Category Archives: Teaching Methodology and Research

Keep Track of Virtual Group Work in the Language Classroom

Posted on | 9 comments

As I write this post many of us are teaching remotely due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  I have been using Zoom to teach and communicate with students.  One of the features is breakout rooms where students can be put into small groups. Other platforms offer similar possibilities.  I was trying to find a way to see what groups are doing in real time in addition to popping in and out of each group.

Keep Track of Virtual Group Work in the Language Classroom

I saw on Twitter that Rebecca Blouwolf, ACTFL Teacher of the Year, was trying out using shared Google docs during breakout group time.  I have known Rebecca for over 20 years and I respect her so much.  We started our teaching career together and I have been very impressed with all that she has accomplished.  When I saw what she was doing with Google docs I knew that I had to look into it.

My first iteration looked like this.

Keep Track of Virtual Group Work in the Language Classroom

I shared the doc (I used Google sheets) with all students and groups worked collectively in the same document.  I was able to see what they were entering in real time and could write a message to all of the groups (broadcast message in Zoom) when I saw saw some common inaccuracies or I could go into an individual group when I wanted to support them verbally.  There was one problem with this, they were all doing the same questions and could see each other’s responses.  It didn’t seem to be much of an issue, but I wanted to give each group different prompts while all working in the same shared document.  I could have shared different documents with each group, but that would mean looking at different documents.  I wanted the individual group work all together so that I could  see what all groups are doing at once.

So, I got back to work. This is the second iteration and the version that I have been using successfully.

Keep Track of Virtual Group Work in the Language Classroom

This allows for different prompts for each group (blue column), while being able to see all responses in real time. Atelier means “workshop” in French and the is the word I use with students for “breakout room.”  They type their group responses to the right of the prompts in blue.  In addition to text, groups can insert images in response to a prompt or a link to audio or a video that that they record or through search.  My initial intent was to use this to see work done in real time in Zoom breakout rooms, but I’m envisioning using this for asynchronous (not in real time) student work as well. Though this is a work-around during a crisis, I plan to continue using it when we are back in the physical classroom.

If you would like to us this with your students, make sure that you share one document with the entire class and allow editing when sharing a Google doc. For ease of formatting I use a Google Sheet, but you can do this with any of the Google doc options.  I tell students that they can delete  it out of their Google account when done so that it is not yet another document taking up space.  I have the original with all of their responses….another benefit of having it all in one place.  You can also have a spot for groups to put their names in  next to the the breakout room.  I keep track on my own.

This link will make a copy of the breakout room document in your Google Drive (just like assigning  to students in Google Classroom)  and you can modify it for your own personal use.  This is a work in progress for me.  I’d love to see and hear about what works for you.

 

9 Comments

Posted in Classroom Procedures, Speaking, Teaching Methodology and Research, Technology, Writing

Tagged , , , , , ,

What If the Next Teacher Doesn’t Embrace Proficiency-Based Teaching?

Posted on | 4 comments

We are getting there.  More and more teachers are embracing proficiency-based language teaching.  There are increasing amounts of research that support an approach to language teaching that focusing on communication.  Along with Communicative language teaching we use proficiency levels and ACTFL Performance Descriptors that provide concrete benchmarks.  Simply put, proficiency is not what students know about the language, what rather what they can do with it.  Resources, such as Can-Do statements, help to keep our teaching (and student learning/acquisition) focused on what students are able to communicate.

What If the Next Teacher Doesn't Embrace Proficiency-Based Teaching (French, Spanish(

As happy as I am to see so many teachers adopt this approach, I am often reminded of how much more work we have to do.  I find that individual teachers tend to implement communicative activities in their classrooms, but language departments and districts are slower to get there.  In May of each year I often get a reminder of the work that is to be done when my 8th graders ask me to fill out a form to recommend them for their high school language level.  I teach in a school that ends in 8th grade.  Our students go to numerous high schools after, so I get a look at what is expected and what programs look like when I receive the recommendation forms.

Here is one that I got this year, but it is a typical of many of these forms that I get from studentsWhat If the Next Teacher Doesn't Embrace Proficiency-Based Teaching (French, Spanish(

As you can see, it is just a list of grammar topics.  They place students in a language level based on what grammar topics they have studied.  There is no place to speak to what the student is actually able to communicate in the target language.  These types of lists are the opposite of proficiency, with a request to know what the student knows about the language and not what they can do with it.

The reaction when I put this on Twitter and Facebook was reassuring that there are many language teachers who are fighting the good fight.

What If the Next Teacher Doesn't Embrace Proficiency-Based Teaching (French, Spanish( What If the Next Teacher Doesn't Embrace Proficiency-Based Teaching (French, Spanish(

So, how do we respond?  I usually use it as an opportunity to educate about the ACTFL Core Practices and Proficiency Levels with a description of the students proficiency level.  I provide examples of what the student is able to do with the language at their particular proficiency level. Hopefully this creates some interest in learning more.  Just planting the seed, and hoping they will water it.

“Ben performs consistently at the Intermediate Low ACTFL Proficiency Level for Interpersonal Communication and at the Intermediate Mid Level for Presentational Writing and Interpretive Listening and Reading.  At the IL level Ben can confidently and consistently speak in discrete sentence that he creates on his own without resorting to memoized chunks.  At the IM Level he consistently writes, reads and listens at a slightly higher level with strings of 2-3 connected sentences.”

I would imagine that this is more useful than “Ben can conjugate regular verbs in the present tense.”  Even if Ben can talk about the verb forms how does that indicate that he can actually use them to communicate?  This is a frustrating situation at time, but hopefully the more often we use this as an opportunity to educate our colleagues the more the entire language teaching community will move toward proficiency.

One final point that I want to make.  I fully understand that there are teachers, departments and districts that firmly believe that that a focus on grammar and structures is the most effective way to teach a language.  I am always happy to have the conversation.  I usually have several of these conversations each time I do a workshop in a school.  I like to be challenged and appreciate the opportunity to show the benefits of a proficiency-based program.  The only thing that I ask is that those who disagree have empirical evidence to support their argument and beliefs, because that is what I am bringing to the conversation.

 

4 Comments

Posted in Grammar and Structures, Teaching Methodology and Research

Tagged , , , , , ,

How Can Teachers Use Research to Guide Their Language Teaching?

Posted on | 2 comments

I like a good story.  Stories are interesting, intriguing and often capture and maintain our interest.  While I enjoy a good story or pleasant anecdote, I need more than a story of success and suggestion based on experience when I’m looking introspectively at my practice as a language teacher.

I actually like reading research that is conducted in applied linguistics and, more specifically, in the field of second language acquisition (SLA).  I quite enjoyed my graduate school days when we dove deep into empirical research and used it to inform our understanding of the cognition and social dynamics that govern learning a first or second language.  Who doesn’t like spending a little quality time with Krashen, Vygotsky, Swain, VanPatten or Asher?

While I do enjoy a good, quality, peer-reviewed, empirically sound research project I don’t always have the time, and, let’s be honest, the  focus, to read all about it.

How Can Teachers Use Research to Guide Their Language Teaching? (French, Spanish)

OK.  Get ready for it.  This is the the type of thing that I get incredibly excited about….On an episode of Bill Van Patten’s podcast, Talkin’ L2 with BVP, a guest mentioned the Website OASIS .  It is quite remarkable what they provide and are able to produce.

How Can Teachers Use Research to Guide Their Language Teaching? (French, Spanish)

OASIS summaries are one-page descriptions of research articles on language learning, language teaching, and multilingualism that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. The summaries provide information in accessible, non-technical language about each study’s goals, how it was conducted ,and what was found.  There are often ideas for using the information to inform classroom teaching as well.

Just use the search bar on the OASIS  Webiste to look for articles any topic of language acquisition of interest to you and you will soon have accessible research findings that allow you to move beyond anecdotal evidence.  Enjoy, and try not to fall down the rabbit hole.  I always do.

2 Comments

Posted in Classroom Procedures, Teaching Methodology and Research

Tagged , , , , , ,

What is Communicative Language Teaching?

Posted on | Leave a comment

There are often buzz words that come up in education. For the past ten years or so we have been talking about, exploring, redefining and doing our best to implement communicative language teaching. If you were asked to define what this is exactly, what would you say? It’s a methodology that we tend to understand best when we see it, and we are often very capable of pointing out what is not communicative language teaching.

What is Communicative Language Teaching? (French, Spanish) Bill Van Patten

Bill Van Patten was instrumental in my graduate education in applied linguistics and second language acquisition. We often cited his research and used his books in a several classes. I’ve continued to follow his research, publications, and now, his weekly podcast Talkin’ L2 with BVP.

He continues to explore the nature of language and the most effective and efficient ways to teach and learn a second language. On a recent episode of the podcast he talked about recent, short, concise and rather concrete piece that he wrote in response to teachers’ requests for an approachable, understandable and actionable definition of communicative language teaching. He discussed and provided that he titled Tenets of Comprehension-based Language Teaching with a Focus on Communicative Ability.

In this Communicative Language Teaching “manifesto” BVP lays out five facts about language acquisition based on empirical research. He then provides five principles that should underlie contemporary language teaching where the focus is on communicative ability. This is the most useful resource that I have come across that defines communicative language teaching, what it is, why it exists and how these factors should drive our lesson planing, curriculum and goals.

Leave a comment

Posted in Classroom Procedures, Teaching Methodology and Research

Teaching Millennials and Gez Z in the Language Classroom

Posted on | 5 comments

What comes to mind when you hear “Millennial” or “Gen Z?”  We all know that they get a bad rap.   Generations are different, and just like the Baby Boomers had to figure out how to teach the Gen Xers we need to look carefully at what we need to do to reach Millennials and Gen Zers.  Basically, it comes down to knowing that these generations want to know the value and use of what they are learning.  Let’s take a look at how to approach teaching languages to these generations and understand all they have to offer.

Teaching Millennials and Gez Z in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish)

A quick review of the names of the generations over the past 70 years:

Baby Boomers

Born: 1946-1964

Age in 2018: 54-72

Gen X

Born: 965-1985

Age in 2018: 33-53

Millennials

Born: 1986-1995

Age in 2018: 23-32

Gen Z

Born: 1996- present

Age in 2018: 0-22

I learned a lot about the Millennials and Gen Z from the Millennial Impact Project (2015) & The Business of Good (Haber, 2016).  Haber’s book is about social entrepreneurs or entrepreneurs who want to make a social difference with profits from their companies.  Looks like the Millennials and the Gen Z are approaching their employment with this goal.

Here are a few things that Haber writes about these these younger generations in The Business of Good:

“They don’t wait for taxis, they take Uber. They don’t wait for emails, they text. They don’t wait to work up the corporate ladder, they start their own business. It should come as no surprise that they have no interest in waiting to make a difference. It’s as if the generation has been hardwired to believe in the fierce urgency of now.”

OK, now that I’ve made the case for not giving them the bad rap that they get, let’s look at how we go about teaching this generation of elementary, middle and high school students as well as college students.

Let’s start by looking at the the brain and cognition.  Some of this data is adapted from the work of Dr. Bobb Darnell of Achievement Strategies, Inc. (www.achievementstrategies.org)  

Before the arrival of technology, Baby Boomer and Gen Xer brains :

  • were good at single-tasking
  • were able to sustain focus for long periods of time
  • were adept on concentrating for long periods of time

After the arrival of technology, Millennial and Gen Z brains:

  • are good at multi-tasking
  • can effectively navigate multiple input streams

It is through no fault of their own, but rather the reality of how their  brains are being wired for a certain kind of learning, that Millennials and Gen Zs have/are:

  • Shorter Attention Spans
  • Uncomfortable With Boredom
  • That Fierce Urgency of Now
  • Visually Preferred
  • Interactive and Hands-On
  • Love Challenge
  • Curious
  • Success Trough Strategy

So…what we do?  What are some ways to adapt our teaching, instruction, class routines, curriculum and relationships to the reality of the Millennial and Gen Z brain?Teaching Millennials and Gez Z in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish)

The PDF download includes tips and suggestions for…

  • dealing with shorter attention spans and being uncomfortable with boredomTeaching Millennials and Gez Z in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish)
  • responding to the fierce urgency of now

Teaching Millennials and Gez Z in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish)

  • preparing lessons and activities for students who are visually preferred

Teaching Millennials and Gez Z in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish)

  • creating opportunities for interactive and hands-on learning experiences

Teaching Millennials and Gez Z in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish)

  • adding challenge and elements of curiosity to classroom instruction

Teaching Millennials and Gez Z in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish)

  • guiding students toward success through strategies

Teaching Millennials and Gez Z in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish) One other thing to consider….Are we, in fact,  listening to our students and providing what they need to be successful and proficiency speakers of the language that we teach?  If they were aware of what their brain needs (or read this post), they would say to us:

  • Challenge me.
  • Let me work with others.
  • Let’s have fun.
  • Be flexible.
  • Encourage me.
  • Make me curious.
  • Give me feedback.
  • Learn from me too.
  • Let me give you my ideas.
  • I need to know the goal.

It is never easy to understand the experience and lens of a generation that is seemingly so different from our own.  Our parents thought that we were going to be the demise of the world because we did things differently.  Many of us are repeating the same behavior with the younger generations that we teach.  Let’s break the cycle and celebrate all that our students have to offer.

Teaching Millennials and Gez Z in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish)

5 Comments

Posted in Classroom Procedures, Teaching Methodology and Research

Tagged , , , , , , ,

World Language Classroom Newsletter

Posted on | 6 comments

I’m excited to connect with you. Click below to subscribe to my weekly email newsletter (Talking Points) with tips, tools and resources to help your students rise in proficiency and communicate with confidence.  –Joshua

Newsletter #23 copy

6 Comments

Posted in Teaching Methodology and Research

Communicative Language Teaching Mindset Shift. That Was Then. This Is Now.

Posted on | Leave a comment

The field of language teaching is always on the move.  Every decade or so there is an innovative way to approach language teaching.  For a recap of the language teaching methodologies that have surfaced over the past century take a look at this post.  Over the past decade many foreign language teachers have embraced communicative language teaching, which focuses on authentic communication over language forms such as grammar structures.

That Was Then. This Is Now. Communicative Language Teaching Mindset Shift (French, Spanish)

To be clear, a certain level of accuracy of language is needed to convey a message that is comprehensible.  The difference from methodologies of the past is that previous approaches to language teaching focused almost solely on accuracy of language.  These days we see the value in focusing on the message, even when that means looking past some errors when the learner has not yet acquired the language structure.  ACTFL has compiled a significant amount of research to support the the effectiveness of communicative language teaching.

There has been a significant shift in mindset along with the arrival of communicative language teaching.  Previous methodologies focused on what learners did wrong rather than on their progress.  The goal was complete accuracy in the past along with the belief that a speaker would not  be understood if the language was not completely correct.  We now accept that communication can happen despite occasional inaccuracy.  This is the base of the difference in mindset, or underlying tenets that support the approaches.

Here are four areas of this mindset shift that distinguish current communicative approaches from accuracy-centered approach of the past.

Objectives and Content:

  • Past: The teacher was the all-knowing possessor of knowledge and directed all content and objectives to ensure progress toward correct language.
  • Present: The teacher works in collaboration with students and there are shared learning objectives.  Content is driven by both the teacher and the student.

Communication:

  • Past: Typically communication was focused on the four traditional language skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking.  This usually meant that these skills were practiced in isolation and were not interconnected.
  • Present: The three modes of communication (presentational, interpretive, interpersonal) are now the focus.  They provide students with opportunities to do something with the four skills.

Performance:

  • Past: The focus was on what students knew about the language and its structures.  Practice of correct grammatical forms of the language were typically done in isolation and out of context.
  • Present: The focus is on what the learner is able to do or accomplish with the language.  This is always tied to context and students communicate authentically with the language despite occasional inaccuracy in language when the message is clear.

Assessment:

  • Past: Assessments determined the level of language accuracy and the teacher could easily and quickly point out what was incorrect, such as verb forms, noun gender, adjective agreement, etc.
  • Present: Assessments are performance-based.  Teachers use tools and strategies such as backwards design and Can-Do statements to guide students toward communication.

Where are you regarding your teaching mindset?  If you want to embrace communicative language teaching, take a look at the “present” mindset statements and see where you are.  It can take some time and a solid approach is always evolving.  It doesn’t have to happen this week.   Download this PDF with some questions to help keep your lesson planning in the “present.”

Leave a comment

Posted in Classroom Procedures, Listening, Reading, Speaking, Teaching Methodology and Research, Writing

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Teaching Foreign Language Grammar: Inductive or Deductive?

Posted on | 4 comments

Approaches to teaching are always improving, or, maybe we should say changing.  When there is momentum behind a new, innovative or highly-supported methodology many of us get behind it and begin to implement it, as best we can at least.  Teachers are particularly prone to “buy-in” when we see colleagues (real or virtual) having some level of success with a new methodology.

Teaching Foreign Language Grammar: Inductive or Deductive? (French, Spanish)The wave of communicative language teaching is currently, and rightfully, the foreign language teaching methodology that is supported by the foreign language teaching community. This has helped put the teaching focus on guiding students toward authentically communicating rather than simply learning about the details of the language.

One of the biggest debates or challenges among the communicative language teaching community is the topic of grammar instruction.  There are lots of questions and concerns around this.  Should we teach grammar?  Should we only provide examples of language structure through comprehensible input? What is the “right” way to teach or expose students to grammar structures in a second language?  Implicit or explicit grammar instruction?

Some researchers in language acquisition and teachers claim that grammar should be taught explicitly, as rules.  Others point to the teaching of grammar implicitly, suggesting that students acquire language structure only through meaningful exposure in context.  As a result they create their own “language rules” implicitly rather than having the rules taught explicitly.  Let’s make sure we have a solid understanding of the two approaches to language instruction.

  • Deductive instruction is a “top-down” approach, meaning that the teacher starts with a grammar rule with specific examples, and the rule is learned through practice.
  • Inductive instruction is a “bottom-up” approach, meaning that the teacher provides examples of the structure in context and students make observations, detect patterns, formulate hypothesis, and draw conclusions. PACE Model is an example of this approach.

I prefer to move beyond anecdotal evidence and consider the benefits of the two types of grammar instruction as they are presented in language acquisition research.

Brown (2007):

  • “While it might be appropriate to articulate a rule and then proceed to instances, most of the evidence in communicative second language teaching points to the superiority of an inductive approach to rules and generalizations.”

Shaffer (1989) :

  • “Evidence against the notion of an inductive approach should not be used for difficult structures.”

So, where does this leave us?  As much as we as teachers would like one tried and true way we all know that teaching and education is mostly a mixture of effective techniques.  To this end here are some thoughts from Shaffer:

  • Implicit grammar instruction is effective for language structures that are regular and consistent as this allows students to observe patterns, make generalizations and form linguistic rules.
  • Explicit grammar instruction is more effective for language structures that are irregular, inconsistent and less commonly present in communicative language.

Ultimately it would seem that a varied approach is necessary depending on the regularity or irregularity of a the focus structure.  The important thing to keep in mind is the active engagement of the student in whichever process is used. The inductive approach lends itself to active engagement using a process such as the PACE Model.  When teaching irregular language feature deductively be sure to provide opportunities for students to use the structure communicatively and also provide additional comprehensible input activities that contain the focus structure.

Brown (2007).  Principles of Language Learning and Teaching.  Pearson Longman

Shaffer (1989).  A Conversation of Inductive and Deductive Approaches to Teaching Foreign Languages. The Modern Language Journal 73.4

4 Comments

Posted in Classroom Procedures, Grammar and Structures, Teaching Methodology and Research

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Bloom’s (updated) Taxonomy in the Language Classroom

Posted on | Leave a comment

 Alan Bloom’s taxonomy (1956)  is a classification system used to define and distinguish different levels of human cognition (thinking, learning, understanding). Teachers use Bloom’s taxonomy to guide assessments, curriculum, and instructional methods.

  • Knowledge: Learner’s ability to recall information
  • Comprehension: Learner’s ability to understand information
  • Application: Learner’s ability to use information in a new way
  • Analysis: Learner’s ability to break down information into its essential parts
  • Synthesis: Learner’s ability to create something new from different elements of information
  • Evaluation: Learner’s ability to judge or criticize information

Bloom's (updated) Taxonomy in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish) www.wlclassroom.com

Benjamin Bloom’s classic 1956 learning taxonomy was revised and refined by Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl in 2000.

  • Remember: Learner’s ability to recall information
  • Understand: Learner’s ability to understand information
  • Apply: Learner’s ability to use information in a new way
  • Analyze: Learner’s ability to break down information into its essential parts
  • Evaluate: Learner’s ability to judge or criticize information
  • Create/Design: Learner’s ability to create something new from different elements of information

Theses updates reflect of a more active thought process and include three main changes:

  • Category names were revised from nouns to verbs.
  • The last two stages of Bloom’s Taxonomy were switched so that evaluation (evaluating) comes before synthesis (creating).
  • The knowledge (remembering) category was updated to reflect four knowledge dimensions instead of three.

Bloom's (updated) Taxonomy in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish) www.wlclassroom.com

More specific to foreign language learning it is important to recognize that these skills are not a hierarchy, but are interrelated and dependent on each other to function most efficiently and effectively.  Language creation is dependent on understanding, analyzing, evaluating and applying knowledge.

Bloom's (updated) Taxonomy in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish) www.wlclassroom.comHere are questions to use when creating tasks, activities & assessments in the world language classroom using the updated Bloom’s taxonomy categories:

  • Remember: Can the student recall or remember the information?
  • Understand: Can the student explain ideas or concepts?
  • Apply: Can the student use the information in a new way?
  • Analyze: Can the student distinguish between the different parts?
  • Evaluate: Can the student justify a stand or decision?
  • Create/Design: Can the student create or design a new product or point of view?

Download a pdf with a list of over 60 verbs to use when creating tasks, activities & assessments in the world language classroom using the updated Bloom’s taxonomy.

Bloom's (updated) Taxonomy in the Language Classroom (French, Spanish) www.wlclassroom.com

Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl : A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York : Longman, ©2001.

Leave a comment

Posted in Classroom Procedures, Teaching Methodology and Research

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Feedback in the Foreign Language Classroom

Posted on | Leave a comment

Feedback is information that teachers provide to students regarding where they are, how they are performing, and what they need to work on to progress in their language proficiency.  We tend to think about feedback as only corrective in nature, but we also provide supportive and encouraging feedback.

Feedback in the Foreign Language Classroom (French, Spanish) www.wlclassroom.com

If video if better for you, take a look at this Facebook Live video that I did on the topic of effective feedback.

Feedback in the Foreign Language Classroom (French, Spanish) www.wlclassroom.com

Feedback in the foreign language classroom can be looked at in three ways.  These three types of feedback are not given in isolation, but should be used together to provide information for language students who are working toward increased proficiency.

Appreciation

  • This involves encouragement and indication that the efforts on the part of the learner are paying off and helping them progress in language proficiency.  Motivation is an important part of language learning.  We as teachers need to find the progress (big and small) and point this out to our students.  If they see no progress in language learning they are likely to lose motivation.

Coaching

  • Along with the appreciation and building motivation and confidence in our students, we also need to coach them in the process.  Just like an athletic coach who suggests different approaches and shows the path to the objective, we as language teachers should approach our language coaching in the same way.  This is not so much about correcting the language, but more a question of creating learner experiences in which learns can use the language they have and grow in proficiency.  We should guide their path to the goal, but they are responsible for making the goal on their own, just as a soccer player would do.

Evaluation

  • Our evaluation of language learners is feedback on where they are regarding their present proficiency level.  This is not about pointing out what is incorrect or inaccurate, but more a matter of concretely showing students where they are on their language learning journey.  This will also provide information about where to go and what to work on so that students can continue to grow in proficiency.

Feedback in the Foreign Language Classroom (French, Spanish) www.wlclassroom.com

Teachers are often wondering what to do when they encounter learner language that is inaccurate.  Is this an opportunity for correction?  Is it useful?  Will it stick?  The answers to these questions depend on whether or not the learner has had sufficient input with the inaccurate structure or if it is an attempt at language creation. It is important to distinguish between and error and a mistake in learner language.

  • Mistakes are performance errors, where the learner has acquired the accurate form, but in a particular moment produces inaccurate language.
  • Errors occur in the learner’s interlanguage because a learner has not yet acquired the accurate form, and they are making a guess, often based on their native language and their current knowledge of the target language.

When students create with language and hypothesize a form or word in the moment and make an error we should use this information as an indication that students are “ready” for (i.e.need ) this structure in their language learning journey and we should then begin using the structure more often and providing comprehensible input.  In this situation we as teachers are getting the feedback that we need to adjust our instruction.

As teachers, we should focus language feedback on mistakes because this is what our students should be able to do in the target language.  If a student has had sufficient input and exposure to the structure and there is inaccuracy in the student language we then take on the role of coach.  This means that we create situations in which we guide the student toward the accurate structure.  Here are some suggestions for how to coach students in this situation.

  • Clarification requests : If there is a mistake in the vocabulary or verb form a question about the inaccurate wording brings attention to the error.
    • “I go to the store yesterday.”
    • Yesterday?
  • Elicitation: If you hear a mistake in the student language, repeat the sentence and pause at the place where the mistake was made.  This provides the learner with an opportunity to correct his own mistake by concentrating only on that word or structure.
    • “I go to the store yesterday.”
    • Yesterday, I….
  • Repetition: When there is a mistake repeat exactly what the learner said. Emphasize the mistake. This will indicate where the mistake is located, and gives the learner an opportunity to focus on that particular part of the output and, upon reflection, produce accurate language.
    • “I go to the store yesterday.”
    • I GO to the store yesterday?”

Providing effective feedback is one of the ACTFL Core Practices for effective language learning and instruction.  Use this post and the information to provide feedback to your students that will guide them toward a higher lever of language proficiency.

Feedback in the Foreign Language Classroom (French, Spanish) www.wlclassroom.com

References:

Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 37-66

Mantello, M. (1997) A Touch of…Class: Error Correction in the L2 Classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, Vol. 54, No. 1.

Truscott, J. (1999) What’s Wrong with Oral Grammar Correction. Canadian Modern Language Review Vol.55, No. 4.

Yamamoto, S. (2003) Can Corrective Feedback Bring About Substantial Changes in  The Learner Interlanguage System? Columbia Teachers College, Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics.

Leave a comment

Posted in Classroom Procedures, Teaching Methodology and Research

Tagged , , , , , , ,