I got this question:
…is there any research comparing how students perform at the upper levels who
are taught traditionally vs TPRS/CI?….
Honestly, if I may say, it seems as if only the folks who don’t know the power of what we do are the ones who need to see the research. We do not feel any great need to prove what we do or initiate a bunch of research. It’s not what we do. We don’t have to justify why we walked out on the old way – it didn’t work for us. End of discussion. We wanted better for our students.
When plasma TVs came along recently there was no great outcry for research proving that they deliver a better product. All you had to do was look at the new image on the screen and the lightweight shape of the unit. In the same way, when people walk into one of our comprehension based classrooms, they see engaged kids making real gains in languages, and so why would we need to do any kind of research to prove that?
Note the following:
a. The tests used to assess gains in the past have all been written by grammar teachers. The foxes were guarding the hen house, and making up all the rules. No one suspected anything. But that ruse is now over, as 21st century language teaching pedagogies based on comprehensible input begin to flex their muscles and the old 20th century way of teaching begins to crumble, slowly at first but with increasing speed, under the weight of its own ineffectiveness.
b. Especially at the upper levels, gifted students, those who can learn anything from anyone, make great gains in two dimensional (stilted monitored writing) grammar but not in real grammar, which is correctly spoken language. Most students taught in this way show no real gains in fluency and actual proficiency as defined by ACTFL, and end up saying after their high school careers that they “took four years of a language but can’t say a word”.
c. Retooling in mid career is not an easy thing to do, especially when one was taught when they themselves were taught using the old ways. It is like expecting to learn to ride a powerful motorcycle when one is used to a motor scooter. So some teachers don’t make the change very well. The old guard teachers then see that struggle in their colleagues and seize on it to attack them, because they themselves sense the magnitude of the change that would be brought if the struggling teacher were to succeed. This is a very powerful testament to the characters of the colleagues in buildings where the CI War is now underway – those whose minds are open will reach out in support and curiosity to the teacher trying to change to align with current research, and those whose hearts are closed will attack. Attacking is so unfair and has caused much heartache in many sincere and intelligent and capable young individuals. Instead of attacking, the old guard would do well to open up their minds and their hearts to what the new teacher is trying to do.
Again, we are too busy honing our abilities at this new method to waste our time justifying what we are doing. My position is simple and I don’t care what anybody whose feet are cemented in the last century thinks about it – research is actually no longer needed in the old ways that research was needed. It’s not needed anymore in the same way that I mentioned above about how plasma TVs are just better these days and if someone would stop asking us for research and just come into our classrooms, it would save everybody lots of time. But they would need to come in with compassion, as what we are trying to do is not easy. Real change is never easy.