CLT Principle 3: Language Acquisition is Constrained by Internal and External Factors – Part 5

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. At Back-to-School Night and Open House, explain language acquisition to parents.
  5. 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.]
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

CLT Principle 3: Language Acquisition is Constrained by Internal and External Factors – Part 4

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.

We must educate students, parents, colleagues, and administrators about the nature of acquisition (as well as the nature of language and communication).

Classroom and materials need to be spaces in which learners receive lots of input and have many chances to interact with it.

The above four statements are Bill VanPatten’s “Implications for Language Teaching”. (While We’re On the Topic, 2017, pp. 54)

At the end of each chapter, VanPatten provides what he believes are significant implications for language instruction from the discussion in the chapter.

The effects of explicit teaching and practice with language are severely limited. Instruction should focus on things that foster acquisition.

VanPatten considers this implication to be quite clear.

If we accept the following precepts as true, then this is the natural conclusion. Unfortunately, it is not widely practiced. What are the precepts?
1. Internal factors (general learning mechanisms and demonstrated psychological factors – often called Universal Grammar) limit the data with which the brain/mind can work to language for communication, as well as constraining and guiding the formation of the mental representation of the language.
2. External factors (input and interaction) constrain acquisition through quantity and quality.
3. Talking about the target language in the mother tongue, fascinating as it may be to some of us, does not contribute to acquisition because it does not provide the right kind of data (language that learners hear or see in a communicative context), i.e. the mind/brain cannot process it for acquisition.

Therefore, the teacher must focus on activities that present learners at all levels – even level one on day one – with the raw data the mind/brain can process. That is, teachers must provide learners with comprehensible input, understandable language that learners hear or see in a communicative context.

Excursus: It might be well to ask ourselves if acquisition is truly the goal of most language programs. Most people would reply, “Well of course it is. Isn’t that why students take the course?”

From many years of teaching in a public high school in the US, I can tell you that learning a language is often NOT the reason students take the course.

In California, we have a set of requirements that students must meet in order to be accepted into the UC (University of California) or CSU (California State University) system. These requirements include a certain number of years in Math, English, Social Science, Science, Art, Foreign Language, and Electives. The categories are labeled with the letters “a” through “g” and are called, ingeniously enough, “The A-G Requirements”.

Many students take a foreign language solely to fulfill college entry requirements. Others take a language because their friends are taking the course, and they want to be with their friends. Still others take a language because that’s what they are expected to do – by parents, by counselors, by peers. Some students even take a language class because they have a slot in their schedule that they must fill and don’t know what else to take or can’t fit something they would rather into their schedule.

So, not all students are in a class because they want to acquire a language.

“But what about the teacher (and administrator)?” you ask.

Good question. Once again, from years of working in a public high school, I have observed that the emphasis is often on preparation for a test rather than acquisition of language.

Schools and districts take pride in the number of students who take and pass the Advanced Placement© exam. Certain courses are designated as AP courses, and the purpose of the course is to prepare students to pass the exam. The College Board also places emphasis on “vertical teaming” and articulation. One regularly hears the maxim, “AP begins in level 1 on the very first day.” So, test preparation pervades the system.

While the College Board has improved the AP Exam in recent years, the underlying problem is that the entire process is geared to passing a specific test rather than acquiring a language with an emphasis that supports the interests of the student.

In the district in which I teach, any students who wish to take four years of Spanish must sign up for the AP Spanish Language and Culture course. There is no opportunity to take a Spanish 4 course, even though it is listed in the district’s course catalogue. Students who want to continue with Spanish in order to improve their communication skills and use the language in a career rather than college have to accommodate themselves to the expectations of the AP course or forego taking the language in school. (I disagree with this position for a number of reasons.)

As generous as I would like to be, the attitude expressed by administrators and teachers alike often reminds me of the following exchange from Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix:

“Now, it is the view of the Ministry that a theoretical knowledge will be more than sufficient to get you through your examination, which, after all, is what school is all about.”

…

“I repeat, as long as you have studied the theory hard enough –”

“And what good’s theory going to be in the real world?” said Harry loudly, his fist in the air again.

Professor Umbridge looked up.

“This is school, Mr Potter, not the real world,” she said softly.

“So we’re not supposed to be prepared for what’s waiting for us out there?”

“There is nothing waiting out there, Mr Potter.”

The example is admittedly exaggerated, but sometimes learning the theory, i.e. learning about the language, rather than acquisition, seems to be the purpose of the language course.

Naturally, if your purpose is not to facilitate acquisition, then the implication for language teaching may not apply. I would hope, though, that ultimately the goal of a language course (as opposed to a linguistics or language appreciation course) is for students to acquire the language.

However, if our purpose is for learners to acquire the language, then it behooves us to remember that “Language is too abstract and complex to be taught and learned explicitly”. (2017, p. 520

We should work with the learner’s natural acquisition processes, not against them.

This implication assumes the validity of VanPatten’s position about the nature of language, the nature of acquisition, and the nature of the constraints on acquisition. Of course, VanPatten assumes the validity of his position, and he has done a credible job of presenting it thus far in the book. At this point, we will not confuse matters by addressing those who have other views.

If language, acquisition, and the constraints on acquisition are as VanPatten has described, then teaching in a manner that works against the learner’s natural acquisition processes will be counterproductive.

One of the discussions that continues in foreign language teaching circles is about method or approach and strategies or practices. Some teachers adhere very strictly to a single method or approach. Others talk about using an “eclectic” approach, taking strategies and practices from a variety of sources. They talk about having a “toolbox”.

The problem that I have observed with the eclectic approach is that too many teachers adopt a strategy, activity, or practice because they have just been introduced to it or because they have used it and the students enjoyed it. There is little or no thought about how the strategy, activity, or practice fits into communicative language teaching, i.e. teaching language through the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning and allowing the unconscious mind to develop a mental representation of the language by processing the raw data of the language itself.

Going back to the “toolbox” analogy, it seems that many eclectic teachers have tools for auto mechanics, computer repair, plumbing, first aid, and a host of other jobs in their toolbox. They then grab tools (strategies, activities, etc.) will-nilly irrespective of any guiding principle behind the selection. The toolbox analogy may be useful, but it’s important to have the correct toolbox.

Another problem with the use of compelling input in the classroom is viewing it as a strategy or approach. VanPatten addresses this in another of his writings. In the article “Creating Comprehensible Input and Output” (The Language Educator, Oct/Nov 2014, pp. 24-26), VanPatten writes:

For at least three decades, research on language acquisition has been pointing to a fundamental reconsideration of teaching, materials, and curricular goals. Understanding the roles of input and output in acquisition means that teachers and administrators may have to make some profound changes in how they approach the classroom if proficiency as communicative ability is the goal of the student’s experience. To drive the point home, without the expression and interpre- tation of meaning at the core of what we do, input and output become mere techniques. But input and output are not techniques; they are the very foundations of language acquisition and communication. (2014, p. 26; emphasis mine)

Implementing this implication in the language classroom will require language teachers to do some serious wrestling with the nature of language, the nature of acquisition, and the nature of the constraints on acquisition so that they can select activities, techniques, and strategies that support and work with students’ natural acquisition processes rather than against them.

It is a daunting task, but one that must be done if we are committed to doing what’s best for students.

We’ll take a look at the final two Implications for Language Teaching from this chapter next week.

CLT Principle 3: Language Acquisition is Constrained by Internal and External Factors – Part 3

After taking a look at language acquisition, defining some terms, and examining Internal Factors that constrain language acquisition, this week we’ll take a look at External Factors that constrain language acquisition and some implications for language instruction.

In his book While We’re on the Topic (2017), Bill VanPatten presents both internal and external factors that constrain (compel, limit) acquisition of languages, whether first, second, third, or subsequent. He calls the internal constraints on acquisition Universal Grammar (UG) but notes that this does not account for all acquisition that takes place; general learning mechanisms also play a role, but these, too, exercise internal constraints.

Today, we’re looking at

External Factors

VanPatten lists two primary External Factors that constrain language acquisition: input and interaction. (2017, p. 48, 50)

Input

The first task is to define the word input. VanPatten calls it “language that learners hear or see in a communicative context” or “language that learners are exposed to that they process for meaning”.

It is important to note that language not used for communication is not input according to VanPatten. Only language used in communication qualifies as input. In fact, input is not about the language per se but about meaning embedded in communicative events.

VanPatten puts it this way: As long as the purpose of the first or second language learner is to understand a message, then the language the learner is exposed to qualifies as input.

Two important principles follow from this:

Language acquisition is a byproduct of understanding messages;

Comprehension of language is a requirement for acquisition but does not guarantee it.

There are factors and conditions that can interfere with acquisition, so simply understanding messages does not guarantee acquisition. However, acquisition cannot happen without understanding. Dr Stephen Krashen distilled the principle thus:

Acquisition happens only through understanding messages

Why is this so?

Because the general learning mechanisms (and Universal Grammar) can operate only on data contained in input. Thus, study plus practice (or, from the teacher’s perspective, Present, Practice, Perform) does not lead to acquisition.

VanPatten likens the situation to scanners at the supermarket. The device is designed to read only a certain set of data, the barcode. Nothing else is readable or usable. Internal factors (general learning mechanisms and UG) constrain what external factor (input) leads to acquisition.

However, this external factor constrains acquisition through two aspects: quantity and quality.

If quantity of input is important, how much should there be? The variables (quality of input, quality of reception, difficulty of the embedded language, comprehension, etc.) are so great, that it is impossible to say. However, the consensus is: a lot – far more than happens in most foreign language classrooms.

There are a couple of misunderstandings not presented in VanPatten’s work that often creep into people’s ideas of quantity. These two misunderstandings are encapsulated in two common quotes: “A flood of output must precede a trickle of input” and “It takes 170 repetitions for a word to be acquired”.

The first quote is often attributed to Wynne Wong, Professor of French and SLA at Ohio State University. I have made this attribution. However, when I could not find any written piece that cited a work or presentation by Wong for this quote, I contacted her by e-mail to ask for myself. She was very gracious in her reply but firm in her denial of every having said this. As she explained it in her e-mail to me, “I like that it’s catchy but I did not say this and as much as I like the image, I cannot say it accurately summarizes my views about input and output. For me, input must precede output, but output does not necessarily have to be a trickle after input. Exactly how much and what the ratio of input to output should be is not clear because there are so many factors at play. …  I would not attempt to quantify the amount.”

Thus, we have the principle that students need a lot of input, perhaps a veritable flood (not to be confused with “input flooding”), or as Hart Crane put it:

One must be drenched in words, literally soaked in them, to have the right ones form themselves into the proper pattern at the right moment.

Output will follow, whether as a trickle or a flood of its own, when the learner is ready and should not be forced.

The second quote comes from Susan Gross, one of the early adopters of TPRS and an influential trainer and presenter. At a presentation I attended, Gross explained that she had made up the number at random. The idea was not that there is some “magic number” of repetitions that must take place for acquisition, but that teachers have traditionally given students far too little exposure to the language for acquisition.

Remember that one of the aspects of input is quantity.

In many classrooms, the teacher has traditionally presented a vocabulary list, read through it a couple of times, and had students repeat the words. Then the teacher assumed that the words had been “learned” and demanded that students use them in exercises and activities. The quote was a bit of hyperbole to draw attention to this bit of misfeasance of teaching and counteract it. It was never intended to be taken literally, although many people have done so.

(As a further Off-Topic aside, the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:22 are not intended literally. In context, Jesus is teaching his disciples about forgiveness. Peter then asks if forgiving someone seven times is enough. Jesus replies, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.” Since Christians aren’t supposed to be keeping score in the first place, seventy times seven represents a number so large as to be meaningless. In other words, forgive and keep forgiving sincere repentance. But far too many people get caught up in the letter rather than the spirit of these sayings – just like how many words are needed for acquisition. There are far more important things than counting either the number of times someone asks for forgiveness or how many times the teacher uses a particular word.)

Returning to the topic of input, the first important aspect of this external constraint on acquisition is to provide lots of it, far more than the teacher thinks necessary or “reasonable”.

The second aspect of input is quality.

To be effective, the input needs to be comprehensible; otherwise it is not truly input (or, from the learner’s point of view, uptake). In addition, input must be engaging and important, thus giving the learner a reason to pay attention to the message. As VanPatten puts it:

If learners aren’t paying attention to the message, even if the input is comprehensible, acquisition ain’t gonna happen.

Interaction

Simply put, since language exists to communicate – express, interpret, and negotiate meaning – at least two people must be involved. Furthermore,

input is better when someone is talking with a learner, not at a learner.

This is not, however, adherence to a psychosocial theory of language acquisition. It is more in line with Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis. In other words, the quality of the interaction is one of the external factors that influences – constrains – student receptivity to the input.

Furthermore, “Learner engagement with another person causes the input to be adjusted and negotiated so more comprehension occurs.”

This is not the “Noticing Hypothesis” (Richard Schmidt) but the natural and intuitive adjustments that speakers make when there is lack of understanding. It’s part of communication, the negotiation of meaning.

Interaction also does not mean that the learner is talking. Learners can use gestures, hand and body movements, facial expression, and a host of other techniques to provide nonverbal and non-language interaction.

What are the Implications for Language Teaching?

I will simply give the summaries that VanPatten provides. Elaboration will have to wait for a later post.

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.

We must educate students, parents, colleagues, and administrators about the nature of acquisition (as well as the nature of language and communication).

Classroom and materials need to be spaces in which learners receive lots of input and have many chances to interact with it.

CLT Principle 3: Language Acquisition is Constrained by Internal and External Factors – Part 2

Today we’re continuing our look at Bill VanPatten’s third Principle of Contemporary/Communicative Language Teaching in the book While We’re on the Topic (ACTFL, 2017).

Before we continue, let’s review what we saw last time.

VanPatten states that language acquisition has the following characteristics because of internal and external factors:
– It is slow
– It is piecemeal (i.e. occurs in bits and pieces)
– It is stage-like (i.e. is ordered and sequenced independently of instruction and other factors)
– Instruction does not significantly affect the first three characteristics, although the right kind of instruction might accelerate the speed of acquisition but not the order
– We create mental representation that we couldn’t learn from the environment
– Some kind of non-nativeness seems to be the norm

In other words, “learners do not willy-nilly create linguistic systems in their heads in unique individual ways” (i.e. learners evidence repeated patterns of development and universal tendencies in a linguistic system’s growth) and “instruction doesn’t override or circumvent these tendencies and developmental trajectories” (i.e. acquisition seems to be impervious to direct attempts to make it happen differently). (VanPatten 2017, p. 43)

Internal Factors

From the above two observations, VanPatten concludes that “… something is compelling [constraining] acquisition toward a particular course of action.” (2017, 43)

What is this “something” that constrains acquisition even to the point of developing knowledge of ungrammaticality and impossibility even in the absence of explicit knowledge about such things?

This “something” is not motivation, individual differences in learning rates, or aptitude – or even a combination of the three.

VanPatten believes the “something” is Universal Grammar (UG), a concept made popular by Noam Chomsky. Briefly, the theory of UG (and modularity) states
– Language is unique to human beings and the result of genetic disposition
– Language has universal properties that all human languages must obey
– Languages are limited to those properties provided by UG
– There is a language “module” [also called “Language Acquisition Device”] in the human mind, i.e. the properties of languages are unique to language and the system that processes language, which is different from all other cognitive systems.

To be sure, the idea of UG is controversial, and many researchers and theorists argue that it does not actually exist. However, no matter what we call it, people recognize that psychological factors constrain acquisition of language.

VanPatten acknowledges that not all aspects of language acquisition can be explained by UG. Some aspects of language are acquired through general learning mechanisms. (Others would claim that all acquisition is explained by general learning mechanisms.) Thus, he has what might be called a “weak position” on UG.

One of the general learning mechanisms that contribute to language acquisition is what VanPatten calls the “frequency tabulator”. In other words, the more often we encounter a language feature (word, phrase, form, etc.) the more robustly it will be represented in our mind/brain. This helps explain why certain verb forms are acquired before others, as one example.

One take-away from this is the importance of repetition in instruction. The debate comes in the best way to achieve meaningful repetition, but that is an entirely different conversation.

Before proceeding to a discussion of External Factors that constrain language acquisition, VanPatten includes an excursus on the First Language.

He notes that many people are concerned about interference from the first language on acquisition of subsequent languages. VanPatten’s conclusion? There isn’t much we can do about it; it simply is what it is. Some students will have greater difficulty than others because of this interference, but the interference itself in no way changes the internal constraints on acquisition.

In addition, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what is called the critical period. According to some, once we have reached a certain age (ill defined as it may be), the mechanisms we used to acquire our first language are no longer available to us, and so we must use a different set of mechanisms to learn subsequent languages. [Note: This is often used as a justification for following a grammar syllabus.]

To this assertion, I can only say: Poppycock!

VanPatten is less blunt in his refutation of the idea that our mechanism of acquisition changes, but he still maintains that we acquire second and subsequent languages the same way we acquired our first language. As VanPatten notes, the idea of the critical period “has lost much support over the years” – and for good reason. “In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that second language learners’ mental representation is guided and constrained as in first language acquisition, and by the same mechanisms.” (2017, p. 48)

For anyone wishing to look further into the role of the “mother tongue” in language instruction, I suggest reading Wolfgang Butzkamm’s “We only learn language once“.

To conclude today’s post, I quote VanPatten’s statement about the power of Internal Factors on language acquisition. (Come back next week for External Factors.)

In sum, internal to the learner and not under the control of external forces are language-related and learning-related factors the guide and constrain the progress of development. The learner’s language looks the way it does at particular times during acquisition for a reason. It’s not because learners are lazy, haven’t memorized something, or haven’t had enough “practice.” It’s because powerful internal forces are at work to process, organize and store the “data” that learners are exposed to.

 

CLT Principle 3: Language Acquisition is Constrained by Internal and External Factors – Part 1

Today we’re looking at Bill VanPatten’s third Principle of Contemporary/Communicative Language Teaching in the book While We’re on the Topic (ACTFL, 2017).

Before we look into the principle, let’s begin by defining a couple of terms.

Acquisition: Bill VanPatten, Stephen Krashen, and others make a distinction between learning and acquisition. Typically, adherents to this distinction describe acquisition as subconscious, implicit, seemingly effortless, and based on communication (the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning). Learning, on the other hand, is conscious, explicit, requires effort, and is not communicative. This position is controversial, and some make a distinction between short-term and long-term memory rather than learning and acquisition. However, the distinction is helpful when considering the kind of input and instruction to provide in a language course.

Constrain: The verb means to compel something by stricture, restriction, or limitation; to limit or restrict. We see this often and think nothing of it. Our ability to jump is constrained by both internal and external factors, i.e. the strength of our muscles and length of our limbs (internal) as well as the force of gravity (external) limit the height to which we can jump. If we can change the parameters of the internal or external constraints, we can change how high we jump.

VanPatten begins his discussion by describing the traditional process of language instruction and a typical understanding of acquisition: learn some rules or vocabulary, practice, receive correction, and over time learn the language. Teachers, students, and others believe this is the way languages are acquired.

However, generations of students have gone through this process and report things like, “I took four years of Blovish but can’t even understand it when people talk to me.” Language teachers often make statements like, “The only way to truly learn a language is to go where people speak it.”

Which is true?

Obviously, we need to take a new look at second language acquisition, and VanPatten provides an introduction, noting along the way that we have nearly 50 years of empirical research to inform our understanding. Unfortunately, not a lot of that research has managed to make its way into the thinking, planning, and instruction of language teachers.

So, what are some basics about Second Language Acquisition that we need to know?

  1. Second language acquisition is a rich, complex, and dynamic process. Van Patten maintains that is is slow and piecemeal.Some would disagree with this. There are many people who advertise speedy language acquisition. One entrepreneur has a program he calls “Fluent in 3 Months”, although he admits that this is a goal rather than a guarantee.

    Part of the discrepancy depends, I believe, on the definition of fluent. VanPatten seems to be talking about high-level proficiency while the purveyors of language learning systems and programs are talking about basic, simple conversation. Someone who wants to learn more should investigate the writings of Steve Kaufmann.

    Both VanPatten and Kaufmann agree that comprehensible input is essential to acquisition, and “the traditional methods” will not lead to acquisition or fluency. First language acquisition requires thousands of hours of exposure. A key question is whether second language acquisition requires the same amount of time. [I don’t believe it does, for more than one reason.]

    The piecemeal nature of acquisition means that we do not acquire or learn one aspect of language and then move on to something else. No, instead we are adding bits and pieces of language in various categories all the time. We are always working on acquiring the whole language, not just limited aspects of it.

  2. Second language acquisition is stage-like and follows a path not dictated by instruction or external forces. This is part of the internal constraint on language acquisition. Krashen talks about the “Natural Order”. Extensive research in English has revealed that certain items in the language are “early acquired” and others are “late acquired”. The correct kind of instruction may accelerate acquisition, but it cannot change the order of acquisition.VanPatten describes the stages of acquiring the Spanish verbs ser and estar as follows:
    Stage 1: No verb
    Stage 2: Emergence and use of ser for most contexts
    Stage 3: Emergence and use of estar as auxiliary for progressive
    Stage 4: Emergence and use of estar as copula for location and adjectives
  3. Learners come to implicitly know more about language than they have been been exposed to.This is a bit of an enigma. How can this happen? How do learners come to know what can and cannot be done in the language without having been exposed to every possibility? VanPatten later in the chapter ascribes this to internal factors.
  4. Almost all L2 learners fall short of native-like competence and abilityThis realization should be freeing. It is neither necessary to achieve native-like ability (including accent) nor embarrassing when we do not. Our job is to become the best non-native speaker we can.

In summarizing this portion of the book, VanPatten states the following characteristics of language acquisition:
– It is slow
– It is piecemeal (i.e. occurs in bits and pieces)
– It is stage-like (i.e. is ordered and sequenced independently of instruction and other factors)
– Instruction does not significantly affect the first three characteristics
– We create mental representation that we couldn’t learn from the environment
– Some kind of non-nativeness seems to be the norm

VanPatten makes one more key statement:

The learner is … in much more control of the process than … teachers and lay people may want to admit

but that control is unconscious.

The next section of this chapter enters seriously controversial territory: the idea of Universal Grammar. So, we’ll take a look at it next time.

CLT Principle 2: Language is Abstract and Complex

Continuing with our look at While We’re On The Topic by Bill VanPatten (Alexandria: ACTFL, 2017), this week we are looking at the second principle of Communicative/Contemporary Language Teaching, namely

Language Is Too Abstract And Complex To Teach And Learn Explicitly

With this principle, VanPatten addresses a key question in language instruction: “What is the nature of language?”

This has been answered in various ways throughout time, and each answer – combined with an understanding of the nature of learning and the nature of acquisition – leads to a different pedagogy.

VanPatten specifically rejects certain views of language. Specifically, he holds that …
– Language is not a collection of rules and structures
– Language is not a closed body of text
– Language is neither simple nor concrete
– Language cannot be taught and learned explicitly

A key contention of VanPatten is that language is not what we find in language textbooks, i.e. it is not the grammar and syntax presented in the typical textbook – even when these are viewed as “rules of thumb” and not absolutes.

VanPatten understands language to be a psychological construct, what he calls a “mental representation” in the mind/brain of the speaker. This construct or mental representation looks nothing like the “rules of grammar” typically presented in textbooks. As VanPatten famously puts it:

What’s on page 32 of the textbook is not what winds up in your head.

As an illustration of this disjunct between psychology and pedagogy, VanPatten considers the issue of identifying the subject of a sentence. In the discussion, the author illustrates the difficulty of articulating an explicit and concrete definition of “subject”, even though most people can identify the subject in a given sentence in their native language.

The mental representation of language that people have in their mind/brain is, according to VanPatten
– abstract
– complex
– implicit

Language is abstract. That is, it cannot be readily described in typical “lay” language. Professionals use abstract constructs to describe language, terms such as “underlying features”, “functional versus lexical categories”, “phrase structures”, and “movement and merge”.

Language is complex. That is, it has many components that can be arranged in various configurations.There are sound systems (with wide ranging variants), words (meaning and structure), syntax (relationships among words), rhythm and tone, intent, and more.

Language is implicit. That is, we do not have conscious knowledge of the contents of our mental representation of language and cannot (easily) articulate what we know even though we know when any given utterance transgresses one of the implicit strictures of our native language.

VanPatten then draws implications for Language Teaching. His first and boldest implication is

Because language is so abstract, complex, and implicit, you cannot teach (or learn) language explicitly

Drawing on his understanding of the nature of language, the nature of acquisition, and the nature of the mind/brain, VanPatten reminds the reader that

communication and language are not the same thing

Furthermore,

explicit rules and paradigms cannot become the abstract and complex system of language because the two things are completely different

The further implication is that teachers cannot teach language but can create a context and environment in which learners acquire a language. That context includes providing learners with large quantities of messages in the target language that they understand and find interesting.

There are researchers who disagree with VanPatten’s position and believe that at least some propositional knowledge (rules and paradigms) can be transmogrified into procedural knowledge (mental representation) and who hold to different versions of “comprehensible input plus”, e.g. the “noticing hypothesis”, the “output hypothesis” and “sociocultural theory”. However, the commonality in all of these is the indispensability and primacy of comprehensible input.

No matter what you may think of additions to comprehensible input, it is important to acknowledge that

Comprehensible Input is the sine qua non of language acquisition.

Followers of VanPatten (and Krashen) believe it is also the non plus ultra of language acquisition. VanPatten’s small book makes a good case for this.

CLT Principle 1: Teaching Communicatively

In today’s post we come to the first principle in Bill VanPatten’s book While We’re On The Topic: Teaching Communicatively Implies a Definition of Communication.

I am tempted to way, “Well, duh!” But far too many people use terms as buzzwords without defining them for others or even knowing themselves what they intend the term to mean.

One constant irritant in this regard is the use of the term “rigor”. It is constantly bandied about in education circles, but few people give any sort of definition for it. “Courses need to be more rigorous!” is a great slogan or catchphrase, but what does that mean?

How many teachers have a coherent philosophy or approach to teaching or language teaching. How many can articulate even a broad outline of a philosophy? How many language teachers can define key terms – or is this, like language, intuitive (i.e. we know what it is, but we can’t define it readily)?

VanPatten opens the chapter with four statements and asks the reader to rate his or her ability as Yes, Sort Of, or Nope. Here are the statements:

  1. I can offer a working definition of communication
  2. I can describe the two major purposes of communication
  3. I understand how the classroom is a “limited context” environment for communication
  4. I can describe/explain how knowledge about communication informs choices and behaviors in terms of language teaching

How did you rate yourself?

Before I read the book, I rated myself very poorly, even though I have studied second language acquisition for years.

Fortunately, VanPatten provides us with an excellent working definition of communication:

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

Meaning refers to the information contained in a message. This information may be the literal meaning conveyed by the words, but it may also be a “hidden message” beyond the literal. Meaning can be layered.

Expression refers to the production of a message, whether that expression is oral, non-verbal, or some combination.

Interpretation indicates that communication is not one-way. There is always a recipient.

Negotiation acknowledges that communication, i.e. the expression and interpretation of meaning, is not always successful on the first (or tenth) attempt. Participants on both sides of the interchange must work to establish and clarify meaning. We do this all the time.

Context refers to the participants and the setting.

Purpose indicates that there is a goal or objective to communication. As VanPatten puts it: “Just because someone’s lips are moving or their hands are gesturing down’ mean they’re communicating.”

Having defined his terms, VanPatten next addresses the idea of context.

Context places constraints upon our communication. That is, the people and setting (not just physical place) exert significant influence on what we say and how we say it. Important for the teacher is to recognize that the classroom is a context and places constraints on the communication that will take place there.

This concept fits well with the High-Leverage Teaching Practice of creating a classroom discourse community. If communication and language acquisition are to take place in the classroom, we must create a community within the context of schools and students.

The book then moves on to purpose.

The purpose of communication is, according to VanPatten, basically twofold: psychosocial and cognitive-informational. That is, we communicate to establish, maintain, affect, effect, and sever relationships and roles among two or more persons. Or we communicate in order to “express or obtain information, or to learn or do something”. (2017, p. 9)

These two purposes are not mutually exclusive, and they may both be in play at the same time, i.e. a communicative act may be both cognitive-information and psychosocial simultaneously.

VanPatten mentions one other purpose of communication: to entertain.

I believe he fails to give this purpose adequate consideration. Like the other two, it is not exclusive.

The author sums up this section of the chapter with the statement, “Language use without purpose is not communication.”

This leads to an important conclusion:

Language and communication are not the same thing.

On the one hand, we can use language without communicating. For example, if I an actor is memorizing lines for a play, language is being used, but no communication is taking place. On the other hand, we often communicate with a look, a sound, or a gesture that is not language.

The final major section of the chapter is a discussion of implications of a definition of communication for the classroom.

If we maintain that we practice Communicative Language Teaching (which VanPatten maintains is also Contemporary Language Teaching), then communication needs to be taking place in the classroom.

VanPatten asks to key questions:

  1. How much time do instructors and students spend on the expression and interpretation (and negotiation) of  meaning?
  2. Is there a purpose to this expression and interpretation of meaning?

ACTFL proposes that, ideally, the teacher and students spend at least 90% of their time in (and outside) the classroom expressing, interpreting, and negotiating meaning IN THE TARGET LANGUAGE.

That last portion of the statement is, unfortunately, necessary. A majority of teachers self reported in a survey that they spend less than half of their class time using the target language. Since we know that the brain is able to acquire a language only from receiving messages in the target language that are comprehended, then we should be spending significantly more time using the target language.

If the answer to the second question is “no”, then no communication is taking place – and neither is acquisition.

In accord with Glisan and Donato’s position that teachers need to abandon the IRE model of interaction and adopt the IRF model*, VanPatten advocates abandoning “display questions” intended to practice language (e.g. vocabulary, grammar points) because they are not communicative and asking “context-embedded” questions.

When I was a student teacher, my master teacher used to say, “Never ask a question that you already know the answer to.”

While this may seem extreme, the underlying principle is sound. If I already know the answer, then I am probably asking students to “practice language”. But if I ask students questions to which I do not know the answer, then we begin to have the expression and interpretation of meaning.

Of course, there are certain circumstances in which asking a question to which I know the answer is appropriate, but those are exceptions, and they have a communicative purpose beyond “practicing language”. For example, I may ask a rhetorical question to get students to think about a topic.

*IRE stands for teacher INITIATES an exchange, student RESPONDS, teacher EVALUATES the response;
IRF stands for teacher INITIATES an exchange, student RESPONDS, teacher gives FEEDBACK and moves the conversation forward.
See Enacting the Work of Language Instruction, “HLTP 2: Building a Classroom Discourse Community” (2017, pp. 42-45)

VanPatten reminds us that “… just because mouths are moving doesn’t mean something is communicative. For an event to be communicative, it must have a purpose that is not language-related but related to one of language use’s two major purposes: psychosocial or cognitive-information. ” (2017, p. 15)

I disagree with the statement only insofar as VanPatten omits the third purpose of language: entertainment.

At the close of his discussion of the first implication of a definition for communication, VanPatten asks the following:

It isn’t easy to imagine gossip in the classroom. But what about entertainment? Are there communicative events in class involving entertainment? (Simply playing music in class does not count.)

My response is that 1) this must be a difference between teaching high school and college, because I have no problem imagining gossip in the classroom; my students do it all the  time, and 2) I have spent significant portions of many class periods telling jokes and funny stories to my students in German. I will come to another entertainment piece in a moment.

The second implication of a definition for communication deals with the classroom context.

VanPatten maintains that the context is “fixed” because the participants (teacher and students) and setting (classrooms) do not change. That does not mean, however, that it is unchanging. Students come and go throughout the year, and not all students – or even the teacher – are present every day.

Within this context, VanPatten decries the use of role-playing, an activity that is very popular among teachers.

I disagree to an extent with VanPatten here, but only because I believe he fails to take a special form of role-playing into account.

It is obvious to me that VanPatten is talking about the kind of role-playing in which the teacher assigns  something like this: Pretend you are in a restaurant. One of you is the waiter and the other is a customer. You want a steak, but they are out of steak. Have a conversation.

As VanPatten rightly maintains, this sort of role-playing shipwrecks on two points: 1) it is not communicative because the purpose is to practice language, and 2) it is trying to turn the classroom into something it is not (e.g. a restaurant).

However, I believe VanPatten overlooks a special kind of role-playing: what we usually call simply RPG, or table-top Role Playing Games.

I have played RPG scenarios with my students and had a great time doing it. The purpose was entertainment – see why I think VanPatten does not give sufficient attention to this third purpose for communication? Students talk about how much they enjoyed the game even a year or more later.

So, the first objection is dealt with: the purpose is not to “practice language” but to enjoy playing an imaginative game. The second objection is also dealt with: the teacher structures the game in a way that takes into account the classroom context. The teacher remains the teacher while fulfilling the role of GameMaster or DungeonMaster, and students remain students while also being players / player characters in an entertaining game.

I have recently connected with other language teachers who are exploring this aspect of using the target language in the classroom. We may be making “adventures” available to others.

Two other games that can be used in the classroom are “Mafia/Werewolves” and “Breakout”. They, too, have the communicative purpose of entertainment and take place within the classroom context.

If you have not yet looked into using these sorts of games in your instruction, I encourage you to do so.

VanPatten closes the chapter with a reminder:

The definition of communication [expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning within a context for a purpose] informs what it means for a classroom to be communicative.

I hope it informs your practices.

While We’re on the Topic …

… of book reviews, let’s take a look at Bill VanPatten’s book of the same name.

While We’re on the Topic (Alexandria VA: ACTFL, 2017) by Bill VanPatten is available from ACTFL at their website.

The book is shorter than Enacting the Work of Language Instruction and is more popular in tone. While Glisan and Donato present a more work that is more academic in tone, VanPatten aims his work at the teacher in the classroom who is perhaps not as informed on research in second language acquisition. The tone is conversational, and the idea is to explain certain aspects of second language acquisition and their ramifications for the classroom to the nonprofessional.

It took a number of posts to work through Enacting the Work of Language Instruction, and this will be a multi-part series as well. However, because of the shorter length and more informal tone of While We’re on the Topic, I do not anticipate quite as many posts.

The book is organized around six principles of what BVP calls “contemporary language teaching”, a term he explains in his prologue. A short quiz precedes both the book as a whole and each chapter. This gives the reader the opportunity to assess existing knowledge about the topic. An identical quiz follows each chapter so that the reader can see what has been learned.

Today we’ll take a look at the Prologue only.

In the opening paragraph, VanPatten states his purpose for writing the book:

This book aims to bring certain basic ideas back into focus for both novice instructors and veterans.

This statement reveals some presuppositions that BVP has about what he presents in the book:
1. The ideas are basic for language teaching
2. The ideas were once a point of focus
3. That focus has been lost
4. Focusing on the basic ideas presented in the books is good for both novice instructors and veterans

VanPatten begins rightly with an attempt to define certain terms because they are key to an understanding of what he writes.

The first term is part of a tautology: “Contemporary language teaching is communicative language teacher, and communicative language teaching is contemporary language teaching.” (2017, p. vii)

VanPatten notes that “communicative language teaching” or “the communicative method” has a poor reputation in the language community. He ascribes this to the term’s becoming a buzzword and not being defined, so that it came to mean whatever anyone wanted it to mean.

(In fact, what many people considered “communicative language teaching” was simply the old Present – Practice – Perform model from the days of Grammar-Translation in new garb.)

For VanPatten, there is not a single “The Communicative Method”; rather, communicative language teaching (CLT) is adherence to six basic principles, not matter how they may be packaged – and BVP considers proficiency-based teaching, TPRS, The Natural Approach, immersion, content language instruction, and others all to be packagings of communicative language teaching.

The book’s intent, then, is to elucidate the basics of and review the underlying principles of CLT so that teachers can choose strategies and procedures, whether part of a widely disseminated approach or a “personal method”, that are based on and informed by theory and research.

Teachers don’t have to be second language acquisition researchers, but they need to have a basic understanding of the nature of language, the nature of language learning, the nature of learning in general, and the nature of communication.

Some may wish to question VanPatten’s choice of basic principles, but he notes that his book is not intended to be the end of the matter. Rather, it is a practical beginning based on two ideas: 1) VanPatten’s experience suggests that these are the “basics of the basics”, and 2) It is better to provide an introductory text that is accessible and provides a limited number of principles that can be implemented right away. Deeper learning and more nuanced understandings come with time, practice, and continued reading.

In addition, VanPattern is writing for a broad audience of people who are not scholars in language teaching or language acquisition. Instead they are teachers in training and veteran teachers who have diverse understandings of and acquaintance with second language acquisition and instruction.

We’ll take a look at the principles individually in coming posts. For now, it is enough simply to list them as VanPatten gives them (2017, p. viii):

  1. If you teach communicatively, you’d better have a working definition of communicative. My argument for this is that you cannot evaluate what is communicative and what is appropriate for the classroom unless you have such a definition.
  2. Language is too abstract and complex to teach and learn explicitly. That is, language must be handled in the classroom differently from other subject matter (e.g. history, science, sociology) if the goal is communicative ability. This has profound consequences for how we organize language teaching materials and approach the classroom.
  3. Acquisiton is severely constrained by internal (and external) factors. Many teachers labor under the old present + practice + test model. But the research is clear on how acquisition happens. So, understanding something about acquisition pushes the teacher to question the prevailing model of language instruction.
  4. Instrucdtors and materials should provide student learners with level-appropriate input and interaction. This principle falls out of the previous one. Since the role of input often gets lip service in language teaching, I hope to give the reader some ideas bout moving input from “technique” to the center of the curriculum.
  5. Tasks (and not Exercises or Activities) should form the backbone of the curriculum. Again, language teaching is dominated by the present + practice + test model. One reason is that teachers do not understand  what their options are, what is truly “communicative” in terms of activities in class, and how to alternatively assess. So, this principles is crucial for teachers to move toward contemporary language instruction.
  6. A focus on form should be input-oriented and meaning-based. Teachers are overly preoccupied with teaching and testing grammar. So are textbooks. Students are thus overly preoccupied with the learning of grammar. This principle demonstrates what should  be the proper approach to drawing attention to grammatical features in the contemporary classroom.

We’ll take a look at each of the above more closely. In the meantime, I hope that you will get this book, read it, and consider the research and its ramifications for teaching and acquisition.

Putting HLTPs into Practice – Part 2

Today we come to the end of our extended examination of Enacting the Work of Language Instruction by Eileen W Glisan and Richard Donato (2017).

The specific topic is the cycle of enactment.

Remember that this is merely one model of implementation or enactment. You may have a different model of implementation; the important thing is to implement your own program of professional development in collaboration with another or other teachers.

The cycle (or spiral, as I prefer to see it) consists of the following steps
1. Deconstruction of the HLTP
2. Observation and analysis of the HLTP
3. Planning to enact the practice
4. Rehearsal and coaching
5. Enactment of practice in the (PK-16) classroom*
6. Assessments of enactment by one or more fo the collaborative partners, including self-assessment and reflection

I put (PK-16) in parentheses because this cycle of enactment is valuable in any instructional setting, not just the school setting from Pre-Kindergarten through senior in college. That designation was limiting, but the cycle is applicable more broadly.

Glisan and Donato illustrate the model with a set of concentric circles. (2017, p. 166)

In the center is “Community of Practice”

In a circle outside of that are the steps of the cycle:
Deconstruction –> Observation and Analysis –> Planning –> Rehearsal and Coaching –> Enactment –> Assessment ⌊New Cycle⌋

The outmost circle consists of Reflection and Collaboration // Feedback and Discussion.

Although the authors do not explicitly elucidate their diagram, it seems that it is intended to convey the idea that “within a context of Reflection, Collaboration, Feedback, and Discussion, teachers create by using iterative cycles of implementation of the HLTPs a Community of Practice.”

In a truly collaborative context, this model has the potential for helping teachers improve their instruction. It is, once again, not the only model. The potential misuse is in making it an instrument of coercion in a misguided attempt to force all teachers to teach alike.

Glisan and Donato also note that, contrary to the way it is portrayed in the diagram, the phases of the “Cyclical Model for Enacting HLTPs” “do not occur in a static linear manner but reflect back-and-forth movement as learning is mediated and leads to successful enactment of the HLTP.” (2017, p. 167)

The next question, of course, is “What happens in each phase of the cycle?”

Phase 1: Deconstructing the Practice

Teachers deconstruct – or take apart – the practice after learning about it, either through oral presentation or reading. They identify the “instructional moves” that comprise the practice.

This could be a quite ambitious undertaking. The person just starting out will probably want to limit the scope and number of the instructional moves, recognizing that HLTPs like “creating a discourse community” and “facilitating target language comprehensibility” are quite complex and can be approached in a number of different ways.

Remember, this is intended to be an ongoing journey (to use another metaphor).

Phase 2: Observing and Analyzing the Practice

Teachers then watch a more experienced teacher – either live or on video – enact the practice. The “students” focus on observing, analyzing, and recalling the specific instructional moves illustrated in the model lesson.

Glisan and Donato include some very good advice here.

If the object is to analyze a practice – or series of “instructional moves” – then participants should not be both learners and observers.

At conferences and workshops, especially those that emphasize strategies that maximize comprehension, participants are often asked to experience the strategies as students. Then the presenter will have a discussion and de-brief. This is a good idea for introducing people to a strategy and showing its power.

However, that is not what Glisan and Donato intend to happen in the Cyclical Model. They want teachers to be able to analyze the practice and its “instructional moves”. To do this, the observer cannot be both a student and an observer.

The authors offer several possibilities for working around this situation:
1. Have participants observe a teacher and real students. (This is, btw, something that iFLT introduced into its conferences several years ago.)
2. Have a small group of participants be the students while other participants observe.
3. Make a video of the teacher teaching the entire group of participants. Then watch the video for the purpose of observation and analysis.
4. Watch a video of a teacher with a class of real students

I have been in situations in which each of these possibilities was used. The best experience was watching a live teacher with real students. Having a small group of participants be students while others watch and watching a video of a teacher with a class of real students were roughly equally effective and in the middle. The strategy that worked least well was videotaping the participants and then watching that video.

Phases 3 and 4: Planning and Rehearsing the Practice

In this section, Glisan and Donato advocate for something that is not frequently done in teacher training programs and even less frequently once teachers are in the classroom. Nonetheless, planning and rehearsing can be highly beneficial.

First, the teacher plans a lesson / instructional activity that incorporates the target HLTP. This can be done in collaboration with one’s peers.

Then, the teacher practices with peers as students while the leader (or professor) coaches. This form of coaching involves stopping the lesson and asking the teacher to repeat, change, vary, revise a segment of the lesson.

A few years ago, I had the great good fortune to present a series of workshops with Jason Fritze, an internationally known teacher, presenter, and teaching coach. As part of the workshops, I demonstrated several practices in a series of lessons that Jason and I had prepared. In what was in many ways a “Master Class”, I presented to the workshop participants who played the role of students. Jason would have me stop and do something slightly differently or repeat what I had done, and then he would explain what the participants had experienced and invite discussion and questions.

I am certain that the participants benefitted from the workshops, and we certainly got positive feedback. However, I am convinced that I received the most from this experience. It had a profoundly positive impact on my own teaching, even though I was presenting as an experienced teacher.

From personal experience, then, I can attest to the value of these steps.

Phases 5 and 6: Enacting and Assessing the Practice

The last two phases are coupled together because of their close relationship to one another.

After deconstructing, observing, analyzing, preparing, and rehearsing the practice, the teacher enacts it in the classroom while a colleague or master teacher observes and assesses the enactment. The teacher also self-reflects on the enactment of the practice. This should lead to a collaborative dialogue between the observer and the teacher that results in increased understanding and facility with the High-Leverage Teaching Practice.

Challenges of Implementing the Enactment Cycle

Glisan and Donato identify two challenges to implementing the cycle, and these are mentioned primarily in relation to New Teachers (i.e. those in a teacher-training program or their first two years of in-service teaching). I believe there are other challenges.

One challenge is simply expectations and emotions. Most teachers do not expect to be stopped and interrupted while presenting and can have emotional reactions, even anger, when this happens.

My own experience with the workshop series I mentioned earlier makes me aware that the groundwork needs to be done well. Jason and I had already worked together for some time, but we sat down and discussed what would happen during the workshop. I had to be ready for Jason to stop me and ask me to do something over, do revise something to a lesser or greater extent, or even do something completely different.

I can tell you that it takes trust, humility, flexibility, and the proper mindset for this to work.

The second challenger that Glisan and Donato mention is the need to situate the practice in a relevant instructional activity (lesson). This is indeed a greater challenge for New Teachers than for in-service teachers, who know what is happening in the classroom.

One piece of advice in this section is highly relevant:

Increasing comprehensible target language use and interaction during instruction cannot be carried out if the learners are uninterested in what is being said or in what they are being asked to express.

Other challenges that I see but are not mentioned by Glisan and Donato include those I noted above, and these challenges can be insurmountable.

The first challenge is trust. If I do not have a relationship of trust with my peers, then I will not participate in the cycle of enactment. I have to trust them to have my best interests at heart, not simply try to make themselves look better than others, to know the HLTP well enough to be able to analyze and assess its enactment, and to have sufficient discretion not to discuss needs for improvement with others. Unfortunately, trust is often a rare commodity; people do not learn to trust one another simply because they work in the same school or building or department. We need to be deliberate in building trust.

A true Professional Learning Community does not come into existence merely because an administrator decrees that teachers must meet, collaborate, and work together.

The second challenge is humility. Many teachers have large egos and view their classrooms as their own little empires. They are unwilling to submit themselves to scrutiny and constructive criticism – and often because they consider themselves to be exemplars of their craft. Pride on the part of either the observer or the practitioner can shipwreck the process and make it impossible to proceed.

The third challenge is flexibility. Flexibility is related to the other challenges of humility and trust. The less trust I have in someone, the less flexible I will be when around them. The same goes for humility and the lack thereof. There can, of course, be other reasons for lack of flexibility, but for the cycle of enactment to work, teachers must be flexible enough to try something new, both in the practice and in the process of enactment.

The fourth challenge is mindset. I have, unfortunately, worked with teachers who saw no reason to do anything that would improve their teaching. They had completed their teacher training and were in the classroom. Unless they were being paid for “professional development” they saw no reason for it. Yes, they would go to district in-service workshops (at which they often spent most of the time on their computer or mobile phone), but they would never go to a conference or out-of-district workshop. They had a fixed mindset and may have felt threatened by presentations of new practices and challenges to allow others to observe and assess them. They failed to realize that no matter how good you are, you can always improve.

Any one of these challenges can block implementation of a potentially valuable tool for improving instruction. That would be unfortunate

Final Thoughts

Glisan and Donato end this chapter and the book with a brief review of what they have presented and the hope that it will serve as a catalyst  for discussion of HLTPs and teacher education in general.

I also hope that what I have written in response to this book contributes to the discussion.

Both as individuals and as a profession, we need to remember that what has brought us to where we are will not take us beyond that. If we are to get past the generations of students who have taken two t0 four years of a language but are unable to understand or speak it, we must change what we do.

I don’t have all the answers, but I want to be part of the conversation.

Let me know what you think.

Putting HLTPs Into Practice – Part 1

We have come to the last chapter of Eileen W Glisan and Richard Donato’s book Enacting the Work of Language Instruction (2017, ACTFL).

In this chapter, Glisan and Donato provide suggestions, as the chapter title states, for “Putting HLTPs into Practice: A Cycle of Enactment”. Enacting the High-Leverage Teaching Practices is not a one-time act but an ongoing process in which the novice or in-service teacher returns time and again to the practice, reviews and deconstructs it, analyzes application, then carries it while being observed by a sympathetic colleague with whom the teacher then discusses the implementation.

I believe that Glisan and Donato provide us with a useful model for collaboration. I also believe that it is, unfortunately, a bit idealistic and unlikely to be adopted in most school settings for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons include lack of time because teachers are usually overwhelmed by their duties and responsibilities; lack of perceived need for this kind of collaboration; lack of training on how to implement this sort of collaboration; lack of clarity on instructional objectives and the place of HLTPs in instruction; significant differences in perception of objectives, scope, and sequence in instruction; and rivalries within departments. (The last one is particularly sad, but true.)

Nonetheless, where teachers are willing to trust one another and work with one another to improve their teaching ability, the collaborative study and deconstruction of an HLTP, mutual observation of its implementation, and subsequent discussion can prove highly beneficial to those who participate – and to their students.

Glisan and Donato call this a “Cycle of Enactment” and discuss iterative rounds of investigation and practice. If done properly, this is actually a spiral rather than a cycle, since the practice should improve with each iteration. But that is a quibble.

One important aspect of implementation for this model is the idea of specific Instructional Activities. Rather than trying to do everything, practitioners focus on “specific instructional activities (IAs) that limit the context of the practice so that novices [and in-service teachers] can draw upon specific knowledge and moves as they make judgments about how to interact with their students within the construct of the high-leverage teaching practice …” (2017, p. 164) [Emphasis in original]

Where I disagree with the authors is what the specific Instructional Activities ought to be.

This disagreement reflects earlier disagreements when discussing various HLTPs, especially the focus on grammar, the seeming limitation to authentic texts only, the focus on form through PACE, and certain aspects of Oral Corrective Feedback.

Glisan and Donato provide the following suggestions. I note that they are merely suggestive and not exhaustive – but their suggestions could have been better. For example, rather than simply stating “Telling a story”, they could have suggested ways to make a story comprehensible and engaging, such as MovieTalk, Watch and Discuss, Read and Discuss, Story Listening, and many more that are known throughout the TCI community.

Facilitating Target Language Comprehensibility:
– Telling a story by making it comprehensible and actively involving learners
– Introducing new vocabulary or grammatical structures within an engaging context

N.B.: I disagree with this second one, not because we don’t teach new vocabulary or structures, but because this places the emphasis on the teaching of new vocabulary and grammatical structures. The vocabulary and structures should arise out of the engaging context rather then being pre-determined and then having a context created to fit them. There are, of course, many ways to make a story comprehensible, and it would have been nice for Glisan and Donato to provide an example or two.

Building a Classroom Discourse Community
– Facilitating a whole-class discussion based on a shared context such as an … event, popular media, or an important social issue

N.B.: The classroom itself is a shared context, and many teachers already do activities such as discussing plans for the weekend or what students did over the weekend, important social and world issues, birthdays and other celebrations, school sports, and much more. They should be encouraged to see these discussions not just as an activity but as a High-Leverage Teaching Practice that helps build a classroom discourse community. Again, strategies for leading a whole-class discussion would be helpful.

Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts
As noted previously, my first disagreement is in the limitation of interpretation and discussion to “authentic texts” only, as well as the inconsistent understanding of the word authentic in most discussions. Here I agree with Bill VanPatten’s idea of authentic as being whatever is consistent with and part of the classroom context.
– Guiding learners through a(n authentic) reading via tasks that elicit literal comprehension followed by interpretation
– Leading class discussion based on a(n authentic) text

N.B.: Aside from my disagreements about “authentic”, I find these two Instructional Activities beneficial for language acquisition because they focus on comprehensible input, both in the form of the text itself and in the discussion that follows. Teachers will need various strategies for supporting a discussion based on the language level of the students.

Focusing on Form in a Dialogic Context Through PACE
– Presenting an authentic story … that features a grammatical structure occurring naturally within a meaningful context
– Guiding learners in dialoguing about and co-constructing  grammatical from …

N.B.: Creating a lesson around grammar takes us backward in our application of knowledge about second language acquisition. However, helping students deal with grammatical forms on a spontaneous, need-to-know or inquiry basis, can be very helpful. That’s why I am willing to give the second IA a “meh” rating.

Focusing on Cultural Products, Practices, and Perspectives
– Making use of engaging images of a cultural product or practice as a launching point for [discussion of] cultural perspectives
– Making use of … data of various kinds for reflecting on the cultural meanings of products and/or practices

N.B.: The quality of this IA is, of course, dependent on the choice and use of the materials. That does not negate the fact that this is one of the better examples that the authors give.

Providing Oral Corrective Feedback to Improve Learner Performance
– Facilitating a whole-class discussion in which oral teacher feedback plays a role to support student speaking …
– Conducting an oral extension activity in which learners use a grammatical structure … and are guided by teacher feedback.

N.B.: The second of these IAs once again takes us back to an emphasis on grammar rather than communication, even if Glisan and Donato put “to make meaning” into the description. It is still “practicing” the language. The first of these two IAs gets a “meh” because it depends so much on whether or not the teacher is forcing student speaking or simply supporting student speaking that is natural and unforced. The authors leave this distinction entirely too vague.

The great weakness of this chapter lies in the paucity of suggestions for accomplishing the “Instructional Activities”. While the book cannot be all things to all people, it would have been helpful for the authors to include some examples and suggestions of strategies to accomplish their suggested IAs.

Next week we should finish this chapter and the book by taking a look at the “Cyclical Model for Enacting HLTPs” itself, challenges of implementation, and some final thoughts.

I hope this extended look at a potentially significant publication from ACTFL has been helpful.

Leave a comment.