LINGUIST List 12.2595

Thu Oct 18 2001

Disc: Review: Davies/Pearse, Success in Eng Teaching

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>

Directory

1. Ronald SHEEN, Re: 12.2586, Review: Davies & Pearse, Success in English Teaching

Message 1: Re: 12.2586, Review: Davies & Pearse, Success in English Teaching

Luz Vasquez (LV), in his review of Davies & Pearse 'Success in English
Teaching', uses words such as 'should' and 'how best to' in
summarizing the advice offered by the authors. As a matter of
interest, what empirical evidence do these authors provide which
demonstrate that what they propose have proven to be the most
effective strategies in some rigorously-observed trialling?

I pose the question because of the frequent dissonance between what is
proposed in such books as this one (see others by authors such as
Rivers, Stevick, Celce-Murcia, Littlewood, etc.) and the putative
contemporary wisdom as manifested in the writing of applied linguists.
A current example is to be found in the focus on form literature which
tends to throw a negative light on separate grammar lessons treating
discrete points of language (see work by Lightbown, Doughty, and Long,
for example). As an example, take Doughty and Varela (1998) who
advise that grammar only be treated when it causes a breakdown in
communication and this, only by means of feedback in the form of
recasts or other means of correction. They write: "Therefore, in our
view, a quintessential element of the theoretical construct of focus
on form is its dual requirement that the focus must occur in
conjunction with - but must not interrupt - communicative
interaction.". Lightbown (1998:193), whilst agreeing with this
approach, permits very brief (no more than a minute) grammatical
explanations. Separate grammar lessons treating discrete points of
grammar are generally considered to be incompatible with the
underlying theory of SLA and are therefore proscribed (but see
Lightbown, 1998:194, for occasional unspecified exceptions to this).
It is noteworthy that those who advocate this proscription of separate
treatment of grammar, provide no reliable evidence derived from
comparative studies in support of their advocacy nor do they offer any
findings derived from long-tern trialling of the strategies they
propose. In failing to do so, they repeat the sad history of applied
linguistics which has seen its many practitioners who are quick to
advocate new teaching strategies based on the flimsiest of "evidence"
and even quicker to jump on the latest bandwagon but who then
disappear into the woodwork when that latest innovation has failed to
deliver the promised goods.

Accountability for past failures has not been a noteworthy feature of
the writing of applied linguists. (ex. Krashen's proposed teaching
strategies, which he knew would only produce speakers of "pidgins"
bereft of many of the morphological niceties of language. 
See FLTEACH debate with Krashen and members of that group.)

As to this question of the treatment of discrete points of language,
the book under review and the others mentioned above all propose some
form of grammar instruction not directly linked to some specific
communicative activity, thus going against the principles as proposed
by Doughty and the like. Thus, LV points out that the two authors
propose that "Every item presented in class should be part of a cycle
that includes presentation, practice, and production..." One finds
similar advice offered in other 'how to" books. Furthermore, if one
does any work with practising teachers, one becomes quickly aware that
rare are the ones who do not make systematic use of some variant of
that proposed by Davies and Pearse.

To return then to my original question addressed to the reviewer, what
empirical comparative evidence do the authors offer to support their
claims that what they advocate are the most effective options. More
specifically, for example, do they show any awareness of the work of
VanPatten on input processing.

This question should not be interpreted as manifesting disagreement
with what Davies and Pearse propose. As with other "how to" books,
the advice is almost certainly based on many years of what is
perceived of as successful implementation of the strategies proposed
by teachers who have been the implementers themselves.

Given our substantial ignorance of the nature of classroom language
learning in spite of claims to the contrary (see Long 1991 for such a
claim), I would prefer to follow the advice of language-teaching
practitioners of long experience than to accept the proposasl of the
focus on form advocates who appear to believe that it is legitimate to
base advocacies on some unproven theory of classroom language learning
whilst blithely ignoring the necessity of providing reports of
successful long-term trialling in support.

Nevertheless, reports of successful long-term implementation of the
strategies proposed by authors such as Davies and Pearse would
certainly not go amiss.

References:

Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.) (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second 
Language Acquisition, Cambridge: CUP.


Doughty, C & Varela, E. (1998). "Communicative Focus on Form" in C. Doughty 
& J. Wlliams (Eds.) Focus on Form in Classroom Language Acquisition, (pp. 
114-138) Cambridge: CUP.


Lightbown, M. P. (1998). "The importance of timing in focus on form." In C. 
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language 
Acquisition, (pp, 177-196) Cambridge: CUP.


Long, M. H. (1991) "Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching 
methodology" In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.) Foreign 
language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: 
John Benjamins