Often, we hear those who don’t actually use L2 in the classroom (or use it so little that it doesn’t have any results) claim that, since they don’t have “that kind of personality”, they are somehow excused from doing the hard work of learning how to implement, for real, comprehensible input in their classrooms.
This special kind of prideful ingorance, which is a special form of hubris, characterizes millions of teachers today. It is a hubris that accurately labels so many of our colleagues teaching language classes in rooms right next to ours (too many of them) in our own buildings today, who do so at the great detriment of their students.
These stubborn teachers, so prevalent in the 1990’s and up until right about now but who are disappearing fast, made their stand against Krashen and the new research by rather foolishly claiming that their old way of teaching (using English to teach a language other than English) was just as good.
However, since the new research is beocming increasintly more and more quoted, as the tipping point is reached (or may have been already – we have no way of knowing), their argument against change (to align with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the new state standards finally being put in all over the country) becomes incredibly weak, porous, and quite specious.
It is not we who have reached a point where we need to change, but the legions of traditional teachers who now, under the irrefutable evidence, must change or leave the profession, on their own or because they will be fired for non-alignment with standards as more and more administrators, as recently happened with Kate in Philadelphia, become conscious of what is really going on.
Grant has written about the refusals of the old guard (whom he refers to as “page turners” below) to embrace comprehension based methods. He points with justification at the inaccuracy of their frequent claims that the new way of instruction, they way aligned with standards, doesn’t “fit their personalities”.
Here is Grant’s email to me (to us) that prompted this blog post. (And remember, if you have something that you would rather appear as a separate blog entry and not simply as a comment, just email it to me at benslavic@yahoo.com)
Here is Grant’s email:
Hey Ben,
In schools, districts, or departments where TCI teachers are coexisting with page turners you might here the following “argument” from page turners to not have to change what they’re doing:
“Respect everybody’s individual style.”
We must beware not to tacitly agree with this statement. Why? Perhaps it’s just semantics, but here’s my take:
Style is personal. It connotes personality. One’s teaching style describes their personality or persona in the classroom. As we know, we all have to find our own way of teaching with CI that matches our own style. Bryce’s class feels different than Blaine’s, which feels different from Linda Li’s. Respecting one’s “style” has nothing to do with adopting strategies in the classroom that maximize input that is personalized, meaningful, interesting and comprehensible. That is a question of method rather than style.
So, I suggest when we have discussions with our page turning colleagues that we kindly and confidently clarify that this is not a question of style, but rather of method. And the method can be adopted and used, irrespective of a person’s style.
My response: this is just so pithy. It blows apart the argument of literally thousands of teachers who have dipped their toes into the CI waters and found the water too deep and too cold. Grant’s point about how the method can in fact be implemented by a wide variety of personalities finalizes the point. The argument of the “page turners” (a very apt image) is spcecious, at best. Thank you, Grant!