When we target parts of the language, and repeat them with the goal of getting students to learn them, we inevitably leave some of our students behind. Some get left behind because they are not yet ready to learn that little piece of the linguistic system at that time, and we leave others languishing in boredom because they already know that piece, or it “clicks” very quickly for them during the lesson, and yet we repeat the structure that they already know many times instead of giving them new data – in the form of emergent, non-targeted speech – for their growing language system.
While we are telling stories, the unconscious minds of a large percentage of our students are busy doing what unconscious minds are designed to do – absorb and process and organize the target language out of the reach of their conscious minds. However, many teachers also expect the students to gain “mastery” or “control” over certain target structures and words. Some students are quick enough to do both – attend to the input in class and also learn the target language. Some students can’t keep up with our expectations that they learn – learn, not acquire – certain parts of the language on our timeline, in time for the assessment, for the purpose of recall. Too many of our students’ conscious minds simply cannot keep up, because some students are just simply faster conscious learners/processors than others.
How can we possibly slow down enough every day to get the slower processors, those used to being left behind, to internalize the structures we have selected and deemed important for everyone to “acquire” that day or that week or in that unit? And, if we in fact do succeed in slowing our instruction down enough to get the slower kids to learn certain parts of the language, how can we make our instruction compelling or even simply interesting day after day, from August to June?
The authors tried and routinely failed to hit this “sweet spot” that brings in both the slow and fast processors for too long a time. We finally figured out a way that allowed us to stop trying, because the issue was not with us. It was the targets. We removed the targets No teacher can hit the sweet spot when trying to teach certain aspects of the language, from structures to words in lists to, as some teachers do, unbelievably, verb tenses.
What did using targets cost us? We dutifully repeated the same structure over and over, using every tool in the box to make the repetitions seem interesting – doing heavy circling of questions, dutifully including humor, personalization, references to teen popular culture, props, actors, dialogue, etc.
On the topic of heavy circling, Udo Wegners in Germany has said this:
I’m so glad I found (Ben’s) PLC just in time before I had stressed myself by trying to target structures and get the required 50 to 70 reps on them.
My reunion with TPRS after two failed attempts happened last year when I heard about Susan Gross and bought her training videos. I was so impressed that I watched them several times and realized that this was something I had been looking for for ages. But when I tried out the heavy circling, although it went well, I felt an awful lot of pressure to do it right and to tell the truth I hated it but I thought that I would have to master these kinds of skills, and all of them by just reading books and trying again and again, without being able to attend a seminar because I live in Germany.
By repeating and repeating so heavily, saying the same thing over and over but in a thousand different ways, we missed chances to use richer language, to expose the students to more linguistic data. This data might have been just what they needed to hear at precisely that time to click things into place in their uniquely-developing interlanguage, the system or web of linguistic competence developing in each acquirer’s head, growing and becoming more accurate with each exposure to new linguistic data.
These exposures ideally happen across multiple contexts, naturally, rather than all at once, in a forced way. Thus the unconscious minds of the students can hone their conception of the language, using each repeated exposure to the data, in varied contexts, to confirm or alter their mental representation of the language. This process happens best when the input is rich in linguistic data – words and structures that the students have not yet acquired – and the overall message conveyed by the words is comprehensible. The problem with trying to get all the students to acquire certain words and structures at the same time is that some are ready to incorporate certain aspects of the language into their growing interlanguage and others are not.
Non-targeted input solves this problem and is beautifully, inherently, and effortlessly differentiated for the thirty-three unique interlanguages that exist in the thirty-three unique minds of our students. Each mind takes from the input what they are ready for. Dr Krashen, addressing the COFLT-WAFLT conference in October, 2016, described this phenomenon using an analogy that we thought very powerful. He said that we do not need to think consciously about the precise vitamins and nutrients in the foods we eat. If we eat a rich, varied diet, then our bodies will naturally, involuntarily, take in the nutrients they need at that particular moment, and build strong bones and muscles.
Dr. Krashen’s point was that the same is true of linguistic input. The best approach is to serve up a rich and varied diet of comprehensible messages so that each individual student can take from the feast what they individually need to build strong interlanguage. As long as we are making the messages comprehensible to the students, we can then automatically let go of the need to get everyone moving along on the same timeline. This takes a lot of professional courage.