Today, we’re finishing Chapter 4 from Bill VanPatten’s book, While We’re On the Topic (ACTFL, 2017). It only took five posts to do it.
As always, VanPatten concludes his discussion with “Implications for Language Teaching”. This chapter has three that could be transformative for language instruction if taken seriously.
“Input should be central to the classroom, not something ‘added on.’ Input must be comprehensible and level-appropriate. Instructors should be talking with and not at learners.”
This alone would transform the language acquisition process for learners in schools. VanPatten is addressing primarily language instructors, and the vast majority teach in some sort of formal classroom setting. Imagine having students who participate because the discussion in the classroom is authentically addressing their interests and needs rather than proceeding apace to “cover” a set amount of material. It can happen. I have experienced it.
Instructors should be proficient enough in the language themselves so that the provision of input and interaction is easy and effortless for them.
This speaks directly to an issue I have contemplated for some time: content competency. I have sometimes wondered if certain teachers are resistant to making their classrooms communicati0n based because they believe (often rightly so) that their own language proficiency is not adequate to remaining in the target language in a way that is understandable to students.
Language teachers do not need to be native speakers or even have “native-like ability” (whatever that is). They do, however, need to have a high enough level of proficiency to conduct the class in the target language and sufficient pedagogical skill to make that language understandable to the students at whatever level.
For years I advocated for comprehension-based teaching and conducted my own classes on that basis. My district invited me to give in-service presentations to other language teachers. However, I often met resistance along the lines of, “But what about the teacher who can only speak at a first-year level? What if they can’t handle the same sort of wide-ranging discussion that you can?” My reply was and is that these teachers need to do one of two things: either get out of the classroom or do whatever it takes to improve their content competence.
Does that seem harsh? Is it not far harsher to subject students to teaching that does not lead to acquisition? To what extent do we sacrifice our students on the altar of allowing the teacher to continue to feel comfortable?
VanPatten suggests that we need to ask the following questions: Do all teachers have the requisite skills to conduct their classes in the L2? (The answer needs to be “yes”.) What are the quality and quantity of input and interaction teachers can provide? (The answer needs to be “high” for both.) Do they have the full range of communicative abilities that allow them to easily and comfortably orchestrate a fully communicative class with their students? (The answer needs to be “yes”.)
Instructors need to demand different materials from publishers and marketers – materials in which input is central and the “syllabus” is built on themes and topics, not vocabulary and grammar.
VanPatten notes the fundamental flaw of current textbooks: “Almost all commercial textbooks repeat the traditional syllabus described earlier in this chapter, and the role of input is limited to ‘input as technique’ to teach vocabulary and grammar.” (2017, p. 74)
It is here that I both hope and despair. Textbook companies respond to the demands of the marketplace. However, that responds tends to be rather slow in education, particularly at the primary and secondary levels. The reason for this is the system. At this level, instructors generally do not order their own materials, districts order them. That in and of itself can cause problems. Let me give an example.
The district in which I worked piloted foreign language textbooks last year. The district chose two or three textbooks for each language and asked certain teachers to use and evaluate these textbooks. The teachers who used the materials for Spanish heritage speakers found both of the textbooks unacceptable. Every single teacher who tried the textbooks wanted nothing to do with either one. The district administration, however, informed them that they had to make a choice. There would be no opportunity to try out and reach a consensus on other materials. So, the teachers chose a textbook but plan not to use it. This is a waste of taxpayer funds, does a disservice to the students, and disregards the professional expertise and experience of the teachers. It also does nothing to change the product offered by the publisher. After all, the textbook was adopted.
On the other hand, both I and my successor in the German program categorically rejected even looking at a textbook. We both understand that a program based on student interests and tailored by the teacher to student needs is far more responsive, student-centered, and effective than a pre-packaged “Scope and Sequence” from a textbook. Had I remained in my position, I would have advocated for money for readers and professional development since we had saved the district thousands of dollars in textbook costs. My hope is that my successor will advocate for those funds.
This is the way to get the attention of publishers: purchase what you truly want and do not purchase anything if it is not what you want. Unfortunately, the system works against this, but it is the way for instructors at the elementary and secondary levels to work for change. VanPatten is a university professor, and professors have greater discretion in choosing materials for their courses, so his experience is different from mine.
I agree with his goal but believe that there will need to be a significant change to the educational system before it can come to fruition.
I recommend that all teachers advocate for what they believe is best for their students based on reading and reflecting on the research. If enough teachers do this, perhaps districts will listen. If enough districts demand something else, then the publishers will listen.
But then, perhaps the more effective solution is simply to bypass the traditional publishers and use materials created and shared by classroom teachers and their students. I intend to remain part of that movement and solution. (Okay, shameless plug here. You can take a look at what I’m doing at www.compellinginput.net.)