Category: SLA Theory

Thoughts on the theory of second language acquisition, including research that underlies the theory

The PACE Model of Focusing on Form

This week, I responded to a question about the PACE model in one of the Facebook groups to which I belong.

The question was simply to elaborate on the PACE model. So I did. I thought the reply was worth sharing with a wider audience, so I am posting it here as well.

In their book “Enacting the Work of Language Instruction”, Glisan and Donato describe PACE as:
Presenting a short text, orally or in writing
Attention calling – to a particular form in the text
Co-Constructing an explanation
Extending and using the form in a new context
 
(I had to make the second point sound unwieldy because the word “Attention” is part of the acronym but didn’t come first in the explanation in the book.)
 
This may be a good way to teach students who have already acquired a language (or at least a good bit of a language) information that will help them edit their production (i.e., employ the Monitor function). It does not, however, aid acquisition because it is conscious learning. If Krashen and VanPatten are correct, then the PACE model supports acquisition only insofar as 1) the initial text is in the target language (so learners are receiving additional comprehensible input) and 2) the co-construction of an explanation is done in the target language (once again providing additional comprehensible input). But there does not seem to be any expectation that the co-construction of an explanation of the form will be done in the target language. It could just as easily be done in English (or the students’ native language). Any gains in acquisition are the result of exposure to the target language, not the focus on form.
 
Otherwise, this is essentially a hybrid (inductive-deductive) variant of the Present – Practice – Perform model, which is a skills model of language learning.
 
Why do I call it a hybrid? On the one hand, students extract, with the help of the teacher, the rule or principle from the text. That is inductive. On the other hand, students then take the principle and apply it to specific instances in the Extension phase of the model. That is deductive.
 
I find it interesting that Glisan and Donato hold this model up for emulation when they condemn both inductive and deductive instruction in the same chapter. (Glisan and Donato 2017, pp. 90-91) They espouse “Focus on Form as a Social Process” based on the presupposition that “the essence of language [is] social action”. (p. 91) (That is a presupposition that ought to be debated, btw.) Yet, the process they put forward uses both inductive and deductive instruction. Perhaps they are condemning purely inductive and purely deductive instruction, but that is not clear. Instead, they present their view as a tertium quid, not just a hybrid of the two recognized methods of reasoning.
 
I took part in a phone call with BVP at ACTFL2017. During the conversation, the PACE method came up, and BVP rejected it on essentially the same grounds that I do: it is a variant of the old Present – Practice – Perform model that does not support acquisition.
 
Excursus:
The main difference between PACE and PPP, as far as I can tell, is the process involved in arriving at the “rule”. PPP in the classic form is purely deductive instruction: state the rule or principle, apply it to individual instances (practice), prove that you understand the principle (perform).
 
PACE, on the other hand, arrives at the principle through inductive instruction – similar to the idea behind the old Audio-Lingual Method. That is, you look at individual instances of a phenomenon and extract the general principle from them. ALM generally stopped there. (All of those substitution and chain drills were designed to lead the learner to an understanding of the principle behind the form.) PACE continues with an application of the principle to specific instances, thus adding a deductive element to the inductive process of deriving the principle.
 
I hope all of that makes sense.

CLT Principle 6: Focus on Form – Part 6

So far, we have taken a look at Bill VanPatten’s basic premise for even considering focus on form:

Any focus on form … should be input-oriented [and] … couched within meaning-making.

This premise excludes traditional grammar-based teaching and many other practices that focus on form (or forms). The basis for this premise and the subsequent rejection of commonly used practices is the nature of language and language acquisition, to wit that
– Language is abstract and complex
– Acquisition is slow and piecemeal
– Acquisition is stage-like and ordered
– Instruction does not affect the stage-like or ordered nature of acquisition
– There are (several) internal constraints on acquisition
– Input provides the data for acquisition.

Then we noted that VanPatten questions the efficacy, and therefore the desirability, of Input Enhancement and Focus on Form as generally understood and practiced. I noted that from personal interaction, I know that VanPatten rejects the PACE model advocated by Glisan and Donato.

Next, we took a look at Structured Input, both referential structured input activities and affective structured input activities. I noted my concern that the examples that VanPatten provides look a lot like Activities (partially communicative and intended to teach language), something that he dismisses in a previous chapter. One thing that commends Structured Input is that it attempts to address ways in which learners make sense of language, including the Lexical Preference Principle and the First-noun Principle.

At the end of the discussion, VanPatten repeats an important dictum:

Nothing replaces input and the processing of input.

The chapter continues with a presentation of “Other Possibilities”  for “tools that teachers might use to push acquisition along without losing sight of meaning and the role of input”. (2017, p. 109)

The first of these is the Input Flood. That is, the teacher saturates the input with whatever he or she wants to “push along”. In general, this aligns with the principle that repetition is important to acquisition.

However, I wonder how the strategy aligns with the Natural Order of Acquisition. VanPatten maintains that the order acquisition cannot be changed, but perhaps it can be accelerated. However, Input Flood means choosing a particular feature of the language to “flood”. What if that is not the next item in the students’ order of acquisition? Will it accelerate acquisition of the feature at a later time? I’m not certain how someone could measure that.

It seems to me that Dr. Beniko Mason is correct: Providing students with rich, interesting, comprehensible input will take care of these concerns. There are many ways in which teachers can provide their students with rich, interesting – even compelling – comprehensible input. They are easier to implement than the strategies that VanPatten presents in this chapter. Why not use them?

A second strategy that VanPatten presents is the Dictogloss. In this strategy, students listen to a short passage and then work in pairs to reconstruct what they think they heard. They write out their text. One pair of students share their text aloud, and the class compares other versions, discussing differences. The teacher shows the original passage, and the class discusses the content.

VanPatten notes two issues with the Dictogloss:
1. It is less useful for lower and intermediate learners than for advanced learners. (This in and of itself removes the strategy from the repertoire of most secondary school teachers.)
2. Dictogloss results in explicit learning (not acquisition). (This should also make the strategy a non-starter in any classroom dedicated to acquisition.)

The third strategy that VanPatten presents is the Input-Output Cycle. It is similar to a Dictogloss but typically involves written texts. Rather than reconstructing a text, students interact with questions designed to “push learners to focus on particular forms or structure”. (2017, p. 112) Following his presentation of the strategy, VanPatten notes that there is a great deal of speculation about its efficacy, “Still, there is some evidence that input-output cycles can be useful if structured carefully.” (2017, p. 113)

Once again, it seems to me that the difficulty of implementation far outweighs the potential benefits that may accrue for any secondary school teacher to see this as a useful strategy.

In closing this section of the chapter, VanPatten writes, “… like the other interventions we have reviewed in this chapter, they clearly focus on meaning, involve input, and engage learners in using language to learn new information. This is the cornerstone of acquisition.”

Personally, I believe that VanPatten overstates the case. They seem to focus on something other than meaning although meaning is included in the process.

Finally, VanPatten discusses Implications for Language Instruction. He notes the following:

“Focus on form is not a singular thing. There is no one way to do it. Instructors have options.”

One of those options is not to do it. VanPatten notes this as well:

“Because we can focus on form does not mean we have to.”

VanPatten supports this second statement by noting, “Given how both language grows in the mind and communication develops over time, a communicative and proficiency-oriented classroom is already doing what it must do: helping the learner’s internal processes.” (2017, p. 114)

If that is the case, then why are we adding to the burden of both teachers and students?

For those teachers who find themselves in a situation in which they must do some focus on form, VanPatten’s final suggestion is worth considering and investigating: have students work on focus on form activities outside of class. Unfortunately, the interventions provided by publishers will disappoint the teacher who is interested in Contemporary Language Teaching.

VanPatten notes that one of the [main] outcomes of the chapter is to provide teachers with questions to ask about online materials. While that is a good thing, his questions are rather general and do not provide a great deal of guidance.

As I noted at the beginning of the discussion, I consider this the weakest chapter in the book.

Epilogue

The epilogue is far too short to warrant a separate post, so I am adding it to this one.

VanPatten leaves us with some advice and a lengthy example. I won’t try to reproduce the example, but I do consider the advice worth passing on.

If you must assess, assess how you teach and teach the way students will be assessed.

The goals of communicative, proficiency-oriented instruction are not the goals of traditional tests.

Throw out the old tests.

Become an expert in communicative language teaching and assessment.

Then you can explain what you are doing to administrators, students, and parents. A solid foundation of knowledge is your best ally in combatting myths and misunderstandings about language acquisition and teaching.

Next week I’ll take up another topic. Any requests? I hope you have enjoyed and benefitted from my in-depth look at two important books form ACTFL.

CLT Principle 6: Focus on Form – Part 5

Last time, I indicated that Bill VanPatten seems to be advocating Activities (class procedures that are partially communicative and have the purpose of teaching language) in his referential structured input activities that form part of Structured Input.

Referential structured input activities are not the only form of Structured Input that VanPatten presents. He also describes affective structured input activities. These activities occur during affective activities, that is activities in which the communicative purpose is to elicit information about students or to elicit their opinions, beliefs and attitudes. (2017, p. 106) [Is anyone else bothered by the number of times that the word “activities” occurs in this explanation? We have “activities” within “activities”.] The distinction between this and simple communication lies in the fact that the teacher “uses the form in focus in a structured way to elicit information …” (2017, p. 106)

Once again, an example probably clarifies the practice better than a description. An affective structured input activity proceeds as follows.

The teacher reads a series of activities in the past tense that he may or may not have done the previous evening. Students also have the statements in written form. Following the reading, which is also a review of the verb forms previously encountered in referential structured input activities, students discuss with a partner which activities they believe the teacher actually did. After students discuss the activities and indicate their choices, they discuss with the entire class. There are no right or wrong answers because the question is “What do students think?” Following the discussion, students put the activities in the order in which they think the teacher did them. This activity becomes a “test” of how well students know their teacher.

Once all of this has been done, the teacher will reveal “the truth” about the activities.

Once again, this looks very much like an Activity (upper case) because its purpose is to teach language, albeit while taking into consideration a “processing problem” that learners have. This, according to VanPatten distinguishes Structured Input from other techniques “used to foster the development of formal properties of language.

Somehow, I can’t help but think that Stephen Krashen would advocate providing learners with more comprehensible input rather than doing all of the preparation necessary for Structured Input.

In addition, I can certainly create communicative contexts that prompt past-tense forms without the use of artificial and only partially communicative Activities. For example, the affective structured input activity described in the chapter could be an activity that the teacher uses to become better acquainted with students, giving it both a cognitive-informational and a psychosocial (as well as entertainment) purpose within the context of the classroom. The fact that the class is discussing actions in the past provides a communicative context for using the past tense and is much more natural.

Before leaving the discussion, VanPatten provides another example of a processing problem that language learners encounter. It is the First-noun Principle. “Learners tend to tag the first noun or pronoun they encounter in the sentence as the subject or agent of the sentence.” (2017, p. 108) This is true for speakers whose first language is of the SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) variety; there are other kinds of languages. The result is that learners encounter problems with the passive. English speakers have problems processing German sentences when the first element of the sentence is not the subject. Let’s illustrate.

English relies heavily on word order for meaning because we do not use inflected forms (except pronouns). “The dog chased the cat” means something different from “The cat chased the dog.” However, in German “Die Katze jagte den Hund” and “Den Hund jagte die Katze” both translate as “The cat chased the dog.” How can this be? German uses case to indicate function in the sentence. “Den” indicates that “Hund” cannot be the subject or agent of the sentence; “Hund” must be the entity being chased, no matter whether it comes first or last in this sentence. However, students who rely on the First-noun Principle to process meaning will misidentify which animal is chasing the other when “Hund” comes first.

How do we help students overcome this processing error? VanPatten suggests creating structured input activities to “foster the development of formal properties of language.” (2017, p. 107) He notes, however, that Structured Input is “cumbersome and requires substantial background knowledge for teachers. And it takes time to create activities.” (2017, p. 109) Then, he notes that

Nothing replaces input and the processing of input.

Krashen would say, “Give them more comprehensible input in which the problematic construction occurs.”

I prefer Krashen’s solution.

Next time we’ll finish our look at this chapter.

CLT Principle 6: Focus on Form – Part 4

Thanks for your patience. I’m running a day late in getting this posted.

Just as a reminder, the full title of this chapter is “Any Focus on Form Should be Input-Oriented and Meaning-Based”.

Last time (Focus on Form Part 3), we saw that there are two very different perceptions of what Focus on Form means. Glisan and Donato present one that requires purpose and planning, whereas VanPatten presents Focus on Form as being spontaneous, not pre-planned, and not purposeful. For Glisan and Donato, Focus on Form includes a class discussion of the form in a way that seems very reminiscent of a traditional grammar class. For VanPatten, Focus on Form “does not derail the teacher from a primary focus on meaning.” (2017, p. 104) The PACE model is Glisan and Donato’s chosen vehicle for incorporating Focus on Form, whereas VanPatten strongly rejects the PACE model for language acquisition.

Finally, Glisan and Donato include Focus on Form in its pre-planned, purposeful manifestation in their list of HLTPs (High-Leverage Teaching Practices). VanPatten notes that “it is not clear to what extent such events actually ‘speed up’ or ‘help’ acquisition.” (2017, p. 104)

This brings VanPatten and us to a type of “Focus on Form”, the research on which “is very promising”.

That is Structured Input.

Unlike VanPatten’s understanding of “Focus on Form”, Structured Input “requires much more preparation on the part of the teacher, thus is much harder to include in any curriculum.” (2017, p. 105)

We will return to this aspect of Structured Input later. For now, let’s see what it is, the research behind it, its purpose, and how it works in the instructional setting.

Structured Input is part of processing instruction, a pedagogical intervention that VanPatten pioneered in the 1990s. That is, it incorporates strategies for processing language input as an initial stage of acquisition that learners unconsciously use. In simpler terms, processing instruction helps teachers design lessons that use those strategies as support for learners. I think the term is unfortunate because it doesn’t seem to mean that the instructor teaches strategies for processing language, rather the instructor designs a lesson that incorporates the strategies that the learner already uses. An example will make this clearer.

But first, what is “processing”? It is simply linking form and meaning during comprehension. This, of course, takes us into the heart of the acquisition debate. If, as Krashen and VanPatten maintain, acquisition is an unconscious process, then as long as the input is comprehensible (and preferably compelling), the learner will process it by unconsciously linking what is seen or heard to meaning. If, on the other hand, “noticing” is important in acquisition, then drawing learners’ attention to certain aspects of the language can be helpful.

This is where I have difficulties with the entire discussion. Since I accept the research and conclusions presented by Krashen (Comprehensible Input Hypothesis) and VanPatten (language is implicit and abstract and so cannot be learned consciously), I question adopting a practice that “requires much more preparation on the part of the teacher, thus is much harder to include in any curriculum.” (2017, p. 105)

But let’s return to Structured Input.

One of the strategies that learners use to process input (understand the language) is the Lexical Preference Principle. For novice learners, essentially everything is vocabulary. Learners zero in on content words because they carry the greatest meaning and ignore the parts that are “less meaningful” (i.e. provide nuances of meaning for which the learner is not yet prepared to cope), such as time indicators (e.g. tense markers on verbs). Because of lexical preference, lexical time indicators (yesterday, tomorrow, next week, last week, always, later, etc.) can actually interfere with learner acquisition of tense endings. (2017, pp. 105-106)

To overcome lexical preference and help students process tense markers, VanPatten suggests sets of “activities”. He uses lower case to mean simply something that you do during instruction. At the same time, these seem to be Activities (capitalized) in the sense of being only partially communicative and having no communicative purpose beyond “teaching language”. (cf. Van Patten’s discussion in 2017, pp. 83-85) Thus, they seem at odds with VanPatten’s own position on second language acquisition and instruction.

The first activities (Activities) that VanPatten suggests are referential structured input activities. They are input because the learner is trying to understand and does not have to give any output. They are structured “because the input is manipulated to push learners to process something they might miss otherwise.” (2017, p. 106) [This seems rather like the “Noticing Hypothesis” to me, although for VanPatten this “noticing” is not necessarily conscious.] They are referential “because they have an immediate right or wrong answer.” (2017, p. 106)

In the example that VanPatten gives, the activity looks something like this:

The teacher displays three designators of time for each sentence. The designators indicate present, past, and future.

The teacher then reads a sentence with no context and no indication of time. Students choose the time designator they think is appropriate for the sentence.

[This is why I believe this is an Activity. Students must process language in order to do the activity, so it is partially communicative. However, the purpose is to “teach language” rather than communicate.]

The teacher displays two possible reactions to a statement, e.g. follow-up questions.

The teacher reads a statement, and students choose the “correct” response.

For this example, not only do we have the problem with it being an Activity, but VanPatten has chosen an example that is ambiguous. Here it is.

Teacher statement: “My buddy hates tea.”

Student choices:
a. So why does he have it in his kitchen?
b. So why did he order it with lunch?

Do you see the problem? Both responses are equally reasonable in normal conversation. Let me illustrate by providing hypothetical contexts.

The “right answer” is, as we expect, the present-tense response. BVP and I are talking about tea. We have both visited SK and noted that he has a variety of teas in his kitchen. Naturally, he has Earl Grey for BVP, but he also has Assam, English Breakfast, and others. While we’re talking, BVP mentions, “You know that SK hates tea.” My response is, “So why does he have it in his kitchen?” [And the conversation continues.]

BVP, SK, and I go to lunch. At lunch, SK – a notorious coffee drinker – orders tea (probably ice tea). Later, BVP and I are discussing what kinds of tea we like. I might say “Assam, Darjeeling, or Oolong.” BVP, of course, states that he drinks Earl Grey and then adds, “You know that SK hates tea.” My response is, “So why did he order it with lunch?!” [And the conversation continues.]

Both responses are equally “correct”, plausible, and logical from a strictly communicative standpoint. However, since this is a referential structured input activity and has “an immediate right or wrong answer”, the reason for the right answer must be something else – and that reason is grammar. The “correct answer” is “correct” because its tense matches the tense of the prompt.  That’s grammar, and this looks like grammar instruction with the benefit of occurring in the target language. So, it is partially communicative but has the purpose of teaching language.

VanPatten’s other example is equally problematic because the responses are also equally “correct” when using criteria other than matching the tense of the verb. To me, this is a grammar Activity.

Perhaps I am missing something here and someone else sees it. If so, I would welcome comments and corrections.

VanPatten has a great deal more to say on the subject, but we will stop here for now. Thanks for reading.

CLT Principle 6: Focus on Form – Part 3

Last week we looked at Bill VanPatten’s comments on “Input Enhancement” and saw that he gives it a tepid endorsement at best but acknowledges that it at least seems to do no harm.

This week we’ll take a look at Focus on Form in this chapter of Van Patten’s book While We’re On the Topic.

Here are VanPatten’s opening remarks about Focus on Form:

Focus on form can be called a type of input enhancement but was developed as a separate idea by Michael Long. The idea behind focus on form is that during a communicative event, teachers might draw learners’ attention to some property of language in a way that does not break communicative flow. Unlike input enhancement in its original concept, focus on form is not pre-planned or purposeful. It arises incidentally during a communicative interaction. (2017, p. 103)

While he uses the same term, “Focus on Form”, VanPatten has a very different take on it from Glisan and Donato. For my discussion of their presentation of Focus on Form, see here, here, here, and here. In their book Enacting the Work of Language Instruction, Glisan and Donato champion the PACE model of focus on form. Just to review, here are the steps in PACE:

  • PRESENTATION of a text that contains the form on which the teacher wishes to focus
  • ATTENTION is drawn to the form that is important to understanding
  • CO-CONSTRUCTION of an explanation of the form through discussion and dialogue
  • EXTENSION and use of the form in a new context

A fundamental difference between what Glisan and Donato present and what VanPatten presents is the idea of planning. For Glisan and Donato, Focus on Form is highly planned and extremely purposeful. VanPatten maintains that “… focus on form is not pre-planned or purposeful. It arises incidentally …”

I know that VanPatten rejects the PACE model. At the 2018 ACTFL convention, I was able to be part of a group telephone call to VanPatten. During the conversation, someone mentioned the PACE model. VanPatten categorically and strongly rejected the validity of this model along the same lines that I outlined in my discussion of it: it relies on some form of the Output Hypothesis, it involves conscious learning and knowledge of language (which do not lead to acquisition), and it is really the old Present – Practice – Perform model in modern dress.

Nonetheless, VanPatten advocates some very common practices as part of his understanding of Focus on Form. These include

Recasts: The teacher “unobtrusively recasts” what the learner says so that it sounds like a native speaker. This raises some questions, but we’ll get to them in a moment. Most importantly, VanPatten maintains that the purpose is not correction but affirmation of the message and a continuation of the conversation.

One of the questions that VanPatten’s statement raises is the efficacy of recasting. If the purpose were error correction, then recasts would not be very efficacious (if at all). Students often do not even recognize that a recast has been made, especially if the recast is “unobtrusive”.

Another question is whether or not the recast accomplishes the purpose. As an affirmation of understanding, i.e. as part of the negotiation of meaning, the recast can be useful in that it allows the conversation to continue. And this brings us to the next strategy for “focus on form”:

Negotiation of meaning: If a student uses a present form of a verb but the sentence seems to indicate a past action, the teacher (or other interlocutor) may need to clarify which is meant. This will generally involve some rephrasing, if not recasting.

“According t0 focus on form, this negotiation may draw learner attention to an aspect of language through a natural facet of communication: clarifying meaning. In a nutshell, any attempt to negotiate meaning could be a focus on form.” (2017, p. 104; emphasis mine)

Here, it seems to me that VanPatten is hedging his bets. Once again, his endorsement is tepid at best. He also places strictures on the use of “focus on form” that are far different from the mainstream understanding – and Glisan and Donato’s presentation – of focus on form. VanPatten notes that “focus on form fits within the parameters of how acquisition happens:

  1. The event is couched within some kind of communicative interaction; it is not an ‘explicit teaching moment.’
  2. Somewhere in the interaction, the learner receives focused input that may provide more data for the internal mechanisms responsible for acquisition.” (2017, p. 104)

Thus, we see VanPatten returning to the unconscious, abstract, and implicit nature of language and language acquisition. There is still no ringing endorsement of focus on form. VanPatten notes that “As with input enhancement, it is not clear to what extent such events actually ‘speed up’ or ‘help’ acquisition.” (2017, p. 104)

I’m still trying to figure out why VanPatten has included these two strategies or practices in his book, given his unenthusiastic presentation of them.

Next time, we’ll look at Structured Input. For now, though, I’ll end this post with a reminder from Bill VanPatten that I find apt:

We can’t force the learning of mental representation – or the learning of communication, for that matter. We can only provide oppourtunities for it to develop.

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.

CLT Principle 5: Tasks – Part 1

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.