Month: October 2018

The PACE Model of Focusing on Form

This week, I responded to a question about the PACE model in one of the Facebook groups to which I belong.

The question was simply to elaborate on the PACE model. So I did. I thought the reply was worth sharing with a wider audience, so I am posting it here as well.

In their book “Enacting the Work of Language Instruction”, Glisan and Donato describe PACE as:
Presenting a short text, orally or in writing
Attention calling – to a particular form in the text
Co-Constructing an explanation
Extending and using the form in a new context
 
(I had to make the second point sound unwieldy because the word “Attention” is part of the acronym but didn’t come first in the explanation in the book.)
 
This may be a good way to teach students who have already acquired a language (or at least a good bit of a language) information that will help them edit their production (i.e., employ the Monitor function). It does not, however, aid acquisition because it is conscious learning. If Krashen and VanPatten are correct, then the PACE model supports acquisition only insofar as 1) the initial text is in the target language (so learners are receiving additional comprehensible input) and 2) the co-construction of an explanation is done in the target language (once again providing additional comprehensible input). But there does not seem to be any expectation that the co-construction of an explanation of the form will be done in the target language. It could just as easily be done in English (or the students’ native language). Any gains in acquisition are the result of exposure to the target language, not the focus on form.
 
Otherwise, this is essentially a hybrid (inductive-deductive) variant of the Present – Practice – Perform model, which is a skills model of language learning.
 
Why do I call it a hybrid? On the one hand, students extract, with the help of the teacher, the rule or principle from the text. That is inductive. On the other hand, students then take the principle and apply it to specific instances in the Extension phase of the model. That is deductive.
 
I find it interesting that Glisan and Donato hold this model up for emulation when they condemn both inductive and deductive instruction in the same chapter. (Glisan and Donato 2017, pp. 90-91) They espouse “Focus on Form as a Social Process” based on the presupposition that “the essence of language [is] social action”. (p. 91) (That is a presupposition that ought to be debated, btw.) Yet, the process they put forward uses both inductive and deductive instruction. Perhaps they are condemning purely inductive and purely deductive instruction, but that is not clear. Instead, they present their view as a tertium quid, not just a hybrid of the two recognized methods of reasoning.
 
I took part in a phone call with BVP at ACTFL2017. During the conversation, the PACE method came up, and BVP rejected it on essentially the same grounds that I do: it is a variant of the old Present – Practice – Perform model that does not support acquisition.
 
Excursus:
The main difference between PACE and PPP, as far as I can tell, is the process involved in arriving at the “rule”. PPP in the classic form is purely deductive instruction: state the rule or principle, apply it to individual instances (practice), prove that you understand the principle (perform).
 
PACE, on the other hand, arrives at the principle through inductive instruction – similar to the idea behind the old Audio-Lingual Method. That is, you look at individual instances of a phenomenon and extract the general principle from them. ALM generally stopped there. (All of those substitution and chain drills were designed to lead the learner to an understanding of the principle behind the form.) PACE continues with an application of the principle to specific instances, thus adding a deductive element to the inductive process of deriving the principle.
 
I hope all of that makes sense.

“Leveraged Learning” – Part 1

Last week, I took the week off from posting.

The previous week, I posted about the California World Language Standards and registered my concern about the use and priority of the term “authentic texts” with the definition of “by native speakers for native speakers”.

The week before that, I finished my commentary on Bill VanPatten’s book While We’re on the Topic and invited people to make suggestions about what they would like for me to address.

Other than notifications that a couple of people liked my post, the only comments I have received since then have been from people offering to improve my SEO and get me more readers. I chose not to follow up on those.

During the past week, I came across a Quora question asking what people think about a “no zero” grading policy. This brought me to some work I did some time ago on the history of grades and grading. That brought me to a book that I started reading recently. It’s titled Leveraged Learningand is by Danny Iny. Danny is an online information provider, and he has done his research in preparing this book.

Since I did the initial research on the history of grades and grading, this broader view of the education system looked interesting. It is.

An ongoing debate is the state of education in the United States. The one thing that nearly everyone seems to agree on is that the current system is not designed or implemented to take us into the future. Precisely what is wrong and what the solution(s) may be are hotly debated. Even though the “education reform movement” and its opponents have not been in the news recently, the ongoing conflict is very real.

However, before we can suggest a solution, we have to understand what the problem is. This is where a bit of historical perspective can be helpful.

So, today I’ll summarize some of the information that Danny provides about the history and current state of education in the United States. Although he concentrates on post-secondary education, Danny makes comments about all of education. In this, he tends to reflect and repeat common perceptions.

What we consider “modern education” has its beginnings in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when universities were established. (Bologna in 1088, Paris in 1150, Oxford in 1167; Heidelberg is a latecomer in 1386)

Excursus (aka “rabbit trail”) 1:

The course of study consisted of the Trivium (grammar, or mechanics of language; logic/dialectic, or mechanics of thought and analysis; rhetoric, or application of language in order to instruct and persuade) followed by the Quadrivium (arithmetic, or pure number; geometry, or number in space; music (harmonics and not performance), or number in time; and astronomy, or number in space and time). This looks, at first, very different from our modern curriculum, but many aspects of modern university education are developments from the medieval system. In addition, the universities themselves were based on cathedral schools and monastic schools. If this seems highly theoretical to you, you’re probably right.

Before the development of a large middle class, higher education – indeed, education in generally – was the domain of the wealthy. Poor people had neither time nor resources to pursue education. They could not afford private tutors, and children who were able to work had to help support the family, so even the cathedral and monastic schools played a limited role in educating the poor.

Back to “Leveraged Learning”:

The elite nature of education nearly ensured success for the person who managed to obtain a degree. Having a diploma from a university was nearly a guarantee of a better, more successful life. To a large degree and for over two hundred years in the United States (Harvard issued its first degree in 1813), higher education more than delivered on its promise.

Within the last few years, however, education has lost some of its luster. For one thing, ubiquity has undermined differentiation. Whereas a bachelor’s degree used to make a person stand out, now that a four-year degree has become commonplace, that no longer holds. The BA holds the same place that a high school diploma used to hold; the MA holds the BA’s old place. This is a kind of “academic inflation”. Consequently, “the majority … of recent college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed …” (Iny, p. viii) Another problem is the rising cost of education, which has by far outpaced inflation. The average debt of over $30,000 for graduates is compounded by the opportunity cost.

If the only consideration for getting a college degree is earning power, then that degree is beginning to look less useful and seem more like a liability. This, of course, is the standard position of entrepreneurs, especially online entrepreneurs: our education system has failed us. Of course, to come to this conclusion and maintain its viability, the critics have to craft their definitions carefully and ignore large amounts of mitigating information.

Excursus 2:

Now, I will not deny that there are significant problems within education, not least of which is the high cost. Another problem is the one-size-fits-all approach to elementary and secondary education. Individual teachers are encouraged to “differentiate instruction”, but the system as a whole is designed to look, feel, and operate the same wherever we may go. Federal incentives (e.g., “No Child Left Behind” and “Race To The Top”) and reform initiatives (e.g., Common Core State Standards) are intended not only to establish standards but also dictate the means for achieving them. Through PARCC and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, a series of exams throughout the school career have been developed and are administered each year. (We know that what you test is what you teach.) A limited number of textbook publishers, most notably Pearson, provide not just the tests but also the textbooks for the curriculum. I see many problems with this arrangement, not least of which is that the publishing giants are setting the curriculum so that we have not just “standardized tests” but “standardized teaching”. Don’t get me started here.

The federal Department of Education’s push toward standardization, which I consider beneficial in manufacturing but not in education, stalled a bit in 2015 with the passage of “Every Student Succeeds”. Currently, 39 states are either full or partial members of one of the two assessment consortia (PARCC and SBAC), but some have repealed their membership, and others are reviewing participation. A few years ago, only a handful of states and territories were not members.

Back to the book:

Danny Iny joins other critics of education in declaring the system “broken” and therefore detrimental to us all.

He first defines “education” and “learning” primarily in financial terms: “designed experiences that are meant to act as a short-cut to achieving whatever job prospects, financial rewards, upward mobility, social contribution, and personal fulfillment we might aspire to.” (Iny, p. xii) Three of the of the five objectives in the definition are financial: job prospects, financial rewards, upward mobility. One implies financial success: social contribution. Only one is generally interpreted apart from finances: personal fulfillment – although even here finances are often perceived as the means to fund doing the things that lead to personal fulfillment.

According to Iny, the situation is so dire that “When the fringes and outliers are the only ones achieving success, they do so in spite of the system rather than because of it.” (Iny, p. xiii)

To me, Iny makes the same mistake that many people make: he blames the education for not doing something that it was not really designed to do. That, of course, takes us to the question of what the education system was intended to do. The answer to that question is complex indeed because so many different people with so many different understandings of education have been involved in shaping the education system. Maybe we’ll get there in another post.

Where Iny does get it right is in his recognition of diversity in information gathering and instructional settings. The university or college is no longer the sole provider of education, and the university degree is no longer the sole sign of competence. Our society as a whole is a bit slow in recognizing other signs of competence and excellence, but that recognition is growing. Some of the resources available include the following:

  • Repackaged university courses like The Great Courses or free massive open online courses (MOOC);
  • Intensive coding (and other) courses at places like General Assembly;
  • Continuing or executive education programs from established educational; institutions like universities;
  • Courses offered at community centers;
  • For-profit colleges (of dubious credibility and standing);
  • Courses from celebrity instructors;
  • Corporate internal training;
  • Self-study e-learning programs, apps, and software;
  • Supplemental education videos on sites like YouTube and Khan Academy;
  • Online video courses presented by individual experts.

I believe Iny also identifies correctly three important drivers of success: knowledge and skill; meaningful insight (analysis and creativity); balance of emotions and habits of fortitude (persistence, consistency). (Iny, p. xiii)

At the conclusion of his introduction, Iny admits that he has painted the world of education with a “fairly broad brush”. In addition, his focus is higher education, and my experience is secondary education at a public high school, so our perspectives are different. Furthermore, my experience with higher education is far different from the picture that Iny paints. This may be because my student experience was over 40 years ago, and a lot has changed in that time. It may also be because my experience has been in areas that stressed performance: music and teaching. When I graduated as a sacred music major, I was equipped to work in the field and even had a job offer, which I declined – but that is a story of its own. When I got my credential, the courses were very much geared toward being a teacher. It was not the fault of education that the career path – public school teaching – is not remunerated in a way that is commensurate with the value created. Of course, those same skills can also be used to develop instructional units as an individual expert – something I am currently working on.

So, I will be evaluating this look at the current status of education with a bit of a critical eye and from a perspective that is different from many in the online communities, especially the internet business community.

California World Language Standards

Today I submitted my comments for the draft of the new World Languages Standards for California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve.

The State of California is updating its World Languages Standards. The current standards were adopted in 2009, so this is a fairly quick update – especially given the fact that there were no standards until 2009. There was a Framework, but no standards.

Overall, the standards are pretty good. There are some problems with the manuscript that should be cleared up through a thorough proofreading and editing process, but that is form, not content.

One of my primary objections in the section on Communication Standards was the emphasis on “authentic texts” and “authentic materials” to the exclusion of anything else.  This objection was intensified by the definition of “authentic materials” in the Draft Glossary:

authentic materials– Materials created by native speakers for native speakers of the target language and cultures [lines 1128-1129]

My two immediate objections are as follows:

  1. This definition excludes anyone and everyone who has produced anything in a language other than their native one. That means that Eva Hoffman (“Lost in Translation”), Yann Martel (“Life of Pi”), and Vladimir Nabokov (“Lolita”) never produced authentic materials in English. Samuel Beckett (“En attendant Godot” – “Waiting for Godot”) never produced authentic materials in French, despite winning a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1969. (The prize included his French writings.) I hope we can all agree that this is absurd.
  2. A language learner can never have an authentic conversation in the target language because, as a learner, he or she is not a native speaker. Once again, this is absurd.

I was surprised to see this definition because the profession has attempted in recent years to get around its limitations by substituting “native speaker” with “member of the language and culture community”. While that may resolve the issue in number 1 above, it does nothing for the problem in number 2. Learners at the Novice and Intermediate levels are not, and cannot be, “members of the language and culture community”. Do we then discount classroom conversations, which can be quite effective vehicles for language acquisition, because they are not “authentic”?

μὴ γένοιτο! (God forbid; may it never be.)

We need to change our understanding of the word “authentic” as it applies to teaching and acquiring languages.

We also need to stop confusing the end with the means.

We need to take the research seriously and start giving our students the data they need to acquire a language, i.e., target language that they can understand and find interesting, if not compelling.

Okay, that’s it for today. Rant over.

For anyone who is interested in the California World Language Standards, you can download the draft here.