As some of us know Dr. Robert Patrick teaches a graduate course in education at the University of Georgia (LLED 7045 Comprehensible Input and Second Language Acquisition). He recently forwarded to me an interesting exchange with a student:
Ben,
I am copying below, with her permission but without her name, an email dialogue with one of my grad students in my CI and SLA course. I think it offers at the very least a wide window into the experiences of second language learners and how they square with CI theory and practice. The student, like more than half in the class of 32, is a native Chinese speaker, and is working on a graduate degree in English.
Student wrote:
Dear Dr. Patrick,
I learned about corrective feedback from another class this week, and there are many ideas seem to be contradictory to what we have learned from CI theory and the teaching method which followed the theory. And in the synthesis for the week, my instructor for the course gave the following idea:
“During the early, more controlled stage of the lesson, I think it is very important to recast correct answers and to request re-formulations, provide explicit corrections if recasts do not work, and draw learner attentions to the explanation, because the focus is on form at that time. During the second half of the lesson, however, when students are practicing the new form discursively, to communicate meaning, I typically write down their answers on a post-it and then go over the problematic issues with the class after the conclusion of the activity. As a proponent of socio-cultural and socio-cognitive approaches to language learning, I am a firm believer that students need to have explicit understanding of the rule which in turns allows them to control their speech (written or oral) and gradually gain automaticity. Sometimes students gain a deeper understanding of the rule when they digress from it, but the only way for them to find out how they violated the rule is by receiving corrective feedback (or “negative evidence” which refers to “what is not possible in the language”).”
What’s your opinion about it? Krashen believes that conscious knowing of rules acts as a Monitor. Should the Monitor set before or after acquiring the structure?
My response:
I take a different view, as does Krashen. I do not oppose recasting a response and using a students’ response to reformulate the question again using the correct form, but I disagree that the focus is on form in the early periods. The focus is always on the message. If we are delivering understandable messages, students will, over time, begin to produce, and their production will become more accurate in terms of form. A student will not produce structures correctly until they are ready, and we cannot do anything to rush that process.
Some our readings in Krashen this semester have addressed these issues. Dr. P
The student wrote back today:
Dr. Patrick,
Thank you for your time. I agree with your opinion. I did a little survey with my Chinese friends for their opinion on grammar learning during their English learning experience, and most of them think that it makes little difference. Even though they know some certain rules consciously (including some really complex rules), they still make errors during speaking and writing. Other students claimed that they got good grade on grammar-focused exams because they thought they have a “sense” on the language. Ironically, when they tried to use their knowledge on rules to see if they chose the right answer, chances were high that they corrected the right answer to an incorrect one.
Bob speaking again:
I think she does an incredible job of asking questions into the nature of language acquisition, of reflecting on her and her friends’ experiences and putting all of that into perspective.
Bob