My new updated classroom rules, updated from December. They have changed a lot since the non-targeted issue that began in Jan. of 2016. As per points made last fall by Krista Kovalchick on iFLT, I removed the one about suggesting cute answers. Now, as per Tina’s suggestion of today, I agree that I have to […]
Q. Do you observe what the students can do in terms of the Can Do statements of ACTFL? How do they fit into your schema? A. Can Do statements do not fit into what I do. Most teachers teach them using skill building, which involves memorization and conscious monitoring of output. That is a far
Keri Biron used to work from targets and has over the past year been testing out non-targeted instruction. Here are some clips that she shared with us and thank you Keri, for your openness to new ideas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN6T0FQkuVQ&t=10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdOo2cv4Wds&t=7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bCkuXZ7dA&t=1s
Recommended Reading: 2015 Notes on TPRS- Contributions, controversies, problems, and new frontiers I don’t think that it is any secret that people in the CI community have been bad mouthing Tina and me for our non-targeted stance. But we have decided to go forth down the road of non-targeted instruction anyway. The main reason for
I often wonder why so many teachers don’t want to “go there” with comprehensible input. One reason is that when we decide to use comprehensible input as the foundation of all our work in language education, we must then activate the social/emotional piece in our instruction. We can’t do CI without that piece. But most
