Chapter 6

CW6.2 Higher-level and lower-level skills

1. Section 6.4 talks about higher- and lower-level skills in relation to car driving. Can you identify similar levels for another non-linguistic skill? Choose a skill you are familiar with (it might be a sport, for example) and list some lower- and higher-level skills. If you cannot think of a skill yourself, take playing a musical instrument (in an orchestra) as your example.
2. What about language use? Consider what lower- and higher-level skills are involved in this. Begin by thinking of the following ‘skills’ related to English. Which of them might be considered lower-level and which higher-level?
   • differentiating the two ‘th’ sounds in the words this and thing
   • understanding the main message a speaker is conveying
   • understanding the difference between ‘I have seen’ and ‘I saw’
   • describing what you want sufficiently accurately to ensure that you get it
   • forming correct past tenses

   Try to add some more examples of your own.

CW6.3 Adding some acquisition to learning

Montgomery and Eisenstein (1985) report on an experiment with a group of students following an ESL (EFL) language course at a Community College in New Jersey. The course took nine hours a week and was grammar-based. A group of 14 students were given an extra programme, described as an oral communication course (OCC). This course revolved around a number of trips made to places of interest in the community. The students would prepare for the visit, and there were also follow-up activities after it. The course was very message-focused, with the emphasis on finding out information during the visit. As an example visit, Montgomery and Eisenstein cite an excursion to a bank. In preparation, the students worked out what questions they wanted to ask at the bank. Once there, they were looked after by a hostess, were shown around, and had a chance to ask their questions. (‘Interestingly’, Montgomery and Eisenstein note, ‘while the students came with 15 prepared questions, a total of 55 questions were asked’; p. 324). Follow-up work included writing a letter to the bank to thank them for the visit.

At the end of the programme, the students who had followed the ESL plus the OCC programme were assessed. Their performance was compared with that of 14 otherwise similar students who had only followed the ESL programme. The students in both groups showed improvement, but the ‘ESL + OCC’ students did better. Montgomery and Eisenstein note that ‘in terms of statistical significance, the area of strongest improvement for the OCC students, as compared with ESL-only students, was in grammatical accuracy. This is surprising, since there was no formal teaching of grammar in the OCC course and minimal error correction’ (p. 329). Another factor that makes this finding surprising is that, as noted above, the ESL course was specifically grammar-based.

A further benefit to the OCC training was motivational. According to Montgomery and Eisenstein, ‘at least equally important [to the language improvement] is that the OCC students reported extremely positive attitudes towards the OCC programme’ (p. 331).

The authors are careful about their conclusions. After all, the students following the OCC course were receiving additional language work – so we would expect superior test results! Nevertheless, the authors feel able to conclude that ‘a combination of form-orientated and meaning-orientated language teaching was more beneficial than form-oriented teaching alone’ (p. 329).

CW6.4 Adding some learning to acquisition

Harley (1989) describes an experiment which introduces an element of ‘formal’ language teaching into an immersion programme. (Classroom 1 in section 1.5 was using this sort of programme in Canada, where Harley’s experiment also took place.) These programmes may be said to provide an environment in which acquisition can occur, and indeed applied linguists like Krashen have given enthusiastic support to them.

Harley was looking at an immersion programme for the teaching of French to children around the age of 11 in the Canadian province of Ontario. She began by noting that however impressive the overall results of immersion might be, the learners continued to make mistakes. She decided to focus on one area of error: the use of two tenses in French, called the imparfait and passé composé. The pupils knew how to form these tenses but had problems differentiating their meaning. Usually, immersion programmes do not involve any form-focused language teaching, but Harley decided to introduce some into this programme to see whether it would help the pupils over their problems with these tenses. So, for eight weeks an ‘experimental group’ was given tuition in their use alongside the normal immersion programme.

After the eight weeks, the pupils were given tests to see if any improvement had occurred. Their performance was compared with that of pupils who had not received the form-focused tuition. The results of the tests show that improvement in the area had indeed been made by the experimental group. But this is only part of the story, because some months later, further tests were given, and these show that the benefit to the experimental group had disappeared. In Harley’s own words: ‘the findings of the study indicate that there were some immediate benefits to the students who were exposed to … experimental treatment … However, in the long run, the experimental students did not do significantly better than comparison students on the set of tests designed to measure their competence in a specific area of French grammar’ (p. 354).

What would be your own guess as to why the effects of the formal tuition seemed to be short-lived? Harley’s own speculation is that perhaps a longer period of tuition might have had a more lasting effect.