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
Story Option A – SOA – 3
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
13 thoughts on “Story Option A – SOA – 3”
“We should never ever use a new word that is not one of the structures. . . Simplicity wins in the comprehensible input game, and it should take precedence in our instruction over creating interest.”
The beauty of a visual is the ease of providing CI. I think a picture enables us to introduce more vocabulary than just the 3 structures (just point at what you’re talking about) we just don’t want to go so wide that we miss out on the reps. Combine visuals with gestures and you can exponentially increase your ability to stay comprehensible. In Krashen’s non-targeted paper, he challenges the TPRS practice of total transparency/translation. Acquisition of the meaning of words (and all the subtle meanings and grammatical properties) happens over time, not all at once.
We have to do our best to make the repetitions not feel repetitious.
In Krashen’s non-targeted paper, he challenges the TPRS practice of total transparency/translation.
Eric, what is meant by “total transparency/translation”? Does it mean the same thing when we say ‘staying in bounds’?
Meaning, the students don’t need to know the translation of every word we say. As Krashen says, a little bit of the meaning of the word and how the word is used will be acquired each time the students encounter it.
Do others struggle with this dichotomy? Not the actual dichotomy of transparency vs comprehensible, but what to expect from students. Just the other day I stopped class with a group of students because I wasn’t getting any “What does that mean?” questions from them (an ongoing issue with this quiet group) while we were reading something on the overhead. I read it, paused, then said “Ok, open your notebooks and translate X through Y (including the part I didn’t think they knew, to try to entice them to start asking me for clarification when they need it). Often this puts a spark in their clarification requests, but this day I asked why they hadn’t asked me (trying to get to the root of the “problem” in a very short class meeting-type discussion). One of the boys (more of a barometer than superstar) looked at me and said “I didn’t ask because I took a guess at what it meant, and I ended up being right”. This was the case for almost half the group. I felt like a dumbass, in more ways that one. Trying to motivate via withdrawal of rewards in this case (a low grade on interpersonal comm for not asking for clarification) backfired, because that’s what we should really want, for them to make educated guesses about words in multiple contexts, because that is more rigorous (using Dept of State definition of the word).
So Jim was the text too easy (transparent) for this group? What would have happened if you had embedded some (minimal) new stuff, just the right amount? How would they have reacted?
That has happened to me multiple times, Jim, as I’m sure it has to many of us to the extent that we are closer to teaching for comprehensibility and less on transparency. The students guess, they assume they’ve understood, and then when I ask what I just said and they’re inaccurate, then I may get upset that they aren’t asking for clarification. But the impression of comprehensibility is probably ideal. Again, this may be where theory and practice have to differ, because our teaching situation is not ideal.
This is exactly what was going on with this reading, mostly transparent, but this one word they surely did not know. I’ve been urging them to stop me whenever they don’t know a word (with the purpose of being proactive in their comprehension). But they did not, well, because they were trying to figure it out on their own. That, I’m beginning to realize more and more, is a pretty great thing for them to do. I just assumed they weren’t trying to figure it out because they weren’t asking.
Jim, yeah, I’m impressed by how valuable the teaching-learning experience is when students are doing the very simple-seeming thing of quietly watching and listening to me talk. I’ve been challenged throughout this past year on making sure I stay comfortable in my own skin in front of the class and continue my dialogue for as long as I can. (These moments happen few and far between, and are real treasures.)
Isn’t that, ultimately, what we’re shooting for: talking in L2 with students for as long as they are comfortable with it? More so than writing translations even? At least for the first couple of years?
Sean, that’s what I shoot for. But it usually doesn’t play out like that for me. While they are gaining endurance/stamina in the skill of interpersonal comm from the beginning, we are at the same time running up against the gradual fading of novelty, because at some point our classrooms and our voices and the things we try to talk about start becoming a bit old suit, I think it’s just natural. So, typically for me, the length of time my kids are able to sit still and listen to me for real is about the same throughout the year, although the level of language continuously gets more complex as we progress.
This makes a lot of sense, Jim, how you describe that there is a gradual fading of novelty throughout the year. Thank you for helping me understand this is a natural thing happening in our classes. I am certainly seeing how beneficial it is for students (high school) to start reading much more, as in Silent Sustained Reading, as we move into the last 1/3 or 1/4 of the term.
At the same time, it seems so important to cultivate that skill in students; the skill of sustaining attention in a state of suspension on the L2 dialogue directed by the teacher. This is the FLOW that Csikszentmihalyi talks about. We want our students to enter this state of FLOW, a state that he says happens when we balance stimulation and control. And I can tell you that many of my students lack that skill of self-control. I’m not a drill sergeant, but I will challenge my students to demonstrate self-control.
Mini-report from the field: “Why?” can be a real mover in the story. (Of course, it can also get you bogged down if students aren’t ready for it.) Today in class we had begun a story about some absent students* and had established that two girls wanted to buy a guy a pair of pink short-shorts. But the guy threw himself on the floor and had a temper tantrum. I then asked why he threw himself on the floor and had a temper tantrum. I expected the class to say something like “Because Sally and Jane want to buy Joe pink short-shorts.” It was, after all, the fact that we had just established. But no. One of my quiet students (who never says anything) announced with a wicked smile on his face, “Because Joe wants a pair of blue short-shorts!” in perfect German. Of course the whole class cracked up and loved it.
*I announced a “new rule” in class today: we have the right to make up facts and stories about anyone who is absent that day. The story above is true; only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.
ha!
The question word “why” is good in certain cases, I guess is what we should say. I avoid it in lower level classes, certainly. But if the class is strong and trained in no English, it can work as you say above Robert. It’s a word to avoid with lower level classes as a general rule.