Eric asked me:
“Would you have ACTFL write policy/positions to align everything exclusively with Krashen and ignore or condemn the rest? ACTFL cannot do that if it is to represent the entire field of SLA.”
One answer might be:
Yes, I would have ACTFL write policy/positions to align everything exclusively with Krashen. I would say that because what ACTFL has said in general since the 1950’s hasn’t had much of an effect on bringing any significant change/success to our profession. If our profession were of critical military importance to the defense of our country (which is it but that is beside the point here), what ACTFL says to do would have been scrapped long ago. It’s like the medical establishment in that way with certain illnesses. I would point out that ACTFL has a responsibility to represent the highest interests of children as well, and not just those of the researchers and others bodies where significant self interest lies (the textbook companies), and it is my grave concern that in their high mindedness and focus on theory, those researchers may be forgetting the kids. Another way of making the point about ACTFL would be to tell them “Put up or shut up.” That’s what we do with Krashen and CI and it works for kids.
Eric also said here yesterday:
“Here are other ways some researchers suggest can lead to acquisition:
– skill-building (e.g. DeKeyser)
– comprehensible output (e.g. Swain)
– focus on form (e.g. Long)”
Eric, I would ask you to defend the use of the verb “to suggest” in the above statement. Does the fact that these researchers suggest those things make them valid and tested strategies in the classroom? Do they work? Because if we don’t have proof that they work (we have strong daily proof with comprehensible input), then why are we letting them into the classroom? I personally only want to use stuff that works in my classroom, not stuff that is merely suggested. That is why in my own world the only true researchers are teachers.