Amy Lenord started a great Twitter discussion about how one encourages language learners to process language. This eventually led to Martina Bex refering us to her excellent “I am a grammar geek” post, in which she talks about how much she loved– and found effective– the “red ink” from her Spanish profs in Uni. Bex and I very briefly discussed this. (I will bet that when she has a spare moment– and she is a Mom again, congrats!– she’ll discuss this more. Ha!)
Now, anyone who knows Bex knows that the basic deal with her is that what she wants done, she gets done. Bex wants babies? Bex has four (at last count). Bex wants to acquire Spanish? Bex signs a months-long “no English” agreement with her room-mate! Bex wants to master C.I.? Bex does, in like two years of teaching.
So it is not surprising that she acquired a ton of Spanish in very short order in Uni.
Again: she wanted, liked & felt she benefited from corrective feedback in her Spanish classes.
This raises two questions: did the feedback she got actually help her, and, if so, why and how?
Well, let’s take Martina’s word for it, and say, sure, corrections and comments helped. Now, how?
Well, suppose young Bex– or anyone else– wrote this on their Spanish 201 composition:
* Ayer, yo fue al cine con mis amigos, y vimos una película.
This should be “yo fui,” and say her prof writes that on her paper. Now, what happens next?
- Bex notes there is an error.
- Bex re-reds the sentence: yo fui al cine.
Most of our students will not even do #1. Most will go straight to the mark, wondering what did I get? did I get an A?
Some will note, ok, there was an error.
A very few will re-read the corrected sentence, and maybe linger on it, in which case it is functioning as good comprehensible input (albeit not many repetitions).
So, why is the feedback working for Bex? In my view, it is because
a. Bex is majorly motivated which means,
b. Bex wants feedback, and when she gets it,
c. the feedback provides comprehensible input.
Suppose the prof had written “ser takes an -i in the first-person singular.” Would this have done Bex any good? The research says no. Maybe for Bex it did. Maybe she went, hmm, yo fui al cine…
I was also recently talking to Adriana Ramírez and Luce Arsenault about giving corrections in their Sp and Fr classes. Both maintained that their kids got better as a reuslt of having to do corrections. They havn’t obviously had time to do a controlled study, but we noted a few things:
- Both have very motivated, mostly Asian and wealthy white kids, who have been hearing from their literate parents from Day 1 of school, memorise (for many Asian kids, who have had to learn zillions of Chinese characters before coming to and sometimes while in Canada), and edit (for wealthy white kids, whose parents are uber-literate, professional, etc).
- My kids– who are generally Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu-speaking, and have less-literate and generally non-English speaking parents, almost none of whom have any formal experience learning additional languages– have not been primed to memorise and relentlessly improve their work. This is not to say that our parents do not value education– they do, very much– but it is to say that they have not “acquired” some of the academic habits that can sometimes for kids in language classes.
There is a simple lesson here: unless people want feedback, and get it, and the feedback is comprehensible input, it is not going to do any good.
So the teacher should focus not on marking and correcting, but on relaxing and reading and being happy in their spare time, so when they show up in class, they have the energy and mood to provide good C.I.– in story asking or reading or MovieTalk form– for kids. And kids should not be forced to correct work (although if they want to, why not?). Rather, their work should be hearing C.I. in class, and– if they must have homework– reading or viewing comprehensible and interesting target-language stuff.