When we put together the new edition of The Language Teacher Toolkit, we decided to include a new chapter on the subject of lexicogrammar and Gianfranco's EPI approach. EPI stands for Extensive Processing Instruction. It was my suggestion to include this new chapter since EPI has become a popular methodology, embraced either in full or in part, in many schools, mainly in the UK, but also in Australia and elsewhere. Evidence of its popularity in England comes from the annual Language Trends survey completed by thousands of teachers. So the question posed by this post is why has the approach become so popular?
I'd suggest a handful of key aspects which I shall list below under the headings of theoretical underpinnings, comprehensibility, clarity, self-efficacy, inclusivity and thorough processing. These are all interconnected. I shall not describe the methodology in full, for example the details of the MARS EARS pedagogic cycle. You can find this elsewhere, for example in The Language Teacher Toolkit (Smith and Conti, 2023) and, in more detail, in Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching Language Learners How to Listen (Conti and Smith, 2019). Or look at this blog by Gianfranco.
1. Theoretical underpinnings
Gianfranco and I make the point that EPI is, in a way, a 'best of both worlds' method. By this I mean that it takes advantage of two fundamental ways of learning: skill acquisition (broadly 'learning about and practising language until it becomes automated skill') and implicit learning (broadly 'picking up the language unconsciously through use'). Without going into the age-old debate about whether languages are 'learned' (formally studied) or 'acquired' (picked up through interacting with input), let us just say that EPI operates along both of those dimensions. Through intensive processing and repetition of input language, students can learn to understand and use a repertoire of language efficiently. In my 33 years of teaching in secondary classrooms, I always felt that both dimensions had their place (though in the long-run I'd put implicit learning ahead of explicit!).
EPI takes account of not only second language acquisition research, but also findings from cognitive science. The latter includes what we know, for example, about working memory, chunking, cognitive load and spacing. The use of chunked language in particular (as opposed to focusing on isolated words and grammatical rules), receives support from research and may well align with how we pick up language naturally. A key factor in EPI is how it manages cognitive load and makes efficient use of the limited capacity of working memory through its various activities.
In sum, if a teacher were trying to justify EPI, it would be easy to draw on research evidence and theory, as well as classroom evidence, test results and take-up.
2. Comprehensibility
You'll be familiar with the idea of comprehensible input. It is the foundation of language acquisition and the reason why approaches which require large amounts of target language use have long been encouraged. However, unlike TL-only or 90% TL use lessons, EPI embraces the use of the first language ('translanguaging', if you like). So, in the Conti-style sentence builder (substitution table), which is the starting point of a cycle of lessons, every word or chunk is translated into L1 (usually English). This means that everything is understood by students. This is crucial. As a teacher I was aware that, even with quite able students and using all my skills to make language comprehensible (e.g. gesture, pictures, mime, 'sandwiching' - using occasional translation - definitions, paraphrases, etc), some students would get lost and not understand. Now, it's tempting to argue that the effort of trying to understand is somehow more natural and demands greater cognitive effort which should enhance memory. In practice, though, unless the teacher is particularly skilled, weaker students will just not understand, lose heart and be put off the subject. And let's face it, in Anglophone countries, selling language learning is a challenge to begin with.
3. Clarity
In the EPI approach the language to be learned by beginners and pre-intermediate students is largely predefined through the sentence builder. This means it is absolutely clear to students what is going to be learned and practised. This clarity is particularly beneficial to weaker students, I would say. The most able linguists may be willing to go along with the discovery of untranslated new language, engaging with new meanings, engaging in fairly spontaneous questions and answer dialogue. Experience suggests that weaker learners find this too hard. Sentence builders have this clarity shared by Knowledge Organiser booklets where the sentences to be learned and adapted are listed' along with their L1 translations.
By the way, this use of clearly defined language to be practised would be seen by some as a downside of the approach. It might be considered by some to be too 'top-down' by neglecting students' own input. For example, it may be anathema to TPRS/CI teachers who value highly the use of co-created stories with students. Although, as I understand it, TPRS teachers still have core language/structures they intend to incorporate, the approach gives much freer rein to students to decide what language is used in stories, picture talks and movie talks. This may be a contextual issue. In some countries or states the language to be used may well be pre-defined in the syllabus (see below).
4. Motivation
The comprehensibility and clarity of the approach may be the prime source of motivation for students when using EPI. Being able to understand at all times is likely to enhance students' feelings of self-efficacy (Bandura's term) or competence (Deci and Ryan's term). Motivation is also likely to be raised by the gamified nature of many of the activities used in EPI - the most famous 'chunking aloud' game being Sentence Stealers. If students think 'I can do this!' they will enjoy lessons more and are more likely to want o continue learning the language (and other languages) in the future. Just think of all those people you have met who say they were hopeless at languages at school.
5. Inclusivity
We know that aptitude and motivation are the two prime drivers of language learning success. We cannot control aptitude, but we can promote motivation, and EPI seems to me to be of particular value with learners of lower aptitude. Motivating the high-achievers has, historically, never been the main issue. But over the years, it has always been hard to motivate weaker learners. My feeling is that well-implemented EPI can work well with all students, but is particularly valuable for lower-aptitude, potentially less motivated learners. In this regard, you might say that EPI is more inclusive than approaches which demand grammatical analysis, formal learning of vocabulary and grammar and mechanical drilling. (CI/TPRS teachers sometimes make the same argument - using comprehensible input and limiting grammar is more inclusive than methods which may favour 'academic' and by extension 'middle-class' (in the British sense) children.)
6. Thorough processing
The word processing (from computing) is used in the phrase Extensive Processing Instruction. The point about thorough and extensive processing is that students are more likely to get success if they work intensively with a limited, clearly defined repertoire of language. By providing intensive repetition of language chunks through all the four skills, in an integrated way, language is more likely to stick and be the basis for more creative language use. Incidentally, 'chunks' does not juts mean formulaic, set phrases, but common combinations of words (collocations), often involving a verb. In the very limited time available to teachers and students in secondary school settings, you have to work as efficiently and productively as possible. You also have to keep in mind the requirements of the exam syllabus, which, in England, has clearly defined vocabulary and structures to cover.
An alternative to intensive processing, is a more superficial coverage, for example using texts with a larger range of vocabulary and structures, few of which are revisited or practised thoroughly. For many students, language presented this way is poorly remembered and students may feel that they have never really gained a solid foundation of learning. 'Mastery' is better than 'coverage'.
Just to add, another reason for the popularity if EPI is the tireless way in which Gianfranco has led professional development courses over the last few years. Face-to-face and online training has been important, along with blog posts and the books we have written together.
In the interest of brevity, let me finish by saying that all sorts of approaches can work in classrooms and that there is, of course, no best method. The learning context is important. Where you have a clearly defined syllabus (such as GCSE in England, Wales and Northern Ireland), it is wise to map out the language to be taught very explicitly and EPI is good at this. But with any method, it's the quality of the implementation that counts. You could do EPI badly and other methods well. The other methods would be better. There is no doubt, though, that Gianfranco's EPI approach has powerful merits which explain why so many teachers have taken it up.
Comments
Post a Comment