Month: August 2018

CLT Principle 6: Focus on Form – Part 2

After reviewing the nature of language and language acquisition and presenting three basics facts about the nature of instruction (see the discussion here), VanPatten poses a series of questions that are the core of the current chapter.

Acknowledging that input, not explanation + practice, is the data for language acquisition, is it possible to help acquisition along? We can’t alter stages or ordered development. We can’t override the internal mechanisms that guide and constrain acquisition. We can’t alter the piecemeal nature of acquisition. So what might be possible? We can start by asking ourselves the following:

What aspects of language do learners seem to have trouble with, and which ones are “easy”?

If we can’t alter natural processes, can we speed them up in some way?

VanPatten’s answer to the first question is rather straightforward: Students have trouble with those “aspects of language that take a long time to acquire or are protracted in their acquisition.” (2017, p. 101)

In other words, the aspects of language that cause problems are not the ones that most teachers identify because students struggle with them on paper-and-pencil tests. They are aspects of language that are not amenable to reduction to textbook rules of grammar.

Perhaps “late-acquired” items are late acquired simply because we need more exposure to them than to “early-acquired” items. Obviously, then, learners will struggle with these aspects of language until they have had sufficient exposure to them. Conscious memorization of rules does not help, and the order of acquisition is not subject to rearrangement.

The response to the second question, “If we can’t alter the natural processes, can we speed them up in some way?”, forms the remainder of this chapter. That response entails an investigation of “Input Enhancement” and “Focus on Form”.

Today, we’ll look at Input Enhancement.

Input Enhancement “refers to any attempt by instructors to draw learner attention to more difficult aspects of language by manipulating input.” (2017, p. 102) This manipulation may be oral or written.

For example, one form of Input Enhancement is simply adding emphasis on a word while speaking. This can be done through voice stress, inflection, pausing, or something else. Van Patten gives the following example:

… the class is engaged in a discussion about a colleague’s schedule. At one point the instructor says, “no, he leaves at 5:00, not arrives,” emphasizing the verbs and perhaps slightly lengthening the final consonant that indicates third-person. (Note: the teacher is actually emphasizing content, but in doing so he is making the verbs more salient through stress and pitch.)

Beyond the discussion that VanPatten provides, the example prompts the question of what is efficacious here, if anything. Does this “Input Enhancement” work because students become more aware of the verb forms or because they receive more comprehensible input through the negotiation of meaning?

Input Enhancement can also consist of bolding, color coding, or otherwise “highlighting” particular things in written texts.

Whether oral or written, Input Enhancement must meet two important criteria:

  1. Learners are working with input, not practicing language in the traditional sense. Real communication is going on.
  2. The primary focus is on meaning, trying to interpret input for its content.

So, what is the verdict on Input Enhancement?

The jury is out on the relative benefits of input enhancement.

(2017, p. 102)

This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the strategy. However, as VanPatten points out, at least it does no harm as long as the focus is on meaning. It provides content for classroom discussion and interaction, and it can be used outside of class in online environments. And it is easy to use.

VanPatten does not mention this, but some sort of “Input Enhancement” is also something we do unconsciously as part of our natural process of expressing and negotiating meaning.

I agree here with VanPatten’s final evaluation:

As long as educators don’t slip into using it to explicitly teach grammar, and as long as they keep their sights on the roles of input and meaning-making in the communicative classroom, there’s nothing wrong with making use of input enhancement.

To this, I would add: But don’t expect too much from it.

That’s it for this post. Next time we’ll take a look at Focus on Form and its variants.

CLT Principle 6: Focus on Form – Part 1

Today, we come to the last principle and the penultimate chapter in Bill VanPatten’s book, While We’re On the Topic.

I consider this the weakest chapter in the book. I think this for two reasons: 1) It contradicts the idea that VanPatten has put forward in his other chapter, i.e. that language is acquired by providing the learner with comprehensible/comprehended input in the target language and 2) VanPatten seems ambivalent in his presentation of Focus on Form. I will elucidate both of those points.

But first, the full title of the chapter is “Any Focus on Form Should be Input-Oriented and Meaning-Based”. VanPatten expands on this with the following statement:

Any focus on form – that is, somehow drawing learners’ attention to aspects of language – should be input-oriented as opposed to traditional presentation + practice orientation. In addition, all focus on form should be couched within meaning-making. (2017, p. 97)

Before getting into VanPatten’s discussion, let’s add a little context.

“Focus on Form” is another way of saying “Teach Grammar”. It is, however, used to represent a departure from the traditional grammar-driven syllabus. That is, traditional grammar teaching derives from the old Grammar-Translation Method in which a series of discrete grammar rules and paradigms (e.g. declensions of nouns, conjugations of verbs) are presented without regard to meaning or context. Then, the learner applies these rules by translating disconnected and often nonsensical sentences between L1 and L2. Meaning is, at best, irrelevant to the process.

Focus on Form, however, often accompanies an inductive rather than deductive presentation of grammar. That is, the learner sees numerous examples of a particular grammar point and derives the rule from the examples. How, you might ask, is this different from the idea of presenting the language to the learner and allowing the learner to construct a mental representation of the language? A key difference is the fact that constructing a mental representation is a natural and unconscious process whereas extrapolating and formulating conscious rules of grammar is entirely conscious and does not become the unconscious mental representation that is necessary for acquisition and fluency.

There is, of course, a spectrum of opinions on the role of grammar in language acquisition. The Grammar-Translation Method represents one end of this spectrum: learn a language through conscious memorization of rules of grammar and syntax as well as vocabulary. It is all conscious learning and requires great mental effort.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who maintain that learning explicit grammar is not only unnecessary to acquisition but can, in some instances, be detrimental to it. Dr. Stephen Krashen is probably the most widely known representative of this position.

[Here it should be noted that Dr. Krashen does not say that learning certain grammar rules has zero benefit. The Monitor Hypothesis states that conscious learning is beneficial under a particular set of highly circumscribed circumstances. One must know the rule, one must be thinking of the rule, and one must have the time to apply the rule. Thus, at least some rules of grammar can be beneficial to someone who is writing in the language. That is when the strictures apply. These rules, however, still do not lead to acquisition.]

VanPatten simplifies this spectrum of opinions and presents two alternatives:
1. Many students, parents, teachers, and administrators believe that the correct model for language acquisition is “presentation + practice”. Sometimes this is expressed as Present – Practice – Perform. This model has dominated the educational establishment for generations, and anyone who has attended a public school in the United States and most European countries probably “learned” a language this way.
2. Other teachers (and it is primarily teachers) hold the opinion that focusing on grammar does little or nothing to advance either acquisition or communicative ability in learners. This may be expressed by the injunction to learn a second language the same way you learned your first language.

Essentially, VanPatten has presented the two extremes of the spectrum of opinions and beliefs about the role of grammar in language acquisition. He then asks the questions
– Which position is correct?
– Is there some middle ground?

As a foundation for answering the questions, VanPatten reviews some basic facts about language and language acquisition that he presented in earlier chapters. These basic facts are as follows:

Language is abstract and complex.

It is “too abstract and complex to teach and learn explicitly. … There is no mechanism that turns explicit ‘rules’ into the abstract, complex mental representation we call ‘language’.” (2017, p. 98)

Acquisition is slow and piecemeal.

By the time a child is about six years old, the child has mastered the basics of the adult language system. This represents about 14,500 hours or more. If, as VanPatten and others maintain, the acquisition process is the same for second (and third, etc.) languages, then this slow and piecemeal nature of acquisition applies in these instances as well. In other words, acquisition is not linear, and it does not happen quickly.

Acquisition is stage-like and ordered.

Learners go through stages and acquire in a set order. “There is no evidence that stages can be skipped or orders altered; attempts to do so have failed.” (2017, p. 99)

To these basic facts about language and language acquisition, VanPatten adds three basic facts about instruction that have been gleaned from research.

Instruction does not affect the stage-like or ordered nature of acquisition.

You can’t skip stages or alter the order of acquisition. Repeated studies have shown this. You can use the Monitor (see above) to apply conscious learning, but spontaneous output remains unchanged. Nor does instruction affect the piecemeal nature of acquisition.

There are (severe) internal constraints on acquisition.

No matter what we call it, “Something inside the learner’s mind/brain processes and organizes language in ways that ouside forces such as instruction and practice cannot manipulate.” (2017, p. 99)

Input provides the data for acquisition.

We might even add “and only input”, i.e. “Input, and only input, provides the data for acquisition. As VanPatten states, “Language that learners hear and see in communicative contexts forms the data on which the internal mechanisms operate. Nothing can substitute for this.” (2017, p. 99)

From these basic facts – and VanPatten reminds us that they are empirical observations, not opinions – VanPatten draws the following conclusions:

“The explicit learning and teaching of traditional grammar does little to assist the development of the implicit, abstract, and complex mental representation this is language.”

Here, I believe VanPatten is being generous. If his basic position is true, that explicit rules of grammar not only look nothing like the “rules” that the brain constructs and that conscious knowledge of grammar cannot become the complex, abstract, and implicit mental representation, then the statement probably ought to be, “… traditional grammar does nothing to assist …”

The kernel of every spontaneous sentence of any learner comes from the implicit system. The explicit system is, at best, window dressing.

This conclusion is the basis for VanPatten’s addressing Focus on Form. While it is, at best, window dressing, the explicit system does dress things up a bit and can be offered as a sop to those students and administrators who demand at least some traditional instruction. The teacher should remember, however, that it does little or nothing to foster acquisition.

Therefore,

If acquisition and communication are your goal, explicit teaching is not the best use of your time.

We’ll leave the matter at this point for now. This is, however, where I find one weakness in this chapter. Having concluded that there are better uses of instructional time, VanPatten goes on to discuss different types of Focus on Form.

Until next time, I hope the active teachers enjoy a smooth start to the school year, teachers in training receive useful mentoring, and retired teachers enjoy their respite from the exigencies of the educational establishment.

CLT Principle 5: Tasks – Part 4

If Tasks should form the backbone of the communicative curriculum, then what kinds of Tasks are there?

This is the next step in Bill VanPatten’s discussion of Tasks in his book While We’re on the Topic (ACTFL, 2017).

VanPatten distinguishes between input-oriented Tasks and output-oriented Tasks. Input-oriented Tasks are Tasks in which the learners interpret communication and do not create meaning. Output-oriented Tasks, on the other hand, require learners to express (or create) meaning.

VanPatten envisions using primarily input-oriented Tasks with beginning students and reserving output-oriented Tasks for students who already have a significant amount of language. As he puts it,

Input-oriented Tasks allow for communication when learners have limited expressive ability. Output-oriented Tasks allow for communication when learners have more expressive ability.

The challenge for teachers is to envision and create input-oriented Tasks because we have been trained to think of Tasks as output.

Another characteristic of Tasks is that they are structured. “They have steps – a procedure – that guides students and lets them know when they have finished.” (2017, p. 88)

Tasks also have an immediate concrete informational goal.

Tasks can but don’t have to be project-based. It should be noted that all of VanPatten’s examples of project-based Tasks are output oriented. This raises the question of whether project-based Tasks could be input oriented.

Tasks can also progress from simple to complex.

VanPatten now comes to the question of Working With Tasks.

The first decision that the teacher must make is how to incorporate Tasks into the curriculum. There are, according to VanPatten, two options:
1. Drop them in at points that make sense thematically or
2. Let them drive the curriculum.

Obviously, from the full title of the chapter (“Tasks Should Form the Backbone of the Communicative Curriculum”), VanPatten prefers the second option, although he concedes the usefulness of the former.

Another way to Work With Tasks is to use them as measures of proficiency development. Here, VanPatten suggests using Tasks instead of the ACTFL can-do statements. Since, according to ACTFL, the can-do statements were never intended to be used for assessment, this means that Tasks are much more useful to the classroom teacher.

And so, Tasks can be used as alternatives to traditional testing.

Finally, VanPatten comes to the point of the chapter:

“Tasks can also form the backbone of the curriculum by driving the content of the course. This means abandoning textbooks and traditional classroom approaches and forming units around Tasks.”

In practice, this involves backward planning from the Task to providing the language and other information that students will need to complete the Task. In the simplest terms, this means that the teacher will

  • Select the Task you want to be the “goal”.
  • Determine what students need to know and know how to do in order to complete the Task.
  • Develop activities [not Activities] and mini-tasks that work on what they [students] need to know and know how to do so that they work toward the goal.

Preparing students to complete a task means providing them with what they need to complete the task and avoiding too much extraneous material. As VanPatten notes, students may need only certain verb forms for a Task, and that is all right because acquisition is slow and piecemeal anyway.

To end the chapter, VanPatten suggests the following Implications for Language Teaching:

Exercises and Activities are not the foundation of communicative or proficiency-oriented language teaching.

This is because Exercises and Activities are not communicative – or are partially communicative at best – in nature and therefore are not particularly useful.

Textbooks and commercial materials need to move away from Exercises and Activities as the staples of learning and make Tasks central to classroom activities.

This is obviously a Call To Action. Textbook publishers will adapt and change textbooks when the demand changes. They respond to the market. Therefore, VanPatten’s call is to teachers, departments, and districts to begin demanding textbooks that are based on second language acquisition research and not just a reworking of the traditional grammar syllabus.

Instructors need alternative means to assess students and perhaps even move away from “assigning grades” to students at the end of the semester.

VanPatten states that “we need alternatives to traditional testing and grading”. While this sounds like a radical call, once one knows the history of grades and grading in education, it is really a call to return to practices that used to be common. Did you know, for example, that “grades” used to be narrative? That is, the instructor described what the student could do at the end of the course. A return to this sort of “grade” would require a wholesale overhaul of the education system, but that might not be such a bad thing. Teachers I know are not opposed to reforming the education system; they are opposed to the schemes and machinations of the current “education reformers” because of the nature of those schemes and machinations. But we won’t go further into that political quagmire.

Next week we will begin taking a look at what I consider VanPatten’s most problematic chapter in his book.

CLT Principle 5: Tasks – Part 3

Today we take a look at Tasks themselves.

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

Obviously, VanPatten considers tasks not simply important but integral and central to Contemporary Language Teaching / Communicative Language Teaching. Of course, VanPatten does not mean the “Communicative Method” as it is often (mis)understood and practiced, i.e. Present – Practice – Perform.

To understand how Tasks can form the backbone of a curriculum, as well as why they should, we have to know what Tasks are. VanPatten provides a definition of Tasks, gives examples of Tasks, and contrasts Tasks with Activities and Exercises to help us understand what he means. He begins with the following statements about tasks:

Tasks are the quintessential communicative event in contemporary language teaching.

Tasks involve the expression and interpretation of meaning.

Tasks have a purpose that is not language practice.

The rest of the chapter is an elaboration, examination, and justification of those statements. At that, VanPatten does not address all possible Tasks or even all possible kinds of Tasks. He limits the discussion to those he considers best in contemporary language classes, admitting that he has a bias as a university professor.

The first Task that VanPatten presents is one he calls “At What Age?” It consists of three steps:
1. Write down at what age a person typically does certain activities. (A list of activities follows.)
2. Interview someone in class; ask the person the questions and write down the response.
3. Class discussion follows. The instructor polls the class about the answers students gave, has students aggregate the answers, and then introduces additional information from the most recent US census.

The second Task is called “For Your Instructor” and is for more advanced students. It, too, consists of three steps:
1. Students receive a sheet of paper with sentence frames to provide information to the professor about fellow students.
2. Students create questions to elicit the information requested. If they need help, they may ask the instructor. Whereas the “At What Age?” Task is intended for beginning learners and is highly scaffolded in the language area, this one requires students to create their own questions.
3. Students interview one another and write down the answers to provide information to the instructor.

What makes these Tasks? They contain the expression and interpretation of meaning, and there is a communicative purpose other than “to practice language”. In both cases, the purpose is cognitive-informational.

Although someone might focus on certain surface similarities – in both instances, students are asking (and answering) questions – the purpose and communicative element are entirely different for the Tasks as compared to the Exercises originally given. (See last week’s post.)

The Exercises do not focus on the interpretation and expression of meaning. In fact, as I noted last week, in the “Est-ce que …?” Exercise, meaning is utterly irrelevant and may, in fact, be a hindrance to the successful accomplishment of the exercise.

The purpose of the Exercises is to practice language.

This, then, is the difference between a Task and an Exercise:

A Task requires the expression and interpretation of meaning and has a communicative purpose other than language practice, (2017, p. 80)

whereas

An Exercise lacks any intent to express or interpret meaning and has the explicit purpose of practicing language. (2017, p. 84)

Here, VanPatten distinguishes between an Exercise and an Activity. In his original examples, the second one (“Interview your partner and find out what he or she did last night”) is an Activity. What’s the difference? An Activity is partially communicative. That is, expression and interpretation of meaning are necessary to the Activity, but it lacks a communicative purpose other than to practice language.

To review, here are the distinctions that VanPatten makes:

A Task focuses on expression and interpretation of meaning and has a communicative purpose other than to practice language.

An Activity at least seems to have a focus on expression and interpretation of meaning, but its purpose is to practice language.

An Exercise does not involve the expression and interpretation of meaning, and its purpose is to practice language.

VanPatten utterly rejects Exercises as a strategy for language acquisition. He also provides an explanation for why a thoughtful teacher might use them. Leaving aside the possibility that a teacher uses Exercises because they are in the textbook or because the teacher did Exercises in language class, VanPatten notes the following theoretical basis for including Exercises:

Since Exercises have the purpose of practicing language, the instructor who uses them must believe that practicing vocabulary or grammar is “how you learn it”. If this is a deliberate practice and not simply thoughtless implementation of the familiar, then the instructor must believe that language acquisition happens in a particular way, i.e. through conscious learning about the language. As VanPatten has shown, however, this is not how language is acquired. “We know that language acquisition happens as a complex, constrained process that involves input … and internal mechanisms …” (2017, p. 85)

I’ll close this week’s discussion with the following quote from VanPatten:

Exercises fail as events that promote or cause acquisition, because they do not account for the most basic sketch of acquisition we have constructed after almost four decades of research. In short, Exercises lack input and do not provide the kind of data the learning mechanisms need for creating language in the learner’s mind/brain. At best, they waste time that could be used doing other things in the communicative classroom. (2017, p. 85)

Note: I have followed VanPatten’s convention of capitalizing Tasks, Exercises, and Activities. This is, in part, to distinguish Activities from activities. The former (Activities) are specifically defined as having a partial communicative focus but a purpose of practicing language, i.e. a technical definition of the word; the latter (activities) are simply the different things we do in class, i.e. the general meaning of the word.

I believe this gives us plenty to think about, so next time I’ll take a look at the kinds of Tasks that VanPatten presents, how to work with Tasks, and the implications for language teaching.