To view this content, you must be a member of Ben's Patreon at $10 or more
Already a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to access this content.
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
Subscribe to be a patron and get additional posts by Ben, along with live-streams, and monthly patron meetings!
Also each month, you will get a special coupon code to save 20% on any product once a month.
5 thoughts on “ACTFL Survey”
I hear by way of Terry Waltz and Pamela Rose from a Facebook group (K-12 Chinese language teachers) that Prof. Lichtman is TPRS-friendly. Actually, her name sounds a little familiar.
Karen Lichtman presented a session at NTPRS 2014 on the state of the research.
She has summarized some of the comparative research thus far:
http://forlangs.niu.edu/~klichtman/tprs.html
Thanks for the link!
Justin Bailey wrote an insightful message about the survey on the moreTPRS listserve. I thought Iwould share it here….
I had taken the survey just before Terry shared it, and included a critique in the open-ended section of the fact that almost every single question implies that “recall of forms” is the measure of the effectiveness of a teaching practice.
The format of most of the questions is, “If there were evidence that X led to better recall of forms, how likely would you be to implement X?” For X insert things like testing, students teaching each other, and mindfulness training.
If the survey claimed up front to be about techniques for boosting recall of forms, or if it had more questions about other things than recall of forms, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. However, the survey claims to examine, generally, “students’ and teachers’ opinions of different kinds of instruction in the foreign language classroom,” but goes on to ask almost exclusively about “recall of forms.” I often was forced to indicate that I would be unlikely to implement practice X even if that practice were highly likely to boost recall of forms. I answered this way because students don’t need a bunch of ways to recall forms, but there was no way to indicate that my problem was with the goal assumed, not with the method. If the survey had referred to “improved ability to function in the target language” or even “improved use of forms,” I would feel differently.
The closest things to CI on the survey are a reference to implicit instruction’s possibly leading to “advantages in processing foreign languages,” a question about “presenting information in multiple situations or contexts [for the sake of ‘better recall of forms’]”, and a question about “presenting imagery alongside information [for the sake of ‘better recall of forms’]