On the plus side, there is evidence (as Krashen has always argued) that a silent period needn’t necessarily be an indicator of zero learning. Dick Allwright (1988) reports on a student in a class who said little or nothing during the course of a semester, but who scored highest in the end-of-course speaking test, leading Allwright to conclude that, for some learners, at least, language acquisition is ‘a spectator sport’.
With regard to the linguistic constraint on classroom speaking, the teacher’s role in preparing learners for speaking activities (rather than simply plunging them into them) and of supporting them during speaking activities is obviously extremely important. Allowing learners to script and rehearse their own dialogues in pairs or small groups before publicly performing them is one way of reducing some of the anxiety associated with speaking the L2 in public. Another is providing the words and phrases they might need in advance, and having these available on the board during the activity. You can always erase these progressively as the learners become more proficient at using them.
Finally, (and controversially) there might be a case – in monolingual classes – for allowing the learners to conduct some speaking activities, initially at least, in their mother tongue. Allowing learners to use their L1 in the interests of promoting talk and a sense of community may well be a necessary stage in the transition from a monolingual (L1) through a bilingual (L1 and L2) to finally a monolingual (L2) culture again. Certainly, if students are not used to having conversations in the classroom (in whatever language), they may become more disposed to the idea if there is an initial transition period of ‘L1 permissiveness’, or if tasks are first performed in the L1 (as a kind of rehearsal) before moving into the L2.
Questions for discussion
1. Of the three factors – the social-cultural, psychological, and linguistic – which impact most on students’ unwillingness to communicate, in your experience?
2. How can teachers counteract the problem of learners feeling self-conscious about appearing stupid?
3. Does active vocal participation really matter, and do you think learners can learn by being spectators?
4. How can teachers balance the need to manage groups of learners, and the recommendation that they should relax control?
5. Do you agree that there might be a case for doing speaking activities where there is no personal investment? Why/Why not?
6. Is forcing learners to speak counterproductive?
7. Do you think that allowing learners to do speaking tasks – initially – in their L1, might reduce their L2 reticence?
8. What other techniques do you know that help learners with the linguistic means to perform speaking tasks?
References
Allwright, R. (1988) Observation in the Language Classroom, London: Longman.
Harder, P. (1980) ‘Discourse as self-expression – on the reduced personality of the second language learner’, Applied Linguistics, 1, 3.
Xie, X. (2010) ‘Why are students quiet? Looking at the Chinese context and beyond’, ELT Journal, 64, 1.
To see how readers responded to this topic online, go to
http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/r-is-for-reticence/
3 Are there different learning styles?
If you attend ELT conferences you may have come across something like this (invented) talk synopsis:
Vive la différence! Learn to love their learning styles.
Just as a rainbow is a spectrum of many colours, your classroom is a spectrum of many different learning styles. In this talk I will show you how to identify the different styles (visual, aural, kinaesthetic, etc.) and how to adapt your teaching so as to cater for each one.
While I admire the celebration of diversity implied here, I can’t help but wonder if the assumptions that undergird this presentation are verifiable. Specifically:
1. Is there any evidence for the existence of different learning styles? If so, to what extent are they the result of nature (i.e. innate and immutable) or of nurture (and perhaps amenable to change)?
2. Should teaching be individualized to match the learning style of each learner, or should it be generalized so as to accommodate all learning styles (and is either option feasible)?
And, finally:
3. Why is the learning style ‘movement’ so popular – so popular that its underlying assumptions are seldom challenged?
So, what evidence is there? While it is self-evident that any one class includes a wide range of different abilities, attitudes and behaviours, it is not so easy to attribute these differences to ‘style’. For a start, it is difficult to pin down exactly what is meant by the term. The literature on learning styles has generated a plethora of terms and categories, many of which are only vaguely defined and distinguished. Is learning style the same as cognitive style, for example? Does style mean preference? Is a kinaesthetic learning style the same as a tactile one? Does a preference for the written over the spoken word betoken a visual learning style or a verbal one? Or an analytical one versus a communicative one? And so on.
In short, as Ellis (1994: 508) complained 20 years ago: ‘One of the major problems is that the concept of learning style is ill-defined, apparently overlapping with other individual differences of both an affective and a cognitive nature. It is unlikely that much progress will be made until researchers know what it is they want to measure.’ In a more recent edition of the same text (2008: 672) he notes that ‘the problem of definition has not been solved’, and he adds that ‘there is very little evidence to show that learning styles (as currently conceptualized) are strongly related to L2 proficiency and … none to show how they relate to the processes of learning.’
This gloomy assessment seems to be the case, even when teaching is tailored to specific styles. In an article that reviews a host of studies (Pashler et al. 2008), the researchers could find no evidence for the ‘meshing hypothesis’, i.e. the idea that learning is optimized when instruction is matched to the individual learner’s learning style. Not a single study proved conclusively that a teaching approach that was effective for one style of learner was not also effective for a different style of learner. They concluded, therefore, that ‘there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general educational practice’ (2008: 105).
Given this lack of evidence, why has the meshing hypothesis proved so tenacious? The authors of the paper suspect that learning style theories ‘may reflect the fact that people are concerned that they, and their children, be seen and treated by educators as unique individuals’ (2008: 107). Moreover, learning styles offer unsuccessful learners (and their parents) a stick to beat their teachers with: ‘If a person or a person’s child is not succeeding or excelling in school, it may be more comfortable for the person to think that the educational system … is responsible [and] that the fault lies with instruction being inadequately tailored to one’s learning style’ (ibid.). Learning styles, in other words, are a convenient untruth.
Ironically, the impetus towards creating a more equitable learning environment may have resulted in the needless stereotyping of learners. This is a development that, in turn, echoes the discourse that perpetuates ethnic and cultural ‘essentializing’ of the kind: ‘Asians are collectivist (as opposed to individualist)’ and so on. The well-intentioned wish to respect individual identities in fact results in sweeping generalizations. Moreover, by tailoring instruction to fit such generalizations, there is a danger that they may become self-fulfilling prophecies. It may be that the individualization of learning, whether on the basis of ethnicity, aptitude, learning style or whatever, is a one-way, and possibly dead-end, street.
Rather than pigeon-holing learners into aural, visual, verbal, etc. types, Pashler et al. ‘think the primary focus should be on identifying and introducing the experiences, activities, and challenges that enhance everybody’s learning (2008: 117). ‘Given the capacity of humans to learn, it seems especially important to keep all avenues, o
ptions, and aspirations open’ (ibid.). Besides, an approach that focuses on what learners have in common, rather than on what differentiates them, is ultimately more practicable. The alternative – small groups of like-minded learners getting individualized instruction – is a luxury few educational institutions or systems can afford, even if there were any psychological basis for it.
A more generous assessment of the learning styles movement is that, in attempting to address the inherent diversity of classrooms, it has broadened the range of pedagogical options available. As Jim Scrivener (2012: 106) argues, even if learning styles are simply unfounded hunches, ‘perhaps their main value is in offering us thought experiments along the lines of “what if this were true?” – making us think about the ideas and, in doing so, reflecting on our own default teaching styles and our own current understanding of learner differences and responses to them.’
Questions for discussion
1. Do you consider yourself to have an identifiable learning style? On what grounds? How does it manifest itself?
2. What different ways of classifying learning styles are you aware of? To what extent do you think these categories are clear cut?
3. What other kinds of differences between learners might explain the variable outcomes of language learning? Which do you think have the most impact on success?
4. The Pashler et al. (2008) study found no grounds for tailoring teaching to learners’ individual styles. But the studies it reviewed were in general education. Do you think the conclusions might have been different if they had focused only on language learners?
5. Do you agree that the popularity of learning style theory stems, at least in part, from the fact that it blames failure – not on the learner – but on teaching: specifically the lack of fit between learning and teaching styles?
6. Do you agree that categorizing learners according to distinct learning styles is a form of stereotyping that may have negative consequences? Is it really on the same par as racial stereotyping?
7. In what way has the learning style movement ‘broadened the range of pedagogical options available’? Can you think of examples?
8. Is the individualization of learning really such an impracticable goal? For example, how might technology be enlisted to make it possible?
References
Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008) The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D. and Bjork, R. (2008) ‘Learning styles: Concepts and evidence’, in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 3, 105.
Scrivener, J. (2012) Classroom Management Techniques, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
To see how readers responded to this topic online, go to http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/l-is-for-learning-styles/
4 Is the use of the learners’ mother tongue a good idea?
I was seated next to a young Catalan woman at lunch the other day, and we got to talking about language learning. She’s been learning English at a private ‘academy’ in a small town on the outskirts of Barcelona. I asked her how it was going. She confessed that she was not as happy this year as last year. ‘Why?’ ‘Last year I had a teacher who was American and he only ever used English. Sometimes it was hard for us, but we really had to make an effort. We never once used Catalan in class. This year the teacher is Catalan – she lived in California and speaks excellent English – but she speaks Catalan to us and allows us to do so too. It’s just not the same – there’s no real push. I must admit that, although I know she’s a good teacher, I’m not enjoying my classes as much.’
This raises the perennial question as to the usefulness or not (or the wisdom or not) of using the learners’ mother tongue (or L1) in the language classroom.
As usual, there are a number of dimensions to the argument. There’s the psycholinguistic dimension: how, and to what extent, is the L1 implicated in the learning of a second language (L2)? And the sociolinguistic dimension: what social and cultural factors argue for – or against – the use of the L1? And the pedagogical dimension: is the use of translation, for example, a viable educational option?
With regard to the psycholinguistic argument, we have come a long way since the days when it was claimed that L1 ‘habits’ interfered in the formation of habits in the L2, and that, therefore, the L1 should be banished from the classroom. Analysis of learners’ errors has suggested that any interference is less than might be expected, given the differences between languages. This is not to say that the L1 does not impact on the L2. In fact, proponents of sociocultural learning theory argue that the first language supplies the conceptual template for all subsequent language acquisition, but that this is all the more reason to take it into account when teaching. As Song and Kellogg (2011: 602) point out:
For Vygotsky ... the foreign language learner superimposes the meanings of foreign language words on the most thoroughly analyzed, abstract, and universal symbolic meanings of the native language. And this is why, for Vygotsky, foreign language development is generally a proximal consequence of deliberate formal instruction with which the native language both can and should interact.
Ushakova (1994: 154) puts it more poetically: ‘Second language is looking into the windows cut out by the first language.’ Hence, ignoring or denying the positive influence of the L1 is seen as counterproductive. What is more, from a motivational point of view, referencing the learners’ L1 validates their linguistic and cultural identity, while proscribing it might be considered a form of linguistic imperialism.
From the sociolinguistic perspective, the idea that strict monolingualism is the norm – either inside the classroom or outside it – is a relatively recent one, and runs counter to the fact that most societies have been, or are, bi- or multilingual. In a globalized world, where languages are the conduits of ‘transcultural flows’, this is perhaps more the case than ever. When learners ‘are viewed as multi-competent users rather than as deficient native speakers’ (Cook 1999: 185), then the case for classroom monolingualism seems less tenable. Moreover, if, as the Council of Europe (2001: 5) argues, the aim of language education is ‘to develop a linguistic repertory, in which all linguistic abilities have a place’, then this assumes the ability, not only to speak more than one language, but to mediate between them. It follows, therefore, that – in the interests of plurilingualism – the skills of cross-linguistic comparison, interpretation, and translation should form part of the language curriculum.
But the viability of these aims, from an educational perspective, is debatable. For a start, a multilingual classroom assumes a degree of familiarity with both the target language and the learners’ mother tongue(s) that many teachers might not have – and which might simply not be feasible in classes of wide linguistic diversity. Moreover, many learners’ expectations of language classes have been in large part conditioned by a ‘discourse of nativisim’ – the idea that the best way of learning a language is the way that we learned our mother tongue, i.e. by total immersion. This argument underpins the dissatisfaction expressed by my Catalan friend above. Many learners – and many teachers – feel intuitively that anything less than total immersion irrevocably weakens the ‘push’ to use – and therefore to learn – the target language.
At times the argument even borders on the ethical. Translation is wrong! Or: to ignore the learner’s mother tongue is foolish! In fact, no single issue in the history of language teaching has polarized opinion as much as the question of mother tongue use. Whole methods are founded on its acceptance (such as grammar-translation) or its rejection (such as the direct method). And the influence of the latter has been pervasive. As Guy Cook (2010: 156) writes, in a recent book on the subject:
A great deal remains to be done before TILT [Translation in Language Teaching] can be rehabilitated and developed in the way that it deserves. The insidious associati
on of TILT with dull and authoritarian Grammar-Translation, combined with the insinuation that Grammar-Translation had nothing good in it at all, has lodged itself so deeply in the collective consciousness of the language teaching profession, that it is difficult to prise it out at all, and it has hardly moved for a hundred years. The result has been an arid period in the use and development of TILT, and serious detriment to language teaching as a whole.
Questions for discussion
1. Have you learned an additional language purely through immersion? How?
2. Of the arguments for or against L1 use, which do you find most convincing – the psycholinguistic one, the sociolinguistic one, or the educational one?
3. Do you accept the argument that there is more positive than negative transfer from the L1 to the L2? On what grounds?
4. How does an immersion or a direct method approach (i.e. one in which L1 use is proscribed) impact on identity formation?
5. Need the teacher be a proficient speaker of the learners’ L1?
6. How could reference to the learners’ different mother tongues be incorporated into a class of mixed nationality learners?
7. Why has grammar-translation earned such a bad reputation? Is it deserved?
8. What benefits accrue from viewing the learner as a ‘multilingual user’ rather than as a ‘deficient native speaker’?
References
Cook, G. (2010) Translation in Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, V. (1999) ‘Going beyond the native speaker’, TESOL Quarterly, 33, 2.
Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Big Questions in ELT Page 2
