Reply to Eric

2 thoughts on “Reply to Eric”

1. Eric Herman

   July 7, 2015 at 1:13 pm

   Substitute “argue” for the word “suggest.” As I said, researchers have theory, evidence, and logical arguments to argue for these non-Krashen things. Whether or not you consider their arguments valid depends on reading their arguments and the counterarguments. As Krashen said recently on moreTPRS, the correct argument does not get decided based on a “vote,” but if we were to put it to a vote by SLA researchers, then Krashen would only get a partial victory, i.e. CI would be a tool in the toolbox of the majority of SLA researchers. Please, don’t misconstrue this as me being in favor of this toolbox. I’m simply commenting on the reality of the field.
   In arguing that ACTFL should represent the SLA field, I realize that is not how ACTFL works. As I said in an earlier post, I think ACTFL comes up with its positions based on feedback from multiple national and state organizations. Who makes up these orgs.? Few to no researchers. Teachers. And since TCI is so outnumbered, it’s teachers of the textbook, ACTFL, and the newest learning trends (e.g. flip the classroom) that are shaping the standards.
   And I don’t think ACTFL changing its positions would actually lead to any real on-the-ground change. As I also said, ACTFL is quite progressive and has been for 30+ years – the proficiency guidelines are a wonderful leap in the right direction and yet, so many teachers do not understand the concept of “proficiency” nor how to teach or assess it. So, if ACTFL dedicated to Krashen tomorrow, I wonder if that would do anything to change the FL teacher field. As it stands, a close reading of ACTFL is quite inclusive of TCI/TPRS. The problem is that admin and textbook/communicative approach departments are making the decisions. The other elephant in the room is the “SLA education of FL teachers” as VP identified in his recent article “Where are the Experts?” It’s not enough anymore to say that you know the L2, it’s culture, and have teaching experience. We all need a few courses in SLA/applied linguistics!

   Log in to Reply
2. Ben Slavic

   July 7, 2015 at 3:05 pm

   …we all need a few courses in SLA/applied linguistics….
   How does this help us become better teachers in the classroom? The focus here on our PLC is on strategies. We get into these discussions, of course, and they are welcome, but my true north of lighthearted focused input that is comprehensible if not transparent continues to guide the direction of these pages. Strategies. Skills. They drive our careers. The changes we have made, some considerable, have all been based on the unique and powerful strategies that we have tried and tested over the years. I frankly am not convinced that much else is needed in levels one and two other than CI and more CI delivered in fine strategic packages by finely practiced pedagogy. I say this, of course, ever mindful of our mutual respect for each other’s choices. I, for one, don’t see the need for ANY output before level two, except output that is completely unforced and emerges in a happy way from the heart during the course of safe and personable discussion in our classes – a fine free write, a blurting out during a story of some oft-repeated phrase, that kind of output. Certainly, what the Maker has created in language production, as a completely unconscious process, is far beyond my own capacity to improve on it in my instruction, even if time is so limited. I am sorry if other researches view Krashen’s use of the spectacular word “natural” as some kind of California hippy thing. It my view, it is far from that.

   Log in to Reply