I object to the way they do reading in TPRS. They do the same things described in the previous post on auditory input here of getting the kids focused consciously on individual words chosen from high frequency lists. How? It is by a subtle repetition of targets in awkwardly written texts which only attract the attention of students who are already good readers, and even then not very often. The pre-occupation with high frequency lists have poisoned the element of compelling in lower level TPRS novels. What does this imply for our choice of reading materials for our students?
In my view it means that we should present, in the first year of study at the very least, and possibly up until the end of the second year, only texts that the students have created themselves in class. Class-created texts, ones preferably based on non-targeted input because they are more interesting, have the element of compelling in them. When students are given boring first level novels with targeted high frequency words in them, they tend to shut down. No blame – the books are boring to them because they contain no personal buy-in; they offer little that reflects the individual lives and interests of the students in that classroom.
If novels are to be read at all (why make the kids read them if they are boring?) then I recommend reading the really simple level 1 novels at the beginning of level 2 or even level 3. But, again, if the novels aren’t interesting, why read them? The Brandon Brown series by Carol Gaab are an exception.
So I suggest that we shelve the novels until levels 2 or 3 in favor of massive reading of student created texts in the first two years. Otherwise, we go against all that Krashen says about the importance of interesting/compelling texts. I don’t know why he doesn’t come out and say that, and why he tolerates targeting in the first place, when it conflicts with his research.