[quote=“joesax should’ve”]Blah blah blah. You don’t have to take my word on this. You can read pretty much anything into language acquisition research written over the last twenty years.[/quote][/quote]Interesting point of view. I disagree, of course. The surprising thing for me is the degree of consensus that exists among SLA researchers. I mean, these are academics, whose earning power is related to the degree to which they can challenge things which have gone before and come up with new viewpoints. Academia can be quite a jealous, competitive environment. Yet in the field of SLA, there is general agreement on some basic principles.
And this consensus is not a wishy-washy thing. There are some pretty firm conclusions to be made about some things such as mechanical drilling*. I take it that you read the articles I linked to. Could you tell me how it would be possible to read a pro-drilling viewpoint into Wong and VanPatten’s article? Or indeed into any mainstream SLA research conducted over the last twenty years? I guess you might be able to do the latter, but it would be a bit of a stretch. You’d be running around collecting the little qualifications that academics make to their arguments in order to cover their backsides. Stuff like “a few kinds of drilling might possibly have some beneficial effect given these very specific conditions. But basically it’s a bad idea.” Only you’d have to take it out of context and omit the “basically it’s a bad idea” bit in order to make your point.
Or could you tell me of any mainstream research which shows that substantial acquisition is possible without processing of input (input being defined as meaning-bearing communication in the target language)?
- Of course, many other issues are still unresolved and we should be cautious about arriving at definite conclusions on these prematurely. Perhaps it was some of these other issues that you were thinking of when you posted the above. Care to give examples?
[quote=“joesax”]Or could you tell me of any mainstream research which shows that substantial acquisition is possible without processing of input (input being defined as meaning-bearing communication in the target language)? [/quote] This is a bit of a straw man though isn’t it? There may be a “degree of consensus” on the need for meaningful input, but there is certainly disagreement regarding other conditions necessary for second language acquisition.
According to Ellis two such conditions are:
- Instruction needs to ensure that learners also focus on form.
- Instruction needs to be predominantly directed at developing implicit knowledge of the L2 but should not neglect explicit knowledge.
Recent debate on ‘task-based learning’ reveals considerable disagreement concerning these two conditions. In this article http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/376, Michael Swan accuses advocates of task based learning, such as Peter Skehan, of concentrating solely on meaning based instruction, thus neglecting the two conditions listed by Ellis above. It’s not like this is a new area of contention either (remember Krashen?), variants of this argument have been banging on for a good 20-30 years. So much for the consensus.
The Swan article also raises this issue: [quote=“joesax”]However, you’re right that more longterm experiments need to be conducted. This is a general weakness in SLA research.[/quote] Swan asserts that there is practically no empirical evidence to support an approach which relies solely on ‘implicit’/meaning based instruction. Here we go again, first Krashen, now TBL. Why is it ok to publish books and teaching materials based on unproven theories in the world of TESOL but not , say, in the field of engineering? Just because buildings don’t fall down as a result of such pseudo-science is it therefore acceptable to use students as SLA guinea pigs?
[quote=“joesax”]Of course, many other issues are still unresolved and we should be cautious about arriving at definite conclusions on these prematurely.[/quote] I think that accurately describes the current state of play.
(apologies if you don’t have a subscription to the Journal of Applied Linguistics. Unfortunately, neither do I anymore.)
Thanks for getting back to me on this. It’s nice to see that you have some good points to make.
However, I don’t think they contradict anything I said. I said that the consensus consists of “general agreement on some basic principles.” These principles include the absolute necessity for meaning-bearing input, and the importance of focusing on meaning in general (this is not the same as advocating implicit-only approaches). You might feel that this is a strawman argument, but in fact it’s very pertinent to this thread. Advocates of mechanical drilling believe that language can be acquired as a habit through repetition of non-meaning-bearing language (language which is not intended primarily for the communication of meaning). You might say that there aren’t so many advocates of mechanical drilling anymore. I would agree, and say that part of the reason for this is the general consensus achieved by SLA researchers.
You are absolutely right that there is still disagreement as to whether explicit focus on form is helpful or necessary. But firstly, lets clear up one thing. Not even the strongest advocates of explicit focus on form recommend mechanical drilling.
That out the way, I’m quite happy to go offtopic a little and talk about the great explicit/implicit debate. To an extent, it can be a red herring. John Truscott has shown that it’s very difficult even to separate explicit focus on form from a general attention to input.
hss.nthu.edu.tw/~fl/faculty/ … 201998.pdf
In this article, he also reviews some of the evidence concerning explicit grammar teaching, and finds it inconclusive.
This is not to say, however, that explicit grammar teaching is useless. On the contrary, it can be very useful provided that teachers understand clearly what it can and can’t achieve. It can’t change natural orders of acquisition of syntax and morphology (yes, there’s consensus on this). But it may be able to speed up progress through those stages in various ways (most people agree on this). These include the possibility of “monitored” output functioning as input, and also the idea that making forms available in input may “prime” learners for faster acquisition of those forms when they reach that stage.
Focus on form is best done as a focus on the meaning of forms (whether explicit or implicit or somewhere inbetween). One of the most exciting areas for me is the current emphasis on processing of input. Very basically, learners process input for meaning before they process it for form. It takes longer for them to acquire language features which they don’t have to process for meaning, such as redundant grammatical features (3rd person “s”). The technique called “structured input”, developed primarily by Bill VanPatten, aims to force learners to process problem features for meaning, thus making those features available for intake and hopefully faster acquisition. There’s a bit on this in the article I linked to on the previous page. Again, well worth the 5 USD if you haven’t read it already.
Even if ‘focus on form’ was the only area of contention, it’s still a major issue with consequences for the teaching of grammar. It directly affects the materials and techniques used by the teacher in the classroom, and ultimately the learner’s proficiency. For example, previous attempts at ‘naturalistic input’ have resulted in poor productive skills in the L2.
Truscott’s article provides a good example of what passes for sound theory in the world of SLA. He concludes that the concept of ‘noticing’ can be explained neither in terms of cog. psych. or universal grammar/parameter setting, that it is generally inadequately explicated, and has little empirical basis. So ‘noticing’ is wishy-washy theory that can’t be proved one way or the other, which is exactly what Michael Swan argues in the article that I mentioned above. Swan is interested in ‘noticing’ because it has subsequently been used to support task-based learning. Well that just about sums up standard practice in SLA. Take a theory, any old bunk will do, and build your own obscure sandcastle on top of it (then wait for the next wave in SLA theory to come along and wash it away).
And there’s more. For example, the ‘critical period’ hypothesis is disputed by many SLA theorists. Some argue that age is a causative factor in ultimate attainment, others that the evidence suggests no more than simple correlation.
And given this weakness can you blame anyone for taking a great deal of SLA research with a very large bag of salt?
I said “there’s general agreement on some basic principles”, and listed a couple of the principles. You didn’t disagree. I said “many other issues are still unresolved”, and again, you agreed.
I think (real) debate is healthy and encourages more research. You seem to think that it’s a black mark on the whole of SLA. Well, I’m sorry to say that you’ll find debate in all fields of study, including engineering. If you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and rubbish the whole of SLA research because there is some disagreement on interpretation of the existing evidence, and because more longterm research still needs to be conducted, fair enough. I think I do a better job with some knowledge than without it, but that’s just my opinion.
I’m not sure what your opinions are, as you haven’t offered any except to say that SLA theory is a bad thing. Do you think that all the research into interaction shows an positive effect of conscious noticing, or are the gains due simply to the better quality of input gained through interaction? What do you think of the evidence regarding processing instruction? If you’re genuinely interested in discussing this kind of stuff in the hope of finding better ways to teach, that’s the kind of debate I’m interested in (though it would be better conducted in a fresh thread as this is very offtopic now). But if you’re just interested in argument for the sake of it, I’ll leave you to it.
Steady. I can understand your reaction, nobody likes having their pet/pat theories undermined.[quote=“joesax”]I think (real) debate is healthy and encourages more research.[/quote] That’s unfortunately not the first time I’ve heard unquestioning acceptance described as ‘real’ debate. I realise it’s much easier to just carry on blindly accepting the premises behind your practice.
You contradict yourself, and you don’t answer my questions. This isn’t a conversation, it’s onanism.
If you ever want to get out of your late 80s theoretical rut, read some of the recent good research (I can give you links and pointers if you need), and start debating in a constructive way the conclusions to be made from such research, you’re welcome and I’ll be happy to consider carefully any meaningful, well backed-up points you have to make.
You can imagine I was somewhat perplexed to read this:
[quote=“joesax”]If you ever want to get out of your late 80s theoretical rut,[/quote]Where did I suggest that one theoretical/methodological approach is superior to another?
[quote=“joesax in a state of panic and confusion also”]uninformed argument[/quote]Uninformed eh? That’s a bit rich coming from someone with nothing more that a Trinity CertTESOL (a course that can be completed within the space of four weeks). So when you read (well at least you claim to have) the Truscott article on ‘noticing’ and he threw parameterized Binding Theory, c-command, nodes and governing categories into the discussion you didn’t have a fcuking clue what he was talking about did you Joe?
When you’ve bothered to get yourself a professional qualification pm me and we can have another chat. Till then you’d better stick to babysitting and religious hocus pocus, or perhaps a combination of both. You could write a book about it “Buddhist babysitting for beginners”. You’re out of your depth.
You are out of line, bud. Cool down or expect to see your arguments get shitcanned along with your insults. It also appears that you know Joesax in real life, too. Be careful. Outing a poster is a bannable infraction.
[quote=“sandman”]You are out of line, bud. Cool down or expect to see your arguments get shitcanned along with your insults. It also appears that you know Joesax in real life, too. Be careful. Outing a poster is a bannable infraction.[/quote]Thanks, Sandman, but don’t worry. It’s all stuff that can be found in my posts. I just think it’s a pity he feels he has to resort to ad hominem attacks using personal information from my old posts as opposed to focusing on my questions and explaining his self-contradictions.
Kind of sad that you had to pull the “credentials” argument.
I took 2 years of SLA courses. I think they can easily be summarized in about 4 weeks of classes. You do need experience to give you the perspective to properly understand what is being taught, but it doesn’t take much of a mind to comprehend what’s being said. Especially once you filter out the techno-babble and reduce things to their elemental meanings.
So, basically, Joesax is probably about as qualified as anyone with a degree in secondary education to discuss this.
@Joe->
Still, I think I disagree more than I agree as it relates to teaching in Taiwan.
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=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]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.[/quote]I’m not sure what you read, but lots of the stuff I read concerns foreign language learning. And, very generally speaking, the conclusion is that “second” and “foreign” language learning are not qualitatively different.
Regarding the immersion thing, I always disagreed with you about drilling being necessary in a non-immersion or indeed any environment, but I’ve recently been reading a fair bit of research into second/foreign language vocabulary learning, which kind of sorts out some issues from both sides. Very briefly, some kinds of “explicit” focus on vocabulary seem to be beneficial. For various reasons, lexis may be processed and stored differently in the brain from grammar. But this still isn’t an argument for mechanical drilling.
But I suggest that if you want to discuss this stuff we do so in the drilling thread, or start another one. Unless, of course, this is argument for argument’s sake. 
ganster recycler is the more corrector of the two I feel. In fact I always teach words, expressions, grammar patterns etc in total isolation from any context whatsoever, and with no intention to communicate anything either. Works well. There is a lot of complex grammatical terminology but I find those are best given in a totally different langauge, Arabic is good because there are fewer cognates with English as you would find in the Germanic or Romance languages.
[quote=“bob”]ganster recycler is the more corrector of the two I feel. In fact I always teach words, expressions, grammar patterns etc in total isolation from any context whatsoever, and with no intention to communicate anything either. Works well. There is a lot of complex grammatical terminology but I find those are best given in a totally different langauge, Arabic is good because there are fewer cognates with English as you would find in the Germanic or Romance languages.[/quote] 
LOL – literally.
I don’t imagine that really is Gangster Recycler’s viewpoint. But it’s hard to tell what, if any, principles he holds regarding language teaching, as he hasn’t divulged.
I admit that reading language learning research is a bit of an odd hobby. But usually I think I’m pretty sane. It’s only when I come across stuff like this that I have my doubts:
[quote]Appendix A. Words excluded from the isolated-word count
The following words were excluded from all isolated-word counts because they
occurred in isolation but not in combination with other words: ahh ahhah alrightie
Anne-'s Atlanta baby 1 boo back 1 twist backward beam blah Bodeen bodine Boni
boo booby boop carefully choco 1 monster cootchykoo dirt Donald 1 Duck ew forward glove-s gravity ha hah haha heehee hippity hiya ho hop hoppity hots
hunhunh hunmmm jeez lordy Louie Maggie 1 mooskie Maggie 1 mooskie 1 moo
mega 1 block-s Mickey 1 Mouse Milky mmhm momma muscle 1 man na nuhuh
of®cially oohs oop operator ouchie Pappy patty Peter 1 pan piggy 1 piggy pinky
pointer pst roadblock Sabatino Sam 1 Sam shh softball Sports 1 Connection sudsy
sweets tada tippytoe toast tsk twinkle ugh uhhuh wazat wazis whaddya whoo
whoops whoopsadaisy woah woo yep.[/quote]
[quote=“joesax”] [quote]Appendix A. Words excluded from the isolated-word count
The following words were excluded from all isolated-word counts because they
occurred in isolation but not in combination with other words: ahh ahhah alrightie
Anne-'s Atlanta baby 1 boo back 1 twist backward beam blah Bodeen bodine Boni
boo booby boop carefully choco 1 monster cootchykoo dirt Donald 1 Duck ew forward glove-s gravity ha hah haha heehee hippity hiya ho hop hoppity hots
hunhunh hunmmm jeez lordy Louie Maggie 1 mooskie Maggie 1 mooskie 1 moo
mega 1 block-s Mickey 1 Mouse Milky mmhm momma muscle 1 man na nuhuh
of®cially oohs oop operator ouchie Pappy patty Peter 1 pan piggy 1 piggy pinky
pointer pst roadblock Sabatino Sam 1 Sam shh softball Sports 1 Connection sudsy
sweets tada tippytoe toast tsk twinkle ugh uhhuh wazat wazis whaddya whoo
whoops whoopsadaisy woah woo yep.[/quote][/quote]
I really like the Peter 1 pan piggy pinky part.
Might something like this make a good sticky for Teaching English? I mean, folks don’t necessarily have to subscribe to the points of view offered, but it might be useful to have pointers collected for the use of those who have inquiring minds, yes?
Might something like this make a good sticky for Teaching English? I mean, folks don’t necessarily have to subscribe to the points of view offered, but it might be useful to have pointers collected for the use of those who have inquiring minds, yes?[/quote]Good idea. I don’t imagine most people would want to pay for articles/subscriptions, but there’s also quite a lot of stuff available without charge over the internet.
However, I’m trying to finish writing my little book right now so it might be a little while before I get time to assemble the links in some coherent fashion.
Heh, that’s the best part of this thread, ain’t it? I can say pretty much anything and not quote a source and refer to the thread topic if I get called on it. 
I’ll repost my statements on that thread and can continue there.