The expression 『crap-detecting』 comes from a classic book by Postman and Weingartner called Teaching as a Subversive Activity. One of the central tenets of these authors is that our job as teachers is, among other things, to develop our students』 ability to 『crap-detect』: to take nothing on trust just because an 『authority』 says it is so, but to look at 『authority』 says it is so, but to look at 『authoritative』 statements critically and sceptically, using all the rational thinking skills and sources of knowledge at our disposal to check it out for 『crap』. I suppose we』d call this today 『developing critical thinking skill』. But I like the expression 『crap-detecting』 better: it may be a crude metaphor, but it conveys what it means a lot more clearly.
Why is 『crap-detecting』 important?
Because it’s the best way to make sense of the input we get from the professional literature or conference sessions.
Julian Edge makes the point (ETp Issue Twenty) that the primary source of meaningful personal theories is data from one’s own experience. I absolutely agree. I』d like here to follow his line of thinking, and go on to discuss the secondary source: Input from other people’s experience, reflection, theorising and research.
We have to look at what the 『authorities』 say with a critical eye
This secondary source is really important. You can’t re-invent the wheel entirely from your own experience and reflection, and a lot of wise people have come up with an enormous number of good ideas in the literature, which it would be a pity to miss. On the other hand, there is also a lot of material in that same literature which is not really useful: it’s not clear how it works in practice, or I don’t understand it, or it isn’t relevant to my context, or it’s just plain silly.
So we have to check it our. We have to look at what the 『authorities』 say with a critical eye, discarding everything we think, in the light of our own experience and professional judgement, is wrong, impractical or incomprehensible (『crap-detecting』), and leaving ourselves with the ideas that are meaningful and useful to us, that will enrich our own experience as a source of real personal knowledge.
How does it work?
Well, first we actually have to access the material, which means keeping up as much as we can with the theory and research, reading articles that interest us from the main professional journals or the occasional book, attending conferences when possible. We have, of course, a busy teaching schedule as well: so it’s a question of being selective and finding time for whatever we can.
The we need to start checking it out. To do this, there are various criteria I』d suggest: two preliminary ones, and then another three substantial ones.
The two preliminary ones are:
1 Meaning
Am I sure I know what it means?
2 Plausibility
Using my own common sense, does it look likely?
The three substantial ones are:
3 Rational argument
Do the speakers or writers argue their case both rationally and
convincingly?
4 Evidence
Is there any research evidence to back up the claims? Does this
evidence look convincing?
5 Experience
What’s my own experience of this, or what is the experience of
teachers I』ve seen or talked to?
And finally, back to common sense: putting all this together, can I draw a sensible conclusion?
Here are some examples to show what I mean.
『Learner-centred teaching is best』
1 Meaning
Big problem. 『Learner-centredness』 means different things to different people. It could mean 『get your learners to be active in the classroom』; 『respect your learners』 wishes and teach them as they desire to be taught』; 『encourage learner autonomy, self-assessment』, and so on. Most writers don’t bother to define it at all.
But I want to get on with examining this one, so I’m going to suggest a couple of working definitions. The 『strong』 definition would imply things like getting learners to find out information for themselves rather than being told, to create their own materials, to decide on their own syllabuses, to self-assess. The 『weak』 definition would imply things like asking for and respecting (but not necessarily obeying) learners』 requests, a lessening of teacher-talk and an increase in learner activation.
『Learner-centredness』 means different things to different people — most writers don』t bother to define it at all
Here, the theory’s claim to be accepted is simply that many, perhaps most, people these days believe that it is simply 『right』 to teach in a learner-centred way. In other words, we are into an ethical belief. And one essential characteristic of an ethical belief, as any philosopher will tell you, is that it is axiomatic. You can’t argue about it.
2 Plausibility
Doesn’t apply. If you feel that learner-centredness (however you define it) is good, then obviously you』ll also think it plausible. It’s not a question of common sense, but of belief.
3 Rational argument
None of the literature that I』ve read provides any rational argument for it. Writers just mention it in passing as something that of course the reader believes in just as the writer does; it comes close to meaning the same as 『good』. Here are some quotes from published articles:
『Outside the normal classroom framework, yet playing a role within the curriculum, self-access is in an excellent position to promote the learner-centred philosophy.』 1
『... feedback is central to any attempt at learner-centred teaching ...』 2
『It is essential to a learner-centred approach that progress is monitored...』 3
Another way writers imply the desirability of learner-centredness is by saying that it is 『modern』, 『fashionable』-or, in contrast, that teacher-centred approaches are 『outdated』. They slip in words like 『nowadays』, 『today』, etc.
『The value of adopting a learner-centred approach to ELT classroom management is today widely accepted.』 4
『We now realise that a healthy classroom is one in which learners are active and in which teacher talk is reduced to a minimun』 5
『The word most often used nowadays to describe a teacher is 「facilitator」—an enabler, seen in heightened contrast to the upfront pedagogues of earlier times.』 6
(my emphasis)
These statements are sending the message 『Of course you (the reader) ought to believe in this principle』. See particularly the use of phrases such as 『widely accepted』 and 『we now realise that』 (who are 『we』?). I would prefer the writers either to say frankly 『I believe in ...』, taking responsibility for their own beliefs and allowing the reader space to disagree, and/or to provide rational arguments to convince the reader of the effectiveness of this approach.
In short, the two most common arguments used to support learner-centredness are a) it’s 『obviously』 right (which isn’t an argument at all), 『in』 (which is a frequent, but equally irrational claim: who says 『now』 is 『good』?),
4 Evidence
I couldn’t find any research on learner-centredness as such.
5 Personal experience
In my own teaching (EFL in a state school system), I suppose I’m not particularly 『learner-centred』, except perhaps in a weak sense. I talk quite a lot — but 『to』, hopefully, not 『at』 the students. Having said that, I spend most of the time activating students, but if they don’t know something, I’m usually quite willing to tell them rather than getting them to find out for themselves. And I’m the one who decides on the syllabus and materials.
All this would be true also of the vast majority of the effective teachers I』ve observed over the years.
To sum up: if we look at the principle of learner-centredness from a 『carp-detecting』 point of view we find that:
● it’s a 『woolly』 concept, meaning different things to different people;
● it is usually related to as an axiomatic belief rather than a testable hypothesis: there is little or no rational argument or research to support it;
● my own classroom experience and observation gives support only to a very weak form of learner-centredness, I would say probably indistinguishable from the teaching of any sensitive and efficient teaching of any sensitive and efficient teacher, whether or not he or she would call himself or herself 『learner-centred』.
『The Presentation-Practice Production model is ineffective』
1 Meaning
Not much problem here. 『PPP』 has been used for years as the basis of teacher-training courses: you present a new item (grammatical, lexical, whatever), then practise it in controlled contexts, and then invite students to produce their own written or spoken discourse using it.
2 Plausibility
It seems a sensible and plausible way to teach language. It’s been used by generations of teachers.
3 Rational argument
Proponents state that language is a skill, and that you learn skills first consciously understanding an explanation, then practising until the things you understood consciously become automatic and unconscious. Then you perform on your own. Hence PPP.
One Frequently-used argument against it is that you can’t take language on board systematically bit by bit, practising and making perfect one thing before you proceed to practise and make perfect the next. Language learning is an 『organic』 process, and the existence of a natural order of acquisition of structures means that when you teach a particular item the learner may not be ready for it, and will not learn it.
But this argument is not logical. It confuses PPP with a rigid grammatical/lexical syllabus. PPP is essentially a set of teaching procedures, not a syllabus. It does not imply that you necessarily leave one item behind when you present another. PPP is perfectly compatible with a 『spiral』 syllabus. So although the basic claims (that language-learning is an 『organic』, not systematic process, and that learners don’t learn precisely what they are taught in the order in which they are taught) are, I think, quite true, they do not constitute an argument against PPP as a methodology. The arguers are using the unfair strategy of deliberately assigning an extra, obviously falsifiable, feature to the opponent’s case and then easily discrediting it.
Other argue that learning the language through more communicative and authentic situations, or through doing meaningful tasks, will result in better learning, and is more motivating and 『real』 for the learner. This sounds more convincing; but I』d want to see some evidence ...
4 Evidence
It is claimed that PPP has produced unsatisfactory results and that levels of attainment in PPP-based courses are poor.
The problem with such statements is that there is no definition of what is meant by 『poor』, and usually no actual supporting evidence; it’s just an impression — someone else could claim exactly the opposite with equal (lack of) justification.
There is, certainly, research indicating that teaching grammar through presenting rules and then practising their implementation does not improve proficiency (for example, Nikolov and Krashen) — but there is also some equally convincing research showing the opposite (for example, Dekeyser). So where does that leave us? The best an honest evaluator can say at this point is, surely, that the jury is still out: you can’t say that the effectiveness of PPP has been ether vindicated or disproved.
5 Experience
I have to say that the base-line for my own teaching is PPP: presenting grammar/words/chunks, then practising them in a more and more communicative way, until the activities look pretty much like communicative tasks. Having said that, I』ve also become more aware, through reading the literature, of the importance of including other types of teaching procedures: for example, plenty of unanalysed 『comprehensible input』; lots of communicative tasks, where I may react to language problems as they come up, without any pre-planned connection to a grammatical or lexical syllabus.
So what 『crap-detecting』 has done for me here is make me aware of possible shortcomings in the way I teach, and opened my eyes to other possibilities — but it has allowed me also to reaffirm things I feel I was doing right, and look for a sensible, principled working compromise.
Most of the studies based on short-term language learning show a clear bias in favour of the older students
『Younger is better in language learning』
Here is an example of a popularly accepted assumption based chiefly on the experience of migrant parents seeing their young children apparently picking up the new language much better than they do themselves, and drawing the conclusion that young children by their very nature learn languages better.
1 Meaning
There is some controversy about when the 『critical period』 is for optimal language learning, but generally the claim is that younger children learn languages better, so you should start teaching languages as young as possible.
2 Plausibility
Common sense doesn’t help very much on this one; it depends where you’re coming from. The parents described above would say it’s plausible; so would a lot of the 『lay』 public.
3 Rational argument
Here’s where the theory starts breaking down. The logic simply doesn’t hold.
Young children in immersion situations learn language well.
Therefore young children are good language learners.
The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. There may be all sorts of other reasons why children in immersion environments learn well: the sheer amount of exposure and engagement with the foreign language (often a large proportion of the child’s waking time); motivation (optimal: it’s essential for social survival); the ratio of teachers to learners (usually one to one). None of these conditions obtain in a routine language-teaching situation. In order to argue convincingly, we』d need to look at situations where younger and older students have similar conditions for learning (time, motivation, teacher-student ratio), and see who does better.
Which brings us to the next criterion.
4 Evidence
The research does show that people who migrate to a new country at an early age eventually achieve a more native-like fluency than those who migrate later. It appears that learning from an early age onwards — provided, of course, that the three conditions I mentioned above are fulfilled, over a number of years — is more effective in the long term; but this does not necessarily mean that it is more efficient in the short term, or that it is more efficient in the short term, or that it will still be true in the context of a formal course of study in an EFL situation where the target language is not spoken outside the classroom.
In fact most of the studies based on short-term language learning, whether in immersion or formal courses of study, show a clear bias in favour of the older students. Given similar conditions over a limited length of time, or in a formal course of study, older students tend to achieve more in less time, even up to adulthood. (There’s as excellent summary of these and other research studies in Marinova-Todd.)
5 personal experience
Like many other teachers I』ve spoken to, I』ve found that I can get a class of teenagers to learn a lot more in a lesson than I can a class of small children.
I once taught a class from the age of eight at the same time as I began with another class at the age of ten. When each class reached the age of 13 and moved up to secondary school, there was no perceptible difference in the level of their mastery of English.
My conclusion would be that it’s not a case of 『younger is better』; younger children simply learn differently from older ones, and which age is 『better』 depends on the teaching/learning situation. The 『crap-detecting』 in this case leads to a useful personal working hypothesis, which is that in language learning based on a formal course of study, older learners are likely to learn better. So if I’m in charge of allotting foreign-language teaching hours, I』ll invest most of them in the older classes where I』ll get a better return for my investment.
★★★
What I have tried to argue here is that we should check out the claims made by 『authorities』 in EFL literature and at conferences; that this checking out is part of being a conscientious professional, in the same way as the 『searching and re-searching』 advocated by Julian Edge.
And it’s not a question of 『should』; it’s also a question of 『have the right to』. Professional autonomy implies the right of the teacher to accept or reject input, from whatever source, as relevant or irrelevant to his or her own professional practice and thinking. It is the teachers who, in the long run, are the ones who judge what is acceptable and valuable in language teaching.
Incidentally, the same 『crap-detecting』 process should, of course, also be applied to the claims of the present article!
『Learner-centred』 quotes
(I would like to make it clear that I found the articles from which these quotations are taken interesting and well worth reading. The quotations are taken out of context to make a particular point, and I am not implying a criticism of the overall content.)
1 Jones, J 『Self-access and culture: Retreating from autonomy』 ELT Journal 49/3 1995
2 Rinvolucri, M 『Key concepts in ELT: Feedback』 ELT Journal 48/3 1994
3 Clarke, D S 『Materials adaptation: why leave it all to the teacher?』 ELT Journal 43/2 1985
4 Waters, A 『Managing monkeys in the ELT classroom』 ELT Journal 52/1 1998
5 Littlejohn, A 『Learner choice in language study』 ELT Journal 39/4 1985
6 Harmer, J 『Taming the Big 「I」: teacher performance and learner satisfaction』 ELT Journal 49/4 1995
Other references
Dekeyser, R M 『Exploring automatization processes』 TESOL Quarterly 30(2) 1996
Marinova-Todd, S H, Bradford Marshall, D and Snow, C 『Three misconceptions about age and L2 learning』 TESOL Quarterly 34(1) 1996
Nikolov, M and Krashen, S 『Need we sacrifice accuracy for fluency?』 System 25/2 1997
Postman, N and Weingartner, C teaching as a Subversive Activity Delacorte Press 1969
Penny Ur is an experienced teacher at primary and secondary level, and a teacher trainer at Oranim School of Education and Haifa University, Israel. She has published a number of articles and books on aspects of practical classroom teaching, including A course in Language Teaching (CUP).
請在微信關注我們
微信搜索：英語教學與考試 或 tefl-china 或點擊右上角在彈出菜單中選擇「查看公眾帳號」——點擊「關注」或掃描以下二維碼：