Last post, we introduced the idea of input/output as described by Krashen and Swain; and their importance or relevance in the second language classroom. Here, we are going to look at the first batch of data I have collected in my classroom and have a little exploratory discussion.
First however, let’s talk shop.
I should first note that I do not have access to materials that would make this all easier. To collect the data, I used a simply voice recorder on my cell phone. I then listened to the class over again (a useful exercise, regardless of whatever happens with this project) and counted the amount of class time spent between meaningful input and output. I also included the amount of class time done in Korean (though, not separated into input/output).
This is very time-intensive. Classes are 45 minutes long, and it takes at least one-listen-through to estimate the time, and if I’m feeling thorough, I listen and record again.
In addition, because of how time-intensive this kind of data collection is; I only have 8, 45-minute classes in this initial exploratory dataset. As we keep going, the amount of data I will have will increase.
Let’s start with the goal in mind, how much input/output is ideal for the ESL classroom. Is the oft-cited 20/80 the ultimate goal? How do specific teaching strategies affect the input/output ratios of the classroom? Let’s start with the most general numbers.
Honestly, I was surprised by these first numbers. I expected much higher levels of Korean and lower Output. But as it stands, the initial numbers are really quite harmonious. English input has the largest share of classtime, but by no means has a majority. If we were looking to move to a “20/80” classroom, moving from 37% input to 20% is the least difficult task.
The amount of Korean in the classroom is a bit of an opaque issue for me. I am not sure at all if this is a good thing or a bad thing; something that needs to be raise, or lowered. Much of my co-teachers teaching is done in Korean, and much of the responses from students to his teaching is in Korean as well. This is not necessarily a “problem” that needs to be fixed. 34% of all class-time might suggest he is not using “TEE” enough (Teaching English in English), but I don’t know for sure.
As you can imagine, the amount of Korean input/output changes drastically depending on who is leading the class. For the Korean English Teacher’s (KET) class, the percentages look like this:
64% of class time is quite a bit more than the overall statistic. But, again, whether or not this is a problem is unclear. Undoubtedly, in the KET-led class, TEE is not a priority. Contrary to whatever the Korean Education Administration would led you to believe. Actual academic studies suggest that the average KET’s ability to utilize TEE is affected by external factors, including school culture, social hierarchies and covert shaming.
Anecdotally, when the KET in our classroom attempts TEE, the students often express exasperation or ridicule his attempt. They feel very uncomfortable for whatever reason, communicating with him in anything other than Korean. This is not a reason to abandon TEE, but it is a hurdle that must be cleared if TEE is to be used.
As concerns the main focus, input/output, the KET actually has a fairly good ratio (though, of course, far below the 20/80.) This will change when we look class-by-class below, but I speculate that the reason the percentages are so close, is that the KET utilizes rote memorization and repetition extensively. “Repeat after me” drills are the main technique for output, though certainly not the only one. Repetition will give a fairly even 1:1 ratio. For the Native English Teacher, the graph is certainly very different.
In regards to the input/output, we can see very similar amounts of NET English Input and KET Korean. One reason the NET input is lower, may be a result that the NET must struggle to negotiate meaning with the students. The NET is in no position to simply ramble on about English. 58% however, is probably still indicative that the NET is speaking too much, and that a good portion of that input is not comprehensible to the students (and therefore, the students aren’t learning efficiently) .
The NET does elicit more student-output. Though the quality of the output is not necessarily the right kind. The class is directed mostly through a textbook, so the type of input/output is fairly scripted. The activities involved rarely get the students to the point of “free expression” and have many activities of rote memorization and repetition. The NET isn’t exactly thrilled with that, but he just does what he is told. The students do produce a certain amount of impromtu output that would qualify under Swain’s definition. How much? Unclear just yet.
Class-by-class however, there seems to be random variation in the amount of input/ouput or Korean on any given day. The data limits any sort of conclusion just yet. But these disparate numbers with the KET using Korean far more often, and the NET using English input closer to a 40/60 ratio are a little skewed.
The downward trend of Output surprised me initially and certainly goes against my hypothesis that as time goes on, we should expect an increase in student output, simply due to the fact that the observer is also a player in the game. We can see, however, that the overall percentage of of input for the NET is skewed by one class period where 80% of the class was pure input. A very boring class indeed.
Whether or not the trend will only widen, contract or fluctuate we shall have to wait and see. My initial guess is that this has as much to do with what class is being taught, where we are in the textbook, what day of the week it is, what time of day it is, and a few other relevant factors, as it does with anything I do.
Likewise, the KET’s overall percentages are heavily influenced by one particular lesson where he spent 93% of classtime speaking and being spoken to, in Korean. (There is a lot to be said about an ESL class that spends only 4% of class time giving English input and 0.6% English output, but we’ll avoid it for now).
Interesting is the relationship of input to output. The KET managed to have slightly higher output than input for a couple of classes, and as I said before, this is in part due to repetition drills, but that would only explain a very close 1:1 ratio. There must be additional reasons, which could include student free response, or student-directed discussions. Something worth examining a little closer in the future.
Of course, we don’t have much to conclude just yet, but we have a better idea of what we should be looking at. The most opaque areas have to do with why any given class can fluctuates so widely between input/output, if this is a problem, whether or not the teachers have the ability to control it more closely (or if the problem is external to the teacher and their control).
What can be fairly assumed right now, is that that the students are experiencing very different English classes between the NET and the KET. And I don’t just mean the obvious “one’s an American and one’s Korean” cultural difference. It seems that very different theoretical foundations separate the co-teachers. The question remains of how this impacts student learning. Does the back-and-forth disrupt students routine? Or is the effect minimal?
Those questions are beyond the scope of what we are looking at here, but I still wonder if the NET-led and KET-led back-and-forth model is actually disruptive, and would it be better to either fully integrate each teacher in every lesson (requiring far more planning than the KET has time for, in this situation), or instead making the back and forth on the scale of weeks instead of days. Maybe there is no effect at all.