A Graduate Research Paper on Bias Against the Teaching of Hebrew in the Church

Overcoming Bias Through Hebrew Foreign Language Education
By Roy Blizzard III © 2012

The purpose of my course of study has not been to study fluency in Biblical or Modern Hebrew by any group of learners. The course of study I chose is focused with one purpose in mind; seeking to overcome an unjustifiable bias that I believe has been and still is being generated throughout the “Christian Community” both in this country and abroad. This is not to say that there are not some exceptions to this bias within the Christian Community, but they are few. The specific bias that I am concerned with here is the bias in the Christian Community against the teaching of Hebrew as a valid and important Foreign Language of study within the church.
This bias is the result of centuries of deceptions, misunderstandings, and faulty interpretations of the most widely circulated book ever written, the Bible. The principal cause for such misunderstandings can be directly attributed to a lack of knowledge of the Hebrew language in the general population.
As Joan W. Scott (1) observed, “…the production of knowledge is a political enterprise that involves a contest among conflicting interests. Those in a position of leadership simply promote their orthodoxy in the name of unquestioned and unquestionable tradition, universality, or history. They attack challenges to their ideas as dangerous and subversive.” Simply put, the men and women in the Christian Community who have been held responsible for translating or commenting on the text were for the most part rarely familiar with the Hebrew language, culture, or history, but in fact, it didn’t matter to them anyway. Whenever questions arose among the laity that the clergy had no answer for, instead of giving the proper answer, “I do not know. Let’s learn together.”, answers were made up and given to keep the people who were dependant on them for their spiritual and physical well being in order to placate and ensure their place in their own ideological camp.

These teachings, which lead to this bias and varied schisms, also serve effectively to neutralize the Christian Community as an effective educational organization. Without a working knowledge of the Hebrew language, they were, and yes still are, unable to search for answers to questions that are central to their faith and life. As a result, they are fair game for those who claim to have the answers for them. Even today, these teachings frequently lead the Christian Community to chaos within its very fabric because of a lack of understanding about who the members of the Christian Community are as members of a greater society.
Since learning involves the ability to generalize from past experiences in order to deal with new situations (2), if there is a unjustifiable bias in play when studying a foreign language or text it hinders the learners ability to correctly understand the generalizations of a foreign language which can only be understood in that particular language. Therefore, it also predisposes the learner to make generalizations that are not valid and prevents the inductive leap that is able to link words and concepts together in their proper context. Thus if you excise the Biblical text from its Jewish background it would be nearly impossible to understand all of the nuances inherent in the Hebrew text.
What is needed in the study of the Hebrew language within the Christian Community is an understanding of the proper biases necessary to understand Hebrew and the text of the Bible that underpin the Christian Communities beliefs. Several of these fundamental biases are as follows: a) A factual understanding of the realm of study, b) How does one use generalizations to guide learning biases, c) What does the learner know about the source of their training data, d) There is a bias towards the simple and general, e) Analogies with previously learned generalizations. (2)
This situation has been exploited for thousands of years by many in the Christian Community who have been willing to exert control over others who lack the ability to deal with the Hebrew language. The leaders willingly gather the masses of unlearned people who do not know the truth and manipulate them for their own gain. With over 30,000 various denominations springing up within the Christian Community in the last 2,000 years, and many times going to war over interpretive issues that are moot points in the Hebrew Language, it is easy to see the inherent problems which arises when there is no common understanding or goals within an organization.
There is not one single teaching but many that can be revealed and proved to have been utilized in order to cause this bias against Hebrew FLE and for that matter anything seemingly Jewish within the

Christian Community. Here are some of the main erroneous teachings that give rise to hundreds of others
First, the erroneous teaching that the entire Jewish Community or even one Jew is somehow to blame for executing Jesus. The subsequent transferred erroneous belief in the uneducated mind leads to the question of “Why would one who is a good Christian want to study the language of the very ones who put Jesus to death.”
Secondly, an erroneous teaching put forth is that Jesus and His followers had rejected Judaism and had started a new religion called Christianity. Therefore, anything having to do with the Old religion of the Jews was simply swept away and replaced by the “New” teachings of the Christians. In the masses minds, since Hebrew was for the Old religion, we should only study what is for the “New” religion.
Thirdly, the erroneous teaching that because the Jews rejected Jesus, the founder of the Christian Community, then God rejected them and cut them off from the greater Community, led to a belief that anything Jewish, even the language of Hebrew needs to be cut off and rejected as well.
Fourthly, an erroneous teaching by the Christian Community is continually put forth that Jesus and all the disciples all spoke mainly Greek and Aramaic, not Hebrew. Therefore, the New Testament was originally written in Greek with some Aramaic words, so in order to understand the New Testament we must study Greek not Hebrew. This teaching gives rise to the belief that Greek has supplanted Hebrew as the primary language of New Testament study if one wants to understand their Christian faith and participate in the Christian Community.
While some in the Christian Community have acknowledged that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of possible misunderstandings and possible mistranslations from one translation to another in the non-Hebrew texts of the Bible, by and large they ignore the root cause of the problem. This is a failure to emphasize the teaching of Hebrew to the Christian Community as the principal language of study for both the Old and New Testaments. By ignoring the Hebrew language solution, the leadership within the Christian Community blatantly causes an unjustifiable bias against the teaching of Hebrew in favor of the teaching of Greek, handicaps itself and perpetuates serious misunderstandings and confusion.
The teachings above seem to form the basis of a greater vortex of errors, which suck the unlearned into a depth of error that is almost impossible to overcome. These seemingly harmless errors

lead to a host of theological misunderstandings that in turn lead to personal misunderstandings and denominational factions within the Christian Community.
It can be easily demonstrated that once the laity learns Hebrew, the possibilities of deception through misuse or misunderstanding of the Biblical text can decrease exponentially simply due to the fact that now a person can know what the text says in an original context.
While there have always been sects of varying beliefs within the Judaism, as many as 23 in the 1st century C.E., they all followed the Biblical Hebrew Masoretic text fairly close in interpretation. Their differences in opinions had more to do with their nationalistic sectarian problems than with the Hebrew text. The foundation of the sectarian groups lies in the vagueness of the Hebrew language itself, which can be understood in several ways, not in the failure to understand the text.
Here in the Christian Community, the problem for the most part lies squarely in a failure to understand the Hebrew language as a whole entity. Not the language, the culture, the history, or anything else that is remotely Jewish is studied in its proper context. The Greco-Roman/non-Jewish influence has so strongly permeated the Christian Community that most of what the Churches believe has no basis within the 1st Century Hebrew language, Jewish synagogue/Temple worship context that gave rise to what we call today the Christian Community.
From my recognition of a bias in the Christian Community and an understanding of both the Christian Community and the Hebrew language and Jewish culture I began to develop a course of study that sought to take individuals in the Christian Community, uneducated in the Hebrew language, and teach them basic Biblical and Modern Hebrew words and concepts.
My course did not seek to create beginner level speakers of Biblical or Modern Hebrew. My belief was that if a person could be shown the importance of knowing the real meaning behind what they believe, if they do not choose to learn Hebrew as a foreign language, it is not because of a bias against it, but only because of a personal choice due to the constraints of life.
In order to develop any new language course for second language acquisition, it is advantageous to look at the surrounding Second Language Acquisition theories based on research investigating specific questions with specific populations in defined circumstances. Doing so, I proposed the following theory: Motivation or non-motivation to learn Hebrew as a foreign language may be due to belief factors of general Christian education, whether these beliefs are overtly taught or passively learned, that reflects

the “Christian Community’s”(each denomination singly or in general)- attitudes of cultural values and beliefs towards the Hebrew language (Jewish) community?
In order to answer this question it was necessary to define the following terms and then look at current research in these areas.
1) Motivation – The variables that either causes a desire to learn or not to learn a foreign language, mainly broken down to two categories, Integrative and Instrumental.
2) Belief Factor – Ideas, notions, opinions, and knowledge about languages and cultures whether true or not.
3) Attitudes – How a student approaches a foreign language.
4) Culture – Includes those values, beliefs and practices shared by a group of people. Cultures vary along several dimensions with different views and behaviors such as the following which lead to misunderstanding and tension. A) Individualism
and Collectivism B) Monochronic and Polychronic time C) Egalitarianism vs. Action vs. Being Orientation E) Change and Tradition (Zeigahn
2001).Cultural dimensions will provide the basis for a learners’ behavior and responses, while a teacher’s teaching methods are always based on their own cultural values, regardless of whether teachers are aware of their influences.
5) Identity – How a language learner perceives of himself/herself. This can take many such as identifying with a group, culture, age, or religion.
Hierarchy D)
6) General Christian Education – General Christian Education can fall into several
first being those who just go to church all their lives and learn the Bible by listening to those in their church who may have limited education in Hebrew or the culture of the Bible. The second are those who may go to a Christian school, either on elementary basis to those who go all the way up to a Christian college, but still are taught by those having limited or no knowledge of Hebrew language or culture.
groups with the
forms

7) Christian Community (singularly/generally) – The Christian community is very large and diverse. It is made up of over 400 major different denominations and people from every nationality. Each one of these denominations can be sub- grouped into smaller categories by every sort of variable from race, to region, to young, to old, etc. While some hold similar beliefs or viewpoints on the same subject, most groups vary somewhat and this is what causes their divisions from group to group and region to region.
8) Cultural Values & Beliefs of Christians towards Hebrew – Generally held similar standards, morals, ethics, ideas, teachings, and ways of life of Christian groups with regards to Hebrew as a foreign language or the Hebrew culture.
Summaries of Research
1) In this short paper by Ayala, Geraldo, (2003). Second Language Learning is a Personalized, Collaborative, and Lifelong Activity. International Workshop on Research and Development of Human Communication Technologies for Conversational Interaction and Learning, it is proposed that L2 learning occurs in a collaborative manner, but must be a personal and lifelong activity.
The paper is theoretical in nature and proposes that in order to evaluate and develop a learner model, you have to evaluate the learner interests, intentions, capabilities and commitments. The learner must be viewed as an active agent in a distributed, collaborative learning environment and if educated through distance methods for learner modeling, Artificial Intelligence techniques for knowledge representation and belief revision must be applied.
Since language is the best example of knowledge developed by a community that is learned socially by members and who apply it to interact in a productive manner it stands to reason that in order to best support L2 Learning a communal, collaborative environment needs to be established.
It is to that end that a CSCL or Computer Supported Collaborative Learning environment implies the support needed in the development of the basic skills by its participants: (1. Communication and cooperation skills (2. Creation of new knowledge together with other learners (3. Management of shared knowledge resources (4. Influencing others to learn (5. Questioning, reflection, and discussion (6.

Responsibility of self learning and maintaining an updated learning plan (7. Learning at one’s own speed, anytime, anywhere.
If a web-based support system is based on generative and intentional learning methodologies it can promote metacognitive and self-directed learning skills necessary to promote lifelong learning. Any technology must support the learner to: A) Develop a social construction of knowledge in a virtual community of other learners, B) Provide knowledge resources relevant to the learner, C) Help maintain a personalized self paced learning plan, D) Join in group participation of like minded individuals.
2) In the article by Bedford, David A., (1981). Aspects of the Relationship of Cultural Information to Motivation and Achievement in Foreign Language Acquisition. Hispania. v64, n4, pp.584-88, he writes that although culture appears to be secure in its place in foreign language curricula, its rational for being there is not clear or definitive, especially to the students who are supposedly benefiting from its being taught or to the teachers who have no clear goals for teaching it.
This article is empirical in nature as it details a study done by the author David Bedford which was given to 264 students, of which complete data was garnered on 105 subjects. The goal of the study was to test 2 null hypotheses. The 1st was that college students of Spanish using materials showing Spanish culture will not exhibit higher integrative motivation than the students not using such materials. The 2nd was that college students of Spanish using materials designed to foster integrative motivation will not score higher on an achievement test on Spanish Grammar than those whose instruction does not.
The procedure used random selection and had both a control and an experimental group. Each read for 10 minutes a day, in class self instructional material, identical in form but not in content. He supposedly eliminated the variables such as time of day, teacher personality and competence by having both groups in the same class each day. The subjects were pre and post tested with 2 affective measures from Gardner and Lambert. The 1st was the Ethnocentrism Scale and the other was the French-American Attitude Scale modified by changing the words French to Spanish. There was also an achievement test given on the last day.
The results of the study showed no statistically significant difference in means between the two treatment groups on any of the test, although he maintains that maybe 2 weeks is not long enough to properly test his hypothesis. In conclusion, neither null hypothesis was rejected.

As to the 1st, since there was no significant scoring difference, cultural information can not be said to promote integrative motivation under the conditions of the study. As to the 2nd, three reasons prevent it from being rejected. Firstly, the materials used by the experimental group did not promote integrative motivation over the control group, so the hypothesis was not tested at all. Secondly, following the above, there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups on the achievement tests. And thirdly, a subject’s score on the achievement test could not be predicted from his scores on the affective post tests.
David Bedford states that his study results did not support his supposition, but that his supposition should not be discarded on the basis of his study since so much literature supports this supposition. He finishes by giving 5 research questions that could lead to better answers for his hypothesis and better understanding of the need for inclusion of culture in a curriculum.
3) In this paper by Cook, Vivian, (1997). Monolingual Bias in Second Language Acquisition Research. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 35-50, she argues whether L2 acquisition research actually deals with the learner’s language as an independent system. The article is theoretical in nature offering her insights into the subject juxtaposed with others in the field.
Cook begins with a quick historical look at the beginnings of the Independent Grammar assumption and L2 acquisition research, quoting McNeil (1966) and giving examples of early grammar work by L1 researchers Braine (1963), Klima and Bellugi (1966), Brown (1973) and a challenger Smith (1973) who argued “that the phonology of a young child could be described better through “deformation rules” added to an adult grammar than through a grammar of it’s own.”
Cook states that this Independent Grammar assumption is a spin-off of the recognition that the study of Linguistics is Linguistic competence – the ideal native speaker’s knowledge of language by Chomsky (1965). Given this recognition, the relevance to 2L acquisition was realized by several individuals about the same time.
Pit Coder (1971) said that it was a transitional idiosyncratic dialect. Nemser (1971) said it was an approximate system or La – approximate language, distinct from
Ls – source language and Lt – target language. Selinker (1972), in his complex concept of Interlanguage, said that the Independent Grammar assumption is “the existence of a separate linguistic system based on the observable output which results from a learners attempted production of a TL – Target Language

norm. Recent L2 acquisition research continues to espouse the Independent Grammar assumption as gospel.
Cook now begins a section on the 2L acquisition belief that the L2 language system is deficient compared to native speakers and she gives numerous examples of how the researchers use the words “failures” or “non-successful” or “poor outcome” and even “lack of mastery” when discussing the “inability” of 2LL to become “native” speakers.
She then explains how this idea of native speaker competence being the touchstone for 2LL is a paradox. Why, she argues, should L2 researchers espouse Independent Grammars but measure them by native speakers. The two are incompatible, yet are oftentimes espoused by the same people such as Ellis, Towell & Hawkins, and Selinker. Cook believes either this is an example of double think or that the Independent Grammar assumption has been tacitly abandoned.
She then postulates that maybe L2 methodologies don’t measure up to answer the actual question of whether research in L2 based on Independent Grammar assumptions actually must not measure L2 learners solely against a checklist of whether they have or have not mastered the competencies of native speakers. She looks at Error Analysis, Obligatory Occurrences, Elicited Imitation, and Multidimensional Model and she shows the inherent weaknesses of each method. Cook also assails the grammaticality judgments which also use native speaker links to the performance of the L2. She rightly states that in order to meet an Independent Grammar assumption, the grammaticality judgment test should not be directly aimed at comparison with a native speaker but at discovering of a L2 user’s grammar such as did Quirk and Svartik (1966). Cook gives several examples of researchers who try to achieve non-comparisons with native speakers such as Young (1991), Asamson and Rean (1991), and Klein and Perdue (1992).
Cook claims that the inconsistencies of 2L acquisition researchers must be addressed and corrected if 2L acquisition research is to be a reputable sub-discipline of linguistics. One group should not be measured against the norm of another group, Labov (1969), “people who speak differently from some arbitrary group are not using grammars that are better or worse, just different.” Cook argues that an L2 is singled out as deficient for being a bilingual. She justifiably makes the point that by definition an L2 user is not a monolingual native speaker and will probably never be, so why are they being denigrated as failures compared to a group that they aren’t by definition. It seems 2L acquisition

researchers and linguistic researchers alike seem to have neglected the fact that the real goal of 2L acquisition is bilingualism.
Cook points out that many 2L learners have no goal of becoming a native speaker. They have an instrumental motivation and that’s o.k., but nevertheless will be relegated to the defective status of “learner” no matter how competent, since they will never be a native speaker.
Cook feels that maybe we should use the term L2 user as it is far more descriptive and less prejudicial and goes on to suggest that 2L acquisition researchers would do well to see how bilingualists see a L2 user, not as a failed monolingual, but a success in their own right, since bilingualism is not a phenomenon of language, it is a characteristic of its use. What counts is not whether a L2 user “knows” two languages, but whether the L2 user can use both of them.
4) In the article by Donovan, Carol A. & Smolkin, Laura B. (2000). The Contexts of Comprehension: Information Book Read Alouds and Comprehension Acquisition, CIERA Report #2 – 009, June, they focus on the 2nd of three stumbling blocks that throw kids off course to skilled reading which is failure to transfer the comprehension skills of spoken language to reading and to acquire new strategies that may be specifically needed for reading, as mentioned by Snow, Burns, and Griffin, 1998. This paper is more theoretical in nature. While it does pull some information and statistics from a number of sources across the educational field, the researchers collect no data on their own but provide a much more detailed examination of the subject that just a review.
They cite Pearson (1996) as a basis for their beginnings, “What goes under the name of skill, strategy, or structure instruction is more accessible, interesting, and sensible when it is embedded within a real problem, a real text, or a real body of content….The best way to help students develop highly transferable, context-free literacy tools is to teach these tools as if they were entirely context bound”. Where Smolkin and Donovan change, however, is that they focus on “comprehension acquisition” not on “comprehension learning” following Krashen in 1976.
The role of the adult is discussed in relation to the nature of input language, scaffolding, models, and direct instruction. Does the scaffolding process given by the adult enable the learner to solve a problem, carry out a task, or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts? Does the modeling of the adult enable the learner to be privy to acts of text comprehension in an audible

manner? Does the adult give explicit instructions to “do” or “say” after modeling a particular utterance in an ongoing context?]
They then discuss early research in comprehension strategy instruction beginning in approximately 1977 with Markman, that kid’s comprehension was developmental. By the early 1990’s, eight cognitive acts that teachers were to encourage students to perform were proposed. They then show the failure of much of the comprehension strategy instruction due to attention paid to the strategies themselves rather than the meaning of what is being read. Now current emphases are on what does/should occur during actual reading of texts, not on the disembedded teaching of strategies.
One strategy is connecting info the text lacks but that the reader may possess as prior knowledge, as shown in Why and How questioning not in What questioning. Another approach is the Author Questioning Method, where the teacher interrogates the text in order to interpret its meaning. This supposedly guides the learners to recognize authors as fallible humans whose particular writing choices may negatively impact our understanding and enjoyment. This approach remains a teacher scripted event requiring a lot of time and preparation. A 3rd, transactional approach is a situated instruction determined by student’s responses in regular curricular areas and including all 8 of the strategies fleshed out in the 1990’s. The students and teachers act together and the instruction more closely resembles parental direct instruction than any other approach.
Smolkin and Donovan switch to the impact fiction or non-fiction read alouds have on teacher/student, student/teacher discourse moves. They find that there are approximately 8 times as many discourse moves by kids with non-fiction and 3 times as many by the teacher in a level 1 class. They conclude that the information books created situations where the students and teachers were more engaged in meaning seeking efforts enhanced by the quality of material selected by the teachers and how the teacher interacts during reading. Examples are given of classroom discourse and ties are shown to the 8 strategies through discussion of the discourse examples.
The one strategy which evokes “prior knowledge” can sometimes be shown to be detrimental in a situation where a refutation occurs, because learners oftentimes hold fast to “prior knowledge” whether right or wrong due to prior experiences.
Using these strategies, Smolkin and Donovan apply Krashen’s theory to the developmental view of comprehension and show the 2 different areas of which Krashen believes the Monitor Theory applies to 2 different areas in skills and strategies, especially at different ages of learner’s lives. They then

advocate a period of comprehension acquisition, that quite logically could begin in preschool and continue through 1st and even part of 2nd grade, incorporating a range of reading genres focusing on meaning making, so as to enable an internalization of the types of thinking and discussion that surround the texts that often hinder older learners (Vygotsky 1978).
This enables a growth in the cognitive power during the 5 to 7 shift, before strategies are introduced, which could then help with reading comprehension. This early focus is more uni- dimensional, since multi-dimensional thinking develops more after the age of 7, and so the knowledge about print and reading doesn’t mean growth in background knowledge, concepts, and vocabulary that they can utilize later in life.
They propose an examination of the nature of comprehension acquisition with a validation of the significance of informational texts. The 8 strategies also may provide knowledge of which strategy represents the least and greatest demands cognitively which may lead to the design of a comprehension strategy program that becomes increasingly demanding over the elementary grades. They also note that the teacher training for both comprehension acquisition and instruction merits attention in order to reshape a schools reading program.
5) In the literature review by Florez, MaryAnn C., and Burt, Miriam, (2001). Beginning to Work with Adult English Language Learners: Some Considerations. ERIC Digest., they answer questions in the arena of English Language Learning in four areas: (1. Application of principles of adult learning in ESL contexts (2. 2L acquisition (3. Culture and working with multicultural groups (4. Instructional approaches that support language development in adults. While not a comprehensive literature review, it does offer an overview of important points, suggests basic strategies, and provides resources to consult for more information throughout a range of sources.
Florez and Burt first reference Malcom Knowles (1973) in order to lay down the basis for adult instruction. The 5 points they make are: a) adults are self directed; b) adults have reservoirs of experience as resources; c) adults are practical and problem solvers; d) adults need immediate applicable learning; e) adults want to know WHY something is to be learned. As the learners progress, their learner characteristics are filtered through culture, language, and experience. And the learners may be resistant to teaching methods unfamiliar with them.
They then deal with three 2nd language acquisition theory headings; 1) Cognitive issues 2) Affective issues 3) Linguistic issues, and they offer some suggestions instructors can use in the classroom

drawn from theories generally accepted as relevant for most Second Language Learning. A) Meaningful interaction and natural communication in the target language are necessary for successful language acquisition. B) Effective language use involves an automatic processing of language. C) Language learners can monitor speech correctness given time and knowledge. D) Second language acquisition occurs when learners are exposed to I+1. E) People have affective filters supporting or disrupting Second language acquisition. F) Interlanguage periods occur with errors being a natural part of language learning. G) A silent period occurs during which learners absorb new language prior to producing it. H) Second language acquisition theories are based on research investigating specific questions with specific populations in defined circumstances.
Florez and Burt now turn to Culture and Language and its impact on Second Language Acquisition. Since learning a new language involves learning about new ways of thinking, feeling, and expressing, it can put pressure on a native cultural belief system. Second Language Learners who must re-configure their views in relation to new social contexts may find themselves ambivalent, confused and even hostile towards the process of adapting to a new culture, even to language learning.
These feelings may be eased by becoming acquainted with learner’s cultures so as to understand their perspectives and expectations by being aware of possible reactions to taboo topics or topics of a painful or reactive nature, and allowing adequate response time before repeating or restating a question.
Instructional approaches are then given which can support Second Language development in adults. These are: 1) know the students and their needs 2) Use visuals for lesson support 3) Model tasks before having learners respond 4) Foster a safe classroom 5) Observe teacher talk and writing – KISS 6) Use scaffolding 7) Use authentic material 8) Don’t overload learners 9) Balance variety and routine of activities 10) Celebrate success.
If instructors are not cognizant of the instructional approaches, needless criticism from 2L instructors towards language learners or their preconceived biases can cause anxiety among the learners and can bring failure to the student and towards the language.
Instructors should also utilize Inquiry-based method for 2L students. This is a form of active learning that starts by posing questions, problems or scenarios that utilize an understanding of the cultural perspectives vs. just presenting facts and knowledge about a subject with no interaction.

Hands on activities verses primary visuals in the classroom can also be effective in reinforcing the learning. For example, in Readers Theatre (a collaborative strategy for developing oral reading fluency through reading parts in scripts) the language learners practice a script with the dialogue they are working on in class. The students will work on the script for a week, working on dialogue, pronunciation, rate, pace, etc. After a week, the class or group will read off of their script giving a performance to the teacher. This aural/visual approach brings about a more complete learning process for the 2L learner.
6) In the article by Johnson, Connie, (1998). A Comparison of Students Beliefs Towards Foreign Language Acquisition in Mexico and the United States. MexTESOL Journal. pp.1-17, she writes that most people have beliefs and opinions about how languages are learned. Some believe that languages can be learned easily and others believe just the opposite, but as language teachers, we should be aware of how pre-conceived ideas about language can affect the learners’ ability in the classroom. ]
This paper is an empirical study report on attitude research involving three groups: 1) basic foreign Language learners in the U.S. 2) Mexican University English as a Foreign Language proficient EFL learners 3) Mexican University English as a Foreign Language academic at risk learners.
In order to identify the Mexican learners’ beliefs about the language learning process, they were given an attitude and belief instrument. The paper only reports on the results of the two groups of Mexican students and compares them with a published study by Horwitz, with the ultimate goal to identify specific reasons for Mexican EFL University academic at risk students’ language learning problems. The skill of listening was chosen as the factor to identify the problem learner since the communicative approach was used in their classroom and the students had had repeated failure to achieve in EFL courses.
Since most language teachers can relate to the learners preconceived notions on language learning, Connie Johnson discusses how other authors view this situation. Wendon (1991) says that if the learners believe they have no aptitude to learn or it must be learned in a certain way, it will influence the learner’s attitude towards their capacity or role in the process. Holec (1987) believes in de- conditioning to change the learner’s preconceived ideas by introducing some of these notions and discuss their impact on learning a foreign language. Mantle-Bromley (1995) believes that teachers should create and teach lessons on the foreign language learning process so as to incorporate attitude- change methods. Horwitz (1998) suggests that since learners arrive with a variety of feelings about how

learning is to occur, teachers should make themselves aware of student’s attitudes and how they relate to the particular teaching methodology being employed, and that it is the teacher’s responsibility to help students overcome their misconceptions.
In this study there were 68 Mexican beginner level EFL at risk learners identified as having serious problems with listening comprehension and 68 Mexican proficient learners. They had completed four questionnaires to evaluate (1) motivation to learn the target language (2) amount of communicative anxiety they experienced in the classroom (3) listening strategies they presently employed (4) individual belief concerning the nature of the language learning process. The paper’s results only reports on this fourth instrument with the participants being from the University of Texas.
The instrument used was developed by Elaine Horwitz in 1998 and was called the BALLI-Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory. Originally containing 34 items to assess student’s beliefs in five major areas it was shortened to only 16 items assessing four areas with the items chosen based on the teachers experience with Mexican EFL learners.
The results showed significant differences between the three groups. The at risk group felt English was very difficult to learn because they had experienced problems before and reported difficulty with all four skills reading, writing, listening and understanding. The non-at risk group did not feel that these four were difficult. Both Mexican groups did feel that children were better able to learn a foreign language than adults, which indicate teachers should discuss this notion within the first few days of class. Students believed that vocabulary and grammar exercises were important which also indicate a need for teachers to explain their methodology of acquisition as opposed to overt learning. The Mexican students all agreed that there was a very important need to speak with an excellent accent and for drills, repetition and immediate correction.
These findings show that teachers need to make aware to their students these points which may seem obvious to them so that they can be “de-conditioned as Holec suggests. They would also suggest that these ideas are indicative of students in all areas of language learning in all countries. It is also suggested that anxiety in the FL classroom may influence other factors which in turn will influence their study habits. If the methodology that the teacher is employing does not agree with the beliefs and expectations of the students, then the students may experience debilitating anxiety which would lower motivation, cause procrastination and avoidance of speaking and hindering listening in the FL classroom.

7) In the article by LaBelle, Melissa T., (2000). Lisa Loeb Fellowship: Cultural Encounters as a Lens for Foreign Language Acquisition and Pedagogy. Journal of Education, Vol. 182, Issue 3, p93, she investigates the interplay of second language
acquisition foreign language pedagogy and cultural insights to show that the perspectives, practices, and products of the cultures-be they historical or contemporary-can be shared in a special way with members of the culture in which they originated.
The article is theoretical in nature and details three different participants of a Lisa Loeb travel program and their contacts with a foreign culture and L2.
LaBelle writes that since we now face the challenge in this millennium of uniting as a people and communicating effectively across broad cultural and linguistic gaps, FL study is no longer an elite academic pursuit in preparation for college, but rather a practical discipline which prepares students for future careers, travel opportunities, and daily tasks which involve global and multi-lingual interaction.
In order to achieve the necessary level of second language (L2) proficiency,
speakers must learn to spontaneously communicate in the target language (TL) and flexibly adapt their speech and writing to accommodate a wide variety of communicative contexts (Phillips, 1989; Horwitz, 1987). Modern language instruction and assessment have expanded and is not merely the pursuit of mastery and correction of pronunciation and grammar errors in the L2. A change to communicative- based pedagogy sharply contrasts with the memorized dialogues and repeated grammar drills of the audio-lingual FL teaching method (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). Proponents of this FL approach believe it can facilitate more effective FL teaching and better address the needs of the 21st century L2 learner than did former structure and grammar-based approaches (Lee & VanPatten, 1995; Omaggio Hadley, 1993).
To facilitate a desired level of communicative proficiency on the part of their students, FL teachers need to strive for high levels of proficiency in all four modalities: listening, reading, writing, and speaking. Additionally, L2 teachers must interact with target cultures in authentic, cross-cultural, immersion-based settings. This encourages high levels of risk taking with the language, exclusive target language use, and first hand cultural understanding which permit teachers to infuse their curricula with a greater understanding of the global perspective.
By proficiency development, a common language can be a powerful tool to bridge cultures. Language and culture are by necessity connected to each other (Seelye, 1984). If L2 instruction doesn’t integrate culture, students cannot see the strong relationship between the two. An understanding of

target cultures provides meaningful context for communication and this knowledge permits students to understand the linguistic and social functions behind the various forms and structures they are using in the L2.
In spite of the powerful role of culture in foreign language instruction, any integration of it into a L2 curriculum is a complicated process fraught with challenges such as 1) a belief that there is too many grammar, structure, and vocabulary concepts to cover and therefore no time to present the target cultures in any detail. 2) a belief that the L2 teacher knowledge base of the said cultures is weak and therefore won’t be transmitted to students.
Seelye (1984) claims that the goal of teaching culture is to help students find patterns and use cross-cultural observations to promote cultural understanding and a purely fact-based approach leads to oversimplification of a culture’s complexity and the promotion of stereotypes. He also reasons that although cultural facts constantly change with current events and changes in leadership, cross-cultural relationships and understandings transcend trivia and provide long term benefits to the learner. The promotion of cultural learning as a process rather than a mere transmission of facts about a country should be the goal.
The culture learning strand is composed of products, practices and perspectives. Products are defined as the actual items from the target culture, the practice is articulated as the manner in which products (items) are used in the target culture and perspectives refer to the values, beliefs, or rationale behind the use of the product. It’s the interplay of these which present culture in context in classroom instruction, creating meaningful learning opportunities for L2 students.
SLA initially stemmed from the desire to create effective classroom teaching methods with theorists, linguists, and FL educators differing in their positions on the relationship between SLA and FLE. This paper presupposes the fact that these two disciplines are not mutually exclusive. SLA theory should inform pedagogy of the L2. Effective theories claiming to explain language learning phenomena with respect to formal settings should be tested in a classroom context.
The primary objective of LaBelle’s piece is to show ways in which the cross-cultural travel experience of a classroom language teacher can provide an integrated viewpoint relative to FL pedagogy and SLA theory. The range of FL teaching methods and SLA theories actually serves as a commonality between the two disciplines. Both acknowledge the uniqueness of human utterances and the originality of a learner in his or her articulation of sounds, interaction with the target culture, use of Interlanguage,

or combination of lexical items in an L2 sentence. FL pedagogy and SLA theory probe the question of how learners acquire proficiency and fluency in the target language. SLA and L1 acquisition theory offer some insights and paradigms compatible with FL proficiency measures.
Research suggests the value of integrating culture and language in L2 instruction. In early levels of L2 learning, students often assume that language learning is merely a
process of substituting L2 words for first language (L1) words using the same word order and L1 grammars and that effective teaching of culture to L2 students requires that students be given cultural and linguistic awareness in order that they may revise their cultural and linguistic patterns.
The rest of this paper presents cultural observations and pedagogical insights gleaned by two Lisa Loeb fellows in Spain and Ecuador respectively. The article explores a third fellow’s analysis of ways in which travel abroad to Sénégal and Morocco have permitted a greater understand standing of the pragmatics and discourse patterns of French as a function of the interplay of national and official languages in former French colonies. Finally, the third fellow discusses how the cultural understandings and observed principles of second language acquisition have shaped her FL pedagogy in the French classroom.
The first fellow, Eisner, found that new cultural insights have led to increased motivation to learn Spanish and has increased her level of curiosity about the target cultures. Eisner found that photos she took on the fellowship sparked student interest in Spain and lead to in-depth discussions of the identity and cultural significance of the places shown. The second fellow, Dembs, found that her travels permitted her high school students to experience culture through her experiences and to discover values, dignity, and uniqueness in other cultures. The experience increased her motivation and ability to teach Spanish with her pedagogy empowering students to make global connections and identify with the target culture better. She sees language learning as a door for cultural understanding, an effective communicative tool for travel abroad and a way to show students that everyone is unique regardless of difference in ethnicity, grammar, vocabulary or culture.
The third fellow found that while the native people in Africa were more than willing to engage in conversation in French, their social networks all revolved around their native language. All the textbook explanations and linguistic class lessons on this contrast between official and national language were surpassed by the following simple yet profound reflection by a Sénégalaise woman, whom was befriended while in Sénégal, “French is the language of my head and Diola is the language of my heart:”

Even a simple transaction expects an appropriate greeting, an affirmative answer to any number of basic inquiries, and a certain response pattern. To forego such patterns, however unintentional, displays a lack of cultural awareness and pragmatic or functional competence in the language. While grammar and linguistic competence were intact, the sociolinguistic cues needed revising in order to adapt to the pragmatic patterns of French use in Sénégal and several other predominantly Arabic speaking countries.
In addition there is a wide variety of lexical items found within the target language with new meanings of familiar terms. These lexical variations not only enrich and expand the knowledge and use of the language, but they intrigue students and permit an extension of otherwise cursory vocabulary drills into unique discussions on the distinctions between various language cultures. I have long believed that FL teaching materials tend to favor the “mother country” rather than focusing on the pluralities of cultures in which the TL is spoken, and with the accessibility of authentic cultural items and promotion of cross-cultural understandings in the language make the students feel more curious about learning languages and more eager to discover those countries in which it is spoken.
This classroom observation hearkens back to the seminal study of Gardner and Lambert (1959) who suggested that affective factors such as learners’ motivation to acquire an L2 and interest in the target culture would affect their actual language acquisition and proficiency development in the L2.
8) In the article by Libben, Gary, & Linder, Oda, (1996). Second Culture Acquisition and Second Language Acquisition: Faux Amis? Zeitschrift fur Interculturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht [online], 1 (1), 14pp, they make the argument that although parallels between SLA and SCA are intuitively appealing, they often mask important underlying differences in the ways in which linguistic knowledge and cultural knowledge are organized as well as important differences in the acquisition process. This is a theoretical article with no empirical data or studies on their own.
Libben and Linder begin by stating that 2L acquirers usually have grammatical and linguistic competence in their first language, which they ultimately say is unconscious knowledge that is in the mind of the native speaker. They then show that individuals basically have the same internalized culture that allows them to function on a day to day basis in an “appropriate” manner. The difference between the two lies in how an acquirer conceives of this knowledge which is brought to a learning scenario and this difference in belief has consequences for the course of acquisition in the two areas.

The 2L acquirer has two assumptions: (1) that there is a system to be acquired- a language- and (2) that the 2L acquirer knows they already have a language. For the 2C acquirer, the acquirer believes himself to possess values, beliefs, and opinions that he shares with others of his social group, but he doesn’t conceive of the second culture as comprising a separate named system. They give an example that a Tamil woman speaking Tamil to a Swede would not expect the Swede to understand her, but a Tamil woman may make more assumptions about the understandability of her behaviors, attitudes, and opinions.
Usually when a 2L acquirer begins learning, they assume they will understand nothing, but on a cultural level it is not clear at all for a 2C acquirer what to expect. The 2C acquirer doesn’t know that their own cultural habits and beliefs may impinge on their ability to acquire an understanding of the culture or language. This perceived lack of internal coherency stands in opposition to the generally held beliefs about language that implies that language and culture as an interrelated system is possessed by everyone. This makes cultural acquisition more difficult to initiate since it is neither clear what one already has nor what one is supposed to acquire and there is also the problem that there is little developed vocabulary to discuss the characteristics of cultural knowledge and competence.
Libben and Linder write that while there are at least a dozen categories of aphasia – loss of a previous ability to speak, read, or write – in regards to loss of language, suggesting a neural module underpinning, there is no case of aphasia in regards to cultural knowledge. This may be due in part to the tremendous amount of brain activity necessary for speech production. Many areas of interconnectivity are involved for speech, but less is understood about how culture is wired on the brain level. However, it may be due in part because language is something you do, whereas culture is in many ways “who you are”, with some aspects of culture being central to a person’s cognitive makeup and some being easily modified depending on the situation the individual finds himself in.
For example, you may get an American to eat stew with his hands, but you would have problems getting an American to eat another person for dinner. “Peripheral” aspects can be modified easily but “Central” aspects are not. When these “Central” aspects collide, they create stress and a need for the individuals involved to reduce or eliminate that stress. This factor plays a huge role in the 2C acquisition process.
As relates to the actual process of acquisition and its outcomes, much has been written about 2L acquisition and the interdependence between lexical, syntactic, and the phonetic and phonological

systems, but concerning the 2C acquisition, only some general points may be stated due to a lack of study.
The first point is that usually the cultural system doesn’t have well defined elements we can identify, only loose ideas such as concepts, attitudes, scripts and schemata, being loosely defined due to a lack of study. Secondly, and fundamentally, with 2L acquisition you have two separate systems developing, whereas with 2C acquisition you have one cognitive system, undifferentiated, with more and more elements being dumped in. Since the systems are undifferentiated, there are not two separate systems to switch between in the middle of a conversation.
Libben and Linder believe that “biculturalism” is a misnomer. You don’t have two separate systems. Biculturalism creates and integrates elements of two into one cognitive space, with the peripheral being situationalized but the central giving rise to conflict and stress. For the 2C acquirer to be successful, there must be a successful stress reduction and usually some relationship of one cultural element to relevant first cultural concepts.
Libben and Linder conclude by mentioning on study where cultural elements were acquired by German – Canadians. There were four results: (1) No problems (2) Acquirer leaves 1st in favor of the 2nd (3) Two incongruous elements combined into a “3rd culture” (4) Potentially incongruous elements are situationalized.
9) In the article by Lutjeharms, Madeline (1990). Lexical Access and Foreign Language Acquisition. Paper presented at the meeting of the World Congress of Applied Linguistics (9th, Thessaloniki, Greece, April 15-21, 1990), she discusses some of the problems related to the research on the functioning of verbal knowledge and its organization in memory. It is a theoretical paper drawing on research from others in the fields of Foreign Language Education, Cognitive Psychology, and Linguistics as well as her own observations in the teaching of Dutch and German.
She postulates that the research in the functioning of verbal knowledge and its organization in memory is hypothetical and the data found in experimentation is usually such that the validity of the findings are dubious, since no direct observation of language processing is possible. She rightly states that much more data from as many sources as possible need to be cross checked to help with the validity of the findings.

As a language teacher she believes that the impaired processes of language decoding or the production in a natural context could be a possible data source. She then offers her own data as a source from her years of teaching German to her Dutch students. Her data consists of her observations and test data on the way her students understand either shared elements or similar looking/sounding but different elements. She uses retrospection as her systematic teaching device and spontaneous questions and answers from the students as well as data from her tests.
She makes the claim that since she had the data before she knew of cognitive psychology, that her data has not been influenced by theories about memory and language processing. She gives examples of the roles morphemes play both in word recognition and in lexical access, with word stems and affixes processed differently, with words ends getting little or no attention when reading, since word endings often are rarely used in the search for meaning.
She mentions one phenomena called “lack of contrast”, meaning that similarity can be an interfering factor when some strongly acquired knowledge impedes the acquisition of similar new knowledge. This seems very interesting. Reading occurs without processing on a semantic level and the readers do not realize they don’t understand the words.
Madeline defines Mental Lexicon and claims it must be dynamic, not static and claims that decoding linguistic forms is an automatic process when not interrupted by unknown elements, misinterpretations, or other disturbances, while semantic processing is a process requiring attention. This leads to her belief that semantic memory can then be considered as the common semantic store, whereas the mental lexicon can be explained as a language specific structure.
Acquisition of L2 starts with the aid of the existing lexicon before developing into a new separate system of subsystem with more or less strong connections as shown by the transfer phenomena, the distinction between semantic memory and mental lexicons being necessary to explain the “lack of contrast” phenomena.
(In my opinion, she now needs to focus on a teaching presentation that more closely joins the mental lexicon and semantic memory and it may be more effective in the acquisition of a language by helping to eliminate much of the struggle over forms and meaning.)
10) In the article by Norris – Holt, Jacqueline, (2001). Motivation as a Contributing Factor in Second Language Acquisition. The Internet TESL Journal, vol. VII, no. 6, June, she looks at Gardner’s

socio-educational model and how motivation contributes to L2 acquisition, with motivation defined as a learner’s orientation with regard to the goal of learning a second language, divided into two types; 1) Integrative and 2) Instrumental and examined to determine the correlation between the form of motivation and successful L2 acquisition. This article is more of a review of the literature and theories surrounding L2 acquisition.
Gardner was influenced by Mowrer (1950) when he focused on L1 acquisition success attributed to a child’s desire to gain identity within the family unit and then the larger language community. Gardner then extrapolated to L2 acquisition and identified several factors which influence a learner’s success in a structured class room environment as opposed to a natural environment, a) social and cultural milieu b) individual learner differences c) the setting or context in which the learning takes place d) linguistic outcomes (1982).
The social/cultural milieu in which a learner is in determines their beliefs and expectations about other cultures and language. These beliefs have a significant impact on L2 acquisition. Norris-Holt gives the example of Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society vs. Britain a monolingual assimilist society.
A second phase of Gardner’s model list four individual differences believed to be the most influential in L2 acquisition, intelligence, language aptitude, motivation and situational anxiety (Giles & Coupland 1991). Closely interrelated in the next phase called the setting or context are the two contexts of 1) formal instruction and 2) unstructured language acquisition. Depending on the context, impact of individual’s difference variables alters.
Finally, the model identifies A) linguistic outcomes which are actual language knowledge and language skills including test indices like grades and proficiency tests and B) non-linguistic outcomes reflecting individuals attitudes about cultural values and beliefs towards a language community with Ellis (1997) identifying both as motivating forces which combined will lead to greater proficiency in the L2 acquisition.
In Gardner’s model, three elements compose motivation, effort-the time spent in study and learner’s drive, desire-how hard the learner wants to become proficient, affect- learners emotional reactions regarding language study.

While several researchers speak of Integrative Motivation as learner’s orientation in regards to learning a second language, it is further refined to include those who like the people that speak the language, admire the culture, and desire to integrate into the culture. This type of motivation is necessary for individuals to operate socially in the community.
In an EFL setting such as in Japan, it probably would be better for the concept to be known as bilingual and bicultural. This is through the addition of another language and culture to the learner’s own. This is due to a mono-cultural society which offers limited potential for integrating into the society or using the target language.
With Instrumental Motivation the learner usually has a desire to obtain something concrete or practical in his language study. The goals are more utilitarian, such as school requirements, job necessity, social status, etc., and are very characteristic of L2 acquisition where no social integration of the learner into the community using the target language takes place or is even desired.
Norris-Holt relates that all studies point to the fact that it is integrative motivation that has led to long term success in learning a foreign language, even though instrumental motivation is stressed quite a bit and is usually the reason for students studying a foreign language.
The one area where instrumental motivation can be shown to be effective is in a situation where the learner has no opportunity to utilize the foreign language and interact with members of the target language (Lukmani 1972, Braj Kachru 1977), and Brown
(2000) points out that both integrative and instrumental motivation are not mutually exclusive. Learners rarely have only one, but rather a combination of the two. While it is important to identify the types and combinations of motivations that assist in the acquisition of a L2, you have to view motivation as only one of a number of variables in the intricate model of interrelated individual and situational factors unique to the language learner.
Norris-Holt switches to the Japanese context of L2 acquisition. She says that you cannot simply observe input –amount of time studying and then output- linguistic performance. In Japan, the learning situation is complex because of the way in which English and other languages are taught. The most influential factor is the university entrance exams. The exams are so important that language is taught so that students can pass these rigorous grammar/vocabulary based exams. There is little emphasis on speaking since this will not be tested.

Berwick and Ross (1989) found that among the Japanese E2L students, after the exams are over, motivation to study their L2 declined and only climbed when certain learners decided to continue their study in private language schools in order to acquire new skills for work. Benson (1991) found a third category of motivation which he labeled personal, which included reasons such as pleasure of reading in a foreign language or enjoyment of entertainment in a foreign language. He also suggests that the reason students reject instrumental motivation is that they do not perceive the foreign language as needed for normal daily life.
Morrow (1987) reports that because many L2 teachers themselves have poor listening and speaking skills, they rely almost entirely on their vocabulary and grammar skills and this effect the motivation of the students. This does seem to be changing slowly as younger more proficient L2 speakers become teachers.
Teachers are called to provide a more varied program to maintain student interest with obtainable short term goals. This may include exchange programs or any other thing which can help motivate students. Student participation, interesting texts, and teaching a view that another language and culture can only enhance their perception and understanding of another culture will aid in motivation.
11) In the article by Oxford, Rebecca, (1994). Language Learning Strategies: An Update. ERIC Digest, she discusses how strategies are tools for active, self – directed involvement, needed for developing L2 communicative ability and that the conscious, tailored use of such strategies is related to language achievement and proficiency. This article appears to be a review of the literature since she really proposes nothing of her own here.
Oxford speaks first of early strategies and how most were eventually validated except the “uninhabited” aspect, since it was found to be a part of language anxiety that needs to be recognized and overcome through practice or behavioral modification.
She then lists some findings of successful learning strategies: (A) Successful learning strategies result in improved proficiency and achievement (B) Successful learners chose strategies that work well together and can explain the ones they use and why (C) Successful learners often blend cognitive and metacognitive strategies which often have more impact than a single strategy (D) Specific strategies or clusters of strategies are linked to particular skills or tasks (E) Social and affective strategies are seen less often in L2 research.

Oxford then mentions factors which influence the choice of L2 learning strategies before moving on to strategy training: (1) Motivation (2) Gender (3) Cultural background (4) Attitudes and beliefs (5) Type of task (6) Age and L2 stage (7) Learning style (8) Tolerance of ambiguity.
In relation to strategy training, Oxford says that there has been a lot of research on learner training and how to improve L2 students learning strategies, with some good results for some and not so good results for others. Based on this research, she offers the following principles that have been tentatively suggested to be followed: (a) L2 strategy training should be based clearly on student’s attitudes, beliefs, and stated need (b) Strategies should mesh with and support each other and fit the requirements of the task, learners goals, and style of learning (c) Training needs to be integrated into regular L2 activities over a long time, not a short interval (d) There should be opportunities for strategy training during class (e) Strategy training should include explanations, handouts, activities, brainstorming, reference and study materials (f) Affective issues which influence strategy choice should be addressed (g) Strategy training should be explicit, overt, and relevant with plenty of practice in varieties of L2 tasks using authentic materials (h) Strategy training should not be solely tied to the class at hand, but provide strategies that can be transferred to other classes or situations (i) Strategy training should be individualized (j) Strategy training should give students the tools necessary to evaluate their own success and progress.
In dealing with L2 learning strategies, Oxford mentions ruefully that almost 2 dozen L2 strategies have been identified into 5 groups of distinct strategy typologies which indicate a lack of a coherent, well accepted system for describing these strategies. The five groups are (1) Systems related to successful learners (Rubin,1975) (2) Systems based on psychological functions (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) (3) Linguistically based systems dealing with guessing language monitoring, formal and functional practice (Bialystok, 1981) or with communication strategies like paraphrasing or borrowing (Tarone, 1983) (4) Systems related to language skills (Cohen, 1990) (5) Systems based on different styles or types of learners (Sutter 1989).
The implications for educator and researchers are that the whole person needs to be understood and looked at, not just as a cognitive or metacognitive machine, including the social and affective sides of learners.
Research should be replicated so more consistent data is available with research being especially helpful in the area of factors effecting strategy choice. Finally, Oxford believes teachers need

training in three areas: A) Identification of student’s learning strategies B) Assisting of students to discern their own best strategies C) Assisting students to develop an orchestrated strategy
12) In this small article by Richeux, G.B., (1987) Attitudes Do Matter. The British Journal of Language Teaching. Aug., pp.101-103., the attitudes of British middle schoolers towards the learning of French are discussed. The article is empirical in nature, but abridged from its full version.
Richeux compares the results of two studies he carried out, the first being in 1979 and the other in 1986. In both studies he chose students at random from many different schools, both 1st and 2nd year students. He also questioned some 3rd year students, but far fewer than the 1st or 2nd year students.
From the 1979 to the 1986 survey, he found that the attitudes of the students improved significantly from 6-18% once new course methods were adopted. Once these methods were introduced, fewer students said they found French difficult to understand and fewer felt bored repeating words. However, the students did not increase in empathy towards foreigners.
The conclusion he reached was that the improvement lay in the adoption of a course emphasizing a communicative approach and getting away from early teaching methods of grammar and structure. He ends with an anecdote where he presented an old style grammar lesson to his class which was normally taught in a communicative approach. Within minutes, he had lost 1⁄2 of the class’ attention and it went downhill from there. He implies that this would be a normative reaction to a grammar/structure class.
13) In the paper by Wenden, Anita L., (1981). The Process of Self Directed Learning: A Study of Adult Language Learners. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (15th, Detroit, Michigan, 1981), she presents the results of her study on 25 adult L2 learners living in the U.S. for less than two years. She wanted to discover how they actually direct their own language learning in a variety of social settings using “self direction” and how adults represent these endeavors. This is an empirical study that relates data derived from interviews requiring the L2 learner to reflect on language experiences in their social situations.
Wenden points out that as early as 1948, Lewis relates what he felt was one of the most important characteristics of adult learners, they are conscious of what they are learning and they reflect on their learning process, thereby enabling them to intervene consciously in this learning situation. This was dubbed, “the processes of intervention”. This belief persisted for over forty years relatively

untested for effectiveness. Slowly research began to document learning strategies and communication strategies, two concepts that refer to the “processes of intervention”.
Strategies have two meanings, 1) pedagogical tasks learners perform in response to a learning or communication need which are focused, but may or may not be observable. 2) Characteristics of a learner’s overall approach to language learning such as an active approach or being a risk taker. Strategies indicate how learners respond to tasks of learning a language in general terms. When learners take a primary responsibility for the organization and direction of their learning, it is called “self directed” and it refers to the processes of intervention.
Skills associated with self directed learning include the ability to assess learning needs, set goals, design and implement learning plans – including the choice and exploitation of resources and the evaluating of progress and the outcome of the learning. Research has indicated the effectiveness of training the learner to self direct their L2 acquisition in terms of learner attitudes, number of drop outs, and productivity of learning.
Self direction, as Wenden intends it, includes the terms “conscious learning strategies” and “self directed learning”, and she wants to find out if these two concepts represented all of the learners’ conscious enterprises.
Her study required the students to engage in a form of delayed retrospection, where they spoke of their language learning experiences that had occurred some time before the interview and they were focused upon the resources in the social settings. When Wenden analyzed the data, she found that learners self direct their learning by engaging in the following seven processes: 1) coping 2) designating 3) discriminating 4) evaluating 5) planning 6) self analyzing 7) theorizing.
Coping refers to the process where learners indicate they are aware of the need to communicate in their L2 or to learn something about it and so decide upon or perform a task in response to this need, such as to improve communication skills, to acquire items of the linguistic system, or try to think in their L2.
Designating is when learners become aware of the language and ask themselves how it works based on notions about the language acquired through their classroom experiences or their own perceptions and vary in sophistication.

Discriminating refers to learners’ assessments about how they speak, read, and understand their L2, in other words, their performance. Words and phrases used to assess this are; how well, how poorly, progress, regress, plateau, feedback, and impact on others.
Evaluating is assessing the outcome of a learning experience either by indicating whether or not they learned or specifying what they learned.
Planning is when the learners decide about goals and resources. These can be general or specific and sometimes the goals are only implicit.
Self analysis is the way learners view themselves when asking how they are responsible for various aspects of their language learning and how they are influenced by the learning experience. These assessments can refer to their social roles such as how these responsibilities, goals and expectations impede or contribute to their language learning or personalities or they can refer to their personalities and how their character, age, physical state, learning style, etc., affects their learning.
Theorizing refers to learner’s assessments about the nature of language learning and how to deal with it. In dealing with the nature of learning a language, learners see that it is a gradual and unconscious process and that it may cause an identity change. When learners were commenting on the best approaches to learning a language Wenden was able to summarize the comments into four principles.
1. Intensity – one has to utilize every chance available to learn the language
2. Systematicity – certain basic skills and linguistic items should be learned first
3. Naturalness – you learn a language by using it in a natural context
4. Emotional stimulation – a student should be motivated to learn and supported in its
learning
Wenden found that the seven processes of self direction can expand our knowledge of what
learners do when consciously intervening in their learning. The learners in the study discriminated twice as often as they theorized, evaluated, self analyzed, or coped and five times as often as the designated and planned.
She offers three questions at the end; a) does a particular strategy typify each

group b) could the strategy in itself be non-significant, but the variety with which or the manner in which learners report engaging in the processes is that which determines effectiveness of learning c) is it a combination of all these factors which cause effective or ineffective learning.
14)In the article by Winitz, Harris, (1981). Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition- concluding remarks. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, v379, Dec. pp 360-378, he summarizes a series of papers presented at a conference in Kansas City, Missouri, exploring the relationships between L1 and L2 acquisition and if the research in L1 and L2 acquisition can be appropriately utilized to teach L2. This article is basically a review of the literature and theories in L1 and L2 acquisition.
In the 1st paper, Alatis and DeMario focus on methodological and sociological problems with the teaching of foreign languages to Native English speakers, and teaching English to non-native speakers in the U.S. They suggest non-conventional approaches such as utilization of existing L1 resources to preserve, to increase and develop their own skills by receiving some of their education in the foreign language.
However, conventional education militates against innovative programs with unfounded beliefs and has led to an absence of effective foreign language teaching in the U.S. The focus of any FL program should take into account language methodology, motivation, curriculum design, and bilingual instruction.
In the 2nd paper, Lambert supports bilingual education because the student’s competencies extend beyond mastery on non-native languages, and includes advantages in cognitive and social development and increase the potential for creativity and problem solving. He believes bilingual education is best when the 2nd or 3rd language has social value and respect.
Lambert calls this “additive” bilingualism as opposed to “subtractive” where a L1 language is forced aside for social pressures by a more prestigious or majority language. Lambert concludes by noting that late bilinguals are distinguished from monolinguals and early bilinguals by retaining a greater functional independence of the two languages and by utilizing the right hemisphere of the brain more.
In the 3rd paper, Mclaughlin builds on the 2nd by mentioning that a determining factor in variation in acquisition between early and late bilinguals is classroom experience. “Tactic” development occurs in formal classroom instruction which can increase learning efficiency and increase linguistic

awareness but classroom instruction can also exaggerate L1 and L2 differences in acquisition because of inappropriate sequenced material or material beyond their grasp.
Where bilingual education occurs, it’s the emphasis between languages that determine the magnitude of transfer from the dominate language. While he finds that there is usually uniformity in the acquisition of language forms that suggest universal language acquisition strategies, there is individual variation in the development of L2 learners, probably reflecting individual cognitive maturity and L1 experience.
In the 4th paper, Ervin-Tripp’s focus is the transfer functions in L2, particularly semantic usage and conversational routines. The discourse functions and semantic usages are quickly acquired but older learners are better at imposing structure whether or not vocabulary and linguistic skills are developed.
The 5th, 6th, and 7th papers relate to neurophysiological processes in language acquisition. In Kinsbourne’s, he offers critiques of the 3 big hypotheses, then offers his belief that while there is no evidence to support different cerebral areas for L1 and L2, although there may be different areas that may represent different skill levels in L1 and L2.
In Whitaker, Bub, and Leventer’s, their opinions are described on the physical maturation of the brain, reflecting on the critical period hypothesis of Lenneburg. They show that while Lenneburg believed the brain largely completely grown in the neurons of the cerebral cortex at the end of the critical period, they found that the neuronal growth rate varies in different language areas and within the same area for different types of cell structures.
Plus, you can’t draw correlations between growth of language and the maturation of the brain, since the brain is about 90% of adult values by 5-6 years of age, with the remaining 10% of maturity occurring well into adulthood. While individuals who learn a 2nd language from 5 years on to puberty all can achieve native like fluency realizing that their neural substrates for L1 and L2 may not be exactly the same.
Of Diller’s paper, Winitz mentions his discussion of the neurological components of the critical- period hypothesis. Diller first describes the speed of adults in learning a second language, while having difficulty with pronunciation. This is due to certain cells called the stellate cells which mature beyond puberty. Contrast these cells with pyramidal cells which are responsible for establishing relations between neural control centers and motor functioning which only develop prior to childhood. Diller

then argues that certain teaching methods activate different cortical areas and pathways, with traditional methods failing to utilize appropriate areas in the brain which are important for speech and language.
Winitz moves to report on the paper by Cole dealing with phonology and phonetics, more specifically the perception of phonetic entities in fluent speech. The focus is on mispronunciation, so he can draw inferences about the processes in speech pronunciation. Mispronunciations are more easily detected when sounds are stop consonants and in word-initial position, in isolated words vs. fluent speech, and when they violate English pronunciation. The inference is that a language-processing (acquisition) strategy is that word-initial sounds are used to generate candidate words prior to receiving sounds in word-final position.
Winitz writes that the Macken and Ferguson paper on phonological development touches on considerations that are of general concern not only for phonology but other branches of linguistics as well. They note that there is support for a phonological universal-(voiceless unaspirated stops are acquired prior to vocal stops), but there has been no procedural uniformity of assessment. They also note that variation in phonological development may be language specific, but does not destroy the concept of language universals, but rather should be viewed as probable outcomes (statistical universals) of universal processing strategies.
The paper by Menn builds on the Macken and Ferguson paper by noting that diversity in the acquisition process is an expected consequence of a more general cognitive strategy called problem solving. Early Universal Acquisition theories largely ignored the active and dynamic participation of the learner in developing the theoretical constructs of the language.
Winitz reports how Ingram’s paper details the reduplication phenomenon in a child learning English and Italian simultaneously. Because of the differences in the frequency of reduplicated and checked syllables, Ingram concludes that even at the age of two, separate phonological systems were evident that preserved the form of the input languages. This showed the importance of input in language acquisition.
15) In the article by Ziegahn, Linda, (2001). Considering Culture in the Selection of Teaching Approaches for Adults. Eric Digest, she argues that cultural differences must be considered and made relevant in adult learning environments. The article is theoretical in nature.

She begins by giving a simple definition of culture – values, beliefs, and practices shared by a group of people. While certain scientists argue over more refined definitions, she states that often the sharing of a common world view is often enough for individuals who find themselves between multiple cultures. However she never defines what this “common world view” means.
Ziegan reiterates that educators need to be mindful that they can not know or assume to know the cultural background of their students. The teacher must actively explore the multicultural makeup of the class in order to provide the best learning experience for each student.
She then focuses on seven key areas of cultural background in which different views and behaviors can lead to misunderstanding and tension: (1) Individualism and Collectivism (2) Monochronic and Polychronic Time (3) Egalitarianism vs. Hierarchy (4) Action vs. “Being” Orientation (5) Change and Tradition (6) Communication Styles (7) Power Imbalances. Religious differences are just mentioned in passing as if they are not important at all.
The next area of focus is why Instructional Approaches are not neutral. Neutrality is usually not reached since each learner’s cultural dimensions provide the basis for their behavior and responses and the teacher’s culture influences their own behavior and responses. In the U.S., methods and activities culminate in products, mimicking the values placed on action and results. Learners from other countries may focus on the exploration of ideas rather on a goal and may not feel the need to close out learning if it preempts the learning process.
However, a method born of one culture may be able to be adapted to another if cultural differences are considered. Teachers are called to be more sensitive to cultural differences by examining the cultural values that underlie their preferred method of teaching.
Ziegan closes with a few examples of culturally sensitive learning approaches that have potential to foster inclusion: (a) Social construct of knowledge may be fostered through collaborative group learning (b) Teachers may want to provide structured guidance through learning experiences (c) Disempowered groups may be better served with an assessment method which allows their stories and cosmologies to be related (d) Other cultures may benefit from computer learning where it is more open and relaxed than a face – to – face classroom context.
In the previous articles, Motivation is seen as a force which can determine learner outcome. Ayala(2003) points out that in order for an L2 to develop the L2 needs to be supported by a community

effort in which a communal, collaborative environment needs to be established. However, depending on the emphasis of the particular religious culture, certain languages may be favored over others in a community. Since language is the outgrowth of knowledge held by a community, what is learned socially by its members and those who use it and interact productively is directed especially towards supporting those ideas which support their own communal, collaborative environment.
As in Gardner’s socio-educational model, successful Hebrew L2 acquisition will be determined by the type of motivation. If the Hebrew L2 environment is non-supportive, then the chances for success are minimal due to disruption of the learner’s motivation, whether integrative or instrumental. Bedford(1981) brings support that teaching Hebrew L2 culture in the classroom may not lead to integrative motivation in the short term, but in the long term, studies show a benefit in the acquisition of the L2.
The three elements of Gardner’s model which compose motivation, effort-the time spent in study and learner’s drive, desire-how hard the learner wants to become proficient, affect- the learners emotional reactions regarding language study, are all dependant upon the Christian community’s ability to stimulate a desire in the Hebrew L2 learner.
If Hebrew is the Foreign Language that needs to be learned by the Church here in America or around the world, then we probably should not expect a native like fluency as Cook (1997) points out, since the motivation of the regular Church patron is not integrative, but instrumental. The L2 learner of Hebrew may never go to Israel to live or study, but the Hebrew L2 learner will want to become familiar with the language and culture in order to better understand the Bible. This type of user is more like a bilingualist’s definition of an L2 user, and what counts is not whether a Hebrew L2 user “knows” two languages with native like fluency, but whether the L2 user can use both of them.
Benson(1991) suggests that the reason students reject instrumental motivation is that they do not perceive the foreign language as needed for normal daily life. If the Christian community teaches things that are somehow anti-Hebrew language or culture and there is no admiration for the Hebrew/Jewish culture or language and no desire to integrate into or utilize anything from it in any way, this can lock out Hebrew as a viable L2 choice and further remove the basis of the Christian religion, the Hebrew Bible, from the lives of the very people who are trying to live a life according to it.
Because of the mono-cultural society in much of America and around the world, there may be limited potential of the Christian Hebrew L2 learners for integrative motivation to occur due to the

Christian Hebrew L2 learners limited access to members of the Hebrew speaking community, so it probably would be better for the concepts known as bilingual and bicultural to occur through the addition of the Hebrew language and culture to the learner’s own, although this may offer limited potential for integrating into the Hebrew speaking society or using the Hebrew language other than for study purposes.
(Lukmani 1972, Braj Kachru 1977), and Brown (2000) truly point out that both integrative and instrumental motivation are not mutually exclusive in these situations, because learners have a combination of the two. You have to view motivation as only one of a number of variables in the intricate model of interrelated individual and situational factors unique to the Christian Hebrew L2 language learner, but it is probably the most important factor in both the success of the acquisition and the choice to acquire Hebrew as a L2.
While the instrumental motivation of many Christians in Hebrew L2 acquisition can not be overlooked, Norris-Holt points out that all studies point to the fact that it is integrative motivation which has led to long term success in learning a foreign language. As Pearson(1996) states, “What goes under the name of skill, strategy, or structure instruction is more accessible, interesting, and sensible when it is embedded within a real problem, a real text, or a real body of content….The best way to help students develop highly transferable, context-free literacy tools is to teach these tools as if they were entirely context bound”.
The problem arises within the Church Educational System where Koine or New Testament Greek is taught as the primary foreign language albeit in the Jewish religious cultural setting of the first century C.E. The total dichotomy of these two languages and cultures, without even bringing into play the Christian American cultural ideas, sets the stage for total confusion over the meanings of the ideas and religious concepts within the Christian Community.
Smolkin and Donovan’s(2000) study intimates that in a Hebrew FL class, the non-fiction of the Hebrew Bible and other informational books should create a situation where the students and teachers are more engaged in meaning seeking efforts enhanced by how the teacher interacts during its reading. The strategy of evoking “prior knowledge” in the Biblical subject matter may be detrimental when a refutation occurs, since learners oftentimes hold fast to “prior knowledge” whether right or wrong due to prior experiences and teachings.

Because knowledge about print and reading doesn’t mean growth in background knowledge, concepts, vocabulary, or cultural knowledge that the Hebrew L2 learner can utilize later, we probably should propose to examine how comprehension acquisition occurs with a validation of the significance of informational texts. While studying strategies may help to develop a comprehensive program, training teachers for both comprehension acquisition and instruction is necessary to reshape Christian schools reading programs.
Wenden (1981) points out that as early as 1948, Lewis relates “the processes of intervention”. He felt adult L2 learners are conscious of what they are learning and reflect on their learning process, and thereby intervene consciously in this learning situation. Florez and Burt (2001) make 5 points about adult L2 learners, but the 4th and 5th points are probably the most important when applied to the field of Hebrew FL instruction for Christians: 4) adults need immediate applicable learning. 5) Adults in the Churches want to know how this idea, thought, belief, doctrine, word, or even Foreign Language, applies to me or my religion. If the Language is not made relevant, motivation is soon to wane.
Krashen has long pointed out that people have affective filters supporting or disrupting Second Language Acquisition. When a Christian 2L learner progresses, their L2 Hebrew or Greek Biblical languages and experiences are being filtered through their own Christian culture and Christian experiences. Unfortunately, these learners may be resistant to understanding Jewish cultural beliefs, and language usages, which are more unfamiliar to them and possibly seen as wrong or no longer needed. Since learning Hebrew involves learning new ways of thinking, feeling, and expressing which are not typically western, pressure can put on the native cultural belief system.
Florez and Burt point out that “Second Language Learners who must re-configure their views in relation to new social contexts may find themselves ambivalent, confused and even hostile towards the process of adapting to a new culture, even to language learning”. Feelings such as these can be eased if a Christian Hebrew L2 learner becomes knowledgeable about the Hebrew L2 culture’s perspectives and expectations.
Because Christians usually come to the arena of 2L acquisition with many pre-conceived ideas about Hebrew as a foreign language and culture, Johnson’s (1998) article, which shows that teachers need to awaken their students to points which are apparent to others, thereby helping to “de-condition them, as Holec (1987) suggests, and help alleviate anxiety as Horwitz (1988) suggests, becomes important to the Hebrew 2L teacher. This study also intimates that these pre-conceived ideas are

indicative of students in all areas of language learning in all countries, so it stands to reason that Christians studying Hebrew as a FL will also have them.
Wendon (1991) states that factors influencing the learner’s attitude towards their capacity or role in the process are if learners believe they have no aptitude to learn or it must be learned in a certain way. If Christians are taught that Hebrew is not important to learn in order to understand the Bible, then certainly this could influence their attitude and role they believe they have in the learning process.
Horwitz (1988) suggestion that FL classroom anxiety may influence other factors, and in turn influence study habits may hold true for Christian Hebrew FL students. If the teacher employs methodology which interferes with the beliefs and expectations of the students, this may cause debilitating anxiety for the students thereby possibly lowering an already lower than normal motivation due to prior learning. This situation in turn can cause procrastination and avoidance of speaking and hinder listening in the FL classroom.
If teachers could create and teach Hebrew FL lessons that incorporate attitude-change methods this may influence the foreign language learning process as Mantle-Bromley (1995) believes. Horwitz (1998) also suggests that teachers should learn about the student’s attitudes because this effects how they relate to the particular teaching methodology being employed. Since Christian Hebrew FL learners may arrive with a wide range of notions about how and what learning will occur, it becomes the teacher’s duty to assist students to change their misconceptions concerning learning and also demonstrates the need for teachers to explain the importance of the methodology of acquisition as opposed to overt learning.
If teachers become more aware of how the pre-conceived ideas about the Hebrew language and culture effect the motivation of their students and learn to relate to and deal with those ideas in positive ways then we can expect to see improvement in their motivation to learn that language as Johnson (1998) writes, and this in turn effects how they live their lives.
Understanding the Hebrew language and culture should be seen as a way to help unite people and let them experience special connections in the perspectives, practices, and products with the culture in which Hebrew originated LaBelle (2000).

For Christians, Hebrew should not be seen as simply an academic pursuit suited for those in seminary; rather it should be viewed as a practical discipline which prepares the student for life, since everything the Christian believes should be seen in the context of a Hebrew language and culture.
Hebrew language instruction and assessment among Christians should expand and not be merely a pursuit of mastery and correction of pronunciation and grammar errors in the L2. A change to communicative-based pedagogy so long employed should occur (Omaggio Hadley, 1993) with proficiency in all four modalities: listening, reading, writing, and speaking being based not on native speakers language fluency but by the needs of the students, with more interaction of the Hebrew culture in authentic, cross-cultural, immersion-based settings. By encouraging risk taking with the language, target language use, and cultural understanding the teacher should be able to enhance their curricula and achieve a greater awareness by the students of the importance of knowledge of Hebrew language and culture in the student’s daily lives.
Since Hebrew language and culture are by necessity connected to each other (Seelye 1984), and Christianity is tied directly to Hebrew language and culture, understanding the commonalities can be a powerful tool to bridge the Christian and Jewish cultures. If the Christian’s Hebrew L2 instruction doesn’t integrate Hebrew language and culture, students will not see the strong bonds between the two.
However powerful the role of culture may be in a foreign language classroom, any integration of Hebrew culture into a Christian Hebrew L2 curriculum may be limited by the pedagogical limitations of the classroom and weak teacher knowledge.
The goal of teaching Hebrew culture in the Christian Hebrew FL classroom should be to help students find patterns and use cross-cultural observations to promote cultural understanding Seelye (1984). The problem of using a purely Bible, fact-based approach in the seminaries has led to the oversimplification of the Hebrew language and culture’s complexity and importance and the promotion of stereotypical views by the Church.
By relating the cultural facts and language of the Bible with modern cultural language and facts which constantly change with current events, the cross-cultural relationship and understanding of the Christian’s own heritage should overcome trivialization and provide long term benefits to the learner. The teacher should promote Hebrew FL learning as a process of cultural learning, with the learning strand composed of products, practices and perspectives, rather than a mere transmission of facts

about a language or country. This type of approach can give meaningful learning opportunities to Christian Hebrew FL students.
FL pedagogy and SLA theory desires to create effective classroom teaching. For the Christian Hebrew FL teacher, SLA theories should be tested in a classroom context probing the question of how Christian learners acquire proficiency and fluency in the target language and the results may help to explain motivational phenomena with respect to the Christian context.
The value of integrating culture and language in Christian Hebrew FL instruction is that in general in early levels of Hebrew FL learning, Christians often assume that in Hebrew language learning you merely substitute Hebrew (L2) words for English (L1) words using the same word order and L1 grammars and even the same meanings that they are used to reading from their English Bibles. For effective Hebrew teaching to occur, students must be given the cultural and linguistic awareness of the Hebrew language in order that they may revise their cultural and linguistic patterns.
New cultural insights and perspectives can lead to increased motivation for Christians to learn Hebrew and can increase the level of curiosity about the target culture. Travels, whether in person or virtual travel via the internet can allow students to experience culture through personal experiences while discovering values, dignity, and uniqueness in other cultures. These types of experiences increase motivation and enable the learners to better communicate in the FL and identify with the target culture better. They can also allow Christians to understand that for the native Hebrew speaker, their social networks and culture all revolved around their native language and vise versa.
Hebrew, being rich in lexical items and unfamiliar terms to the average Christian, can not only enrich and expand the Christian Hebrew FL learner’s own Biblical knowledge, but the concepts behind the vocabulary usually intrigue students and can allow extensions of otherwise boring vocabulary drills into personal and unique discussions, focusing on questions of importance to the Christian Hebrew FL learner. As Gardner and Lambert (1959) suggests, affective factors such as learners’ motivation to acquire an L2 and interest in the target culture would affect their actual language acquisition and proficiency development in the L2.
A beginning Christian Hebrew 2L acquirer usually assumes no understanding of the language, but culturally does the Christian Hebrew 2C acquirer expect the same? For the Christian Hebrew 2C acquirer, he may not conceive of the second culture as comprising a separate named system and may make assumptions about the understandability of his own Christian behaviors, attitudes, and opinions.

They may not know how their own Christian cultural habits and beliefs are impinging on their acquisition of the Hebrew culture or language.
Due to this lack of internal coherency of generally held beliefs about language and culture as an interrelated system possessed by everyone, Hebrew cultural acquisition is made more difficult because Christians don’t know what they need to acquire and there is little shared vocabulary which discusses the characteristics of Hebrew cultural knowledge and competence as it relates to Christian theology and beliefs.
Libben and Linder (1996) write that because there is no case of aphasia in regards to cultural knowledge it may be because language is something you do, whereas culture is in many ways “who you are”, with some aspects of culture being central to a person’s cognitive makeup and some being easily modified depending on the situation the individual finds himself in.
Easily modified “Peripheral” aspects are not the problem in Christian Hebrew 2C acquisition, “Central” aspects are. In a collision of the “Central” aspects of the Hebrew culture and Christian culture, the stress of not desiring to change what you do know for something you don’t evokes a need to reduce or eliminate that stress and this interplay may be mainly responsible for the lack of acquisition by the Christians in the Hebrew 2C acquisition process.
If the cultural system has only loose ideas such as concepts, attitudes, scripts and schemata, and one cognitive system, undifferentiated, with more and more elements being dumped in, there are not two separate systems to switch between in the middle of a conversation and this causes stress and identity problems for the learner. For the Christian Hebrew 2C acquirer to be successful, he needs successful stress reduction by relating the Hebrew 2C elements to relevant first cultural concepts.
It may be that there is an interfering factor to the acquisition of culture by the Christian Hebrew 2C learner as Lutjeharms (1990) suggests. This may occur due to a clash of meanings over the same type of words from English to Hebrew. Reading occurs with no processing on a semantic level and the readers do not realize they don’t understand the words. By not understanding the words, there is no understanding of the concepts they represent, therefore the Christian assumes that they have the same cultural ideas as the Hebrew culture and therefore no cultural acquisition ever occurs.
The social/cultural milieu in which Christians are raised helps to determine their beliefs and expectations about Hebrew as a second language, Mowrer (1950). Christians have a desire to fit in to

their Christian culture and their Hebrew L2 success may lie within their Christian identity and their desire not to attempt any language that may bring isolation from members of their family or larger Christian community or which may bring anxiety to the L2 learner.
Oxford’s (1994) writings suggest that training Christian Hebrew L2 teachers in three areas of strategy development may be helpful in assisting the motivation and long term success of the Christian Hebrew L2 learner: A) Identification of student’s learning strategies B) Assisting of students to discern their own best strategies C) Assisting students to develop an orchestrated strategy.
Strategies have two meanings, 1) pedagogical tasks learners perform in response to a learning or communication need which are focused, but may or may not be observable. 2) Characteristics of a learner’s overall approach to language learning such as an active approach or being a risk taker. Strategies indicate how learners respond to tasks of learning a language in general terms.
Successful Christian Hebrew L2 learning strategies based on the following factors (1) Motivation (2) Gender (3) Cultural background (4) Attitudes and beliefs (5) Type of task (6) Age and L2 stage (7) Learning style (8) Tolerance of ambiguity, will determine the success in the L2 acquisition and imply that for educator and researchers the whole Christian L2 learner needs to be understood and looked at, not just as a cognitive or metacognitive machine, including the social and affective sides of the learners.
When learners take a primary responsibility for the organization and direction of their learning, it is called “self directed” and it refers to the processes of intervention. Skills associated with self directed learning include the ability to assess learning needs, set goals, design and implement learning plans – including the choice and exploitation of resources and the evaluating of progress and the outcome of the learning. Research has indicated the effectiveness of training the learner to self direct their L2 acquisition in terms of learner attitudes, number of drop outs, and productivity of learning.
Christian Hebrew FL learners should be able to self direct their learning by engaging in the seven processes: 1) coping 2) designating 3) discriminating 4) evaluating 5) planning 6) self analyzing 7) theorizing. As they deal with the complexities of the Hebrew language, Christian learners need to understand there may be a gradual and unconscious process resulting in an identity change. The particular strategy any one Christian Hebrew FL learner chooses can determine whether they achieve effective or ineffective learning. The problem that may arise is that without any effective teaching they may not receive the guidance necessary to make effective choices in self directing their learning.

While Alatis and DeMario speak of methodological and sociological problems teaching foreign languages to Native English speakers, and recommend non-conventional approaches, the conventional Christian Hebrew FL education focus is on Grammar / Translation with little teaching or understanding of the culture in which their own religion sprang. If Christians are to achieve mastery in Hebrew, the Hebrew language must have social value and respect as Lambert believes. Christians should not force aside Hebrew as a viable language to the more popular Greek language in Biblical studies.
As Mclaughlin mentions, a determining factor in Hebrew language acquisition can be classroom experience. If “Tactic” development occurs in the classroom it can increase learning efficiency and linguistic awareness. However, if classroom instruction includes inappropriate sequenced material or material beyond the students grasp or even erroneous material problems can occur between L1 and L2 acquisition.
I agree with Ziegahn (2001) in that the cultural differences of Hebrew must be studied to make Hebrew relevant to Christian adult learners. Her seven key areas of cultural background which lead to misunderstanding and tension between Judaism/Hebrew language and Culture and Christianity are: (1) Individualism and Collectivism (2) Monochronic and Polychronic Time (3) Egalitarianism vs. Hierarchy (4) Action vs. “Being” Orientation (5) Change and Tradition (6) Communication Styles (7) Power Imbalances. While her 7 are important, religious differences are for her just mentioned in passing as if they are not important at all. This shows no understanding of the intricacies of the relationship between the Hebrew language and the Jewish religion, the culture of the language and the culture of the people.
Christian Hebrew Instructional Approaches are not neutral since each learner’s cultural dimensions of their particular denomination create their behavior and responses and the Christian Hebrew teacher’s denominational culture influences their behavior and responses. In the U.S., methods and activities of the Christian Educational System, where Hebrew is taught as a foreign language, culminate in products, mimicking the American values placed on action and results. This is the opposite of the way Hebrew was taught for centuries. Learners focused on the exploration of ideas rather than on a goal and did not feel the need to close out learning when preempting the learning process.
Christian teachers of Hebrew should be more aware of the cultural differences and cultural values that underlie their preferred method of teaching. If Christian Hebrew language teachers would do as Richeux found when he adopted a course emphasizing a communicative approach and dropped early teaching methods of grammar and structure, the attitudes of Hebrew L2 students would improved

significantly with fewer students finding the Hebrew L2 difficult to understand and fewer would feel bored repeating words they don’t have any idea how they apply to them as Christians.
The implications of this research on Hebrew FL for Christians are very important. If not choosing Hebrew as a FL can be recognized as a legitimate problem within the Christian community due to biases against it, then a solution can be found to help overcome these biases. If Hebrew is to grow as a foreign language program, both here and around the world, for Christians and non-Christians, then we as educators must show how Hebrew is a legitimate primary choice among the world’s foreign languages. In other words, primacy should be established in the lives of the learners so that the student’s interest is held long enough for the desire to build so that then fluency can develop, if that is truly the target goal.
If Christians are still using old grammar/translation methods, these should be re-examined with an eye to integrating the language and culture into a totality of experience where the student learns how the language and culture apply to him/her today. For Christians, this would mean teaching Hebrew Language in such a way as to allow the learners to see relationships and dichotomies in the Biblical text in Hebrew between what the text says and what the Christian denominations believe, but teach the language in a modern language pronunciation so as to give the students an active tool that can help integrate them into a community of others who share the Hebrew mindset.
In this way a teacher can incorporate the erroneous concepts that students bring into the classroom into legitimate classroom experiences. These can be valuable teaching resources to train the students in the critical thinking processes and thereby reinforce the language in their minds. These methods, when applied to Christian Hebrew FL education, should be able to help transform the boring old ways into exciting new ones if the teachers are up to the task.
Citations:
1) Scott, Joan W., (1992). Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity. October, Vol. 61, The Identity in Question (Summer, 1992), pp. 12-19
2) Mitchell, T.M. (1980). The Need for Biases in Learning Generalizations. CBM-TR 5-110, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Questions for More Study

1) Does the motivation factor effectively serve to limit the language and cultural milieu the “Christian Community” chooses to offer as acceptable to study?
2) Do the attitudes erect barriers such as anxiety, fear of loss of one’s own cultural identity and a sense of betrayal?
3) Does the belief factor protect its own culture thereby militating against the study of Hebrew Language and culture?
4) Do these factors determine the learning strategies of the Christian Hebrew Foreign Language Learner such as those listed in Language Learning Strategies (ERIC
Digest p.4)? 5) If these concepts are true, how do you overcome them so that the Hebrew Language is
seen as a desirable option for foreign language study?
6) What specific beliefs lead to the prejudice against Hebrew as a FL choice? 7) Is a distance learning assisted Hebrew FLE program a viable option to help
overcome the prejudice against Hebrew as a foreign language choice?
8) Could the “International Outreach” of a distance learning Hebrew FLE program be more effective at overcoming prejudice than a local school program? My opinion- yes, by attacking the problem on a large scale.