Hi Whizzes!

Welcome to part 4 of our series on the Six Principles of Language Acquisition! Here we go! 

Principle 4 

 Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input and Interaction

What is ironic about this Principle is that you can't even get to it unless you are already doing things in a research-based way. What do I mean? Many language courses aren't actually providing linguistic input, is what I mean. Enter my Quechua class during my Masters program. I feel wonky speaking about it because the professor is my friend and I love him deeply, but...one thing has nothing to with the other. 

There was hardly any input in that class...for two entire years, folks. 

It was, without a shadow of a doubt, more of a course on linguistics, but also not really, because that is the sad part about classes that everyone, including the instructor, understands are meant to leave learners with communicative ability...if they are not research-based (providing comprehensible linguistic input and interaction right above learner level), they end up not being quite anything...not quite a proficiency-driven class, and not quite a linguistics course...just...a little bit of cloudy jambalaya...arroz con mango, like we like to say in Peru. 

Pretty sad—I really wanted to leave that class speaking the native tongue of my country, but only have...yes....a few words and phrases, and certainly more of an understanding of the beauty and formation of the Quechua language than the average Spanish-speaking Peruvian, but no more. I can't even make a joke about it...it's pretty sad, to me. 

But, in classes where there is input and interaction, more than half the time, it's too complex and too varied. 

If you've watched the GoFundMe video of me interacting with James, what you need to understand about that interaction is that my brain is going at a 1000 miles per hour, sorting what I can and should say and what I cannot and shouldn't, in terms of linguistic complexity, given what I know about the complexity of his current mental representation of Spanish and communicative ability. 

When research-based educators get to a certain level of expertise, they understand and practice that what we do, especially at the beginner levels, is an art...and an arduous one at that. It's the art of limiting the input to a specific ISLAND of words and complexity of communicative messaging, and sticking to it, come hell or high water.

No joke folks. You try it...it's really hard.

It comes more naturally to parents with their own YOUNG children...not speaking so complexly that the message is completely lost on them...but try doing that while facing a group of pre-teens, teens or adults, and keeping a straight face. Much easier when you have a good story written right above learner level to anchor the whole thing and not make you feel like a fool, let me tell ya. Doing it with shoddy stories is easier than doing it with nothing, but it's better doing it with good stories, hence my offering with Input Wand. 

I will continue beating the poor horse that is almost dead already: most instructors only have around 100 hours of instructional time per school year, many have even less...if you are not limiting the input and interaction you are doing your learners a huge disservice. It's the difference between them hearing

If you are providing your students with random, one-off phrases, vocab and interaction, the chances of them acquiring it (of it becoming part of their mental representation, of it BECOMING PART OF A NEURAL PATHWAY SYSTEM) is...hands down, nil. 

How do I put this nicely: if you're an educator: do your job.

If you're a learner: stop wasting your time on practices and classes and apps that will not lead you anywhere except closer to the day of your death with no communicative ability in the language you are trying to acquire. 

 I've said it before:

Learners can get incomprehensible input anywhere, at any time, anyhow they like. In a learning setting, learners should be receiving 100% Comprehensible Input. Language Acquisition is a by-product of receiving comprehensible linguistic input in the target language️.

 Can the learners comprehend what is being said without struggling too much? 

If learners cannot, then the internal mechanisms in their brain have no data on which to operate. What has to happen during acquisition is this: the consistent mapping of meaning onto input sentences during comprehension.

Instructors can't just "throw input" at learners; they must structure tasks such that learners constantly indicate comprehension and react to messages they hear.

Three features that make input comprehensible to the beginner and intermediate learner:

• short sentences
• repetition
• rephrasing

Keep in mind that, no matter what the language (Spanish, English, Russian, Turkish) or age group (K-6, 7-12, college level or more mature learners), the way we make input comprehensible remains the same. And there are no special attributes of Japanese, Russian, or Spanish that make one language harder to comprehend than another. 

 Input is not a technique. It is not a new way to teach the same old thing. Textbooks generally serve as the foundation for language courses. They are built around common ideas of "what to learn". There are particular "vocabulary groups" that must be "covered" in beginning classes, such as colors, numbers, daily routines, family members, body parts, among others. Likewise, typical grammatical units must be "covered". These often include regular present tense, irregular present tense, direct object pronouns, indirect object pronouns, case endings, past tense, past tense distinctions, and others depending on the language focus (are you bored yet?) . Let's call this the TRADITIONAL SYLLABUS. Yet there is no council or national organization with a policy stating "these are the things that need to be taught and practiced in language courses."

So, what happens when new teaching ideas or approaches come along? The profession attempts to meld the old with the new. Many people view Input as a technique (which it is not), for teaching the traditional syllabus.

The usage of input as a technique is doomed to failure.

But the problem is not with input. The problem is that teachers who use input as a technique still see language learning as explicit learning + practice (aka the teaching of grammar and then drills to drill it in).

So, what are some techniques and methods that put the role of Input and Communication as centerpieces of the language learning/teaching enterprise:

Immersion or Content-Based Instruction

All subjects are taught in the language, thus the focus is not language learning, but the learning of other things. Language acquisition is a Byproduct of communicating about content matter. Imagine your HISTORY CLASS being taught in Spanish. You are learning HISTORY, but in Spanish. Provided that everyone is comprehending Everything (and this is where the difficulties come in), this is a great way to learn!

Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling (TPRS)

Anchored in stories students hear/read, tell, and retell in class with the instructor's assistance. Because of its focus on first comprehending a story and working with it before telling it, TPRS puts input at the core of the curriculum. A typical TPRS lesson has constant expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning appropriate for the context of the classroom.

A Note on Reading

For some time, we have known that reading is one of the most important sources of input for the development of vocabulary. Reading provides the kind of input not found in everyday spoken language. Written language tends to be more elaborate, contains features of language that are infrequent in spoken discourse, and provides much more vocabulary than what we hear in everyday interactions, EVEN AMONGST TWO NATIVE SPEAKERS. 

Constanza Ontaneda

your own personal Language Acquisition Witch

My question today is:

In a non-native tongue, what was a phrase you heard so often (and understood) that it is branded into your brain?