Hi Everyone,
Last Thursday I was at a District World Languages Department Chair meeting. The TOSA (Teacher on Special Assignment) opened a discussion about language acquisition. During the discussion, classroom practice came up. One of the other department chairs, who is quite traditional in his approach, talked about having students memorize lists of words so that they have the vocabulary to discuss the topic. Another department chair voiced her disagreement with his position and talked about Teaching with Comprehensible Input. The first department chair then made the argument that if we followed the idea that students learn a second language the same way they learn their first language, then „our students won’t be able to say a single word in the language for two-and-a-half to three years“ because that’s how long it takes for a baby to be able to speak. At that point I jumped in and started citing research and indicated the absurdity of the statement. A different department chair tried to smooth over the disagreement with some comments about everyone wanting what’s best for students.
The meeting had a time limit, so I did not pursue the matter. After the meeting I spoke for a while with the teacher who first mentioned TCI. We are friends and work together on a number of things. She was very frustrated with the first department chair because she knows that he simply follows the textbook page by page.
Over the weekend I did some thinking and wrote a response that I will probably not use in precisely the form in which it is written. However, the exercise did help me clarify my own thinking, organize the issues, delineate what I see as the deficiencies in the position, and be more ready the next time this comes up. My purpose with the document is to address the argument and not the person. In addition, if you think it worthwhile, I would like to share with the PLC, but first I would like to get some feedback on it. It is, after all, essentially a first draft. [ed. note – that draft will follow.]
Thanks,
Robert