President s Message Several weeks ago we hosted an alumni reunion to celebrate forty years of Czech at our university. Over two days about fifty of

Transkript

1 President s Message Several weeks ago we hosted an alumni reunion to celebrate forty years of Czech at our university. Over two days about fifty of our graduates came through the doors, and it set me reflecting about what good this language of ten million has done them since graduation. A lot of discussion revolved around why they d started Czech as students. In most cases, they made the decision on gut feeling or word of mouth. Two of them recalled stopping at my desk during orientation week in a moment of idle curiosity, curious about which new language to take up; I allegedly said offhandedly, well, you might as well try Czech, then (entirely possible; hard-to-get is not my style) and the deal was sealed. No one had come raring to read Kundera or Havel in the original or fired by images from Kafka s Prague. Their motivation was friable. It could have crumbled at any moment. Why didn t it? Perhaps more interesting is what they have done with it since. Some are translators, the classic job that everyone imagines when they think of language graduates. Others are teachers, either of English in the Czech Republic, or of other foreign languages in the UK. A large number of them work in the corporate sector, using or not using their Czech as the particular project or client requires. And there are a small handful of academics, so perhaps the field will not disappear entirely. Admittedly reunion attenders are a motivated bunch, but I was nonetheless pleasantly surprised by how many of them maintained their connection to Czech, either through work or outside of it (you can see one example at Somehow over those four years at university, an inchoate impulse was tempered into an abiding interest. We had a terrific weekend of activities and reminiscences, including talks from our guest of honor Ambassador Žantovský and alumni, as well as a delicious lunch at our local Czech pub - but how can this goodwill and camaraderie help us with the people who make decisions about funding our program? To be blunt, why should we get to keep teaching a subject that students don t seem to feel strongly about until after they re already here? Does it help student recruitment, they ll ask? Wouldn t it be more sensible to scale back these small subjects and make another hire in economics? Our approach - and I suspect it s one shared by many Czech programs - is that we make more noise and hope it makes us seem bigger. We try to stay ahead of the curve pedagogically, be early adopters and make sure the learning and teaching gurus know about it. We make friends with the marketing department, and use the services of the Czech Embassy and the Czech Centre to bring in events that keep us in the decision-makers field of vision. We won t ever be indispensable to a university the way a history or English department is, but we can be useful - and live to train another generation of graduates. Neil Bermel University of Sheffield TABLE OF CONTENTS Grammar in Communicative Language Teaching: Noticing and Structured Input in First-Year Czech (L. debenedette)... 2 Učební materiály č. 5 (K. Šichová) 7 Holá & Bořilová: Čeština Express 3 (reviewed by S. Škodová) 8 Remediosová & Čechová: Wollen Sie Tschechicsh sprechen? (Reviewed by K. Milotová). 10 A Czech language training application for Android and ios mobile devices 12 A new website for the Texas Czech Legacy Project 12 Membership. 13

2 Grammar in Communicative Language Teaching: Noticing and Structured Input in First-Year Czech Lynne debenedette, Brown University, USA I n teaching a highly inflected Slavic language to non- Slavic speakers, an instructor may view with some apprehension the quantity of morphemes learners must encounter and process for meaning this is true even at the beginning level of study. It is not only the abundance of morphemes encountered that creates difficulty; for a non-slavic student of introductory Czech who has no previous experience of a Slavic language, the rich morphology is encountered together with a large amount of unfamiliar core vocabulary (Slavic roots) and syntax, and flexible word order. In a communicative first-year course it is understandable that instructors may find themselves wondering whether and how detailed and explicit work on so much language form can be compatible with a communicative approach to language learning. This article presents the theory and practices of one type of instructional focus on form: Structured Input. SI offers ways to combine instruction SLA research carried out during the 1980s confirmed the vital role played in acquisition by comprehensible input (Krashen 1985; Swain 1985; Gass & Madden 1985), thus validating the efficacy of one of the chief components of CLT. Concurrently, however, researchers in SLA had begun to study the development of learner accuracy in producing grammatical forms, as it was noted that even CLT classrooms rich in both comprehensible input and interaction did not necessarily lead to greater accuracy in language production (Lightbown & Spada 1990; VanPatten 1988; Terrell 1991). In the 1990s there was increased interest in and study of many aspects of this issue, which came to be called "focus on form." Eventually research articulated two broad types of pedagogical intervention aimed at developing learner accuracy (Doughty 1998; Long, in Doughty 1998). One, called "focus on forms" (and considered more traditional), involved explicit learning of grammatical and syntactic features of the L2, with practice occurring via drills (mechanical, meaningful, communicative), correction, and metalinguistic feedback. "Focus on forms" did not necessarily join work on forms to requiring that learners demonstrate comprehension of a message's propositional content; note that a learner can do a transformation or substitution verb drill accurately even if the meaning of the actual verb (or words in other Structured Input (SI) offers ways to combine instruction in grammar with communicative language work. 2 parts of the sentence) is not clear. Even in the case of a communicative drill it is not always imperative that the whole of the message be understood. For example, learners may be asked in a communicative drill to find out about their partner's plans by asking questions: Where are you going this evening? Are you going to? In this type of activity (which is potentially meaningbased as long as the lexical items used are understood) learners are not inherently required to do anything with the information they find out, and do not have a reason to care about or remember the information they elicit. They are given no task to be accomplished using this language unless the instructor creates one, for example by having the class find out who is going where and voting on who has the most interesting plans. Traditionally exercises like this one would follow more controlled practice, much of which might be mechanical. In contrast to these more traditional practice exercises stood various kinds of work called "focus on form" (not "forms"), or FonF. This work was assumed to take place in a communicative environment, where the learner would be primarily dealing with the propositional content and meaning of language input. However, these activities did also recognize that learners might need help to notice and acquire grammatical morphemes, even with a copious amount of input. Approaches vary along a spectrum of implicit to explicit. Strategies include "input flood," in which the learner receives input saturated with the targeted forms in high frequency; or "enhanced input," which can involve highlighting, underlining or marking targeted forms in the input (Doughty 1998; Sharwood Smith 1993). Some activities target awareness of particular forms, pushing the learner to notice a feature of the input that contains a targeted grammatical form (Schmidt 1990). One researcher investigating meaning-based approaches to FonF is Bill VanPatten. His Input Hypothesis (Wong & VanPatten 2003; VanPatten 2004) deals with how learners perceive and process linguistic data (rather than concentrating on learner production or output of linguistic forms). VanPatten (2004) hypothesized that learners confronted with input in the L2 will process it first for meaning and only secondarily for form, and that they will process content words before anything else, including morphemes. Hence in the Czech sentence Zítra pojedu do Prahy (tomorrow I will go to Prague) an L2 learner processing the meaning of the phrase will likely derive its future meaning from the word zítra (tomorrow) rather than from the lexicogrammatical form pojedu (I will go). However, if the learner instead sees the sentence without the adverb, there remains no other place to 'get' the future meaning other

3 than from the verb form itself; in the phrase pojedu do Prahy the learner must attend to the verb form to get information about the tense of the utterance. The implication of the Input Hypothesis is that if the instructional goal is to push learners to attend to the future-tense meaning of the morpheme pojedu when it is encountered in the input, the learners will be unlikely to do so if the morpheme only ever occurs in combination with lexical items like zítra that will provide the information about the sentence's tense, and make the morphological information in the verb redundant, at least in terms of processing. Another area of interest to VanPatten is how learners map (or fail to map) forms encountered in input to the meanings those forms convey, and how through instruction we can shift learners from faulty or less efficient processing strategies to more accurate ones (2004). The pedagogical intervention VanPatten developed based on the Input Hypothesis is called Processing Instruction (PI), which uses meaning-based focus on form activities to address faulty processing strategies. One, called "First Noun Strategy," derives from the Input Hypothesis and says that L2 learners tend to process the first noun or pronoun encountered in a sentence as the subject/agent (i.e., regardless of grammatical form). This idea has major implications for learning an inflected language with some flexibility of word order, as the following sentences illustrate: Božena nezná Igora. Igor nezná Boženu. Igora nezná Božena. Boženu nezná Igor. Correct processing of all four sentences requires not only comparing the forms in the sentences with the proper nouns' nominatives, mapping the morpheme [a] to both feminine nominative and masculine animate accusative, but also being willing to read the first noun as a possible direct object. In other words, the First Noun Strategy indicates that even a learner who has been taught both nominative and accusative forms, when confronted with the text, will be most likely to read the sentence such as Igora nezná Božena (it is Božena who does not know Igor) as "Igora does not know Božena," So a student who has learned nominative and accusative forms in Czech may still process the meaning of these sentences incorrectly, and it is worth addressing this processing problem once the two cases have been encountered. PI activities would address these issues as follows: 1) Comprehension of base vocabulary: in this case, the actual names may not be known to the students; names like Igor and Božena are not common among English speakers. A slide show of illustrations of the people who will figure in the activities is helpful even if the pictures are only line drawings: To je Petr (illustration). To je Božena (ill.). To je Igor (ill.). To je Jitka (ill.). It is 3 actually useful to choose names that are not the most familiar to English speakers, or to include names that can have similar male and female forms (e.g., Petra and Petr, Martin and Martina, Karel and Karla). 2) Visuals that support learner processing: in presenting the SVO/OVS sentences as input, illustrations accompanying each sentence can help make it clear which person knows whom. So the phrase Jarmilu nezná Karel might be accompanied by the two cartoon drawings of Karel and Jarmila students have just seen, but this time each is captioned. The Jarmila picture shows her pointing to a picture of Karel and saying To je Karel, on je student (i.e., she knows him), whereas the Karel picture shows him asking another person Kdo je ta Jarmila 1? (i.e., he does not know her). The student is asked to read the sentence Jarmilu nezná Karel and look at the captioned illustrations, and then circle the subject of the sentence. The illustrations at this stage duplicate the sentence's meaning and guide students to it, so that the student who reads Jarmilu nezná Karel (Karel does not know Jarmila) will be guided by the visuals to avoid the error First Noun Strategy might cause, and instead circle the word Karel as the subject. 3) Rule + processing strategy: Students are explicitly reminded of the endings for accusative nouns to express direct object, and they are also told that they may have a tendency to assign "subject" status to the first noun they see. Therefore they must be careful to look at the noun endings to ascertain that word's role in the sentence. 4) Comprehension work continues: Further sentences with either OVS or SVO word order and two animate nouns follow, with illustrations for each one (either two men, two women or a man and a woman), but this time without the captioning that earlier guided students to the choice of grammatical subject. This time they must use the noun endings alone to identify and circle the subject. Petra zná Jitka. Elišku zná Petr. (etc.) Thus in the activity above the learners have had to demonstrate over and over that they understand the meaning of an utterance (hence the activity is meaningbased and not a mechanical drill), but they have done so focusing on specific grammatical forms (subjects and direct objects), and showing that they can process the meaning those forms convey. Another grammar topic that works well for PI activities is kam (where to) vs. kde (where) with the proviso that learners must do a number of discrete activities first with one type (say, kam) then with the other, and only then be pushed to notice the different endings for each. In Czech this will work well particularly with locations / destinations that use the preposition na, as the preposition be the same for both 1 The demonstrative pronoun is considered appropriate in this context in oral communication.

4 kam and kde, but most nouns will have different endings for kam versus kde. However, it will also work with kam / kde expressions using other prepositions (do, v). For PI, in at least one activity the input would need to be structured to remove other linguistic "clues" to whether the category is a destination (where to) or a location (where at) for example, by giving sentences that include subjects and destination / location expressions but are missing a verb, and learners must write in one of two specified verbs: a motion verb or a form of být. In this example learners would be given the forms jeli / byli. Petr a Eva do Brna. Martin a Lucie na výletě. Tomáš a Lenka v Praze. (etc.) Some have questioned whether this sort of language work can replace mechanical drilling, or whether it might be depriving students of work on grammar rules, arguing that mechanical practice is necessary (Leaver et al., 2004). VanPatten and Wong (2003) have researched whether mechanical drilling is necessary for acquisition (i.e., ability to use language in communication) to occur, and the data has shown it is not. This data was supported by a study by Comer and debenedette for Russian (Comer and debenedette 2010, Comer and debenedette 2011). Further, it is important that we do not "hide the rule" from learners; on the contrary, we draw their attention to it. Equally important is the amount of active comprehension not production work that occurs before students ever begin producing the forms on their own. By "active" we mean that students must not only show comprehension of the input, but often respond to it in some way although they do not have to produce the forms themselves yet. An example of this would be a listening activity in which learners hear a set of sentences about their teacher's possible daily activities (or places she goes) and have to decide based on what they know of their instructor if the sentences are likely to be true. They then check one of three columns, depending on what they decide: Myslím, že ano / Asi ano / Asi ne. The targeted construction in the sentences below happen to be kam expressions, but this activity could work well with daily activity verbs and frequency time expressions as well. Students hear but do not see the input: Dnes jde paní učitelka na koncert rokové hudby. Dnes jde paní učitelka do divadla. Dnes jde paní učitelka na diskotéku. Dnes jde paní učitelka na poštu. Dnes jde paní učitelka do fitness centra. Dnes jde paní učitelka do hospody. Dnes jde paní učitelka na fotbal. After students have checked one of the three answers, they get to hear the teacher tell them which of the sentences are / are not true, and this time they have to circle any of their answers they "got right" (i.e., how well do they know their teacher?) The teacher may say: Nejdu na koncert. Jdu do divadla. Nejdu na diskotéku. Nejdu na poštu. Nejdu do fitness centra. Jdu do hospody. Nejdu na fotbal. Another type of activity, which VanPatten calls Structured Input (SI), carries this work even further. This article will conclude by suggesting some SI activities for introductory Czech. By "structuring" the input we refer to how we organize it, particularly new forms we wish to target, so that learners are pushed "to become dependent on form and structure to get meaning" (Lee & VanPatten 2003:142). Sometimes, as noted above, it is possible to push the learner to attend specifically to one morpheme. At other times the focus may be a vocabulary set with particular syntax, including verb government (e.g., musical instruments with hraju + na [I] play ). SI activities can work on 1 st and 2nd person singular forms of a set of new verbs (e.g., conducting an interview about what you and others read, write and listen to, or one's daily routine). They can also deal with a set of nouns in a particular case (e.g., dative naming the people you may or may not regularly call on the phone). In SI the emphasis is on active, considerable and communicative comprehension of input; it may be a vocabulary set (e.g., musical instruments, sports) or a text that embeds targeted new verbs (e.g., an account of how a student spends her free time), but work on comprehending this input happens before we focus learners' attention on the targeted grammatical forms. Students may show they understand information using activity types suggested above: checklists, true-false questions, and matching exercises. However, they must also then do something with the content of the input (for example, exchange information about their activities; or compare responses in a checklist survey about whom they call most often). These activities are traditionally thought of as culminating exercises, done after grammar presentations and mechanical practice. However, in SI they are usually introductory activities that increase exposure to language input, as the sentences that learners use and share with one another are written out in detail (i.e., verbs all conjugated, phrases in their appropriate forms) so that the input can embed the new targeted forms. Where necessary, illustrations should be added. For example, once the daily routine vocabulary has been introduced, and vocabulary comprehension work has ensured that learners recognize the new lexical items, the learners can fill out a survey by putting a check mark next to first-person sentences that describe their own morning routine. They then compare their responses to a 4

5 partner's answers by simply reading aloud the sentences they checked and marking which items they have in common. This pushes learners to use the forms many times (reading questions to partners, asking and answering), always in a meaningful context, and always with written and oral support they are not generating the forms on their own. A key element before moving on to more output-focused work are writing activities that specifically ask learners to notice and write down the targeted forms, attending to how words and specific forms of those words contribute to meaning. For SI activities to work well there must be sufficient comprehensible input that uses images, audio and text combined in more than one comprehension activity. If, for example, we are teaching "city" words like nádraží, pošta, restaurace, koncert, kavárna as kam destinations with the verb form jít then the following sequence of activities might be suggested: a) a slide show of numbered photos of the places: students have to watch the presentation and mark on a handout list of the words the number of the photo. b) a matching exercise (photo to word), just nominative case forms of the nouns, followed by an audio / picture activity in which students hear sentences in the targeted form (Lenka jde do divadla.) and this time see both an illustration of several people (Lenka, Petr, etc.) and also numbered photos or drawings of the destinations. Learners have to mark the pictures of the people with the number of the destination. c) a checklist for the student to fill out, ideally individually but with students asked to read the sentences quietly to themselves (so that they have practice articulating them). Jaký máš zítra program? Kam jdeš? Jdu do kavárny. Jdu do divadla. Jdu na koncert. Jdu na poštu. Jdu do italské restaurace. (etc.) d) Students move on to the question phase, repeatedly using the verb and targeted forms as they ask yes-no questions, but supported in their use of correct forms by the fact that all the forms are given to them. Their handout should have a place for student to write in the name of the person they spoke with, and a place for them to record the information they are finding out, so that they will be more likely to attend to the information. Jdeš zítra do kavárny? Jdeš zítra do divadla? Jdeš zítra na koncert? Jdeš zítra do italské restaurace? Jdeš zítra do kavárny? Note that an instructor may decide to limit the work to particular morphemes (just kam? forms using do 5 rather than both do and na). However, such focused work has to be balanced against the need to work with a range of vocabulary, and it is difficult to introduce destinations or locations working only with one preposition type while still keeping the activity communicative. e) Full group feedback. The instructor can ask the pairs of students to say how much their answers had in common or to give information they found that is unlike their own answers. To encourage everyone to listen intently, all the learners can have a handout with photos of the destinations; as they listen to their classmates report on the partner interview, everyone must put a check mark by a photo whenever it is reported that someone is going to that place. f) Noticing/Awareness of forms. If the grammatical focus of the work is the kam expressions, students should be asked to do the following: sort the nouns in a table by preposition the noun requires (do vs na) and record the preposition + noun phrases in a table; then also sort the noun phrases by gender of noun and record the preposition + noun phrases in a table by gender. Any new rules should be explained at this point. g) Other input-based activities of this sort could use V sobotu večer jdeme or another expression, such as Rád/Ráda chodím... h) Production. One possibility would be a reasoning gap activity: learners are given brief descriptions of people and have to work together to decide which of the destinations listed those people will go to. So if learners are given the sentence a picture of a young woman and the information Petra má žízeň, ale nepije kávu, and among the pictures of destinations is a čajovna, that would prompt learners to say Ona jde radši do čajovny. A similar set of activities could work for introducing almost any vocabulary set that requires particular syntax, including playing a musical instrument: Hraješ na nějaký hudební nástroj? Again, the materials would spell out all the possible sentences in full. Ideally this would come after some comprehension work has been done on the vocabulary (the instruments), possibly using illustrations like these e=hv_xl&image=1 Hraju na klavír. Hraju na housle. Hraju na kytaru. Hraju na flétnu. Hraju na trubku. Hraju na saxofon. Hraju na basu. Hraju na violu. (as full a list of instruments as you wish to introduce) Interaction in this case might work best as a mixer activity, with students trying to find people who play

6 each instrument if they can. In that case it is important for the instructor to decide which way to set up the question and answer pattern: yes-no questions about each instrument ("do you play the trumpet?") or the same yes-no question for everyone ("do you play an instrument?"). In any event the instructor should monitor that the answers learners give are full sentences in which they use the na construction. They should be able to do so if they read it correctly from their handout, but it is a new construction, so the likelihood is that a few students will leave out the preposition even though the input is written out for them. After the mixer activity students should move on to a written noticing exercise that asks them to fill in the missing parts of the construction: hraju kytar. It is important to work on one thing at a time hrát + fotbal should be practiced in a separate activity. If the goal is to work on accusative case nouns, one meaning-based way to combine the introduction of the input (e.g., things people read, write, listen to) with a review of the verbs and exposure to accusative case nouns might be as follows: a) Vocabulary review 1. časopis a. textbook 2. domácí úkol b. text message 3. noviny c. book 4. d. newspaper 5. kniha e. homework assignment 6. písnička f. essay 7. román g. article 8. sloh h. novel 9. článek ch. magazine 10. učebnice i. song 11. esemeska j. b) Čteme, píšeme, nebo posloucháme? These sentences would require artwork illustrating exactly what the person in each sentence is doing. The learner fills in the missing verb forms (answers given here, but the student would not see them). Marek a Eva jsou studenti. Co dělají? Eva učebnici. (čte) Marek esemesku. (píše) Eva sloh. (píše) Marek rokovou hudbu. (poslouchá) Eva clánek. (čte) Marek domácí úkol. (píše) (etc.) Subsequently learners could be asked to sort the direct objects by gender, or to compare nominative forms with accusatives. For proper nouns in dative one starting point might be having students find out from one another whom they call on the phone (komu telefonuješ?). Input would be organized as in the example for playing a musical instrument above, with the objective of finding out who talks on the phone to their family the most, who writes text messages, etc. Then work can proceed on noticing the dative case endings. In conclusion, SI and PI activities can keep students using the L2 actively in communicative and meaningbased activities at the same time as they are encountering new language forms. These activities segue easily into "noticing" exercises that require learners to observe and write down the forms they encountered. The activities offer communicative alternatives to mechanical drills and ensure that students 1) consistently process all relevant parts of the input for meaning; and 2) become better at mapping problematic forms to meanings and overcoming ineffective processing strategies. Subsequent activities can involve language production in which the input is used to accomplish some real-world or at least more holistic task. For example, we can synthesize work on the different forms possible after hrát by giving learners an information gap task-based activity: using information provided to each student by the instructor, students find out from one another about the sports and musical abilities of two groups of Americans and Czechs who are visiting campus (a total of 4-5 of each nationality would work). Learners record what they find out from one another in a table. When they have done the information gap activity and have a completed table, they must decide how to seat the visitors around two dinner tables so that each visitor has someone with similar interests nearby, and ideally with a mix of Americans and Czechs at each table. Instructors using these types of activities can be sure that students engaged in communicative and meaningbased work are also being pushed to focus on and notice the lexical and grammatical forms that contribute to meaning. Not every grammatical form will lend itself perfectly to this kind of work, but for an inflected Slavic language these treatments will work with many forms; SI and PI are surely a useful tool we should put to the best use. References Comer, William J., and Lynne debenedette. "Processing Instruction and Russian: Further Evidence Is IN." Foreign Language Annals 44, no. 4 (2011): Comer, William, and Lynne debenedette. "Processing instruction and Russian: Issues, materials, and preliminary experimental results." The Slavic and East European Journal (2010):

7 Doughty, C., and Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Farley, Andrew P. Structured Input: Grammar Instruction for the Acquisition-oriented Classroom. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, Lee, James F. and Bill VanPatten. Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. 2 nd Ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.). (1985). Input and Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. Holá, L. and Bořilová, P. (2012) Ceština expres 1. Prague: Akropolis. Holá, L. and Bořilová, P. (2012) Ceština expres 2. Prague: Akropolis. Hymes, D.H. (1966). "Two types of linguistic relativity". In Bright, W. Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman. Leaver, B. L., Rifkin, B., & Shekhtman, B. (2004). "Apples and oranges are both fruit, but they don t taste the same: A response to Wynne Wong and Bill VanPatten." Foreign Language Annals, 37, Lee, J., & Van Patten, B. (2003). Making Communicative Language Happen. New York: McGraw Hill. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). "Focus-on-Form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Learning." Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, Long, M. (1998). "Focus on Form: Theory, Research and Practice." In Doughty, C., &Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press, Savignon, Sandra J Communicative competence: an experiment in foreign language teaching. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development. Savignon, Sandra (1997). Communicative competence: theory and classroom practice: texts and contexts in second language learning (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). "Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: Swain, M. (1985). "Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output." In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.). Input and Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1998). "Focus on Form Through Conscious Reflection." In Doughty, C., &Williams, J. (Eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press, Terrell, T. (1991). "The Role of Grammar Instruction in a Communicative Approach." Modern Language Journal, 75 (1), VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, VanPatten, B. (1988). "How Juries Get Hung: Problems with the Evidence for a Focus on Form in Teaching." Language Learning, 38 (2), VanPatten, B. (1995). Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. New York: McGraw-Hill. VanPatten, B. (Ed.). (2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The Evidence is IN: Drills are Out. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), Terrell, T. (1991). "The Role of Grammar Instruction in a Communicative Approach." Modern Language Journal, 75 (1), Czech Language News is an open forum for lively discussions among teachers as well as anyone interested in Czech language and culture. The editorial office welcomes responses to feature articles. Please contact the editors if you would like to have your responses published. Rubrika UčMat UČEBNÍ MATERIÁLY (UčMat), Číslo 5 Kateřina Šichová Universität Regensburg, Germany R ubrika UČEBNÍ MATERIÁLY vychází v časopise Czech Language News od podzimního čísla Rádi bychom v rubrice upozorňovali nejen na (nové či starší) klasické učebnice, ale i na doplňkové materiály nejrůznějšího charakteru, které jsou např. volně dostupné na internetu nebo které lze získat u nejrůznějších institucí, podporujících často jejich vznik. Starší čísla rubriky UčMat jsou ke stažení na stránkách časopisu Pokyny pro autory: Redakce CzLN rubriky UčMat žádá autory, aby své příspěvky posílali em na adresu katerina.sichova[at]sprachlit.uni-r.de. Text o rozsahu min. 1 a max. 3 strany (MS Word, Times New Roman 12, řádkování 1,5) by měl obsahovat i jméno a pracoviště/pracovní zařazení a pro rubriku relevantní publikace autora. O zveřejnění recenze rozhodne redakce. Příspěvky do rubriky UčMat jsou výhradně v českém jazyce. Poznámka redakce: Nakladatelství a autoři mohou zasílat své publikace na adresu Kateřina Šichová Bohemicum Universitaet Regensburg Regensburg Deutschland/Germany katerina.sichova@ur.de. V rubrice uveřejňujeme seznam publikací, které jsou k dispozici jako recenzní výtisky. Zájemci o recenzní výtisk se mohou obracet na tutéž adresu. 7