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
Chris Roberts Thesis 3
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
8 thoughts on “Chris Roberts Thesis 3”
Chris,
Do you intend to make this available on line to anyone who wants to read it? It would be a nice link to be able to send people who are wondering about TPRS.
Other question. There are are a couple of typos. Do you have that covered or do you want comments?
Chris –
This is really well put together. I know I would have benefited greatly from something like this when I first heard about TPRS/CI last August.
In describing the TPRS class format, you say:
“I think of PQA as a ‘gossip’ session where we just “make stuff up” about each other in the target language.”
This really captures for me the culture of a classroom where CI is the focus: it’s about “we” not “I”; “I” don’t just make stuff up. Rather, “we” make stuff up about each other. It’s reciprocal. This requires trust, trust in one another and trust in the process. I’ve seen this in a huge way this year. If they don’t feel safe (safe to speak, to take a chance, to screw up but keep trying), then the “we” disappears, and it becomes just “me” trying to force “them” to something they’re not ready for.
This is only reinforced by another observation of yours:
“…even the lowest performing students in the experimental group outperformed the lowest performing students in the control group.”
Even those who struggle greatly (even when in a TPRS classroom), still can make significant gains if given the chance.
Amazing job Chris! Do you intend to submit this for publication?
You might also prepare it as a presentation and pitch it to ACTFL or some such organization in the near future.
Chris,
I devoured your paper and enjoyed every line of it, truly!
A couple of comments/ observations :
You wrote that the control group was taught during the 2011-2012 school year and the experimental group was taught a year later, i.e during the 2012-2013 year.
Wouldn’t that constitute another extraneous variable? One might argue that you had more experience as a teacher having taught an additional year, even if you changed method in 2012-2013. Just a random thought I had when I read this part.
Also you wrote that the independent variable is the teaching method being used and a couple of lines below you wrote that the independent variable is student achievement. Shouldn’t that be the dependent variable? Probably a typo, right?
I hope you do publish this paper, b/c it represents a great summary of the latest comparative research on TPRS versus Grammar-centered methods and also because your own action research piece added a lot to the body of research already available.
Thank you Chris, awesome job!
Is this thing online somewherenin one big hunk with tables etc? Would love to share with dept members.
Great work. I’d love to get some $$ locally to do one of these. But I’d have to learn stats…
One more thing. What I am finding with my first-years (who have only ever had Spanish via CI/TPRS) is that the method makes the most gains on the bottom end. The four-percenters do fine wherever (albeit with more and better early output than before), but the bottom-end kids– including a couple with IEPs that identify output problems and problems with reading– are doing WAY better. They also FEEL better in class, as there is no awful pressure to perform.
…they also FEEL better in class, as there is no awful pressure to perform….
We never mention all those “silent” kids – the 96% – but yes, we cannot say enough how important it is that someone FINALLY wants and now has a way to reach those, the ones that are reachable, which is most of the kids.
Let’s be clear:
WE HAVE NOT KNOWN HOW TO REACH KIDS IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS UP UNTIL NOW BUT NOW WE DO, SO THERE IS NOW A MORAL IMPERATIVE TO ACT ON WHAT WE KNOW, as per this:
…they also FEEL better in class…
THIS IS HUGE!
FINALLY, there is a group of teachers who WANT their kids to be confident and relaxed in class, who want their kids to succeed and even laugh and have fun while learning! Can I tie this to teen suicide and the current catastrophe that is secondary education in our country? Can I say that? Please? Finally?
The four percenter teachers teaching their four percenter students – hell, that very high grafitti ridden wall is crumbling fast. It’s a bunch of Humpty Dumptys going down all akimbo right now! All around us! They are getting egg all over themselves as they break apart. Before, we had to walk on egg shells around them in our buildings. Now, we walk on eggshells for a different reason, bc we like to hear the crunch!
The old disgustingly hubristic paradigm (I just wanted to say disgustingly hubristic paradigm) was to reward and engage only 1 of every 25 kids in the fricking classroom. That is A SCATHING INDICTMENT of the old method.
Indeed, it is how we reach all of the kids in the room that separates this new way of engaging kids in language instruction from the old 20th c. way of teaching languages. (I would say “teaching” but that word, like TPRS, doesn’t mean anything anymore.)
It’s kind of like, if it were a business, we would be reaching up to 25 times more clients (4% of the kids vs. 90% – 100% of the kids). What is that percent increase? It’s big. Can anyone say job security? Plus, there are so many less bad vibes in the room. Which means greater phyical and mental health for us.
Great points, Chris.