Udo asked about T1/T2. Tina has stated that gaining clarity on this topic “is one of the most important professional discussions ever undertaken in TPRS in my opinion.” That’s quite a statement and I agree with it. The irony is that everyone is plugging along thinking that TPRS is T1, targeting language and not the message.
So we can see how far we have strayed from Krashen’s theories. They DO have applicability to the classroom. We CAN make our classrooms into places where meaning, not language, is the focus, so that our kids have an entirely different experience of learning a language from the ones we all had.
So the text posted below is a set of ideas, possible definitions of current terminology written by Tina yesterday and sent to Krashen for clarification. Therefore, what is below is a draft, if you will, of a more complete text that we (Tina and I/CI Lift Off) will publish once we sort this out with Krashen. Luckily, Beniko Mason arrives in Portland today from Japan to work with Tina on some other stuff, mainly her new Story Listening book. So Beniko will look at this today. I’m still publishing it here now. I can’t wait plus it will get us thinking.
Also, because we think that TPRS has gone astray in favor of T1, when it should be focused on the message, we are currently writing a series of short 30 page books on CI skills in general. They will be called Bite Size Books. We will make videos with them.
Do read the following text knowing it is waiting on verification from Dr. Krashen. But I think it is spot on and describes what has happened in TPRS perfectly:
T1: Language is the focus. Teacher wants students to learn/acquire words, to either recognize them or produce them.
NT+T2: Messages are the focus. Teacher wants students to comprehend messages, to uptake linguistic data from which to build interlanguage.
T1: The words/structures to be taught come from a list, made by the teachers or others. The source of the words does not matter but the intent is to teach words/structures. (I think of structures as phrases.)
NT+T2: The words/structures used (not conceptualized as “taught”) are there to communicate the story/message.
T1: Heavy repetitions are often employed for the purpose of exposing students to many instances of the target words/structures in context.
NT+T2: Light repetitions are sometimes employed for the purpose of helping students comprehend key words that are of importance to the meaning of the message.
Regarding TPRS, many TPRS teachers and trainers vehemently support and defend T1. I did for years, and (if I may be so bold as to speak for Ben) Ben did too, before we encountered and understood your writing on NT work.
The effects of this are:
- Much training focuses on how to provide the maximum repetitions. This leads to new teachers’ circling like their lives depend on it. Classes are generally somewhat boring. Kids act up. This leads to TPRS burnout. This leads to the movement’s not moving.
- Equity is diminished. The conscious faculty is more involved as students know that the teacher expects them to “learn” or “acquire” the day’s words/structures. teaching to the unconscious puts students on a more level playing field. We cannot try level the playing field, but I think that NT+T2 leads to instruction and assessments that lead to more equitable outcomes. Partly because T1 teachers often use the word lists as the assessment.
- Teachers are not truly experiencing the shift in lifestyle and mindset that is possible with a move to CI. They give up one set of difficult and time-consuming tasks (making grammar study palatable to the youth, a Sisyphean task) for another (finding stories and Movie Talks to teach the subjunctive of -r verbs). They think, “CI is HARD” and this also leads to burnout.