This content from a recent comment by Jody on
https://benslavic.com/blog/2011/12/05/ohio-may-have-a-problem/
cannot be ignored so I am reposting it here as a blog entry:
…in TPRS and the CI methods that “we” use, negotiation of meaning by the instructor and student are constant:
Teacher asks question. Students answers correctly. Teacher checks for comprehension anyway. Student answers confirming comprehension.
Teacher asks question. Student gives sign for “low/no comprehension”. Teacher modifies speech, gestures, explains, clarifies, etc. to increase student comprehension. Student responds. Teacher checks for comprehension.
Teacher asks question. Student responds with incomprehensible or incorrect answer. Teacher uses variety of “meaning-centered” responses to student to increase their comprehension and give them more input.
TPRS/CI methods depend on some sort of “output” from student to continue conversation–or target language would just be noise from the teacher. Output from student stimulates the next Input from teacher which leads to output from student, etc. It’s called a conversation. By listening to the output from the student, I (teacher) know how to modify/engineer the next input to guarantee best comprehension scenario. If not, what’s the point?
There is a complete paradigm disconnect between them and us in my opinion. Both sides hear the same information and interpret it correctly within their paradigms. For instance, I have observed (on a daily basis in my shared classroom) a teacher who uses the 90% target language goal. Unfortunately, students comprehend almost nothing except for the very top kids and they miss a ton of stuff–but she’s using the TL.
I also notice that most trad teachers believe that they are completely following the ACTFL standards. They interpret the meaning of those standards very differently than we do and will argue their interpretation to the death.
Paradigm difference: input leads to output or output leads to output? Huge difference. I have a difficult time arguing the standards or anything else when the philosophical foundation of how language is acquired is so different between camps. It seems like a waste of time to me.