Abstract
This research proposal focuses on developing English Language skills for the underprivileged children living in the far flung rural areas of Sindh, Pakistan. It focuses on developing effective methodologies for English language teaching. It can fill in the gap where the rural learners lack the quality of language teaching imparted as compared to the quality language teaching methods used in English Language teaching. Intensive interviews, observations and action research will be used for devising a methodology for English Language teaching and Learning. The findings will help to empower and benefit the children of rural areas to establish good English language learning and teaching skills.
A Case study of Children Learning English in Rural Environment
Background and Significance
No one can deny the fact how important English is in the present era. English language can also be coined as the universal language. It is clear that the English has become more dominant around the world. In some countries it use as the mother tongue and other countries use it as the medium of communications as second language or foreign language. This makes English a language of global expression.
English’s status as Lingua Franca has gained more significance in an optimistic manner. Globally, English has been the key language to academic collaboration, research activities, events and communications, both inside and between cultures.
A good education system can be defined as the one that yields quality education and motivates the individual learning and capabilities and helps individuals. In a country like Pakistan where 33 percent of population lives under the poverty line, education development is subsided by other basic necessities of life. Sindh, country’s second largest province in both population and economic output also performs poorly across a range of socio- economic indicators, education being no exception can be attributed to both issues of access and quality which comprises absence of safe school structures, lack of basic amenities in schools, lack of drinking water and toilet facility, urban centered curriculum and detrimental patriarchal values. Given the Sindh province’s size and the magnitude of its challenges, improving education outcomes is essential for accelerating progress towards Pakistan’s educational system.
This research proposal aims to explore the provision of quality English language learning facilities in the far flung areas of Sindh. It focuses disadvantaged communities residing in remote localities where the population is living a life deprived of all the basic amenities.
The research subjects are children studying in rural based community schools. The reason of their choice is mainly the fact that they are members of lower class which is extremely underprivileged.
These individuals barely realize the significance of acquiring education primarily due to little financial power to sustain the education for their children, the expenses to be borne to make their children educated and the expenses of transportation that incur during the education.
Another misfortune is that even if the child is keen to receive education, the parents could not afford to allow him to spare his time for education mainly because:
- he is also an earning member of the family.
- he is burdened with family responsibility since a very small age and he is bound by them.
- lack of intrinsic motivation due to conventional teaching practices.
- lack of extrinsic motivation due to ignorance and other priorities.
This is why they have been chosen as subjects to be skilled through education. The feasibility of this proposal can be looked up into a broader spectrum when the members from the same society, if well trained and equipped with modern teaching techniques can serve as better teachers. They can help.
Research Questions
- How to motivate and educate unprivileged childeren to learn English?
- How to evolve cost effective ESL/EFL techniques to help an unprivileged children learn English in Rural Environment?
- What would be the most effective way to learning English in rural based environment for the under privileged children?
Review of Relevant Literature
Lenneberg in 1967 gave the concept of Critical Period Hypothesis which suggests that progress in language development comes to a standstill after maturity. After a certain maturational point the L2 learner is no longer capable of attaining native like proficiency and learning is no longer sub served by the same mechanisms that sub serve child language acquisition. (Singleton:). Interrogating myself “when is the best age of learning a language”, seems like quite a vague idea However, it is important to consider not only the available research, but also several other questions as well. Why is the individual learning the language in the first place? Does he/she wish to be proficient, or planning on dropping the language once certain “requirements” are met? What is the ultimate goal of learning the language?
“Biologically determined period of life when language can be acquired more easily and beyond which time language is increasingly difficult to acquire. If we follow what Lenneberg (1967) suggests about the CPH, we may speculate that if a CPH exists for first language acquisition, that one could possibly exist for second language acquisition. If this is the case, it would seem that children would have the advantage over adults in learning a second language
This lead linguists to hypothesize a critical period for language acquisition. Research done with deaf individuals supports the CPH. Some deaf individuals were not exposed to sign language until they were 5 or 6 years old and as adults, when compared to others who had learned sign language at an earlier age, these individuals had differing language abilities (Newport, 1993). But is there a critical period for second language acquisition? This is where we get some confusion over the Critical Period Hypothesis. We see that adults clearly can acquire a second language, but some research suggests a critical period for some areas of possible grammatical acquisition. While it is not impossible for adults to learn a second language, the critical period hypothesis suggests they may have increased difficulty learning compared to their younger counterparts. This may be due to brain lateralization at puberty and the loss of “plasticity” mentioned by Lenneberg.
Plasticity gives children a “superior ability” to acquire language, even though “the older learner is seen to have the advantage in vocabulary expansion” (Penfield & Roberts, 1959). The idea of a child developing a conditioned reflex can be compared to the term “code-switching” today. Code-switching is using two or more kinds of language in the same conversation and if an individual is able to switch back and forth, this is actually a sign of “linguistic maturity,” and should not be viewed as being only “semilingual” (de Valenzuela, 2000). It is believed that language acquisition is more difficult once the brain is lateralized. It is also believed that the left hemisphere is more specialized for analytical, intellectual tasks, and the right for more emotional, social needs (Brown, 2000). However, this kind of “lefbrained and right-brained” qualities provides much conflicting research, so we must be careful when considering it for our teaching practices. Still argument exists as to when exactly lateralization occurs (Brown 2000). Lenneberg (1967) said by puberty, while Krashen (1973) cites research to support lateralization around age five, which supports the research on first language acquisition fluency by the age of five.
Based on our research, we came up with a kind of metaphor for whether or not a critical period exists for second language acquisition. The extreme view would be a door slamming shut, meaning that after the critical period, an individual is not able to acquire a second language. We know this is not true since adults can and do learn second languages. Gleitman and Newport (1995) suggest what is called a “sensitive period.” This shape would be kind of like a bell curve, where between the critical period is the optimal time to learn a second language, but with sensitive periods extending out on either side (before the age of two and after puberty). Singleton (1995) writes, “there is no point at which vocabulary acquisition can be predicted to cease.” Much of the research indicates that people beyond the age of puberty do not acquire a native-like accent, but of course exceptions do exist (Brown, 2000). We will come back to this point later in the presentation.
A Case Study
• In a study to compare 4 age groups and their acquisition of Russian, all groups of children were significantly poorer than adults on all measures of retention.
Observe-Act
This study was done by Asher and Price (1967). All four age groups were split into two groups, the first group being called the Act-Act group. The subjects were to imitate an adult model. The second group was called the Observe-Act group, and the subjects only watched the model. All groups were given retention tests immediately following the training, 24 and 48 hours later
Affective issues among learners of an L2 play a very significant role in determining the success of the learner, whether they be a child, a teen, or an adult. Schumann (1975) concludes that these variables “may be as important as or even more important than neurological maturation in accounting for difficulties in adult second language learning.” Learners must have a low affective filter in order to acquire the L2. If the affective filter is too high, as a result from too much pressure from outside factors, then the L2 is restricted from the LAD, thus causing no acquisition to occur (Escamilla and Grassi, 2000). The language ego can describe a kind of identity one develops based on the language one speaks. This may account for difficulties adults have when learning a second language because while a child is still in the process of developing their self-identity and “language ego,” the adult is more planted in his/her identity thus having increased inhibitions. Research shows that adults have many inhibitions when learning a second language, for example, when speaking the L2 leads to embarrassment (Brown, 2000). Attitudes toward the particular language and culture of the L2 can also affect SLA. Young children who have cognitively not developed strong attitudes toward particular cultures, races, classes, and ethnic groups may be less affected as compared to adults (Brown, 2000). Individual differences in style/personality and motivation will contribute to the learner’s success in the L2 as well. Both children and adults may experience culture shock, experiencing feelings of “estrangement, anger, hostility, indecision, frustration, unhappiness, sadness, loneliness, homesickness, and even physical illness” (Brown 2000). This may also contribute to how willing the learner is to learn the new language. Children may experience more peer pressure to conform and learn the L2 as compared to adults (Brown, 2000). It is also important to consider the way the content is being taught in the classroom.
Interference between languages
Adults may have an easier time learning a second language because of knowledge of a first language. However, often their second language is learned in a classroom setting and interference is greater than in a natural setting, which is how children usually learn.
Research shows that acquisition of L2 in children is similar to the processes used in the acquisition of L1.
First language can cause interference between L1 and L2 in adults, but based on research we cannot say it “is the most relevant or crucial factor in adult second language acquisition.”
Adults often learn a second language in a classroom setting, which may affect the level of L1 interference (McLaughlin 1984). However, we have found from research that interference from the first language “does not imply that interference is the most relevant or crucial factor in adult second language acquisition” (Brown 2000).
Adults learning an L2 produce some of the same kinds of errors as children learning an L1 (Brown 2000). The L1 can therefore be not just an interfering factor, but a facilitating factor to fill in gaps and differentiate between rules in the L1 and L2 for adults learning a second language (Brown 2000).
Interlanguage
“Creative Construction”
Second language learners “reconstruct rules for what they hear, guided by strategies that derive from certain innate mechanisms that cause them to formulate certain types of hypotheses about the language system being acquired.”
This quote comes from Dulay & Burt (1974). This claim is supported by research by Dulay and Burt. The authors collected data based on the acquisition order of eleven English morphemes in children learning English as a second language. Dulay and Burt found a common order of acquisition of the morphemes among the children who also varied across several different native-language backgrounds.
How do children and adults learn a second language?
• Research suggests that adult and child second language learners pass through essentially those same developmental stages in SLA.
• The only difference is the cognitive maturity of the learner making for an increased vocabulary and rule application.
• Both are expected to make transfer errors and overgeneralize language rules.
This research was found in McLaughlin (1984) and others. Based on these points, it seems as though children and adults go through the same developmental stages when learning a language. If children and adults are similar in this way, then what makes them different in SLA? This is where we must remember the affective and possibly neurological factors discussed earlier.
Methodology
The study will be carried out in a rural based community school. Intensive interviews with open ended questionnaires, direct observations and action research will be used as tools for data and studying the behavioral impact of teaching the subject in rural environment.
The sample will be selected randomly from five rural based community schools through convenient sampling. 10 students for each school will be selected randomly. In the first phase the subject’s history will be taken into account. Their family background, living conditions, likes and dislikes so that motivating the children to study should become easier.
The second phase implies teaching the children in rural environment. The children’s learning behavior will be observed at length. Action research will be done on devising the methodology for effective English language teaching. Conclusion will be drawn on the findings.
Ethical Considerations
Children should be motivated through incentives. The incentives could be a nice attractive meal, a toy, a present to become a personal belonging.
Education thus being provided shall be partly camouflaged into activities so that the subject feels motivated.
The findings of the case study will be used to empower and benefit the children for further learning as the results will be shared with the government of Sindh education department.
Limitations of the study
- Rural based learning environment limits the potential of learning in an environment with individuals hailing from diverse cultural backgrounds and capacities.
- It restricts the subject form becoming exposed to the constant diversification from the technological and social point of view.
- Rural environment tends to undermine the subject’s interpersonal tendencies and thus minimizes his opportunity of learning through socialization.
- In case of foreign language learning, it is very important to interact with other individuals and this enhances the comprehension and ability to converse in that language, but rural learning environment does not provide this opportunity.
- Home learning does not allow a person to become formally qualified.
- Home learning diminishes the opportunity of learning through experience sharing due to confinement.
References
Asher, J.J. and Price B.S. (1967). The learning strategy of a total physical response: some age differences. Child Development.
Birdsong, David. (1999). Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: New Jersey.
Brown, Douglas H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Fourth Edition). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
De Valenzuela, (2000). From the Professional Development Resource Series, “Second Language Acquisition.” BUENO Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Dulay, H.C. & Burt, M.K. (1974). Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly.
Escamilla K. & Grassi, E. (2000). From the Professional Development Series, “Second Language Acquisition”, BUENO Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.21
Gleitman, L. & Newport, E. (1995). The invention of language by children: Environmental and biological influences on the acquisition of language.
Krashen, S.D. (1973) Laterization, language learning, and the critical period: Some new evidence. Language Learning, 23, 63-74.
Lenneberg, E.H. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley and sons.
McLaughlin, Barry. (1984). Second Language Acquisition in Childhood Volume 1. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: New Jersey.
Newport, E.L. (1993). Maturational constraints on language learning. In P. Bloom, (Ed).,Language acquisition Core readings (pp. 543-560) Cambridge, Mass: MIT press.
Nunan, D. (1996). An organic approach to grammar teaching. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 65-86.————- (2004).
Penfield, W. & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Schumann, J.H. (1975) Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 19, 245-53.
Singleton, D. & Lengyel, Z. (1995) The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters Ltd
About the author
Born and raised in a multi-cultural/multi-lingual setting in Karachi and Islamabad, Bushra Pasha originally intended to study fine arts but got waylaid on the way and eventually “got hooked” on applied linguistics and language learning/teaching. She has designed and taught a number of tailor-made courses for and organized special focus communication conferences for professionals. Bushra Pasha was a lecturer at the Department of English, Jinnah University for Women, Karachi. Presently she is working as an Assessment Associate for Languages in Sindh Education Foundation, Government of Sindh.
She holds a Master’s degree in English Literature and Applied Linguistics from University of Karachi, Pakistan