Three sisters who own a restaurant are all in love with the same man, the head chef. They discover his attempts to romance each of them separately. They must decide how to handle the situation.
Three sisters who own a restaurant are all in love with the same man, the head chef. They discover his attempts to romance each of them separately. They must decide how to handle the situation.
Three sisters who own a restaurant are all in love with the same man, the head chef. They discover his attempts to romance each of them separately. They must decide how to handle the situation.
GLOSSARY They discover the situation and then and convince each that she should get (words marked by a t in the text) must decide what to do. rid of the others. They finally learn what MARY has lost her pet dragon (played by he is up to.t The teacher plays the local drawing out: causing (them) to speak health inspector. the teacher). She runs intot her friend freely LYNN, who is very scared of dragons. Deadly sports contest. It's a ping-pong face: are confronted by take a back seat: defer to someone else Mary knows the dragon is living under match: A player (played by the teacher) skits: short plays, especially performed by Lynn's house. She must explain this and is killed by an exploding ping-pong ball. amateurs find the dragon. A POLICE INSPECTOR arrives and discov- spoiled brat: an ill-mannered annoying MARY is assistant director of the nicest ers, through interviews, a motive for child hotel in town. (The teacher plays her murder. He finds PLAYER #2 is guilty. But runs into: meets by chance (also bumps boss.) A visiting delegation of execu- he's wrong. It's either PLAYER #3 or PLAY- into) tives, headed by LYNN, is staying at the ER #4 who murdered the teacher (who make sure: ensure; cause to happen hotel. Lynn needs to tell Mary that the has the amazing ability to reappear as a busybody: an inquisitive person especially delegation had a party and ruined all the ghost). interested in the affairs of others furniture. Do you believe? A STRANGER comes to visit run: operate; take care of; manage a rural community and brings with him what he is up to: what his scheme or real MARY and LYNN are best friends who work in the same factory. Mary gets pro- strange powers (such as raising the purpose is moted and is now Lynn's boss. Lynn dead). Some townspeople treat him as a also wanted the job. Mary must tell Lynn god, others as the devil. He's really from member; otherwise, his/her sudden inter- of her promotion and make suret they outer space. The townspeople (MAYOR, vention might be seen by the weaker stu- can remain friends. (The teacher plays HOUSEHUSBAND, WORKER, and peasant dents as a sort of reprimand. Second, teacher Mary's secretary.) [played by the teacher]) must decide participation ensures genuine conversational what to do. • MARY is visited by her rich AUNT LYNN interaction by students. Those who have from Hong Kong. Lynn tries to teach memorized lines discover quickly the "wild Mary how to drive her Mercedes, but card" nature of the teacher's role. Also, if Mary hits a tree. (The teacher plays a one student dominates the exercise, the passerby.) teacher can spontaneously redirect the HCINGARY_____________ action of the play to the weaker student. Four-student skits Roleplaying is only a small part of a Guess who's coming to dinner? It is New Krashen's Input Hypothesis comprehensive approach to teaching con- Year's Eve. The family is gathered for versation, but it is quite important.(See and Swain's Output Hypothesis the big meal and awaits the arrival of the Michael Agelasto, "Teaching English Con- oldest SON (who's been living in the in Practice: Designing "i+1" versation," Journal of Shenzhen University, 1, U.S.). He arrives with a surprise—his Teaching Techniques 1989.) For students this kind of group work new WIFE. He explains what happened to proves highly entertaining; for the teacher it his earlier wife. The family takes sides: Zoltan Dornyei provides a way to make reticent students MOTHER vs. FATHER. The teacher (an ad- Eotvo's University, Budapest more active. And it's fun. Here are some of lib role) plays the grandfather. This situ- Stephen Krashen's theory of language the skits I use: ation may be both serious and comedic. learning1 has been the source of consider- Two-student skits Love on a train. We're in the sleeper on a able controversy and academic discussion, MARY is dining at a very expensive train. Four people find themselves but it has undoubtedly succeeded in bridg- restaurant with her father (played by the together. A MAN, his FORMER GIRLFRIEND, ing the gap between linguistic theory and teacher). She finds a rat tail in her fish his NEW GIRLFRIEND, and the former girl- actual language teaching by affecting the soup. LYNN is the restaurant's famous friend's NEW HUSBAND. Emotions flare: thinking and attitudes of many practicing chef. Mary complains to Lynn, who jealousy, anger, love, etc. The issues to be teachers. This article focuses on the practi- refuses to believe it's a rat. Eventually, resolved: who is in love with whom, and cal implications of one part of Krashen's Mary convinces the chef. for what reasons. The teacher will play concept of language acquisition, the Input MARY goes to the dentist (played by the the train conductor, a busybody, t Hypothesis. It is, according to Krashen teacher). LYNN, her husband, goes with (1985:vii), "the most important part of the Love triangle at the restaurant. THREE SIS- her. The dentist tells Mary that her teeth theory," since it attempts to answer the cru- TERS runt a restaurant. They are in love are in terrible shape and must all come cial question of how language learning with the same man—the HEAD CHEF. Sep- out. She tells her husband this and actually happens and what kind of expo- hopes that he will still love her. sure to the language—inside and outside Michael Agelasto, by the classroom—is the most efficient for it to MARY and LYNN have a child (played by training a city planner happen. In discussing how the Input Hy- the teacher) who is a spoiled brat.t He and screenwriter, is pothesis can be used in designing classroom gets into fights in school, steals students' presently an associate activities, I will draw on a related theory lunches, draws on the wall, etc. The par- professor of English at proposed by Swain (1985), which can be ents must find out why their child is so Shenzhen University, seen as an extension of the Input Hypothesis bad, then decide what to do. where he is working on curriculum reform as and can be termed the "Output Hypothesis." A famous athlete (played by the teacher) well as teaching compo- has mistakenly invited two women to go sition and conversation. to an awards banquet with him. The 1. For a concise overview of Krashen's theory see women, MARY and LYNN, meet at the ban- Higashi (1988) in English Teaching Forum.
English Teaching Forum 33 January 1991
The input hypothesis The conclusion Swain (1985) drewf from Krashen's Input Hypothesis claims that her results was that although comprehensi- GLOSSARY language acquisition occurs through under- ble input is essential for language learning, (words marked by a t in the text) standing messages or, in other words, it is not the only thing students need. She through receiving "comprehensible input." argued that the importance of language out- points out: directs attention to; states put should also be recognized. Output, that drew (a conclusion): inferred from evi- That is, in Krashen's view, perceptive lan- is, productive language use, has two main dence guage behaviours such as listening or read- find out: discover ing play the major role in the learning pro- learning functions that comprehensible input cannot fulfil: keep track of: maintain an awareness of cess, while everything else, including the getting around: circumventing; evading development of speaking skills or the a. It is possible to comprehend a mes- sage (input) without its grammatical analy- What's more: In addition knowledge of grammar rules, will follow joint: undertaken or produced together by automatically as long as a sufficient amount sis simply by knowing the meaning of the words, whereas producing language output two or more and type of input is provided. pick out: select How can we describe "efficient" input? requires explicit knowledge of linguistic spot: identify; notice Krashen argues that it should involve a rules. Thus, output forces the learner to pay swap: exchange message whose general language difficulty conscious attention to the form of the mes- try and guess: try to guess does not exceed the learner's ability (i.e., it sages. jot down: write quickly is comprehensible), but which also contains b. Output is also necessary for the learner Hand out: Distribute structures that are a step beyond the stu- to test hypotheses about the target language slip of paper a small piece of paper dent's current level of competence. If the as well as to receive corrective feedback learner is at level "i", the input should be, about some incorrectly learned or overgen- as Krashen puts it, a small jump ahead at eralized language forms. In other words, In the next part of this article I will level "i+1." The "+1" part of the input can- one must speak to be able to try out various describe several classroom techniques that not be precisely defined but should be, means of expression, to see how they work, are based on the two hypotheses. They will according to Krashen, "roughly tuned." and to find outt where the problem is if clearly show the interrelated nature of input The "i+1" formula has made a remark- they fail to work. and output, especially because a student's able "career" in applied linguistics, but its Efficient output, according to Swain comprehensible output may very often be- practical significance can be questioned. (1985), should involve more than un- come comprehensible input for others. One may wonder whether it actually says controlled student talk. She argues that Designing "i+1" teaching techniques more than what most language teachers learners quickly establish ways of commu- know, namely, that learning a language is a nicating their messages even though these As has been mentioned, a "roughly step-by-step process proceeding from the ways may not be the most appropriate or tuned" conception of the "i+1" formula simple to the more difficult, and teaching elaborate ones. Once that has happened, does not serve as a proper guideline for therefore should follow a similar progres- there is no communicative urge for them to designing actual classroom techniques. Let sive pattern. In order to design actual teach- further polish their speech. Therefore, in us, however, assume that the "+1" part ing techniques we would need to know order for students to improve, they should refers not to a "small jump ahead" in gener- how much and what kind of new material be "pushed" to use alternative means to al but rather to a definite number of new can be most efficiently "consumed" by the express their messages more appropriately language elements. This would be the case learners at one time. Unfortunately, the or precisely. Thus, being "pushed" in out- with "fine-tuning," which Krashen consid- "roughly tuned" "+1" element of Krashen's put is desirable, and it involves some pres- ered problematic and rejected. The argu- formula does not serve as a proper guide- sure on the student to analyse further the ment was that only the learner "knows" line. Therefore, later in this article I will grammar and usage of the target language, his/her current state of language proficien- argue that for practical purposes "finely and to produce output that is a bit beyond cy, therefore outsiders (even teachers) are tuned" input appears to be more useful. their current level of competence—that is, simply not in a position to manipulate the "i+1" type of output. This concept of "i+1" input to a precision that would allow for The output hypothesis output is very much like the "i+1" input of fine-tuning (cf. White 1987). In other words, Swain (1985) examined the language the Input Hypothesis and was termed by since we cannot keep track oft what exactly proficiency of Canadian immersion stu- Swain the "comprehensible output" hy- our students know or do not know, we can dents who had been learning French for pothesis. only guess what is going to be new for seven years and also had several school them, and therefore we cannot "finely tune" subjects taught in French. They had obvi- The interrelated nature of the two hypotheses the new material. ously received an abundance of language There is, however, a way of getting input, which they must have understood I believe that both the input and the out- since they were achieving well in the sub- aroundt this problem by having the "i" part put hypotheses touch upon some very jects taught in French. Yet, as Swain of the "i+1" formula come from the learners important aspects of language learning, and (1985:246) points out,t "after seven years of these aspects are usually not independent themselves. The speech or writing the stu- this comprehensible input, the target sys- of each other. A student cannot be expected dents produce will represent exactly their tem has not been fully acquired." Although to produce "i+1" output without learning current level of development, and all that these students had in some respects reached first about the "+1" element, that is, without needs to be done is to add to this the "+1" a high level of target-language proficiency, receiving some sort of "i+1" input. On the element to obtain ideal "i+1" input or out- they were still relatively weak in other other hand, comprehensible input in itself put. In fact, we do this all the time when areas, such as verb morphology. Other may not lead to language development, marking our students' written homework, researchers, such as Scarcella and Perkins since, as we have seen, only the pressure to for example. The "i" part is the student's (1987) and White (1987), also found that actively use the new material (the "+1" written work, whereas our corrections com- learners exposed to comprehensible input part) in their output will force the students prise the "+1" element. When the students for a long time still had problems with cer- to consciously analyse the linguistic forms read their marked work, they are presented tain aspects of the target language. the message contains. with real "i+1" input.
English Teaching Forum 34 January 1991
It is reassuring to find that this "theoreti- level of competence, the rather traditional dents work out the meaning of the items cally ideal" input works wonderfully in essay-writing task acquires a dynamic prob- themselves. A fairly long text can be used in practice, just as the Input Hypothesis sug- lem-solving character, while the students class several times, leaving more and more gests. Indeed, it involves the students to will surely master the selected new ele- words in English every time. such an extent that usually you can hardly ments. If they themselves are to pick outt 7. Divide the class into small groups and stop them from reading the corrected work the new words to be used, then they are ask each group to perform a situational immediately after receiving it, and it teaches also likely to master some of the other items roleplay activity for the rest of the class. the new information extremely efficiently. from which they were making the selection. Afterwards, each of the participants is given What's more,t the efficiency of the task fur- 3. Working in small groups, students a slip of papert with an expression or a ther increases if you ask the students to record a dialogue. After listening as it is phrase on it, and they are asked to perform write sentences (or a composition) using played back, they produce another record- the same activity again, but this time incor- every structure that contained a mistake— ing in which they (a) correct the mistakes porating the new expression/phrase into proving that "i+1" output adds to the and (V) insert some new items/structures. their parts at least twice. The audience must instructive value of a language exercise. They then play the two versions to the class, spot these expressions and try to guess their This series of tasks can be translated into and the others must spott the changes. meaning. input-output terms as follows: Variation: Before preparing the second Follow-up: Collect all the introduced recording, students swapt the cassettes so phrases and expressions on the board. Ask Output —>- "i+1" input —^ "i+1" output the students to extend their original role- that they will be working on someone else's Marking homework is not the only way dialogue. play situation so that they can include all 4. Working in pairs or small groups in the new expressions in it naturally. of producing "i+1" input/output. We may invent several other language tasks that are class, each pair/group is given 5-6 new vocabulary items with their definitions/ REFERENCES based to some extent on the input and out- put hypotheses. The common feature of all translations. Together they must write a Higashi, A. M. 1988. Adapting Krashen's second- short passage that contains the new words language acquisition theory. English Teaching these "i+1" exercises is that some language Forum, 26,4, pp. 41-44. behaviour is elicited from the students— so that it is possible to guess their meaning Krashen, S. D. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues that will be the "i" part—and this language from the context. When they are ready, they and applications. London: Longman. material is then used for further practice by pass round their text to the rest of the class Morgan, J. and M. Rinvolucri. 1980. Learning adding to it some new language ele- and the others try and guesst the meaning English words: Cross-level vocabulary activities of the new elements. The winner is the for the EFL classroom. Canterbury: Pilgrims. ments—the "+1" parts. What is important Scarcella, R. and L. Perkins. 1987. Shifting gears: pair/group whose new items were under- from the practical point of view is that all Krashen's input hypothesis. Studies in Second stood by every other pair/group. these exercises will share a kind of "i+1" Language Acquisition, 9, pp. 347-53. 5. A version of (4): Everybody in the Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: magic: Students will find them involving class is given one new vocabulary item with Some roles of comprehensible input and com- and challenging, and the exercises will fulfil its definition/translation. Then each person prehensible output in its development. In their teaching purpose with remarkable Input in second language acquisition, ed. S. Gass in turn must "explain" his/her new word to efficiency. and C. Madden. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury the rest of the class by putting it into three House. Suggested teaching activities sentences where the context helps them White, L. 1987. Against comprehensible input: 1. In class, students produce a jointt guess the meaning of the new item. (Some The input hypothesis and the development of recording (e.g., a discussion of a certain time may be needed to prepare for this.) second-language competence. Applied Linguis- Students jot downf their guesses for all the tics, 8, pp. 95-110. • topic or a roleplay activity). At home the words, and the winner is the person whose teacher types out the text, correcting the word has been found out by the most stu- mistakes and paraphrasing the clumsy dents. Since some words are easier to parts. In the next lesson the students listen to the recording again, while following the "explain" than others, a fair result will be JAPAN obtained only after several rounds. corrected written version at the same time. 6. Two-language texts—for students Then they are asked to perform the situa- who share the same mother tongue (from Heroes and Villains: Gaining tion again, without looking at the written Morgan and Rinvolucri 1980). Translate an Insights into Your Students' script, using the new language elements. interesting English text into the students' Values This is a variation on the marking of written mother tongue, leaving one word per sen- homework mentioned before. tence in English. Select words whose mean- Paul Wadden 2. For homework, students write a free ing can be guessed from the context. Hand Kyoto University of Foreign Studies composition on a certain topic with only outt copies of this text in class and let stu- one specification: They have to incorporate The finest teachers have considerable into it 15 recently learnt new words from insightt into the character and values of their vocabularies. Either the students select Zoltdn Domyei is a their students, appreciating them as diverse the items themselves or the teacher specifies lecturer at the Depart- individuals within a single, multifacetedt the items to be used. The composition must ment of English, Eotvos class. In foreign-language teaching, such be as long as is necessary to include all the University, Budapest. apprehension! of students does not come new items. If, as an extreme, they manage His interests include easily, given the communicative and cultur- to include all of them in one sentence, then the motivational psy- al barriers that often separate student and they won't have to write a lot. This simple chology of foreign-lan- teacher. Yet in language instruction, per- guage learning. He is haps more than in other fields, rapportt task demonstrates well the efficiency of the also involved in teacher "i~l" principle: By adding 15 new elements training and writing between teacher and student is vital to to a composition which would otherwise coursebooks. learning. Thus, inevitably, the committed usually not exceed the learner's current EFL instructor has to take some pains to