We have a category on output here, as well as a primer or two. The basic concept is that we don’t force output, allowing it to emerge naturally. This is in opposition to most foreign language teachers, who, because they believe in forcing output, ruin kids’ confidence in themselves. Robert Harrell addressed the topic of output in a comment to Tina here today. I am reprinting it as a post:
There seems to be a misunderstanding that you somehow forbid output. This is not, nor has it ever been, the position of Krashen, VanPatten, Ray, and other leaders in the TPRS/TCI movement. You simply do not force output. If these students “crave output”, then why do they not avail themselves of the opportunities inside and outside the classroom to give it? I have never told a student in my comprehension-based classroom not to speak German. (I’ve told them quite often not to speak English, but that is an entirely different issue.) I regularly have students yelling “Guten Tag, Herr Harrell!” across the campus and spontaneously asking me, “Wie geht’s?” We carry on a conversation for as long as they are able and willing to do so. There are examples of unforced output. I hear reports of my students leaving notes for one another in German in other classrooms. More unforced output. If students “crave output”, they will, quite frankly, start speaking and writing on their own. (This statement is as bogus as a three-dollar bill.)
2. There are not four modes of communication; there are three: Interpersonal, Interpretive, and Presentational. These three modes of communication use the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, but skill building does not lead to communication. VanPatten is extremely clear on this. It is also consistent with what we know about learning. Stephen Camarata (“The Intuitive Parent”) has a great deal to say about needing to have holistic learning and three-dimensional experiences with language in order for speech to develop. He is in line with Krashen and VanPatten.
3. When my students have had as many hours of language exposure as a second grader, then of course they should be able to “workshop their writing” and do projects that “show what you know”. But in the school setting, first-year students have had less language exposure than a one-year old. Does this administrator expect toddlers to “workshop their writing” and do projects to “show what you know”? While second-language acquisition generally happens at a faster rate than first-language acquisition (due to non-linguistic factors such as motor-skill development, brain development, experience, etc.), first-year students are still linguistic toddlers.
4. Welcome the examination of your “philosophy”. This is an open invitation for you to show him the research from Krashen, VanPatten, Wong, and others, as well as supplementing with information from cognitive psychology about propositional versus procedural knowledge and memory, how information is received, stored and accessed in the brain (Does he know about Wernicke’s and Broca’s areas? Does he know that although every person has them, they can be located in various parts of the brain, such as the occipital lobe or the upper parietal lobe or the lower parietal lobe? Does he know the problems that develop when one of these areas is injured or diseased?), and the difference in language development between a “skill-building” approach and a holistic, communication-based approach. What is his understanding of the nature of language? [Is it primarily text-based or is it primarily oral/aural? Is it a collection of “habits” that are developed? Is it a set of rules? Is it something that each individual constructs for himself through genuine communication in a social setting? – don’t give him any help with these questions; let him sweat it out.] What is his understanding of the nature of learning? [Is it behaviorist in nature – GIGO? Is it the result of social interaction? Is it based on comprehension?] What is the purpose of modern foreign language instruction in your district? If it is acquisition, what evidence does he have that comprehended intake (comprehensible input) is not the sole sufficient cause of acquisition? How does he respond to Krashen’s examples of precisely that? (There are other examples – you have lots of support.) What long-term studies can he point to that indicate grammar instruction produces acquisition? (How about all those traditional language teachers who complain every year that their students have forgotten everything they learned the year before? Or blame it on the previous teacher.) What is rigor? [Is it simply more work? Is it doing lots of worksheets? Or is it a combination of 1) sustained focus, 2) depth and integrity of inquiry, 3) suspension of premature conclusions, 4) constant testing of hypotheses, and 5) personal challenge? BTW, the last one is my addition to the definition from the Department of State.]
I would relish someone asking me to examine my philosophy of teaching a foreign language. No one has the right to condemn something they haven’t examined – and these administrators have not examined your teaching approach and methods. In other words,
You are entitled to your informed opinion, not your ignorant one.
BTW, if you are interested, check out the series of posts I have written on “Toward a Philosophy of Teaching Foreign Language” on my blog at http://www.compellinginput.wordpress.com – I have addressed all of the questions that I posed above. Eventually these posts are going to find their way into a book.
The Department of State page is here – http://www.state.gov/m/a/os/44875.htm