English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
124 MICHAEL P. BREENfacilitate comprehension through the provision of l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>in</strong>put sensitive to <strong>in</strong>dividuallearner <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ations, or the teacher should endeavour to shape <strong>in</strong>dividual learn<strong>in</strong>g behavioursso that each learner may atta<strong>in</strong> a repertoire of efficient process<strong>in</strong>g strategies. The SLAmetaphor for the classroom implies tcacher as surrogatc experimental psychologist andlearners as subject to particular <strong>in</strong>put treatments or behavioural re<strong>in</strong>forcement.However, this view of the language classroom leaves us with a number of unresolvedproblems that warrant more attention if we seck to understand the relationship between alanguagc class and language learn<strong>in</strong>g. First, the <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g variables of l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>in</strong>putand the strategic behaviour of learners are not special to classroorns.They were not uncoveredas prevail<strong>in</strong>g features of classroom life at all.’ The second and perhaps more significantproblem is that two crucial <strong>in</strong>terven<strong>in</strong>g variables seem to have been bypassed by SLAresearch. Both of these variables are centrally related to the process<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>in</strong>put. Both willdeterm<strong>in</strong>e what a learner might actually <strong>in</strong>take. SLA research which emphasises l<strong>in</strong>guistic<strong>in</strong>put (provided by <strong>in</strong>struction or exposure) as the <strong>in</strong>dependent variable and some laterlearner output (<strong>in</strong> a test or <strong>in</strong> spontaneous speech) as the dependent variable leaps bl<strong>in</strong>dlyover any active cognition on the part of the learner. With <strong>its</strong> heavy reliance on l<strong>in</strong>guisticperformance criteria for psychological change there is a resultant superficiality <strong>in</strong> <strong>its</strong>attention to learncrs’ <strong>in</strong>ternal perceptual processes. The rcscarch takcs for grantcd whatthe learner may def<strong>in</strong>e as optimal for him. Morc fundamentally, it does not address thequestion of how a learner selectively perceives parts of l<strong>in</strong>guistic data as mean<strong>in</strong>gful andworth act<strong>in</strong>g upon <strong>in</strong> the first place.Thercfore, thc <strong>in</strong>terven<strong>in</strong>g variablc of what the learneractually does to <strong>in</strong>put or with <strong>in</strong>put is neglcctcd. Givcn the importancc attached toComprehension by SLA research it seems paradoxical that the active re<strong>in</strong>terpretation andreconstruction of any <strong>in</strong>put by the learner is not accounted for.The search for correlationsbetween, for example, thc frequency of a grammatical form <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>put and the frequentoccurrence of that form <strong>in</strong> some later learner performance seems motivated by a rathernarrow view of human learn<strong>in</strong>g. The research leads us to a causal condition<strong>in</strong>g as opposedto a cognitivc and <strong>in</strong>tcractivc explanation of language development. We are left unsure howand why lcarncrs do what they do <strong>in</strong> order to <strong>in</strong>take selectively.On the face of it, lcarn<strong>in</strong>g strategy research seems to offer some help here. However,thcsc <strong>in</strong>vestigations primarily confirm that learners are unpredictable, <strong>in</strong>consistent, andsometimes seem<strong>in</strong>gly <strong>in</strong>efficient processors. Thus, the same learn<strong>in</strong>g outcome canbe achicvcd by different strategies while different learn<strong>in</strong>g outcomcs can be achieved bythe same strategy. Investigations <strong>in</strong>to learner strategies have not yet hclpcd us to understandhow or why it is that one th<strong>in</strong>g can be <strong>in</strong>terpreted or learned by any two learnerswith seem<strong>in</strong>gly different profiles of strategies. Until we understand thcsc th<strong>in</strong>gs, thecapacity of <strong>in</strong>struction to cncourage or shape desirable or efficient strategic behaviour oflearners rema<strong>in</strong>s unfounded. ’This problem emerg<strong>in</strong>g from the data we derive from learnersconcern<strong>in</strong>g their strategies leads to the second crucial <strong>in</strong>terven<strong>in</strong>g variable which seemsto be neglcctcd <strong>in</strong> SLA research. Learners certa<strong>in</strong>ly are strategic <strong>in</strong> how they go aboutlearn<strong>in</strong>g, but if we ask them what they th<strong>in</strong>k they do, or if they keep a diary of whatthey do, such retrospections, <strong>in</strong>evitably post hoc rationalisations, will exhibit a cohercnccthat bears only metaphorical resemblance to the actual moment of learn<strong>in</strong>g. Someth<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>tervenes between a learner’s <strong>in</strong>trospections to a researcher or to a diary reader, just assometh<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tervencs between <strong>in</strong>put to a learner and between what a learner has <strong>in</strong>takenand some later test performance. I suggest that one th<strong>in</strong>g which crucially <strong>in</strong>tervenes is thelearner’s def<strong>in</strong>ition of situation: the def<strong>in</strong>ition of bc<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>formant to someone <strong>in</strong>vestigat<strong>in</strong>gstrategies, the def<strong>in</strong>ition of be<strong>in</strong>g a language learner <strong>in</strong> a classroom, and the def<strong>in</strong>ition ofdo<strong>in</strong>g a test. If we hope to expla<strong>in</strong> fully the relationship between classroom <strong>in</strong>put and