How Languages Are Learned
4th edition
Patsy M. Lightbown and Nina Spada
Summary of Chapter 6
Six proposals for classroom teaching
•
•
•
•
•
•
Get it right from the beginning
Just listen ... and read
Let’s talk
Get two for one
Teach what is teachable
Get it right in the end
Research approaches to assess proposals
Quantitative research
• Descriptive or experimental
• Goal is to identify specific variables that may affect
learning similarly in different contexts.
• Often involves large numbers in order to draw
conclusions about learners in general.
Qualitative research
• Descriptive (e.g. ethnographies, case studies)
• Emphasis on a thorough understanding of what is
particular about a classroom/a learner.
• Often involves small numbers (e.g. one class or one
or two learners)
Action research
• Carried out by teachers in their own
classrooms
• Essential to answer specific, local questions
Get it right from the beginning
• Grammar translation approach
– Emphasis on written language, rule learning,
translating literary works
• Audiolingual approach
– Emphasis on oral language, repetitive drill,
memorization
Research relevant to ‘Get it right from the
beginning’
• Little research to assess these approaches in
‘ordinary school programmes’
– Lightbown (1983): Descriptive study of
interlanguage development in audiolingual
pattern drill (high school)
– Savignon (1972): Experimental study of learning in
audiolingual instruction with or without
communicative practice (university).
Interpreting the research
• Learners who receive audio-lingual or
grammar-translation instruction are often
unable to communicate effectively outside the
classroom.
• Exclusively structure-based approaches to L2
teaching do not prevent learners from making
developmental errors when using language
spontaneously.
Just listen ... and read
• Based in part on the ‘comprehensible input
hypothesis’ (Krashen, 1985)
– Acquisition occurs when ‘comprehensible input’ is
available. Emphasis is on providing comprehensible
input through listening and/or reading activities.
– It is not necessary to drill and memorize language
forms in order to learn them.
– It is not necessary to produce language (speaking or
writing).
Research relevant to ‘Just listen ...
and read’
• Comprehension-based instruction (Lightbown et
al., 2002)
• Reading for words (Horst, 2005)
• Input flood (Trahey and L. White, 1993; L. White,
1991)
• Enhanced input (J. White, 1998)
• Processing instruction (VanPatten, 2004)
Interpreting the research
• Learners can make considerable progress if
they have sustained exposure to language
they understand.
• Comprehension-based learning is an excellent
way to begin learning and is a valuable
supplement to other kinds of learning for
more advanced learners.
Interpreting the research (Cont.)
• However, comprehensible input alone is not
sufficient for L2 learning.
– Input-based instruction is most effective when it
includes guided learning as well as
listening/reading for meaning.
– Evidence from input-based learning led Swain
(1985) to propose the ‘comprehensible output
hypothesis’.
Let’s talk
• The ‘comprehensible output hypothesis’ (Swain,
1985) suggested that learners develop when
they must produce language.
• The ‘interaction hypothesis’ (Long, 1983, 1996)
emphasized the role of conversational
interaction.
• Learners ‘negotiate for meaning’ to express and
clarify their thoughts in a way that leads to
mutual comprehension.
Negotiation for meaning
• According to the interaction hypothesis,
negotiation leads learners to acquire the
words and grammatical structures to express
their intended meaning. This involves
– requests for clarification
– requests for confirmation
– repetition with rising intonation.
Research relevant to ‘Let’s talk’
• Learners talking to learners (Long and Porter,
1985)
• Learner language and proficiency level (Yule and
MacDonald, (1990)
• The dynamics of pair work (Storch, 2002)
• Interaction and L2 development (Mackey, 1999)
• Learner–learner interaction in a Thai classroom
(McDonough, 2004)
Interpreting the research
• Learners can develop fluency and communication
abilities in conversational interaction.
• It is difficult for learners to provide each other
with accurate corrective feedback in
conversational interaction.
• Corrective feedback (e.g. recasts) in
conversational interaction can help learners in
terms of their accuracy and development of
language forms.
Get two for one
• Content-based language teaching (CBLT)
– Learners acquire a second or foreign language as
they study subject matter taught in that language.
– Types of CBLT include Immersion, Content and
Language-Integrated Learning (CLIL), and bilingual
education.
Research relevant to ‘Get two for one’
• French immersion programs in Canada (Harley
and Swain, 1984)
• Late immersion under stress in Hong Kong
(Johnson, 1997)
• Dual immersion (Lightbown, 2007)
• Inuit children in content-based programmes
(Spada and Lightbown, 2002)
Interpreting the research
• Advantages of content-based language teaching
– Increases amount of exposure to L2
– Creates a genuine need to communicate
– Cognitively challenging
• Challenges of content-based language teaching
– Children need many years to acquire language for
cognitively challenging academic material
– In content-based language teaching both language
and content must be attended to.
Teach what is teachable
• Pienemann (1988) and his colleagues suggest
that:
– Some aspects of language are best taught
according to learners’ internal schedule (i.e.
developmental features).
– Other aspects of language can be taught at any time
(i.e. variational features).
– Instruction cannot change the ‘natural’ developmental
course.
– Important to assess learners’ development and teach
what would naturally come next.
Research relevant to ‘Teach what is
teachable’
• Ready to learn (Pienemann, 1988)
• Readies, unreadies, and recasts (Mackey and
Philp, 1998)
• Developmental stage and first language
influence (Spada and Lightbown, 1999)
Interpreting the research
• Targeting instruction to developmental stages
can be beneficial, but other factors need to be
taken into consideration.
– Type of instructional input
• More focused instruction (either more explicit
instruction or recasts focused on single language
feature) resulted in progress by ‘ready’ learners.
– Learners’ first language
• Patterns of L1 may prevent generalization of an L2
pattern, even if learners are developmentally ready.
Get it right in the end
• Advocates of this proposal suggest that:
– Not everything has to be taught; lots of language
can be acquired naturally with sufficient exposure.
– Some aspects of language must be taught and
may need to be taught explicitly (e.g. when
learners share the same first language).
– Other aspects of language can be taught by
helping learners to notice certain features in the
input and to increase their awareness of form.
Research relevant to ‘Get it right in the
end’
• Form-focus experiments in ESL (e.g. Lightbown
and Spada, 1994; White et al., 1991; Spada et al.,
2005)
• Focusing on gender in French immersion
(Harley, 1998)
• Focusing on sociolinguistic forms in French
immersion (Lyster, 1994)
• Focusing on verbs in content-based science
classrooms (Doughty and Varela, 1998)
Research relevant to ‘Get it right in the
end’ (Cont.)
• Recasts and prompts in French immersion
classrooms (Lyster, 2004)
• Focus on form through collaborative dialogue
(Swain and Lapkin, 2002)
• Focus on form in task-based instruction
(Samuda, 2001)
• The timing of form-focused instruction (Spada
et al., 2012)
Interpreting the research
• Form-focused instruction and corrective
feedback within communicative and contentbased language teaching can help learners
improve their knowledge and use of language
forms.
• Long-term effects of instruction may be
related to whether there is continued
exposure to the language feature after the
instruction ends.
Interpreting the research (Cont.)
• Teachers are not the only source of
information about language forms––students
can help each other to reflect on language
form if given adequate guidance.
• Form-focused instruction may be more
effective for some features than others.
• Form-focused instruction may be essential for
some features (e.g. those based on misleading
similarity between L1 and L2).
Interpreting the research (Cont.)
• ‘Isolated’ and ‘integrated’ form-focused
instruction may lead to different kinds of
knowledge.
• There is a need for more research that measures
‘implicit’ as well as ‘explicit’ knowledge.
• The overall context of learning interacts with the
type of instruction and corrective feedback (e.g.
Lyster and Mori’s counterbalance hypothesis).
Assessing the proposals
• ‘Get
it right from the beginning’
– Evidence suggests that this approach does not
correspond to the way that the majority of
successful L2 learners have acquired their
proficiency.
• ‘Just listen and read’ and ‘Get two for one’
– There is no support for the hypothesis that
language acquisition will take care of itself if L2
learners focus exclusively on meaning/content.
Assessing the proposals (Cont.)
• ‘Let’s talk’
– Conversational interactions in group and paired
activities can lead to increased fluency and the
ability to manage conversations in the L2.
– However, learners may make slow progress on
acquiring more accurate and sophisticated
language if there is no focus on form.
• This is particularly the case in classes where learners
share the same first language and learning
backgrounds.
Assessing the proposals (Cont.)
• ‘Teach what is teachable’
– No strong evidence that teaching according to
learners’ developmental level is necessary or
desirable, or that it will lead to long-term benefits.
– Most valuable feature about this proposal is that it
helps teachers set realistic expectations about the
way learners’ interlanguage may change in
response to instruction and that ‘progress’ does
not always appear as increased accuracy.
Assessing the proposals (Cont.)
• ‘Get it right in the end’
– Strong evidence that form-focused instruction
within the context of communicative and contentbased language teaching is more effective in
promoting L2 learning than instructional approaches
that are limited to an exclusive emphasis on
accuracy, comprehension, or interaction.
– Decisions about balancing form-focus and meaningfocus must take into account differences in learners’
characteristics (e.g. age, goals for learning, etc.).
Summary
• It is not necessary (or desirable) to choose
between form-based and meaning-based
instruction. The challenge is to find the best
balance between these two orientations.
• Many questions about L2 teaching remain to
be answered by classroom-based research on
L2 learning.