Showing posts with label teaching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teaching. Show all posts

Fiction meets (near-)reality: Language Teaching and Technology

Instead of staring at my phone before going to bed, I've decided to buck the trend of "no for-pleasure reading in grad school." I'm currently reading Ready Player One by Ernest Cline. This is a book set in the near future where the virtually the whole planet regularly plugs in to a virtual reality called OASIS. OASIS is even used to deliver free public education, which includes language classes. A couple excerpts stood out to me:

Unfortunately, even with the limitless possibilities of OASIS at her disposal, my Latin teacher, Ms. Rank, still had a hard time making her lessons interesting. And today she was reviewing a bunch of verbs I'd already memorized, so I found my attention drifting almost immediately. (p. 61)
I think this is often the case in the present- impressive technology is used in very conventional and often boring ways. Sometimes convention works- I'm a big fan of digital vocabulary flashcards. But sometimes (more often than not?) putting a slick interface on top of low-engagement, low-context activities does very little to help language learning.

A few pages later, Cline describes the method of the protagonist's Latin teacher, Ms. Rank:
Our teacher, Ms. Rank, was standing at the front of the class, slowly conjugating Latin verbs. She said them in English first, then in Latin, and each word automatically appeared on the board behind her as she spoke it. Whenever we were doing tedious verb conjugation, I always got the lyrics to an old Schoolhouse Rock! song stuck in my head: "To run, to go, to give. Verb! You're what's happenin'!"

I was quietly humming this tune to myself when Ms. Rank began to conjugate the Latin for the verb "to learn." "To Learn. Discere," she said. "Now, this one should be easy to remember, because it's similar to the English word 'discern,' which also means 'to learn.'"

...

Ms. Rank continued, using the verb in a sentence. "We go to school to learn," she said. "Petimus scholam ut litteras discamus."
So first, I found it interesting that this is how Cline envisions or remembers language classes. To be fair, this is a description of a Latin class, which is (mostly) a dead language, in the real world and in Cline's fiction. Second, this sort of teaching still happens for living languages, and particularly in a lot of online language learning resources like Youtube video lessons or explicitly-oriented language learning apps. Explicit, L1-delivered instruction can definitely help people feel more comfortable about meanings and rules, and does arguably have some beneficial effect on learning, but it's clearly not the main driver of language learning. I hope that as the field of language teaching continues to move forward and more people learn in communicative classrooms, the next generation of authors will paint a different picture for us.

Homework for Instructed Language Learning

Recently, a note to parents from a second grade teacher in Texas went viral. Instead of doing homework, the teacher urged parents to let kids play, to eat dinner with their kids, and to read to their kids. You can read the whole note on Facebook.

This teacher's sentiment seems to reflect a growing trend in American K-12 education, according to the NPR article linked at the beginning of this post. For language teachers, what does a move away from homework mean? After all, many language courses involve lots of take-home grammar worksheets and vocabulary exercises. At more advanced levels, language learners are commonly asked to do writing assignments or prepare presentations as homework.

Although it might be tempting to jump on the no-homework train and never look back, the issue of homework in language classes cannot be approached without considering learner age, instructional context, and class time.

First, children tend to be different than adults when it comes to language learning. Even putting aside debates about the critical period hypothesis (or sensitive period) and ignoring how the internal mechanisms for language acquisition might be different, any language teacher who has experience teaching both children and adults can tell you about some major differences in emotional and cognitive maturity. Simply put, young children are not likely to get much out of rule-based grammar worksheets, in-class or at home. Some would argue that older learners are not likely to get much out of them either, but at the very least they should be able to complete such exercises.

Second, instructional context matters. In a context where the target language is spoken widely outside of school, students may get less benefits from doing language homework. Heck, for children especially, sitting at their desk for an hour a night doing grammar worksheets is going to be far less beneficial than going to the park to play with friends who speak the target language. For adults, coffee with friends is also likely to be of help. But in environments where the target language is not spoken, a teacher creating some out-of-class obligation to use the target language, and provide materials for it, could very well be crucial to a learner's success. In those environments, flipped classrooms for older language learners are attractive: instead of spending class time on grammar lectures or running through a list of new vocabulary, those can be done at home in advance and class time can be packed full of good input and communication- the things that are much harder to get outside of the classroom for foreign language learners.

Finally, class time should be a major consideration in the decision to abandon homework. Language learning requires input, and getting lots of input translates into a vast amount of time. There really is no "one easy trick" or hack to learn a language quickly, even though good instruction can make the slow process appreciably quicker. So your 2-4 hours a week of Spanish in a high school class is not likely to be sufficient for developing a modest degree of communicative competence in the language- more input and opportunities for meaningful language use is needed. On the other hand, if students are getting 4+ hours per day of instruction, the benefits of homework might be diminished (I say might because in language learning, more input is universally a good thing), especially when exposure to the target language is easy to get outside of the classroom for social or entertainment purposes. Also, for child second language learners (e.g., recent immigrants), it may be just as worthwhile to maintain the first language and work on first language literacy at home, as we know that literacy skills transfer across languages (assuming that one has achieved some degree of competence in whatever additional language).

With those three considerations out of the way, the question of what kind of language homework deserves attention. So far I've alluded to the idea that grammar worksheets are not especially helpful, especially for children but I generally hold the same to be true for adults (they're not necessarily harmful, and in small doses may indeed be useful, but we have to think about opportunity costs and relative importance). Here's where the teacher's note to parents holds particularly good (though perhaps unintentional) advice for language teachers: "eat dinner as a family, read together, play outside." While this can be hard for parents if they do not also speak the target language, the principle that social and pleasurable language use (dinner conversation, reading books) is helpful should not be overlooked. In English language teaching, a lot of work has been done on extensive reading and the practice, which involves reading linguistically-appropriate texts for pleasure, has generally been shown to be effective in terms of vocabulary learning and reading fluency. In other areas, research has found language benefits for socializing online, living with host families during study abroad (dinner conversations, anyone?), and even participating in online gaming communities. Regardless of whether you overtly assign these sorts of activities or not, this is generally what you really want your students to be doing with the language outside of class rather than studying grammar rules. However, I should mention that some explicit language study can be helpful, especially for vocabulary: spending some time studying word lists and completing exercises that require some engagement with words have been shown to be effective and efficient for establishing at least some types of word knowledge.

So as with most things, there are shades of gray when it comes to homework. Some focused, empirically-based and hopefully limited homework that focuses on language features can be helpful in certain situations (consider your learners' age, learning context, and class time). But in general, the important thing is for learners to spend lots of time getting meaningful input and communicating, as assigned homework or not.

L2 Korean Pronunciation Over Time - A Graphical Look at Error Rates

I am working on a project that investigates the effect of a supplemental pronunciation instructional treatment for learners of Korean as a foreign language. As part of this project, in the spring semester we had 36 learners in their first or second year of Korean study complete speaking tasks 11 weeks apart. Learners were split into a control group and a treatment group, the latter of which received 8 hours of classroom-based supplemental instruction over the course of 9 weeks. One analysis I'm looking at is how their error rates changed over time.

Today, I looked at one task- a paragraph read-aloud task. The pre- and post-test recordings were phonemically transcribed by two native speakers of Korean. Their agreement on roughly 12% of the data was 93%; these disagreements were resolved via discussion before each coder began working independently. When the transcripts came in, I tallied the total sentences, words, syllables, and phonemes, and then coded each non-standard deviance from the script as being a segment error (e.g., a single segment-for-segment substitution) or a syllable error (e.g., deleting or inserting a syllable where there shouldn't be one). I also looked at sentence intonation, which ultimately wasn't very interesting (like many languages, Korean uses falling intonation for declarative sentences, and most learners had no problem with this- it will probably be more interesting in another task I have to analyze, though..). Because the task was timed and not all learners completed the full paragraph, plus I eliminated "rough starts" (conventionally first utterances with stutters/hesitations are deleted), I normed these errors to get rates.

So without further ado, plots! Each plot compares control (C) and treatment (T) groups. The color of the lines shows L1 (English or Chinese), and the shape of the points shows year in the program (first or second). Each line and set of points represents one student, so these plots highlight individual variation and provide a way to visually evaluate change patterns among the groups.

Fig. 1. Segmental error rates over time.

Fig. 2. Syllable Error rates over time.

Fig. 3. Total error rates (based on total syllables) over time, including segmental, syllable, and sentence intonation errors.
These plots could use some tweaks, but overall I'm pretty happy with what I'm able to see. As I've seen in other data from the project, the control group did, overall, improve their pronunciation. I think this is partially explainable by the large number of beginners in the group- at such early stages of language learning, there's a lot of phonological/pronunciation development going on quite rapidly just via standard instruction and input. But looking at the individual data, things look noisier on the left (control) side, with a bit more backsliding (more people with error rates increasing). Second year students (the triangles) in both groups seem to show lower error rates and less improvement.

Another trend seems to be that learners with higher error rates to start with see larger improvements; this is more apparent in the control group but also visible in the treatment. It's also interesting to see the differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English learners- particularly in syllable structure errors, Chinese students had generally higher error rates to begin with, but also made some substantial improvements.

Plots were made in R with ggplot2.  Any tips appreciated!