To view this content, you must be a member of Ben's Patreon at $10 or more
Already a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to access this content.
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
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
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
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
Subscribe to be a patron and get additional posts by Ben, along with live-streams, and monthly patron meetings!
Also each month, you will get a special coupon code to save 20% on any product once a month.
9 thoughts on “Other Methods – Some Terminology”
Thanks Robert and Diane and Chris (for raising the question), very helpful definitions.
Chris, I’d love to read your analysis of these different methods when you finish your work. I hope you’ll share it here!
I will! I need to mention though, this is more of a quantitative study that compares an output/grammar based approach and a CI approach.
I might end up including a detailed analysis of different methods, we shall see.
Isn’t there a method called AIM? Its supporters claim is very much in keeping with the TPRS
skip
Accelerated Integrative Methodology. It seems to be based on using gestures to reinforce learning. The idea, I gather, is that gestures are combined with stories to become play-acting with music. There’s nothing in the basic idea that contradicts TPRS, but the comments are all about how fast students learn to produce, how quickly they begin to speak. And I found nothing about the science behind it.
In AIM there is no spontaneity. The kids memorize. Only kids below the age of 12 can even get into it. Big focus on costumes and they put on like a play. I maintain that acquisition is and must be a spontaneous thing involving personalization and feelings found in the human heart. Without spontaneity and things that are personalized and interesting to us, we cannot really go deep with learning a language. The mind craves unpredictable sound patterns which must be soaked in meaning, humor and things human. AIM lacks that piece.
Notional-Functional is heard a lot here in Europe. The idea was developed in the 80’s to build a curriculum around notions – saying hello, saying good-by, complaining, talking about the weather or functions – going through customs, booking a table in a restaurant, etc. When it was first presented to me it seemed to make more sense than basing everything on grammar, but the lessons were horribly boring.
That was my impression from what I heard – better than grammar rules, at least. Yet no personalization or student input into what is learned, not in a significant way. Again, I’m not sure why people don’t see how THAT creates motivation and student interest far more quickly than designing partner activities to output set phrases does.
Sounds like Thematic Units 101. Gag me with a stick.
AIM (accelerated integrated methodology) was developed by a Canadian french teacher and is used by many elementary and junior high french teachers in Canada. There is gesturing and storytelling, but the teacher uses one fairy tale for many months and repeats the vocabulary very often. Lots of chorus replies. The idea is very much like TPRS in that it is CI, but I would die of boredom with one story for several months.