Is Memorizing Analogous to Learning?

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.

A Handful of Contrast Linkers in a Nutshell

By Mayra Yaranga

In this new series of articles, we’d like to address some of the problems our students find in the process of learning English. Let us start with one apparently simple, but tricky point. In my experience, students have some problems when choosing some of the famous linking words, particularly those with similar meanings but different grammar.

What happens, for example, when our students want to express contrast between two ideas? The word they will most often use is but.

•  I was very eager to learn Japanese, but I gave up quickly after starting.        
• The team trained very little, but they won their matches easily.

Of course, this is not the only way to mark contrast, and, in order to show students’ English has gone beyond a basic level, they should be able to use some other linking words which essentially mean the same, but are grammatically quite different , such as however, although and in spite of.

1.      However is a sentence adverb. That means it should start a new sentence.

I was very eager to learn Japanese. However, I gave up quickly after starting.

2.      Although is a conjunction. That means it will join two clauses (two sentences within a sentence) creating a contrast relationship.

Although the team trained very little, they won their matches easily.

Students can also use the shorter though in exactly the same way. Only that it has an additional use at the end of a short sentence, very common in speech:

I was very eager to learn Japanese. I gave up quickly after starting, though.

3.      The most difficult phrase is in spite of. It is a phrase that works as a preposition. That means it doesn’t take sentences or clauses, but noun phrases (phrases with a noun or gerund as the most important word, not a verb)

In spite of my eagerness to learn Japanese, I gave up quickly after starting. (eagerness is the noun that replaces “I was eager”)

In spite of training very little, the team won their matches easily. (training is the gerund that replaces “the team trained”)

In more formal English, your students can use despite, which is a slightly more formal word:

Despite training very little, the team won their matches easily. (NOT despite of)

NOT Despite the team trained very little,

We sincerely hope you find our advice useful and helps you consolidate what your students have been doing in class. See you next time!

Now it’s YOUR turn:

Do your students show problems when using these linkers?

What do you do to address those problems?

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 works as IELTS trainer, Cambridge Oral Examiner and Member of the Research Area for Universidad del Pacifico Language Centre. She is also ESP coordinator and Pre-University Centre Director at UNIFÉ. 

Is Speaking All That Simple to Assess?

By Mayra Yaranga

A typical situation in language lessons involves speaking activities, such as dialogues or monologues. The students finish the activity and the teacher gives marks. Unfortunately, it seems all too common that the marks are based on the students’ accuracy in grammar and perhaps propriety in pronunciation. This situation is echoed on students’ attitudes: if they notice that they make a number of grammar mistakes, they typically self-rate their speaking skills as ‘terrible.’

Assessing speaking skills should go beyond checking for grammar and pronunciation accuracy. In fact, I would like to argue that the most important element is often neglected: content. While language system use is relatively easy to observe and errors can be spotted without much effort, focusing on how students develop, support their ideas and use language functions in a way relevant to the task requires a great deal of effort and attention from teachers throughout the entire activity. The complexity involved is evidenced in the very detailed criteria used to assess speaking skills in English language examinations, which include assessing content. If teachers become familiar with such criteria, they should be able to assess their students more fairly and more comprehensively.

Students also need to know what is expected of them in speaking activities. This involves debunking some of the popular myths they hold about language learning. For instance, they need to understand that good pronunciation does not involve imitating a foreign accent, but producing sounds and utterances comprehensible enough for effective communication. They also need to understand that grammar mistakes occur, but could be overlooked to some degree if the message is effectively conveyed.

Finally, I believe that no speaking activity is fully developed if there is no feedback given at the end. For example, if students are asked to have dialogues in pairs to be later performed in front of the class, they need to be given feedback that goes beyond grammar and lexis, but focuses on the content of the conversation, how natural the interaction was, if body language was culturally appropriate, among other aspects. If students are aware of the criteria to be used in their assessment and the teacher provides feedback on such aspects, the activity cycle can be said to have ended successfully.

What do YOU think?

Which criteria do you use to assess your students’ speaking skills?

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 works as IELTS trainer, Cambridge Oral Examiner and Member of the Research Area for Universidad del Pacifico Language Centre. She is also ESP coordinator and Pre-University Centre Director at UNIFÉ.