Dr. Krashen comments on the problem of skill building vs. CI:
I understand the problem, and it will remain until we educate people about language acquisition, at least to the point where people understand that the comprehension hypothesis EXISTS.
How to do this in another conversation.
A true dilemma until this happens: If we close the door when we do things right, and do skill-building when we are being watched, skill-building gets the credit for our students’ accomplishments and things get worse.
Suggestion for now: In your paper on lowering the affective filter, say which activities are done for show, and which are for real language acquisition.
Of course a little conscious learning is OK, as long as it is consistent with what we know about the limits of conscious learning.
The paper Dr. Krashen refers to is the “Lowering the Affective Filter in ESL Classes” post that was published here about a week ago:
https://benslavic.com/blog/lowering-the-affective-filter-in-eal-classes/
The key point I wish to bring to the attention of our group is Dr. Krashen’s suggestion that I delineate which of the activities in ROA are done “for show”. I didn’t design them for show. I designed them because they bring a certain elegance into the classroom.
The eighteen ROA Step 3 TPRS activities get kids involved and enjoying the class instead of sitting there absorbing CI like one year olds, i.e. like blotters They aren’t blotters. They are kids and need to express themselves, and doubly so because they are told to sit down and listen in all their other classes for the rest of the day as well.