When I say that the real enemy is using T1 and expecting kids to show on an assessment that they “acquired” certain words/structures, I do not want anyone to think that there are not CI and TPRS teachers expecting T1 type results. (“I taught it now I will test to see who got it” types.) I believe I even recently read Blaine saying that he expects automaticity and control over certain structures. So, T1 is alive and well in TPRS.
If someone can go to the iFLT FB page, do a search for Blaine’s posts, find his post from around Oct. 14 or so when he was talking about mastering targets, copy it, and post it here. I am not sure if I am remembering his position correctly but I remember thinking that he was advocating T1, back then.
Also the article by Krashen states that T2 aims to target to understand the story, and that is what TPRS does. But that is incorrect in the case of TPRS as I was taught it – the story helps the targets go down, not the other way ’round.
I have studied Krashen’s two papers (the one from June and the one from November) more and more intently and I think that the hierarchy is:
NT is preferred, then T2, then T1 (which in June he says is dangerously-close to skills-building).
The question of whether TPRS is T1 or T2 seems to be up for debate. I am trying my best to understand it and I am corresponding with Beniko and Steve to try to understand more. I know for a fact that Beniko sees a lot of TPRS instruction as skills-building, due to the repetitions which, to her trained eye, create a focus on form.
(This BLEW MY MIND in the summer in Agen. I think they put a plaque on the wall of that dining-room. Here Lies Tina’s Mind. Blown July 25, 2016.)
I think that the best, most talented TPRS teachers are often able to provide T2, and that also very many TPRS teachers – probably the majority – are providing T1 as defined in his first paper (from June). I also know that very very few teachers are providing NT though it is clearly (below) the preferred method. NT represents a major shift and it requires a slightly different skillset to keep it comprehensible. It is still COMPREHENSIBLE input after all, though it may be non-targeted. And I think that only a small number of teachers have shifted to providing all NT all the time. It is a huge shift mentally.
NT all the time would mean:
1. giving up class novel studies especially in lower levels, and instead offering more time for SSR
2. using Story Listening without word lists
3. using the Invisibles and OWIs and “light targeting” of emergent language and not going back and requiring mastery of the emergent language, just clarifying meaning and moving on
4. using class discussions like Grant does
5. never testing on language, just assessing the kids’ global competence. For example, their ACTFL level in writing or listening.
From Krashen’s November paper:
Nontargeted input (NT): I argued for this option in Krashen (2013). It rests on a corollary of the Comprehension Hypothesis: Given enough comprehensible input, all the structures and vocabulary items the acquirer is ready to acquire are present in the input, and naturally reviewed. In other words, we don’t have to aim at i+1; i+1 will be there.