Fw: SLA, teaching and the Shaolin-paper
Ronald Sheen
criticisms. I agree with all that he says except perhaps for his comment on
the connection he sees with behaviourism which he intends to expand on, I
think. In particualar, I agree with his general view expressed in the first
paragraph in which he identifies succinctly the root of the problems in the
paper.
The following comments are in the same vein as John's but address different
aspects of the paper.
The Lians' paper is based on the fundamentally sound assumption that as
individuals, we each bring a unique set of conditions to the learning
experience. It further argues that, consequently, but less convincingly,
individuals have different needs and that they can identify them. It then
claims that as those needs are unpredictable and as, therefore, we cannot
prearrange the learning process, a rich and ultimately complete panoply of
learning materials should be made available by means of the internet in
order to satisfy all those potential individual needs. Within this, the
teacher is to act as facilitator who enables the learner to understand by
offering enlightenment when needed, the argument for which is justified by
the two analogies of visual and sound perception - of which more later.
Let's first facilitate the Lian's case by setting aside the situations in
which
their solution is patently unworkable. That is the case of the elementary
or high school teaching of foreign languages in which students are obliged
to be together in classrooms and will be necessarily subjected to common
exams. Even assuming that the students are able to decide for themselves
what they want to learn (optimistic, at best; completely unrealistic, at
worst), and have individual computers available, offering such a choice
would inevitably lead to the inapplicability of the general school
evaluation system. As the Lians do not discuss this major objection, I
assume that they think their proposal workable in such situations. This
being the case, it is surprising that the paper does not evaluate research
on school situations which have offered the individual the degrees of
freedom that it proposes. The Lightbown and Halter report on the New
Brunswick Project, for example, (discussed on SLART on at least two
occasions) holds lessons both positive and negative for the paper's
proposal as do the experiences with programmed learning. In fact,
the paper treats the field as if there are no lessons to be drawn from
past experiences - an imprudent practice and certainly one not looked
upon kindly by refereed journals yet possibly ignored by CALL. Surely,
for example, given the nature of the paper, the authors should have dealt
with the vast literature on the discovery learning movement of the 60's
and 70's.
Let's then take the best-case scenario, that of the individuals who are
motivated to learn a language and who are not bound by an institutional
system. Present possibilities offer such individuals at least three
choices. They can follow a course in a group; they can take private
lessons; or they can opt for some form of self-learning. The first choice
is clearly not the best for obvious reasons related to differences in
abilities, aptitudes and needs. However, it is, at least, affordable but
presents all the problems the paper sees in group learning. The second is
both expensive and implicitly entails the fundamental problem of the
teacher's deciding to some degree on the content of what is taught. The
third choice, that closely-related to that advocated by the Lians, is
certainly the best in the circumstances. In fact, it is what many
self-motivated learners have always done and this, in turn, has created
the self-teaching materials business. However, the materials so-produced
do manifest the same defects that the paper identifies in all formal
courses and materials, ie gradated pre-determined material. Thus we have
left what the Lians propose.
What exactly is it and what is its justification?
It is a wide array of authentic resource materials which ideally learners
can tap into as they see fit, digest and, should it be necessary, benefit
from explanations provided by the teacher to facilitate digestion, Its
justification is first that "created" materials do not provide the
experience
which enables the learner to be exposed to, and process "all systems
simultaneously" which is putatively provided by authentic materials, and
second, that it impossible to predetermine the route to success that only
the learner can know.
Authentic materials have now been around for quite some time and are
used in a number of published teaching texts. Yet, no research findings
havebeen published to demonstrate that the use of such materials enables
learners to learn any more effectively than with traditional materials.
Unfortunately. the paper does not deal with previous literatue devoted to
this issue.
The exposure to "all systems simulatansously" principle is possibly a
seductive concept but the reader has the right to expect some endeavour on
the part of the authors to justify it. They might, for example, have
compared
exampleof authentic and unauthentic to demonstrate how the former manifests
"all systems simultaneously" whilst the latter do not. They might also have
shown
that the absence of exposure to authentic texts results in failure.
However, this
is impossible to do for countless numbers of learners have learned
languages by using materials which do not provide such exposure and which,
in fact, purposely deny the learner access thereto. In fact, I should not
be surprised if both authors benefited from such material. Yet, the
authors do not attempt to explain away this success. Of course, they might
argue that the success would be greater if authentic materials had been
used. Unfortunately, we do not know this for they fail to address the
comparative success of authentic as opposed to unauthentic materials as they
seemingly accept as axiomatic that the former are better.
The least one might expect of advocates of some new approach is some
endeavour to demonstrate that it is more effective than others already
available, as indeed John points out. No such endeavour is made. It is
true that the authors do promise to "describe attempts by the authors to
implement some of the principles discussed". I have been through the
paper several times but can find no empirical evidence which in any way
supports the learning principles proposed. Could Ania indicate where I
can find this in the paper?
There are many unsupported assertions in the paper the most troubling of
which is the one which implicitly asserts that there is not sufficient
commonality in groups of learners to justify generalisations applicable to
such groups and that the vast amount of research data on language learning
does not enable us to identify those commonalities. One might expect that
the paper would have addressed this issue and examined the literature in
order to justify their assumption. It does not, and expects us to accept
one more assumption as axiomatic. Yet, a couple of examples among many
demonstrates the degree to which the premise is flawed. With a
group of say 11 year olds in a streamed class based on language aptitude
and intelligence with no previous experience of the language to be learned,
it is certainly plausible that there is sufficient commonality to justify at
least initially
their being treated as a group and to giving little weight to the
differences.
This seems desirable as to follow the Lians' philosophy of simply exposing
them to appropriate authentic materials would not allow the students to
learn fundamentals necessary for future progress. ESP situations also
appear to be situations which do not lend themselves to self-directed
learning. Take young
Saudis learning to be fighter pilots ( a situation I have experienced) and
being
taught English which is absolutely essential to enable them to fly.
Following
the Lians' ideas, they should be exposed to flying manuals and allowed to
learn whatever they wish. This would constitute a disservice to them for
they do not necessarily know what they will need to know which in turn may
result in their
failing their exams. How does Ania suggest we address these situations?
Of course, it is possible that the authors accept that certain situations
demand
group learning and a pre-arranged syllabus. However, their use of absolutes
in their explanation of their philosophy appears to preclude these
exceptions.
As to the two analogies, are they valid? At first blush, they may appear
to be so. In both cases. the "learner" is faced with some part of the
environment in which he fails to perceive some aspect thereof. It is
implicitly argued that similarly, the language learner faced with some
authentic language is unable to perceive the underlying sytems and that the
teacher will enable the learner to perceive these systems. However,
the analogies fail on two levels, one quantitative and the other
qualitative. Quantitative (though I suppose one might argue that it is
also qualitative), because linguistic systems are of a complexity far
beyond that of seeing Halley's Comet or of hearing one's heartbeat
- so complex, in fact, that they do not always lend themselves to
solution by the teacher's proposing perceiving the piece of language
in such a way as to reveal the underlying system. Qualitative, because the
understanding of the systems will necessarily entail going beyond the
faculty in which the problem is first perceived whereas in the two analogies
the solution entails remaining within the same faculty . Allophonic
variation
in complementary distribution is a case in point. It is a problem first
perceived
auditorily, manifests itself in speaking whilst the enlightement may well
entail understanding the nature of the phonetic factors which cause the
variation.
Other aspects of the paper are problematic but I'll leave others to raise
them so I can add a positive note. The paper paves the way to
the future of the self-learning business in demonstrating the incredible
array of possibilities offered by the internet and provides many examples
of the ways in which it may be done. If the paper had limited itself to
this
end, it would serve a very useful purpose.
Unfortunately, even if it had, it would still not offer a solution to a
really
thorny but mundane problem. Many people are motivated to learn a
language. Some of them will, therefore, begin a course of self-learning.
Most will fail because when motivation comes up against the desire to
do something more enjoyable than that entailed in the hard work of learning
a language, it is the latter which often wins out in spite of the initially
attractive
offerings of the interent. How do the authors suggest we solve that
problem? The only way I can think of is committing oneself to an
institutionalised group course with a predetermined syllabus which imposes a
discipline which many of us are incapable of doing by ourselves.
Ania has mentioned on several occasions others of her papers in the same
vein as this one. It is to be hoped that therein she will address the
criticisms
which John and I have made. Unfortunately, the present academic situation
is such that conferences allow one to say whatever one wishes with no
concern for accountability, Furthermore, CALL and other possibilities allow
one to publish articles without their being subjected to critical review.
The
Lians' article is thus now available on the Net and has apparently been
given
in various forms as presentations. Is this progress?
Ron Sheen U of Quebec in Trois Rivieres, Canada.