Rethinking Output, part 2 - The Wrong Kind of Input

The following is part of a series on Rethinking Output.

When it comes to output in a language, based on second language acquisition theory, there are a few non-negotiables:

1. Output in and of itself does not lead to language acquisition. "Practicing the language" does not produce language acquisition. Oral grammar drills, singing mnemonic songs, and memorized scripts/scenarios do not cause the brain to acquire language.
2. Only input leads to language acquisition, as continued understandable input is what causes the brain to create/refine its mental representation of language.

If you have read my previous blog post in this series, you know that I am now basing my definition of output on how Henshaw defines it: Expressing meaning retrieving from your (mental language) system. As a result, there are many activities which may appear to be output-related but are actually input since no retrieval from one's system is occurring, i.e., students are not pulling this output from their brains. However, students cannot retrieve from their system if there is no input there to build that system.

So the question then is "If input is necessary to build that system, then why can't that input be grammar charts, conjugation tables, etc? Input is input, right?" 

For this, let us turn to Bill Van Patten. Van Patten is truly an expert on this topic, and I would venture to say that he has served as one of the most recent influencers of CI/ADI teachers due to his previous podcast series and his books. 

The purpose of input is that it creates, defines, adds to, and refines the brain's mental representation of language. That mental representation of language cannot be reduced to explicit, orderly grammar charts, because language acquisition in and of itself is an abstract system in nature. 

On Claudia Elliott's Growing with CI podcast (episode 135), regarding grammar as input, Van Patten states the following:

If you don't understand how second language acquisition happens, if you don't understand about the nature of language, if you don't understand about the nature of communication and how these things fit together, what you're going to do as a teacher, you're going to say, oh, okay, I know what I need to do now. I need to take input and teach the same old thing a new way. So I'm going to teach verb endings with input.

I'm going to teach the past tense with input. I'm going to teach the food vocabulary with input, whatever it is that is in textbooks. People are going to say input is a technique because they don't understand second language acquisition itself or the nature of language or the nature of communication.

One statement for which Van Patten is known surrounds teaching explicit grammar. From his book While We're On the Topic: BVP on Language, Acquisition, and Classroom Practice: 

What’s on page 32 of the textbook is not what winds up in your head. 

Explicit rules and the mental representation we carry around for language are like water and fatty acid: One can’t become the other. They are fundamentally different. This would explain, then, why what an instructor teaches and has students practice on page 32 doesn’t become mental representation. What’s on page 32 is water. What winds up in the head is fatty acid.

Instead we should be using and exposing students to understandable message with the grammar embedded in that context. Our focus should rather be on communication and not grammar. One can communicate grammatically incorrect and still be understood - in fact, that is an exemplar of Novice and Intermediate language learners. ACTFL and the College Board even state this!

This is not to say that you cannot introduce grammar charts but that is usually something which is introduced LATER in the language acquisition process. By that time, students' mental representation of language has been built up to such a degree that it can handle it. 

CAVEAT - keep in mind that we language teachers are the ones who loved grammar charts, because we saw/loved the patterns. Those charts helped bring order for our brains in developing that mental representation of language. Let me say this: we are the exceptions, not the rule. And when we end up with a classroom full of students who are exceptions like us, we tend then to think that this is the norm in how language acquisition occurs. IT IS NOT! Or worse, we begin to think that only students who think like us should be the ones who should take a world language class. 

There is no way that a topic like this can be reduced to a series of quotes and simplified into a blogpost. I invite you to listen some podcasts with Bill Van Patten on the topic:

• Two Myths About Language Acquisition That Keep Shaping Our Classrooms with Dr. Bill VanPatten
• Talking Language Acquisition with Dr. Bill VanPatten: What Every Language Teacher Should Know about SLA - Part 2

Future blog post on the topic: 

1. Output as Motivation in the Classroom
2. Activating that Retrieval System Needed for Output