While I thank Ron Sheen for his apology, I would like to make it clear that my questions do not constitute an argument for an approach. They were presented to find out what others think about how learning works.
a) Since these are general questions, they do not address a specific activity, but should be true for all (or a set of all) learning environments. "Level, subject, purpose, etc. " are irrelevant if we are looking at basic principles of how learning occurs.
b) I do not know that there are real differences between grammatical concepts and regular concepts regarding how they are learned, though I would not be surprised by evidence suggesting that they are learned differently, and I would be glad to become more acquainted with
research addressing this.
c) The point of disregarding explanations was not to treat them as irrelevant, but rather to focus on the point about needing examples and non-examples to learn concepts (either regular, grammatical, or other) whether we have a rule or explanation given before the examples, after the examples, after some then before others, or never.
d) Regarding repetition, I am not claiming in my question that one kind of repetition is better, though I do believe that some types are more efficient and effective than others, but rather making the claim that, in general, without repetition we generally forget more quickly than without repetition. Of course, there are likely some activities which look like repetition, yet which do not increase
retention. I am not making a claim that repetition alone will, in all cases, reduce or eliminate forgetting, but that without repetition forgetting will generally occur more quickly than with repetition.
To restate my basic claims in assertion form:
1) Examples are needed for concept learning, including grammatical concept learning, to take place. Non-examples are generally needed as well. Some people require many more examples to learn a concept than others. In practice, it is not uncommon for teachers to provide too few examples, an insufficient example range, and few or no non-examples for most students to learn the grammar they want their students to learn. (This last part does imply an approach to teaching.)
2) Repetition is an important part of learning. Without repetition, forgetting occurs, usually rapidly. With repetition,
forgetting generally slows. Efficient schedules of repetition coupled with effective repetition practice can dramatically improve retention. Some kinds of repetition and some schedules of repetition are more effective and efficient than others. The number and schedule of repetitions needed for retention varies in a population, with some individuals generally needing many more repetitions than others. In practice, it is not uncommon for teachers to provide an insufficient number of repetitions, of an ineffective kind, on an inadequate schedule. (This last part does imply an approach to teaching.)
I will add another claim:
3) Effective teacher intervention can greatly improve learning. Providing definitions, explanations, example sets, methods, techniques, practice sessions, feedback, and incentives are just some of the things teachers can do to be effective. (This
last claim does imply an approach to teaching.)
Teaching grammar is not easy. None of the claims about teacher practice should be taken as a criticism of teachers, but as one of the reasons why, as a teacher and teacher trainer, I am on this list. I want teachers to know how to teach grammar. I would also like to know how to do so myself.
Looking at the general principles of the matter, are my claims in line with what others on the list understand about learning and teaching? What would anyone modify, change, dispute? I think these might be fruitful areas of inquiry in our efforts to improve grammar instruction and learning.
Scott Woods
First, my apologies for the confusion over the two members with the same name Scott and particularly to Scott Wood for suggesting that he had not responded to my response to the other Scott.
However, as they were both arguing for a similar approach to getting learners to understand some grammatical problem (ie to reach some valid generalisation based on exemplars), the points I made apply to both.
As to Gretchen Lee's objection (see below) to my appeal for more rigour in the discussion of different approaches to teaching grammar, it touches on a fundamental issue concerning the purposes of this List. Is it to be little more than an extension of coffee-break chat where, in Gretchen's terms, people can 'kick around their teaching experiences' or is it to be a List where we make some attempt to go beyond the anecdotal.
Actually, I suppose, there's no reason why it should not have both purposes. However, in that case, it might be necessary to flag 'kick around discussions' in order that members such as myself know that they they should not take them as subjects for rigorous discussion.
As to Scott Woods' accusing me of making a personal attack on Scott, I appeal to him to either cite the words which he considers to be 'a personal attack' or to withdraw his accusation.
As to his following proposal, I am assuming that it
is not a 'kick around subject' and this, because it reveals a knowledge of the academic field and asks questions the answers to which if valid would have crucial consequences for teaching practice. However, I consider the questions so lacking in specific detail that any response would necessarily need to have various added qualifications.
Take as an example the following from SW:
'Regarding example sets and repetition, regardless of the explanations given by the teacher, does anyone disagree with the claim that people do not need examples and non-examples to learn concepts?
I find it simply impossible to offer a useful response without knowing
a) The classroom situation in which this activity is supposed to take place -
level, subject, purpose etc.
b) What is meant by concepts. Whether SW is talking here about grammatical concepts or concepts in general?
c) How we can ignore explanations if we do not know what form they take and in what contexts they are presented.
d) What is being repeated? How the repetition is achieved. Is SW talking here about what is sometimes called 'mindless repetition' or does he mean 'meaningful repetition'?
Now, if other members have no such difficulty in addressing SW's questions, I hope they say so and answer his questions. I'd really appreciate reading their answers.
Ron Sheen
To join or leave this
LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/