RUNNING HEAD: SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS

C&T 822: Summative Analysis

Desirae Jellison
University of Kansas
SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 2

Final Exam Question #2

Pidgins and creoles have similarities to second language acquisition. Unlike

second language acquisition, pidgins/creoles encompass the blending of two languages to

create a new language. Another difference is that pidgins are not a native language. Nessa

Wolfson (1989) states, “They arise in situations of contact between speakers of mutually

unintelligible languages and develop into relatively stable linguistic systems with their

own syntax, lexicon, and phonology” (p.268). Despite the blending of two languages,

pidgins/creoles and second language acquisition have common sociocultural factors.

According to Wolfson (1989), pidgins derive from the need to communicate

between people who do not share the same language. This is similar to the sociocultural

factor of motivation. People want or need to learn a second language for many different

reasons. For many students in high school or college, learning a new language is an

academic requirement. For academic purposes the motivation for learning a new

language is to receive academic credit or a proficient exam score.

On the other hand, others can be motivated for career purposes. Learning a new

language might qualify them to work in a target industry or to receive a job promotion.

Pidgins came into being due to a labor system. Unfortunately, the labor system was

indentured and included slavery. Different linguistic groups were forced to work

together. In order to do this, “a common means of communication between fellow

workers and between workers and masters was clearly a necessity” (Wolfson, 1989, p.

269). Thankfully, the indentured labor system ended and career-seeking individuals have

the choice to learn a new language to further their career.

SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 3

Pidgin languages can become a creole language if “…pidgin speakers intermarry

and form a community where the pidgin becomes the common language, the children of

these speakers acquire the language in the way all children acquire first languages…”

(Wolfson, 1989, p. 269). These children from pidgin communities will be in an

educational setting, therefore, it is important for teachers of language learners to have

knowledge of pidgin and creole languages. Unfortunately, pidgin and creole languages

can be judged as “bad English” or “broken English”. According to Wigglesworth,

Billington, & Loakes (2013), “Such judgments can affect the way creole speakers feel

about their own language and how they engage with the language used in school and

whether they see creole as having a role in education” (p.389).

In order to make creole speakers feel comfortable and welcome in the classroom,

teachers should learn as much as possible about language learner including the learner’s

background and culture. Teachers need to be aware of the different ways language is

communicated through culture. Every language and culture has different types of non-

verbal communication and teachers need to be aware of those communication

differences, such as gestures. Hopefully, by getting to know the student and their

language, the teacher can make the student feel valued and respected.

Unfortunately, “Creole speakers themselves do not necessarily support the use of

either creole use in school or of bilingual education” (Wigglesworth, Billington, &

Loakes 2013, p. 389). In their article, they discuss a study of Tex-Mex speaking students

who shared the same negative views and attitudes. On the other hand, Wigglesworth,
SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 4

Billington, & Loakes (2013) discuss an observation made by Nelson-Barber, “that the

variety of spoken English used by Pima American Indian school children in Grades 1–3

was very similar to the standard variety used by their teachers; but that in Grade 4, the

children moved towards pronunciations that were substantially closer to Pima English,

instead of the standard” (p. 390). Despite the negative attitudes toward their language the

students chose to steer away from the standard.

Bilingual education and bilingual programs have focused on children having a

standardized language and learning another literate language that has similar standing in

the school. Unfortunately, most creole speaking children do not have bilingual programs

that are available, and creole languages are rarely used in educational settings

(Wigglesworth, Billington, & Loakes, 2013). Since there are a small number of creole

bilingual programs teachers need to know how to best accommodate creole speakers in

the classroom. Wigglesworth, Billington, & Loakes (2013) state, “While very little

research has actually been conducted on creoles in education, far from being hindered by

the use of their home variety in the classroom, creole-speaking children are known to

have greater success in acquiring the standard when their L1 is used in school” (p. 392).

To start, teachers need to have knowledge of the blended languages so that they

can build on the skills the students bring into the classroom. Also, I believe teachers need

to consider activities and lessons that offer students the opportunity to use the English

language without jeopardizing their creole language identity. In order to do this, students

need to be instructed that code switching is sometimes appropriate and they need to learn

the appropriate time and place to use the different forms of the language.
SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 5

Final Exam Question #3

Communicative competence is a term coined by Dell Hymes. He argued that

Chomsky’s (1965) view on competence was too focused on linguistic competence and

didn’t consider communicative competence, which Hymes describes CC “as that aspect

of our competence that enables us to convey and interpret messages and to negotiate

meanings interpersonally within specific contexts” (Brown, 2014, p. 206). There are

different levels of communicative competence. Communication competence changes

from person to person due to context, such as location or job. For example, an entry-level

job at a grocery store, you would need to know how to respond appropriately with actions

and short verbal responses. For example, know how to communicate where certain

grocery items are located in the store. This would be considered a low level of

communication competence. On the other hand, if you were the CEO of a corporate

company, you would need to communicate effectively with shareholders, employees,

government authorities, or other stakeholders. The CEO would need a much higher level

of communicative competence.

James Cummins (1979,1980) examined communicative competence and

developed BICS (basic interpersonal communicative skills) and CALP

(cognitive/academic language proficiency). When looking at BICS and CALP in an

educational setting, I find them both to be important for language proficiency. We want

our students to be successful academically, but we also want our students to be able to
SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 6

communicate effectively, verbally and nonverbally, outside the classroom. ESL students

need to have conversational and academic abilities.

In the classroom, teachers might have to teach “CALP” language so that students

can be successful in certain academic activities or situations. For example, CALP

language will be important during a formal and structured classroom debate. On the other

hand, BIC language is important with making friends at school or effectively socializing

with classmates.

In Canale and Swain’s framework of CC the first two subcategories, grammatical

and discourse competence, focus on linguistic competence and the last two subcategories,

sociolinguistic and strategic competence, focus on a communicative aspect. I think that

communicative competence is just as important as linguistic competence. A language

learner needs to use the language not only correctly (linguistic competence), but also

appropriately (communicative competence) in and outside the classroom. Students need

to have an underlying understanding of grammatical structures so when they are

communicating others can understand the conversation. However, grammatical

competence by itself is not sufficient; communicative skills are essential for students.

According to Lightbown and Spada (1990), “The findings of one study suggest that

classrooms that provide a focus-on-form within contexts of meaningful communication

work better than either those that avoid form-focused instruction altogether or those that

emphasize form-focused instruction to the virtual exclusion of communicative activities”

(p.310). This shows that there needs to be a balance between grammatical and

communicative competence.
SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 7

Communicative competency not only focuses on a social aspect, but also

recognizes the relationship between language and culture. I believe it is important to

teach culture in an ESL classroom, even though it may difficult to decide what native-

speaker culture should be taught. Savignon & Sysoyev (2002) state, “explicit teaching of

sociocultural strategies will promote development of L2 sociocultural competence and

help prepare learners for subsequent active and adequate participation in intercultural

communication and a dialogue of cultures” (p. 513). Nevertheless, students need to be

prepared to appropriately engage in cross-cultural interactions. Also, nonverbal

communication should not be forgotten when discussing communicative competency.

Body language, gestures, eye contact, proximity, and facial expressions maybe

interpreted in a different ways by cultural groups. "While intercultural variations are

myriad, many experts concede that there are a basic set of facial expressions, that are

universal, innately acquired, and basically interpreted uniformly across cultures and

languages" (Brown, 2014, p. 233).

Even though communicative competence has its advantages, there are some

disadvantages. One disadvantage is explained in the case of English being used by many

for international communication, many interactions happen between or among non-native

speakers (Alptekin, 2002). Alptekin (2002) questions, “How relevant is the importance of

Anglo-American eye contact, or the socially acceptable distance for conversation as

properties of meaningful communication to Finnish and Italian academicians exchanging

ideas in a professional meeting?” (p.61). In these types of social interactions, the different

speakers will have dissimilar cultures and social norms. These differences between the

speakers become a challenge to communicate effectively.

SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 8

Final Exam Question #4

English for specific purposes (ESP) is centered on the learner and the learner’s

motivations and needs for a particular situation, such as learning English for a career

possibility or being immersed in an English-speaking educational setting. ESP can be

applied in academic and occupational contexts for specific topics (Gatehouse, 2001). As

stated before, Hymes describes the language that “…enables us to convey and interpret

messages and to negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific contexts” is

communicative competence (Brown, 2014, p. 206). Therefore, ESP can be described as a

communicative method of teaching for authentic contexts. Many teachers used SIOP

model for EAP (English for Academic Purposes). The SIOP model offers a system for

lesson planning and delivery that incorporates best practices for teaching academic

English and provides teachers with a coherent method for improving the student

achievement (Short, Fidelman, & Loughuit, 2012, p.336). SIOP is a great tool for

classroom teachers because it forces them to think about language and content objectives,

while incorporating best practices.

ESP and sheltered instruction has strengths and weaknesses across many

academic settings. I believe a common weakness that can be found in K-12, university-

level, and adult education classes are lack of knowledge and practice from educators. In

the article, The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: 
A Tool for Teacher-

Researcher Collaboration and Professional Development, Short & Echevarria (1999)

SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 9

explain their findings in their research project that focuses on teachers and SIOP

professional development. They found that implementing language objectives in content

lessons was the most challenging part of SIOP lessons. Content teachers did not “easily

recognize language learning opportunities”, ESL specialists were “struggling to learn the

content they needed to teach”, and “they often lost track of the language learning

possibilities” (Short & Echevarria, 1999, p.12). Also, teachers struggled with the pacing

of the lesson. In the study, teachers reported they reduced their pace of the presentations

and narrowed in on certain aspects of the SIOP model (Short & Echevarria, 1999, p.16).

This caused teachers to not master the model or practice the process correctly, but in the

beginning teachers found their approach to the model beneficial. Even though the

teachers in the study struggled with certain aspects of sheltered instruction, they benefited

from their newfound knowledge. “Through discussion with more capable others, the

teachers have had opportunities to increase their understanding of the subject matter—

both the content and the language development topics—and likewise they have explored

new teaching and assessment strategies” 
(Short & Echevarria, 1999, p.18).

Many other teachers and school districts have had success with sheltered

instruction. School districts have seen the benefits of sheltered instruction reflected in

proficiency assessments. Short, Fidelman, & Loughuit (2012) conducted a study and

found that the academic English assessment test scores increased due to SIOP instruction

in content areas. The improved test scores support that language and content learning can

happen in content area classes, not just ESL classes (Short, Fidelman, & Loughuit, 2012,

p. 353). This is an obvious strength because the language objectives incorporated in the

SIOP lesson plan communicates the academic language functions and skills students need
SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 10

to master the content. Also, language objectives outline the type of language that students

will need to use in order to participate and be successful in the lesson.

If language and content learning can happen simultaneously due to sheltered

instruction, university professors can use EAP and the SIOP model to outline their

instructional course. The level of difficulty increases when students reach the university

level and as the subject matter becomes more complex, the student language needs to

become more complex. EAP models can be used at a high level of academics, not just in

K-12 schools.

Evans & Green (2007) presented their findings of language issues in and English-

medium university in Hong Kong in the article Why EAP is necessary: A Survey of Hong

Kong tertiary students. Evans & Green (2007) found, “The main problems identified in

this study—students’ inadequate understanding of subject-specialist vocabulary, their

limited ability to express complex ideas in grammatically correct English, and their lack

of fluency in oral presentations—will not be improved by replacing academic purposes

programmes with either remedial or general English courses (p.14). Remedial English

courses will not improve the students’ problems because most students have spent many

years studying English and have built an English language foundation. Since the students

possess a foundation, they need assistance on how to apply what they already know to

their academic studies, thus meaning they need help in becoming “academically literate”

(Evans & Green, 2007, p.14). Students may need English support at higher levels, but

that additional support needs to focus on academic English, rather than general English.

As previously stated, ESP can be used on occupational contexts. Gatehouse

(2001) describes the needs when developing a content-based curriculum to immigrant

SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 11

workers. "Key issues in ESP curriculum design are suggested: a) abilities required for

successful communication in occupational settings; b) content language aquisition versus

general language aquisition; c) heterogeneous versus homogenous learner group; and d)

materials development” (Gatehouse, 2001, p.2). The SIOP model, which can be used in

ESP curriculum design, plans for the understanding of content and academic vocabulary.

Gatehouse recognized the importance of language learning and created a schedule that

allowed opportunities for students to “practice the restricted repertoire acquired in

content lectures and the everyday language acquired in the language classes (Gatehouse,

2001, p.9). Unfortunately, courses are lacking time, ESP materials and instructional

models. Gatehouse (2001) encountered similar problems and hopes “…that these

observations will lend insight into the challenges facing the ESL instructor acting as ESP

curriculum developer” (p.11).

Final Exam Question #6

Throughout this course I have developed my working theory of second language

acquisition. At the start of this course I compared my working theory to social

constructivism. I still think that utilizing social interactions and authentic experiences are

important in second language acquisition. Now, my working theory includes ideas from

communicative competence by utilizing communicative language teaching. I now have

an understanding that second language acquisition can’t be solely based on social

interactions. Students need to have a basis of grammatical structures that they can apply

what they have learned in different contexts. ESL students need linguistic and

communicative competence.
SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 12

I have also changed my viewpoints on how children learn a second language.

Previously, I believed myths and had misconceptions about children and second language

acquisition. The truth behind the myths and misconceptions equipped me with a mindset

that supports effective instruction. It is important that teachers “unlearn” these myths

about second language acquisition. Also, teachers need to be aware cognitive factors,

such as learning styles, motivations, and personalities. It is important to understand how

factors affect student language learning.

The biggest addition to my working theory about second language acquisition is

the necessity for sheltered instruction, especially the SIOP model. Language and content

objectives are extremely beneficial in language development. There are opportunities for

language learning in content subject areas. SIOP model hold me accountable to create

lessons that address the academic and linguistic needs of English learners.
SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 13

REFERENCES

Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT

journal, 56(1), 57-64.

Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching: A course in second

language acquisition(6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases for communicative approaches to

second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Evans, S., & Green, C. (2007). Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary

students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 3-17.

Gatehouse, K. (2001). Key issues in English for specific purposes (ESP) curriculum

development. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(10), 1-10. Retrieved

from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Gatehouse-ESP.html
SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 14

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in

communicative language teaching. Studies in second language acquisition, 12(4), 429-

448.

Savignon, S. J., & Sysoyev, P. V. (2002). Sociocultural strategies for a dialogue of

cultures. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 508-524.

Short, D. J., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A

tool for teacher-researcher collaboration and professional development. Center for

Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (Education Practice Report No. 3).

Retrieved from http://crede.berkeley.edu/pdf/epr03.pdf

Short, D. J., Fidelman, C. G., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic language in

English language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 334-

361.

Wigglesworth, G., Billington, R., & Loakes, D. (2013). Creole Speakers and Standard

Language Education. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7, 388–397.

https://doi.org/10.1111/LNC3.12035

Wolfson, N. (1989). Pidgins and creoles. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL.

New York:Newbury House Publishers. pp. 268-274.

SUMMATIVE ANALYSIS 15