Ron Sheen writes: 
   
  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.     
  (I'M USING CAPITALS TO DIFFERENTIATE WHAT SCOTT AND I SAY).
   
  HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT SCOTT MAKES REPETITIONS A CORNER STONE OF HIS QUESTIONS IMMEDIATELY IMPLIES A POSITION HE HAS ADOPTED ON THE NATURE OF LEARNING
   
  Assumptions about learning do not necessarily suggest an approach to teaching.  Two people could start with the same assumptions about learning and develop different teaching approaches based on them. 
   
  I am writing my responses to his statements about my statements in italics.
   
  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.  
   
  UPON WHAT BASIS IS THIS ASSUMPTION MADE?  THE FACT THAT THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE PROVEN UNABLE TO LEARN LANGUAGES KNOCKS THIS ASSUMPTION ON THE HEAD.
   
  Learning is biological brain change. Learning happens in the brain; it does not happen in a subject, in a classroom, in a level, or on the street.  There are universal, biological principles governing how this biological brain change happens.  Teaching happens in a classroom, in a subject, etc. Teaching is designed to have an effect on learning, but teaching and learning are different things.  Answering questions about learning by making statements about teaching is likely to be less than useful, since they are different in nature (one being biological change, the other being social and verbal patterns of behavior).  
   
  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.
   
  WELL AN OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE IS THAT CREATED BY L2s HAVING A GRAMMATICAL CONCEPT NOT PRESENT IN THEIR L1.   PERFECTIVITY IN ENGLISH WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE.  HOWEVER, LIKE SCOTT, I KNOW OF NO RELEVANT RESEARCH.
   
    Regarding the differences between how we learn grammatical concepts (for instance, what the perfective aspect means, or the differences between "on the table," "near the table," and "beneath the table," what "getting steeper" means, or how to chunk language to make syntactic sense) and how we learn regular concepts (e.g., "red," "dog," "democracy," ), while there seem to be differences between the kinds of concepts,  it is not clear that they are learned differently.  Learning productive language probably happens very differently from learning conceps about language, which would partly expain why there might not be much immediate change in production of grammatical patterns after learning to identify the patterns of grammatical concepts.  Understanding the differences between how we learn concepts (grammatical or otherwise) and how we learn verbal behavior would seem to be crucial if we want students both to know about grammar and to know how to produce the grammatical
 structures we want them to.
   

  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.  
   
  THIS EMPHASISES A PROBLEM WITH SCOTT'S WHOLE LINE OF QUESTIONS.  IT CRIES OUT FOR EXAMPLES AND PRECISION AS TO WHAT IS MEANT BY REPETITION.  I'VE ALREADY ASKED SCOTT TO PROVIDE SUCH PRECISION BUT HE APPEARS TO CONSIDER IT IRRELEVANT.
   
  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. 
   
  I FIND THIS TO BE LARGELY MEANINGLESS UNLESS SCOTT EXPLAINS WHAT HE MEANS BY REPETITION.  IT WOULD HELP WERE SCOTT TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF SOME CONCEPT OR OTHER AND  DESCRIBE HOW HE THINKS REPETITION MAY BE PRESENTED.  THE FACT THAT SO FAR HE HAS OFFERED NOTHING IN THE WAY OF CONCRETE EXAMPLES TO HELP MEMBERS UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS GETTING AT POSSIBLY EXPLAINS WHY NOBODY HAS RESPONDED SUBSTANTIVELY TO HIS QUESTIONS.
   
  Regarding precise examples of repetition, does anyone on this list advocate minimal repetition of anything you very much want your students to retain and apply?  Does anyone really think that it is not important for most students, most of the time, for most concepts and applications, to repeat learning experiences?  Does anyone really think that most students, most of the time, for most concepts and applications they don't already know, do not need appropriately designed and spaced repetitions?  Can anyone cite research suggesting that most people, most of the time, for most grammatical concepts (or anything else, for that matter), do not benefit in terms of retention (or in any other way) from repeated exposure, explanation, application, or extension? Seeing no one who thinks that appropriately designed and spaced repetitions are not important, we can look at more and less effective repetition practices and the evidence supporting them.
   
  AN EXAMPLE I GAVE RECENTLY ILLUSTRATES HOW SIMPLISTIC IT IS TO GIVE THE IMPORTANCE SCOTT GIVES TO UNSPECIFIED REPETITION..
   
  IN DESCRIBING HERB'S EPIGRAM I USED THE WORD 'LACONIC'.  NOW, THIS IS A WORD THAT I HAVE HEARD USED MANY TIMES OVER THE MANY YEARS OF MY ADULT LIFE.   YET, I DISCOVERED ONLY LAST YEAR THAT I HAD IN FACT ACQUIRED THE WRONG MEANING.  I HAD ALWAYS ASSUMED IT MEANT  'CASUAL, RELAXED'  AS PERSONIFIED BY THE COWBOY STYLES OF THE LIKES OF HENRY FONDA AND JOHN WAYNE.
   
  HOWEVER, I DISCOVERED LAST YEAR THAT THE WORD ACTUALLY MEANS 'TERSE', 'ABRUPT' BASED ON THE STYLE OF SPEAKING OF THE LAKON SPARTAN TRIBE.
   
  NOW, HAVING LEARNED THIS CORRECT MEANING, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, I HAVE ASKED A GOOD NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHAT THEY THOUGHT 'LACONIC' MEANT AND INVARIABLY THEY HAD THE SAME FALSE IMPRESSION I HAD.  I, THEREFORE, WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED THAT SOME MEMBERS HAD THE SAME IMPRESSION.
   
  Regarding Ron's misunderstanding of the meaning of laconic, he first learned that "laconic" means "casual, relaxed," probably based on an inference made from an inadequate example set.  He then, based on his faulty understanding of the word, reinforced this misunderstanding by applying it to each repetition of the word.   Later, Ron learned another, more authoritatively warranted meaning of the word, probably from a definition.  Both were instances of learning.  Ron learned the wrong meaning, had that learning reinforced by bad repetition practice, then he learned the right meaning and repeated his understanding of the new definition by bringing it up with others.
   
  ALL THIS IN MY VIEW ILLUSTRATES THAT THE QUALITY AND CONTEXT OF THE REPETITION IS A CRUCIAL FACTOR.  SCOTT APPEARS TO DISAGREE WITH THIS.
   
  In no way do I disagree with the claim that the quality and the context of repetitions (or examples, or anything else regarding input or output) are crucial factors in learning (and in teaching, for that matter).  Some repetitions have little impact on learning, while others have a powerful impact.  I don't think anyone would disagree with this claim. Again, I am looking here at how we learn, not at how we should teach.
   
  Ron and I seem to be talking past each other, neither one able to comprehend why the other does not get it.  This could be the result of our different perspectives on the issue, more than any actual disagreement on the subject matter at hand.  Ron is talking about how we teach; I am talking about how we learn in a biological sense.  From his posts, I suspect that we both think that teachers should give clear definitions and explanations coupled with well-designed practice which allows, even forces, students to think carefully about the subject matter.  I suspect we both think that many students will not understand many topics without clear definitions and explanations coupled with a large number of carefully designed and spaced activities which require thoughtful application and extension of knowledge.  I also suspect that we both value research as a source for informing and validating practice. That being said, I cannot right now (nor am I interested in doing so) cite
 evidence from his posts to support my suspicions.  If I am incorrect, inaccurate, or in any way off the mark, I hope Ron will accept this public (on-list) apology for any defamatory or objectionable suspicions I have asserted.  If he objects in any way to how I have characterized his beliefs, approach, or practice, he may contact me on-list or off-list to clarify the matter or to elicit further apologies.
   
  In this over-long series of posts, I have been trying to find out how list members view learning, with a view to using this as a starting point  for looking at how we can improve teaching.  That is the main reason I have not given teaching examples, trying to focus instead on the basic principles of learning, regardless of the teaching environment.
   
   
  Scott Woods
  [log in to unmask]

   
  p.s. Anyone can feel free to contact me off-list if I have impugned, maligned, accused, or misrepresented them or their positions, either implicitly or explicitly--or for any other reason, including, but not limited to, the appropriateness and tediousness of my posts.
   
   
   

       
---------------------------------
Don't let your dream ride pass you by.    Make it a reality with 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/