In this article, Niall Curry – Senior ELT Research Manager at Cambridge University Press, shares his top five takeaways from his visit to the University of Portsmouth. The one-day symposium discussed Psycholinguistics and Neuro-linguistics for ELT.
Following my trip to Malta for IVACS2018, I was only just back at my desk before heading, a little closer to home, to the University of Portsmouth for their Centre for Applied Research and Innovation in Language Sciences and Education’s one-day symposium ‘Second Language Acquisition Research: a Psycholinguistic and Neuro-linguistic Perspective’. This symposium was really interesting and did what I think is often absent in academic conferences. In presenting findings from empirical studies using neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics research methods (e.g. Self-Paced, Eye-Tracking, ERP’s, EEG), it bridged research from different disciplines, moving between language science to biology and neurology in order to approach the same question from different perspectives.
The question being, how do we best learn languages? The results were fascinating. I am just going to list my top 5 takeaways here but do keep close tabs on CARISLE and the University of Portsmouth for more on this interdisciplinary approach.
1. Different aspects of language depend on different brain systems such as declarative memory and procedural memory.
In his talk, Prof Michael T. Ullman of the Departments of Neuroscience, Linguistics, Psychology and Neurology at Georgetown University discussed the importance of understanding how the brain and memory work for learning languages. His work involves testing if and how different aspects of language depend on declarative and procedural memory brain systems. What he found was that language depends on both memory systems. Declarative memory, he proposed is used for episodic memory i.e. remembering an event, or semantic memory i.e. knowing a fact.
Declarative memory was also valuable for learning arbitrary bits of information and is associated with quick learning both explicitly and implicitly. To compliment this, he discussed how procedural memory is associated with motor and cognitive skills, is useful for sequences, rules and predicting, and is slower, and more gradual than declarative memory for learning. So, what does this mean for ELT? Well he argued that declarative memory is linked to lexical memory i.e. the learning of simple words, irregular inflections, and regular syntactic patterns.
However, it is not to say that these systems work independently of one another. Rather, where grammar is concerned for example, he identifies that while the rule governed nature of grammar, syntax, morphology and phonology might lend themselves to procedural memory, elements of grammar also depend on declarative memory. This comes as no surprise however, when with think of how the boundaries of lexis and grammar become fuzzier and fuzzier the deeper we dig. In practical terms then, he argues that explicit instruction promotes learning in declarative memory and implicit learning makes use of procedural memory.
This renders both explicit and implicit learning of value for language learning. His work indicates that to activate declarative memory in L2 word learning for example, spacing and testing effects can be useful while for grammar learning, creating immersive contexts to allow for procedural memory use would be more effective. For more on creating immersive contexts for language learning see my previous blog here.
2. There are interesting correlations between biology, the brain and language learning.
So, following on from the first point on declarative and procedural memory, Prof Michael T. Ullman revealed some interesting relationships between biology, the brain and language learning. For example, research in his field has found that estrogen enhances declarative memory and inhibits procedural memory. Does that mean that typically women are better at learning languages than men? Well he didn’t go so far as to say that, but he did identify that although language learning depends on both declarative and procedural memory, how declarative memory plays a role is much clearer so there may be some advantage here.
He also told us that declarative memory improves during childhood and plateaus in adolescence and early adulthood, while procedural memory seems to develop earlier. With that in mind, he argues that earlier language learners should rely on procedural memory more, and later learners should rely more so on declarative memory. Again, there are some caveats, in that these systems do not exist completely independent of one another, and can often strike a balance between them, to help us learn as best we can, so procedural memory can still be effective at later stages. This he relates as an interesting counterpoint to the critical age hypothesis.
3. Inductive approaches to language teaching lead to greater depth of processing.
The next talk I’m referring to here was by Prof Paul A. Malovrh of the University of South Carolina, USA. His talk centered on the type of instruction in foreign language classrooms and their relationship to the depth of processing. Depth of processing when undertaking a task for language learning, Malvorh clarified, refers to the cognitive effort, depth of analysis and interpretation and simultaneous use of existing knowledge among other things, engaged with when completing the task. This he argues is important as research has shown that, in L2 contexts, greater depth of processing can lead to longer lasting learning. His research studied three groups of Spanish learners, learning the passive structure. The deductive group received explicit grammatical instruction, while the second group received guided induction followed by explicit instruction at the end of lesson.
The third control group received no instruction. While the research was limited, and showed no difference in learning or retention, which Malovrh argued may be due to the item being studied being less challenging for learners, he did find that “guided induction appeared to lead to more depth of processing during practice activities”. Considering the existing research on the relationship between depth of processing and language retention, what this research does reveal is the value of inductive approaches to language learning, as his research argues that if they do in fact encourage a greater depth of processing, there is reason to believe that inductive approaches can lead to greater retention.
4. We deal with positive and negative feedback differently and you can see it in our eyes (well sort of).
The last talk I have time to mention here was by Prof Stephen Doherty and Prof James F. Lee of the School of Humanities and Languages / Language Processing Lab at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Their research centered on using eye tracking to study the way we process different types of feedback. Their study was fascinating and looked at something everyone in ELT has had to deliver at some point: corrective feedback. They wanted to know what the implication of giving positive or negative feedback would be on the way in which learners processed linguistics items i.e. if when doing a practice activity online, a learner is given positive feedback on an answer they gave, would that impact how they approach the next question? In this study, their focus was on learners studying passives, they were asked to answer questions about what they saw on the screen and were given positive or negative feedback. What they found was that the feedback type mattered.
Furthermore, what learners did with positive feedback differed from negative feedback. For example, following negative feedback, learners paid more attention to passive forms whereas, following positive feedback, there was less of a focus on form indicating that form and meaning had been processed and connected. Importantly, they argue that negative feedback may “heighten learners’ awareness of the need to attend further to forms, as they are essential for learning”. Moreover, they found that negative feedback led to learners paying more attention in subsequent tasks and that this reflected deeper processing. Given the research on depth of processing above, it seems that there may be a value in negative feedback for retention.
5. Bridging disciplines is not without its challenges.
Overall, this symposium is a great example in how we can bring together ideas from different areas of research on language, in SLA, Linguistics, ELT and Language Pedagogy, Psycholinguistics, Neurolinguistics and many more, to help us say something new, something more comprehensive and something more applicable. It is not, however, without its challenges. Each area of research and each field of study offers a perspective, but not a full picture. Yet, it is quite impossible to master each field, let alone master one, as they keep evolving, adapting and changing.
Symposia like this bring with them an opportunity to have multiple voices present and varied perspectives heard, but this will only work if we are there to listen too. Drawing on research from different fields of study and filtering it through the needs of, for example, ELT research is a nice example of where interdisciplinarity can work where, drawing on some of the research I have summarised above, it is clear how we can use those insights for teaching and learning English. So, keep an eye out for more interdisciplinary conferences, you never know what useful information you may glean!
Interested in reading more articles from Niall? View our full selection.