• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
English?
Istudied it for ten years and I can’t speak aword!
Such is the self-critical lament heard everywhere people study Englishoutside of the English-speaking world (the “EFL setting”). Is the set-ting itself interfering with the learner’s ability to “remember”language well enough to use it competently and confidently? If so,why should this be? What can be done about it? And, if English is sohard to learn, why does everyone keep trying?Today’s adult learner knows that in virtually any profession, Englishis an essential skill. World economies and cultures are increasinglyinterconnected and interdependent—politically, socially, and techno-logically.Multinational companies consist of confederations of offices in numerous countries, and English has thus become a conven-ient lingua franca. Indeed, according to Ricardo Schutz’s study, 75%of all international communication in writing, 80% of all informationin the world’scomputers, and 90% of Internet content are in English.Morethan ten years ago, the British Council reported, “English is themain language of books, newspapers, airports and air-traffic control,international business and academic conferences, science, technology,diplomacy,sport, international competitions, pop music, and adver-tising.” And we know that the importance of English has onlyincreased since then. As one example of the primacy of English ininternational business, in fiscal 2002 the global Japanese companyMatsushita employed 245,922 people worldwide, only 28% of whom wereJapanese. “We need English-speaking managers whocan explain Matsushita’scorporate philosophy to overseas affiliatesand train employees there,” said Shigeru Mizuno of the managementdevelopment team.
These “three R’s”ensure memorablilityin the EFL setting:
R
ELEVANCE
Adult EFL learners need Englishto communicate with bothnative and non-native speakersof English. Content of lessonsand materials should reflectthat reality.
R
E
-
ENTRY
Adult EFL learners lackexposure to repeated Englishinput outside the classroom,so lessons and materials mustserve as delivery vehicles of real-world language input. This iskey to avoiding fossilization.
R
EINFORCEMENT
Adult EFL learners need tofeel they aremaking progress.Ensuring that students viewtangible progress on a dailybasis reinforces their enthusiasmfor learning English.
Issue 1
M
AKING
E
NGLISH
U
NFORGETTABLE
Enhancing Acquisition in the EFL Setting
Joan Saslow and Allen Ascher
T
OPNOTCH
P
ROFESSIONAL
D
EVELOPMENT
S
ERIES
©2005Joan Saslow and Allen Ascher
 
And it has been commonly agreed that, of the Englishspeakers in the world today, between 60 and 80% are notnative speakers. The British Councils landmark English2000 project predicted that over a billion people wouldbe studying English by the year 2000. In fact, accordingto David Crystal in 1997, “A conservative estimate is that1,200,000,000 to 1,500,000,000 people in the world arereasonably competent in English.”So, if English is an essential life skill for allwho work, travel, or merely inhabit today’sworld, how can English language educa-tors—as a profession—accelerate, promote,and ensurecommunicative competence inEFL learners? Essentially, the question is:How can we make English unforgettable?
Quantitative factors affectinglearner achievement.
In light of thefact that many learners feel shame at theirlack of communicative ability,especiallytheir poor ability to understand and usespoken English after years of instruction,it’simportant for us to examine ourexpectations. Just what arereasonableexpectations, given the reality of the EFLsetting? One simply can’tignore the purelyquantitative element in estimating totalinstructional contact hours in this setting. A typicalacademic year is between 30 and 40 weeks, withinstructional times varying widely: normally from asfew as three hours of instruction per week to five; more,of course, in intensive courses. However, calculatingfive hours of instruction per week for 35 weeks yields175 hours. A hundred seventy-five hours might seem likealot of instruction—until one realizes that there are only168hours in one week! So one year’s study amounts tonot much more than one week’s time!No one would expect to master a language in just a fewweeks, but quantitatively that is what several years of instruction actually is. Taking that into account, the levellearners reach after four or five years is really quite good;perhaps they are what Crystal called “reasonably compe-tent,” in spite of their self-criticism. We know the levelmost learners reach from instruction alone: althoughthere are wide differences among learners, most speak hesitantly yet functionally with grammatical errors andinadequate vocabulary, and almost all have difficultyunderstanding rapid native speech.
Qualitative factors affecting learnerachievement.
More importantly, the success of English instruction in the EFL setting is also compro-mised by qualitative factors: the paucity of authenticEnglish input and the almost total lack of opportunityfor authentic practice outside the classroom.No teacher alone can possibly provideenough quantity or quality of input, norconstruct enough opportunities for practice,to even come near to matching the impactof an authentic English-speaking environ-ment. Materials must, therefore, be theteacher’s partner in repairing the deficitsof the setting.In our view,however, most textbooks usedin the EFL setting don’tprovide adequateor repeated input; almost none recyclematerial enough for it to be remembered,and the amount of practice includeddoesn’tapproach the quantity necessaryto create confident competency. And text-books tend to approach classroom learningas a linear process, with vocabulary andgrammar taught one following the other like footsteps onamarch, until the “syllabus” is ”covered” with virtuallyno integration along the way.In contrast, the language-learning experience in an envi-ronment in which the learner is surrounded by the targetlanguage is more three-dimensional, with exposures andpractice reinforcing each other and the student’s facilitygrowing geometrically. It is, as Diane Larsen-Freemanputs it, “dynamic, complex, and nonlinear.” Multiple,varied, and repeated exposures to target language providean inescapable echo; immediate opportunities to practiceabound, and previously learned language can be continu-ally observed in similar, though not identical, contexts.The environment itself makes language “unforgettable.”No wonder study in an English-speaking country is suchapowerful learning experience. The dilemma, then, fac-ing the profession is how to overcome the quantitativeand qualitative factors inherent in the EFL setting thatmake achievement of communicative competence seemso elusive.
Ahundred seventy-five hours mightseem like a lot ofinstruction – untilone realizes thatthere are only 168hours in one week!So one year’s studyamounts to notmuch more than oneweek’s time!
2
 
The importance of models.
Many deliberatechoices can be made in the EFL setting that will greatlyincrease the impact of instruction. Although the class-room can never fully duplicate the experience of living,traveling to, or studying in the English-speaking world,it can be much enriched. The following section willexamine pedagogical devices that promote memorabilityand greatly increase acquisition and competence.An unfortunate aspect of currently popular methodolo-gies has been a reduction in input for observation in theclassroom. Describing his experience teaching Bosnianzero beginners in the U.K., author Robert O’Neilldescribes the frustration of learners confronted with whathe describes as “production-obsessed” methodology andits relentless insistence on elicitation. Students neededmore opportunities to process language before beingexpected to use it productively.It has been our experience, having taught adults of all lev-els in both the EFL and the ESL settings, that in the ESLsetting—wherestudents have an opportunity to observespoken and written English outside of class—it is reason-able and beneficial to devote most class time asking themto “produce.” In the input-rich ESL setting, students areconsolidating and using language observed in the envi-ronment. Less class time needs to be devoted toclassroom presentation and observation. In the EFLsetting, on the other hand, which is “input-poor,”insisting that students speak without enough opportunityto observe leads them to silent panic, the consequence of which is that only the most able students participate inclass. A further consequence of depriving learners of opportunities to observe “new language” is that their lan-guage becomes fossilized, and their ability to engage indiscussions doesn’tgrow commensurately with the timethey spend in English study.Cultural factors also confound the problem of over-reliance on elicitation. Students from some cultures arenaturally reticent and less likely to “speak up.” But evenadult learners who arenot particularly shy, no matterhow motivated and anxious to speak, areoften ashamedto reveal their lack of ability and embarrassed to speak incorrectly. So, paradoxically, some features of our“communicative” methodologies work against the verycommunicative goals we strive for.Webelieve it is impossible to overestimate the importanceof observation as a first (and ongoing) step. MichaelLewis talks about the need for opportunities to observe,hypothesize, and experiment with new language.Supporting this concept is the fact that most learnerswho experience immersion in another language—suchas occurs when traveling or living in another country—report that snatches of observed or heard languageremain in their memory and that they silently repeat thatlanguage to themselves like a refrain, further leading toits memorability, acquisition, and use. Therefore, wheninput from the environment outside the classroom islacking, the classroom and learning materials themselvesmust serve as the vehicle for that input, bringing languageback numerous times for the student to notice andremember in the same way.Though input must forman important part of Englishlanguage instruction in all settings and at all levels—itsinclusion in classrooms and materials is all the morecrucial in the EFL setting. Input should consist of auraland written models—conversational and non-conversa-tional—that students can observe and practice. In thelast century, during the audiolingual phase of languageteaching history, “dialogs” formed the core of instruction,and the mechanical repetition and substitution drills usedto practice them led to their rejection as non-cognitive“behaviorism.”Though the criticism was valid, the fault lay morein thepedagogy of (what many saw as) “mindless parroting”than in the dialogs themselves. That fact notwithstanding,in the EFL setting one of the most regrettable conse-quences of the reaction to audiolingualism was thereduction or even disappearance of conversation modelsin the “communicative,” “learner-centered,” and “task-based” textbooks that followed. But learners need modelsof the way people really speak English to make up forwhat’s lacking in the environment. Such models are anessential point of departure on the road to expressionand should not be neglected.Amodel, however, is not only something to observe: itis an effective productive practice medium. Here alsorecent materials have de-emphasized or ignored thecrucial first step of using the conversational model forpersonalization. Following a comprehensive study of themost widely used English course books, in 1996 Saslowreported: “Another casualty of recent teaching approach-es is practice: safe, controlled, limited practice of newlanguage. Often this step is skipped, and students areexpected to produce new language freely before they
3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...