Teaching and The Role of Input in the Foreign Language Classroom

【Abstracts】This research is about the investigation of the role of input in the foreign language classroom teaching. Through analyzing the two main input modifications， some suggestions and implications will be presented.

【Key words】Form-based input modification； Meaning-based input modification； Foreign language classroom

【作者簡介】袁夏，成都大學。

1. Introduction

In the foreign language teaching， input plays an important role among the teaching process. A good language teacher should try to manipulate the input to improve learning. To some extant， the way of input determines the language output. Many researches about the input modifications have been done and the scholars have tried to seek for the best and the most effective methods of input in the foreign language teaching. Generally， input modifications can be classified into form-based input modification and meaning-based input modification.

2. Form-based input modification

Form-based input modification emphasizes on the explicit teaching of grammar. The language rule and grammar need to be consciously raised by the teacher （Rutherford， 1987）. In the form-based input process， all the grammar input must be explicit and the input process needs to be enhanced by the means of highlighting， underlining and explicit rule-giving （Sharwood-Smith， 1991）. For example， when the teacher is going to teach the English past tense， the input might be the explanation of the past tense rule that is generally “verb+ed”. Then the teacher will give a series of examples like “play-played”， “walk-walked”， and “l(fā)isten-listened”. This explicit grammar teaching process is theoretical， abstract and complex. The way of code switching is commonly used in this kind of teaching because of the difficult explanation of the abstract grammar rules. Obviously this pure and theoretical grammar teaching cannot arouse students interests. In fact， the form-based input process is useful for language skill learning but difficult for students to learn it so that the expected teaching aim may not be achieved after the intensive teaching. Therefore mere form-based input is not enough and we do need a better way to balance the grammar teaching in foreign language teaching.

3. Meaning-based input modification

Another kind of input modification is meaning-based input modification. It is believed that language is subconsciously acquired by the exposure to the input （Krashen， 1983）. When the teachers have provided enough comprehensible input， the students will subconsciously learn what has been provided as input （Krashen， 2003）. In the meaning-based input modification， the acquisition of knowledge is not from the explicit， systematic instruction of the grammar， but from the communication stimulated in the class. But the fact is that the sentences produced by the students who acquired knowledge by meaning-based input contain many grammatical errors （Lightbown & Spada， 1990）， although they can speak out fluently and confidently， they have not really acquired something useful （Lightbown & Spada， 1990）. Therefore， meaning-based input might be effective to encourage the students to speak and improve their confidence in oral English， but the ultimate goal of teaching is to improve the students skill of using language to successfully communicate. It is important to be able to not only use language to communicate but also to correctly use it. So mere meaning-base input modification is not enough as well.

4. Evaluation

From many scholars perspective， the best input modification must be form and meaning-based input modification （Lightbown & Spada， 1990）. That is the combination of those two types of input modification. In the foreign language teaching， the focus on both form and meaning input are equally significant. Long （1988） has proposed the approach of Focus on form （FonF）. This approach is based on the meaning input modification because the form input happens during the meaning input process. The learners should pay attention to the meaning and the grammar features before being raised attention to the form （Doughty， 1998）. Actually， the meaning-based input modification provided a comfortable， interesting and authentic circumstance for students to output the language. During this process， the students will encounter some grammar features unlike the monotonous exposure to the theoretical grammar learning， but the learners will not really acquire these grammar points unless those were pointed out by others （Schmidt， 1990）. The thing is the students should be consciously led to pay attention to those grammar features so that the form-based input functions during the process of the meaning-based input modification.

Taking wh- question as an example， the teaching process can follow the pattern of presentation-induction-practice-feedback-response. In the presentation stage， the meaning input is the basis. The teacher may play a fragment of video about interrogative questions or present some pictures or funny stories which are related to a specific grammar feature. Definitely in this presentation the students will inevitably be exposed to some grammar knowledge and at least they have a general idea about the grammar rules. Then it is time to jump to the second stage—induction. In this stage， the teacher plays an important role， which is the traditional form-based input process. The teacher needs to conclude the grammar rule based on what occurred in the presentation stage just now. The detailed， explicit and systematical grammar teaching is necessary in this stage. It is to make sure that the students have noticed the grammar features and get to know how to correctly use this grammar into practice. Although the student has been exposed to the grammar feature in the presentation stage， but the exact point is still obscure to them （Swain & Lapkin， 1989）. So the students need to be made to pay attention to the exact grammar point that is the stage of induction. After the theoretical teaching of grammar， the practice comes to effects now. In the stage of practice， the meaning-based input can be applied to it. The teacher can create an authentic circumstance for students to do role-playing or other interesting activities. As for wh- question teaching， the situation might be set as asking the way， the occupation and so on. It can be dialogue， teamwork， free-talk and so on， and the students will inevitably enhance their acquisition through this process. Besides， it is no doubt that the performance of the students cannot be one hundred percent perfect， so the suitable feedback should be given to them. Therefore it comes to the fourth stage-feedback. The key point is how to judge the suitable feedback. It is the teachers responsibility to value when， what and how to correct them （Hendrickson， 1978） and this feedback process requires much consideration indeed. After correction， the teacher can check randomly and ensure the students have really transferred the input into intake. And the teacher should manipulate the following teaching based on the response from their students to see whether it is still necessary to repeat some particular point that is difficult.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion， teaching is a complex process that cannot be defined in such a single way. Depends on different students， teaching contents and teaching aims， the teaching approaches might various. From my perspective， the form-based input and the meaning-based input should be comprehensively used as many scholars have concluded （Lightbown & Spada， 1990）. The role of input is very important that to some extant directly affects the output. As for a good teacher， it is the life-long responsibility to try and adapt to the best teaching approaches in different situations.

References：

[1]Doughty，Catherine.Williams，Jessica，eds.Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition[M].Cambridge：Cambridge University Press，1998.

[2]Hendrickson，J.M.Error correction in foreign language teaching：Recent theory，research，and practice[J].Modern Language Journal， 1978，62：387-398.

[3]Krashen，S.D.Terrell，T.D.The Natural Approach[J].New York：Pergamon，1983.

[4]Krashen，S.Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use[J].Portsmouth：Heinemann，2003.

[5]Lightbown P&Spada; N.Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching：Effects on second language learning[J].Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[6]Long，Michael.Focus on form： A design feature in language teaching methodology[J].European-North-American Symposium on Needed Research in Foreign Language Education，Bellagio，Italy，1988.

[7]Rutherford，W.E.Second Language Grammar： Learning and Teaching[M].New York：Logman，1987.

[8]Schmidt R W.The role of consciousness in second language learning[J].Applied Linguistics，1990.

[9]Swain M&Lapkin; S.Canadian immersion and adult second language teaching—Whats the connection[J].The modern Language Journal，1989.