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
Question
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
11 thoughts on “Question”
I would maybe get in touch with Brett Chonko. He is in the middle of defending our practice now too, I think, and has been on the hunt as well. He may be willing to share what he’s found with you? If they’re talking about building a curriculum based on best practices (wth?) I’d just hit them with some Krashen or BVP.
Thanks Jessica,
How do I get in touch with Brett Chonko. Sorry I don’t know who he is.
Brett Chonko
brett.chonko@gmail.com
Howdy Laura. I’ve been scouring ACTFL’s literature and my state standards for support of ci and the lack of support for grammar sequenced, thematic unit curricula. It’s still a work in progress, but I encourage you to check out what I’ve got so far. It includes attachments, so you’ll have to check it out on my blog:
https://comprehensiblerva.wordpress.com/2018/02/21/curriculum-change-lets-get-it-done-people/
Thank you Brett. I downloaded the actfl literature from your website. There is a lot of support in these for not having a thematic curricula. I will use this in my defense, but I don’t have enough “fire in my belly” right now to put up a battle against the textbook companies’ easy to copy curricula.
Keep us posted how things went for you.
BTW: very nice blog you have.
I would get BVP’s new book “While we are on topic” and use that. It’s published by ACTFL.
At this point I would defend CI. The targeting vs. non-targeting debate will be over their heads- that’s for people that are already convinced of CI.
Perhaps you can argue on arranging the curriciulum around the Sweet 16 Verbs? It’s easy to do the Invisibles with that type of curriculum in place.
https://tprsquestionsandanswers.wordpress.com/2018/01/26/the-curriculum-that-actually-works-for-everyone/
Thanks all for your responses. I will get that book. Contact Brett and use Robert Harrell’s curriculum outline which is very broad. Leave the NT vs non NT for another time.
Thanks Ben for posting.
A few responses go a long way for me. 🙂
The thing is I keep thinking in my own mind that so many us are being asked to mix oil (CI) and water (the school curriculum, ways of assessment) and it just can’t be done. And yet Laura you have to do it. Please keep us in the loop on this.
Is the French teacher tight with the principal?
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom.
Cited by 5,594 researchers in other published work.
I always knew that CI was correct and true. Krashen easily convinces that. He just never says how to do it. That’s what Ben and other practitioners have provided. Nothing convinces people, though, until they experience learning a foreign language like this for themselves.
Krashen is one important part of the argument, the other important part, I think, are researchers who talk about teacher retention and happiness. It’s hard to be a happy grammar teacher.
I was a VERY unhappy grammar teacher for 24 years. I know!
At least Krashen freely admits and even admonishes teachers at conferences with this sentence: “I merely did the research. YOU have to make it work.” It’s like his mantra.