Here’s a thought that puts things into perspective, one based entirely on the research:
The reality of the game we are playing, acting like we can teach them a language, is that we can’t. There are two polar opposites at work here:
(1) that we can teach them the language.
(2) that we can only get them to like the language and learn more.
My point being that the research says that we can only do (2) above. The problem is that we think so highly of ourselves that in the odd ego-fueled teacher world that we live in, we think we are an exception to that fact.
We are so filled with how wonderful we are (just look at those CI leaders out there right now, each professing to have the answer for the right price), that we think we can do both (1) and (2) at the same time.
It can’t be done. Those are polar opposites.
I’ve been studying French for more than 50 years and there is still a ton I don’t know. I mainly learned it teaching it for 40 years. But when I go to a YouTube song or watch a French movie, I still suck at it.
No blame. I wouldn’t enjoy teaching English using CI because it would be boring. Half the fun for me lies in practicing my French. They pay me to practice doing something I love. The dog I have in the race to get them to master the language is a miniature poodle.
It’s all about me and should be, and there’s no ego in that; it’s the way life is. People who give and give and give until they are blithering worn out shadows of themselves (our schools are littered with them) have played a dangerous game professionally and have lost and they and many of their families have suffered. For what, a paycheck that they could earn by doing something far less stressful?
