Unlock with PatreonThe Problem with CI
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
Need to Refocus – 2
Share:
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn
Ben Slavic
Get The Latest Updates
Subscribe to Our Mailing List
No spam, notifications only about new products, updates.
Related Posts
CI and the Research (cont.)
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
Research Question
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
We Have the Research
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
16 thoughts on “Need to Refocus – 2”
Soooo interesting….
The Maine TCI conference was the week before the AATSP Maine conference. The TCI conference drew 140. the AATSP (which for the past 20 years drew about 40-50 had only 11 paid attendees. Isn’t that telling?
I have not read all of the posts on the new national org idea…. is the thinking to replace the old one or create an additional one?
The time is now?
I LOVE CLEAR!
Let me repeat that, skip. Your state organization, AATSP, had 11 paid attendees this year. Your conference had 140. Just wanted to repeat that. When 11 teachers show up on a state level to discuss what is best for kids, they must not have a lot to talk about. 11 teachers. That’s crusty.
Yes, the thread on Need to Refocus started out as my saying that personally I needed to get disentangled from the ACTFL thread, and ended up leading to a long discussion about the formation of a new national group that has no ties or connection to any previous group, just to be clear on that.
I think that the time is going to be this year with a hard focus perhaps on next summer. I suggest in a previous comment earlier this morning that we consider taking this thing slower, in response to an excellent point made by Jim Tripp.
That is how things stand now as I see them, and when I talk to Diana I will get back to the group.
And skip, please accept my belated congratulations on being honored by your state organization as one of the five best teachers in the state. You’re not just a great leader but a great teacher and it’s time you were acknowledged for all that hard work.
See you Sunday! (or at least my representative Peyton Manning will…)
CLEAR might be taken already. There is an organization in Michigan – MSU – by that name (Center for Language Education and Research).
So CLEAR is taken. Dang it. The thing is that the key word – and I am sure Leigh Anne put that in there on purpose – is acquisition. Isn’t that the main difference between CI taught kids and all the others? Our group would be about language acquisition and the MSU group is simply about research.
We should note that since it is becoming clear, no pun intended, that there is no clear research for ACTFL’s overall position, or they would have provided it by now (this includes Curtain’s failure to show up when challenged by Eric in a respectful private email), I would ask where is this group when ACTFL needs its research more than ever right now?
Although what if we just used it anyway? It would make a point and stir things up.
I just did a quick copyright and trademark search. CLEAR did not show up on either of them, although numerous items with CLEAR in the name did. The group in Michigan may not have any legal right to the exclusive use of the acronym. A new group could trademark the name if it is available. However, there is the ethical issue of taking over an acronym that is already in use by a group that is also involved in language education and research.
I like it, too, as an acronym but aren’t there copyright issues to consider (or something like that, I’m not really “clear” on the legalese – haven’t acquired that yet 😉 )
Clearly it’s muddled, Brigitte. We probably won’t be able to acquire it, though.
and there are logistical issues as well. Who will be responsible for everything? Who will collect membership $? Who will open the bank account? Who will maintain membership info/website/communication? How will these people be chosen? What will be the goals/directives? How will checks and balances occur? Who will decide upon “official” statements ? This is a seriously complex issue and it will take clear and careful planning. AND it will evolve.
Wasn’t all of this the original goal of the “committee” which formed IFLT and created the IJFLT?
What is the state of IFLT? Carol has become the funder and organizer of the conference, but is there still a “committee”? If so, who is on it? How did they get to be on it? Do they consider themselves still an active organization? How would you ensure that we are a cohesive group? This was a “separatist” movement back in the day and we have seen some healing and movement towards a coordinated effort towards Comprehensible Input-based instruction again.
Whew.
All of that aside, the regional groups are a terrific place to begin and I applaud Jim for pointing that out.
As for National…who knows how that will unfold? It is an enormous gift for folks on the east coast who have not been able to afford a National conference for nearly a decade. Jody Klopp is now the organizer. She has begun to reach out to possible presenters but no other information has been announced. I am hopeful about two things: it seems likely that Michele Kindt and Craig Sheehy will again coordinate an Intermediate track, which was very successful last year, drawing on experienced teachers (but not the usual presenters) to create a new and original program. Also, hopefully Haiyun will again be working with a group of Novice (to TPRS) Chinese teachers, as they have individual needs to address. It’s a good guess that Donna and Katya will have the Beginners as they did last year at NTPRS AND iFLT.
Because I have been working with teachers on the East Coast for over a decade, I feel compelled to be there to support those who attend….regardless of any “official’ responsibilities.
I anticipate that if Carol is going to sponsor iFLT in 2015, she will make an announcement just before ACTFL….the potential number of customers there makes it great for advertising. Despite what the “official” ACTFL stand might be, the CI presentations are well-attended and well-received!!
The greatest gift of ANY conference is the connection with others of like mind, heart and spirit. To be able to see folks, talk with them in person and buy them a drink is a precious thing.
with love,
Laurie
…despite what the “official” ACTFL stand might be, the CI presentations are well-attended and well-received!!…
And Laurie that is an understatement, as you know. I have seen Leslie Davidson and Carl Gaab sessions with people spilling out into the hallway in fairly large rooms, and those CI presentations contrast sharply with the almost empty rooms of so many other ACTFL presenters. It is odd to see that. What a strange push me/pull you relationship there is between TCI people and ACTFL!
And let’s not forget about our international friends!
Since we are engaging ACTFL these days, let me encourage people to contribute to the magazine “The Language Educator”. The magazine includes a “So You Say” section each edition. For January/February the prompt is “What does it take to guide learners to the next level of proficiency (to move toward Intermediate, Advanced, Superior)? Tell us about a time when your learners demonstrated increased proficiency and how you elicited that performance.”
Here’s my submission. (We’ll see if it gets printed.)
It takes a flood of comprehensible input to move learners to the next level of proficiency. Last year one of my classes engaged in a lively debate on the relative merits of the four Houses at Hogwarts School of Magic. This was a subject that the entire class found highly engaging (in fact, the class exhibited strong interest in all things Harry Potter), and since the students were about evenly divided among the houses, I asked them to work in groups to prepare a defense of “their” house. All of my students demonstrated increased proficiency through having discussed Harry Potter so often, but one student in particular exhibited a huge jump in proficiency. The student had to this point been reticent about speaking in class but suddenly found his voice and gave a masterful defense of Slytherin House, entirely in German. (Something that’s hard enough to do in one’s native language.) It was the combination of having heard a lot of comprehensible input about the world of Harry Potter, Hogwarts, and the values represented by them – as well as general high-frequency words – plus a subject about which my student was passionate plus the rule of using German as exclusively as possible both inside and outside the class that catapulted my student into being able to express himself in extended discourse across multiple paragraphs of extemporaneous speech.
…it takes a flood of comprehensible input to move learners to the next level of proficiency….
… it was the combination of having heard a lot of comprehensible input…as well as general high-frequency words …plus the rule of using German as exclusively as possible both inside and outside the class that catapulted my student into being able to express himself….
I hope they publish it. It’s exactly what they want – a story about kids moving up profiency levels. However, if they don’t publish it, it will likely be because of those two passages mentioning comprehensible input, which is a trigger term.
In the endless back and forth snarkfest on their site we have not been enjoying of late, because there is too much turf defending behavior going on, it seems as if the term comprehensible input has become in some of the ACTFL minds a trigger denoting TPRS. CI has become code for TPRS. That’s a problem.
I now see why Diana is so adamant about not using the term TPRS in future. Krashen didn’t invent TPRS, he just advises us to make our input comprehensible to our students. Krashen does not say that TPRS aligns perfectly with his ideas, merely that of what is out there it comes closest to doing so.
In the same way, when we use his terms targeted and non-targeted input, which bear on the general ACTFL discussion about lists (targeted) and general focus on meaning (non-targeted) we again end up back at Krashen’s doorstep, like two kids arguing about who gets the candy. It’s not about the lists, it’s about whether the input is comprehensible or not.
It seems so very unfortunate that Robert’s excellent submission above might not be shared with others in that ACTFL publication simply because he uses a trigger word that identifies him with the TPRS camp. I think I can say with accuracy after a number of years that Robert is not in any camp – he is a teacher doing what he needs to do to best reach kids in the classroom. Labels in this ongoing war are becoming increasingly misleading.
(In that sense I support what Laurie just said about perhaps NOT forming another national organization. Alisa’s idea is certainly a fantastic one and makes total sense, but we have to be practical before running off after yet another flag waving us up yet another hill. In true change, both sides of any argument make their presence known and we seem to be in the middle of that now. So we just have to be wise on that topic, and patient, and as Napoleon D. said, listen to our hearts.)
The splitting of teachers into pro-TPRS and anti-TPRS camps has really caused some damage. It has set us against each other. We can’t be that far apart with the ACTFL people. After all, we share, as someone said here last night, a desire to not use the textbook and we do agree on assessment using proficiency levels vs. the old way of testing.
Perhaps our argument with ACTFL is more of words than anything else. If, whatever camp we are in, we strive to make ourselves understood in class, then we will reach our kids and they will move up proficiency levels.
Does it really matter is we target lists or not? Isn’t it really if we make ourselves comprehensible or not? It’s about whether our students understand us or not.
What a crazy discussion it has been with ACTFL. I’m genuinely tired of it. I would rather read about how teachers like Robert who work with their students however they have to for highest gains. I would like to study what teachers like that do and imitate it. What Robert did was to get the kids into the Henry Potter thing, flood their minds in German, then sit back and watch the gains emerge naturally from the wonderful and magical and unconscious prossess called comprehensible input, so now what’s the problem? Isn’t it all just about comprehensible input, and really about nothing else?
Robert could you tell us approximately how many hours these students (non-heritage) have had of CI.
In this month’s Language Educator Oct/Nov there are contributions by Bill Van Patten, Carol Gaab and Martina Bex. You must be a member to read the -whole- magazine. Bill Van Patten’s article is available for non-members online. It takes a little searching on ACTFL website, but well worth reading.
There is no doubt in my mind that ACTFL will publish Robert’s submission. It’s exactly what they are looking for: concrete examples of success.
Catharina, this was a mixed group of 3-4-AP students in a regular high school setting. At the time of the occurrence, we were about halfway through the year. The student to whom I referred had therefore had about 500 hours of instruction. I remember the incident so clearly because it represented such a major jump for him. This year, unfortunately, he is at a university that doesn’t offer German, but I’m sure he will find a way to continue with the language.
Robert, Would you consider teaching a college course with a pratical outline on how one can achieve such great success? I don’t have my “diploma” to teach in USA outside of private schools. I will wait until you teach, Robert. No more theories. No more SWBAT. No more 5Cs. No more Annenberg videos and loose talk from teachers who did not “walk the walk” . Is that how Ben says it?