Article

2 thoughts on “Article”

1. Eric Herman

   April 27, 2014 at 8:29 pm

   Instantly after reading this article, I sent it linked in an email to my principal. Below is the subject title and the content of my email. Thanks Sabrina! Whenever I can find someone else’s words that explain SLA in laymen’s terms, then it is something good to share.

   Title: “as a nation we still don’t know how to teach language effectively”

   The point is that teaching grammar (explicit instruction) is the ineffective way and just using the language (implicit instruction) is the better way. In fact, many Second Language Acquisition researchers have been saying for 30+ years now that grammatical competency for use in spontaneous communication is acquired implicitly / unconsciously. This is related to what I’ve said before about how we should not have a pre-determined grammatical syllabus. We as FL teachers are not actually “teaching” in the same sense as teaching is used in the other academic subjects where knowledge is learned explicitly, not implicitly. If you immerse the students in the language, they pick it up. Therefore, you need a teacher competent enough at the language and trained in how to make the foreign language input comprehensible. For what the students don’t understand, doesn’t improve acquisition. Also, when students understand, it is motivating and you get rid of most all discipline problems.

   Log in to Reply
2. Nathaniel

   April 30, 2014 at 6:48 pm

   “The idea: Use foreign languages to teach non-language subjects.”

   The problem with the recommendation is needing to be fluent in the language used and qualified to teach the non-language subject.

   Blaine bypassed this altogether by leading students into a non-language subject: the interests of the teacher and students.

   Apparently, Katharine B. Nielson is unaware that Americans too have seen the writing on the wall and developed a “content and language integrated learning” which is more adaptable to the variety of school districts. It is also more budget friendly and less prone to Big Textbook Company en-shackling.

   Having pointed out the ignorance of the author with regard to what is happening in our own country, I appreciate Sabrina’s link to another voice for making a language a tool for comprehension rather than a topic for discussion.

   There are a number of excellent quotes.

   And perhaps KBN has suggested some direction as to where advanced language classes can go.

   TPRS/CI is a powerful bridge to anything that KBN is suggesting. “Traditional” FL teaching, on the other hand, focuses on swimming across a swift current of grammar and vocab with the hope that the survivors will bask on the distant literary shores. The bridge created by TPRS/CI allows more students to cross to the land of second language fluency.

   Are specialty classes able to do this as well as TPRS/CI? Is TPRS/CI a necessary bridge to specialty classes? Can specialty classes in the language be a true starting point? Will specialty classes be yet another form of incomprehensible authentic materials? Does it offer motivation for a sufficient number of students to “leave no child behind?”

   Thanks for sharing this. I am sharing it with my department coordinator.

   Log in to Reply