Psychological Barriers in English Language Learning

Psychological Barriers |1

Psychological Barriers in Second Language Learning

Kevin Rivera Elisa Hernández

English Bachelor Degree, Eighth Semester Lic. Walter A. Castro Introduction to Linguistics October 6th, 2014


At learning or acquiring a second language, every student gets into a process of making mistakes and failing at developing certain skills they need for managing the language accurately. The problem with this part of the process is, that teenagers and adult people do not accept the mistakes as easily as children do; therefore, normal English students use to hide their skills behind a wall they build in order to protect their own proud and self-esteem. Apparently, these walls are one of the biggest obstacles for the teacher to get an appropriate progress from the students’ learning process. These walls, of course, have a name and some reasons; these walls are usually defined as psychological barriers. When we talk about psychological barriers, we talk about something that every student of English as a foreign language knows very well since that he has already experienced it; but in these topic there are some other elements present in the psychological issues people may have at learning a second language, such as the affective filter. This special issue will also be discussed in this research, as some answers to this problem. The aim of this document is to clear some elements that can be obstacles not only for the students’ learning process, but also to the teachers’ task. Said this, let us begin with the psychological barriers.


PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIERS

The psychological barrier in pedagogy covers everything that hinders, restrains, and eventually reduces the effectiveness of training, education and personal development (Вербицкая, 2003) . Psychological barriers in the educational process reveal themselves as difficulties that students encounter solving educational problems, which doesn’t only fall back their learning activity performance but also leads to dissatisfaction with the educational process itself, its organization, as well as impedes the implementation of cognitive and other needs. A sample professional student population is taken and some commonly reported attitudinal problems like Anglo phobia, shyness and shame, prejudice and closed mind, fear of syntax and vocabulary, sudden demand for speaking, role of gender on psyche, emotional interference, fear of failure and working short-term memory are evaluated in the context of their syllabus. Language barriers: Absence of communication between people who speak different languages (Team, 2013) A conceptual barrier to effective communication, that occurs when people who speak different languages attempt to communicate with each other. (Tam, 2013)

Anglophobia Anglophobia is like a Psychological aversion towards English. Those who have Anglophobia dislike speaking in English. They show reluctance to listen when others speak in English. A majority of the students expressed this type of attitude. It can be consider as one of the learning disabilities and attitudinal problem of English language learners. Diffidence and Shame Language learners are afraid to speak in the target language. They fear that they might go wrong and make mistakes. It is observed that more Boys suffer from diffidence


and shame to speak in English. Shyness and feeling ashamed to learn a language are main barriers to learn language effectively. Students are thinking that committing mistake is like a transgression and take it as a prestige issue. No one can learn a new language without mistakes. Prejudices and Closed Mind No man is an island – every person should listen and talk to others to fulfill his/her daily needs. Sometimes one should try to get into the shoes of the other person to understand his/her mindset and point of view. We should keep an open mind to exchange our views with one another. Most of the students develop prejudices against other peers who are speaking well and reject new ideas, fresh thoughts which are desirable qualities to learn language. This is one of the main barriers to productive skills. It is witnessed that they don’t like to confess that they have prejudice and closed mind. Fear of Syntax and Vocabulary Students get bored to listen to jargon of English grammar like S-V-O-C patterns right from their early days of language learning. “They often think of the verb ending or word-order while they are uttering a sentence. It makes their performance halting and wearisome to listen to. This is one of the major barriers that students face while constructing sentences on their own or call to mind a right word at a right time. It also reduces their ability to respond quickly in conversation and to adapt to changing circumstances”. Because of this attitude they show reluctance and hesitate to speak and also suppress their thoughts within themselves. A new way of language learning process operates when they learn L2, which they might not have witnessed while learning their L1. Sudden Demand for Speaking The speaking skills have been neglected in the class room. Students learn English only to pass examinations. There are several vernacular movements which confuse the teen learner during his school days. The International Academic and


Industrial Research Solutions Page 31 International Journal on English Language and Literature Volume 1, Issue 1 ISSN 2321 – 8584 students most often were exposed to Grammar teaching and encouraged rote learning of essays and reproducing them in the examinations. But English language teaching is not merely teaching grammar and developing reading skills, it also includes developing employability skills among students. It challenges learners to change their attitudes. Here students cannot digest sudden changes in the syllabus and hesitate to talk in English all off a sudden in Engineering colleges. Many boys and girls have reported this problem of ‘Sudden demand for speaking’ as an attitudinal barrier to their English speaking. Role of Gender on Psyche Gender difference plays a vital role in the class room. It shows major impact on students attitudes when the classroom activity demands for learners response. Gender consciousness and physical changes in the body are prominent issues in the Indian classroom and this leads to a development of disparity between male and female students when it comes to cooperative learning and performing group tasks or role plays. In some cases the concept of gender creates confusion to deliver target meaning in the teaching before girls in the class room. The gender sensitivity in the classroom is in a very pitiable state. Because learners’ attitude towards process and language production is influenced by neuro-cognitive areas, gender conscious students hesitate to speak in the classrooms. It is found that boys are more conscious than girls when it comes to speaking in the classroom.

Emotional Interference Feeling of sadness, fear, anger, anxiety or jubilation influences our reception and receptivity to others’ ideas. Communication is a purposeful activity based on rationality and reason and one must assure that one is not emotionally charged before one takes part in a communicative interaction. They may find it difficult to concentrate on the content of the message if one is emotionally charged, Over arousal of emotions may adversely affect encoding and decoding.


Fear of Failure It is the fear of failure that makes many people feel nervous to respond in English language, because they concentrate more on others’ feelings than that topic. They do not try to cope with nervousness; the students think more about what others feel than the topic at hand. The experimental result states that the fear of failure is noticed more miserably in girls than in boys resulting in lowering their confident levels. Working Short-term Memory Many students displayed the problem of accessing and activating linguistic knowledge stored in their mental lexicon. They are unable to hold verbal information for a long time in their working memory while communicating their ideas with others. Because of this, many students prefer writing assignments to oral work because written work allows them more time to translate their thoughts into words and sentences. Surprisingly majority of the girls are affected by this kind of psychological problem. (Vemuri, Ram, & Kota, 2013)

The Affective Filter Hypothesis. Although these are the most common barriers in the second language learning process, they are not alone. There is an issue that worth the mention in this report. This issue is known as affective filter. A filter is something that acts as a way to strain or block material from

reaching a container. For example, a coffee filter is placed above the cup, where placed inside are coffee grounds. When hot water is poured over the grounds the filter acts as an intermediary turning the dense bitterness of the material into a savory liquid. An affective filter can be thought of in a similar way. Where, for example, the “cup” is the language learners themselves, however they aren’t simply empty vessels waiting to be filled. They have linguistic devices that are accomplishing feats of language acquisition. The “filters” in this sense are a number of variables (such as their emotions) that either allows input to pass through, or stands in the way, thus filtering out certain input. This is a very simple visual of the affective filter in language acquisition but it illustrates an important point that instructors need to be reminded of, that their students have a layer


of variables that can either hinder or help second language acquisition. (Iris-Wilbanks, 2013) The affective filter comes from the idea that there is an intermediary source that hinders the processes of language acquisition. (Iris-Wilbanks, 2013) The filter hypothesis explains why it is possible for an acquirer to obtain a great deal of comprehensible input and yet stop short…of the native speaker level. (Krashen, 1982) This hypothesis is only applied to acquisition instead of learning, focusing on the idea that learning is a conscious process; and acquisition, as the hindering of the affective factors, is unconscious. Affective factors in language learning that are like a filter which filters the amount of input in learners’ brains. People with high affective filter will lower their intake whereas people with low affective filter allow more input into their language acquisition device. Affective filter hypothesis is first proposed by Dulay and Burt (1977), and is incorporated by Krashen as one of his five input Hypotheses in 1985. Krashen argued that people acquire second languages only if they obtain comprehensible input and if their affective filters are low enough to allow the input ‘in’. (Du, 2009) Research over the last decade has confirmed that a variety of affective variables relate to success in second language acquisition. Most of those studied can be placed into one of these three categories: (1) Motivation. Performers with high motivation generally do better in second language acquisition (usually, but not always, "integrative") (2) Self-confidence. Performers with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to do better in second language acquisition. (3) Anxiety. Low anxiety appears to be conducive to second language acquisition, whether measured as personal or classroom anxiety. (Krashen, 1982)

The Affective Filter hypothesis captures the relationship between affective variables and the process of second language acquisition by positing that acquirers vary with respect to the strength or level of their Affective Filters. Those whose attitudes are not optimal for second language acquisition will not only tend to seek less input, but they will also have a high or strong Affective Filter--even if they understand the message, the input will not reach the part of the brain responsible for language


acquisition, or the language acquisition device. Those with attitudes more conducive to second language acquisition will not only seek and obtain more input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more open to the input, and it will strike "deeper". (Stevick, Memory, Meaning, and Method, 1976) The following picture illustrates very explicitly the function of the affective filter inside of the brain.

Since that the affective filter is responsible of hindering or pushing the acquisition of the target language, it is logical that many specialists have tried to fix the issue, or at least fight against it. Being that the hypothesis was true; the answer to the issue was searched in a teaching method, or in more than one. These methods are known as simply part of a methodology that teachers can create in order to develop their classes, but they are also the settling for affective factoring in class. But, it cannot be forgotten that when considering how to lower student’s affective filter the role of the instructor, the methods of instruction and the learning context become very important. (Iris-Wilbanks, 2013) Krashen did not write about the hypothesis without thinking in a solution for it. If a heightened Affective Filter were in place, then wouldn’t it be the assumption that it is the instructor’s role to lower this? The man who made this hypothesis known, (Krashen, 1982) says: “In the second language classroom, we have the potential of supplying a full 40 – 50 minutes per day of comprehensible input…that will encourage language acquisition”. Therefore the role of the instructor is to provide input and execute it in a manner that keeps filters low or perhaps in better control. Generally, the input provided should be made comprehensible but also less anxiety provoking. If the topic being discussed is at all interesting, and if it is comprehensible, much of the ‘pressure’


normally associated with a language class will be ‘off’, anxiety will be lowered, and acquisition will result. The following are three approaches to language instruction that Krashen suggests for successfully lowering students filter and enhancing language acquisition.

1. 2. 3.

The Natural Approach. Total Physical Response (TPR). Suggestopedia.

The Natural Approach It was developed by Tracy Terrell at the University of California at Irvine for foreign language instruction at the university and high school levels. While originally developed independently of "Monitor Theory", its later development and articulation have been influenced by the second language acquisition theory presented in this volume. The method can be described by the following principles: 1. Class time is devoted primarily to providing input for acquisition. 2. The teacher speaks only the target language in the classroom. Students may use either the first or second language. If they choose to respond in the second language, their errors are not corrected unless communication is seriously impaired. 3. Homework may include formal grammar work. Error correction is employed in correcting homework. 4. The goals of the course are "semantic"; activities may involve the use of a certain structure, but the goals are to enable students to talk about ideas, perform tasks, and solve problems. (Krashen, 1982) In this approach, the goal is to enable students to talk about ideas, perform tasks and solve problems” in a way that is not pressured onto them (Krashen, 1982). In other words it’s a way of easing the lesson material onto the students instead of bombarding them with loads of input. An example would be to use topics interesting and relevant to students, instead of one completely outside their frame of reference. (Iris-Wilbanks, 2013) Since the Natural Approach attempt to remain "true" to the Input Hypothesis, many sources of anxiety are reduced or eliminated. Students do not have to produce in

P s y c h o l o g i c a l B a r r i e r s | 10

the second language until they feel they are ready. Error correction for form is not done in the classroom. Also, an attempt is made to discuss topics that are interesting to students. This predicts lower filter strength than most other methods. (Krashen, 1982)

Total Physical Response (TPR) Total Physical Response (TPR) was developed by James Asher (Asher J. , 1982). The method was designed primarily for students in the early stages of language acquisition. Since commands can be made comprehensible to students with very limited language, Asher used commands as the basis for TPR. The teacher or a more proficient student gives a command, demonstrates the command, and then students respond physically to the command. Because students are actively involved and not expected to repeat the command, anxiety is low, and student focus is on comprehension rather than production. Hence, they demonstrate comprehension before their speaking skills emerge. (Gordon, 2012) Physical Response is posited as a great tool to lower language learner anxiety because it is based upon that students do not have to produce (speak) the language. It aids in lowering the speaking anxiety (as mentioned before) and also in helping students become comfortable with listening. Krashen (1982) encourages this technique by affirming that TPR makes one very important contribution to lowering student anxiety: students are not asked to produce in the second language until they themselves decide they are ready. (Iris-Wilbanks, 2013) It consists basically of obeying commands given by the instructor that involve an overt physical response. In the typical TPR class the first few months (45 hours in this case) would consist of 70% listening comprehension (obeying commands), 20% speaking, and 10% reading and writing. Asher lists the three principles of the TPR system: 1.

Delay speech from students until understanding of spoken

language "has been extensively internalized. 2.

Achieve

understanding

of

spoken

language

through

utterances by the instructor in the imperative. 3.

Expect that, at some point in the understanding of spoken

language, students will indicate a 'readiness' to talk. (Asher J. , 1977)


TPR makes one very important contribution to lowering student anxiety: students are not asked to produce in the second language until they themselves decide they are ready. They are, in other words, allowed a silent period. Asher does not state explicitly whether error correction on early student output is required in TPR; this may vary from teacher to teacher. It has been pointed out, however, that the necessity of producing overt physical responses right away may provoke anxiety in some students. (Krashen, 1982) Teachers can also use TPR for the following purposes:  To review and reinforce vocabulary you have already taught using non-TPR methods.  As a “catch-up” at the beginning of a lesson for the benefit of students who have missed previous lessons in which new material was introduced.  To provide students with an enjoyable, relaxing break during a lesson.

Suggestopedia According to Lozanov and others, we may be using only five to ten percent of our mental capacity. In order to make better use of our reserved capacity, the limitations we think we have need to be ‘desuggested’. Desuggestopedia, the application of the study of suggestion to pedagogy, has been developed to help students eliminate the feeling that they cannot be successful or the negative association they may have toward studying and, thus, to help them to overcome the barriers to learn. (Freeman, 2000) The term 'Suggestopedia', derived from suggestion and pedagogy, is often used loosely to refer to similar accelerated learning approaches. However, Lozanov reserves the title strictly for his own method, and he has his own training and certification facilities. Suggestopedia was originally applied mainly in foreign language teaching, and it is often claimed that it can teach languages approximately three times as quickly as conventional methods. It is now applied in several other fields, and its central ideas inspired the development of my own Brainware workshops. (Bowen, 2011) This technique utilizes a variety of means to reduce student’s filter. Basically providing realia,


natural forms of speech, games and even music or exercise during the lesson can reduce the filter. (Iris-Wilbanks, 2013) Practically every feature of Suggestopedia is aimed at relaxing the student, reducing anxieties and building confidence. (Krashen, 1982) In suggestopedia, each four-hour class, according to (Bancroft, 1978), consists of three parts: 1.

Review, done via traditional conversations, games, plays,

etc. It may include some exercises and error correction, but does not include the use of a language lab or pattern drill. 2.

Presentation of new material. New material is introduced in

the form of dialogues based on situations familiar to the students. Bancroft notes that new material is presented in a somewhat traditional way, with the necessary grammar and translation (Bancroft, 1978). The dialogues are very long. According to (Bushman & Madsen, 1976), they run from 10 to 14 pages. 3.

This portion is the truly original feature of Suggestopedia

(Bancroft, 1978), and is itself divided into two parts. In the first part, the active sense, the dialogue is read by the teacher, while students follow the text and engage in deep and rhythmic Yoga breathing. These activities are coordinated: In accordance with the students' breathing, the teacher reads the language materials in the following order and with the following timing: Bulgarian (L1) translation (two seconds); foreign language phrase (four seconds); pause (two seconds). While the foreign language phrase is being read, the students retain their breath for four seconds, look at the appropriate part of the text, and mentally repeat to themselves the given phrase or word-group in the FL. Concentration is greatly promoted by the retention or suspension of breath (Bancroft, 1978). The second part, labelled the passive or convert part of the seance, involves music. The central activity is the teacher's reading of the dialogue with an emotional intonation (Bancroft, 1978). The students, with eyes closed, meditate on the text while


baroque music is played. The musical selections are specifically chosen to contribute to a state of relaxation and meditation... that is necessary for unconscious absorption of the language materials (Bancroft, 1978). Practically every feature of Suggestopedia is aimed at relaxing the student, reducing anxieties, removing mental blocks, and building confidence. (Krashen, 1982) Another key Suggestopedic idea aimed at lowering the filter is the behavior of the teacher. Suggestopedia considers the authority of the teacher to be very important (an integral part of the method and not just a desirable characteristic of the teacher); (Stevick, Teaching Languages: A way and Ways., 1980). The teacher's behavior is meant to build the students' confidence both in their own potential for second language acquisition and in the method itself; the teacher should be confident, but not tyrannical, exercise firm over-all control but also encourage student initiative. (Krashen, 1982) Concluding, the affective factors, and every issue that comes with them are certainly an obstacle not only in students’ improvement but also in teacher’s task. Nevertheless, there are many resources that teachers can use to lower those walls that are obstructing their students’ right learning rhythm. As a linguist, every English student must try to avoid that those affective factor get hindered, so the language can be completely managed in the fewer quantity of time. Once these factors and other issues involved in the process before seen in this document can be deleted, so the process and the improvement will be significantly better.


References Asher, J. (1977). Children learning another language: a developmental hypothesis. Child Development , 1040-1048. Asher, J. (1982). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher's guidebook. Kenton, Sutherland: TESOL Inc. Bancroft, J. (1978). The Lozanov method and its American adaptations. Modern Language Journal , 167-174. Bowen, T. (2011, October 23). Suggestopedia. Retrieved September 20, 2014, from http://www.jwelford.demon.co.uk/brainwaremap/suggest.html Bushman, R., & Madsen, H. (1976). A description and evaluation of Suggestopedia--a new teaching methodology. (J. F. Crymes, Ed.) Washington, USA: TESOL Inc. Du, X. (2009). The Affective Filter in Second Language Teaching. Qingdao, China: School of Foreign Languages of Qingdao University of Science and Technology. Freeman, D. L. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (Second Edition ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Gordon, J. (2012). Total Physical Response: A Strategy for Beginning ELLs. Illinois, USA: Illinois Resource Center. Iris-Wilbanks, J. (2013). Research Paper: The Affective Filter hypothesis. Seattle, USA: Seattle University. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press Inc.


Stevick, E. (1976). Memory, Meaning, and Method. New York: Newbury House Publishers. Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching Languages: A way and Ways. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers. Tam, T. (2013, 08 23). Language Barrier Definition. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from Wordnik.com: https://www.wordnik.com/words/language%20barrier Team, C. (2013, 06 14). Definition of “language barrier”. Retrieved October 1, 2014,

from

Collins

English

Dictionary:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/language-barrier Vemuri, R. B., Ram, M. R., & Kota, S. K. (2013). Attitudinal barriers for learning English as Second language: Problem analysis. International Journal on English Language and Literature , 30-35. Вербицкая, Т. (2003). Pedagogical Conditions to overcome Psychological Barriers at students in the teacher of foreign language. Kaliningrad: Ph. D Sciences.

Psychological Barriers in English Language Learning

Recommend Documents