We’ve all been there. Students learn a new language structure (i.e. grammar point) or vocabulary words, take a quiz, do well, and then a few days later they are unable to produce the structure or vocabulary. What happened? Where did it it go?
First, let’s look at Interlanguage. This is the language that a learner speaks that is on a continuum between his native language (L1) and the target language (L2). Selinker explains that Interlanguage has these characteristics:
Bill Van Patten takes this a bit further in his work (particularly in Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen) and presents the ideas of intake and uptake along this interlanguage continuum:
Initially, language input becomes intake or part of the short term memory of the learner. This is consciously attended to and learned by the learner. When structures and vocabulary become uptake, part of the long-term memory, it is considered subconscious and acquired. The uptake is the proficiency level of the learner.
When students take a quiz on the new material and do well it is because they are being assessed on their short-term memory (intake). When new material comes along and that older materials has not moved on to long-term memory (uptake) it is replaced by the newer material. That’s why the grammar structure they knew so well for the quiz is not as easily produced a few days later….and the reason we need to spend so much time reviewing for final exams at the end of the school year.
So, this begs the question, “How can we help students acquire language so that it becomes part of their uptake (long-term memory)?” The answer is not complicated and involved, but does take persistence and consistency. It comes down to providing as much comprehensible input as possible to students, both listening and reading. The more exposure students have to input that is comprehensible to them the more likely the language will become uptake and make its way to the long-term memory. Again, this is mostly a subconscious process in which language is acquired so comprehensible inout is the most effective tool. This is yet another reason to use the target language as much as possible (90-100%) in the second language classroom.
I want to end with a quick word about learning grammar and vocabulary, as opposed to acquiring. Steven Krashen, who is best known for his input hypothesis (i+1), does speak to the usefulness of studying and learning grammar and vocabulary. He describes this learned language as a monitor that assess output that originates in the long-term memory for accuracy. This learned, often intake/short-term memory, language is useful in writing as well because the writer has the time to reflect and monitor the output. When communicating interpersonally in real time the output is often less accurate with novice and intermediate students because the more accurate and native-like language has not yet made its way to the long-term memory.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (4), 495–510.