Today’s question is “What does good language teaching– regardless of method– look like?”
Here are criteria. Comments welcome!
1) The class delivers a LOT of aural and written comprehensible input, supported where necessary with translation, images, acting, gestures and whatever makes the input comprehensible. Input is:
- always comprehensible
- quality, and not generated by (error-making) learners
- compelling (this will vary with class, age, culture etc)
- delivered via progress along frequency lists (more-frequently used vocab is taught before less frequently used)
- not impoverished: it does not overfocus on one grammatical/vocabulary rule or grouping, and it does not leave out any elements of the language’s grammar
- repeated frequently without being boring
2) Both input and class are personalised. The teacher will make an ongoing effort to get students to understand and respond to vocabulary in ways which reflect students’ interests, identities (real and/or imagined) and views.
3) Grammar— the rules and conventions of language as traditionally understood by teachers and texts–
- is briefly mentioned only to clarify meaning
- does not form the goal, organisational system or focus of instruction
- is not practiced through drills, worksheets, songs, etc, because research shows these ineffective
4) Instruction primarily focuses on immersing learners in comprehending compelling meaning in the target language. This means that portfolio-work-revision, correction, grammar concept explanations and mind-mapping, feedback, focus on teacher-or-text-driven ideas about “cultural relevance,” etc are avoided.
5) Output has the following characteristics:
- it is always unrehearsed and unforced
- it has no goal other than immediately authentic conversation (no role plays, etc; scripted activities such as A.I.M. or T.P.R.S.-style stories provide input for other learners)
- the learner, and not the teacher, chooses the level of output they are comfortable with, from yes/no answers to essays
6) The classroom is safe and welcoming. The classroom should not make anyone feel uncomfortable or self-conscious. The minimum behaviour standards are that students
- listen and read with the intent to understand, and avoid focus on distractions
- do not distract anyone in class
- signal comprehension or a lack thereof
7) Instruction recognises the unchangeability of (and tremendous variation between students’ progress along) internal linguistic syllabi. Instruction therefore delivers an always-rich, non-impoverished diet of comprehensible language, so that
- neural architecture constantly builds
- learners consistently have exposure to whatever they need
- learners can acquire new items or rules when they are ready, because “everything is present in the mix” (Susan Gross).
8) Instruction and assessment avoid
- explicit goals
- “I can” or any other kind of language-narrowing statements
- textbook-style, discrete-item sequencing, presentation and assessment of grammar and vocabulary
9) Evaluation only involves meaningful, multi-dimensional language tasks (reading, writing, listening and speaking) which are in-context authentic and holistic. Evaluation therefore avoids legacy practices such as grammar-item tests, vocabulary quizzes, “show me you can do this real-world dialogue”-style talking activities, etc.
10) Level-to-level attrition rates, marks variability and failure rates are all low, and special-needs students succeeed int he class. In other words, people who start taking the language keep on taking it, the difference between higher and lower marks is minimal, and scores are high.
(11) The teacher modifies practice if something better comes along, or current practice does not work for students.
OK. Ça va? ¿Sirve? Geht’s? If these statements describe us, our classes and our students, we are doing everything right.