This is the text I have prepared as per my response comment to John in the post “A Specious Argument”. I haven’t sent it yet and invite corrections/suggestions from the group before I send it.
Ms. Snow and Mr. Castagna –
Hi! It’s Ben Slavic following up on our discussion of a year ago. Ann, when you asked me to agree that traditional book based methods were as effective as the stuff as I was talking about on my (at that time public) blog, I remember half way agreeing with you.
But I have wanted to tell you for some time now that I don’t agree with you at all, and that I was merely exhausted from our conversation. So just to set that straight. Thank you. Below are the points that I should have made, but wasn’t able to, given the emotion involved at the time.
It is nice to be able to bring this topic up again, now that all of that emotion is over and we can share ideas about best practices in a collegial way, agreeing to disagree and to discuss these points in civility this time.
The text below that essentially states my case was written by a teacher, Jeff Klamka, in New York, and edited by a teacher in San Franscisco, Jody Noble. What is said strongly mirrors ACTFL’s position as well as the content of the new Colorado State Standards (Dec. 2009):
Language acquisition is an ability all humans possess. It is something that the brain does naturally and subconsciously given the right conditions. The subconscious part is key because you are developing fluency without even being aware of it. All the student has to do is listen or read and understand. The brain will automatically acquire the language.
In acquiring a language, like learning a sport, developing instincts is crucial. For example, when learning to ski, is it more effective to study theory and understand how it works, or just get a feel for it? One of my [Mr. Klamka’s] best ski instructors gave us life savers and had us focus on pinning them to the roofs of our mouths as we skied down the mountain. This allowed us to “quiet” our conscious minds and let our instincts take over. Sometimes in sports, the more you think, the slower you react. It is my view that language acquisition works in quite the same way. Ideally, students will be so riveted by the conversation or reading in L2 that they forget that they are learning a language.
When listening or speaking, it is really hard for students to focus on the message and the structure at the same time. That is why consciously-learned rules of language are really only useful for the editing phase of writing. For comprehending and speaking, it is the unconsciously acquired grammatical structure that the speaker must rely upon. In other words, in conversation there is only enough time to say what “sounds right,” and not enough time to analyze why, even if you have gifted IB students like you guys do.
During class, the strategy is to give students as much repetitive, interesting, and grammatically-correct language as possible. It must be at a level that is comprehensible to students. They are focused on the meaning and answering questions about the meaning. Their subconscious minds acquire the language. The conscious analysis of the language doesn’t.
In addition, another teacher from San Francisco, John Piazza, has written about how the above aligns remarkably with most accredited schools’ mission statements, which call for inclusion and education of all students:
We must endeavor to align with notions of inclusiveness, access, diversity, accommodating all kinds of learners, honoring childhood through age-appropriate pedagogy, cultivating a school community, and making use of the latest child-development research.
That is the crux of my argument with you. I invite your response.
Ben