Language as Dynamic System

                     Before entering the LTS program, I didn't have much contact with the field of linguistics. All I had was my own experience of studying abroad and studying a second language. In this section, I shared these artifacts to briefly illustrate how I think of language as a dynamic system: LING544-Development of the Language Learner - Thinking Routine, LT 548-Activity Creation 1, TWD Lesson plan, (LT 534…). 

LING 544 Thinking Routine Drawing-cognition&interlanguage, input&intake&output 

                     LING544 was my first linguistics class after entering the Language Teaching Studies program. This class taught me many academic terms and theories related to second language acquisition. As time passed, I had to re-open the canvas page to look for records to recall my knowledge. During the review period, I saw a picture of the homework we handed in in the first week - Thinking Routine. Here I drew a picture with a bridge on it, representing interlanguage, the Interaction Hypothesis discussed by Gass and Mackey (2006). On both sides of the bridge are L1 and L2. I explained that our first language would profoundly influence a new language that was or would be learned. When we learn a word, we first intake it—negotiate for meaningful activities to interact in our head, then we output—try different methods to experiment with the language to achieve communication. Thus we input what we have learned about the language in our head and start the process again to know a language, a word, a phrase, etc. Sometimes this influence may be subconscious. I often confuse Chinese and English grammar or spontaneously use Chinese grammar in L2 English. For example, in Chinese, we say, "I today feel happy," but in English, the placing of the adverb of time is different, and it is more likely to say, "I feel happy today." From the sociolinguistics perspective, respecting and understanding how each language is used is still very important for SLA or language teaching. The culture, ways people think, or social norms could impact language. 

                     Another artifact I would like to introduce is LT548's Activity Creation 1. In this class, we learned the Intercultural, Pragmatic, and Interactional Competence-IPIC model (Aelrc, 2020) from the four aspects of knowledge, subjectivity, awareness, and analysis. When designing activities, we can use this framework to help measure and assess students' abilities to use the target language and their language competence. Activity Creation 1 aimed to build students' pragmatic awareness in Chinese by demonstrating how/why people make word choices under different contexts and experience it by completing role plays with classmates. The IPIC framework could guide us in selecting students learning objectives (Brown & Lee, 2015) and how they could align with the activity for each quadrant. For example, in the knowledge quadrant, the SLO was that students would be able to define and distinguish the implied meaning of the list of word groups that contained the same lexical meaning but demonstrated power differences in Chinese pragmatics. To demonstrate it, students would use the BCC corpus to research the vocabulary list provided by the teacher. Another aspect to consider was context. Designing an activity, we should compare both teaching contexts and language use. Teaching context: This activity would be implemented in the CHN480-Linguistic Chinese course at the University of Oregon, designed for undergraduate and graduate students who wished to gain a deeper understanding of the Chinese language(s) from a linguistic perspective. This course was required for Chinese major/Chinese Flagship program students, while other students might take it as an elective course but needed to reach the Intermediate-Mid level in Chinese at least to take it. There were 15-20 students aged about 18-24 in this course, with proficiency levels from Intermediate-Mid to Advanced. The students were from America, South Korea, and China, so the other languages they spoke were English, Korean, and Chinese (Mandarin/Cantonese). According to the teaching context, we learned target learners' needs for taking this course, which helped us to determine the suitable SLOs; due to the different levels of proficiency, cultural backgrounds, and ages, we should also consider each student's ability by implementing differentiated learning approach (Ferlazzo, 2018). 

                     The next artifact is a lesson plan from the LT 537 Practicum course, "Talking with Ducks."—TWD course. I designed a two-hour lesson with three other team members. The theme was "holiday," "family&friendship." During the design process, one moment that impressed me was when we decided on the theme for the second day. We struggled with choosing family or friends. Finally, we decided to use the two themes of family and friends together, and when designing activities, we emphasized the optionality of students when replying. This kind of flexibility could better involve every team member and avoid embarrassing situations where someone might not be willing to discuss any topics. It demonstrated the critical principle of inclusivity (Yerian, 2022). In my future teaching career, I plan to build an inclusive community where every student can integrate into this big "family" and not feel neglected.

References

AELRC (2020). Intercultural, Pragmatic, and Interactional (IPIC) Measure. Georgetown University. https://aelrc.georgetown.edu/resources/ressearch-briefs/ipic-research-brief/

Brown, H.D. & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An integrative approach to language pedagogy (4th edition). Pearson Education, Inc.

Ferlazzo, L. [Education Week]. (2018, September 11). Differentiating instruction: it’s not as hard as you think [Video]. YouTube, https://youtu.be/h7-D3gi2lL8

Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction, and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19. 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.03gas

Yerian, K. (2022). 8 Key Criteria for Lesson Design. [Unpublished]. Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.