Forum Deutsch - University of Alberta

HERBST 2005 32 Forum Deutsch
issues surrounding formative assessment. Teachers need to be
made explicitly aware of: (1) the value of written comments, (2)
the timeliness with which feedback is provided, (3) the need to
focus on only one concept at a time, (4) the impediments to students'
understanding of the feedback, and (5) instructional planning
which includes time for students to use the feedback.
Through a concerted effort by the ministry, district leaders,
and classroom teachers, formative assessment policies can begin
to impact student learning and improve achievement as policy
makers had originally intended.
A copy of the report may be obtained from any of the authors.
Ellen Bornowsky, Glen Sallenbach, Denise Turner (2004)
Why Current Assessment Techniques Aren’t Helping Our
Students. Unpublished graduate paper, Educational
Administration and Leadership Program, Department of
Educational Studies, Faculty of Education, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.,
(Ellen Bornowsky, Glen Sallenbach and Denise Turner are second
language teachers in Langley, British Columbia teaching
German, French, and Japanese respectively. All three have
recently completed an M.Ed. in Educational Administration and
Leadership at the University of British Columbia)
References
Black, Paul and Dylan Wiliam. Assessment and Classroom
Learning. Assessment in Education Principles, Policy &
Practice, March, Vol. 5, Issue 1. 1998a.
Black, Paul and Dylan Wiliam. Inside the Black Box: Raising
Standards Through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta
Kappan, October, Vol. 80, Issue 2. 1998b.
British Columbia Ministry of Education (2003e). Curriculum:
Integrated Resource Packages Appendix D: Assessment And
Evaluation, retrieved April 15, 2003 from
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/irp_apd.html
Stiggins, Richard. Assessment, Student Confidence and School
Success. Phi Delta Kappan. Nov. 1999.
Fullan, Michael. The Three Stories of Education Reform. Phi
Delta Kappa, April Vol. 81 No. 8. 2002. retrieved May 17,
2003 from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kful0004.htm
Vandergrift, Larry and Claire Belanger (1998). The National Core
French Assessment Project: Design and Field Test of
Formative Assessment Instruments at the Intermediate
Level. Canadian Modern Language Review. June 1999.
Deficient Learners and Dismissive Critics:
Divisiveness in Second Language
Acquisition (SLA) Theory
Norma J. Chapple
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario
Abstract
This paper is an examination of the Firth and Wagner debate
and its impact on the field of SLA. I explore the pre-debate state
of SLA, F&W’s article, its detractors, supporters, F&W’s response,
and the debate’s continued relevance and classroom impact. I
examine articles related to the debate from the MLJ spanning
1997 and 1998, plus an article from 2004. The debate underscores
the need for SLA to accept a plurality of theories.
Alan Firth and Johannes Wagner’s 1997 article “On discourse,
communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA
research” has drawn diverse reactions in the field. It has been
referred to as an “enjoyable controversy” (Kasper, 1997, p. 308),
as “naive criticism” (Gass, 1998, p. 84), as a “provocative critique”
(Hall, 1997, p. 301) and, by one critic, as “misleading”
and “irrelevant” (Long, 1997, p. 322). These reactions are indicative
of an ongoing shift in the SLA paradigm towards a more
holistic approach. The field has begun to shift, but adherents
such as Karen Ann Watson-Gegeo still call for an even more radical
movement towards new epistemologies. SLA is slowly moving
away from a narrow, etic, and de-contextualised perspective
towards a more broad, emic, and contextualised perspective.
The State of SLA
SLA appears at first to be a definable, quantifiable unity,
however, this is far from the case. At least forty different theories
comprise SLA (Kasper, 1997, p. 311), it is not a unified theory
nor can it be reduced to a single method or approach. One of
Firth and Wagner’s detractors, Susan Gass (1998), acknowledges
that “SLA is a broad field often practiced by individuals who at
times, because of their different academic backgrounds and orientations,
appear to be talking past one another” (p. 83).
However, this divisiveness cannot be mistaken for a helpful multiplicity
and plurality. It has merely lead to arguments that have
hampered the field and “generated more acrimony then useful
theory” (Watson-Gegeo, 2004, p. 331).
SLA struggled to define itself as a serious area of research in
the 1960s and at this time “models of inquiry coming from the
natural sciences were very much dominant” (Rampton, 1997, p.
330). These models are based on an empirical model that inherently
denies fluidity, plurality, and context. SLA is based on outmoded
Chomskian ideas that are fundamentally based “in structuralist
linguistic theories” (Watson-Gegeo, 2004, p. 332). They
rely exclusively on positivistic methods that ignore cultural and
socio-political contexts.