Psychological Perspectives on
Individualizing
Foreign Language Instruction
Leon A. James
University of Hawaii
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ I would like to begin by referring
to Fig. 1 which presents in either two÷ or three-dimensional form eight basic teaching
approaches (the EBTA cube). I would like to examine the characteristics of the
three binary distinctions suggested there.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ First,
the non÷programmed versus programmed instruction: to me, the most salient
differentiating feature between programmed and nonÐprogrammed instruction is
the extent to which the content of a ãlessonä is broken up into small unitary
ãstepsä each to be acquired separately and sequentially. Programmed instruction
often has associated with it special ãhardwareä paraphernalia (e.g., ãteaching
machinesä), but I consider these coincidental (not, however, unimportant or irrelevant) and there
exist programmed courses, which use textbook-type materials for the
presentation of the program. ãSelf÷pacingä is often a built in feature of
programmed courses, but in most cases individual differÐences in rate of
learning are not directly taken into account by the internal structure of the program,
and translate instead, into how long it takes an individual to complete a ãlessonä and
consequently, the overall course. Individual differences in learning
style are usually not taken into account. Some programs, for instance, will
provide short÷cuts for the fast learner and elaborations of some steps for the
slow learner, while using the same principle of presentation in both instances.
Programmed instruction insures acquisition by the very act of completion of the
program by the student, and special achievement and performance tests for the
course are thus not required. Every student who completes his programmed course
or ãmoduleä is automatically considered to have been ãsuccessfulä. Finally,
although programmed instruction constitutes ãindividualä instruction par excellence,
in the sense that the
student is alone with his mechanical or textual ãteacherä, it does not
necessarily represent ãindividualizedä instruction as characterized below.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Second, let me discuss the
distinction involved in the contrast between mass and individualized instruction. The fact of
mass education, its existence and presence in our, and other technological
societies, is not a result of merely the emergent need of educating large
numbers people. In its present form, it is no less a result of certain specific
assumptions about the learning process and the intended educational objectives.
I think this observation is notable because too often educator attempt to
rationalize many recognized shortcomings of the educational system by saying
that they are the result of an overflow of student popuÐlation in our schools
(or, alternately, an underflow of ãqualifiedä teacher.) Certainly it is
understandable that overflows and underflows reduce the efficiency of a system.
But an increasing number of people have come to believe that some of these
shortcomings are to be attributed to the assumptions and principles of the
learning÷teaching process, and have advocated different, often contradictory
assumptions end principles. I would like to refer to this difference by the
mass versus individualized contrast.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Mass
instruction assumes that effective teaching is possible when a group of
individuals are brought together in a classroom or laboratory
and treated as multiple copies of one ("averageä) individual (ãlockstepä).
A relatively pure instance of this approach is basic army training; a
contaminated instance is the typical large American graduate school - and there
are shades in-between. This basic assumption has several corollaries, the most
important ones being the following: graduates of the training program have
similar minimal competencies and they can be made to learn in similar
sequential and cumulative steps.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ The major assumption of mass
instruction is contradicted by the individualized approach, which treats each
individual as a different species of learner. This difference is
analogous to the contrast between mass produced and custom built automobiles.
Note that the
principles and opportunities of mass production constitute a technological and
economic reality, which is what makes it possible to have custom, built
automobiles. Similarly, the reality of a public educational system, with its software of teaching
materials and curricula, and its hardware of classrooms and laboratories, makes
it possible to have individualized instruction (which should not be confused
with one÷to one teaching).
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ As
with orders for custom built cars, each individual learner is considered a
unique and separate problem: graduates of training program do not have
similar minimal competencies and they can not ha made to learn in
similar sequential and cumulative steps. These beliefs lead to very different
decisions about curricular Content and development and to very different
expectations about achievement, performance, and competence. Here, the notion
of self÷pacing assumes less trivial, mare critical importance than in many
current programmed instruction courses. Here, examinations and tests are not
geared to the school year and ãgrade levelä is not synonymous with
age. The conception of ãteacherä, ãclassroomä, and ãhomeworkä become less neat and well defined; instead
we may speak of ãtutorä or ãfacilitatorä end mare simply "workä rather
than ãclass or homeworkä.
We come
now to the third distinction I wish to make, traditional versus compensatory
instruction, and this is likely to create more difficulties than the other two,
partly because the word ãtraditionalä ordinarily includes such a broad range of
things, and partly because I have previously used the phrase ãcompensatory
instructionä (James, 1970, Chapter 3), where, according to the more refined
terminology preÐsented in this paper, I would use ãCompensatory - individualized instructionä. I
believe that the additional differentiation is useful and worth the
effort.Ê
Traditional
instruction makes the following traditional assumpÐtions: that formal education
prepares the individual for the ãreal lifeä problems outside school; that
courses and curricula provide specialized knowledge and skills which, in their
aggregate, constitute professional or work setting competence; that the
discrete skills and knowledge which makes up the content of courses and
textbooks are to be selected on the basis of some sort of sampling distribution
(in terms of their "importance", ãfrequencyä,
"usefulness", "prerequisiteness" etc.), since they are too
numerous to be taught in their entirety; that acquisition of a minimum
specified number of such facts and skills constitutes ipso facto evidence of
the acquisition of the specialized competence; that the specialized competence which
is the purposted goal of the instruction/(process can be adequately defined in
terms of these discrete skills, which is to say, independently of the performer
and the context of his performance.
Compensatory instruction specifically denies the validity of
these assumptions of discreteness, of sampling, of sequential accumuÐlation, of
the quid pro quo of formal instruction and competence. The school is not
considered as either a substitute or a preparation ground for
society, "like there,ä but is taken for its face value as a place in society,
like the home, or the work setting, which individuals of a certain age are forced to attend, in
which they must work and cope to survive as a part of their social and human
condition. The school is
thus a training and preparation ground only in the trivial sense that the home,
the church, the neighborhood, the Boys Scouts, or whatever are training
grounds. This is a trivial sense since every decade of an individualâs life can
be looked upon as preparation for the decades that come afterward.
If you look upon the school in this latter way, then the
courses and curricula you encounter there would no doubt still provide
specialized knowledge and skills but whether, in their aggregate they constitute
professional or civic competence is an open question to be carefully assessed
rather than granted by definition. Similarly, it becomes a problem for
demonstration whether professional or civic competence can develop in any other
way but by doing and living professionally and civic. Furthermore, since
our specific understanding of real life situations has always been immeasurably
less than our understanding of abstract, theoretic, and artificial systems it remains to be shown that an effective formal instruction
process, which requires specificity of knowledge, is at all possible under such
conditions. Thus, that people can learn, is an undeniable fact of life; that
people can teach, is an interesting hypothesis, but an uncertain one.
I have now completed my elaboration of the
three binary distinctions of basic approaches to teaching. Since each dimension
has been independÐently defined, we have a possible total of eight basic
approaches to teaching. These can be arranged in a three-dimensional
cubic figure, as in
Fig. 1a, or a two-dimensional figure, as in Fig. 1b.Ê I would now like to discuss the characteristics of a FL
curriculum within such a model.
FL Instruction within the EBTA Cube
In this second half of my paper I
am going to adopt a more argumentative
style because I believe that fundamental changes are needed in the approaches
to FL teaching which characterize many FL curricula in our public educational
system at all three levels. Programmed instruction is not yet widespread in
education, generally, and in FL instruction, it is used very infrequently, as
far as I am aware. Individualized instruction in FL teaching is even more recent a
development, although there are signs that an increasing number of individual
teachers have taken upon themselves the task of implementing some of its
principles in their classrooms (see Altman, 1971, Rogers, 1969). Compensatory
instruction is not yet a reality anywhere in the public educational system, but
I shall try to argue that we have the know how to start implementing many of
its principles. That leaves the non-programmed mass-traditional approach (type
4 in Fig. 1) as the standard prototype practically everywhere. This approach,
as defined in the first half of this paper, makes the following assumptions (in
this, I am going to restrict my Locus to the learning and teaching of a
second language);
1.ÊÊ The teaching
objectives of the language course are stated in very general terms such as ãa
speaking knowledgeä or ãa knowledge of Îthe fourâ basic skillsä, rather than in
specific terms as defined by a learning program. Furthermore, there is no need
to break up the knowledge
that is to be acquired into the strictly unitary steps of a
programmed sequence
2.ÊÊÊ With some exceptions (such as remedial
classes), learners are treated alike in the overall instructional process
3.
Graduates of a FL course or program have similar minimal competence in the
second language as attested by the obtention of at least a passing grade.
4.ÊÊÊ Individuals can learn a second language by
going through similar sequential and cumulative steps as defined by the content
of a set of lessons variously organized depending on the particular text or
method being used.
5.ÊÊÊ The FL course prepares the individual for the use of the target language outside the classroom or laboratory.
6.ÊÊÊ Communicative competence can be broken up
into discrete skills and ãpiecesä of knowledge for more efficient
learning, and these discrete elements constitute the content of lessons,
laboratory exercises, and homework.
7.ÊÊÊ The degree of communicative competence
acquired is directly related to and assessed by the quality of performance on achievement
tests (standardized or examination type) which sample-attained knowledge of
discrete elements presented in the lessons.
8.ÊÊÊ Communicative
competence or knowledge
of the language is defined in abstract, generalized, context-free terms.
On the basis of my evaluation of the language learning
process or the development of communicative competence, I have come to believe that
with the possible exception of the first, the assumptions associated with the
mass traditional approach are unsound. And Iâd like to offer some arguments
substantiating my impression. These, at the same time, can be looked upon as a characterization of
the individualized compensatory approach to language teaching, either
programmed or non-programmed.
I start with the general premise, often stated by Carroll
(e.g.; 1965, p. 22) that students in a FL class learn, if anything precisely
what they are taught. This assertion can be interpreted at two different
levels, both of which I believe to be valid. At one level, an audio-lingual
course that emphasizes ãoral skillsä will show higher achievement scores on
tests of listening and speaking performance than a ãtraditionalä course that emphasizes
reading and writing, and at the same time, it will show lower scores on tests
of reading and writing as compared to the ãtraditionalä course. At another
level, one that is not discussed to the same extent in the FL teaching
literature, the language skills acquired in the classroom or laboratory will be
different from the language skills needed for communicative compeÐtence outside the school. That these
represent different skills is attested by the common observation that the
relationship between success on language achievement tests or course grades and
the success in communicating in the target language in real life
situations is weak. This weak relationship also holds in the reverse situation where individuals who have
learned a second language ãin the streetsä and have success in communicating in it, do not necessarily
obtain high scores on standardized achievement tests.
A corollary to this basic assumption is that the development
of communicative competence occurs only in learning situations where there is a
real communicative need, and in response to it. The classroom and the
laboratory in the context of formal education constitute a social setting where
the communicative needs are different from those in non-school settings. This
means that the school achiever will develop a pattern of communicative
competence that is different from and not suitable for meeting the
communicative needs outside the school. I am not arguing here that the school
context is irrelevant; only that it is irrelevant to a significant number of
non÷school contexts. For instance a formal course in History may be
relevant to contributing to our understanding of the historical process as
viewed within an academic frame of reference, but its relevance to underÐstanding
that daily events reported on tie front page of a newspaper, is unconvincing.
The study of Latin may be relevant to an understanding of Latin and Ancient
Roman civilization, but its relevance to anything else is a point. Similarly, the study of
a FL in the classroom may develop certain worthwhile knowledge, but its
relevance to the use of that language for communicative purposes outside the
school appears to be small (e.g., sea Carrol, 1968).
Let me summarize my argument thus
far. The classroom represents a non÷ordinary, specialized communicative
setting, with its own complex rules of conversational interaction and
specialized functions for language use (e.g., instruction and problem solving).
Ordinary commonÐplace conversational interaction has its own and a different
complex sot of rules, and it cannot be replicated or simulated in the classroom. The
communicative competence that underlies it can only be developed in real life
situations.
The FL educators and teachers who
become convinced of the validity of this argument will be faced with the
necessity of making certain diffiÐcult, exploratory, but I think exciting,
decisions that will radically change the contemporary spectrum of the FL
curriculum. It will be a change away from the mass-traditional approach to the
compensatory-individualized approach. The extent of displacement they may
achieve as a result of these new policy decisions will no doubt vary with the
existing social, political, and administrative conditions of each school community. This is as it is ÷ but the crucially important point is
that each decision that is made, no matter how small in consequences, be of
such character as to move the spectrum of FL instruction away from type 4 in
the EBTA cube (mass-traditional) to types 1 and 5 (compensatory-individualized).
Educational Slogans and
the Sequential Hypothesis
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ The field
of educations ordinarily operates within and by means of educational slogans (see Gordon, 1971). These slogans
are repreÐsented by folk÷theoretical explanations given by teachers and other
educators for existing practices and diagnostic activities. Here are some example: ãStudents are not
working up to their abilitiesä; ãFL instruction is designed to teach
the students to communicate in a second languageä; ãThe problem is how to
motivate the studentsä; ãI use method x to teachä; ãBasic patterns and
vocabulary must precede free expressionä and so on. The justification of
educational slogans (their rationality versus their superstitious application)
is a topic not unlike that of the emperorâs clothes in the childrenâs
story:Ê there is a silent conspiracy (negative contract) not
to mention it. I am particularly interested here in the sequential hypothesis.
This hypothesis has become so ingrained in the very conception of language
teaching that it is seldom remembered that this is a hypothesis rather
than a self-evident truth, so much so that questioning its implications strikes
many teachers as odd. But consider.
A child learning a first language
is ordinarily exposed to the full range of syntactic patterns of the language
of adults and although
there is such a thing as ãbaby talkä that some adults use in interacting with young
infants, there is no evidence that this adjustment pattern or anything else
that anxious middle-class parents do to ãspeed upä language development has any
significant effect on the child (see Smith and Miller, 1966; Lenneberg,
1967). This experience shows that language can be
learned contrary to the sequence hypothesized in the basic patterns and
vocabulary hypothesis. If you think that second÷ language learning is different
from first-language acquisition in this respect, then think of the common fact
that many individuals who are immersed in a culture (e.g., immigrants) come to
develop communicative competence
in the second language in the absence of a formal instruction procedure that is guided by the
sequential hypothesis.
In the light of these two common
observations, you might wish to change the sequential hypothesis such that it
is a hypothesis about the most effective procedure of learning a second
language in school. But what evidence do you have that this is indeed
so? What is an alternative hypothesis? You might say, for instance, that
students will learn, if anything, precisely what they are being taught. If they
are taught basic patterns and vocabulary in artificially structured verbal
interactions, they will be able to perform under those conditions, but they
will not be able to interact in ordinary communicative interÐactions. The
expectation of transfer from the first to second communicative setting has too
often remained unfulfilled to deserve continued faith. Why not begin the
teaching of a language at the second level, in those cases where
communicative competence in free conversational interaction is the goal, rather
than hope it will materialize by itself in later stages or reserve the practice
of it for ãmore advancedä language learning stages?
Note that the very notion of ãbasicä
patterns and vocabulary is a weakly defined one. Anyone who has
transcribed tape recorded versions of free speech must be convinced that we do
not ordinarily speak in alternating ãsentencesä of the
type one practices in classroom exercises and simulated dialogues.
It is possible, of course, to write an elementary text in such a way that it
contains x number of patterns and y number of words and to practice artificial
dialogues containing no more than the particular patterns arid words in the
ãbasicä text Rut this is possible only because what is being said and how it is
said is artificially restricted in advance. Even the simplest of free
communicative interchanges, however, do not subscribe to this artificial
restriction, and it is not a source of much satisfaction to realize that say,
80% of what is ordinarily done in free speech will be subsumed under the
ãbasicä patterns and vocabulary since it takes the other 20% to successfully
transact any conversation.
Rejection of the sequential
hypothesis does not necessarily imply the absence of any structure in teaching,
even though it is true that, at the moment, we do not know precisely how to
systematize the instruction of free conversational competence. This is not
because the latter type of structured instruction is inherently more complex
and difficult to achieve, but because we have not focused in our past research
and teaching on the systematic organized nature of ordinary conversations, and
until we do so we shall remain hesitant and ineffective in our teaching of it
(for a start in this, see Sacks, 1971, and the discussion in James, 1971).
Anyone who cares to think about it
would realize that language is used for many different purposes and in many
varieties and registers. These different functions and varieties have
different, partially independent, underlying skills and competencies and it is
naive to think that the same basic hypothesis about teaching procedures can
effectively meet the various learning needs in their development. The traditional
classification of the ãfour basic skillsä into listening, speaking, reading,
and writing categories seems totally inadequate in the light of recent
discoveries in sociolinguistics and ethno methodology (Ervin-Tripp, 1967;
Garfinkel, 1968; Sacks, 1971; Searle, 1969). A more realistic approach would
take into account the functions and varieties of language as defined by the
context in which the language is to be used: ordinary conversational
interaction, using language for instructional purposes, reading for pleasure,
writing business correspondence, and so on. A realistic goal for our current
educational objectives in FL instruction would be for the curriculum to
establish three separate and independent ãtracksä: one track for ordinary
conversational interaction, another for reading, and a third for instructional
use. Each track would be made up of a flexible package of mini÷courses or
modules, each worth a certain amount of credit points upon completion. Students
should be counseled which track to take on the basis of diagnostically
evaluated assessment procedures including aptitude, time and opportunity
available for study, interest, learning style and perceived goals (see my
discussion in James, 1970, Chapter 3). The procedures and materials to be used
with each track ought to be developed by the FL teacher in accordance with a
specification of the skills to be acquired. It is important to choose fairly
specific terminal behaviors, defined by communicative context and setting, and
begin training under those conditions at the outset rather
than under some allegedly prior or basic but artificial conditions.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ The
FL teacher is the person who must implement these changes. The prevailing
hesitancy of the FL teacher in implementing changes and his dependence on
methods and commercially available courses must be actively discouraged by FL
administrators and supervisors. For over twenty years now, the FL profession
has encouraged this kind of dependence and if it had been effective it should
have been more successful than it has in fact been (see Carroll, 1968). Itâs
time for a wing of the pendulum in a totally different direction, in the
assertion of the teacherâs role as the one who makes the instructional
decisions. Nothing short of this is compatible with the professional
responsibility and personal integrity of the teacher.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ
Initiating
change: The Ebtamobile Trip
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ In
this final section I would like to make more specific suggestions as to the kind
of changes in FL instruction that I think are desirable. The EBTA cube
represents a way of talking about the philosophy of teaching that is
basic and general. How does movement take place within the EBTA cube, say if we
wish to move from the top right hand corner (type 4) to the bottom left hand
corner? A method of translocomotion occurs to me which I shell briefly
describe, but given its presently unrefined character, I hope it will be taken
not as a method to be applied, but rather a method to be discussed. I shall
call this proposed solution to the problem of initiating change in basic
approaches to teaching as the Triadic Method of Least Resistance and the
ensuing profile of the instructional changes as the Ebtamobile Path.
Step 1.Ê List the instructional
areas in which you believe you have some degree of control. I would like to
suggest the following seven general headlines.
A.ÊÊ The shape of the
overall curriculum
B.ÊÊ Course
content and materials
C.ÊÊ Classroom
activities and assignments
D.ÊÊ Type of
tests and their timing
E.ÊÊ Nature of
grading system
F.ÊÊ Distribution of
time end work modules
O.Ê Opportunity
for diagnostic and remedial activities
Step 2. Get together with administrators and supervisors and
discuss all alternatives that occur to you in these instructional areas
in connection with the following four directions of change:
1.ÊÊ Ratio of
student/non÷student initiated acts
2.ÊÊ Specificity
of student contract
3.ÊÊÊ Degree of
self÷pacing
4.ÊÊ Nature of
student/teacher interaction
Theoretically, you have a 7 x 4 matrix of 28 boxes each of
which are independent of one another (see Table 1). For instance, for
area A (The shape of the overall curriculum), the ratio of student-initiated
acts may be quite low, whereas it may be quite high in areas D or F. The degree
of self-pacing may be substantial in area F and insignificant in area D. A
specific contract maybe between the student and the teacher in area D but imposed by the
teacher in area
B.Ê By ãnature of student/teacher interactionä I
have in mind particularly two scales: (i) teacher as authority figure vs.
teacher as tutor or facilitator and, (ii) high vs. low empathic understanding
between student and teacher (see Barrett-Lennard, 1962).
Step 3. Get together with the students and discuss these
alternatives with them, noting whatever additional suggestions they may have.
Step 4. Make a list of possible changes within each of the
28 boxes and arrange then in a rank order of extent of departure from
current practices such that the change in rank position 1 would be minimal end
that in position 10 (way) would be fundamental, with 5 being ãsomewhat rocking
the boat but not pulling down the roof over your head.ä You end up with a
matrix list of 230 changes (10 changes within each of the 28 boxes). This grid
of 280 changes items constitutes the possible theoretical path of the
ebtamobile. To determine the actual path that is possible for you, with your
particular students and in your particular school at any particular time,
figure out the path of least resistance as follows.
Step 5.ÊÊÊÊÊÊ Draw a line above the first change item in each of
the 28 boxes which represents for you the point of psychological stress that
is a change that you cannot live with comfortably if you were to function under
those conditions. In some boxes your stress point may be at rank 2, in others
you may be courageous enough to go down to rank 6 or 7. You end up with 28
scores for yourself varying between 1 and 10 (if you used a ten÷point scale).
This is your psychological change profile. Now determine in a similar way the
psychological change profile for your supervisor, and also for each of your
students if you are
committed to an advanced individualized instruction program, or, if you
are working in a mass oriented environment, use the average student psychological change profile
for the class. Determine the path of least resistance by computing a geometric
average for the three psychological change profiles. This will give you the context
specific instructional profile that is possible in your school at this time.
Step 6. ÊÊ Implement immediately all the change items in
each of the 28 boxes that fall above the line of the path of least
resistance.Ê
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ And Presto! ÷ you are well on your way towards an individualized program. A cautionary note: it should be good practice to recompute the path of least resistance at the beginning of each semester.
Altman, H.B. Toward a definition
of individualized foreign language instruction. American Foreign Language
Teacher, February 1971, No. 3.
Barrett-Lennard, G.T. Dimensions of therapist response
as causal factors in therapeutic change. Psychological Monographs, 1962,
76. (Whole Issue No. 562).
Carroll, J.B. The prediction of success in intensive foreign
language training. In Robert Glazer (ad.) Training Research and Eden. New York:
Wiley, 1965.
Carroll, J.B. Foreign language proficiency levels attained
by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals, 1968, 1,
318.353.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. Sociolinguistics. Working paper no. 3,
Language Behavior Research Laboratory, University of California,
Berkeley, 1967.
Garfinkel,
Harold. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Ê Prentice÷Hall, 1968.
Gordon, B.Ê Individualized instruction and sub÷culture differences. Paper presented at the Kentucky Foreign Language Conference, Lexington, Ky., April 1971.
James, L.A. Foreign Language Learning:Ê A Psycholinguistic Analysis of the Issues. Rowley,
Mass.: Newbury House Publishers,
1870.
James, L.A. Towards a psychology ordinary language.Ê Paper preÐsented at the Central Pennsylvania
Psychology Lecture Series, April 1971.ÊÊÊÊ
Lenneberg, E.H.Ê Biological
Foundations of Language. Nay York:Ê
Wiley, 1967.
Rogers, C.R. Freedom to Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. , 1969.
Sacks, H.Ê Aspects
of the Sequential Organization of Conversation.Ê Forthcoming, Prentice-Hall publications,
1971).
Searle, J.R. Speech Acts. Cambridge, England:Ê Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Smith, F. and Miller, G.A. (Eds.). The genesis of
Language. Cambridge:Ê M.I.T.ÊÊÊÊÊ Press, 1966.
This presentation is based on a
paper entitled ãA typology of FL education with particular emphasis
on compensatory and individualized instructionä which was prepared for delivery
at the Kentucky Foreign Language Conference, Lexington, Ky., April 1971. Based
on Chapter 7 of Leon A. James, The New Psycholinguistics and Foreign
Language Teaching
Collected Essays. Rowley,
Mass.: Newbury House Publishers, 1971 (forthcoming). Reprinted by permission of
the publisher and author.Ê At the
time this was written, the author was a Visiting Fellow at
McGill University, Montreal, Canada
while on sabbatical leave of absence from the University of Illinois, Urbana.