Marham Jupri Hadi 4551424 EDGT932

Comparing and contrasting L1 and L2 learning:

Their Implications Toward Second Language Teaching.

In teaching L2 literacy, having sufficient information about the learners’ diverse background

before designing a literacy course is paramount. This is because “L2 literacy may start at

various ages and under different circumstances” (Koda, 2005). With regard to this, this essay

will compare and contrast how two different language learners, an Australian monolingual

speaker, Nada, and Dafi, a bilingual speaker from Indonesia, acquire and learn their L1.

Following that, discussion on how a bilingual learner learns his L3 similar to or different

from learning/ acquiring his L4. Also, the implication of these issues toward second language

literacy teaching will be discussed. The arguments of this essay will be based on the

interview results with the two learners and review of experts’ voices.

From the interview, family background diversity seems to influence what aspects of language

they they acquire. As Nada said, she grew up in a family who have positive attitude toward

reading. For example, her parents would read a variety of bed time stories for her. She

believes this has contributed positively to how she perceives reading. Her experience, to

some extent, is similar to Kubota (2001) and Sasaki (2001). They grew in a family tradition

where literacy is highly valued. By way of contrast, Dafi did not learn learn to read and write

in his first and second languages, because they are local or tribal languages which emphasize

mostly on oral communication. In his family, oral communication is predominant in that in

his tribe people only socialize with oral skills. Therefore, he did not acquire any reading skills

in L1 and L2. However, he started to learn those in L3, the national language of Indonesia.

Following that, there are some other factors affecting our literacy development. As mentioned

earlier, family upbringing is the first factor. This is because how family perceive reading will

1
Marham Jupri Hadi 4551424 EDGT932
lead to how their children respond the reading activities as in the case of Nada and Dafi. This

indicates that the way we learn, and what we learn, might vary in different context (Nation,

2009) such as family. For instance Kubota (2001), she grew up in a family tradition culture

where her motivation, and literacy skills were well nurtured. As a result, she has reached a

advanced level of literacy. The other factors would be how teachers teach literacy in the

classroom and, probably, the ease of access to free or cheap books. As in the case of Nada

and Dafi their teachers have contributed greatly in making literacy learning encouraging.

Although they have been exposed to a range of nonfiction stories, they way their parents

passed the stories to them were different. Nada, on one hand, listened to her parents reading

stories, while Dafi, on the other hand, had his parent told him. These differences affected how

they engaged to reading at school. For instance, as Nada was able to read before she went to

primary school, she found her familiarity with written texts and narrative genre had enabled

her to engage more easily with texts compared to Dafi who only started to learn to read his

L3 at grade one. Nevertheless, their exposure to a range of stories, they have acquired a broad

range of vocabulary and some linguistic features unconsciously.

As Dafi started to learn to read and to write in L3, therefore at this juncture, how he has

learned his L3, national language of Indonesian and L4, English language will be discussed.

In learning to read in L3, Dafi did much of reading aloud and he enjoyed that strategy.

Conversely, at higher schools, his reading activities were focused more on meaning and

language features. Consequently, when entering university, he has already been skillful in

using reading and writing strategies in L3. With regard to his reading motivation, he read

more for joy, yet he wrote only for doing the assignments. This is the same as what Nada said

“I write for purposes, but I read for fun”.

In learning English, L4, which he started in junior high school, his main interest was on

spoken English. However, his teacher applied grammar translation method as teaching
2
Marham Jupri Hadi 4551424 EDGT932
strategies and, therefore, he had very little opportunity to practice oral skills. His learning

experiences, as categorized by Nation (2009), were language focused, language learning

involving deliberate attention to language features...” (ibid). Fortunately, when entering

university, he studied in a balanced learning program. That was because his learning

environment was designed to establish his capacity to be a prospective English teacher after

completing his graduation. In literacy class, he found that his L3 proficiency had enabled him

to get engaged more easily in developing literacy in English. With regard to this, Sasaki

(2001) argues that the development of her Japanese writing is the crucial basis for her

English literacy.

Finally, it is worth knowing that both have been digitally literate which we associate with the

ability to engage with a variety of multimedia (Mackey, 2007.P.13) in Ferris and &

Hedgcock (2009). To illustrate, each of them has been communicating with emails, writing

on blogs, and using online sources for research purposes. Probably, the rapid spread of the

rapid spread of laptops, computers, MP3 players, mobile phones, enabling them to access

print and non print sources anywhere (Ferris and & Hedgcock, 2009) is the cause. In other

words, there is a strong indication that technology plays vital roles in mediating literacy

development.

Having discussed almost all the issues, it is necessary for teacher to carry out a need analysis

to gain understanding about any affecting factor regarding the success of his/ her ESL literacy

course. This is, firstly, because “reading is a multifaceted, complex construct in that it

involves a number of component operations, each depends on a wide range of competencies”

(Koda, 2005)”. Secondly, the participants might have very diverse background of literacy

level, culture toward reading, motivation, expectations, learning styles and teaching styles

preferences. Through such an inquiry, she/he will be better informed about these issues and

those will enable her/him to set learning goals/outcomes, design the syllabus, and administer

3
Marham Jupri Hadi 4551424 EDGT932
tests and evaluation (Baker, 2013). In other words, the analysis results, afterwards, could be

use as a reliable foundation to design a flexible course (Ipek. 2009) that meet the teaching

and learning goals and objectives.

In conclusion, as L2 literacy class participants might have very diverse background, the

whole process of teaching activities might be painstaking. The complexity of reading also

adds to the challenge. However, the availability of a range of technology for literacy

development would benefit teachers from course design to evaluation stage. Therefore,

conducting a need analysis regarding these issues is a must prior to design the course in order

to achieve L2 literacy learning outcomes and indicators.

References

Baker, A. (2013). Lecture Notes. Planning and Programming. August 21, 2013. School of
Education. UOW.

Balcher, D.D (Editor); Connor, U (Editor). (2001). Billingual Education and bilingualism,
26. Reflection on Multiliteracies Lives. Retrieved on August 23, 2013.
http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/lib/au.

Hedgcock, J.S. & Ferris, D.R. (2009). Teaching readers of English: Students, texts, and
contexts. New York: Routledge.

Ipek, H . (2009).Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language Acquisition:

Implication for Language Teachers. CCSE.English Language Teaching.Vol.2.No.2.
Retreived on August 22, 2013. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal.html

Koda, K, (2005). Insights into Second Language Language Reading. A Cross-linguistics

Approach. Cambridge Apllied Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Nation, I.S.P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing. ESL & Applied Linguistics
Professional Series. New York, USA: Routledge.

Note: Nada and Dafi are anonymous names.