Treatment of Errors and the Acqusition Learning Distinction - Education - http://maxpages.com/thena/Treatment_of

by Hasanbey Ellidokuzoglu, 1997

Some twenty years ago, Stephen Krashen drew a distinction between two processes involved in second language acquisition (SLA): Acquisition and learning.

[A]dults have two distinct ways of developing competence in second languages. The first way is via language acquisition, that is, by using language for real communication....The second way ...is by language learning [which] is "knowing about" language, or "formal knowledge" of a language. While acquisition is subconscious, learning is conscious.(Krashen & Terrell, 1983, p.26)

Earl Stevick once described the distinction as "potentially the most fruitful concept for language teachers that has come out of the linguistic sciences during my professional life" (Krashen, 1981). Although the majority of applied linguists and L2 methodologists disagree with a strict version of the distinction with no interface between the two processes, the idea itself proved quite fruitful in accounting for many of the then inexplicable aspects of foreign language learning/teaching, one of which is the efficacy of error correction.

Before handling the implications of the distinction for error treatment in L2 classroom, a deeper analysis of the acquisition-learning hypothesis seems necessary. By formulating this hypothesis, Krashen pointed out the existence of two fundamentally separate processes in the mind of L2 learners (or acquirers). Acquisition is triggered when one is totally concentrated on the meaning of incoming messages whereas learning requires a focus on form. The outcome of acquisition is (subconscious) Acquired Competence [AC], while the product of learning experience is (conscious) [LC] Learned Competence, between which there exist no interface. It is probably at this point that Krashen receives major criticism. Instead of viewing AC and LC as the end points along a continuum, Krashen considers them as two distinct knowledge systems. His oft-criticised statement that "learning does not become acquisition" has been rejected by many theorists and teachers.

Acquisition and learning are not incompatible; neither should they be seen as two separate, opposing forces. They are, rather like the two ends of a continuum that adult second language learners must have access to if they are to become effective and accurate communicators.(Yorio, 1994, p.135)

We should recognize that "acquisition" and "learning" are aspects of highly complex processes that lead to knowledge which is differentiated continuously rather than dichotomously. (Ellis, 1994, p.156)

The main reason why L2 professionals have difficulty in believing Krashen's Non-interface Position (NON-IP) is due to the common experience that previously learned grammar rules turn out to be automatically used afterwards, which shows that learning becomes acquisition (Interface Position-P)

[T]here is one idea [which] is intuitively unconvincing. This is that "monitored" and "unmonitored" activities constitute two separate categories, drawing on two separate knowledge systems [AC and LC], rather than being at two ends of a continuum.

There seems to be no reason or evidence for seeing them as so distinct. [E]xperience makes [one] believe... that there is more interflow between the systems than this--for example, that items which have been learned consciously have eventually become available for spontaneous use [i.e. for AC] (Littlewood, 1994, p.202)

Littlewood's quotation above displays one of the most dramatic and common misunderstanding about Krashen's theory. Krashen has never claimed that once a rule is learned it can never be acquired afterwards (Of course,it can be). Rather he suggests that subsequent acquisition of a previously learned rule is not due to conscious learning practice but because of exposure to comprehensible input bearing that rule. In other words, the learning-and-then-acquisition experience shows a temporal sequence rather than a causal relationship, the real cause being input coming in-between.

Since, acquisition is a subconscious process, L2 learners tend to mis-attribute their progress to previous learning experience, which they are consciously aware of. Having acquired a few structures and a number of lexical items "after" (not through)conscious practice , they get the false impression that every particular L2 grammar rule is acquired in the same manner.

However, they seem to forget the fact that one's life-time is not long enough to internalize all of the phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic rules currently available in his L2 competence, through conscious learning practice. An advanced (or even an intermediate) L2 learner's AC is far too complex to be attributed to conscious learning.

The second pitfall in Littlewood's quotation is the assertion that there is no evidence proving the distinction. The same myth is valid for the quotation below:

Thirty years of concentrated SLA research has produced very little that is both conclusive and directly and positively relevant to classroom language learning. (Krahnke, 1994, p.242)

One may be excused for being incapable of driving implications out of research results, but he cannot blame the researchers to hide his incapability. Dozens of morpheme studies in 1970s (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Bailey, Madden & Krashen, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Fabris, 1978; Christison, 1979, to cite a few) and a number of others in late 80s (Ellis, 1989; Pienemann, 1989) have unanimously shown the fact that irrespective of conscious teaching/learning syllabus/order in formal classroom setting, L2 learners/acquirers acquire the grammar rules of their target language in a predictable, unalterable order.

[I]nstruction does not appear to influence the order of development. No matter what order grammatical structures are presented and practiced in the classroom, learners will follow their own "built-in" syllabus. (Ellis, 1984, p.150)

The review of research on the effect of instruction on SL [L2] development suggests...[that] formal SL instruction does not seem able to alter acquisition sequences. (Larsen- Freeman & Long, 1991, p.321)

One does not have to be a genius to drive implications out of these unanimously accepted research results. But unfortunately, Krashen seems to be the only theorist who is brave enough to declare the independence of acquisition from learning and who receive severe criticisms due to this outrageous claim. Anyway, the basic implication of these research results is that IP, claming the transference of L2 rules from LC to AC, is not valid and that learning does not become acquisition through conscious learning/teaching practice.

If learning should become acquisition, any rule can be acquired at any time via the alternative route [i.e. learning]. Thus the evidence for the natural order, and evidence the natural order is independent of the teaching order is evidence against the interface position. (Krashen, 1985, p.42)

Even presenting the grammar rules in a "reversed" natural order and giving emphasis to the late acquired rules cannot change the sequence of acquisition. In two studies having basically a similar design, Ellis (1989) and Pienemann (1989) tested whether they would be able to change the order of acquisition of three German rules, by reversing their natural order during the treatment in a classroom setting using a variety of teaching techniques (inductive and deductive, meaningful and form-based). At the end they compared their subjects' acquisition order with that of naturalistic learner. The comparison revealed no difference... despite the fact that the order in which the rules were introduced and the degree of emphasis given to the rules in the instruction differed from the naturalistic order. The results of this study support the claim that the classroom and naturalistic L2 acquisition...follow similar routes. (Ellis, 1989, p.305)
[T]here are two general findings which are important in the present context: (1) formal learners develop their language stepwise, despite the scheduling of the teaching, and (2)--more importantly-- in the same order as has been found for the natural acquisition of German (Pienemann, 1989, pp.71-2)

In fact, these results are quite frustrating for those teachers who are ambitious to see their students internalize and use the rules that they teach them in class. This is probably the main reason why Krashen's theory faces the resistance from the teachers:

[T]he essence of the [Krashen's] Acquisition theory ... seems to be that much of what teachers are familiar with doing will not be very effective.... While there is probably great deal of truth to this view of teaching, in presenting it to many teachers I frequently encounter the question "How do I know if what I am trying is doing any good?". (Krahnke, 1994, p. 247)

Again, a common misunderstanding about Krashen is that he underestimates the role of classroom teaching. Just the opposite. He favors classroom input to the untuned input of the natural setting, full of incomprehensible input, noise, especially for the beginning level learners. He defines the role of classroom teaching as bringing the learning to a level at which they can understand the input outside and proceed on their own (Krashen, 1996)

So, by underestimating the role of conscious grammar teaching/learning, Krashen does not leave the teachers jobless. Rather, he assign a different and probably a more important role to them: provision of input. In other words, instead of focusing on the form (learning), he advises them to focus more on the meaning (acquisition).

Does Krashen totally ignore the importance of conscious grammar knowledge? No.

Conscious rules could indirectly aid acquisition. [They] may help make input more comprehensible even if the conscious rule that helps do this is not at i+1 and is not itself the object of acquisition. It may contribute to the context and aid in the acquisition of some other rule [which is at i+1 level] (Krashen, 1985, p.43)

Although learning of a late acquired rule does not result in its immediate acquisition, it may help the acquisition of
another structure for which the learner is psycho- linguistically ready by making the input bearing that structure more comprehensible. Anything that helps comprehension, thus acquisition, is valuable for Krashen. If some degree of LC accelerates SLA, then it is more than welcome so long as it does not occupy a great portion of classtime leaving little room for acquisition-based activities (Krashen, 1996).

The question that remains to be answered is "how should grammar be taught?" whose answer will shed light on error treatment as well. The most widespread approach to the teaching of grammar at the theoretical level is inductive. Theoretical, because one of the main aims of this paper is to show that inductive learning is not practical in real life.

As a reaction to the good-old grammar translation method which favored a deductive presentation of grammar rules, 20th century methodologists sought the elixir in inductive teaching followed by discovery learning by the learners. It is believed that when the learners are not directly given the grammar rules but are given the opportunity to discover the rules on their own, they will be able to acquire them:

Covert [inductive] grammar is where grammatical facts are hidden from the students... where new grammar is practised or introduced, but their attention will be drawn to the activity or to the text not to the grammar. With covered grammar, teachers help the students to acquire and or practice the new language. (Harmer, 1989, p.3)

As a result of such theorists' ideas who confuse acquisition with discovery learning, "most syllabus designers today try to incorporate aspects of both linguistic (forms)and communicative competence (functions)" (Marton, 1994, p.65) Almost every coursebook in the ELT market has a hybrid syllabus blending forms and functions, the underlying assumption being that one can focus both on form and meaning at the same time.

[L]earners must learn to look at form in addition to meaning. (Yorio, 1994, p.135)

We cannot separate form from meaning in learning procedures, since in doing this we create a barrier against the transfer of linguistic knowledge and skill from exercises to more spontaneous uses of the language.(Marton, 1994,p.62)

[T]eacher should at least train the learners to pay deliberate attention not only to the contents of the messages they listen to or read but also to the formal features of the target language. (Ibid, p.64)

[W]ithout very attentive listening or reading, that is, close monitoring with the intent of inductive analysis of the structures used, listening (or reading) will not result in internalizing of the production grammar we require for speaking (or writing). (Rivers, 1994, p.82)

It is true that simultaneous focus on form and meaning is necessary to make form-meaning associations in the mind. But it is also true that human mind can consciously focus on only one thing at a time. A dual focus on form and meaning is possible only if one consciously focuses on meaning when another subconscious mechanism (like LAD) focus on the grammar in the message. In other words, training learners to "pay deliberate [conscious] attention not only to the contents of the messages they listen to.. but also to the formal features of the target language" is nothing but denying human nature:

Human beings are decidedly what cognitive psychologists call "limited capacity processors". This limitation means that at any given moment, only so much attention is available to a person to process incoming and outgoing information. This attention can be divided... among those processes that are controlled and those that are automatic Controlled processes are those tending to involve conscious awareness.... Automatic processing are those that do not involve conscious awareness. Controlled and automatic processes... operate at the same time. (vanPatten, 1994, pp.227-8)

This explains why focus on form reduces the comprehension of input: one can focus on form only at the expense of meaning. And if meaning is not properly processed, then LAD cannot build form-meaning associations either. Unlike the inductionists theorists' explanations, therefore, internalization of grammar rules takes place when one consciously focus on meaning and subconsciously on form.

Then how are we to present grammar content? The answer implied in the Acquisition-Learning distinction hypothesis is that grammar should be taught in a separate session where the focus is not on meaning but on form. In such a grammar class one can use deductive techniques and even learners' L1 (Krashen, 1996). So instead of focusing both on form and meaning in the same class, Krashen advises us to separate meaning-based and form-focused instruction.

This brings us to the final aim of this paper. The implication of the Acquisition-Learning distinction for error treatment in class. Krashen & Terrell (1983) suggests that in natural communication, only meaning errors that hampers communication is corrected and that teachers should only treat such errors in order not to create a negative atmosphere. Instead, they limit the application of form based error correction to grammar sessions where the aim is already the teaching of the form.

[S]ince NA is primarily based on acquisition activities in the class period, it is necessary to consider whether the direct correction of speech errors in these activities is beneficial or detrimental.... [O]ur theoretical perspective as well as empirical research back up the NA principle of not using direct correction of speech errors in affective acquisition activities. Error correction should be used for what is meant for, conscious learning, and should therefore be limited to rules and situations where Monitoring is possible and appropriate.(p.177-78)

Correcting grammar errors while a student is speaking freely and trying to communicate his intentions results in communication break-down at best. It is quite likely however that even a worse thing happens: resentment and avoidance to speak any more. When done gently (see appendix A, lines 110- 125), the student may not get offended but will probably feel puzzled. Even though the teacher's utterance "The bigger one in shape" (line 117) is produced with the purpose of helping the learner, the treatment caused a chaos in the mind of the student due to the interference of the Monitor (LC). The switch of consciousness from meaning to form resulted in making three more mistakes, forcing the teacher to quit his form-based error treatment.

In fact, our teacher is not all that form oriented in his treatment of errors. During a meaning-based class discussion, he corrected only two out of a total of 19 grammar errors, leaving untreated the seven errors at the phonological and morphological levels. Including the two treated transfer cases, he corrected only 13% of all form errors.

The same teacher, on the other hand, corrected all of the form errors 100% related to the target structure of a grammar session (See appendix B). The parallelism between his and Krashenian error treatment technique is not due to his familiarity with the Monitor theory. Rather, he followed his common sense. Obeying the principles of mental operations, he focused only one thing at a time and corrected the meaning errors in the acquisition class,
form errors in the learning class. [He did not even corrected those form errors which were not related to the target structure of the grammar lesson.]

To sum up, although there are many opponents of Krashen's Acquisition-Learning distinction hypothesis in the theoretical battlefield, the real warriors of classroom who follow their "natural" instincts, apply it "subconsciously" in their treatment of errors, provided that their minds are not polluted by the fashionable ideas of ivory tower theorists.

References and Appendix-Grammar(will soon be added here)
Contact the Author of this Article

GO HOME

Sign Guestbook

View Guestbook

Language Translator

Visitors: 17869

Page Updated Thu May 11, 2006 7:26am EDT