Online conversations are always happening between individuals about the two current schools of thought (CI vs. Traditional), but rarely are they as pointed as between the two people in the conversation below. After a number of emails back and forth between these two people, our Alisa Shapiro just got tired of playing nicey with Person B. Here are the last two emails between the two. It is hard to miss the tone of guilting Alisa in Person B’s voice. Alisa doesn’t go for any of it, of course, and speaks her truth loudly anc clearly. We won’t reveal Person B’s identity here – it won’t serve any purpose, and we were going to drop the topic entirely but it is too important to just drop. This is the end of something and it is not the end of what we have going, so it must be the end of the position Person B espouses. We’re not here to find fault with what others are doing, of course, but we do need to be able here in our group to apprise newer people of the seriousness of our purpose, and the power of those opposed to us. We need to apprise new teachers of the need write now to avoid trying to live in two professional worlds at once – it can’t be done. One has to choose.
Person B:
Hi Alisa –
It is great to hear from you! I understand being swamped! I am glad that you are well and happy.
Alisa, I am saddened by your posts on Nandu that imply that there is only one way to teach language. I am also saddened that you did not find the help you needed to be reinvigorated and wonder where our profession went wrong.
We need to stick together as a profession and not separate ourselves into different camps.
Stories have been and always will be very very powerful strategies .
Alisa responds:
Hi, [name redacted],
Your email leads me to believe you might have misunderstood some of my Ñandu posts, so I will try to clarify. Know that I don’t want to cause you, or anyone, any sadness; I believe in joy & unity, not divisiveness.
I never implied that there’s only one way to teach, but according to SLA theory, there is only one way to acquire: Through a flood of comprehensible input.
To me the Communicative Approach does not incorporate enough 100% comprehensible input that is understood in all its parts by the listener; and for me /my students the incoming language was often not compelling, because my elementary students are novices and need to first understand the most flexible, practical hi-frequency language, in order to access meaning for the higher level Communicative tasks. It wasn’t comprehensible or compelling.
Comprehensible Input need not be through stories – any artifact can provide context:
A song, a rhyme, a poem, a Gouin series, a picture, a book, a story, a painting or artifact, a video clip, a commercial, a map, form, ticket…classroom banter, etc.
The real question is, ‘What (pieces of) language will be used?’ – in a narrow and deep way – with plenty of intentional repetition (without being boring!) – so that the structures/words/vocab will be acquired. And it needs to be pretty interesting – hence the use of the story form, with student input, topics and participation.
We know that comprehension precedes output – so we must not force output through canned/memorized speaking activities – as 1. they don’t lead to acquisition and 2. the time can be more effectively spent providing rich input to students. (see Van Patten on Practice).
These ideas are not mine – I have been studying SLA for years and am grateful to have found a set of developing strategies that are consistent with what we know about the brain, acquisition, developmental appropriateness, and our own anecdotal observations.
The pedagogy has finally caught up with the research! What an exciting time to be a WL teacher! I no longer reach blindly into an eclectic toolbox!
I think our profession as a whole would do well to educate ourselves about SLA, and the newer strategies that directly support it. Not everyone teaches with Comprehensible Input (though they may think they do, as I did…). If students don’t really understand the whole message, then the message isn’t considered comprehensible.
My research, recent training and participation in T/CI conferences, workshops, meetings, blogs etc. allow me to evaluate WL instruction ideas through a different lens: “Is this teaching idea consistent with what we know about how people acquire languages?” This is a real breakthrough.
I hope this helps you understand my perspective, which embraces all WL educators, and challenges us to become true experts in our field. We will be both more effective and happier for it.
Sincerely,
Alisa
-Sigh-