Sildenafil + Tadalafil più economico senza prescrizione medica Quanto tempo per Sildenafil + Tadalafil generico per lavorare? Comprare Sildalis online Acquistare Sildalis Sildenafil + Tadalafil
Stendra Super Force generico all’ingrosso Valutazione 4.6 sulla base di 352 voti. Nome del prodotto: Stendra Super Force Categoria: Disfunzione Erettile Nome commerciale: Extra Super
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
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
Subscribe to be a patron and get additional posts by Ben, along with live-streams, and monthly patron meetings!
Also each month, you will get a special coupon code to save 20% on any product once a month.
Unlock with Patreon
32 thoughts on “Output Question”
I wouldn’t necessarily look on this blog. I’d look here: http://www.sdkrashen.com/
Two things come to my mind.
1. Time spent doing output in a classroom is time spent NOT receiving input. Which one creates more fluency? I think we know.
2. Forced output (not real, acquired output) means the speaker is likely imposing English structure onto the language she/he is trying to express. Outside of a few nouns, what he/she is really speaking is English overlaid on the target language. There can’t be any “learning”/”acquiring” if that is the activity which is taking place. If the forced output is “pattern drill” kind of stuff, it’s just a mental exercise to figure out the pattern. That is NOT acquisition and won’t lead to it.
Jody’s point #2 is really coming home to me with my 8th grade class. I can easily compare them to what they were before this school year (pre-all-CI with forced output, compared to this year with CI) and can compare them to previous years’ 8th graders (pre-all-CI). It’s enough to show me that using CI as “one tool in the toolbox” defeats most or perhaps all benefit from CI. So combining approaches is as Jody says indirectly – a waste of time.
Isn’t anecdotal evidence, when repeated by hundreds of teachers who made the switch, something strong enough to use? I could take written work by my students and compare. I just graded paragraphs 8th graders wrote during a quiz. Wow! Every one has written a coherent paragraph. Most had only errors that were minor enough that a native speaker would understand easily. They used connector words (like but, and then, etc.). None of those things happened in my previous years’ classes except in one or two students, and not this early in the school year. Many times I couldn’t understand what they wanted to communicate and their paragraphs were like lists of unrelated sentences. It’s a really significant difference! If I needed to defend my changes in teaching at my own school, I would use this kind of thing. I would also demonstrate in the earlier grades, where I’m not asking for writing for grades, that more input means much, much higher levels of demonstrated comprehension (listening & reading) compared with previous years. I can show the assignments I used to give compared to assignments now.
Dang this is good. It is great fuel here for the Helena Curtain/U of Maine initiative that skip and I are working on, Diana. Permission to use and credit?
Sure, Ben. I haven’t been challenged at all about how I’m teaching, so I have not actually put anything together, but I could.
Anything you could do do add to the gathering of hard evidence (statements that are hard to refute even by pedants, and I don’t use that term lightly, at the university level who have been unfairly wrestling Krashen’s theories into their own jargon factories for decades), would be welcome. I am talking about things/questions/points we could raise with Helena Curtain and the U of Maine foreign language department that would make them stutter. Because if a forum were properly mediated, and the playing field was made somehow to be totally even, and we could make our points about comprehensible input without immediately having our arguments wrestled away from us by big words that even those who use them don’t understand and that really don’t mean much at the end of the day in terms of kids acquiring the language (notional-functional, etc.), then we could score some big points for our side. I know that it’s not a competition, but in some respects it is, because the university folks are really emperors with no clothes – they really are. I dealt with this when I was in graduate school in French Literature at the U of Rochester – I clearly saw how those folks cloak themselves, and it’s now time for them to be uncloaked and from what I’ve read of what you have written here over the past months you are an uncloaker. Maybe you and I and skip can work together on this Helena Curtain thing. SOMEBODY has to do SOMETHING bc these people are getting away with a big time ruse. I came to see that after your first post about Curtain, and at the same time skip was getting those half baked shitty answers from that U of Maine person and it just clicked in my mind that this is the time to go after them and set up all the heavy artillery (and we have some HEAVY artillery in comprehension based instruction) that we can throw at them and see how they hold up. skip is no secondary school dumb ass, with background at Middlebury and as creator and director of FLAME, so he can roll with those folks and yet not be OF them, so we’ve got some nasty hitters on our team. We’ve got the Latinists who could fight this thing alone if they wanted to between David Maust, John Piazza, and Dr. Robert Patrick. That’s a nasty set of Roman warriors right there whom you would want on your side. NOBODY has ever done this before. I think it is fair to them to do this now. So whatever form this engagement with these people takes (I have no idea right now but it must be professional and polite but strong and aggressive at the same time), maybe you can get involved in the preparation of the documents and in the conversation. One of the things these folks do is use big words on us and since we are “only” secondary school teachers they expect us to back down while assuming a kind of subservient and confused posture. And typically in the past we have. But that ain’t gonna happen any more with those who REALLY GET KRASHEN. We know when his ideas are being watered down and we know that watering down Krashen is intellectually and pedagogically impossible and harmful to millions of kids and we will oppose it. I might add that, if the aforementioned people aren’t enough, we have two more really big and bad secret weapons: Le Chevalier de l’Ouest (Robert Harrell) and the Commander of the Western Forces (Jody) who together have more firepower than all the firepower of the Mental Defenders of False Positions (Curtain, etc.) ever did, and I am not joking around when I say that those two could alone dismantle any argument against Krashen if they were given the right setting. Rambling here, but you get the point. But it’s a good ramble. Anyone who thinks that this is being overblown by me, I might add, please quit this blog now. You don’t get it. You don’t know what we know. Just go away because it is no longer the time to sit by and let bullies rule. Like I heard on the radio the other day, and I don’t care if you like this or not either: The Left is Right and the Right is Wrong. Krashen is Right and the Modifiers of Krashen for Their Own Purposes are Wrong. By the way, I am adding some names to y’all in the group, as you saw with Jody. I just enjoy coming up with names. So I’m adding:
Commander of the Eastern Forces – Carol Hill (chill)
The Chicago Fire – Sabrina
The Chevalier du Nord – Grant (things are POPPIN’ in St. Paul right now)
The Chevalier de Hotlanta – Robert Patrick
Leader of the Maine Brigade – skip
Mad Dog – Chris
Queen of France – Judy
“It also seems reasonable to suggest that researchers in both theoretical and applied linguistics would benefit by both teaching and studying languages, in order to get more insight into the language acquisition process.”
and
“In reality, many researchers are no longer involved in language teaching and language acquisition, and do not interact with teachers. There is also far too little interaction between theoretical and applied research; those who search for the best method are often too little concerned with the underlying theory. What is perhaps most evident is that teachers and materials developers pay little attention to research and theorizing of any sort. ”
I can’t get credit for these humble but revealing quotes , but Krashen can !(Principles and Practice in Second Langauge Acquisition, p. 4,5)
He is the first to acknowledge that there is no discussion/interaction/dialectic between teachers and researchers so how can anything evolve from this for the sake of foreign language learners, with everyone locked up in their ivory towers? How can we move from the status quo of unilingual to bilingual or multi lingual ? It reminds me of politicians that are so out of touch with the people whom they are supposed to serve…..
Taking up the challenge… I will begin looking at old papers saved from previous years’ students and find their work. At the least, I saved all 7th and 8th grade exams and some output projects. If I were to, in the summer, put together an article comparing and contrasting results after a year of CI teaching, referring to student work and evidence in class, is there a forum for that kind of article? Hmm… maybe I should join the Chinese Language Teachers Association after all just to get to publish something.
I’ve begun wondering what my current 6th graders will be like in 8th grade. Today the 6th graders were telling me how Chinese words just pop into their mind at odd times. I was thrilled. I told them that’s how it’s supposed to happen: unconsciously. Today I also explained to my 5th graders, who were afraid that not being able to read a story ALOUD (even though they could understand) meant something was wrong with them. I explained about how lots of listening with understanding leads, over time, to speaking comfortably, and that they should only speak as much as they felt comfortable. In one case of a very anxious child I talked with him about how he learned English over years. They re-enacted a story with me reading it aloud & they lip-synced the dialogue. A couple kids said the dialogue parts only. It was fabulous – they were creative & fun. But I had to repeat that they are not required to speak 4 times before they believed me and relaxed. They’ve had other teachers before me…. I’m new at this, and it’s less than halfway into the school year. If I see results then anyone will. It’s compelling and exciting!
Is there a need/opportunity to invade academia? If so, what kind of credentials would be “enough” to get academia to listen? Or is it enough that we are teaching languages in primary & secondary schools more effectively?
Diane – if nowhere else, you can always submit it to iJFLT for publishing. I used several articles from that for my paper for my Research course.
It’s enough to just do what we’re doing. I get a bee in my bonnet from time to time bc I don’t like it that academia is so off base in terms of Krashen about two key things that wreck their argument: the unconcious piece and the early output piece, not to mention so many others things that they don’t get and don’t want to get bc if they accepted that it would blow their own image of who they are and what they are doing. So I decided here to at least attempt to put into words (skip has done the same), in the form of some kind of written internet dialogue, what I am feeling. It’s not a great idea, bc what you imply Diane is 100% true – they won’t hear us. But I wanted to get my own thoughts down and see them on paper. Those would not be attack thoughts; I would simply like to see how their arguments hold up against my view of Krashen’s. I do feel that they need to be formally challenged. But, even without challenging them overtly, I would like to see this all laid out on paper. Because I don’t think they have an arguement, I really don’t. I really do think that they are just wrong, and wrong esp. in that Krashen can’t be watered down, which is exactly what they are doing. Curtain is doing more than watering him down, she is using terms he created in a way that distorts his positions in her (watered down, eclectic and therefore ineffective position in terms of Krashen) ideas. It’s just me. I like to piss people off. I will think about letting it go (“Just put the shovel down and walk away, Ben…”). I’ll see what skip says. Chris won’t like it; he was already selling tickets in the Ohio region. I mean, how long do we have to keep quiet? What we do is not a tool in the toolbox – Mimi “Realidades” Met is just plain wrong in that statement. We are so severely misunderstood, mainly due to the the thousands of “TPRS” teachers at the secondary level who have consistently made the method look like a joke. By the way, Diane, that is a great comment up there about your Chinese students.
Diane your question:
…is there a need/opportunity to invade academia?…
really has me thinking. I think that the answer is yes. At least this is true for me. I don’t actually have to invade them, I just need to write things that I would like them to at least read.
Note importantly that I don’t need to publish or send any of what I write, even here. They will not hear me. But I have to get this stuff about the tragic situation in academia off my chest. So that is what I will do.
It will be like keeping a private journal on the subject of Helena Curtain and university level instruction in general for my own private use in the singular interest of my own mental health.
I think that I will just stop talking about Helena Curtain here – it could get kind of toxic because I feel very strongly about what I perceive her to be really doing, which I compare to GMO’s, and I am not kidding about that.
But none of that toxic criticism of Curtain and of academia in any way serves the overall goal of this internet site, which is to help us all grow together to become better instructors in comprehension based instruction. Thanks for keeping me honest on this deal. What you were really saying here:
…what kind of credentials would be “enough” to get academia to listen? Or is it enough that we are teaching languages in primary & secondary schools more effectively?…
is really, “Hey Ben, you aren’t going to move those folks off their positions. If Krashen can’t do it, you certainly can’t. So leave it alone and just teach well and keep the dialogue going here.”
Well done. I get it and you are right. But I already have eight Word docs in my computer labeled Curtain 1, Curtain 2, Curtain 3, etc. That is where I will continue to work through my own toxic thoughts and feelings on the subject.
I certainly don’t have to publish any of it, and yet I get it off my chest, and I will have spared the group all the ranting, which helps nobody and probably disturbs more than it helps.
Diane, you are such a valuable member of this group. Thank you for knocking me back into line on this one. Maybe I can get some sleep now.
You’re right on this one, Ben. Not going to move them. I do believe it’s important to organize one’s thoughts around the “debate” and look at the evidence or lack of–even if it just sits on your computer. Krashen: One of writing’s purposes is to help us think better.
We, as studiers and practitioners of CI delivery, have so much work to do to even understand what it is WE are doing, to develop our own solid thinking with reference to theory and practice, and to become more skilled in executing this in “real life” classrooms.
I notice how easily we “change course” trying to manage our own personalities, histories, perceived weaknesses, anxiety/fears about our job security, etc., and end up fogging up our main mission–to deliver CI to our students in a humane and compassionate setting for them and for us. I remember all of the years I attended FL conferences searching for the “magic bullet” activities which would keep my students happy and me looking good–with a little language learning thrown in for good measure. No rudder, no guts, but no more.
It requires so much strength to stay the course when in the minority–more reason to band together, get really good at what we do, and to deeply understand the foundations of the work.
Of course, I am responding here with my own personality, history, worries, etc. Each person in this struggle will find their own niche, purpose, and path.
I think we should name ourselves “The Round World Group”. I can no longer see my work through the “flat world lense” no matter how many people believe it’s flat. There is no going back for me. Hard to explain to people who think I should take any job, in any place, and use any textbook to teach language. No way.
Startlingly eloquent.
Thanks for your compliments, Ben, but actually I was thinking more along the lines of… what happens when Krashen retires? Even before then, would it be helpful (or whatever adjective best fits) if people like us moved career-wise into university-level work? He came from the research side, but what if people like us from the “on the field” side moved into academia? Could there be at least a stronger set of voices at that level, and would that help move things at least to some degree, in some regions?
It’s a question that stumps me. I think I heard Laurie say once that we work where we are put. I think that far too many of us would be crushed in that system. I once taught some classes, pre-TPRS but largely conversational , at Coastal Carolina University in Myrtle Beach, and the students seemed to be in a state of semi-starvation for that in their French classes. They ragged on and on with me after class about how they never got to hear any French from their other teachers (tenured faculty there) and how much they hated it. I am not sure I could survive in such a dry and barren desert. I would feel like the Little Prince upon his arrival on Earth. I guess those with the energy and inclination to go into such a desert should do so. But, if they were to be met with a bunch of concrete sequential grammar trained kids and their colleagues were all that way too, it could be a tough row to hoe. But I see your point. You’d have to have some pretty tough skin, like our Mark Knowles at CU Boulder. Bob Patrick might be doing something at the University of Georgia soon, but he has the guns for that. Skip is having that conversation with U of Maine, doing well on that from what I see so far. I don’t like that Krashen has been treated much like Carl Jung was by the established order in his day – it’s very similar. It’s good that Krashen drinks so much coffee.
I think my point was, Ben, that we have a job where we are. If we can change jobs, and we want to change jobs, in order to be closer to our true selves as teachers, then by all means, we should. However, often, we don’t really dig in where we are because we are afraid of the backlash, afraid that it won’t work. Often, we cannot change jobs because we have financial and moral responsibilities to others. Then, we only have two choices: teach outside of our true selves in order to fit it, or step into our true selves and teach from the soul where we are. Those who choose to do that will have to realize that no one else may change…and if/when they do change it will be in their own time in their own way. All good things take time. :o) I’m pretty sure that is what I meant anyway.
with love,
Laurie
I am convinced that forced output creates those fossilized errors that are so difficult to eliminate. Students say things wrong and write with mistakes when they are forced to produce before they are ready. Since they are constantly being forced to produce, they continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, until they have “acquired” incorrect structures. And if Krashen ever writes a book about how to unacquire things, I’m first in line.
Personally, I think the biggest cause of fossilization is satisfaction with the level attained. Things like repetition of incorrect structures certainly adds to it, but ultimately the individual is satisfied with the ability to communicate at a particular level and so ceases to be actively involved in acquisition.
Judy, we all know the saying “Practice makes perfect”. What we don’t think about usually is what you mention above: practice of an error perfects that error so that it becomes automatic. (BTW, this is one of Kohn’s arguments against typical homework.)
Michael Jordan said something like you can shoot baskets eight hours a day but if your technique is wrong all you are accomplishing is learning how to do it wrong.
Carol Gaab always says, “Practice makes PERMANENT.”
Robert you’ll have to address Judy as the Queen of France from now on. Just kidding. And Jody as simply The Commander.
I am happy to acknowledge Judy as La Reine de France and Jody as La Maréchale.
I object, strenuously, to being called the Queen of France, because the last one lost her head. But Jody can be La Maréchale.
Oh shit I forgot about that little incident. I think of you as a current queen as it were. Oh well. We’ll have to think of another name or you of course can choose one. How about Napolienne? Just kidding….
You just showing off now, my brother. But I like it. Done. La Reine de France and La Maréchale. Sigh. Everything sounds better in French. A plain old hot dog in France is a “saucisson chaud”. Hey, them is the folks who created Proust and Rimbaud. I’m attracted to the sound of that language and its great writers in the same way that the world is attracted to the great German composers and the English authors. Man are we lucky to live on this planet and earn our livings by talking about and being students of the great cultures of the world. Or we could be politicians.
And German is great for pegging the bad guys:
die “Krashen zum eigenen Zweck Wandler”, or perhaps die “Eiserne Garde” (the iron guard – but it’s a loaded term); I was going to call them die “alten Drachen” (the old dragons), but that would be doing a disservice to dragons, who are wondrous creatures indeed.
Hi Robert! Google Translate seems as bad with German as it is with Chinese. It says you called Krashen “for his own purpose converter”. What did you really say?
Google Translate isn’t too far off, just enough to change the whole meaning. 🙂 Literally it is “Krashen for (their) own purpose modifiers”, i.e. people who modify Krashen for their own purpose(s). See Ben’s comment far above where he started listing titles – it’s buried in the text. German lets you put in these phrases that act like adjectives, whereas English requires them to be relative clauses; it’s fairly sophisticated language use (I read it a lot in theological German), so it’s no wonder that Google Translate got it wrong without any context.
OH Robert~ I wish I had you to teach me GERMAN!!! I leaving a week from today and am getting VERY nervous about not knowing the language!! 🙁
(My husband is not very patient with my pronunciation!! haha – it’s been that way for YEARS!!! long story – I will share sometime in the future)
I’ve always said that in French a grocery list sounds like poetry. Potatoes, pommes de terre, earth apples.
Add to that the sound of this word for happy – heureux. How is that for a totally kick ass word?
In case you didn’t see it, Dr. Krashen responded to a similar question on the moreTPRS listserv: “Go to http://www.hss.nthu.edu.tw/~fl/faculty/eng/John.html
and download Truscott’s 1996 paper.”
Thanks James, and you and and any one else new to our community is invited to send in a bio of where you work, how you were drawn to comprehension based instruction, etc. Anyone who hasn’t sent a bio in, in fact, please do so! Again, James, welcome!