, internal language applies to the study of syntax and semantics in language on the abstract level; as mentally represented knowledge in a native speaker. External language applies to language in social contexts, i.e. behavioral habits shared by a community. Internal language analyses operate on the assumption that all native speakers of a language are quite homogeneous in how they process and perceive language.[citation needed] External language fields, such as sociolinguistics, attempt to explain why this is in fact not the case. Many sociolinguists reject the distinction between I- and E-language on the grounds that it is based on a mentalist view of language. On this view, grammar is first and foremost an interactional (social) phenomenon (e.g. Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff, Sandra Thompson).
In other words, the inatists lay more emphasis on the influence our minds have on language while social-interactionists stress that the world we live in has the strongest affect on our language development. Inatists are locked inside of their heads and social-interactionists are locked outside of their minds (figuratively speaking) in regards to how they explain language. What inatists and social-interactionists are unable to see is how the world and ourselves are interconnected and interrelated. In the words of the Beatles (borrowing from Eastern Philososphy), "And the time will come when you see we're all one, and life flows on within you and without you."
Both camps can not be discounted for their contributions to the field of linguistics, for as neuro-science research has shown, internal and external forces physically shape our minds from birth until death. This new knowledge complements inatists theories...
Monday, July 27, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Brain Plasticity and Second Language Acquisition: Part I
Since the 1950s, discussion within the field of Linguistics about the corrolation between neuroscience and language acquisition has been dominated by Noam Chomsky, brilliant, prolific and vastly influential Professor of Linguistics at MIT and political activist. Chomsky's research focused on First Language Acquisition (FLA) using the finding of neuroscience to undergird his theory of Universal Grammar, the theory that we are "hard wired" to acquire language. However, his research and theorizing was ubiquitous of the time in believing that after a developmental stage that ends sometime around the early teen years, our minds are then forever locked into - or stuck in - whatever state of wiring they are in at that moment. This is a wonderful and very logical way to explain FLA during childhood but what about Second Language Acquisition (SLA)?
Hard core believers in Chomsky's work - or Innatists, as some call thems - such as Stephen Krashen believe that SLA occurs in the same way as FLA, so that we acquire languages rather than learn them, and all that is needed is comprehensible input and ideal learning conditions (e.g. low stress). Those in the Social-Interactivist camp have appeared to be the more rationale than the Innatists in their ability to bring into the mix the factors that contribute to how we learn and who we are. As opposed to the Innatists who appear to believe that we are just minds who are not influenced by the outside world, our environment or rather social interaction have a tremendous influence on how we acquire language or learn anything, whether it be language, science or how to interact in society. Social-interactionist indeed have their hearts in the right place by putting social justice and the fight against oppression at the root of their beliefs and philosophies. Following this train of thought would make alot of sense, if it were true that our minds were locked into place by the time we all hit puberty. However, recent research in the field of neuroscience has shown this to be untrue.
Neuroscientists have found that our minds are plastic, not literaly plastic but plastic in the sense that they are constantly changing physically from birth until we die. Even in very elderly people at the end of their lives, new neuropathways are being created in their brains. Neuroscientists such as Michael Merzenich, Professor of Neuroscience at the University of California, San Francisco are pioneering this area of research and have attempted to use what they have learned from this research to apply it to other areas of knowledge such as physical therapy and psychology. In this video, Bruce Wexler, Professor of Psychiatry at Yale Medical School discussed with Dr. Merzenich about how brain plasticity relates to culture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qd9H5m1U5I
The implications of these insights to language learning (or acquiring as some might say) made by the the research being done by the likes of Merenich and Wexler is far reaching and multifaceted. For anyone who has taught English to new immigrants, particularly those who are in the later stages of life, the challenges of learning a new language and culture can be daunting, even terrifying. As with anyone learning something new, their attempts, failures and successes plainly demonstrate the physical manifestation of their old ingrained thoughts patterns. As Wexler stated, these old thought patterns, and through action, behaviors feel better than thinking new thought patterns. Staying with your own "tribe", following the same cultural customs and speaking your "mother tongue" feels better. Yet, there is the disconnection of being a minority in a small immigrant community within the dominant society which has an alien culture and language. The question then becomes whether the benefits outway the disadvantages of learning a new language and culture or if it is possible to retain one's first culture and language, while learning the new one (which most educated people other than English First proponents know to be possible and culturally and mentally beneficial). With enough motivation, these ELLs do learn making amazing progress moving from just surviving to thriving in their new environments. However, as any aging adult knows, most of us become less and less adventurous as we grow older, making us less able to take the leaps of faith needed to learn new information and have new experiences - two processes essential to new brain growth.
Those in the field of linguistics and education can now begin to proudly say "language learning!" in stead of "language acquisition" and then be able to back up our use of this terminology with research that shows that English Language Learners (ELLs) are actually learning and just acquiring language.
These new advancements in neuroscience do not negate or contradict the beliefs and theories of Innatists and Social-Interactions but rather it support both schools of thought ellaborating and deepening Chomsky's pioneering research and theories about the innate, "built-in" qualities of First Language Acquisition, while giving Social-Interactionists more solid ground to lay their claims about the influence of one's social environment on language learning. It is the eternal argument of nurture vs. nature. Of course, it is both. We acquire and learn language. The level of acquisition does appear to be more apt to occur during the early years of life when our brains are literally being wired. Later on in life, the generative growth process in our brains does slow down but it does not stop. What Social-Interactionists have known for years can now be proven scientifically that while adults may not be acquiring new brain growth, through conscious motivation to learn new information and to engage in new experiences, adults are able to create astounding cerebral development.
Now that we know that adults are not "stuck" with their original "hard wiring" and can learn anything from being able to overcome a physical disability to learn a new language and culture. While scientists have proven tested and proven how people with disabilities can retrain their minds and bodies to overcome the loss of the use of a limb, sense or in general cognitive faculty, the field of linguistics and language learning is a brand new frontier. We know that it can be done - adults can learn new languages and cultures - but how is it done? Many approaches and methods already exhist from the different Behaviorialist, Innatist and Social-Interactionist camps. Yet, which ones work the most effectively and how? Using neuroscientific research as a guide, we can now hone in on how to educate language learners in with the exactness of a lazer rather than our previous shotgun approach.
The danger of this Brave New World is whether the research results will lead educators, and even more dangerous - governmental education policy makers in, to prescribe education methods which are inhumane or will the research lead us to understand the nature of ourselves with humane educational teaching and learning. The process of understanding out minds is as ellusive and yet enlightening as peering into our very souls. We surely will never understand both completely, but we can reach new heights of knowledge standing on the shoulders of old and new giants like Chomsky, Krashen, Merenich and Wexler.
Hard core believers in Chomsky's work - or Innatists, as some call thems - such as Stephen Krashen believe that SLA occurs in the same way as FLA, so that we acquire languages rather than learn them, and all that is needed is comprehensible input and ideal learning conditions (e.g. low stress). Those in the Social-Interactivist camp have appeared to be the more rationale than the Innatists in their ability to bring into the mix the factors that contribute to how we learn and who we are. As opposed to the Innatists who appear to believe that we are just minds who are not influenced by the outside world, our environment or rather social interaction have a tremendous influence on how we acquire language or learn anything, whether it be language, science or how to interact in society. Social-interactionist indeed have their hearts in the right place by putting social justice and the fight against oppression at the root of their beliefs and philosophies. Following this train of thought would make alot of sense, if it were true that our minds were locked into place by the time we all hit puberty. However, recent research in the field of neuroscience has shown this to be untrue.
Neuroscientists have found that our minds are plastic, not literaly plastic but plastic in the sense that they are constantly changing physically from birth until we die. Even in very elderly people at the end of their lives, new neuropathways are being created in their brains. Neuroscientists such as Michael Merzenich, Professor of Neuroscience at the University of California, San Francisco are pioneering this area of research and have attempted to use what they have learned from this research to apply it to other areas of knowledge such as physical therapy and psychology. In this video, Bruce Wexler, Professor of Psychiatry at Yale Medical School discussed with Dr. Merzenich about how brain plasticity relates to culture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qd9H5m1U5I
The implications of these insights to language learning (or acquiring as some might say) made by the the research being done by the likes of Merenich and Wexler is far reaching and multifaceted. For anyone who has taught English to new immigrants, particularly those who are in the later stages of life, the challenges of learning a new language and culture can be daunting, even terrifying. As with anyone learning something new, their attempts, failures and successes plainly demonstrate the physical manifestation of their old ingrained thoughts patterns. As Wexler stated, these old thought patterns, and through action, behaviors feel better than thinking new thought patterns. Staying with your own "tribe", following the same cultural customs and speaking your "mother tongue" feels better. Yet, there is the disconnection of being a minority in a small immigrant community within the dominant society which has an alien culture and language. The question then becomes whether the benefits outway the disadvantages of learning a new language and culture or if it is possible to retain one's first culture and language, while learning the new one (which most educated people other than English First proponents know to be possible and culturally and mentally beneficial). With enough motivation, these ELLs do learn making amazing progress moving from just surviving to thriving in their new environments. However, as any aging adult knows, most of us become less and less adventurous as we grow older, making us less able to take the leaps of faith needed to learn new information and have new experiences - two processes essential to new brain growth.
Those in the field of linguistics and education can now begin to proudly say "language learning!" in stead of "language acquisition" and then be able to back up our use of this terminology with research that shows that English Language Learners (ELLs) are actually learning and just acquiring language.
These new advancements in neuroscience do not negate or contradict the beliefs and theories of Innatists and Social-Interactions but rather it support both schools of thought ellaborating and deepening Chomsky's pioneering research and theories about the innate, "built-in" qualities of First Language Acquisition, while giving Social-Interactionists more solid ground to lay their claims about the influence of one's social environment on language learning. It is the eternal argument of nurture vs. nature. Of course, it is both. We acquire and learn language. The level of acquisition does appear to be more apt to occur during the early years of life when our brains are literally being wired. Later on in life, the generative growth process in our brains does slow down but it does not stop. What Social-Interactionists have known for years can now be proven scientifically that while adults may not be acquiring new brain growth, through conscious motivation to learn new information and to engage in new experiences, adults are able to create astounding cerebral development.
Now that we know that adults are not "stuck" with their original "hard wiring" and can learn anything from being able to overcome a physical disability to learn a new language and culture. While scientists have proven tested and proven how people with disabilities can retrain their minds and bodies to overcome the loss of the use of a limb, sense or in general cognitive faculty, the field of linguistics and language learning is a brand new frontier. We know that it can be done - adults can learn new languages and cultures - but how is it done? Many approaches and methods already exhist from the different Behaviorialist, Innatist and Social-Interactionist camps. Yet, which ones work the most effectively and how? Using neuroscientific research as a guide, we can now hone in on how to educate language learners in with the exactness of a lazer rather than our previous shotgun approach.
The danger of this Brave New World is whether the research results will lead educators, and even more dangerous - governmental education policy makers in, to prescribe education methods which are inhumane or will the research lead us to understand the nature of ourselves with humane educational teaching and learning. The process of understanding out minds is as ellusive and yet enlightening as peering into our very souls. We surely will never understand both completely, but we can reach new heights of knowledge standing on the shoulders of old and new giants like Chomsky, Krashen, Merenich and Wexler.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Weirdness of Blogging
"I have no money, no resources, no hopes. I am the happiest man alive. A year ago, six months ago, I thought that I was an artist. I no longer think about it, I am. Everything that was literature has fallen from me. There are no more books to be written, thank God. This then? This is not a book. This is libel, slander, and defamation of character. This is not a book, in the ordinary sense of the word. No, this is a prolonged insult, a gob of spit in the face of Art, a kick in the pants of God, Man, Destiny, Time, Love, Beauty… what you will. I am going to sing for you, a little off-key perhaps, but I will sing. I will sing while you croak, I will dance over your dirty corpse."
- Henry Miller, Tropic of Cancer
Blogging is an odd thing. It's an act prone to ego stroking, pointless, boring, meandering, pompous navel gazing. Yet, when done well, it can be as interesting, engaging and as deep as any other quality writing. Who would want to read someone's boring diary online? However, who would resist reading the diaries of Anais Nin? I've tried (and failed) keeping a journal but I have found that when rereading what I've written, I am left thinking, "How naive I was back then!" I had more success using the journal to jot down lyrical ideas.
So, as I look down into the abyss of possible horrendous writing and/or inspired words, I feel very much like Henry Miller did prior to finding his voice as an author. I believe that Miller never lost his voice but just was not able to voice it freely with confidence and the bravado he is known for.
In the Rosy Crucifixion, he spoke of how he could dream the words and say the words to a close friends, but once he sat down in front of a type writer, the muse was gone. For anyone who has read Crazy Cock and Nexus from the Rosy Crucifixion trilogy, it appears that previous to finding his voice, he was still able to write, just not as well. Both books are essentially the same story with one told in the third person and the other told in the first person. Nexus, told in what became Miller's trade mark blazen and brilliant autobiographical tone, is by far the seperior of the two. Crazy Cock comes across as overly restrained, stifled, trite and boring, while Nexus is like getting a direct connection to the confessional thoughts a great story teller's mind.
Although Miller often described himself as a being a coward, the word that comes to my mind to describe him is brave. His bravery to perservere as an artist well into his forties while living an adventurous life to the fullest gives hope to those meaker artists trapped in a hum drum world. His writing is "a prolonged insult, a gob of spit in the face of Art, a kick in the pants of God, Man, Destiny, Time, Love, Beauty..." He does as he says singing off key as he dances over our "dirty corpses". Put in less eloquent words, it's giant F you to God, the world and that cowardly voice in our minds saying, "Don't do it! Don't say that! Someone might get offended! Someone might think that you're the crazed mad man you are! You may live to regret it!" In describing Miller's courage, it gives me a small sense of bravery to brazenly blog on, until that nagging voice comes back into my mind and I am left silenced, singing with a scared voice, shyly dancing, looking at the awkward face staring back in the mirror.
- Henry Miller, Tropic of Cancer
Blogging is an odd thing. It's an act prone to ego stroking, pointless, boring, meandering, pompous navel gazing. Yet, when done well, it can be as interesting, engaging and as deep as any other quality writing. Who would want to read someone's boring diary online? However, who would resist reading the diaries of Anais Nin? I've tried (and failed) keeping a journal but I have found that when rereading what I've written, I am left thinking, "How naive I was back then!" I had more success using the journal to jot down lyrical ideas.
So, as I look down into the abyss of possible horrendous writing and/or inspired words, I feel very much like Henry Miller did prior to finding his voice as an author. I believe that Miller never lost his voice but just was not able to voice it freely with confidence and the bravado he is known for.
In the Rosy Crucifixion, he spoke of how he could dream the words and say the words to a close friends, but once he sat down in front of a type writer, the muse was gone. For anyone who has read Crazy Cock and Nexus from the Rosy Crucifixion trilogy, it appears that previous to finding his voice, he was still able to write, just not as well. Both books are essentially the same story with one told in the third person and the other told in the first person. Nexus, told in what became Miller's trade mark blazen and brilliant autobiographical tone, is by far the seperior of the two. Crazy Cock comes across as overly restrained, stifled, trite and boring, while Nexus is like getting a direct connection to the confessional thoughts a great story teller's mind.
Although Miller often described himself as a being a coward, the word that comes to my mind to describe him is brave. His bravery to perservere as an artist well into his forties while living an adventurous life to the fullest gives hope to those meaker artists trapped in a hum drum world. His writing is "a prolonged insult, a gob of spit in the face of Art, a kick in the pants of God, Man, Destiny, Time, Love, Beauty..." He does as he says singing off key as he dances over our "dirty corpses". Put in less eloquent words, it's giant F you to God, the world and that cowardly voice in our minds saying, "Don't do it! Don't say that! Someone might get offended! Someone might think that you're the crazed mad man you are! You may live to regret it!" In describing Miller's courage, it gives me a small sense of bravery to brazenly blog on, until that nagging voice comes back into my mind and I am left silenced, singing with a scared voice, shyly dancing, looking at the awkward face staring back in the mirror.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
ESL and Yoga: Squash and Stretch
As I was attempting to stretch my ependages in opposite directions while touching my finger to my navel by route of wrapping my arm around my back, I got to thinking - sssstttrrrreeecccchhh - about how yoga and learning a language are kind of the same.
While seeming quite different - yoga being more physical and langauge learning being more about communication - they're both kind of the same. Yoga is a meditation of mind, body and soul. Learning a language broadens one's horizons culturally and linguistically. Both yoga and language learning can expand and deepen one's thinking, set one on the path to a more fulfilling and richer life, and maybe even give a soul inner peace.
But first you have to get over yourself, your own feeling of being exposed to a bunch of strangers in your skin tight spandex leotard that you're cursing yourself for ever buying.
You have to get over feeling so utterly odd to be trying to move your mouth in a different way and say these funny sounding words that just don't seem right, seem so contrary with how you were brought up to think, speak, talk and listen.
You're having to bend yourself into a pretzel, doing what for men might feel like effeminate poses, while women are overwhelmed with feelings of body self-consciousness.
Your spare tire is hanging out. Your accent sucks.
Your bottom is facing the ceiling for all to see. You can't read a childish, simple phrase to save your life.
You can barely balance yourself on one foot without toppling over. You strain to put two words together without it sounding like a car wreck, an American car wreck.
You're falling down in a heap on your hiddeous purple, sweat covered yoga mat that you just blew $10 bucks on. You just made a complete and total fool of yourself to the entire class by saying that you are horny when you were trying to say that the temperature in the room feels uncomforably warm.
Persperation is dripping down your brow like a crazed lunatic. You are unaware of the pained expression on your face like someone possessed by demons. As you attempt to fake a smile, all your face muscles can muster up is a demented scowel.
Oh, it seemed like such a harmless idea. I'll try yoga! It will improve my overall health! I'll learn a new language! It will broaden my horizons!
It's like being a baby again, yet far more embarrasing because at least babies haven't had a life time of experiences to inform their inhibited minds that what they are doing is just flat out wrong and it's not worth trying.
Adult are fighting something in themselves, fighting the urge to learn a new language cause you already know a langauge. When you're a kid, you don't fight that feeling. There's nothing to fight. You just accept stuff and take it in as is. As an adult, it's only natural to use what you know to help you to learn the second language. But it can also mess you up cause you're trying to apply what you know in the L1 (first language) to the L2 (second language), and you get stuck cause you can't let go of that old way of doing it. Sometimes it gets like really annoying and frustrating like, "What does English have such messed up spelling?" or "Why does SPanish have weird verb tenses that we don't have in English?", etc.
The yoga comparison is good also cause if you can't do some of the poses, there are modified poses in which you have like a foam block or a rope that helps you to do the pose even though it's in a modified way. The same goes for ESL. You want students to read a tough text but the vocab is too high for them, so you could either simplify the vocab or give the vocab to the students to learn before hand with plenty of exercises to learn the vocab and then have them read it. Or there's this idea of scaffolding in which like the scaffolding on a building, you go from where you are a little higher and a little higher, or rather you use what you know and go a bit farther. Stephen Krashen, this linguistic theorist said that it's this i + 1 thing. "I" being you plus one, being a little new bit of knowledge. Stretching to the new bit of knowledge.
We are all in search of balance in our lives physically, mentally and spiritually. We want to be healthy, wealthy and wise, to live the richest, most fruitful life possible. Many search far and wide for whatever method of diet, exercise and stress management will help them to fulfill their dreams of wellness and happiness, while meanwhile, our toxic culture tempts us all to stray from the path of righteousness into the valley of doubt, disease and despair. We look to the latest exercise or diet fad, or we look to our own culture or other cultures for tried and true ways of staying healthy. Some find what works for them and others search on endlessly.
It's not much of a stretch (nuk, nuk, nuk) to think of the 4 parts of language - reading, writing, speaking, and listening - as being similar to the 3 parts of ourselves - mind, body and soul - in that all are interrelated, or better still, as different muscle groups.
Think about this. No seriously, think about this! When you're learning a new language (you're probably not learning a new language but if you were!), your mind is working overtime thinking about the new language and thinking about whatever else it is that you're doing, whether it be in a classroom or out in the real world. If you're able to "think in the Spanish" or whatever the second language is your learning, you're mind does not have to work as hard as if you are constantly taking in information, translating, understanding, translating your respond and then saying it while trying to not sound like a dope because your accent doesn't even sound like a cheap immitation of the real thing.
So, in a sheltered immersion English math class, you're left there trying to first figure out what the hell a "denominator" is in while meanwhile, you're left scratching your head as to why in your first language you were able to do trigonometry and calculus, and now you're stuck in remedial algebra.
You, yes you, are trying to stretch to the next level a bit beyond what you were able to do before. Stretching your body and stretching your mind. The end result though of yoga is that you feel so at peace because when you are doing yoga poses and particularly when you finish, your mind is totally at peace. The thought that I always have is to not beat up myself and to just accept stuff the way it is. Some how my mind just opens up and I just accept stuff the way it is. You just kind of feel the pain and sadness, and don't try to fight it off. Then afterwards you feel happy and at peace.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)