|
The Practical Linguist / Practical results of new theory
Marshall R. Childs / Special to The Daily Yomiuri
In my April 11 column, I described "attractor theory," a new theory about language processing that is being formed by consensus among experts in several fields. The theory describes how the brain learns and processes languages--not by applying rules but by large-scale neuronal connections whose central tendencies (attractors) result in the regularities that make languages understandable and speakable.
Most of language processing is subconscious, and most of language learning is implicit rather than explicit. We seem to get into a mental state to speak a particular language. Sound and meaning are processed simultaneously, not one after the other. Meaning, of course, combines all kinds of rich associations, including emotions.
Attractor theory has many advantages over previous theories. It explains matters that had been treated awkwardly. It appeals to common sense and is a welcome step in the direction of practical application. But attractor theory presents challenges to our customary ways of teaching languages in schools. In this column, I will discuss structural and administrative challenges.
===
Maximizing implicit learning
The conclusion that successful learning is mostly implicit rather than explicit strikes at the heart of the tradition of teaching languages as explicit knowledge. And the importance of meaningfulness, including emotional factors, brings into question the usefulness of textbooks.
For reasons of efficiency and bureaucratic control, language classes in schools are typically conducted just like other classes, such as math and history, whose object really is the mastery of intellectual materials. Language students are assembled in groups of 30 or 40, and are required to sit still for lectures, to work on textbook problems, and to interact in stylized ways with the teacher. This traditional approach saves money on teachers, keeps students under control, and gives administrators confidence that definable knowledge is being transferred in an orderly way.
If we follow the implications of attractor theory, we must work to set up meaningful (preferably personal) situations for language learning. Because language processing involves simultaneous experiences of sound and meaning, imparting these to memory (developing attractors) is best served by real-life communication situations in which the target language is an inseparable part of experiences.
Second-language learning programs in school should strive to develop the easy and automatic processing that underlies fluency. Not much attention to formal structure is required until minimal fluency is achieved. Of course, no exposure to English is bad, and studying language textbooks for one or two hours a week beginning in middle school and high school is not bad. But these hours should be supplemented with about twice as many hours devoted to communicating in English, without correction of errors. Students need to develop a sense of their own power to communicate in the new language.
The place of textbooks in language-teaching programs is problematic. Textbooks are attractive in several ways. For teachers, who are always busy, they are useful for structuring the time and materials to be used in classes. They reassure administrators that appropriate topics are covered. Language textbook publishing is a large and lucrative business. In terms of language learning, however, textbooks fail the crucial test of immediacy.
I have never met a language textbook I liked--not even the ones I have written myself. The basic problem with textbooks is the Catch-22 of language teaching: pinning a specimen of language to a blackboard kills it. It is no longer alive, active or inviting attention. Textbooks are not communication among people. They lack spontaneity, humor, empathy, mistakes, corrections, questions and answers. In short, they lack heart.
For these reasons, it would be wise to minimize the use of textbooks. Language textbooks should be supplemented with active language usage, such as talking with whatever native English speakers are available, playing games, communicating with pen pals by mail or e-mail, reading textbooks in other subjects, reading books of interest to them, putting on plays or other dramatic productions, singing songs, participating in debates, and writing papers based on library and Internet research.
===
Why immersion succeeds
A language immersion program is one that uses a second language as the medium of instruction in content-based subjects other than the language itself. Immersion does not succeed if it is poorly planned, if it is not supported by all affected people, or if it uses language too difficult for the students. When it succeeds, however, it is very beneficial. Compared to students in regular programs, immersion students lose no learning (and sometimes outperform non-immersion students) at the same time they are developing proficiency in a second language.
When language immersion succeeds, why does it succeed? Attractor theory suggests two reasons. The first reason--often cited by immersion experts--is that content-based instruction focuses students' attention on subject matter. If the level of language is within the range of what students are ready to learn, the language is received naturally as new material is learned--and stored richly in memory because of the doubling up of subject matter and language.
The second reason that immersion succeeds is that the target language is buzzing in the students' heads for many hours per day, every day. Getting those attractors up and working together is a long and difficult process, especially at first, but prolonged exposure over many days makes it possible for the student to put it all together. The mental state of communicating within a second language is very difficult for a student to achieve with a few hours of instruction scattered over each week.
Prolonged exposure over many days seems also to underlie the success of intensive language courses that are not immersion courses. My own research suggests that students learn significantly more English if the same number of class hours are presented in compact blocks of time rather than in scattered classes. The explanation under attractor theory is that solid blocks of instruction tend to produce long-term mental states consistent with the target language.
Schools might use intensive instruction to increase the rate of language learning by 30 percent to 40 percent, according to Yukio Saegusa, professor emeritus at Waseda University. What is required is to reorganize the schedules so as to permit a semester's total hours of English instruction to be delivered in a concentrated period of two or three weeks.
The concept of massive rescheduling is difficult for many school administrators to imagine in the absence of compelling theory. But if they could embrace the concept, the payoff would be tremendous. Leon James, professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii, says he is convinced that the benefits of concentrated instruction will be found in other school subjects, not just languages.
One can imagine schools in which students will move to new subject areas not six times a day, but every three or four weeks, in a block plan. Learning in many subjects might benefit from this plan, although some things like homeroom, physical education, music and sporadic assemblies will need to be scheduled regularly as part of everyday, or every-week, activities. Block plans are most feasible in large schools, where there are enough students to keep teachers busy with successive blocks. Smaller schools would need to combine subject matters in creative ways.
Such are the practical results of attractor theory. In previous theories of language processing, practical applications to education were scarce. But, with the advent of attractor theory, we can hope for an era in which bureaucrats and educators can design teaching programs in confidence, knowing exactly why they can anticipate success.
* * *
This series of columns is an attempt to reconcile views of language teachers, theorists and bureaucrats. Readers are invited to send e-mail to mrchilds@tokai.or.jp or letters to The Daily Yomiuri. The column will return on June 6. Childs, Ed.D., is a lecturer at Temple University Japan, Tokyo, and Fuji Phoenix College in Gotenba, Shizuoka Prefecture. |