Skip to main content

Help! Comprehensible input is not working for me!

I don't get it.

I've watched two series of The Killing, The Bridge, Borgen and Follow the Money (all Danish or Swedish/Danish series with English subtitles). I understood what people said and everything that happened. That's many hours of comprehensible input. Great TV too.

And yet... I cannot understand any Danish (apart from the the odd swear word). I occasionally repeat things to amuse myself and my wife, but I can barely say a word. Comprehensible input failed miserably.

This is not really to dismiss CI, of course, but just a reminder that understanding language with the aid of subtitles is an inefficient way of learning a language. It's also a reminder to teachers that showing a film in the target language to near beginners or low intermediate pupils does little to directly further acquisition. It may serve other very useful purposes, such as giving an insight into culture and contributing to general motivation, but it's a very inefficient way to teach a language to inexperienced learners.

If you want to use film with new linguists you might have a look at Sara-E Cottrell's blog post about scaffolding Spanish film for 'Novice-Mid' students (the ACTFL's term).

http://musicuentos.com/2016/04/places-to-plans/

She describes her approach thus:

"It is a bridge between the aural input and the oral output, a middle piece in that continuum where on one end they’re passively listening to comprehensible input and on the other end they’re accomplishing a performance task in the target language."

You can read her blog for more detail.

If you want whole films to seriously help with acquisition it generally makes sense to begin with high intermediate students who have acquired enough language to be able to begin to decipher the rapid stream of language they hear. Even then, I would choose films in which characters speak clearly and relatively slowly, preferably with pauses which allow students to process what they have heard. This is when comprehensible input can have its effect.

So with subtitles input can be comprehensible, but not usefully comprehensible. As strong proponents of CI rightly say, input needs to be at the student's level, or just above it. This is common sense.

For lots of ideas on how to exploit film with advanced students you might find this useful:

http://www.frenchteacher.net/teachers-guide/teaching-film/





Comments

  1. Great point, Steve, even if somewhat cheekily made :)

    I don't know of anyone--theorist, researcher, or teacher--who would consider TL language that is synchronously translated via subtitles to constitute comprehensible input. If you couldn't understand without subtitles, then, by definition, it wasn't comprehensible input for you. (There's also the practical fact that, even with two languages one knows quite well, it's extremely hard simultaneously to attend to audio in one and subtitles in the other.)

    The actual point of your post, "that understanding language with the aid of subtitles is an inefficient way of learning a language," is quite true, and I agree that consumption of media intended for a native-speaker audience is unlikely to be efficient for Novice or even many Intermediate learners.

    The more general implication--if you want something to provide the benefits of comprehensible input, then you'll need to actually comprehend it--is worth repeating!

    By the way, a number of teachers in the USA have begun using the Spanish show El Internado with 1st year students, and have thought through the issues involved (issues that apply for other languages, too) quite thoroughly. I have mixed feelings about this myself, but you might be interested in Dustin Williamson's collection of his own and others' relevant posts: https://williamsonci.com/el-internado-resources/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for commenting. Those El Internado resources look interesting. A lot of work by a number of teachers has gone into those. I suppose that, even if the language is inherently too fast, the back-up work and motivational aspects make it very worthwhile. We used to use an old BBC French series called Le Café des Rêves, but that was written specifically for learners and would a good semi-authentic resource. I can't imagine ever using a real TV series myself.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

The 2026 GCSE subject content is published!

Two DfE documents were published today. The first was the response to the consultation about the proposed new GCSE (originally due in October 2021) and the second is the subject content document which, ultimately, is of most interest to MFL teachers in England. Here is the link  to the document.  We are talking about an exam to be done from 2026 (current Y7s). There is always a tendency for sceptical teachers to think that consultations are a bit of a sham and that the DfE will just go ahead and do what they want when it comes to exam reform. In this case, the responses to the original proposals were mixed, and most certainly hostile as far as exam boards and professional associations representing the MFL community, universities, head teachers and awarding bodies are concerned. What has emerged does reveal some significant changes which take account of a number of criticisms levelled at the proposals. As I read it, the most important changes relate to vocabulary and the issue of topics

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,