Group Members : Aulia Hakim
Jessy Therinda
Rahmani Husna
1. Is it really good for L2 learners to delay their oral
production?
2. Does the natural approach attend to learners' output? Can
comprehensible input alone lead to learners' comprehensible output?
3.
According to your language
learning experience with computers, do you think those CALL programs always
provide comprehensible input, particularly in listening?
- Do
you think the feedback from the computer is sufficient for language
learners to develop their listening skills?
Answer
1.
> We think that it is really good (for some reasons) for
L2 to delay their oral production At the beginning, when the learners
start to learn new language, it’s better for them to just be a listener and
focus on the listening comprehension skill.
Become a passive learner will actually help
them to prepare and steady their comprehension on the basic rules (grammar)
which are applied on the essay. Moreover, it enables them to avoid of making mistakes
in producing something. For example: elementary school students are usually
drilled to comprehend an English essay or an English sound rather than making a
comprehensive essay or speech. For us, it is impossible for them (an elementary
school student) to speak fluently, while they don’t comprehend enough to acquire
the language structure or they may not have listening or reading practice
times. In conclusion, it is better to delay an oral production for beginner learner until they become more familiar with the language and ready to produce
a sentence.
> However, we think that delaying
oral production is not always good for some
reasons. First is about learner’s confidence, learner may not brave enough to speak and produce a sentence. That’s because they afraid
of making mistakes. Their output may become even rigid and seems awkward, rather
than any other learner who precedes speaking and writing skill. The solution is
just by letting them producing a sentence, where we automatically teach them
how to make a decision without worrying on the risk behind.
- Besides it, by producing a sentence, learner become familiar
and memorizes to the material (e.g. vocabularies) longer.
- Actually
by producing output (a sentence, whether it is written or spoken) learners are
automatically drilled to build their self-evaluation, so that they could measure
how far their approach in learning language.
According to my own
experience in my junior high school when I was leaning Arabic , I used to
produce what I’ve learned directly (
about vocabulary at that day ) by writing or speaking a simple sentence. The
guider wouldn’t let me go before I could successfully put the new vocabulary in
a sentence. However, I didn’t have to worry because she ( the guider ) would
help me to arrange the sentence.
By practicing it,
I thought that my confidence was increased and I used to memorize the
vocabularies easily. In conclusion, it is also good, if the learner are allowed
to producing output while they are start in language learning process.
2. Yes, The natural approach attends to learners' output
However, I don’t think that
comprehensible input can alone lead to learner’s comprehensible output. It is because
the learners are not allowed to produce anything beside they are learning by
listening or reading. They may have good understanding on the use of grammar in
reading an essay or they may have good comprehension in listening . Shortly, they (the learners)
tend to master the language theoretically rather than practically. However, they
are not used to spoke and write about L2. By producing a simple sentence,
whether it would be spoken or written, the learners are automatically drilled
and motivated to produce better output, even though they may make some mistakes
in the first learning. I think how come a learner could produce comprehensible output if they are seldom drilled to apply what they have
already learned. Then, when the day of producing something like an essay comes,
I’m not quite sure that the output would be as comprehensible as the learner
who adopts other approaches. I suggest it (natural approach) has to be combined
with the other approaches, like communicative approach, where the learners are
automatically get feedback from the guider. So, it enables them to make self –
evaluation.
3.
According
to our experience, the CALL programs always provide
input that users can easily to uderstand. They usually (but not always) devide
input with different levels. Users can choose what levels that suite for them. The higher levels that learner chooses, the more
difficult input that available. That also including listening input, if the
levels higher, vocabulary that spell from the system are more difficult
too.
4. I think the feedback from
the computer is sufficient for language learners to develop their listening
skill. It is because the
computers don’t
limit the learner to use and make some review themselves. The learners are allowed to develop their autonomy by doing some practices on the materials as many
times as they wish. By practicing it times, we think that learner’s listening skill enables to increase.
As what has been mentioned in the text that Computers can provide immediate, nonjudgmental
feedback and additional assistance to learners. They correct learners' errors
without giving them embarrassment or anxiety. So,
the leaner don’t need to worry on the feedback which is given by the computers.
Although we ( as the language learner ) may
have more chance to make review, sometime we may find that we don’t get the
comprehensive feedback from the computers. For example: in listening test ( song
/ news which is played ), we can only get the correct answer without knowing
the right pronunciation based on the phonology rules or with comprehensive extra
information. So, it enables us to make such mistakes in another chance.
