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
Brian’s Questions About PQA
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
3 thoughts on “Brian’s Questions About PQA”
Thanks Ben for getting this post up and for your thoughts on each of my questions.
(…this reply is really just a test to see if I am still get the error message when I try to post. If anyone is reading this, then it looks like the issue is gone.)
Great! It posted.
Maybe another way to look at it Brian is that in regular PQA we get to fly higher because we don’t have that script to tie us down. But the flights are shorter.
We may be able to extend the PQA into a kind of mini-story (I call that extending PQA), but in no way do we have the wide-beamed consistency afforded to us by the three structure (the rebar) and the three locations of a fully rigged out story.
PQA thus provides us with a less flighty, less focused kind of class discussion in which we never know what will happen next, but which doesn’t have the stability of a good story.
I prefer the stability to the flightiness, but only when the story is going well. I prefer the PQA to the story when the story is not going well. When both are going well, we have different kinds of happiness in the classroom.
In the PQA we have these shorter more fanciful, more varied, explorations of imaginary or real personalization that refers directly to the kids. But in stories we have a totally different kind of personalization, which is where the students become someone else.
Both are fun. But, as Krashen said to our debriefing group two days ago, it was the story, the kids involvement in the story, that had the real power. He was really getting into talking about his current (latest and to him, if you look in his eyes, coolest) hypotheses, which has been in the works for a full ten years (I asked him); the Compelling Input hypothesis.
Once I find time to edit and upload those five classes that we videotaped for two groups over two days, I will be able to point out via voiceover the scene that Krashen was talking about as an example of comprehensible input that he called compelling .
I will try to find the comment related to that discussion and post it here as a separate blog entry as well.