As a teacher of English language, I have always insisted that my students spoke English among themselves and with their teachers, listened to English news and watched English movies, read some English (news or books) and wrote letters, notes etc. in English. As my experience in teaching grew, my insistence on these became stronger because I believed that the amount of exposure to good English was a strong scaffolding that helped learners to pick up and practice the language.
In my opinion, input is very important since it is the channel through which language comes to a second language learner. If that language could be error-free, yet culturally and locally placed it would help learners to approach the language with confidence and esteem. That is where I found it useful to use Indian news channels, documentaries, etc. for the purpose. Using native speaker versions of English might intimidate and demotivate learners from attempting to master the language. When I have given native English samples to my learners, I have made sure that they are subtitled or simple to understand. Looking back at it today, I feel that I am a firm believer of a liberal version of Input Hypothesis (Krashen), in ensuring comprehensible input to learners. One of the reasons why I insisted that learners spoke among themselves and watched movies with subtitles is that the input is comprehensible and there is feedback. Some of my students came back to me after one or two years of trying this and spoke in confident English, which increased my confidence. But there were others who did not attempt because of diffidence, attitude towards English, fear of errors, etc.
In almost all classes, I sincerely attempted to provide time for learners to interact in class. I did this because to communicate outside class, learners need some training or familiarity. I have observed that peer pressure is a strong factor that dissuades learners from using target language outside classroom. So in order to reduce it, I used classes to initiate interaction in English language so that outside class, there is no inhibition and ill feelings. Most learners come out of their shells trying to communicate in English. Supportive feedback from teacher and peers help them in pursuing their initial enthusiasm in using the language. Though many do not communicate in English outside class, a few students seriously used English to communicate and that made a change in their attitude towards language, and helped them to improve. In my opinion, what today’s learner need before accuracy is willingness to interact in the target language- a precondition for fluency. The world is so filled with opportunities to use English, that if one wishes to make use of them, learning will happen.
Learner output needs to be pushed for obvious reasons of lack of familiarity with the language. In traditional school set up, language is learned as an academic subject with no real use of language except reproduction of answers which involves memorisation. Output makes sense as a means of learning only when learner has a minimum amount of autonomy. That is why I don’t believe in memorisation of language learning items. Language needs to be learned in interaction. Output is integral to this process of learning.
As a teacher who spent time with large classes for most part of my career, I found it almost impossible to reach out to individual learners in this regard. Pushed spoken language output works the best when learners are dealt with individually. Writing and speaking tasks can be given to whole class, but feedback has to be personal in nature. With small class size, one can give more time to individual learners. Sometimes teacher needs to use ‘foreigner-talk’ even at undergraduate level to negotiate meaning and push output. I have felt that once the learner feels confident about her/his own communication, she/he is ready to take off on her/his own. That’s why I see output as important.
In cases where the learner is not at all confident, and cannot interact and produce language output, I had to go use language centred methods to ensure minimum participation in class. I don’t see this as failure, but a healthy strategy to bring learners to surface level. In classes where learners were well versed in language, I have encouraged them to decide on their own pace of learning. Interactive writing projects, presentations, role plays, etc. were encouraged. What I observed in proficient groups is that they are able to control learning, produce output that is challenging enough to serve as input for other learners. Presentations in class generate healthy debate and interaction. Focus on communication takes apprehensions about language away. This helps in boosting confidence in language use.
In my experience, all three- input, interaction and output are important
to language learning. It is for the teacher and learner to decide which one is
more necessary at a given point in time. In the long run, insistence on all
three of them will make learners confident and fluent users of language at
whatever levels they are. Knowledge of a language at both grammar and pragmatic
levels are important for a language user. Promoting that competence and
proficiency is teacher’s job. From a teacher’s perspective, it is important to
know what works in particular situations, and what doesn’t. It should serve as
principles that guide the teacher in her/his approach to learning-teaching
paradigm.
No comments:
Post a Comment