Eric continues on the ACTFL list:
Thank you, Robert and Catherine, for your responses.
I’ve also received numerous (8?) emails in order to thank me, to agree with me, to ask permission to repost to other listservs, and to tell me it’s the “best question I have ever seen posted on ACTFL.”
I also had one personal email claiming that knowing all the words in a set is what students want and motivates them.
Let me be clear: I am not disputing methodology in this thread.
Catherine, you wrote: “Basically, all learners acquire, learn, and use L2 best in an understandable, relevant, and clear context.” I couldn’t agree more. Understandable. Relevant. Contextualized. All vital elements that support acquisition. You do not have to teach thematically in order to include these elements.
I have not read that book by Helena Curtain. Can anyone share with me the research articles Curtain is citing in defense of teaching thematically? We must remember, all conclusions of what works depend on how “works” was measured and it depends on that particular researcher’s interpretation.
I’ve read plenty of research that shows equal or superior gains in proficiency from non-thematic approaches. The below links are tied to an approach, teaching with comprehensible input, but my point is that since these methods often do not teach thematically, and since they are consistently superior, it can be concluded that thematic units are not a “necessity.”
Comprehensible input-based vs. traditional methods: http://skrashen.blogspot.com/2014/08/comprensible-input-based-methods-vs.html
TPRS: http://ntprs.org/2013/tprs-research.pdf
Free Voluntary and Extensive Reading: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED412563.pdf
Catherine, you suggest (and I agree) that authentic resources can’t really be dealt with independently or without significant scaffolding until students are Intermediate-High. Seeing how low the percentage is of students reaching Intermediate-High, that means we have to intervene in order for authentic resources to be comprehensible. What isn’t comprehensible can’t contribute to acquisition.
So, the next questions: Is the language in the authentic resource the most useful language to the students at that moment? Can the time spent making authentic resources, with questionably useful language, be better spent? For instance, compare proficiency gains of students working with authentic resources to students doing shared reading of something interesting and on their level. Just having books accessible that are interesting and comprehensible (e.g. graded readers) and giving extensive reading time means the student will receive equal or more comprehensible input (and input that is higher frequency due to the deliberate high-frequency intentions of graded readers) than tackling an authentic resource.
I am still wondering if someone can tell me more about the research supporting ACTFL’s recommendations. Defense of thematic units and authentic resources would also require a rebuttal of the research I shared on the interference effect of learning words in related sets, as well as explaining to me how the not-so-frequent language in thematic units is supposed to be best for proficiency. Remember, frequency lists are also based on “range,” i.e. the higher the frequency, the more contexts in which the word is found. Then, I want it also explained to me how authentic resources are the best use of time towards developing proficiency.
I will add more to my argument against thematic units here:
We have to define what we mean by “theme.” In the textbook sense of the word, it’s lists of semantically-related words (colors, weather, food, etc.). In the AP Course sense, a theme is a broader topic (global challenges, contemporary life, etc.). The research done on vocabulary acquisition and information from frequency lists brings into question the effectiveness and usefulness of the former, i.e. most all textbook curriculums. In the latter, there is nothing specific about these particular topics that make them better for acquisition.
To add other problems to the textbook theme approach:
1) constraint on interest: teachers can do their best to make a theme fun, but it has been my experience and I’ve heard from plenty others, that too often teaching the textbook themes is boring.
2) authentic discourse: In real-life, conversation doesn’t restrain itself to themes. All the words pertaining to a theme are not mentioned in an authentic conversation. Therefore, textbooks that try to package all the words pertaining to a theme into a unit lead to artificial conversations.
3) review problem: teaching vertically (cover a theme and move on to new theme) offers little opportunity to recycle the language used previously. Whereas, teaching horizontally, a little of each theme would be spread out over the year and frequently revisited.
4) personalization: textbook dialogues aren’t about the kids in the class. Likewise, if the goal is to get to all the words in a theme, then you are limited to what you can talk about.
My main point is that in order for ACTFL to be recommending thematic units and authentic resources, it should be made clear that it is the hands-down best way to develop proficiency and I’d expect to see plenty of research showing it is the superior means to develop proficiency. Unless, ACTFL states somewhere that the goal of these recommendations is not proficiency-oriented.
Eric Herman