For #ThrowbackThursday, I record my thoughts on older academic articles I come across that still feel relevant and make me reflect on my research or teaching practice.
Bloom, K.C., & Shuell, T.J. (1981). Effects of massed and distributed practice on the learning and retention of second-language vocabulary. The Journal of Educational Research, 74(4), 245-248. This paper was mentioned in a Chronicle article on spaced repetition, and though it wasn't cited, I was able to find it through a quick google scholar search. Basically, students learned French vocabulary words, studying for 30 minutes either in one chunk (massed) or in three 10-minute chunks (spaced) over three days. Immediate posttest results were pretty similar, but at a delayed posttest (a few days later) the spaced-practice group still remembered almost as many words as in the first test, while the massed-practice group didn't do as well. The conclusion being that repeatedly retrieving information over a longer period of time (also key in the so-called "testing effect," aka retrieval practice) results in better long-term retention than cramming. It's appropriate that the article mentioned in the Chronicle is from language learning, because language is the original and best example of spaced repetition. That's how words become high-frequency in the first place. It certainly isn't that the verb 'want' (for example) is used a ton when we're aged 2-5 and then never again (though the word 'why' might not be used more in ones life than when one is approximately 3 years old). No, words are recycled naturally throughout our lives. That's how L2 learning should be as well. To an extent, even textbooks can't keep from recycling high-frequency vocabulary (mostly the powerhouse verbs), but they could be doing a more comprehensive job of it. For vocabulary (especially nouns and adjectives), rather than presenting seasons/colors/clothing/whatever in one chapter and then basically never mentioning those words again, there should be deliberate spaced recycling of the previous chapters' words in relevant contexts in future chapters. We should also keep spaced repetition in mind for grammar. We don't explain grammar rules to small children and then expect them to produce accurately. Instead, we give them plenty of input and occasional recasts, and expect them to pick it up eventually. Then we address persistent errors once they're older, if needed. Obviously L2 learning is somewhat different than L1, and we might see fossilization if we don't address some rules explicitly. But we should expect that lots of spaced repetition is needed before students "get" (aka acquire) the rules. Rather than thinking "Gah, we talked about gender agreement in Chapter 1, and here we are in Chapter 4 and they're still making easy mistakes," plan to make frequent reminders, until students can quickly identify and spontaneously produce the correct form.
0 Comments
A typical grammatical syllabus for an L2 like Spanish focuses entirely on the present tense for at least a semester before suddenly and often quite rapidly adding past(s), then future, then subjunctive, etc.
This order is seemingly based on increasing complexity of thought. For example, ACTFL rates narrative, including management of the two past tenses, as "Advanced," while argumentation and conjecture are considered to be of even greater difficulty. The order may further reflect the order of production that approximately follows L1 acquisition. But that L1 order likely depends significantly on the maturational constraints of small children, e.g. they have a hard time conceiving of time frames, grasping cause and consequence in multi-clause statements or conceptualizing hypothetical situations. Meanwhile, the late L2 learner has undergone the necessary cognitive maturation to understand many of those complex ideas, and should therefore be allowed to construct those thoughts in the L2 without being held back. From teaching oral proficiency labs, it appeared to me that for many late L2 Spanish learners, narrative is more difficult than argumentation. Fluent use of the preterit and imperfect, weaving both into a complex narrative, can be exhausting. On the other hand, there are a number of simple ways to construct an argument that don't require the use of an unfamiliar grammatical construction. Of course, that's from a purely communicative perspective. It's likely that argumentation marks the next level of complexity because it is the function in which the subjunctive could naturally appear, another infamously tricky concept for English L1 learners of Spanish. But the use of that particular mood isn't mentioned by ACTFL, though it may be a secret, unspoken hurdle. It's also possible to conjecture without using much of the past subjunctive (that final hurdle to proficiency) and instead focusing on the conditional, a laughably easy tense in Spanish in particular. Therefore, the idea of discussing, for example, what one "would" do, an impossible task for a young child and a task reserved for the highest proficiency levels according to professional organizations, is easy to grasp for adults and can be easy to formulate, at least in particular L2s. So why the hurdles and hesitance? Let's take advantage of the cognitive complexity of our L2 learners and provide them with the input and opportunity to discuss topics in multiple time frames and moods right from the beginning. This is possible to accomplish if the breadth of vocabulary is subservient to the depth of engagement with vocabulary. |
AuthorThis is a place where I record thoughts on second language research and pedagogical theory Archives
June 2019
Categories |