The Four Strands
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
C:/3B2WIN/temp files/illt039_S100.3d[x] Wednesday, 31st January 2007 19:39:24 The Four Strands Paul Nation Department of Linguistics, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand The activities in a language course can be classified into the four strands of meaning- focused input, meaning-focused output, language-focused learning and fluency development. In a well designed course there should be an even balance of these strands with roughly equal amounts of time given to each strand. The research evidence for the strands draws on the input hypothesis and learning from extensive reading, the output hypothesis, research on form-focused instruction, and the development of speaking and reading fluency. The paper concludes with 10 princi- ples based largely on the four strands. The strands framework and the principles provide a basis for managing innovation in language courses. doi: 10.2167/illt039.0 Keywords: four strands, curriculum, input, output, fluency Innovation in language teaching needs to take account of research on language acquisition. One way of doing this is to make the innovation within a framework that fits with research findings. This paper describes a framework for looking at language courses to see if they provide an appropriate balance of opportunities for learning. The opportunities for learning language can be usefully divided into four strands: meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-focused learning and fluency development. These are called strands because they can be seen as long continuous sets of learning conditions that run through the whole language course. Every activity in a language course fits into one of these strands. In a well balanced course roughly equal amounts of time can be given to each of the four strands. In the paper we will look at each of the four strands, their justification and how they can be put into practice. The paper concludes with a set of pedagogical principles based on the strands that can be used to guide the teaching of a language course. A Commonsense Justification of the Four Strands The basis of a commonsense approach to opportunities for learning is the time-on-task principle. How can you learn to do something if you don’t do that during learning? How can you learn to read if you don’t do reading? How can you learn to write without writing? The time-on-task principle simply says that the more time you spend doing something, the better you are likely to be at doing it. This is a very robust principle and there is no shortage of evidence, for example, that those who read a lot are better readers (Cunningham & Stanovich,UNCORRECTED 1991) and that those who write a lot usually become better PROOF writers. 1750-1229/07/01 001-12 $20.00/0 – 2007 P. Nation Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching Vol. 1, No. 1, 2007 1 C:/3B2WIN/temp files/illt039_S100.3d[x] Wednesday, 31st January 2007 19:39:25 2 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching However it is a simplistic principle and it can be rightfully criticised for ignoring the quality of the activity in favour of the quantity of the activity, and for not taking account of the ways in which language learning differs from other kinds of learning. Nevertheless, as one of a set of principles which do take account of these factors, the time-on-task principle is an important and essential one. Another idea underlying a commonsense approach is that there is something about each of the language skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing that makes them different from the others. It is thus necessary to give attention to each skill to make sure that these unique features are learned. It is also not difficult to argue that each of these four skills can be broken down even further, for example, that speaking monologue in a formal situation has unique features that differ from those involved in friendly conversation and so on. It is also possible to distinguish accuracy from fluency and thus see the necessity for giving fluency practice for each of the skills. There are thus commonsense justifications for including the four strands in a language course. Let us now see what each of these strands involves and some of the research evidence for them. Learning Through Listening and Reading The meaning-focused input strand involves learning through listening and reading Á using language receptively. It is called ‘meaning-focused’ because in all the work done in this strand, the learners’ main focus and interest should be on understanding, and gaining knowledge or enjoyment or both from what they listen to and read. Typical activities in this strand include extensive reading, shared reading, listening to stories, watching TV or films, and being a listener in a conversation. This strand only exists if certain conditions are present. (1) Most of what the learners are listening to or reading is already familiar to them. (2) The learners are interested in the input and want to understand it. (3) Only a small proportion of the language features are unknown to the learners. In terms of vocabulary, 95Á98% of the running words should be within the learners’ previous knowledge, and so only 5 or preferably only 1 or 2 words per hundred should be unknown to them (Hu & Nation, 2000). (4) The learners can gain some knowledge of the unknown language items through context clues and background knowledge. (5) There are large quantities of input. If these conditions are not present, then the meaning-focused input strand does not exist in that course. Learning from meaning-focused input is fragile because there are usually only small gains with each meeting with a word, learning is dependent on the quality of reading and listening skills, and learningUNCORRECTED is affected by background knowledge. Because of this, PROOF large quantities of input are needed for this strand to work well. An extensive reading programme is one way of providing this quantity. C:/3B2WIN/temp files/illt039_S100.3d[x] Wednesday, 31st January 2007 19:39:25 The Four Strands 3 Although many researchers criticise Krashen’s (1985) input theory, none would disagree with the idea that meaningful comprehensible input is an important source of language learning. Among the best controlled studies of second language extensive reading is Waring and Takaki’s (2003) study of vocabulary learning from a graded reader. This study showed that small amounts of learning of various strengths occurred incidentally as a result of meaning-focused reading. Elley and Mangubhai’s (1981) classic study of the book flood showed a range of language learning benefits compared with a programme that was largely dominated by language-focused learning (or perhaps more accurately language-focused teaching).Compared with well planned deliberate learning, incidental learning gains from learning through input are small and are dependent on large quantities of input to gain sufficient repetition. Nation and Wang (1999) calculated that second language learners needed to read at least one graded reader every two weeks in order to get enough repetitions to establish substantial vocabulary growth. The gains from meaning-focused input however become substantial gains if there are large quantities of input. Learning Through Speaking and Writing The meaning-focused output strand involves learning through speaking and writing Á using language productively. Typical activities in this strand include talking in conversations, giving a speech or lecture, writing a letter, writing a note to someone, keeping a diary, telling a story and telling someone how to do something. The same kinds of conditions apply to meaning-focused output as apply to meaning-focused input. (1) The learners write and talk about things that are largely familiar to them. (2) The learners’ main goal is to convey their message to someone else. (3) Only a small proportion of the language they need to use is not familiar to them. (4) The learners can use communication strategies, dictionaries or previous input to make up for gaps in their productive knowledge. (5) There are plenty of opportunities to speak and write. Many spoken activities will include a mixture of meaning-focused input and meaning-focused output. One person’s output can be another person’s input. Swain’s (1985) output hypothesis has been influential in clarifying the role of speaking and writing in second language learning. As its name suggests, the output hypothesis was initially formulated as a reaction to Krashen’s (1985) input hypothesis and the inadequacy of the input hypothesis in explaining the effects of immersion education. ‘Put most simply, the output hypothesis claims that the act of producing language (speaking and writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances,UNCORRECTED part of the process of second language learning’ PROOF (Swain, 2005: 471). The opportunities that output provides for learning however are not exactly the same as those provided by input. Swain (1995) suggests three C:/3B2WIN/temp files/illt039_S100.3d[x] Wednesday, 31st January 2007 19:39:25 4 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching functions for output: (1) the noticing/triggering function, (2) the hypothesis testing function and (3) the metalinguistic (reflective) function. The noticing/triggering function occurs when learners are attempting to produce the second language and they consciously notice that there are holes in their knowledge. That is, they do not know how to say what they want to say. Izumi’s (2002) research indicates that the effect on acquisition of noticing a hole or gap through output was significantly greater than the effect of noticing through input. This effect can be explained by the conditions of productiveas compared with receptive learning, and generative use as compared with retrieval. Productive learning involves having to search for and produce a word form, whereas receptive learning involves having to find a meaning for a word form.