Another repost from 2017:
If it is true that targeted instruction increases constraints on interest, then why do it? How can we possibly get acquisition when the interest isn’t really there, even with 100 repetitions per class? It’s not the amount of reps, but their quality. It’s about how much what we say approaches compelling.
Working from class created images and not from words connected to a targeted curriculum, high frequency word list, semantic set, thematic unit, or list of words in a backwards planning approach to a novel cannot bring the interest in the way working from an image can, as many of us here know.
I wish that the researchers, especially Mason, would either verify this or shoot it down with some hard numbers. I would bet that a graph of acquisition measuring gains in non-targeted instruction would show a better upward curve, especially over time, because of increased play and interest. The standard is Communication, not Curriculum.
And at the core of communication in any classroom is the concept of building community, and not the wonderfulness of the teacher, who works so hard to be perfect. I don’t do that anymore and either does Dana. We just communicate w our students via images they create. So easy!
It’s like peace. Peace is always there, surrounding us. It is there every moment, no matter what’s going on or where we are. But we’d rather make our teaching complicated. No blame. We’ll get there one day.
Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf6aMcnR9WQ