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
Report from the Field – Eric Herman
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
14 thoughts on “Report from the Field – Eric Herman”
Sounds like the poor kids have to survive a year of grammar to get to the next level where there is more actual communication. Sigh.
That is pretty typical. I am out there looking for jobs currently and I get calls from lots of schools that haven’t taken the time to read my personal statement, which is all about my philosophy and passion for CI. The vast majority of these schools (snooty independent schools) have descriptions just like this. It is disappointing but not surprising.
Reflects absolute ignorance of SLA research & theory. Not even aligned w/ACTFL.
So last century.
Call me crazy, but this doesn’t sound like a bad way to sell TPRS if writing a program description. Alternatively, somehing like this would serve as justification for using TPRS in an otherwise traditional program:
…At the __ level there will be less of an emphasis placed on grammar and there will be a stronger focus on communicative skills. This __ level will address grammatical concepts at an introductory level, while the __ level will be more in depth and extensive…
Remember, “communicative” is loosely defined by most, which gives wiggle room to carve out a TPRS space.
Level 1 has a lower (College I) and a higher track (Honors I), but they’re both level 1.
A 100 discrete item grammar and 100 discrete item vocabulary test determines placement. My recommendation has ZERO impact, except if I were to be crazy enough to want to put a kid in a level below the one he gets on his placement test.
They have accepted that teaching grammar works less for the lower track, because those kids are less motivated by language and by school in general. It’s a contradiction. If you believe explicit grammar is how we acquire, why would it not also be given the same emphasis in the lower track? I’ve joked before that I should recommend everyone for the lower track in order that they get less grammar and more communicative practices (albeit learn-by-output tasks).
They want to have the cake and eat it, too. Notice no prioritization at all of goals.
My comprehension-based course description would not make it sound like I’m teaching all 4 skills and emphasize them equally, there would be no list of vocabulary (definitely not calling it “thematic” – which by that they really mean “topical sets”) and no list of grammar items (except maybe to say that vocabulary will tend to be of high frequency and grammar non-targeted). I forgot to highlight it, but I would also make no mention of making “simple presentations.”
And yes, this is typical. At least, the high school believes it so. As I have been told before “Our program is a standard high school curriculum reflective of most high schools in the country.”
Argumentum ad populum. And therein lies the problem.
Is this the mission statement for the high school?
We will not be reflective, we will just reflect.
Why be the best when you can be like the rest?
…and we will foster 20th century language learning skills to the end that students will not be able communicate in another language and will be doomed to life-long language avoidance being totally convinced that they just weren’t cut out for learning a second language.
Just reading between the lines.
LIKE.
The truly sad part is that if this were the description of a Latin class, it would be considered one of the most progressive Latin classes on the planet.
I’ve also got a gem you might enjoy. Here is a link to the expectations of the high school Latin II class where I am supposed to be sending my students…
https://drive.google.com/a/my.weston.org/file/d/0B82XabZ7-qCAUDJrbGNqcVVvMHM/view?usp=sharing
Ignore the last link. Here is the real one.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B82XabZ7-qCAUDJrbGNqcVVvMHM/view?usp=sharing
Wait a minute. I looked at that file. Those teachers not only want their students to know that incomprehensible stuff, they want them to know it within the first 4-6 weeks of school year? Did I get that right? (I guess they think that is what you’re supposed to do in Latin I.)
I listed to some videos of Rachel Ash’s students, and I think Latin sounds really nice! And nothing in the least like any Romance language I’ve heard. I wonder how that happened.
Another observation:
Students will regularly be encouraged to speak in the target language.
Encouraged to speak? Nay, rather required to speak in the target language before they are ready.
Well played, Robert. If there are consequences for not speaking, this is compulsion not encouragement.
Thank you Robert. I echo John’s point above. They write “encouraged to speak: but they really mean “intimidate and make feel stupid”. And that raises my own ire, as per:
……when I was very young, most of my childhood heroes wore capes, flew through
the air, or picked up buildings with one arm. They were spectacular and got a lot of attention. But as I grew, my heroes changed, so that now I can honestly say that anyone
who does anything to help a child is a hero to me….
Fred Rogers