The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages provides American teachers with guidance about “core practices” which ACTFL recommends. Unfortunately, ACTFL hasn’t done much reading of science (or discussion with successful teachers) in forming these guidelines.
Today’s question: are ACTFL’s core practices best practice?
First, ACTFL’s suggestion that teachers “facilitate target language comprehensibility” is solid. No arguments from science or good languages teachers. Now, the rest…
- The use of “authentic resources” is, well, problematic. As I have discussed, an awful lot of #authres use low frequency vocabulary, and they don’t repeat it very much. Yes, you can “scaffold” their “use” by frontloading vocab, removing vocab, etc. Which raises the question of why bother using #authres? Why not just start with something that is actually comprehensible?Want to teach culture? Picturetalk and Movietalk work well. Music…great, because if it’s good, people will listen to it over and over (and maybe focus on the lyrics) but expect a load of slang and other low-freq vocab.
In terms of acquisition bang-per-buck, or gains per unit of time, nothing beats a diet of comprehensible input.
- That teachers should “design oral communication tasks” for students is not the best idea. Learner-to-learner communication in the target languagea. is a difficult thing on which to keep students (especially adolescents) focused. Why use the TL to discuss something in which L1 is quicker and easier? is what kids often think. In my experience, for every three minutes of class time students get for “talking practice,” you might get thirty seconds of actual “practice,” and then L1, Snapchat etc take over. In a full C.I. class, you have a lot more time where students are focusing on interpreting the target language.
b. will feature poor learner L2 use becoming poor L2 input for other students, which is not optimal practice. As Terry Waltz has noted, “peer to peer communication is the McDonalds of language teaching.”
c. lowers the “richness” of input: what a teacher (or good book) can provide has richer and more complex input than what learners can do for each other.
- Planning with a “backward design model”– i.e. having specific plans for specific goals– is something we might have to do in some Districts, where there are imposed exams with vocab lists and so forth. Much better practice is to simply allow student interests– and frequency lists– guide what is taught. Student interests– self-selected reading; story co-creation and activities using vocabulary in student stories– will by definition be compelling, and high-frequency vocabulary most useful.The only meaningful primary goals in a second-language classroom are that 1. students be able to easily demonstrate comprehension of a LOT of the target language and 2. that students read and listen to a lot of the target language (in comprehended form). If this is accomplished, everything else– ability to speak and write– inevitably follows. Planning anything else– S.W.B.A.T. discuss ______; SWABT write ______— gives instruction an unproductive interest-narrowing and skill-practicing focus.
It is also well worth thinking about the ideal “end state” or goal of language teaching. I agree with Krashen: we are here to get people to the point where they can continue to acquire on their own. If they automatically recognise a ton of high-frequency vocabulary (which will by definition include most grammar “rules”), they will understand a lot and be able to “slot in” new vocab. And most importantly, when they get to France or Mexico or China or Blablabia, input will ramp up so much that spoken French, Spanish, Chinese and Blablabian will emerge on its own.
- “Teach grammar as concept and use in context”– not bad. ACTFL here notes that meaning comes first, yaaay. Should we “teach grammar”? Other than explaining meaning, no: conscious knowledge about language does nothing to develop competence with language. Although if students ask why do we _______ in Blablabian, a ten-second “grammar commercial” won’t hurt.
- “Provide oral feedback” is a terrible idea. Why?a. Anything we address to explicit awareness does not enter into implicit memory. If Johnny says yo gusto chicas, and we say no, it should be me gustan chicas, he might be able to remember this for the eight-second auditory window, and maybe even repeat after us. But if Johnny is merely listening and repeating, he is not processing for meaning, which is how language is acquired.
b. Oral correction makes Johnny embarassed— it raises his affective filter– and this is both uncomfortable and unproductive for him.
Anyway, we are getting there. ACTFL puts C.I. front and center; as we C.I. practiioners continue to show just how well C.I. works, hopefully ACTFL eventually ditches its old-school recomendations.