In his widely watched 2004 TED talk, Mihaly Csikszentmihaly argues that “Our nervous system is incapable of processing more than 110 bits of information per second. In order to hear me and understand what I’m saying, you need to process about 60 bits per second. That’s why … you can’t understand more than two people talking to you”.
Other research indicates that we are capable of holding three to four items in our working memory at any one time, which places a huge limit on our ability to solve problems (Christodoulou, 2013), and explains why multiplying 35,987*28 in your head is almost impossible. And although the jury is still out as to how accurate these figures are, it does highlight certain limitations our brain has in processing information and has clear implications for language classrooms.
Taking a trip into ‘Conceptual Space’
Judith Kroll’s Revised Hierarchical Model suggests that, by and large, concepts are alinguistic, i.e. they exist across languages. So the concept for ‘tree’ exists in most languages; what separates different languages are the different words/labels that we use to describe these concepts. In our first language (L1) we access these concepts directly and seamlessly; however, when we’re learning a second language (L2), we need to rely on our first language to access these concepts, i.e. translate these words (see fig.1 below). This process puts a strain on our working memory and results in a hesitant speech or a lack of general understanding, as the focus on the detail (in this case meaning of individual words) distracts us from the gist.
With time, as we internalize these new words/labels, we can access them directly from our second language without the need to translate them, and our fluency and comprehension improve.
Returning to Planet Classroom
Therefore, consigning words to long term memory sounds like a good idea. So far, so obvious.
But there’s not enough time in the lesson to memorise all new lexis, I hear you say. Well, how about giving learners new vocab before a session and asking them to memorise it? This is exactly what we decided to test in one of our online conversation classes. Learners on this course were given a topic and a list of lexical items a week before each session. They were asked to look up and memorise the new words. The topic gave them the context in which the words were to be used and thus activated the schema or, if you like, the information about this topic within their conceptual space. This allowed them to think about how they might want to use these words to talk about the given topic. This, we realized, worked even better when the students knew the discussion questions, as it allowed them to rehearse the answers with the new vocab.
What we found was that learners in this condition were more likely to use the target vocabulary in the lesson. Unhindered by trying to recall the meaning of the new words, they could focus on communication. The lesson itself was an opportunity to reinforce and consolidate the new language. As a result, they were more likely to retain the new lexis when tested at the end of the course, compared to learners who didn’t have the benefit of access to the new vocabulary prior to the session. It seems, therefore, that the lesson provided an opportunity to practise and consolidate the new lexis rather than learn it.
Such was the success of this intervention that we’ve also decided to apply this approach to teaching grammar in a process that we’ve called ‘learn ahead’. And although we’ve yet to officially test its impact on grammar learning, the initial feedback is encouraging.
References:
Christodoulou, Daisy (2013-06-16). Seven Myths about Education. The Curriculum Centre. Kindle Edition.
Kroll, J.F. & Stewart, E., (1994) Category Interference in Translation and Picture Naming: Evidence for Asymmetric Connections between Bilingual Memory Representations, Journal of Memory and Language 33, 149-174 (available here)