By Mayra Yaranga
The role of
memory in foreign language learning has always been acknowledged. Hardly anyone
would argue that there are elements of language which need some rote learning,
However, does memorization guarantee effective learning?
Those of us
who grew up in our traditional education are probably familiar with the idea
that certain items have to be learnt by heart. This is the case, for example,
of lexical set phrases (“Nice to meet you”, “What do you think about…?”) which
enable communication and yet require no explanation at the level when they are
taught. Another area in which memorization is crucial is grammar; it is hard to
ignore how students strive to learn irregular past tenses, the order of
adjectives, the correct prepositions, among others, by means of old-fashioned
rote. And there is little to support another way of internalizing this type of
content: explanations matter little, if at all, and so these bits may, we hope,
remain in the learners’ repertoire in the long term. Do they?
At this
point, I would argue that not enough is being done to ensure real learning
beyond mechanical, detached repetition. Testing the students on verb tenses or
words helps little in this respect. In order to ensure that the memorized bits
of language are effectively retrieved later and truly help communication, it is
absolutely essential to provide learners with the opportunity to turn this
input into something meaningful. Here, we may have to push the boundaries set
by our educational system and consider carefully how to go further.
Let me
provide an example: if students are to learn the irregular past tenses, they
also need to know the kind of nouns they collocate with and need to see them in
a relevant context. If all of this information is provided, students should be
more likely to produce – can we argue that fostering production is a less
effective way of guaranteeing learning than memorizing? Another very similar
situation occurs when students are being trained to take international tests. They
may have thousands of learnt expressions to ‘interact naturally’ during a
speaking test. However, factors such as social meaning, register, communicative
function or paralinguistic devices are meant to play an important role as well.
There is nothing more unnatural than to use expressions for agreement without any
accompanying non-verbal language, for instance. Are we working on those
elements too?
To some
extent, it is true that sometimes teachers and students may forget they are not
teaching/learning the language as a system, but as a means to enable
communication in said language. Blaming robotic memorization for unreal
communication would certainly not solve the mistakes memorizing may bring but
working on further real interaction and a realistic use of language could, I am
sure, prevent learners from deriving a false sense of achievement from
parrot-fashioned learning.
It’s your
turn
What do YOU
think?
Does memorization
guarantee effective learning?
Biodata
Mayra Yaranga
(1985) has completed Doctorate studies in Education at UNIFÉ; Master’s Degree
in Media, Culture and Identity from Roehampton University (London) revalidated
by PUCP, a Bachelor’s Degree in Education - UPCH and the Professional Title of
Licenciada - IPNM. Currently she is Cambridge Oral Examiner and Member of the
Research Area for Universidad del Pacífico Language Centre. She is also ESP
coordinator and Pre-University Centre Director at UNIFÉ.
