Skip to main content

Progress report on the MFL handbook

So far we have about 20 draft chapters completed, most of which need some more work.

Chapter titles include teaching listening, teaching reading, teaching writing, classroom oral techniques, teaching spontaneous speaking, teaching advanced level students, differentiation, target language teaching, games, behaviour management, technology, subject knowledge and assessment.

We are trying to produce something very practical for modern language teachers around the world. This poses one or two challenges in terms of the language used and how the debates are framed in various English-speaking countries. You need to know to tell your mark schemes from your rubrics!

We are anxious not to be too prescriptive or too wedded to one particular approach, but I can reveal that we are leaning towards a pragmatic approach based on elements of skill-building (explanation with practice, rather like the traditional presentation-practice-production model so many teachers favour) along with an acknowledgment that target language input is crucial. We will be favouring explanation, practice, interaction, anything which gives students a chance of retaining vocabulary and improving their skill with grammar. We shall, predictably, argue against explicit instruction for its own sake.

We shall bandy around terms like synthetic, analytic, implicit, explicit, input, output, interfaces, listenership and even 'writership' (one of Gianfranco's terms).

Most chapters will include reference to the prevailing views from academic research together with abundant practical ideas for the classroom. It has to be said that most evidence from research is still provisional, but there is enough on which to base some sensible principles. We shall not shy away, either, from offering some of our best homespun wisdom to young language teachers starting out.

Our aim all along has been to share what we know about research and what we have learned from our own experience over many years. We are avoiding making the book too academic in tone, despite the fact that we both enjoy reading about second language acquisition research. There will be some references and ideas for reading for those teachers who find themselves wanting to explore the field further.

It is also important to us that inexperienced teachers have enough pedagogical and theoretical knowledge to be able to separate out the effective from the merely fashionable or gimmicky. We hope to get that across clearly in the book without, we hope, being patronising in content or tone.

At the moment we are considering publishing the book ourselves, perhaps using the Amazon publishing platform called CreateSpace, unless, I suppose, some publisher came along and twisted our arms once the text is complete. Does it work like that?

On a personal note I have enjoyed getting back into reading the kind of literature about language learning which I enjoyed reading for my MA about Stephen Krashen and the "input hypothesis" many years ago. The more I read, however, the less convinced I become about any one panacea approach to language teaching. Research in this field is so hard to do given the multiple variables involved. Brain research is also in its infancy and offers us little so far. It's interesting how relevant common sense still is.

Hopefully we shall have this project done early-ish in the new year. In the meantime keep looking at Gianfranco's blog where he likes to put to the sword practices he finds less than effective. He is much harsher than me.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

12 principles of second language teaching

This is a short, adapted extract from our book The Language Teacher Toolkit . "We could not possibly recommend a single overall method for second language teaching, but the growing body of research we now have points to certain provisional broad principles which might guide teachers. Canadian professors Patsy Lightbown and Nina Spada (2013), after reviewing a number of studies over the years to see whether it is better to just use meaning-based approaches or to include elements of explicit grammar teaching and practice, conclude: Classroom data from a number of studies offer support for the view that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of communicative and content-based programmes are more effective in promoting second language learning than programmes that are limited to a virtually exclusive emphasis on comprehension. As teachers Gianfranco and I would go along with that general view and would like to suggest our own set of g