Can Do Statements – 3

3 thoughts on “Can Do Statements – 3”

1. Greg

   May 2, 2018 at 5:58 pm

   The problem is that some teachers will still not accept the research since there still is some grey area with the role explicit learning plays in more advanced proficiency levels. Most students don’t get to those levels anyway, but teachers will use what they can to continue justifying the skill-building approach.
   There is this guy on Twitter, Steve Smith (he works with Gianfranco Conti) that does this all of the time- point out studies that disagree with BVP or Krashen. Usually they don’t hold water.
   Most teachers don’t want to read theory, but what most don’t understand is that the theories that we hold drive everything that we do in the classroom. Unless, of course our goal is just to get a paycheck.
   There’s a really good book by Michael Long called “Problems in SLA”. I have not read it all, but I plan to over the summer.
   That input is the essential condition for acquisition to occur is mainstream SLA- it doesn’t matter if the person holds Universal Grammar or more usage-based theories.

   Log in to Reply
2. Greg

   May 3, 2018 at 2:33 pm

   ACTFL itself advocates that teachers write THEIR OWN Can-Do Statements.
   Just look at ACTFL’s Can-Do statement PDF. They have can-dos with _______________
   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   We just need to write can-do’s for interpretive mode.

   Log in to Reply
3. Ben Slavic

   May 3, 2018 at 8:29 pm

   It’s too bad we can’t just teach. But I guess as long as we have to defend our pedagogy, we’ll have to do stuff like this. Or not. I say fly under the radar. It’s the way I made it through the years. Who wants to lock horns with people who don’t yet understand the research?

   Log in to Reply