Language, language learning and Method

Forming habits, engaging the mind, or working with others?

To what extent is language learning the formation of ‘good’ language habits, the result of learners using their minds’ internal learning mechanisms, or the consequence of learners interacting with other people? While ‘language learning as habit formation’ is now no longer widely supported by theorists as a comprehensive account of how languages are learned (as we shall see), other approaches emphasize to varying degrees the innate properties of the human mind, or the cognitive processes learners’ undertake when learning, or how learning may be a ‘social activity’ (and also a consequence of social activity). Conceptions of learning therefore inform both approaches to how learners might engage with language generally, and also underpin

many specific, well-used and familiar classroom activities.

Teaching ‘good’ habits in the language classroom: practices

. . . and limitations

Behaviourist approaches to learning suggest that learners can form ‘good’ habits and ‘correct’ patterns of language use by following a pattern of stimulus, response and reinforcement. In the classroom, then, drilling aims to encourage habit-formation through the accurate

repetition of language forms. Language is developed in drills via substitution (and substitution tables) which reduce the likelihood of learner errors. Similarly, presentation, practice and production (PPP) approaches in the classroom look to develop learner language by establishing a context and clear model sentences (i.e., presentation) followed by choral drilling, individual repetition and teacher-led substitution (i.e., practice) before learners are given the opportunity to ‘produce’ language. Thus, error-free repetition and habit-formation precedes learners’ own use of the language.

However, while habit-forming activities may have a place in the ELT classroom, there have been numerous strong criticisms of the idea that habit-forming by itself offers a full explanation of how languages are learned – it fails to allow for the role of the human mind in learning, of consciousness, thought, and unconscious mental processes.
‘If language is innate’: the input issue

As we shall see in Chapter 6, some accounts of language learning suggest that humans are born with innate knowledge of a set of linguistic principles common to all languages, that is, a Universal Grammar (UG). Although first proposed by Chomsky as a mechanism explaining how children acquire their first language during the critical period of their development (i.e., pre-puberty), it has been suggested that UG may provide insights into second language learning (White, 2003).

However, the view that the ability to learn a language is innate (and hence second language learning may resemble first language acquisition) could lead teachers to suggest that exposure to language should be a primary concern in the L2 classroom, the implication being that exposure may lead to language being ‘picked up’ in a ‘naturalistic’ way. Indeed, Krashen (1982) developed the Monitor Model, in which he argued that, given comprehensible input (i.e., language just beyond what has already been acquired) and a relaxed state of mind that is ready to learn (conceptualized as a low affective filter), then learners would acquire language (see Chapter 6 for further discussion). Thus given appropriate input and a readiness to learn, learners would acquire language; language use follows, and is evidence of, acquisition. However, among many others, Long (1985) has further developed the input hypothesis, suggesting that interaction between language learners leads learners to adapt their speech to include comprehension checks, repetitions and recasts. He suggests that this acts as a mechanism for making input comprehensible for learners and thus introduces the concept of interaction to the process of learning English (we have already noted the central role of interaction in many approaches to language teaching and learning (Chapter 2), and will explore it further in the discussion below and in Chapter 6).

Krashen also proposed that language acquisition and learning are essentially different processes, acquisition being unconscious and ‘natural’ with no attention given to linguistic form, while learning involves conscious attention to language forms and rules. For Krashen, acquired language was more valuable as it, rather than learned lan- guage, was instantly retrievable for use; consciously learned language may only be a monitor or check on what is acquired.

The Monitor Model has been heavily criticized for offering an incomplete model of language learning (see Chapter 6 for further discussion). However, two of its fundamental concepts, the importance of input (and how to provide or generate it in a comprehensible form) and the role of affect have remained key ideas within ELT, as has the idea of whether or not it is useful to focus explicitly on language forms, leaving teachers with much to consider.
‘More than just input’: cognitive processes and classroom concerns

Cognitive perspectives on second language learning, although recog-

nizing that Universal Grammar provides a valid explanation for first language acquisition, suggest that it does not fully explain second language learning. Drawing on the metaphor of computers processing data (Lightbown and Spada, 2006), cognitive approaches focus on the way our minds store information, process and make connections with it, and retrieve it at the right time. The theoretical elements of cognitive approaches will be explored further in Chapter 6.

In the classroom, however, teachers are faced with a number of dilemmas. First, should language features be brought to the attention of learners, and, if so, how might this be achieved? In contrast to Krashen’s ideas, teachers might hypothesize (as does Schmidt, 1990) that second language learners can only learn a specific language feature, or the gap between their own performance and the target language, once they have paid conscious attention to it, that is, once they have noticed it. Classroom activities that might help learners notice include comparing their own recorded or written language against a model or example, or, indeed, drilling and repetition, where forms are highlighted, i.e., noticed. (It is interesting to note that the example of drilling demonstrates that, in the interrelationship between theory and practice, the same practices can sometimes be informed by different theoretical perspectives and beliefs, and unless one is particularly committed to a single approach, elements of different theories can inform, and be informed by, the ELT classroom.)

However, in order to use English effectively, learners need to be able to retrieve and use the right language at the right time quickly. Thus how can learners’ use of ‘noticed’, conscious knowledge be made faster and, according to cognitive perspectives on language learning,

be made automatic? How might knowledge about language be converted by learners into knowing how to use language? Or, in more practical terms, what is the role of practice and what forms might practice take? How much practice should learners engage in? More- over, what is the role of learner pair and group work within the classroom? Is there a role for conversation and conversational inter- action, and what purpose does it serve? As Ellis (1992: 191) puts it, ‘what types of classroom interaction are likely to prove optimal for L2 acquisition?’

Thornbury (2006: 173) identifies a number of different kinds of practice: controlled versus free practice, mechanical versus meaningful/ communicative practice, and receptive versus productive practice, while Johnson (2008: 254) highlights the parallel between language learning and the development of other skills (such as learning a musical instrument) by suggesting that practice activities can range between ‘scales’ (i.e., controlled practice) and ‘the real thing’ (i.e., free produc- tion). Practice can therefore take many shapes and forms, from controlled drills and repetition, to pair and group information gaps, discussions, games and problem-solving activities (with either an explicit linguistic focus (i.e., noticing) or a focus on a ‘real-world’ context such as planning a journey or ranking information in order of importance). Clearly, in its more controlled forms, practice is associ- ated with accuracy, while freer practice is said to develop learners’ fluency. Teachers will direct practice, and intervene and correct (or not intervene and correct) in ways that they consider appropriate given their aims and the learners’ needs, as learners develop their control of the language.

If controlled practice activities draw upon both theories of cognition (i.e., they help to automatize language) and, despite its evident weaknesses, behaviourism (i.e., drills help learners form good habits), learning through free practice and conversational interaction raises a more fundamental question about how English might be learned and taught. Allwright (1979) asks whether language learning can take care of itself while Grundy, paraphrasing Howatt (1984), asks whether learners might use language in order to learn it, rather than learn language in order to use it (1999: 54). Both are suggesting something fundamental about how languages might be learned in the ELT classroom, with implications for what teachers might consider practice to be and what it is for.

The input hypothesis, as we have seen, suggests that learners use language once it is learned, i.e., that practice and output is not part of learning but is a consequence of learning. Swain (1985), however, in her output hypothesis, suggests that learning takes place as learners produce language. She suggests that producing output is more challenging for learners than understanding input, that ‘output pushes

learners to process language more deeply (with more mental effort) than does input’ (1995: 126). Thus in productive practice, learners are not just developing fluency, but are ‘learning by doing’. From this perspective, practice is not a reflection and reinforcement of learning, but is part of the cognitive process of learning. We will examine how this may take place in Chapter 6. However, the implication of this idea for classroom practice is that free practice and conversational interaction really matter, with clear implications for the ELT classroom.

‘Learning as a social practice’: classrooms, contexts and complexity

Socio-cultural and social constructivist approaches to language lear- ning conceive of learning not as an individualistic, internal mental process but as a social activity where learners are active and inter- active. The support of others enables learners to work at a level which would otherwise be beyond their reach, termed the Zone of Proximal Development or ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). Knowledge is thus developed, or co-constructed, in a collaborative manner (see Chapter 6 for further discussion). Although we might see overlaps with some of the ideas outlined above, for example conversational interaction, or the resemblance of the ZPD to Krashen’s comprehensible input, the ideas are not comparable due to their very different theoretical underpinnings (Lightbown and Spada, 2006). That said, classroom practices may look very similar to those described above as teachers face a number of questions including how to establish a collaborative classroom and support learners in their endeavours.

The above discussion has briefly illustrated how classroom practice and theories of language learning may inform each other. The theoretical perspectives will be explored in more detail in the following two chapters; now, however, we will continue to explore further classroom dilemmas, possibilities and practices in more detail.

Matters arising: further possibilities, practices and pedagogical debates

Grammar dilemmas

Much of the above discussion hints at a key question that is a shared concern of both applied linguistic theory and ELT practice, that is, what is the place of grammar and grammar teaching in the ELT classroom? Ellis (1992: 191) has addressed the issue as follows:

Should teachers seek to intervene directly in the process of their students’ L2 development (e.g. by teaching specific grammatical

items) or should they intervene only indirectly (e.g. by providing opportunities for natural communication) and so allow learners to build their interlanguages [internal language systems] in their own way? . . . In what ways should direct intervention (e.g. grammar teaching) be carried out? . . . What types of classroom interaction are likely to prove optimal for L2 acquisition?

In the classroom, this debate realizes itself as whether learning takes place best when grammar features are examined explicitly and consciously (i.e., via instruction), or whether it is enough for learners to ‘encounter’ language and subsequently develop knowledge them- selves, whether consciously or unconsciously (i.e., through exposure). As Thornbury (2006: 93) puts it, teachers and methods ‘have positioned themselves along a scale from “zero grammar” to “total grammar” ’.

There are several familiar arguments against the explicit teaching of grammar. For example, knowing a grammar rule is no guarantee that a learner can actually use the language spontaneously in and beyond the classroom. Additionally, it is claimed that the time spent explicitly engaging with grammatical rules could be better spent engaging in meaningful communication, and that grammar teaching therefore denies other learning opportunities. Thus, while Brown (2007) rightly says that teachers need to know grammar, V. Cook (2008: 39) comments, ‘it is one thing to make teachers aware of grammar . . . it is something else to say that students themselves should be aware of grammar’.

In contrast, however, Ortega (2009: 139) provides a series of examples that strongly suggest both the rate of learning and linguistic accuracy increase when learners experience explicit grammatical instruction compared to ‘uninstructed learners’. She does point out, however, that although rate and accuracy may increase, this is only when instruction works with the learners in terms of their readiness to learn specific grammatical features (we will examine the concept of learners’ ‘readiness’ to learn in Part III).

Both teacher and researchers hold a range of perspectives on whether grammar should be addressed explicitly in the ELT classroom. Fundamentally, those who support an innatist, UG perspective on language learning doubt its value, while those who believe that there is a link between explicit, conscious knowledge of language and the ability to use it, a link created by the mind’s cognitive processes, support it. In this latter perspective, focusing on just the meaning of language is insufficient.

What is notable, however, is that even if the suggestion that an explicit focus on language is advantageous for learners is accepted, it still leaves teachers with the dilemma of what forms such instruction

might take and how such activities might be balanced with other elements of classroom life. Thus if ‘there is a consensus that form- focused instruction is facilitative or even necessary . . . what remains controversial is the selection of structures, the timing and intensity and the choice of instructional options’ (Pawlak, 2008: 193; also, Ellis, 2006). It is to this issue that we now turn.

Focus on form or forms?

What form might grammar instruction take? Should the focus on grammar emerge from the language in the classroom, that is, around language features that occur naturally within the activities of the class; or should the class be structured around a form-based syllabus? In addition to ‘grammar’, instruction, of course, also attends to language features beyond, for example, tenses, articles and modality, and includes other areas such as discourse, pronunciation and vocabulary.

Attending to language items in the ELT classroom does not have to mean teachers and learners focus on explanations of individual grammar (and language) points in a predetermined sequence (known as focus on forms) although it could resemble this. In contrast, focus on form suggests that attention to language can happen at any point in a lesson or series of lessons, and it can be either teacher-led or through learner activity. The linguistic forms focused upon emerge as a consequence of the learners’ engagement in meaningful communi- cation and, as V. Cook (2008) suggests, there are several ways of drawing learners’ attention to grammar without explaining it explicitly, such as using pauses in speech or italics in writing. In effect, this is Schmidt’s concept of ‘noticing’ in practice (see p. 66).

However, we have already seen that explicit attention to grammar may only be effective if learners are ready to learn the particular feature, Harmer (2007: 54) summarizing the argument for focus on form as follows:

Students acquire language best when they have focused on it either because they need it, or have come across it in a meaning-focused communicative task, or because in some other way they have noticed language which is relevant to them at a particular time.
These ideas, which are not universally accepted, have considerable implications, not just for teachers but for syllabus and course designers, as we shall examine in Part IV.
Learning through deduction or induction?

The discussion so far suggests that some attention to grammar and other language points in the ELT classroom is likely, whether through a focus on form or a focus on forms. The degree to which attention