I am a big believer in production, which represents speaking or writing. Swain, in 1995, presented
the “Pushed Output” theory largely in response to Krashen’s Comprehensible Input
theory. So Krashen said you learn input plus one. Essentially, while Swain’s theory does
not ignore the importance of input (reading and listening), it suggests that a language
is not truly acquired until a learner can output (write and speak) in the language.
Furthermore, it notes that many students are reluctant to speak or write for numerous reasons.
They often are afraid to make mistakes and they don’t want to output until they can
do it perfectly. Well, that’s going to be a long time. So, instructors should gently
persuade/push students to speak or write in English regardless of the quality of grammar
or pronunciation. You need to have times when you ignore the pronunciation and grammar and
you just give people a chance to speak or just give them a chance write without feeling
any pressure about editing themselves. Noam Chomsky is a linguist who helped us understand
that our brain learns languages by noticing patterns and is NOT limited to learning each
individual word and each individual grammar lesson in specific situations. Learners are
able to put vocabulary together in grammatically correct (and sometimes incorrect) ways that
they had never heard before because they recognize some pattern. For example, when I was in Japan,
I learned that “kawaii” means cute and “oishisou” means that it “looks very
delicious.” I thought it meant “it is very delicious” but it means “looks very
delicious.” At the time I thought it might, “looks very delicious.”My brain thought
it recognized a pattern and assumed that “kawaisou” meant “looks very cute.” It turns out
that the pattern was not there (“kawaisou” means sad or pitiful, so I ended up calling
the baby pitiful instead of very cute), but that idea is what Chomsky was talking about,
the idea of recognizing language patterns. So, how does this relate to production? I
have always required students at every level of learning English to produce products on
the computer because I know they have more language ability than just what they have
learned in class. By forcing even pre-level one students to output, I am encouraging them
to apply the patterns their brain has already recognized and they may surprise themselves
with how much English they really know. One more note about production is that using
Web 2.0 tools, students can now produce online to authentic audiences. One benefit is that
students feel valued as human beings when they are able to share their thoughts with
others. For example, YouTube does not end with the uploading of the video. After the
video is available, other YouTubers can comment about the video, rate how they like it, and
share it through linking or embedding. A new tool on YouTube, allows the video owner to
send a special link to certain people asking them to add annotations directly to the video.
These annotations may just be funny thought bubbles or they may be comments about how
to improve the video or about a step left out of the video.
As students have these chances to produce for authentic audiences, they tend to rewrite
and redo their work more than just outputting for the instructor. So, this attention to
detail and quality becomes another benefit of producing via Web 2.0 tools.
(And I’m going to take a break right there.)