Here are some words of hope for those who “can’t get” TPRS/CI with its current formula of massive reps, circling and targets. Working without targets allows: 1. More freedom because it is a softer approach to the work of CI that puts the heart first. 2. It is not about crowd control but about helping […]
Krashen: “Classic” TPRS ensured transparency by insisting on translation. It has been argued that simply relying on context is dangerous because students might get the wrong meaning. The same concern has come up in reading theory: how do we know that readers are arriving at the correct meaning of an unfamiliar word – some contexts
More Krashen on transparency. The “notes” are from a larger context: “Using the first language is especially valuable when teaching a language that has few or no cognates with the students’ first language (Note 6) and for providing background information, but there are other ways to make input comprehensible: e.g. visual context, in the form
Link to the survey here. (The responses are completely anonymous. Pls be has honest in your evaluation as possible.)
Alisa would like to hear from anyone who may also have some insights into the assessment money grab as described below: Since I don’t give grades in elementary, my question for y’all is a bit different but still in the Assessment Arena. It turns out that many schools/districts use a normed assessment like the SOPA
Krashen wrote: “Input is transparent if the acquirer understands every word. This is, of course, a crude definition. We could definite extreme transparency as a conscious understanding of not only every word but every grammatical marker and morpheme. “Transparent is not the same as “comprehensible.” If input is transparent, it is comprehensible, but input can
For those following the Comment Count Sweepstakes, we are now at 49, 710. Only 290 comments to go. I am guess at this rate it could happen in a month or two. Maybe six or seven weeks. Early April. Just guessing. Then with comment #50, 001 we start a new 50,000 comments.
Krashen sent a paper to Tina over the weekend. It discusses Circling but applies to any focus on form in our language classrooms: Circling: Are we just doing ALM (audio-lingual method)? Yes, at its worst. This happens when (1) there is a targeted structure; (2) the questions are obviously intended just to supply more exposure;
My new updated classroom rules, updated from December. They have changed a lot since the non-targeted issue that began in Jan. of 2016. As per points made last fall by Krista Kovalchick on iFLT, I removed the one about suggesting cute answers. Now, as per Tina’s suggestion of today, I agree that I have to
Q. Do you observe what the students can do in terms of the Can Do statements of ACTFL? How do they fit into your schema? A. Can Do statements do not fit into what I do. Most teachers teach them using skill building, which involves memorization and conscious monitoring of output. That is a far
Keri Biron used to work from targets and has over the past year been testing out non-targeted instruction. Here are some clips that she shared with us and thank you Keri, for your openness to new ideas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN6T0FQkuVQ&t=10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdOo2cv4Wds&t=7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bCkuXZ7dA&t=1s
Recommended Reading: 2015 Notes on TPRS- Contributions, controversies, problems, and new frontiers I don’t think that it is any secret that people in the CI community have been bad mouthing Tina and me for our non-targeted stance. But we have decided to go forth down the road of non-targeted instruction anyway. The main reason for
