Page 79 - The SpeakTeach method - Esther de Vrind
P. 79

The comparator and the reference value
De Bot (1996) argued that L2 learners benefit more from being pushed to retrieve target language forms than from merely hearing the forms in the input, because retrieval and subsequent production can strengthen associations in memory (cf. Swain’s pushed output hypothesis, 2005). The activity of reflecting after speaking may strengthen learning even more, because reflecting on both positive points and areas for improvement pushes learners once again to retrieve already internalized target language forms and this time to compare them with their current speaking production.
In order to compare the current with the desired situation, learners have to possess a concept of what they think the desired speaking performance should look like (Sadler, 1989). They compare what they notice and understand of their own speaking performance (the input) with an internal reference or standard. According to Black and William (2009: 15) “the learners’ standards will depend in part on their interpretation of the task, on their perception of the criteria and targets for success, on their personal orientation towards the task, and on their view of the time constraints.”
In order to support the development of such an internal reference or standard, all kinds of input can be provided through exposure to target exemplars. This positive evidence gives the learner information about what is possible in the language (Lyster, et al., 2013). Support can be provided in the form of models of the desired speaking performance and examples of appropriate linguistic aspects with which the students can compare their own performance (Poehner, 2012; Préfontaine, 2013).
It is of course possible to support students by providing external standards (for instance in the form of a rubric) with criteria for the quality of the speaking performance. These can be descriptive or normative. Descriptive standards can help the learner to see how they can develop (Brantmeier et al., 2012; Little, 2009). In our view, it is important that the external standards are not normative given the purpose of this study. We aimed at stimulating students’ reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of their performances, so that aspects associated with success or high quality could be recognized and reinforced, and unsatisfactory aspects modified or improved (Sadler, 1989). The value of comparing resides in the development stimulated through the process of comparing the current with the desired situation (e.g. Bennett, 2011; Orsmond, Merry & Reiling, 2002; Poehner, 2012). The intention is to let learners think about their own performance, their own goals, what is needed and how
76
77
 4



























































































   77   78   79   80   81