STUDENTS' ARILI TIES TOUTIL I ZETHEPROBLEM-SOLV I NG
\'ROCE S SES INSCIENCE
BY
MI CIIELPIE RREGENEST
AThesi ssubmi t te d to the Scho olof Gr a d uat e Stud ies in I,nr tllli rulfillmentor tim req uLeeeaen ts for th e dc g r<!1l of
Mast erot jcd ucetten
DcpBrh llcnt ot Cu r ric ul u man d Instruc ti o n Mcporial Unive rsi tyotNell't ou n dland
""aII19 9 3
St,John 's Newfoun dl an d
IH
Nalional01CanadaUbrary Acquisil>oosand BibliOgraphicServicesBranch 395WcIIIr>glon SI'cc1 Ot!awa,Qnla" o K1A C"'j.lBoiomeqcc natcnruc duCan.1da Dnoenondosncmnsaonsot des servicesblbIIO!lr;lpll1quc~
~t5.'lJt.' W""''l1I''''
~\r~~\Ol'I,""'l
The author has granted an irrevocable non-exclusl velicence allowi ng the National Libraryof Canada to reproduce, loa n , distribute or sell copies of his/herthesisby any meansand in any form or format ,making thisthesis avail ableto intere sted persons.
Theauthorretains ownershipof the copyrightin his/herthesis.
Neitherthe thesisnorsubstantia l extractsfro m It may be print edor otherwise reproduced without his/herpermission.
L'auteur a
accord eune licen ce
irrevoc able et non excl us ive permettanta
la Bibliothequ e nationale du Cana da de reproduire, Feler,distribu erOU vendredes copi es de sathese de quelqu e manlere et sous quelque form equece soit pour mettredesexemplaire sde cette these it la disp osition des personn eslnteressees.L'auteurconservelaprcprletedu droit d'auteu r qui protege sa these. Ni lathesenidesextrails subst anliels de cell e-ci ne doivent E!l re lmprlm es ou autrementreproduits sans son autori s ation.
ISBN 0-315- 86646-2
Canada
empiric al bases nee~ssa ry for ihe er aborettonor1111
instruction al mod el that wo uldca pitil.liz eOil se eon.t lall~II 'I..e learner s ' str ategie sk i lls in eo,"n'l1ln iCllli,, " tn cnhnncc llot'i,' problem- solvingabilities insctcnc e•AnlInlllys i sof select ed quotations fr o mpsyehoLinguists I\lltlsCi "UCI' educator s dealingspecifi callywith Ih c mental IIrue e s "" >1 involved when engaged inseco n d la n g ua ge ItHl r n i n lCIlIltl problem -solvingre spe cti vel y, re ve al cd that the relire defin ite si lJlilll r i tl e s inreesonfue plllt l'r" s1"'lw,', '" 11"','1(' two actitivitie s. Aspart ofthis re search, " nu ll- hyp o t h e s i sWAS tested to te st wh e t he r an Lnte nse!l1'1: 1l1l, 1 lsng u ag-e learni n g e xp e eLe uce, suchasorfcr ed hy Iht· Frell ch Immersionprogram. wou l den hance childrell's /Ih ili lles 10 solv e problems inscie nce.
Fifty-four six th-egr ad c slu dent s pertLci p etr-d in Ihl' study.Halflhe groupwer est ude nte selected Lrnmtilt! ~'rcnd, immersion streamand the otherhal f wer-e se l ected rr Of" tllt~
regular un ilin g u ll l strea m.A limit e d control over-1.Q. ",u l socio-ec onomic level was exerc ised.The two groupswere admini s tereda twe n ty-si x- it emcr it e rion-r e f e r ence d test ,
ii
Th~..ult i ple ehetee itc .swere de si a-ncd toae aau ee the tlcl:re e to whic hstuden ts developproc esses of scienc e in the cl c nen tsr)' tevetslrrades. , 5. and 6.
Rcsul tilindicatedthat ther e ..ere no signifi ca nt dirfer cncc s inIIchicve.en t betwe e n thetwo gro ups.The results were in terpreted in Jii"ht of the design limitati ons. Thedis cu ssion that fol lowed ser ve d to establish a theoreti ca l frameworkne ede d to el a bora tean instructi on al mndel 3irred litpromoti n g child ren s tra nsfer of st e et eget rc sk i l ls fr o mse co n d lallg u8ielearning toprc bLem-eaclving, Ha s ed on the usc of neta c ognit iv e stretegLe a, suchIImodel when proper ly i1npleme n ted. co u l d hav e bi - direc ti o nal posit ive errect on thech i l d ren' s llIaste ryof bo thsu bjects.
iii
This wo rk, even though, put tngcther loy0111' individual is the fru i t of treme n do us su ppor t fr om fril'lIds.reLntiv es and instruc tors.Thereare ap ecial pe op le. how e v er. tn whom I want to expre s smydeepestg-r a tttude, ur,GIC lillClll rkhas ma d e hi ms e lf very ac c e ss ib l ewhen the prr.sl'nl euthor Ill'I',ll'd advice ,Hi s gu i dancewasvery mu chapprc cLated,MrN.,101111 Ne tten'sveri f ica t i on of referen ce s and comml' llts rel nted I"
secon d lang uagelc e r-ninchas also heeninstrullItml,l! in the etebo rettonof thi s thesi s .Mcs .. ee entem'o nl teujours encou rage Apo ursniv r-emes etu des. eLorsUJ!IP'OSIlIc l'l :i iieUk deu x. Sr . LoisGreene,ade a r rrien d,wa s "reiilCinll sly "
ded i cat ed to thede mandin g ta sk of pro of rCIl,l i llg thu Ellg )ish vers io n of R Fre n chman' s writintts,Many thanksarct'lCt l~ ll cl('l1 toher .Throu ghher ehaLlenglng spi r i t, Rod lov e-fil ll'd su pport my fiancee and closes t fri enel Ele an o r Philpott IIIIS be en the"honorarium" co-au t hor of Ihis thesis (C .O.Ts).
tv
I.ISTOFFIGURES
I. Cnmp"r isoJlaet wunnAeh iev emf"nli<
of fo'l anrl Re gulIll' StrcalllStu de nts • • • • • • • • 15 Z. COllll'lt ris.." Ill~t wee" Achlc vemenfs
'>IIOifr~ r cl1t pr-o e os scs • • • • 71
3. Cmnpal·isoll Hetwer-nAch iev ements
of Jlo,Ys and~il'!s • • • • • • • 19
1.Deacriptl v e data of theml>'1.11 sncill - t>,:nllnlll i "
le v eland mean WI!i("- R s ccro s ftlr F.i"uml
re gular str e a mstudents , , , • , • , , f,ll 2,Perc entae e of1\110("11tl",1 Iimr-spr-ut 1111tl".1d liul-:
scie nce (A) lind pe 1"eenta ll'l' of Ihal timl' silt·" I
<II.
te echjng-about Iheprocesses ofsc:i.'uCI'(II ) • • " " ,," 2 3. Breakdow n of thepcrceut ae eof the thai' SIH' III
tea ch i n gabout the.Iiffe ren l i111,,1-:'''''11'11IH.WI' ''S'":' of scie nc e • • • • • • • , • " "" • • • "• • • • G3 4.Des ceLp tLve data for the 1I1I' 1I 111'1'.'11111.'1of
"·,i.
and rCi'IJIRr strea ...)IIt Ullenls • • • • • , 7:1 5.nes cr Lptfv e.h,t " for themc' nll r" slIll,...r
ho ys lint! gir ls . • • • • • • • • • • • • IHI
TABI, F.OF CON T I:N T~
i\IISTRAC1'
1.1ST OF f'l(iURES I, I ST OFTABI.ES
::IIAI' TER
I. INTR ODUCT IO N
Purpose • .
Frenc hlnener sionPro g r ams Def in e d Statc llwn t of the r"obJe/ll Ralionnle . . • • • • • .
rI. RF;VI EWofREI.i\TImEMPIRICAL lind THIIORET ICA LSTUD IES
J.ite r etur cReviowPart J
Scit-'oce processski lls - prer eq uis ito to r e adl ng ?
ii Page
Lear ninjr asecond langua g e -
effect on cognition 10
Po s it i v e effec t of L2 Learningon p r-obLemeaolv Ln g- abi l i ty insc i e n c e 15
Pro bl em-s ol vin g in language 18
Pr o b l em- s o l v i n g:pr o c ess e s 23
Conclusio n . • . • . 24
l.itc r at u r c Review Part II • • • • • • • • 25 Compn rfug soleno e an d lang-uage 1earn i ngprocesses. • . . • • • • • 25
obser ving . . • • • . 27 Neasur- ingorquunti fyi n g . . . • . . 28 lnrerrirur • • • • • •• • • • • . . :10 PredictIng • • • • • • • • • • • • • ;Ill cle s sI fyin ll" • • • • • • . :11 ColLe ctLngan dRec o rding nntn . . . . :"12 Inte rp reting dntn . • • • . • • • . :1oI Contr ollingvnr-jablc s . • • • • • • • :Hi Dc finingupe ra I Lnnnl Ly • . . • . " 411 Hyp o t h es i z ing • • • • • • • • • • • • 46 ExperLme nting- • • • • • • . . • • • • 47
Formula ting amodeI . • 4D
Effe ct iv elise ofprOC t'SIH~S Co nclusion . • • • • • • . CHAPT ER
IJI. RESEARCHMETIIODOI.OG Y
~I
ResearchDesign • • 54
Popula tion and Sampl e fifo
Genera l Pro fiIe . fifo
I.Q.consldc r-ation • 57
Socio -Eco no mie stet us
Conside r a tion . • • • ~)7
Teacher Exper ]cnce • • . • 1;0
Ti me alfcontLon for teaddo\{
th epr o c e sse s of sci ence iii
Lnstrument and p r-n eedur-es • • • • 114
The Test • • • • • • . . • • • • • • li4 Imp l emen t at i on • • • • • • • • • • •
cs
TestValidi ty . • • • 1Ir,
ReIiabiIity • • • • • uII
Limitati on s of the StlHly • 611
Langa g e of te st i n g. • • • fill
Te a cher • • • • • • • • • • • • • 70
Gender balan ce . • • • • • • • • • • 1n Admi n istr ati on ti me . • • • • • • • • 7fl
CIlAI'n:R
RF.SlJI.TSos 1'UF. UI VESTIGATI OS ResulLsIIl ortAnalysis • • • •
12 12 RII!'I'i c:peeee s ses• • • • • • • • • • • • 74
In tc gr ll iedpeeee s ses 74
Geud e r dirree enee s i8
Concl usion . • • • • • 8t
V. SUMMAR YAND01 SCUSSION 82
SIJIAmll ry • • • • • • • 82
nts eus sLcn • • • • • • • • • 82
nrbee plansible e xp lanatIo ns 87
E.t ucilti on n\ Imp l iCIIti ons • • • • • • • • • • 89 U('lluuio!o ltic lil Dir e ctions • • • • • • • • • • 90 ReCO••lDl'u dlitions lor
FlIrthrr Rl' s('afC':.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • !l%
Con cludinK'Relllar ks
anti R"comm" n d _tiens • • • . • • . • • • • • • 93
APl' t:NOI X: A AI'! 't:NDIX :II
95
'0'
'03
INTRODUCTION
Themein puepes e of this sludy ill InprO\, Il:'I' 8. tbc or-e ttcet found a t ion fo r theosplcretlon ors"c01\11 ll!.ngualfe learn in!: as a lIIeans to enhance stllll!'lIls' "hi 1iIirs at "olvi ngpr oblelll$ Insetenee • Evidenceto :lllf>p orl 'hi' validityof th is rcundettcn wasK'ather ed b;,o flYIII III'N i1.I"1:
theoreticians' views on I) the prec ess e s of Illnl:llllltf' le ar nin gan d 2) the pro c es se s ot prnhlr . -....ol"illlCillsci ....ee , Existin gstet tertttesbetwc cn thc 1100 sets oflII~nl HI pro c es seswere Ihenhigh lilthtl'd.
To fur t he r suppor t an ",rgum"n l for thc 1'la hu"lIli ,..,fir sueua ercdel,8 critcrlon-refc r.:::nce filest Kim,',1III ev a lu atin g ele me n t arystudents ' prOKrc S!!wil hre6l'IIrd I....lite use 01 Iheproces s sk ills to so lveproblems insc Lc uer- WIIS admin i ste r ed to tlllO group s ot six t h-Rradestude nts , One group ecneLsted of bilinru allyedueeted Fre ltch i"" "r:;io ll (Fl) stu den ts who ha ve beenin the prOlfr" msince
kindergart enan d ano ther "roup wasmlldeup of tI~ltlll"r~lr'!ll'"
studentsfor whom Englishwas the l" ngu lIICe of lnstruetion, The a.veragesco re s of the two grau l'swere thenclllll r",r~d 10 determi ne If therewa~ Rdifr.~rene e in their "lJilitieli10 solve proble ms insejence ,
fo'ren eh IIWGer,sion Pr o g r a llls Defined
In Ca na d a the term"immersio n" r-erer s to prog rs ms in which inst ru cti on is gi v e nin Fre nchduring1111 or par t or the sch o ol day to st udc n ts whosemother ton gu e isEngl ish.
"Ea r ly " mcen s that the pr o cess or immers ion st a r ts whe n the studcnt isinKinder gart en. La te woul dsi g n if y that the
~;t udcllt bcgllJl the pro graIll Ingr a de 7. TIreaimot lids progrllm is commu n ic a t ive compe tenc e in theFrench languag e. Itsmain ehnr ae tc ris t ics a.rc (1) that the lang u ag eot instru ctionis incidental to ed uc a ti o n al content, (2) that chi Id r c n le arn the sec on d langu a g e in It.natural ma.nner in the i r daily interactions with Fren ch sp e a ki n g teachers and throughsu b je c t matt er ta u g h t in French , and (3) that the introd ucti on or class es in themoth e r tongue isdone p;radunlly until the nercen t aae or instru ctional timein both le ngung-cs isbalanc ed.
Sf. t c lAcn tat theProb le lQ
Thepr obl emwa s to pro vide theoretica l arguments a.n d
eID ••ideal evide nce that lea rnin g asec o n d la.ngu age has
p u r a Ll elawlth the activ e strategicproces s e s the chi l d r en e xp e r Len c.;when solvingprobJem s in sc i e n c e. The working hypothesi swas st a t e d 85: Chil dr e nwho attendan early Fren ch imme rs i o n programdev ejcplin enhanced abilityto use the basi cand in t e gr a t e d proce s s es to SOIYe prob lems In
Thereis no slg n i r icantdiffere ncebetweengred e~i x FI st u d en ts and re l[u l ar stre a M gradesix stud en tsin thed r deveLepraent or abilitie s to uet ttee pr ocess sk i lls in aeLen ee,
Pare ntsfr equentLy expres s ccncer na abolll thc effectivene s s of the F.l programand its poss ible stde effects.Theirqu eries 8rc di r ectedmtlinly to whctlses- t1u.'i,"
childre nwillbecome bi ling u alat the end or tile('r olt"""Il , whether theywill 101le thei r native Itln l:UAltClindets o huw the progra mwill art ect theirch ild ren's cOl{ui tiv p.
dev elcpeen t,McE a chern (J9 8 0 )di dasu rvey of p a r-cnta l atti tudetoward theFI progra_. In his co n c:l ud inltsteteeent , he relllsr ked : ...itwou l dse e_ that there is" Ken er.1 mal a is eteltby parentsat En g lish lallli u .ic kindcrl{lIrt..,n chi ld r e nwit h resp e ctto the over all Itra_th orchild r e n in French inuae rslon"(p.24Ei). Accordin g toCulltJlllns (19 8 0 ) or theOn t ari o Instit ute for St ud ics in Ed ucatio n, few pr0ltraaHI startedin Canada ha v e been evaluatedmor e tho r oughly thll n thelllllllc rs i on pr Ol[r am.
McE a chern (1980) holds the ed uc at io nal cOlDllIunity resp o ns ible for pres en ting inforlllati o n to pa r en tson t111~
success an dopportu ni ties ofthe FI prolf ra lll.Thepresent
re .!lc a rch is.esn t toprov ide informali o non theeffectof the pr 0 lt r a ..on the chil d ren's ability to sol ve pro bl e llls in a eLen ce,The re s u ltsof Ihis researchwi ll prov ide the eence r ned pop ulation additio n al Inforl'la t l o n on whi c h to bas e the i r decisionwhen eomJi dering a Frenc h imMersioneducati on for their chiIdren .
Thl!'!!ilud yWAS also br ou z ht about byr-eseerehe es interested in knowtnl' moreabout theeffe ct of second lang uage leAI'ningon ch ild ren's ac ad emicabil lt ics. Lapkin, SWlI ln, lindShepac n (19 9 0) e st ablLahed anlliren d aoCre sear ch in French Imlllersion Cor the 90s .Th re e oCthe are as the y Identifi ed areper tinen t to this study.One area Is co nc ernedwi th corni tJveef fects; res '!a rc h e rsarechaljene ed tndete eetne thecause of th e bilinr ual'sen hanc e d ab ilit y atsolvi nlfcornitlveta sks. Melllbers 01the the l l nguLstLe co _ u n i ty wonder whet he r it is that bilin l' uals ao lve cOlCll itivc task sditfe rentl)'or that the ad van lalte isdue to a high e r rat eofco ltni thedevelopme nt enge n d e r ed by thei r sec ond lan gu a gelearningexp eri enc e.Lapki n,Swai n, Shapson (19 90) stress Ihll rese arch in the areaof cDltn ltio nshould fOCIIS on proce ssrathcr tha n on product vari a bles .
ano t heeIrca fo r further re s ea rch isconcern e d wi t h French achievement. Rese archersare ce lLed togather
acquisition of French inan immer sion cc utext• Cal ls fo r research in the areas of a cbiev eme n t ill su bjectsotherthan Engl is h or Fre nc harealsopr os eutcd 011 theagenda . Theparfieula r questio nposed is :
Docer tain su bjec t areaslcn d lhems,dve s morere adily tha ncrher-s to beingoffered in the se c o n dla n g u a g e in lerm s of co" lrml learning, se c ond language lea rn i ng, alld Lhe inte g r a ti on ofco n t e n t end Jan g u ltKc?"
(Lap lcin et aI., 19 9 0, p.fi43) .
The present st u dy willsuggests that pre cesa e s of N.d.· .", /,!
an d lan g u age learn ingarc vcry si mila r.Arons (19110) predic tsenhanced fa c il ity of int...rdisci plin n r y lra n sf " r nf ski lls it achi ldissi multa n e o us l y expo sed to thean mc mode of re asontng indiffere n t subj e ct areas.
It ishlirhl.v recommendcd by somes ctcnce educeto rs thn t the proce s se s be taught in the sc i e nc e classro om.iohi nIIII' I
Capie (1982) studied th e relat i o nsh i p of ntne types of academicengage mentand in tegrated pr o c es s sk i ll s achteveme n t .The cat eg or-ie s of thes cen~aKem cn ts wur-et atte n d i n g , recal ling, col lecting, comp re he ndi ng, qua ntify i ng,planm ng,genera lizing, non-ioognjtLve lind off - task. (Tob i nand Capie , 19 8 2 ). They fo u n d Iha t tltlelldi uK/Iud generaliz ing, toget her wi th fo rm al rea soni ng abtltty , weee rel ate d to process sk i llsachiev emen t and r-e tentlun, Tiley invite res earchersto fur t her explo re th isfillid.
The.o d est con trl b u tl o n orthis res e ar c h willhopefu lly tr!lur e r .oredi ilcu slJlon s ro c u sed on under.tanding:wh a t chiIdr en dowhen theylear n a se c ond I_ncv _c e o
REVI EW OF RF:LAn:1lEMP IRICAl.ANDTIIRORETICAI. STIIlHI~ S
"TIle yma k epr edi ct i ons , I:on fi rmor /'(~jt' cl !I,)'I",l/u'S I-" ~. cc rre ct,and ccntLnue;" (Courtl an d ,19 91 ).
Onemightassu me t hat Ihc s o \'lordswere writtellhy f\
scienc e educa tor to de s o rlbusome of theIQcnllll pr oeess os chll dr-en use tosolve pr obl ems illsci eueo , Thcy wer c , howe v er. written by a langUAgc eduna tor-who rl'Vi t:WI,,1 ps y cholingui sticl i terat ure , Ps y cho lilll{lli slsnr o (~lJIIC(!I' fll' (t withthe eelattonnh Ipbctvccnmcss eues,11111 till'hllllUlll cha r acterist icsof tho s e whocr-eatcamlin terprct lh"fll. Tlil''y study: a) themenIaI pr O C(' SSll Ssp lluk . ' rllor weltees experiencein the i r attempt10 conv ey int ention s vlu " cml". nnd b) the subs oquentde c o ding pruc e x s cs Iisl elll' r s 01' r-e ed er-s expe ri e nce inthei r attempt tos suimtla t e tilt,st~lll messa ge.
Ali t e r at ure reviewusullilyaerv e e the f>ll rp us t'of establishing both thec r-et icnl persp ectLves 1I/1e1cmpil'i .:al fin ding s in th erns eer ehor'sper-tlcu Lar ric-I IIor inv estig ati on . The pre sen t researcher wil l abide-hy 1I1is traditio nIn pre s entin gf\ eenvcnttonal llternture~wllrili .ill part I bulwiII als odigre s s sl ightly fr otn thl! stlilltlitr d form a t inpre s entin g a part IT. Tlds is nl!l:essllry lW(:HIISll"r
the moretheoretlealthan empirical natureor this investigation.Th e literature sea r c h in part II will be an in t r i n s ic part of hypothes i s testing ror thi s st ud y. It wi 11 attempt to assess the theoreticalvalid ityof us ingthe seco n d language learn ingproce s se s asa tool tor the en hence rec nt of chi l d re n 'sski lls at usLng-the scient i fi c proc es s es.
The sec o nd part of this lite ratur e sea rc h will beai med atve r i f yin g the smtlaetttesbetw e en twose e mi ng l y different learn ingactivit ies. This will be done by seman t i c a l l y analyzingtheoretical pu bll.c a ti o n s in the respe ctivedomainof sec o n d language learning andsci e nce proc e s s skiLfa, Vi aa mapp ing pr o ces s thesimi l a ri ti eswi l l behighlig h te d .
LI terature Re"iew PartI
Scienceprocesl'll skills- prerequisite to reading?
A wo rk tllat closely re sem b l es thepre sent stud,)' was donebyMerr ick s ' (1975). Th is rese a rc hwas con ce r n ed with the possibl eenhancement er rect or learning scie nc e pro c es s skillson re a d i n g abi l it y. Merrick s 'review of lite r atur erevealedther.e n e r e I opin i on that the learning orscie nc epr ocesssk i l l s sh o u l d enhance the reading ab i li t y or chil d re n. Merrick s went on to establi sh a
Shelist e d c.1I the ba si c sk ill s need e d to mas t e r II.
re a d in g aetlv i t)' an dcompa re d themto the skills chidre n would exe eet s e ina pr oc e s s - o r ie n t ed science class.In a pro c ess - o r i ent ed en vi ro n ment, chil d r e nwo ul d manip ula t e concre teobjectsin orde r to aequire the sk il ls of n sc ie nti fic investig at or . Merri ck s sug gests that ICll.r ll i n ~ scie nc eproc e s s e she lped to est ab lis hgo od rea di ng ha bit s.
Me r r i ck s discovered thatgrad eon e st uden tswho fo l lowe d 8prescribedsciencecompone ntcurriculu mwb i c h co ns is t ed or a comb i n ati o n or KS CS (Elemen ta ry Scienc e Cur ric u l u mSt u dy - a process -b as e ds cten ec curric u l um) lind SRM(Selected Re adin gMat e ri al - re a di. ngma t eri al s eLe c t ed by theinve st i g a t or rele va nt to th e topi c s an d act iv iti e s or theES CSkits) e chieve d sig nifiCAn tly bett e r on the Gates- MaeGin itie Readin g Test tha ngr ad e one stude n t s who wer e ins tru ct edwi thESCS III one , SRM alon e, or wer e not gi ve n any sp ecial instru c ti o n. Sheals o df s eev e e edth a t the gro u p Inst r uc ted wit h ESCSal on e did sig nifica ntlybette r than theSR M or cont ro l g ro up ,Th e trend was not. however,obs e r v edat the gr a de J tevet, She sur mised that le arn i ngthesci encepro c e s s sltll lshad mo r e in fl ue nceon the ch il dren'sreadin g skil ls atan ear lie r Ilgc th a nat a later sta ge.
10
Mer ri ck s' work thus suggests a close
eelaLl urrshI p be tw e en a compo ne n t of la n g ua ge le arn in g, n~mcly re e ding co mp r e he nsi o n, andscie n ce proce s s sk i l ls . TIlepresent researchis simila r in the sense that it see ks 10ma k e the conne c t i o n between language learning and the aqu Lst tlon of scienceproce s s s!: i l ls. It differs in that itseeks to pro vi d e evidence th a t a form of lang uage Icarning, narIH!ly second la n gua g e learn i n g, hasdev elopmenta l po t e ntl al fo r enhancingch ild r e n'sskillsat using the the proce ssesof sc i enc e . In acer t ain wa y it is the reverseof Merricks' positio n.
I'lla rni ng 8 second la n g u a ge- Effect oncog niti o n
Tu c k e r (I!Hll) an d Kes sler &Quinn (198 0 )re v i e we d lit e r a t u re 011 the effect
or
bili ngualis mandsec ond langu age Il'a"n i nl{'Ill co gniti on . They repo rt that the early Iftc e e tur-e, pa rtlculer ly before the 19GOs, warnsof the risks tnvotv cd ineduc a t i n g a chi l d bilingua l ly. There !' ~8 r chproduc ed theori e swhichcla i me d that ps ychi cenergy
us ed lipby the bilingu als in their at t e mpt s to maste r the la n g u llgewas done et the expenseof therscthc rtongueand otherski ll developerent,Bilingualismwas as sociat ed wi t h mental confusion, lang uag eha n d i c a p , retarda tionof con ceptuali :z:ation, and schi:z:ophre n ia, not tome n ti o n ala b e l ofbeingmorally untru stworthy .
Conte mpo ra r yresearchersclaimquitetlif fere nt as so ci at ionswi t hbilingu a l ismthan carl iNstudtes, Mo st con tempo rary res earch e rsclaim that the proce s s of
lear nin g a sec o n d lanKUlllrc en h ances the juar ner'scOKn itiVI' gr o wth(Be nZee v , 197 ::!; Cummi n s , 198 3; Keulcr<IeQuinn, 1987;Malak oU,19 8 8; Lambert 1990 ). Simila r fiTulin!tswr-ee rep ort e d in nine dtrrercnrcount ries.
The ee rlier-slu d i e s werecri ti c iz ed on 11 1I~il' met h o d olo g y. Th e y we r-e based011exper i e nc e s ill the Unite d
s
tetes which dealtwithimmigrantslearnlnjr ~J1ll'l ish.The co nclusi ons were found later to be rel ated to other factor s ,suchas SES, adapt i ng tu IIIIt~ W euvtroueu-nt, 1~11:•• rather than to thefa c t
or
be ingbi lingual.'l'ucker (Ill!l! ) noted that in a lar ge numher or cases I ittlesttompt 'II"!1 made toassess the pro ficiency le v el of the "h ilinguolll"under inve stigatio n.
Th e "neg ative" reportswere ulec eXlI.llIin cd fro Uln ped agogicalpo in t of view,Con t emporary ees enrohc rs consi der ed the ped agog yof instr uct io n for the"bII iflll"IUII"
as beLng ofthe "aubtr actl ve" typ e.Lam b erI (11)75) proflosnd thenoti onsof "subtracti ve "an d "addit ive" biLingnalLmu, Su b t ractive bili.ngu a lism isa lingu ist ic s etttng in "hid l the learnin g of ase c on d languag eoc c u rs III the expe nse
"r
themo t h ertcna-ue,The learne rs rindI-. clos e! veil "su bmerse d"
12
in a torei g n lanl{ua g e whil enot nur turing the ir nat iv e Ian ltua g e(LJ). Th e y8.ttempt to concep tuaIie e 1. e,, use the lang uag c llSan instrum ent
or
t hought ,with initi al access to ver yl i t t leforeign lan gua g evo c abulary . It is rea s o na bl eto IlSSU IllC tbatunde r the s e con d i ti o ns aslo wi ng downGt the c0lt nitiv egrow t h couldre s ult."Addi t i v e" bilLn g ue l Lee ,on tlte ot her hend, r e r ersto the lear n ingof LZ und er opti mu mcondi t io ns wh e nthe cogrd t i vc grow t h ot th e stude n t is actua l ly enhance d by becomingbilin g ua l .Thisph en omen on,howe v er , occu rson ly in
».ver y few ca s es.Resea r ch ha s no t ye t ex p l a i ne d how or why it docs occur. The Fre nc h imme rs i o n prOKr aD1 11'1a good exa mp le oran attempt to pro vid e this ki nd of "add iti v e bil i ng ua l" edu c a tio na l se tt i n g . In this pro grazn child re n learnasecond la.ng u a ~ ewh i lenurt u ri n g theirmoth erton gue.
Res e ar cher s are now, howev er , ackno wledg i ng possi b le det r ime nt toFren ch immers io nst ud e n ts' lea rni n lr or su b j ect are a content . Tra d e-o rt s IDay leadto etudcnee ' su ff e r i n gof co n te n t lal' in some subje c t area s. In an attemp t to exp l a i nwh ysomest udentsco u l dben e f itfrom a bi l i ng ua l educ a t io nex pe rie n ce and other s cou l d i10 s s ibly su f fer some neg ative conse q ue nces re l a t ed to cu rr i cui urn co n ten t , Cummin s (1978) propo s ed th e 't h re s h o l d hypothe sis' :
Th e thr eshoJdhypoth e si s prop o ses tha t the cognit i ve growth and academi c effect s
ot bili ngu al i smaremed ia t ed bythe level sof comp e te nc e whi ch thebiling u al chi l d att a ins in£1and L2.(Cu lIUll ins 1978, p. 858)
The hypothe :ds fu rt h ersug gests thatthe chil d must att a i n a min i mulD lev el of compet e ncy in the seco n d langU Age inord e r to avoi dcogn i t i v e disadvanta g e and, con vcrso Ls,IIIUStat tai n ahi gh er mini mum level in or der to bene f i tfr o l1l the po s i tiv e ettects of bilin gu alism .Cu mmi ns (1978) claim s thai Dlo sl of the ear 1ier studies, prop o slngthene r ative impllc t of bilingu ali s lD on cog n i t i o n , we r e carried ou t with ch i l dre n learnin g in a "sub t r acti ve" lingui sti c environm en t , whereas themore re c ent st ud tes in v o lved subjec ts"i mmcr lw d" in B language progra m- an "add i tive" bilingua l i sm co n t e x t .
Carey (1984) does not deny the pos s i ble exis tence ofIi relat i on sh ip betwe en biling ualis m and co g ni ti ve enhaneeieont, Carey claitns lho we ver. that there are no stud Ies :lho" i n"
"po siti ve "re sultswhich ce nnet be cha l le nge d onltro undsof st u d e n t selec ti o n , par en tal and teacher attI tud e s or sc e Lo- eeen e e te status . Her ec cea endstha tecre re searchne e d she don e in order to establish a dc ti n itJve relationshi pbet ween e econ d langua g e learning an dcog ni t i o n,
The disput e over the influenc e of bili ngu al educ at ion oncogn i tio nse e ms to cen ter on the ahi Iity to conce p t ua l Lz e (dec la ra ti ve knowledge).Conce pt s , eve n ts andfacl s weknow abou tare class i f ie d asdeclarativeknowlod lf /O! , Thefocu ll of
14
this st,. d y, hewevee , isconcerned withthe in f luenc e
or
LZ lear n i ngon pro cedunl kn owle d ge . Proc edura lknowled g ei.con c ern e d wi t hskilt s and proces ses tha t we kno who wto perrot. ; it Is best lear ned by obsetv t n ll'an expertmodel and practic i n g:ot ten . ac cDllIpan iedby fe e dba ck (Garn4! 1985).
Tbompson(1990 ) e o.ndueted an Inte rvi e wst u dyAmOOr seco n d.r yschoo l stu d ents to assess their understandi ng
or
scie n ceproce s ses.lIis fi nd i n gs re v eal ed tha t so me stude nts IIIftynot he ab le to ex p l a in what thesc ience pro ce s s sk i lls arebut arcnevert hel e s s proficie ntat tlst nl{ them.Ja c o b (1991) pre pared 8 reporton theeva luation of theprogres s or six th-gra de stu d en ts inusi n g thepro ce ss sk il ls to solve probl clu inscienc e (Newfoun dla nd and La br a d or: ARepor t or 1090 Eh'.ent.r1'Sc i enc eAssesslle nt).He repo rt s th a t the
slud e nts, even tho ur h the ywerenot ('lven rorlllal ins tructio n
in thein tt!' grated pr oces s es, didbetter tha n an tici patedon queaI ion s tnveIv1"('inIer r. Ied proce s s e s. It would thusbe reaac n e b l e to su lt ires t th a t a deficien c y in de etaeettve kno wledgedo csnot eut osaa t l e ell y imp l ya deficiency in pr-o cedu ral kno wle dge.
Posi t h e ef fect of L2 lear n ingon problcal-sol ving abili ty insei e n ee
Th e hyp othe sJs or this o:tud yC'm "nll l('~ llIo!!'1dire ctly
t rolll the th eo re tical tr ame work . 5c on atru etedby xe e ste e"'ItI Quin n (1980).The y have fesjed the follo.inKh)'pulh cl'i.ll:
•••ad d i t hebil in lru als thal/ incrlea rn edII secend langua ge wit ho ut lo ssto tbe firsl' 'augl.1
"0"
(0 app roach the discrepAnt si t ueI ionspr-esen t e d in sci eneeproblelliS.,iII cxperjcoergr e ..tcr KAills in their hypoth~ sisqualifyBod li ltlfu isti c complexi ty "le ores tha ntheirmono/loKl u llpee rs . (Ke s sler alld Quin n, 1980,p , 299).The subjects tor thei r e xpc rtmcn t "'01' ('slx th-Itr lldcstudents, Twogrou p s were mcncl tng-ua l English- spcllk ill j,f (n co n t r ol/Iud an experimentalItr o u p ) andtwo ot her KroupN101'r(~ Spnn ish - Engl ishblLfngu ala , The Hispantc- Al8erlc llfl stlldent:l were'
sp ea k i n gpu pi ls .Theexpe ri_ en ta l18onoli njf\la l /lindJ.ili nKulil cro ups were instr ucte don.ct hods or acl enceinqui ry thr o u lt"lI rll. s anddisc us s io nsor phy s i c al scie ncepro ble'8!II .The stud entswe reask e d to wri te85_anyhyp"the~ " s asthe y could to lea dan investi gatio n or thepr obl e m!!pr es ented. The y were then to us eQuinn 'slIypothesi !lQualitySr.alt~
(1971)toev alua te their hypothese s an,l 10 il1lprovptbeir- ro rlllulati on, i fneed be.
At the end or thetrain ing scsstcne, the chil dr en w..re pr e sentedwi th additiona l fiImsessi o ns lin d "ere o:<lkc d to write.5many hypot hes e s as pos slble (_dthi ,. IheII110 we d
"
l i ..e l i. il)th a t coul d re asonebly had to an inv e s tig a tio n to s o Lee theproble .s pre s ented . Thehypotheseswer e scored tor qualityandsyn t a cti c cOlllp le xi t y. The9 ••e filmswe re prese nt e d to the con t ro l groups who we realso eva l ua te don the s ...e crileri ••
The e esu l tsshow e d that theEnlt lls h mon olingual experime n talgroup(giv en ins t r uc tion insc i e n c epr o b l e m- solving situatiO IlS) scor e d sign'fic a:ltly higher th a n the escn ctInguelco n trolgroup inthe quality
or
their hypo the se s and in the sy n t actic complex i t yor thewritt en lang uage to exp e ea s th e m.The Inst r uc t e d bilingu a lsor
8 lowSES ge ner ate d hyp oth e !lesor •
eucb hi a-h er quality and complexit y th8n did thebiIincu8 1eentecI gro up.Mor erel e va n t to thepres e nt st udy is the compariso n betwee ntheIochieYc.entsof biling'u al and.onol ing ua l l£"ro u p s.Theme a nscore or th e con tro l biIinj{ual group .as slij{h tlyaboyeth at or the co n t rol lIonolinl'ual I'roup. Both experi_c ntll l groupsshowedsi g n ificant itains (p<.0 01 ) liSa rc s ult or ha y l nit been ins t ruc t e d to tormul atehypothesis.
Thegain,boeever ,tor lh e bilin gual rrou p wa s ~•••tar e r e eter tha n that for themono li nrual {rro up l."
The resul ts pertaining to the compl ex it yat the IlIngulIjf e us e d to expres s thehypotheses are also
int ere s ting. Scoreson the comp l e x i tyof lan~ ll"g c fo r thu monol ingu al co n t rolgroup wer e slig htly hi gher til/HI the scoresat t a i n ed b;)'the biIlngu alcon trolgrou p. Uoth exper iment al grou p s sho we d sig nif icantgains(p<.OOI ) illtil. , complexi tyof the langu age used 10 ex p ro s s th eir hy p othcs es ; of thet....o, howe ver, thebiling u al grou pscored hil:lll' r.TIll' res ea rchers foun d that the re wasa high coerelattcnbet we eu scores on hyp o th es i squa l i ty and syntaetle comp le x i t y suggesti ng the foll o wing " .•• the cogni t iveRb i l i ty 10 form ul at escien ti f i c hyp o t htHlC Slind thl' tl rur uls t Lc competence to express them tnvol ve some of the slime underlying or gani 1.i ngprLnclplessv, This isn n Lnte r-estlrur obs e r v ati onthat ten d s to p re vldcevid encesup oo rting tlu- pre sentwork in g hyp othe sis .
Thepres ent study diLfers fromx esslernm lQui n ll' s ill that itdo esno t provide training ai me ddlreotLy lit outco mes to he tested.Al l the studentswi l l ha v e been instr uct ed with the snme re g ul a rt'lePlc n tllr y sl:i '~Jlf :"
curri cu lu m . This s tud y isalso not lim i ted to till' examination of abil ity to for mu la te hy pothes es. It fO<: lIse~
on thestude n ts ' abilitie s tous e, ingener al, al l processes - bas i c and integr eted• It isaimedat dete r mi ni ng' whet her the r e is a si g ni f ic a ntdirfcrl!ne(~ ill general ob ili l ies tous e th e peo ee s s es in acie n ech" t wl' I'"
18
II groupof"Oflollnj{uallyan dII group
or
bilin l[u ally eduealedgr ad esi xstu d e nts.Proble.!Jo lvi n g in lang uage
Prohl e lll~o hi nlt is si lllp lydefine d IIl1t1cur initcut wha t 10 ,10"hen one do csnot lIl)rcadykno wwhat to do. Th e proce s s demAnds th a t one thinks ab o utII plan or et te ek to bridge the K"P tro m thefamil iar to theun tallli lla r. The in v estigat o r 's
"IIHIusu a lly cons is ts In usingcer tai n str ateg ies to r-e e ch thn t goul .
I.i tcrat u rc on J"nlr uag e l ee r nt ne aboun ds with l('rraino lo lti e s usedby scienc eed uc a t o rs tode$cribethe pro ces sesor pr nble .. -sol vi n g-in sci enc e.Thl;! ps y cholingui sts r('rer to re ad in gliS a proble m-sa lvi n&" task. (Clark, 19 17 , 1918;Rickh eit and stech ner, 1945; Lak or t IIIllI Johns on , 1980.
fo'ed crik s tm 1990 ). The pro b lelll-so! v i nrapproachto under sl'Uldilll:sec ond languAg eha s dev el oped since theuseor the communic ati vc appro a ch to secon d laniua lle teaching . Probl c m-s olv in g lechn ique s to lear n i n ltII se c on d lang ua \re are used at two lev els s (II) indete r-mtnLng- themea ni n g or an utte eanc e- II scntencej an d (h ) in determi ning how that IIUIl(lltl gewor ks.
Re s eerche r-u conce r nedwtth sec ond languag e Ie ar n Lug de s c r ib e the ta sk asonene c essI 11\1 ing thelI~t~ of commu n ic a t io n str a tegies (Fa ('rch I\nnKn~ p (' r. 1 9 R3 1l. MarrieandNetten, 1991 , Ruhin , 197 5 • ste r u , 1975). Commu nica t i on strate gies us ed mostly in spc llki u K . flll.l some ti mes writ ing aredefined usr" •••petentLnl Ly rOllll(~i<lu~
plansCor solvi ng whal to an individua l pr ns on t s i1St'lr problem in rea ching a p e r ticul ar couunnntc et tvngoaL"
{Paer chan dKasp er ,198 3b).
Studen tsdesignated liS erfectIve Inng na gc
learne rs would , accor d i ng to O'Ma l le yan d Chllmnl (t!!l IO), IIIW
learning an d commu n icative strl\ te..-icsmo n ' thanstmteufs cat eg ertze d AS les aerro otlvc languag- e leae-ners,O'M ",II .~.y and Cb amotclass i f y learning st rn l~~i c s for ~1'e",..1lIn d forei gn langua ge into three major typ es: (1 )M.'1 IH:og uili ve st r a tegies; se lf - r egu l a t orystretegles in which II'lI ro.-,"S thi n kahcut thei r own t hinki ng , an dpili", monilor, lind ev a lua te their own lea rn ing end e avors; (2 ) eu g-nitlve strat eg ies ; task-appropri at e st ra teg ies ill which II~a", "!r!j activel yman i pu la tethe tnror erettonor sk ills to he ICll r llt-!Ij an d (3 )so cia l aridatre ctive str ate gies; strategics in vo l ving fnter ect ion wI th other s ror the pur-poseor learning , orco n tro l ov er one's ownaftectiv e!/tll. tl-
20
(Ch lHllol. 19 90).O'Mall e y and Ch..lot 'srev i e w or des criptive
!llnd ie s in !ll'cond lanltU8ltC acq u is ition le d thelll to believe
'hOltstudents use lear ning stra teg ics'lithall tour lan l!"u al' c
!lII il)s - lislrnin c. sp ea k ing . readin e . an d.r lling. Their fin d i ng'S fu r t her moreSUltlt e s t that learnin gst rat eg i e s used in n scc cnd I.n lrua!:"c ap pea r to be the saineas tho s e invol v ed
"tU!ll per r oflll l.nil:eoe e u n tca tIve and Ie arn i ni' ta sk s in the flr-sI IllJl gU8 1{....
Giv en thaI the lItrlltc g-ie s arc the sallie in either ti rst or second 'n nguRlt e learning, i twculd be rea s ona b le to eskbow the cogn iti ve experience
or
seco n d lang uage le a rning mi ght enhan c e pfob le lll-s olvin r abilities . Aplausi ble answ er (0 thisquestion canbeee rfved al by cXlllJlining theco g ni tive pro c es s e s invo lv e d In languag e acquisitio nan,]llpprecial int:' the intensi t y or the co glli t iv c d eeend illlpo:le d on thech ildwho is learn i ng a seeon d laugu 8 !:e InFrench illlllle rs io n.CU_IIIII.S(1983 ) con t rihul cd llIaj or st udie s on the ed uc a tiona l developmen t or chi ld r e n in Immersion.Ill' clai ms tha t .. '" biling ual chitd rcn have beCIIexpos ed to considerab ly lIIore "t rll i n inr"inanalY7. ing anetIn ter preting lah t:'u8 g etha n unili ngual chi Ldreu" {p, 120).
Anothe r impor hn lquestionthet need s to be 1"'1iJed is:
sLnce sec o nd lahgu are learni ng Israr trornbe inga new
dis cipli ne lind its pro c e s s e s see mana logtc a l 10 the cu e of so l v ing problems, whyha s thecommuni ty of scient i ficed uca t orsnot cap it alized all thi s pra etLc e to sup p o r t their
err
crtat t eaehing-theproces s e s of solvtne probl ems inscience?One po s sible ans wor to Ihi s<JU{l ~11iO Il is tha t since the pr-ob Lem-esolvinjr app roach tound('r stn ll<l i n~second language learn ing isrel a t i v ely ne w, thepO:'llli hilit y of expl oring the se tde aa ha s de v elo ped si nc e Itne ut s t s st a rted to recomm endtheus eof communi c ativ e ap proll chc s ,..
secon d la n g u a g e te a chin g.Th is ped ag ogycan be ct) mpfl l' I~,1 to the "hands-o n-approa ch" to scie nce teecbtng, a r otnttvoty newperspe ctiv e, whe r{'theLe a rner-s e xperiment wilh Ill(' secon d lan g u a g e.Thi s appr oach ha s be e n IIp plied1'1I1'liculllrly to theEreneh immersioncla s s r oo m, whe re llll' "'rl' od, In lllPIllIP ' is le arned as a "by - p r oduct" , so to ape ak , of le a rlli nK ccntent, The foc u s ismo reon themessag e, n nd Hoi soMllll:h on le arning abo ut the gr a mmarof the In ngu llj.tc . SCil! IH~I~
edu ca t orswer e the mselve s e xp LorLng-wi th theeOll;'I' (d of Ihl'
"ha nds on"app roac h in thei r dis cipl in ewhen th l' lilll{llist~ pro mo t ed an exper ienti a l tr oetmc nt ofseco nd lIH'I{HlI J{ I ' lea r n ing. Awarene s s and debate ov e r the tr a nsfcr abIIity ..f pe d ag ogic s were thusnot lik ely tu su rface hc Lur e 1l,(HOllleh underst an ding of the s enew ped a g o gic s incach discipIlne.
Acritiqueof thevie wtha t chil drenCIH'lise thl~
proble m-so l vi ng pr o c css to le a rn a secon d 1fl.lIgU IIl( C is
"
prese nt e d byOle y-V r oman (19 89). He considers lan g uag e as •
"eee p Lt eated ab st ra ct torma] sy st e m, [lorwh ic h ) young chi l drenseem no t 10 ha ve thegerrer al cognitivecapacity to deal wi th it"(p.53). Bley - Vr oman thus te nd s towa r d the PiaK eti a n the or ywhich SIiIYS thatthe abi l ity to use tor mll l th in king isre str i ct e d tochi ld r e nwhohav eat le a st re a c h e d thepuberty stage ([nhel d er an d Piage t ,1958 ).Bley- Vroma n Isecre or the opin i o n that that pre-pubert y chi Idr en acquire.II. IBn g u agefath e r than I earnit. He nek e s a dfsttnetton betwe en acquirin g and en dlea rn ing a langua ge, relc rin g toacqui siti on as .... . theuncons ciou s
inte r na li z a t i o nof knowled ge "and learnin g as
"••• the cons cio us le arnl ng of ex p l ici t rul e s " (p.43). Ble y-V r omnn als opropo s e s that the learn er s near ing ad cle s eene ewou ldte,~1to lose th e abi Iity to acqu i r ea language and star t le ar n ing it viaa proble m-s o l v i ng appro ac h. Th is positi o nwouldtendto su p po r t the appropriaten e s s otin t e g r atin gthe twosu bj ec ts ot secon d languag e le arn ing an d problem- sol v inginscience at the juni or hilth le v el tor thepurpo s eor enabli ng thetrans f e r of prob le m-so l v i n gsk i l ls from one su b j ec t area toano th er.
Wheth erthe proc e s s ot learn i n gaseco n d lang ua g eat en earlyageis consciousor unc o n s ci ou s doesnotta k e away from th emental ac ti v i ty that childre n must ex p er i e nce in or de r to learn or ac quir e a language. Thechi l dre nare
lacedwith the formidabletask
or
communicatingby di s cov ering a language code and then using that co d e to fo rmu l a t eme s s a ge s.The only probe available to themIs their knowledge"t thefi rllt la n gu a g e th a t callbe used so to unde r-at and thetunctl o nni n g ot these c o n d (anlCuale.Prob l e . sol vi.n gproce ss es
Accordingto Brun er(1960) problem- solvingstr u t eg Le a can be broken down inlo two ba sicproces s e s: (1) hy p ot h ll!':is generation and(2 ) hypothe sis testing .Writer s or lit erat u re on rirl'lt language learn in gand seco n d la n g u ag eIca r n iu ll' identifyth e s e two proce s s es asbeste to the acq ui sition of thefour la n gua g esk i lls(rcading, list e ning , sp enld ogDod wri tin g). Wardhaugh (1914) andScbLck edens e t a l ; (1983) observed that co mpre he ns i o nisan activep eoeos a,Undc r - standingwould challenge the re a d e ror the I Lst en e r to consta n tlygenerate hypothese s about the incom i n gmC S SIlKC S . Thereceptive learnerattempts toma t c h th e s e hypotheses withoth e r lingu i stic cu es that are available . It hypoth c !:le s turn out to be in a d e q ua t e the lear ner readilymoditl es them .
Se cond l.!I. n gua g e lea r n i n g theori stsdescr ibe l ang u age le a r n i n g proces sesas hypothesis ror mulationand test i n lit.
Re s earchersFaerch&.Kasper (t983) de s cribea aede Iot second la n g u a lf e(L2) learning asco g nitiv e l y oriented.
Accordingto this model the Je ar n er would participa te
"
acti ve ly ineo_ u n le. t heeve nt a establishin&,andtdtl ntr hypothes e s abou tLZ. In th e pro ce s s or lear ni llg a seco nd lanKo_ ge , t'll'Otypesor hypothe se s are I'ener atfd: (1) abo ut the.ea nine-or the_e a s.ce f and (2) .l.out certainaspectsor howL2 worka .
Co n clullt!!B
The lilerat uresearch revealed th at the pr oeeas es
or
gener atinghypothe s e s an dtes tln ltthe sehy poth e sesse e ll tobebasi c10 le arn i ng8,second la n lru ag c andsolv i n g peoblesas inscienc e.Th ereareindicallons thatyo ung pupi ls donot understa nd thepr oc es s tha t the y&,0 throu gh whe n lea r n i ng .seco nd lani' u_,e. It •• ybethat theyOURI' L2 lear n er is unco n c:iously acq uitln&, the langu. l' era ther than UllinI' the.oread u l t proble M- !!ol vinlrappr o ac h to le.ro inl"
Th e le ss French lanl'ua ~ epr o fic ie n t i_er.lon st..dent elao r hks tr a i Iin gbehind theregular strea. stu de n t as raras con ten t lea rninlf isconc ern e d. The go alot thi s thesisis not to Initi at ea debateon wbe therthe le arn ingot a sec o nd language is co n s ci ousor not. or ev enwhet her the immer s ionchiId wiII be succ e s s f ul at lea r ning the se cond hnguage.This stud y is1Il0r e concer nedwHb the cogni live exeecrs e the chi l dgoes thr ou gh to acquirll/l ear na secon d lang ua lfe. I tailnsat 0) idenli f yin ll"thechil d's ecpIng llIe ch an islll ina lingu isticmaze and (2)drawlnll"out sl. f lo.rIUe s betw een th eL2 lear ne r'sco...umeet tv e
st ra t eg i esan d thepupLlea ctentisttsstr ate g ies when solv i ng prob le ms. Thepr e sent re s carcher's position cnnhe su mme d up in t he fol lowing way; Themere attempt lit wOI' killl{
out the ru le s of langu a g e , te st ing ou l hy pothesl's about language. reject ingend refo rm ul at i ng th es e hypother.ca canno t butbehel pful insha r p eni ng theYO "I1 ~ 1111ll{11 1lR"f' le arn e r' s inqu i ryski l ls.
Reviewof Lit erature Part II
COlllp a ring 5ei('ne c an d I nngllag c II'llrninl!proC IHlliNI
"P r o blem-s olving ha s lon gbeen id ontIfied nsUlll'
or
the basi c ob jectiv es of s ei enue tnstr-uctton;"
(Man d e l l,1 9 80 ).The Commissio nonSci e n c e Edueation of th e AmericanAs so ci ation fo r theAl!v ll nccrllc lllfir SCi l' lIl'"
ha s re c o gni z ed andcategorized 11 pr-o ee s s e sI)OIlS i,ler e ,1n~;
rep re sentetLve of prcbLem-u cIvIngact ivit y (Gll!:nb 1!l7 0). The sepr oc es s e s are broke n down tnto twogr ou ps : (ll ) hn sil:
proc e s se s includIngcbs er vLng, mCllsllr i n«, illfcrr inK, pr edicting , classi fying ,an d col lecti ng And re c orrling dat a ; and (b) the inte gr atedpro ce sses incl u d i ng inter p reting dat a,contro l l ing var iah les, def ining op erat i onal ly, for mulating hyp u th eses ,Hntl(,Iil' IH~ r i lUl· Jll i"lt.
Acc ord i ng to theElementar y Scie nceCurric ulumr,lJ i..le (Go vernmentof Newfo und l and and Lab rador, I!lS!) , stu dents ill
"
the prim a ry l;"radcs are g-Lv en theopp o r tun i t y to practice the ha s Le processes in sci ence Bnd theupper ele mentaryirradc etudc ntsore initiated to the Int eg r ated processe s.Since st ude n ts in the upper elcmcntary g r ades wou l d be expe ete d to ha v e had amp lepr ac t ic e wit h the ba sic pr ocessesin their primar y years, it is expected that therewou ldno t be any dtrro r en ce be t we en the r eg u l ar-and French imme r sLon gr a d e six students in the ir abilities to utttts.e these proce s ses. For this r e ason i t...anbearg ued tha t (OCll Son compar ing students ' abLlLt Le s 10 utilize the basic proce s ses isnot wa r r ant e d . Adisc uss i on on thesimi la r i t i es betweenba si c science pro c ess es an d ps y ch ol in gul st i c processeswill none thn les s he in c lu d e d top rcvtde a th e or eti c al fra mewo rk for futurer e s e a r oh in "he area of scie nceand second lnng uu ge education at the pr im a r y le v e l. A stronger emphasi s wi l lbe placedon thee s se s see n t of success with the in teg ra te dproce s se s si nc e the latter arc introd uced to students at the elemeuta r y leveL, It is assu med th a t th e studen ts wouldnot, fo r the mo s t part,ha v e attaine d a high le v el of prof ic ie nc yat us ing thesehigher level pr oces ses . It appears tha t aoee Integrated pro c e sse s such8S hypo the- sizing end experi me n ti ng are usedextensively whe n a Il\n g u l\g c is le a rn ed experie ntia l ty such as in theFre nch ireme e sLo n program.Comp a r ison of FI e Leeienter z st ud e n t s' score s on the lise of the integ rate dprocesses to the scores
of the regularst reeo el ementer s stude n ts sho u ld thus reveal an advantagefor theFIstudents .
The followinganaly siswill present evi d e nce t het the basicand the in t egrat e d pro ce s ses us ed ins cienn care very 9111'.118r toeo e e ot thestrat e gies used by the Illn a-ulllf c learn er. ScJen ttricde rinition sof the proce s s e s us e din solving problem swill be comp are d to enu nc i a ti o ns troUl t he fi eldat lingu i sti c s de sc r i b i ng themcnh.l aetsperformed by thelanliruag e learner.
Use ot spec i f ic problem-ao}vlngprocc ssc fl Obse rv i n g
Coo ke,Haye s , and Jane s (1979), author s of "Sca rchi n K torgteu et ue e? , a seLen c e text bo ok torthe Intermedi a t e gr a d es defin e the pro c e s s
or
obse r v in g est "'fhe p eeeeivfng at an obje ct or eve n t us inganyot the sena es " {p. 4 1.Obvious lythe sec o n d language lea r n er ' s eueces s ea at de c od i n g written or sp o k e nme ss agesisrauch depe ndent ett enttv enee s tograp hi c ftn tl phoneticellen.There ishowever moreto ob se rv ing th a n just using sense s to perceiv e objects or ev e nt s. Sci e n ceed u ca t o rs and language ex p e r ts cla im In parallel statements that the pupil-scicntist antithe language learner bothen d ea vo r to obse r ve obje ctsor eve nte rroma particular per spe cti ve. Inv estigators' aeerch for clues isguid ed by limitation siMpo s ed by the i r hy p oth es is.
"
The hyp ot he si s itse lris lor. ulated to solve a spe c i f i c problem. Good/llan (1 9 6 7 ), pre s entinl' • aodel of re ading . describes Ihls ac t ivityall• ps y ch ol in r uLttio:::Ira _e. In the fhiI'dpOlllulate or th eecdeL, Goo d••nde ee etbea the re.d er ~ obser ve r:
No.begins theselecti on pro c e s s.Hepi c ks upgr a p hic cues , gui dedbyco nstrai ntsset up thro ugh pri or choices , hJs lang uage /cnowl ed lre, hiscOl'n i li vt!'sty les an d strateg ies he has learn e d.{p,US)
Sigilarl y science educa t o r Griffit hs (19 8 7) state s: ,••ulti mate lygo od ohse r vi n l' is not .In depende n t of theory. Rather itdep ends upon theexi sten ce of an underl yin g co ncep tu al ba;scwhich cues the observer tose ewha t ot her.lse..ll'h l notbe seen. (p .S)
AdmittedI,)'. seco n d langual(c1ear ne rlll(L2) and pupi1- sc i entist.donot solvethe ss. e kin dotproblem s. The y do.
lIo",ever. US I! th eir 8ens e sto cbeeeee even tsor ob J ec t8 In the i r r eepcct Le een vl ron_ en l.
Meas u rin g or Qu ant itying
Takenatfac evaluethedefinit i o n of .ea stlr ln gor quanti tying aeeep ted by science ed uc atorsdescribes remark a b ly well ano ther mentalproc e s s e xper- Lenced by theL2 learner in anat temp t tosol ve communic a tive prob le ms. Coo k eet al (1919)det in equantltyt n l' as: "De s cr i b (in I' Je or compa r in g obje cts or even ts acc ordi ng toa conve nti on a l st a nd ar d"(p.5) . To verity the accuracyot his wrltt en or
"
oral production, the L2 learnerneces sarilyref er s to the grammaticalcode of the l anguagestudied.Rut-in (1915) concurs : "Th e good language learner monitorshis own aud the speechor others. That is, he is cons t antl y attending In how well his sp e ec h isbeing rec eivedandvhethe r hi s performanceeeets thestan d ardshehas learned" (p . 4 7 ).
No t wi t hs tan d i n g thedifference in thest andas-ds use d in the twodis ci p l i ne s , i t can re as onab l y be inferred that the pupil-scientistand the language le arn e r both usc sh d l ar procedural knowledgewhen comp a r i n g data agains t aknown st an d a r d.
Interring
The literature en language le arningabounds with references to the proce ss
or
inter r ingas II. st ra tc R'Y to en h a nc e language sk i l ls. Sch ic k e d a n z et 81 (1983) ; St e r n (1983) ;O'Malley an d Charllot (1990); andGoo d lll8n (1961) all agreethat language l e.ie ner s us c inrercncing68 a tit r a te g y to understanda textor an in- co mi n g me s sag e or to con structgrammatical ru l esbased on observ ed r ezule r Lt Le s, Carton (1966) has co n tr i b u te d a grclltdeal to theunder- standing or therole or jnferencing in langullg eLc e rn l ng-, lie observed: "l n d l vi d u a J learn e r s vary ecccr d l ng- to the ir propensity or making inrerenees, toleranc eor ri sks anrl abilityto make valid,rational and r eason e bLe tnrer enees"30
(p. IS).Ru bi n(1975), para p h r asi n g Mu elle r (1971 ) ,de s c r ibe s the IOcnhl acti v it y of th e re a d er or thelist e n er :
Th e!ro odread er and the good list ener can under sta n dwh ilepa y i ng att ent i on to 8 lIIiniIDulD ofcues . He ca lloverl o okunkn o""
word s,or ca ll rcad even though fo cu sing on con le n l words. Such8 pe r son gu c"SCl'i, or maJ:e s infer en c e s about. themea n i ng at wordsor sen te nc est r uctur e . A.wrong guess doe s notdi sturbhim , but is qu ic k l y correc t e d fromsubs e q uen tcon t e x t. (p.IS)
Theess entia Iof scie nc e ed ucators ' unders ta n di ng of infe rence can notbemore closel y re l at e dto "hal ha s ju st be en quot ed tromthe lang-Illlg e le ar ni n gLLt erat ur-e, The y de f in e in fe r r i ng as :
Dralfln g conc lusio ns bas e d onevide nc e that ma y nol bedirectl y obs ervabl e . Inf e r en ce goesbey on d obs er vation ; itott e n invol v e s
11jud g ement tha t ca n bete st ed throu ghfurth er observa tions. (EJ e ment a r y Scien c e Cu r ric u lu m Gu i de,NCIJto l.ln d Ja n d and Labr ador , 1989 , p.l9)
Con te mporar y ll ng-usstsag r e eon the lingu i stic comp o n en ts thatcomp osealangu age,Th ey ide n ti fie d si x bnatc cetegc rfe s r Phon eti c s/phonology ,morphol o g y , syn t ax , lcxtcolcev, semantics , and dfs cou r-a eRna l y s i ~.
(Ch astaln.19 76 ). The langua gelearn erin a co mmunic a tive environmen t mu s t solveprob lems that are related to al l these componen ts. Goodman (196 7 ) sug g es ts that there a de r proc esse s three kin d sof Informat i on simu lt a n eo us l y, namel y
gra phic (le tte r symbols), syn tac tic {ecntenccstructu re) a.'1d sema ntic info r mati o n.Go od ma n observesabou t the r cndee r
liepredictsand antic ipa fes on the ba sis of thisinf o r mation,samp li nlr fro mthepri nt just enoug h toconfir m his gues s orwh a t' s cOD',;ng-, to cuemoresemant ican dsy nt acticin fr...mlltion.
(p.IJI)
Compa ri njfth e ment a l proces sen u nciate d above 10 the pr oc e s s of predictingas defined by the scien ce educ at or:
"Fo r ec ast i ng fu tur e eve ntson thebas i sot obs crv....d regu lariti e s in pa st eve nts" (Cooke etai, 19 79 ), itcn n reasonablybe as sume d that the twoproe es s e s lire ine a snnee theeeme,
Clas sify i n g
Cl ass ifyi n g isdef ine d as: "Gro uping obje cts Ktlcnrd ill g to direc t l yobserva b lepr o pert ie s ." Co oke e t.1 (1919). Pupi l -scien ti sts as wel l as la n gu a g e learn er s catcg-orLze ror apar ti cular purpo s e - that of so l vi ng problems . Lon g uRKll educ ato rs' stat ements cle ar ly ide nt i ry theusc or thin proccss and it s pu r pose. Schikedanz, York, St uart, end Wh it e (1983)' sre v i e wof litera ture le d toth e obse rvati on thatlIlan ypre school and even pr illla ry stud en ts cannot segrne nt real la n g u a g ein t o un its sma l ler than th esy lla b le.I t follows that "[ilt the y cann o t do this , theycann o t solve th eprobl em of de ter min in g whic hof seve ral words ata rt with thesame or withdif f erent sou n ds " (p.181-88). Fur t h er more Schic keda n z et al re fer to acategorizat ion difficult y when
try imCto ex p lai n why you n gstu de n ts have ap e cbLeuwith sp elling. They st ate:
Thus , eve n thoughyoung childre n re a ltae that spe ll inA'"is rel at ed to howalford so u n ds, their sp ellin g conta i n serrors be c au se the y ca t e g o r isesou n ds diff er entJ y. (p.196)
The p rc c eus of classiryi nlt ise lacwidel y us e d by the second la n g u a g e le arne r s . Ru b in (19 7 5 ), referri ng to the fore i gn I e nguag-e Iear ne r , concurs :
fie at tends to thefor.ina pa rti cul ar wa y, cons t a n tly analy zing, categori sinlf , syn l hesi:d n g.He isco ns la n ll ,y tr ying tofind sc hemes fo rclass ify i ng informat ion. (p.47)
Thepro ced ura l knowledge of cl as si fy i ng isthusa men tal pr ocess tha t ill; exe rc ised inmor e than one dis c ip l i n e .
Collect ingandRe cord ing Da ta
The co ll ec t i o n ofdata is cer tai n l y an u:ti v U y that is famil iar to the for eign languag e lea rn e r . 't he L2 learn ercan eas i ly be conce i ve das on e who co l lec ts lingu ist i c dat a ema n a ti ng fromthe en vi ro n ment for thepurpo s e of analy s i s , syn t hesis and su bseq ue n t ec e e u n fcetten•
Re cor d ing scien ti fic data, which consis tsof orga n iz ing Inf o rm at ion collec te d in suc ha way as to faciIitate its inter p r eta tio nbyother s , isequ ivale nt theproce s s of
ee eeeu nteetten , Lanltu llge specLalLsts Seh i e ke d flll7. et III (1983) descr ibeth eeo ....unteetten sllill liS:
••• !heabilityfa select an d or gll Jlil .. "lf~
in for lllllliion that is neces sary 10 con v ..y :on that ot he r peop le kn ow "ha' it is weArc try i n g 10 lell 'hem. (p.J8D)
The scientificcommun it,)' use s different wor ds to deLinr- the- communi c ating proce s sbut th e mClln i n g la11I1lIie "l l y thr :-:nm.':
"descr i bi ngebje ets e v ents or flndlll l{ll(dll.lJl. ) 110!llld others can kno....ther-e sultof ob.sc r vlllll>J1."
(Cooke et al , 197 9 , p.5).
Ad mit ted ly the re Is IIdifr rl' Cu c " hl~I'"'I~1I tIrc elr, sieal presenta tion tOflllats or scienti ficdat"and tI"... "r J111- cuis t i c data ,Sci e n t if icdata a r e '".u,d lyp"f'sel'tt' d iI. Ih., torlll or ta b les,cha r ts, figure s, grllph i cl,1)',.h QIII, ...,s ....
•athe lllatiea l equettens• Linl:ui slicdata , Oillh l'ol her han,I, are usually expre s s ed vi. anor al 0.. wrttteurorM. $ciellC:r.
educato rs do Includethe o .. al andP"o ~ c torM presentlitinll r.N a vettd and f..equently usedmode ordat " C:Omlllllui ca \i u ll.Thr.
sc i en ti s t'sm01l1 frequen t mode sordata ..ecordinl:". 11f)...evor, arc eod es that a ..e rela tive ly torci.:n to chil dre nollotI'or which they ne e dmuchinstructi o n . II de mand!':thuI Ih l~ YI,~' (1"0 of theirUSUalmod eor ccmmu nLe stton Il!':in g or aI0'-r' I· l lI'lI ~ ro r m an d us e aternativeW8)'S. S<'corul18 11 g UIII(<'le ll""t~r-l'I
used to taki n g alter native ..oute s in pr esent in g yr.rI...1
expositic na , The chiId. Jear ning ase c ond Ianiualle , often dcopri \led or the ne c essary ioreig n lan.: uare \lo c a blilar y,"i l l eese.rt to eee ettve lIIeansor COIllNu nication.Second lancu a ve ICllrningeeseee ehers hi v e idt" nl iri ~ dup to ten different cOIn_unle a lio n stratc l" l esused by theL2 le a rn er .Marrieand Ne tten (19 91) st ud iedyou n g Fl students' sp e ec h samp l es to .ltl l ermine their-use or these strAtegi es. Theyhaveobserv ed tlln lSODICste a t egl es arcuse d moreerten than othe rs .The commun ic ati o nstra te g i es use d inc lude d :appr o x ima ti o n, wo r d cctnaae , ci r c umloc ution, li t e ra l tr ansLatl on, 18ngu 8g emtx , fo r ci gni 1. i ng, retri eval,me s s a g e adjust ment , topic avoldan ee, andmc s sll g c abandonment. (Mllrrie and Nettcn, p. 5 40 ). Othrr tr..quen tlyusednonv er bel eo _ u nleatl o n rlevee es LncLude dra"lnr. gesturin&:In d lIli_inlt"_Evide ntly the:.emeth od s areter frombeing sl.IIar to usi n g tab l e s.
cheets, andgrllphll.Theinferen c e fo rthe o.in g,hcwever , is Ihll tLbe etrcr t Ihe L2le a r ne r puts into convey in g a .essale us in gceee tive IIJle rnDle ",("t hods mich t le lld 10 an cpe n e s s to wa rd thepre s ,,~talion orinfor llla ti onusinenon - s t a ndard devtc cs suef as the cues expJo ited in sefen e e•
Adiscus si o non pho ne t ics Ip ho no Ioll"Y wlllprovide grou nda fo r allIlrcumenl cla i mi ng that a lan g u a g e le srner'lJ expeete nceor phenet ic sbearsetos er eeee bl e ne eto the pecees s of "in ler prl"t1n l' data". Ph onol o cy Is thestudyof
sp ee ch sou nd.The Iear ne r
or
IIIsec o n dlan ll:uare i. ehalt e"ir e d wi t h .ta skot dis cri min atIngIlIIongBou nds.Ch as h ln (19 16) . reterr in&,toLZlee enees,st ateS :Whe npresent edsou n ds unJik e those
or
the lr o..n'angus,.e , sp ea k e r s tend'0
gt"II!th Os esound s ffr.t -Iangua geinterpret at ion s•••The y tran slate the untallliliar sounds In( o r••iliar onesin orde r to beable topro c ess wh a l they hav eheard."(p.Z87)
The languagele ar ner muslalsoanalylean lne omillll:mCS !lllltc to undae atand It.Ru bin(1919) eeneu ee r
Th e gooad language 'e a rn erIllIlY try10 rsetet e these telllure s whichgive hila ma ll i mum intelligibi l i ty. HelillYdevelopII feel i ng tor thos ephon o J o f.; c al CUeSwhi ch best enb ane e inl elJilfl b iJi(y. (p.2.. )
From thequotationspresent ed ab ove. itclIn rea:ton llh l y be inferr edthat thel.niU alt elear nercollects li nr;ul:t ti r.
sol ve COllUflunlca tl"e pro bl em s.Thesi. ila ri ty of this....nt .1 proc e s s to theacthlty of "inte r p re li n g d.lII" hi evid ent wh en cons i d e r i n g scienceeduc a to rs' defin i t i on :
ln lerpr elinlrdal a isdefi nedliS usinll' thecol lecte d resultstoposepos si ble.ns wt!rs t o . proble... Acr.tical analy sis or thedale sh o u l d ac c olllp.nythi s, befo r ehaslycOflc l usioliS aredrawn. (Coolceet a l, 19 19 p.6)
Wh en sc i e n c e educ ators de fin e In ter pret l n lt data, ho wev e r , theydo not l i ..lt theme a ninll'ot thi s proces s the analysi s ot one' s production 01 infor ...etten, Theye Lso st r e s s the imp o r ta nceofbei Di ab leto interp re t the dat a
3.
ec eeeu nl eet ed by ot her re s e ar ch ers . Gri rU l hs (19 81). retle ct i n i' on the".or e" scien tif i clIeaningof the proc e ss
In..sense ,i nter p r eti ng'dat a is thetJ ip side or co_ unic.ti n g. Pe opl e us e tabl e s. gr a p hs, dr•• lol's ,phot oll'raphs, etc. 8S..IIQc ans 01 exh iblt;n.. rindings a.cle arl)' aspo ssib le.
FrOIithese Itells the yextra ct rel..t ion ships, or.ake JI possi ble tor olhers 10 doso. WhenIhis Isdon e . thedata.rebe in g interpr et e d. (p.Z9 )
Readingsp ec ia l ists claim that an indiv idu algoesth r o ug h II.
IIl mi lar proc e s swhen reading. Pearson an d Johnson (1912).
ex p r es afng thei r Jnstentsabo ut there a din g-pr o c e ss , rot ate:
••• we belie vethat .. re ad e r und e rst and s .. Itrap h , .. cn. r l ,/I tableor ...ap in the sa .eIf_,)'he or sh e understands .. passage.
Theund erl y i n geen tene- the basic con c e p ts and pro positio ns- is ide nUca l. (p. 2 2 9 )
Contro lli ng varia bles
dls cr l . ln a tl n lr a.o n g fact or s th. t wili or "iJInol ar lec t theOu tCOIIU~or anexpe r i.e nt , andhol din gaU su c h raetors co nsta nt exc e p t the one 10bete sl edor .a n i p u la .ed . (Co ok eet al.t919, p.6)
Th i s process is perceived by s cienee ed u e etoeeasthe1I'I0 si dUri cultcoltnit lve p r oo es s to activate in puptLs, I t is a comp l expree eae that is cl a ime d tobelonl'to theca t e g ory ot torma l reason ing ab i 1i ties (Yea n y , Yap, an d PadUla,1986).
There are doubts as to the!luilllh il i ty(If this in !l' l:r"t<"l processskilis forstud e nts ingrn <1cs 5ur-Ii. (GUntl, 1( 11)
Twoco n dition s need bemet fo r thefull actIvattouof this process.The fi r st dcmll Olb that yOll ident i fyni l uf the varaib lcsth a iyouwish toeithcr manI pulatent-/lSSI'S:> in expeeIment, The seco nd roq uir es that YOII lvold sten-tv, lit'
cont rolthose thi ngswhichnrcneit hoemanipulntedIInr ass e s s ed,but which might v a r y lin d Ihe rhy hnve 1111l~rfl' I~1
ex perime nt.
This a ctivity is of te nprnctioodhy (1 rst or !l('""",1 la ng uage langua g e lea rne rs, La nltu a g e ex\lt'I'ls sUf.f!tI·.'ds thut the lan gu a ge leerner, when lis t enin g or r n nrliurr, u<lopls pro c e s s ing str at e gi esai med ills c Lo etIun lin dl· t~lllill i llll.
certaine spc c t s of lallI!:IHIl{CnutpuI which '~Illlh lel>hi lll/ hl~r compre he n da me s sag e or apas s aa e (Mucl lCI', 1~1 74 ; Ward haugh, 1974 ; lindRubi n, 191 5) . II thusS\'t'IIISthet certainaspects oflanguage ar enee-c oIvud hy Ihe 1''' 'l-\"l'''IP~
listene r or readerallmore rel eva nt 1111111othera rill' Ih ,~
purpose of comprehendin g 8mes sage. Re seer-chershllv,' ident i fi ed these ractor-s .The y incl urle~r atlllll llt it~1l1 liS l\'{"1 1 as social feat uresof langu ag e,Gr alOlOlitic al':Otll l"""~11 1s Ihllt faci l i t at e the un ders ta n d i ng of '" )arll~Ufllt"l~ l, r' Hlll t:! irll: llld..
subject , ve rbI 'Verbtense ,an dobject. An 1I"f1r1~nt~,~:J of social dimensio ns such as thecuntex t IIf t111~sr"~t'f:h 111:1, Ihe
38
rela tiunshjpof th epartici pa n ts, the ru lesof speakingand th e IQuod of the spe echactcontrib u teconsiderably to the listen e r' s Intel l i g ent interpretatio n of ame s s a g e. (Ru hin 19 7 5 ) .
To draw /I pa r allel betwe en the second part of this t;e. "..• holdingal lsuc h ractors cons t a n t ex c ept the one to be tested or ma nip u late d" and a lin g uistic IRcnt,ll pro c ess is not so immediate l ydone.The "Lingutstic doteot l v o" (La mbe r t an dTucke r, 19 7 2, 1'.2 08) , bo u n d by certa Insocial ru l e s of conversatio n,canno texact ly
"mn nlpulateIt variabl e",wh il e ke e p in gal l oth e rs cons to nt
.!ill asto as se s s the imp actof thema n i p ul a ti on on a
"res penclingvariab le" , Pri ma r y FI stude n ts,how e v e r, do hold some varia b lesconstant. Noonan (1990 ), examini ng th e Hl )(>(!ch peofiLe ofprima ry f'l stude nts,di s c o v er e dsome intere st i ngpa t terns . Fore x emple, the gr ad e 1 and grade2 lll'illlu r y students, not be in g able 10 foc u s onal l lan g u a ge ve e iahlesnIonce, tend to :
(I) usc the infinitiv e formof th e ver b for al l ten sese.g., "t umettre ",
(Z) thcpr o s eut tense mo r e tha nany other te n s e s. (3) ~~(' th~
'!
I' fo r m ?f theverb fo r al l sub jects ,e.g.,JCVA, nous va• •
(4) si mpllt ,)'the ir verb systemso that mo st verbsarc mnd(' to fit the "er"patternorei =::,Jif yit insome ol he rway .
(5) us o "avo le ' liS al most II universa l auxiliary.
