CLT Principle 6: Focus on Form – Part 1

Today, we come to the last principle and the penultimate chapter in Bill VanPatten’s book, While We’re On the Topic.

I consider this the weakest chapter in the book. I think this for two reasons: 1) It contradicts the idea that VanPatten has put forward in his other chapter, i.e. that language is acquired by providing the learner with comprehensible/comprehended input in the target language and 2) VanPatten seems ambivalent in his presentation of Focus on Form. I will elucidate both of those points.

But first, the full title of the chapter is “Any Focus on Form Should be Input-Oriented and Meaning-Based”. VanPatten expands on this with the following statement:

Any focus on form – that is, somehow drawing learners’ attention to aspects of language – should be input-oriented as opposed to traditional presentation + practice orientation. In addition, all focus on form should be couched within meaning-making. (2017, p. 97)

Before getting into VanPatten’s discussion, let’s add a little context.

“Focus on Form” is another way of saying “Teach Grammar”. It is, however, used to represent a departure from the traditional grammar-driven syllabus. That is, traditional grammar teaching derives from the old Grammar-Translation Method in which a series of discrete grammar rules and paradigms (e.g. declensions of nouns, conjugations of verbs) are presented without regard to meaning or context. Then, the learner applies these rules by translating disconnected and often nonsensical sentences between L1 and L2. Meaning is, at best, irrelevant to the process.

Focus on Form, however, often accompanies an inductive rather than deductive presentation of grammar. That is, the learner sees numerous examples of a particular grammar point and derives the rule from the examples. How, you might ask, is this different from the idea of presenting the language to the learner and allowing the learner to construct a mental representation of the language? A key difference is the fact that constructing a mental representation is a natural and unconscious process whereas extrapolating and formulating conscious rules of grammar is entirely conscious and does not become the unconscious mental representation that is necessary for acquisition and fluency.

There is, of course, a spectrum of opinions on the role of grammar in language acquisition. The Grammar-Translation Method represents one end of this spectrum: learn a language through conscious memorization of rules of grammar and syntax as well as vocabulary. It is all conscious learning and requires great mental effort.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who maintain that learning explicit grammar is not only unnecessary to acquisition but can, in some instances, be detrimental to it. Dr. Stephen Krashen is probably the most widely known representative of this position.

[Here it should be noted that Dr. Krashen does not say that learning certain grammar rules has zero benefit. The Monitor Hypothesis states that conscious learning is beneficial under a particular set of highly circumscribed circumstances. One must know the rule, one must be thinking of the rule, and one must have the time to apply the rule. Thus, at least some rules of grammar can be beneficial to someone who is writing in the language. That is when the strictures apply. These rules, however, still do not lead to acquisition.]

VanPatten simplifies this spectrum of opinions and presents two alternatives:
1. Many students, parents, teachers, and administrators believe that the correct model for language acquisition is “presentation + practice”. Sometimes this is expressed as Present – Practice – Perform. This model has dominated the educational establishment for generations, and anyone who has attended a public school in the United States and most European countries probably “learned” a language this way.
2. Other teachers (and it is primarily teachers) hold the opinion that focusing on grammar does little or nothing to advance either acquisition or communicative ability in learners. This may be expressed by the injunction to learn a second language the same way you learned your first language.

Essentially, VanPatten has presented the two extremes of the spectrum of opinions and beliefs about the role of grammar in language acquisition. He then asks the questions
– Which position is correct?
– Is there some middle ground?

As a foundation for answering the questions, VanPatten reviews some basic facts about language and language acquisition that he presented in earlier chapters. These basic facts are as follows:

Language is abstract and complex.

It is “too abstract and complex to teach and learn explicitly. … There is no mechanism that turns explicit ‘rules’ into the abstract, complex mental representation we call ‘language’.” (2017, p. 98)

Acquisition is slow and piecemeal.

By the time a child is about six years old, the child has mastered the basics of the adult language system. This represents about 14,500 hours or more. If, as VanPatten and others maintain, the acquisition process is the same for second (and third, etc.) languages, then this slow and piecemeal nature of acquisition applies in these instances as well. In other words, acquisition is not linear, and it does not happen quickly.

Acquisition is stage-like and ordered.

Learners go through stages and acquire in a set order. “There is no evidence that stages can be skipped or orders altered; attempts to do so have failed.” (2017, p. 99)

To these basic facts about language and language acquisition, VanPatten adds three basic facts about instruction that have been gleaned from research.

Instruction does not affect the stage-like or ordered nature of acquisition.

You can’t skip stages or alter the order of acquisition. Repeated studies have shown this. You can use the Monitor (see above) to apply conscious learning, but spontaneous output remains unchanged. Nor does instruction affect the piecemeal nature of acquisition.

There are (severe) internal constraints on acquisition.

No matter what we call it, “Something inside the learner’s mind/brain processes and organizes language in ways that ouside forces such as instruction and practice cannot manipulate.” (2017, p. 99)

Input provides the data for acquisition.

We might even add “and only input”, i.e. “Input, and only input, provides the data for acquisition. As VanPatten states, “Language that learners hear and see in communicative contexts forms the data on which the internal mechanisms operate. Nothing can substitute for this.” (2017, p. 99)

From these basic facts – and VanPatten reminds us that they are empirical observations, not opinions – VanPatten draws the following conclusions:

“The explicit learning and teaching of traditional grammar does little to assist the development of the implicit, abstract, and complex mental representation this is language.”

Here, I believe VanPatten is being generous. If his basic position is true, that explicit rules of grammar not only look nothing like the “rules” that the brain constructs and that conscious knowledge of grammar cannot become the complex, abstract, and implicit mental representation, then the statement probably ought to be, “… traditional grammar does nothing to assist …”

The kernel of every spontaneous sentence of any learner comes from the implicit system. The explicit system is, at best, window dressing.

This conclusion is the basis for VanPatten’s addressing Focus on Form. While it is, at best, window dressing, the explicit system does dress things up a bit and can be offered as a sop to those students and administrators who demand at least some traditional instruction. The teacher should remember, however, that it does little or nothing to foster acquisition.

Therefore,

If acquisition and communication are your goal, explicit teaching is not the best use of your time.

We’ll leave the matter at this point for now. This is, however, where I find one weakness in this chapter. Having concluded that there are better uses of instructional time, VanPatten goes on to discuss different types of Focus on Form.

Until next time, I hope the active teachers enjoy a smooth start to the school year, teachers in training receive useful mentoring, and retired teachers enjoy their respite from the exigencies of the educational establishment.

CLT Principle 5: Tasks – Part 4

If Tasks should form the backbone of the communicative curriculum, then what kinds of Tasks are there?

This is the next step in Bill VanPatten’s discussion of Tasks in his book While We’re on the Topic (ACTFL, 2017).

VanPatten distinguishes between input-oriented Tasks and output-oriented Tasks. Input-oriented Tasks are Tasks in which the learners interpret communication and do not create meaning. Output-oriented Tasks, on the other hand, require learners to express (or create) meaning.

VanPatten envisions using primarily input-oriented Tasks with beginning students and reserving output-oriented Tasks for students who already have a significant amount of language. As he puts it,

Input-oriented Tasks allow for communication when learners have limited expressive ability. Output-oriented Tasks allow for communication when learners have more expressive ability.

The challenge for teachers is to envision and create input-oriented Tasks because we have been trained to think of Tasks as output.

Another characteristic of Tasks is that they are structured. “They have steps – a procedure – that guides students and lets them know when they have finished.” (2017, p. 88)

Tasks also have an immediate concrete informational goal.

Tasks can but don’t have to be project-based. It should be noted that all of VanPatten’s examples of project-based Tasks are output oriented. This raises the question of whether project-based Tasks could be input oriented.

Tasks can also progress from simple to complex.

VanPatten now comes to the question of Working With Tasks.

The first decision that the teacher must make is how to incorporate Tasks into the curriculum. There are, according to VanPatten, two options:
1. Drop them in at points that make sense thematically or
2. Let them drive the curriculum.

Obviously, from the full title of the chapter (“Tasks Should Form the Backbone of the Communicative Curriculum”), VanPatten prefers the second option, although he concedes the usefulness of the former.

Another way to Work With Tasks is to use them as measures of proficiency development. Here, VanPatten suggests using Tasks instead of the ACTFL can-do statements. Since, according to ACTFL, the can-do statements were never intended to be used for assessment, this means that Tasks are much more useful to the classroom teacher.

And so, Tasks can be used as alternatives to traditional testing.

Finally, VanPatten comes to the point of the chapter:

“Tasks can also form the backbone of the curriculum by driving the content of the course. This means abandoning textbooks and traditional classroom approaches and forming units around Tasks.”

In practice, this involves backward planning from the Task to providing the language and other information that students will need to complete the Task. In the simplest terms, this means that the teacher will

  • Select the Task you want to be the “goal”.
  • Determine what students need to know and know how to do in order to complete the Task.
  • Develop activities [not Activities] and mini-tasks that work on what they [students] need to know and know how to do so that they work toward the goal.

Preparing students to complete a task means providing them with what they need to complete the task and avoiding too much extraneous material. As VanPatten notes, students may need only certain verb forms for a Task, and that is all right because acquisition is slow and piecemeal anyway.

To end the chapter, VanPatten suggests the following Implications for Language Teaching:

Exercises and Activities are not the foundation of communicative or proficiency-oriented language teaching.

This is because Exercises and Activities are not communicative – or are partially communicative at best – in nature and therefore are not particularly useful.

Textbooks and commercial materials need to move away from Exercises and Activities as the staples of learning and make Tasks central to classroom activities.

This is obviously a Call To Action. Textbook publishers will adapt and change textbooks when the demand changes. They respond to the market. Therefore, VanPatten’s call is to teachers, departments, and districts to begin demanding textbooks that are based on second language acquisition research and not just a reworking of the traditional grammar syllabus.

Instructors need alternative means to assess students and perhaps even move away from “assigning grades” to students at the end of the semester.

VanPatten states that “we need alternatives to traditional testing and grading”. While this sounds like a radical call, once one knows the history of grades and grading in education, it is really a call to return to practices that used to be common. Did you know, for example, that “grades” used to be narrative? That is, the instructor described what the student could do at the end of the course. A return to this sort of “grade” would require a wholesale overhaul of the education system, but that might not be such a bad thing. Teachers I know are not opposed to reforming the education system; they are opposed to the schemes and machinations of the current “education reformers” because of the nature of those schemes and machinations. But we won’t go further into that political quagmire.

Next week we will begin taking a look at what I consider VanPatten’s most problematic chapter in his book.

CLT Principle 5: Tasks – Part 3

Today we take a look at Tasks themselves.

Tasks are the theme of this chapter in Bill VanPatten’s book While We’re On the Topic. The full title of the chapter is “Tasks Should Form the Backbone of the Communicative Curriculum”.

Obviously, VanPatten considers tasks not simply important but integral and central to Contemporary Language Teaching / Communicative Language Teaching. Of course, VanPatten does not mean the “Communicative Method” as it is often (mis)understood and practiced, i.e. Present – Practice – Perform.

To understand how Tasks can form the backbone of a curriculum, as well as why they should, we have to know what Tasks are. VanPatten provides a definition of Tasks, gives examples of Tasks, and contrasts Tasks with Activities and Exercises to help us understand what he means. He begins with the following statements about tasks:

Tasks are the quintessential communicative event in contemporary language teaching.

Tasks involve the expression and interpretation of meaning.

Tasks have a purpose that is not language practice.

The rest of the chapter is an elaboration, examination, and justification of those statements. At that, VanPatten does not address all possible Tasks or even all possible kinds of Tasks. He limits the discussion to those he considers best in contemporary language classes, admitting that he has a bias as a university professor.

The first Task that VanPatten presents is one he calls “At What Age?” It consists of three steps:
1. Write down at what age a person typically does certain activities. (A list of activities follows.)
2. Interview someone in class; ask the person the questions and write down the response.
3. Class discussion follows. The instructor polls the class about the answers students gave, has students aggregate the answers, and then introduces additional information from the most recent US census.

The second Task is called “For Your Instructor” and is for more advanced students. It, too, consists of three steps:
1. Students receive a sheet of paper with sentence frames to provide information to the professor about fellow students.
2. Students create questions to elicit the information requested. If they need help, they may ask the instructor. Whereas the “At What Age?” Task is intended for beginning learners and is highly scaffolded in the language area, this one requires students to create their own questions.
3. Students interview one another and write down the answers to provide information to the instructor.

What makes these Tasks? They contain the expression and interpretation of meaning, and there is a communicative purpose other than “to practice language”. In both cases, the purpose is cognitive-informational.

Although someone might focus on certain surface similarities – in both instances, students are asking (and answering) questions – the purpose and communicative element are entirely different for the Tasks as compared to the Exercises originally given. (See last week’s post.)

The Exercises do not focus on the interpretation and expression of meaning. In fact, as I noted last week, in the “Est-ce que …?” Exercise, meaning is utterly irrelevant and may, in fact, be a hindrance to the successful accomplishment of the exercise.

The purpose of the Exercises is to practice language.

This, then, is the difference between a Task and an Exercise:

A Task requires the expression and interpretation of meaning and has a communicative purpose other than language practice, (2017, p. 80)

whereas

An Exercise lacks any intent to express or interpret meaning and has the explicit purpose of practicing language. (2017, p. 84)

Here, VanPatten distinguishes between an Exercise and an Activity. In his original examples, the second one (“Interview your partner and find out what he or she did last night”) is an Activity. What’s the difference? An Activity is partially communicative. That is, expression and interpretation of meaning are necessary to the Activity, but it lacks a communicative purpose other than to practice language.

To review, here are the distinctions that VanPatten makes:

A Task focuses on expression and interpretation of meaning and has a communicative purpose other than to practice language.

An Activity at least seems to have a focus on expression and interpretation of meaning, but its purpose is to practice language.

An Exercise does not involve the expression and interpretation of meaning, and its purpose is to practice language.

VanPatten utterly rejects Exercises as a strategy for language acquisition. He also provides an explanation for why a thoughtful teacher might use them. Leaving aside the possibility that a teacher uses Exercises because they are in the textbook or because the teacher did Exercises in language class, VanPatten notes the following theoretical basis for including Exercises:

Since Exercises have the purpose of practicing language, the instructor who uses them must believe that practicing vocabulary or grammar is “how you learn it”. If this is a deliberate practice and not simply thoughtless implementation of the familiar, then the instructor must believe that language acquisition happens in a particular way, i.e. through conscious learning about the language. As VanPatten has shown, however, this is not how language is acquired. “We know that language acquisition happens as a complex, constrained process that involves input … and internal mechanisms …” (2017, p. 85)

I’ll close this week’s discussion with the following quote from VanPatten:

Exercises fail as events that promote or cause acquisition, because they do not account for the most basic sketch of acquisition we have constructed after almost four decades of research. In short, Exercises lack input and do not provide the kind of data the learning mechanisms need for creating language in the learner’s mind/brain. At best, they waste time that could be used doing other things in the communicative classroom. (2017, p. 85)

Note: I have followed VanPatten’s convention of capitalizing Tasks, Exercises, and Activities. This is, in part, to distinguish Activities from activities. The former (Activities) are specifically defined as having a partial communicative focus but a purpose of practicing language, i.e. a technical definition of the word; the latter (activities) are simply the different things we do in class, i.e. the general meaning of the word.

I believe this gives us plenty to think about, so next time I’ll take a look at the kinds of Tasks that VanPatten presents, how to work with Tasks, and the implications for language teaching.

CLT Principle 5: Tasks – Part 2

I am at the end of two weeks of conferences: iFLT (International Forum on Language Teaching) in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the TPRS Workshop in Agen, France.

Both workshops were excellent but very different.

At iFLT, I worked as a coach for participants who were in the Beginning TCI and the Advanced Beginning TCI track. It was a pleasure working with Teri Wiechart and Michelle Kindt as our leaders for the week. Coaching continues to develop as we try out new strategies and practices. One of the new experiments this year was including some group activities in the “coaching circle” prior to having anyone be the teacher. Participants said that this helped them become more at ease and feel like part of a group. We also had “cohorts” so that the same participants and coaches worked together all week. This helped develop a sense of community and make everyone feel comfortable taking risks. My partners in coaching for the two cohorts I assisted were Teri Wiechart and Dustin Williamson for each cohort respectively.

In Agen, I worked as an “embedded coach” in the language class / language lab led by Sabrina Sebban-Janczak and presented a couple of sessions. The coaching program was led by Laurie Clarcq, who is most well known for Embedded Reading and her website Hearts for Teaching. In addition to facilitating the coaching, Laurie held a daily session on Skill Building in Action. One of the ideas that came out of the week was having the embedded coaches encourage observers in the language classes to look for skills that Laurie was addressing in her sessions.

Throughout the Agen workshop, there was a tremendous sense of camaraderie and community. I got to see this especially in Sabrina’s French course. Everyone felt welcome and was included in some way. We celebrated a couple of birthdays during the week and created – as Glisan and Donato call it – a classroom discourse community. In other words, everyone bonded in the course, and all of the students had a lot of fun throughout the week. Observers also got caught up in the teaching, and those who weren’t already French speakers learned or improved their language skills as well as seeing a master teacher at work.

Other language lab teachers had similar experiences – I just didn’t see them at work. Daniel DuBois taught Breton, Tamara Galvan taught English I, Margarita Pérez García taught Spanish, Diane Neubauer taught Mandarin, Pablo Ramón taught Japanese, and Judith DuBois taught English II, plus Sabrina Sebban-Janczak’s French course.

This is a smaller conference in a delightful French town. Since it is a town rather than a big city, just walking around town gives participants not only the opportunity to enjoy the ambiance, but you see other participants also walking and can stop for a chat. Lunch is a bit longer than in most US conferences, both because that is part of the French culture and because going out to eat takes a while. It also gives participants an opportunity to get to know one another and discuss what they are learning over a shared meal.

I highly recommend experiencing the Agen workshop at least once. More than likely, you will keep coming back whenever you can.

And now we’ll move on to taking a look at some more of Bill Van Patten’s Book, While We’re On the Topic. We’re taking a look at CLT Principle 5: Tasks Should Form the Backbone of the Communicative Classroom.

After a self-evaluation section and an agenda, VanPatten turns yet again to his definition of communication:

Communication is the expression, interpretation, and sometimes negotiation of meaning in a given context. Communication is also purposeful.

Here, he reminds us of two things:
1. Communication must have a purpose other than “language practice”. These purposes are psychosocial, cognitive-informational, and entertainment.
2. Not everything that calls itself “communicative” is communicative.

To illustrate his point, VanPatten presents two examples from current college textbooks that claim “to have a communicative approach.” (2017, p. 77)

The first example is clearly not communicative at all. It is a drill or exercise in which the student is asked to change “Est-ce que …” questions into questions that use inversion. (It’s a French textbook.) No one is interested in the answers to those questions. In fact, meaning is not simply superfluous but may be considered a hindrance to the exercise. Any student could do this exercise without the slightest idea of the meaning of any of the questions. How the authors of a textbook that has “a communicative approach” could include this exercise and others like it remains a mystery to both BVP and me (and I hope to you).

The second example is at least partially communicative. It requires students to “Interview your partner and find out what he or she did last night”, so it looks like this could be communicative with either a cognitive-informational or psychosocial purpose (or a combination of the two). If, however, the context is for students to practice the past tense or get experience asking questions, then the real purpose is language practice, and communication is incidental rather than at the core. It is not truly communicative.

Note: I contrast this with what many high school teachers do on Monday in their classrooms. In my classes, every Monday (or Tuesday at the latest) I asked my students what they did over the weekend. My purpose was not to practice the past tense but to find out what they did over the weekend. I wanted to be able to let them “shine” for a moment (psychosocial) if they had done something noteworthy or simply inform us (cognitive-informational) of what they did. If they saw a movie, I would always follow up with finding out which movie and what they thought about it. Other students who were interested might have other questions. Sometimes students had something happen and simply wanted to tell us the story (entertainment).

I hope you see how the two situations are different.

In summarizing his point VanPatten notes that

Just because mouths are moving in a classroom doesn’t mean that students and teachers are engaged in any kind of communicative event.

Furthermore,

Pair work is not necessarily communicative.

This last statement is something about which language teachers may have to educate administrators, who are usually trained to look for students talking to students as a sign that instruction is “student-centered” rather than “teacher-centered”.

And with that comment, I bring this post to a close. Check back next time for more thoughts on tasks as “the Backbone of the Communicative Curriculum”. Thanks for reading.

CLT Principle 5: Tasks – Part 1

The full title of this chapter in Bill VanPatten’s book, While We’re On the Topic, is “Tasks Should Form the Backbone of the Communicative Curriculum”.

This post will be short because I am involved in a couple of language teachers conferences.

Let’s start with a set of can-do statements. Then we’ll know what to expect from VanPatten’s discussion. Rate yourself for each statement with one of the following: Yes, for sure; Sort of; Nope.

  1. I can state the difference between an Exercise, an Activity, and a Task.
  2. I can identify a Task when I see one.
  3. I understand the difference between an input-oriented task and an output-oriented task.
  4. I can state the difference between Tasks as drop-ins and Tasks as the goals of units.
  5. I understand what it means to determine what students need to know and what they need to be able to do in order to be successful with a task.

Before reading this chapter in VanPatten’s book, these were my answers:

  1. No
  2. No
  3. Sort of
  4. No
  5. Sort of

As you can see, my knowledge of Tasks was (and to a certain extent remains) quite limited. That’s why I read books like this.

VanPatten lays out the design of the chapter as exploring three topics:
– The nature of tasks;
– The difference between a Task, an Exercise, and an Activity;
– How the teacher can use Tasks to construct a communicative curriculum.

By this point in the book, we should know that the focus will be on communication, i.e. the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning in a given context for a purpose.

Since the title of the chapter is about Tasks, we can conclude that VanPatten will recommend Tasks as opposed to Exercises and Activities.

Beyond that, check back next week for the discussion and a report on how the conferences went.

CLT Principle 4: Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input – Part 5

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.)

CLT Principle 4: Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input – Part 4

Today, we’re continuing with the idea of what constitutes appropriate materials and interaction.

In this chapter of his book While We’re On the Topic, Bill VanPatten addresses a hot issue in the second and foreign language teaching community: authenticity.

I addressed this topic when I considered Eileen Glisan and Richard Donato’s book, Enacting the Work of Language Instruction(ACTFL, 2017). If you are interested in reading my discussions, click here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. At the time, I presented some objections to the generally accepted position on “authentic texts”: the definition is demonstrably flawed, at least two different definitions are employed to justify common practices, the restrictions imposed by the definition do not reflect real-world concepts and practice in the first language, and the principle is often misunderstood and misapplied. Other than that, there’s not much to see here.

VanPatten provides an excellent description of the situation:

Authenticity refers to whether classroom activities and materials use authentic language use [sic] and authentic sources from native-speaking cultures. That is, authentic materials are texts (e.g., websites, ads, newspaper articles) written by native speakers for other native speakers. In some circles of language teaching, there is a push to use authentic materials from the beginning. In some cases, advocates push for an exclusive use of authentic materials and “shun” materials written for the second language learner. (2017, p. 721; emphasis in original)

One inherent danger of the emphasis in the last half of VanPatten’s description is the tendency to turn authentic texts into just another text to be got through rather than using it as comprehensible input in the communication-based classroom.

VanPatten raises but does not answer some very important questions with regard to the use of authentic texts. They parallel and complement my own questions. Here are a few:
1. What kind of authentic text would contain appropriate level input for the first semester learner of Japanese? (VanPatten)
2. Should teachers wait to introduce authentic texts and sources once learners have higher levels of ability with language? (VanPatten)
3. And how would the learner interact with that text in the classroom? (Van Patten)
4. If simplification of text for emergent first language learners is considered both acceptable and authentic, why is it not acceptable for second language learners? (Harrell)
5. Under the given definition, how can a learner ever have an “authentic conversation”, especially if the teacher is not a native speaker? (Harrell)
6. How does the definition of “authentic” in language acquisition improve on the more general understanding of authentic as “genuine”, “not false or imitation: real, actual”? (Harrell; hint: it doesn’t)
7. How does “… giving learners opportunities to learn language and content through participation in interpreting and creating authentic texts” (Haley and Austin, 2014; emphasis mine) fit the definition of “for native speakers by native speakers” (or one of its variants), and how does one account for what we know about interlanguage? (Harrell)
8. To what extent does the position described by VanPatten confuse the outcome (interpreting, expressing, and negotiating the meaning of native-speaker texts) with the means to that end? (Harrell)

Here VanPatten approaches the discussion from a different perspective, that of context and communication. His bottom line is, “… we let what we know about language, communication, language acquisition, and the appropriateness of input drive how we use ‘authentic’ materials.” (2017, p. 72)

I find the implications and ramifications of VanPatten’s position more consistent, more satisfying, and more applicable than those of the wider “language community”. Rather than needing different definitions of “authentic”, we have one that covers visual, audible, and audiovisual texts. Rather than pushing an elitist, exclusive agenda about language and language acquisition, we have an inclusive position. Rather than pushing the text as the driving force, we allow communication and acquisition to drive the experience. Rather than putting real-world, authentic use of language “out there” somewhere, it brings it into the current experience of the learner. Rather than making the classroom a “practice session”, it recognizes the classroom as its own authentic context for communication.

VanPatten could have written far more about authenticity than he did. It is a topic that must be brought continually before language teachers. Instead of accepting the commonly held definition, we need to look at it critically and ask ourselves if it truly “preserves the appearances” (i.e. accounts for all the phenomena). To me, the widely disseminated definition of “for members of a language and culture community for members of that same language and culture community” has been tried in the balance and found wanting. Let’s remove its dominion over the field of language acquisition and give it to another.

Once again, I repeat the advice from Mary Ashcraft in the Advanced Placement® Summer Institute I attended in 2011: “Of course, you use materials created for learners. These become the springboards to ‘authentic resources’ that would otherwise be inaccessible. Let’s not confuse the end with the means.”

Beyond that, though, you recognize that the classroom is its own authentic context, and learners are interacting with “authentic texts” as long as the language in the classroom is real or genuine language used for the purpose of communication (expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning within a context for a purpose other than simply “practicing the language”).

Here is the irony of understanding and accepting the concept of “authentic text” as language informed by the communicative context in which it occurs:

Teachers who use native-speaker texts without regard to their level appropriateness or the communicative context of the particular classroom in which they teach actually render these texts inauthentic.

CLT Principle 4: Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input – Part 3

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!

CLT Principle 4: Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input – Part 2

This week we are continuing our look at CLT Principle 4: “Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input (and Interaction)” from Bill VanPatten’s book While We’re on the Topic (ACTFL, 2017).

Last time we considered VanPatten’s definition of “input” in the field of second language acquisition:

“Input means one and only one thing in language acquisition: language embedded in a communicative event that the learner attends to for its meaning”

We also looked at various scenarios to determine whether or not input was being provided. Unfortunately, in far too many classrooms, the input is minimal – and thus delays acquisition.

Language teachers are, or at least ought to be, concerned with efficacy and efficiency of instruction. Is their instruction producing results? How effectively? Are the strategies, activities, procedures, etc. the best use of class time? Are teachers and students getting the “biggest bang for the buck”?

Once we accept VanPatten’s (and others’) basic premise that we learn language only through understanding messages in the target language, then we recognize that the only efficacious use of time in a language class is to provide students with comprehensible input.

The only efficacious use of time in a language class room is to provide students with comprehensible input

With this recognition, our attention shifts to considering the nature of the input and its delivery.

VanPatten addresses this concern in terms of quantity and quality.

The question of quantity is simple: Provide students with as much input as possible.

The question of quality is more complex. For the input to be efficacious, it must be understandable – and not just understandable but understood.

Currently, a discussion is going on about “comprehensible” vs “comprehended”. I believe these are simply two ways of looking at the same thing. From the teacher’s point of view, the concern is with providing comprehensible input. That is, lesson preparation is done with consideration of what student already know and how to make any new terms or structure clear.

From the student’s point of view, the concern is with understanding the language being used.

VanPatten describes these two aspects of the debate under the rubric of Quality of Input. He write, “By quality we mean two thing:
1. whether input is level appropriate;
2. whether learners are engaged with the input (interacting with it).
(P. 59)

By “level appropriate”, VanPatten simply means that the teacher chooses language that the learner can comprehend “without struggling too much”.

By “engaged with the input”, VanPatten means that students attend to what is being said (or read). He does not mean that students are learning formal rules of grammar because acquisition is an unconscious process. VanPatten warns: “Instructors can’t just ‘throw input’ at learners; they must structure activities and tasks such that learners constantly indicate comprehension and react to messages they hear.”

 Instructors can’t just “throw input” at learners

Here, I point out that indicating comprehension and reacting to messages do not necessarily involve language production, verbal expression, or even an oral response. Gestures, actions, and facial expressions can all indicate comprehension and be reactions to messages.

James Asher built a “method” around the concept that actions can indicate comprehension. We call it Total Physical Response.

Many teachers ask students to make certain gestures as indicators of comprehension. (This may be more or less valid, depending on the circumstances.)

I often tell jokes and make humorous comments in German while teaching. My students indicate comprehension by laughing or otherwise responding to what I just said. Sometimes I make ironic comments, and students indicate comprehension through their reactions to those comments. Students also indicate comprehension by performing acts that I ask them to do, like taking out pencil and paper, handing papers in, putting cell phones away, etc.

So, how is input level appropriate?

First, it must be comprehensible. This is almost a tautology but not quite. There is the rare case in which comprehensible language is too simple to be level appropriate. Fortunately, most of the time students will tell a teacher when the language is too simple for them. Unfortunately, they often don’t tell the teacher when the language is too difficult or otherwise not comprehensible.

How, then, do we make language comprehensible? VanPatten gives some  guidelines. Teachers make language comprehensible and level appropriate through

  • short sentences – because long, complex, and compound sentences are often confusing to learners; as the language ability of the learners increases, the sentences become longer and more complex. However many teachers begin with sentences that are far too long and complex.
  • repetition – because we know that the brain does not long retain most things that we hear or see only once (there are exceptions). How many repetitions do we need? It varies from person to person, word to word, and situation to situation. But in general, we need far more repetitions in the context of meaningful communication than most traditional classroom setting provide.
  • rephrasing – because this is part of negotiating meaning. Providing synonyms, circumlocutions, a slightly different word order, etc. can be a powerful tool in helping students understand and acquire language.
  • content that is clear – because ambiguity leads to misunderstanding and lack of clarity impedes understanding. To help make the content clear, teachers need to begin with the here and now; that is, new language (for the beginner) is grounded in the context of what students can see right before them.
  • slow(er) rate– because learners need extra time to process all of the things they are hearing. Studies that I have read indicate that most adults speak too rapidly for children and young teens in their native language. Children in middle school can, on average, process speech in their native language at 135-140 words per minute, but adults speak at 160-180 words per minute. (Read an article about this here.) That means that older children miss a full fourth of what adults say to them simply because they can’t process their native language fast enough. The reply to many parents’ query, “Didn’t you hear what I said?” is honestly “no” for many children. The problem is compounded for a language learner. Teachers need to slow down.
  • pausing at appropriate places – because this also provides learners with processing time
  • learner engagement with the input – because we learn language only when it is used for genuine communication, and that means being engaged in the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning.

The interesting thing is that, if teachers talk with their students and not at them, they will naturally adjust the level of the language until it is appropriate. We do this all the time in real life when we are conversing with people.

One other thing to remember in this discussion is that interest often has as much to do with how something is presented as what is presented. The US Department of State has some interesting comments on Relevance and academic rigor of content. According to the website, content becomes relevant when

  • we have a prior intellectual or emotional connection to it
  • it is connected to real life
  • it is appropriately timed (i.e. when we are not hungry, exhausted or distracted by some other, more important need)
  • it actively engages or involves us
  • someone else has a contagious passion or enthusiasm
  • it is novel

Much, much more could be said about strategies, activities, procedures, etc. that the teacher can use to make certain that language is comprehensible and level appropriate, but that will have to wait.

For now, I leave you with this quote from VanPatten (p. 62):

Students do not sit in class like little sponges. The teacher talks with students, not at them. Students are engaged from the beginning.

CLT Principle 4: Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input – Part 1

After several weeks of looking at CLT Principle 3 (Language Acquisition is Constrained by Internal and External Factors) in Bill VanPatten’s book While We’re on the Topic (ACTFL: 2017), we are moving on the CLT Principle 4.

It seems to me that this is a principle with which everyone agrees. That does not make it settled and not controversial, however. The differences of opinion arise over what constitutes “input”, what interaction should look like, what an “appropriate level” is, and the nature of the materials that should provide that input.

If we accept the position elucidated by VanPatten in Chapters 1 and 2 that the language itself is the only data that the brain is able to use in constructing a mental representation of the language, i.e. acquiring the language, then VanPatten’s fourth principle is already constrained in terms of materials.

However, just to be clear, VanPatten defines the term input in the context of language acquisition. (It has other meanings in other contexts.)

Input means one and only one thing in language acquisition: language embedded in a communicative event that the learner attends to for its meaning.

This means that anything in a language other than the target language is not input and not useful or usable by the brain for acquisition. It also means that target language that is not understandable is not input. And, it means that understandable target language that is not being used for communication is not input.

Three scenarios illustrate VanPatten’s position. I will paraphrase.

The teacher asks a student, D’ou êtes vous? The student responds, De la Californie. This is an exchange in which the student has attended to the language for meaning, so the French is input. The teacher might follow up with Ah. Mais vous vous trouvez loin de chez vous. The students answer, Oui, mais je vais retourner. The entire encounter was communicative; both teacher and student attended to meaning.

In a different class, the teacher asks the student to repeat the sentence, Je me trouve loin de chez moi. The student dutifully does so. This time, the French is not input because the student was not attending to meaning but simply repeating sounds. Thus, acquisition is not facilitated.

For the third scenario, VanPatten imagines a class in which the teacher simply tells students that trouver normally means “to find”, but se trouver means “to find yourself in the sense of being located somewhere or being in some situation.” Since the explanation was in English, no target language input was provided, so acquisition was not facilitated in any way.

I am adding a fourth scenario that VanPatten does not include:

The teacher begins the very first class with Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs. Je m’appelle Madame Bovary et je suis la professeur de français. Je suis de la Côte d’Ivoire. Vous allez apprendre la langue de la poésie, de la philosophie et de l’amour dans cette classe. Students look at the teacher but do not respond because they have understood nothing of what she said.

 Was input provided in this last scenario? It depends. If students were attempting to understand, then input was provided; it simply was incomprehensible and therefore not useful or usable. If students have, for whatever reason, either ceased or not begun to attend to meaning, then no input was provided.

Some might argue that as long as the language is being spoken, some good is being done: students’ ears are being attuned to the sounds of the language, students are getting a feel for the rhythm and melody of the language, just being exposed to the language is somehow beneficial. The question remains: Beneficial for what? Certainly not for acquisition.  I’ll have more to say about this later.

The second and third scenarios are very common in public school settings – at least in the United States.

To an extent, they represent different views of what constitutes input. That is why a definition is so important. If you do not accept VanPatten’s position on the first two principles, you will have a different definition of input. However, we are not arguing that point right now. For discussions of the utility of grammar and rote repetition, see VanPatten’s book or my posts on his earlier chapters.

Allow me to finish this post with a personal anecdote.

On Wednesday of the past week, my department had a retirement lunch for me and another faculty member who is retiring. To my surprise and delight, a former student came. This particular student’s love of languages awoke in my German class during the 1998-1999 school year.

Since graduation, he went on to study linguistics and eventually became a creator of “artificial languages”. That is, when a film or TV series needs an alien language, he is one of the people who can create one. (Not every writer is like JRR Tolkien; many of them put in words or short phrases but have no full language, so when their work is translated to the screen, a coherent structure must be provided, and there are people who do that for a living. My former student is one of them.)

While David, my former student, has several languages that he has created, his most famous one is Dothraki for Game of Thrones. When I asked him about the actors and “learning” the language, he said that they take a couple of different approaches. Some of the actors simply want to say their lines. David sends them a recording of their lines, and they imitate the sounds and inflection. End of story. They aren’t even interested in knowing the meaning of the words they are saying except as it impacts the delivery of the lines. This is similar to the situation in which teachers ask students to repeat sentences. Usually it is for the sake of “improving or perfecting the student’s accent”.

Other actors want to know what they are saying and will ask for a translation of the lines. Then they can speak the lines in a way that reflects meaning. This is still not really communication, but it is much more like it than the first situation because the actors are attending to meaning and also listen to other actors for meaning. Given enough time, these actors might actually begin to acquire Dothraki.

So, it is certainly possible to recite in a foreign language without any acquisition taking place. Singers and actors do this all the time. Exposure to a language is not sufficient for acquisition. The input must have a certain quality, what VanPatten calls appropriate level.

We’ll take a look at that in subsequent posts.

Happy Father’s Day to all the fathers and surrogate fathers out there. Teachers are often not simply legally in loco parentis but become surrogate parents and father (or mother) figures. May God bless you for all you do.