If you are a regular reader of my blogs you'll know that I have always been interested in both ends of the second language acquisition spectrum: conscious (explicit, learning, skill-building etc) and unconscious (natural, implicit, comprehensible input, acquisition etc). The more I have looked at the theory and research over the years, the more I think this particular debate about acquisition is a little futile. Because we cannot be sure what is happening in the 'black box' of the brain, if we make sure we provide meaningful, repetitive, structured exposure to language, plus some explanation, practice and communicative interaction, learning will occur.
Now, the rate at which learning will occur depends on a range of factors, including, crucially, motivation, plus lots of others such as aptitude, teacher quality, number and frequency of lessons, amount of homework, spacing of lessons and quality of input. Anything which can be done to optimise these factors will improve the pace of acquisition.
Given that we cannot yet be certain to what extent second language learning is like first language learning (it seems very unlikely they are identical), then maybe the sensible course is to exploit a mixture of principled approaches based on what we know about language learning and learning in general. There is no need to get hung up on one particular method, defending it against all others. If the method provides the elements above - input, output, repetition and reinforcement, interesting material, explanation and so on, it should be fine.
It is also possible that this kind of eclectic approach may make sense given the variation we witness in our students. Some seem to value more highly nativist, communicative methods, others seem to like a degree of formal explanation to supplement the input. Some like to listen a lot, others like to read, some prefer talking, others writing. That's fine.
Not only do students vary, so do teachers. Whatever approach, or mix of approaches, is adopted, the teacher needs to believe in it and execute it efficiently. I would estimate that an excellent all-round teacher will get better results with a suspect method, than a poor teacher trying to use an ostensibly better method. We know that in our business so much is about classroom relationships and behaviour management.
So why not take the best of both worlds? Naturalist, comprehensible input and form-focused, skill-building both have their supporters and probably with good reason. An approach with strong elements of each should be fine. This is not being wishy-washy, it's sound common sense.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Now, the rate at which learning will occur depends on a range of factors, including, crucially, motivation, plus lots of others such as aptitude, teacher quality, number and frequency of lessons, amount of homework, spacing of lessons and quality of input. Anything which can be done to optimise these factors will improve the pace of acquisition.
Given that we cannot yet be certain to what extent second language learning is like first language learning (it seems very unlikely they are identical), then maybe the sensible course is to exploit a mixture of principled approaches based on what we know about language learning and learning in general. There is no need to get hung up on one particular method, defending it against all others. If the method provides the elements above - input, output, repetition and reinforcement, interesting material, explanation and so on, it should be fine.
It is also possible that this kind of eclectic approach may make sense given the variation we witness in our students. Some seem to value more highly nativist, communicative methods, others seem to like a degree of formal explanation to supplement the input. Some like to listen a lot, others like to read, some prefer talking, others writing. That's fine.
Not only do students vary, so do teachers. Whatever approach, or mix of approaches, is adopted, the teacher needs to believe in it and execute it efficiently. I would estimate that an excellent all-round teacher will get better results with a suspect method, than a poor teacher trying to use an ostensibly better method. We know that in our business so much is about classroom relationships and behaviour management.
So why not take the best of both worlds? Naturalist, comprehensible input and form-focused, skill-building both have their supporters and probably with good reason. An approach with strong elements of each should be fine. This is not being wishy-washy, it's sound common sense.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Comments
Post a Comment