A U-Maine French professor wrote a text on input that caught skip’s attention, who shared it with me. My opinion is that this professor would fail badly in secondary schools, and that she likely reaches a lot less of her four percenter dominated college classes than she may think with this approach. I’m sorry but I laughed – I couldn’t help it. I was thinking of that teacher in front of my students. Oh boy…. what don’t these people get about the words “we learn languages unconsciously by focusing on the message, not the words”?
[What is] structured input. There are a number of sources if one googles the term, but here is an example:
http://coerll.utexas.edu/methods/modules/vocabulary/04/input.php
I think it is one of the most effective ways of thinking about L2 learning in the classroom. It is not enough to repeat phrases or conjugations nor is it enough to simply expose students 100% of the time to the target language. I have seen the latter done by a native speaker who thought she was using the “communicative approach.” The results were dismal.
This works at various levels and even advanced students can benefit from this “disguised repetition.” (As I have seen this semester in a class on creativity and Spanish.) The idea is simple, for me: plan a discussion that will reinforce a given structure. It does can be new or review material. Keep the discussion lively but under control, not straying from the focus of the conversation.
One example: Preterite/imperfect. I usually have an opening statement or question, which the class perceives as a natural conversation or narrative. (Lots of examples of my topics available if anybody wants them.) I briefly – say, for a minute – tell my story, and then draw the students in as soon as they have enough time to link to the theme. Obviously, one can use one’s childhood for the reference point. That is a never-ending source of content. Then there’s the 19th century. Or even yesterday. The key is controlling the focus and eliciting meaningful responses/exchanges. My goal is not about revealing every last thing I did as a child, but rather, telling enough about an event or situation that the students will want to engage in the discussion.
Thus, I may use only one sentence or two and then ask students to compare their experiences. It is also common for me to back out of the preterite/imperfect comparison to focus on one or the other of these aspects. Then I go at it through a story (everybody who knows me knows I love Quiroga’s “A la deriva” for this, but there are so many others).
There are NO sentence completion tasks, and no tests on this – especially since it is virtually impossible to create a test without ambiguous answers.
Another thing I always do is to use body language and gestures. That’s hard to describe in writing, but I could if pressed to do so. Whenever possible, I act out what is being said, or punctuate it with my movements. This does not mean I use TPR or TPRS, or at least not consciously. The goal is to use the language to promote communication. If I need to present Se abri?/Fue abierta/Est? abierta la puerta, then I use the door to the classroom as a prop. I do it more than once. Then I switch to the window, or switch to the verbs cerrar, pintar, romper, etc. etc.
This is just a brief contribution. The basic point I’m making is that real exchange of information can take place while reinforcing grammar but not “teaching” it. My goal is for the language structures to “sound right”, and they must hear + use them to get to that level. It’s never “one and done” with grammar, never a one-time explanation then on to the next point, to be tested later. Language is a skill, like shooting foul shots, playing the violin, or swimming the 500-meter race. Or like becoming an artist or writer. It is not a memorization event. It should not be taught through translation (worth another whole sermon). Understanding language acquisition helps the educator manage, shape, create the classroom experience. And it is always different, because student input is always different.