Bob Patrick sent this:
Hey Ben –
Krashen is involved in an ongoing dialogue on the Washington Post right now. He just gave an excellent response to two nay-sayers who are now down to whining– [saying things like]: but why does it always have to be your way? Is there only one right way?
Krashen gives a wonderful, calm, “well, yes and no” answer. While I am trying to decide what poster(s) to create for my classroom wall, I’ve turned his response into a poster for me, the teacher. I lose my mind, too, some days and posters help me remember what the hell I’m really trying to do.
BTW, loving the latest thread, Panning for Gold. I have not responded to it yet, but it’s giving me plenty to think about. It made me go back and pull up the thread on circling wit balls, etc.
I’m wondering if it would be helpful to have a conversation in the next few weeks about how folks (I’m really interested in what YOU do) spend the first days of school with absolute newbies. I’ve read a bunch of your stuff. I know what I’ve done (it almost changes every year). Where are you these days on that? How will you start your first year classes this next year?
My poster for the teacher, attached below.
Bob
A Poster for the Teacher
1. There is variation in acquisition, but it’s not reckless variation.
2. We all acquire by understanding messages.
3. Individual students will acquire at varying rates.
a. Affect matters.
b. Anything that effects comprehension matters.
4. The use of grammar is limited.
a. The student’s interest matters.
b. The student’s ability to use grammar matters.
5. Comprehensible input trumps everything in acquiring a language.
What Krashen actually said: No question there is considerable individual variation in language acquisition and in other kinds of learning as well, but it isn’t reckless variation. The goal of theory is to describe what people do in common in language acquisition, and also to describe what kinds of individual variation exist and what kinds don’t. The theory so far concludes that we all acquire the same way, by understanding messages. It predicts variation in rate of acquisition because of affect, and because of factors influencing comprehension. It also predicts (correctly, I think) that the use of grammar is limited to certain roles, and that people differ in their interest and in their ability to use grammar. In all cases, however, the theory concludes that grammar learning is nowhere as powerful as comprehensible input.