Personalized discussion provides the glue for the process. During the class we don’t go out of bounds – we keep things simple for our students by only introducing new vocabulary in the form of reading. When we only use language in class that they already know, we get the Din going (Krashen) because they understand it all, and that is how they acquire, because they are not being drowned in language that they can’t understand and translation isn’t shredding their unconscious minds (where language is actually acquired).
Our work is a daily practice. We learn from each other. We will never master it totally and we will always feel inadequate about it. But it beats what we used to do because it aligns with the Communication standard and the research.
We have accepted that the only path for us is in doing it and not talking about it. We use videos and share and take risks and put ourselves out there online with our colleagues, because we know that it is via CI that people acquire languages.
We believe that a student learns a language because she wants to, that it has nothing to do with thinking, with translation or with immersion as the term is currently being used. We place our trust in the unconscious mind because the unconscious mind, not the conscious mind, is where actual acquisition takes place.
We also believe that enjoyment of class is a huge factor not just for teenage students but for everyone, so we personalize and together invent bizarre scenes to keep our students’ interest. This aligns with Dr. Krashen’s statement:
“The path of pleasure is the only path. The path of pain does not work for language acquisition.”
Some of us have tested the above concepts for over twenty-five years, and we are happy with the results. CI has never let us down.
What I say to people is:
“Without stories and long, lighthearted discussions that are conducted in the target language, success in teaching a foreign language is virtually impossible. The old language instruction that they used to do in the past century instruction reaches only a few bright kids and therefore creates a stink of elitism in our classrooms.
The old way aligns with nothing and is based on no research – no research – that the ACTFL Foreign Language educators group or any group has been able to locate and share when challenged. The textbook lobby has controlled the curriculum for far too long. Their interest is not on what is best for kids, and the sad part is that they know it.
When you pick stories, you align with 21st century standards and 50 years of hard research. Do you really wish to convey to most of your students that they can’t learn a language? Don’t do that anymore. Stop doing that.”