Greg asked here on Sunday night:
…one question that I have is, has anyone asked Beniko Mason what she thinks about TPRS? Has she seen what is being done with the Invisibles?…
Greg she told me and Tina in the fall of that “the TPRS ship needs to be righted”, and gave me to understand that she made that statement because of the slow progression into distortion of the research into what TPRS has become now. (And this change happened amazingly with Krashen’s tacit blessing over the past ten or more years, which is an inexplicable thing to me.) So Beniko wants TPRS to come back to reflect Krashen’s research, and has for some time.
Tina and I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time Beniko and Krashen in France (summer 2016 – see below) and a lot was discussed. Beniko later studied A Natural Approach to Stories and told Krashen to read it. He did so and told Beniko who told Tina who told me that it is “important” and “clever” and he was even on the verge of formerly endorsing it in Teacher’s Discovery’s advertising (Dec. of 2016.)
In an ensuing discussion, I chose to ask Beniko, since she really liked the book and the general concept of the Invisibles (One Word Images, etc.) as well – they both did – what percentage of instruction should therefore be Invisibles and what percentage SL. I suggested to her that it be ideally 80% SL and 20% Invisibles and I believed that at the time (won’t go into that). She said it should be 50/50 each one.
Then someone or something entered the game. It was politics. Someone or something pulled Krashen’s attention away* from that 2016 flood of energy in the CI community towards non-targeted instruction action, away from his own research! So Tina and I never got our endorsement from him, also because he didn’t get it to TD by their catalogue deadline. Oh well…
I personally believe that Krashen, by continuing to endorse TPRS, is going against his own research, and so does Beniko. But something stopped him from endorsing the Invisibles. What happened? We can’t know. Someone or something. At least he read it and liked it – that means a lot to me.
The politics that happened in 2016, esp. his reversal on non-targeted comprehensible and on my book, may have let the dying floppy-legged horse that is TPRS, a horse that was a young thoroughbred for many years but never won a race, a horse to which Tina and I owe a lot and which we love for how it let took us to our current vision, which we like better, Krashen’s reversal and sudden loss of interest in the Invisibles allowed that TPRS horse to stumble forward some more. Or I could be wrong. Depends on who you talk to. I know what Tina thinks about it! I think we all do….
I’m glad our group is private. I owe too much to Krashen to publicly say what I really feel and think, but I can say what I feel and think here. I could be way wrong, but why I am wrong on this would have to be convincingly explained to me if I were to recant my position.
The people who were part of all that are no longer members of this group. And if what I said here gets to him, I really don’t care. I just don’t.
*they actually did more than pull his attention away, they dissembled and obfuscated things by convincing Krashen (again, this really blows my mind) to engage in quite obtuse (to most of us) discussion about the terms T1 and T2 and NT and made Tina and I run as fast as we could away from that discussion bc it didn’t feel honest, if you remember that, Greg, which really confused everybody except the few people or one single person who wanted us to be confused. That is when I first published that Hit List post (see below), back in January and have since repeated it many times bc I feel it is an important delineating of NT vs. TPRS. (Greg there are searchable articles here on those terms (T1, T2 and NT) from the time we were having that discussion).