Good stuff from Robert here:
Hi Ben,
While TPRS/CI are diametrically opposed to grammar-driven instruction, I’m going to disagree with the stance that it has to be all or nothing with TPRS. My anecdotal evidence will follow, but the conclusion I have reached is as follows:
Even a little TPRS/CI is better than none, especially if it opens the door to more CI and less structural and generative linguistics in the high school classroom. All of who have come to TPRS/CI have done so in different ways. Some, like you and Gayle Trager and others, have embraced the method and plunged in with both feet from the very beginning. Others of us have eased our way into the method and seen how increasing the dosage of TPRS/CI increased the acquisitional and relational wellbeing of our students. So, I am happy to see people “experimenting” with TPRS and CI. (I just object to experimenters and dabblers presenting themselves as experts.) The danger, of course, is in falsely defining the method or judging it according to a goal it is not designed to meet or via an assessment tool that measures something other than the objective of the method (e.g. scoring well on discrete-item grammar tests).
So, here’s the anecdotal evidence. Over the years my colleagues at Pacifica have gradually moved in the direction of greater CI. Though they have not yet fully embraced TPRS, their comments show they are chafing under the district’s assessments (benchmark tests based on a specific textbook rather than the Standards) and eager to be able to do even more comprehension-based instruction. Today one of our Spanish teachers told me about his experience at Spanish Immersion Camp a couple of weekends ago.
Spanish teachers throughout Orange County took their students to camp. Most of them, including some schools with International Baccalaureate programs, hand picked their students, taking only the best. My colleague simply opened up the opportunity to everyone at the appropriate level of Spanish. Some of his “worst” students signed up to go. At the end of the weekend, the teachers gave out prizes for participation, speaking Spanish, etc. Time and time again the other teachers would say something like, “Who was the tall guy who . . .” or “Do you know the girl who helped with . . .”? My colleague simply supplied the names. By the time four of the six prizes had been filled with Pacifica students the other teachers were starting to get upset, but my colleague reminded them that they had made the suggestions, he merely supplied the identities. The remaining two prizes were given to students from other schools more to keep the peace than because they truly earned them.
My colleague noted that his students were far more engaged and involved and spoke far more (and better) than many AP and IB students. I think there were at least two contributing factors:
1. His were not the “star students” and therefore weren’t afraid of making mistakes (They’re used to being “wrong”);
2. They have been acquiring the language through CI rather than learning rules, so were able to understand and make themselves understood (even if one of the girls who received a prize often had to ask, “Cómo se dice . . . ?”).
One of the other teachers, the one who seems to be the best “language activities facilitator”, had advanced IB students who could not understand pretty simple Spanish. Other students, especially those from Pacifica, were already thinking, “Okay, we’ve got this, let’s move on” while these “A students” were desperate for non-verbal clues (i.e. very clear gestures) to understand what was being said.
The entire experience has made my colleague even more committed to Comprehensible Input and comprehension-based instruction – whether that looks like classic TPRS or not.
Robert