Relevance of Knowledge of Second Language Acquisition:
FINDINGS
Not feeling Convinced
The instructor of the SLA class believed that most teacher-learners came to her class with certain preconceived notions about SLA. She believed that most teacher-learners felt (1) that people learned L2 by “repetition and practice” and (2) that it was their “teaching order” and (3) that students’ L1 would make a difference in their learning of L2. The instructor wanted to demonstrate to the teacher-learners that, based on SLA theories, it was the “internal order” rather than the “teaching order” that would make a difference in SLA. She indicated,
I assume that people come into that class thinking that people learn second languages through practice and repetition. Whatever they hear, that’s what they’ll learn and L1 is gonna make a big difference in their learning. That’s kind of what I am assuming what people think... Students do a lot of stuff that doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the teaching order but has to do with their own internal order. (Interview, November 13, 2001)
The instructor believed that one of the best ways to convince the teacher-learners was through giving them different examples from research and using many illustrations. She further said:
And there are all of these different examples and illustrations of what these learners do no matter how much language and what language they hear and so forth and I feel that it takes a lot of convincing to convince my students. (Interview, November 13, 2001)
For example, in order to illustrate the point that L2 learners, no matter their age, gender, and linguistic background, go through a similar acquisition order/path for morphemes, the instructor gave examples using data from several empirical studies conducted by different researchers at different research sites. She also illuminated the point on the blackboard by drawing figures and lines corresponding to different acquisition rates (from 10% to 100% on the Y axis) and with generally the same curves and shapes for each group (with different morphemes labeled on the X axis) to demonstrate that they share a similarity in acquisition order (Classroom observation, from 10-04-01 to 10-18-01).
Unfortunately, Peiling was not convinced even with a variety of examples based on empirical studies and with the instructor’s efforts in class. Part of the reason was that Peiling, as an EFL learner herself, was not sure whether she had gone through the kind of acquisition order/sequence suggested by the developmental patterns. Because she had learned the rules first, she perceived that her EFL learning did not follow the kind of process suggested by the theory. In other words, Peiling questioned the extent to which SLA theory held in EFL settings.
[I didn’t go through the sequence] because I learned the rules first and most of the time I didn’t make such mistakes like [in] those examples. I don’t know. It seems not so bad to learn such rules first... 1 think ... that you have to go through such [a] process. You have to make some mistakes [in order to] then learn something. I don’t know. (Interview, 09-20-02)
Testing linguistic theory in labs (not necessarily in the classroom) was seen by the instructor as the principle job for SLA researchers. However, Peiling perceived that the given examples were mainly conducted in experimental, controlled, and structured laboratory environments (vs. natural, uncontrolled and unstructured classroom settings) and therefore felt that the theory was developed “under some kind of conditions” and “[SLA] researchers control those factors.” Peiling had serious reservations about the validity of the findings, which, she believed, might not be the same when experiments are conducted in natural settings.
I think even if there are a lot examples and a lot of numbers but I don’t know why it still does not convince me....But I don’t know why even though there are so many examples. I think because... maybe it’s because that all of the research are under some kind of conditions... I think the researchers control those factors (Interview, 10-11 -02)
Lastly, having the fundamental belief that “researchers should [make] some contribution to our real world by providing some basic suggestions to educators or teachers, Peiling also questioned the value of experiment-based SLA research by saying, “Why do you [develop] those theories? Why do you do such research? Then you don’t have to do research” (Interview, 10-11-01) since SLA researchers’ priority, as the instructor saw it, was not about classroom application. She felt that “knowledge about language does not mean that it helps [her] know more about teaching” (Interview, 09-26-01). How to relate SLA theory to her teaching was what counted as the main focus of an SLA course for Peiling.
