"Speaking practice": drilling and/or communication?

Work Teaching English in Taiwan
1

they might be, but you won’t really have any way of determining that. also they will be missing out on a rare, expensive chance to practice speaking.[/quote]There are lots of ways of determining what students are processing. And sometimes their seemingly accurate usage of a recently-practiced language form can give a very misleading impression of what is occurring as regards the development of their implicit linguistic systems.

As I said in my post above, it’s important that as students progress, they have increasing opportunities and make increasing efforts to use the language for real communication in connected discourse. This develops fluency and confidence. But this is predicated on a solid and expanding core of language acquired through involving input.

2

you got me, but it would seem to be a pretty good way of determining speaking skills, which is pretty much the main point of a language. also, accuracy is one thing, simply speaking out and saying something is another. that’s more what i was referring to.

that’s really my point, you want to get them speaking.

i’m not a huge fan of quote style but when someone comes up with a long list of obviously wrong and easily refutable arguments, what can you do? :slight_smile: and who said anything about being sane? we’re talking about teaching kids!

3

you got me, but it would seem to be a pretty good way of determining speaking skills, which is pretty much the main point of a language. also, accuracy is one thing, simply speaking out and saying something is another. that’s more what i was referring to.

that’s really my point, you want to get them speaking.[/quote]Well, what about my point, that the foundation of any real language development is processing of input? You don’t have to take my word on this. You can read pretty much anything written by language acquisition researchers over the last twenty years.

Yes, we should encourage students to speak (at least when the purpose is truly communicative and not some horrible pseudo-communicative textbook exercise), but that speaking is based on a body of acquired language. The first stage in acquiring language is receiving and processing a lot of meaning-bearing input. To get students processing this input, the content has to be engaging. And there are a great many things we can to measure input processing, lots of which don’t involve speaking. This is just as well since speaking is not a direct measure of acquired language.

When I talk about the first stage being input, I don’t mean that there has to be a “silent period” at the beginning of language learning, though there is some evidence to suggest that this speeds things up, and at least it seems to be a good idea not to force too much production early on. What I really mean by this, though, is that any new language items need to be acquired through input before they are available for useful output. For lexis, this can be done in input-output cycles over a fairly short period of time – a few lessons. For grammar, things take longer.

4

i certainly wouldn’t argue that you don’t acquire language through input. i don’t really see how it could be any other way.

there is a lot to be said for speaking though, to say something engaging you have to think it through, of course working from a base of knowledge that you have, not from day one. and it may not be a direct measure of acquired language but it is the ultimate reason for acquiring language. practicing it is good.

5

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]i certainly wouldn’t argue that you don’t acquire language through input. i don’t really see how it could be any other way.[/quote]OK. Glad we’re on the same page. I thought you might be one of the people who still believe, contrary to all the evidence, that the primary way of acquiring new language is through controlled, form-focused practice, i.e. drilling.

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]…there is a lot to be said for speaking though, to say something engaging you have to think it through, of course working from a base of knowledge that you have, not from day one. and it may not be a direct measure of acquired language but it is the ultimate reason for acquiring language. practicing it is good.[/quote]Agreed. There’s something very valuable about having to put the language together into coherent chunks.

Some kids never say much in class but in other contexts, such as oral tests, turn out to be fluent and fairly accurate speakers. But they’re in the minority. For most kids it’s a gradual progression, and I think that making the effort to communicate through speech plays an important part in this. As you said, it’s not so much about accuracy, at least at first. More about simply speaking out and saying something. I’ve heard that some buxibans (some of the “hard-core” ones?) require kids to stand up when speaking and produce perfect sentences, with immediate and full correction of any errors. That’s a waste of time, for various reasons.

6

coming back after a delay here. don’t get me wrong, i’m all for practice, drilling even. at home. i teach it and we examine it in the classroom. this is the point where you want it to sink in. if it doesn’t now it probably never will. but that’s not enough, not in a four hour a week class at any rate. if the students practice regularly at home, they will improve. a lot of the “perfect sentences, with immediate and full correction of any errors” aspect of “hard-core” is simply an assesment of whether this practice is being done sufficiently or not. to my way of thinking at least.

like you say, kids and adults who pick up a foreign language easily must be in the minority.

i always have my students stand up when speaking, beginning and intermediate at least. but i’m shooting for good pronunciation, i want them to open their mouths wide and speak loudly and clearly. i find there’s a definite tendency towards mumbling-type enunciation in a good portion of students if i don’t do these things. for me, it doesn’t waste time and definitely saves a lot in the long run. as far as perfect sentences, well in a beginning class we’re practicing a specific sentence pattern, it is a drill no doubt, with the aim of having a tool ready for later use when we start getting into more thoughtful spoken activities. but at any stage i always keep my students thinking about what they are saying and what it means. i always correct grammatical and most pronunciation errors at this point, in a positive way, but too many errors implies insufficient preparation. insuring that preparation and practice is done regularly and diligently is the whole point of “hard-core” in a nutshell.

7

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]coming back after a delay here. don’t get me wrong, i’m all for practice, drilling even. at home. i teach it and we examine it in the classroom. this is the point where you want it to sink in. if it doesn’t now it probably never will. but that’s not enough, not in a four hour a week class at any rate. if the students practice regularly at home, they will improve. a lot of the “perfect sentences, with immediate and full correction of any errors” aspect of “hard-core” is simply an assesment of whether this practice is being done sufficiently or not. to my way of thinking at least.

like you say, kids and adults who pick up a foreign language easily must be in the minority.

i always have my students stand up when speaking, beginning and intermediate at least. but i’m shooting for good pronunciation, i want them to open their mouths wide and speak loudly and clearly. i find there’s a definite tendency towards mumbling-type enunciation in a good portion of students if i don’t do these things. for me, it doesn’t waste time and definitely saves a lot in the long run. as far as perfect sentences, well in a beginning class we’re practicing a specific sentence pattern, it is a drill no doubt, with the aim of having a tool ready for later use when we start getting into more thoughtful spoken activities. but at any stage i always keep my students thinking about what they are saying and what it means. i always correct grammatical and most pronunciation errors at this point, in a positive way, but too many errors implies insufficient preparation. insuring that preparation and practice is done regularly and diligently is the whole point of “hard-core” in a nutshell.[/quote]I’m sure you are a very committed and conscientious teacher, with a lot of experience. So I hope you’ll understand that I am not trying to start a fight or even to change the way you or anyone else does things when I say that I disagree with many of the statements above, and the assumptions behind them.

It’s not for everyone, to learn about the way the mind really acquires foreign languages. Many people don’t have time or simply aren’t interested in the technical side. However, I find it fascinating and it has combined very well with my own teaching practice. A lot of things make sense that didn’t before. I’m a more effective teacher and my students make faster progress, yet with minimum stress levels.

If you are interested in reading further on the specific issue of drilling, I recommend highly Wynne Wong and Bill VanPatten’s article “The Evidence is IN: Drills are OUT”, which has a very useful review of the evidence. It costs 5 USD for non-ACTFL members but it’s well worth it.
actfl.org/i4a/pages/Index.cf … 4#evidence

And there is a good deal of research around on the effects of various types of correction. All correction has certain limitations, but immediate oral grammar correction is the most limited. John Truscott’s article “The Continuing Problems of Oral Grammar Correcting” is a good scholarly discussion of this and it is available free in the spring edition of the not-always-scholarly “International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching”:
tprstories.com/ijflt/

8

not at all! personally if someone has a better idea than me i’ll be the first one to adopt it. i’m going to read the articles you mention and will be back afterwards, for one thing i think we might not be on the exact same page with terminology etc.

9

interesting stuff, particularly the first article. been thinking about that a lot. with very few exceptions, i don’t do mechanical drilling, and never meant that by “practicing” or “drilling”. i always emphasize meaning, and have always thought and taught that if you’re not thinking about what you’re listening to or saying it is pointless. based on those criteria i think my overall approach is valid. still, it points towards some definite improvements i could make in the way i do things. as i’ve always thought strongly of “meaning” the approach they outline is enticing. i wonder about the value of some of the experiments they do though. one possible criticism is that if i designed carefully controlled experiments where one group is paying attention to meaning and one by design is not, i would personally have very little doubt about the result. more long term experiments of various approaches would be more interesting. still their overall premise seems sound. i want to look into it a lot more. i have a lot of suspicions/questions/ideas but i need to learn more first. do you know any textbooks/teacher’s manuals outlining such approaches? that would be an interesting thing to look at.

10

Great to hear that you liked the articles.[quote=“Tempo Gain”]interesting stuff, particularly the first article. been thinking about that a lot. with very few exceptions, i don’t do mechanical drilling, and never meant that by “practicing” or “drilling”. i always emphasize meaning, and have always thought and taught that if you’re not thinking about what you’re listening to or saying it is pointless. based on those criteria i think my overall approach is valid.[/quote]I’m sure it is. And it’s greatly to your credit that you’re willing to consider ways you can improve it further. I think that as teachers we should never stop learning.

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]i have a lot of suspicions/questions/ideas but i need to learn more first. do you know any textbooks/teacher’s manuals outlining such approaches? that would be an interesting thing to look at.[/quote]I highly recommend James Lee and Bill VanPatten’s book “Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen”. It has just the right blend of theoretical background and practical advice. The examples are mainly aimed at teachers of college level language students, but the basic principles can be applied to all language teaching situations. I got my copy from the Crane Publishing bookshop in Taichung. I think Crane might be the only importers, though of course you could get it through Amazon. It’s not cheap but it could change your (teaching) life! Have I sold you on it yet? :wink:

Apart from that, Patsy Lightbown and Nina Spada’s “How Languages are Learned” is a very good read as regards the theoretical background. Caves still stock it I think.

I can send you a bunch of references to articles too if you like. Quite a few of them are available to the public free of charge online. The only caution I would add is that it’s probably better first to get a good overall picture through books such as the ones I mentioned. After that, it becomes easier and more fruitful to read articles on specific issues.

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]i wonder about the value of some of the experiments they do though. one possible criticism is that if i designed carefully controlled experiments where one group is paying attention to meaning and one by design is not, i would personally have very little doubt about the result. more long term experiments of various approaches would be more interesting.[/quote]Well, experiments by the big names in SLA are usually pretty good. Academics are quick to leap on errors and weaknesses in others’ work! And there have really been a great many experiments conducted into various aspects of SLA, making it possible to do meta-analyses – analyzing and combining the results of various experiments together in order to get a fuller, more accurate picture of things.

However, you’re right that more longterm experiments need to be conducted. This is a general weakness in SLA research. There have been longterm experiments, but relatively few compared to the shorter term ones. This is something that researchers are aware of and trying to improve. Many experiments conducted now include one or more followup sessions, at least.

11

Well, there’s another dimension here (said the sociolinguist): anyone who’s ever run drills and also “meaning-based practice” in Taiwan has probably found that most students have very little to add in the line of meaning. (Who hasn’t had the stock answer “sleeping” at least 5,000 times in answer to “What do you like to do?” and so on?)

I’m not 100% positive we’re talking about the same thing on “meaning-based practice”, but if we take communicative practice as an example – say, an information-finding exercise – it’s amazingly difficult to find information that students living six to a ten-foot-square dorm room don’t know already about each other. And I spent two years trying, back in the day. It’s hard to set up an information-gap type thing to give structure, and that may be one reason why people just resort to drilling in Taiwan (plus, it fits in with the tradition and looks good to the parents). :smiley:

12

While mechanical drilling does not seem to me to be a productive use of time when the students are merely parroting phrases. However, surely some forms of “Drilling” can take a valuable form in the classroom. For example:

  1. Given a subject the students know well, questions can be fired at one of them (is this the Socratic method?). In this manner, the students can get drilled on their comprehension of the subject matter.

I can imagine other forms of drilling that might both fit in with the tradition and provide meaningful input for students.

13

The article by Wong and VanPatten addressed mechanical drills specifically. They said that “meaningful drills” could be OK, though there and elsewhere VanPatten has pointed out that in many attempts to provide meaningful practice focused on particular structures, students are very much aware that the communication of meaning is secondary to the practising of a structure, so these activities too can end up as mechanical drilling.

[quote=“twocs”]1. Given a subject the students know well, questions can be fired at one of them (is this the Socratic method?). In this manner, the students can get drilled on their comprehension of the subject matter.[/quote]Sure, why not? I think there are just two things to be careful of. Firstly, the questions shouldn’t become TOO mechanical. Repetitive questions are alright but I think there comes a point where students start to switch off and just respond automatically.

The other thing is that wherever possible, questions should relate to the communication of unknown information. So for example if the questioner and the respondent are both looking at the same picture, and the question elicits information that both know, that’s not really genuine communication. It’s somewhere in the middle between mechanical practice and real communication. Not terrible, but not brilliant either. A way to make this kind of activity more communicative would be for the questioner to ask the respondent’s opinion of something in the picture, or for the questioner and respondent to have different pictures, or the questioner not to have the picture at all.

[quote=“ironlady”]Well, there’s another dimension here (said the sociolinguist): anyone who’s ever run drills and also “meaning-based practice” in Taiwan has probably found that most students have very little to add in the line of meaning. (Who hasn’t had the stock answer “sleeping” at least 5,000 times in answer to “What do you like to do?” and so on?)[/quote]I know what you mean. I think that in a way this is also caused by the potential problems with “meaning-based practice” I mentioned above, though. If students are very aware that what is going on is pseudo-communication with the intention of practising specific patterns, they’re less likely to respond in any enthusiastic, real way.

[quote=“ironlady”]I’m not 100% positive we’re talking about the same thing on “meaning-based practice”, but if we take communicative practice as an example – say, an information-finding exercise – it’s amazingly difficult to find information that students living six to a ten-foot-square dorm room don’t know already about each other. And I spent two years trying, back in the day. It’s hard to set up an information-gap type thing to give structure, and that may be one reason why people just resort to drilling in Taiwan (plus, it fits in with the tradition and looks good to the parents). :smiley:[/quote]I think there’s too much emphasis in the literature on very literal, outside-the-classroom meanings. It certainly is possible to get students talking about their everyday lives, but there are many other kinds of “meanings” that can be communicated.

At a basic level, info gaps can be based on pictures: either ones that the teacher provides or ones that the students draw for themselves. The same could be done with real or imaginary character sketches. And the context of stories provides plenty of opportunities for the exchanging of information. Also, guessing games of various kinds are ideal info gap activities. They’re engaging, there’s real communication, and the language used can potentially be quite sophisticated and analytical, covering a wide range of topics.

In general, interactive tasks of various kinds are a very good way for students to practise language use. There are a great many kinds, and many of them involve responding in some way to some kind of input such as a text. But I agree with Bill VanPatten that students need to be adequately prepared for these tasks with a good core of language obtained primarily through meaning-bearing input. I don’t think tasks and other practice activities are a particularly way to go about getting language in the first place. Maybe a couple of words acquired incidentally in the course of an activity, but not much beyond that. I do think, however, that they can be a great way of consolidating existing language and building students’ confidence and fluency.

14

[quote=“In a splinter topic I”]You’ll note that most of this research focuses on ESL students in the US and Canada. I think there is a tremendous difference in results when looking at kids in a total immersion environment (except when they go home) and those who are immersed in their native language. There’s also a huge difference between getting language exposure 4 hours a week and getting exposure 30 hours a week.

I don’t think you can apply the model for learning a language in-country to learning in a place where that language is not typically spoken, just as you can’t apply the model for teaching language when isolated from that language’s environment to an immersion situation.[/quote]

After which, Joesax replied that the research he saw applied both to ESL and EFL situations.

Well, fair enough, I have to take your word on it for now. I haven’t done extensive reading on the subject for about 2 years, so I don’t really have a list of sources I can go through and analyze.

But I think we need to think critically when we’re evaluating research and results and see whether or not it applies to the situation in Taiwan. An awful lot of this research is done with less than pristine conditions in regards to scientific method. (I’m not faulting the researchers, the nature of the research precludes having perfect lab conditions.) Research done with one level of exposure to English and research done on another level of exposure may lead to different results. I have not seen any research that attempted to gather information from both groups.

Without doing any research it would seem obvious that some things about language learning would hold true without respect to environmental factors. Things like how people remember things, differences in learning style, and the general principles of acquistion are things that should remain the same in pretty much all environments. But things like how effective drills and error correction are could vary greatly depending on level of input and exposure.

All I have to support my belief in this difference is my experience. I’m fortunate to teach in a school that uses a reading based system which effectively provides a fair context for most class discussions. We have an afternoon program where elementary school students can come 3-4 times a week for 3 hours. We have an evening program with kids that come twice a week for 2 hours. I’ve also worked at two other schools that taught using much less context than the one I’m at now and at a kindergarten (before I knew it was illegal).

I’ve seen that students that get more context and more exposure to the language learn faster. However, I have also seen that students who have gone through certain kinds of drills have gotten more accuracy earlier. I don’t think drills will speed up overall acquisition, but I believe it does improve accuracy in the short term while they are acquiring a more global level of competence.

In terms of Taiwan buxiban style schools and the school tests they’ll be subjected to, this is very significant.

15

[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]I have also seen that students who have gone through certain kinds of drills have gotten more accuracy earlier. I don’t think drills will speed up overall acquisition, but I believe it does improve accuracy in the short term while they are acquiring a more global level of competence.[/quote]One of the main points of the Wong & VanPatten article was that while drilling can indeed increase short-term accuracy, this has no effect on the underlying grammatical system and may even hold things up in the longer term. For example:

[quote]Another early study that questioned the value of drills
was conducted by Lightbown (1983)… The results revealed
that subjects tended to overuse certain grammatical morphemes.
For example, they were drilled extensively on the
contraction of is with pronouns (e.g., “He is leaving now”→
“He’s leaving now”). After instruction, learners demonstrated
a marked tendency to use the contracted is form in places
where it should not be used, for example, “He’s have three
balloons.”
Lightbown found that this overuse could be traced
back to the speech and practice that these subjects encountered
in their classrooms. Students had engaged in memorization
and repetitive practice that seemed to result in
overlearning. Moreover, when the researcher administered
the tests a year later, learners were right back where they
were at the initial testing: Their acquisition was apparently
delayed.[/quote]

[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]In terms of Taiwan buxiban style schools and the school tests they’ll be subjected to, this is very significant.[/quote]Not sure about the tests. I can’t immediately think of any tests for which drilling would be helpful as short-term preparation. For some of the sections on the GEPT, explicit grammar instruction would undoubtedly be helpful, as students could then use their conscious memory of grammatical rules to fill in where their underlying linguistic systems were lacking. But that’s not the same as habit formation through drilling.

Of course elementary-aged children aren’t permitted to take the GEPT series any more. The officially promoted alternative is the Cambridge tests, for which candidates actually need some communicative language ability.

16

Quick question to Joesax: the type of activity which your philosophy seems to support is info-gap-type activities. I know of a couple good texts for such activities: Fifty/Fifty and (Elem. / Interm. / Adv.) Communication Games are two that come to mind. However, I’m seeking others.

Have any recommendations?

17

[quote=“Vay”]Quick question to Joesax: the type of activity which your philosophy seems to support is info-gap-type activities. I know of a couple good texts for such activities: Fifty/Fifty and (Elem. / Interm. / Adv.) Communication Games are two that come to mind. However, I’m seeking others.

Have any recommendations?[/quote]Hi Vay, thanks for keeping this thread going. Just a quick answer for now as I need to go out.

Firstly, yes, info gaps, especially ones which involve some creativity on the part of the students, are great. So are all the other kinds of communicative activities such as whole class/group/pair discussions, listing, categorising, comparing, etc, which get lumped into the general category of “tasks”. But something I realise more and more is that before we require students to do any kinds of productive communication tasks, they should have a good feeling for the language they need in order to complete those tasks.

The old way of thinking was that one should build skills through mechanical drilling before using those skills in real communication. As I’ve said, I don’t feel this works very well. However, I feel that some writers in the field of task-based language learning have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, expecting students to benefit from communicative tasks without ensuring that they have a firm foundation of specific language necessary for each task.

One of few books to provide a really good idea of activities designed to build to end tasks, is James Lee and Bill VanPatten’s “Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen”. I can’t recommend this book highly enough.

In the short book I’m writing, I’ve given my own examples of this kind of approach, including task cycles which are suitable for elementary and junior high students (the examples in Lee and VanPatten’s book are more geared towards college students).

Here are a few ideas for books with great communicative activities. I’m pasting the list from a post I made elsewhere, so apologies if not all suggestions are relevant:
[Edit: the Forumosa autocensor is changing the surname of the author P.e.n.n.y U.r into “your”. I don’t have time to go through and edit this with the BBcode workaround, sorry.]

[quote]This is great for games which actually use the language in a meaningful way:
Lee, W.R. (1979). Language teaching games and contests. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

This is a wonderful resource for language use activities including some
warmers and general things to improve class dynamics:
Maley, A., & Duff, A. (2005) Drama techniques: a resource book of
communication activities for language teachers. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

This free resource is very interesting: not sure how many people here have
used “Readers’ Theater” techniques:
Mulders, D. (2004). How to kit: readers theatre. [Internet]. Northwest
Territories Literary Council. Available from:
http://www.nwt.literacy.ca/famlit/howtokit/theatre/cover.htm [Accessed 17
August 2006].

This is a very nice book with lots of ideas for tasks and activities based
on folktales. The ideas are suitable for teaching all ages, and some are
especially suitable for teaching adults/young adults:
Taylor, E.K. (2000). Using folktales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

This is a classic for task-based language learning, written before that term
existed!
Ur, P. (1981) Discussions that work: task-centred fluency practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Many “grammar practice” ideas are more mechanical practice than meaningful
communication. This classic book has many fun and involving activities which
really use the language.
Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities: a practical guide for teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

These activities are good as quick warmers/changes of pace, but can also be
extended to good effect:
Ur, P., & Wright, A. (1992). Five-minute activities: a resource book of
short activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

This is another good book on using stories, and like the folktales book in
the same series, is suitable for classes of all ages:
Wajnryb, R. (2003). Stories: narrative activities for the language
classroom. Cambridge University Press

This book on task-based learning is a little more theoretical, and I’m not
sure that I agree totally with the emphasis and structure. I think that more
attention needs to be placed on building up to tasks by using sufficient
engaging, comprehensible input including some degree of lexical focus.
However, it’s an interesting, thought-provoking read with some good
practical ideas:
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, Essex:
Addison Wesley Longman[/quote]

18

Those book recommendations are excellent. Here are some of my favorite teacher resource books:

Teaching Large Multilevel Classes by Natalie Hess
Creative Questions by Natalie Hess and Laurel Pollard
Humanising Your Coursebook by Mario Rinvolucri
Learner Based Teaching by Colin Campbell and Hanna Kryszewska

19

…and my book, yet another teacher resource book, The Creative Classroom, is now on sale at Caves Books. Take a look:

http://www.cavesbooks.com.tw/mainpage/mainpage_bookcontent.aspx?sn=13688&book_classify_sn=209

20

[quote=“tatterdemalion”]…and my book, yet another teacher resource book, The Creative Classroom, is now on sale at Caves Books. Take a look:

http://www.cavesbooks.com.tw/mainpage/mainpage_bookcontent.aspx?sn=13688&book_classify_sn=209[/quote]Thanks for the other book suggestions. As for this one, I feel it deserves its own thread, so I’ve started one:
forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?p=681561

Would love to hear more about the book, “from the horse’s mouth”, as it were.