and Teaching

To transform classrooms into stimulating arenas where ideas are exchanged,

problematized, built upon and enhanced, teachers need to revisit how they
conceptualize language, and recognize how these conceptualizations influence
their behavior in classes.
—Aipa WALQuI

KEY TERMS
e affective filter « language socialization
e cognitive approaches e scaffolding
e communicative language teaching e sociocultural perspectives
e comprehensible input e teaching for transfer
e comprehensible output e zone of proximal development
e content-based instruction

GUIDING QUESTIONS
1. How do students develop proficiency in a new language?
2. How can different theories of language learning inform effective practice?
3. How do you develop your own personal approach to providing effective language
and content instruction for English language learners?

To ensure that ELLs receive effective language and content instruction, all teachers must
have an understanding of theories and research related to how students develop profi-
ciency in a new language. Philosophers since at least the time of Plato have speculated on
this issue, and linguistic theories began emerging in the early 1900s. Modern linguists
continue to conduct research and debate exactly how young children are able to acquire
their first language and how people acquire or learn a second or additional language.
Each of these theories provides important insights for effective practice.
We begin with a brief discussion of Noam Chomsky’s revolutionary contributions to
the field of first language acquisition. From there we turn to major contributions to the
field of second language acquisition that largely reflect a cognitive psychological perspec-
tive. Next we discuss sociocultural perspectives on language learning and teaching that
challenge traditional cognitive approaches. Although these perspectives come from dif-
ferent theoretical orientations and use different terminology, both provide important
insights that have been influential in molding how teachers structure opportunities for
students to learn and use language for academic purposes in the classroom environment.
Then we discuss the application of these theories by looking at several approaches and
methods in language learning and teaching that have been influential in K-12 education.
We conclude with a discussion about how teachers can move beyond traditional ap-
proaches and develop their own principled approach grounded in an understanding of
language and language development.

50
 Language Learning and Teaching 54

First Language Acquisition Theories

Newborn babies are unable to speak, but by the time they are 5 years old (assuming no
cognitive or developmental disorders), they have a fully developed language system. Two
major theories have evolved to explain this amazing achievement. In the behaviorist per-
spective, the well-known psychologist B. F. Skinner and others hypothesized that children
learn their first language through imitation and positive reinforcement. Young children
imitate the speech they hear around them, and adults positively reinforce their meaning-
ful utterances, helping them develop habits of correct speech. This view was prominent
throughout the 1940s and 1950s but was challenged by Noam Chomsky in 1959.
Chomsky, widely recognized as one of the world’s most influential linguists, demon-
strated that children are able to produce language and unique utterances that go well
beyond what they could reasonably have been exposed to and imitated. He hypothesized
that children have an innate ability—they are prewired—to learn language. Chomsky’s
theories, often referred to as the innatist perspective, suggest the presence of a language
acquisition device (LAD) that enables children to figure out the underlying rules of the
language on their own because of their exposure to samples of natural language. He refers
to these underlying rules as universal grammar. Once the LAD is activated and children
internalize the rules for the structure (syntax) of their language or languages, they can
generate an infinite number of unique, grammatically correct utterances.
Chomsky’s theories were revolutionary and they led to a rejection of the behaviorist
perspectives on language acquisition. Although his work remains influential, with most
linguists agreeing that children have some form of genetic predisposition for language
learning, new research is emerging from within linguistics and other academic fields.
Those who accept Chomsky’s ideas at some level vigorously debate exactly how they work,
while others challenge the core of his ideas (Dor, 2015; Everett, 2008; Frank, Bod, & Chris-
tiansen, 2012; Wolfe, 2016). For example, Everett (2017), a linguist who spent 30 years
studying the language of a primitive tribe—the Piraha—deep in the Amazon jungle found
that universal grammar could not account for their language, which appears to be unre-
lated to any other language in the world. Everett argues that language is not innate but
rather is a human cultural invention that has evolved since the time of our earliest ances-
tors (Homo erectus) over 1 million years ago: “Language gradually emerged from a culture,
formed by people who communicated with one another via human brains. Language is the
handmaiden of culture” (p. xvii, emphasis in original). Cristiansen and Chater (2017) argue
that this alternative emerging paradigm will lead to a more interdisciplinary and inte-
grated view of the science of language, which will lead to new breakthroughs in our un-
derstandings of the origin of language and of first and second language acquisition. These
- breakthroughs will likely have strong implications for language teaching and learning.

Second Language Acquisition Theories

Lightbown and Spada (2013) identify four major perspectives from which theories about
second language acquisition (SLA) have emerged: behaviorism, the innatist perspective,
the cognitive/developmental perspective (psychological theories), and the sociocultural
perspective. Atkinson (2011) makes a simpler distinction between traditional cognitiv-
ists approaches to SLA (beginning with Chomsky’s challenges to behaviorism) and a
range of alternatives to SLA, which includes sociocultural approaches. To keep things
simple, in the sections that follow, we first explore cognitive theories and approaches to
SLA and then turn to sociocultural perspectives on language learning and teaching. While
52 Chapter 3 Language Learning and Teaching

these various theories present sometimes very different and contrasting ideas, knowl-
edge of both perspectives on language learning and teaching provides teachers with the
foundation they need to form their own approach to instructing ELLs.

Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition

Those who take cognitive approaches to SLA are most interested in what is happening
inside the brain of the language learner. Because we do not know exactly how people
learn their first language, there are many competing theories and much debate over how
people learn a second (or third or more) language (Boxes 3.1 and 3.2). Nonetheless,
excellent research in the field of SLA has led to the development of several plausible the-
ories that have important implications for second language teaching and learning.
Cognitivist theories of SLA first emerged as a direct challenge to behaviorism. B. Fe
Skinner's theories of learning as habit formation through stimulus and response with
negative and positive reinforcement greatly influenced second language teaching from
the 1940s to the 1970s, with classes focused mainly on memorization and language drills.
By the end of the 1970s, however, following Chomsky’s challenges, most SLA researchers

Box 3.1 Critical Period Hypothesis

Do younger students learn a second language better and faster than older students?
The critical period hypothesis holds that language learning must take place during early child-
hood if an individual is to attain “native-like” proficiency. This hypothesis has supported the
popular view that young children have cognitive advantages that enable them to learn lan-
guages better and faster than adults. This long-held view has been called into question by
more recent research that found this ability may last into the late teenage years (Hartshorne,
Tenenbaum, & Pinker, 2018), and casts doubt on whether the advantages are indeed cognitive.
Other research has challenged the critical period hypothesis with evidence that adults can
and do learn languages successfully and even attain “native-like” proficiency (Baker & Wright,
2017). Research has shown that younger students do have some advantages over adult learn-
ers of a second language. Most of these advantages, however, are social rather than cognitive.
Research has also revealed advantages that adults have over younger children in learning a
second language.
Advantages of Young Children in Language Learning
e Young school-age children often have greater motivation, pressure, needs, and opportuni-
ties to develop second language proficiency than adults.
e Younger students receive a much greater amount of instructional time in the K-12 educa-
tional systems to learn a language (e.g., 6 hours a day, 5 days a week) than the typical adult
learner, who may receive only a few hours of instruction a week.
e Younger learners may have a lower affective filter than older students; thus, they may feel
more comfortable using their new language.
Advantages of Older Students and Adults in Language Learning
e Older learners may be literate in their first language and have other knowledge and skills
that can readily transfer to a second language.
e Older learners may have learning strategies they developed in the first language that will
help them as they learn a second language.
“If we could combine the maturity and articulated necessity of the older with the impression-
ability, imitativeness, spontaneity, and unselfconsciousness of the younger, we would surely
have a recipe for rapid and proficient bilingual acquisition” (Edwards, 2013, p. 17).
 Second Language Acquisition Theories 53

Box 3.2 English May Not Be the Second Language

Although we use the terms second language acquisition and second language teaching with
some ELLs, English may be their third, fourth, or even fifth or higher language. Much of what
researchers talk about under the label second language acquisition still applies to these stu-
dents’ efforts to learn English. Researchers, however, are beginning to explore the many fac-
tors that may be unique to the acquisition of a third language, a fourth language, and so on.
To acknowledge that many students have proficiency in more than two languages, several
states use the term new language instead of second language (see, e.g., EngageNY, 2013), as does
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1998) in its national teacher certifi-
cation programs.

had rejected the behaviorist perspective. Nonetheless, methods connected with behav-
iorism can still be found in many language classrooms and textbooks.
Although Chomsky’s work focuses on first language acquisition, his theories have
been highly influential on SLA researchers and theories. Many researchers argue that we
learn a second language in much the same way we learn our first language, and that sec-
ond language learners also access universal grammar to form internal rules about the
language that are based on the input they receive.

Monitor Model
One of the most influential cognitive models of SLA is known as the monitor model,
developed by Krashen in the 1980s (1985, 2004a). This model includes five interrelated
hypotheses:
1. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. Krashen argues that there is a fundamental dif-
ference between learning a language and acquiring a language. Language acqui-
sition is a subconscious process. We are not aware that it is happening, and we are
not even aware that we possess any new knowledge that is subconsciously stored
in our brains. Language learning, in contrast, is a conscious process; it is what we
do in school. When we are learning, we know we are learning and the learned
knowledge is represented consciously in our brains. Learning results in knowing
about the language rather than knowing the language (i.e., the ability to use it for
authentic communicative purposes). Krashen argues that because of the complex-
ity of language, the vast majority is acquired rather than consciously learned.
2. Natural Order Hypothesis. Krashen asserts that we acquire the parts of a language
in a predictable order. For example, the -ing marker in English (the progressive) is
acquired fairly early, whereas the third-person singular -s is acquired much later
or may not be acquired at all by older ELLs. Because the natural order appears to
be immune to teaching, drilling a student on a grammatical item before he or she
is ready to acquire it will be of little use.
3. Monitor Hypothesis. Krashen notes that although most language is acquired, we
can use learned language to monitor or inspect what we acquire and then correct
errors. Sometimes we make a correction internally before we actually say or write
something; other times we self-correct after producing a sentence. The monitor is
like a little language teacher in our heads reminding us of the rules. Krashen as-
serts that the monitor can make a small contribution to accuracy but acquisition
is responsible for fluency and most of our accuracy.
4. Input (Comprehension) Hypothesis. This is Krashen’s most important hypothesis
because it directly addresses how language acquisition occurs. He originally called
54 Chapter 3. Language Learning and Teaching

it the input hypothesis but renamed it the comprehension hypothesis to more ac-
curately reflect what it says (Krashen, 2004a). According to this hypothesis, we
acquire language when we understand messages or obtain comprehensible input.
That is, we acquire language when we understand the things we hear or read.
Krashen offers the formula i + 1 to explain comprehensible input; i represents a
student’s current level of proficiency, and'+1 represents input that is just slightly
above that level. He suggests that we move from i to i + 1 by understanding input
containing i + 1. We are able to do this “with the help of our previously acquired
linguistic competence, as well as extra-linguistic knowledge, which includes our
knowledge of the world and our knowledge of the situation. In other words, we
use context” (Krashen, 1985, p. 5). Thus, i+ 1 is the key to providing comprehen-
sible input that enables further acquisition to take place. Krashen argues that
we acquire language and develop literacy by understanding messages, not by
consciously learning about language and not by memorizing grammar rules and
vocabulary.
5. Affective Filter Hypothesis. Krashen explains that the affective filter controls how
much comprehensible input gets through to the learner. Even though the student
is exposed to input, anxiety, low self-esteem, or a sense that he or she is not a po-
tential member of the group that speaks the language—the affective filter—-will
keep it out. Thus, a major goal in language teaching and learning is to “lower” the
affective filter to maximize comprehensible input. This hypothesis has been useful
in explaining why individual students make different amounts of progress when
presented with the same input.

Comprehensible input, Krashen (1985) points out, is the essential ingredient for SLA.
He summarizes the five hypotheses with a single claim:

People acquire second languages only if they obtain comprehensible input and
if their affective filters are low enough to allow the input “in” When the filter is
“down” and appropriate comprehensible input is presented (and comprehended),
acquisition is inevitable. It is, in fact, unavoidable and cannot be prevented. (p. 4)

Although Krashen’s hypotheses have been and continue to be highly influential, they
have been criticized for their emphasis on acquisition over learning and, in their applica-
tion to classroom teaching, what seems to be the lack of direct instruction on grammat-
ical and other language forms. Research shows, however, that despite the considerable
progress students can make through exposure to comprehensible input without direct
instruction, they may reach a point where further progress requires guided instruction
(Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
Krashen does acknowledge a role for some direct teaching, as addressed in the mon-
itor hypothesis, but his theories do not necessarily provide guidance about what should
be directly taught and what students will naturally acquire on their own.
Critics of the natural order hypothesis point out that no one has been able to identify
a strict order in which different grammatical forms and other components of a language
are acquired, nor has anyone been able to account for the tremendous variation we see
in the order in which individuals acquire the different forms. Another criticism is that
the constructs i and +1 from the comprehension hypothesis cannot be operationalized
with any degree of exactness. Because of the complexity of language and the limitations
we have in determining a student's actual language proficiency through language profi-
ciency tests, we cannot obtain a precise measure of a student's i. Assuming we could mea-
sure i, exactly how much is +1?
 Second Language Acquisition Theories 55

Of greater concern to Krashen'’s critics, however, is his oversimplification of complex

processes in SLA and his downplaying of the importance of production (i.e., speaking
and writing) in SLA. It may strike some as counterintuitive that one can acquire a new
language without ever having to speak it. But, Krashen (1985) asserts, “speaking is a re-
sult of acquisition and not its cause. Speech cannot be taught directly but ‘emerges’ on its
own asa result of building competence via comprehensible input” (p. 2; emphasis added).
He adds, however, that speaking can be an indirect aid to language acquisition. Speaking
results in conversation, and what the other person says is an excellent source of compre-
hensible input. Speaking can also help by making the learner feel more like a user of the
second language, and this feeling helps lower the affective filter. Krashen (2017) contin-
ues to respond to his critics and maintains that research supports his hypotheses.
Despite the criticisms, Krashen’s theories have inspired a considerable amount of
research, much of it by scholars in psychology whose work has led to several psycholog-
ical theories of SLA. Cognitive and developmental psychologists believe that there is no
distinction in the brain between learning and acquisition and that, therefore, general
theories of learning are sufhcient to account for language learning. Among these are the
information-processing model, connectionism, and the competition model. VanPatten
(2017) argues, however, that language acquisition involves processes and mechanisms
that are unique to language. He and other psycholinguists are interested in understand-
ing the processes and mechanisms that enable a learner to comprehend and produce
language.

Interaction Hypothesis
Researchers have argued that interaction is essential for SLA to occur, and thus they
have studied the ways in which speakers modify their speech and their interaction pat-
terns to help learners participate in conversation (Gass, 2018). Long (2018), who devel-
oped the interaction hypothesis, agrees that comprehensible input is needed, but he fo-
cuses on how input can be made comprehensible through modified interaction, arguing
that learners need opportunities to interact with other speakers and reach mutual com-
prehension. In modified interaction, particularly interactions between a language learner
and a proficient speaker, the speakers may make several modifications as they converse
to get their meanings across (Swain & Suzuki, 2008). Some of these modifications may
include simplifying the language, reducing the rate of speech, and using gestures. Profi-
cient speakers might repeat or paraphrase what they say and use comprehension checks,
asking the learner during the conversation, “Do you understand?” The learner may make
clarification requests with questions such as, “Can you repeat that please?” or “I’m sorry,
what did you say?” or even a simple, “Huh?” along with a puzzled look. The proficient
“ speaker also provides corrective feedback, which may take the form of direct correction or
indirect correction through more subtle means, such as repeating what the learner said
but recasting it in the correct form. All these corrections are made within the natural
flow of the conversation. For example, if the learner says, “I go to doctor yesterday,’ the
proficient speaker might respond, “You went to the doctor yesterday? Why? Are you sick?”

Comprehensible Output Hypothesis

Swain (2005) brought attention to the importance of output in SLA in the late 1980s with
her comprehensible output hypothesis. Swain argues that when learners are in conver-
sation, making an effort to produce language that the person with whom they are con-
versing can understand, they are most likely to see the limits of their second language
ability and the need to find better ways to get their meaning across. Knowing they have to
speak forces them to pay more attention to what they are saying. Thus, Swain and others
56 Chapter 3. Language Learning and Teaching

argue that comprehensible input alone is insufficient, and creating comprehensible out-
put is also needed to facilitate language acquisition. Krashen (1998, 2017) disagrees. He
argues that spoken (and written) output occurs too infrequently to be a major source of
language development.

Noticing Hypothesis
Schmidt (2012) points out in his noticing hypothesis that learners cannot acquire specific
language features in the input unless they notice them. Learners may notice language
features when, for example, their teachers bring these features to their attention in class
or when something in the input is different from what they expected. Psycholinguists
continue to debate the importance of awareness and attention in SLA, and research on
these issues is ongoing.

Processability Theory
Pienemann (2015) argues in his processability theory that the sequence in which learners
acquire certain language features depends on how easy they are to process. Part of this
ease depends on where features occur within a sentence in the input; those at the begin-
ning or end are easier to process than those in the middle. He also theorizes that learners
acquire some linguistic features in the same sequence, even if they progress at different
rates, while they acquire other linguistic features in different sequences, according to
when they were processed.

Input Processing Model

VanPatten developed the input processing model, which looks at how learners make sense
out of input and how they get linguistic data from it (VanPatten & Jegerski, 2010). Van-
Patten (2017) argues that “communicative input is the essential external ingredient for
language acquisition” (p. 35). He defines input as the language learners hear or see in
a communicative context, or language that is “embedded in a communicative event that
the learner attends to for its meaning” (p. 59). He stresses that to be successful, learners
must have access to input and interaction with other speakers of the second language
they are learning. In his model, VanPatten (2003) accepts the processability theory and
adds the following:
e Learners always process input for meaning first and rely on content words before
anything else to get that meaning.
e When a content word and a grammatical form encode the same meaning (e.g.,
pastness is encoded by both a time reference, such as “yesterday,” and a verb in-
flection, such as -ed), learners rely on the content word and “skip” the grammati-
cal form.
e Learners rely on a first-noun strategy to understand “who did what to whom.’
(p. 41)’
VanPatten (2003) also addresses how newly processed input leads to changes in the
learner's developing linguistic system. He explains that this system change involves two
subprocesses. The first, accommodation, describes the process by which learners actually
incorporate a grammatical form or structure into the “mental picture” of the language
they are creating. The second, restructuring, describes the process by which the incorpo-
ration of a form or structure makes other things change without the learner’s ever know-

‘VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. Copyright McGraw-Hill Edu-
cation, reprinted by permission.
 Second Language Acquisition Theories 57

ing. Finally, VanPatten addresses output processing to explain how learners are able to
make use of their acquired implicit knowledge in conversations with others.
To summarize, VanPatten (2003) declares:

Language acquisition happens in only one way and all learners must undergo it.
Learners must have exposure to communicative input and they must process it;
the brain must organize data. Learners must acquire output procedures, and they
need to interact with other speakers. There is no way around these fundamental
aspects of acquisition; they are the basics. (p. 96)’

Transfer from First Language to Second Language

From a cognitive psychological perspective we may consider how students draw on what
they know in their first language (L1) as they are learning a second language (2). Stu-
dents are able to take much of the content-area knowledge and literacy skills they gained
in their L1 and transfer them to their L2. This ability to transfer knowledge and skills
means that students who have literacy skills in their L1 will likely make rapid progress
in learning to read and write in English (National Academies, 2017). Likewise, students
who have developed substantial content-area knowledge through their L1 do not need to
relearn the same concepts in English. ELLs who have advanced skills in math, for exam-
ple, do not need to relearn these concepts in English; they just need to learn the language
necessary to demonstrate what they already know.
Although linguists and language educators recognize that much of what transfers from
one language to another is beneficial (i.e., positive transfer), in some instances, transfer
from the L1 may cause interference (ie., negative transfer). Students may attempt, for
example, to apply their knowledge of the syntax of their L1 to English (e.g., a Spanish
speaker saying “house of friend” rather than “friend’s house”). Although more research is
needed to determine precisely what does and does not transfer, teachers can be assured
that students’ knowledge and literacy skills in their L1 is a strength that will facilitate their
academic and English language development. Effective teachers recognize and value the
vast store of knowledge students have in their first language and provide instruction that
enables students to draw on this knowledge. Cummins (2017) calls this teaching for
transfer.

Sociocultural Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching

In general, sociocultural perspectives on language learning and teaching stand in con-
trast to cognitive psychological approaches because the focus is not on what happens in-
- side the brain of the learner but on the sociocultural context surrounding the learner that
facilitates the learning process. Sociocultural perspectives have been growing in popular-
ity because they help teachers consider and address the linguistic and cultural diversity of
their students, the languages and literacies their students use at home and in the commu-
nity, and the languages and literacies needed for success in learning English and academic
content at school and beyond. In the sections that follow, we first discuss major contribu-
tions from the field of sociolinguists that began in the late 1960s. Then we turn to the late
Russian social psychologist Lev Vygotsky, whose work has had a great influence on the
field since the 1990s. Next we look at recent work on language socialization and conclude
with a brief discussion of bilingual perspectives on language teaching and learning.

VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher's guide to second language acquisition. Copyright McGraw-Hill Educa-
tion, reprinted by permission.
58 Chapter 3 Language Learning and Teaching

A note on terminology: socioculturally oriented researchers and practitioners chal-

lenge some of the terms that emerged from traditional cognitive approaches and use
alternative terms that better reflect the lived experiences of culturally and linguistically
diverse students and of how languages are learned and taught. For example, rather than
first language, native language, or primary language, the term home language is often
preferred to highlight the language or languages. students actually use to communicate
with family members and others in their homes. Some students may be “simultaneous”
bilinguals who grow up using two or more languages at home. As we have seen, some
socioculturalists prefer the term emergent bilingual to ELL because it focuses attention
on the ways students draw on all of their resources in their bilingual, multidialectal lin-
guistic repertoires to learn, even when they are enrolled in English-medium programs.
To take into account the fact that English might be a student's third or fourth language,
many states, educators, and programs use the term English as an additional language or
English as a new language rather than English as a second language. The term new lan-
guage may also be used to refer to English-proficient students in dual language or world
language programs.
The use of this new terminology, however, is not yet widespread even among those
who tend to favor sociocultural approaches, nor is there complete agreement on what
these terms mean and how to use them consistently. Also, most state policies and pro-
grams continue to use traditional terminology. Thus, throughout this book traditional
terms are used alongside newer terms as appropriate.

Sociolinguistic Contributions
Sociolinguistic research began in the late 1960s in an effort to understand the relation-
ship between languages and the societies in which they are used. Though the research
was not focused on language teaching and learning in general, the findings of these
studies can help teachers make informed decisions in addressing the needs of their
ELLs. For example, Hymes’s (1972) notion of communicative competence provides the
basis for communicative language teaching (CLT) and content-based instruction (CBI)
approaches. Research on nonstandard varieties of language, such as African American
Vernacular English (Ebonics) and TexMex (Spanglish) has shown that linguistically these
varieties are rule-governed and logical systems, yet they are often unfairly stigmatized by
speakers of dominant, standardized varieties of languages, leading to inequities for speak-
ers of these varieties in schools. Sociolinguistic research also can help educators under-
stand the dynamics of the relationship between English and other languages spoken by
ELLs, their families, and their communities, and the implications for structuring lan-
guage and content-area instruction programs best suited to their needs and interests.

Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding

Activity theory stems from the pioneering work of Vygotsky (1978), a Russian psycholo-
gist who studied child development in the 1920s and 1930s. Vygotsky died in 1934 at the
young age of 38 from tuberculosis, and some of his most influential work was published
only after his death. English translations of his work did not appear until the late 1960s,
but since then they have been highly influential in the West in psychology and education
(see, e.g., Moll, 2013). Vygotsky’s influence on language learning and teaching began
gaining momentum in the 1990s.
According to Vygotsky, learning is a social activity, and knowledge is constructed
through interaction and collaboration with others. Children’s learning takes place when
they interact and collaborate with adults or more skillful peers. Thus, children’s language,
a form of knowledge in Vygotsky’s view, develops primarily from interactions (conver-
 Second Language Acquisition Theories 59

sations) in social settings, especially in a supportive interactive environment. Through

these “processes of meaning-making in collaborative activity . . . language itself develops
as a ‘tool’ for making meaning” (Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden, 2013, p. 227).
Vygotsky identified the zone of proximal development (ZPD) as a domain or meta-
phoric space where children can reach a higher level of knowledge and performance with
the support of an adult or other more knowledgeable person. This assistance within the
ZPD is called scaffolding, evoking a construction metaphor, where scaffolding is tem-
porarily used to build something and removed once the building is completed. As with
the rest of Vygotsky’s theory, researchers apply the concepts of ZPD and scaffolding to the
process of language learning and teaching (Gibbons, 2014; Walqui & van Lier, 2010). For
example, Zwiers and Crawford (2011) identify five core communication skills that ELLs
need and can develop within the ZPD through productive academic conversations with
their teachers and peers across the content areas: (1) elaborating and clarifying, (2) sup-
porting ideas with evidence, (3) building on or challenging ideas, (4) paraphrasing, and
(5) synthesizing.
Teachers often incorrectly view Vygotsky’s ZPD as essentially the same principle as
the i+ 1 in Krashen’s input hypothesis. Although it is tempting to view them as the same,
since both appear to be addressing the issue of providing something just above a learner’s
current level of proficiency, the two concepts depend on very different ideas about how
development occurs. Krashen’s theory reflects a cognitive perspective and focuses on the
acquisition of asecond language and the provision of comprehensible input that contains
linguistic forms and structures that are just beyond the student's current level and just
beyond what he or she is ready to acquire. Vygotsky's theory is about knowledge devel-
opment in general, with an emphasis on how learners co-construct knowledge based on
their interactions with others in a given sociocultural context. For example, drawing
on the input hypothesis, a teacher wishing to help a student use correct forms of the past
tense to talk about yesterday’s field trip to the museum will facilitate multiple opportuni-
ties for students to receive comprehensible input by hearing speech (from the teacher or
other students) and reading text that contains examples of correct past-tense use. The
hope is that students will acquire the past-tense forms naturally. In contrast, a teacher
drawing on ZPD may plan for more deliberate and meaningful instruction of past-tense
forms, working with students to co-construct their knowledge and understanding of the
past tense. For example, the teacher and students might co-construct a text (shared writ-
ing) to talk about the field trip and thus provide opportunities to teach students the
correct use of the forms and guide their use of past tense as they write the text together.
The teacher might create a word chart listing the past-tense forms they need in their writ-
ing. The writing activity might be followed by students working in pairs to talk about the
‘field trip in preparation for writing their own stories. The teacher could monitor students’
use of past tense in their speaking and writing and provide assistance as needed, such as
referring them back to the chart or adding new words as needed. These activities take
place within the students’ ZPD, and the teacher provides the scaffolding necessary for
students to understand and use the past-tense forms correctly.
Vygotsky’s emphasis on interaction seems closely related also to Long's psycholinguis-
tic interaction hypothesis. Long and other psycholinguists, however, are more interested
in the cognitive processes initiated by input and output in the conversations, whereas in
the sociocultural perspective the focus is on the conversations themselves, with learning
occurring through the social interaction.
Sociocultural theory, then, gives much greater emphasis to the role of speaking and
collaborating in learning a second language and thus has opened the way for researchers
to focus on collaboration and interaction as key to language learning and teaching.
60 Chapter 3 Language Learning and Teaching

Swain, for example, extends her work on her comprehensible output by focusing on col-
laborative dialogues through which language use and language learning co-occur (Swain
& Suzuki, 2008).
Vygotsky's ideas have also been widely embraced by educators, who appreciate the
important role given to teachers and to classroom interaction in sociocultural theory
(Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden, 2013). Teachers are elevated from mere facilitators of com-
prehensible or modified input to knowledgeable, skilled experts who interact and collab-
orate with students, and who carefully plan and scaffold instruction within the ZPD to
co-construct knowledge with their students.

Language Socialization Research

Language socialization research stems from the early work of Ochs and Schieffelin (1984).
Language socialization researchers investigate how children are socialized through lan-
guage in their respective speech communities across a wide range of sociocultural con-
texts (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2017). Language socialization refers to “the process by which
individuals acquire the knowledge and practices that enable them to participate effec-
tively in a language community” (Langman, 2008, p. 489). In addition, language and cul-
tural learning are considered inseparable. As students learn the new language, they gain
knowledge about how to use the language in sociocultural contexts and construct their
social identities through their participation in language-mediated activities. This work
helps teachers recognize that when they work with ELLs they are not just teaching them
a new language but they are also socializing their students into a community of English
language speakers in their classes, programs, and schools.

Bilingual and Multilingual Pluralist Perspectives

Socioculturalists increasingly look at the education of students officially designated as
ELL through a bilingual lens. de Jong (2011) presents four guiding principles that edu-
cators can use to guide their decision making about policies, programming, curriculum,
instruction, assessment, and accountability from a bilingual perspective: (1) striving for
equity, (2) affirming linguistic and cultural identities, (3) promoting developmental bi-
lingualism, and (4) structuring for integration. These principles reflect an understanding
of relationships between language and power, and they can help teachers act on their
holistic bilingual assumptions about language teaching and learning in ways that elevate
the status of languages other than English and varieties other than standard English, use
these languages as resources for learning, and improve educational opportunities for stu-
dents who have traditionally been marginalized.
It is important to distinguish between bilingual education programs, which use two
languages for instructional purposes, and a bilingual perspective, which can be embraced
by teachers who work with bilingual learners in any type of instructional program—
including those that use English as the medium of instruction. It is also important to
recognize that not all bilingual education programs embrace holistic, dynamic, bilingual
perspectives.
Teachers who look at language teaching and learning from a monolingual perspective
may feel reluctant to allow students to use any of their home language in the classroom.
This approach reflects a language-as-problem orientation. Bilingual teachers who look at
bilingual education from a fragmented or compartmentalized perspective may insist on
the strict separation of languages, depending on the time or subjects that have been des-
ignated for instruction in one language or the other, and may discourage children from
translanguaging (Sayer, 2008). This monolingual, compartmentalized perspective has
been dominant in U.S. schools for decades.
 Second Language Acquisition Theories 61

In contrast, teachers who look at language teaching and learning from a dynamic
bilingual perspective see translanguaging as an integral part of the perfectly natural and
normal ways bilinguals use their languages in their everyday lives. Sayer (2013), for ex-
ample, conducted an ethnographic study in a 2nd grade classroom in Texas where stu-
dents and their teacher moved “fluidly between not just Spanish and English, but also the
standard and vernacular varieties” (i.e., TexMex) as students were engaged in making
sense of academic content and standard language instruction. Sayer also found that these
translanguaging practices provided students “a legitimized means of performing desired
identities” as bilingual Latinos. Garcia & Kleyn (2016) offer several case studies of New
York teachers making effective use of translanguaging pedagogies across subjects and
grade levels.
Bilingual education programs that reflect a holistic bilingual perspective bring the
two languages together in intentional and strategic ways. Escamilla et al. (2013) present
a holistic biliteracy framework that views (bi)literacy broadly as a system that includes
oracy, reading, writing, and metalanguage (not just as reading and writing). According
to this framework, teachers place the two languages side by side for instructional and
assessment purposes and document students’ trajectories toward biliteracy. Beeman and
Urow (2013) contribute the notion of the Bridge, the instructional moment when teach-
ers bring the two languages together strategically and intentionally to promote cross-
linguistic transfer.
Garcia, Johnson, and Seltzer (2016) have created a translanguaging guide for educators
with a wide range of strategies where teachers and students can use their bilingualism as a
rich resource for effective teaching and learning of language and academic content in any
classroom. For example, teachers may preview a lesson in the home language and then
teach it in English or allow groups of students to discuss in their home language a story
they read in English. Teachers may make use of bilingual books or encourage students to
write their own. Many of these strategies are consistent with the notion of teaching for
transfer grounded in traditional cognitive perspectives. But while socioculturally oriented
teachers recognize translanguaging as a powerful way to help students transfer knowledge
from their home language to English, they do not view it as a one-way process or as a
means to an end. Rather, they recognize that positive transfer can also go from English to
the home language, and that conversations and activities involving all of students’ lan-
guages or dialects are in and of themselves legitimate forms of communication that can
be effective in maximizing students’ comprehension of rigorous academic content. Thus,
translanguaging can also refer to pedagogical practices that use bilingualism as a re-
source rather than ignore it or perceive it as a problem (Garcia, 2017).

All Teachers Are Language Teachers

Depending on how schools structure programs for ELLs, some teachers may get the false
impression that English language development is solely the responsibility of the ESL
teacher or specialist. But whether you are, or plan to become, a “regular, mainstream”
classroom teacher, a content-area teacher or specialist, a special education teacher, a bi-
lingual teacher, or an ESL teacher, you are also a language teacher. As a language teacher,
you share responsibility for helping your ELLs develop their proficiency in English and
their ability to use oral and written English for academic purposes across content areas.
Content teachers, for example, teach lessons with both language and content objectives.
In schools with ESL or bilingual teachers/specialists, there are several points of collabo-
ration for language and content teachers, for example, planning lessons that address
62 Chapter 3 Language Learning and Teaching

English language proficiency standards, providing support to identify the language de-
mands of differentiated content areas, writing appropriate language objectives, differen-
tiating instruction for ELLs based on their current levels of proficiency, strategically
using home languages to support learning, and creating and using appropriate formative
assessments. As language and content teachers clarify their roles and responsibilities for
teaching ELLs, they can collaborate in effective ways to ensure their students’ success in
meeting language and content standards. In schools where there are no designated lan-
guage teachers, it is essential that content teachers also provide the types of language in-
struction typically provided by language teachers and lead discussions with other decision
makers at the school.

Traditional Second Language

Teaching Approaches and Methods
The approaches and methods used in teaching a second language have evolved along
with, and been influenced by, traditional cognitive theories of SLA, and more recently by
sociocultural perspectives on language teaching and learning. The term approaches refers
to an overarching philosophy of second language instruction; methods refers to a set of
procedures for delivering second language instruction. Richards and Rodgers (2014)
have identified and described over a dozen different approaches and methods that have
been used since the 19th century. Some have come and gone and some overlap. In re-
viewing ESL curricular materials or visiting the classrooms of effective ESL teachers, you
will most likely see a mixture of approaches and methods in use. Let us briefly look at
some of the more common approaches and methods that continue to have an influence
today on instruction for K-12 ELLs.

Grammar-Translation Method
The grammar-translation method, based to a large extent on the way Latin was tradi-
tionally taught, was predominant from the 1840s to the 1940s. Students were required
to analyze and memorize rules of grammar, then translate sentences between the two
languages. This approach is not based on any theory and has no advocates, but it contin-
ues to be used widely among teachers with little training or experience. When opposition
to grammar-translation developed and language educators and researchers began asking
why methods for teaching Latin—no longer a spoken language—were being used to teach
modern languages, new methods were developed.

Audiolingual Method
The audiolingual method grew out of the need for foreign language proficiency in the
US. military after the United States entered World War II. Its appearance coincided with
other efforts in the late 1930s and early 1940s to apply principles of structural linguistics
to language teaching. The audiolingual method was highly influenced by behaviorism,
the dominant view of second language learning at the time. Language learning was viewed
as mechanical habit formation accomplished through dialogue memorization and drills
focused on particular language structures. Audiolingualism fell out of favor by the 1970s
following Chomksy’s challenge to behaviorist theories of language learning. Also, many
language teachers, and students themselves, were frustrated when students had difficulty
moving from their memorized dialogues and drills to real-life communication. While
audiolingualism is no longer the dominant method, vestiges of it are still apparent in many
 Traditional Second Language Teaching Approaches and Methods 63

textbook dialogues and drills, language labs, and even in commercial language learning
audio programs, computer software, and mobile apps.

Natural Approach
In the late 1970s, Terrell developed an approach that was later popularized in the 1980s
through collaboration with Krashen as the “natural approach” (Krashen & Terrell, 1983).
The natural approach essentially applies Krashen’s five hypotheses to the communicative
language learning classroom. In contrast to audiolingualism and other methods with a
focus on grammar, the natural approach emphasizes the use of comprehensible input
in the classroom so that students can acquire the language and its structures naturally as
they use it for meaningful communication. The teacher’s job is to provide comprehensi-
ble input in a safe and enjoyable classroom environment. Such an environment helps to
lower the affective filter and thus maximize comprehensible input. The teacher uses a wide
variety of techniques, such as total physical response (TPR), which involves students’ re-
sponding physically to a series of commands, ample visuals and realia (real objects),
small-group work, and any other activities involving meaningful communication that
can facilitate the provision of comprehensible input. Krashen and Terrell also outlined
five stages of language acquisition: preproduction, early production, speech emergence,
intermediate, and advanced. Using these stages, teachers can identify appropriate activi-
ties and expectations for students that facilitate the provision of comprehensible input
(i + 1) and enhance SLA. Because students acquire vocabulary and grammar naturally,
there is little need for direct instruction and practice through the use of memorized dia-
logues or drills.
The natural approach, like Krashen’s theories on which the approach is based, has been
highly criticized for lacking a clear focus, providing too little guidance for teachers, and
leaving too much to chance in terms of students’ learning needed vocabulary and gram-
matical forms. Many educators who have seen students succeed in learning languages
with the natural approach continue to use it. But criticisms of it have led to increased
attention to form in CLT.

Communicative Language Teaching

CLT emerged in the 1980s and remains the approach favored by most experienced lan-
guage teachers and researchers. CLT grew out of dissatisfaction with audiolingualism,
which produced students who could memorize dialogues and respond to drills but who
had difficulty actually communicating with other speakers of the target language. CLT
“draws on Hymes’s notion of communicative competence; thus, the focus is on learning
language to actually use it to communicate in the target language with other speakers. CLT
is not a singular teaching method but a set of core principles that can be applied and in-
terpreted in a variety of ways (Van Patten, 2017). These principles include the following:

e Learners learn a language through using it to communicate.

e Authentic and meaningful communication should be the goal of classroom
activities.
e Fluency is an important dimension of communication.
e Communication involves the integration of different language skills.
e Learning is a process of creative construction and involves trial and error. (p. 105)’

>Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
64 Chapter 3 Language Learning and Teaching

CLT’s emphasis on authentic meaningful communication and learning as creative

instruction makes it highly compatible with the sociocultural perspective. In CLT there
is an emphasis on providing grammar instruction—a “focus on form’—within the com-
municative context of a particular academic subject or field. Van Patten (2017) empha-
sizes that “any focus on form should be input-oriented and meaning-based” (p. 97). The
example given earlier of teaching the past tense-from a sociocultural perspective illus-
trates this focus on form in a CLT classroom. The goal of grammar instruction in CLT is
not simply to memorize a rule but to develop the ability to effectively comprehend and
convey intended meanings when reading books or other texts, making an oral presenta-
tion, writing a science or history report, or collaborating with peers to conduct a scien-
tific experiment.

Content-Based Instruction
Content-based instruction (CBI) is an approach to second language teaching in which
content-area subjects and topics are used as the basis of instruction. The content area
provides a meaningful context for authentic communication as learners collaborate to
complete carefully designed academic tasks. Thus, CBI is a specific form of CLT that
focuses on teaching students to successfully communicate about the content area. This
approach is consistent with the goal of most K-12 ELL programs, which is to prepare
students for mainstream content area classrooms.
When CBI was introduced, ESL teachers used content areas such as math, science, and
social studies as vehicles for language instruction, though their instructional and assess-
ment focus was on English language development rather than content. Few ESL teachers,
however, were properly trained to teach such content areas, and the ELL population was
growing rapidly in schools. One solution was to train content-area teachers to help ELLs
learn the content area while supporting their English language development. This type
of instruction is called sheltered instruction, or specially designed academic instruction
in English (SDAIE). CBI can now be thought of as a cover term for a continuum of ap-
proaches that integrate content and language instruction. On one end is content-area
instruction by ESL teachers who focus on language development; on the other is shel-
tered instruction by content-area teachers who are trained to make complex content-area
concepts comprehensible to ELLs at different English language proficiency levels.
Bilingual, ESL, and content-area teachers with ELLs in their classes receive training
in sheltered instruction. The cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA)
developed in the 1980s (Chamot, 2009) and the sheltered instruction observation proto-
col (SIOP) model developed in the 1990s (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2017) remain pop-
ular models for providing CBI for ELLs in K-12.

Whole Language, Multiple Intelligences,

and Cooperative Learning
Whole language, multiple intelligences, and cooperative learning were not designed spe-
cifically for language teaching and learning, but teachers of ELLs have found them well
suited for use in language learning classrooms, especially those following a CLT approach.
Whole language is a philosophy of literacy instruction that places emphasis on teaching
reading strategies and skills within the meaningful context of whole stories, poems, and
other texts (a top-down approach). Although the term whole language is now used infre-
quently because of political controversy over what some perceived to be its rejection of
training in basic skills such as phonics, the strategies and practices associated with whole
 Traditional Second Language Teaching Approaches and Methods 65

language are still in common use. Multiple intelligences, a theory proposed by Gardner
(2011), asserts that intelligence is multidimensional; thus, classroom instruction should
be designed to maximize learning according to the particular set of intelligences a child
may have. These intelligences include linguistic, logical/mathematical, spatial, musical,
kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. Teachers have found that
multiple intelligences approaches to teaching help them identify and teach to their ELLs’
strengths in both language and content-area instruction. Cooperative learning focuses
on the use of small groups within which students collaborate to solve problems or com-
plete academic tasks. Cooperative learning appeals to language teachers because it offers
rich opportunities for students to engage in meaningful communication and obtain com-
prehensible input as they interact to complete academic tasks.

Critical Pedagogy
Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator, developed critical pedagogy in the 1960s while seeking
ways to offer an education to impoverished and illiterate adult students in his country that
would help them improve their situation and thus transform their lives and the society in
which they lived. Many educators in the field of language education have recognized the
importance of critical pedagogy in helping ELLs understand and confront unequal power
relations as they attain English proficiency and learn academic content. Thus, critical
pedagogy is often a key component of sociocultural approaches to teaching and learning.
Freire (1993) decried what he referred to as the “banking” concept of education, ac-
cording to which teachers simply make deposits of essential knowledge and skills into
the heads of students. The assumption is that “the teacher knows everything and the
students know nothing” (p. 54). Freire called for a transformative education that would
“liberate” impoverished students from their oppressed status. To accomplish this, Freire
developed a process that encourages students to confront the social issues that contribute
to their oppression in the dominant society. Critical pedagogy involves “problem posing,
reflective thinking, knowledge gathering, and collaborative decision making,’ and it helps
students and teachers “find and express their voice, in oral and written form” (Ovando &
Combs, 2018, p. 101). Critical pedagogy requires teachers to take some risks by exploring
new knowledge and opening themselves to new ways of perceiving the world, including
thinking about ways to transform power relations that exist within and outside of schools.
Freire’s concepts are central to levels 3 (transformative) and 4 (social action) of James
Banks's levels of multicultural education.

-Beyond Approaches and Methods

Richards and Rodgers (2014) acknowledge that although it is useful to study and under-
stand different approaches and methods, teachers should keep in mind that adherence to
a specific method may restrict a teacher’s creativity and professional judgment. Current
knowledge is always changing, and no one method or approach is applicable to every
language classroom in the world. The context of the classroom and the needs of the stu-
dents should be the starting point, rather than any given method.
Teachers can use the following questions to guide their decisions about what strate-
gies to use to promote ELLs’ content-area learning through English, their English language
development, and their cultural integration into the classroom and school community:

e What are the students’ strengths and needs?

e What are the instructional goals?
66 Chapter 3 Language Learning and Teaching

© What is likely to be challenging about these goals for these students?

e What strategies can help address these challenges?
e How will you know whether these strategies are effective?
When teachers know their ELLs language, literacy, content, and culture strengths and
needs, they can compare them to the students’ language, literacy, content, and culture
instructional goals. Teachers can then determine what is likely to be challenging about a
particular activity, lesson, or unit for those students and select appropriate instructional
and assessment strategies.
Richards and Rodgers (2014) suggest that teachers try out different methods and ap-
proaches. In doing so they should be flexible and creative, drawing on their own beliefs,
values, principles, and experiences to adapt the methods and approaches they use to the
realities of the classroom. They refer to this process as the development of a “personal
approach” to teaching and a set of core principles to draw on when teaching. They offer
the following examples:
e Engage all learners in the lesson.
e Make learners the focus of the lesson.
e Provide maximum opportunities for student participation.
e Be tolerant of learners’ mistakes.
e Develop learners’ confidence.
Respond to learners’ difficulties and build on them.
Use a maximum amount of student-to-student activities.
Promote cooperation among learners.
Address learners’ needs and interests. (p. 353)*

The methods and approaches highlighted in this book reflect these principles and are
grounded in our current understandings of theory, research, and best practices in lan-
guage learning and teaching. The chapters that follow introduce you to a wide range of
strategies and techniques that promote listening, speaking, reading, and writing across
the content areas that are consistent with what we know about language teaching and
learning. As you draw on these understandings, strategies, and techniques to develop
your own personal and principled approach to teaching ELLs, be sure also to apply your
understanding of the sociocultural contexts of your classroom, program, school, district,
and community.

Summary
While linguists continue to conduct research on exactly how one learns a language, we
can focus on the areas of consensus that have important implications for teaching and
learning. Whether one takes a cognitive or sociocultural view of language development,
researchers and educators seem to agree on the need for students to receive comprehen-
sible input and to engage in meaningful interactions with other speakers of the target
language. Thus, teachers need to find ways to make their instruction comprehensible for
ELLs, and they need to provide ample opportunities for meaningful interactions in the
classroom. Teachers’ experiences and classroom-based research have given us a good
sense of what does and does not work.
We can look at constructs of comprehensible input and we can consider a student's
ZPD. While these concepts may be impossible to operationalize, teachers interact with
their students every day—talk with them, listen to them talk, read with them, listen to

“Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
 Traditional Second Language Teaching Approaches and Methods 67

them read, write with them, and read what they write. Thus, teachers will have a sense
of what is and is not comprehensible for their students, and what type and amount of
scaffolding is needed to help them succeed.
When teachers know their students well and understand the sociocultural contexts of
their classroom, school, and community, they draw on their knowledge of language
teaching and learning theories, methods, and approaches to inform their own principled
approach to providing the type of learning environment that builds on their students’
strengths and addresses their unique needs. They can provide appropriate instruction,
activities, and opportunities for meaningful interaction to help their students continue to
make progress in developing proficiency in English and in the content areas.

Discussion Questions

1. Ofthe language learning theories discussed in this chapter, which do you most
agree with? Do you find that cognitive and sociocultural theories are incom-
patible? If not, discuss some ways drawing on different theories can help in-
form your instruction.
2. Describe your experiences with the various methods and approaches presented
in this chapter, either learning under them or putting them into practice in
your own classroom. Which did you find to be the most effective?
3. Why is it important to go beyond methods and approaches and develop your
own personal approach to teaching ELLs? What are some of the core princi-
ples you would draw on to inform your own personal approach?
4. View the video from the 1980s of Stephen Krashen describing his second |an-
guage acquisition hypotheses, What does he argue are the most important fea-
tures of second language acquisition? Compare and contrast his theories with
the others described in this chapter.
5. Review the document “Guiding Principles of Language Development” from
the WIDA Consortium, which serves as the cornerstone of WIDAs English
language development standards. How can these ten principles help you de-
velop your own personal approach to teaching ELLs? What are some ways you
would put these principles into practice in your own classroom?

Research Activities

4. ELL Student Interview Aska current or former ELL about the kinds of lessons,
activities, strategies, techniques, and materials a teacher used to help him or her
learn English. Use this information to determine the methods and approaches
the teacher may have been using. Ask how effective the student felt this in-
struction was, and whether there is anything he or she wishes the teacher had
done differently.
2. ELL Teacher Interview Ask an ELL teacher what approaches or methods he or
she uses in the classroom. Ask why he or she has chosen to use these and how
effective they are in helping students learn English.
3. ELL Classroom Observation Observe one or more ESL lessons in a classroom,
and review any textbooks or other curricular materials used in the lesson.
Which approaches or methods do the teacher’s instruction and curricular ma-
terials seem to align with most closely? How effective did you find the lesson
to be? Is there anything you would have done differently?
68 Chapter 3 Language Learning and Teaching

4. Online Research Activity If you are bilingual, or have attempted to learn a new
language, write your own language learning story modeled on my “How I
Learned My Second Language” story. Tie your experiences to the ideas, theo-
ries, and methods discussed in this chapter that helped you understand your
experience. What are some lessons you learned from your experience that
might influence your instruction in your classroom? Consider making it into
a digital story by incorporating photos, audio, or video clips.

Recommended Reading
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press.
An excellent and easy-to-read introduction to second language acquisition theories.

Savile-Troike, M., & Barto, K. (2017). Introducing second language acquisition (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Comprehensive but accessible introduction to the field of second language acquisition.

VanPatten, B. (2017). While we're on the topic: BVP on language, acquisition, and classroom practice. Al-
exandria, VA: The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
In a highly engaging style, provides language teachers with principles of CLT and discusses how language is ac-
quired, the roles of input and interaction, tasks and activities, and focus on form.