So far we have seen that language acquisition is not haphazard nor capricious. It is not unique to each individual. For earlier discussions, click here, here, here, and here.
Various factors, both internal and external, constrain our language acquisition. These constraints involve the nature of language, the nature of acquisition, the nature of data with which the brain can work, affective factors, and more.
These constraints mean that certain instructional practices, strategies, and techniques are more efficacious than others.
Bill VanPatten draws four Implications for Language Teaching from his consideration of the constraints placed upon language acquisition. We’ve already looked at two of them:
The effects of explicit teaching and practice with language are severely limited. Instruction should focus on things that foster acquisition.
We should work with the learner’s natural acquisition processes, not against them.
Today we will look at the final two of these Implications for Language Teaching. (See Bill VanPatten. While We’re on the Topic. ACTFL 2017, pp. 52-54.)
We must educate students, parents, colleagues, and administrators about the nature of acquisition (as well as the nature of language and communication).
Because the concept of providing students with Comprehensible Input as the sole sufficient cause of language acquisition is so radically different from what most students, parents, colleagues, and administrators have experienced in the past, we must educate them on what we are doing.
This is good practice for any teacher. The better the stakeholders understand the process of instruction and the research that lies behind our instructional practices, the more likely they are to accept what we are doing in the classroom. And that is a good thing.
It is also a change from advice that Dr Steven Krashen gave in the early days of promulgating his Comprehensible Input Hypothesis. As Dr Krashen puts it:
I have changed my position on only one issue: At the end of Principles and Practice, I suggest the use of a form of deception – students may think they are acquiring vocabulary or learning subject matter, but unknown to them, they are acquiring because they are getting comprehensible input at the same time. I now think it is very important to make a strong effort to inform students about the process of language acquisition, so they can continue to improve on their own. (Steven Krashen. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. 1982.)
VanPatten suggests that “Knowledge of acquisition helps teachers become advocates for a more appropriate curriculum designed to develop communicative ability.” (2017, p. 53)
How do we accomplish this?
I have attempted to do this in a variety of ways throughout my career. Here are some ideas:
- Whenever an administrator stops by, even for a couple of minutes, make a point of thanking them and explaining a bit about what they saw.
- Have a checklist of behaviors hanging beside the classroom door and ask every visitor to fill one out. It will help you remember what to do in your instruction, and it will help the visitor know what to look for in your classroom.
- Explain language acquisition to your students at the beginning of the year and keep reminding them throughout the year. Make a reminder part of your daily or weekly routine. It doesn’t have to be long – just a sentence, really – but it needs to happen regularly. Alina Filipescu is masterful at this. Her students can explain language acquisition to visitors.
- At Back-to-School Night and Open House, explain language acquisition to parents.
- At any parent meetings, such as for grade checks, IEPs (Individualized Education Plans), and 504s (another form of individualized instructional plan), reinforce the nature of language acquisition. Talk about what the student is doing to acquire the language rather than the grade. [This is one of the things that bothers me most about meetings with parents and students: everyone is focused on the grade, not the learning or acquisition that should be taking place. Usually the first statement is what grade the student has in the course. That may or may not be relevant, and it certainly is not the most important item.]
- Send administrators articles about second-language acquisition. But don’t ask them to read the entire article. Highlight 1-3 key points so that they administrators don’t have to spend a lot of time reading.
- Support colleagues no matter where they are in their instructional practices. Find something that you agree on and then share something that you are doing. Remember Aesop’s fable of The Wind and the Sun.
Remember that colleagues and administrators are human beings who are trying to do the best they can. Always assume they mean well. Thank them and do nice things for them. Counsellors in particular have a tremendous influence on which courses students take. Do things that make them think favorably of you and your program.
The chapter (as well as this discussion) ends with what VanPatten believes is the most important Implication for Language Teaching:
Classroom and materials need to be spaces in which learners receive lots of input and have many chances to interact with it.
The nature of acquisition means that language classrooms will often appear more teacher-centered than other classrooms. However, this is not necessarily the case. We need to remember that understandable target language must come from somewhere, and only the teacher has the knowledge and interaction with students to determine with any accuracy whatsoever what they understand and do not understand. (Even this is not always totally accurate, but it is certainly more accurate than any book produced outside the classroom.) Thus, the teacher provides students with level-appropriate comprehensible input.
In addition, we need to remember that interaction with the input, particularly at the lower levels, is not necessarily verbal or even oral. Students can indicate understanding through a variety of gestures, facial expressions, movement, etc. Students (and teachers) can make judicious use of the native language to support and facilitate understanding and further use of the target language. How much native language? As Carol Gaab says, “Just enough to stay in the target language.”
I agree that this last implication is the most important. If we do not provide copious amounts of comprehensible input, students will not have the raw data they need to acquire the language and become proficient in the language. They also need opportunities to develop communicative competence, i.e. opportunities to express, interpret, and negotiate meaning in a specific context for a purpose.
Next week we will take a look at VanPatten’s thoughts on level-appropriate input and interaction.