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
Thanks, Eric!
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
39 thoughts on “Thanks, Eric!”
In his first paragraph Eric gets right to the heart of all of it, the part that I feel we largely ignore in the TPRS community, the part that is causing major failures in a lot of TPRS instruction, the point of my original post on the list. This, for me, is what we need to focus on in our overall work with comprehensible input and we’re not doing it:
To quote Krashen: “When translations are excessive, the spell is broken” (2006). Of course, then we can dispute what is to be considered “excessive.” Krashen’s 1983 article on the Din said: “The Din seems to take a certain amount of time to start up. The case histories suggest that it takes at least one to two hours of good input.”
I think we can get the Din going a lot sooner than in one or two hours, as Krashen suggests, since we have no choice in the matter unless we have a block class. It can be done a lot faster, in fifteen minutes. But not if we keep a lot of translation chatter happening in the first part of class.
Ben,
I really disliked the way Terry turns things into a battle…she did it with you and it made me angry. She has a wonderful brain and I love the way she articulates the CI stuff that we love but she is one that needs to self edit because she does not see how the way she expresses herself cuts people down. She is one that crushes the inspiration of new and vulnerable TPRS teachers. I know in he heart she does not mean to do it but she does. There is evidence every month of this.
I am not close enough to her to communicate this but I hope someone does. The CI community needs her contributions but not the ANGER. We get enough of that from opposition.
I love that you shared these messages here because they are important. We cannot battle with each other…it just feels wrong when we do…
Laurie has made this point privately to me. We used to feel very much like kids at summer camp. But last year at NTPRS if felt different. More formal. More raised eyebrows in intellectual judgment of a certain position at the breakfast tables, instead of that feeling of wolfing down breakfast in order to run from breakfast and be the first one in the lake or to get the first sailboat. One thing about our PLC, I cannot remember one single argument in our eight years here. I can remember lots of respectful dialogue and some very deep emotional work being done by many teachers as we were able, through the general dialogue and coaching that describes how we choose to work together here, to orchestrate those mental and emotionally difficult internal changes that alone turn is into better teachers. But as far as “I’m smarter than you and you need to do it this way!” on this PLC? Nope. It’s a safe place and we will keep it that way. No one is smarter or better at this work than anyone else. How could it be so? We each use CI differently!
I can think of several posts, here and on the list, where I was far off the mark but others gently taught me and I came to a new way of thinking. For that, I am grateful. There are other things that I use differently and are successful for me but don’t work for others and some things that work for others that flop for me. It’s a process and I learn everyday.
The conflict on moretprs makes me think of my new birdhouse. I hung it up and within a week there was a wren nesting on my back porch and I sat and talked quietly for days and now they just hang out on the porch with me. If I had demanded or pushed too hard I would have broken that trust and they would have made a nest elsewhere. Some will be turned off if things are harsh even if it is not intended to be and our kids can’t afford it.
Melissa, the bird image and the earlier horse images have been very helpful for me. I tended to barge in all the time (and feel comfortable doing so on this list possibly too often) when first using TPRS.
Even where I am in Latvia, I want to be pushy. I’m totally irritated watching my babies have to go home and memorize the conjugations of the 15 verbs they didn’t recognize in yesterday’s text…ARRRGH!!! but that’s tradition, and even being noisy about it isn’t going to change anything. But now I am signed up to do a mini English class…anyone want to help? I need a solid beginning story (probably use coffee or chocolate, though it’s certain that no one is going to bring a drink to class here).
I appreciate Mike and Eric so much for their kindness on the Yahoo site. I appreciate Ben for starting me off on this path in an achievable way, seven years ago. I am glad for this site where people feel safe and I get whole-hearted support when I feel ready to check it all in.
It is really easy to offend and become offended if we let it happen. I’m going to keep that image of wrens or wild horses in my mind. Inside, every human fits into a similar image. We’re all sensitive to particular kinds of sound or movement. I have to train myself not to fly off immediately, and even more not to startle others. Thank you.
Being somewhat new to this community, I’m surprised to hear that the moreTPRS list is so acrimonious. I haven’t really explored it yet. For people who base their approach on a general TCI approach, it seems counter-productive to attack each other. Is this acrimony a recent thing? Or are there longstanding issues?
Hi Mark, there were a few heated discussions this calendar year: the ones I noticed were on poverty and race (which were asked to go off-list but continued quite some time). Before that, a not-always-friendly discussion with a newly-joined list member who was advocating modified grammar instruction as a complement to CI. In general, there are some strong personalities and convictions. Some of them dominate the listserve. I think there are like 7000 members of the group but maybe 15 who post often?
How I use the moreTPRS listserv: I signed up to get “daily digest” by email. That allows me to scan new topics and see who posted. I read those I have time/interest in, 5 minutes max per day. For me, it’s more of a way to get tabs on what is happening at a broad level (esp. since every so often Blaine Ray or Stephen Krashen post something on that) and a way for me to know what Terry Waltz is doing (although she likewise is a frequent voice in Chinese circles on Facebook). So it’s kind of like reality TV for me! (I don’t watch actual reality TV so I don’t really know if the comparison works.) Maybe one day out of 10 I get a teaching idea, but that’s not really why I check it. My help for teaching comes mainly from this PLC.
Actually, my biggest pet peeve about the listserv is that sometimes a Spanish teacher may start a topic post without indicating their topic only relates to Spanish (ex, they say “grammar question” but should say “Spanish grammar question” so I’d know it doesn’t relate to me).
Thanks for the thoughts Diane. I’ll sign up for the digest.
For what it’s worth, I thought the contents of Ben’s post was great, but suspected that its title would ruffle feathers. No one wants to be singled out publicly as “The opposition,” (even if it’s true…)
I’m convinced that those who haven’t opened their minds to 1. SLA; and 2. the newer practices and strategies that directly support it will not deeply comprehend, acquire or embrace what the heck we’re ranting about.
Last week the rabbi at my synagogue asked me to come in and do my shpiel for him (after a brief informal conversation in May). I tailored one of my presentations for the Hebrew Immersion summer camp he’ll be teaching at later in July. This immersion camp program has been around for decades – maybe even 50+ years…
Needless to say, IT BLEW HIS MIND. He wasn’t surprised or wowed by anything I said – indeed our conversation began by me asking him how the immersion camp is set up (my son is there now). He confided immediately that no one involved has any knowledge of SLA, and that the materials are prepared by someone who “knows less than she thinks she does…”
So he was open to the ground floor general discussion and demo. (I used Spanish, which he doesn’t speak). While it’s too late to implement much of a change for the immersion campers this summer, I offered to help w/presentations and training, and he seemed open to it. But it’s because his observations and experience led him to it. My husband cautioned that I may actually only get an, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” smile and pat on the back, since the kids will acquire some Hebrew and have fun. But I feel like the cat is outta the bag, and I hope and believe I can help effect some change for the better. We’ll see if he asks for my assistance, but I am not gonna push.
What a cool opportunity, Alisa!
Awesomeness, Alisa. Later those Hebrew students are going to go to their FL teachers at their regular schools and say, “I learn through stories. Could you tell us stories?”
I believe that Carol Gaab uses Hebrew to demo TPRS.
I agree with what Alisa and possibly Eric shared about the title. After the dust has settled a little bit maybe that kind of “inflammation” is worthwhile. Kind of radical but perhaps…historically… helpful for others to see that the FL family isn’t exactly a happy one. This is how we grow…I think.
I am sensitive to rocking the boat because I am a wuss but a few days later I am glad Ben ruffled some feathers. Especially because I think some good came of it!
🙂
I have also been reflecting on that little spat on the list from last week, trying to figure out what I could learn from it. Part of me wants to play the role that John Adams played in the Revolutionary War, pushing for revolution against the more passive Pennsylvania and Virginia delagations, who were (unwisely in my opinion) pushing for reconciliation and negotiation with England.
I strongly feel that unless we unite with a common vision against the increasingly meaningless and watered down version(s) of lesson plan-based TPRS versions of TPRS (Bex, Toth), we will lose our original vision, as I wrote on the list last week.
In spite of the wise counsel of Judy Dubois on this thing and her wonderful post to me about there not really being a TPRS1 and a TPRS2, I still think that in this work we lack a common vision and that people currently doing monumental work are not being heard. This includes many of the voices here on our PLC. There are just so many teachers (like 90% or more) who are not doing Ray/Krashen TPRS, but something else. Is the process of learning a language unconscious or not? So we are in confusion and ACTFL plods on in their leaderless leadership.
I think Alisa said it perfectly above:
…I’m convinced that those who haven’t opened their minds to 1. SLA; and 2. the newer practices and strategies that directly support it will not deeply comprehend, acquire or embrace what the heck we’re ranting about….
So there is the true blue revolutionary John Adams in me and then the part that tells me to just slow down, read what Judy and jen said to me about this Helena Curtain thing, take a chill pill, and let it all play out by itself and just try as best to keep on keeping on in the mystifying Arne Duncan-led educational environment of today, where all reason seems to have simply disappeared.
Reading David McCullough’s biography of John Adams we find this passage:
“The rich, the poor, the high professor and the prophane, seem all to be infected with this grievous disorder, so that the love of our neighbor seems to be quite banished, the love of self and opinions so far prevails…The [Tory] enemies of our present struggle…are grown even scurrilous to individuals, and treat all characters who differ from them with the most opprobrious language…
“We may please ourselves with the idea of free and popular governments. But there is great danger that these governments will not make us happy. God grant that they may. But I feel that in every assembly, members may obtain an influence by noise not sense. By meanness, not greatness. By ignorance, not learning. By contracted hearts, not large souls…”
In a letter to James Warren, Adams writes:
“There is one thing, my dear sir, that must be attempted and most sacredly observed or we are all undone. There must be decency and respect, and veneration introduced for persons of authority of every rank, or we are undone. In a popular government, this is our only way.”
I need the group’s help on what I wrote below. I wrote it because clearly I need to apologize to Curtain, and should probably just do that and be done with it, but I feel like I want to sneak into my apology some of the ideas that form the foundation of most of what we talk about here. I am asking for the group’s blessing or condemnation of what I wrote below, and wouldn’t mind any editing offered as well. I would like the post to be shorter. I intend to post this on the list later today, so please let me know what your thoughts are in the comment fields below so that I don’t make another blunder on the list. Hey, it’s the John Adams in me. I think we are in a revolution and I don’t think we can do it half way, Judy’s wise advice notwithstanding.
Here is the post:
I feel that there is and has been for many years a sense of entitlement to govern that describes Helena Curtain’s attitude and that of ACTFL/Paul Sandrock, and others. I feel that Dr. Krashen’s research has been twisted and diminished to reflect their own concepts of what SLA actually is. I would ask, “What, really, IS comprehensible input?” I would also ask, “Is language acquisition an unconscious process or is it not?”
If the answer to the second question is yes, then the five C’s would have to be revisited in a most serious way, and it would be the role of ACTFL to lead in that revisiting of the national standards. For too long, Krashen has been watered down and distorted, with parts of his hypotheses being brought into textbooks when convenient for the interests of the textbook company, almost as name dropping. The problem is that Krashen’s work cannot be watered down – it is an all or none proposition.
The diminuation of the collosal importance of Krashen’s work as an integrated whole over the years is unfortunate. It is as if Krashen invented the electric car when clearly there was no oil left, and the oil and automobile industries (textbook companies) went to fracking and shale oil production, and, decades later, are producing hybrid oil/electric cars of their own making, watered down versions of the original electric cars (Krashen), to and for their own ends.
That original fleet of 600 electric cars in California twenty years ago, by the way, was collected and literally buried physically beneath the sands or Arizona in order to keep them out of consumers’ hands. The analogy is clear. Krashen’s blockbuster hypotheses about comprehensible input have been buried for decades and ACTFL has not done much to help that situation. New teachers just starting out in your careers – one word of advice here: read Krashen and then read him some more. I had to teach for twenty four years before doing so. Don’t let that happen to you.
I would ask the greater foreign language community to do some seriously closer reading of the work of Blaine Ray as well. I condemn the decades old intransigence that has marked ACTFL’s response to Krashen and Ray’s work from the beginning, which Krashen started back in the 1980s and Ray in the 1990s. In my view a little information can be a dangerous thing and ACTFL’s failure to fully grasp SLA in the way Krashen describes it has led millions of kids to think on a daily basis that they are bad at languages.
A nationally known trainer of foreign language teachers – not Helena Curtain – once came to Denver years ago to give the teachers in my district a day long training in the use of Realidades. There was even a Realidades representative at the back of the venue to answer questions and take book orders. Credit cards were out. But the handout for the day was labeled as an “in-service training day for foreign language educators”. I fell in step with this person and her Realidades rep as she was leaving the venue and asked her what TPRS was all about, since she didn’t discuss it in the training, and she dismissed my fervent wish for a good answer with, “It’s just another tool in the toolbox.” For that and other reasons during the workshop that I won’t go into here, I concluded that this person didn’t even get comprehensible input.
I apologize for the circuitous route I have taken in this post to what I should have said at its beginning: I should have never called out Helena Curtain by name in that post from last week here and I apologize for that. It was an error in judgment on my part. Nothing justifies my calling Helena out by name like that last week here and again I apologize. I do not apologize, however, for my calling out of ACTFL. I think that it needs to change its leadership style to get more with the times.
Dude, you are going to dig yourself a hole.
My opinion is that if you say anything at all, then you should say something like the following:
“My message expressed my discontent with the lack of application of Krashen theory and the adaptation of his ideas to meet textbook curriculum within the broader FL community. I appreciate the TPRS teacher leaders who help others to teach with TCI within more traditional departments. But my role is to be a bolder voice (one luxury of retirement) on behalf of all teachers who want to teach a more pure form of TPRS/TCI without compromise.”
I WOULD apologize for the HC title. I would BE CAREFUL how you critique ACTFL. My understanding is that ACTFL’s documents/position statements are not the result of a few ACTFL executives, but rather the result of dialogue among numerous state and other national world language organizations. The national organizations and executives will reflect the teacher mass that participates and votes for these people (assuming there is a democratic process). In order to see something change in those ACTFL policies, you’d have to infiltrate and influence the organizations that feed the machine.
If you want to be a voice of “consciousness raising” as to the shortcomings of ACTFL, then make that clear, but be careful with further condemnation. ACTFL does do a lot to embrace comprehensible input, but does so while also embracing output and other anti-Krashen ideas. If ACTFL is to base its pedagogical recommendations on SLA research/theory, then, in fact, Krashen’s theory would be one theory in the theory toolbox. There is not consensus on Krashen’s 5 major hypotheses in the field of SLA. In fact, there’s lots of criticism. What makes Krashen so radical is his insistence that comprehensible input is the ONLY way to acquire.
I think Eric is right on this, Ben. If anything, brief.
One thing I noted was another mention of Helena Curtain’s name specifically at the beginning of what you wrote, and yet an apology for having done so previously at the end — that seems to me a mixed message.
I get that, Eric and the caution is a good one. Now, my question revolves around your point here:
…what makes Krashen so radical is his insistence that comprehensible input is the ONLY way to acquire….
To me that seems like a given, and that going for output too early is going to fail, also providing input that is not fully comprehensible will fail. In short, in my view if it’s not CI it’s not going to work so I agree with Krashen if not so much in theory, which I don’t know much about, but based on my own experience with the Din and unconscious learning. It is precisely an uninformed version of the unconscious piece that I feel causes ACTFL to go off the tracks. So are you saying that there ARE in fact other ways than CI to acquire a language? What are they? How do they appear in the ACTFL literature?
“So are you saying that there ARE in fact other ways than CI to acquire a language?”
You and I both fall into the ONLY CI camp, but I am acknowledging that there are other camps (e.g. DeKeyser and skill-building, Swain and comprehensible output, Long and focus on form – not formS) that also have a theoretical motivation, empirical evidence, and logical argumentation (these are the 3 criteria Long uses to evaluate methodological principles). ACTFL can’t exclusively embrace Krashen if it is to reflect the wider SLA field.
I agree…keep it brief. I like the way Eric articulates your thoughts and I second Alisa’s description. I also think you are Bad ass enough to not apologize LOL!
Now for something radical….
On the more list there is a discussion about grading free writes that has sparked a few other conversations. Others from this list have contributed including Krashen himself! I will go back to a point I was trying to make earlier this spring and simply say…
TPRS is more and more in line with how Van Patten articulates SLA than how Krashen does.
True and pure TPRS requires varying levels of output 0r a better wording might be is
“participation in the TL” and I will challenge anyone to teach a TPRS lesson without the use of any “output”….it can’t be done. I say this in regards to this statement form above. We are talking about TPRS output not output in the “traditional sense.” Krashen shared Terrell’s view of encouraging output and this makes me want to go read more about Terrell.
“what makes Krashen so radical is his insistence that comprehensible input is the ONLY way to acquire….”
In my view he is correct and just BUT that AIN’T how TPRS is done (only through CI)!
Does my point make sense?
My point is being made to Ben because as we have discussed on the blog, you are at the deep, profound, and wonderful spectrum of using with CI in the classroom. We have said you are closer to Krashen than Ray. TPRS in my view is more than CI exposure. This is neither better or worse…just a distinction that should be made.
I hope we can hash this over while drinking some beers in Minneapolis too! 🙂
But TPRS success can still be explained entirely by Krashen – all the extra stuff that happens in TPRS beyond the CI indirectly aids acquisition, because it makes for better CI.
It’s important to understand that embracing Krashen (we only acquire from CI) does NOT mean the ideal situation is for kids not to output or focus on form at all.
That is a good point Eric. I think I needed to hear that.
If I understand you (Eric and Michael), you agree with Krashen that CI is the only way to acquire language, but that TPRS is more than CI.
If so, phew! I’m in agreement.
I wrote in that thread that output is useful for motivating acquisition.
But if acquisition is unconscious, we can’t be motivated to acquire.
What I should have said was that output is useful for motivating learning, or for motivating participation in activities that empower acquisition. As Judy so beautifully pointed out there or on another thread, learning lets us create monitor-assisted output. Acquisition means being able to say or write something correctly without thinking.
Output is also an easy way for teachers and learners to gauge acquisition.
This is what I think, too: language acquisition is an unconscious process by receiving comprehensible input (Krashen is right). Anything else we do in class is to gain more interest by somehow making the input more compelling (personalizing, topics they enjoy, involving student ideas and imagination, allowing their developing output to be expressed) — or to deal with various school requirements like far, far less time, requirements to measure progress, assign grades, manage behavior, report to administration, justify our approach, deal with other teachers, etc. etc.
From what I know of VanPatten, he deals almost only with that second sphere – the classroom situation – more than Krashen has directly because Krashen studies SLA outside of classroom situations. So VP seems more planned and guided, but it’s still CI and still aiming on focus on meaning and unconscious acquisition (as far as I know so far, though he calls it implicit learning instead of “unconscious”). If I had no limit on time with students, I’d be teaching all nontargeted input and that would be lovely. Managing several classes, not-always-behaving or engaged students, and administration and grading requirements make me package things somewhat, so it’s targeted on a few words per week, there is expectation of student response in class, there is graded work, etc. It seems to me that in a classroom situation, things may look more like VP’s approaches than Krashen’s because of those factors.
Yup. I think we are in agreement Michele and Diane. TPRS is more than just CI. There is nothing blasphemous about saying that in our PLC circle.
I received a private message from someone observing that conversation that thought talking about output was not true to Krashen and TPRS. That was strange for me because I am a loyal Krashenista and TPRS. What we have to “police” is the role of output. Denying that we foster output is not truth IMO.
Phew…thanks for sharing.
I look forward to maybe discussing this next week face to face with you who have been in on this thread. Michael suggested that we do this. Is Monday nite a possibility since many of us will be arriving that day? This is one of those topics that has helped me see how little I really get about this work and how much I have depended and continue to depend on the thoughts voiced here over the years to keep my head on straight. This topic of how deeply to try to get CI going in the pure Krashen sense given the limitations of the classroom setting is one that in my view requires a face to face discussion. Let’s see what happens next week.
I’m arriving Monday evening – would be very happy to have part in such a conversation.
Here is another response in this SLA thread, this one to Eric, that I of course won’t send to the moretprs group. I see this as one way of responding to Eric’s points, one of only many that are possible and which we perhaps can use to clarify things in MN for those of us who will be up there next week:
OK I’m confused. You use words like this to describe the “other camps”:
skill building
form
theoretical
empirical
logical
They all involve the brain thinking about form/structure. But the brain doesn’t acquire that way. Those five terms don’t lead to acquisition since the brain only acquires if it is focused on the message. Do we now act as if they do lead to acquisition, when we know they don’t? Is it because we have to respect them because they are so entrenched in the way we teach languages in the U.S.? Have you tried them in your classroom Eric? Do they work?
It seems to me rather a futile endeavor to go into a classroom and get the high performers to function in the left hemisphere of their brains – I know bc I tried it for 24 years and all I got was a few kids learning a lot about rules, etc. and the rest of the class was mystified and bored. Is that o.k. now because the “wider SLA field” does it? Does the wider SLA field hold sway over Krashen’s work? I don’t like that because in the wider SLA field there is so much failure, abject futility, out there.
I agree with Judy that we can do that in a slow and non-confrontive way. But I thought that what we were doing here in our PLC was trying to find ways, with the big focus on skills and strategies, to help each other get our classes focused on the message and not the form. So all the kids get included and experience success, which alone happens when CI (focusing on the message in listening and reading) is used. Am I wrong on that?
Do we have to show respect to the “wider SLA field” now? I don’t want to. If so, why have this blog? This blog is not for that. It’s not for the wider SLA field. It’s for CI. It’s why we’re private, so as not to have to waste time talking to people who think CI is just another tool in the tool box. I always thought we were here to discuss comprehensible input as defined by Krashen where the focus of the mind is directed wholly and solely on processing meaning and hardly ever on structure. At least, those are my conclusions after our eight years together here.
I share your sentiment, but my comments were NOT about the content on this PLC. I thought we were discussing comments to be made about HC and ACTFL outside of this PLC (on a public forum – moreTPRS).
To clarify, here are other ways some researchers suggest can lead to acquisition:
– skill-building (e.g. DeKeyser)
– comprehensible output (e.g. Swain)
– focus on form (e.g. Long)
Each of these has a theory, evidence, and logic that supports it. Krashen’s theory also has its own theoretical base, evidence, and logic. And Krashen makes compelling arguments in his articles against those aspects listed above.
But would you have ACTFL write policy/positions to align everything exclusively with Krashen and ignore or condemn the rest? ACTFL cannot do that if it is to represent the entire field of SLA.
I defer to your judgment on this Eric because of your deep knowledge of the research which I don’t have. Your point is made. I just wish you weren’t down there in Honduras right now so we could hash it out. But I get it. It’s a hard point to argue. I was thinking about this thread again today. My thoughts always go to the overall big picture of what I want to experience in my classroom, which is good will and genuine lighthearted human interaction in as pure a form of L2 as I can get with my students. That’s my guiding star. If those guys like Swain and Long and DeKeyser can help me do that, then I have some educating of myself to do. Ultimately, the point you raised in your last paragraph above is something I want to ask Alisa and Michael and Diane* next week (Diane whom I refer to as Neubauer here on the blog not out of rudeness but to differentiate from Diana Noonan), since you are down there. I’m such a Krashenista. I admit it. We’ll see how this plays out. We’ve been dancing around this subject for a few years now dude. The focus on output and form. How much, in what form, when? Good stuff!
*Here is Neubauer in a comment earlier today on this point, and it’s a good point she made:
…language acquisition is an unconscious process by receiving comprehensible input (Krashen is right). Anything else we do in class is to gain more interest by somehow making the input more compelling (personalizing, topics they enjoy, involving student ideas and imagination, allowing their developing output to be expressed) — or to deal with various school requirements like far, far less time, requirements to measure progress, assign grades, manage behavior, report to administration, justify our approach, deal with other teachers, etc. etc….
…would you have ACTFL write policy/positions to align everything exclusively with Krashen and ignore or condemn the rest? ACTFL cannot do that if it is to represent the entire field of SLA….
Eric another reply possible here is, “Yes, I would have ACTFL rewrite everything they have produced [over the past half century because I have been reading their schlock for almost that long] in favor of Krashen.” I would say that because what they have said hasn’t had much of an effect on bringing any significant change to our profession. It’s like the medical establishment in that way with certain illnesses. Although ACTFL does in fact represent the entire field of SLA, and your point does have merit, I also would point out that ACTFL has a responsibility to represent the highest interests of children as well, and not just the researchers, and it is my grave concern that in their high mindedness and focus on theory, those researchers may be – I cannot know – forgetting the kids.
That is another possible reply to your comment above.
I would keep the apology post brief, heartfelt, & limited to the apology only, acknowledging that you did not intend to humiliate or name-call, but rather, recognizing her authority and respect in the field, you tried to address the seeming misinterpretation of our T/CI work from a different perspective. You were not discussing L1-l2 use, or themes/topics/curriculum/material, but rather your point focused on SLA as an unconscious process, and therefore certain curricular approaches and materials are unsuitable….
A separate post for a later date might pose questions to the list-serv group about ACTFL’s stance regarding ‘ways we acquire.’
May I steal from what you wrote above Alisa? Any suggestions?
Thus:
Apology to Helena Curtain
I should not have called out Helena Curtain by name in a post I made here last week. It was an error in judgment on my part. In that post, I clumsily tried to address what I see as a serious misinterpretation of Krashen by the greater language teaching community in our country. I view SLA as a completely unconscious process, and therefore consider certain curricular approaches and materials, including the textbook, to be unsuitable. Nonetheless, I was wrong to single out Helena and so apologize.
It is a more pure apology is you just apologize and don’t try to add any explanation or justification.
I know and was hoping no one would point that out. Great.
Let’s try this:
Apology to Helena Curtain
I should not have called out Helena Curtain by name in a post I made here last week. It was an error in judgment on my part and I apologize.
It’s clear, it’s honest, and it’s big. Clear the slate, and move on. Way to go, Ben.
Thanks Don. I will go post it over there now. Thanks for the point you made. Huge.