The role of text in language learning and GW.

Due, in part, to DSLI considerations, the author has withdrawn the use of text in the classroom during approximately ninety percent of class time of the experimental course. In fact, the initial preference was for an even smaller percentage of class time dedicated to writing tasks or none whatsoever for a determined period such as in AIM’s Gesture Approach (The Brampton Guardian 2002. Internet source). However, as it has been decided to evaluate learners during this experiment also via written tests and not

106

just orally, text will be introduced for a greater proportion of class time. It is assumed that exposure to the written word for comparative evaluation purposes with control groups is essential otherwise learners will not be able to transcribe their L2 on paper.

Text is the usual reference medium employed in elementary level English language classes in Spanish schools. It is used as a meaning “receiver” usually accompanied initially by a visual referent which transfers meaning to it. Words of text serve as “reference pegs” (rather than conceptual pegs) on which to “hang” or record meaning and are used subsequently to elicit L2 lexis in future exposures. Learners are expected to recognise and respond to the meanings of words of text in order to participate in L2 activities that take place in the classroom. Text used in this way in English language instruction before the experiment started was frequent to predominant in all the English classes of the groups (see teacher questionnaires – enclosed CD).

One problem with text in SL learning classrooms at beginner and elementary levels is that it is a poor medium for revealing meaning to the learner. Text offers the low-level student with few or no clues to its meaning due to its non-pictorial nature. A written word as a reference peg could be classed as an “empty peg” as written words in L2 may still not reveal meaning to beginners even after one or more exposures.

The experimental and control groups in Pedro Primero followed a single coursebook of Twister 5 and 6 respectively (Richmond Publishing 2007), which employed the commonly-used approach for introducing all L2 lexis by means of an image plus the written word for meaning association. In the example below, taken from the fifth year course book in Pedro Primero, Twister 5, (Figure 20) the rubric of Exercise 1 reads “match the picture with the word” (Blair et.al 2007:14). The inclusion of textual versions of new vocabulary during presentation adds a potential distraction to the retention and acquisition processes by asking learners to transfer meaning from the

107 visual aid to the written word. In Pedro Primero, students were required to record this written vocabulary in notebooks for future revision invariably with a text translation alongside in Spanish, which could add an additional distraction by diverting L2 lexis exposure to L1 equivalents. Indeed, the necessity to include the written translation is vital and understandable. Without the semantic association of a new L2 word recorded in some form of annotation, during future revision the learner could rely on no or little indication from the written word itself as to its meaning. Furthermore, it has been said that “we write things down so we don’t have to remember”11

. One can imagine the temptation to free one’s mind of the burden of memory by feeling reassured that the information is safely stored away in a notebook until pre-exam revision time.

Figure 20. First page of Unit 1 (Twister 5, Richmond Publishing 2007).

11

I believe this was stated in a work by the late Dave Willis of Task-Based Learning fame though I can no longer find the reference.

108

The images in the textbook, bright and attractive though they may be, will hereafter be discarded as they have served their purpose. Imagery is used here only provisionally to rouse learners’ interest in the material and the lesson and associate meaning to textual words. Unlike artificial memory devices (Yates 1966 and Paivio 1969) which insisted on consistency of the same conceived image to enhance memory and serve as conceptual pegs and even Comenius’s Orbis Sensualism Pictus (1658), where the student had only one visual referent per lexical item, modern-day coursebook design offers learners multiple variations in imagery to represent the same vocabulary item. Indeed, such a vast diversification in form and colour must motivate and stimulate the learner’s interest in the subject matter yet perhaps the original function of imagery as aide-memoire; meaning instantly “foaming” from image, has been lost.

Neither does the association of text with utterance provide the learner with a significant, intuitive or useful relationship. In the case of L2 English, the comparison could be misleading for native Spanish learners owing to phonetic inconsistencies between the two languages. On the other hand, a learner may read a word aloud with near-perfect pronunciation but not attributable to his/her former knowledge but owing to phonetic coincidence between L1 and L2. For example, a Spanish learner of English could render a fully comprehensible oral version of the following without understanding or even having ever encountered the words during previous study:

“Tim sat on a mat”.

Text-based instruction in the classroom setting, therefore, presents drawbacks not only in L2 acquisition for the beginner/elementary learner but also for the teacher’s efforts to evaluate learners’ knowledge and progress from text-generated student utterances in the classroom. Conversely and confusingly for the teacher, a learner may read text aloud

109 with full comprehension of meaning and accurate pronunciation owing to correct knowledge so that a second learner could read aloud:

“Tim sat on a mat”

fully comprehending its meaning yet be indistinguishable from the student who is oblivious of the meaning of the utterance. Text is therefore defective and counter- productive as an L2 eliciting tool as the teacher cannot accurately assess student knowledge or progress of L2 though utterances read from text. The teacher must accept that speaking activities in the classroom involving text are contrived and provide inexact feedback on student interlanguage and communicative ability.

Figure 21 shows the following exercise in the aforementioned coursebook.

110

The page comprising Figure 21 makes up a double-page spread in the coursebook (Blair et.al 2007:14, 15) with Figure 20 and is part of the same lesson. Having completed the lexis presentation and revision exercise on body parts and descriptive adjectives, learners listen to, read and repeat the written conversation in exercise 3. Once completed, learners listen to an example activity of Exercise 4 where a secret agent is described and are asked to continue the game in pairs following the guideline of “describe and guess”. The format suggested by the coursebook for this unit, and similarly with the remaining seven units of this coursebook and the following coursebook in the same series for the sixth year control group was adhered to by the

Pedro Primero teacher.

It is apparent that the subsequent spoken dialogues that students participate in through pair-work will be based on the written example dialogue clearly visible during production. Students need only substitute a minimum number of words from the dialogue describing one’s “mum” or “brother” to be able to carry out, seemingly successfully to the casual listener, the description of a secret agent. Surely, there is little merit in a production exercise of this kind when every word that learners require for the spoken production task is visibly available to reference on the double-page spread before them. It could be argued that this is a “controlled production” exercise yet no further Complete Production activity is offered in the student’s book. Furthermore, if learners were then asked to engage in a similar dialogue without the assistance of the text and relying on pictures only, the challenge could be enormous and even more so if asked to repeat the activity without text assistance in a future class after time has elapsed and items memorised incidentally have faded from memory. In the exercises in Figure 21, learners are dependent on the abundant text evidence in full sentences together with convenient phonetic clues to make utterances. It should also be pointed

111 that the text offers no apparent salience on lexis or structures and draws little on learner cognition, which might assist retention, to complete the task12.

In the light of comments formerly discussed above, we can summarise the following regarding the pitfalls of text as a reference peg approach (here with specific reference to the example exercises in Figures 20 and 21).

Table 3: summary of issues and possible consequences of text use in elementary L2 level class settings.

Issue Possible consequence a) In exercise 1, learners engage in a language

presentation task based on transferring meaning to written words, which carry no conceptual meaning – “empty pegs”.

(i) Learners tend to record new language in the same written form and include written translation to reveal L2 meaning in the future. A notebook of the new language becomes the storage medium rather than the learner’s interlanguage.

b) In exercises 3 and 4, learners are engaged in a spoken language exercise referring to pegs (text) without clear meaning attached.

(ii) Learners may not understand all the utterances they produce.

(iii) The teacher cannot know (for evaluation purposes) if learners understand their own utterances.

c) In exercises 3 and 4, learners make constant reference to the phonetic clues provided by written text in order to produce utterances.

(iv) The activity is passive. There is no salience on items within the text making few demands on learner cognition to internalise or acquire language.

(v) Students could pronounce incorrectly as the written reference (encountered more frequently) obscures the spoken utterance, to which learners have had little exposure.

(vi) See (iii) above.

4.4. Alternative means to present and elicit L2 – fluctuating and constant