In the Helena Curtain scenario, which is happening all over the country right now today in classrooms near you, the teacher doesn't have to embrace the extremely radical and hugely effective idea that comprehensible input really does mean creating a
What Curtain has done is very dangerous to language educators. She has watered down what cannot be watered down - Krashen. She has pulled what she knows of Krashen into the realm of the textbook, and so has Mimi Met,
Helena Curtain is dangerous to our profession, if one accepts Krashen. Why is this?
In my opinion, Curtain has cobbled together a lot of ideas from TPRS, and misrepresented many of Blaine Ray's ideas, and even implied that some of them
James watched that Helena Curtain video he mentioned here a few days ago. He makes an amazing point below, one that rattled me and substantiated a lot of things that I have thought over the years. Thank you James for
Of course, most teachers were once successful editors of the mechanics of the language in school, and when they found out that they had a talent like their teacher as editors of language, they decided to become teachers themselves.
This is a series of emails between our Denver Public Schools World Language Coordinator and Grant Boulanger, who is at the center of the change in St. Paul, MN. In it, what CI actually is comes up and fits into
I have thought about it a lot, and I can honestly state that I mean no insult in my analysis of why traditional teachers stuck in the book and computer programs aren't showing a lot of desire to change in spite
Here is Bob's response to the previous post about what CI really is, and I see there have been a few other responses to this thread. I am putting Bob's comments here because of some odd glitch in the comment software that prevents
Bob Patrick asked, "What is CI?" I honestly think that teaching using comprehensible input – that term in lower case – is what Curtain and Met and all the other people who have jumped on the bandwagon mean when they