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
