After the classes we (a few principals and ELA people from the district and others were there – he had kind of an entourage) I was able to ask him about how much reading he felt was the best in a TPRS/CI type of class. I was trying to determine if my recent decision to read half the time was a good one. He responded that the compelling part is what counts in comprehensible input and that it is found in stories – he really emphasized that word.
He then cited the example of my last class today when I did 15 min. of reading and then half an hour of a story because I felt the reading to be not that compelling (luckily that class yesterday didn’t finished the first location of Anne’s story and there was once more great scene left in it – the scene where the mother finds the hidden girl – p. 34 Matava Vol 1).
Krasehn said that there was much more snap in that scene and started talking about how readings must be compelling. (Mine – the one I bailed on – wasn’t compelling because it merely retold, with some new embedded vocabulary and planted grammar points, the story we had created in preparation for Dr. Krashen’s visit). Krashen used that scene as an example of compelling comprehensible input, the mother so angry at finding a girl in the closet of her son’s bedroom.
He said it was riveting to the kids because they wanted to see what was going to happen, saying that in the moments of that scene there was not a single kid in the class (he was watching my students a lot) who was focusing on French but rather on what was going to happen (i.e. who was focusing not on the medium of delivery of the message but on the message itself).
So Krashen’s answer for me on the reading question was not direct. A wide interpretation of what he said was that the story, whether auditory or in the form of reading, must be compelling. But in reading classes what is going on is usually less compelling.
Then (and I’m really glad I asked him that question about how much reading to do for this reason) he started talking about how the first year should be all auditory – he said exactly that – “all auditory”. And then he went on to say how in second and third year the reading should be done in the form of sheltered popular literature, where we offer stuff to the kids that certain individuals can glom onto.
Then (this from my notes), once the personal interest is there, we can use that as a seed to point the kid to what else is out there in that same genre of popular literature and to encourage them to explore more on their own. I would think this means that his answer, in fact, points to less level one (not 50% anyway) reading.
He said that in his view the great language gains are made when the student can do basic reading of a sheltered popular text and then do enough of it in their levels two and three classes to want to read more on their own within that genre.
Krashen also focused on the need for the reader to identify with the characters. He gave the example, mostly from his massive knowledge of books used in teaching ELA, in particular Archie (he said Archie Gomez) who is a blend of different types of kids’ personalities, causing high levels of identification with the reader, and explained how Jughead is perfect for counterculture kids.
The lower level of mojo in the reading prompted me to ask the question about level 1 reading. I see know what a big question it is. In essence, he may have been saying that, ideally, readings should be like our stories, with that same high level of personalized spark we feel in good extended PQA and in stories. But, since they aren’t and because the kids are so new to the language anyway, maybe the thought is that we should really do a bit less reading in level 1 and do much more later.
So I think Krashen may have been telling me to not worry so much about doing lots of reading in level 1, and possibly get more auditory mojo/compelling input at that level, and then at levels 2 and above get stuff to read that is easier because of all the auditory CI at level 1 , with higher levels of identification (read personalization) that go with that, in the form of the sheltered popular literature options for level two.
So in this exchange Krashen revealed a fairly big difference between TPRS as we know it today and his own thinking of how reading should be used. I think that we should align more with what he said today. Please understand that I am not suggesting doing away with level 1 reading – it is crucial. However, it raises a good area for discussion. He probably didn’t mean totally 100% all auditory input at level 1, but it sure got me thinking and I am trying to process this here.
So the question is:
Should level 1 kids not read as much as we now think they need (50% reading)? Don’t they need a better vocabulary to read? Wouldn’t it be better to use more time in level 1 for the power skill of listening? Should kids in level 1 TPRS/CI classes perhaps wait longer – until levels 2 and 3 to do more intensive reading, or should the amount of reading across the four levels be all the same? Shouldn’t the most reading be done at the higher levels?
One thing is definite – auditory input is more compelling than reading input in level 1. Krashen said as much when he visited my classroom. Part of that is because of the lack of compelling texts in extremely simple forms at that level. And the sheltered popular literature available, stuff like Le Petit Prince and lots of simple poetry, offers the intermediate student a ton of much more compelling reading materials than are available at the beginning levels.
On another topic, he talked at length about the revolutionary power that lies in bookmooch.com to level the playing field for access to books by all people.