Elements of constructive language teaching.

 Communication is the expression of thought through the structural framework of language.  The advantage of using verbal communication to facilitate learning is that the listener is perpetually communicating guidance and feedback to the speaker. Today, listeners and readers are no longer regarded as passive.  They are seen as active participants in the negotiation of meaning (Savignon, 1991).  We are dependent on grammar to communicate meaning.  Our listeners let us know if we are doing so effectively.  When speaking to another person we get instant feedback.  Through verbal or gestural clues we self-correct when we realize that our listener has not understood.  In other words, I think that verbal communication is the best way for a learner to exercise her grasp of the framework of a language.  It is this advantage of verbal communication that steers my interest toward task-based and communicative teaching in the classroom.

I am not an advocate of error correction in the classroom because I think that the practice of uninterrupted verbal communication (for reasons explained above) is more effective.  Although I agree with Doughty and Varela in their claim that, recasting behaviors arise naturally and frequently during communicative tasks in ESL and foreign language classes (1998, p. 118), I think that sufficient input is all that is necessary.  The more exposure and opportunities for use a learner has to the language, the better insight she will gain into its structural framework.  I think that constant recasting and error correction does not encourage a learner to use the language.  It highlights what they have not mastered instead of rewarding them for what meaning they have communicated effectively.

My preference for input has not been influenced by DeKeysers proposal for Universal Grammar (UG).  DeKeyser says that if a linguistic item is a part of UG, then all that is needed to acquire it is input (1998, p. 43).  I think that the concept of UG is logical and plausible; I'm certainly not a disbeliever.  However, I dont see what good it is to put any stock in the selection of which linguistic items to teach based on UG, if we dont have any way of knowing which lexical items are a part of it.  My partiality for input over error correction is based on the assumption that learners are conscientious and capable and will notice new aspects of the language when they are ready and able to do so. 

I agree with Pienemanns Teachability Hypothesis, which states that learners will not acquire a new feature of a language until they are developmentally ready.  Krashen and Pienemann appear to agree on the assumption that learners themselves will process and use for acquisition only that which is developmentally appropriate (Lightbown, 1998, p. 179).  It is my understanding that Krashens stance on this is not to attempt to predict or target learners next stage, but instead to let the learners needs guide the curriculum.  Pienemann, on the other hand, says that the teacher should be aware of where learners are developmentally and teach to the next stage of acquisition (Lightbown, 1998, p. 178).  I don't know that I lean toward one school of thought over the other.  However, I wouldnt think that every learner in a classroom would be at the same developmental stage simultaneously.  Therefore, realistically, wouldnt it be impossible to cater to the acquisitional needs of each?  Lightbown supports this: We are currently in no position to create a syllabus that would adequately cover what learners need to learn.  In addition, the heterogeneity of classes is a well-known reality, one that would make developmentally targeted teaching very difficult to organize (1998, p. 179).

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) caters to the heterogeneous classroom.  In such an environment, there is constant input from other class members, as well as ample opportunity for output.  To use personal experience to support TBLT, I perform best when I have a need to communicate.  In need-based situations I use the language more automatically and with much less anxiety when I am driven to get the message across.  Task-based language teaching (TBLT) makes sense to me for this reason.  Lightbown and Spada agree: . . . focus may occasionally be on the language itself, but the emphasis is on using the language rather than on talking about it (1999, p. 92).  I think that it's possible to simulate this in the classroom.  Tasks incite learners to develop an interest in the language because they have a need to communicate a meaning.  It is this type of attention that will motivate students to learn grammatical form.

Through communication, learners are able to practice what they know and become aware of what they have yet to learn by noticing grammatical structures and gaps in their developing ability to speak the language.   Learners may notice not only the target form itself but also that it is different from their own interlanguage.  Or, learners may notice that they cannot say what they want to say precisely in the target language . . . (Swain, 1998, p. 66).  In other words, their interest will be peaked by their desire to communicate more effectively. 

For example, in our Options in the Teaching of Grammar class we did an activity where we were handed slips of paper written in French, a language that most of the class did not speak.  We were instructed to find our appointed partner through the information written on our slips.  I had never used French before, but having a need to do so made me interested in learning it.  I think that this method of task first, lesson later instruction is effective.  This [task-based] approach places a premium on communication strategies linked to lexicalized communication.  These strategies provide an effective incentive for learners to make best use of the language they already have (Richards, 2002, p. 40).  If I decide to employ explicit instruction in my future classrooms, I will certainly do so after related tasks for these reasons.

An alternative method to getting learners to notice particular forms is through typographical enhancement.  This type of noticing interests me because it teaches learners to rely on contextual clues to derive meaning.  Joanna White analyzes a study on typographical enhancement (1998) where learners are given no feedback whatsoever.  The only form of instruction is the reading of texts in which certain lexical items are italicized.  For example, her and his might be the only items in a text that are enhanced, therefore the reader must remain conscious to the surrounding content.  I like this method because it trains learners to have a heightened awareness of context and content when reading.  However, it also means that the instructor must only select items that the students are ready to learn, and all of the learners in a class may not be at the same place developmentally, which could explain why the study was unsuccessful.

If this is true, does it mean that all preemptive instruction will be ineffective?  According to Ellis, there are two kinds of focus on form (2001, p. 413).  . . . preemptive focus on form involves the teacher or learner initiating attention to form even through no actual problem in production has arisen (Ellis, 2001, p. 414).  Therefore, the teacher must first be able to accurately access each learner and then effectively predict which linguistic aspect the learner will be ready to acquire next.  Reactive focus on form, on the other hand, arises when learners produce an utterance containing an actual or perceived error, which is then addressed usually by the teacher but sometimes by another learner.  Thus, it supplies learners with negative evidence (Ellis, 2001, p. 413).

Is either approach effective?  I don't support preemptive focus on form solely because I don't think that it's possible to do so and meet the needs of all of a classrooms learners in a punctual manner.  Reactive focus on form sounds very similar (if not the same thing entirely) to error correction or recasting.  Although I think that recasting may be inevitable, as it is possibly just a communicative reaction that comes naturally to most teachers, I am not necessarily an advocate of it either.          

I have mixed feelings about error correction.  On one hand I think that the language-learning environment is too fragile for negative evidence.  I also think that the production of an error does not always ascertain ignorance of the correct form.  In many cases, learners are capable of correcting their own errors if given sufficient input.  They do, however, need to know whether or not they are communicating their intended meaning.  This can be achieved through real communication.  If a speaker is getting her message across, the listener will encourage her to continue through communicative clues.  If not, then the speaker will either self-correct or negotiate the meaning until some level of understanding is achieved.

However, Doughty and Varelas article, Communicative focus on form (1998) is convincing.  They analyze a study in which a teacher used consistent recasting with a group of students.  The results show that the students who received the error correction improved substantially in comparison to the control group.  Recasting as a form of error correction was chosen over any other form of recasting because . . . findings suggest that not only do adults provide negative evidence to children but that children notice this information and make use of it in acquisition.  Furthermore . . . the provision of negative evidence via recasting does not halt communication between parent and child but, rather, is relatively incidental to the primary goal of mutual understanding (Doughty and Varela, 1998, p. 117).  Admittedly, this study makes me want to jump on the bandwagon, so to speak, but I honestly don't think that error correction is natural to my teaching style.

Perhaps this is impractical after our intensive study of Focus on Form instruction, but I think that learners need communicative practice and self-analysis of the language.  For example, I envision a task-centered classroom, in which each learner has a role that caters to her ability and developmental need.  I don't know if it is possible for a teacher to predict the needs of each learner, but perhaps students roles would develop naturally with adequate guidelines.  In terms of self-analysis, I think that students could keep journals in which daily entries are made about newly noticed aspects of the language.  The teacher could make sub-entries, commenting and correcting when needed.  This way, each learner would get individual attention and focus on the form(s) she is ready to acquire.  This concept is similar to that of dialogue journals, as proposed by Reyes (1991).  According to Reyes, this type of process approach . . . emphasize(s) process rather than product (and) increases students control over writing conventions like grammar and spelling  . . . (1991).  Perhaps this is a sort of private reactive focus on form. 

A concept I found particularly interesting among our readings was that of explicit and implicit knowledge as introduced in DeKeysers article (1998).  I understand these two concepts best through the use of analogies.  I will compare implicit knowledge to the ability to drive an automobile with a standard transmission.  It is very difficult to teach someone how to drive a standard.  You can give advice such as, let off the clutch with the same amount of pressure that you apply to the gas, or the key to driving a standard is to make the ride feel as smooth as that of an automatic.  However, these are just clues, or input, to the process of operating a standard transmission. 

Baking cookies, on the other hand, is a clear example of explicit knowledge.  You can learn how to bake cookies before you ever step foot in a kitchen.  A novice baker can read a cookie recipe beforehand and make cookies expertly.  If you want to teach someone how to bake cookies, you might say, In a bowl, mix a cup of flour with two eggs and stir briskly, etc.  The process of baking cookies can be taught explicitly because it is an explicit type of knowledge. 

If I may be so bold, Id like to compare language learning to driving a five-speed.  You can be told that you will stall out if you take your foot off the clutch when youre not giving it enough gas, but the only way to learn how to drive is by getting behind the wheel.  It helps to have a coach to offer supportive clues and tips to keep in mind as you encounter new situations.  I think that learning a language is similar.  A learner can be flooded with years of valuable input, but the only way to acquire the language is to communicate through it.  I will aim to take the role of constructive coach in my classrooms. 

Through the analysis of Focus on Form, I feel that I have had an opportunity to gain insight into many aspects of language teaching.  FonF engages such features as consciousness-raising, input enhancement, noticing, emphasis on meaning as well as form, pedagogical tasks, target tasks, and error correction, to name a few (Long, 1998, pp.19 25).  The study of Focus on Form has encouraged me to notice these features of teaching and to keep them in mind as I remain flexible for my learners.