Are teachers prepared to give up control of the learning process?

I had a very interesting comment to my last post.

I have posted the whole comment below. The gist is that teachers are keen to have the learners in charge of learning, and the Krashen has been proven "off the mark."

I must say I do not  agree with the commenter. There are no doubt teachers who are that way, but in my exchanges with teachers, face to face or on the Internet, I find the opposite to be the norm. "The classroom is the only place to learn" (local college, and local immigrant language teacher), "all government sponsored immigrant language learning must conform to Canadian Benchmarks system and be based on Task Based Language Learning" (Canadian government language coordinator) and many more examples. 

On my American Language and Literacy teachers' Listserv I see teachers concerning themselves with what content they should let their students read or listen to, and what their students should be allowed to do, and to teach  students "to think critically", "reading strategies" "higher level thinking" and more. It see less evidence of wanting to give the learner more freedom to explore. 

Krashen talks about the affective connection between learners and the content they are learning from. He talks about affective filters to learning, about reducing anxiety and providing meaningful content. All of this strikes me as more valuable than theories about "the Lexical Approach, Communicative methodology, countless insights from the study of corpus data).

Here is the original comment.

"Unfortunately most of what I have seen from these people is dominated by a desire to keep the control of the learning process in the hands of the teacher."

My friend, you have been reading the wrong stuff! In recent years, concepts such as learner-centredness, motivation, identity and learner autonomy have been at the heart of the TESOL field. If you go to any major conference, you will find thousands of teachers and academics, who commit both their professional lives and spare time to work together and improve their ability to teach/help learners learn (why is everyone so cynical about these people??).

"I have to admit that I have been influenced by Krashen and found a lot of wisdom there"

Actually, Krashen had very little time for the issues you care strongly about, like affectivity and motivation. He conceptualized learners as essentially passive processors of input. Since Krashen's published his theories, which are almost 30 years old now, linguists have spent a tremendous amount of time investigating them. The balance of evidence from these studies suggests that he was off the mark. I could go more into this, but I don't want to repeat previous posts. Anyway, there are more useful theories around, that I'm sure you would find very useful, and allow you to improve your website (the Lexical Approach, Communicative methodology, countless insights from the study of corpus data).

Every teacher I know would be delighted to know that their students used lingQ to supplement their learning. Can it replace classroom learning? Certainly not yet. In the future, I think so. That is, if these sites become more sophisticated, and, dare I say it, informed by educational expertise (I didn't say expert!)"

Posted via email from Lingosteve's place

Comments

[Alvin]

Steve, there are really two sides to this issue and I don't see that either "side" has been willing to compromise in the least.

The issue is that your learning style and the academic teacher/student learning methods have different target markets.

Let me explain. My background on this issue is that I studied to be a teacher, so I've studied the pedagogy and all that jazz. My degree itself is in History, and I did a number of papers on education reforms of the early 20th century in both the US and in Russia/USSR after the Bolshevik revolution. I bring that up because this is the EXACT same argument that was going on in education at that time.

Lenin and other communist reformers saw education as another example of the Bourgeois (teachers) suppressing the proletariat (students) with strict ideas about what they should and shouldn't learn, non-natural learning methods, etc. After the revolution, schools in the newly formed USSR quickly adopted student-driven hands on learning. Tests were abolished, students were given individualized goals, all the necessary materials to "explore the world and subjects", and the teachers stepped back.

It was a COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURE. Not because of communism/bad or any ideological reasons, but because it didn't take into account a single factor: M O T I V A T I O N. Students who are not motivated to learn, not given an external structure presenting the material clearly and logically, and who are not evaluated on their progress regularly, do not succeed. Plain and simple. After the first 5 year plan, schools in the USSR reverted to a more traditional learning method and were much more successful afterward. At the same time, schools in the United States were trying to implement MANY of the same reforms, and the reforms themselves did not come exclusively from Russian educators. Seeing how they worked in other countries prevented these reforms from being put in place here.

The fact is, if you are passionate and motivated to learn a subject, you can easily do so given the right tools without a classroom. In reality, however, most students, be they children or adults, are not sufficiently motivated.

Absent that driving passion to learn, a classroom gives the student the STRUCTURE and EXTERNAL MOTIVATION necessary to learn what you need to know, as opposed to what you're passionate about.

For example, I have a degree in History & English. As a part of that, I took various classes that I wasn't really motivated to take. I took those classes, and learned many things that to work in either field I really did need to be familiar with.

Would I have learned better simply given the materials and the time to explore it on my own? No, because I would have spent my time doing things that I found more enjoyable, that ultimately wouldn't lead me to being as well educated.

Online learning methods are almost exclusively aimed at a different type of learner: The adult who has found a passion for a subject and is SELF-MOTIVATED to learn it, and who are able to structure their lives to allow the time for the learning to happen without the need for an externally imposed structure. Those people exist, and benefit by sites like yours.

But for every one of those, there are 10 times as many nursing students who wish to study Spanish to get a better paying job, but really have no INTEREST other than that. If they are good students, they'll learn in a classroom better than with any online course.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Alvin, in many ways you are right. But when it comes to language, at least here in North America, the results are very poor. I feel that if more attention were paid to how to motivate, and not demotivate. In other words de-emphasizing grammar rules and drills and allowing greater choice in what to do, what to listen to and read, I cannot imagine that the results would be worse. But then I have no experience with classroom teaching.

[Bortrun]

I think that you are right, Steve. At least with respect to language learning.

Based on my own experience, when I was study TESOL methodology, we dealt with Krashen, and the conclusion was sort of that "comprehensible input is important, but doesn't produce native-like output so more is needed". And then we continued on with more modern classroom-based methodologies.

It seems that many teachers have a fingers-in-ears approach to this. And the person you quoted says that "linguists" have investigated Krashen's theories and found them off the mark. I would love to see any papers showing that. It may be that "applied linguists" (ie people who have no significant training in linguistics but who have appropriated the title) have done those "investigations", but I'd still like to see proof.

And the idea that Krashen doesn't deal with affective factors and motivation is just silly.

Now, as far as learning in a classroom go, The Lexical Approach, and Communicative Methodology, and so on, are very helpful in designing a good and effective language class - as is Krashen's The Natural Approach.

Unfortuantely, many language teachers do not pay attention to any of these things and just spend their time handing out lists of vocabulary and explaining grammatical rules.

[Bortrun]

As for motivation and classroom learning, there are 2 very different situations - voluntary and non-voluntary. Mostly, kids around the world are forced to learn English (in Canada, French). It is unlikely that anyone is going to allow kids to refuse to learn English (or French in English Canada) and learn something else. So I think we have to deal with that reality.

For voluntary situations, hopefully change will come much more quickly. For non-voluntary situations, the numbers involved are so huge, that I think change will come slowly and painfully.

[Feedforthought.wordpress.com]

@Bortrun

"I would love to see any papers showing that"

There are plenty, you will find them if you look. Why is investigations in inverted commas? Why do you assume that applied linguistics have no training in linguistics?

"And the idea that Krashen doesn't deal with affective factors and motivation is just silly"

He did address these issues, but they were not central to his theories. He had a vague theory about an 'affective filter', but motivation and enjoyment were seen only to have a modifying effect on language learning.

@Steve, I agree wholeheartedly that motivation is of huge importance. All schoolteachers recognize the value of motivation, even if they are at a loss over how to motivate and inspire a group of children! It's not an easy task.

Elsewhere you reasonably argue that increasing choice and control over the learning process are ways to increase students' motivation. While this is true, it is at odds with the requirements of educational institutions, which demand centralised, standardised curricula, through which everybody learns the same thing. In reality, it is parents and politicians that decide what teachers must teach in schools (and many private institutions). As an unfortunate result, motivation is largely out of the hands of teachers.

That said, there is a vibrant, progressive community of teachers and academics trying to make the situation better.

[Bortrun]

@Feedforthought,

Rather than being told there are lots of studies by linguists that invalidate Krashen, I'd prefer to be pointed to one. Any one will do.

I don't think it's really fair to call the "affective filer" theory vague. It was pretty well developed. And, in my opinion anyway, seemed pretty central to what he was talking about.

As for why I think that applied linguists have no training in linguists, I base that on every applied linguist I've ever met (which, admittedly, is a small sample size). Doing a degree in theoretical linguistics, and then doing applied linguistics courses in my teacher training, it seemed to me that a lot of the profs in applied linguistics didn't really understand what they were talking about when they got into the technical side of language. Since applied linguistics is not the application of linguistic concepts/principles, the discipline should simply be called "language education".

[Bortrun]

@Feedforthought,

I should not have put investigations in commas. I must have been feeling snarky at the time.....

[Andrew_the_Odd]

I actually agree with both Alvin and Steve and I don't think the two of your are actually disagreeing with each other, neither one of you are making contrary points.

This is sort of a situation where a problem can be attacked from two different angles, both of which would help and wouldn't be inherently contradictory of each other. Students DO need to be given as much motivation as possible, as Steve has said, that does need to be vastly improved, but for those who just aren't passionate about learning a language but still need to for whatever reason, they need to be given a solid external structure and a method of accountability, as Alvin said. Basically, Alvin nailed it in the beginning of his first comment when he said that the two of you are focusing on two very different groups of people (he called them "markets").

Cheers,
Andrew

[IainG]

I think the comment, "Can it replace classroom learning? Certainly not yet." Basically, sums up the issue.

Some people still naively think a classroom is necessary to learn a language.

Whilst, in the real world, everyone who has ever achieved fluency either do so without a classroom or in spite of a classroom.

[Feedforthought.wordpress.com]

@IianG

Thanks for your comment, your haughty tone is much less appreciated. 

"in the real world, everyone who has ever achieved fluency either do so without a classroom or in spite of a classroom" 

I wonder what makes you believe you are in a position than me to make this claim. I think it's incredibly unrealistic to believe that classroom learning is always unproductive. You only have to go to Germany or Portugal, where almost everyone can speak English, to see how much of a difference classroom learning can make. Granted, there are other factors involved, but 10 years of studying English, whether you'd like to believe it or not, can give people an excellent foundation to build on. 

I am not criticising online approaches, rather pointing out that classroom learning has advantages. The teacher's role is constantly changing, but they still have a part to play. 

[Feedforthought.wordpress.com]

@IianG

Thanks for your comment, your haughty tone is much less appreciated. 

"in the real world, everyone who has ever achieved fluency either do so without a classroom or in spite of a classroom" 

I wonder what makes you believe you are in a position than me to make this claim. I think it's incredibly unrealistic to believe that classroom learning is always unproductive. You only have to go to Germany or Portugal, where almost everyone can speak English, to see how much of a difference classroom learning can make. Granted, there are other factors involved, but 10 years of studying English, whether you'd like to believe it or not, can give people an excellent foundation to build on. 

I am not criticising online approaches, rather pointing out that classroom learning has advantages. The teacher's role is constantly changing, but they still have a part to play. 

[Steve Kaufmann]

I am not sure why Feedforthought's comments got cut off. Here is the full comment.

@IianG Thanks for your comment, your haughty tone is much less appreciated. "in the real world, everyone who has ever achieved fluency either do so without a classroom or in spite of a classroom" I wonder what makes you believe you are in a position than me to make this claim. I think it's incredibly unrealistic to believe that classroom learning is always unproductive. You only have to go to Germany or Portugal, where almost everyone can speak English, to see how much of a difference classroom learning can make. Granted, there are other factors involved, but 10 years of studying English, whether you'd like to believe it or not, can give people an excellent foundation to build on. I am not criticising online approaches, rather pointing out that classroom learning has advantages. The teacher's role is constantly changing, but they still have a part to play.

[Steve Kaufmann]

I think, FFT (feedforthought), that your tone is at least as arrogant as Iain's but I don't see why that is relevant. We do not moderate this blog for tone.

Iain feels that people learn mostly outside the classroom and I must say I agree with him. While it is true that most people in Scandinavia and Holland speak English, and many in Germany do so, and fewer people do so in Portugal and France, and far fewer in Spain and Italy, and very few in Britain speak a foreign language, I do not think that this difference can be accounted for by differences in the school system. It is more a matter of attitude, motivation, availability of movies, TV etc. in the original language etc.. Motivated people learn, so the role of the classroom is either to motivate learners, or at least not to demotivate them with frustrating grammar drills.

[Feedforthought.wordpress.com]

I´m disappointed you think so Steve, because I always try and make posts impersonal and constructive. I guess the problem is that you can read a comment in many ways, even ways unintended by the author. Anyway, I was responding to being called naive and delusional.

I don´t expect you to moderate the blog for tone, but I don´t see why people have to be, well, rude. It´s a battle of ideas, but there´s no need to make it personal.

[Steve Kaufmann]

I don't think you were called delusional. I think that it is unrealistic to believe that a classroom is necessary to language learning. Far more people learn outside the classroom than in a classroom. Whether this thought is naive or not, I don't know, but it is not realistic. However, that does not mean that a classroom cannot be very useful for language learning. It does not mean that a teacher cannot have a major influence on a learner's success. A teacher can. That was my own experience. The role of the teacher was to turn me on so that I put a lot of effort into learning, into exploring the language. I was turned on in the classroom but learned mostly outside the classroom.

I believe that same happens with immigrants. Those who are motivated, learn wherever they can, mostly outside the classroom. The vast majority go to ESL class and never improve.

[IainG]

"10 years of studying English, whether you'd like to believe it or not, can give people an excellent foundation to build on."

This comment is really funny/counter intuitive to me.

Many people can become fluent in a language in 2-3 years by just adopting a simple program of listening and reading to authentic and interesting material.

This is done for free, in a fun and enjoyable way, at times that suit the learner. Teachers and classrooms are, quite simply, a hindrance to this natural process.

In 10 years you can easily have 3 or 4 languages under your belt, not a "foundation to build on" in just one language.

For the record, the "naive" comment was not addressed to any one individual. It is a statement - if someone believes you need a classroom to achieve fluency - then you are not paying attention to the real world of how everyone learns (particularly speaking) to pick up language.