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
Some 2012 Quotes from Dr. Krashen
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
9 thoughts on “Some 2012 Quotes from Dr. Krashen”
So we can get the vocabulary monkeys off our back. We can quit worrying about presenting certain vocabulary at a certain time in a certain way on a certain day because we think that that’s important. It’s not.
It’s important in the way Alisa described what they do in Winnetka schools three weeks ago here and we need those lists for others – yes that is true. CYA.
But all we need to do is take the word monkeys off our backs and let them scurry out of our classrooms. Maybe they can all meet up somewhere and try to process what they were doing in our classrooms in the first place.
We have other work to do, much freer work, work with less pressure, work not driven by our need to teach certain words. If we want the Super 7 that’s fine. Some of us don’t need them. Those verbs happen in truck loads anyway as per what Krashen says above.
Getting rid of the word monkeys frees us up to communicate with our students in the real way. Interest drives the communication, not a list of words that we need to teach.
I have been doing this for some time now. I have always believed, from the very beginning of my lonnnnng teaching career, that if my material did not interest me, there was no way I could make it interesting for my students. So I have always looked for compelling input, even when I failed to realize how important it was that it also be Comprehensible. There are a lot of things that may or may not interest students, but which I never did because they didn’t interest me. And I sadly admitted that not everything that interested me was compelling for my students.
Which is one reason I have always tried to use films, which some very smart professionals have worked hard to make compelling. All I have to do is to make it comprehensible and talk about it with my students.
I tell my students not to worry about the large quantities of new vocabulary. If it’s important, we’ll see it again and again and again. If we don’t see it again, it means it’s not important.
But we come back to the problem of time. That’s largely why we target – concentrate the reps. But targeted CI won’t be as rich and diverse and makes natural recycling more of a challenge. If we can be less targeted and still be comprehensible, by Krashen’s logic, we would want to do it.
^ what Eric said ^ and:
Kids need to feel they are getting somewhere. That means output that’s good (after getting a bunch of c.i.). People need to “feel” some tangible result. So when you limit vocab and have parallel characters etc, you up the reps, hopefully maintain interest, and eventually they will be able to produce something– initially, just writing out the asked-then-read story– which they understand and is meaningful.
One of the things I have found this year is that the kids REALLY like seeing how their output grows. On our first 5 min speedwrite– “describe yourself”– avg wordcount was around 35. Now, average wordcount is around 85. Relaxed writes– “rewrite the story, incl lots of dialogue and characters, but give it your own twist” in 40 min– went from around 110 words to around 450 average. To a kid, THIS FEELS AWESOME because they can SEE results.
Beniko, Dave Ganahl, and I are planing a study of nontargeted vocab. In Portland Saturday Dave and Beniko planned it all out. 😀
This is awesome Tina. What I would add, is that I am not a fluent speaker of French. So for me, I feel comfortable with “refreshing” my vocab and expressions of the language to facilitate speaking.
For example, I rarely use the subjunctive. However, is it even necessary to communicate? I do well without it. With a native speaker, I generally use more complex sentences but the vocabulary is the same that I use in class. So in a nutshell, it is natural.
For example, I dont really use “ce qui” but I happen to know it. It feels unatural for me to use it in conversations. I hear it and understand it but I do not say it. I would say that this is an important detail, in that I do not feel comfortable choosing targets from a book, if I hve not acquired them. It doesn’t feel “toned” as Ben would put it.
All this to say that NT is the best option for me. A study would reveal that my students would have a similar word bank as me but less acquired. Of course, we learn together as well like the word for puffer fish.
In reponse to Krashen’s quote “My suggestion is to supplement this research to see if CI-based methodology “covers” the vocabulary that most curricula require.”
It depends on whose curriculum. The HS teacher does about 12 units of rote memorization and grammar concepts. Each exam is an exam of memorization then they move on. The comprehensive final exam is brutal. Usually 100 questions plus two readings with comprehension questions in the TL. At the end, what have they acquired? Few will as seen in the small AP classes because students drop.
My class doesn’t cover necessary vocab. It drives the language deep so that they can be successful at being part of a conversation in the TL. I cant wait to see my students at French camp next year when they are in a French 3.