Month: July 2018

The full title of this chapter in Bill VanPatten’s book, While We’re On the Topic, is “Tasks Should Form the Backbone of the Communicative Curriculum”.

This post will be short because I am involved in a couple of language teachers conferences.

Let’s start with a set of can-do statements. Then we’ll know what to expect from VanPatten’s discussion. Rate yourself for each statement with one of the following: Yes, for sure; Sort of; Nope.

1. I can state the difference between an Exercise, an Activity, and a Task.
2. I can identify a Task when I see one.
3. I understand the difference between an input-oriented task and an output-oriented task.
4. I can state the difference between Tasks as drop-ins and Tasks as the goals of units.
5. I understand what it means to determine what students need to know and what they need to be able to do in order to be successful with a task.

Before reading this chapter in VanPatten’s book, these were my answers:

1. No
2. No
3. Sort of
4. No
5. Sort of

As you can see, my knowledge of Tasks was (and to a certain extent remains) quite limited. That’s why I read books like this.

VanPatten lays out the design of the chapter as exploring three topics:
– The nature of tasks;
– The difference between a Task, an Exercise, and an Activity;
– How the teacher can use Tasks to construct a communicative curriculum.

By this point in the book, we should know that the focus will be on communication, i.e. the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning in a given context for a purpose.

Since the title of the chapter is about Tasks, we can conclude that VanPatten will recommend Tasks as opposed to Exercises and Activities.

Beyond that, check back next week for the discussion and a report on how the conferences went.

Today, we’re finishing Chapter 4 from Bill VanPatten’s book, While We’re On the Topic (ACTFL, 2017). It only took five posts to do it.

As always, VanPatten concludes his discussion with “Implications for Language Teaching”. This chapter has three that could be transformative for language instruction if taken seriously.

“Input should be central to the classroom, not something ‘added on.’ Input must be comprehensible and level-appropriate. Instructors should be talking with and not at learners.”

This alone would transform the language acquisition process for learners in schools. VanPatten is addressing primarily language instructors, and the vast majority teach in some sort of formal classroom setting. Imagine having students who participate because the discussion in the classroom is authentically addressing their interests and needs rather than proceeding apace to “cover” a set amount of material. It can happen. I have experienced it.

Instructors should be proficient enough in the language themselves so that the provision of input and interaction is easy and effortless for them.

This speaks directly to an issue I have contemplated for some time: content competency. I have sometimes wondered if certain teachers are resistant to making their classrooms communicati0n based because they believe (often rightly so) that their own language proficiency is not adequate to remaining in the target language in a way that is understandable to students.

Language teachers do not need to be native speakers or even have “native-like ability” (whatever that is). They do, however, need to have a high enough level of proficiency to conduct the class in the target language and sufficient pedagogical skill to make that language understandable to the students at whatever level.

For years I advocated for comprehension-based teaching and conducted my own classes on that basis. My district invited me to give in-service presentations to other language teachers. However, I often met resistance along the lines of, “But what about the teacher who can only speak at a first-year level? What if they can’t handle the same sort of wide-ranging discussion that you can?” My reply was and is that these teachers need to do one of two things: either get out of the classroom or do whatever it takes to improve their content competence.

Does that seem harsh? Is it not far harsher to subject students to teaching that does not lead to acquisition? To what extent do we sacrifice our students on the altar of allowing the teacher to continue to feel comfortable?

VanPatten suggests that we need to ask the following questions: Do all teachers have the requisite skills to conduct their classes in the L2? (The answer needs to be “yes”.) What are the quality and quantity of input and interaction teachers can provide? (The answer needs to be “high” for both.) Do they have the full range of communicative abilities that allow them to easily and comfortably orchestrate a fully communicative class with their students? (The answer needs to be “yes”.)

Instructors need to demand different materials from publishers and marketers – materials in which input is central and the “syllabus” is built on themes and topics, not vocabulary and grammar.

VanPatten notes the fundamental flaw of current textbooks: “Almost all commercial textbooks repeat the traditional syllabus described earlier in this chapter, and the role of input is limited to ‘input as technique’ to teach vocabulary and grammar.” (2017, p. 74)

It is here that I both hope and despair. Textbook companies respond to the demands of the marketplace. However, that responds tends to be rather slow in education, particularly at the primary and secondary levels. The reason for this is the system.  At this level, instructors generally do not order their own materials, districts order them. That in and of itself can cause problems. Let me give an example.

The district in which I worked piloted foreign language textbooks last year. The district chose two or three textbooks for each language and asked certain teachers to use and evaluate these textbooks. The teachers who used the materials for Spanish heritage speakers found both of the textbooks unacceptable. Every single teacher who tried the textbooks wanted nothing to do with either one. The district administration, however, informed them that they had to make a choice. There would be no opportunity to try out and reach a consensus on other materials. So, the teachers chose a textbook but plan not to use it. This is a waste of taxpayer funds, does a disservice to the students, and disregards the professional expertise and experience of the teachers. It also does nothing to change the product offered by the publisher. After all, the textbook was adopted.

On the other hand, both I and my successor in the German program categorically rejected even looking at a textbook. We both understand that a program based on student interests and tailored by the teacher to student needs is far more responsive, student-centered, and effective than a pre-packaged “Scope and Sequence” from a textbook. Had I remained in my position, I would have advocated for money for readers and professional development since we had saved the district thousands of dollars in textbook costs. My hope is that my successor will advocate for those funds.

This is the way to get the attention of publishers: purchase what you truly want and do not purchase anything if it is not what you want. Unfortunately, the system works against this, but it is the way for instructors at the elementary and secondary levels to work for change. VanPatten is a university professor, and professors have greater discretion in choosing materials for their courses, so his experience is different from mine.

I agree with his goal but believe that there will need to be a significant change to the educational system before it can come to fruition.

I recommend that all teachers advocate for what they believe is best for their students based on reading and reflecting on the research. If enough teachers do this, perhaps districts will listen. If enough districts demand something else, then the publishers will listen.

But then, perhaps the more effective solution is simply to bypass the traditional publishers and use materials created and shared by classroom teachers and their students. I intend to remain part of that movement and solution. (Okay, shameless plug here. You can take a look at what I’m doing at www.compellinginput.net.)

Today, we’re continuing with the idea of what constitutes appropriate materials and interaction.

In this chapter of his book While We’re On the Topic, Bill VanPatten addresses a hot issue in the second and foreign language teaching community: authenticity.

I addressed this topic when I considered Eileen Glisan and Richard Donato’s book, Enacting the Work of Language Instruction(ACTFL, 2017). If you are interested in reading my discussions, click here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. At the time, I presented some objections to the generally accepted position on “authentic texts”: the definition is demonstrably flawed, at least two different definitions are employed to justify common practices, the restrictions imposed by the definition do not reflect real-world concepts and practice in the first language, and the principle is often misunderstood and misapplied. Other than that, there’s not much to see here.

VanPatten provides an excellent description of the situation:

Authenticity refers to whether classroom activities and materials use authentic language use [sic] and authentic sources from native-speaking cultures. That is, authentic materials are texts (e.g., websites, ads, newspaper articles) written by native speakers for other native speakers. In some circles of language teaching, there is a push to use authentic materials from the beginning. In some cases, advocates push for an exclusive use of authentic materials and “shun” materials written for the second language learner. (2017, p. 721; emphasis in original)

One inherent danger of the emphasis in the last half of VanPatten’s description is the tendency to turn authentic texts into just another text to be got through rather than using it as comprehensible input in the communication-based classroom.

VanPatten raises but does not answer some very important questions with regard to the use of authentic texts. They parallel and complement my own questions. Here are a few:
1. What kind of authentic text would contain appropriate level input for the first semester learner of Japanese? (VanPatten)
2. Should teachers wait to introduce authentic texts and sources once learners have higher levels of ability with language? (VanPatten)
3. And how would the learner interact with that text in the classroom? (Van Patten)
4. If simplification of text for emergent first language learners is considered both acceptable and authentic, why is it not acceptable for second language learners? (Harrell)
5. Under the given definition, how can a learner ever have an “authentic conversation”, especially if the teacher is not a native speaker? (Harrell)
6. How does the definition of “authentic” in language acquisition improve on the more general understanding of authentic as “genuine”, “not false or imitation: real, actual”? (Harrell; hint: it doesn’t)
7. How does “… giving learners opportunities to learn language and content through participation in interpreting and creating authentic texts” (Haley and Austin, 2014; emphasis mine) fit the definition of “for native speakers by native speakers” (or one of its variants), and how does one account for what we know about interlanguage? (Harrell)
8. To what extent does the position described by VanPatten confuse the outcome (interpreting, expressing, and negotiating the meaning of native-speaker texts) with the means to that end? (Harrell)

Here VanPatten approaches the discussion from a different perspective, that of context and communication. His bottom line is, “… we let what we know about language, communication, language acquisition, and the appropriateness of input drive how we use ‘authentic’ materials.” (2017, p. 72)

I find the implications and ramifications of VanPatten’s position more consistent, more satisfying, and more applicable than those of the wider “language community”. Rather than needing different definitions of “authentic”, we have one that covers visual, audible, and audiovisual texts. Rather than pushing an elitist, exclusive agenda about language and language acquisition, we have an inclusive position. Rather than pushing the text as the driving force, we allow communication and acquisition to drive the experience. Rather than putting real-world, authentic use of language “out there” somewhere, it brings it into the current experience of the learner. Rather than making the classroom a “practice session”, it recognizes the classroom as its own authentic context for communication.

VanPatten could have written far more about authenticity than he did. It is a topic that must be brought continually before language teachers. Instead of accepting the commonly held definition, we need to look at it critically and ask ourselves if it truly “preserves the appearances” (i.e. accounts for all the phenomena). To me, the widely disseminated definition of “for members of a language and culture community for members of that same language and culture community” has been tried in the balance and found wanting. Let’s remove its dominion over the field of language acquisition and give it to another.

Once again, I repeat the advice from Mary Ashcraft in the Advanced Placement® Summer Institute I attended in 2011: “Of course, you use materials created for learners. These become the springboards to ‘authentic resources’ that would otherwise be inaccessible. Let’s not confuse the end with the means.”

Beyond that, though, you recognize that the classroom is its own authentic context, and learners are interacting with “authentic texts” as long as the language in the classroom is real or genuine language used for the purpose of communication (expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning within a context for a purpose other than simply “practicing the language”).

Here is the irony of understanding and accepting the concept of “authentic text” as language informed by the communicative context in which it occurs:

Teachers who use native-speaker texts without regard to their level appropriateness or the communicative context of the particular classroom in which they teach actually render these texts inauthentic.

This is the third part of a look at the fourth principle put forth in Bill VanPatten’s book While We’re on the Topic (ACTFL, 2017): Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input (and Interaction).

So far, we’ve discussed what constitutes input (language embedded in a communicative event that the learner attends to for its meaning), what level appropriate means (comprehensible and interesting), what learner engagement looks like (not necessarily language or even verbal), and strategies for making language comprehensible.

Now, we’re taking a look at some areas that engender great discussion and some confusion.

Input is not a technique

This ought not to be an area of conflict, but it is – primarily because of apparently misunderstanding the nature of input. In an article for The Language Educator (Oct/Nov 2014, pp. 24-26), VanPatten writes: