Theories of Second Language Acquisition: What are their implications & applications in the writing center?

Leslie Davis, Devon Jancin, Moriah Kent & Kristen Foster Colorado State University

How do these hypotheses connect to the work we do in the writing center? How do they help clarify or explain our contributions to the language learning of non-native English speakers?

Theory

Cumulative Notes
1. Whats the students language level ability? How do we know if the input is comprehensible for students? --Giving student writers the opportunity to work with the same tutor may be best option (consistency)

Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

language acquisition occurs when learners receive messages that they can understand i+1 input should be slightly above students ability level

Interaction Hypothesis most effective kind of comprehensible input leaners can receive is individualized and achieved through negotiation for meaning, which includes: moves performed in response to either actual or perceived comprehension problems, with the purpose of making meaning comprehensible to both interlocutors, including clarification requests, confirmation and comprehension checks.

1. May be time consuming (note from Kristen: This interaction-to-mend-communication often is timeconsuming; however, this hypothesis doesnt prescribe a best practice, but rather describes what happens between two interlocutors during a communication breakdown). 2. The WC is a good environment to facilitate this (flexible, individualized)

Theory
Noticing Hypothesis students must notice gaps in their knowledge Learners cannot learn grammatical features unless they notice them.

Notes
1. Explicitness may facilitate noticing more effectively

Comprehensible Output learner's production of the target language is necessary to acquisition. output serves three primary purposes in acquisition: Noticing - students recognize what they dont know Hypothesis testing - students test out new forms based on what they already know Metalinguistic reflection - using language to reflect on language mediates learning 1. Consultants must have the language to lower Ss affective filter 2. Explicitness can facilitate this 3. Personal rapport is important Is our idea of this built around cultural assumptions? How can we respect our WC pedagogy and navigate cultural preferences of authority/hierarchy? -trial and error, continue meeting with same consultant

Affective Filter Motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety level of the student must be taken into account. If their affective filter is up, they cannot acquire as much new information (Krashen, 1987, p. 3).

Session Website: http://slaatcwwtc.weebly.com/

Should consultants/tutors receive some kind of introduction to theories of SLA during consultant training?
The case for no: These hypotheses are built for people who understand them. If you incorporate them into training, people may misconstrue them. Tutors need to know a lot of ELL-related things (intercultural rhetoric, accents, cultural issues, etc.). This type of training needs to be general, clear, and can fix immediate problems. Theories are outdated, must be generalized and simplified to apply to WCs. In training you need a clear set of strategies to apply to sessions. Yet we also need to recognize that students are diverse.

The case for yes: The hypotheses give you a different framework for understanding what happens in consultations with ELLs, and more tools to pinpoint problems. Thinking about things from different vantage points is helpful for working with native English speakers and ELLs. We constantly must negotiate for meaning (with native and non-native speakers alike). These theories are relevant to help you navigate what you encounter in daily sessions. Introducing these theories to consultants/tutors could help build a shared vocabulary between tutors.

Suggestions: As specific issues come up for consultants, test certain hypotheses with consultants to see if something in particular is helpful.