Kamis, 23 Desember 2010

PRINCIPLES OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

PRINCIPLES OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING CHILD FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Discussing about first language acquisition and second language acquisition is such a never-ending topic to discuss about. There have been a significant number of researches in child first language acquisition during the last forty years. Each of them came out with theory on how human (child in particular) learnt the language. There are three major researches on first language acquisition, which are very popular with the theory of nativist, behavioristic, and functional. Each of them tried to explain how the language is acquired in different point of views.

Based on the theory of first language acquisition, there might be similarities and differences in second language acquisition. There are some factors that we can compare and contrast in first language acquisition and second language acquisition. The comparison of first and second language acquisition can easily be oversimplified. At least we can approach the comparison by first considering the differences between children and adults. It is obviously stated that there are some considerations relating to psychomotor development, critical period hypothesis and neurological considerations. In addition, there are considerations relating to cognitive factors and linguistic factors. Furthermore, effective factors are also importance factor to compare and contrast. In order to focus discussion, I will lead my essay in comparing and contrasting child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition against those five factors mentioned above.

Considerations Relating to Psychomotor Development

It is obviously true to say that the development of skill performance in every field required physical changes, the earlier child get skill training will be better result than start in adult. A football player, for example, will develop his physical maximally when he was child rather than he start to play football when he was adult. His physical skill in playing football developed naturally through the age.

It is the same case in language development, our speech need coordination of multiple muscles in thorax, throat, larynx, mouth, lips, tongue, and so on. In the period of three months to ten months, a baby usually start to produce sound which is called ‘cooing’ such as consonant (k) and (g) as well as high vowel such as (i) and (u). By six months, the child will grow up as well as the speech muscles. They can produce some sounds such as da-da, ma-ma, which is described as ‘babbling’. As a result they can manipulate muscles to produce sounds that reflect a language. These speech muscles gradually develop until neurological pathways have been developed facilitating the production of the sounds of the first language.

Adult second language learners have already developed their speech muscles pattern for their first language and have to begin consciously to develop another set of patterns for the second language. Just as previous example of untrained football player so he has to have an intensive training and exercise his muscles. The adult second language learners must be able to overcome the patterns that have been established by first language and learn to move differently for certain sounds in second language. Most of the adult second language learners will get difficulties in pronouncing sounds like a native speaker. Even in ideal acquisition situations, very few adult learners seem to reach native-like proficiency in using a second language. (George Yule, 1991, p.191) He stated that adults’ tongue ‘get stiff’ from pronouncing one type of language (e.g. English) and just can not cope with the new sounds of another language (e.g. French or Japanese). In the case of Indonesian English adult learners, for example, they rarely are able to speak like an English native speaker because their speech muscles have already developed in Indonesian mother tongue.

Critical Period Hypothesis and Neurological Considerations

One of the most debatable in second language acquisition is whether there is biologically determined critical period for language learning beyond which it is more difficult to acquire a language. Or to put it alternatively, whether there is critical age before which it is easier to acquire the language. The general belief is that during childhood (up until puberty), there is a period when the human brain is most ready to ‘receive’ and learn a particular language. This period is referred to as the critical period. If a child does not acquire language during this period for any one of a number of reasons, then s/he will have great difficulty learning language later on.

The most popular example of critical period hypothesis is the story of ‘Genie’, which has been documented by Curtiss (1977). Genie lived away from other social contacts even with her parent. The only contact is with her mother who gave her a little language input. Genie has spent her whole life in a state of physical, sensory, social and emotional deprivation. When she was first brought into care, she was unable to use language. Within a short period of time, however, she began to respond to the speech of others, to try to imitate sounds and to communicate. In fact she has got many difficulties and lacks of language outputs.

The issue of critical period is associated with brain lateralization, the term used to denote that neurological functions have been assigned to the two halves of the brain. Based on brain research we know that some functions are assigned to the right side of the brain while others, for example language, are assigned to the left side. Penfield and Roberts (1959) argued that the optimum age for language acquisition falls within the first ten years of life. During this period the brain retains plasticity, but with the onset of puberty this plasticity begins to disappear. Furthermore, they suggested that this was the result of the lateralization of the language function in the left hemisphere of the brain. That is, the neurological capacity for understanding and producing language, which initially involved both hemisphere of the brain. The increased difficulty which older learners supposedly experience was seen as a direct result of this neurological change.

Some evidence to support the critical period hypothesis was supplied by Lenneberg (1967). He found that injuries to the right hemisphere caused more language problems in children than in adults. He suggested that the process of lateralization begins at about age of two and is completed at around puberty, hence his suggestion of critical period at about puberty. The conclusion about a critical period was based on observation of patients who had suffered damage to the left hemisphere of the brain. It was found that if the patients were young, that is, had not reached puberty the chance that they would recover all language abilities were high. It seemed that the right hemisphere learned to do what the left did. On the other hand if the damage occurred after puberty then there was a strong likelihood that not all language functions would be regained. Krashen (1973) has argued that the lateralization process is complete by about the age of five because there are signs of hemisphere evident by then.

The debate over lateralization and its effects continue to be argued in the field of second language acquisition though most agree that if there were a critical period associated with lateralization of the brain it seems to affect pronunciation rather than the acquisition of syntax and semantic of second language. Scovel (1988,p.101) argues that pronunciation requires the operation of the neuromotor mechanism of brain resulting in physical movement, whereas the acquisition of syntax or lexis is not related to physical movements. They are exclusively cerebral and psychological.

Opposed to the arguments that seems to support some form of critical period hypothesis is the evidence from learners who might begin their second language later in his life but who acquire very high levels of syntactic knowledge (Birdsong, 1992), or native-like pronunciation (Bongaerts, Van Summeren, Planken & Schils, 1997).

From the evidence and arguments of some researchers above we can conclude that there is pro and contra about critical period hypothesis. However, these will be the advantages for language acquisition research. As Birdsong (1999, p.8) quoted on his book after he has surveyed the range of ideas in the different chapters presented by different researchers; “Each of these chapters, whether anti-or pro critical period hypothesis-second language acquisition, illustrates the richness, depth, and breadth of critical period inquiry. Collectively, they testify to the unmistakable centrality of CPH in L2A research”.

Considerations Relating to Cognitive Factors

Human cognition develops rapidly throughout the first sixteen years of life and less rapidly thereafter. The cognitive development of the child occurs at the same time that the language development occurs. Some cognitive changes are critical; others are more gradual and difficult to detect. According to the functional explanations of language development one could say that the child learns the next stage of language because the cognitive development demands that level of linguistic complexity. An adult, on the other hand, has already developed cognitively and has a language to express his or her thoughts.

One of the most significant arguments is given by Piaget on his research. In the early 1900s, Piaget followed the development of his three children. Piaget (see Piaget & Inheder, 1996) suggests that cognitive or intellectual development follows the following path;

· a sensori-motor stage between the ages of 0 and 2 years

· a pre-operational stage between ages 2 and 7

· a concrete operational stage from around 11 years

· a formal operational stage from around 11 years when children become capable to abstraction

According to Piaget a critical stage for a consideration of the effects of age on second language acquisition appears to occur at puberty. It is here that a person becomes capable of abstraction of formal thinking, which transcends concrete experience and direct perception.

One obvious difference between the young child and adult is the ability of the latter to comprehend language as a formal system. Adult learners can learn about language by consciously studying linguistic rules. They can also apply these rules when they use the language. In contrast, children are not so prone to respond to language as form. For them language is a tool for expressing meaning. As Halliday (1973) pointed out, the young child responds not so much to what language is as to what it does. It is possibly that age differences in second language acquisition can be explained in term of the different orientation to language of children and adults learners.

One could associate the formal operational stage to the critical period hypothesis and argue that learners at puberty begin to analyze the second language more consciously. It is for this reason that it has been argued that there is little value in teaching children the grammar of the language, which is an abstract system, until they rich puberty at which they can deal with abstractions. Adults, therefore, bring a superior cognitive apparatus to the task of second language learning but are often not very successful in this learning. Many adults are frustrated by their more developed capability for complex proportions (or ideas) with limited second language proficiency that prevents them from conveying them. In a sense, second language learners are reduced to operating cognitively at children’s levels of thinking. This is a great source of frustration for some adult learners.

Consideration Relating to Linguistic Factors

An adult second language learner is different from child in acquiring his/her first language. Adult second language learners already have a well-developed linguistic system. There are few documented examples of adults acquiring a second language naturalistically, which is not in a formal program in a classroom. Schmidt (1983) who studied a Japanese artist called Wes who had migrated from Tokyo to Hawaii documented one of the examples of adult second language acquisition. Wes showed little enthusiasm for any formal English language study. He prefers to acquire language naturally. Schmidt claims that during three years observation period Wes’s grammatical control of the English language barely improved and little grammar had been acquire. It was not the case that Wes kept himself separate from English speakers and only mixed socially with Japanese in Honolulu. On the other hand, Schmidt reports that he tended to eschew the company of Japanese and mix socially with the English-speaking people. Despite receiving large amounts of input, there was little grammatical development.

The effect of first language on second language acquisition is unavoidable as interference first language to second language. It is assumed that the second language learners would show the tendency to transfer first language features to their second language productions. Adults second language linguistic process are more vulnerable to the effect of the first language on second language. Adults more cognitively secure, appear to operate from solid foundation of the first language and thus manifest more interference. But it was pointed earlier that adults manifest errors not unlike some of the errors children make. It is now known, however, that not all errors made by second language learners caused by interference from their first language. There is also a greater awareness that first language interference manifest itself not only syntactic level, but also at phonological, morphological, lexical and pragmatic levels (James, 1980; Mangubhai, 1997).

Considerations Relating to Affective Factors

One of the most complex considerations in comparing and contrasting child first language acquisition and adult second language is relating to affective factors. This issue has been discussing by many researchers in second language acquisition. The results, however, are varies sorts of views because there is no one perfect answer against to this issue. At least we can conclude that these factors are such as self-esteem, inhibition, anxiety, attitude to speakers of the language one is learning, are exist in first and second language learners.

For most children the development of first language occurs within a very interesting environment where the children are the focus of the parents and other adults around them. During this period child has language ego as Brown (2000) stated that very young children are highly egocentric. The world revolves about them, and they see all events as focusing on themselves. It means that they do everything right, they speak the language properly. They do not care about the errors they make. Younger children are less frightened because they are less aware of language forms, and the possibility of making mistakes in those forms does not concern them greatly. Egocentricism is probably best in developing cognitive skills because there is no room for doubt oneself. The child does not see the viewpoint of others or take the role of another.

Adults, however, has acute awareness of self and how this self will be perceived by others. Comparison and judgements are made, sometimes erroneously, about other people and their ability and their self-concept. One of the behavioral outcomes of adults is that any occasion that might make a negative revelation about them is avoided or minimized. Hence adults learning a second language are less likely to see making mistakes as a normal part of second language learning. Those adults who have some difficulties initially in differentiating sounds of the second language may give up learning the language, quite frequently citing as an excuse not having a talent for languages. Seeming to appear foolish acts as a prohibitive factor in language learning for many adult learners.

In conclusion, comparing and contrasting child first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition are different in many aspects. Adults psychomotor have already developed by their first language, which caused difficulties in acquiring second language, while children do not have difficulties. Critical period hypothesis (CPH) exists, although some researchers have argued about it. And cognitively adults have advantages in learning language but children are less experiences and developing cognitive skill. In addition adults have a developed linguistic system background but it has interference, though, for second language acquisition. The last aspect, which commonly occurs, is affective factors. Adult learners tend to have high affective factors involved in acquiring the language. It is totally different from children who have high language ego, motivation, and good attitude to speak the language.

References:

Brown, R. (1973). A first language. In Krahen, S.D. (Eds.). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Macmillan, New York.

D’Anglejan, A. (1978). Language learning in and out of classroom. In Krahen, S.D. (Eds.). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Macmillan, New York.

Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. In Krahen, S.D. (Eds.). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Macmillan, New York.

Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1975). A new approach to discovering universal strategies of child second language acquisition. In Krahen, S.D. (Eds.). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Macmillan, New York.

Krashen, S.D. (1995). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Macmillan, New York.

Mangubhai, F. (2003). Principles of Second Language Learning. Study Book, Distance Education Centre, USQ, Toowoomba.

Schachter, J. (1998). Recent research in language learning studies: promises and problems. In Mangubhai, F. (Eds.). Principles of Second Language Learning. Study Book, Distance Education Centre, USQ, Toowoomba.

Stevick, E. (1976) Memory, meaning, and method. In Krahen, S.D. (Eds.). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Macmillan, New York.

The University of South Queensland (2003). Principles of Second Language Learning. Selected Readings, Distance Education Centre, USQ, Toowoomba.

THE PRICIPLES OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

MONITOR MODEL (KRASHEN’S HYPOTHESIS) AND ITS IMPLICATIONS IN THE CLASSROOM SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING

Many researches have been done in the field of second language acquisition. It becomes new field for many experts in education and linguistics to do research. As Schachter (1998) cites in Francis Mangubhai (2003, p.4.1) who says: ‘Second language acquisition (SLA) is generally regarded as being young field, not more than 30 years old’. As a result, many theories about SLA were born. Each of them tried to look at the fact of how second language can be acquired. One theory may works and able to explain in some areas of SLA aspects, the other areas will be covered by the other theories. There is no one perfect theory in SLA, which can cover the whole aspects of SLA. However, we can find whether one theory, in a classroom process in particular, is working or not. In this case the author will look at one of the psycholinguistic theories that argued by Stephen D. Krashen. At last the author will look at the implications of this theory in second language teaching in a classroom process.

In explaining this theory Stephen D. Krashen divided his theory into five hypotheses, they are:

· The Learning/Acquisition Hypothesis

· The Natural Order Hypothesis

· The Monitor Hypothesis

· The Input Hypothesis

· The Affective Filter Hypothesis

Learning / Acquisition Hypothesis

Stephen D. Krashen makes the distinction between learning and acquisition. According to him (1995, p.10.) “there are two independent ways of developing ability in second languages. The first way is acquisition, a subsconcious process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language”. In subsconcious process we usually did not realize that we acquired the language, but we realize that we can use the language for communication. In acquiring the language, errors can be detected only by “feel”, it is correct, it sounds correct. In addition of it, acquisition is implicit learning, informal learning and natural learning.

The second way is learning, it is the opposite of acquisition process. According to Krashen (1995) “learning is conscious knowledge of second language”. The language is mastered by learning it. We learn the whole aspects and rules of the language. Error correction is thoughtfully in learning process. It will help the learner to the right form of the language rules. Krashen gave an example when a student of English as a second language says “I goes to school everyday”’ and a teacher will correct him/her by repeating the sentence in the correct way. Then the errors will not happen again in the future or in the next utterance.

From these two distinctions we can conclude that learning is separated from acquisition. It means that acquisition can not happen in learning process. Francis Mangubhai (2003) says “This hypothesis does not preclude the possibility of acquisition taking place in the classroom provided it is communicatively oriented and the focus of activities in the classroom is on meaning and not on practicing language structure”.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

This hypothesis (Krashen, 1995) believes that “the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predictable order”. The acquirers tend to acquire language rules in an order. For example in English structure, students in a classroom tend to acquire rule of present progressive, then move to another rules. As Brown (1973) in Krashen (1995) reported that “children acquiring English as a first language tended to acquire certain grammatical morphemes, or functions words, earlier than others. For example the progressive marker /ing/ and the plural marker /s/ were the first morphemes acquired, while the third person singular marker /s/ is typically acquired later”.

Another argument was delivered by Dulay and Burf (1974, 1975) in Krashen (1995) who reported that “children acquiring English as a second language also show ‘a natural order’ for grammatical morphemes regardless of their first language”. They found that the child second language order of acquisition was different from the first language order, but different group of second language acquirers showed striking similarities. At last Krashen conclude that “the order of acquisition from second language is not the same as the order of acquisition for first language, but there are some similarities”.(Krashen, 1995)

The Monitor Hypothesis

This hypothesis tells us about acquisition competence and learning competence. The utterances that we ‘pick-up’ came from the subsconcious process, that is, acquisition. Then learning will process the utterances through the monitor for correct utterances. As Krashen (1995) states on “the monitor hypothesis posits that acquisition “initiates” our utterances in a second language an is responsible for our fluency. Learning has only one function and that is as a monitor or editor. Learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of our utterances, after it has been “produced” by the acquired system. This can happen before we speak or write, or after (self-correction)”.

Furthermore, Krashen explain about the individual variation in monitor use for second language speakers. He divided into three types of monitor – users:

· Monitor over-users. This type of monitor users occurs when the people were speaking in second language with high control. While speaking they were always monitoring their utterances for correctness. As a result, (Krashen, 1995) “such performers may speak hesitantly, often self-correct in the middle of utterances, and are so concerned with correctness that they can not speak with any real fluency”.

· Monitor under-users. The speakers prefer not to use their conscious knowledge to control their utterances. They use feeling for correctness. Krashen (1995) says “under-user are typically uninfluenced by error correction, can self-correct only by using a “feel” for correctness”.

· The optimal monitor-users. The speakers are able to use their monitor appropriately. They know when they have to use monitor or not. This is very unusual in second language acquirers. If it occurs, “we might consider these people “super monitor users” cites Yorio (1978) in Krashen (1995, p.19.).

The Input Hypothesis

Stephen D. Krashen took a long discussion on the input hypothesis. He tried to explain and correlated his other hypothesis with the input hypothesis. Perhaps this hypothesis is the most significant Krashen’s theories in explaining how people acquire the language. He says;”[t]he input hypothesis attempts to answer what is perhaps the most important question in our field, and gives an answer that has a potential impact on all areas of language learning”.(Krashen, 1995, p.20.)

In order to simplify the discussion, the author will only take some points of the input hypothesis as follows:

· We acquire the language through the natural order, that is, we move from one stage to the next stage. Or as Krashen says: ”More generally, how do we move from stage i, where I represents current competence, to i + 1, the next level?”

· The input is comprehensive, in this case the role of “caretaker speech” will influence the language outcome (utterances). Krashen says: “The input hypothesis predicts that caretaker speech will be very useful for the child”. The more child get comprehensible input, the higher stage will be, move from i to i + 1.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

This hypothesis tells us about how affective factors relate to the second language acquisition process. Krashen (1995, p. 31.) mentioned three categories:

1. Motivation. Performers with high motivation generally do better in second language acquisition (usually, but not always, “integrative”).

2. Self – confidence. Perfomers with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to do better in second language.

3. Anxiety. Low anxiety appears to be conducive to second language acquisition, whether measured as personal or classroom anxiety.

Krashen also called those three categories as attitudinal factors, which directly relate to acquisition and not learning. The strength or level of affective filters will influence the acquirers’ utterances. As Krashen (1995) mentions: “Those whose attitudes are not optimal for second language acquisition, will not only tend to seek less input, but they will also have a high or strong Affective Filter-even if they understand the message, the input will not reach that part of the brain responsible for language acquisition or the language acquisition device”.

Furthermore, he said that ‘those with attitudes more conducive to second language acquisition will not only seek and obtain more input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more open to the input, and it will stike ‘deeper’”.(Stevick, 1976) cites in Krashen (1995, p. 31.)

The Implications of Krashen’s Hypothesis in Second Language Teaching in A Classroom

After reading and analyzing those hypotheses above, the author finds some implications of those hypotheses, which relate to the second language teaching in a classroom. Based on the experience of the author in teaching second language (English) in a classroom, those hypotheses seem working in some areas or aspects of teaching second language in a classroom. The author will try to explain and describe the implications briefly, and support it with simple examples, which occur in teaching and learning process in a classroom as bellow.

First of all, we will look back to the distinction between acquisition and learning made by Krashen (1995). The distinction was very clear, and according to him “learning does not become acquisition” cites Mangubhai (2003). However, when we look at the learning process of second language in a classroom, the author finds difficulties in differentiating both learning and acquisition. It seemed both learning and acquisition were running together along with the process of teaching language in a classroom. Both subconscious and conscious processes occur slightly in the same time. Therefore, Mangubhai (2003, p. 4.6.) “…it is very difficult to distinguish learning and acquisition to be able to conduct some research on it”. Or as McLaughlinn (1978; 1987) cites in Mangubhai (2003, p. 4.6.) “has put it there needs to be some objective way of knowing the difference between the two so that one can apply the test of falsifiability. Alternative frameworks have been suggested by critics that explain how learning can become acquisition, if acquisition is defined as more fluent (i.e. more automatic) language behaviour”.

The next is the implication of the natural order hypothesis in teaching second language in a classroom. In very simple sight, the author sees that the students were learning the language (English) in an order. For example, the students usually start learning with some expression of simple present or present continuous tense with marked “ing”. Then they will try to recognize another marks of language rules such as /s/ for plural and third person singular mark. As Brown (1973) reported in Krashen (1995) who says,”children acquiring English as first language tended to acquire certain grammatical morphemes, or function words, earlier than others”. In addition of it, Krashen (1995) sees “ the order of acquisition for second language is not the same as the order of acquisition for first language, but there are some similarities”. Perhaps we can also look at how the child (our child in particular) acquired the first language. Seemed to the author that they acquired the first language in an order, started form simple words, morphemes moved to another ones, as well as students learn the language in a classroom.

When we look at how the monitor hypothesis working in teaching language in a classroom, the author found some students who have good knowledge in English, if we look at the test achievements, but they could not speak fluently. Because, they were afraid of being mistaken, and tried to speak in correct English structure. Or there are some students who could speak English very confidence and fluent. Although there are some mistakes occurred in the utterances, but they neglected of being mistaken. Based on these facts, the author believes that the monitor hypothesis implement in teaching second language in a classroom. However, Mangubhai (2003) it has been pointed out that “it is frequently difficult to tell whether a person is monitoring using a ‘feel’ for the language (i.e. using the acquired system) or using the learned system”, cited from (d’Anglejean, 1981; Rivers, 1980).

The last two hypotheses are input hypothesis and affective filter. The author will look at the implications of these two hypotheses in one session. Because according to the author both hypotheses have correlation with language input. The most interesting point in input hypothesis is the role of ‘caretaker speech’. In a classroom, teacher perhaps the most significant environment who gave students much more input. There are some students also who could not optimize their attitudinal factors such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. Therefore,“[t]hose who attitudes are not optimal for second language acquisition will not only seek less input, but they will also have a high strong Affective Filter – even if they understand the message, the input will not reach that part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, or the language devices. Those with attitudes more conducive to second language acquisition will not only seek obtain more input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more open to the input, and it will strike ‘deeper’”.(Stevick, 1976) in Krashen (1995)

Those are some implications that the author could see in the process of second language acquisition in the classroom. Even though, there are many other theories in second language acquisition, which might be implementable in classroom process. Because there is no one perfect theory which can covered or explain the whole areas of second language acquisition field. As Larsen-Freeman (1997) suggests that SLA is, like some sciences, complex and non-linear. Just as multiplicity of factors make it difficult to predict weather accurately, so the various factors involved in SLA also make predictions about SLA difficult. Yet, like weather forecasters, we have to use the best knowledge we have at hand, as we seek to predict what the possible outcomes in a particular language learning context might be”.(Mangubhai, 2003, p. 4.1.)

As a complementary the author will quote Krashen’s statement on his Introduction: The Relationship of Theory to Practice, which is very good for the progress of second language acquisition research.

The solution to our problems in language teaching lies not in expensive equipment, exotic methods, sophisticated linguistic analyses, or new laboratories, but in full utilization of what we already have, speakers of the languages using them for the real communication. I will also conclude that the best method might also be the most pleasant, and that, strange as it seems, language acquisition occurs when language is used for what it was designed for, communication. (Krashen, 1995, p. 1.)

References:

Brown, R. (1973). A first language. In Krahen, S.D. (Eds.). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Macmillan, New York.

D’Anglejan, A. (1978). Language learning in and out of classroom. In Krahen, S.D. (Eds.). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Macmillan, New York.

Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. In Krahen, S.D. (Eds.). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Macmillan, New York.

Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1975). A new approach to discovering universal strategies of child second language acquisition. In Krahen, S.D. (Eds.). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Macmillan, New York.

Krashen, S.D. (1995). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Macmillan, New York.

Mangubhai, F. (2003). Principles of Second Language Learning. Study Book, Distance Education Centre, USQ, Toowoomba.

Schachter, J. (1998). Recent research in language learning studies: promises and problems. In Mangubhai, F. (Eds.). Principles of Second Language Learning. Study Book, Distance Education Centre, USQ, Toowoomba.

Stevick, E. (1976) Memory, meaning, and method. In Krahen, S.D. (Eds.). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall Macmillan, New York.

The University of South Queensland (2003). Principles of Second Language Learning. Selected Readings, Distance Education Centre, USQ, Toowoomba.

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar