Dli v17
Dli v17
Dialog
on
Language Instruction
2005
Editor
Lidia Woytak
Copyeditor
Joseph Morgan
Editorial Advisors
This publication presents professional information: The views expressed herein are
those of the authors, not the Department of Defense or its elements.The content does
not necessarily reflect the official US Army position and does not change or supersede
any information in official US Army publications. Dialog on Language Instruction
reserves the right to edit material to meet space constraints.
http://www.dliflc.edu/Academics/outside_ref_aj.html
Reports
General Information
53 Index
59 Calendar of Events
Literature Review
1
Umit Ferguson
Our students at the Defense Language Instititute Foreign Language Center are
coming from a behaviorist-oriented education system in which knowledge is gathered
in a curriculum guide, in a textbook or, in a teaching plan. Then, the teacher puts that
information into the heads of his or her students. Later, the teacher expects his or her
students to remember the acquired knowledge and, often to apply it in imaginary, instead
of in real life situations. The teacher rarely provides his or her students actual practice
in solving problems they will face in life. In this type of teacher-centered and fronted
instruction, most students acquire, understand, remember and apply passively- acquired
learning. The students adapt themselves to this paradigm and start becoming passive
receptors of partially understood information. They just believe in right answers to the
questions, they wait for their teacher’s instructions, for the correct stimulus or reaction
with the learned response but without thinking, judging, or commenting. The teacher
invites the students to expect an external reward and invites them to follow him or her
to do as he or she does. The teacher determines the sequence of information leading to
reformulated instructional outcomes. The teacher then wonders why the students are
often apathetic, why they do not think for themselves, why they fail to use what they
have been learning in one circumstance to solve problems in another circumstances,
why they are extrinsically motivated rather than self activated, and why the best students
can not often function independently and linguistically in the real world.
In this teacher-centered instruction the teacher focuses on the act of teaching,
objectives, methods, and evaluation, and not on the act of learning. The teacher thinks
2
Improving Proficiency through Learner-Centered Instruction
that he/she has taught well, but he/she does not think whether the students have learned
well or not. The teacher acts as if his/her students are not human beings with different
personalities, interests, and preferences, blaming them when they refuse to react
properly. The teacher sets the curriculum, makes the presentations, assigns readings and
exercises, and designs the tests. The students listen, study, practice and exhibit specified
behaviors. The teacher treats all students in the same way; when they do not all react in
the same way, the teacher blames their failures on their differences.
Our job as language teachers at DLIFLC is challenging because we help the
students who are accustomed to teacher-centered or fronted instruction to change the
way they are used to learning, give them opportunities to choose their own preferences,
help them to improve their level of proficiency and become independent, real-life
problem solvers. When I speak of proficiency, I am not referring to knowledge of a
language, which includes abstract, mental, and unobservable abilities. I am referring
to performance or observable and measurable behaviors. As you know, competence
refers to what we know about the rules of use and the rules of speaking a language, but
proficiency refers to how well we can use such rules in communication for real-world
tasks with reference to specific situations, settings, purposes, and activities.
As language teachers, we should set goals, which will relate to the teaching of
specific language skills and other goals, which will relate to the development of learning
skills. These goals will assist learner’s identifying their own preferred ways of learning,
developing skills needed to follow the curriculum, encouraging them to set their own
objectives, and realistic goals and, developing learner’s skills in self evaluation.
We can view our students as active processors of information who can develop
new and creative ways of both defining the stimulus and selecting an appropriate response,
who can set their goals, acquire and build information into cognitive structures, and
apply new ideas to varied problems in multiple settings and situations (Gardner, 1991).
Instead of thinking that there is only one correct answer and one single way to solve
problems, we can give our students the opportunity to be active meaning makers who
understand that there are multiple applications and ways to solve problems. If we can be
facilitators instead of being prime actors in the learning process, students can actively
create mental representations of external facts and personal patterns of understanding.
Learning is a process of active exploration, adaptation and meaning making.
Learning involves constructing individual meaning. The student does the learning, so
he/she is the active player in the learning process. The teacher is only a facilitator of the
student’s own learning. Of course, the new facts and information must be presented by the
teacher, however, the learner himself or herself must be allowed and encouraged to play
with the new knowledge, to make interconnections, see patterns, build understanding,
and actively apply and test understanding in multiple situations just as we do in the
proficiency level.
If we fail to promote our students active exploration of knowledge and idea-
making, we will inhibit their deeper understanding. If we do not facilitate our students
creating their own meanings, learning is not as meaningful. Learning really means to
become independent decision makers for different real-life situations.
If we fail to provide opportunities to use new ideas in practical applications, we
will force them to conclude that the learning process is essentially unrelated to the real
world. If we don’t facilitate our students in the acts of making their own meanings we
will teach them that learning is not meaningful, and we won’t be able to bring them to
the level of proficiency, which really means learning to be independent decision makers
for different real life situations.
3
Umit Ferguson
Background Information
Diagnosis
I observed him during class activities. From the first weeks he had a lot of
trouble getting the big picture in reading and listening activities. He also had trouble in
understanding and correlating the forms in Turkish with the forms in English because of
his not being aware of the forms in his own language. When the curriculum followed
the textbook closely and the teacher gave all the instructions he worked steadily and
systematically. He readily performed the drills and exercises in the textbook and the
workbook but he felt uncomfortable when he was asked to participate in open-ended
questions, role-plays, summaries, or making up stories.
He became very upset when too many new words were introduced in an hour
lesson. He mistranslated the sentences, because he assumed that every English word
4
Improving Proficiency through Learner-Centered Instruction
would have a close equivalent in Turkish. He did not like any conversational risks in
Turkish, because he was worried about making mistakes or of taking too much time to
form the sentence in his mind perfectly before speaking.
He wrote each word on a flash card but he did not retain them after studying
them because he did not use them in sentences and learn them in context. He memorized
the words for short memory, but he thought that it was too much work to use them in
sentences.
He was an analytical, visual, close and sequential learner. He broke the whole,
the big picture, into component parts. He preferred to see the details and structure first,
although he had no grammatical foundation in his own language. He wanted to learn
why the sentence was formed in that way, instead of trying to get the information, what
the meaning of the sentence was more than its form. He liked to get the information in a
certain order in a predictable way to feel comfortable.
He concentrated on grammar details, because he wanted to be accurate. He did
not feel worried about taking risks, for making mistakes when he was asked to guess
the topic or the meaning or to use his own comments and ideas. He took notes, liked
pattern categories, and organization of information. He focused on concrete facts in an
organized step-by-step manner. He needed clarity, clearly-stated objectives and explicit
instructions. He was a task- or a product-oriented person, so he got the job done in a
certain way if it was assigned to him. He wanted to follow an externally provided order
of processing (curriculum, textbook, or teacher) and preferred to do one thing at a time.
He wanted to study rules, and then practiced applying them to examples, but after they
had been explained clearly to him. That’s why he liked having handouts about structures,
and examples about them given by the teachers. He was not willing to take risks and
learn from his errors because he wanted to be perfect with the help of his teachers’ tight
control on him. He was not able to handle spontaneity well, because he needed time to
process new material and information. He avoided more free flowing communicative
activities and compensatory strategies, such as summarizing and paraphrasing. He was
a visual learner, so he wants to see words and sentences or instructions on the board.
He was behind global type of learners, and did poorly on listening and speaking. He
experienced anxiety at having to perform in front of his classmates, because of his
efforts to be perfect.
In my interview with him I asked how his learning process was going, how
he felt in class, if he had any other strategy to study efficiently or not, how I could help
him, and so on. During the interview I tried to diagnose his problem by getting a lot of
information and data from him. After our interview I saw that he did not understand
English grammar that well, so he could not render learning Turkish, and he found
Turkish difficult to learn. He said he did not put in sufficient time and effort to study
efficiently, because he lost his motivation and he did not know what to do. He had no
particular way of studying or strategy for better learning. He knew that he had to listen
to a listening passage once all the way through, but he stopped at every word he did
not know, so he missed the rest of the text. He focused on individual words, but did not
focus on the words he knew.
He admitted he had to change that, but he had not done it yet. He said he forgot
the new words after memorizing them because he did not use them in sentences. He
thought that his weak area was speaking, but he did not practice Turkish outside class,
although there was a Turkish community living in Monterey and there were Turkish
officers in Navy School. He said he was aware that language learning involved taking
risks and making mistakes, but he was unable to stretch or be flexible outside of his
strong learning preferences.
Remedy
First of all, I tried to give him encouragement for his lack of self-confidence
and hope that there was always a solution. It is never too late to change things or make
them better. I told him we could bring him to the level he wanted to be, if he really
5
Umit Ferguson
wanted to learn Turkish well, tried hard, and trusted the ways and strategies I would
suggest. He said he wanted to try hard and learn it better. He did not give up, which was
a good start to change things. As he had not found his best way to learn and study before
we worked on choosing the strategies which would work for him. I wanted to use his
analytic type of learning process to build up his motivation and to demonstrate to him
that he really could do something, and that he could improve. For example, he liked
grammar forms and writing example sentences with the new forms he had learned. I told
him to write sentences with the new words he had learned and later I told him to write a
paragraph by using those words.
He started to link and associates his vocabulary and structure with information
he already knew. After a while, I asked him to translate a news item from English to
Turkish at home, underline the new words and find their synonyms for his classmates.
I asked him to present his article to his classmates and to be prepared to answer his
classmates’ questions. He felt more confident performing in front of others as he took his
time at home to prepare a perfect work as he decreased the chances of making a mistake
in front of the others. For listening, first, I told him to read an article from his textbook,
anything he liked, and record his reading on a cassette tape. I asked him to listen to
himself without looking at the text, his book closed. I wanted him to feel comfortable
to listening to his voice, instead of listening to a native speaker and not understanding
anything and feeling frustrated. I asked him to write what he listened to, summarizing
the text. Later, I gave him some strategies on how to listen efficiently and how to get
the broad meaning of the text. I told him not to stop at the words he did not know, but
go on listening to the end and to try to guess the meaning with the help of the words he
already knew.
I encouraged him to listen to Turkish CNN or Turkish TV, although it seemed
to be very difficult for him to understand, just to get used to getting an idea about the
topic. As he liked grammar forms a lot and he felt in safe with them, I used this to his
advantage. I gave him a diary and asked him to write about his day or weekend, using
the forms that he had learned so far. He enjoyed writing about his life. I also asked him
to read the texts and get the idea about the topic first, and then analyze the forms in the
text later.
I asked him to look at the word endings and write down the rule when that
ending was used and continue until he got through the text and compared his conclusions
about the grammar points with the textbook. I wanted him to see if he learned the form
or if he still needed more practice for his self-control. I also suggested creating dialogues
out of the reading texts, and finding someone, either his teacher or an advanced student
to help him to correct his dialogue. Later, I asked him to act out his dialogue with one of
his classmates by adding lots of gesturing and body movement for fun.
He was a dependant learner, so I tried to help him to become an independent
learner. For more speaking practice at home, I suggested he look at a previous chapter or
a known reading, or listening to text or a role play. I told him to turn the text over and turn
on his tape recorder. I told him to start speaking and speak for at least 2 minutes without
stopping. I suggested he force himself to speak longer each day. I advised him to find
some Turkish filling words, which would help him when he needed some time to think
while speaking fluently. Vocabulary learning was a big challenge for him. I suggested
for him to use the same flash cards for new words, but I told him to write a sentence
by using the new word on the other side of his flash card. I also suggested reading the
sentence and acting it out in any way he liked. I told him that the more dramas and
actions he added to it, the more he would remember it later. Whenever he studied words
from his flash cards, he would see the word in a sentence, and remembered the action he
did for it, so this would help him to retain the words.
He was worried about not understanding the information in class well, so I
suggested previewing lessons for the next day. Although he was an adult and knew what
his responsibilities were as a student, he needed the teacher’s control and leadership.
I checked his assignments and asked what he did for practice everyday. I never used
discouraging comments about his work while correcting his mistakes on his assignments.
6
Improving Proficiency through Learner-Centered Instruction
I gave him encouraging words about his work and I made him believe in himself and
his improvement.
I followed his progress and checked his learning performance, and continued
to council him when he needed it.
After working closely with this student during the school year, he passed all
of his exams and he gained the confidence that he could communicate with anyone he
needed to, both at his work place and in the local Turkish community.
After having experiences in teaching a foreign language, English in my country
and my native language here in DLIFLC, I believe that language teachers should think
less about lecturing and more about the learning process for different individuals who
have different learning styles and who use the language they learn in different real life
situations. Language learning is life itself, and proficiency is adapting the information
given into the daily life situations.
I would like to finish with a saying; “What you sow, you reap”. We teachers
have a huge opportunity to work with whatever is given to us and bring forth growth
with our patience, knowledge, experience, and vision. Our job can be very challenging
but challenge is good for our own growth.
References
Author
7
Articulatory Positions for the Korean Vowles
In the first week of the 63-week Korean Basic Course at the Defense Language
Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), one of the difficulties new
students encounter is sound discrimination. When the first eight vowels
are introduced, the students struggle with difficult foreign sounds and
instructors employ various teaching methods in order to teach students
correct vowel articulation. This article will highlight some of the difficulties
students experience in learning sound discrimination of the vowels and
provide the required articulatory positions of vocal organs to produce them.
ㅏ ㅓ ㅗ ㅜ ㅡ ㅣ
ah uh oh woo u i
In the above example, the English letter, “u,” is assigned under both “ㅓ” and
“ㅡ,” which are phonemes in the Korean language. Compare the following:
The above examples illustrate that the two vowel sounds contrast. Moreover,
the English vowel sound “u” is different from both “ㅓ” and “ㅡ” and the former is [+
rounded]3 and [+tense]4 while the latter, both [-rounded] and [-tense]. Consequently,
the position of articulation in the vocal organs for “u” differs from those of “ㅓ” and
“ㅡ.” Referring to the English transcripts on the previous page, the first three vowels are
rendered phonetically in English with an “h” and by placing an “h” following each of
these vowels, the pronunciations of these vowels are significantly affected. Obviously,
“a” differs from “ah” with regard to pronunciation. Ladefoged (1975) analyzes “h” as
“from an articulatory point of view it is simply the voiceless counterpart of the follow-
ing vowel.” In many environments, it is a consonant even when it precedes vowels:
“hot,” “honey,” “comprehend.”
9
Dae Sok Lee
Students who rely on the English transcripts under the Korean vowels would
transcribe the Korean words, [əməni] “어머니” “mother,” [ənə] “언어” “language,” and
[hangang] “한강” “Han River” as [uhmuhni], [uhnuh], and [hahngahng] respectively,
which are not even suitable English transcripts for Korean words, and therefore, “h”
should not be ignored as an informal English transcription. Even without “h,” “umuni,”
“unu,” and “hangang” are not yet close to Korean pronunciations. When students read
the English transcripts under the Korean vowels (and consonants), the instructors find
it difficult to discern what they are reading, as the students depend on their English
transcripts in order to exact in what they think is the proper pronunciation.
The Korean vowel “이” differs from the English counterpart, “i” in height, as
illustrated in KIU (The Korean Introductory Unit) which introduces the vowel as “이
like ee in feet,” which indicates that long vowels are normally higher than their shorter
counterparts. If we compare the two English vowels, “heed” and “hid,” it is easily no-
ticeable that the former is longer and tensed and therefore higher than the latter. In other
words, the English “i” is lower than “이”. Only the long vowel “ee” is like “이v” except
for its length, and in terms of articulatory positions in the vocal organs, it can be said
to share the same high-front category. However, the position of “i” is lower and more
centralized than “이.” More on this will follow.
The “like”method attempts to extract Korean sounds from their English
counterparts, but, in fact, it extracts English sounds for their Korean counterparts from
English words like “으 like oo in “book” and “어 like u in “sun.” In comparing the
two vowels, 으 in “으레” (habitually) and “oo” in “book,” the difference is readily
perceptible, at least for the native Korean: the former is higher than the latter in
articulation. In the acoustic analyses, “while Korean includes a high mid-back unround-
ed vowel /ɨ/5,English does not”(Ji Eun Kim and David J. Shilva 2003). In English u
in “sun” can be either [sən], [sʌn], or both depending on dialects. What if students
transcribe and pronounce [ʌmʌmi] for [əməni] “mother”? Between L1 and L2 vowels,
there are rarely exact phonetic similarities (Yang 1996). Again, in a narrow description,
not even one Korean vowel sound has an exact English counterpart.
Myŏngdo’s Korean maintains that “웨” and “외” as [we] are the same in
pronunciation as does the KIU, which analyzes the two vowels as “웨 semi-vowel w +
에 mid-front ur”and “외 [we] semi-vowel w + 에 mid-front ur,” and it rationalizes its
analysis as follows:
KIU extracts two more English sounds by way of “like” (principle) : “애’” like
a in “add”and “에” like e in “end.” Its pronunciation guide describes, “왜” w + 애 and
“웨” w + 에.” and goes on to say ““외” and “웨” are pronounced the same.” The semi-
vowel, w, is excluded from the following discussion because both of the vowels share
said vowel sound. Compare the following:
b. [ge] 게 “a crab”
[gæ] 개 “a dog”
10
Articulatory Positions for the Korean Vowles
The examples above illustrate that the two vowels are distinctive as differ-
ent phonemes and even Myǒngdo’s Korean, in contradiction to its analysis above,
acknowledges that they are different vowels by placing “ㅔ” in the mid-front and “ㅐ”
in the low-front positions respectively in its Korean Sound System. The Korean /e/ cor-
responds to a phonetic value lower than English /e/ and higher than English /ɛ/, while
the Korean /ɛ/ is lower than the English /ɛ/ and higher than the English /ӕ/ (Ku 1998).
Languages change, but because of a regional or generational dialect, a phoneme cannot
be eliminated from a language nor merged with another one. If the low-front vowel
“애,” “æ” merged with the mid-front vowel,”에” “e,” there would be no distinction
between “네것” [negət] “your thing”(yours) and “내것,” [nӕgət], “my thing” (mine)
and only “네것” “yours” would remain for both “your” and “mine.” Moreover foreign
language institutes such as DLI do not teach generational dialects nor colloquialisms
but exclusively teach standard dialects.
It is slightly higher than /e/ in English “action”. The sound corresponding to /ɛ/
in English “action” does not exist.” and then presents its vowel chart:
The Korean vowel chart of Myŏngdo’s Korean is identical to that of the Speaking
Korean except for the vertical slanting line for the front vowels which illustrates a
biological phenomenon: as the front-vowels go down, the tongue also lowers its posi-
tion towards the lower and central positions.
11
Dae Sok Lee
Thus the mid-front vowel is closer to the mid-central than the high-front vowel
and the low-front vowel is closer to the low-central position than the mid-front vowel.
The following chart compensates for the shortcomings present in those of
Myŏngdo’s Korean and Speaking Korean:
a. Even though both “이” and “우” are high vowels, the high-
front vowel “이” is higher than the high-back vowel “우.”
b. “이”is higher than “i” in “hid” because the former is [+tense] like “ee” in
“feet”and the latter, a lax vowel, which is normally lower and centralized.
c. The high-back vowel “우” is [+tense] and “으,” [-tense]
and therefore lower than the former and more centralized.
d. The distinction between “웨” and we ( semi-vowel + 에 ) and “외” wæ
(semi-vowel + 애) and the voicing of the former starts from the high-
back position and ends at the mid-front position and that of the latter
starts from the mid-back position and ends at the low-front position,
which elucidates that “e” in “we” and “æ” in “wæ” are distinctive.
It is a common practice that foreign language textbooks like the ones cited above
present the charts or descriptions of vowels and consonants which identify and catego-
rize phonemes. Ji Eun Kim and David J. Silva (2003) propose “awareness of phonemic
distinctions via listening and guided pronunciation exercises,” but the categorization of
phonemes alone cannot satisfy the “awareness of phonemic distinctions”
1. “이” Narrow the outgoing airstream by raising the front of the tongue all
the way towards the hard palate and the alveolar ridge.
2. “에” Lower the front of the tongue half way down from the position of
“이.”
3. “애” Lower the front of the tongue all the way down from the position
of “에.”
12
Articulatory Positions for the Korean Vowles
4. “우” Narrow the airstream by raising the back of the tongue towards the
soft palate with lip-rounding. The height of this vowel is approximately
the same as that of the mid front vowel.
5. “으” This is a lax and unrounded version of “우,” which is automatically
centralized.
6. “어” Lower the back of the tongue half way from the position of “우.”
7. “오” Lower the back of the tongue all the way down but it should not be
centralized.
8. “아” Lower the back of the tongue all the way down until it is
centralized.
The articulatory positions of the vowels in the charts are based on the biological
function of the vocal organs. In order to lower the front of the tongue from the position
of the high-front vowel, “이” to articulate the mid-front vowel, “에,” the front of the
tongue and the jaw simultaneously lower themselves because the two movements are
inseparable. Again, in order to articulate the low-front vowel, the front of the tongue
goes down from the mid-front tongue position and so does the jaw. This condition is
present with the back vowels as well.
13
Dae Sok Lee
The Korean vowels are different from their English counterparts in height More
specifically, the positions of the tongue for Korean vowels are generally higher than their
corresponding English ones and therefore the English transcription of Korean vowels is
apt to mislead students. If students are given English transcripts under the Korean vow-
els, not only do they read the English transcripts, but also, it tempts students, especially
frustrated ones, to rely on the English transcripts as a crutch. It is a common practice
that foreign language textbooks present the charts or the descriptions of articulatory
positions of the vowels of their target languages but they merely provide the identifi-
cation and the categorization of phonemes, which do not contribute to “awareness of
phonemes” The three factors: the height of the tongue, the front-back positions of the
tongue, and the degree of lip-rounding in the charts of the vocal organs and the descrip-
tions demonstrate the places and manners of the vowel articulation, with which not only
instructors are able to correct/adjust students’ incorrect pronunciations but also students
can correct their own flawed pronunciations as well.
14
Articulatory Positions for the Korean Vowles
Notes
1
is a symbol of IPA (International Phonetic Alphabets), which will be used throughout
this paper.
2
“ü” is like an umlaut in “schün”, “fun” in German, which is adapted here because
English lacks its equivalent phoneme.
3
is the Chomsky-Halle Feature System that indicates lip rounding for producing English,
“u”, “o”, etc..
4
is a tense vowel, which is produced with a deliberate, accurate, and maximally distinct
gesture that involves considerable mascular effect; a lax vowel is produced rapidly and
somewhat indistinctly.
5
/ɨ/ and /ü/ are interchangeably used here.
References
Author
DAE SOK LEE, Professor, Korean School, Defense Language Institute Foreign Lan-
guage Center, Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006; Interests: Korean lan-
guage teaching, pronunciation teaching.
15
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure
Pro-drop Parameter
17
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani
1. pro xandid-am
pro laughed+1sg
‘I laughed.’
2. pro goft-am [ ke pro xandid-am]
pro said+1sing that pro laughed+1sg
‘I said that I laughed.’
18
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure
4. # pro xandid-am
Khanlari (p. 349) asserts that overuse of the pronoun u ‘he’ in the above passage
is an “awkward redundancy” and sounds counterintuitive to native speakers of Persian.
The core fact of Khanlari’s qualifying remark is that not only has a parameter value been
carried over from English to Persian in (5), but also the translation displays violations of
discourse constraints as well as authenticity criteria. Later in the paper, we will elaborate
19
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani
6. man pool
I money
‘I money’
20
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure
Acquisition of Pro-drop
21
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani
positive evidence to motivate it. On the contrary, going from English (L1 marked) to
Spanish (L2 unmarked) should be fairly easier.
Although the above-mentioned results suggest that it is easier to reset from
the English value of the parameter to the Spanish value, White (1989, p. 86) argues that
the [+pro-drop] parameter is marked based on the kind of evidence required to reset it.
It is absolutely clear that [- pro-drop] languages require lexical pronouns, while [+pro-
drop] languages allow both null and lexical pronouns. Now if [- pro-drop] is the initial,
unmarked value, it can be reset on the basis of simple positive evidence represented by
sentences with null subjects.
Since Persian is a pro-drop language with no restrictions on tense and person
(Soheili Esfahani 2000, p. 232) and requires both lexical and null subjects. This
observation gives evidence for articulating a similar postulate to that proposed by White
for Spanish and posit that Persian has a marked status too. Therefore, we subscribe to
the [+pro-drop] Marked Hypothesis that stipulates simple positive evidence is required
to switch to a marked value. This is in contrast to the [+pro-drop] Unmarked Hypothesis
that requires specific positive evidence to reset to a marked option.
Interlanguage
22
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure
23
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani
deductive consequences of the pro-drop parameter for the rest of the grammar, including
subject-verb inversion, and that- t effect, etc.
A partial answer to the questions raised above may be found in the theory of
markedness (Chomsky, 1981, 1986), which differentiates core grammar from peripheral
grammar. Core grammar is an instantiation of the principles and parameters that are part
of the child’s genetic endowment. Peripheral grammar is the set of marked elements and
constraints that are outside of core grammar and are exceptions or idiosyncratic features
of the language. The underlying assumption being that the rules of core grammar are
perceived to be unmarked (regular and frequent) and minimal exposure is required to
learn them because they are predicated on a principle of UG. In contrast, the rules of
peripheral grammar are thought to be marked (irregular and infrequent) and need to be
learned on the basis of positive evidence of their existence in that language.
However, the difference between core grammar and peripheral grammar in
terms of markedness is nor so straightforward. Based on L1 acquisition data as in (6-
9) and overuse of lexical pronouns as shown in (11), we may tentatively propose a
Two-pronged Value Hypothesis according to which the core grammar of Persian has
an initial, unmarked value which is associated with the null subject. This is the value
that the child learns with minimal exposure in the process of L1 acquisition. There is
another marked value of the parameter that is acquired later on the basis of specific
evidence concerning the discourse functions which, as we noted before, constitute part
of the child’s linguistic competence. There is no doubt that without the rules that govern
how we construct discourses of various kinds and the constraints they impose on our
communicative activities our language would be in a chaotic situation (Brown 1994).
In case our assumption is along the right lines, that leads us to the following
paradigm of learning the pro-drop parameter of Persian. English speakers learning
Persian as a foreign or second language will initially pick the unmarked [+ pro-drop]
value of the parameter. This is the value that generates sentences with pro in subject
position. On the other hand, the marked value is adopted on the basis of specific
evidence that would comprise of a set of observed structures illustrating the application
of discourse considerations In the absence of exclusive evidence for the marked value,
the leaner should encounter difficulty as predicted by Eckman’s Markedness Differential
Hypothesis (as cited in Mclaughlin, p. 89). On the basis of a comparison of the first
language and the target language, those areas of the target language that are marked than
in the first language will be difficult.
Discourse Structure
Discourse analysis, as defined by Van Lier (1995), involves the study of the
organization of language beyond the boundary of sentence or utterance level. Since
discourse analysis is a highly controversial issue in the entire field of linguistics and
denotes many fields (Prince,104), dealing with such an uncharted territory of rules
and principles governing discourse analysis lies beyond the scope of this paper, but an
important issue for the future research to address. What follows is an informal account
of basic rules and conditions governing discourse constraints in the spirit of Centering
Theory (as cited in Taboada, 2002) essential for understanding the functions and
referential properties of null and lexical pronouns as they occur in a discourse structure
in Persian.
24
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure
Notice that in (12a) the null subject pro sequentially follows its antecedent
Ali in the first part of the sentence. In (12b), however, the null subject pronoun appears
before its antecedent which occurs in the last part of the sentence.
In a discourse context, one of the entities serves as a referent / antecedent to
which the pronoun refers. To figure out how anaphoric terms are linked to their referents
is a process called amphora resolution, as indicated in the following:
25
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani
The antecedent of a pronoun may come in the same sentence, or in the preceding
sentence as in (14), or it may occur far back in other sentences as our text gets larger.
In this kind of discourse, we envisage discourse as a series of segments where each
segment is a stretch of discourse signaled by cue words or expressions such as, ok, by
the way, anyhow, etc. In each segment there is an object which is the prime candidate
for prononminal reference. Consider the following conversational exchange in which
the pronoun it in the last sentence refers anaphorically back to the word book in the first
sentence.
Now let us consider how an Iranian columnist describes R. Reagan, the late
president of the Unites States of America. The text is translated from a Persian journal,
with overt and null subject pronouns as used in the language.
In the above text, the author proceeds from establishing the NP expression
(R. Reagan), which can be construed as a salient focus of attention. The first utterance
is followed by a series of null subjects until we get to the last utterance. The transition
is achieved by switching to the overt pronoun I in the last utterance. More specifically,
the preferred center in the looking-forward list represents the looking-backward center,
where the highest- ranked entity from the first utterance is realized as an overt pronoun
in the current utterance.
The writer uses an overt subject in the last utterance for two reasons: (i) to
continue the same topic of the discourse and (ii), more importantly, to provide the
readers with specific characteristics of the president in this segment of the discourse.
Now, let us consider the dialogue.
26
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure
18. Jones: Last night my wife and I with Mr. and Mrs. Tabrizi went
to Khansalar restaurant.
They had all kinds of Iranian food. My wife and I had chelo
kebab. Mr. Tabrizi and his wife had chelo khoresh. I don’t
know how the chelo khoresh was, but their chelo kebab was
exellent. They also had Iranian music. The décor of the restaurant
was entirely Iranian. It was very interesting.We’ll go there with
you some night.
The Persian situational dialog involves a situation, where two families went to a
restaurant for dinner. Initially, the speaker proceeds from using the first singular pronoun
man ‘I’ as a salient focus of attention in a conjunct to introduce his family and himself.
This segment of the discourse is followed by a null subject until we get to sentence
(3) in which the same pronoun is used for the purpose of comparing the two families
in terms of their food preference. From this location onward, the dialogue continues
with null subject pronouns as well as the pleonastic pronoun in ‘this’. Throughout the
whole dialogue, the null subject pronoun anaphorically refers back to the subject in the
first utterance. As for the relation of transition and the anaphoric term, pro marks the
coherent continuation of the discourse topic. Similar reports have been reported for a
corpus of dialogues in Spanish. (Taboada, p.181)
English, as noted before, is a non-pro-drop language with a SVO linear order
in which the structural configuration of the sentence is considered to correspond closely
to grammatical functions and to linear order. According to O’Grady et al. (p. 274), the
subject of the sentence tends to function as the topic without a special affix to identify
27
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani
the topic, as opposed to some languages like Chinese which makes the topic by –wa.
The major difference between English and Persian with respect to discourse
structure may be attributed to the use of an overt pronoun as a focus of attention, or
it may serve the function of reaffirming the topic in the current utterance. (Suri and
McCoy,1993). While Persian uses an overt pronoun in a segment of discourse where a
constraint is at work, English uses an overt pronoun merely as a cue for topic continuity
(Almor, 2002). This difference is responsible for the discourse-level errors of English-
speaking students learning Persian. These errors are likely to persist until students learn
the discourse constraints and discourse mechanisms.
We can summarize the main points we have discussed regarding discourse
structure in Persian and English in the following terms. The parametric variation
between English and Persian with respect to their discourse structure may be attributed
to the difference between reference salience and anaphoric explicitness. While Persian
uses an overt pronoun in a segment of discourse when a constraint is at work, English
uses the same pronoun for topic continuity (Almor, 2002), or reaffirming the present
topic (Suri & McCoy, 1993). This difference is responsible for the discourse-level errors
of English-speaking students learning Persian. These errors are likely to persist until
students learn the underlying discourse structure and its full plan.
In addition to discourse problems, what is particularly problematic from our
point of view about the translation in (5) and the autobiographical sketch in (11) is that
they also show violations of issues related to authenticity. Although there may be no
global and absolute notion of authenticity (Harmer, 1989), we can safely assume that
overuse of subject pronouns in these texts does not reflect real use of language in the real
world by native speakers of Persian. As a consequence, raising students’ consciousness
(Larsen-Freeman, 2003) about the authentic criteria of a text comes into play that will
facilitate language acquisition in the sense of understanding the full range of expression
used in the target language. In accordance with Harmer’s proposal (p. 164), students
should be given ample practice in reading and listening to texts that aim for ‘semi-
authentic’ or ‘user authenticity’ that are appropriate to the current needs of the learners.
The reading of such texts will help them to acquire the necessary skills they will need
when they eventually come to tackle authentic materials in the real world.
Teaching Procedure
28
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure
Stage 1: Students are told that they are going to work in pairs, A and B.
Stage 2: The teacher will put simple sentences containing all pronouns on cards
appropriate for the students’ reading ability at this level, including simple narratives of
routine events and simple descriptions of people, places, or things.
Stage 3: Student A reads the sentence and discusses it with Student B to find the
correlation between lexical pronouns and verbal inflections.
Stage 6: When the group has reached a decision, the teacher and the class can conduct a
feedback session to see what the pronouns and their verbal inflections are. (If the teacher
uses past tenses, he/she should give students a chance to discover for themselves that the
verbal inflection for the third singular person is a zero morpheme.)
Now students may put the results on a table, using a different color for each
pronoun. Some examples for this stage of activities may be given as follows:
This activity is a great fun and produces a lot communicative output. The goal
of the second activity is to make students interactive, that is, to make them react to
certain events producing simple propositions without overt pronouns. Pictures, films,
slides, photographs, and video clips may be used as a support for interactive techniques
in this activity.
Stage 2: The teacher shows the pairs a picture of some people engaged in a particular
activity.
Stage 4: After a given time, the teacher asks a pair to read the sentence.
29
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani
Stage 5: Other pairs can ask questions and challenge choices. Some representative
examples for this stage are
This activity may present problems with forming present progressive tense. If
students form sentences using simple present tense as an alternative, the teacher should
accept them because the focus is on inflections..
The goal of the last activity is to make students creative in order use overt
pronouns under appropriate pragmatic conditions-emphasis, contrast, etc.
Stage 1: Students are told that they are going to work in small groups
Stage 2: The teacher may distribute some pictures of games, foods, fruits, items of
clothing, colors, etc.
Stage 3: Each student in the group picks what he / she likes and asks other members
whether or not they like the same thing.
Stage 4: When students have completed their conversations, the teacher leads a feedback
session by asking the students whether or not they like the same thing.
Some examples for students to ask their group members and for the teacher to ask the
class are:
A suitable activity would be to divide the class into two equal groups and have
the members of the first group engaged in doing something such as, opening the door,
closing the window, etc. Then each member of the second group asks each member of
the firs group who did what. Some examples:
30
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure
Alternative questions in pairs or small groups will work just as well for this purpose.
Conclusion
31
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani
one such a parameter is the pro-drop parameter that divides languages into two groups
with respect to whether they allow the deletion of pronouns in subject position. Based
on theoretical considerations and empirical reasons with respect to first and second
language acquisition, we proposed a Two-pronged Parameter Value according to which
the pro-drop parameter of Persian has an unmarked value that is acquired with minimal
exposure and a marked value which requires specific positive evidence.
In addition the notion of duality in the Persian parameter value, this study
investigated the discourse structure of Persian in an informal fashion in the spirit of
Centering Theory. A comparison of overt subject pronouns between Persian and English
shows that while English by virtue of being a non-pro-drop language uses overt pronouns
to refer to the most salient referent as a cue for topic continuity, Persian uses null subjects
to mark the coherent continuation of the discourse topic In contrast, Persian uses overt
pronouns in contexts where discursive factors impose their constraints. In addition to
discourse cursives text authenticity also imposes its own constraints.
Pedagogical implications of this study are threefold in nature. (i) learning
language should be based on authentic instructional materials taken from a variety of
genres pertaining to the target language culture,(ii) the learning tasks involving these
materials should aim at equipping students with necessary skills and knowledge which
will enable them to understand how language works in a discourse model and how
to employ the materials for authentic purposes, and (iii) English-speaking learners of
Persian should be taught the principles underlying the discourse structure of the target
language as part of their pragmatic competence to be able to use null and overt subject
pronouns appropriately.
This study should raise questions for further research in teaching Persian to
English-speaking students and other non-pro-drop languages. In case learners show
inappropriate use of pronominal references in a discourse model, we need a more
extensive corpus of utterances to analyze in order to be able to make a fine distinction
between language transfer and discourse-based errors. For a more adequate account
conducting a more through analysis should be considered to characterize the nature of
discourse constraints and to establish principles governing the links between transition
type and pronoun choice in a discourse.
This study raises questions for further research teaching pro-drop language
to speakers of non-pro-drop languages. In case learners of a pro-drop language show
inappropriate pronominal use, we need to analyze more data in order to be able to make
a fine distinction between language transfer and discourse- level errors with respect to
lexical pronouns. Conducting a more through discourse analysis should be considered
to identify the nature of discourse constraints and to establish principles governing the
links between transition type and choice of pronoun in a pro-drop language.
References
32
A Communicative Way of Teaching Structure
33
Abolghasem Soheili Esfahani
Author
ABOLGHASEM SOHEILI ESFAHANI, Assistant Professor, Persian Department, CE
Program, DoD Center, Fort Ord, 400 Gigling Street, Monterey, CA 93944-
5006. Specialization: Linguistics (theoretical and applied), Persian syntax, and
TEFL.
34
Learning Management Systems Conference
On March 15, 2005, the Curriculum Development Division (CD) of the Defense
Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) organized the first Learning
Management System (LMS) Conference with the active participation and strong
support from Continuing Education (CE) and Evaluation & Standardization (ES). This
conference marks the beginning of the process of defining the specific DLIFLC needs
for obtaining a comprehensive LMS that will meet the present and future requirements
for curriculum development, teaching, studying, assessment and administration of
foreign language learning. The 25 attendees at the conference included representatives
from CDD, CE, ES, the Computer Technology Integration Office (CIO) and the Public
Affairs Office (PAO).
The LMS Conference was opened up by DLIFLC’s Vice Chancellor, Neil
Granoien, and Steve Koppany, CD’s Dean. In his welcoming remarks, Neil Granoien
stated that the new Joint Knowledge Office of the Department of Defense (DoD)
has tasked military training centers to meet the requirement that “everything talks to
everything else,” i.e., the need to address current and emerging DoD requirements
(DODD 1322.18 and DODI 1322.XX) for Sharable Content Object Reference Model
(SCORM)-conformant training materials.1
Steve Koppany addressed these DoD requirements by outlining the general
conference goals as: (1) raising awareness of the need for a suitable LMS, (2) establishing
a community of professionals and organizations as a network of support, and (3) gaining
a better understanding of the relevance of an LMS to the various aspects of the work
being performed at the Institute. He also noted that at this initial stage of development
as each unit defines its mission requirements, it is likely that there may be multiple LMS
solutions, rather than a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
Steve Koppany identified the specific tasks of the conference and its working
groups as preparing detailed recommendations outlining critical LMS aspects and
drafting recommendations for the implementation of one or more modern, multi-purpose
LMSs in support of the DLIFLC mission.
Background
1
Defense Acquisition Professionals.ppt
35
Boyadjieff, Koppany, and Lee
• Authoring
• Classroom management
• Competency management
• Knowledge management
• Certification or compliance training
• Personalization
• Mentoring
• Chat
• Discussion boards
36
Learning Management Systems Conference
The LMS conference continued with three fifteen-minute presentations from the
participating deans. In their briefings Steve Koppany, Mika Hoffman and Mike Vezilich
outlined their respective Division concerns and priorities as related to identifying and
using one or more LMSs to meet their needs.
Steve Koppany defined the requirements for implementing an LMS in terms of
the current projects of CD’s key projects. The LMS would pull together and manage the
core teaching programs of the DLIFLC, which are the resident basic language courses,
the intermediate and advanced Continuing Education courses, the country-specific
familiarization courses, the Web-based maintenance Global Language Online Support
System (GLOSS), and other special projects. His vision was augmented by Robert Lee,
a Sy Coleman contractor and the GLOSS technology coordinator, who pointed out that
a suitable LMS should serve as an umbrella structure in offering both resident and non-
resident instruction materials.
Mika Hoffman presented her preliminary research of the multi-faceted needs of
ES that could be met by the use of an appropriate CLMS. The specific needs of ES include
a content management system with discretionary publishing capabilities encompassing
test development, review processes, test materials and publishing capabilities. Specific
needs also require usability with translations, production by categories, combination and
recombination of test items, publishing in paper and computer formats, and formatting
different types of test items. The test developers in ES need a simple user interface for
entering data with the text editing in English and various foreign language character
sets combined in the same string. The interface must be able to display some parts of
the test while hiding others and track functions for various criteria such as IRL levels,
dialogue/monologue, etc. For publishing, the LMS should be able to export and import
selected date from other applications (MS Excel, MS Access, MS Word) and publish
in either paper or electronic format, query objects by test form and position, generate
overlap lists, publish different subsets of object information, and offer templates for test
creation. Finally, for access and storage, the requirements include limited shared access
across teams, security, and storage for large amounts of data with archiving and locking
capabilities.
The next speaker, Mike Vezilich, outlined the specific needs for an LMS to add
support to their mission of providing superior post-basic foreign language instruction
via resident and non-resident programs to approximately 25,000 DoD and other US
government personnel each year to assure full linguist mission readiness. The CE
Directorate, with a total current faculty of 54, includes four Divisions whose focus is on
developing curriculum and the distance learning programs.
In defining CE’s needs, Vezilich identified four critical areas:
37
Boyadjieff, Koppany, and Lee
• SCORM-conformant LMS
• Security
• Bandwidth
• Authoring tools
• Backups
38
Learning Management Systems Conference
Break-Out Sessions
Session 1 – Tracking Information. Facilitated by Dean Koppany, the group created lists
of specific information needed by DLI’s students, teachers, and administrators that an
LMS should provide.
In addition to using the language-learning content and activities, students need
to be able to access their assignments, grades, homework, bulletin board, and links, with
both local and global search capabilities. They need the tools to build and maintain their
student portfolios, and to keep track of student-to-teacher contacts, the progress of the
course, and the schedule of instruction.
In addition to these capabilities, instructors also need to have access to the
LOG and related materials, all discreet materials for creating customized lessons,
training materials, counseling tools, course objectives (FLOs) and assessment rubrics.
They need to be able to check on students’ assignments, homework, time on task, lesson
visits, individual student progress, test scores, DLPT and OPI information, as well as
build their own teaching portfolios.
Administrators have additional needs, such as tracking student and teacher
attendance, milestones, technical problems, enrollment requirements, professional
development, student and teacher feedback on programs, and be able to develop the
course catalog and plan matriculation, graduation and retention dates. The granularity
of the LMS, which is the ability to create detailed searches by keywords throughout all
levels of the system using detailed search capabilities, is also a key for administrators.
Additionally, the administration needs to track the availability and test schedules of their
certified language testers, as well as maintain access to teacher portfolios, including
accomplishments and projects.
This team also compiled a list of other foreign language professionals outside
of the DLI faculty, staff and students who might need to have access to certain aspects
of the traceable information, such as researchers, course development specialists, course
language project managers, test developers, DLIFLC and other unit commanders, and
the congressional liaison.
Session 2 – Metadata. Facilitated by Mr. Lee, this breakout group discussed the metadata
tracking capabilities that an LMS would need to have to satisfy the diverse DLI mission.
Metadata is defined as data about content. Mr. Lee brought up the question of what
sort of taxonomy and data tagging should be developed to identify our materials, their
unique components and their common components.
The group presented a basic SCORM model of how content pieces are pooled
together and then accessed by proper tagging of the metadata. The main categories
of the first and most general layer of tagging taxonomy include tagging each LO for
language, countries, regions, topical domains (military, society, environment, political,
etc.), sources (text, audio, video) and proficiency levels.
The range of commonality in all of DLIFLC’s products would be tagged in
the three major areas of language, proficiency level, and topical domains. Beyond that,
a custom tagging scheme is needed. Layer two would be tagged according to major
projects, such as GLOSS, Familiarization courses, and so on. The third level of tagging
39
Boyadjieff, Koppany, and Lee
Session 4 - Technical Issues. SFC Strohl facilitated the breakout group discussing the
technical issues of choosing an appropriate LMS. The group emphasized that technical
issues encompass every facet of the LMS. It should support many varied methods of
access to the language-learning system. Off-post facilities must meet Army network
standards for networking to the system. Also, delivering content to multiple locations
brings up the issue of how to connect and coordinate the system.
The group dealt with the question of session management, and whether the LMS
should simply be a tool for learners or if it should support a community of learners. If it
were used to support and sustain a community, there are various implications for what
constitutes a session. For network operations and management there are also military
and civilian interface issues of security to be considered regarding E-mail, locations,
tasks, attachments, FTP, backup bandwidth, and so on, requiring proper analysis and
architecture.
The desired technical system should address the overall needs, provide a
consistent method of use in the technical environment, be reasonably easy to use, and
work every time. Specifically, this system should include:
40
Learning Management Systems Conference
Recommendations
41
Boyadjieff, Koppany, and Lee
Conclusion
References
42
Learning Management Systems Conference
Slosser, Steve and Susan Marshall. ADL PowerPoint: SCORM for Defense Acquisition
Professionals. Joint ADL Co-Lab Web CT E-Learning. Retrieved from: http://
www.webct.com
Authors
43
TESOL Reports
TESOL REPORTS
This year a group of twenty some faculty and staff members from the Defense
Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) took off for the unpredictable
April skies of San Antonio to participate at the 39th Annual TESOL Convention and
Exhibit. The DLIFLC folks went there to present, to learn, and to communicate in the
halls of a spectacularly designed modern convention center. On a run from presentation
to presentation, the attendees could hear a gamut of languages against the background
of calming tunes of never-ending river flow.
Outside the convention walls, the attendees could taste a variety of dishes served
in Spanish, Mexican, Native American, German, Polish, and Hungarian restaurants
along the riverwalk. These restaurants were just one attestation of multiethnic nature
of San Antonio inhabitants. These inhabitants and their predecessors have created such
national treasures as the Alamo (and four other Spanish missions), the Mexican Market,
San Fernando Cathedral, and the Modern Museum of Art.
At the convention, I had the opportunity to present Applied Language Learning
and Dialog on Language Instruction to the participants of the session titled “How to
Get Published in other Serial Publications in the Field of Applied Linguistics.” The
session was organized by the editors of TESOL Journals. About 30 editors were invited
to present their academic journals. Following editors’ presentation of the journals, the
participants had an opportunity to ask questions and subsequently to talk personally to
the editors.
Many participants expressed interest in Applied Language Learning and Dialog
on Language Instruction. They swiftly took complimentary copies of the journals.
Several people signed up on the journal mailing list. Others expressed interest in writing
an article for the journals.
In addition to my participation at the editors’ session, I attended several
sessions that were related to my work at DLIFLC. I found the sessions “Cognitive
Load Theory and TESOL Materials Development” and “Teacher Trainers Negotiating
Roles in Cyberspace” informative and relative to our work at Curriculum Development
Division.
“Cognitive Load Theory and TESOL Materials Development” was presented
by Gregory Anderson and Matt Kline of University of Southern California. Anderson
and Kline had begun their session by reviewing three types of memory; namely short-
term memory, working memory, and long-term memory. They pointed out that short-
term memory is limited to several bits of information, working memory is of larger
but of limited capacity, and long-term memory is permanent. The presenters stated that
working memory is engaged during learning process.
Both Anderson and Kline frequently referred to the findings of the founder
of cognitive load theory, J. Sweller, during their presentation. According to Sweller,
optimal learning occurs when the learner is exposed to a combinations of elements,
or schemas, rather than isolated elements. Schemas are “sophisticated structures that
permit us to perceive, think, and solve problems.” They constitute contents of long-term
memory; In other words, schemas are cognitive structures that make up the knowledge
base in every individual. They are acquired over a lifetime of learning, and may have
other schemas contained within themselves.
Kline stated that students process information contained in instructional
materials using working memory. If the materials contain the right amount of cognitive
load, the processed information is learned or acquired as a schema. If, on the other hand,
the materials contain too much of cognitive load, the information, or part of it, is lost.
45
Lidia Woytak and Eleine Patterson
Therefore for schema acquisition to take place “instruction should be designed to reduce
working memory load.”
As an example, they flashed a string of 10 digits. Next they asked the
participants to recall them. No one was able to recall them. Afterwards they flashed
10 digits again; this time they arranged ten digits in three chunks. Subsequently, when
asked to identify the chunked digits, some participants were able to recall them entirely
and others partially. Thus the participants experienced first hand that chunking promoted
acquisition.
Subsequently, Kline and Anderson recommended that course developers place
new related information in the same area rather than in different areas of the materials.
Such arrangement fosters focused attention and thus facilitates learning. On the other
hand, placing related materials in different areas splits learner’s attention. Split attention
increases the working memory load substantially and prevents learner from acquisition
of schemas.
To counter split attention problem, they enumerated ways of reducing cognitive
load of instructional materials. Specifically they asked the textbook writers to present a
rule first, followed by an example and next by an exercise. In this way learners would
avoid attention split and thus be able to focus attention fully on the learning task.
Subsequently they reviewed several poorly designed language exercises. One
exercise dealing with formation of past tense, for example, lacked presence of rule
above examples. Thus it unnecessary demanded more cognitive load than it would if
the rule was presented.
Afterwards they commented on an exercise that consisted of a list of numbered
words referring to city buildings in the top half of the page and a drawing of these
buildings in the bottom half of the page. Each building had a number on it in accordance
to its representation. The presenters commented that placing numbers on the buildings
rather than the actual names unnecessarily added up to the cognitive load of the learner
and thus impeded processing as well as acquisition of schemas.
As an example of a well-designed exercise, they presented the exercise on
spelling of –ing; this exercise contained four rules presented in a form of a chart. Each
rule was followed by two examples. Finally immediately following the rules and the
examples, the exercise was presented in the bottom part of the page. Again integration
of rules, examples, and the actual exercise at the same spot lowered learners cognitive
capacity.
Kline and Anderson added that learning is facilitated by visual and auditory
input. As good examples they cited history lessons from PBS Tapestry Series. They
also recommended inclusion of goal-free sessions in the curriculum. Such sessions they
pointed out, optimize acquisition. Finally they also advocated asking students open-
ended questions.
In summary both Anderson and Kline convinced the participants that every
bit of information, i.e., a word, a phrase, a picture in instructional materials adds to
learner’s cognitive load. Thus the message to course writers and designers was clear:
46
TESOL Reports
47
Lidia Woytak and Eleine Patterson
48
TESOL Reports
To illustrate student learning and problem solving in her ESL classes Lambert
chose John Keller’s ARCR (attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction) Model of
Strategies. For the purpose of this review I will quote attention and relevance strategies
only, as they were used by the presenter for developing teaching techniques to meet
students’ acceptance and affiliation needs.
49
Lidia Woytak and Eleine Patterson
50
TESOL Reports
A. Monim S. Mohamed
MEII, Department B.
51
Lidia Woytak and Eleine Patterson
However, so many other elements have also contributed to the success of this
workshop, especially those associated with the mission and objective of the DLIFLC,
and the plans for faculty development. All efforts for the enrichment to this workshop
contribute to other efforts exerted by other departments to achieve the ultimate goal of
increasing the proficiency levels of the students. Faculty members need to coordinate
with workshop organizers and be more aware of the latest development in Reflective
Teaching theory and practice. Such communication will improve the DLIFLC learn-
ing process and will benefit both the student and the teacher. It is indeed a revolution
against the beliefs we hold firmly about ourselves. We need to teach in a different way
if the students are not responsive to the current one. This is the way we can change and
develop for the better.
52
General Information
Index
Authors and Articles
53
El-Barouki, Foazi. (2000). Arabic as a Foreign language in the New Millennium: In-
tegrating language and Culture Through the Comprehension of Idioms. 14(1 &
2), p. 23.
El-Barouki, Foazi. (1997). How Arab Émigré Writers in America Kept Their Cultural
Roots. 12(1 & 2), p. 31.
Elghannam, Alaa. (1997). Peer Observation: Concepts and Practices. 12(1 & 2), p.
41.
El-Nady, Mamdouh. (2000). Drama as a Teaching Technique in the Second Language
Classroom. 14(1 & 2), p. 41.
El-Nady, Mamdouh. (1994). Teaching Culture through Language Analysis: Use of Pro-
nouns in the Egyptian Dialect. 10 (1), p. 69.
Erdener, Yildiray. (1987). Communicating with More Than Words. 4(1), p. 31.
Fakhhouri, Grace. (2004). Interaction in Group Work: Can It Enhance FL Acquisition?
16 (1 & 2). p. 1.
Feghali, Maksoud. (1989). Interactive Video Authoring in Teaching Foreign Languages.
5(1), p. 68.
Ford, Maria. (1995). The Power of Politeness around the World. 11(1 & 2), p. 1.
Fox, Lisette. (1999). Reflections on Culture. 13(1 & 2), p. 89.
Gale, Roderic. (1997). Computer Roles in Language Teaching and Learning: Let the
Dialog Expand–Robustly! 12 (1 & 2), p. 1.
Garrett, Nina. (1987). The Problem with Grammar: What Kind Can the Language
Learner Use? 4(1), p. 79.
Goroshko, Natalia. (1993). Four-Handed Instruction. 9(1), p. 49.
Iaremenko, Grigori. (2004). Conditionally Communicative Exercises. 16 (1 & 2). p.
41.
Kaneda, Yoshiko. (1999). An Experiment in Listening Material: Is Packaging More Im-
portant Than Its Content? 13 (1 & 2), p. 131.
Khoshaba, Matti Philliops. (2004). The Integrative Test of Arabic (IAT) 16 (1 & 2) p.
53.
Konderski, Stefan. (1990). “Eavesdropping” in Foreign Language Instruction. 6(1 &
2), p. 105.
Koppany, Steven. (1995). Computers and the Foreign Language Curriculum: Old Ques-
tions, New Horizons. 11(1 & 2), p. 55.
Kordecki, Ann. (1989). Dealing with Underachievers in a Classroom. 5(1), p. 63.
Krasner, Irene. (1999). The Role of Culture in Language Teaching. 13(1 & 2), p. 79.
Lett, John. (1987). Research at DLI. 4(1), p. 46.
Lett, John. (1989). Components of Language Proficiency. 5(1), p. 57.
Litvinenko, Elena. (2000). Scheduling Special Assistance. 14(1 & 2), p. 37.
Maly, Eugene. (1993). Task-Based Instruction: From the Teacher’s Perspective. 9(1),
p. 37.
Masliyah, Sadok. (1999). A Cross-Cultural Misunderstanding: The Case of the Arabic
Expression Inshallah, “If God Wills.” 13(1 & 2), p. 97.
Masliyah, Sadok. (1990). Student Opinions and Preferences for Error Treatment. 6(1
& 2), p. 27.
McDermott, James. (1999). Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. 13(1 & 2), p.
27.
Nasr, Michel. (1993). Pioneers of Social Change. 9(1), p. 55.
Nicola, Michel. (1994). An Integrated Arabic Basic Course. 10(1), p. 27.
Nicola, Michel. (1991). Theories of Second Language Acquisition and of Physics. 7(1),
p. 17.
Nicola, Michel. (1990). Experimenting with the New Methods. 6(1 & 2), p. 61.
Nicola, Michel. (1989). The “Far Side” Treatment. 5(1), p. 72.
Orr, Joseph. (2000). Surviving Immersion. 14(1 & 2), p. 63.
Otto, Frank. (1987). Foreign Language Technology in the 21st Century. 4(1), p. 1.
54
Oxford-Carpenter, Rebecca. (1989). A New Taxonomy of Second Language Learning
Strategies. 5(1), p. 1.
Park, Bo Young. (2000). Out of the Korean Classroom: Trip to the Temple; Language
Exercises. 14(1 & 2), p. 69.
Poulin, Gerald. (1997). Applicability of Digital Video to Computerized Language Learn-
ing. 12(1 & 2), p. 25.
Rivers, Wilga. (1987). Comprehension and Production in Interactive Language Train-
ing. 4(1), p. 78.
Rowland, Howard. (1991). Diglossia in Arabic: The Phenomenon and Some Possible
Solutions. 7(1), p. 45.
Rowland, Howard. (1990). A Solution for DLI’s “Arabic Problem.” 6(1 & 2), p. 89.
Rubinstein, George. (1993). Foreign Language versus Second Language. 9(1), p. 23.
Sampson, Kenneth. (1999). Instilling Passion for Language: Strategies and Techniques.
13(1 & 2), p. 73.
Sedrak, nagib Z. (2000). Will Translation Replace Humans? 14(1 & 2), p. 31.
Shin, Ilsoon. (1997). The DLPT as a Learning Objective. 12(1 & 2), p. 29.
Shin, Ilsoon. (1991). The ILR Proficiency Interview. 7(1), p. 77.
Shin, Ilsoon. (1990). The Classroom Observation. 6(1 & 2), p. 107.
Slutsky, Leonid. (1993). Four-Handed Instruction. 9(1), p. 49.
Sparhawk, Carol. (1991). Teacher as Intensive Student: How it Feels. 7(1), p. 29.
Swaffar, Janet. (1990). Competing Paradigms in Adult Language. 6(1 & 2), p. 1.
Terdjman, Jean-Michel. (1991). Putting Meaning Before Form. 7(1), p. 39.
Terrell, Tracy. (1987). Avoiding Fossilization in Communicative Approaches. 4(2), p.
1.
Thompson, Irene. (1989). Some Implications of Reading Research for L2 Reading In-
struction. 5(1), p. 19.
Tuman, Walter. (1991). CALLware: Design, Development, and Distribution. 7(1), p. 1.
van Daalen, Margaret. (1999). Test Usefulness in Alternative Assessment. 13(1 & 2), p.
1.
van Daalen, Margaret. (1992). Adult Dialogue Journals in Dutch as a Foreign Lan-
guage. 8(1 & 2), p. 35.
White, Philip. (1997). The Role of Dictionaries in Language Learning. 12(1 & 2), p. 7.
Woytak, Lidia. (1997). Language for a Lifetime: 1997 Command Language Program
Manager Seminar. 12(1 & 2), p. 47.
Woytak, Lidia. (1999). Life of an Idea: DLIFLC Annual Program Review. 13(1 & 2), p.
135.
Woytak, Lidia. (1990). Guidelines for Presentations. 6(1 & 2), p. 75.
Woytak, Lidia. (1987). Goals and Objectives in Foreign Language Teaching. 4(1), p.
36.
Zeuge, Helma. (1990). German FLO Goes EIDS. 6(1 &2), p. 97.
Bahat, Ester. (1991). Ha-’Ilton Ke-emtsa’I Lehora’at Safah Shniyah. 12(1 & 2), p. 57.
Reviewed by Masliyah, Sadok. (1997).
Hoffmeister, Gerhart and Tubach, Frederic. (1986). Germany: 2000 Years, Volume 3,
From the Nazi Era to the Present. 4(1), p. 82. Reviewed by Maier, Wofgang.
(1987).
Lauden, Edna & Weinbach, Liora. (1993). Multi-Dictionary, Hebrew From Scratch,
Arabic for Living. 11(1 & 2), p. 65. Reviewed by Masliyah, Sadok. (1995).
Lee, William W. & Owens, Diana L. (2000) Multimedia-Based Instructional Design.
16 (1 & 2). p. 71. Reviewed by Farahmand, Shoreh. (2004).
Mahnke, M. Kathleen. (1999). Grammar Links: A Theme-Based Course for Reference
and Practice. 16 (1 & 2). p. 72. Reviewed by Roemer, Ann E.
55
Mueller, Kurt. (1986). Language Competence: Implications for National Security. 4(2),
p. 62. Reviewed by Goodrick, John. (1987).
Nicola, Michel. (1985). A Thousand and One Nights. 4(2), p. 64. Reviewed by Nasr,
Michel. (1987).
Nydell, Margaret. (1991). From Modern Standard Arabic to the Iraqi Dialect, Levantine
Dialects, Maghrebi Dialects–Conversation Courses. 10(1), p. 75. Reviewed by
Rowland, Howard. (1994).
Pellisier, Sidney and Smith William. (1985). Bulletins–Premier Niveau: Sight Readings
in French. 4(1), p. 83. Reviewed by Moreno, Rejane. (1987).
Rixon, Shelagh. (1989). Developing Listening Skills. 8(1 & 2), p. 81. Reviewed by
Moravec, Eva. (1992).
Rost, Michael. (1991). Listening in Action. 8(1 & 2), p. 85. Reviewed by Smith, Robert.
(1992).
Rauch, Holger von & Trad, M. Sadek. (1998). Travel wise: Arabic. 14(1 & 2), p. 74.
reviewed by Rowland, Howard D. (2000).
Polish Individualized Instruction. 5(1), p. 75. Reviewed by Woytak, Lidia. (1989).
Watcyn-Jones, Peter. (1997). Pair Work 1. 13(1 & 2), p. 155. Reviewed by Allard,
Yoshimi. (1999).
Williams, F.C. & Wu,Yenna. (1999). Chinese: The Easy Way. 14(1 & 2), p. 73. Re-
viewed by Zhao, Jim Jielu. (2000).
Williams, F.C. & Wu,Yenna. (1999). Chinese: The Easy Way. 14(1 & 2), p. 73. Re-
viewed by Sun, Dawn Hsu Chao. (2004).
Zilkha, Avraham. (2000). Modern English-Hebrew Dictionary. 16 (1 & 2), p. 70. Re-
viewed by Masliyah, Sadok. (2004).
Allard,Yoshimi and Lee Robert. (1999). ACTFL Conference Attendance Highest Ever.
13(1 & 2), p. 153.
Armstrong, Marianne. (1987). Social Conventions in the Foreign Language Classroom
(ACTFL Conference Presentation).4(1), p. 55.
Atwell, Ssbine. (1995). Teacher Education and Curriculum at TESOL. 11(1 & 2), p.
75.
Campbell, Christine. (1991). DLI at ACTFL. 7(1), p. 69.
Cicekdag, Mehmet Ali. (1994). ACTFL ’93–A Personal View. 10(1), p. 77.
El-Barouki, Foazi. (1987). Social Conventions in the Foreign Language Classroom
(ACTFL Conference Presentation). 4(1), p. 55.
Hammoud, Salah-Dine. (1993). ACTFL ’92 Impressions. 9(1), p. 59.
Hurtt, Meei-Jin. (1997). Chinese Teachers’ Workshop. 12(1 & 2), p. 37.
Koppany, Steven. (1991). DLI at ACTFL. 7(1), p. 69.
Koppany, Steven. (1987). Real-Life in the Classroom (ACTFL Workshop Report). 4(1),
p. 71.
Lee, Alice. (1987). Social Conventions in the Foreign Language Classroom (ACTFL
Conference Presentation). 4(1), p. 55.
Ludgate, Brigitta. (1991). DLI at ACTFL. 7(1), p. 69.
Ortiz, Jose. (1991). DLI at ACTFL. 7(1), p. 69.
Tabuse, Motoko. (1987). Social Conventions in the Foreign Language Classroom
(ACTFL Conference Presentation). 4(1), p. 55.
Tovar, Deanna. (1991). Teacher Education at TESOL ’90. 7(1), p. 57.
Tovar, Deanna. (1987). Coming of Age (TESOL Conference Report). 4(2), p. 53.
van Daalen, Margaret. (1990). Second Language Research Forum Conference Report:
Multidisciplinary Perspectives. 6(1 & 2), p. 109.
Woytak, Lidia. (1991). Report from ACTFL. 7(1), p. 66.
Woytak, Lidia. (2000). Language Enhancement: The 1999 Worldwide Language Olym-
pics and the 1999 Command Language Program Seminar. 14(1 & 2), p. 49.
56
Editorials
Correspondence
Molan, Peter. (1994). A Reply to Michel Nicola’s “An Integrated Arabic Basic Course.”
10(1), p. 43.
Nicola, Michel. (1994). Response to Peter D. Molan’s Reply. 10(1), p. 55.
Announcements
Broz, James. (1989). Foreign Language Foundation Moves from Concept to Reality.
5(1), p. 79.
Woytak, Lidia. (1990). Obituary: James W. Dodge. 6(1 & 2), p. 73.
57
Calendar of Events
General Information
Calendar of Events*
2005
2006
59
* Courtesy of The Modern Language Journal (University of Wisconsin)
Dialog on Language Instruction
Association for Asian Studies (AAS), 6–9 April, San Francisco, CA. Contact: AAS,
1021 East Huron St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104; (734) 665-2490; Fax (734) 665-
3801, Email:annmtg@aasianst.org Web: www.aasianst.org
American Educational Research Association (AERA), 8–12 April, San Francisco,
CA. Contact: AERA, 1230 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20036-3078; (202)
223-9485, Fax (202) 775-1824 Web: www.aera.net
International Conference on English Instruction and Assessment, 22–23 April,
Taiwan. Contact: Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National
Chung Cheng University, 168 University Rd., Min-Hsiung Chia-Yi,
621, Taiwan, R.O.C.; ++ 886-5-2721108, Fax ++886-5-2720495, Email:
admada@ccu.edu.tw Web: http://www.ccunix.ccu.edu.tw/~fllcccu/
National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages (NCOLCTL), 27–30
April, Madison, WI. Contact: NCOLCTL, 4231 Humanities Building, 455
N. Park Street, Madison, WI 53706; (608) 265-7903, Fax (608) 265-7904,
Email: ncolctl@mailplus.wisc.edu
International Reading Association (IRA), 30 April–4 May, Chicago, IL. Contact:
International Reading Association, Headquarters Office, 800 Barksdale Rd.,
PO Box 8139, Newark, DE 19714-8139; (302) 731-1600, Fax: (302) 731-
1057, Web: www.reading.org
Language Acquisition and Bilingualism, 4–7 May, Toronto, Canada. Contact:
Conference, 234 Behavioural Sciences Building, York University, 4700 Keele
Street, Toronto, ON, Canada, M3J 1P3; Email: labconf@yorku.ca Web: http://
www.psych.yorku.ca/labconference/index.html
Computer-Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO), 16–20 May,
Honolulu, HI. Contact: CALICO, Southwest Texas State University, 214
Centennial Hall, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666; (512) 245-
1417, Fax (512) 245-9089, Email: info@calico.org Web: www.calico.org
American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), 17–20 June, Montreal,
Canada. Contact: AAAL, 3416 Primm Lane, Birmingham, AL 35216; (205)
824-7700, Fax (205) 823-2760, Email: aaaloffice@aaal.org Web: www.aaal.
org
Language Testing Research Colloquium (LTRC), 29 June – 1 July, Melbourne,
Australia. Contact: Email: ltrc2006-info@unimelb.edu.au Web: www.
languages.unimelb.edu.au/ltrc2006
American Association of Teachers of French (AATF), 5–8 July, Milwaukee, WI.
Contact: Jayne Abrate, AATF, Mailcode 4510, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale, IL 62901-4510; (618) 453-5731, Fax (618) 453-5733, Email:
abrate@siu.edu Web: www.frenchteachers.org
EUROCALL, 4–7 September, Granada, Spain. Contact: Tony Harris, Email:
tharris@ugr.es Web: www.eurocall-languages.org/index.html
European Second Language Association (EUROSLA), 13–16 September, Istanbul,
Turkey. Contact: Web: www.eurosla2006.boun.edu.tr/
American Translators Association (ATA), 2–5 November, New Orleans, LA.
Contact: ATA, 225 Reinekers Lane, Suite 590, Alexandria, VA 22314; (703)
683-6100, Fax (703) 683-6122, Email: conference@atanet.org Web: www.
atanet.org
60
Calendar of Events
2007
61
Information for Contributors
Purpose
The purpose of this internal publication is to increase and share professional knowledge
among DLIFLC faculty and staff, as well as to promote professional communication
within the Defense Foreign Language Program.
Submission of Manuscripts
Articles
Manuscripts should not exceed 20 double-spaced pages. Divide your manuscript into
the following sections:
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Organizing Construct
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• Appendices
• Notes
• References
• Acknowledgments
• Author
63
Abstract
Provide a brief overview of your manuscript in 75 to 100 words. First, identify the topic of your
manuscript in one sentence. Next state the purpose and the scope of your manuscript in a couple
of sentences. Next name the sources used, for example personal observation, published books
and articles. Finally, state your conclusion in the last sentence of the abstract.
Introduction
Describe the purpose of the manuscript. Relate it to the content of the recently, within the last two
to three years, published literature. Describe work that had a direct impact on your study. Avoid
general references. Cite only pertinent research findings and relevant methodological issues.
Provide the logical continuity between previous and present work. Identify the main issues of
your study. Point out the implications of your study.
Organizing Construct
Divide this part into subsections. Focus each subsection on a specific issue identified
in the introduction. In each subsection, identify the issue, describe it, and present your
finding.
Discussion
Respond to the following questions guide: (1) What I have contributed here? (2)
How has my study helped to resolve the original problem? (3) What conclusions and
theoretical implications can I draw from my study?
Conclusion
References
The list of references should be submitted on a separate page of the manuscript with
the centered heading: References. The entries should be arranged alphabetically
by surnames of authors. The sample list of references below illustrates format for
bibliographic entries:
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Errors and strategies in child second language
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 93-95.
Harris, D. P. (1969). Testing English as a second language. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
64
Reference citations in the text of the manuscript should include the name of the author
of the work cited, the date of the work, and when quoting, the page numbers on which
the material that is being quoted originally appeared, e.g.,
(Jones, 2001, pp. 235-238). All works cited in the manuscript must appear in the list of
references, and conversely, all works included in the list of references must be cited in
the manuscript.
Notes
They should be used for substantive information only, and they should be numbered
serially throughout the manuscript. Subsequently, they all should be listed on a separate
page titled Notes.
Faculty Exchange
This section provides an opportunity for faculty to share ideas through brief articles
up to two double-spaced pages on innovative classroom practices, such as suggestions
on communicative activities, team teaching, use of media and realia, and adaptation of
authentic materials. Each sample of a model classroom activity should state the purpose,
provide instructions and, if applicable, give supporting texts or illustrations.
Reviews
Manuscripts should not exceed one double-spaced page. Items related to language
instruction such as reports on conferences, official trips, official visitors, special events,
new instructional techniques, training aids or materials, research findings, news items,
etc., will be considered for publication.
65
Specifications for Manuscripts
Manuscripts should be typed on 8.5 x 11 in. paper, double-spaced, with margins of about
1.25 in. on all four sides. All pages should be numbered consecutively. Each manuscript
should be submitted in three copies. The first page should include only the title and
the text. It is recommended that passages orquotations in foreign languages be glossed
or summarized. Authors are advised to prepare a note pertaining to their professional
status. An author’s name, position, department, school, address (if outside of DLIFLC),
and interests would be identified in the note. An example of such a note is presented
below:
Author
JANE C. DOE, Assistant Professor, Foreign Language Education, University of
America, 226 N. Madison St., Madison, WI 55306. Specializations: foreign
language acquisition, curriculum studies.
Where feasible, manuscripts are preferred on 3.5” disk. Manuscript produced on DOS
or Macintosh systems should be formatted as MS-DOS file on a double density disk, if
possible. MS Word files are preferred.
3. Remarks:
Review Process
66
Accepted Manuscripts
A manuscript accepted for publication may be accepted “as is” or may require certain
revisions which may target the need to consider other sources, or to elaborate on a
certain point; or, finally, may address such minor details as a typo or a lack of citation. In
the latter case, the author is asked to revise it and subsequently the editor checks whether
the author complied thoroughly with the guidance
Rejected Manuscripts
The editor duly informs the author that the manuscript is unacceptable for publication.
Normally this finding ends the revision process.
In some cases, an author whose manuscript was already rejected decides to revise the
manuscript thoroughly and to resubmit it for publication. Since the quality of the version
is unpredictable, no promises can be issued to the author regarding publication.
Correspondence
67
68
Notes
Dialog on Language Instruction 2005 Volume 17 Numbers 1 & 2