In recent blog posts the subject of “language activity facilitator” (Tripp) was compared with the term “teacher as coach” (Sizer). The implication was that a language activity facilitator is someone who wastes kids’ time in the language classroom.
I think that may be why LAF’s aren’t big fans of Krashen, whose research basically trashes their entire reality about teaching languages. Can’t blame them. Easier to stealthily condescend (our group member Laura Avila’s term) than to actually think that Krashen might have something to say on this topic.
The point was made that such a teacher was less effective than a coach, a mentor, or someone who coaches from the sidelines and lets the learner kind of “do” and get better that way while being coached. An example is the teacher who facilitates cooperative learning group work and walks around coaching.
But neither of those models describe what we do at all. We certainly don’t want to be LAF’s, but neither can we be even remotely effective if we just turn the kids loose to experience the language.
We are the key to everything because we are the only one in the room who knows the language. Language is a reciprocal, participatory human thing. It must therefore be taught that way, in a human way, with all the subtle shades of meaning that only humans can express.
Of course reading, since it is also input, is a great way to learn, but, in my view, it ideally follows the listening input, because I think that sound is the basis of acquisition. Just my opinion – I’m no scientist.
So, if neither of the above models applies to what we do as language teachers, is there a third model? One that accurately reflects what teachers who use comprehensible input really do, which in my view ideally is to focus the attention of second language learners on the meaning of input and not on the medium used to deliver it?
But is that a model like the other two? I would like to suggest here that the best model to describe what we do is not a model at all. Robotic models for organizing instruction come and go. None work. Maybe we should switch the focus to the non-robotic side. That’s where Krashen comes in.
Language is not a hardened subject to be consumed. It is a fluid subject to be enjoyed. It can “learn itself” – get trapped in the mind of the listener – if the mind just hears the language spoken enough. This not need be a big complicated “method” that we are trying to uncover here.
Languages are living things that are born and die just like us. I prefer to think that delivering comprehensible input is a way of being, of living. Ways of being don’t come and go. I have always wanted to just hang out with my students and the language. Just be there and not have people come in and make sure I cover certain objectives and all of that dweeby stuff.
What could be more fun than living our jobs? Just starting out on Monday with a few structures and enjoy sharing them with the kids, bringing them to life in all the ways that we have been trained in our study of comprehensible input methods.
Exploring where the language goes that day, hanging out with the language, going slowly enough to include everyone, progressing up the taxonomy through the week, aiming for that culture lesson on Friday as the big payoff for the week’s work.
Moving on up. Embracing the unexpected just as we must in real life. Lowering, crushing, the affective filter. Learning to be happy at work. Changing the paradigm. Building more interest and confidence and therefore trust with our students each day.
Letting go all the pre-occupation with the what and how of things. Hanging out. Going slowly. Letting the group decide where things go. Letting meaning just emerge. Giving back to the kids the mental innocence that was ripped away from them in fifth grade.
Returning to a kind of mental innocence. Without mental innocence (the use of the unconscious mind and not analysis of language), kids can’t learn a language – they can only learn about a language when the conscious mind is involved.
Learning about a language is not learning a language at all. But it sure is enticing. It is illusion at its best. The teacher spouts on about the difference between the passé composé and the imperfect, and the kids don’t quite get it right, and so more worksheets are needed, and weeks go by primarily in English. What the hell does that have to do with learning a language?
We only need to relax. Only then will we see the professional changes that we desire.
Related links:
https://benslavic.com/blog/2010/09/17/our-part-is-simply-to-relax/
https://benslavic.com/blog/2010/10/06/we-must-be-comfortable-in-our-classrooms/
I think that may be why LAF’s aren’t big fans of Krashen, whose research basically trashes their entire reality about teaching languages. Can’t blame them. Easier to stealthily condescend (our group member Laura Avila’s term) than to actually think that Krashen might have something to say on this topic.
The point was made that such a teacher was less effective than a coach, a mentor, or someone who coaches from the sidelines and lets the learner kind of “do” and get better that way while being coached. An example is the teacher who facilitates cooperative learning group work and walks around coaching.
But neither of those models describe what we do at all. We certainly don’t want to be LAF’s, but neither can we be even remotely effective if we just turn the kids loose to experience the language.
We are the key to everything because we are the only one in the room who knows the language. Language is a reciprocal, participatory human thing. It must therefore be taught that way, in a human way, with all the subtle shades of meaning that only humans can express.
Of course reading, since it is also input, is a great way to learn, but, in my view, it ideally follows the listening input, because I think that sound is the basis of acquisition. Just my opinion – I’m no scientist.
So, if neither of the above models applies to what we do as language teachers, is there a third model? One that accurately reflects what teachers who use comprehensible input really do, which in my view ideally is to focus the attention of second language learners on the meaning of input and not on the medium used to deliver it?
But is that a model like the other two? I would like to suggest here that the best model to describe what we do is not a model at all. Robotic models for organizing instruction come and go. None work. Maybe we should switch the focus to the non-robotic side. That’s where Krashen comes in.
Language is not a hardened subject to be consumed. It is a fluid subject to be enjoyed. It can “learn itself” – get trapped in the mind of the listener – if the mind just hears the language spoken enough. This not need be a big complicated “method” that we are trying to uncover here.
Languages are living things that are born and die just like us. I prefer to think that delivering comprehensible input is a way of being, of living. Ways of being don’t come and go. I have always wanted to just hang out with my students and the language. Just be there and not have people come in and make sure I cover certain objectives and all of that dweeby stuff.
What could be more fun than living our jobs? Just starting out on Monday with a few structures and enjoy sharing them with the kids, bringing them to life in all the ways that we have been trained in our study of comprehensible input methods.
Exploring where the language goes that day, hanging out with the language, going slowly enough to include everyone, progressing up the taxonomy through the week, aiming for that culture lesson on Friday as the big payoff for the week’s work.
Moving on up. Embracing the unexpected just as we must in real life. Lowering, crushing, the affective filter. Learning to be happy at work. Changing the paradigm. Building more interest and confidence and therefore trust with our students each day.
Letting go all the pre-occupation with the what and how of things. Hanging out. Going slowly. Letting the group decide where things go. Letting meaning just emerge. Giving back to the kids the mental innocence that was ripped away from them in fifth grade.
Returning to a kind of mental innocence. Without mental innocence (the use of the unconscious mind and not analysis of language), kids can’t learn a language – they can only learn about a language when the conscious mind is involved.
Learning about a language is not learning a language at all. But it sure is enticing. It is illusion at its best. The teacher spouts on about the difference between the passé composé and the imperfect, and the kids don’t quite get it right, and so more worksheets are needed, and weeks go by primarily in English. What the hell does that have to do with learning a language?
We only need to relax. Only then will we see the professional changes that we desire.
Related links:
https://benslavic.com/blog/2010/09/17/our-part-is-simply-to-relax/
https://benslavic.com/blog/2010/10/06/we-must-be-comfortable-in-our-classrooms/