SOLUSI UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

PROGAMME OF STUDY Med English Language and Literature

FULL NAME OF STUDENT Ngwenya Nontobeko

I.D NUMBER SU 210135 J

CONTACT TELEPHONE/CELL +263772687906

COUSE TITLE Curriculum and Pedagogical Issues in English

Language and literature Education

COURSE CODE MEEL 614

ASSIGNMENT DUE DATE 08 November 2021

MARKERS’S COMMENT

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………..............................................................................................
....................................................................

OVERAL MARK………………………….. MARKER’S NAME…………………….

MARKERS’S SIGNATURE…………………. DATE………/……………/………….. t

1. Write a short discourse on the place of English in your country (10)

English Language in Zimbabwe is mostly used in schools, offices and public places as an
official language of communication and instruction. The adoption of English language as an
official language dates back to the colonial era in Zimbabwe. It began as a masters’ language
of instruction but due to the concepts of globalisation, the language is being dominantly used
in public places. In SADC, Africa and the entire world English is one of the leading
languages of instruction in academic, social and political circles.

Most literature and academic books are written in English, learners are supposed to read and
even the students at colleges and universities do so. English Language is a medium of
communication at schools and different institutions used by learners because different ethnic
groups are found therefore the best language to be employed is English Language.

2. Discuss what you think are the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 (20)

There are numerous similarities and differences between L2 and L1.The write up will
show the differences and similarities which scholars came with. According to Littlewood
(2001) L1 is a native or Indigenous language of the student also known as the natural or
mother tongue while L2 is regarded as a target language in the sense that everyone should
have an aim to know it , a target should be set on how to learn , grasp and know it at the of
the day. Ellis (1999) mentions that L1is learnt during primary socialisation and at lower
grades that is primary school and it tends to shrink coefficients to zero whereas L2 tends to
shrink coefficients evenly.

Another difference is that in L1 learners are acquiring words and knowledge about the
world simultaneously the link the words and the world, learning is always successful and
syntax is not acquired unconsciously whilst in L2 learning and teaching is a difficult
undertaking and syntax is acquired Krashen (2000) .Again in L2 learning is not generally
triggered in any way unless the child grows up bilingually but in L1 the acquisition is
triggered at the most critical stage of the child’s cognitive development. L2 is not as part of
the learner’s general cognitive development, it is not an essential life skill in the same way
that the L1 is. Ellis (1999).
 Acording to O’Neill(1998)looking closely again to know and acquire L1 the child
never resist any more than they resist leaning to walk, L1 is an essential biologically driven
process that is it is a part of every individuals evolutionary history and development in the
most critical stage of the individuals acquisition stage of that individuals acquisition of
essential life skills while learning L2 is not biologically driven process .

Krashen (1985) stated that both L1and L2 achieve the language rules in similar
pattern that is morphological features such as ing, past, singular and possessive form. Another
similarity is that both L1 and L2 develop from the factors like critical period
hypothesis, age and language development.

3. What strategies do you think you can adopt for your class to in the teaching of
English as an L2

According to Krashen and other second language specialists (Krashen and Terrell 1983;
Littlewood, 1984; Ellis, 1985), students have different ways of emerging skills in a second
language learning and acquisition. Learning is a conscious process that focuses the students’
attention on the form of the language (structure). Acquisition, unlike learning, is a process
similar to that by which we acquired our mother tongue, and which represents the
subconscious activity by which we internalize the new language, putting emphasis on the
message (meaning) rather than on the form. Acquisition is, thus, the untutored or naturalistic
way.
Mason and Krashen (1997) mentions that in a classroom setup learning is emphasised more
than acquisition. In the classrooms one of the first things teachers say “pay attention”, and
they have students analyse, and take notes on, the new structure item in the lesson. Later,
students are given practice in providing correct answers either structurally or functionally, but
always remaining conscious of what they want to say. In more conservative classes they are
evaluated on their grammatical and lexical knowledge; consequently, they are forced to
“study” for the exams and grammar rules or rules of second language are taught.

The classroom practitioners when teaching English as an L2 in the classrooms consequently,

need to change the type of activities they perform in class in order to help students develop
an accurate, automatic, and long-lasting second language. Communicative language teaching
is likely to improve the kinds of techniques teachers use in class Krashen (2000). The teacher
can also employ pseudo-communicative materials-texts that teach language functions by
using audio-lingual techniques. For example learners of a second language acquire structural
items in a predictable order regardless of the order of presentation. This means that some
structures are more easily acquired than others, and the order of difficulty does not
necessarily correspond with what we believe in an easy or difficult structure. The best way
to correct students’ mistakes when teaching L2 is to provide more ideas containing the
structure in question. The facilitator must take into consideration not to change the order of
presentation of language items. Krashen (1985) suggests that a teacher should present the
language without any conscious effort to organize it and he recommends a syllabus based on
topics, functions, and situations and should source published materials with different
language structures and examples for the children to read and excel at the in L2 .

In a nutshell, the teacher should formulate the system of cards whereby the one who will
communicate in vernacular will be given negative vicarious reinforcement just as propounded
by the social learning theorist Bandura. Another strategy is to give learners more time,
encourage communication using L2, use of high and low order questions during the lessons
to increase critical thinking.
REFERENCES

Ellis, R. (1999). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. Harlow: Longman.

Krashen, S. (2000). What Does It Take To Acquire Language? ESL Magazine, 3(3) 22-23.
Retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/what_does_it_take/index.html

Krashen, S. (2008). Language Education: Past, Present and Future. RELC Journal, 39(2) .

Krashen, S., and Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the
Classroom. New York: Pergamon Press.

Littlewood, W. (2001). Foreign and second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Mason, B., and Krashen, S. (2004). Is Form-Focused Vocabulary Instruction Worthwhile?

RELC Journal, 35(2), 179-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003368820403500206

Nikolov, M., and Krashen, S. (1997). Need We Sacrifice Accuracy for Fluency? System,
25(2), 197-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00008-0

Rodrigo, V., Krashen, S., and Gribbons, B. (2004). The Effectiveness of Two
Comprehensible-Input Approaches to Foreign Language Instruction at the Intermediate
Level. System, 32(1), 53-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.08.003