Compartir resultados económicos

Despite the many advantages associated with immersion education, specifically for L2 learning, as explored in Chapter One, such a system is not without its challenges, which are well documented (Baker & Wright, 2017; Chaudron, 1986; Genesee, 1987; Harley, 1992; Lyster, 2004, 2007, 2015; Mougeon, Nadasdi, & Rehner, 2010; Ó Duibhir, 2018). Although immersion students generally achieve a very high standard of L2 fluency, their L2 includes grammatical and lexical deficiencies (Mougeon et al., 2010) when compared to that of native speakers (Ó Duibhir, 2018). To extend literature mentioned in Chapter One, immersion students’ interlanguage (Selinker, 1972) is often referred to as ‘Gaelscoi-

lis’ (Nic Eoin, 2005) and the variety of spoken Irish utilised in immersion settings is regu-

larly compared to a type of creole (Nic Pháidín, 2003). According to longstanding research findings, immersion students develop greater L2 receptive skills than productive skills (Al- len et al., 1990; Lapkin & Swain, 2005). In other words, strong evidence exists that, gener- ally, immersion students’ L2 contains non-target-like features both internationally (e.g. Lyster, 2007) and nationally (e.g. Ó Duibhir, 2018).

To broaden discussions of Chapter One, the literature presents many suggested rea- sons for this L2 weakness. Firstly, Lyster (2007) contends that immersion programmes fo- cus primarily on communicative language learning strategies rather than emphasising ana- lytical analysis of language forms. Literature in this field often suggests immersion stu- dents learn primarily through their listening skills (Ní Dhiorbháin & Ó Duibhir, 2017) which may promote semantic rather than syntactic processing of linguistic forms (Swain, 1985). Essentially, unless such semantic forms are decoded and further encoded for syntac- tic processing, the student may not have access to them when producing language output (Ó Duibhir, 2018). Additionally, immersion programmes appear to place an element of communicative pressure on immersion students, which limits the students’ time to process and reflect on language forms during language input (VanPatten, 1996, 2014). As students have a finite working capacity, VanPatten (1990) asserts that, with language input, a stu- dent’s attention competes between noticing form and meaning. Oftentimes, meaning is pri- oritised which causes linguistic forms to be neglected (Loewen & Sato, 2018). Further- more, literature suggests that ‘fossilisation’ (Skehan, 1998) of such inaccurate L2 forms might occur, as teachers may “tolerate” (Ní Dhiorbháin & Ó Duibhir, 2017, p. 5) or ignore inaccurate linguistic forms (Lyster, 2007). In keeping with this, it has been argued, that once immersion students reach communicative sufficiency, they often lack motivation to further enhance their grammatical skills (Ó Duibhir, 2011; Swain, 2000). This inaccurate

42

grammatical deficiency has continuously been reported in Irish immersion settings. The NCCA, for example, have reported, “… the tendency of children in Irish-immersion schools to use the second language in a way that is neither idiomatic nor grammatically correct particularly in the later stages of primary school” (2006, p. 46, cited in Ó Ceallaigh, 2013, p. 107), which is in accordance with other Irish research findings (e.g. Ó Duibhir, 2009, 2018).

Stern (1990) and Harley (1991) propose the use of an analytical approach, along with an experiential mode of teaching as optimally fruitful in fostering a grammatically accurate SLA process. Such an approach aligns with recent Irish studies, such as Ní Dhi- orbháin and Ó Duibhir (2017, p. 6), which suggest interlinking the “… implicit learning environment” of immersion schools with, “… an analytical approach to grammar instruc- tion”. They see this as being beneficial in fostering a more accurate L2 among students. Lyster (2015) asserts that immersion teachers need to “strike a balance” (p. 5) between form and content in order to foster both receptive and productive language skills of immer- sion students. Lyster (2007) refers to this practice as a counterbalance approach which, es- sentially, “… incites students to vary their attentional focus between content to which they usually attend in classroom discourse and target language features that are not otherwise attended to” (Lyster & Tedick, 2014, p. 214). In a similar vein, in order to develop immer- sion students’ productive skills, Ó Duibhir (2018) maintains that students’ attention is re- quired to be explicitly drawn to L2 language features. In a parallel fashion, Harley (1993, p. 251) acknowledges specific criteria of L2 features that need explicit attention in content- based settings (i.e. immersion settings), in order to ensure accurate acquisition. Some of these include:

 L2 features which differ from the L1,

 irregular or infrequent language features,

 features that do not carry a “heavy communicative load” (Ranta & Lyster, 2018, p. 42).

The concept of noun gender, the grammatical focus of the current investigation, provides a prime example of an L2 form that does not carry a heavy communicative load, which is irregular in nature, and which does not exist in the English language (i.e. students’ L1). Thus, according to Harley’s (1993) criteria listed above, the concept of noun gender of the Irish language requires explicit instruction or attention.

43

It may be concluded that researchers in the field of SLA acknowledge the deficits in students’ interlanguage/L2 and highlight the need for grammatical forms to be taught rather than implicitly “picked up along the way” (Foster & Ohta, 2005, p. 514). Fundamen- tally, such proposed pedagogical approaches to grammar instruction are suggested to in- crease students’ overall language awareness, which is considered vital to the ultimate suc- cess of L2 learning and teaching. According to the Primary Language Curriculum (NCCA, 2015), language awareness includes, “… the development of children’s understanding and awareness relating to the content, structure and patterns of language/between languages” (p. 108). Hawkins (1984) asserts that students’ language awareness should be raised even before language learning or formal instruction begins. Cook (2016) coincides with Haw- kins, as she affirms that, if students know what to expect in a language, they will become receptive of it. Ellis and Shintani (2014) denote that, “… teaching speaking … includes awareness-raising tasks” (p. 196), which holds critical implications for language teaching and learning in immersion settings. It appears that increasing students’ language awareness plays a key role in the successful acquisition of any given L2. Such a claim is confirmed by Cook (2016), when she maintains that, “It is not the teaching of particular points of gram- mar that matters, but the overall increase in the pupils’ language sensitivity” (p. 51). There- fore, it seems evident from the literature that any successful language pedagogical activity should consider techniques that are aimed to draw students’ attention to specific target lan- guage forms while further promoting students’ language awareness. This brief rationale welcomes the concept of Form-Focused Instruction (FFI), which is regarded as an essen- tial, awareness raising pedagogical approach for all language teaching and learning, partic- ularly in immersion settings (Cook, 2016). In brief, if utilised in an effective and systemat- ic manner, FFI is suggested to ‘strike’ a ‘counterbalance’ between form and content in the immersion classroom, as recommended by Lyster (2007, 2015), to promote more accurate L2 forms in students’ L2 output.