Category: Teaching Practices

Today we come to the end of our extended examination of Enacting the Work of Language Instruction by Eileen W Glisan and Richard Donato (2017).

The specific topic is the cycle of enactment.

Remember that this is merely one model of implementation or enactment. You may have a different model of implementation; the important thing is to implement your own program of professional development in collaboration with another or other teachers.

The cycle (or spiral, as I prefer to see it) consists of the following steps
1. Deconstruction of the HLTP
2. Observation and analysis of the HLTP
3. Planning to enact the practice
4. Rehearsal and coaching
5. Enactment of practice in the (PK-16) classroom*
6. Assessments of enactment by one or more fo the collaborative partners, including self-assessment and reflection

I put (PK-16) in parentheses because this cycle of enactment is valuable in any instructional setting, not just the school setting from Pre-Kindergarten through senior in college. That designation was limiting, but the cycle is applicable more broadly.

Glisan and Donato illustrate the model with a set of concentric circles. (2017, p. 166)

In the center is “Community of Practice”

In a circle outside of that are the steps of the cycle:
Deconstruction –> Observation and Analysis –> Planning –> Rehearsal and Coaching –> Enactment –> Assessment ⌊New Cycle⌋

The outmost circle consists of Reflection and Collaboration // Feedback and Discussion.

Although the authors do not explicitly elucidate their diagram, it seems that it is intended to convey the idea that “within a context of Reflection, Collaboration, Feedback, and Discussion, teachers create by using iterative cycles of implementation of the HLTPs a Community of Practice.”

In a truly collaborative context, this model has the potential for helping teachers improve their instruction. It is, once again, not the only model. The potential misuse is in making it an instrument of coercion in a misguided attempt to force all teachers to teach alike.

Glisan and Donato also note that, contrary to the way it is portrayed in the diagram, the phases of the “Cyclical Model for Enacting HLTPs” “do not occur in a static linear manner but reflect back-and-forth movement as learning is mediated and leads to successful enactment of the HLTP.” (2017, p. 167)

The next question, of course, is “What happens in each phase of the cycle?”

Phase 1: Deconstructing the Practice

Teachers deconstruct – or take apart – the practice after learning about it, either through oral presentation or reading. They identify the “instructional moves” that comprise the practice.

This could be a quite ambitious undertaking. The person just starting out will probably want to limit the scope and number of the instructional moves, recognizing that HLTPs like “creating a discourse community” and “facilitating target language comprehensibility” are quite complex and can be approached in a number of different ways.

Remember, this is intended to be an ongoing journey (to use another metaphor).

Phase 2: Observing and Analyzing the Practice

Teachers then watch a more experienced teacher – either live or on video – enact the practice. The “students” focus on observing, analyzing, and recalling the specific instructional moves illustrated in the model lesson.

Glisan and Donato include some very good advice here.

If the object is to analyze a practice – or series of “instructional moves” – then participants should not be both learners and observers.

At conferences and workshops, especially those that emphasize strategies that maximize comprehension, participants are often asked to experience the strategies as students. Then the presenter will have a discussion and de-brief. This is a good idea for introducing people to a strategy and showing its power.

However, that is not what Glisan and Donato intend to happen in the Cyclical Model. They want teachers to be able to analyze the practice and its “instructional moves”. To do this, the observer cannot be both a student and an observer.

The authors offer several possibilities for working around this situation:
1. Have participants observe a teacher and real students. (This is, btw, something that iFLT introduced into its conferences several years ago.)
2. Have a small group of participants be the students while other participants observe.
3. Make a video of the teacher teaching the entire group of participants. Then watch the video for the purpose of observation and analysis.
4. Watch a video of a teacher with a class of real students

I have been in situations in which each of these possibilities was used. The best experience was watching a live teacher with real students. Having a small group of participants be students while others watch and watching a video of a teacher with a class of real students were roughly equally effective and in the middle. The strategy that worked least well was videotaping the participants and then watching that video.

Phases 3 and 4: Planning and Rehearsing the Practice

In this section, Glisan and Donato advocate for something that is not frequently done in teacher training programs and even less frequently once teachers are in the classroom. Nonetheless, planning and rehearsing can be highly beneficial.

First, the teacher plans a lesson / instructional activity that incorporates the target HLTP. This can be done in collaboration with one’s peers.

Then, the teacher practices with peers as students while the leader (or professor) coaches. This form of coaching involves stopping the lesson and asking the teacher to repeat, change, vary, revise a segment of the lesson.

A few years ago, I had the great good fortune to present a series of workshops with Jason Fritze, an internationally known teacher, presenter, and teaching coach. As part of the workshops, I demonstrated several practices in a series of lessons that Jason and I had prepared. In what was in many ways a “Master Class”, I presented to the workshop participants who played the role of students. Jason would have me stop and do something slightly differently or repeat what I had done, and then he would explain what the participants had experienced and invite discussion and questions.

I am certain that the participants benefitted from the workshops, and we certainly got positive feedback. However, I am convinced that I received the most from this experience. It had a profoundly positive impact on my own teaching, even though I was presenting as an experienced teacher.

From personal experience, then, I can attest to the value of these steps.

Phases 5 and 6: Enacting and Assessing the Practice

The last two phases are coupled together because of their close relationship to one another.

After deconstructing, observing, analyzing, preparing, and rehearsing the practice, the teacher enacts it in the classroom while a colleague or master teacher observes and assesses the enactment. The teacher also self-reflects on the enactment of the practice. This should lead to a collaborative dialogue between the observer and the teacher that results in increased understanding and facility with the High-Leverage Teaching Practice.

Challenges of Implementing the Enactment Cycle

Glisan and Donato identify two challenges to implementing the cycle, and these are mentioned primarily in relation to New Teachers (i.e. those in a teacher-training program or their first two years of in-service teaching). I believe there are other challenges.

One challenge is simply expectations and emotions. Most teachers do not expect to be stopped and interrupted while presenting and can have emotional reactions, even anger, when this happens.

My own experience with the workshop series I mentioned earlier makes me aware that the groundwork needs to be done well. Jason and I had already worked together for some time, but we sat down and discussed what would happen during the workshop. I had to be ready for Jason to stop me and ask me to do something over, do revise something to a lesser or greater extent, or even do something completely different.

I can tell you that it takes trust, humility, flexibility, and the proper mindset for this to work.

The second challenger that Glisan and Donato mention is the need to situate the practice in a relevant instructional activity (lesson). This is indeed a greater challenge for New Teachers than for in-service teachers, who know what is happening in the classroom.

One piece of advice in this section is highly relevant:

Increasing comprehensible target language use and interaction during instruction cannot be carried out if the learners are uninterested in what is being said or in what they are being asked to express.

Other challenges that I see but are not mentioned by Glisan and Donato include those I noted above, and these challenges can be insurmountable.

The first challenge is trust. If I do not have a relationship of trust with my peers, then I will not participate in the cycle of enactment. I have to trust them to have my best interests at heart, not simply try to make themselves look better than others, to know the HLTP well enough to be able to analyze and assess its enactment, and to have sufficient discretion not to discuss needs for improvement with others. Unfortunately, trust is often a rare commodity; people do not learn to trust one another simply because they work in the same school or building or department. We need to be deliberate in building trust.

A true Professional Learning Community does not come into existence merely because an administrator decrees that teachers must meet, collaborate, and work together.

The second challenge is humility. Many teachers have large egos and view their classrooms as their own little empires. They are unwilling to submit themselves to scrutiny and constructive criticism – and often because they consider themselves to be exemplars of their craft. Pride on the part of either the observer or the practitioner can shipwreck the process and make it impossible to proceed.

The third challenge is flexibility. Flexibility is related to the other challenges of humility and trust. The less trust I have in someone, the less flexible I will be when around them. The same goes for humility and the lack thereof. There can, of course, be other reasons for lack of flexibility, but for the cycle of enactment to work, teachers must be flexible enough to try something new, both in the practice and in the process of enactment.

The fourth challenge is mindset. I have, unfortunately, worked with teachers who saw no reason to do anything that would improve their teaching. They had completed their teacher training and were in the classroom. Unless they were being paid for “professional development” they saw no reason for it. Yes, they would go to district in-service workshops (at which they often spent most of the time on their computer or mobile phone), but they would never go to a conference or out-of-district workshop. They had a fixed mindset and may have felt threatened by presentations of new practices and challenges to allow others to observe and assess them. They failed to realize that no matter how good you are, you can always improve.

Any one of these challenges can block implementation of a potentially valuable tool for improving instruction. That would be unfortunate

Final Thoughts

Glisan and Donato end this chapter and the book with a brief review of what they have presented and the hope that it will serve as a catalyst  for discussion of HLTPs and teacher education in general.

I also hope that what I have written in response to this book contributes to the discussion.

Both as individuals and as a profession, we need to remember that what has brought us to where we are will not take us beyond that. If we are to get past the generations of students who have taken two t0 four years of a language but are unable to understand or speak it, we must change what we do.

I don’t have all the answers, but I want to be part of the conversation.

Let me know what you think.

We have come to the last chapter of Eileen W Glisan and Richard Donato’s book Enacting the Work of Language Instruction (2017, ACTFL).

In this chapter, Glisan and Donato provide suggestions, as the chapter title states, for “Putting HLTPs into Practice: A Cycle of Enactment”. Enacting the High-Leverage Teaching Practices is not a one-time act but an ongoing process in which the novice or in-service teacher returns time and again to the practice, reviews and deconstructs it, analyzes application, then carries it while being observed by a sympathetic colleague with whom the teacher then discusses the implementation.

I believe that Glisan and Donato provide us with a useful model for collaboration. I also believe that it is, unfortunately, a bit idealistic and unlikely to be adopted in most school settings for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons include lack of time because teachers are usually overwhelmed by their duties and responsibilities; lack of perceived need for this kind of collaboration; lack of training on how to implement this sort of collaboration; lack of clarity on instructional objectives and the place of HLTPs in instruction; significant differences in perception of objectives, scope, and sequence in instruction; and rivalries within departments. (The last one is particularly sad, but true.)

Nonetheless, where teachers are willing to trust one another and work with one another to improve their teaching ability, the collaborative study and deconstruction of an HLTP, mutual observation of its implementation, and subsequent discussion can prove highly beneficial to those who participate – and to their students.

Glisan and Donato call this a “Cycle of Enactment” and discuss iterative rounds of investigation and practice. If done properly, this is actually a spiral rather than a cycle, since the practice should improve with each iteration. But that is a quibble.

One important aspect of implementation for this model is the idea of specific Instructional Activities. Rather than trying to do everything, practitioners focus on “specific instructional activities (IAs) that limit the context of the practice so that novices [and in-service teachers] can draw upon specific knowledge and moves as they make judgments about how to interact with their students within the construct of the high-leverage teaching practice …” (2017, p. 164) [Emphasis in original]

Where I disagree with the authors is what the specific Instructional Activities ought to be.

This disagreement reflects earlier disagreements when discussing various HLTPs, especially the focus on grammar, the seeming limitation to authentic texts only, the focus on form through PACE, and certain aspects of Oral Corrective Feedback.

Glisan and Donato provide the following suggestions. I note that they are merely suggestive and not exhaustive – but their suggestions could have been better. For example, rather than simply stating “Telling a story”, they could have suggested ways to make a story comprehensible and engaging, such as MovieTalk, Watch and Discuss, Read and Discuss, Story Listening, and many more that are known throughout the TCI community.

Facilitating Target Language Comprehensibility:
– Telling a story by making it comprehensible and actively involving learners
– Introducing new vocabulary or grammatical structures within an engaging context

N.B.: I disagree with this second one, not because we don’t teach new vocabulary or structures, but because this places the emphasis on the teaching of new vocabulary and grammatical structures. The vocabulary and structures should arise out of the engaging context rather then being pre-determined and then having a context created to fit them. There are, of course, many ways to make a story comprehensible, and it would have been nice for Glisan and Donato to provide an example or two.

Building a Classroom Discourse Community
– Facilitating a whole-class discussion based on a shared context such as an … event, popular media, or an important social issue

N.B.: The classroom itself is a shared context, and many teachers already do activities such as discussing plans for the weekend or what students did over the weekend, important social and world issues, birthdays and other celebrations, school sports, and much more. They should be encouraged to see these discussions not just as an activity but as a High-Leverage Teaching Practice that helps build a classroom discourse community. Again, strategies for leading a whole-class discussion would be helpful.

Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts
As noted previously, my first disagreement is in the limitation of interpretation and discussion to “authentic texts” only, as well as the inconsistent understanding of the word authentic in most discussions. Here I agree with Bill VanPatten’s idea of authentic as being whatever is consistent with and part of the classroom context.
– Guiding learners through a(n authentic) reading via tasks that elicit literal comprehension followed by interpretation
– Leading class discussion based on a(n authentic) text

N.B.: Aside from my disagreements about “authentic”, I find these two Instructional Activities beneficial for language acquisition because they focus on comprehensible input, both in the form of the text itself and in the discussion that follows. Teachers will need various strategies for supporting a discussion based on the language level of the students.

Focusing on Form in a Dialogic Context Through PACE
– Presenting an authentic story … that features a grammatical structure occurring naturally within a meaningful context
– Guiding learners in dialoguing about and co-constructing  grammatical from …

N.B.: Creating a lesson around grammar takes us backward in our application of knowledge about second language acquisition. However, helping students deal with grammatical forms on a spontaneous, need-to-know or inquiry basis, can be very helpful. That’s why I am willing to give the second IA a “meh” rating.

Focusing on Cultural Products, Practices, and Perspectives
– Making use of engaging images of a cultural product or practice as a launching point for [discussion of] cultural perspectives
– Making use of … data of various kinds for reflecting on the cultural meanings of products and/or practices

N.B.: The quality of this IA is, of course, dependent on the choice and use of the materials. That does not negate the fact that this is one of the better examples that the authors give.

Providing Oral Corrective Feedback to Improve Learner Performance
– Facilitating a whole-class discussion in which oral teacher feedback plays a role to support student speaking …
– Conducting an oral extension activity in which learners use a grammatical structure … and are guided by teacher feedback.

N.B.: The second of these IAs once again takes us back to an emphasis on grammar rather than communication, even if Glisan and Donato put “to make meaning” into the description. It is still “practicing” the language. The first of these two IAs gets a “meh” because it depends so much on whether or not the teacher is forcing student speaking or simply supporting student speaking that is natural and unforced. The authors leave this distinction entirely too vague.

The great weakness of this chapter lies in the paucity of suggestions for accomplishing the “Instructional Activities”. While the book cannot be all things to all people, it would have been helpful for the authors to include some examples and suggestions of strategies to accomplish their suggested IAs.

Next week we should finish this chapter and the book by taking a look at the “Cyclical Model for Enacting HLTPs” itself, challenges of implementation, and some final thoughts.

I hope this extended look at a potentially significant publication from ACTFL has been helpful.

Leave a comment.

With this post, we come to the end of the sixth High-Leverage Teaching Practice but not to the end of the book Enacting the Work of Language Instruction; High-Leverage Teaching Practices by Eileen W. Glisan and Richard Donato, available from ACTFL.

As they do with all of the teaching practices they present, the authors close off the chapter by deconstructing the practice, providing tasks to rehearse the practice, assessing the practice, and putting the practice into a larger context, as well as providing suggestions for further reading.

Last week I included a “flow chart” (in quotes because it wasn’t really a chart). This week I have it in chart form. Let me know if you have difficulty reading it. The font I can work with; Continue reading “Providing Oral Corrective Feedback … – Part 4”

Today will be a shorter post than last week.

I want to take a look solely at the section of this chapter entitled “Considerations About Providing Corrective Feedback”. Glisan and Donato give five considerations in the form of questions.

Should I discuss the role of feedback with my learners?

“Yes!” reply Glisan and Donato. They note that learning a language is so different from the learning that takes place in students’ other classes that they benefit from an explanation of how the teacher’s responses can benefit them. They also recommend a discussion at the beginning of the course or semester with the intent of reaching two goals:
a. Find out how students feel about receiving Corrective Feedback. The purpose is to help the teacher determine when, how, and what kinds of Corrective Feedback to provide.
b. Help students understand how Corrective Feedback can help them learn the language and improve performance.

I agree that it is beneficial for the teacher to discuss with students how the course works, theoretical underpinnings, etc. At the same time, I doubt that my discussion will look quite like Glisan and Donato imagine.

Since Glisan and Donato’s discussion is based on the theory that noticing is essential to language acquisition, we part company on the issue of when, how, how much, and what kind of Corrective Feedback to give. There are, of course, appropriate occasions in the language classroom to invoke the Monitor and discuss items that contribute to its effectiveness. These occasions, however, are few and far between – especially at the lowest levels. Far more important is Comprehensible Input, the sole sufficient cause of language acquisition.

This evening at church, I happened to speak with another congregant and found out that she teaches in the teacher training program at CSU Long Beach, our local CSU campus. Specifically, she teaches Second Language Acquisition (English Language Learners) and Special Education research, principles, and theory to teacher candidates.

When I explained my plans for retirement and mentioned coaching and advising teachers, she asked me what method(s) or approach(es) I used. Not knowing at the time how much she knew about SLA, I started an explanation, and she finished my explanation with the words “Comprehensible Input!” That started a great conversation, and I was so pleased to know that there are others, not just foreign language teachers, who understand that CI is the sine qua non of language instruction.

She also agreed with me, contra Glisan and Donato, that any grammar explanation, corrective feedback, or attempt to get students to notice is effective only insofar as it aids negotiation of meaning and supports understanding.

In his paper on Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Dr Stephen Krashen notes that he has changed is opinion on one matter. In the original work, he advocated hiding the acquisition process from students. Now, however, he strongly favors discussing the process of Second Language Acquisition with students so that they can continue to learn on their own.

I doubt that Krashen’s discussion would look much like Glisan’s or Donato’s, either.

How do I determine when I should provide corrective feedback?

Despite my disagreement with Glisan and Donato on the nature and value of Corrective Feedback, I believe their answer to this question is helpful.

The authors note that making this determination is a complex process and dependent on a number of factors. They divide these factors into two categories: Learner Factors and Contextual Factors.

Contextual Factors involve answering the following question:

• Does the error interfere with the learner’s intended meaning? (If no, don’t correct.)
• Is the error the linguistic target of the lesson, e.g. made during the focus on form lesson? (Since I disagree with focus on form for acquisition, I find this question not germane.
• Is the error one that is being made frequently by many learners in the class? (If no, don’t correct.)

In this section, Glisan and Donato state, “Of critical importance is that, within a sociocultural perspective, corrective feedback should be approached in such a way as to serve meaning-making and interaction.”

This statement again makes me wonder if the authors fully understand their position. It seems to contradict their earlier distinction that “… many of these types of CF can be used to provide conversational feedback instead of to call attention to linguistic errors.”

The second set of factors are Learner Factors that give rise to the following questions:

• Would the learner benefit from receiving Corrective Feedback, i.e. is the learner developmentally ready for this feedback?
• Is the individual learner open to receiving Corrective Feedback?
• Does the learner appear to be confused and in need of Corrective Feedback to make meaning and/or clear up misunderstanding?
• Does the learner appear to want Corrective Feedback assistance from he teacher?

Glisan and Donato suggest that a “yes” answer to any one of these questions justifies providing Corrective Feedback. I disagree in that the second questions appears to me to be the gatekeeper. If the individual learner is not open to receiving Corrective Feedback, a yes answer to any of the other questions will not make it beneficial.

How do I know whether to use implicit or explicit CF strategies?

Here I find Glisan and Donato’s advice excellent.

They recommend a graduated approach within a dialogic structure.

That is, start with the least intrusive, most implicit strategy and move in the direction of increasingly explicit as needed. If a raised eyebrow or “Huh?” is sufficient to elicit negotiation of meaning, why use something more intrusive?

On what basis should I decide to use prompts vs. reformulations in providing CF?

Once again, I find myself in agreement with Glisan and Donato on this consideration.

They state, “The decision to use prompts or reformulations depends on whether the teacher desires further output from learners following the CF. To this end, prompts elicit output and reformulations offer input without signaling a need to respond further.” (2017, p. 148)

Glisan and Donato noted earlier that reformulations (aka recasts) is the type of Corrective Feedback used most by teachers. (2017, p. 144). At the time, they cast some doubts on their effectiveness, maintaining that “… they have been found to be less likely to lead to uptake by learners in comparison to other strategies such as elicitation and clarification requests.” Nonetheless, they were forced to admit that the long-term benefits of implicit correction exceed those of explicit correction.

Questions that arise from this discrepancy between the two passages lead to a number of questions. Among them is the question of how it was determined that recasts are less likely to lead to uptake if recasts are not intended to elicit a response. I would like to know the studies and their procedures. Once again, I believe Glisan and Donato allow their theory to affect their assessment of the evidence.

Since my primary goal is to provide Comprehensible Input, I will use primarily reformulations.

What if my learners experience anxiety when I provide CF?

You’re doing something wrong.

Glisan and Donato are more diplomatic in their answer than I, but it comes to the same thing.

If learners experience anxiety when the teacher provides Corrective Feedback, then the teacher is doing something wrong.

It may be that the teacher has failed to establish a classroom discourse community.

It may be that the teacher is working outside the students’ zone of proximal development, so the feedback simply adds stress rather than relief.

It may be that the teacher has failed to gain the trust and respect of the students.

It may be something else, but whatever it is, the teacher is doing something wrong if corrective feedback increases students’ anxiety.

Glisan and Donato close this section with a nice flow chart. I will try to recreate some semblance of it.

Consider Contextual Factors

All answers “yes”, proceed to Learner Factors.
“No”: ignore the error.

Consider Learner Factors

All answers “yes”, decide on Corrective Feedback
“No”: ignore the error.

Decision to Provide Corrective Feedback

Decide on Reformulation or Prompt
If moving interaction forward: Reformulations
If working in learner’s Zone of Proximal Development: Prompts

Reformulations

Conversational Recast
Repetition
Provide language needed to express meaning
Foreshadow new language

Prompts

Move from implicit to explicit
Clarification Request –> Elicitation –> Metalinguistic clues –> Explicit Correction

I encourage you to look at Figure 6.2 (p. 149) in Enacting the Work of Language Instruction to see the flowchart as Glisan and Donato lay it out.

My conclusion on the use of Corrective Oral Feedback is “It depends”. It depends on what you want to accomplish. It depends on your relationship with your students. It depends on which strategies you choose.

Okay, that turned out longer than I intended.

In the remaining portion of the chapter, Glisan and Donato deconstruct the practice and provide suggestions for rehearsing the practice. We’ll take a look at those next time.

Continuing with our discussion of High-Leverage Teaching Practice #6 (Providing Corrective Oral Feedback to Improve Learner Performance) in Enacting the Work of Language Instruction (2017) …

Today we will take a look at Glisan and Donato’s Research and Theory Supporting the Practice.

The authors state, “A body of research has confirmed the effectiveness of corrective feedback in supporting language learning and development …” (2017, p. 142)

I do not question that a body of research has confirmed the effectiveness of corrective feedback in supporting what was tested. My questions revolve around what was tested. At the moment I have no answers, nor do Glisan and Donato provide any.

Does corrective feedback support acquisition, i.e. the ability to use the language in spontaneous use for communication (the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning)? Or does it support Monitor use, i.e. the ability to edit utterances by thinking of and applying the “rules of grammar”? What was tested? Discrete grammar items? How was it tested? Was spontaneous communication tested, or was the test conducted under conditions conducive to Monitor use?

Krashen rejects error correction as useful for acquisition and provides case study evidence of acquisition without error correction or many of the other things traditionally practiced by language teachers.. Krashen does grant error correction a small place for Monitor use. I wonder, though, if he defines error correction the same way that Glisan and Donato define it. All too often, writers use terms without clearly defining them.

VanPatten opines that corrective feedback may lead to acquisition if it is part of negotiating meaning. (We will see in a moment that he probably still disagrees with Glisan and Donato about the place of error correction.)

This raises the question of research on the different kinds of oral corrective feedback. Has it been done? What are the results? Are all types of corrective feedback equally effective? Based on what standards?

Glisan and Donato note that “… different types of feedback can be more or less useful in leading to what is called uptake, how learners use the oral feedback offered by the teacher to repair their error or not …” (2017, p. 142; emphasis in original) Does this mean that different types of feedback are inherently more or less useful? Does the usefulness of any specific type of feedback vary depending on the context and other factors?

The authors predicate the usefulness / effectiveness of the feedback on students’ noticing its corrective nature. This takes us to the Noticing Hypothesis, which both Krashen and VanPatten question or reject. John Truscott, in his article “Noticing in Second Language Acquisition: A Critical Review“, notes the extremely limiting constraints of noticing and the weakness of any support for its effectiveness.

Based on my own case studies, I note that a couple of types of corrective feedback enumerated by Glisan and Donato seem to be helpful in negotiating meaning, i.e. in actual communication, and thus potentially helpful for acquisition.

However, Glisan and Donato distinguish between certain strategies employed as oral corrective feedback and those same strategies used as conversational feedback. They write, “It bears mentioning that many of these types of CF [Corrective Feedback] can be used to provide conversational feedback instead of to call attention to linguistic errors.” (2017, p. 143)

I have at least two questions from this:

1. Is this a distinction without a difference? If I give feedback that shows I have not understood the utterance, my interlocutor still has to adapt the utterance so that it becomes understandable. This may well involve changing certain elements of the utterance to conform to standard language use.
2. Are Glisan and Donato themselves clear on their own distinction? In the paragraph that contains the statement above, the authors give examples of how certain strategies for providing oral corrective feedback may be used as conversational feedback. However, in the same paragraph they state, “Further, instead of using a linguistic utterance, the teach could also use a paralinguistic signal [emphasis in original] to non-verbally elicit a self-correction from the learner – e.g., a quizzical look or nodding of the head …” If the signal is given to “elicit a self-correction”, isn’t that Corrective Feedback? Yet, Glisan and Donato place it in the paragraph devoted to examples of using the strategies for a purpose other than Corrective Feedback.

I am not convinced that the authors themselves are clear on the distinction – or that their distinction truly makes a difference for some of the types of feedback.

So, what are the common types of oral corrective feedback?

1. Explicit Correction: The teacher gives the correct form or states that the learner’s statement was incorrect.
2. Recasts: The teacher responds and reformulates the learner’s statement without calling attention to the fact that it was incorrect.
3. Clarification Requests: The teacher indicates that the learner’s statement was not comprehensible and asks for a reformulation.
4. Metalingistic Feedback: The teacher asks questions about the statement (specifically about the grammatical error) or provides grammatical metalanguage that points out the nature of the error (i.e. uses technical language to discuss in English the learner’s error).
5. Elicitation: The teacher prompts the learner to provide the correct form by repeating the leaner’s statement verbatim up to the point where the error occurred.
6. Repetition: The teacher repeats the learner’s utterance but with an inflection that indicates and highlights an error.

Glisan and Donato also place these Corrective Feedback Strategies on a grid with two axes.

The first axis is the distinction between reformulations (which provide the corrected restatement) and prompts (which elicit self-repair from the student).

The second axis is implicit vs explicit correction. In the latter, the teacher states clearly that correction is taking place or otherwise draws direct attention to it. In the former, it is left to the learner to notice the correction.

The authors then place each of the strategies within a quadrant. Since I haven’t yet figured out how to produce a drawing or table, I will simply describe them.

Quadrant A is Implicit Prompts. These are 1) Clarification Requests and 2) Repetition.

Quadrant B is Explicit Prompts. These are 1) Elicitations and 2) Metalinguiastic clues.

Quadrant C is Implicit Reformulations. The sole strategy placed here is Recasts.

Quadrant D is Explicit Reformulations. Here they place Explicit Correction.

My suspicion is that Explicit Correction is the kind of Corrective Feedback that most people mean when they use the term.

In their conclusion to this section of the chapter, Glisan and Donato make some statements that bear further consideration. They write:

… although recasts tend to be the CF type used most by teachers, they have generally been found to be less likely to lead to uptake by learners in comparison to other strategies such as elicitation and clarification requests. The benefit of recasts appears to be i scaling learners’ attention to form without disrupting communication and meaning-making … However the issue is even more complex,. Research has suggested that even though learners might attend to explicit CF more easily, “the effects of implicit CF might be more robust (i.e. longer lasting) than those of explicit CF, which might be more effective in the short term …” (Lyster, Saito, & Sato (2013). “Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms” in Language Teaching, 46, p. 5; quoted by Glisan and Donato (2017, p. 144).)

Let’s take note of what the authors say (and perhaps don’t say) and the implications. Glisan and Donato report:

When the teacher recasts a learner’s utterance, this is implicit reformulation, and students do not give as great evidence of uptake (i.e. the students do not repair their error at the time of “correction”) as with certain other strategies.

At first glance, we might conclude that the most-used strategy is the least effective.

However, this does not take certain factors into account. First of all, a recast is not necessarily intended to elicit a repair of the utterance on the part of the learner. The recast provides the leaner with a corrected version of the statement but does not prompt the student to repeat it, at least not if we wish to maintain the primary advantage of this strategy – which is that it functions without disrupting communication and meaning-making. (2017, p. 144)

Since we cannot see what is going on within the mind/brain, it is difficult (impossible?) to evaluate the efficacy of a strategy that does not call for production.

This, btw, is one of the difficulties many people  have in evaluating the efficacy of comprehension-based strategies and practices. Since acquisition is internal and unconscious even for the student, the traditional markers and indicators used by assessments do not provide sufficient data of the right kind for learning-based tests to make an evaluation.

In this section, I believe that the authors reveal their bias. I may be reading more into the text than is there, but I don’t believe so. Here’s the evidence.

When presenting the basis for the practice, Glisan and Donato are categorical in their assertion that “A body of research has confirmed the effectiveness of corrective feedback …” They are also quite definitive in their assertion that students need to notice grammatical features. Earlier I noted what looks like a (not so) veiled jab at Van Patten’s position on language acquisition.

However, in this instance, where evidence contrasts with their position, the authors present it much more speculatively and attach a qualifier from their position. “Research has suggested … learners might attend … the effects of implicit CF might be more robust … This finding could be the result … and perhaps produce a response.” From their speculation (“This finding could be the result of implicit CF prompting learners to access L2 knowledge and problem-solving as they work to notice the error, correct it, and perhaps produce a response.”), Glisan and Donato produce the following definitive statement: “Therefore [i.e. because of what we speculate], the long-term effects of implicit feedback only apply in cases where learners’ [sic] are motivated to attend to the teacher’s reformulated part of the utterance and process for themselves what they heard and noticed.” (2017, p. 144)

The definitiveness of the conclusion is, to me, unwarranted from the speculation.

Besides, I can postulate another explanation that, I believe, better “preserves the appearances” (cf. Occam’s razor):

Implicit error correction in the form of recasts and reformulations simply provides the learner with additional comprehensible input at a moment when the student is interested in the input. Thus, the long-term effects of implicit “error correction” are attributable to the unconscious process of acquisition rather than the complex and tenuous mechanism of “noticing“.

I will not attempt to ascribe motive or describe a history of the text. Such attempts are overwhelmingly, (nearly) unanimously, erroneous.

Let it suffice to say that I believe Glisan and Donato seriously miss the mark in their evaluation of the effectiveness of both noticing and explicit Corrective Feedback in language acquisition.

Next time we’ll take a look at Glisan and Donato’s Considerations about Providing Corrective Feedback.

Today we come to the sixth and last of the High-Leverage Teaching Practices presented by Glisan and Donato in their book Enacting the Work of Language Instruction; High-Leverage Teaching Practices.

This HLTP comes with controversy, and Glisan and Donato address that in their introduction to the practice. Kudos to them. However, I believe the issue deserves greater discussion than the authors give it.

So, we’ll discuss the issue of corrective feedback a bit more here.

In their introduction to the practice, Glisan and Donato state,

“A key issue that has been explored extensively in research in second-language acquisition and L2 teaching and learning is the place of teacher feedback, either provided to call learners’ attention to errors in their speech or to respond to the content of a learner utterance. While there is evidence to indicate that extensive focus on error correction by the teacher can undermine L2 performance and demotivate learners, the research also shows that learners benefit from attention to form, which cans serve as a meaning making resource … Further studies have revealed that learners prefer to receive feedback as opposed to having their errors ignored … It is not surprising that novice language teachers are faced with a daunting task when it comes to deciding what types of feedback they should provide to learners and under what circumstances …” (2017, p. 141)

It’s important to understand what the authors do and do not advocate.

It’s also important to understand what the term “Oral Corrective Feedback” means.

Glisan and Donato certainly do not advocate extensive use of corrective feedback. Nor do they advocate striving for error-free production. As the authors write,

“… the teacher’s expectations during oral interaction should never be error-free performance by learners.” (2017, p. 141)

In fact, “… calling learners’ attention to and correcting every single error has no place within a language program that prioritizes meaning-making and communicative interaction.” (2017, p.141)

Nor do Glisan and Donato advocate error correction apart from negotiating meaning. After noting that the term “Corrective Feedback” has traditionally been defined as a move by the teacher that focuses learners’ attention to the grammatical accuracy of their utterance, the authors suggest that the contemporary understanding of Corrective Feedback as “a tool for mediating language learning and development.” (2017, p.142)

Many studies have indicated that Error Correction has little or no effect on acquisition. (cf. Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437-455.) Other studies have found it at least somewhat productive. (cf. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2005). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.)

 

In 1978, J. Hendrickson identified five fundamental questions for the discussion of Corrective Feedback. (HENDRICKSON, J. (1978) Error correction in foreign language teaching: recent theory, research, and practice. In K. Croft (Ed.) Readings on English as a Second Language. Cambridge, Ma.: Winthrop. pp. 153-175.) These five questions are
1. Should errors be corrected?
2. If so, when should errors be corrected?
3. Which learner errors should be corrected?
4. How should learner errors be corrected?
5. Who should correct learner errors?

These questions remain valid.

With regard to the first question, Glisan and Donato clearly come down on the side of “Yes, errors should be corrected.” This is obvious from the inclusion of “Providing Oral Corrective Feedback to Improve Learner Performance” as a High-Leverage Teaching Practice.

Krashen and VanPatten would reply, “It depends.”

While maintaining that Error Correction has no value for acquisition, Krashen does not reject it as having no value whatsoever. For him, it has Monitor value. (See Krashen, Stephen D. (2009). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Internet edition, pp. 10, 116-119.)

Thus, Error Correction can be beneficial when certain restricted conditions are met: 1) Errors corrected are limited to learnable and portable rules; 2) Errors are corrected under conditions that allow Monitor use (reading and writing are key activities that fulfill this restriction); 3) Measures evaluating the efficacy of error correction are administered under conditions that allow Monitor use, to allow the learner time to refer to his or her conscious knowledge; 4) Learners are Monitor users.

For Krashen, “This implies no error correction in free conversation, but allows for error correction on written work and grammar exercises.” (2009, p. 117)

VanPatten indicates that Corrective Feedback could have benefit for acquisition when it is used to negotiate meaning. (See VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. Mahwah, MJ: Erlbaum.) This seems consistent with VanPatten’s insistence that acquisition takes place only during communication, i.e. whenever the expression, comprehension, and negotiation of meaning take place.

The consensus seems to be that there is not no place for Error Correction. (Yes, the double negative is deliberate and meaningful.)

However, there is great difference of opinion on the other questions.

We’ll take a look at those questions in later posts. That will take us into the HLTP itself.

I’m stopping here for today since I was at the California Language Teachers Association (CLTA) conference in Ontario over the weekend and need to get ready for classes and get a good night’s rest. Changing to Daylight Saving Time is always difficult.

The conference was good, and I enjoyed seeing friends and meeting new friends. I also picked up some tips and ideas as well as being reminded of practices and strategies and getting a dose of encouragement and inspiration.

If you are interested in knowing more about my take on the conference, read my Facebook posts under Compelling Input Productions over the next few days.

Once we have decided on the preparatory matters (see my discussion of Focusing on Culture Part 2), we can implement the practice.

Glisan and Donato deconstruct the practice using the IMAGE model.

Once again, we need to note that this is simply the model that the authors have chosen to use. Other models of Focusing on Culture exist.

As the authors write,

“The lesson is developed around a series of cultural images that will lead students to make cultural observations and draw conclusions. Dialogic interaction in the target language is promoted by Continue reading “Focusing on Culture … in a Dialogic Context – Part 3”

The full title of this HLTP and chapter is “Focusing on Cultural Products, Practices, and Perspectives in a Dialogic Context”.

The purpose of this is to help distinguish the practice from more traditional teaching of “culture” and “Culture” as isolated items without regard for context or purpose. The new practice seeks to introduce practices and products as expressions of perspectives.

As noted last time, the IMAGE model is simply one approach to teaching cultural products, practices, and perspectives. It is by no means the only model, and a teach should not feel guilty for using a different model.

The acronym IMAGE expresses four steps. (I think the fact that five letters are used to represent  four steps says more about our proclivity toward acronyms that create words than anything essential to the model – but that’s just my opinion.) These four steps are Continue reading “Focusing on Culture … in a Dialogic Context – Part 2”

Wow, I managed to talk about the previous chapter in Enacting the Work of Language Instruction; High-Leverage Teaching Practices by Eileen W. Glisan and Richard Donato in only four posts rather than the seven that the discussion of “authentic texts” took.

Before taking on the chapter about Cultural Products, Practices, and Perspective, let’s review a little bit.

I began my discussion of the book back in November, shortly after I returned from the annual ACTFL (American Conference on Teaching Foreign Language) conference.

The first post covered two High-Leverage Teaching Practices (HLTPs): Facilitating Target Language Comprehensibility and Building a Classroom Discourse Community.

The teacher implements the first HLTP by creating Continue reading “Focusing on Culture … in a Dialogic Context – Part 1”