carts & horses

Carts & horses | Martin Lovatt | March 16th, 2005

I would like some comments on the following, please.

After some years teaching English I intuitively feel that we may have the cart before the horse in our language teaching approaches. It seems that our primary focus has been to concentrate on teaching the English language to our learners. No doubt there are many exceptions out there (at least one being the DOGME group, supported by Scott Thornbury, who seem at first glance to be primarily aiming at facilitating second language communication - albeit in a somewhat contrived environment: after all, where do we find groups of people deliberately getting together in a room to discuss the first thing that comes up, just for the sake of it, in the real world? Ah... except for the pub of course!). Nevertheless, the DOGME goal seems an admirable one in that it focuses less on language learning per se and more on real communication based on relevant (at least to the parties concerned) topics.

In recent years in TESOL 'authenticity' and 'real world' activities and materials are buzz-words, and (supported by SLA research findings) are reflected in activities such as TBL. In fact, TBL seems aimed at having learners perform other tasks in English and thereby gain linguistic skills as a result. However, by and large, tasks still appear to be rather arbitrarily chosen, and are generally graded depending on their linguistic difficulty. Thus language learning is the primary focus. In this sense, it seems that TBL is just another attempt to bring LL closer to the 'real world'. 'The aim of the task is to create a real purpose for language use and provide a natural context for language study' (Willis, J. 1996).

If other subjects were taught (in English), language learning would still be an important objective, but could be included as a secondary purpose rather than being the primary aim of the class. In other words teach in English not teach English .

Naturally, problems will arise from this approach. SLA research points out that TBL alone may lead to fossilisation as fluency improves at the expense of accuracy and therefore some meta-conscious study of language form is recommended. In a class which focuses on another subject as the primary study material, pertinent semantic and linguistic forms could be emphasized and practised as secondary objectives of the lesson, but mainly with the intent of ensuring the subject matter had been properly understood.

However, this approach raises many questions, for example:

1. What subjects of 'universal interest' would we teach learners?

2. Would lessons result in a 'lecture' style of teaching rather than the communicative/interactive style beneficial to L2 learners?

3. How would materials be developed and graded?

4. How can we find or train teachers with the necessary skills to teach these 'universal' subjects?

5. What kind of testing and evaluation should be done to ensure the subject materials (both primary and secondary) have been assimilated by the learners?

And so on...

However, if the idea is shown to be effective, solutions would evolve in time. So the real question is: 'How can we test this idea and gather empirical evidence to support or refute this hypothesis?'

Of course, I have a trendy acronym for this: English Language Learning as a Secondary Objective (ELLSO). So if anyone out there has any comments or can direct me to any research that reports on this topic, I would be grateful. I guess this is not a new idea so forgive me if I'm attempting to re-invent the wheel!

Some comments and direction please.

Martin
Japan

Re: carts & horses | Robert Haines | March 17th, 2005

Martin,

Here are some of my comments on your interesting post to the A-list:

It seems that our primary focus has been to concentrate on teaching the English language to our learners.

Of course, one can debate whether 'the' English language exists, as there are Englishes, one of them subsuming our own idiolect, which may or may not be an English we teach. As so many in ELT have pointed out:

Teaching does not equal learning; what is taught might be not resemble what is learnt.

Nonetheless, point taken, Martin: It could be argued that we teachers are out to teach English language.

The aim of the task is to create a real purpose for language use and provide a natural context for language study' (Willis, J. 1996).

Yes, as with any approach, method, or technique, TBL involves some engineering (classroom management?) on the teacher's part. I raised similar questions in an online discussion with Dave and Jane Willis, but came away with little in the way of any answers. Our kind discussion fielders (Willis and Willis) were a bit inundated by postings, I think, and had precious little time to respond. I do think many would see the language learning focus of TBL as one of its strengths, however, and not a deficiency. But, again, point taken as to the authenticity of tasks that someone has invented for learners they might never have met (as is the case with TBL mats and course books), or tasks designed around a language point instead of the motivation and interests of the people in the room.

If other subjects were taught (in English), language learning would still be an important objective, but could be included as a secondary purpose rather than being the primary aim of the class. In other words, teach in English, not teach English.

That would be the Direct Method, wouldn't it?

Naturally, problems will arise from this approach. SLA research points out that TBL alone may lead to fossilization as fluency improves at the expense of accuracy and therefore some meta-conscious study of language form is recommended.

I think any approach, method or technique on its own is in danger of missing the mark. An eclectic approach is advisable in most contexts, don't you think? The issue of focus on form, focus on forms (the -s does change things, right?) versus more organic or intuitive learning is quite valid. Dave Willis talks about this form of learning, as I understand it, as Exploration, writing that this type of unconscious learning is mainly up to the learner.

Your questions:

1. What subjects of 'universal interest' would we teach learners?

Won't universal interest depend on individual learners' interests? Can there be a one-size-fits-all subject? You might take a look at Sylvia Ashton-Warner's book, Teacher (Simon and Schuster, 1963), for some ideas about the universal interests of children. Then there are the universal matters of interest in all of us: love, freedom... open to debate, which is probably why they tend to be avoided?

2. Would lessons result in a 'lecture' style of teaching rather than the  communicative/interactive style beneficial to L2 learners?

Hopefully not. Although I think many learners view learning as listening to a lecture. The transmission-style approach is far from dead in ELT.

2. How would materials be developed and graded?

Why would they have to be? Isn't the 'pedagogic syllabus' (Wills again) enough to work from/on/with/for?

3. How can we find or train teachers with the necessary skills to teach these 'universal' subjects?

If the universal subjects are like the ones I've mentioned (love, freedom...) then being human is enough to get the job done. If we're interested in teachers who can teach language (and people!) then we might ask ourselves how we can train someone in four weeks to understand even the basics of SLA, learner-centeredness, descriptive grammar, and all the rest.

4. What kind of testing and evaluation should be done to ensure the subject materials (both primary and secondary) have been assimilated by the learners?

I'll leave this one for somebody else, because I'm not at all a fan of testing. I would just say that if learning is happening, teacher, students, and employer are all happy... is that enough? Or do the gray-bearded linguists in the white lab coats need to be satisfied too?

However, if the idea is shown to be effective, solutions would evolve in time. So the real question is: How can we test this idea and gather empirical evidence to support or refute this hypothesis?

Maybe we will never find empirical evidence for anything relating to what learning really is. Quantitative research appeals to that rational, atomistic element of society that likes to stick everything under the microscope, then classify it; however, qualitative research tells us that the process, not the product is our true endeavor.

If you've made it this far, Martin, I must say that it sounds like you are in search of some good old-fashioned Social Constructivism. A little Vygotsky here, some Bruner there. And check out that dogme list again; I think you'll find it's right up your alley. Have you read Psychology for Language Teachers (Williams and Burden, CUP, 1997)?

Thank you for sharing your ideas.

Best,

Rob

Re: carts & horses | Martin Lovatt | March 17th, 2005

Hi Catherine, Dave & Rob,

Thanks for your useful feedback. I'm still reflecting on your comments, but I felt I had perhaps been a little unclear in my last e-mail. I'm not talking about the 'Direct Method' when I say "teach in English". It would probably have been clearer if I'd written, "teach another subject e.g. history, geography, psychology, basket-weaving or any useful subject in your local context, in English." The Direct Method simply means using the target language in class to teach language (and includes some other aspects such as communicating meaning directly using gestures, objects; teaching grammar inductively and so on). It was developed as a reaction against the Grammar Translation Method, i.e. as a method of language instruction. I'm talking about conducting the ------ lesson (fill in the blank with any subject other than English) lesson in English.

However, I think I was thinking in 'CSD text book writing mode' when I wrote 'universal   subjects'. Much too grandiose. Local development of materials (if necessary) tailored to fit local needs is much closer to the mark. Obviously things become clearer through discussion & writing things down for discussion on this list!

And if I could clarify one more part of me last e-mail:

Rob, you wrote:

Maybe we will never find empirical evidence for anything relating to what learning really is. Quantitative research appeals to that rational, atomistic element of society that likes to stick everything under the microscope, then classify it; however, qualitative research tells us that the process, not the product is our true endeavor.

I agree with you, but I think 'empirical evidence' is not restricted only to the results gained from the number-crunching of quantitative research. I like the first definition in my Webster's of 'empirical' that states:'derived from or guided by experience or experiment'. That's not a bad definition of language teaching either!

If you've made it this far, Martin, I must say that it sounds like you are in search of some good old-fashioned Social Constructivism. A little Vygotsky here, some Bruner there. And check out that dogme list again; I think you'll find it's right up your alley. Have you read Psychology for Language Teachers (Williams and Burden, CUP, 1997)?

I haven't, but as soon as I've finished my CSD assignment (sometime before I die I hope) I will! Thanks for the recommendation.

And from Dave,

Hi. The first big problem is to know your students. After that, don't teach the lesson, teach the students. What do they know now? What do they need to know? How can they decently (by their standards) express it?   In my place, language learning is secondary.

McDave

I agree with your comments completely, Dave, but what is it then that you're teaching your students in your situation if it's not language?

And by the way, Catherine, I don't think you're an MSc "drop out" if you still have enough professional interest to keep up with these kinds of discussions. Surely that's the whole point of this course anyway? Not just the piece of paper that may well mean the end of bothering with these issues for most graduates. Well done, what a good example!

Martin

Cart & Horses CBI | Jake Kimball | March 17th, 2005

Hi Martin,

Good questions. I think if you look into Content-Based Instruction (CBI) you'll find what you're looking for. CBI is the integration of content and language teaching aims. For example, young learners who will mainstreamed into their regular classes, or engineers (also university students) taking an engineering course in English. Not long ago I read about Taiwanese students being very very disappointed in their English engineering classes. I'll try to track that down.

It seems many writers have different opinions about the content part of CBI, as in how much content and how much language. One of the more helpful diagrams I saw was one that Ann Snow made showing content and language on a continuum as is usually found in practice (mine isn't as pretty but it shows what I mean).

Jake

Cart & Horse | Robert Haines | March 18th, 2005

Hello Martin and everyone reading,

Unfortunately, Dave and Catherine's posts haven't appeared in my inbox. I hope I don't simply repeat what they've written. Not sure if the messages just take longer to reach me or what might be going on there.

So, Martin, it sounds like you're describing full immersion learning. For example, there's a German-American School in this city where students learn Math, Art, etc. in German. The Spanish, French and Japanese schools do the same as far as I know. If it is immersion you mean, take a look at Krashen's web site for some arguments for the merits of bi-lingula education instead of full immersion.

In my context, students receive Natural Resource Technology, Math and other classes in English after a few months with me in their ESL class. I try to incorporate the subject matter from the other classes into our ESL class, because I know it's interesting and motivating to everyone. Using the texts, in my opinion, also draws on the learners' pedagogic corpus (Willis), that is the texts that they have processed for meaning.

Good point about empirical research, although in my experience there is an expectation that empirical research will produce tangible results. But who says we can't change those expectations?

Finally, let me say that I'm on the GLE at present. I find the material interesting. One of my peers has written that he's enjoying the module the way he enjoyed Quantum Physics: it's interesting but he's not sure if/how he'll ever use it (paraphrase). Much of what we learn on the MSc, I believe, can inform our teaching and raise our awareness of issues surrounding ELT; however, it still remains Pedagogy, the Art of Teaching that we need to do our work each day. So far, MET has approached pedagogical issues. The rest of the modules on my path are likely to involve much Applied Linguistics; the pedagogy is up to me.

Dave is right: know the learners, teach the learners. Let them design materials instead of somebody who doesn't know them. Even with beginners you can collect the lexis they produce and give them affordances to grammaticize it instead of teaching "Grammar McNuggets" (Thornbury). The coursebook culture is pervasive, but the people in the room are much more important.

Rob

Thanks, Rob | Martin Lovatt | March 18th, 2005

Thanks for your feedback, Rob, I'll check out the Krashen site. Immersion sounds like the right place to start looking for more ideas.

Thanks again,

Martin

 

Archive Categories