December 14, 2010
December 14, 2010
Two smaller entries for today...
1. The Post-method era- when ‘bad’ methodologies are good
Having listened to vocab guru Paul Nation discuss vocabulary acquisition recently in Fukuoka, I was once again reminded that we are now wholly in the ELT Post-Method era (and here you were thinking this was the Post-Modern Era or the Digital Age!). Why? Because almost every luminary in our humble field whom I’ve heard talk in the past five years has advocated an eclectic mix of methods as being the most productive for teaching. So, what did Paul Nation say? He actually said- hold your breath here- that Grammar-Translation is a wonderful method of instruction, that it makes perfect sense to utilize one’s first language as a tool in second language acquisition.
Paul- how ‘pedagogically incorrect’ of you! But also... how very true!
Actually, I’ve heard Willis, Widdowson, Candlin, and Nunan et al peddle the virtues of unfashionable drills, card study, dictation, discrete item grammar study- name-your-old-fashioned-methodology-here. Of course none of these big names argue that these are the only methodologies one should use or that they should even be considered primary methods of instruction. But, given that many teachers who like to think of themselves as progressive have completely discarded these tools in the name of pedagogical hipness, this might come as a welcome reminder.
On one hand, the fact that drudge methods can play a productive role in SLA should hardly come as a surprise for those among us who are in a lifelong Japanese learning mode. Surely you dear reader, like myself, have used these methods in your self-study. So, we might well expect that independent learners and hobbyists of any new language will practice more formal drills and translation methods as a part of self-study- as any serious student should. But, also as a result, we can reasonably predict that when such independent learners actually meet with an NS teacher they will want to do something active with their English knowledge- not drills or mundane item-by-item translation. Fair enough.
But this is whereJapanese university settings come in in a very significant way. Universities in Japan are full of required English courses in which the students’ main concern is often not the acquisition of English, and thus there is little chance that most will carry out this type of drill/drudge study on their own. Therefore, it is precisely university students who can/should benefit most from a teacher employing these methods in a university classroom (again not as a primary method but as a useful supplementary tool) . They need to have occasional directed, focused study mandated from 'above' precisely because they are less likely to do it by themselves. Not only that, but being familiar with these simple methods means that university students often feel very comfortable with them. There is little fuss and bother regarding formats or complicated interactions. They are on familiar territory. There is a place for this stuff- a small place but a place nonetheless.
As long as we don’t allow the pendulum to fall too much in one direction or another we can take solace knowing that ‘obsolete’ methods, our occasional guilty practices, are supported by many of the big names in the profession.
Any thoughts on using 'drudge' methods?
2. Adventures are for infants
I know very little formal theory regarding how infants acquire languages (first or second) but I’m a two-time father so, hey, I suppose I’m as qualified as anyone to talk about what I see before my own eyes. And what I see is this:
My nearly-two year old daughter is enrolled at a nursery school so she picks up Japanese faster than English. So, other than myself, her main exposure to English comes through English picture books. Now, there seems to be two main types of books out there for infants- those which tell a simple story and those that are trying to teach, or at least introduce, English words. The former often contain rather difficult constructions and words that don’t appear on your standard “Most essential 500 words” lists: “So that’s why they hadn't talked to her!”. Or, “The mongoose curled up into a ball”.
The second type of kids’ books contain mostly repetitions of common phrases: “Good morning Danny Duck!” “Hello Mr. Sun!” or lists of basic words- ‘banana, dog, juice, boy, running, hot’- usually accompanied by a matching illustration. These books are obviously less linear, focusing more on conscious association between individual pictures and words.
So, which type do you think accelerates my daughter’s English the most? (Not to mention my son- now in JHS- when he was the same age). The difference in both cases is/was palpable. There is no contest. The simple narratives and adventures- the actual stories- are internalized and lead to reproduction of words, patterns, and phrases much more quickly and deeply than the books which are trying to teach specific words or are full of stand-alone set phrases.
I suspect that this is connected to the pedagogical fact that discrete items are often internalized more deeply and holistically when cognition is engaged, when the focus is upon communicating meaning. Trying to get children to retain items that are being explicitly ‘taught’ is like trying to catch water in your hands by squeezing it. Your hand may still be wet but there’s not enough left to swallow.
If this holds true for most infants I think it holds significance for publishers of English learning materials for very young children. But first, I’d like to know- Is there research support for what I see as a father? And, second, is the same true for your children?