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
Old Ideas for New People
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
7 thoughts on “Old Ideas for New People”
We must remember that we can’t teach TPRS like how we teach languages.
There are no building blocks for language learning, it doesn’t go brick by brick. We can just pick some structures and give some CI and boom, acquisition happens.
But teaching TPRS is like teaching any other skill, like teaching anything that ISN’T language. Stolz always talks about how in basketball you have practice specific skills that build up and up. There are basic skills in TPRS that should be mastered before we try other stuff. This is the point of your “Stepping Stones” book, Ben.
Have you noticed how we are fine talking about “Stepping Stones” in training new people to TPRS but we avoid talking about “building” a language “from the ground up” with “bricks” (https://benslavic.com/blog/brick-house/).
Take heart, new teachers! Your path to teaching with TPRS/CI is must more clear and orderly than acquiring a language.
This is so well put, James. Indeed, the Natural Order of Acquisition hypothesis states exactly that. We flood the mind in input that is comprehensible, and the brain accepts the seeds and chooses which seeds (words/word combinations) will sprout and not only which seeds but when those seeds sprout. All we do is flood them with language that they can understand, to repeat your point above.
(That means starting with a structure, any structure, because the deeper mind is in control and not a word list, with all deference and bowing down to Eric on this point, but we just differ on that one which is fine. We will disagree here and no one is right and no one is wrong and the difference is that we don’t get pissy with each other here when we disagree unlike the folks on you know what site. I’m just lazy but I also defer to the power of the deeper mind on that topic and sorry for the digression.)
To return to my point in support of what you said, James, when traditional (left brain, analytical) methods are used, the aforementioned seeds do not sprout because they fall onto the wrong ground, the dry ground of the conscious mind. But when we sow the seeds directly into the fertile ground of the deeper mind, all the work of language formation is done for us.
The process of language acquisition (function) vs. mere learning about language (form) is a divine process that we can’t meddle with because it is out of our domain, like the formation of a child. And so when we embrace the use of CI in our classrooms, the change is so massive that few can accept how big it is and so we see the kind of poor response to our recent barrage there from the ACTFL Foreign Language educators that Ben Lev famously described here a few days ago:
…our understanding of CI is very nuanced, compared to most FL teachers who are stuck in grammar-land, suffering the textbook and hating their jobs. They have no idea. They peek over the fence at what Robert and Eric are offering, and they are blinded, it’s gotta be overwhelming. I’m guessing they turn away, it’s too much to take it….
Related: https://benslavic.com/blog/we-lack-spine/
I like that we can respectfully agree to disagree, but actually, I think we agree.
You start with a structure, you target it like hell, if you want to stay comprehensible to everyone and get the reps needed for everyone to acquire.
The structure should first and foremost lead itself to compelling input, because without that the input could be comprehensible, but not comprehended.
High-frequency is a secondary consideration and since I view high-frequency as the first 3,000 word families, I’m sure we can find ways to satisfy both prerequisites to structure selection. And in the case of a mid or low-frequency structure, that’s okay too, because I think we should bow down to requirement #1.
In the case of schools and curriculums it makes sense to expect teachers to work on acquisition of a minimal set of high-frequency words with plenty of flexibility room for personalized language.
With not enough time and frequency, a non-targeted approach doesn’t give the reps, such that sound memory fades before the words are rep’d again. I’ve come around to seeing how targeted CI is absolutely the way to go and I consider it Krashen-for-schools 😉
Yes on this:
…with not enough time and frequency, a non-targeted approach doesn’t give the reps….
But I hear you saying that in terms of the frequency charts I’m probably going to be o.k. because in most of the stories I choose from (Matava’s) the structures she targets are going to be in that 3000, right?
If so, then yes, we do agree. I like that. When I agree with Herman, I agree with the Research Engine, or, my new name for this wunderkind – the Herminator.
About time someone called me that – the Herminator. Brings me back to high school. haha.
Don’t tell me. If that was your nickname in h.s. then you were a defensive back or linebacker on your high school football team. If I guessed right I get psychic powers credit.
That would have been my dad. He coaches the high school football team. I played soccer. Scandalous! haha.