Here is more of the conversation between the Structured Input person at the U of Maine (comments in black) and skip (comments in blue). The first article is here:
https://benslavic.com/blog/2012/12/09/structured-input/
Kathleen,
Thank you for your ideas and for adding to the discussion. I feel so strongly about the need to discuss the “how” of second language acquisition. We talk about activities, strategies and techniques but rarely do we discuss the how – what I as a teacher have to do to promote second language acquisition.
So, because I LOVE talking about these things, I would like to interact with your ideas. I will do so by responding to certain things in blue below.
Am just going to add a comment in no way intended as critical of this discussion, but from another perspective. The articles are good ones, (She is referring to the ACTFL article on achieving 90% and the Oxford article about how L2 acquisition is unconscious) but are really saying nothing new. In Linguistics and language acquisition theory classes this was being discussed over 30 years ago. The problem is Education, which ignores the disciplines and leaves teachers in the dark about their fields. Anybody who took transformational syntax and has read Chomsky knows teaching grammar is not really effective.
This may be true but it is my experience that the vast majority of second language classrooms are teaching grammar and having students practice the rules of the language.
However, structured input is necessary.
I wonder what “structured input” is and what this might look like in an L2 classroom?
Context is necessary. Meaningful exchange of information is necessary.
I would add that, if second language acquisition is the same (or very similar) to L1 acquisition, then L2 is acquired (as ACTFL says) via Comprehensible Input that is repeated over and over again over time. If the language learner hears compelling L2 repeated enough over time in context language will be acquired.
Language teaching with no linguistic foundation (theory)
I am not sure what this means? Which “linguistic theory do you adhere to?
Will leave big gaps in knowledge of what can and should be done in the classroom. Of course there are individual teaching styles and more than one approach or activity is effective. However, there are many studies of bilingualism, first- and second-language acquisition, and the type of input. There is a huge difference between a first and a second language learner.
The two big differences that I can see are 1. the amount of time that the “learner” is exposed to CI. The average 5 year old has an estimated 10,000 hours of CI and I barely get 100 hours of class time a year. 2. The second language “learners” that we often get are literate which accelerates progress
Yet both have human brains capable of language use. There is no need to fear use of the target language.
I agree as long as the “use of the target language” is 100% comprehensible 100% of the time. Otherwise, progress in the language is greatly inhibited. Students make NO gain in the language unless they understand 100% of the CI and if the CI is repeated a LOT…
That is absolutely an unfounded worry.
The “worry” might come from “how” to effectively maintain comprehensible input that is repetitive and not boring or tedious.
I still get students at college level who have gone through grammar-translation, vocabulary list and other meaningless classroom techniques. Or others who were allowed to say anything and haven’t a clue as to the parts of speech or what a tense, person or mood is.
This is something I asked earlier in my discussion with Catherine. Why are grammar rules of so little importance with L1 (and they clearly are – not once did I explain grammar to my son as he was acquiring English. I corrected him when he said I “goed” by saying, oh, honey, you went?” but never explained the grammar….) but deemed to be of such high importance with L2 “learners”? The vast majority knows nothing of the workings of his/her native language and yet speak very effectively.
This is not acceptable. You can’t build a house without knowing what bricks, sheet rock and boards are. Structure is necessary.
Again, I would agree that “structure” is necessary but that that structure comes from meaning….. If students hear “sally juega al fútbol in personalized context, they will know what “Sally Juega…” means. They will NOT necessarily know that it is the third person present tense of the verb “to play”and to get that you drop the AR ending and add “a”. That, I would argue, would be unnecessary.
So is the knowledge that repetition and meaningful communication are essential. Worksheets are nearly a waste of time, as are flashcards.
I could NOT agree more!
The former attention to applied linguistics.
Again, I am not sure I understand this, could you help me understand what this means?
Did a lot of good, but many textbooks nowadays are disasters. The communicative approach
not sure what this is either, sorry
has good intentions, but in my opinion it has made for sloppy teaching, clumsy out-of-class study by students, lots of paired or group exercises on topics of little real interest to the learners, and confusing visuals (and this is not just a vague rant – I am thinking of at least three texts I’ve had the misfortune to use recently).
I have one more question. In the beginning paragraphs you say:
“Anybody who took transformational syntax and has read Chomsky knows teaching grammar is not really effective”.
And then you say:
“I still get students at college level who have gone through grammar-translation, vocabulary list and other meaningless classroom techniques. Or others who were allowed to say anything and haven’t a clue as to the parts of speech or what a tense, person or mood is. This is not acceptable. You can’t build a house without knowing what bricks, sheet rock and boards are. Structure is necessary.
Clearly you are making some distinction between “grammar instruction” and “Structure”? I wonder how this distinction “looks” in your classes? I think I know what “grammar instructions” looks like but am not so sure what teaching “structure” might look like?
Much more to say, but that’s the short version.