Chinese as a Second Language. The journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, USA - Volume 51, Issue 3, 2016

At the recent CLTA-S2 conference, a spirited debate occurred between critics of second language acquisition (SLA) research and researchers who embraced it. Fascinating as it was, neither camp appeared to have convinced the other, but, more important, the debate left much of the audience flummoxed. In this paper, I intend to provide a follow-up, attempting to clarify a) the relationship between research and teaching in the context of Chinese as a second language (CSL), b) misunderstandings on the part of critics over research findings, and c) potential pitfalls in interpreting the SLA literature. My goal is to encourage, as well as contribute to, further communication between the two camps, for the ultimate good of CSL instruction and learning.

This study compared the effectiveness of two teaching methods on the production of Mandarin Tone 3 by English-speaking students. The control group (n=12) received pitch direction-focused instruction in which Tone 3 was introduced as a falling-rising contour tone while the experimental group (n=12) received pitch height-focused instruction in which Tone 3 was introduced as a low level tone. The ability to produce this tone in monosyllabic words, disyllabic words and sentences was assessed after 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months of instruction. The results showed that the pitch height-focused teaching method improved Tone 3 production in connected tonal environments at the sentence level, whereas the pitch direction-focused teaching method was more effective in training students to produce this tone in isolation. More importantly, unlike the pitch direction-focused method, the effectiveness of the pitch height-focused teaching method generalized to new words. It helped L2 learners to develop a self-learning skill for pronouncing unfamiliar words.

To become proficient readers of Chinese, learners must identify characters quickly and accurately. Learners who are able to recognize characters rapidly are able to focus on the overall message rather than the meaning of individual characters. However, the complex orthography of Chinese makes decoding characters difficult. E-gloss tools such as Dim Sum have been highly touted as solutions to ease this burden for second language learners of Chinese (Shen & Tsai 2010; Xie & Tao 2009). Research has shown that when learners use these tools, reading speeds and comprehension scores improve; however, no research has investigated the effect of such tools on incidentally-learned vocabulary. This study compared incidental vocabulary gains by 19 students in two different Chinese courses, reading four texts with an e-gloss tool and four texts in a traditional paper format. Although a significant difference between the two reading formats was not found, simple comparisons of learning gains by individual learners in both reading formats suggest that students’ learning and reading styles may impact the effectiveness of reading with or without the e-gloss tool.

This study empirically examines the rating criteria used to assess U.S. college students’ CSL (Chinese as a Second Language) oral performance by analyzing teachers’ assessment of these performances at different proficiency levels. The researcher videotaped ten speeches, and three ACTFL-trained raters assessed oral performance in these samples. The researcher then selected three samples (Samples 1, 2, and 3) to represent Novice High, Intermediate High, and Advanced Low levels. The researcher developed 20 rating items through interviewing ten experienced CSL teachers and running an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on teachers’ assessments of speech samples. After that, 104 CSL teachers used these rating items to assess the aforementioned samples. The EFAs of teachers’ assessments led to three corresponding rating criteria models (Models 1, 2, and 3). Both Models 2 and 3 for Samples 2 and 3, respectively, were five-criterion models, consisting of fluency, conceptual understanding, content richness, communication appropriateness, and communication clarity. Model 1 for Sample 1 was a four-criterion model, in which the items in communication appropriateness and content richness showed high correlations, and therefore were merged into one category; the other three criteria remained the same. Comparisons of the three models demonstrated that the criteria were constant. The ANOVAs showed that the proficiency levels of these oral performances differed significantly across all five rating criteria. This study empirically supports CSL teachers’ use of constant rating criteria to assess different levels of oral performance. It also provides Chinese teachers with rating criteria they can use to assess U.S. college students’ CSL oral performance.