The department of roman-german philology content based instruction of foreign language teaching course work done by

Connectionism and second-language acquisition

Connectionism
These findings also relate to Connectionism. Connectionism attempts to model the cognitive language processing of the human brain, using computer architectures that make associations between elements of language, based on frequency of co-occurrence in the language input.^[14] Frequency has been found to be a factor in various linguistic domains of language learning. Connectionism posits that learners form mental connections between items that co-occur, using exemplars found in language input. From this input, learners extract the rules of the language through cognitive processes common to other areas of cognitive skill acquisition. Since connectionism denies both innate rules and the existence of any innate language-learning module, L2 input is of greater importance than it is in processing models based on innate approaches, since, in connectionism, input is the source of both the units and the rules of language. Books which I used books converge, from three different directions, on the matter of what should constitute a theory of second language acquisition, and how to go about constructing such a theory. Together they frame their shared object of interest to form a triangle of three unequal sides with no one book equidistant from the other two. And although none of the three authors cites either of the other two books, each one writes with the positions of the others in view, so that together they afford three perspectives on how to theorize L2 acquisition, each cognizant of the others. The resulting three-sided, three-angled configuration defined by three points is not inevitable, since it would be possible to juxtapose any number of other contributions to this longrunning debate, as there have been many, which have held many relationships with respect to each other.⁷


CONCLUSION
As a conclusion of my course work I can say that I have learned that there are many methods and techniques for learning foreign languages. I have studied at least a little of the scientific work that scientists have done on this topic. When all the pros and cons are considered, content-based instruction offers a challenging but highly rewarding alternative to traditional foreign language approaches. We and all our contributors agree with Corin that, in the long run, CBI is "worth the payoff." We see that payoff coming when our students leave our classrooms empowered to become autonomous learners, or in other words, when our nestlings can fly from the nest and soar off across the horizon on their own wings. Overall, I trayed to represented in these chapter of whom are unapologetic believers in CBI have found that their CBI programs, although more difficult to design, implement, and maintain than traditional programs, have a worthwhile "payoff." I perceive that "payoff" to encompass three broad areas: 1) enhanced motivation and self confidence, 2) enhanced foreign language proficiency, and 3) enhanced cultural literacy. Student reactions to the CBI experiments in this volume and elsewhere indicate that if the program meets students' linguistic, cognitive, and affective needs, motivation is enhanced. All of the authors note that CBI increased the level of students' interest. Corin observes that "more permanent, less ephemeral learning" can be achieved when there is genuine student interest. He found that the kombination of content- and task-based instruction achieved this in his successful experiment in Serbo-Crofatian at Ggggity have helped to stimulate enrollment in upper division French courses. Many of those who continue on are journalism and
communication students who have been motivated by her journalism courses. Vines concludes: "Content-based courses in the French media have been very successful in motivating students and giving them self-confidence in their comprehension and speaking skills. All of the authors have agreed that administrative support and leadership are essential for the initiation and the survival of CBI programs. Lack of support often hinders the development or continuity of CBI programs. Several of the successful programs described in the previous chapters have been either scaled down or eliminated due to lack of funding to maintain them. For example, of the programs described at the Foreign Service Institute, only the
Indonesian program is still viable in the mid-nineties. The CBI modules in Spanish, Arabic, and Russian have been reduced to a minimum, due in part to the loss of continuing administrative support (i.e., funding cutbacks) and in part to the departure of the supervisors who were dedicated to the concept. Conversion courses at the DLI continue to be offered as the need arises. The experiments at MIIS and Columbia University were initially financed by grants from the Pew Charitable
Trusts. When the initial funds were expended, the multi model program at MIIS atrophied. At Columbia University the CBI course Klahn established with grant funding is continuing in the hands of another instructor, and the course has been emulated in Russian. Many FLAC programs, as well as the current Spanish immersion program at Minnesota, were also funded by grants and, although they are still viable, their future without outside funding isnot certain.
The faculty of all the programs described in this volume had strong dedication to the philosophy of CBI. As a result, they went to great lengths to acquire any new skills needed, e.g., Vines retrained herself as a content. I have learned a lot of necessary information about content based instruction of foreign language teaching through learning a book of Stryker and Stephen and others.