Diane Neubauer wrote this here yesterday:
I just attended a one-day conference with Helena Curtain as the speaker. She talked about the 90%+ guideline, why, and how to get through challenges to using the target language that much. She used the term comprehensible input and made strong compliments to what she called “old” TPRS, with criticism of “unnecessary” translation in the “new” TPRS. Making sure students understand was key, she said, not just that you are speaking in the language without them understanding. She attributed these positions to modern research on second language acquisition… does ACTFL have that research listed somewhere on their site?
She actually had us hold out our right hands (think “stop” gesture) to represent grammar instruction, and then pull that hand back and push our left hand out in its place to represent the precedence that communication in the language should have. Stop teaching about the language & start communicating in it with kids in ways they understand and are interested in. So, some shifting.
But she also talked up partner speaking practice for beginning learners. Lots of it!
And Linguafolio which measures “Can Do” statements, many (maybe most?) of which are output. Also linking OPI proficiency levels to years of language instruction – like a member posted about recently. And that kids should be at Novice-High speaking by the end of 150 hours.
The idea of delaying output until natural, spontaneous production occurs was not even mentioned. I know that research by Krashen shows that is the case… so I don’t understand why ACTFL is still talking about output from day 1. Why is that?
My response: Helena Curtain’s statements are inaccurate. What Helena, Mimi Met and others are now saying is pushing our movement backwards, primarily due to their insistence that direct translation is the last resort. We know that translation allows us to move forward with language acquisition in the most expedient way possible. Krashen supports translation.
Helena is still operating from the immersion model where no English is accepted. She has to stick to that because her reputation depends upon it. She knows that we support Krashen and she acknowledges Krashen’s work and “old TPRS” (sic). This can be interpreted as an indicator of change in her philosophy. But it’s not fast enough. We need her and the old guard of language politicos to accept that translation is needed, and it is needed exactly in the way we use it, to that small percent that we use it.
So let us challenge Helena’s position. Without argument, there can be no change, as per a Michael Fullan article that I will post here later today. We need translation. We should say it out loud. If Helena Curtain is hurting our movement by insisting on no direct translation, then it affects kids, and that ain’t right.
To be clear, Helena advocates that we avoid direct translation as a first resort, advocating 95-100% use of the TL. But what she is saying is definitely insonsistent with what many of us think here. She is also for thematic units, which many of us don’t think work at all. I KNOW that they lower the interest fast. I don’t think Helena gets that.
And then there is the early output piece. It is an absolutely outrageous position, that could only be espoused by those who have lost touch with the classroom – “kids should be at Novice-High speaking by the end of 150 hours.”
If you want to get deeper into this, do a Google search on this specific set of words:
“helena curtain old tprs”
I can’t provide a direct link bc they are read only files, but click on the first two links that come up at the top of the page and read them fairly closely. That is some weird shit there.
I think Helena needs to be called on this, or spammed by us* or something. Not many people have the courage to challenge her, but she is really making some questionable statements about the use of direct translation, the use of thematic units, and output. I think that this sort of thing is what happens when old teacher training masters of the old school encounter fresh new ideas that they can’t quite – almost, but not quite – assimilate into their thinking. I am certain that this description of old school experts running into the Krashen train and not being able to see how big it is applies to Mimi Met, as the following story illustrates:
On April 27 of 2008 the heralded 20th c. teacher trainer Dr. Miriam Met came to my district (Jefferson County, CO) for an all day training of well over 200 language teachers. I was there with Dale Crum. Mimi mainly talked about how to use Realidades**. When the subject of CI came up, just before lunch, Dale Crum, who was sitting in the front row, saw her eyes flinch and, to answer the question, she asked if anybody did TPRS. Five of us, the only ones in the group of 200, stood up and Mimi promptly lined us up in front of the big group and asked us to give our definitions of CI. I remember saying that comprehensible input is where the learner focuses on the message and not the medium of its delivery. I can’t remember what Dale said but I remember that I liked it better than what I said because what I said got no response from the audience – 195 sheep looking at me. Dale still thinks that she did not know the definition of comprehensible inut that day. That has stayed with me.
Moreover, at the back of the room was a table set up with all sorts of Realidades related materials and free realia on it. Beyond the table was a higher up in the Realidades company who had flown out from Philadephia to accompany Dr. Met – he was like her personal valet. I hung around and walked those two to their car after the training, trying to see what Mimi thought about TPRS. I could tell from things that she said directly to me in that short conversation and from things that she said during that day long training that she had a weak grasp of Krashen. (The Realidades guy was an idiot.) She didn’t get the part about how language acquisition is unconscious. She called TPRS “another tool in the toolbox”, which honestly offended me a lot but I’m working on that. However, it seems as if all but a few of the teachers in attendance that day were very excited about such a valuable training and such wonderful materials – they were very happy to have received such valuable training on how to use Realidades. At the top of Mimi’s handout that day, by the way, was written “Cincinnati Public Schools, March 3, 2007” instead of “Jefferson County Public Schools, April 27, 2008”. Actually, why should she have personalized her presentation to us in Denver? She is an arm of the Realidades party and she can do whatever she wants.
*hcurtain@uwm.edu or helenacurtain@gmail.com
**Speaking about the role of book companies in our work, David Young once wrote this on the blog here a few years ago:
Ben,
I wanted to alert everyone to what I believe to be a potentially very troubling trend in education. The Spanish teachers at my community college organized an immersion retreat for Spanish teachers in the area. One of the financial backers was McGraw-Hill, the publisher of the book we use Puntos de partida. I had never heard of a publisher ever giving money to an event on our campus. Just a few days ago there was a big article in the New York Times that told of how Pearson is financing trips to Brazil and other exotic places for the education commissioners in numerous states in the U.S.
David Young