Skip to main content

Should you change your method for some classes?

You may know that I often blog about the two ends of the second language learning spectrum: comprehensible input (learning seen to be similar to child language acquisition) and skill-acquisition (learning seen as the automatisation of skills where learning a language is likened to any sort of learning of a complex skill). I find myself sitting somewhere in the middle of that spectrum since my hunch is that both ideas have their merits.

I have also suggested elsewhere that it is quite possible to incorporate aspects of both approaches in a course, killing two birds with one stone, if you like. So-called comprehensible input practitioners include a large amount of recycling of high frequency language in their lessons. Who is to say if acquisition is occurring unconsciously or by the repetition of a skill? I don't think we can know the answer to that at present.

But what if one approach is more suitable than another for different categories of student?

You see, proponents of comprehensible input argue that their approach is appropriate for students of all abilities. They argue that because every young child picks up a language at a broadly similar rate, second language learners at school should be able to do the same if the conditions are right, i.e. if they are exposed to interesting, meaningful, controlled input. Acquisition is easy, they say. They also claim that traditional methods ("legacy methods", they might call them) are biased towards students who succeed academically, since they prioritise pattern-spotting, memorising, explicit teaching of grammar, puzzle-solving and so on.

On the other hand, those who argue for a more cognitive, skill-building approach might say: yes, but we have a duty to all children to let them learn in the most efficient way, by focusing a fair degree on form, doing structured practice, making rules transparent and so on. Comprehensible input takes too long. Input alone is too woolly and doesn't give sufficient priority to output practice and explanation. Acquisition is actually hard and time-consuming, they say. Skill-acquisition lets you take short-cuts.

As an aside, it's worth recalling what the academic SLA scholar Michael Long has written about this apparent dichotomy. When you go into most classrooms teachers are often doing similar things. CI teachers are explaining some grammar and doing structured practice, while skill-building teachers are providing plenty of comprehensible input. Things aren't as clear-cut as they might appear.

So, in a school setting, is there any merit in adjusting the approach depending on  certain factors. these might be:

The ability profile of the students

If you have a class of lower ability, possibly poorly motivated students, would you persist with so-called legacy methods which may not have worked in the past and which the pupils find boring? Or was it that the traditional approach was just badly done by many teachers whose expectations were too low? On the other hand, if you teach well-motivated, relatively able pupils, would you prioritise a skill-acquisition approach because it has worked in the past and gets results?

The longer term goals of the students

If you know that most of your students will stop doing a language at the age of 14 would you reject skill-building approaches the benefit of which might take a long time to be seen? Would you focus on simply maximising the interest value of your lessons and not bother much if the students cannot conjugate verbs or make adjectives agree?

Alternatively, if you know that a percentage of your pupils are in it for the long haul and may become quite fluent linguists, would you focus to a greater extent on grammatical form, automatising skills and so on, aware that a small percentage of your students will become proficient and accurate language-users?

The timetable

What if you only see your classes once a week for an hour or two? Will your pupils have enough time to build up skills, or might you prefer to abandon this unattainable goal and focus more on some situational language and cultural input which may benefit them for future study or just give them a broader vision of the world?

If you see your class four times a week you have a much greater chance of getting skills to stick. For many pupils they do.

The exams they will ultimately do

If you know that nearly all your students will enter for GCSE and some will take the language further this will alter your ambitions straight away. But does this necessarily mean prioritising skill-acquisition over comprehensible input, meaning-driven approaches? Again, I would be tempted to take a middle-ground view, in the absence of any really convincing research evidence.

If you know that your pupils will end up doing no high-stakes exam, you may be tempted to focus, as above, on meaning, culture and enjoyable activity. You may want to get students looking at short-term, attainable goals, rather than offering the promise of long-term achievement.

One problem is that when we start working with students we cannot be sure where their path will end. But you may have a fair idea based on your own school's context.

It's a quandary.

Comments

  1. I so agree that it is important to see where students are headed with the target language in order to effectively lay out their language learning path when they are in an academic setting.

    I teach in a prep school in the US, and I have a mix of students in my classes. Some are headed toward taking college level « AP » exams, while others have no such ambition.

    While all of my students benefit from a skills-based approach involving a lot of oral expression and listening comprehension, those who will be taking the AP exam next year need to work on their writing skills, so I need to use a more academic approach which focuses on language structure. I find too, that these same students have sound English skills and a firm grasp of English structures, which help greatly.

    My other students are getting a more « practical » approach which is focused more on oral communication, and they engage in various activities.

    Because we are in an academic setting with time constraints (4 45-minute classes per week), whether we like it or not, a totally « natural » approach involving « immersion » is difficult to apply.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for commenting. Best wishes from the UK. Just to note that many teachers in England would be delighted with 4 x 45 minutes a week! Typically schools get 2 or 3 x 1 hour, or even 1 x 2 hours (which is crazy). It sounds to me like you are adapting your approach sensibly for each class. My impression is that "natural" approaches such as TPRS often involve more grammar teaching than one might imagine.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

5 great zero preparation lesson ideas

When the pressure is on and there are only so many hours on the week, you need a repertoire of zero preparation go-to activities which promote input and/or practice. Here are five you might well find useful.

1. My weekend

We know that listening is the most important yet often neglected skill for language learning. It's also something some pupils find hard to do. To develop listening skill and provide tailored comprehensible input try this:

You tell the class you are going to recount what you did last weekend and that they have to make notes in English. The amount of detail you go into and the speed you go will depend on your class. Talk for about three minutes. If you spent the whole weekend marking, you can always make stuff up!

You then make some true or false (maybe not mentioned too) statements in the target language about what you said in your account. Class gives hands up (or no hands up) answers. This can then lead into a simple pair work task where pupils make up their own tru…

What teachers are saying about The Language Teacher Toolkit

"The Language Teacher Toolkit is a really useful book for language teachers to either read all the way through or dip into. What I like about it is that the authors Steve Smith and Gianfranco Conti are totally upfront about what they believe to be good practice but back it up with research evidence." (Ernesto Macaro, Oxford University Department of Education)

"I absolutely love this book based on research and full of activities..  The best manual I've read so far. One of our PDs from the Australian Board of Studies recommended your book as an excellent resource.  I look forward to the conference here in Sydney." Michela Pezzi, Teacher, Australia, Facebook)

"Finally, a book for World Language teachers that provides practical ideas and strategies that can actually be used in the classroom, rather than dry rhetoric and theory that does little to inspire creativity in ways that are engaging for both students and teachers alike." (USA teacher, Amazon review)

New GCSE resources on frenchteacher

As well as writing resources for the new A-levels, I have in recent months been posting a good range of materials to support the new GCSEs. First exams are not until 2018, but here is what you can find on the site in addition to the many other resources (grammar exercises, texts, video listening etc).

I shall not produce vocabulary lists since the exam board specifications now offer these, with translations.

Foundation Tier 

AQA-style GCSE 2016 Role-plays
AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations
AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations (2)
100 translation sentences into French (with answers)
Reading exam
Reading exam (2)
How to write a good Foundation Tier essay (ppt)
How to write a good Foundation Tier essay (Word)

Higher Tier 

AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations (Higher tier)
AQA-style GCSE 2016 Photo card conversations (Higher tier) (2)
20 translations into French (with answers)
Reading exam (Higher tier)
How to write a good Higher Tier essay (ppt)
How to write a…

Three AQA A-level courses compared

I've put together my three reviews of worthy A-level courses which you might be considering for next September. They are all very useful courses, but with significant differences. The traditional Hodder and OUP book-based courses differ in that the former comes in one chunky two year book, whilst OUP's comes in two parts, the first for AS or the first year of an A-level course. The Attitudes16 course by Steve Glover and Nathalie Kaddouri is based on an online platform from which you would download worksheets and share a logon with studenst who would do the interactive parts (Textivate and video work). The two text books are supported by interactive material (Kerboodle) or an e-text book.

Attitudes16





An excellent resource which should be competing for your attention at the moment is the Attitudes16 course which writers Steve Glover and Nathalie Kaddouri have been working on for some time. You can find it here at dolanguages.com, along with his excellent resources for film and li…

Learning strategies (3)

This is the third in the mini-series of blogs about learning strategies. So far, we have looked at some (rather scant) research evidence for the effectiveness of strategies. Bear in mind that a lack of research evidence does not mean strategies do not work; if there is any consensus, it is that they are probably useful and probably best used when integrated into a normal teaching sequence. We then looked at a classification of different types of strategies.

In this blog Gianfanco and I look at how you might integrate strategies into your teaching. There is nothing revolutionary about this stuff! You may do a good deal of this type of thing already, but you may also be new to the concepts and applications of learning strategies.


Let's look at how you might use strategies, particularly with regard to the teaching of listening and reading. Remember: this is just about how you help students to use strategies to become better listeners and readers.

How to teach strategies 

The research …