The Best and the Worst An Exercise to T

(1)

“The Best

the Worst”:

xercise to

Perceptions

of

Language-Learning

Experiences and Strategies

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Rebecca

L.

Oxford

The University

of

Alabama

AUSTRACT Thiy article presents an exercise useful for rapping perceptions of participants’ hest und worst lunguage-learning experiences and thestrulegies these individuals used in such

experiences. In forrnal results across six

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

training

sessions are presented. Positive language- learning situations stimulated the use of a wide

range

of learning strategies, while negative situa-

tions stunted strategy use, restricting it mainly to strategies that helped learners cope with their da-v-to-day struggle with the dysfunctional en- vironment. Possibr‘ejuture uses of “The Best and the Worst” exercise with students,

as

well as for teacher training, are discussed.

As

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

language teachers, we don’t often ask our

students to describe their best and their worst language-learning experiences and their feelings toward these expe1,iences. Maybe we don’t real- ly want to know what they have to say, or maybe we have just not considered asking. Even less often do we take time to talk with other teachers about attitudes toward the language-learning experiences we ourselves enjoyed or endured

Rebecca L. Oxjord(Ph.D., University of North Carolina) is

Associate Professor of 1.anguage Education and Russian at

the llniversiry of’ Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

when we were language students. Though feelings and attitudes about language-learning experiences are very important to proficiency (Gardner, 3), they are often ignored.

Another relatively untouched area in many language classrooms, and in many discussions among language teachers, is that of language- learning strategies-the steps or actions taken by learners to enhance their own learning (Oxford,

4; Oxford, Lavine, and Crookall 5;

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Wenden and

Rubin, 8). These strategies might include behaviors as disparate as arranging the optimal environment by turning down the radio while studying, seeking out conversation partners in the new language, organizing a language note- book, guessing the meaning of an unknown phrase, using imagery to remember new words, and working up the courage to speak despite in- evitable mistakes. The use of language-learning strategies can have a great influence on the quality and success of language-learning experiences. The purpose of this article is to share an exercise which 1 have used in six major staff development workshops around the U.S. within the last year: two regional teacher training conferences in Glastonbury, Connecticut, and Greeley, Col- orado, sponsored by the American Council on

(2)

448_----

- FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS

-

OCTOBER 1989

the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL); an ACTFL workshop for government language teachers and supervisor:, at Linthicum, Mary- land; an all-day workshop at the ACTFL annual meeting in Monterey, California; a workshop for foreign language teachers in Jacksonville, Florida; and a workshop sponsored by the Nor- them Colorado Consortium of Foreign Language Teachers. Called “The Best and the Worst:’ this exercise generated strong Interest and excitement

among the

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

275 teachers and administrators who

participated, representing government agencies, universities, high schools, and middle schools throughout the US. Most participants were native speakers of English, though about one-fifth were native speakers of other languages. The exercise touched a nerve in the participants, uncovering emotional aspects of language learning that lay below the surface. It also provided many teachers and administrators with their first exposure to the area of language-learning strategies. This exercise can be used with students, or it can be a device for staff development as shown here. In either case, the exercise raises participants’ awareness about their own learning experiences and strategies.

The steps in the exercise are outlined below, followed by data interpreted in terms of a comprehensive typology of language-learning

strategies.

“The Best and the Worst”: How the Exercise Works

There are four steps in this exercise. The total time is forty-five minutes to an hour, depending

on the amount of time spent at each step.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

STEP I-Individual. Ask all participants to get out paper and pen and start thinking about the best and the worst language-learning situations they ever encountered as learners of a second or foreign language. Explain that these situations could be in classroom settings, on a trip abroad, in the local community, or anywhere else. An- nounce that each participant working alone will have about 3 to 5 minutes 10 do the following:

a) Write a few sentences about the characteristics of the single best language-

learning experience you ever encountered. Details might include where the situation

took place, when, who was involved, what you felt like in the situation, and what elements made the experience profitable or

exciting.

b) Jot down a list of several learning behaviors or strategies you used in the best language-learning situation. For each strategy, write a plus sign (+) if the strategy helped learning and a minus sign (-) if the strategy hindered learning.

Make sure everyone understands and com- pletes the task. Participants usually have little or

no trouble with this. Then announce that each

person will now have 3 to 5

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

minutes to follow the

same process with the very worst language- learning situation, first writing down the characteristics of the experience and second the learning strategies used in that setting, with (+)

or (-) signs to show whether the strategies helped or hindered. My experience with this exercise indicates that participants can readily describe their worst language-learning situation, and they generally love the chance to vent their frustration about it and to identify the strategies they used, regardless of effectiveness. However, you might find one or two lucky (or overly op- timistic) participants who say, “But all my language-learning experiences were wonderful! I never had a bad one!” If this happens in your group, urge such people to think of one single language-learning experience that was less positive than their other experiences, and ask them to focus on that particular experience as their worst.

(3)

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS -

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

OCTOBER 1989

449

You may have to cut off discussion in midstream, but make sure each person in a given pair has had

a chance to share.

STEP 3

- Foursome. When the pairs have

shared their experiences and strategies internal- ly, you can move on to the next stage. Ask each pair to find another pair and repeat the exchange process. Each person in the foursome shares the best and the worst experience, the strategies used in each experience, and whether the strategies helped or hindered. Make sure that each group has at least one person taking notes, especially

on common themes. Allow about 15 to 20 minutes for this stage, so that all group members have a chance to speak.

STEP 4

-

Whole Group. Now reorganize everyone into a whole group and conduct a group discussion of the findings. To do this, ask the group which type of experience they want to discuss first, the best or the worst. Then take the chosen experience (best or worst) and ask participants to report their findings. This can be done by spokespersons (note-takers) from each foursome, or via spontaneous individual volun- teering. Either way can work effectively, depending on the group.

If the group has decided to discuss the worst experience first, ask for participants to name all the characteristics they have discovered for the worst experience. As characteristics are named, list them rapidly on a transparency or flipchart.

You will find that many characteristics will be the same throughout the group-fear, anger, confu- sion, domineering or uncaring teacher, etc. Then jot down on the transparency or flipchart the strategies participants report that they used in the worst situation. Do the same for the best situa- tion: list characteristics of the situation and strategies used.

Next, ask participants to consider any major differences between the best and the worst experiences that were just reported. They may brainstorm about how strategies helped or hindered them in the two different experiences. Try to come up with some conclusions or general statements about the experiences and the strategies.

This whole group reporting and discussion can last 15 to 20 minutes, depending on how

much time is available. It is best to keep the discussion moving quickly, so that participants stay alert and involved.

Results and Discussion

From the six groups of teachers and administrators with whom I’ve used this exercise so far, some very interesting results have emerged. Note that the results are not couched in statistical terms, nor were the groups organized as a representative sample; nevertheless, my informal data present a tantalizing and honest look at language-learning processes, which can be followed up by more formal investigations.

Framework for Understanding Results

Results obtained through “The Best and the Worst” exercise are best understood by referring to the framework offered by a comprehensive typology of language-learning strategies. This typology, displayed in a tree diagram in a previous issue of this journal (Oxford, Lavine, and Crookall, 5, pp. 31-32) and elsewhere (Ox-

ford, 4)

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

is summarized as follows:

1. Direct strategies- those behaviors which direct- ly involve the target language and which directly enhance language-learning.

a) Memory strategies

-

strategies for remembering and recalling new words and structures: grouping, associating/elaborat- ing, placing words into a context, using imagery, semantic mapping, using keywords, representing sounds in memory, structured reviewing, using physical response, and using mechanical tricks.

(4)

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS --OCTOBER

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

1989

459 ~~-

c)

Cnnipensation strategies

-

strategies

to compensate for missing knowledge: guessing intelligently by using linguistic clues and other clues, switching to the mother tongue, getting help from someone else, using mime or gesture, avoiding com- munication partially or totally selecting the topic, adjusting or approximating the message, coining words, and using cir-

cumlocution or a synonym.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

2. Indirect strategies - those behaviors which do not directly involve the target language but which are nevertheless essential for effective language learning.

a) Metacognitive strategies

-

strategies for overall managemenl of learning: overviewing; paying attention; delaying speech production to focus on listening; finding out about language-learning principles; organizing the learning environment, learning materials, and schedule; setting goals and objectives; identifying the purpose of a language task; planning for a language task; seeking practice opportunities; self- monitoring; and self-evaluating.

b) Affective strategies

-

strategies for controlling emotions, attitudes, and motivation: using progressive relaxation; using music, deep breathing, or meditation; using laughter; making positive statements; taking risks wisely; rewarding yourself; listening to your body; using a checklist; writing a language-learning diary; and discussing your feelings with someone else.

c) Socialstrategies

-

strategies for learning with others: asking questions for clarification or verification, asking for cor- rection, cooperating with peers, cooperating with proficient users of the new language, developing cultural understanding, and becoming aware of others’ thoughts and feelings.

None of the participants had seen this typology

prior to “The Best and Worst” exercise.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

General Results and Discussion

One of the most remarkable findings was that in all workshops, participants from different parts of the country and from abroad showed a

similar range of experiences and strategies. It w s impossible to classify experiences by language learned; the language itself (in these instances) had little to do with whether the learning experience was perceived as positive or negative, or what strategies were employed. The languages learned were German, Russian, French, Spanish Latin, and ESL. Results might have differed by language if other languages, like Chinese, had been involved, or if the exercise had asked about attitudes and strategies specific to a given language.

Participants remarked that this was the first time anyone had inquired about their perceptions of their own language learning. Many in- dicated that this process opened doors in their minds and started them wondering what their students thought about their own learning experiences.

Some participants were euphoric about their best language-learning experiences and eager to share positive ideas, but a number of participants expressed surprise and relief when they discovered that others had experienced language-learning

situations as

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

awful as their own had been. It must

be remembered that the participants had all chosen to enter the language instruction field, and presumably they did so, in part, because their experiences were, by and large, more positive than experiences of others who rejected the possibili- ty. We might well wonder about attitudes toward the quality of the language-learning experiences of people who did not go into language teaching. (For concerns about the quality of foreign language instruction in general, see Rhodes and

Oxford, 6; Strength through Wisdom, 7;

A

Nation at Risk,

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

1).

(5)

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS -

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

OCTOBER 1989

451 was useful or not.

Positive learning environments brought out a wide range of language-learning strategies (including strategies fIom all six general categories in the typology noted above) and set participants free to use their abilities creatively. Poor learning situations, on the other hand, carried such a negative emotional loading that individuals spent most of their energy simply trying to sur- vive through a combination of affective, social, and metacognitive strategies. T h e worst language-learning situations put a damper on almost all direct strategies (memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies), since individuals were consumed by a day-to-day struggle with the learning environment. In both best and worst language-learning situations, participants ap- peared to make 1es.s than complete use of some kinds of strategies, such as affective and memory strategies.

The “forgetting” factor was not as strong as expected among the workshop participants, some of whom had not actively studied a new language in twenty years. Their attitudes toward and perceptions of their best and worst language-learning experiences were sharp, and their memories of strategy use were equally keen for both the best and the worst situations. Asking about the most positive and the most negative experiences unearthed a number of clear factual details and affective reactions that would not have been evoked if questions had been asked about “typical” language-learning experiences

of the participants.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Specific Results and Discussion

The specific findings can be explained according to the following clusters: characteristics of the best experiences, strategies used in the best experiences, characteristics of the worst experiences, and strategies used in the worst

experiences.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Characteristics qf

the best experiences. Char-

acteristics of the best experiences were as follows (summarized across all six groups): being in the country where the target language was spoken or in some other immersion or semi-immersion situation; having a purpose for learning, using meaningful and natural vocabulary, and learn-

ing experientially through relevant communica- tion; practicing real-life interaction; being challenged; having adventure, variety, fun, freedom, and autonomy; being inspired and en- thusiastic; having a teacher and/or situation that provided a host of emotional supports, such as empathic guidance, low stress, encouragement of self-confidence, sense of competence, concern for individual needs, reduced anxiety, un- threatening atmosphere, positive reinforcement, sympathy, motivation, and a sense of “feeling good” as a learner; and finally using games, simulations, pictures, and other kinds of learning aids.

Strategies used in the best experiences. Strategies spontaneously mentioned in the best language-learning situations were varied, representing all six of the strategy categories in the typology shown above, which participants had not yet seen. All the strategies cited below were seen as helpful in one way or another.

Memory strategies (called “mental hooks” by one participant) were occasionally mentioned as being used in the best experiences. These strategies included use of interesting self-made associations, imagery, rhyming (a form of representing sounds in memory), structured reviewing, and mechanical tricks such as color- coding. Participants did not cite several memory strategies such as grouping, semantic mapping, the keyword technique, or physical response, however. I n short, they made some use of memory strategies but not others.

(6)

452-

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS

-

OCTOBER 1989

translation, was surprisingly not mentioned. Note-taking and paraphrased summaries were the structure-creating cognitive strategies that

participants said they used.

Compensation strategies were used often in positive learning situations, according to participants. As listeners or readers, they had discovered that they could guess through context and “go for the whole message, not each individual word!’ Participants listed several compensation strategies for speaking: gesturing, reverting to the mother tongue, and circumlocu- tion. They did not mention using compensation strategies for writing.

Metacognitive strategies of certain types were used in good learning settings, though the wide range of available metacognitive strategies was not fully tapped. Participants mentioned using self-monitoring of errors; one person said this was for “damage control? Some said they tried hard to plan, prepare, and organize their studying-all metacognitive strategies. Delayed production, with a focus on listening, was mentioned by a few participants. Overviewing was mentioned several times. Participants repeatedly said that as learners they had sought opportunities to use the language, including travel and other situations where they were forced to speak and improvise in the target language. Several participants mentioned using “self-direction:’ which is perhaps the best label: to summarize all the metacognitive strategies as a group. Several kinds of metacognitive stratregies were notably absent from participants’ lists: self-evaluation of progress, finding out about language learning, setting goals and objectives, and paying attention.

Affective strategies were mentioned as occa- sionally used in the best experiences. Self-reward, taking risks wisely, and self-encouragement to help oneself persevere were the three affective strategies which came up in the discussions. Strategies for lowering anxiety (using music, deep breathing, meditation, relaxation, and laughter) were not mentioned, probably because in the best language-learning situations anxiety was already low. Participants did not mention using any strategies for assessing their emotions (checklists, diaries, discussing feelings, or check- ing physical symptoms).

Of the social strategies, question-asking was the most popular in good learning situations, followed by cooperating with peers. Developing cultural understanding was cited. The strategy of cooperating with proficient users of the language such as native speakers was not directly mentioned (though it might be assumed in situations such as traveling abroad).

Characteristics

of

the worst experiences. Characteristics of the worst language-learning experiences were divisible into two sets: concrete details about the situation and negative emotional responses. In the former set of characteristics, the following were mentioned: lack of discipline or structure in the setting, no

challenge, boring topics, inadequate teaching methods, lack of match between teaching methods and the needs of the individual student, no consideration of students’ desires or re- quirements, unreasonable expectations, overcor- rection, negative reinforcement, incompetent teacher, intimidating teacher, sarcasm, ridicule, not enough time, lack of interaction, no

question-asking opportunity, no explanations,

no feedback, constant lecturing, vagueness, no

practical or natural use of target language, emphasis on translation, irrelevant materials, rote memorization, heavy emphasis on grades, and lack of cultural discussion.

Negative emotional responses included em- barrassment, rejection, hostility, fear, anger, boredom, frustration, stress, loneliness, exhaus- tion, withdrawal, immobilization, sense of being lost, drop in self-esteem, sense of incompetence, loss of confidence in the teacher and in other students, psychosomatic pain, and negativity toward the target language and culture.

Strategies used in the worst experiences: Learning strategies which students reported using in their worst language-learning experiences were mainly indirect strategies, rather than direct strategies. The indirect strategies which they chose seemed focused on merely coping rather than making significant progress. Some of the strategies which were used made the situation better, while other strategies made it worse or resulted in entire removal of the student from the situation.

(7)

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS -

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

OCTOBER 1989

45 3

was rote memorization, which is actually more like the cognitive strategy of repetition rather

than a real memory strategy. Only a few

cognitive strategies were mentioned by par- ticipants in reference to their negative learning experience. Participants reported using some of the weakest cognitive strategies, such as over- rehearsal (a form of repetition). More creative cognitive strategies were untouched. No com- pensation strategies were cited as being used in the worst language-learning setting.

Metacognitive strategies were sometimes evoked by participants in their worst language- learning experience. These strategies helped give participants a sense of control over their language-learning process, even though external learning circumcstances were negative. For in- stance, some participants reported planning their work carefully, overviewing, and developing appropriate study schedules and other organizational means for “digging in and working? N o self-evaluating or self-monitoring strategies were mentioned.

Some participants used a limited number of affective strategies to help improve the situation, such as making positive statements to encourage themselves and to develop endurance; “fighting back” through risk-taking; engaging in jogging, centering exercises, and relaxation for stress relief; and using self-reward to stimulate motivation. On the other hand, some participants used negative affective strategies, such as negative self- talk (self-blame), blaming and criticizing others, dropping out of the language program, avoiding class, ignoring the situation, cheating, giving up, getting sick, and even having a nosebleed at strategic intervals in order to leave the scene. (These negative affective strategies are not included in the above typology.)

The social strategy of cooperation was popular for helping participants cope with poor learning situations. Participants said they banded together to form cohesive groups (often against the teacher), sought help from peers and experts, and pooled resources-all examples of cooperation. However, the other social strategies were not cited.

Some participants said that in a negative learning situation they felt they had “no strategies at

all:’ and that they simply floated along or dropped out as learners. One astute participant commented that bad learning experiences bring extreme reactions, such as perfectionism vs. avoidance.

Conclusions

“The Best and the Worst” exercise has been fruitful in helping teachers and administrators alike to consider their experiences as former language learners. This exercise also enabled them to understand better the strategies they used in order to deal with what they perceived as good and bad instructional experiences. Positive situations encouraged the creative use of strategies, while negative situations restricted strategy use, especially among the direct strategies, and fostered escapist behaviors.

Results of “The Best and the Worst” exercise suggest important implications for our consideration. First, it is informative to look at our own experiences and strategies as former language learners. The results of such an exploration tell us a good deal about how we ourselves behave and feel in instructionally dysfunctional settings. Clearly, we act differently in a positive situation than in a negative situation; the strategies we use to deal with the language and to manage our own learning are much more abundant in the former than the latter.

Second, information such as that captured by “The Best and the Worst:’ while obviously sub- jective, is very important because attitudes and feelings appear to directly affect strategy choice, which naturally influences the success of language learning in the long run (Oxford,4; Wenden and Rubin, 8; also Gardner, 3).

(8)

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS -

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

OCTOBER

1989

of time, to analyze their former language- learning situations, students who are currently involved in language learning will be able to describe their feelings, attitudes and perceptions concerning the instructional process in which they are engaged and the learning strategies they are using in that process. Students have the abili- ty to describe what they think and feel about language learning, and they are eager to share this information if we ask. Possible crosscultural differences in learners’ reflections on their cur- rent language instruction may emerge if we probe.

In the near future, students from many

cultural backgrounds at a major

US.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

university

will be taking part in “The Best and the Worst’’ exercise as part of regular class activities. Such self-exploration is needed, so that students can understand more about their own learning, and so we can learn from our students about their perceptions of instructional effectiveness. “The Best and the Worst’Land other self-exploration tools such as diaries, discussions, think-aloud in- terviews, and surveys-can be entertaining vehicles which provide important insights about language teaching and learning.

REFERENCES

I .

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educa-

tional Reform. Report of the National

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Commission on Excellence in Education. Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing Of- fice, 1983.

Cohen, Andrew D. “Using Verbal Reports in Research on Language Learning:’ in Claus Faerch and Gabriele Kasper, eds., Introspection in Sec- ond Language Research. Clevedon, Avon, England Multilingual Matters (1987): 82-95.

Gardner, Robert C. Social Psychology and Sec- ond Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes andkfotivation. London, Ontario, Canada: Ed- ward Arnold, 1985.

Oxford, Rebecca L. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York Newbury House

-

Harper & Row, 1989.

, Roberta Z. Lavine, and David Crookall. “Language Learning Strategies, the Communicative Approach, and their Classroom Implicationsl’ Foreign Laneage Annuls 22 (1989):

Rhodes, Nancy C. and Rebecca L. Oxford,

“Foreign Languages in Elementary and Second-

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

ary Schools: Results of a National Sum@.’

Foreign

Language Annals 21 (1988): 51-69.

Strength Through Wisdom A Critique of US. capablity. Report to the President from the Presi- dent’s Commission on Foreign Languages and In- ternational Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1979.

Wenden, Anita and Joan Rubin. Learner Strategies for Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1987.

29-39.

IN

MEMORIAM

We mourn the death of our esteemed colleague and beloved friend,

Michael Canale, whose superb leadership, rich talents and inspired

thought have contributed so greatly to the field of second language

education, whose achievements we reflect in our research and in our

classrooms, and on whose direction we have relied. To Michael’s

family and all

of

Michael’s many friends we extend our deepest

sym-

pathies for the loss of his warmth, his care, and his laughter. We will

remember him with great affection.

I

,