CodeSwitchChris

Article Review #2
Uchiyama, T. (2011). Reading versus telling of stories in the development of English vocabulary and comprehension in young second language learners. // Reading Improvement 48 // (4), pp. 168-178.

The purpose of the research is to analyze whether or not story-telling helps develop English competence in Japanese primary schools. The author seeks to find out if there is an additional increase in vocabulary within students who employ a Character Imagery (CI) approach to story telling, than those who use Simple Reading (SR). The CI approach involves dressing up and taking a role in story-telling activities, while the SR approach involves merely reading out loud. Some of the problems lay in the lack of materials, and unwillingness from teachers to implement activities in English due to low levels of confidence. One hundred and twenty 5th and 6th grade students were divided equally into two groups, in which half the group listened to two stories using CI, while the other half listened to the same stories using SR. Pre and post-vocabularies exams were issued to measure vocabulary acquisition. As a result of using both CI and SR, the vocabulary proficiency for both increased significantly. Although both groups obtained similar scores in each test, a slightly greater increase was seen in students who listened to both stories using the CI approach. Conclusively, using either approach is beneficial for the students, and it is left to the teacher to decide whether the slight difference is worth taking advantage of.

Teachers are faced with many challenges when teaching English. One such, and probably among the most important, is teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. Teachers, however, are not the only ones confronting this task. Students are also involved since they are the ones trying to improve their own reading comprehension. Among the many strategies which can be implemented for vocabulary acquisition, having the students tell a story - be it self created or from multiple authors - is one of the best approaches there are. The author of this article presents two different approaches to story-telling, CI and SR, and the end results differ only slightly. CI requires a lot of preparation in part of both, the teacher and the student, and the latter will certainly lack the willingness to take on a role and dress up for the part. This lack of motivation, in my experience, is hard to build up and takes too long. Moreover, time spent doing so could be spent implementing other activities which have more immediate effects on the learning process and on the outcomes resulting from it. CI simply does not warrant the time and dedication used on it to be worth the effort. The author does prove however, that SR is still a much reliable strategy to use in story-telling, and that it is well worth spending time on just to increase overall vocabulary. Dedicated teachers will place their students' progress as a priority, and as such, even the slightest increase in proficiency is valuable//​.// That said, I strongly believe that the plethora of activities that are or could be created to achieve the same goal, far outweigh the effort, preparation, and time consumed in CI, especially considering the fact that SR works pretty much the same.

Sampson, A. (2012). Learner code-switching versus English only. //ELT Journal 66//(3), pp. 293-303.

The purpose of the study is to analyze whether or not a policy of 'English-only' in classrooms can be pedagogically justified. This policy is applied as a means to encourage English Language Learners (ELLs) to interact with each other using the L2 exclusively, and it dates back to the downfall of Grammar-Translation method, the decline of contrastive analysis in language teaching, and the popularity of the Direct Method. A number of studies have questioned this policy, promoting multilingual practices (Ustunel & Seedhouse, 2005), and gathering support towards the use of L1 (Carless, 2007). Recent literature (Carless, 2007) focuses not on whether or not to use it, but rather on how, when, and how much. The research uses two monolingual groups with adult participants in Colombia, each of a different level, who were recorded to investigate if a link between proficiency and code-switching exits. The teachers were L2 native speakers, both of whom spoke the ELLs' L1, and they taught two hour sessions per day. Data was gathered in the form of 20 minute recordings, and was subsequently analyzed for code-switching, its frequency, and for the context in which it happened. Code-switching became most frequent in instances where a lack of lexical knowledge existed, then on procedural concerns about certain tasks, and finally when the ELL wished to continue a conversation without pausing with the intent of avoiding interruption when speaking. The majority of learners expressed that L1 had a purpose in class, while the rest alluded to the positive motivational effects of using it. Results of the study suggest that code-switching is not necessarily connected to an improvement in ELLs' proficiency, and that attempts to ban L1 in a classroom is detrimental to the learning process, taking into consideration that teachers should make informed judgments regarding its use.

In the article, the author seeks to decide whether an official 'English-only' policy is pedagogically justified. That is to say, whether or not the use of an L1 holds any influence at all on proficiency levels, on learning processes, or on affective filters when learning English. Unlike countries in which the L1 is not shared by all students, it can be considered that monolingual groups are at an advantage, and L1 should be exploited to benefit ELLs. Thus investigating its potential aid towards learning the language, as well as the possible negative implications of avoiding it altogether, could prove to be helpful for teachers in English classrooms. The research, however, fails to suggest whether the results are also seen in larger groups, or if further research needs to be done on this matter. Therefore, such an important decision based on this case study might only be relevant to the context in which it was made, becoming extraneous to groups of different size, level, or age in different contexts; perhaps even within the same institution. Nonetheless, the implications of using L1 do affect ELLs in many aspects by motivating them to try harder, clearing doubts, avoiding confusion and frustration, and even by allowing them to express themselves fully to encourage fluency. The article shows that, at least in small monolingual groups, teachers can take advantage of the L1. Ultimately, the controlled use of L1 in the classroom may mark the difference between the level of adequate comfort that gives students confidence, and the borderline risk of demotivating students from reaching their objective.

Feedback

 * You may remove the text below. When writing your article review, begin with the reference, then your two-paragraph article review (no headings required). 1347921697
 * In your second article review, include connections to your own experiences as an English language teacher as well; that is, it's fine to use the first person. This will occur in the second paragraph (critique). 1348059919