This article, based on material from our DELTA Module One course, focuses on feedback and the advantages and disadvantages of a “minimal intervention” policy.
a) Advantages
A policy of “minimal” intervention when giving feedback avoids the following problems:
1. In full class mode, the T. “jumping down the learner’s throat” – ie picking up on a problem to correct, or to redirect the learner in mid-utterance - could be embarrassing or create other forms of negative affect. The same could happen if, after a PW/GW activity the T. listed too many errors on the board (especially if from the same few learners), causing the learners to feel demotivated about their performance.
2. If intervention is delayed - ie feedback is left to the follow up stage of a PW discussion - maximising the amount could lead to a long T-centred stage where pace drops, and much of the lesson is taken up by teacher talk rather than active learner participation. These two factors could lead to a lack of engagement in the lesson. Minimising intervention, on the other hand, will leave more time for learner talk and active participation.
3. In full class mode, and also during PW/GW if the T intervenes constantly to give feedback, the discourse pattern will inevitably follow a T. initiation – L. response – T. feedback pattern (Sinclair and Coulthard) which is quite unlike the pattern of “normal” interaction where it is up to the participants to initiate and negotiate topics, manage turn taking etc. Too much T-led work therefore means that the learners will never get to practice these moves, which they will need when interacting outside the classroom. The learner therefore needs to use PW/GW and “get out of the way” in order to allow Ls to practise these moves.
4. In PW/GW, if the Ls ask for and the T. provides help and feedback every time it is asked for (eg providing unknown words and correcting/explaining the language used) they will never practise and develop coping strategies such as circumlocution, or reformulation of ideas not understood, which again they will need outside the classroom.
5. During PW/GW, if the T. gets “bogged down” with a specific group giving copious instant feedback to learners, s/he will lose sight of the class as a whole.
a) The T needs to be aware of what all groups/pairs are doing – who is off-task and needs re-direction, who has finished and needs another task to do while the others catch up, who has serious problems with the task etc - so that s/he knows when s/he does need to intervene minimally to help.
b) S/he also needs to be free to monitor for language use from all the learners for feedback, however minimal, after the task.
6. Proponents of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis would argue that overt correction/explanation and other feedback by the teacher will not contribute to language acquisition and is a waste of time. Acquisition will occur automatically after there has been adequate “comprehensible input”, and intervention on the part of the teacher to give feedback is irrelevant.
b) Disadvantages
7. If the T. intervenes
only “minimally” and limits the amount of time devoted to feedback, many
learning affordances will be missed. For example:
a) There will be no or
little correction of errors, which learners could learn from, and over a long
period those errors may fossilise.
b) Language will not be
“upgraded” – eg the C1 learner who has said What
do you think Maria? Will not be introduced to an expression more suitable
for their level such as What’s your take
on that Maria?
c) Learners may not even
get the opportunity to ask questions about language items which they realised
they needed during the discussion or
realised they were unsure of/puzzled about.
d) “Good language” that learners have used will not be brought to the attention of the class – eg if a T. overhears a learner using a lexical chunk from a previous lesson. This both misses the opportunity to recycle the expression (essential for ultimate retention) and to make the learner who used it feel good about themself.
8. Swain (the Output Hypothesis) argues that learner will only acquire language if they are “pushed” in output until they have formulated a message which is not simply comprehensible but is conveyed “precisely, coherently and appropriately”. In PW/GW this is unlikely to happen unless a learner is completely incomprehensible, but in a feedback stage the T can provide this “push” getting the learner to reformulate, upgrade and otherwise improve what they said. This idea lies behind many of the ideas in Demand High ELT (Scrivener and Underhill), in Thornbury’s article “P is for Push”, and the “10 Rs” described in Thornbury and Medding’s “Teaching Unplugged” which suggest how teachers can work on learners utterances.
9. In cultures where the T. is expected to be the “knower” and “in control” (eg in some SE Asian contexts), a minimal intervention policy, failure to correct all mistakes etc could be seen as an abdication of responsibility and a sign of a “bad” teacher. Learners might therefore lose faith in the T. and the course.
10. There are various
situations where T. intervention is necessary. For example: learners with
learning disabilities may need constant feedback and other support from the
teacher.
