The Input vs Output debate
The input philosophy- Language enters your brain from messages that you read or hear and most importantly understand. Language can be make comprehensible through the use of translation or with demonstration, acting and pictures. When you understand what a sentence or word means you just need to hear and read that word enough times in the proper contexts for it to enter your brain and become a part of your vocabulary and something you can use. The main components of this theory is that the language needs to be made understandable and also kept simple. If you go straight for the advanced material its very hard to understand how a sentence works because of complex grammar structures and different word usage. So you should start with the most basic S V O sentences and gradually build with lots of repetition to make it stick.
Conversely if you were to turn on the radio in a language you know next to nothing in it is very unlikely you will learn anything. You don't have the basic building blocks of the language to make a guess at the gaps and you don't have any visual stimulus to let you know what they are talking about so because the input isn't comprehensible and is therefore useless.
This approach downplays lengthy grammar explanations and too much free speaking initially. The grammar explanations are useless according to this approach because its useless to search for a rule in your head on how to order the sentence while you are in the middle of a conversation. It would be too slow and frustrating for the listener. The best thing to do is to get as many examples of a grammar pattern using different vocabulary and to listen to them many times over. Eventually the brain will acquire the grammar naturally.
As for speaking, I don't think there is too much pushing for people to never make the sounds of the language with their mouths but just that it be copying a teacher or reading a correct and accurate sentence from a textbook rather than inventing their own when they don't already instinctively understand how to use the grammar as they will make mistakes and reinforce them in the memory through practice.
The output philosophy- The output philosophy has always been around that in order to get better at a language one needs to practice speaking it. It was never called the output approach until the input approach was invented to oppose it. It mainly takes shape as 'communicative language teaching/learning' in the average classroom. In the classroom this means a lot of pair and group work to maximize speaking opportunities as well as debates, asking students to talk about themselves and their opinions etc.
Outside the classroom it generally means actively searching for native speakers to speak to, whether by placing yourself close to them or by doing language exchanges and such.
The idea here is that languages are for speaking and if you just read and listen you will only get better at reading and listening not speaking. It is also believed that language is a social thing and that language sticks in the brain when it is used to communicate ideas with people and to achieve goals.
My interpretation-
I sort of side closer to the input side of the debate but generally feel that they are two sides of the same coin. I believe you should spend the majority of your time reading and listening to learn new words and phrases more efficiently. Although you can get 'input' through conversations such as whenever the person you are talking makes a statement or asks you a question in a comprehensible way this is generally a pretty inefficient way of getting input unless the other person is a trained language teacher. Language exchanges can be pretty meandering chats and it is often on the learner to give the chat structure by asking to be walked through a textbook and continually asking for examples and explanations of word as well as lots of repetition.
However the ultimate goal in language is to use it to communicate and I think if you aren't using it to make friends and new relationships or using it to function in society then you are missing out on half the joy. You shouldn't have to wait until you are good enough to begin enjoying this part of learning a new language. Constantly using a language to communicate gives you a good benchmark of where you are, what your strengths and weaknesses are what you need to work on. Did I understand the person I was speaking to? Did they understand me? This is a good motivator to keep driving yourself forward.
I also think that speaking is a skill that needs to be practiced but that you should first try to get a feel for words and phrases by seeing and hearing them many times in context before trying to make your own sentences with them. Nothing annoys me more than teachers who teach a word or sentence to me and ask me to create my own original sentence with it 30 seconds later. So I do believe that output is a good thing but not until after lots of input first.
Listen, read, understand and then speak.
No comments:
Post a Comment