Unlock with PatreonThe Problem with CI
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
Advice Needed
Share:
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn
Ben Slavic
Get The Latest Updates
Subscribe to Our Mailing List
No spam, notifications only about new products, updates.
Related Posts
CI and the Research (cont.)
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
Research Question
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
We Have the Research
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
38 thoughts on “Advice Needed”
How long are we going to have to convince people that the world is round, as per:
https://benslavic.com/blog/category/round-world-group/
Maybe we should just go ahead and make such a packet here, chill, and when we all agree that it is complete I can make a hard link for it above and then when we get attacked and have to defend our position we can just have it right there for whoever wants it.
Dumbed down my ass.
I agree that having a downloadable go-to packet would be very easy for us to assemble, and would save new CI teachers (or CI teachers who get a new boss!) a lot of trouble. We have all the info here, it just requires a bit of editing, cutting/pasting, and maybe include a copy of Susan Gross’s administrator observation rubric. Thoughts, anyone?
I want to know exactly what people mean when they say “dumbed down.” I want them to explain in detail what their vision of “smartened up” L2 is, in terms of how kids are using and functioning in non-scripted spontaneous “smartened up” L2.
I want to ask them what their assumptions are behind the statement that L2 is “dumbed down.” I want to hear them respond to that question. If there were such a dialogue, I wonder if each question could dig deeper and deeper, unraveling the tangle of assumptions and misperceptions. Just wondering. As in really truly curiously wondering. I really don’t know the answer.
Their assumption about what rigor is is so off. It’s sad. It’s so last century. Language teachers used to think that learning a language had to be a hard experience with all sorts of struggle and memorization. That’s why they say what Carol does is dumbed down. It means that they truly do not understand what acquiring a language even means. They don’t get that we acquire languages effortlessly (if that is not true then why would everbody born in the U.S be fluent in English?) and that we acquire them unconsciously. So if we assemble a packet, it should include some of our articles on how language learning is an unconscious process. There is a an entire category on that word Unconscious here. So who’s going to make the packet? It should have James’ Great Argument in there as well. We could make a packet a hundred pages long from articles and comments published here over the past seven or eight years. So who’s doing it?
I don’t think that kind of conversation is likely to go anywhere, since anyone who claims that what we are doing is dumbed down is already on the defensive, and comes to us with an attitude (conscious or unconscious) of superiority. Also, I don’t think these teachers are willing to say that to another teacher’s face–in this case, it’s basically cowardly trash-talking. All we can do is hope that the administrators who hear these rumors are open to re-education, so that they will support our work, and not let other teachers try to prevent it.
A packet is the best idea we have had in a while. I would have killed for one of those last year. I could have shared it with parents, admins, even the students. In my mind, much of Robert Harrell says belongs in there. What about his scope and sequence? I agree with John that we can cull bits and pieces from the site.
If we go on the offensive, these small minds wont have the opportunity to bash us.
Agreed on using a lot of Robert Harrell’s stuff, and the scope & sequence would be excellent to include.
What I think that they really mean by “dumbed down” is “kids who aren’t supposed to do well in class are succeeding too much.” That is ugly. What is all the fuss about differentiation and brain research about learning (which is out there in education) if they won’t believe it when it happens – when we teach in a way that students can acquire language?
Diane, you are right on when you say:
“What I think that they really mean by ‘dumbed down’ is ‘kids who aren’t supposed to do well in class are succeeding too much.’ That is ugly.”
I’m feeling this in little looks and tones here and there this year. I am honestly disgusted.
…What I think that they really mean by “dumbed down” is “kids who aren’t supposed to do well in class are succeeding too much.”….
Wow Diane that is a tremendous point to make. It calls into question their reason for even becoming teachers. To make some kids feel smart and some feel dumb? Who gave them the right to do that? And now to criticize our superstar teacher chill. Wow!!
OK so we are already collecting stuff:
jGA
Harrell – anything he ever wrote
Harrell – Scope and Sequence (major)
What else?
I agree, Diane, you hit the nail on the head here. I get that sense in faculty meetings, when we are discussing some kid who is really in danger in three of his classes, and then he is doing fine in my class. I think the sense is that he is doing fine in my class because I don’t expect anything of him (=analytical output, complicated homework, essays, reports, projects, etc.). Once again, it would be so helpful for us to have this kind of resource so we can educate those around us in order to avoid this kind of misunderstanding which can be very damaging to us professionally. (BTW, I was using “he” exclusively because I teach at a boys’ school)
Was it Cambridge a few months back that published the article backing up Krashen’s point on SLA being an unconscious process?
Find that article!
I am trying to think of the best way to get a packet like this together. If we had the forum up and running, we could start a thread and leave it open for a few weeks and everyone could copy and paste their favorite Ben, Krashen, Robert, etc. quotes and then some brave soul could compile them all together into a single document. The document would be organized in some way, I am sure, because that soul would be of some great go-getter.
I guess we could do the same thing here, but it would be easier if we had a fresh post asking for submissions and then there was NO CONVERSATION or comments of any kind in the comments. We would only allow submissions of content for the packet in the comments.
Yes on the idea about the forum. We had a major incompatibility problem and so did not launch last week. But the forum is going to happen! Now, who will organize all the articles and comments we get? I nominate Hosler. I nominate him for everything.
Yes we shouldn’t have to wait on the forum. I think chill needs this document yesterday from the sound of things. Here she has the head of the school wanting to stand in her corner, he sounds lik a reader, all we have to do is get the information now. So James actually I can do it. I’ll do it when I get home today. Honestly, we are seeing what a bunch of pissed off CI teachers can do when one of our own gets attacked. Me like.
Wow! Ideas are flying. We have some time. The big man is on my side, but I do not want to let too much time go by. I think everyone’s comments are spot on. The brain, the rigor, some Krashen. Some presenters have wonderful intros to their handouts. I am thinking about Diana Noonan’s Breckenridge packet. The elitist attitude of the last century is major – listing those deemed worthy to “study” language. Laurie’ s letter to parents that is linked here.
or how about a google doc?
I copied Diane’s gem: “What I think that they really mean by “dumbed down” is “kids who aren’t supposed to do well in class are succeeding too much.” to use in a reply and I see that it hit a nerve (because it is so true!) in all of you.
The difference in curriculum is that CI/TPRS focuses in on what is truly critical and essential and pivotal in language and communication. A text-based program focuses on what are the exceptions and what is uncommon. Not to mention unnecessary.
When the curriculum is based on the essential make-up of the language, success happens.
When the curriculum is focused on what is uncommon or unclear, there is little room for success.
with love,
Laurie
Diane’s gem did indeed strike a nerve. Your statement on curriculum is perfect. I did learn that Brother hates text books.
First of all, thanks for the kind and positive words about my contributions.
I agree that Diane hit it on the head with her comment about “dumbed down”. But then, if we look at content and design, most language courses are not intended to teach proficiency in communication via the target language. If we look at content and design, most language courses are intended to teach linguistics so that “smart” students know a lot about the language without being able to use it for communication. There is a huge element of academic snobbery mixed in. At the same time, we should give kudos to those amazing teachers who have accepted the flawed design and still taught at least some students to love and eventually use the language. It’s like getting a car with square wheels to move – but think of the energy wasted to accomplish that.
Just as a word of encouragement to “Chill” and others in similar circumstances: if you keep at it, it does get better, and the results speak for themselves. My intention is to encourage you, not toot my own horn, but here are some recent encounters:
Today I was going over the jGR rubric with my classes. As part of that I referenced State Standards, ACTFL Guidelines, and AP. In my 3/4/AP class, one of my students expressed her utter incomprehension of how students who take “the other languages” can be getting As and yet admit that they can’t speak the language. Eventually, CI instruction becomes the standard, at least for your own students.
After years of being the “weird German teacher”, I have two colleagues that I have helped train who are strong practitioners of CI/TPRS. One is at another school, and the other is at my school. One teaches French, and the other teaches Spanish. It’s becoming harder to ignore us.
My district “higher-ups” (including the TOSA with whom I had the e-mail exchange earlier) are starting to ask for new teachers to come and observe my classroom.
My student teacher is absolutely sold on TCI and will take that with her to wherever she teaches. Through her I am able to present principles of language acquisition as practiced in the classroom to her university supervisors.
A colleague who oversees the observations portion of the credential program at CSU Long Beach is sending her students to me and other TPRS teachers in the district to do their observations. My de-briefs with them show that they are amazed that language instruction can be like this.
One of the counsellors said that she has never heard a single student indicate regret at having taken German but heard lots of regret for the other languages.
When I explain the theoretical basis of TCI to my students, they get it – especially the ones who were exposed to another language through grammar and worksheets.
Special Ed and our AVID program instructors steer their students toward German because they know the teaching “style” allows them to be successful.
Which brings me to some comments about “dumbing down” and rigor (and back to Diane’s comment).
Our education establishment needs to read what the Department of State has to say about rigor. On their website, they list four elements of rigor: depth and integrity of inquiry; sustained focus; suspension of premature conclusions; continuous testing of hypotheses. All four of those are elements of a TCI classroom:
1. Rather than trying to “cover” a certain amount of material and having to do a survey style (which is really hit-and-miss) of class, we can go in-depth on what truly interests students.
2. We require students to sustain their focus for a full class period. The nature of interpersonal communication means that they cannot be successful if they “zone out”; they must truly “be there” both physically and mentally. That’s rigorous but not onerous.
3. We ask students to suspend premature conclusions about the way the language works. A grammar-driven class not only encourages premature conclusions, it gives them to students in the form of grammar rules. It may have been Bob Patrick who pointed out that no grammar book has successfully articulated a grammar rule that applies in every situation. As just one example, who remembers the axiom “I before E, except after C or when pronounced like A as in neighbor and weigh.” My friend Keith Stein might seem weird for seizing the opportunity either to disagree or to proclaim that neither grammarians nor their books fully explain the grammar of the language. What do most grammarians say to this? “There are always exceptions.” All that means is that the language does things they can’t explain; they aren’t exceptions at all, they just haven’t correctly formulated the rule. These are the things that Krashen would call “untaught and unteachable”.
4. Students in the TCI classroom are constantly testing their hypotheses about the language. They try things out, and we offer correction through modelling and pop-up moments that admittedly do not attempt to address the “full grammar” of the language. We readily accept that it is an impossible task; the grammar books pretend that they are doing it – thus they falsify the very thing that they perceive as their strength. (I sure hope that last bit makes sense to everyone.)
Thus we can see that a TCI classroom, when properly constituted, addresses all four elements of academic rigor without becoming onerous. As an example, let me adduce my 3/4/AP class again. I have to deal with three official levels of language in one class and 13 unofficial ones (because there are 13 students in the class). This week is spirit week for my school, and Monday was “Harry Potter Day”. Each of the four classes was assigned to a Hogwarts House. On Wednesday I was reviewing the week with this class (in German), and asked them which house they would really be in if they were in Hogwarts and the Sorting Hat was assigning them a house. [Aside: notice how much subjunctive there was in the question? No one batted an eye when confronted with it. Is that “dumbing down” a curriculum?] This started a lively discussion in German on the relative merits of the four houses with my students taking well-defended positions. We sustained the focus of the class on this one subject over two full class periods. We referenced the Harry Potter books and films, revealing depth and integrity of inquiry. Students listened to one another and agreed to suspend conclusions until they had heard the evidence. By citing examples that contradicted another student’s statement about a house, they tested hypotheses about which house is the best. At one point, one of my students was feeling frustrated and asked to speak some English. I agreed, at which point he launched into an excellent defense of Slytherin in German with two words of English thrown in. (I later realized that by giving him permission to use English I had given him the confidence to proceed in German with the knowledge he could bail when he needed to – on two words.) On the second day students were divided into four groups (one for each house) and asked to write a paragraph about why their assigned house was the best. Some of them got houses that weren’t their choice but defended them well anyway. (How’s that for rigor – defend a position you don’t believe.) Not only did we have a rigorous class, but we also met the relevance challenge:
– students had a prior (intellectual or) emotional connection to the subject
– it connected to “real life” (their real-life interests)
– it was appropriately timed
– it actively engaged and involved them
– they had a contagious passion about it
– it was novel (Where else in the school can you argue Harry Potter?)
Don’t try to tell me there was anything “dumbed down” about that class.
While I’m at it, I would like to address something that I perceive as a mistake on the part of TCI/TPRS practitioners. We often talk about language acquisition as being “easy”. It isn’t. It’s hard work and always has been. We merely access the proper “engine” for acquisition by tapping into the unconscious / subconscious mind. The work is no less hard, it’s just that we have something that can handle it; the conscious mind cannot. Perhaps an analogy will help here. When I worked for Medieval Times, I used to do educational presentations at schools. We took two knights, equipment, and a horse. Of course we had to pull a trailer. One day most of the company’s vehicles were being used by others, and I had to take an older four-cylinder truck. On the way back to the castle, it broke down because it couldn’t handle the load. Fortunately one of the knights had chosen to drive his truck that day (since we couldn’t all fit into the cab of the first vehicle). We swapped out the vehicles on the side of the freeway, and his truck pulled the trailer back to the castle with ease. Did the trailer and horse suddenly weigh less? Was the load lighter? Was this less work? No. The work load was exactly the same. What was the difference then? His truck was a V-8, not a four cylinder. It had the power necessary to do the job. That’s what we do. We help students swap out their weaker conscious mind for the powerful subconscious / unconscious mind that can handle the heavy load. The work only seems easy because we use the God-given equipment that was designed for the job. We aren’t “dumbing down” anything; in fact, I think we may actually be getting students to pull heavier loads.
Okay, enough rambling. I need to go the high school’s football game.
Dear Robert,
The rest of the TCI world, those not on this blog, are missing out on incredible insight and inspiration. Thank you for the heart, mind and soul that you share so willingly with us.
with love,
Laurie
Amen!
Maybe we should just use what Robert wrote above, edited down a bit, as the primer. The point is made here. But there are so many other good articles. What do we do? I’m thinking of not allowing another article out of the queue, and there are hundreds there, until we have our primer. We need it that much.
There’s something in the Green Bible research appendix which (if I recall correctly) states that one of the results they got in a few of those studies was that there tends to be a narrower range of grades in the TPRS classroom. This is something borne out in every TPRS classroom I have seen and/or heard about.
A colleague in the Slurry 69 district who teaches intro Spanish is asked every year by her Defartment Head “who is your top kid?” for each section. The Defartment Head– who has one section of beginners too– has one kid who stands out. My colleague typically has *fifteen* in a block, zero failures, and ppl who don’t get an A get a B.
The Defartment Head doesn’t get that THIS IS THE NEW NORMAL! 🙂 When we use C.I. properly, and our kids are physically AND mentally present, our acquisition ranges are going to mirror real life, where everybody can speak, and the linguistic difference between Noam Chomsky and Joe Average is a matter of amount of vocab they’ve seen by reaading, and not their “skill” at language learning.
Here is a GREAT article that Hong Kong Bob (Robert Allen) just posted on Facebook. Thanks Bob!!! 🙂
http://www.teachthought.com/learning/better-teaching-why-you-bore-students-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/
A week from today I’m going to hear the article writer at the conference Haiyun Lu is hosting in Milwaukee. Thanks for the link!
Perhaps the outline of a packet could look like this:
1. Krashen’s Statement of Theory – The Case for Non-Targeted Comprehensible Input – The Net Hypothesis. It’s not too long and I think it’s written in a way that is not overly academic. Teri W just sent me a copy
2. A clear statement about the goal of the CI classroom.
3. Rigor – jGR
jGR and Roberts last comment on this topic could be cut and pasted in iyt’s entirety as far as I am concerned – just excellent.
4. Scope and Sequence – Harrell
5. Something about the brain. I am thinking Judy Willis or Carol Gaab’s great article:
http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=2014
Perhaps the outline of a packet could look like this:
1. Krashen’s Statement of Theory – The Case for Non-Targeted Comprehensible Input – The Net Hypothesis. It’s not too long and I think it’s written in a way that is not overly academic. Teri W just sent me a copy
2. A clear statement about the goal of the CI classroom.
3. Rigor – jGR
jGR and Roberts last comment on this topic could be cut and pasted in it’s entirety as far as I am concerned – just excellent.
4. Scope and Sequence – Harrell
5. Something about the brain. I am thinking Judy Willis or Carol Gaab’s great article:
http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=2014
Feedback, please. I want to include everything but the kitchen sink, but I think less may be more – narrow and deep.
I sent a post this morning that did not post, so here goes again. I agree with Ben, there is so much that I am drawn to but I think it needs to be simple and free of complicated jargon.I envision a primer that looks like this and this may be too long:
1. Krashen’s Net Hypothesis – Teri W sent you a copy. Is it too much for a non-language teacher.
2. I am tempted to add jGR but is Robert’s recent article pared down enough to answer the “rigor” question and retain the other excellent points he made with an eye to the audience we are targeting.
3. Carol Gaab’s great article “Multistory Construction.
This would be enough, I think. I am going to e-mail the people at NTPRS who had a strand for supervisors this summer, maybe they have a handout. There is no reason to re-invent the wheel, but I think we all need to have something handy, even for a parent to read. All we need is a place to put it, right?
How about this Chill? It is an article on Krashen’s website with a video demonstration of him teaching German: (posting it in two places, because I don’t know which is which now)
http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html
Good one! Maybe a link to one of our videos?
I’ll put what Teri sent me in the queue. Do you think that I can delay all posts except for bios until we get our primer? Is that being unreasonable? My fear is that if we start talking about other stuff we will lose our focus on what I think is a critically important document. And we still don’t even know if anyone will create it.
If whoever is interested looks at the documents I listed above, most of it is cut and paste with the exception of paring down Robert’s recent comment.
http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=2014
In this article, Carol Gaab explains the relevance of teaching language with CI.
If it’s a matter of scanning in documents, I can do that. This may be the quick fix – the three items I mentioned above. Maybe we could put all three documents in one place and everyone who has the time and inclination could opine. The is too much on the blog to go through. I know there are numerous comments from Jody, Laurie, James, and so many others that have merit, but I think like Ben that brevity is our friend in this case. If we had a basic package, anyone would be free to add on whatever they deemed important. Of course, Robert, I don’t mean to put you on the spot about editing your recent post. I have read it three times and have savored every word each time. Maybe the blog post that outlines the hours needed to gain proficiency in the various languages – that is in some folder here, I’m sure!
This would be groundbreaking – so I think it absolutely warrants holding all posts until further notice. Emergencies excepted, of course – wasn’t an emergency what sparked this whole discussion in the first place? Sometimes, emergencies are good :-).
Absolutely. Now go read my latest post because I intend to disappear for a few days into Boring Land, going through names and alphabetizing and checking bios and all that. I just put off all queued posts until November 1st. See ya’ later! Y’all Mainers have a great conference! I just talked to Sabrina and she is excited to see you all again.
What about this for a format:
1. A summary of Krashen’s hypotheses on SLA, bullet point format. (ex: CI, Affective Filter, Net Hypothesis) About 1/2 to 1 page.
2. Leading to Robert’s scope & sequence recommendations (short version). About 1 page.
3. And then something like student & teacher expectations (which show “how it looks” in a classroom): a sample jGR for students, some of the observation checklist by Susan or Bryce for teachers. About 1 page.
4. And why typical textbooks deter from this kind of language acquisition, and what kind of materials help (novels, stories personalized and at i+1). About 1/4 page.
About 4-5 pages. A bibliography and links at the end of each section coud be provided for further details.
Is that both enough content and still brief enough?
Honestly, I love Carol Gaab’s “Multi-story Construction” article. It is so clear and succinct, and covers all bases. Chill, you’re right – you should include that (you know these folks better than us too — if you feel that article will ‘hit a nerve’, then include it.)