Language - Of course this is really the crux of all that we are doing here, so let's just speak a bit more specifically about it for a moment. We've discussed how important a sense of purpose is, and that the things that are said must be appropriate to the situation as well as to the level of language development of the class. Students need to know natural intonation and speech patterns, idiomatic vocabulary, and conversational fillers; this lends authenticity to their speech. They must use language that people actually need in life, not technical jargon or oversimplified baby talk. A balance of language that is known or can be easily inferred (as with cognates) and authentic, commonly used language is needed here.
I add that the language must be comprehensible, because if it is not, we lose the student completely. In his input hypothesis, Stephen Krashen refers to the i + 1 formula, which represents the idea that for maximum language acquisition, students must be exposed to language that they fully understand (represented by the i) plus just a little bit more, hence the + 1.
5
If the portion of the language that is beyond what the student fully comprehends is too great, then the student gets discouraged, thinking that either the language is too tough or that he or she is simply not good at new languages. If the student always understands everything, then there is no opportunity for further language acquisition and development invariably stagnates. From the teacher's point of view, this means that there will need to be some non-negotiable vocabulary that everyone can access and apply, but also a variety of options for extension, for getting more colloquial, that students may take and use when they are ready. Balancing each student's needs in this respect can be challenging, and what works for one class or one students might not work for another.
In the previous section (Believability and Purpose), see also: "Strategy: Building Up Plausible, Purposeful, Do-able Language."
Strategies: Grouping and Scaffolding
I have found that the ways I group students can help support my goals quite well, so that some days I want students working with those of similar vocabulary level and facility, and others I want them more diverse in their foundations so that one can learn from and/or support the other. I try to vary this so that it is not overtly about skill; I also try to be sure that it is not simply a matter of a stronger student helping someone who is struggling. Whenever possible I try to capitalize on a strength that the struggling student has and to challenge the stronger student. Perhaps more important is a regular mixing of partners; the more changes in partnering that occur, the more students learn to work with many different people, which supports and enhances our community framework.
Regarding language scaffolding and support in the context of these activities, I have found it useful to prepare focused half- or quarter-sized support sheets with key supplemental language, particular to the activity, providing enough information but not too much. Sometimes I will pass sheets out to some students but not others; sometimes I will pass out different sheets to different students, so that the more advanced students will have extension vocabulary to try out or will be prompted for more detail while strugglers have helpful phrases; other times I have students self select if they would like the support sheet. Students know themselves and their needs – whether they need to be challenged or supported and how much. I rarely see someone stick to the sheet when it is no longer needed, but when I do I nudge him or her to try without it, in the spirit of a game or a dare more than a demand.
