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.