SLA Theory - The Intuitive Language Teacher

Focusing on Form in a Dialogic Context … – Part 2

Last week we took an initial look at Glisan and Donato’s fourth High-Leverage Teaching Practice. If you missed it, click here for the post.

For those who choose not to read the entire post, here is what we discussed.

The chapter starts with the idea that knowing grammar means having the ability to use language for real communication.

A question that is never answered is, “What does it mean to ‘know grammar’?” Do the authors mean to know it consciously or unconsciously? Is that knowledge Continue reading “Focusing on Form in a Dialogic Context … – Part 2”

Focusing on Form in a Dialogic Context … – Part 1

Over the past several weeks, we’ve taken a look at three of six High-Leverage Teaching Practices: Facilitating Target Language Comprehensibility, Building a Classroom Discourse Community, and Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts. Two of those practices were further broken down into two smaller grain size practices.

All six High-Leverage Teaching Practices are contained in Enacting the Work of Language Instruction by Eileen W. Glisan and Richard Donato.

The three remaining HLTPs are Focusing on Form in a Dialogic Context Through PACE, Focusing on Cultural Products, Practices, Perspectives in a Dialogic Context, and Providing Oral Corrective Feedback to Improve Learner Performance. I will take a look at each of these practices in a separate post over the next couple of weeks.

Today we start with “Focus on Form …”

This is an area of discussion and great disagreement. The first sentence of the chapter tells us that it deals with Continue reading “Focusing on Form in a Dialogic Context … – Part 1”

Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts – Part 5

It was beginning to look like we would never get to the practice itself, but we have finally arrived.

Glisan and Donato remind us in their discussion of this practice (see Enacting the Work of Language Instruction, 2017) that “interpretive work should never occur in isolation but should be viewed as part of a larger instructional practice, that is, participation in a text-based discussion.” (P. 70) On this point, the authors are slightly at odds with themselves, because the very next sentence states, “Text-based discussion … complement interpretive work by students and teachers.” (P. 70)

How can text-based discussion both the larger instructional practice that contains interpretation and a complement to interpretation?

I believe that the authors wished to link the two practices but could not find Continue reading “Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts – Part 5”

Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts – Part 3

Is Green Eggs and Ham by Dr Seuss an authentic text?

It certainly is by a native speaker for native speakers. It has become part of the American cultural landscape. It became the fourth-best selling children’s book of all time in 2001 (“All-Time Best Selling Children’s Books”. Publishers Weekly. 17 December 2001). It consistently scores in the top 10 on lists of popular children’s books by both children and adults (cf. two National Education Association Polls, Scholastic Parent and Child magazine, School Library Journal).

In Wolff v NH Department of Corrections et al., Judge James R. Muirhead rendered his judgment in the style of Green Eggs and Ham, which judgment ordered the destruction Continue reading “Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts – Part 3”

Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts – Part 2

Last week as we began looking at the High-Leverage Teaching Practice “Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts”, we took a look at what the terms “authentic” and “text” mean.

Glisan and Donato in their book Enacting the Work of Language Instruction also try to give a definition of the term “authentic texts”. They write that students develop language and cultural proficiency through interesting talk and text in the target language. (p. 65) This is another way of saying that language learners acquire language through comprehensible input that engages them. In the classroom setting, the teacher is the primary provider of comprehensible input, especially in the early stages of instruction. If the teacher is not a native speaker – and the learner decidedly isn’t – how can they have “authentic” conversations according to the definition provided by Galloway and generally used throughout the language teaching community, i.e. “by members of a language and culture group for members of the same language and culture group”?

Glisan and Donato attempt to surmount this difficulty through a more complex and nuanced definition. They stress the need for students to attend to language “in the form of authentic texts – i.e., texts, be they printed, audio, or video, Continue reading “Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts – Part 2”

Thoughts on ACTFL 2017

A year ago I wrote a post on my other blog (now dormant) about ACTFL 2016.

It’s hard to believe that another year has come and gone, and it is time to reflect on this year’s conference, which was held in Nashville, Tennessee.

In contrast to last year, I took a day flight to get here. While it was more comfortable than a red-eye flight, I did not arrive until nearly midnight after a very long day. By the time I got to the street, the only transportation available was a taxi to the hotel. When I got to the hotel and checked in, I was pretty tired.

The next day I had to get up early to meet with the crew that would be working in the Fluency Matters booth. Once again, Continue reading “Thoughts on ACTFL 2017”

Some Frequently Asked Questions

One of the newer terms in Second Language Instruction circles is “Teaching with Comprehensible Input”. Its use came about as teachers saw a need to have an “umbrella term” that covered a variety of strategies, approaches, practices, etc. Along with the new term came, of course, increased possibilities for confusion. The following is an attempt to clear up at least some of the confusion, particularly in terms of the alphabet soup we keep serving up in education.

What do TCI, TPRS, TPR, etc. stand for?
TCI stands for Teaching with Comprehensible Input and means just that: the teacher uses messages in the target language that learners find compelling and understandable to help them acquire the language unconsciously. Comprehensible Input is not a method, strategy, approach, or practice. It is language that is understandable. Teaching with Comprehensible Input means using oral and written texts that students can understand, irrespective of how I make those texts understandable to students. TPRS® stands for Teaching Proficiency Through Reading and Storytelling. It is one excellent way of providing comprehensible input. TPR® is Total Physical Response and is another way of providing comprehensible input. Don’t confuse TPR and TPRS. The rest of the alphabet soup is best learned in context.
Isn’t TCI just another name for TPRS?
No. While TPRS is a prime example of TCI, Teaching with Comprehensible Input is more than that and includes anything the teacher uses to make certain that the messages in the target language are both compelling and understandable to students. (The “comprehensible” part of the name means comprehensible to the students, not just to the teacher.) “Teaching with Comprehensible Input” does not describe any particular approach, method, strategy, or practice; it simply means that I provide students with the one thing that their minds/brains need in order to acquire language, and that is language students can understand and interpret.
Speaking of “compelling”, isn’t this all about flying blue elephants?
While many classes enjoy the creative freedom that TCI offers and do come up with bizarre stories, “compelling” simply means that students get so involved in the content of the message that they forget they are speaking a foreign language. This may result in flying blue elephants, but it can equally easily result in a discussion of bullying in school, the upcoming football game or school dance; in other words, “compelling” means it’s something the students truly want to talk about.
So what is Teaching with Comprehensible Input?
To help answer that, let’s first see what it is not: it is not a grammar-driven curriculum; it is not a textbook-driven curriculum; it is not long lists of vocabulary words; it is not the teacher talking at students; it is not learning about a language; it is not immersion.Teaching with Comprehensible Input is speaking with students in a way that every student understands what the teacher is saying all the time; it incorporates relevance by exploring topics to which students have a connection and that are connected to real life; it is student driven and student centered because students give input and direction to the flow of conversation; it is going “deep and narrow” with the language rather than “shallow and broad”; it is relational; it is aimed at acquisition of the language rather than learning about the language; it is contextualized. It is, above all, communication, i.e. the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning with a purpose in a given context. (See Bill VanPatten, While we’re on the Topic, p. 3.)
But what about rigor? I hear many students and teachers say that TCI or TPRS is “easy”.
Teaching with Comprehensible Input, including TPRS, definitely seems easy to students and is certainly different from most of their classes. But we need to distinguish between rigorous and onerous or burdensome. Doing more work does not mean more rigor, it just means more work. Are 40 math problems that practice the same concept twice as rigorous as 20, or just more work?

Continue reading “Some Frequently Asked Questions”

Learning vs Acquisition

This week I answered a question on Quora and am sharing it with my readers here.

Language acquisition and language learning are used in similarly [sic] senses. However they are not the same, right? But how are they different?

First, let’s make a distinction between general usage and technical usage. Most people who are not linguists, second language acquisition researchers, or individuals otherwise involved in a technical discussion of language are most often inexact in their usage of terms and will use terms such as “learning” and “acquisition” interchangeably when they are different things. So, the context and intent of the writer have an affect on terminology.

When a researcher or other expert is speaking or writing in a technical setting, Continue reading “Learning vs Acquisition”