First of all, on behalf of the officers of AATSP García Lorca, I would like to thank those who attended the AATSP conference on 10/22 for their support.
Secondly, I would really like to start a discussion on Anne Matava´s presentation and on CI (Comprehensible Input). After reading the evaluations it was clear that many of you were intrigued and interested in Comprehensible Input.
So, I would like to make several statements based on what we saw Anne do on Friday with the intent of starting a dialogue on how our students learn and how we teach a second language.
1. The fundamental question is "how does one learn a second language"
a. The answer, of course, is that humans do NOT learn languages. Languages are not learned, they are acquired. Most human beings have NOT learned their native language. Very few can understand and explain their native language grammatically. Children are the best examples of how it is not necessary to "understand" a language in order to speak it. Children know no grammar. They do, however, speak fluently. Languages are acquired by hearing them. It is no mystery why hearing impaired people are unable to speak. We "acquire" second languages exactly the same way - by hearing them. Why, then, do we spend so much time teaching our student about the language?
b. If the above assumption is true, then it is interesting how much time is spent in traditionally second language classrooms on the grammar and workings of the language. I think there is a fairly accepted notion that the best way to "learn" is to live abroad or via total immersion. In his is true, then why wouldn't we all do what Anne does and simulate "immersion" in our classrooms? How many teachers that are teaching out of a traditional textbook can claim to stay in the target language as long as Anne did? Many spend lots of time explaining he language in English.
2. The language “learning” method via teaching grammar has produced generations of
student who do not speak the language. What we are doing is not working as a whole.
3. The acquisition of a second language is not something we attain via memorizing, studying or
“learning. It is NOT something we can study and learn and then use. We acquire second
languages by listening to them. It is a subconscious activity. It happens naturally by listening to
the same things over and over again. We call this “repetitive comprehensible input.” Languages
are not “learned” by describing (in English) how they work.
4. The fundamental difference between the process of how a child acquires his/her first language and
how adolescents and adults do is primarily one of time. Unless we are living in the country of the
language we are “learning”, we can't possibly have the same amount of input as when we were
children.
5. Activities in our classroom can be classified as “output” and “input.” Output activities are those that
require students to produce or practice the language. All writing and speaking activities are
OUTPUT activities. Input can only happen via listening and reading. Input is ONLY effective
if it is understood by the student. No progress is made in the language unless the input is
comprehensible.
6. Vary few teachers are delivering CI (comprehensible input) the way Anne did in her presentation.
7. The type of repetitive input that Anne provided is very effective in helping the student acquire the
language. Evidence of this is that the majority of us understood what she was saying and were
able to read and understand the story that she “asked” during her presentation.
8. The emphasis should not be on having the students speak. The focus must be on having the
students listen to the language. Just as we do not expect babies to speak for a long time, we still
constantly speak to them and they understand everything we say. Eventually, after enough
input, babies begin to speak. They begin speaking words (and not always correctly), and then
sentences, paragraphs and eventually they become fluent. This is exactly the model we should
follow in our classes. Students will begin to produce language when they are ready – when they
have had enough input.
9. Friday was the second time in 3 weeks that I had “learned” German from Anne. I am amazed at
how much German I have in my head. I have only had a total of about three hours, but I could
read a story using anything she covered. I would also be able to produce much of what she
“taught.”
10. Comprehensible Input has little to do with stories. What Anne did was to take a fact
about one of her students (Carrie has a dog) and created Comprehensible Input around it. By
using information about her students and by allowing the class to “write” the story, Anne created
interest and a very engaging class.
11. The challenge we all face once we commit to honoring how people acquire a second language, is
how to perfect our skills at delivering Comprehensible Input.
12. My website has links to Ben Slavic and Susie Gross. Those websites have many resources to help
teachers learn more and improve their skills. There are other links as well. My website is at
http://www.classjump.com/mainetprs/
13. What do you think? What points do you agree with? What points do you disagree with? I really
would like to start a conversation on this topic. I don't think we can continue to dismiss the power
of what Anne did on 10/22/2010.
14. I am going to post this on a blog. I would really like folks to go there and start a discussion about L2 teaching and learning. I know for sure that my practice has improved and my students have benefited greatly since I first started thinking about all of the issues mentioned above. Please start a discussion with ME. The blog can be found at: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2437565797981818380. Please go there and comment on the ideas/statements presented above.
Thanks so much
Skip
Skip, although I agree with most of what was said in the Blog, I would like to make one point. I think that once a structure is learned, it is very easy for the students to understand the grammar piece. It doesn't take long to go over 1st, 2nd and 3rd person singular and plural. Once you do this, it is easy to ask the student to re-tell the story in first person, or a different tense. I also think that it is essential that students understand something of the culture in the target language. I know we can include things in our stories but it is usually not enough. - thoughts for discussion
ReplyDeleteLisa, THANK YOU so much for being the first comment! I think this can be a VERY rich discussion and I appreciate your kicking it off!
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is that students retain the other tenses better if they are part of comprehensible input. The other day I included (in a story that was in the third person, past tense) the dialogue "Do you want my love?" No, I don't want your love" and the narrator said "She didn't want his love" This was repeated by the actors "forever" because it was just so much fun!
I have also found what you said about the 2nd and third person plural to be more true at upper levels. I have found them to be more ready after they have done the third person for a while. I am hesitant to explain the grammar. Susie Gross says that she just says things like "the n makes it "they" and the "r" means "to" - I have found that to work to.
Ben and his blog have put out the challenge to make 95% of the instruction time Comprehensible Input. Though I am not there, I have taken on the challenge as a goal. I am shooting for 75% this year. I am trying to avoid English (talking about the language) as much as possible
My thought on culture is that it should all be in English and that it is probably a necessary "leak" in language acquisition. I actually try to do a lot of the culture via videos and computers on days that I am out so that my time with them can focus on CI.
What do others think?
Mr. Crosby,
ReplyDeleteI agree with essentially everything in the blog as you have taught me to become fluent in a foreign language in only a year and a half. In your article you mention that one can be fluent in a language even though that individual doesn't need to be cognizant of the grammatical aspects. This is one part that I disagree with because I can converse in Spanish but there are many situations where I do not know the correct grammar or conjugation and the difficult part is that in many cases I may not be considered fluent and just able to have a conversation here and there. I do think this is an interesting approach though because I spent 10 years learning french and have forgotten enough of it that I speak Spanish better now than French
ACTFL position on the use of L2 in the classroom
ReplyDeleteUse of the Target Language in the Classroom (May 2010)
Research indicates that effective language instruction must provide significant levels of meaningful communication* and interactive feedback in the target language in order for students to develop language and cultural proficiency. The pivotal role of target-language interaction in language learning is emphasized in the K-16 Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. ACTFL therefore recommends that language educators and their students use the target language as exclusively as possible (90% plus) at all levels of instruction during instructional time and, when feasible, beyond the classroom. In classrooms that feature maximum target-language use, instructors use a variety of strategies to facilitate comprehension and support meaning making. For example, they:
1. provide comprehensible input that is directed toward communicative goals;
2. make meaning clear through body language, gestures, and visual support;
3. conduct comprehension checks to ensure understanding;
4. negotiate meaning with students and encourage negotiation among students;
5. elicit talk that increases in fluency, accuracy, and complexity over time;
6. encourage self-expression and spontaneous use of language;
7. teach students strategies for requesting clarification and assistance when faced with comprehension difficulties; and
8. offer feedback to assist and improve students’ ability to interact orally in the target language.
*Communication for a classical language refers to an emphasis on reading ability and for American Sign Language (ASL) to signed communicative ability.
I wonder how many second language teachers are actually doing this. Those who saw Anne teach German at the AATSP workshop know that she accomplished this - I would argue that she probably exceeded it. I would suggest that this is crucial - the days of talking ABOUT the language and the workings of the language should be over. I would also argue that Comprehensible Input methods like TPRS allow us to easily meet that recommendation. What do others think?
Betsy Hudson sent the following thoughts and gave me permission to post them here (Thank you Betsy)
ReplyDeleteGreat blog. Here are some random thoughts on this topic.
According to what was presented, it is obvious that I could never have become fluent in any of the languages I speak (relatively fluently), because one doesn't learn language from a book. I did.
The answer is in between. Anyone who has taught adolescents that don't want to be in a class realizes how their subtle foot dragging can make learning unbearable for the real students.
Having lived in countries where foreigners of long-term residence spoke exceedingly poorly in the local tongue, it does help one realize that one has to actively seek out language learning. These same poor speakers could get whatever they wanted via gestures, grunts, occasional words, etc.
Accountability is a great factor. How do we prepare for the AP program if we need no formal grammar?
Sometimes what one needs is to study the grammar for several years and then get immersed in the respective culture. For me, in German, living in Germany after having faithfully (and poorly) mastered the classroom requirements, after about three months in Germany I was golden. The seeds were there and just needed to blossom.
I have found students that have had a more serious TPR background, getting irate if they were expected to explore complicated grammar topics.
Our big failing, in my mind, is trying to sell ourselves as teaching people to be fluent. In actuality, what one learns about culture and language skills (vis-a-vis one's own tongue) is equally important if not more so than actual fluency. How many people use math skills beyond addition, subtraction, division and multiplication? Why does no one question agonizing kids through geometry, trigonometry, calculus, and algebra? Perhaps training the brain is the most important development - have you read the short story Pecado de omisión?
It seems to me, that if I wanted to learn how to play the piano, I would need to 1) learn to read music, 2) understand the keyboard, 3) learn the meaning of the Italian comments and symbols as well as 4) actually play music. Does one need that to play the piano? Of course not. A number of people play without reading music. If you paid for piano lessons, would you expect your kid to know how to read music?
At ACTFL I attended a session on getting advanced students into the realm of excellence. Archie Bunker English was rated as low intermediate. The person they commended as superior, spoke with a distinct accent. All of these proficiency ratings are "arbitrary."
You are totally right, that not everyone wants to speak at a level of Proust. But, where is one to go to learn the formal structure? If not in a classroom, where?
In a normal school year, if nothing shortened classes, I would have 120 hours of student contact in a normal class. How much language can one learn in 10 days in a foreign country?
I'm happy to teach in any manner that keeps my school happy. Any progress in a second language is progress in one's own.
Thanks,
Betsy