G R A H A M C R O O K E S • C R A I G C H A U D R O N
In "Guidelines for Language Classroom Instruction," Crookes and Chaudron review research and practice in both second and foreign language contexts. The main areas of classroom instruction described are: presentational modes and focus on form, types of activities and parameters of tasks and interaction, classroom organization, teacher control of interaction, and corrective feedback.
I. IN T R O D U C T IO N
W h at goes o n in th e la n g u a g e classroom betw een th e te a c h e r a n d stu dents is obviously th e core a rea o f in fo rm atio n p e rta in in g to for
m al se co n d language (SL) tea c h in g a n d le a rn ing. “O ut-of-class’' k n o w led g e o f la n g u a g e tea c h in g in areas such as needs analysis, c u rricu lum design, lesson p lan n in g , m aterials design, a n d evaluation is, o f course, necessary for a truly professional o p e ra tio n , b u t so lo n g as th e re is a te a c h e r w orking with a g ro u p o f students, the essence of classroom SL tea c h in g resides in the n a tu re o f in stru ctio n a n d in teractio n betw een teach ers a n d students.
In this c h a p te r we identify an d discuss som e o f the m o re im p o rta n t characteristics an d p rin ciples o f this in te rac tio n .- O u r c o n c ep tio n o f the te a c h e r is so m eo n e with a great n u m b e r o f deci
sions to m ake at e v en m o m e n t o f classroom in stru ctio n . In som e cases, research findings can guide those decisions. In others, research can in fo rm professional ju d g m e n t, b u t decisions m ust be based o n e x p e rien c e a n d in tu itio n r a th e r th a n know ledge. However, decisions will be aid ed bv a know ledge o f the ran g e o f instru c
tional alternatives available, as well as by an aw areness o f the cultural co n te x t a n d perso n al values o f the te a c h e r a n d students.
W hen a second language is taught, a n u m b e r o f m ajor steps m ust be taken. First, elem ents o f the language o r its use. or skills such as learn
ing strategies, m ust be b ro u g h t into the classroom a n d p rese n ted or highlighted. T h e te a c h e r and,
u n d e r certain le a rn e r-c e n te re d co n d itio n s, the stu d en ts select elem ents o f the SL in this p h a se.3 S econd, th a t w hich has b e e n selected a n d p re se n te d m ust be lea rn ed ; th e te a c h e r has to a rra n g e m atters a n d events to b rin g this about.
T h ird , th e te a c h e r m ust provide know ledge o f results, th a t is, c o rre c tio n o r feedback, to the students.
We sh o u ld n o t ig n o re th at these processes take place in a social m ilieu, an d th at because of the wav language fu n ctio n s betw een individuals, these processes c a n n o t be totally se p ara te d from the social clim ate w hich develops a m o n g stu
d ents a n d betw een te a c h e r a n d students, th o u g h space does n o t p e rm it us to address this im p o r
tant p o in t h ere. Finally, let us n o te th a t consci
entious SL teachers usually com e o u t o f a class asking them selves how the class w ent— in o th e r words, engaging in a process o f self-evaluation.
We believe that this is a vital process for profes
sional self-developm ent, a n d one w hich needs to be explicitly stru ctu red into SL tea c h e rs’ routines.
See M urphv’s c h a p te r on reflective teaching in this volum e, for a full discussion.
2. L A N G U A G E P RESEN TA TIO N
2.1 Meta-Planning for Lesson Objectives
W hich elem en ts o f language are u n d e rta k e n d e p e n d s on th e objectives a te a c h e r has in m in d fo r the lesson. Thev are th e n th e result o f lesson
p la n n in g a n d the gen eral syllabus for the course (see th e c h a p te rs by J e n s e n a n d N 'unan in this volum e). D espite co n sid erab le variation, generally the first e le m en t of a lesson is the first c o m p o n e n t o f the trad itional "present-practice- e v a lu a te ” se q u e n c e , w hich co n stitu te s m any tea c h e rs’ u n d e rsta n d in g o f basic lesson structure.
Let us assume for present purposes that a te a c h e r has selected a p articu lar ele m en t of language, or aspect o f language leanring, to be focused on as the first m ajor stage o f a class period.
T h ere are th en two types of choices to be made:
those concerning the phvsical characteristics of the presentation, that is, materials, use o f audiorisual (AY) equipm ent, etc.; and those co n cerning the deductive o r inductive procedures that learners will be engaging in in o rd er to acquire rules, items, analogies, and o th er aspects o f the target language.
T h e fo rm e r are co n sid e red in the following section, the latter in section 2.3.
2.2 Modalities (Materials, AV)
W hile n o t espousing anv particu lar ap p ro a c h in this chapter, we feel th at m anv professionals rec
ognize the im p o rtan ce o f practice in the acquisi
tion o f anv cognitive skill. T h e re is increasing rec o g n itio n 4 of SL lea rn in g as a process of skill a c q u isitio n (O 'M allev, C h a m o t, a n d W alker
1987), w hich im plies the im p o rta n c e o f practice, o r o u tp u t, ra th e r th an m ere in p u t (cf. Pica et al.
1996; Swain an d Lapkin 1995). Teachers thus n e e d to rem ain aware that thev are n o t in the classroom to fill np the tim e with the sou n d o f th e ir own voices, b u t to a rra n g e m atters so that th e ir students do the talking (or writing, o r lis
ten in g ). Particularly in EFL ra th e r th a n ESL situ
ations, class tim e is so valuable th at we believe the tea c h e r sh o u ld move on to practice phases o f a lesson as soon as possible in a m a n n e r consistent with an a d e q u ate p rese n tatio n o f m aterial and th e giving o f clear instructions for som e practice exercises.
A ssum ing th a t the in stru cto r decides that a given teach in g objective calls for som e su p p o rt in th e wav of m aterials, w hat then? T he m ajor resource is o f course the textbook. In addition, o th e r te a c h in g aids fall in to two categories
(C elce-M urcia 1979): n o n te c h n ic a l aids a n d technical aids (not c o u n tin g the students th em selves, w ho can of course plav a stim ulating role in the p rese n tatio n stages of a lesson). T h e fo r
m er include the chalkboard, realia. flashcards, m agazine pictures, an d charts. T he latte r include the overhead projector, audio an d video re c o rd ings, CD-ROM. an d In te rn et. Both types o f aids are co n sid ered elsew here in this book (see c h ap ters bv B rinton an d Sokolik in this volum e).
D e sp ite in c re a s in g re se a rc h in to som e m edia, the ran g e o f classroom an d cu ltu ral c o n texts for T E S /F L m eans th at d ec id in g w h e th e r o r n ot to use AY aids is usuallv a m atte r for indi
vidual tea c h e r judgm ent, su p p o rte d by general considerations. Does th e ir use in a given circum stance aid co m prehension? Do thev stim ulate m ore stu d en t talk th an w ould have otherw ise occurred? Above all, does th eir use constitute an efficient use o f class tim e, particularly taking into acco u n t the te a c h e r tim e re q u ire d to p ro d u c e them o r th e logistics o f setting up a n d rem oving am nccessarv equipm ent? This is an area in which careful teach er investigation and rep o rtin g of successes and failures in practice w ould benefit the profession.
P erhaps because o f the com plexitv o f the q u e s tio n , a su rp risin g lv sm all a m o u n t o f rese a rc h inform s teach ers o f how to use a text
b o o k (b u t see T o m lin so n 1997). F o r th e u n tra in e d teacher, a good tex tb o o k can stand in fo r a syllabus a n d tra in in g pro g ram , while an e x p e rie n c e d te a c h e r can use the text as an aid, a d o p tin g som e parts, a d a p tin g o th ers (Stevick 1971), o r can even dispense with it com pletely.
T h e utilitv of the average textbook for a tvpical present-dav ESL EFL course is norm ally u n q u e s
tio n e d (but see Allwright 1981 an d O ’Neill 1982 fo r p o sitio n s on bo th sides o f this p o in t).
N onetheless, лее urg e teach ers to re m e m b e r th a t m ost textbooks in a given p e rio d o f tim e are o ften verv m u ch alike (Ariew 1982); thev are the p ro d u c t of the pressures o f the m arket, as im per- fectlv in te rp re te d th ro u g h the p u b lish e r a n d m aterials writer, a n d can often ru n c o u n te r to legitim ate e d u c atio n a l pressures. W hat sells mav n o t be w hat works; w hat works mav n o t neces- sarilv have a fo rm at w hich book p u b lish in g
com panies can utilize o r p ro d u ce . Above all, th ere fo re , a critical stance is called for (see Bvrd's c h a p te r in this volum e).
Som e g e n e ra l po in ts can be m ade ab o u t th e p re se n ta tio n stage o f a lesson. First, the in stru c to r is, in fact, ra th e r free fro m constraints despite the various p ro c e d u re s suggested bv the tea c h e rs' notes tvpicallv accom panying th e text.
Texts desig n ed fo r b e g in n in g a n d in te rm e d ia te lea rn ers still com m onlv p re se n t th e m aterial of each u n it via a dialogue, a n d the te a c h e r is often in stru cte d to have the stu d en ts w ork with the dialogue. In m any tra d itio n al classroom settings (especially EFL settings), this involves having the class re p e a t the dialogue in unison, possible m oving n e x t to p artial m em orization. Yet, an equally efficient p ro c e d u re for som e classes w ould be to have stu d en ts p a ir off a n d rea d the dialogue a lo u d while th e te a c h e r circulates an d checks individual p e rfo rm a n c e . T h e p o in t is th a t teach ers have the rig h t a n d responsibilitv to utilize th e m aterial in w hatever wav seem s a p p ro priate, hopefully m aking use o f the findings that SL research suggests.
For exam ple, an increasinglv well-established line o f work has stressed the role of atten tio n and awareness in SL learning (Schm idt 1990, 1995) an d the im portance of draw ing the learner's atten tion to certain characteristics of the language w hich m ight otherw ise be m issed (referred to as
“in p u t e n h a n c e m e n t”; see R u th e rfo rd 1987.
D oughty a n d Williams 1998a). It follows, th e re fore, th at the tea c h e r should usually p resen t the text o r illustrative m aterial with an im m ediate focus on the target points. O n the o th e r hand, research over the last two decades has m ade clear th a t SL learn in g does n o t take place in a simple lin ear fashion with one linguistic e le m en t being ad d e d to the next. In the svntactic dom ain, lea rn ers p ro c e e d at different speeds th ro u g h fairly reg
u lar sequences (P ien em an n a n d Jo h n s to n 1987).
It is unlikely th at structural targ et points will be in tern alized by rnanv in a class after o n e expo
sure.0 C o n se q u e n ts, the p articular aspect o f lan
guage to be lea rn ed should alm ost certainly com e u p on o th e r occasions, in o th e r lessons. T h e fact th a t SL learn in g involves the learn in g o f a cogni
tive skill im plies th a t th e first stage o f use (the
“cognitive stage”) will be e rro rfu l a n d difficult for th e learner. M ovem ent Uwvards autom aticity will re q u ire a g rea t deal o f active, realistic p rac tice in th e use o f the target language, w'hich may n o t be susceptible to gen eral e rro r co rrectio n . Finally, at th e p re se n ta tio n stage, it is relevant to c o n sid e r w hat little is knowm ab o u t th e le a r n e r ’s d e v e lo p m e n t o f c o n tro l over th e p rag m atic aspects o f th e SL. An em phasis o n realistic, com m unicative lan guage use in th e classroom from an early stage is th e re fo re ju stified , as is the d e v e lo p m en t o f the m etalinguistic term s n e e d e d to talk a b o u t language use (Flenriksen 1988).
As a final com m ent, although we have used the generallv accepted term textbook th ro u g h o u t this section, it is clear that sole reliance on a text
book w ithin the classroom is becom ing less com m on in ric h e r countries or m ore wTell-resourced schools. D evelopm ents in technology have m ade th e c re a tio n a n d alm ost im m e d ia te use o f in-house m aterials increasinglv possible. T he advantages of personalization a n d localization of m aterials are clear. In addition, o f course, the ease of access to all kinds o f supplem entary resource m aterials a n d stim ulus m aterials via the W eb has h elp e d teachers su p p lem en t textbooks while at the sam e tim e raising students' expectations.
2.3 Rule Presentations and Explanations
A great deal o f research in the 1960s was con
cern ed with w hether and w hen to present explicit se co n d lan g u ag e g ra m m a r rules to stu d en ts (L.evin 1972; see re c e n t discussion o f th e issue in Borg 1999). T he up sh o t o f those studies was that explicit gram m ar instruction was n o t consistently su p erio r in the long ru n to o th e r practices. As a result, the various com m unicatively o rien ted lan guage tea c h in g m eth o d s a n d p rescrip tio n s developed after this tim e de-em phasized the use o f explicit g ra m m a r rule p re se n ta tio n an d even q u e stio n e d the use o f gram m atically based m aterials.
However, subsequent research on second language acquisition has increasingly established the legitimacv o f a focus on form (see m ost recentlv D oughtv an d Williams 1998a, 1998b; an d
N orris an d O rtega 2000), while still questioning the desirability o f a persistent focus on correct
ness at all times in a syllabus o r course of stitch.
(These issues are dealt with in m ore detail in the chapters by Larsen-Freem an and Fotos in this yolttme.)
Based on th e claims o f m ost theorists that som e focus on form can be re q u ire d by learners o r bv a given classroom sequence, it is reaso n able for teachers to be aware of o p tio n s in how to m ake a ru le explicit or not; w h e th e r or n o t to isolate a rule; w h e th e r an e x p la n a tio n should involve a deductive or inductive p resen tatio n ; who sh o u ld give th e e x p la n a tio n — the teacher, th e text, o r a n o th e r stu d en t: w h e th e r the lan
guage is abstract or not; an d w h e th e r the expla
n a tio n is p rovided orallv or in w riting. T eachers m ust e n su re the clarilv a n d sufficiency of th eir ex p lan atio n s bv ch ecking stu d e n t c o m p re h e n sion, preferably n o t m erely bv solicitation o f a
“yes” o r a nod.
Follow ing th e a p p ro a c h o f C h a u d ro n 's (1982) d escrip tio n o f tea c h e rs' vocabulary elab
o ratio n , Yee a n d W agner (1984) developed a discourse m o d el o f tea c h e rs' vocabulary and g ra m m a r explanations. T h e ir m odel contains several m ajo r segm ents (a fra m in g stage, a focusing stage, th e ex p la n a tio n itself, a n d a r e s ta te m e n t), w ith several s u b c a te g o rie s as optional features (e.g.. with or w ithout m ention o f the topic item , m etastatem ents, teach er solicits o f students, exam ples, etc.). At each stage, thev p o in t out that co m p reh en sio n checks bv the teach er are optional. .An exam ple of their m odel in a b rief gram m ar explanation follows:
Tkachhr: Can we say
“these" in a tag?
Student: You c a n 't use th e w ord “th e se ” in a tag.
Teacher: W hat do we n e e d to use?
Focus + solicit
Explanation + explicit rule
+ solicit
Taking a fu n ctional a p p ro ach to analysis o f rules a n d explanations, Faerch (198bi found th a t a typical sequence in tea c h e r rule p rese n ta tio n involved (1) a “P ro b le m -fo rm u latio n ":
(2) an “Induction" with the teach er eliciting
stu d e n t opinions: and (8) the te a c h e r’s “Rule- form ulation": followed optionally bv (4) “Exem plification" bv the teach er or students. Alert teachers will adapt this typical p a tte rn to th eir circum stances, e ith e r sh o rte n in g the sequence if a rule is judged to be quickly learned, o r devel
oping m ore stu d en t-generated ideas a n d in te rac tion if the students have difficulty.
3. TASKS
T h e next m ajor step in e x ecu tin g classroom lessons involves practice a n d “learning" o f the m aterial. In this section we will identify th e p ri
mary units of classroom tea c h in g an d evaluate the co m p o n e n ts of those that m ost influ en ce learning. To aid discussion a n d c o m m u n ic a tio n a m o n g teach ers (as well as fo r th e sake o f com parative rese a rc h ), it is useful to have a set o f term s to describe sim ilar teach in g p ro ce d u re s.
O ver several decades o f classroom research, sta n d a rd term inology for what ou g h t to be th e basic units for p la n n in g a n d e x ecu tin g lessons has b e e n lacking. In the following sections we will utilize the yvords adroit у a n d task, a n d a tte m p t to show how these can be m ore system
atically classified, described, a n d analyzed for th eir co n trib u tio n to instruction.