This design maxim came out of the 19th century in architecture. I love it. Here is an example from Wikipedia about its meaning:
“If the design of an automobile conforms to its function—for instance the desire to sit six people in two rows—then its form is said to follow its function.”
How does this apply to CI? How does the CI instruction that we do in our classrooms reflect the idea?
Well, it doesn’t. Is there even a relationship between form (the language curriculum that we use) and function (Communication, the Standard) in the profession of language teaching?
Let’s repeat the question with emphasis:
Does the form of our instruction – the curriculum we use – have anything to do with its function of Communication?
There isn’t really a connection there, is there? I certainly don’t think that there is. I don’t see one. I have looked for a connection between how we teach languages and the Communication Standard and I haven’t seen one.
I do see kids performing unending mind-numbing tasks within a curriculum/form in ways that have literally nothing to do with the actual goal of Communication/function. Worksheets and the textbook obviously are major players in this disjointed situation, but examples can also be drawn from the current CI world as well. Why the failure to align form with function in our profession even in CI circles?
It’s a good question to ask. Let’s make the point yet again:
Form (the language curriculum we use) does not serve its function (Communication, the Standard). It misses the mark. It is an embarrassment to all teachers in the profession. It is a joke.
I will be discussing this topic in the next few blog articles here. Of course, I wouldn’t be talking about this unless I had a solution to the problem.