"Memory is the residue of thought". Discuss.

The sentence in the title of this blog comes from psychologist Daniel Willingham, a scholar frequently referred to by teachers and consultants when talking about learning and memory. You can find it in his influential book Why Don't Students Like School? (2010) or free in this article. The idea that memory is the residue of thought is simple, appealing and in many cases correct no doubt. But for language teachers there is something just a little bit whiffy about it.

Now Daniel Willingham and the many writers and bloggers who quote him recognise that he is talking about a certain type of learning: the learning which goes on in formal settings like schools. He may also point out that language learning/acquisition (particularly first language learning/acquisition) is atypical in that it is "biologically primary", i.e. natural or developmental, requiring little or no formal instruction.

Classroom language learning, on the other hand, could be viewed as a peculiar outlier, or rather hybrid, since it is clear from the research literature that students learn (pick up?) a new language using a mixture of explicit and implicit learning.

In case you aren't aware of the distinction, let me quickly explain.

As Ronald P Leow explains in his excellent book Explicit Learning in the L2 Classroom (2015), psychologists usually acknowledge that there are two learning routes for humans (although trying to describe them precisely is not simple). On the one hand, implicit learning is said to be "learning without awareness" or "learning without intention". (By the way, defining awareness is surprisingly hard!) On the other, explicit learning involves awareness, intention and attention (whatever that means - another issue!). On the whole we could probably agree that much or most learning in classrooms is explicit, e.g. the teacher presents or models a concept, a technique or a series of steps, which students pay attention to and try to master themselves.

So explicit learning involves intention, attention, thought, combining new ideas with old (long-term memory interacting with working memory, to use the widely known storage model of memory). Only through thinking does long-term memory develop. Hence the Willingham quotation. Makes sense.

Yet we know that children acquire their first language(s) without doing much analytical thinking at all. It seems effortless. They develop a sophisticated underlying, tacit knowledge of grammar without ever really thinking about it. By "tacit" I mean that they know the grammar without knowing it. You get the idea, I hope.

The big question is this, in second language classrooms does this natural ability to acquire a language still exist? The answer is a clear yes, although the conditions for it to happen are far from favourable (lack of time, lack of target language outside the classroom, often lack of motivation). Students do still learn implicitly. If they get enough input they understand, plus an opportunity to interact with it, they will make progress, developing their underlying procedural knowledge.

Interestingly, in the field of cognitive psychology, implicit learning is far less studied than explicit. In addition, it's not easy to separate out the processes and products of implicit and explicit learning. (Remember that the word learning refers to both a process and a product.)

Experiments have been done on simple artificial languages to see if learners acquire an underlying knowledge of grammar (notably by scholars such as Arthur Reber, for example here - see p.225 in particular). It seems that even in a narrow experimental context, implicit learning happens. Reber writes:

(a) Implicit learning produces a tacit knowledge base that is abstract and representative of the structure of the environment.
(b)  Such knowledge is optimally acquired independently of conscious efforts to learn.
(c)  It can be used implicitly to solve problems and make accurate decisions about novel stimulus circumstances.

Leow (2015) points out that there has been a growing interest in implicit learning in the research community.

So let me make a jump here and suggest that, while the working memory/long-term memory models are really useful in helping teachers understand learning and, for example, avoid cognitive overload, they are not the whole picture for language teachers by any means. Implicit learning still plays a role.

Implications for language teachers?

• Keep in mind that what you teach may not equal what pupils learn. Implicit processes are partly beyond your and the students' control. This applies particularly to grammar. But if you supply and get pupils to use lots of examples of a grammatical structure there is more chance they will pick them up both explicitly and implicitly. (Research suggests that frequency and distinctiveness of input is one important aspect of learning.)
• Keep using lots of highly comprehensible target language to give those implicit learning processes a chance to do their job on the incoming data. But repeat it, recycle it, interleave it with other new and old language.
• Thinking is great, but being able to think through and analyse a grammar point (in the Willingham sense) is just a small part of the learning process. Most learning probably occurs through lots of input and practice, within a focus on communicating meanings. My feeling is that many teachers still over-value declarative knowledge of grammar (knowing that) and assume to readily that it can become procedural (knowing how). It's the knowing how which really counts.
• Be just a little wary of taking information from cognitive psychology and applying it uncritically to language learning. There is lots in it to learn from, but... language learning is unusual. 
• Use language; don't talk about it too much.

Leow (2015), who, to be clear, leans towards the explicit end of the research spectrum, writes:

"In summary, there is really no argument or debate concerning the beneficial role of awareness in L2 development or the fact that explicit learning does promote L2 development, while the jury is still out regarding implicit learning" (p.198).

(Although he does not write it at that point, he is referring to formal, classrooom or online environments.)

I've been grappling with this for years ever since I wrote my MA thesis about Krashen's Input Hypothesis in around 1985. My own hunch, from reading, observing and teaching, is that explicit learning plays a much greater role in the early stages, and a lesser one once students have at least an intermediate level of tacit grammatical knowledge.

Final thought: memory is often the residue of thought, but not always. And for language learners the thought bit may well be less important.

Comments welcome as always.

I am currently working on a new book with Gianfranco Conti. Our working title is something like: Making it stick: How can language teachers help students remember?

References

Leow, R.P (2015). Explicit Learning in the L2 Classroom. New York: Routledge.

Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge . Journal of Experimental Psychology (118/3): 219-235.

Willingham, D. What will improve a student's memory? American Educator. Winter 2008-9.

Willingham, D. (2010). Why Don't Students Like School? A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom. Jossey-Bass.

Image: pixabay.com