Skip to main content

Skill building versus comprehensible input

In what Krashen calls the "skill building hypothesis" a language is viewed as a complex system which has to be gradually mastered by learning and practising all its complex elements. Emphasis is placed on conscious knowledge of how the system works, cognitive analysis and repetitive practice. There is a strong focus on form. It was the basis of most language learning approaches of the past, including grammar-translation, audio-lingualism and the oral-situational approach.

On the other hand what he calls the "comprehension hypothesis" assumes that language acquisition occurs best when learners are presented with language they understand. In this view second language learning is likened to child language acquisition. The focus is on meaning and much less on analysis, repetitive practice and form.

The terms learning and acquisition have often been used as shorthand descriptions of the above two hypotheses.

It is hard, maybe impossible, to prove which model fits best in the context of school foreign language learning, but I don't believe we have to view these two hypotheses as mutually exclusive. It is quite possible to run a language course which incorporates strong elements of both skill building and comprehensible input. We all, as teachers, have an implicit or explicit view of how language learning best takes place, and it is often borne out of experience as much as theory.

A British Ofsted languages inspector recently commented that achievement appears to be highest when a sensible mix of traditional activities are done very well. Ofsted get to see thousands of lessons, have a huge database of evidence and therefore tend to know what they are talking about. So, an eclectic approach including large amounts of target language input, a structured, graded approach to grammar (including explanation), repetitive drill-style practice, bits of translation, question-answer and communicative tasks of all types, including games, should provide a suitable diet for progress to occur. The needs of comprehensible input supporters and skill-building apologists should be largely satisfied. We may well be in the area of false dichotomies here. When we add to this the fact that children vary in their learning styles and teachers have their own preferences, all the more reason to provide an eclectic approach.

In practice, I would not be surprised if the majority of teachers employ the broad approach I have just described. I am sure most "skill builders" provide lots of meaningful comprehensible input, whilst CI fans sometimes use explanation and structured practice. Most teachers accept the need for input and motivation, but they also recognise that most learners appreciate explanations and structured practice. I also suspect that where things may go wrong, in the school context, it is (other things being equal, such as teacher skill, relationships, extrinsic motivation etc) when lessons become too form based or too pure meaning based.

Comments

  1. After changing to CI teaching this year I think some of my skill building lovers (students) are just good a memorizing for a test. I don't know as in most it produces any real learning or ability to use the language meaningfully or correctly. They just happened to be good at the school game. I think students like it because it's easy and specific and they know what to do. I was not able to blend well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the comment. As I say, I never saw this as an either/or issue. I saw pupils blossom from the age of 11 to 18 with a mixed diet of structured grammar practice, vocab building, testing and plenty of CI. I'm not sure about this, but I wonder if target language teaching has been less well established in North America, so CI seems more revolutionary. By the way, I don;t think skill practice need necessarily be easy for able students; it depends how challenging to make it and how cleverly you structure it. leading from controlled practice to more open-ended communication.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with your thoughts on this. I start with CI to model language in context. Students benefit from contextualized structural practice so they have models to which they may refer as meaningful examples. What is not so well done is simply teaching iwith a structural approach so there isn't bigger story to help keep it all meaningful. In addition, Essential questions and learning targets can help students connect what they are learning and acquiring to the bigger outcomes. Best wishes!
    Don

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The latest research on teaching vocabulary

I've been dipping into The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (2017) edited by Loewen and Sato. This blog is a succinct summary of Chapter 16 by Beatriz González-Fernández and Norbert Schmitt on the topic of teaching vocabulary. I hope you find it useful.

1.  Background

The authors begin by outlining the clear importance of vocabulary knowledge in language acquisition, stating that it's a key predictor of overall language proficiency (e.g. Alderson, 2007). Students often say that their lack of vocabulary is the main reason for their difficulty understanding and using the language (e.g. Nation, 2012). Historically vocabulary has been neglected when compared to grammar, notably in the grammar-translation and audio-lingual traditions as well as  communicative language teaching.

(My note: this is also true, to an extent, of the oral-situational approach which I was trained in where most vocabulary is learned incidentally as part of question-answer sequence…

Delayed dictation

What is “delayed dictation”?

Instead of getting students to transcribe immediately what you say, or what a partner says, you can enforce a 10 second delay so that students have to keep running over in their heads what they have heard. Some teachers have even used the delay time to try to distract students with music.

It’s an added challenge for students but has significant value, I think. It reminds me of a phenomenon in music called audiation. I use it frequently as a singer and I bet you do too.

Audiation is thought to be the foundation of musicianship. It takes place when we hear and comprehend music for which the sound is no longer or may never have been present. You can audiate when listening to music, performing from notation, playing “by ear,” improvising, composing, or notating music. When we have a song going round in our mind we are audiating. When we are deliberately learning a song we are audiating.

In our language teaching case, though, the earworm is a word, chunk of l…

Designing a plan to improve listening skills

Read many books and articles about listening and you’ll see it described as the forgotten skill. It certainly seems to be the one which causes anxiety for both teachers and students. The reasons are clear: you only get a very few chances to hear the material, exercises feel like tests and listening is, well, hard. Just think of the complex processes involved: segmenting the sound stream, knowing lots of words and phrases, using grammatical knowledge to make meaning, coping with a new sound system and more. Add to this the fact that in England they have recently decided to make listening tests harder (too hard) and many teachers are wondering what else they can do to help their classes.

For students to become good listeners takes lots of time and practice, so there are no quick fixes. However, I’m going to suggest, very concisely, what principles could be the basis of an overall plan of action. These could be the basis of a useful departmental discussion or day-to-day chats about meth…

Five great advanced level French listening sites

If your A-level students would like opportunities to practise listening there are plenty of sources you can recommend for accessible, largely comprehensible and interesting material. Here are some I have come across while searching for resources over recent years.

Daily Geek Show

I love this site. It's fresh, youthful and full of really interesting material. They have an archive of videos, both short and long, from various sources, grouped under a range of themes: insolite (weird news items), science, discovery, technology, ecology and lifestyle. There should be something there to interest all your students while adding to their broader education. Here is one I enjoyed (I shall seriously think about buying tomatoes in winter now):




France Bienvenue

This site has been around for years and is the work of a university team in Marseilles. You get a mixture of audio and video material complete with transcripts and explanations.This is much more about the personal lives of the students …

Responsive teaching

Dylan Wiliam, the academic most associated with Assessment for Learning (AfL), aka formative assessment, has stated that these labels have not been the most helpful to teachers. He believes that they have been partly responsible for poor implementation of AfL and the fact that AfL has not led to the improved outcomes originally intended.

Wiliam wrote on Twitter in 2013:

“Example of really big mistake: calling formative assessment formative assessment rather than something like "responsive teaching".”

For the record he subsequently added:

“The point I was making—years ago now—is that it would have been much easier if we had called formative assessment "responsive teaching". However, I now realize that this wouldn't have helped since it would have given many people the idea that it was all about the teacher's role.”

I suspect he’s right about the appellation and its consequences. As a teacher I found it hard to get my head around the terms AfL and formative assess…