I hope we get some deep answers to this major question from Alisa which is very applicable to current discussion in the CI community:
I am getting emboldened to dump my ‘classical’ circling and PQA in favor of all out non-targeted language usage. (I seldom target classically anymore, but I do circle and PQA still…I wanna dump it if it’s effective w/my wee ones!)
However, and this question keeps popping up for me, though it’s been addressed on this blog and elsewhere I think – Can we start with young beginners this way – non-targeted – or do we establish a ‘survival foundation’ first and then shift to NT? I predict y’all will answer, “Skip ‘Go’ and collect $200 at the non-targeted property.”
So here are my persistent fears:
1. Li’l kids have low tolerance for ambiguity (though they can get in the ‘flow’ state with one so readily!)
2. Without solid literacy skills to establish/remind meaning (grades 1-2), I have fewer effective tricks (though of course I can draw and translate orally);
3. I could try the 100% NT with the 3-4s and keep the classical practices with the 1-2s…
Thoughts?
Jeff already answered:
I think you hit on it here. Elementary kids are not even close to the same as HS students. Circling kills the vibe in HS. Just talking is great though as long as they understand. I have a feeling (I’ve never taught ES) that circling would work wonderfully with the youngsters.
I’ve been doing great with my fresh/sophs with a Matava Script and going wherever with it. I just tell them the story. I don’t circle or they check out. I repeat a few times but that’s it. I change my voice, I shout important things, I make them feel my excitement, but I can’t circle or even stop to ask more than a few questions until we are done.
In other news: I have kids who put their head down on bad days, but I don’t get all bent out of shape about it. They still listen mostly. Especially when the rest of the class is laughing and enjoying themselves.