This is the third part of a look at the fourth principle put forth in Bill VanPatten’s book While We’re on the Topic (ACTFL, 2017): Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input (and Interaction).
So far, we’ve discussed what constitutes input (language embedded in a communicative event that the learner attends to for its meaning), what level appropriate means (comprehensible and interesting), what learner engagement looks like (not necessarily language or even verbal), and strategies for making language comprehensible.
Now, we’re taking a look at some areas that engender great discussion and some confusion.
Input is not a technique
This ought not to be an area of conflict, but it is – primarily because of apparently misunderstanding the nature of input. In an article for The Language Educator (Oct/Nov 2014, pp. 24-26), VanPatten writes:
I have hinted at the major challenge that faces teachers when reading about input and output and their roles in second language development. That challenge is resisting the temptation to think that input and output are “techniques” to teach “the same old thing.” What tends to happen is that teachers generally stick to the historically motivated scope and sequence of vocabulary and grammar for language courses and look for novel ways to teach those things. That is, teachers look for input and output activities for teaching ser versus estar in Spanish, or the choice of avoir and etre with the passé composé in French or the case system in Russian. This is not at all what is implied in the roles of input and output in language acquisition.
Once again, VanPatten reminds us:
Input means one and only one thing in language acquisiton: language embedded in a communicative event that the learner attends to for its meaning.
Language is not a technique. A communicative event is not a technique. Attending to meaning is a communicative strategy, not a technique for teaching.
Nonetheless, many try to incorporate input into the traditional syllabus as a “technique” to teach certain grammar points. I have read requests in various online forums and groups for materials like “a story to teach irregular verbs”, “a good reading to teach case endings”, and “a song that teaches indirect object pronouns”. These are definitely cases of trying to put new wine into old wineskins.
We could spend a great deal of time, thought, and energy pursuing the reasons for this misuse of input, but that would be counterproductive. In this instance, the reason is immaterial. We simply have to learn to view input and communication as the centerpiece of the language learning and teaching endeavor, then create curricula reflective of that reality.
VanPatten suggests some areas in which this is happening or can happen:
- Immersion programs and content-based instruction
- The Natural Approach
- Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling (TPRS)
- Reading
The post this week is short because I want to take more time to consider another area of discussion: authenticity. We’ll do that next time.
I wish all of my American readers a Happy Independence Day!
hi
thanks for these series of posts;
just a quick question of whether VanPatten listed task based teaching as an example of “input and communication as the centerpiece of the language learning and teaching endeavor”
ta
mura
Funny you should ask.
CLT Principle 5 in VanPatten’s book is “Tasks Should From the Backbone of the Communicative Curriculum”.
He distinguishes between input tasks and output tasks.
I’ll get there eventually. 🙂