An ELT Glossary : The Input Hypothesis / The Output Hypothesis

Definition : The Input Hypothesis is one of the five hypotheses in the Monitor Model proposed by Krashen in his work in the 70s and 80s.

For Krashen, acquisition was dependent only on input. If you received the right sort of input, your brain  would automatically work on it to acquire the language. The "right sort of input" was seen by Krashen as being at the "i+1 " level. ie comprehensible at the acquirer's current competence ("i") but containing "new " language which would be the next structure to be acquired ("+1"). The Natural Order hypothesis stated that this wouldn't be just any  language that happened to crop up but would be a specific morpheme/structure which was "next on the list" for acquisition. As we have only a hazy view of what the list might be, Krashen argued that we couldn't plan to introduce the next item, but that by providing "roughly tuned input" - ie input that was comprehensible for the learner but contained a certain amount of new items, made comprehensible by the already understood language, gesture and visuals etc, the "next" item would naturally crop up. 

For Krashen  then, productive use had no part to play in acquistion - and in fact he suggested that beginners needed a "silent period" in which they weren't asked to speak but just to comprehend.

Criticisms : As with the Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis, many people have disagreed with this, including Swain who posited that negotiating meaning – ie “noticing” failures in communication and attempting to formulate language in a way that is comprehensible -  was also a factor in acquisition. She called this the Output Hypothesis and suggests it has three stages : 

1. Noticing function: While attempting to use the language in speech or writing, learners find gaps between what they want to say and what they are able to say, and so they notice what they don't know or are unsure about in the L2.
2. Hypothesis-testing function: When a learner uses the language, it may be what Swain calls "a trial run" - the learner is attempting to say something using language which s/he hypothesises might express the concept. Feedback - which could be an interlocutor failing to understand, or reformulating the utterance "pushes" the learner to reformulate the utterance until something "works" .
3. Metalinguistic function: Learners reflect on the language they have used or heard other people use, and  reprocess their hypotheses about the language. This is a social constructivist view of language-

For example: 

A: I'm going there on Tuesday.

B: Tuesday? That's too late. You must go this week.

A: Yes -Tuesday. Not tomorrow but after tomorrow.

B: Oh - you mean Thursday.

A: Oh - yes... Thursday.

Further reading  

Baker, C. and Prys Jones, S. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition

Bygate, Skehan and Swain (eds) Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Routledge

An ELT Glossary : The Affective Filter Hypothesis

Definition : One of the five hypotheses in the Monitor Model proposed by Krashen in his work in the seventies and eighties.

Krashen  proposed the idea of an "affective filter" in the brain. Negative affective factors (by "affect" we mean emotions and psychological states like motivation, depression, fear,self-esteem, enthusiasm etc) would cause the "filter " to be raised and to block learning/acquisition from taking place, while positive affective factors would cause it to be lowered, facilitating intake.


Krashen was not the first person to link affective factors to the effectiveness of learning. He drew directly on the work of Dulay and Burt (1977), but the idea (if not the name - a metaphor for a process which has no known "concrete" neurological mechanism) is common in all writers on humanistic education, whether general education (eg Rogers) or within the humanistic movement in EFL - which was in full swing when Krashen started writing. 


Reference : Dulay, H. and M. Burt, “Remarks on creativity in language acquisition,” in M. Burt, H. Dulay and M. Finnochiaro (eds), Viewpoints on English as a Second Language, Regents, New York, pp. 95-126, 1977


Further reading : Baker, C. and Prys Jones, S. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition

The Controlled Practice Stage

Current coursebooks contain far fewer controlled practice activities than were used at the beginning of the Communicative era. These days most controlled practice is generally found in the workbook, which is often used as homework for consolidation rather than incorporated into the lesson as in a PPP approach. This article is based on material originally used on our Delta Module One course. It looks at how useful it is - or isn't - to incorporate controlled practice activities into your lesson format.

Look at the following quotes from two teachers.

Teacher A:  Controlled practice? Does anybody do that any more? I never do. It’s too mechanical and boring.

Teacher B:  For me, the controlled practice stage is essential if students are going to assimilate the language properly.

The article below discusses the following questions.

a. What beliefs inform attitudes such as those made by the two teachers in the quotes above?

b. What types of controlled practice activities could Teacher A use that would not be “mechanical and boring”

c. With what learner types and/or in what learning contexts might it be beneficial to use controlled practice activities

 

a) The beliefs of the two teachers

Teacher A may believe that …

• controlled practice (CP), particularly in the form of drilling, is associated with a theory of learning which is outdated, and therefore the technique is itself outdated. Behaviourism (Skinner), which was the learning theory underlying audiolingualism,  claimed that there was no cognitive involvement in learning but that learning took place through a stimulus-response-reinforcement process which led to habit formation. This view was first attacked by Chomsky, who pointed out that there must be a neurological mechanism involved as, if Skinner were correct, a) children would take much longer than they do to acquire language and b) animals would also be able to acquire language.

• grammatical competence can best be acquired if the learners are engaged throughout in meaning-focused activity.  (Prabhu).  CP, which generally does not involve learners in constructing their own meanings, impedes rather than aids this acquisition.

• if learners get bored with CP, the negative affect will have a detrimental effect on their learning. Many psychologists, educationalists and EFL methodologists have made this point (Maslow, Stevick, Lozanov, Krashen, etc).

• language cannot be learnt but only “acquired” and acquisition is a subconscious process, unaffected by conscious focus on and manipulation of language items. It is, instead, dependent on exposure to “roughly tuned input” (Krashen). CP, which is learning oriented, is irrelevant to this process.

• language cannot be learnt but only “acquired” and that acquisition is dependent on negotiation of meaning (Swain). Meaning is “negotiated” when the learner attempts to say something, fails to get their meaning across, and has to reformulate and find the correct form in order to do so. This process promotes the “noticing” that is necessary for acquisition. CP, which aims to prevent this sort of inaccuracy /lack of comprehension, will not therefore promote the acquisition of the structure.

 

Teacher B may believe that …

• learners will be overloaded if asked to express meaning through the new structure before they have fully assimilated it. This overload will result in inaccuracy which, because it promotes the formation of “bad” habits and impedes the formation of correct ones, is to be avoided  (behaviourism/audiolingualism)

• this overload will also lead to confusion. They will learn best if there is a systematic progression in communicative challenge throughout the lesson:  Presentation – Controlled Practice – Semi-controlled practice – Free practice. This gradual increase in difficulty was the basis of the Presentation- Practice - Production approach but is compatible with other lesson formats – eg Test – Teach – Test. Even Dogme (which rejects the idea of a graded syllabus but focuses on language “emerging” from the Ls’ attempts to communicate) emphasises the need for CP of the language which is focused on. Thornbury and Meddings (2009:20) suggest that emergent language, after being retrieved can be drilled : "Drilling something has the effect of making it stand out from all the other things that happen in a language lesson",

• This gradual approach gives the Ls the chance to see more examples of the language item and to reflect on them before they are asked to use it to communicate their own ideas, which involves a higher degree of communicative challenge. This would suit learners with a Reflector learning style (Honey and Mumford)

• The overload and confusion mentioned above will also lead to demotivation and therefore negative affect . As already stated, many psychologists, educationalists and EFL methodologists have pointed to the harmful effect of negative affect on learning. (Maslow, Stevick, Lozanov, Krashen, etc)

• CP will give extra opportunities for “noticing” after the language focus stage, so that there is less chance of the learner confusing the TL with previously learnt items and eg overgeneralising. In contrast to Krashen, who saw acquisition as a subconscious process,  Schmidt saw  “noticing” (ie conscious focus on and analysis of the language item) as essential if language was to be acquired.

• CP aids automaticity in the production of the TL, and this automaticity will increase fluency. For example, beginner learners who have done choral and individual repetition of  My names XXX / I’m (nationality) will have learnt the utterances as “chunks” making them easier to retrieve and use in actual communication.

b) Controlled practice activities that are not “mechanical and boring”?

• repetition drills can be made less boring by asking students to add eg emotions – to say the sentence as if angry, sad, happy etc – or to whisper/shout/laugh it etc. This can be particularly useful at intermediate levels, where repetition work might otherwise be seen as too “easy” by the Ls.

• all types of CP activity can be made less mechanical, and often more interesting, if picture prompts are used instead of written prompts – the learners then have to think of some of the language for themselves rather than just parroting what they are given (though the language produced is still 100% controlled by the contents of the pictures). It also shows that they understand the meaning of what they are saying.

• all types of controlled practice activity can be made more meaningful and less mechanical and boring by personalising them – eg the Ss use the TL to write 5 sentences about themselves.

• drills may be made communicative  by contextualising them and/or including an information gap  – eg if the TL is clock times or the simple present for timetabled events , St. A can have train times which St. B has to ask for (What time does the train for Leeds leave/arrive?) while St. B has entertainment times that St. A has to ask for (What time does the film start/finish?). Ss thus have to listen to note down the response.

• a conversation-driven approach does not preclude CP. The T. can monitor, and in feedback,  focus on errors and other emergent language, and provide “on the spot” controlled practice (repetition work, transformation activities) etc using a “Demand High” approach. As this is the language that the learners have tried to produce themselves, it should be less “mechanical and boring” for them.

c) With what learner types and/or in what learning contexts might it be beneficial to use controlled practice activities?

•  Learners with a serialist learning style, who would appreciate the gradual increase in challenge that a PPP sequence would provide. Serialist learners (Pask) prefer working systematically one step at a time, and focusing narrowly on the specific material being studied.

• Weaker learners who would suffer most from overload if they were asked to use the language in a communicative context too soon, without sufficient prior focus and CP.  I have often found it useful to keep them at the at the CP stage for longer than the other learners, differentiating activities so that stronger learners move on to SCP/FP activities earlier, while the weaker learners do more CP.

• Complete beginners who will not have sufficient language at their disposal to take part in freer and more communicatively challenging activities.  I have found that they can often gain the feeling of having simulated “real” communication by using the technique of first using a short dialogue for repetition work, then showing it on the board and getting them to practise it repeatedly in pairs while the teacher gradually erases more and more words until they are doing it entirely from memory.

• Learners who were fluent but not accurate would benefit from reviewing the language they already “half knew” and focusing on accuracy oriented CP activities. This might help eg intermediate learners who were starting to show evidence of fossilised errors.

• Very large classes, where it would be impossible for the teacher to monitor all the students individually when doing free practice. Written CP activities would allow the T. to check the answers of all the Ls in full class mode, while stronger and more confident Ls could be asked to perform spoken CP activities for the class after PW practice, thus letting the whole class compare their own production to the model that the strong Ls provide.

Reference

Meddings, L. and Thornbury,  S. (2009) Teaching Unplugged  Delta Publishing

 

Teacher Talking Time : Part Two

In the first part of this article I looked at the reasons why teacher talking time (TTT) can be counterproductive if used to excess and unthinkingly. But there’s another side to the coin : used intelligently TTT can also be a useful aid to learning. How?

Firstly, several of the things we mentioned previously as being positive aids to learning, involve TTT. Elicitation, for example, which can be used effectively to lead students to make their own discoveries about the language.

TTT may also be the most efficient way, in terms of time, to get a point across. Instructions and set-ups for activities are an obvious example, but also language explanations. If a new word comes up during an activity, it may be quicker for the teacher to explain than for students to use their dictionaries.

Students, especially at the beginning of a course, may expect lessons to be entirely teacher-led. The teacher then has to decide the best approach : to throw them in at the deep end of a student-centred classroom – which may create negative reactions – or to ease them in gently?

If the students are learning outside an English-speaking country, the teacher is the probably their best source of what Stephen Krashen (1) has called “roughly tuned input”. The idea behind “roughly-tuned input” is that language is acquired by exposure to discourse which is comprehensible to the learner but one step above his/her current productive competence – it contains elements which can be understood from the context but which the learner cannot yet produce accurately. It is by encountering and processing this new language in a context which ensures that it is comprehensible that the item will be assimilated.

The teacher may be the only person who can provide this type of “caretaker speech” for the students. Even if the students are in contact with other native speakers, “ordinary” English-speakers often have great difficulty speaking to non-native speakers in a simple, yet natural way. An example I noticed recently was of a native speaker talking to an Italian elementary level learner. In an attempt to speak “simply” the native-speaker conscientiously knocked out of her speech all the Latin based verbs in favour of phrasal verbs. At one point, for instance, she had clearly intended to say arrive but hesitated, thought about it, and replaced it with turn up.

The concept of the “silent period” – the idea that learners need a certain amount of receptive exposure to the language before they are ready to produce it – also stems from Krashen’s work. One methodology which uses this idea is TPR, which I discussed briefly in the article Receptive Practice Activities. TPR activities are perhaps a good example of the conscious use of TTT to provide the learner with both a silent period and comprehensible input.

Whether or not you wish to take Krashen’s ideas fully on board, teacher talk can be an excellent source of listening comprehension practice. I argued in Part One of the article that too much TTT, or TTT of the wrong type, can be counter-productive for the development of the speaking skill. On the other hand, used intentionally, it can be a very useful aid to developing listening ability.

The development of the listening skill is usually thought of as involving listening to taped texts, whether on audio-tape, CD, DVD or video. This type of listening is obviously necessary. It is often the easiest way that students can be exposed to different voices and accents, interaction between native speakers, and fully authentic speech. But recordings also have a number of disadvantages. Firstly, it is ironic that the main medium we have for presenting interaction is the very one which precludes the student from interacting – a recording won't reply if you interrupt it. In real life, we rarely sit and listen to other people’s conversations. We participate - if we don’t understand we ask for repetition or clarification, if we get bored we change the subject, and so on. Even when watching TV, if something isn’t clear we will frequently turn to another person in the room and ask, and if the programme isn’t interesting we’ll simply turn off.

Secondly, acoustic problems, and poor equipment quality or recording quality may make listening to the recording more difficult than the real life experience. Unless video/DVD is used, the difficulty is heightened by the lack of visual clues – the listener can’t see where the conversation is taking place, what the speakers are looking at, their facial expressions and gestures, and so on. All of these, in the real situation, will aid comprehension.

Another factor adding to the level difficulty of the taped text may be that the conversation is distanced from the personal concerns of the students. They don’t know (or care) about the speakers, and very often have no real interest in the things they are talking about.

These factors won’t all be problematic all the time of course. But the additional challenge they create, and their potential for demotivating the student, needs to be taken into consideration.

Teacher-talk listenings (TTLs) can get round a lot of these problems. Examples of activities which can be used include story and anecdote telling, dictations, interactive activities, and games like Describe and Identify, Describe and Draw, and Describe and Arrange, all of which I will talk about in more detail in the next and final part of the article.

Notes

1. For a more detailed though critical account of Krashen’s work, see this article by Peter Cullip.

Photo provided under Creative Commons Licence by Susan NYC via flickr

An ELT Glossary : The Silent Period

The Silent Period is an idea stemming from Krashen's Input Hypothesis that learners in the earliest stages of language learning need a time when they just listen to and assimilate the target language, before they are ready to produce it. 

Krashen states  ‘It has often been noted that children acquiring a second language in a natural, informal linguistic environment, may say very little for several months following their first exposure to the second language’.  (1987:26)  and ‘the child is building up competence in the second language by listening, by understanding the language ... speaking ability emerges on its own after enough competence has been developed by listening and understanding’ (ibid.: 27). 

In methodologies that adopt a Silent Period - such as Total Physical Response - this is extended to adult learners. In TPR, for example, for the first 60 hours of the language course the learners are not required to say anything, just to listen and understand, and then demonstrate their understanding with some sort of physical action. Activities like Describe and Draw  and Describe and Arrange, though with the teacher giving the descriptions rather than using the activity as an information gap exercise, would fit neatly into this type of approach.

However, there is no conclusive evidence that the silent period is useful in promoting acquisition.  As Ellis points out :  ‘There is some disagreement regarding the contribution that the silent period makes to language learning’ (2008: 74), and some learners may, on the contrary feel frustrated by the approach. 

References 

Krashen, S.D.  (1987) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Ellis, R. (2008) The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

An ELT Glossary : The Monitor Hypothesis

Definition : One of the five hypotheses which make up Krashen's Monitor Model, which he proposed in his work in the seventies and eighties.

For Krashen, the Monitor was part of the distinction between acquisition and learning. Although utterances would be generated from acquired language, this could then be "monitored" for error - ie checked for accuracy and appropriateness - and corrected using learnt knowledge. This, however, requires time, and there may be a payoff between accuracy and fluency - monitoring will improve accuracy but impede fluency.

Criticisms of this depend not so much on what it says - but the reasons for it. It is obvious that, under conditions of high communicative challenge such as having to listen to and understand what other interlocutors say, then think of the reply, formulate it in English and actually say it, mistakes are liable to be made. But this is true of native speakers too and is explained by Chomsky's concepts of competence and performance. The fact that someone "knows" the language doesn't prevent slips and disfluencies from occurring. 

As Scott Thornbury has written :   Stephen Krashen once said (only half-jokingly, I suspect) that, more important than having new ideas is giving old ideas new names. 

Further reading : 

Baker, C. and Prys Jones, S. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition
Thornbury, S. G is for Grammar McNuggets

Using PPP as a Lesson Format

This article is adapted from material previously used on our Delta Module One Course. It focuses on PPP (Presentation, Practice, Production) as a lesson format. If you're not familiar with the principles behind PPP, click on the link above before continuing.

This article considers three questions.

a) what criticisms have been made of the format?

b) what alternatives exist which avoid those criticisms?

c) with what learner types and learning contexts would and wouldn't it be useful (and why)? 

 

a) Criticisms of PPP

1. That it focuses on “Grammar McNuggets” (Thornbury) - ie preselected linguistic items to be learnt in a specific order - and that this may not be realistic in terms of the actual processes of second language acquisition. Many writers (Thornbury, as above, but also eg Krashen) argue that acquisition does not occur in this “predictable” way. Krashen suggests that each learner will be ready to acquire the “next” item naturally if exposed to comprehensible input but we have no way of predicting what this item is.

2. Similarly, it may not be realistic to expect learners to acquire the item immediately in one lesson, moving during the lesson from no knowledge of the item to its spontaneous use in a production stage. This recurrent problem led to the contradiction in the approach where some proponents argued that it “didn’t matter” if the TL was not used in the Production stage. However, logically this would seems to make them irrelevant to the lesson. Others argued that the Ls still be should be “pushed” into using the TL  - but this again shows that expecting acquisition to take place immediately was an unrealistic aim.

3. Even when Ls did seem to have mastered the item within the lesson, it was frequently noted that in subsequent lessons it had been forgotten and no longer used spontaneously where it would have been appropriate (Willis and Willis, 1996). This suggested that there was something wrong about or missing from the approach.

4. PPP could be appropriate for dealing with grammar, but did not focus in any depth on skills development, and downplayed a focus on lexis.

5. PPP could be very T-centred – the presentation stage was generally T-led, with the T. setting up a context, feeding in the TL, and then asking concept questions to elicit rules of form and use. These would often be answered by the strongest Ls in the class (especially in larger classes and/or if the T didn’t nominate), leaving the others fairly uninvolved.

 

b) Alternatives to avoid those criticisms

6. Task Based Learning: There are many versions of this but all started by asking learners to perform a meaningful task in the L2 and saw learning as process rather than product. In other words learners would not necessarily acquire a language item the first time it came up in the course, but would do so gradually over the course as they found they needed it again and again, or heard it being used frequently in the input (which was often a recording of proficient speakers doing the same task as the learners had just carried out, and allowed them to compare their own use of language with the “model” version”).  (Avoids criticisms 2 and 3) 

7. Krashen proposed a method known as “The Natural Approach” which was based on constant exposure to “roughly tuned input” – ie language that the learners would understand (so which was comprehensible) but which would naturally contain language likely to be the next item which the learner was ready to acquire. He termed this "i+1", where "i" is the learner's current competence and "1" is the next item they are ready to acquire. (Avoids criticism 1)

8. Though The Natural Approach has not become mainstream, most current published coursebooks contain far more input (in the form of reading and listening texts) than was common in the late 20^th century when PPP was at its most popular. This is also a result of the influence of the Lexical Approach (Lewis) which emphasised the need for constant exposure to and learning of lexical chunks. (Avoids criticism 4). Some courses, like the Business Matters series (Powell) use “lexically enhanced” texts which are originally authentic texts rewritten to include as high a proportion of lexical chunks as possible, and therefore maximum exposure to the same.

9. This sort of Text-Based Learning usually replaces the “presentation” stage with a guided discovery activity which the Ls do in PW/GW. The examples of the TL  are taken from a text which the Ls have previously done comprehension work on, and the concept check questions are in the book. The use of PW/GW ensures that all the Ls are involved and working actively on understanding the rules of form and use. This greater cognitive involvement is liable to lead to greater retention. (Avoids criticism 5).

10. Dogme (Thornbury and Meddings) allows learners to use any language at their disposal to discuss topics, situations etc and all language focus and practice “emerges” from the language used during the discussion. The T. may correct, explain or upgrade language and may then provide on-the-spot practice activities (Thornbury – P is for Push).The argument here is that, as the language focused on is that which the learners have wanted to use to express personal ideas, the input will be more engaging and processed at greater cognitive depth than language chosen by the teacher – thus resulting in greater retention, ie learning. (Avoids criticisms 1 and 3).

 

c)  Useful with/because :

11. Learners with a preference for systematic lessons where they first fully understand the rules of form and use of the language (Analytic learners - McCarthy), and then are asked to manipulate and finally use it in activities which increase only gradually in level of communicative challenge. The inclusion of the CP (or manipulation) stage would therefore suit Serialist learners (Pask) who would be uncomfortable with approaches where they were “thrown straight in” to communicating – eg TBL.

12. Very large classes where a lockstep approach makes it easier for the teacher to check that every learner has understood, produced correct answers etc.

 

c) Not useful with/because:

13. Very young or primary age learners who are not analytic and have not yet developed the cognitive skills necessary to cope with abstractions such as rules of form and use. These Ls are still able to acquire the language in the same way as they acquired their L1 – by exposure to meaningful language use.

14. Learning contexts such as summer courses in Britain where the class members all come from different backgrounds and, even if their general level has been ascertained,  the T cannot be sure exactly what each person does/does not know. Using an approach based on a pre-determined syllabus might therefore mean that a lot of the learners were covering items which they had already acquired. 

 

References and Further Reading

From the Notebook:

• The Controlled Practice Stage
• Using Task Based Learning
• Using Guided Discovery

Elsewhere:

Willis D and Willis J (1996) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching Macmillan Heinemann

Extensive Reading

 

This article, based on material used on our Delta Module One course, focuses on extensive reading and asks:

a) What are the differences between extensive reading and the  reading activities normally found in coursebooks?

b) Why can  extensive reading  usefully be incorporated into a language programme?

c) What are the disadvantages of using graded readers with learners?

Section a – Differences

1. Coursebook reading texts are aimed at the development of reading skills and/or focus on specific language items. There is generally a pre-reading (scaffolding) phase, a while reading stage (usually involving the text being read at least twice, first for gist, then for detail to ensure comprehension, and possibly a third time for language focus) Texts for extensive reading are read for pleasure, usually only once with no scaffolding, comprehension activities or language focus. They are read in the same way that a reader would read eg novels or magazines in their L1.

2. This is because coursebook reading texts are often above the level of the learner and need both scaffolding and intensive study if learners are to be able to deal with them. They may be authentic, and the tasks graded rather than the text in line with the precepts that learners need to learn to cope with the type of authentic text they might meet outside the classroom and that “you don’t need to understand everything. Extensive reading on the other hand is done using graded texts at the learner’s level, each page containing no more than a couple of items unlikely to be known but easily inferable. Graded readers are most commonly used at lower levels, though advanced level learners may well move on to authentic texts such as novels. I often recommend crime thrillers to my learners as they are generally dialogue based and avoid long passages of complex descriptive language (as found in eg fantasy novels).

3. Coursebook reading texts are generally used in the classroom and in a lockstep approach. All learners in the class read the same text, which they have not chosen but which “comes next” in the course. They do the same activities, generally in the same timeframe. In contrast, learners involved in extensive reading may all be reading different texts, which they have chosen depending on their personal interests (and possibly, in a mixed ability class, different levels). The reading may be done in class,  but may also be done outside class and learners may choose to devote different amounts of time to the activity..

4. The tasks attached to coursebook reading texts generally test understanding, and the T’s role is to confirm correct answers, explain misunderstandings and generally evaluate learners responses. Extensive reading is not evaluated – the reading is its own reward, though the Ls should have the possibility of asking the T about any language items that they “noticed” in the text and want a fuller explanation of. The T’s role is therefore to guide the learners (eg explaining why extensive reading is useful, helping them choose suitable texts) and to motivate and support them. The T. may also be a role model of a reader – see point 10 below

Section b – Why useful?

5. Because the extensive reading texts are at the learners level, they automatically consolidate language that has previously been taught. In particular, various writers including Nation point to the positive effect that extensive reading has on vocabulary acquisition.

6. Extensive reading accords with Krashen’s “input hypothesis” – the idea that large-scale exposure to “comprehensible input” will lead to acquisition. In recent years Krashen has extended this to the idea that “compelling input” – ie when Ls are so interested in the ideas that they “forget” about the language – will maximise unconscious acquisition. Texts chosen because they reflect Ls’ interests can provide this “compelling input”.

This exposure to added input would be particularly important if Ls are studying in a non-English speaking environment, where they will not have automatic exposure to English outside the c/r.

7. Because there are no tasks to complete and because the text presents no great comprehension difficulties, learners tend to read faster when reading extensively. Again, work by various researchers, including Bell, suggests that this increase in reading rate will transfer to other types of reading, increasing overall reading fluency.

8. Other research  (eg by Krashen) has suggested that extensive reading often improves writing skills. This would seem to be because the learners are being exposed to effective models of text, with accurate use of grammar, a wide range of lexis, and models of organisation – eg chronological or flashback tor organisation in novels, logical paragraphing in expository texts etc – which are unconsciously acquired and transferred to productive use.

9. Motivation : Because they are reading texts which interest them and are at their level, the experience of extensive reading should be enjoyable Day and Bamford point to an increase in motivation and positive affect resulting from the use of graded readers. This motivation may be particularly important for young learners, as recognising that reading is enjoyable should also motivate them to read in their own language. It therefore also has an aim which reflects the T’s role as educator rather than as “just” as language teacher.

10. Extensive reading may be a stimulus for other spoken or written activities and therefore again help to consolidate language and also to promote fluency. In talking or writing about the books they have read, the learners are automatically using the language which was contained in the text.  For example, although extensive reading is not formally evaluated, if it is an “obligatory” activity (either done in class time or for homework) as might happen with young learners, the T might ask for a written book report or a “show and tell” type presentation after the learners have finished the book. Displaying the reports on the class notice board or listening to the presentations may well motivate other learners to read the same book. The type of report/presentation required can first be modelled by the teacher, showing the Ls that s/he too reads extensively. Alternatively/Additionally, the learners may regularly be asked to discuss in small groups what they have been reading, whether they liked it and why, who was the most interesting character etc etc.

11. Learners may need to cope with long texts outside the classroom – eg EAP learners who need to read textbooks in English. Extensive reading can act as a “halfway house” between dealing with the type of text length they will find in their coursebooks and whole articles or chapters in academic textbooks. Otherwise, the Ls might find themselves having to cope with long and complex texts without having ever read a text more than one page long in a coursebook.

12. Some readers are accompanied by audio recordings. Listening and reading at the same time helps the learners acquire the pronunciation of the words, and of the rhythm, stress and intonation patterns of the language. They can practice these by using the shadow reading technique (Sturtridge and Geddes) – ie reading aloud at the same time as listening to the recording, trying to keep their performance as close as possible to that heard,

 

Section c – The disadvantages of using graded readers

13. Because the language of graded readers is simplified and carefully selected to match learner level, it is very different from natural written discourse, lacking in the structural and lexical complexity, figurative language, cultural references etc that would be present in authentic text. For example, it is only at level 7 (CEFR B1) that the Cambridge Readers include ellipsis – a common feature of all forms of authentic discourse. This means that if learners only use graded readers at lower levels, later exposure to authentic text which they don’t fully understand may come as a shock and be demotivating.

14. The simplification and grading in these readers also means that learners do not develop important reading subskills while reading them. For example, words which would possibly be unknown are often glossed, meaning the learners will not develop the subskill of inferring unknown words from context.

15. Cost: Graded readers cost around €8-€9 (on amazon.it). If a school is going to create a library which caters for all lower levels, all age groups, and all interests, and which has a book available for each learner all the time, this means a large number of titles and a considerable outlay. Alternatively, learners would need to buy the books themselves, which they might not be willing or able to do, at least on a regular basis.

References and Further Reading

Bamford and Day, Extensive reading activities for teaching language

Bell, Extensive Reading: Why? and How?

Maley, Extensive Reading: Why it is good for our students and for us.

Nation and Waring, Extensive Reading and Graded Readers

Qi Rong Ng et al, Extensive Reading

Stanley, Extensive Reading

An ELT Glossary : Acquisition and learning

Acquisition and Learning

Definition  

Ellis (1997:3) defines second language acquisition as "the way people learn a language other than their mother tongue, inside or outside a classroom", thus conflating the two terms acquisition and learning. Other writers however, have distinguished between the two, defining them so that: 

Acquisition refers to the process of assimilating a language non-consciously through exposure to that language rather than by formal instruction, conscious understanding of rules etc (learning). 

Example : A child acquires, rather than learns, their L1. 



The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis

One of the five hypotheses in the Monitor Model proposed by Krashen in his work in the 70s and 80s. Krashen  suggested that, in the L2 situation, acquisition and learning were two distinct neurological processes.  He also claimed (and this is where the hypothesis becomes most controversial) that only acquired language is available for fluent, spontaneous use and that acquisition cannot be affected by learning - ie "learning" the language will not replace or speed up acquisitional processes.  He suggested that the ability to acquire language is not lost at puberty, as advocates of the critical period hypothesis would claim, but remains possible throughout adulthood.  

Criticisms : 
Many writers would argue that, on the contrary, conscious "noticing" and deep cognitive processing is not only an aid to L2 acquisition but also essential for it. Thus the two terms again merge, taking us back to Ellis' definition. 




Further reading 

Baker, C. and Prys Jones, S. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition

Ellis, R. Second Language Acquisition, OUP

An ELT Glossary : TPR/Total Physical Response

• Definition : A method developed for use in the first 60 hours of a beginners course, whose primary (but not sole) activity type is that the T demonstrates language which the Ss show they understand by responding physically to commands or descriptions of activities rather than by speaking. 

• Example : to consolidate understanding of the present continuous the T. might say : If you're wearing blue socks, stand up. If you're holding a pen, go to the door. etc. If the learners who are wearing blue socks stand up and the others don't, the T. knows they have understood the target language.

• Example : Other activities might include eg silently acting out a story as the T tells it. The ls show they understand by doing the activities iincluded in the story. if eg the story says - John looked under the chair and pulled out a package... the learner assigned the role of John looks under his chair and mimes pulling out a package. 

• The method was developed by Asher and is linked to the theories of Krashen, in particular the idea that learners need exposure to "roughly tuned input" to aid acquisition and that beginners need a "silent period" where they understand, but are not forced into speaking before they're ready (which, in Krashen's terms, might "raise the affective filter" and be detrimental to learning.)

Recommended Reading

Richards and Rodgers, Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, CUP

Teaching Grammar

The following task comes from material originally used on our Delta Module One course to prepare learners for Paper 2/3. If you are using it for this purpose, you may find the following introduction useful. If not, just skip this part and go straight to the article itself.

The answer to this task contains 15 basic points, and therefore would gain 30/30 of the marks available for the “breadth” of the response. Five of them are elaborated and would therefore probably gain some depth marks. This puts the answer firmly in the distinction average category.

As you read through the answer you may notice that many points and examples have been “recycled” from other answers to tasks in this series. In the exam, you don’t have thinking time –it’s therefore essential that you already have points in mind that you can adapt as necessary to the specific questions. Notice that five of the answers go beyond stating the basic point to include reference to and explanations of theories, examples from personal teaching experience and the other depth categories outlined in the Cambridge Handbook on p.16. If you’ve prepared and repeated enough of these in your preparation for task 2/1, they will come to mind spontaneously in the exam.

 

TASK

This task discusses the following statement: The practice of breaking down language into discrete items or areas for formal presentation, explicit rule giving and controlled practice is of very limited value. 

It then asks: 

a) What arguments can be put forward in support of this statement?

b) What are the arguments against it? 

c) How do you achieve "the best of both worlds" in your teaching?  

SUGGESTED ANSWER

 

a)  Arguments supporting the criticism

1. The Presentation – Practice- Production approach described in the statement focuses on “Grammar McNuggets” (Thornbury) - ie preselected linguistic items to be learnt in a specific order - but this may not be realistic in terms of the actual processes of second language acquisition. Many writers ( Thornbury but also eg Krashen) argue that acquisition does not occur in this “predictable” way. Krashen suggests that each learner will be ready to acquire the “next” item (which he calls “ i+1”) but we have no way of predicting what this is. 

2. Similarly it may not be realistic to expect learners to acquire the item immediately in one lesson or even one unit, moving from no knowledge of the item to its spontaneous use in a production stage.  This recurrent problem led to the contradiction in the PPP approach where some proponents argued that it “didn’t matter” if the TL was not used in the Production stage. However, logically this would seems to make the stage irrelevant to the lesson. Others argued that the Ls still be should be “pushed” into using the TL  - but this again shows that expecting acquisition to take place immediately was an unrealistic aim. 

3. Even when Ls did seem to have mastered the item within the lesson or unit, it was frequently noted that in subsequent lessons it had been forgotten and no longer used spontaneously where it would have been appropriate (Willis). This suggested that there was something wrong about or missing from the approach.

4. PPP could be appropriate for dealing with grammar, but did not focus in any depth on skills development or discourse, and downplayed a focus on lexis. This led to a "top-heavy" syllabus where grammar was given priority and other areas received less attention.

5. An analytic grammar based approach (whether PPP or any other) is not suitable for  very young or primary age learners who have not yet developed the cognitive skills necessary to cope with abstractions such as rules of form and use. These Ls are still able to acquire the language in the same way as they acquired their L1 – by exposure to meaningful language use.

6. It may also be unsuitable for learning contexts such as summer courses in Britain where the class members all come from different backgrounds and, even if their general level has been ascertained,  the T cannot be sure exactly what each person does/does not know. Using an approach based on a pre-determined syllabus might therefore mean that a lot of the learners were covering items which they had already acquired. 

7. Similarly, a PPP approach used for a revision lesson could lead to the learners feeling “But we’ve done this before” and to frustration at apparent lack of progress. 

8. Traditional PPP was often very T-centred, The presentation stage was generally T-led, with the T. setting up a context, feeding in the TL, and then asking concept questions to elicit rules of form and use. These would often be answered by the strongest Ls in the class (especially in larger classes and/or if the T didn’t nominate), leaving the others fairly uninvolved. Depth of cognitive processing was therefore fairly shallow and may have led to the problem in point 3

9. Swain’s “Output Hypothesis” suggests that Ls acquire language by attempting to use what they know to communicate what they personally want to say, reformulating misunderstood language until they succeed. A traditional PPP approach leaves little time for this (except possibly in the use of non-target language items in the production stage).

 

c)  Arguments against the criticism

10. Point 8 above is, however, more a criticism of the way  the PPP sequence was handled than a criticism of a “Grammar McNuggets” approach itself. More recent approaches have retained a focus on grammar but favoured a text-based methodology where the T no longer leads the presentation but Ls work on Guided Discovery activities, working out the rules for themselves. The text may be a reading a listening text (thus allowing for receptive skills work first), a conversation between the learner (as in Thornbury's  Dogme approach) or the learners' own written work - but whatever is used, the language is presented in a context of real language use rather than being "broken down" - ie presented in isolation "for its own sake". The emergent language focused on may include any language system or subskill, thus avoiding the "top-heavy" approach described above while still allowing ample room for grammar focus. The active approach of GD and the personalisation involved in the speaking/writing activities increases depth of cognitive processing, which should also improve retention. 

The approach may be the most suitable for various learner types and learning contexts – eg :

11. Analytic learners (McCarthy) who want to come to a full understanding of the rules of form and use before being asked to use the language.

12. Similarly,  learners with a preference for systematic lessons where they first fully understand the language, and then are asked to manipulate and finally use it in activities which increase only gradually in level of communicative challenge. (Serialist Learners - Pask). These learners appreciate a step-by-step approach with simpler CP activities provided before they are asked to use the language to communicate. They would be uncomfortable with approaches where they were “thrown straight in” to communicating – eg TBL .

13. Very large classes where a lockstep approach makes it easier for the teacher to check that every learner has understood, produced correct answers etc.

 

d) The best of both worlds

14. Although I frequently use a pre-determined syllabus and PPP/Guided Discovery approach in my teaching, I also leave ample time for focus on and explanation of emergent language (as suggested by Thornbury and developed into the method  Dogme) and the use of  techniques similar to those advocated bt Demand High ELT to practice it “on the spot” (see Thornbury P is for Push).The argument here is that, as the language focused on is that which the learners have wanted to use to express personal ideas, the input will be more engaging and processed at greater cognitive depth than language chosen by the teacher – thus resulting in greater retention, ie learning. This meets the criteria for Swain’s Output Hypothesis. For example, I would leave ample time after any productive activity (be it a warm-up discussion or Production stage activity) for a full class follow-up. During the follow-up, I would focus not only on correction of the target language but also on emergent language providing a) correction and explanation as necessary; b) praise for and recycling of any language used by Ls which we’d covered in previous lessons; c) upgrading of correct language to an expression that reflected the learner’s level. Eg if I heard a B2 learner say “It was raining heavily”. I might focus on the fact that the expression was correct and appropriate, but then upgrade it that but by introducing and practising  “It was pouring with rain” as an alternative.

 

15. An alternative format, useful in situations such as those in points 6 and 7,  is the  Test - Teach -Test format. This starts with a productive activity that allows the T. to diagnose whether the learners do in fact need a formal re-presentation and practice of language already covered, whether they can go on to more complex items. This prevents the problem outlined in point 7 and also allows for differentiation. For example, if recycling polite requests, the T may notice some learners having problems with the structure “Would you mind +Ving”, while others are using it accurately. It can therefore be focused on in the Teach stage (which may be identical to presentation and Controlled practice) and remedial help given to the weaker Ls. At the same time however, the expression “I wonder if you’d mind Ving” can be introduced. In the practice activities that follow, the weaker Ls can practice the basic structure and the others use the new version. All Ls therefore feel they’ve learnt something new.