Those new readers here who may be interested in the targeted vs. non-targeted discussion will find in a search of the terms hundreds of posts on this topic started in 2009 in connection to some communication with Dr. Krashen.
It has been slow going. School districts seem in control of Dr. Krashen’s findings, if that can be said without causing confusion. The thing we are learning is that both targeted and untargeted stories are very very good ways to teach a language.
What I personally have concluded is that we never know what language kids will acquire from our input, so it makes the whole discussion kind of overblown. Use either one – your kids will learn a ton of the language.
In targeted CI instruction, the teacher tries to “teach certain structures”. (Hopefully the teacher doesn’t try to use CI to teach object pronouns, etc., which I find kind of stupid, well….very stupid). So they ask a story with the structures as their focus.
In non-targeted CI instruction, the teacher is just trying to “teach the language” which Tina today pointed out today as in her view having more punch and brings in more pizazz to the story.
It depends on what the teacher, not Realidades, wants to do. So that’s a good thing….