The Art of Teaching Spanish

Second Language Acquisition from Research to Praxis

Rafael Salaberry, Barbara A. Lafford, Rafael Salaberry, Barbara A. Lafford

• Publisher: Georgetown University Press
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781589014244
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Spanish Language
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

The Art of Teaching Spanish explores in-depth the findings of research in second language acquisition (SLA) and other language-related fields and translates those findings into practical pedagogical tools for current—and future—Spanish-language instructors. This volume addresses how theoretical frameworks affect the application of research findings to the teaching of Spanish, how logistical factors affect the way research findings can be applied to teach Spanish, and how findings from Spanish SLA research would be applicable to Spanish second language teaching and represented in Spanish curricula through objectives and goals (as evidenced in pedagogical materials such as textbooks and computer-assisted language learning software).

Top SLA researchers and applied linguists lend their expertise on matters such as foreign language across curriculum programs, testing, online learning, the incorporation of linguistic variation into the classroom, heritage language learners, the teaching of translation, the effects of study abroad and classroom contexts on learning, and other pedagogical issues. Other common themes of The Art of Teaching Spanish include the rejection of the concept of a monolithic language competence, the importance of language as social practice and cultural competence, the psycholinguistic component of SLA, and the need for more cross-fertilization from related fields.

1 The State of the Art of Teaching Spanish

From Research to Praxis

Rafael Salaberry University of Texas-Austin

Barbara Lafford Arizona State University

This volume explores the extent to which the “art” of teaching of Spanish as a second language (L2) is informed by Spanish second language acquisition (SLA) research in particular and research on SLA and language-related fields (e.g., psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics) in general. It also investigates the types of challenges that accompany applied linguistics initiatives to transfer findings from research to teaching and how to overcome practical problems associated with the implementation of new approaches to teaching.

Some of the specific issues we asked the contributors to address in their chapters were the findings from Spanish SLA (and language-related) research that would be applicable to Spanish second language teaching (SLT), the theoretical frameworks that inform the research done and the extent to which the premises of those theories affect the application of the research findings to the teaching of Spanish, logistical factors that affect the way research findings can be applied to teach Spanish, and the extent to which findings from SLA research are explicitly represented in the Spanish curricula through objectives and goals (as evidenced in pedagogical materials such as textbooks and computer-assisted language learning, or CALL, software). Needless to say, no single chapter treats all of these questions in detail, but the reader does get answers to these questions from the combined contribution of the authors.

The reader will notice that a common theme running throughout all the chapters is the focus on bold pedagogical initiatives that can be substantiated by previous research but have not yet been incorporated into the majority of L2 Spanish curricula. Some of these proposals will have to withstand the test of time and additional research. We believe, however, that providing a venue for these ideas will further their discussion and positively affect the field of applied linguistics by engendering a more informed debate on Spanish SLA pedagogy. Our goal in this chapter is to provide a brief evaluative summary of the contents of all chapters in order to present an overall view of the state of the art of teaching Spanish as a reflection of second language acquisition and related research. To this end, in the following sections we present an evaluative summary of the content of each chapter. We invite the reader, however, to read each chapter individually to obtain a more comprehensive analysis of the topics addressed by chapter authors.

1.0 Chapter 2: A Content-Based Approach to Spanish Language Study

In their chapter, Klee and Barnes-Karol review the history, rationale, and pedagogical benefits of curricula that include Foreign Languages Across the Curriculum (FLAC), later termed Languages Across the Curriculum (LAC), courses. As the authors explain, FLAC courses provide learners with several benefits, among which they highlight the following: they enhance and expand specific disciplinary knowledge, they deepen the understanding of a given culture and its documents and artifacts, and they improve cross-cultural competence. According to Klee and Barnes-Karol, improvement in second language skills, while desired, is not necessarily a primary objective of FLAC courses.

The development of FLAC courses, the authors note, was prompted by several academic ventures, such as the writing across the curriculum movement of the 1970s and 1980s, the immersion school programs in Canada and the United States, and the implementation of Language for Special Purposes (LSP) programs. The advent of FLAC courses has been substantiated through important research strands in SLA studies. For instance, Klee and Barnes-Karol state that FLAC programs have been positively influenced by research findings from recent models of reading comprehension that emphasize the role of background knowledge and context on effective language use. Furthermore, current views on the multiple layers of competencies that make up a proficient speaker have also had an effect on developing knowledge about language-specific domains, including academic domains as they are represented in subject-matter courses. Finally, apart from specific research strands, the strategic effort of many universities to internationalize the curriculum has focused the attention of many faculty on the development of subject-specific language skills. Despite these favorable factors, however, FLAC courses face major strategic and institutional challenges. More important, Klee and Barnes-Karol believe that FLAC programs are unlikely to succeed over the long term unless they are embedded in a larger institutional context, they receive ongoing financial support, and they carefully match student L2 proficiency with program requirements and objectives.

It is possible that the underlying challenge of FLAC courses is that despite the avowed goal of giving students access to new perspectives on the subject matter, the courses are primarily focused on furthering the students’ L2 development. In this respect, we underline the obvious: the traditional FLAC framework attempts to make a connection between two fairly distinct academic goals (i.e., language development and subject-matter development), but one of these goals may get the lion’s share of attention and actual work. For instance, a subject in a FLAC course might be the history of colonial Caribbean nations with an emphasis on the Spanish colonies. In this hypothetical case, it is apparent that the connection between language development in Spanish and knowledge of the specific subject of history may be contrived—until the link between language and content area brings these areas more closely in line with each other.

We tentatively propose that a possible solution to this constraint would be to match up FLAC trailer sections with main subject areas that can be easily linked with language awareness and language use topics. For instance, most universities (large and small) offer several content-based courses that include language as one of their main topics of inquiry: sociolinguistics, first and second language learning, history of Spanish, language planning and policies, and, obviously, courses in literature (although, for a FLAC course, not necessarily entirely in the second language). A second tier of courses also related to language inquiry, but less directly, include those on political philosophy, formal logic, general philosophy, and so on. Such courses would likely attract students interested in developing their language skills as well as their knowledge in the specific content area. In all the above-mentioned courses, language inquiry or the role of language in communication is the natural focus of analysis of the main course that is to be accompanied by a FLAC course. Odds are that students interested in language-related courses such as those mentioned above are the ones who would be likely to go the extra mile to tackle these two related but separate goals: second language development and subject matter understanding.

There is an additional strategic factor that may compromise the viability of a FLAC-enhanced curriculum. Despite the intended goal of expanding the focus of the subject matter in a second language, the apparent lack of continuity and support of FLAC courses described by Klee and Barnes-Karol brings up important questions: Is it possible that students perceive that their academic objectives can be more easily attained by avoiding FLAC courses and concentrating on the subject matter in English only? In other words, why would students sacrifice a more expeditious treatment and analysis of the subject matter in a language in which they are already proficient for a more laborious, time-consuming analysis of the same topic in a second language?

Finally, the focus on strictly language-oriented courses may be of interest to faculty as well. As noted by Klee and Barnes-Karol, FLAC courses are highly dependent on access to supplemental funding and adequate and extended curriculum support within and across departments. Unless instructors are compensated and/or substantially recognized in performance reviews for their extra effort devoted to these courses, the only other incentive that faculty will have to offer a FLAC course is to find some inherent pedagogical or research benefit in FLAC-oriented courses. Lack of continuous funding or course compensation clearly shows that FLAC courses can only be successful or, at a minimum, be offered to students as long as faculty find those courses relevant to their own teaching/research agendas. Therefore, the factor most likely to generate such interest among language faculty would be the focus of language development concurrently with subject matter development.

2.0 Chapter 3: Spanish SLA Research, Classroom Practice, and Curriculum Design

Collentine reviews and critiques three general lines of research that have had a major impact on how we design a second language curriculum through pedagogical tasks. The lines of research reviewed in his chapter are: (1) the general learning theory of constructivism, (2) psycholinguistics and cognition, and (3) social and sociocultural cognition. His view is that all these approaches have contributed important insights to the debates over the applications of SLA research to teaching.

Constructivist approaches emphasize the power of learner-centered inductive learning processes (e.g., from data to generalizations) that stand in contrast with the mostly deductive processes of teacher-centered approaches (e.g., rules are presented and then applied). Collentine argues that the main tenet of constructivism (i.e., learners must be active agents in the knowledge acquisition processing) is represented in many well-known pedagogical and institutional proposals, such as Krashen’s i+1 hypothesis, the relevance of interpersonal communication in oral proficiency interviews, and, more important, the concept of task-based instruction.

Cognitive perspectives are not necessarily opposed to the constructivist view on acquisition, although their analysis focuses on an input-output metaphor of language development, that sometimes (although not always) leaves out the effect of social factors (beyond the simple give and take of strictly linguistic interactions). For instance, in contrast with one of the popular movements of the 1980s (i.e., Krashen’s acquisition-learning hypothesis), Schmidt (1990) asserted that for input to become intake for the developing L2 grammar, the provision of input alone was not enough; learners needed to “notice” important formal properties of the L2. One of the important trends that grew out of this claim (or that paralleled it) is the notion of the focus on form (as opposed to forms), a notion that entails reactive interventions to breakdowns in comprehension that encourage the noticing of some linguistic feature such as verbal endings. Collentine points out that cognitive perspectives have contributed significantly to a better understanding of the development of a second language. For instance, there has emerged a general understanding that complex constructs are not acquired all at once in their entirety; rather, they emerge in stages (e.g., ser/estar, preterite/imperfect). Similarly, the recognition that some grammatical constructs require a multilayered description, as in the case of past tense marking in Spanish (i.e., semantic, discursive, etc.), has changed preterit/imperfect instruction, specially with regard to approaches to the teaching of how to tell stories.

On the other hand, there have been several critiques of strictly cognitive perspectives: (1) noticing and intake in communicative tasks foster morphosyntactic and grammatical development essentially by chance and are extremely time-consuming, (2) complex linguistic phenomena may require different methodological interventions from relatively simple linguistic phenomena, and (3) a strictly cognitive perspective may focus on a narrow conceptualization of language that omits not only strictly social factors but also discursive contextual factors. As Collentine argues, for example, the argument that language accuracy decreases as attention on meaning increases (e.g., VanPatten 1990) needs to be qualified, given both theoretical and empirical questions. More specifically, from a theoretical point of view, there are many grammatical items such as tense-aspect morphology that are very much dependent on the meaning of the discursive context (Andersen and Shirai 1994; Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Salaberry 2003). As such, their accuracy in narrative tasks may actually be higher when attention to meaning is as necessary as attention to form (Salaberry and López-Ortega 1998). Furthermore, while pointing out methodological shortcomings in previous studies, Dussias (2003) raises additional questions about a clear-cut distinction between the empirical effects of the competition of attention for form or meaning.

Finally, Collentine points out that within sociocultural theory, “language processing and production is not a reflection but rather a mediator of thought.” As a consequence, the goal of instructed SLA should be to treat L2 learning as an additional cognitive tool (e.g., private speech) along with L1 (primary language) processing. More important, as argued by Collentine, “sociocultural theory privileges the role of output in that it rejects the premise that communication is reflected in the standard communication theory metaphor.” Collentine argues that sociocultural theory “has not necessarily led to the design of sociocultural-specific teaching strategies and curricular design.” On the other hand, it has validated (or reconceptualized) the role of well-known pedagogical activities such as language games, problem-solving tasks, and cooperative learning activities (for an example, see Negueruela and Lantolf, this volume). One important area of research within sociocultural theory, yet to be explored in detail, is the role of language development in the midst of intensive social interactions in an L2-speaking environment as represented in study-abroad programs (and, to some extent, on at-home immersion programs).

3.0 Chapter 4: Theoretical and Research Considerations Underlying Classroom Practice

VanPatten and Leeser investigate the role of input in the second language acquisition process and the theoretical and research considerations underlying classroom practice. The authors argue that SLA researchers (from universal grammar proponents to connectionists) generally accept the notion that input is the primary ingredient necessary for the construction of an underlying L2 grammatical system. However, input alone does not lead to acquisition. Learners must process the input in meaningful ways in order for it to be useful for the construction of the L2 system. The authors contend that pedagogues must ask how they can facilitate the learner’s processing of input so that it is converted to intake and becomes integrated into the learner’s interlanguage system. Therefore, the goal of effective language instruction would be to have the learner focus on form (attention is given to grammatical form within a communicative, meaningful context) in the input. In order to facilitate this noticing of new grammatical forms, instructors and materials authors must find ways to enhance the input. VanPatten and Leeser then discuss the pedagogical implications of the research on several different methods of textual enhancement: text enhancement, input flood, input/output cycles, structured input, and recasts.

Textual enhancement (TE) is defined as “typographical alterations of grammatical form or structures in a reading passage.” VanPatten and Leeser point out that although TE is easy to implement, it only facilitates noticing of the new grammatical forms by the learner. It does not directly aid in the actual linguistic processing of those forms (the connecting of forms to a meaning or function). Input flood occurs when “instructors and/or materials developers provide lots of instances of a particular linguistic item in oral or written text.” The authors report that although the research has shown that this technique may help learners understand what is possible in the language, it does not assist their comprehension of what is not possible, that is, the input flood provides positive evidence but not direct negative evidence for the construction of L2 grammatical systems. The third method, input/output cycle, is implemented when learners reading or listening to texts have to reconstruct or summarize them in some way. The authors briefly discuss the potential roles for output hypothesized by Swain (1995): the noticing/triggering function, the hypothesis testing function, and the metalinguistic function. Part of Swain’s output hypothesis implies that learners who are forced to express themselves more accurately will be more likely to notice linguistic data in the input (the noticing/triggering hypothesis).

The concept of structured input (SI), favored by the authors, is based on the assumption that the “input can be manipulated in particular ways to push students to (1) replace incorrect processing strategies with correct (or better) strategies and (2) make better form-meaning connections in the input.” Part of the pedagogical benefit claimed for the processing instruction hypothesis is that, as VanPatten and Leeser state, “assisting comprehension is consonant with the processes involved in acquisition, that is, comprehension is a precursor to acquisition.” Unlike Krashen’s view, however, the processing instruction hypothesis includes an explicit instructional effect given that students are “to be confronted with a mismatch between what they are observing and what they think they are hearing.” Finally, the authors describe the benefits of recasts, a pedagogical technique in which the instructor spontaneously reformulates a student’s incorrect utterance. Due to the fact that they occur in real time, recasts may not be uniformly applied and thus may not be as effective in regular classroom interactions as they have been found to be in laboratory research. Furthermore, complicating the effectiveness of recasts for eliciting learner self-correction is the fact that some learners fail to perceive recasts (interlocutor reformulations of their speech) as corrective feedback.

VanPatten and Leeser favor structured input activities over the other pedagogical techniques they review. For instance, they claim that “input/output cycles may suffer from the same problem as TE and input flood; they increase chances that learners may notice something but they do not guarantee it and they do not ensure that if learners notice something, they notice what the instructor intends for them to notice.” In contrast, VanPatten and Leeser argue that structured input activities avoid this limitation because SI is based on the manipulation of the input presented to the learner and as such it requires “forced processing of the form” being targeted. Ironically, this proposed advantage of structured input activities (and processing instruction in general) over the other teaching techniques involves a significant trade-off: structured input activities are, by definition, teacher-centered activities, and as such they do not give students the benefits afforded by learner-centered tasks (the latter are discussed in more detail in Collentine, this volume). This is the major pedagogical conundrum faced by proponents of processing instruction. We hasten to add that the use of learner-centered activities in addition to SI activities in actual classroom practice, although justified from a pedagogical point of view, cannot be used to counteract the limitation of SI as a teacher-centered pedagogical technique. That is, the additional set of learner-based activities introduces a new variable to the research design, thereby significantly modifying the theoretical construct under investigation.

There is also a significant theoretical gap in the proposed advantage of structured input activities. More important, we note that the role that VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) attributed to output processing (which they operationalized as traditional instruction) in their theoretical model is qualitatively different from the one they assigned to input processing. In their first study, VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) were faced with the fact (and dilemma for their analysis) that their traditional instruction group showed improvements in the production task but not the comprehension task, whereas their input processing group improved in both the comprehension and production tasks. VanPatten and Cadierno stated that “this is problematic in that to perform a language task, one must have some kind of knowledge” (238). Thus they argued fo...