Lying About What They Do

In their efforts to show that they are in line with the research and the buzz word of the day, CI , there are many language departments now claiming – innaccurately – that they do CI, and it’s getting worse daily.

They are straddling centuries. They have one foot in the last century and one in the current century, but the weight of their stance is on the one in the last century. They are thinking about leaning forward but the way they are standing reveals their real position.

They’re hesitant to act, so they talk. They talk the CI talk but they don’t walk the walk. They need to dig much deeper with CI, and challenge themselves more.

Here is just one example of a school’s promotional video – sent to me by Sarah – in which they say that they “do” CI but there are many giveaways in the video that they don’t:

http://www.wmmhs.org/academics/academic_departments/world_languages

My reasons for saying they are lying:

1. The students are in small classes. So I would ask, “Is this really a CI program? Real CI programs usually have packed classes of 25 or more students in them because as the kids continue through the program, they experience success and want to continue. These kids are clearly in there for the college admissions process. Real CI programs have huge classes.
2. This looks like some of my AP classes from 30 years ago. (I once had an AP French Literature class with two rich white kids in it.) One thing we know about properly run CI classes is that they protect and support and guarantee equity. Maybe this is just an all-white school…).
3. All I can offer as a response to their claim at 00:05 that they offer a “culturally authentic immersion experience” is: “Really?”
4. At 00:15 to 00:30 into the video, they say that the students “will be able to communicate in the target language for meaningful purposes”. Again, I ask, “Really?” I don’t see any kids or teachers for that matter doing that in the video.
5. At 26:00 the kids are getting ready to take notes in their notebooks. That cannot possibly be a CI class.
6. The kids at 00:43 are grouped, working out of a book. No comment.
7. At 00:47 the statement is made that the teachers abide by ACTFL’s 90% target language position statement “beginning in level I”. I tried doing that for about 15 years when I was doing TPRS. I tried and tried and almost tore my hair out trying. I finally gave up and went to about 50% – 70% TL. I wasn’t able to do the 90%. I don’t think anyone can. I think ACTFL should fess up and take their stupid position statement down. I will say one thing – the kids in this video are not in the TL 90% of the time, not even close. Just look at the video.
8. The physical distance between the kids and the teachers is remarkable. Where are kids doing jobs? Where are the acting stools? Where is the communication?
9. At 00:49 the kids are doing TPR. Meaningful communication? Really? They’re not even into it. The teacher is faking it. We’ve all faked it. TPR is fakey. Why not just talk to our students instead of waving our hands around the room or walking to the door and back? I comment more on how useless TPR here:
   https://benslavic.com/blog/why-i-prefer-ntci/ – see point 17.
10. At 00:57 the narrator says that they have “identified proficiency targets” for the end of every course. That means that they are teaching to the test and therefore cannot possibly be aligning with the research, esp. Krashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis which states clearly that individuals acquire languages at different rates, and don’t all arrive at the same level of proficiency at the same time. When are we going to accept that the research does not support the identification of “proficiency targets”?
11. At 1:03 it says with obvious pride that “performance-based benchmark assessments” are administered. I would not be proud of that – it flies in the face of the research!
12. At 1:10 it says that “our curriculum is based on culturally authentic and engaging thematic units of study”, while a teacher is looking at some written information with a high achiever. Engaging thematic units? Since when are thematic units engaging? Thematic units are not engaging. Thematic units do not lend themselves to comprehensible input instruction. We’ve talked here for years and years about the dangers of thematic unit language instruction as being simply unable to effectuate serious comprehensible input instruction.
13. Look at the expression on the kid’s face at 1:15. Am I the only one who wants to weep when seeing that? The kid is not engaged. He is trapped and waiting for the bell.
14. Pause the video at 1:22. There is no CI happening there. At the very point in the video where they claim that they strive to bring CI into “every class”, the kids are doing worksheets.