Learning Another Language Such as English To Survive in a Globalized World Research Paper

To Survive in a Globalized World

The age of globalization is upon us. This means that people from different cultures have opportunities to interact with each other, thus, they need to find ways to communicate better. Learning a second language on top of their native one may be one step in reaching out to people from another culture.

Parents are now becoming more keen in letting their young children learn second, third and even multiple languages to prepare them for the competition they have to face in the world when they grow up. Children’s television shows such as Dora, the Explorer and Sesame Street are very popular, because these shows feature learning words in another language other than the child’s first language.

Young children find exposure to more languages at an early age due to the encouragement of multicultural education. English has become the global language for businesses world wide, so many people from foreign countries engage in learning it as a second language.

However, several issues have come up regarding linguistic diversity. Educators need to investigate and understand these issues so that they can better design second language learning strategies to implement in their multicultural classes.

This paper will investigate language learning and discuss concepts, principles, theories and methods in learning language, specifically a second language. It will also discuss how learning a second language affects the first language as well as determine if age is a factor in learning a new language or if strategies employed in the learning of the language can override the age factor. This is in consideration of more and more adults wanting to learn a second language for their own benefit.

Language Acquisition and Development

Language acquisition and development has been a point of keen interest of educators, psychologists and researchers that numerous studies have been done to unveil more knowledge about it.There have been many theories conceptualized as to how language is acquired by human beings. A great deal of a child’s acquisition of linguistic structure occurs during the first five years of life.

This is the period when he is most active in discerning a set of underlying organizational principles of language from the expression that surrounds him. It is amazing how at a very young age, he is capable of abstracting meaning from direct experience with other language users depending on his own context.

Beaty (2009) explains that even at an infant stage, the baby’s early nonverbal communication helps in preparing her for the spoken and written language to follow and at 6 months, she has become a language specialist, based on the sounds she hears most frequently. At 20 months, she may possess a sizable vocabulary if she hears adults around her talk to one another and to her all the time.

Of course good hearing and sensitive listening are paramount to language development. According to Lightbrown & Spada (1999), like the first language, “learner’s age is one of the characteristics which determine the way in which an individual approaches second language learning.” (68).

Language has four elements, and these elements have related skills necessary to develop a proficiency in language. According to Larsen-Freeman (1986), the natural order that children follow when learning their native language in terms of skill acquisition is: listening, speaking, reading and writing. Crucial to the development of teaching approaches is an understanding of such processes involved in language use.

Learning of language and literacy is very much interrelated. With young children, it is essential that the learning approaches in teaching literacy be selected appropriately. Educators use different approaches to help children become literate:

• Whole language approach:
  • emphasizes a holistic, meaning-based and context-based approach in linking printed text with spoken language.
  • Little attention is paid to specific or isolated skills and limited emphasis is placed on the role of focused practice.
  • Language and literacy are viewed as integrated systems, and specific components of language such as sounds of each letter are not learned in isolation (Norris & Hoffman, 1993).
• Phonetic approach:
  • emphasizes phonological awareness training
  • value the provision of specific and focused opportunities to practice segmenting words into phonemes, blending phonemes into words and learning to rhyme.
• Natural literacy:
  • expands the concept of emergent literacy by emphasizing the role of interactions with adults or more competent peers in a child’s learning experiences.

Although the whole language approach and the phonetic approach seem to be opposing camps, there is good reason to suggest an integration of both for more effective literacy development. Watkins & Bunce (1996) gives the rationale:

“On the one hand, because the process of literacy acquisition occurs through natural, meaningful experiences with print and reading, these experiences should play a role in efforts to facilitate such skills. On the other hand, because phonological awareness contributes to early reading achievement, some focus on particular phonological awareness abilities appears warranted. Thus, a rationale exists for integrating whole language and phonological awareness perspectives in attempts to promote literacy proficiency in young children.” (n.p.)

The activities teachers of young children should plan for them should comply to the requirements necessary to meet the developmental needs of young children in terms of their language and literacy development. Not only should children be literate, but they should also become good communicators in the future especially if they are exposed to more of developmentally-appropriate activities in their very young age.

Otto (2010) differentiates language acquisition and language learning as thus: in language acquisition, a child learns language unconsciously in a natural way because he needs to understand meaning. On the other hand, in language learning, a child consciously learns rules in formal instruction in learning a language. Emphasis here is on the form of the language.

Vygotsky (1962, as mentioned in Clay, 1998) emphasizes the value of children’s talk and their growing ability to articulate their understanding of their world orally and in writing. Taking part in negotiating meanings is part of the educational process, and Vygotsky believes that just being with others helps children learn.

Benson McMullen (1998) agrees that children’s collaboration with their peers in problem-solving sessions encourages listening to each other’s ideas and in turn, express their own thoughts clearly. The varied ideas on dealing with problems evolve in group discussions making children understand that there may be more than one solution to a problem. It also prompts children to negotiate with others which solution to try.

Adults play a huge role in the language development of children, as they need someone who uses simple language in correct form and is flexible enough adjust his language to suit the child’s (Clay, 1988).

Lindfors (1987) notes that the child’s language environment includes a set of specific sentences, however, it is not this set of sentences that he acquires, but deduces from these an underlying set of organizational principles and sound-meaning relationships.

To illustrate, children as young as two do not talk by simply using the specific sentences they hear, but rather, they construct sentences according to their own early version of organized principles underlying the specific sentences they have heard.

Perhaps due also limited language and motor skills, the child’s early linguistic system is different from the adult’s and results in telegraphic and grammatically erratic sentences like “He no want to sit me.”, “I not like it”, and “He gived it to me.”

Over time, his language system will be revised in many different situations, and his sentences will become more adult-like. For his own purpose, he builds his own rule-governed constructions as he has deduced from his environment (Lindfors, 1987).

Theories of Language Acquisition

Lindfors (1987) claims, “Virtually every child, without special training, exposed to surface structures of language in many interaction contexts, builds for himself – in a short period of time and at an early stage in his cognitive development – a deep-level, abstract, and highly complex system of linguistic structure and use. “(90) This implies that every child is capable of learning language.

This is consistent with Chomsky’s theories, known as many names… Linguistic, Nativistic or Innatist, that uphold that language is inherent or “wired-in” in the child at birth. A trigger from social interactions helps the language emerge (Brewer, 2001). He does not need to learn language, as he is equipped with a language acquisition device, a structure in the brain that made possible the learning of language (Chomsky, 1965).

Research to support the Linguistic model pointed to evidence that humans are the only species to acquire language, which they use to communicate ideas and pass on to other generations knowledge they have gained. Lenneberg (1964) pointed out some ways in which language acquisition is more genetically inherent than learned, as Behaviorists claim.

According to him, using language is like walking on two legs akin to behavior that shows: limited variation, within the species (although wide individual variation in the specifics of its execution but striking similarity in its basic design throughout the species; no beginning point for the behavior within the evolutionary history of the species “evidence for inherited predisposition” – humans are “biologically constituted” for a certain type of locomotion and for symbolic communication through language; apparent existence of organic correlates – like walking, it follows a pattern of maturational development.

Although, Lenneberg’s views seem to be more biologically inclined, he offers more interesting and, at that time, shocking information about the human brain. If a person figures in an accident affecting his brain, he found the prognosis to be “directly related to the age at which insult to the brain is incurred” (Lenneberg, 1967:142).

If the injury to the language area of the brain occurs in the early years, the brain is still malleable enough that another area can take over the function of language acquisition.

However, if the brain injury happens after puberty when the brain is already matured structurally, biochemically and neurophysiologically, the person’s “automatic acquisition from mere exposure to a given language seems to disappear and foreign languages have to be taught and earned through a conscious and labored effort” (Lenneberg 1967: 176).

Being so, does this imply that a human being in the stage of the activation of the “language acquisition” system may learn many foreign languages at the same time?

Within the community of the Linguistic model, there also appears to have debates regarding the innateness of language learning potential. “Chomsky, speaking form within a purely theoretical framework, argued that special innate capacity was content, that is, a body of unconscious knowledge of language universals already “wired in””(Lindfors, 1987) Such mechanism will be triggered when a child was exposed to the language of his community.

However, Slobin (1966) suggested a “process approach” to contrast with Chomsky’s “content approach”. He proposes that a child is born with a processing mechanism to process linguistic data. “These mechanisms are such that, applying them to the input data, the child ends up with something which is a member of the class of human languages.

The linguistic universals, then, are the result of an innate cognitive competence rather than the content of such a competence.” (87-88). Slobin’s theory seems to propose a more intricate and complicated language acquisition device inherent in each child, much like a computer processor chip implanted within the brain.

Even the Linguistic model poses a lot of questions to ponder about language acquisition. The internal debate amongst advocates of this theory goes on, but “does not center on whether or not there is an innate capacity in humans that enables almost all members of the species to be successful in this incredible feat of learning a language. Rather, the discussion centers on the nature of this innate ability.”(Lindfort, 1987).

Skinner’s Behaviorist Model of language acquisition is consistent with the rules of operant conditioning, based upon a stimulus-response model. Simply put, infants imitate language presented to them. They get rewards for their imitations so they continue to repeat what they have heard. Their imitation does not have to be exact or immediate in order for them to make use of it in learning language (Brewer, 2001).

For example, a baby is happily babbling in his crib and then his mother appears to play with him and by chance, he hits on the syllables “ma-ma” (which is likely in the phonological development of infants and may not serve any meaning to the baby).

He gets a very positive response from his mother as she shrieks with glee and gives him hugs and kisses. Such “reward” will surely reinforce the baby’s utterance of ma-ma in her presence. (Lindfors, 1987). However, as the child grows, imitation should approximate the accurate pronunciation of words.

According to the behaviorist view, an individual is reinforced (positively or negatively) for responses to various stimuli, hence, the external environment plays a great part in the formation of behaviors.

By administering positive reinforcement such as praising or smiling when a desired behavior occurs and administering negative reinforcement such as scolding or correcting when an undesired behavior occurs, one is assumed to encourage the desired behavior and make it more likely that that behavior will recur (Lindfors, 1987).

The Behaviorist theory of language acquisition reigned supreme in the period of its introduction. However, it was unable to explain many things related to language development. One is the fact that much of children’s language is constructed in ways that have never been modeled by mature speakers. If adults talk to children without errors, how come children’s language may still be filled with grammatical errors?

It is also puzzling to behaviorists that they can offer no explanation as to how regressions in children’s language happen. An example is that a young child will use the past tense of the word “go” as “went” correctly, however, as he matures and generalizes the rules for constructing past-tense verbs, he replaces went with goed, not realizing that “go” is an irregular verb. (Brewer, 2001).

This is “evidence that language learners do not simply internalize a great list of imitated and memorized sentences” (Lightbown & Spada, 2006:183). They need to learn ways on how others will be able to understand them better.

The Behaviorist theory is also criticized in the way it handles or fails to handle the patterning of language which can be described in linguistic science. He wrote almost as if linguistic science never existed, making little reference either to traditional grammar or to any other variety of grammar. He developed a sort of psychological grammar which conventionalized patterns of language play only a small part.

The rules of transformations in grammar cannot be explained by this theory. It likewise could not provide for the role of memory, of “private behavior”, of intuition and of many other phenomena recognized but not directly accessible to public observation.

“Finally, as a major criticism of the Skinnerian theory of language one could say that it is primarily a psychology of the production of language rather than of the reception of language. It talks about how people learn to produce language but it says little about how people learn to understand it.” (Carroll, 1962).

On the other hand, the behaviorist point of view is valid in terms of children learning to speak the languages of their homes. Children are observed to produce the necessary sounds they hear from their native languages and to screen out the sounds that are not needed in such language. Children also learn to repeat words and phrases that they hear around them even when they do not know what they mean.

According to Ausubel’s Cognitive Learning theory, meaningful processes of associating new information to already known concepts bring about learning.

Ausubel contrasts rote learning from meaningful learning in that rote learning is the acquisition of material as “discrete and relatively isolated entities that are relatable to cognitive structure only in an arbitrary and verbatim fashion, not permitting the establishment of meaningful relationships” (Ausubel, 1968, as qtd in Brown, 1987: 65).

On the other hand, meaningful learning is a process that relates and establishes new information learned to relevant past knowledge and experiences. “Ausubel’s theory of learning has important implications for second language learning and teaching. Too much rote activity, at the expense of meaningful communication in language classes, could stifle the learning process.” (Brown, 1987: 69).

According to Lev Vygotsky, social interaction stimulated by speech is essential for language development. He also mentions that a supportive interactive environment can help the child to reach a higher level of knowledge and performance compared to what might be reached through his or her ability to improve independently (Lightbown and Spada, 2006: 23).

Lightbrown & Spada (2006) contend that people obtain control and reorganize their thinking processes during mediation as what they learn is internalized during social interactions. This follows Vygotsky’s theory that people learn through socialization because of interaction and collaboration with other speakers.

Taking together Skinner’s, Ausubel’s and Vygotsky’s theories, it can be summarized that language is learned through reinforcing successful imitations of language that is meaningful for the learner and enhanced in social interactions.

Swain (2000) came up with the output hypothesis which claims that language output of speaking and writing is weaker than the receiving input of reading and listening. Such a theory has been influenced by cognitive theory, but it is most likely to be motivated by sociocultural theory as well.

Swain and Lapkin (2000) studied how second language learners co-construct what they learn while doing the production tasks of speaking and writing. This would mean that while producing language, they simultaneously engage in form and meaning. Swain (2000) calls it ‘collaborative dialogue’ where ‘language use – language learning can co-occur. It is language use mediating language learning.

It is cognitive activity and it is social activity’ (97). So the sociocultural perspective views that in second language learning, cognitive processes begin externally through socially mediation and eventually become internalized. On the other hand, other interactionist models believe that modified input and interaction bring with them internal cognitive processes.

Language acquisition has captured the interests of experts in Biology, Linguistics and Psychology, and has given birth to a host of interesting theories. However, as man evolves further, new observations and evidences come up, debunking previously established information.

Extensive research and more intensive and thorough observations of children provide ample evidence that they all learn language and do so in a variety of natural settings. They are not typically reinforced for form, as even when repeatedly corrected, young children slide into the use of mistaken grammar that they find natural at that particular stage in their development.

Second Language Learning

Learning a second language is one adaptation skill that proves to be necessary when diverse cultures come together. For example, Children from diverse linguistic backgrounds study English as a bridge to better education.

Otto (2010) contends that one of the main challenges posed by the English as a Second Language (ESL) approach is the development, selection and implementation of effective strategies and instructional techniques to suit the diverse learners since they come from various backgrounds.

In terms of how people learn individually, the concept of learning styles come in. Learning style, as defined by Reid, (1995) describes a person’s natural and preferred way of learning, as new information and skills are absorbed, processed and retained.

Therefore, teachers uniquely customize their lectures and tasks to fit second language learners’ individual needs. It is truly challenging for a teacher to seek appropriate teaching methods that are appropriate to meet diverse needs of students having varied aptitude and learning styles.

In Korea, there is a greater need to establish more efficient ESL courses because of the growing world status of Korea. More and more Korean companies are following the footsteps of Hyundai and Samsung in going multinational and wherever they locate offices and plants, these firms need English-speaking Koreans as part of the management team. For this reason, there is a note of urgency in ESL acquisition among Korean youth (Yoon, 2001).

Likewise, English-knowing bilingualism has been reaping benefits for Singaporeans who have geared themselves to meeting global challenges. In the 1990s, the latest developments in nation-building have begun emphasizing a corporate outlook and regionalism directly related to the use of the English language.

“The younger generation is tied to the pragmatics of English-knowing bilingualism because they are the immediate witnesses of the rise of English as a new global force in the period of the second Diaspora of English (Kachru 1992). The emphasis on the pursuit of excellence in the country has been made possible with a large part of the population, now almost 80%, having some command of English. “ (Pakir, 1999)

Singapore’s educational system is gaining world recognition for its high quality. It is known to stress the areas on literacy, numeracy, bilingualism as well as physical and moral education. In its evolution towards excellence, three foci have remained constant.

“First is the aspiration to provide the best form of education in the different phases of Singapore’s development, and the second is to ensure that education served the purpose of national cohesion. A third constant has been to ensure that the schooling population is given the opportunity to become bilingual in English and a mother tongue.” (Pakir, 1999).

“The bilingual policy requires each child to learn English and his or her mother tongue so as to ensure proficiency in English (the language of commerce, technology and administration) and their mother tongue (the language of respective cultural heritage).” (US English Foundation, n.d.)This last focus engages parents to support language learning management even in the home setting.

Students are exposed to the English language at the start of their formal schooling. Lee Kwan Yew, the main architect of the bilingual education policy believes that learning a second language early on leads to higher proficiency.

He declares, “Language is a key to the acquisition of knowledge. If a student is unable to understand a language, then he is unable to receive information or knowledge in that language. It is therefore crucial that a breakthrough must be made in the English language as early in life as possible.” (as cited in Platt, 1982)

Although high premium is put on bilingualism, Singapore’s policy does not actually provide education in two languages giving instruction in both simultaneously. Instead, each language is allotted a certain number of hours during the day.

Pakir notes that “there is a constant desire to upgrade English skills and mother tongue proficiency, and the desire is translated into gate-keeping procedures in terms of student admission to higher levels of education, for example, secondary school to junior college and from junior college to university entrance.” (Pakir, 1999). Hence, ambitious Singaporean students strive to be proficient in both in order to gain access to portals of higher learning.

Indeed, globalization has imposed the need for learning the international language, thus the proliferation of English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) courses for English Language Learners (ELL) in many non-English speaking countries. More and more foreigners are also studying English as a bridge to better education.

This is due to the fact that they gain access to knowledge and information that benefits the majority of the population when they are adept in the English language. They learn their rights as citizens, understand health benefits and medical privileges, and simply survive better in an English speaking environment.

Leon (1996) has outlined the need for migrant workers and their families to be supported in gaining English-speaking competencies to enable them to live more satisfying lives in America. He said lack of bilingual support for students impedes their motivation to learn, as they could not cope with other English-speaking peers, so they feel unwanted, and just skip school.

He claims, “We must teach all migrant students at an early age that it is important to learn English in order to know the system and work within the system. It will be to their advantage to know two languages. It will also help them interact with the rest of the children (Leon, 1996: 15). Gaining English language competency for these children will also raise their self-esteem so they get to be more confident to develop more personal and academic skills.

One issue in second language acquisition is its effect on the first language of the individual. The immense concentration necessary to learn a second language may create a negative impact on the first language. Otto (2010) calls this Subtractive bilingualism.

When a child becomes fluent in a second language due to immersion in that language, there is a strong tendency to forget the first language, causing disruptions in communication with family members who only know the first language. Transmission of cultural beliefs and parenting interactions would need a shared language for it to be successful. If not, social relationships with families or other members of the community who are monolingual may break down.

On the other hand, in learning a second language, a child need not forget the first language, but can be fluent in both. This is called Additive Bilingualism which means that although a child actively learns a second language, concurrently, there is continued development in the home language (Otto, 2010). The goal is to enhance language skills in both languages.

Swain & Lapkin (2000) conclude in their study that the first language is by default, a tool used by students to learn their second language. Collaborating with other students in tasks for learning a second language, students try to make sense of the requirements and content of the task, focusing their attention on language form vocabulary use and overall organization, then turn to their native language to process and discuss before finally getting back to completing the task.

Swain and Lapkin point out that without the use of their native language, they might not be able to accomplish the task effectively or it might not be accomplished at all. They argue that the insistence of not being allowed to access their first language in a linguistically and cognitively complex task of decoding a second language task would deprive them of an important cognitive tool.

They stress that bilingual programs that allow for the development and maintenance of the first language while learning the second language are successful in both goals.

English has become the foremost medium of international communication as it mediates a whole range of cultural and cross-cultural concepts. (Promdromou, 1992). Still, perpetrators of English Language Teaching (ELT) courses should keep in mind the culture of the students they teach and differentiate the use of appropriate and authentic ELT pedagogy.

Kramsch & Sullivan (1996) further explains that teaching methodologies and materials developed in Europe or the United States could not be used in the way they were intended when they reach far-out places with entirely different cultures from that of the English-speaking countries.

Widdowson (1994) argues that instead of teaching authentic English, which only privileges the native speaker and imposes its norms at the global level, one needs to be appropriate to the local culture, thereby revising the authentic English language and adapting it to local conditions.

This way, the learner becomes fluent in both global and local use of the English language, which makes them thrive in both international and national cultures. Clifford (1992) calls such cross-cultural individuals ‘insiders-outsiders’.

Promdromou (1992) concludes that in teaching any language, information, therefore power is imparted to the learners. Because the global language has become English, learners of the language not only derive English communication skills but likewise, they gain the power of knowing about the world as well as caring for it.

Global education is defined as “education that develops the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are the basis for decision making and participation in a world characterized by cultural pluralism, interconnectedness and international economic competition” (Merryfield, 1995: 1). However, diversity can affect both the environment of the class and the students.

The language differences may lead the students to a communication gap. Students belonging to a different culture may face different problems in accordance to their living standards.

The skill level expectation of the students depends upon their origin and culture. For example a student of China would face difficulties while studying in the UK. This is because the student is not able to cope with the standards of education in the UK as he has always studied in the standards of China. He may face difficulties in understanding the language and writing according to the standards in the UK.

It is believed that the age of the child is an important variable in learning a second language. Younger children may receive information better, however, it is still in the quality of delivery of such information that determines its learning. Among the available strategies in teaching and learning a foreign language, those that focus on both content and language are the most effective.

Students are more motivated to learn another language if they find the content interesting to them, and the teaching approach more exciting to engage their prolonged attention and retention of concepts. This means that as long as the strategy to teach the language is effective and engaging, it does not really matter what age the learner is.

Strategies/ Approaches in Second Language Learning

Various teaching methodologies on second language learning have evolved. Some of these methods are the Direct Method, the Grammar-Translation method, the Audio-Lingual method, the Community Language Learning method, Total Physical Response Method and the Communicative Approach. Each method has its own adaptation of the theories in its application.

In the Direct Method, it is theorized that second language learning should be more like first language learning – plenty of active, verbal interactions, spontaneous language use and no translations between first and second languages.

It is also not concerned with analysis of grammatical rules (Brown, 1987) although correct pronunciation and grammar should be exhibited. The use of pictures and objects as learning aids are available so that learners can easily associate English words directly with what is familiar to them.

Larsen-Freeman (1986) adds that the teacher should demonstrate and not explain or translate, because students should make a direct association between the target language (English) and meaning. This helps students learn to think in the target language, as they acquire vocabulary by using full sentences rather than memorizing word lists.

The Grammar-Translation method otherwise known as the Classical method because it is used in learning classical languages such as Greek or Latin, on the other hand, uses the mother tongue to learn a second language. It is as if the second language was the subject matter, and is explained and studied using the native language of the learners.

The goal is for learners to be able to translate one language to another, and not necessarily to be able to communicate spontaneously in the second language. It does not aim to develop fluency. The students read foreign text line by line and translate them, often processing it in their first language. The teacher draws attention to a specific grammar rule and then gives drills pertaining to this isolated rule.

The Audiolingual method (ALM) was designed to be unlike the grammar translation approach and aims for the learner to actually speak the language. It suggests that the learning of a foreign language should be the same as the acquisition of the native language whereby rules of language need not be memorized, as these will be induced from much practice with the foreign language.

However, the ALM is firmly grounded in linguistic and psychological theory, mostly behavioristic ones by Skinner. Conditioning and habit-formation models of learning are incorporated with mimicry drills and pattern practices of ALM (Brown, 1987). The rules of transformations in grammar cannot be explained by this theory.

It likewise could not provide for the role of memory, of “private behavior”, of intuition and of many other phenomena recognized but not directly accessible to public observation. “Finally, as a major criticism of the Skinnerian theory of language one could say that it is primarily a psychology of the production of language rather than of the reception of language.

It talks about how people learn to produce language but it says little about how people learn to understand it.” (Carroll, 1962). Lightbrown & Spada (2006) agree that language learners do not simply internalize a great list of imitated and memorized sentences” (183). They need to learn ways on how others will be able to understand them better.

Teachers avoid allowing the beginning learners to speak the language freely as they will be prone to make errors, and such errors could become habits, so for ALM practitioners, it is better to prevent such bad habits from starting. Thus, they believe in the rule of “Getting it right from the beginning.” Lyster & Ranta (n.d.), however, welcome feedback from teachers when students commit errors.

They claim that it depends on their pre-negotiations. Feedback-uptake sequences engage the students more actively when they have negotiated that they need to correct a form in the language and know that they may be provided signals to assist them of the correction of the mistaken form.

Providing feedback as part of a negotiated sequence, however is possible only when the learners already possess an adequate level of proficiency in the second language. Of course corrections from the teacher should be nonthreatening and potentially useful in making the students think deeper in learning the task at hand.

Community Language Learning approach is based on a counseling learning approach developed by Charles A. Curran, whose philosophy is anchored on Rogerian humanist principles (Larsen-Freeman, 1986).

It is a learner-centered approach, with the learner mostly taking the upper hand in learning phrases and sentences in a foreign language which serve his needs. A group sits in a circle, and one by one, clients (learners) speaks in their native tongue and the counselor (teacher) translates it in the second language.

The client is asked to repeat the translation. Each client takes his turn at what seems to grow as a conversation based on their interests. As the “counseling” progresses, the clients rely less on the counselor as they gain more proficiency in the second language. Eventually, they become independent second language speakers.

The Total Physical Response method is reminiscent of first language acquisition. Like very young children learning their first language, students are asked to merely listen and learn before applying what they have learned in speaking the second language.

The teacher gives out physical commands in the foreign language and responds by acting it out with the students. Eventually, the students who are assumed to have understood the commands in the foreign language, will be asked to speak in the second language themselves by giving out commands to their classmates.

The Communicative Approach, trains students to use the target language as a medium of communication, instead of just a focus of study. From its name, students are encouraged to communicate with each other in a foreign language on a variety of topics. Games and other forms of learning are used to elicit interest. Errors are tolerated and seen as part of the learning process.

Like in any other discipline, in second language acquisition, theory and practice should go hand in hand. Research knowledge and the pursuit of new and credible information understood by all, should be consistently in prioritized (Doman, 2005; Ellis, 1997). Van Lier (1994) contends that theory should not only be constructed and then implemented, but on its own, should be discernible as a reflection of the practice.

Education today has undergone various transformations from days of old. Schools at present may have similar goals of optimizing students’ learning and maximizing their potentials but may have differing philosophies, approaches and educational strategies in fulfilling these goals.

“Predictably, the traditional teacher-centered model in which knowledge is ‘transmitted’ from teacher to learner is rapidly being replaced by alternative models of instruction (e.g., learner-centered, constructivist, and socio-cultural I deas) in which the emphasis is on guiding and supporting students as they learn to construct their understanding of the culture and communities of which they are a part.

In the process of shifting our attention to the constructive activity of the learner, recognize the need to anchor learning in real-world or authentic contexts that make learning meaningful and purposeful. “ (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998, p.27)

It is argued that the old way of teaching a second language through grammar-based texts (e.g. Grammar Translation method & Audiolingual method) yield less meaningful results if content is not integrated into language. The Communicative Approach trains students to use the target language as a medium of communication, instead of just a focus of study.

From its name, students are encouraged to communicate with each other in a foreign language on a variety of topics. Games and other forms of learning are used to elicit interest. Errors are tolerated and seen as part of the learning process. This approach also believes that when correctness is emphasized and mistakes are not permitted, it stifles the motivation of the learner.

They also believe that it is better for learners to develop “fluency” in the language before “accuracy”. Exploring the language freely will allow them to get to know it better and motivate them to engage in it more avidly. It has been found that language teaching approaches that focus on both content and language are the most effective.

Students are more motivated to learn another language if they find the content interesting to them, and the teaching approach more exciting to engage their prolonged attention and retention of concepts.

The concept of “Getting it right from the beginning” endorsed by both Grammar translation and Audiolinguistic approaches does not seem to be effective in second language learning because the students who undergo these approaches are often unable to communicate their messages and intentions effectively in the second language.

Such exclusively structure-based methods do not guarantee that learners develop the high levels of accuracy and linguistic knowledge expected of them.

Content-Based Instruction

Stroller (2002) defines Content-based Instruction (CBI) as a range of approaches in second language learning that fosters the integration of language and content. The link between the two is very strong, as language becomes a medium to learn content while content is the resource for learning the language.

That is why in some ESL classes, the use of one’s home language is necessary when trying to understand content in the foreign language learned. Herrero (2005) agrees that in learning a new language, shifting emphasis from the instruction of learning the language to learning its content is an effective and quick way to learn the language.

The European Commission endorses Content-based instruction as a perfect way to progress in the learning of a foreign language. This is a credible endorsement coming from the multi-cultural and multi-lingual configuration of the European Commission.

CBI is now a prominent feature of the educational systems in Japan, Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Argentina, Spain, and the North American region led by the US and Canada (Duenas, 2002), which all share the need for greater proficiency in English.

The spread of such proficiency in European countries, for example, is much-needed because it would spare EC large amounts of money and effort that it expends on translation and interpretation to make member countries understand each other. For this reason, EC has helped develop the so-called Euroclic network, a forum for projects and proposals in language learning that integrates grammar and content (European Commission, n.d.)

According to Curtain and Pesola (1994), “… in content-related instruction, the foreign language teacher uses concepts from the regular curriculum to enrich the program with academic content… The curriculum content is chosen to provide a vehicle for language learning and to reinforce the academic skills needed by the students” (p. 35).

Several reasons may be argued in the incorporation of content in learning a second language. Firstly, content is rich in opportunities to develop knowledge that can be interesting and relevant in different subject areas. Secondly, students have the opportunity to apply new skills learned in terms of language functions as they practice the new language in understanding, discussing and reading and writing about the lessons.

Still another reason is that students become more motivated when content is included in the lesson rather than merely learning the language. Finally, teachers are able to use various teaching and learning strategies in teaching the second language if content is incorporated in the lessons. CBI meets goals for both learning language and content and does not sacrifice linguistic skills for focusing on content knowledge (Stoller, 2004).

CBI is designed to impart knowledge on both language and subject matter. According to Stryker & Leaver (1997), this is a holistic approach to foreign language education that is “at once a philosophical orientation, a methodical system, and a syllabus designed for a single purpose or a framework for an entire program of instruction.”

Previous experience in foreign language classrooms shows that a CBI approach in teaching enhances students’ motivation, accelerate the acquisition of language proficiency, broaden their cross-cultural knowledge and make language learning a more enjoyable and fulfilling experience (Stryker & Leaver, 1997). Modern-day educators find parallels between second language learning and learning how to play a musical instrument (Met, 1991).

One cannot learn to do this activity by mastering the musical notes and symbols but by actually playing the instrument and practicing constantly until he gets it right. In this analogy, the musical notes represent language and its structure, while the activity of actually playing the instrument stands for the content of language.

Thus, the music teacher who limits his instruction to musical keys and scales will be like the ESL instructor who teaches her students by immersing themselves in the study of grammar and sentence structures without practical application of the learning. Neither instructional method would be beneficial for their students.

English Language Learners (ELL) are faced with daunting tasks in their journey to mastering the English language. Echevarria & Short (n.d.) enumerate the tasks and skills these students have to learn. “Using English, students, for example, must be able to read and understand expository prose such as that found in textbooks; write persuasively; argue points of view; and take notes from teacher lecture.

They must also articulate their thinking skills in English—make hypotheses and predictions, express analyses, draw conclusions, and so forth.” In CBI classes, these students need to integrate their emerging knowledge of the English language with the content knowledge they are studying so as to complete the academic tasks related with the content area.

However, they must learn how to do these tasks by generating the format of an outline, negotiating roles in cooperative learning groups, interpreting charts and maps, and the like. Short (1998) emphasizes that the combination of three knowledge bases namely the knowledge of English, the knowledge of the content topic and the knowledge of how the tasks are to be accomplished, comprises the major components of academic literacy.

Pessoa, Hendiy, Donato, Tucker & Lee (2007) suggest that in promoting student proficiency within the context of content-based instruction, teachers need to be aware of the language of instruction when teaching academic content. “One way to promote continual attention to the development of language competence is to include explicit language objectives in the curriculum.

These language objectives derive from the academic subject matter and connect lexically and functionally to the content.” (Pessoa, et al, 2007: 115) Thematic webs that include language goals, academic content and cultural objectives may be designed to help teachers organize their lessons (Curtain and Haas, 1995).

Moreover, Stroller and Grabe (1997) remind teachers that in implementing theme units, they should not lose sight of content and language learning objectives and the time allotted to meet those objectives.

Linguistic, strategic and cultural objectives of the content-based lesson need to be clearly set in the design of the lesson plan. Since students are expected to improve on their second language skills to enable them to understand the culture of the origin of such language, teachers suggest the following to ESL teachers (Mohan, 1986; Crandall, 1999):

1. studying the target language very well
2. focusing on their students’ knowledge and discourse structures of the language with academic text.
3. knowing what works and developing the students’ learning strategies
4. using integrated units to focus on the whole language.
5. developing skills in the language with a variety of texts and activities related to the content being studied.
6. focusing on the development of tasks, themes and topics because both academic concepts and language skills should be simultaneously taken into account.

According to Stoller (2004), courses taught through the CBI method present students with themes that are related to academic concepts so they can learn the language they need depending on “the weighing of different curricular elements.”

The “content” in CBI often refers to authentic texts that are simply snatches of real-life events presented to an ESL class to illustrate the meaning of a study word or phrase and bring it down to earth (Nagata, 1995). For example, the class takes up the old English saying: “birds of a feather flocks together.” In the language-focused instruction, the students will be taught what birds and feather are by showing relevant pictures.

The dictionary meaning of the words “together” and “flocks” may also be given extensively, such that the adverb together will be explained as the act of forming into one and the intransitive verb flocks is to join a crowd. According to Mohan (1986), ESL instruction in this manner does not guarantee learning retention inasmuch as the knowledge gained from the process is not related to real-life objects familiar with the students.

The prospect for learning improves when the instructor uses content-based ESL instruction by “giving life” to the study text (Crandall, 1987). A suggested CBI method in discussing the above phrase is by bringing to class at least two live birds of the same species and explaining the literal meaning of the saying, that is, birds of the same species often live and fly in a flock because of a natural instinct.

The instructor can then proceed to dig deeper into the figurative substance of the adage. This way, the instruction sinks into the minds of students (Kern, 2002). The most persuasive argument for the advantages of CBI was offered by Herrero (2005), who studied the outcome of a content-and-language ESL course among Spanish-speaking students at the University of Costa Rica.

After one semester of the course, an aptitude test conducted on the participants found that 5 of the 12 students graded before hand as poor or fair moved up to the good or very good category.

Literature, for example, can be introduced in ESL instruction by relating dictionary words with literary pieces. Suppose the teacher discusses the word “dreary” and explains again and again that this means gloomy. The students are likely to lose this knowledge after taking up other dictionary words for study. However, the teacher is expected to do better if he employs content to teach the language.

The teacher can explain the word “dreary” more effectively by coming to class with a text of Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Raven,” which opens with the line: “Once upon a midnight dreary, while I ponder weak and weary.” This poem is about gloom and desolation, which explains precisely what dreary means, and if the instructor effectively imparts such message to students, they will retain the meaning of the study word.

The study of poetry in an ESL class is a great educational necessity for it calls on creativity and inventiveness in order to attain comprehension at the higher levels of culture and art.

This encourages the student to immerse himself/herself in the context of the language through practice and not merely to study in a detached manner, as is apparent in the Direct approach, Grammar translation approach and Audiolingual approach where parroting and committing learning to memory seem to be the main methodology.

Another feasible method of language and content integration is exemplified by an ESL course for immigrant students at Kingsborough Community College in New York City (Song, 2005). The school’s content-based ESL program was established in 1995 as a semester-long inter-disciplinary program to meet the special needs of immigrant students.

Under the program, the ESL instruction on speech and writing is linked to the sociology course, such that one is dedicated to linguistic learning and the other to new social perspectives (Babbitt, 2001). Towards this goal, students are encouraged to bond socially and academically by working in groups, participating in social and academic events like potluck lunches and field trips.

At one sociology class, students were given a writing assignment after viewing the film “My Fair Lady,” an integral activity for the ESL course. The students were asked about their views on the sentiments expressed by the movie’s theme song as well as the sociological implications of the way it was sung in the movie.

Later, at the speech class, the students worked on pronunciation and intonation with the song as text. In view of this, the Communicative Approach seems to be on the right track in helping non-native English speakers to be successful in finally communicating and expressing themselves in their second language.

The forum provided in the content-based ESL classes for students to discuss their problems and concerns with the content course enables students to make sense of their assignments together and demystifies academic learning, whereas non-linked ESL students had to cope individually with difficulties encountered in the content courses.

In addition, because students in regular ESL classes did not take the same content courses or have the same schedules, they parted immediately after the ESL class, thus making socializing with each other very difficult if not completely impossible. They were not organized to participate in campus activities or field trips as the students in the content-linked program are.

Support services were available, but often students were not aware of them. There were some students who had been enrolled in college for several semesters, but still did not know whom to approach when they encountered difficulties in studies or experienced personal problems (Song, 2005).

There is no single formula for the integration of content in second language studies, but several models are being used worldwide. Duenas (2002) offers some options: sheltered and adjunct content courses, studies that are theme- and area-based as well as the so-called Language for Special Purposes, Collaborative Strategic Reading, Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction and Foreign Languages Across the Curriculum.

It should be noted that sheltered content courses are described by the teaching of a specialist in the content to a group of second language learners or native speakers who have had no previous encounter with either the specialist or the content he or she teaches. The purpose of this approach is for more intensified content instruction (Duenas, 2002).

Theme-based instruction, on the other hand, is so called because it focuses on topics chosen according to students’ needs and interests, while adjunct courses are specially designed language studies in which one instructor concentrates on content and another on language skills but using academic content as framework of a contextual learning process.

As for Language for Special Purposes, it is an advanced regular academic course on specific disciplines such as history, economics or psychology that intends to advance language competence by developing receptive and productive skills. Herrero (2005) observes in all integrated models, the subject matter, authentic language and texts always include content and learning activities appropriate to the needs of specific groups of students.

It is clear that in studying a second language, both language and content need to be able to accommodate all of the cognitive, social and linguistic demands of the educational system striving for relevance. Students become engaged when real-life events and situations are integrated with the learning of a new language. They also become more enthusiastic that is why learning is more efficient and productive.

It is assumed that they will easily get bored if learning is limited to language instruction only as it greatly takes away their interest, enjoyment and sense of fulfillment. Its direct outcome is slower and less effective learning of the language, In other words, ESL students will acquire such a well-balanced knowledge if teaching and learning are organized around content or information rather than around forms, functions and situations or skills.

There is an increasing body of empirical evidence showing that use of content-based instruction expands the students’ conceptual knowledge base while learning the target language through meaningful activities.

The most productive teaching method is to provide students with multiple literacy building activities that includes traditional forms of print covering a variety of subjects, technological skills and electronic media, experiential learning and opportunities for reflection, which all support and enhance their learning in and out of the classroom.

These are all non-static aspects of learning, which interact and overlap to make a dynamic context through which the students become more literate on many levels.

Benefits of Second Language Learning

Efforts to support bilingualism with English as the second language in non-English speaking individuals will surely bear fruits not only in terms of personal fulfillment but economic fulfillment as well. This will be more evident and felt by students when they graduate and find employment.

Chiswick & Miller (1996) report that for legal migrants who learn English language skills gain more employment and compensation for those skills. Their earnings increase with both speaking and reading skills whether analyzed separately or jointly. Males earn higher by 8% and females earn higher by 17% if they are proficient in both speaking and reading compared to their contemporaries lacking both skills (Chiswick & Miller, 1996)

Gaining proficiency in a second language or two is very fulfilling to the learner. By then, he could point out which particular strategies were effective in getting him to that successful point. However, if he does not get to consistently practice the language, then it becomes demoted to a mere feather in his cap.

The skill should find expression in his practical life, to communicate with others, bridge gaps of understanding instead of wedging differences in others. The door of unlimited possibilities opens for him and he is off to more adventures with all the languages he knows as his reliable tools.

The numerous issues on second language learning, especially English, only prove that it is creating much impact on the development of children from diverse cultures. More and more people consider its advantages and possible disadvantages. Such amount of attention is worth it because people think up of ways on how to maximize its benefits.

Learning another language apart from one’s native language helps children be ready to be highly competent in an increasingly globalized world. However, although they become bilingual, it should not be forgotten that they also become bicultural, and learning of one language and the culture that goes with it does not mean forgetting their original one.

Teachers should take into consideration that their non-English speaking students should learn English in both its context and language elements so the students gain a better understanding and appreciation of the English language.

Supporting bilingualism in any age enriches an individual and gains him skills to live and enjoy a more fulfilling and satisfying quality of life.

Personal Insights & Conclusion

Being the highest creatures on earth, human beings are endowed with the power of language to verbally communicate with each other. It is a facility that enables each individual to bring out inner workings of his mind for others to respond to.

The myth that “Languages are learned mainly through imitation” is such a shallow concept of language learning and undermines the great researches that have been dedicated to its study. No doubt, language may be learned through imitation, but the language learner does not stop at imitating a language model. He goes beyond that.

I have held my own personal beliefs about second language learning. I know that second language learning takes a different process from the first time a person learns his mother language. Of course the presence of a first language is a big factor since this default language will naturally set the bar in learning the second one.

It shall always be referred to whenever the need arises, as it is but natural to fall back to it to understand the new language better. I am aware that bilingual or multilingual people may think in various languages depending on the need. I know one person who has trained herself to think in her second language when she is writing in that language, because thinking in her first language disrupts the flow of her thinking.

In her case, she has acquired the skill of separating both languages, as merging them in her mind only confuses her. Beginning learners are the opposite. I believe that they need a strong foundation in their first language before they can endeavor to learn another language. At this initial stage, they cannot help but refer to their mother language for meaning so they appreciate the second language better.

Schools and teachers can and should design programs to appropriately address and include diversity as an asset which may be used in the preparation of all students for citizenship in a diversified global world.

This emphasizes the point that teachers need to be equipped with skills in accommodating and adjusting to the needs of children from various cultures. Global education is defined as “education that develops the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are the basis for decision-making and participation in a world characterized by cultural pluralism, interconnectedness and international economic competition (Merryfield, 1995, p. 1).

Usually, when schools and teachers do not seriously consider foreign students their native culture, these children feel unaccepted and unworthy to belong to their classes, hence display inappropriate behavior.

They become lost in terms of academic achievement and develop insecurities about their skin color, ethnic characteristics or language accents. Such embarrassment develops stress or anxiety during class. The students’ family may likewise seem withdrawn or non-participative in their children’s schooling and feel the same sense of not belonging to the new culture they have joined.

In view of this, culturally-relevant teaching must be learned by teachers. Such teaching takes into consideration the cultural background of the students at all times. It also keeps in mind cultural aspects in all interactions with students on both personal and educational levels. (Edwards & Kuhlman, 2007).

Students’ cultures, languages and experiences need to be acknowledged, valued and used as important sources of their education because they deserve the best that society can give them. This involves teachers learning about students’ backgrounds and personal experiences to use as tools to make connections with these students.

Some strategies that teachers can employ are the inclusion of the various histories, contributions, perspectives and concerns relevant to the diverse backgrounds of students (The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements, n.d.).

Incorporating these in the curriculum makes learning meaningful to these students. Multicultural education using literature from various cultures engages such children in reading and writing and makes them eager to learn the social or cultural contributions made by various groups of people.

Teachers’ challenge in adapting their students’ local culture and knowledge to Western schooling may be met though literature. Selecting appropriate text is essential in connecting with students. Books should reflect characters from the same culture as the students’.

Examples of story themes are protagonists who dealt with race issues and children who solved problems successfully. Lesson plans should incorporate culturally relevant ideas in each diverse classroom (Edwards & Kuhlman, 2007).

For children learning a second language at an earlier age, it is important that their cultural background will not be discounted, as it makes up so much of their personhood. CBI strategies that are known it widely include content in its teaching strategies should focus more on the culture the learner comes from along with the culture of the second language he or she is learning.

Having a good second language teacher is essential to learning the language more fluently. I do not discount the fact that imitation of proper pronunciation and intonation is necessary. Hence, learners should have attentive ears and retentive minds, and of course, cooperative tongues to be able to speak fluently in such language. I also believe they need opportunities to practice speaking and listening to the second language outside the language lessons, so that means they need a support system of learners to interact with.

I agree with the behaviorists’ concept of language learning through imitation, repetition and reinforcement; socioculturalists’ concept of social influence in language learning and Ausubel’s need for meaning in order to learn language. Thus, it makes sense that I would lean towards the communicative approach in second language learning.

For me, it is more practical and user-friendly. I am not restricted to just learning the second language exclusively, but I am given freedom to refer to my native language for meaning. I also get to engage in meaningful activities that would make me appreciate the language better. I do not agree with “getting it right the beginning” because I see the value in making mistakes.

I know they do not have to remain mistakes because the lesson is that they need to be corrected and stay corrected the more I get proficient with the language. I liken it to a child first learning how to write. To correct her in her attempts at writing and spelling may discourage her from exploring her own learning capacities and may just stifle her motivation and quit.

I believe, this affects her self-esteem and confidence. However, when she feels liberated to explore writing, she will be more interested and passionate about getting it right that she would initiate asking if what she wrote was correct or not.

She will come to a point that she would welcome corrections from adults to set her in the straight and proper path. I believe there is richer learning in this process rather than just being spoonfed information to memorize by rote. For me, meaning is more important than form.

My beliefs in second language learning is happily validated by the research literature. Although the many theories I have discussed have different points, I derive what I think best suits my own philosophy. I agree with the sociocultural perspective of learning through interactions with others. A supportive environment will prop up beginning learners to reach their goals.

I also believe that people have different learning styles. Some may be content with the traditional ways of listening to a teacher and regurgitating back information to her. For these students, the oral and aural learning styles are preferred. The study of learning styles have unearthed other styles which might have been considered unorthodox in the past. There are kinesthetic learners, who learn through actions and movement.

It is fortunate that there are now learning approaches that cater to such learners who provide more active learning activities such as singing, games, dancing, interactive activities, etc. and not restricted to paper and pencil tasks and board work. I believe I am a more experiential learner, and teaching-learning methodologies that get me up my chair to actively participate will capture my interest more and make me retain new knowledge and skills better.

Activities like dining in a restaurant that serves the food of the country where the language I am studying comes from (ex. French restaurant) and order using that language will be a very fruitful experience from me which would keep me on my toes to use the new language I have learned to good use. Another example is watching a foreign movie with subtitles. I can try watching it by turning the subtitles off and see if I can understand it. If not, then I have the freedom to turn the subtitles back on.

I still believe in immersion strategies. Ideally, being in the country where the second language originates will leave the learner no choice but to learn, understand and use the language in order to survive. However, that does not mean that the first language gets pushed down in his psyche and forgotten altogether. It will serve as the learner’s anchor to understand the second language better.

I also believe that the foreign environment can influence the learning process of the second language with the condition of a proper interaction, where according to the social network theory “personal relationships an individual shares with others such as relatives, friends, coworkers, and neighbors mediate variable linguistic behavior.” (Mantero, 2007, p. 192).

The numerous issues on second language learning, especially English, only prove that it is creating much impact on the development of children from diverse cultures. More and more people consider its advantages and possible disadvantages.

Such amount of attention is worth it because people think up of ways on how to maximize its benefits. Learning another language apart from one’s native language helps children be ready to be highly competent in an increasingly globalized world.

Works Cited

Ausubel, David. A. , Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston 1968.

Babbitt, Marcia. “Making Writing Count in an ESL Learning Community.” In I. Leki (ed), Academic Writing Programs, Alexandria, VA: TESOL. 2001.

Benson McMullen, Mary., ‘Thinking before doing: A giant toddler step on the road to literacy’, Young Children, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 65-70. 1998.

Bonk, Curtis J. & Cunningham, Donald J. “Searching for Learner-Centered, Constructivist, and Sociocultural Components of Collaborative Educational Learning Tools” in Electronic Collaborators. 2011. Web.

Brewer, Joan., Introduction to Early Childhood Education, Allyn & Bacon, 2001.

Brown, H. Douglas., Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 2^nd Ed. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents 1987.

Carroll, John B, The Critical Need in the Study of Language. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 13, No. 3, Annual Meeting, Chicago, (1962), pp. 23-26.

Chiswick, Barry R. & Miller, Paul W., Language skills and earnings among legalized aliens, Journal of Population Economics, 12: 63-89, 1999.

Chomsky, Noam., Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965.

Clay, Marie., By Different Paths to Common Outcomes, Stenhouse Publishers, Maine, pp. 5-32. 1998.

Clifford, James.. ‘Travelling culture’ in L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, and P. Treichler (eds.). Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge. 1992.

Crandall, JoAnn. (ed), ESL through Content-Area Instruction, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987.

Curtain, Helena, & Haas, Mari. “Integrating foreign language and content instruction in grades K-8”, 2011. Web.

Curtain, Helena, & Pesola, Carol Ann Bjornstad, Languages and children: Making the match, Foreign language instruction for an early start grades K-8., White Plains, NY: Longman, 1994.

Doman, Evelyn, “Current Debates in SLA”, Asian EFL Journal, Vol 7, Issue 4, Art. 8. 2011. Web.

Duenas, Maria, A Description of Prototype Models for Content-Based Language Instruction in Higher Education, Department of English Studies, University of Murcia, 2002.

Echevarria, J. & Short, D.J., “The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP)”, 2011. Web.

Edwards, Sarah & Kuhlman, Wilma, Culturally Responsive Teaching: Do We Walk Our Talk?, Multicultural Education, 2007.

Ellis, Rod. SLA and language pedagogy. An educational perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 69-92. 1997.

European Commission, “An Excellent Way of Making Progress in a Foreign Language” 2011. Web.

Herrero, Annabelle H., Content-Based Instruction in an English Oral Communication Course at the University of Costa Rica, Actual Investigations in Education, Vol.5, No. 4, 2005.

Kachru, Braj B. The second diaspora of English, In T. W. Machan and C. T. Scotts (eds.), English in its social contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 230– 252, 1992.

Kern, R.G., “Literacy as a New Organizing Principle for Foreign Language Education.” In Reading Between the Lines, New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2002.

Kramsch, Claire & Sullivan, Patricia, “Appropriate Pedagogy”, ELT J 50: 199-212, 1996.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane, Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press, Inc. 1986.

Lenneberg, Eric H.,“The Capacity for Language Acquisition”, in The Structure of Language, ed. J.A. Fodor and J.J. Katz. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1964.

Leon, Edgar, Challenges and Solutions for Educating Migrant Students , ERIC, ED393615, 1996.

Lightbown, Patsy M. & Spada, Nina, How Languages Are Learned. New York: Oxford University Press. 2006.

Lindfors, J.W., Children’s Language and Learning, 2^nd Ed. Prentice Hall, Inc. 1987.

Lyster, Roy & Ranta, Leila, Corrective Feedback And Learner Uptake. SSLA, 20, 37– 66.

Mantero, Miguel, Identity and second language learning : culture, inquiry, and dialogic activity in educational contexts. Charlotte, N.C.: IAP. 2007.

Merryfield, Merry M., “Institutionalizing cross-cultural experiences and international expertise in teacher education: The development and potential of a global education PDS network”, Journal of Teacher Education, 46(1), 1-9., 1995.

Met, M.J.L. Learning Language through Content, Learning Content through Language. Foreign Language Annals 24 (4). (1991).

Mohan, B., Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1986.

Nagata, H. Testing Oral Ability: 1LR am ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interviews.” JALT Applied Materials 12, 1995.

Norris, J., & Hoffman, P., Whole Language Intervention for School-age Children. San Diego: Singular Press. 1993.

Otto, Beverly. Language development in early childhood. (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 2010.

Pakir, Anne, Bilingual education with English as an official language: Sociocultural implications, Georgetown University Round Table On Languages And Linguistics. Georgetown University Press/ Digital Georgetown and the Department of Languages and Linguistics, 1999.

Pessoa, S., Hendiy, H., Donato, R., Tucker, G.R., Lee, H., Content-Based Instruction in the Foreign Language Classroom: A Discourse Perspective, Foreign Language Annals 40 (1) (2007).

Platt, John T. (1982) “Bilingual language policies in a multilingual nation: Singapore”. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 5, pp. 17-20.

Prodromou, L., “What culture? Which culture? Cross-cultural factors in language learning”, ELT J 46: 39-50, 1992.

Slobin, Dan.I., “Comments on ‘Developmental Psycholinguistics’”, in The Genesis of Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach, ed. F. Smith and G. Miller. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1966.

Song, Balin, Content-Based ESL Instruction: Long-term Effects and Outcomes, The American University: Elsevier Ltd. , 2005.

Stoller, E., Promoting the acquisition of knowledge in a content based course, In J. Crandall & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Content-based instruction in higher education settings (pp. 109-123). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. 2004.

Stoller, E, & Grabe, W., The six-T’s approach to content-based instruction. In M.Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: perspectives on Integrating language and content (pp. 78-94). New York: Addison-Wesley Longman 1997.

Stryker, S.N. & Leaver, B.L. Content-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. 1997.

Swain, Merrill & Lapkin, Sharon, Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 4,3 pp. 251–274, 2000.

The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements. (n.d.). “Cultural and linguistic differences: What teachers should know”. 2011. Web.

U.S.ENGLISH Foundation, Inc., “Language Research: Language in everyday life: The use of language in everyday life, e.g. education, broadcasting, and other”, 2011. Web.

Van Lier, Leo., Forks and hope: Pursuing understanding in different ways. Applied Linguistics,15, 328-347. 1994.

Watkins, Ruth. V., & Bunce, Betty. H., Promoting language and literacy skills in preschool classrooms. Invited presentation, Kansas Division for Early Childhood, Manhattan 1996.

Widdowson, Henry.G.,.’The ownership of English’. TESOL Quarterly 28/2: 377-88, 1994.

Yoon, Yeotak T., New Directions for KFL as a Scholarly Discipline, Seoul National University, 2001.