View Content #22410

By Julie Sykes, CASLS Director

This month we are exploring issues related to the following principle for language teaching and learning:

Function and meaning should be primary in language learning and teaching. Language learners should be given the skills needed to accomplish real world tasks in meaningful ways.

The reaction we most often get when talking about this principle, and proficiency-oriented approaches more generally is, “Great! I completely agree, but also want to be sure my students get enough grammar so they are not making mistakes all over the place. We focus on that first, and then get to meaning and function.”

The challenge in the aforementioned approach is that structure and accuracy then become isolated from meaning and, often unintentionally, appear to be at odds with one another.  Instead, as we have discussed previously in InterCom, (See: http://caslsintercom.uoregon.edu/content/17546), accuracy in the service of meaning intimately tie one to the other, helping prioritize structure as a fundamental component of expressing oneself and understanding others, but not standing as a barrier or prerequisite for mutual understanding.  From this perspective, the curriculum first “focuses on meaning, but then intentionally ties this meaning to the tools (i.e., strategies, vocabulary, and grammar structure) needed to carry out the function.” Furthermore, grammatical “correctness” is then evaluated in concert with other aspects of success and is not the primary determinate of success or failure. This can be done in a number of ways. The three ideas presented below are a way to start.

1. Focus on ways in which grammatical structures change meaning, instead of as a list of rules to be applied across contexts. For example, let’s consider the critical use of the accent mark to make the distinction between 1^st person present tense verbs and third person preterit verbs in Spanish. The accent carries critical meaning in helping the learner express something they are doing, hablo, versus something someone else did, habló. A lesson with meaning as the focus would ask the learner to listen to various activities and decide when they happened based only on where the accent was placed.
2. Consider what to teach based on what is needed to carry out the function, not a set list of grammatical structures that need to be taught. These are outlined in national (NCSSFL-ACTFL) and international (CEFR) standards and can be articulated across levels.  (See our previous discussion of the topic for additional examples: http://caslsintercom.uoregon.edu/content/17546), 
3. Ensure tasks and assignments are evaluated across at least three, if not four, dimensions of success, not primarily accuracy. For example, a rubric to evaluate formal writing would include – (a) appropriateness for the audience, (2) accurate and relevant content, (3) organization, and (4) accuracy of language.

Regardless of the approach one takes, our hope is that grammar is consistent used in the service of meaning to ensure learners gain the skills needed to engage in real-world interaction.

Editor’s note: Our Activity of the Week exemplifies a functional task that requires attention to form. Experienced Spanish learners often persist in making mistakes when talking about likes and dislikes, because the verb for ‘like’ or ‘please’ belongs to a subclass of verbs that are unlike the majority of verbs that learners have been exposed to. For a concise explanation of the problematic structure, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dative_construction#Spanish