Human Intelligence and Language Learning

In research terms, intelligence is taken as a construct which explain human behavior, though we cannot prove it exists we can only observe their effects on human beings; and although language proficiency is inevitably a strong determiner of test performance, it can by no means be measured through a median measure of central tendency alone.

Most schools today administer achievement tests in an attempt to measure what an individual has learned and determine his or her present level of performance. Schools, moreover, use these types of tests to determine individual or group status in academic learning. Achievement test scores, in the case of the No Child Left Behind Act, was used in placing, advancing, or retaining students at particular grade levels to diagnose their strengths and weaknesses.

Consequently, one of the major problems that NCLB saw were the differences caused by language factors between LEP and non-LEP groups, thus creating a restricted range distribution of scores. Because of the strong effect of language factors on the instruction and assessment of LEP students, some LEP lagged far behind native English speakers. Most important, since schools differed in terms of their resources, opportunities to learn, socioeconomic status, and level of parent education, these differences have shown tonegatively correlate with their performance on standardized achievement test scores.[2]

“Tests that are used for the purposes of placement and classification have become highly controversial and their use has been prohibited in many communities. The fact that some individuals with culturally different backgrounds do not score well on these tests has led to charges of discrimination against members of minority groups, because most of these tests do not accurately predict academic achievement because their contents are culturally biased. However, it is extremely difficult to eliminate culture totally and develop one test that is equally fair for all” (John Best & James Kahn, 1989).

Since the authors admit that NLCB was unable to operationally define the idea behind effective language proficiency before administering the achievement tests, it would have been a good idea to consider a mean measure of central tendency. Because while the median tends to ignore, for example, extremely high scores and extremely low scores and tends to overgeneralze an overall performance of the total group, the mean is the most frequently used measure of central tendency because it takes into account, every score. For the majority of the data, in other words, the mean is the most appropriate measure of central tendency.

However, since it was inferred earlier that the median cannot account for the overall performance of Language English Proficiency students alone, the mean and median are both ideal to measure test performance. It is apparent, however, based on NCLB findings, that averages did not fully describe the differences in achievement between students’ scores on the test, it is necessary then to use a measure of score spread or dispersion.[3] This will, decidedly reduce the heterogeneity that NCLB engenders.[4]

Descriptive statistical analysis further dictates that the mean measure of central tendency limits generalization to the group of individuals observed. No conclusions, then, can be extended beyond the group and any similarity to those outside that group cannot be assumed because in research, we are not interested in making cases but rather describing the data in the most accurate way.

Finally, the degree to which we measure language proficiency will determine the validity of the achievement scores. Most important, when using test for evaluative purposes, it is important not to generalize beyond specific elements measured to identify language proficiency with limited products or sources measured by ordinary achievement tests would be to define language proficiency and acquisition too narrowly (Kahn & Best, 1989). Hence, the No Child Left Behind Act produced instability because it over generalized the achievement of learners.

The Low-Down on Critical Thinking

Educational researches are conducted to discover new ways of learning to improve performance and student productivity. One of these discoveries, the Problem-Based Learning approach, according to Charoula Angeli, will help cultivate higher-order learning by preparing participants become self-directed learners, problem solvers, critical-thinkers, and acquiesce to life-long learning. PBL, in this case, not only promotes constructivism but also fortifies knowledge because it complements pragmatic approaches to teaching.

Although it was possible to draw valid generalization based on the careful observation of variables from the study, Angeli deliberately manipulated the independent variable that then resulted in selection bias.

According to John Best and James Kahn (1989), research must involve elements of observation, description, and an analysis of what happens under certain conditions (Best & Kahn, 1989). In order to do this, however, Angeli referred to previous studies involving both pragmatic and constructivist learning approaches to explain the dilemmas students encounter. Paul (1993), for instance, explains that, the pragmatic approach presupposes that knowledge is unintelligible and free from thinking. Learning, at last, becomes automatic because students apply what they learned in didactically taught courses to real life situations.

However, previous PBL attempts, which were examined from a logico-deductive perspective, claim that, the approach promotes cognitive puzzlement among students because this innovative strategy allows students to make feasible connections to real life situations while fortifying knowledge at the same time.

The process of learning, in this case, begins when students are presented with a problematic life situation since PBL is designed to be: a) student-centered, b) endorse learner’ constructive process, c) meet the needs of all learners, d) provide learners with challenging tasks to solve, e) mediate and scaffold learning; and promotes life-long learning (Savey & Duffy, 1995).

Meanwhile, a qualitative study was conducted using two-hour interviews to identify attributes that teachers value most for a user-centered design. This study provided a technique for inductively analyzing and comparing multiple sources of data so that theoretical notions can be derived from them.[1] As a result, factors were identified that may inhibit the implementation of PBL: a) the issue of control, b) incompatibility of the innovation with existing practices, and c) the complexity of the approach itself.

On the other hand, because Angeli failed to be objective and logical by not suppressing selection bias and emotion in her analysis, there was little evidence to show how the students directly reacted to the strategy.

Furthermore, since absolute objectivity is as elusive as pure righteousness, she was more sympathetic towards the feeling and apprehensions of the teachers rather than the students’ dilemma. Evidently, she had an emotionally held conviction when she said towards at the article, “the culture of teaching seems very complex to be understood by someone who has not been previously involved in a teaching setting.”

Hence, the implementation of PBL was doomed from the start because there were no test scores or quantitative measures to prove that it could be successful in the future.

Since the main goal of the study was to determine PBL’s effectivity in the classroom, a quantitative analysis should have also been conducted “because research is based upon observable experience or empirical evidence, thus, research demands accurate observation and description of (both) quantitative and qualitative measuring devices (Best & Kahn, 1989)”.[2]

The ultimate goal of research is to discover the cause and effect relationships, and in this case, the two methods of teaching, it would have been a good idea to use a qualitative analysis to determine which method is more successful in teaching students to improve their performance. The study showed that there was no direct link between theory and practices, making the study appear weak and unreliable.

Although it was possible to draw valid generalization based on a tentative explanation of the relationship between two or more variables, permissions/revelations  should have been done afterwards; because by nature, humans are influenced by the attention that is focused on them when under investigation and by the knowledge that their behavior is being observed (Kahn, 89). Though her intentions were both noble and ethical, there was a big risk of creating a much bigger bias when she manipulated the independent variable.

In sum, when experimental controls are tightened to achieve internal validity, an artificial and less realistic situation may prevail, reducing the external validity of the experiment. In addition, if operational variables (e.g. student feedback and/or productivity) are improperly defined, it will be impossible to explain a current state or procedure, or even predicting the future occurrence (or implementation, in this case) of Problem Based Approach. 

Since teachers were manipulated, their behavior changed and a much higher motivation introduced a bias that invalidated reasonable comparison between teachers apprehension and student feedback (Best & Kahn, 1989).

A Good Teacher

Language teachers have the tremendous task of providing comprehensible input to encourage language acquisition in English language classrooms. The input they provide, however, should contain extralinguistic content that might insure language acquisition among students. Here, Stephen J. Krashen (1981) defines comprehensible input as our ability to acquire and understand language that contains structure a bit beyond our current level of competence (i+1) through context or extralinguistic information (Krashen, 1981). It is assumed that when speakers talk and the acquirers understand the message, the speakers, according to Krashen (1981) may be providing optimal input that is superior.

Although comprehensible input may be the causative variable necessary to induce an optimal input-output situation, is not a sufficient condition to allow the language learner to advance from one stage to another (Krashen, 1985).

Therefore, second language classrooms should provide opportunities for genuine communication, and the input required for second language acquisition then will depend on the frequency of different types of interaction (Krashen, 1981). In addition, because the quantity and quality of the input affect and is affected by the nature of the internal mechanisms of the learner, the interaction between external and internal factors, therefore, should manifest in the verbal interactions between teacher and student (Ellis, 1985). Hence, to examine how language learning evolves out of the strategies used to carry meaningful conversations inside the classroom, a careful analysis of discourse that is “jointly constructed” by the learner and his interlocutors should be sought. The collaborative efforts that exist between speaker and hearer, in this case, allow a negotiation of meaning in order for input to become comprehensible and understood (intake) and at the same time avoid communication breakdown.

On the other hand, providing intake via meaningful and communicative activities is quite a challenging task. In most cases, the English language classroom may inhibit comprehensible input especially when teachers dominate the talk, thus giving fewer opportunities for language learners to produce input/output of their own. Most important, although classrooms allow only a few students to reply, they do not equip learners for interaction outside the classroom where they are expected to initiate discourse. Previous studies show that affective filters may even delimit input before it can be processed by the cognitive organizer (Krashen, 1985); and no matter how meaningful and communicative the exercise is intended to be, little or no acquisition will take place because of ego permeability (Schumann, 1978).

Further limitations on the hypothesis that Krashen adheres to highlight the role of simplified speech used in motherese (caretaker’s speech) and foreigner talk. For instance, if input hypotheses subscribes to the idea that these forms of interaction are not directly geared towards language teaching but communication- because it is roughly tuned to the language learners’ level of linguistic competence, language acquisition may appear paradoxical and ambiguous.

In caretaker’s speech, for instance, the “here and now” principle underestimates the child’s level of syntactic development. Because although parents have a general idea of their children’s linguistic ability, they still lack an accurate knowledge of what specific linguistic features their children have mastered. This means that by talking to learners in simple sentences, one is depriving them of input, which is crucial. Similarly, the individual variation that exists in foreigner talk imposes further limitations on the interaction between the hearer and speaker. Because language tends to become arbitrary in most situations, the routines and patterns expected to arise from conversations involving speakers of different backgrounds, may create a gap between L2 input and comprehensible input. The effective use of routines and patterns, in this case, will depend on having a line ready when a situation arises.

In addition, because the foreign language learner presumably has carried over an L1 form to understand the input through routines and patterns, the role of error correction or grammar analysis would diminish and communication further breaks down (White, 1986).

Finally, while intake builds acquisition, some fluency work or structural analysis may be necessary to enable the language learner to perform competently in a second language classroom. Indeed, there is a certain satisfaction for some of us in knowing a conscious rule of grammar, but it is also important that insisting on grammar rules will limit what can be taught (Ellis, 1985). Therefore, a synthesis of the two approaches to language acquisition could reinforce motivational and attitudinal triggers that could stimulate optimal language acquisition.  

Languages have always fascinated me in terms of the degrees of interaction that could possibly ensue from my acquaintances and the premium that society places on eloquence. I agree that comprehensible input is not enough to create an illusion of fluency that people expect from a polyglot, hence, it is important for me to strike a balance between form and meaning. Although each has its own shortcomings, I found that understanding meaning first is more effective than initially focusing on form because without practice, rules easily fade away with memory.*

Reference:

Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. 127-162.

Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.

Schumann, J. 1978. Second Language Acquisition: The Pidginization Hypothesis.Language Learning 28, 367-369.

White, L. (1986). Against Comprehensible Input: the Input Hypothesis and the Development of Second-language Competence. 95-110.

Can Drama Teach us How to Speak English?

There are many ways of promoting good social relations. In order to do this, human beings, during the past few decades, have invented many ways to influence interactions between them. Media, in this case, promote it through soap operas or ‘telenovelas’. Many Filipinos today find great pleasure from watching these telenovelas as they evoke real-life emotions and socio-political sentiments.

Although these forms of entertainment almost resemble real life situations as some authors might claim, they do not capture the real essence of human interaction in terms of actual utterances or gestures that could promote good social relations.

In Dr. Leonisa Mojica’s study on Face-Threatening Acts (2003), she referred to Brown and Levinson’sFace-Approach Theory (1999) to promote benevolent social relations in the hope that it could be used to “develop social awareness not only among couples, but also among prospective husbands and wives” (Mojica, 2003).

Interactions, in this case, between telenovela couples who attempt to minimize the use of “face-threatening acts,” are aware of how real-life couples are careful not to impede their partner’s freedom of action. Thus, face-threatening acts are only used to “spice-up” certain scenes in the telenovela because:

for an actress to be a success she must have the face of Venus, the brains of Minerva, the grace of Terpsichore, the memory of Macaulay, the figure of Juno, and the hide of a rhinoceros.” – Ethel Barrymore, quoted in George Jean Nathan’s The Theater in the Fifties.

However, questions have been raised as to whether the “face-threatening act” theory is as universally applicable as Brown and Levinson had hoped.

According to Zdeneck Salzmann (2004), “the examples given by Brown and Levinson (1987) are ‘isolated utterances' or gestures, divorced from the discourse (context) which they are embedded, and the author’s theory is therefore a list of devices rather than strategies to be used in concrete situations” (Salzmann, 2004).

The FTAs that Mojica (2003) discussed in her study, therefore, do not really capture the essence of actual social relations among human beings, since, telenovelas are mere “representations” of actual life, hence, the dialogue inherent in such works are scripted to perfection.

There is no doubt that soap operas “resemble real life… reflect, like a thick mirror, the realities of its society” (Jimenez-David, 2002), but they do not take into account actual utterances and realities of domestic disputes that occur between couples. 

Mojica even admits the restrictions of taping actual utterances: “…can entail more difficulties and limitations” (Mojica,2003:121).

Meanwhile, Mojica (2003), through her study, also advocates different politeness strategies to reduce face-threatening acts among couples. Apologies, for instance, according to Mojica (2003), “is an appropriate negative politeness strategy (that) makes one loses face.” Hence, gestures and bodily expressions, acting as “cushions”, can suppress impeding threats to “face” or personal dignity.[i]

However, politeness, in any given context, can vary from society to society and from one language to another because all members of many societies expect consideration, courtesy, and tact, from each other regardless of age, gender, or position (Salzmann, 2004).[ii]

In sum, Mojica’s study on FTAs generates a worthy discussion on promoting social relations in order to preserve the basic unit of contemporary society.

However, any attempt to unlock the secrets of maintaining good social relations, especially between couples, should consider the importance of speech in actual life because speech is an essential lubricant of a distinct society.*