The Rational Learning of Foreign Languages

Contents Introduction 1 Research into foreignlanguage learning must always be defective 2 hat can teachers do! "#$lain grammar! "#$lain words! + ,-tudent $artici$ation, / 0sing a language does not teach it to you 3 4aining confidence 6 Lessons should do what students cannot do by themselves % Teachers should answer and as& 'uestions( and )&now their stuff* . The $roblem of e#ercises 1 2ther ways of wasting students, time 15 6otes

Introduction In two previous editorial articles I have criticized the powerful vested interests of the global English-teaching industry (The Fraud of the Global English-Teaching Industry) and the false assumption that the various organizations and institutions associated with that industry ensure high standards of teaching (The Illusion of Global English-Teaching tandards)! In this editorial I want to "uestion in more detail some of the accepted beliefs about methods of teaching English (and other foreign languages)! # $esearch into foreign-language learning must always be defective Research into how people learn foreign languages and into what methods are most successful is beset with basic difficulties which prevent it ever being truly valid. (1) It is impossible to measure the degree of a students motivation. Yet this will certainly be one of the most important factors that decide how

successful students are in their language studies in many cases probably the most important of all. tudents passionately devoted to the study of a foreign language may often succeed even if their learning methods are utterly misguided. !thers whose method appears sound may fail" not because there is anything wrong with the method" but because they are basically uninterested. #ny pronouncement" then" about the merits or otherwise of a particular method" however careful and scientific the collection of the data on which it is based" is inevitably suspect. #nother group of students using the same method in different conditions and in a different place may show $uite different results. %or can one trust what students themselves say about their motivation. &here may be reasons for them to e'aggerate it" and even if they dont" different individuals may have $uite different ideas of what constitutes high motivation. (() )ven if we assume that everyone in a group of people studying a language is e$ually motivated" what we cannot *now is how each student uses that motivation. +ow much does the student rely on the teacher, -hat does the student e'pect from the teacher, +ow much does the student rely on the method rather than on herself, &o what e'tent do the students reali.e how crucial it is to do all the wor* themselves" and even if they do reali.e this" how much are they able to put the principle into practice, )ven if they say they understand that translating the foreign language into their own language in their heads is fatal for good language/learning" how much do they really believe that, #nd even if they genuinely believe it" are they in practice able to avoid such translation, #re they translating without being aware of it, 0ntil our understanding of the brain and our ability to measure its activity are greatly increased" all such things will be $uite impossible to measure scientifically. (1) &here is no ob2ective way of measuring a persons linguistic competence. It is obvious when somebody is very good at a foreign language. It is e$ually obvious when somebody is totally incompetent. 3ut it is not easy to 2udge the level of the millions of people who lie between these two e'tremes. 4ifferent sorts of test produce different results for the same people. 5ultiple choice $uestions" for e'ample" produce different results from other types of test" even if conscientious efforts are made to cover the same

ground. #nd what is most important for what might be termed 6mastery of a language, Is a person who can converse fluently in collo$uial language" but understands very little of a novel" more or less competent than a person whose s*ills are the reverse, +ow should we 2udge a student who can write almost flawless sophisticated prose but tal*s with an accent so atrocious as to be practically incomprehensible, !r a person who has written an e'cellent translation of +enry 7ames" but is incapable of carrying on even a simple everyday conversation in )nglish. (8) 9inally" even if investigators felt sure that they had established the mental processes of foreign/ language learning" what would those tell us, It is surely clear that in many areas of life the ways people thin* are very bad ways. &here is no reason to suppose it is any different where learning foreign languages is concerned. #s I pointed out in a previous editorial" what students actually do and what they ought to do are in many cases $uite different things. &he last thing we should do is slavishly adapt learning techni$ues to bad psychological habits. In view of all these flaws in trying to base language/teaching methods on research" it is not surprising that these are so much dominated by fashions. %ot so long ago a 7apanese friend e'plained to me how pu..led she was by the )nglish course she had recently attended. &heir teacher" she said" was an actual )nglish professor" no less. 3ut she could not understand why almost the whole time he made them tal* to each other" or gave them tas*s to perform with certain words" or got them to play games of various *inds. -hy could he not demonstrate some )nglish to them, he was even more perple'ed when I told her that her professor was following the current high orthodo'y" the promotion of what is termed 6communicative competence. )ri* :unnemar*" who translated from forty/five languages and had an active command of a large number of them" preferred to call it ;the dogma of salvation/and/ bliss through chatter.< &he only sensible and the only practical thing to do is to try to learn languages in a way that is rational= in a way that accords with the nature of language and how it wor*s.

% &hat can teachers do' E(plain grammar' E(plain words' >et us consider realistically what a teacher can do" as a teacher of a class. he" or he" can e'plain rules of grammar. 3ut she is unli*ely to do this better than a reasonably well/thought/out grammar boo*. note 1 &he author is li*ely to have wor*ed out the e'planations 2ust as carefully as most teachers" if not more so. It is much better for the student to study the grammar by herself at home" where she can go at her own individual pace and thin* about problems at leisure. It is a terrible waste of time for the teacher to do this wor* in class" and any notes students ma*e will probably mostly be inade$uate at best. &he only grammar that it is really worth a teacher tal*ing about to a whole class is either points the teacher thin*s are neglected or badly e'plained in the boo*s the students are using" or $uestions on grammar raised by individual students. #n even greater waste of time" an even more misguided activity" is for the teacher to give the students detailed e'planations of the meanings of words. ( ee >earning ?ocabulary.) !nce a teacher starts e'plaining vocabulary" he may find he is spending hours on 2ust very few words. )ven if he does not do actual harm by encouraging a faulty approach to vocabulary" he will achieve nothing of value= there are far better ways in which he can spend his own and his students time. (&here is 2ust one sort of word of which this is not true. &here are some words that are often confused with other" often similar words. If the distinctions in meaning are clear cut" it is useful for students to have them pointed out to them. )'amples of such pairs in )nglish are the ad2ectives economic and economical" and the verbs come and go" or bring and take. ) * tudent participation+ It seems that teachers" and the pundits at applied linguistics departments at universities" came to reali.e more and more that simply tal*ing about grammar and words is not a good way of spending a lesson. o instead they have tried to 6involve their students more. &he result has been that a lot of teachers now go in a great deal for activities they call group wor*" pair wor*" or role play. tudents are given various tas*s that they have to carry out on their own" or they enact little scenes" such as buying railway tic*ets or as*ing for directions" or even have short

debates among themselves. In other words" the teachers try to train their students in the 6communicative competence I have mentioned above. !ne wonders whether one of the main reasons so many teachers are *een on such methods is that they are rather desperately trying to solve practical problems in the classroom. &here are several such practical problems. &here is the problem of discipline (especially where classes of children are concerned)= the problem of finding something everybody in the class can be active in" because the teacher cannot give individual attention to each student= the problem of boredom" *eeping learners amused. It is difficult to believe that things li*e group and pair wor* and role play are really recommended because teachers truly thin* and have actually found that they are better and more effective ways of teaching languages. Reason" too" suggests that they are not sound methods.

, -sing a language does not teach it to you 9irst" language/learning is a tas* that has to be carried out by individuals on their own. It is a process of 6noticing that has to be done singly. &he more the process is shared and so spread out among others" the less effective it will be. )ven more important" it is too often forgotten that by simply using the language one can learn nothing. !ne cannot spea* until one has some language to spea* with" and one can only learn that language by observing listening and reading" and noting what one hears and reads. &here is no other way. o it is obviously very important that students should hear correct language. Yet in classes where they do most of the tal*ing themselves they will hear each others often incorrect speech far more than they hear the teachers. tudents clearly cannot learn from language that is wrong. 3ut they are also not learning anything new by saying things that are correct" since the fact that it is correct shows that they have already learned it (by observation). %or can students learn from the things their companions say that are correct" because they cannot be sure whether those things are in fact correct or not. !ver the years I have *nown several students of )nglish as a foreign language who did an e'ceptionally large amount of tal*ing

in )nglish" especially with their fellow students of different nationalities. &hey were usually warm personalities and delightful companions. 3ut in several cases their )nglish was less accurate at the end of their language course than it was at the beginning= and their vocabulary was no larger because they had been so busy tal*ing that they had not had time to listen and read. -hat was even sadder was that sometimes their companions language became less correct too. &hey plainly could not believe that people who tal*ed and 6practised their )nglish so much were not e'cellent models to imitate. #ny general conversation in class (whether or not the teacher ta*es part in it) is going to be artificial until everybody present becomes thoroughly personally interested in it. #t that point all or nearly all present will stop observing the language that is being used their own as well as the teachers. &he other great disadvantage of 6tal*ing activities in class is that it reduces even further the e'tent to which the teacher can control and observe her students learning" and reduces the amount of wor* that can be done in a given time. It is another matter that trying to tal* may well and should draw ones attention to things one does not *now how to e'press" and so strongly encourage one to find out. 3ut that sort of cause and effect cannot operate in the classroom. It needs unhurried thought by each student on his own. . Gaining confidence If it is ob2ected that practising tal*ing in the classroom is the only way students can become confident in using the language" one must argue that it is simply not true. &he safe artificial world of the classroom cannot prepare people for the real world outside. &here" confidence depends largely on the individual personality. 9or people who by nature dont have the right sort of temperament" the necessary boldness and lac* of shyness" the only thing that will give them true confidence is the confidence that they have mastered enough of the language. &hey should then try to tal* as much as possible in the foreign languageoutside the classroom to native speakers. &his will confirm their confidence and get them into what is obviously a good habit. 3ut

they must always recogni.e that the tal*ing they do themselves is only practice" not learning. / 0essons should do what students cannot do by themselves &he first principle for anybody who teaches a language in classes should be to do in class only things that cannot be done as effectively somewhere else. In recent decades many different devices and techni$ues have been thought up for the teaching of languages. &here is no evidence that they have led to any improvement. If languages are going to continue being taught in classes" the old/fashioned method of the teacher tal*ing to the students (6chal* and tal*) is still the best. 3ut there should be nothing old/fashioned about the manner in which the teacher tal*s. &he tal* has to be completely informal and fle'ible. !ne of the worst mista*es made in language/ teaching circles in recent years is the demand for the so/called 6structured lesson. &he teacher is supposed to plan in advance e'actly what she is going to teach" and *eep to a timetable during the lesson in order to be sure she covers what she thin*s she needs to cover. It is hard to thin* of a more misguided approach. It cuts the teacher off from her students and the lesson becomes something fossili.ed. #bove all" it completely ignores the particular needs of the particular individuals in a particular class on a particular day.

1 Teachers should answer and as2 "uestions3 and *2now their stuff+ #part from what is the foremost tas* of a language teacher showing students how to learn a foreign language the only really useful thing a teacher can do in a class is to answer $uestions" and also to as* them. If the students do not *now what $uestions to as* and how to as* them" it is the tas* of the teacher to show them. &his way of teaching means that the teacher does not have to do any day to day preparation. It ma*es all lessons completely fle'ible. &hey can always be adapted to the students needs of the moment" but that does not prevent the teacher ta*ing up and emphasi.ing themes she thin*s are being neglected.

3ut if this method of giving lessons ta*es away much of the daily drudgery of a conscientious teachers life" it also means that the teacher has to 6*now her stuff. If the language she is teaching is not her own" she must obviously *now it really well. &hat" though" is only the beginning. +er own or not" she must have a confident practical *nowledge of how the language she is teaching wor*s. 3y this I mean a conscious *nowledge that the teacher can e'plain in a way that most native spea*ers cannot. tudents sense a good teachers enthusiasm and genuine interest in the language" and that she has thought about it and found out about it for herself" not 2ust learned by rote from te't boo*s. 0nfortunately even a cursory reading of the messages posted on internet mailing lists used by wor*ing teachers of )nglish reveal an alarming state of affairs. 9irst" they provide constant evidence that large numbers of even native )nglish/spea*ing teachers are uncertain about many of the most basic principles of )nglish grammar. &his I believe is the inevitable result of an emphasis in their training on pedagogy rather than the wor*ings of the language itself. econdly" non/native teachers reveal all too often that their )nglish is 2ust not good enough for them to practise their profession effectively. &here should of course never be any form of discrimination against non/native would/be teachers of )nglish. 3ut before they start teaching they should surely achieve a minimum standard both in the language itself and in *nowledge of how it wor*s. 4o we have here another e'ample of how the re$uired $ualifications demand pedagogical more than linguistic *nowledge, In my own lessons at least half my 6tal* has usually consisted of $uestions. 5ost students find this stimulating. I have never singled out individuals in turn but instead always $uestioned the whole class and waited for spontaneous replies from anybody who wanted to give one. In that way a teacher can involve everybody the whole time without embarrassing those who do not want to answer. # teacher has no right to impose interrogation in front of others on people to who it may be unwelcome. 5oreover" competition between students has no proper place in language learning" or any other sort of learning for that matter. note ( 4 The problem of e(ercises 9inally" a teacher can put 6$uestions to his students in the form of e'ercises and tests to be done during his lessons. +owever" e'ercises and

tests are a complete waste of time if they are done in writing" since obviously they can in that case be done by the students at home. 9urthermore" written answers place a big e'tra burden on the teacher. +e is faced with a dilemma. Is he to correct all the e'ercises really conscientiously and thoroughly" and find that this ta*es so much time that he either has no life he can call his own or has to s*imp other important 2obs, !r is he to s*imp the correcting wor* itself" with the result that it was not really worth the students while to do the e'ercises in the first place, )'ercises that are done orally in class are a different matter. &he teacher can 6correct the students as they go along" and the discussion the teacher and the students have abut the problems can be very valuable. 3ut the principle that teachers should not force individuals to give answers publicly still holds. &his probably reduces the value of the e'ercises. Yet more important is the fact that e'ercises done in class do not attend to the particular needs of individual students. 5 6ther ways of wasting students+ time &here are other ways in which teachers can ta*e time away from learning. If for instance" the teacher is supposed to be training students to understand the spo*en word" and plays them a cassette and gives them $uestions to answer on it" either in class or as homewor*" all he is doing is giving them a test (which may very well discourage many of them). &hey are not learning anything. &he time and effort students spend on this tas* should instead be spent on actually learning how to understand better by learning more vocabulary" and" above all" by constantly listening to the spo*en language. In short" you wont master 6listening comprehension by answering $uestions= you have to practise listening. @ro2ects that the teacher gives to be carried out by the class" or by parts of it" are not li*ely to be much better. Alass pro2ects for discovering aspects of vocabulary" say" usually involve the spending of a lot of time that is $uite disproportionate to the amount of genuinely useful vocabulary that each individual student actually learns in the process. !ne cannot help feeling that a great deal" perhaps the greater part" of the activity suggested or recommended to teachers and their classes is thought up mainly to ma*e sure the students have something to do. !r perhaps" to put it even more un*indly" to ensure that teachers have things to as* the students to do. It may seem very modern and enlightened to promote lively" often entertaining activity on the part of the

students. 3ut the only activity that matters is the activity of learning as much as possible of the foreign language as fast and effectively as possible. #7 8otes 8ote # 0nfortunately" though" the most prestigious authority where )nglish is concerned is Buir* et al.s semi/incomprehensible A comprehensive grammar of the English language (1CDE" >ongman)" with its disastrous treatment of the articles" pathetic effort on ing (the )nglish form par excellence)" and nonsense about some and any" 2ust to ta*e three e'amples. ee ome and #ny at this site for a detailed commentary on Buir*s treatment of this sub2ect" &he /ing 9orm for some aspects of that form" and :ethin" #." Antilinguistics (1CCF" Intellect) for an e'amination of Buir*s account of the articles. 8ote % %ot only competition between students" whether as individuals or as teams" but also any sort of system of immediate 6rewards for correct answers or successful accomplishment of tas*s" whatever precise form it ta*es" is manipulative and morally repugnant. #nd the morally repugnant aspect of systemati.ed immediate praise" or emphasis on success" or of any method of e'ercising some sort of obli$ue control over somebody elses learning activity is inseparable from the practical defects of such techni$ues. 9irst" they ma*e students concentrate on the wrong things" on the immediate" the ephemeral. !ne defect of these 6reinforcement techni$ues is the same as applies when they are used in connection with e'ercises. &he student thin*s" ;I must get the answer right now" so that I get my rewardnow.< o he tends not to thin* in broader terms and about problems. +is effort is no guarantee of performance in the future. 3ut there is something even more seriously wrong about any sort of rewards system. It is basically a way of getting people to do things that they do not naturally want to do or at least that they do not want to do for the things own sa*e. >anguage/learners need to have a greediness for the language itself. 9or this reason alone any system of 6reinforcement or reward does the learner a disservice" because it leads her aspirations in the wrong direction" deceives her as to what her true re$uirements are. 5orality and the practical coincide. &hey both point to allowing a person to do what she is inclined to do. &hese ob2ections also apply in any computer/ assisted program.

#morey :ethin

This editorial is an e#$anded and edited version of sections from 784ethin and "8984unnemar&: The Art and Science of Learning Languages : 1116: Intellect8 The "ditor welcomes contributions to debate on the sub;ect of this editorial8