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
TPRS1 vs. TPRS2 (Draft)
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
25 thoughts on “TPRS1 vs. TPRS2 (Draft)”
Dear Ben, I feel compelled to speak up here. I don’t really believe that there is a TPRS 1 and a TPRS 2. And the reason I don’t believe that is in your book, TPRS in a Year. I was a “mainstream teacher”, doing what I had been taught was what language teachers should do, but adding in a few “fun” things that seemed to help my students when i discovered TPRS. Seeing students who had actually acquired French because their teacher used the new method and experiencing it in a workshop to learn Swedish convinced me that it was effective. It did not convince me to look up and read Krashen and the theory behind the method. I just wanted to learn how to do it in my French lycée classes. I fell flat on my face mostly, but I had picked up the saying “even bad TPRS is better than no TPRS” and kept trying. As I said recently, it was your book that showed me how to gradually pick up the techniques that let me do more and more Comprehensible Input in my classes. And Karen Rowan kept talking about Krashen and I was asked to do a workshop in Switzerland and wanted to go there well prepared, so I read up on Krashen and the light dawned.
As you say, “One thing I know about language instruction, the true one thing that I really do know, is that most TPRS teachers do not know or appreciate the fact that when the conscious mind is involved in the learning process, nothing happens, there are no gains. ” I completely agree with this: “When the conscious mind is involved in the learning process, nothing happens, there are no gains. ” Reading Krashen I realized that it wasn’t really about whether or not we were doing funny stories, that it was about whether or not my students were engaged in something compelling in the target language, to the point that they were barely aware of the fact that they were getting input in the target language. All the rest is window dressing. You say that most TPRS teachers don’t realize this. Well, I think that the more you use the method and wonder why it works, the closer you get to grasping the truth that Krashen has been presenting to the world all these years.
When I was working in the lycée my title of “professeur agrégé” meant that no one questioned my methods. And one big difference between France and the States is that the French administration in the lycée has nothing to say about teaching methods. It’s not their job. Inspectors who are former English teachers come from the ministry of education to validate what is happening in your classroom. They don’t come often. No big deal. So I’m not personally familiar with the problems you and other teachers have in the States when faced with hostile colleagues and administrations. Yet I’ve been reading about the same problems every day ever since I began following moreTPRS. There is no way that those of us who believe in TPRS/CI can ignore the reality of the misery that is caused by these conflicts, when teachers who want to use TPRS are hampered and even forbidden to do so by the demands and requirements of “authorities” who just don’t get it.
I don’t think the answer is to draw a line between “pure TPRS” and “diluted TPRS”. I’m still learning how to make my personal use of TPRS purer. At the end of most classes, at the end of every single class, I know that I could have done better. Perhaps your book could have been called “TPRS in Ten Years”. If it’s all right for a teacher to use your book to transition from whatever method she was using to TPRS, isn’t it all right for teachers to gradually introduce as much TPRS as they can into their classes, testing how much they can do without being condemned by colleagues and their administrations? Carrie and Martina and others are trying to help people do that. Often it’s just a question of using the right vocabulary and I admire people who are able to manipulate the jargon so they can go on doing exactly what they want to do.
I feel very strongly that it’s not helpful to draw lines. I read something written by a community organizer* about working in poor neighborhoods where there were many different ethnic, cultural and social groups basically at war with each other. He said that each group was defensive and eager to attack the others, and the only way he could get them to work together was to point out their common problems and insist that they discuss possible solutions without name calling or belittling the others. ACTFL, Helen Curtain, all language teachers everywhere share a common problem. How can we help our students acquire a second language? The more we discuss the possible solutions to that problem and the less energy we spend attacking others, the closer we will come to a solution.
Now Ben, I’m sure you’re thinking that TPRS1 is THE solution and I pretty much agree with you. But I’ve raised four kids and have eight grandchildren and one thing I know is that you have to let them find the solution for themselves. You can put it out in plain sight and hope, but they have to see it with their own eyes before they can adopt it. Are “teachers who espouse the new TPRS2 trying hard to bring what they are doing into alignment with ACTFL”? I don’t think so. I think they’re trying hard to show ACTFL that there’s a lot of good stuff here, that it’s not as weird as some people claim, that it can be very effective. If by using the “jargon” they can get a foot in the door, I believe that increasing numbers of teachers will approach TPRS with more open minds. Have you noticed how many “all TPRS” departments there are today? I’m sure that they weren’t converted by teachers shouting “What you’re doing is all wrong!” They were converted by colleagues quietly sharing their students’ progress, saying, “Look at what my students did.” Look at all the Latin teachers on this blog. Where did they come from? No one was attacking them because no one expected them to do anything but pure legacy. Yet, seeing the results Bob Patrick and others were getting, they became curious and tried TPRS and now they’re here in droves. I can’t accept the labels of TPRS1 and TPRS2. TPRS is a broad spectrum and what I was doing when I first started on this journey would be way over there on the far side. Gradually I’ve moved closer to your “Pure Land”, but I don’t reach it every day. Do you?
Your point about output is very pertinent. Students acquire through input, period. Output merely lets us see what has been acquired. Yet, we all ask for output, even if it’s just to say “Yes!” “No!” One of the problems is that students themselves focus on their output. I now teach adults who can be very articulate about what they want from a class. They want to be able to produce fluent English. I have advanced learners who can zip through an interesting book in English, who enjoy watching films in OV, but who do not yet feel comfortable in an English conversation. So, again, my lessons with them may be slightly diluted TPRS as I give them opportunities to express themselves, but try to put up railings so that they don’t fall off the deep end. I don’t correct their mistakes but I do try to model what they should be saying. We have a very strong argument in favor of Comprehensible Input. It is the ONLY way languages are acquired. But when students have progressed to the point where they want to talk, some communicative activities can work as training wheels, letting them gain confidence in their ability to output. What I’m trying to say here is that communicative activities and task based learning are ridiculously ineffective when the teacher puts students around a table and steps out of the picture, expecting students to teach themselves, but they can also be useful tools. They are not inherently evil in themselves.
I admire you a great deal, Ben, for your deep insight into how Comprehensible Input works. I love reading your thoughts on how to teach using CI. But you have got the “wild stallion” thing all wrong. Horses are not wild and untameable. Go to the nearest pasture and walk quietly to the center of it and lay down in the grass. Lay quietly and breathe with a relaxed rhythm. The horses will observe you for a long time and gradually meander in your direction. Then one of them will approach and sniff at you. Very gently. Because horses are extremely gentle and they appreciate people who are quiet and kind. The horse will sniff your hair and your hands and your face and if you have carrots in a pocket he will try to get at them. As long as you are perfectly still and peaceful. If you try to grab him he will pull away and gallop off. The wild stallion image comes from horses that have been aggressed and are fighting for their liberty. When I go to the pasture my horse comes to me because she knows I’ve got carrots and apples and sugar lumps in my pocket. And she stands quietly while I put on her bridle because she trusts me. As long as what I ask her to do is reasonable, she will cooperate. When I ask her to do something that goes against her nature, she will become less cooperative, and a rider who doesn’t understand her first signals that she isn’t happy may get a buck or two. Yes, she is spirited, so perhaps your metaphor of TPRS as a spirited horse works. But she is also very intelligent and understanding and flexible and strong. If she’s aggressed, she’ll give you a lot of problems. But if she is approached quietly and you earn her trust, she can be a wonderful teammate. If you present TPRS as a wild stallion, people are going to be afraid of it. (They forget who the carnivores are.) If you show them how gentle and peaceful it is, they may timidly hold out their hands to be sniffed and gradually learn that this beautiful, powerful beast can be their friend.
Wow. Great debate as each side makes powerful points. Both posts fun to read and both thought provoking.
I appreciate the points discussed here. Some things shared were inflammatory for me but that is a personal thing. I believe in the purity of TPRS…I appreciate and love it when I am in the zone of teaching to the eyes, asking a story, and adding amazing surprise details. Those terms and strategies are the brilliance of Blaine, Susie, and probably Joe Nielson. They figured out ways to make the ideas of Krashen classroom friendly. Both sides of that coin needed the other and is less valuable with a missing side…if you follow my meaning.
I admire the work of all the teachers in the TPRS PLCs because they have shown courage to stop the madness of classroom ineffectiveness. Let us not make a mistake in understanding that TPRS is designed for the classroom. Teachers adapt it to fit various needs e.g Bex, Toth, Slavic, Herman, etc. It is our duty to support and respect the way in which others adapt the TPRS process for their environment. There is NO wrong way. We should be cautious of dogmatism within our community because if we don’t we run the risk of being hypocritical.
I am also noticing that some TPRSers are becoming less inclusive. We have fought for inclusion and a seat at the table and in many places have been successful…we can cautiouslyrics let down our guard. When we don’t, we are the ones creating division.
We catch more flies with honey…it is time to start being sweet publicly and nationally!!!
Wow Judy wow…the horse analogy was beautiful!
OH WOW JUDY! What a beautiful description! Thank you! I agree about the non-duality you point out. I know, I am “out there” on the spectrum of hippy-ness, but I do see all of it as different paths up the mountain. I’m the first one to admit I lash out and judge. Definitely. I find it fun sometimes. Not gonna lie. When I first found TPRS/CI I was the stereotypical zealot. “Everyone should do this. NOW! What are you waiting for, the research is plain as day!” And at the same time deep inside I know that if I put my energy into the work, the work speaks for itself. It is very difficult to stay centered and focused, because “everyone else” is out there raving and advertising and posting and marketing. Which is great if that is where they are drawn. But if you are introverted by nature (which I am, despite people’s impressions of me as a wise-ass contrarian extrovert…because I also have these qualities 😉 then it feels better to stay under the radar and try things and see what happens. But there is no time-line for this, and the world wants a time-line.
Which brings me back to your pasture image. Lying and breathing and being quiet. Allowing the horse to approach us on its own. This is where we connect with the true energy of “it all.” We cannot mess with these cycles. And we still try. And it’s ok because eventually we find our way. Like James Asher said in that interview: “What makes you think you’re smarter than nature?!” I come back to this again and again. Some of us will dig in to the ways we can connect the work to integrate more smoothly into the existing structures at school. Others will focus on connecting with how students can bust through their perceived limits. There are as many specific focus points as there are teachers. Intention matters. Attention matters. Energy follows attention. In the biggest picture it is still all one. We are each contributing to the bigger evolution of this work in our own ways, according to our particular circumstances. Anyone remember the Dr. Seuss “Sneetches” book? The star belly Sneetches were “better” until the other ones got stars? And then the star belles got theirs removed? So much effort and absurdity trying to maintain the separation, when it doesn’t actually exist!
All that said, I see and feel what Ben points out in the degrees of Krashen purity. I feel a different vibe from what Ben describes as TPRS1 and TPRS2. Its different energy to me, but this does not pit one against the other. While I tend more toward TPRS1, I still feel that both paths are heading in the same direction, as long as we the teachers are connecting with our students where they are. For me it is all a big ole “marichiyasana D” a bound twist…it’s none other than a situation that feels completely restricted and compressed…you tie your body into a knot and focus on where there is space, expand into it from the inside using the breath…so little by little the impossible becomes possible. Could it be that TPRS1 and TPRS2 are simply the aspects of steadiness and ease (sthira and sukha from the Yoga Sutra?) that we try to balance in each moment? We need both. Hmmm. Yep. I am still out there 🙂
Steadiness and ease. I like that Yoga image.
Beautiful, Judy and Jen. Thank you.
Thank you jen and Judy. That’s why I called what I wrote a draft. These long posts and comments may take time for us to write and read, but over the years I have come to see that, when shared in the private internet space we have created here, they bring answers to the hard questions that get to banging around inside our heads about this new work we are all doing in our classrooms. With the trust that we have established over so long and so many good conversations, I feel really good about getting your responses to what was really bothering me yesterday.
I again learn that it is all about trust. The fact is that I have been concerned and afraid that the purity of what Krashen has shown is possible (learning a language completely naturally with no thinking involved in the process) is now being compromised by teachers who are stuffing CI into neat little packages that in fact do involve thinking, thus destroying the model we have from Krashen and Ray. Both of your responses allow me to take a deep breath and let go of the need to try to tilt, Sneetch-like, against windmills, to fight that which can’t be fought since, as you say jen, “…we are each contributing to the bigger evolution of this work in our own ways, according to our particular circumstance….”
Fear accepted. Crisis worked through. Neubauer correct as usual. Lesson that I can’t protect Krashen learned. Reminder that the process will unfold in its own way. All well. Summer here. Butterflies are all over the butterfly bushes in the backyard. There is a pool nearby. What the hell am I doing? If God gives us time to rest and we don’t take it, then we are fools.
Ben, I think this all speaks to what I (at least) view as some of your unique contributions to this field of endeavor. You warn when it seems like there’s a slide from the core principles. That’s important to hear and consider on a regular basis. I chose that word “necessarily” in “not a change of focus necessarily” on purpose, because as with all human efforts things could slide off into something not at its core the same. I’ve not seen that happen yet among TPRS/TCI people that I know about. There are certainly variations in level of planning and what resources used (if any). I think that’s fine, too.
“Neubauer correct as usual” could have some really nice applications in my work and home life! Haha! Guess I can’t take it out of context, though. Bummer.
Thank you Diane!
Ben Slavic, my hero. Because he knows where the true north is but doesn’t hold a grudge if some of us wobble a bit in our trajectories.
Amen to knowing the direction and also knowing that we will wander and stumble and get side-tracked.
“Fear accepted. Crisis worked through. Neubauer correct as usual. Lesson that I can’t protect Krashen learned. Reminder that the process will unfold in its own way. ”
Trust is the most powerful asset / secret superpower of this group. What great fortune to have stumbled rather blindly into it! 🙂 Thank you all!
I have great admiration for Ben as well not only “because he knows where the true north is but doesn’t hold a grudge if some of us wobble a bit in our trajectories,” as you say, Judy, but because he is courageous in opening up his heart and mind with us here, taking us deep into both realms despite how contradictory they may be.
Our pastor at church today, in his July 4th themed sermon, quoted from a recent nytimes.com Op-Ed (July 3), “Patriotism without criticism has no head; criticism without patriotism has no heart.” With patriotism, or love for our community, in the heart, Ben charges us to think critically in how we apply the theory to practice in teaching; charging us to more fully engage in our civic duty as educators.
I wouldn’t be drawing lines in the sand, as jen said, but I’m a newbie in the movement. Ben is not a newbie. I respect your vision Ben. And if your vision sees a grave misinterpretation of how the theory should be applied, one that is being accepted and growing into the mainstream, perhaps it is “necessary,” as Diane put it, to provoke people of influence to defend their practices.
What an example of July 4th civic engagement, this TPRS1 vs TPRS2 provocation!
Here is a response in the thread that I won’t send to the moretprs group for obvious reasons. I post it here for those who may be able to discuss its relative merits in MN next week. I’m open to criticism on this stance, so that I can find my own true north on this deal:
Yes Sean I agree with you and thank you for saying that. As much as I respect Judy’s points, I would ask if civic engagement is not justified in this situation. See my response to Eric for an elaboration of how I feel about this topic. I feel that we don’t need to give any lipservice whatsoever to what Eric labels as the “other SLA camps”. If they are camping on the soil of kids in such a way that the kids can’t feel successful because they can’t learn in class because the teacher has them thinking about structure and not focusing only on the message, without thinking, then somebody would have to say something. I see it as fair to the kids. Yes, to me CI is an all or nothing thing. Whether I dig a hole for myself by saying that, I guess that’s the way it’ll have to be.
Ben,
Carrie was not teaching “TPRS2” while Anne was teaching “TPRS1” in the next room — unless you look at them as rather “Beginning” and “Advanced” tracks. Because that is what it was.
Anne did a great job of explaining what TPRS was to newbies (although several still had their doubts as to how it would work in THEIR classrooms, since they are dyed-in-the-wool textbook enthusiasts.) And Carrie did a great job of helping us “Advanced” TPRS teachers learn how to “play the game” that our state wants and expects us to do by teaching us how to write up unit plans the way they want, but to make it fit into a CI way of teaching.
Unfortunately, we as teachers no longer have the pie-in-the-sky, do-what-you-want, schools anymore….we are treated like children who need guidance from our Admin, who know more than us . Maine has jumped on the Standards bandwagon and expect ALL teachers to have units written that are aligned, are expected to have SLOs written on the board whenever anybody walks into the room unannounced. (Remember Laura’s post last month?) So, Carrie’s track at Maine TCI last October was to help us figure out how to write these Standards- Proficiency-based units that the state has been “training” us on (without ANY regard to how languages are REALLY learned! – as Skip has pointed out). I think she did a GREAT job! I am better equipped now to “talk the talk” while teaching my kids with CI. I just stumbled upon this job ad for a position in Portland, ME. It sounds very scary reading it — something too scary for a TCI teacher to apply to; unless s/he has learned how to “play the game” with the mainstream:
Position Description: 1) Provide and support rigorous and appropriate target language instruction aligned with the National Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century to elementary students. Ability to design instruction aligned with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines–Speaking. 2) Develop and administer performance-based instruction and assessment aligned with the National Standards and ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Requirements: Master’s Degree in Teaching World Language and Advanced-Low Oral Proficiency in the target language as measured by the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) preferred; K-12 certification in Spanish required; Experience working with elementary students preferred; Excellent interpersonal skills in order to collaborate effectively with colleagues and other educational support staff.
Position Type: Full-time
Positions Available: 1
Job Category:
Classroom Teacher > Language: Spanish
MB you said about Carrie:
…Carrie did a great job of helping us “Advanced” TPRS teachers learn how to “play the game” that our state wants and expects us to do by teaching us how to write up unit plans the way they want, but to make it fit into a CI way of teaching….
and
…Carrie’s track at Maine TCI last October was to help us figure out how to write these Standards- Proficiency-based units that the state has been “training” us on….
Then I congratulate Carrie and probably owe her an apology as well. My only concern is that the comprehensible input get watered down to the point that it becomes what I called “TPRS2” before Judy straightened me out that TPRS2 is true north as well. For me true north is uninterrupted flow of input in the form of listening and reading so that the listener is focused on the message and not the language. If Carrie’s instruction helps get us to that goal then she is doing all of us a real service! If true north includes a few degrees extra to the west and east there at the top of the compass, but the needles keep the class pointed at pure CI, then we are all good and we can do real CI in schools (pure input most of the time). Once that happens there will be no more problems with CI teachers being looked at strangely by colleagues because our lessons will be fully aligned with standards.
There are TPRS presenters who show us how to play the game (TPRS2) – make TCI fit into the textbook mold, the ACTFL mold, and the edubabble mold. We do these things for others, not for ourselves. These things don’t make TPRS any more effective and in some cases may make things less effective. TPRS1, the “pure” form is my ideal. TPRS2, the compromised form is for the reality of the situation. Many of us need to know how to do both. In my situation, I don’t have to compromise my instruction for any external forces. I know I’m a rare case.
In order to make TCI work in a school we have got to figure out the “accountability” piece – how to assess it and how to determine expectations (placement) of each level. Then, you satisfy the admin and the controlling department heads. Without that piece, I’m afraid the accountability force is too strong right now for TCI to ever become a majority approach.
And perhaps that accountability piece can never be solved for FL students with only a hundred hours of instruction. I don’t even think SLA researchers have agreed on how L2 is supposed to develop nor on how to assess it, let alone how to measure it with child/adolescent beginners. But I can imagine that future assessment being entirely comprehension-based, once we finally get our message of “comprehension first” across.
…perhaps that accountability piece can never be solved for FL students with only a hundred hours of instruction….
This is most true. The battle for assessment then becomes one where we hold onto a hope that one day we can assess for the results of input. The other hasn’t worked. Level 1 kids naturally can do practically nothing at the end of the year, and it is high time for traditional teachers to admit that and slow down, stop and remove the memorization plow from the furrows of level one assessment, and give the kids a break.
With the memorization plow broken, we can become free to ask how much students can understand at the end of years one and two? How much can they read?
Five years ago under pressure from the Denver Public Schools authorities we had to agree to assess at 15% speech output and 15% writing output. One of those may have been at 20% – I can’t remember. But that’s all that the powers who knew nothing of how we acquire languages would allow – it couldn’t be less than that. Now Diana five years later has rightly decided without asking that we will next year assess speech not at all and writing is down to something like 10%. Diana may need to correct me on the details but the movement is in favor of what we know about CI and shows the results of our subtle efforts over the five years. It is because we have been doing CI in DPS classrooms for five years that we can boast this change away from the way assessment was done in the sad previous century, where student shaming for lack of their ability or desire to memorize information for the final was rampant, and in many states still is.
How much can they understand and read? It seems reasonable. As with the colonies in 1780, each state (two commonwealths) wrote its own constitution. So also it looks as if the states will write their own statements about assessment, reflecting what you said above, Eric:
…I can imagine that future assessment being entirely comprehension-based, once we finally get our message of “comprehension first” across….
If this is true, Michael Coxon’s infiltration into the “Congress” of Arizona this past year becomes a brave act of stating truths about CI, and his efforts certainly can be said to have started something, even if AZ isn’t much aware of the recent admirable role he played there.
Hey Ben,
Just a small note on hypothesis three concerning culture that might speak to the larger debate surrounding ACTFL. A lot of the problem with ACTFL is that much there is under-theorized and much of the ACTFL framework seems to be calcified policy hatched upon us through undisciplined committee work. From a theoretical standpoint in language, ACTFL makes it seem that the three modes of communication and the 5 Cs are God-given decrees but I prefer to believe they come from the void, and the fact that there is very little bibliographic attribution available in ACTFL documents does not help.
We need rigor in our discussion of language pedagogy, and that rigor depends on coming into agreement on definitions. What is the definition of culture, and how did we as a profession come to agreement on that definition? One statement about language and culture that I like to hang my hat on is one that might help a lot of people on this list breathe a sigh of relief.
“Learning to speak another’s language means taking one’s place in the human community. It means reaching out to others across cultural and linguistic boundaries. Language is far more than a system to be explained. It is our most important link to the world around us. Language is culture in motion. It is people interacting with people.”
Sandra Savignon (1983), Chapter 5, Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice, p. 187.
This definition tacitly states that people interacting with people is culture. If there is evidence of that happening in a TPRS classroom, doesn’t that address the big Culture C of the standards? And, oh, doesn’t all language use require interpretation, so isn’t that mode always taken care of by default in a CI classroom? What about the interpersonal mode – how often is that one not taken care of in a CI classroom? The only one of the three modes that is not an automatic given in a CI classroom is the presentational. But here again, without some kind of theoretical backing about how learners come to proficiency in a presentational mode (and by the way, just by doing something as obvious as checking into how people actually communicate in the wild, do we see a lot of presentational language happening?), ACTFL finds itself on a very weak limb on a very high tree.
Thank you, Mark!
ACTFL is under-theorized, because it’s positions are the result of non-SLA expert FL teacher opinions.
I totally agree, that we need clear definitions!
We also need rationale. Why the “3 modes”? (A: in order to get teachers to focus on what students CAN DO, not know about a language). Why “presentational mode”? Did ACTFL intend for FL instructors to assess every single unit in all 3 modes? . . . I hope not.
Then, the majority confuse ends with means, such is the mighty power of washback among an SLA under-educated teaching population.
The 5C’s make for good politics – they sound impressive – but in reality, if our kids could leave our classrooms able to have a conversation, then that would be justification enough for the class. How many people judge our effectiveness by asking a student: “Do you know the cultures of all the target language countries?”, “Can you compare and contrast your L1 culture with the L2 culture?”, “Can you compare the linguistics of your L1 with the L2?”
And then there are the “AP themes” which are corrupting instruction. There are now FL departments that teach the same 6 AP themes as “units” at every level of HS instruction. As if language proficiency depends on kids being knowledgeable in that theme. Absurdity!
and don’t forget about the International Baccalaureate themes, which are more absurd than the AP ones. (I’m in an IB school)
Nice quote from Savignon, Mark.
Especially, “Language is culture in motion.”
That aspect of the quote might not have jumped out at me without your commentary, “This definition tacitly states that people interacting with people is culture.”
“Language as culture in motion” precedes the Culture standard. The first four words of the Culture standards are “Learners use the language.” The definition goes on to say what learners use the language for (know culture), but “use the language” is what language learners do. Use the language. Use the language. “Use the language” is culture in motion. Can we use “culture in motion” (i.e., language) to become more culturally savvy?
Question: Do we include culture in our classes?
Counter-question: Are we using the language? I.e., do we have “culture in motion?”
Affirmative answer: Yes. (Then we can include culture).
Negative answer: No. (Then we cannot include culture).*
“Use” is a mode-neutral verb. It does not imply output on the part of the learner and we should not be tricked into thinking it does. Learners can use language to listen to a song (interpretive oral) and they can use language to read a story (interpretive written). Learners can use language to show whether they comprehend the speaker (interactive).
Language is culture, dynamic culture. Use the language. Make it possible for the kids to use the language. Sufficiently slow and comprehensible. Use the language.
*I am just talking in terms of the definitions, not about what we have to do on hot and humid days when the teacher is tired and the kids are cranky and nothing is working.
I agree that the TPRS1 and 2 dichotomy is divisive. If we teach in schools then we have someone to answer to. So we learn the jargon, or the UbD process, or the assessment BS, how to create slam dunk documentation for our upcoming evaluations, etc. but that doesn’t mean we water down with the Ss. We coexist, we’re clever, hopefully we have solid oral and written communication skills, and we work it, baby.
I think the materials and units and (training wheels) curricula are invaluable! It’s the scaffolding that newbies lean on til they get their t/CI legs. It’s often just great solid story scripts with tons of supportive materials- teachers’ guides written by the divas. I learn from them. I don’t use everything I see but I experiment, I adapt, I integrate. It’s like cooking.
Perhaps we need to remember to always distinguish which group of Ss we have in mind when making proclamations like, ‘these units are antithetical to the principles of T/CI.’ Certain cultural units might work beautifully for Ss of higher levels who can handle the cognitive load!
I loved reading your thoughts on it Ben, and found myself wondering if I am in the watery camp (#2). This alone makes me more conscientious! I think this kind of work, while it feels so intuitive to me, will take me years of tinkering to really master, if that’s even possible. I find that prospect so exciting. Will I grow more concentrated/ less watery? I don’t think that’s my weakness specifically… – I think I run a pretty unconscious ship- but then I need to work on other aspects, like more/better personalization….
Perhaps we should pose some of your Qs regarding adherence to T/CI principles to the wider community, to Blaine, and his many teacher-trainers, and to Dr. K, Karen R, Carol G , Jason- the crew who are out there training teachers on site.
I think /have observed teachers who commit to this kind of work will seek more expertise, training, coaching, information, community. I am encouraged.
My biggest thing is that most of us who subscribe to this blog would, in a perfect world, teach with only CI. That’s why I come here. We just can’t do it or be fired. Because of this, I also look to people like Carrie and Kristy and Martina to make sure that I have some ties to standards or ACTFL. When I do both, it makes me feel like I can go to my boss and tell him that I’m still doing what the grammar teachers are doing, just in a different way. If I were to present only ideas from this blog, it’s really hard to tie in with the rest of the department.
I spoke to one of these ladies and she told me her classroom was 40% stories, 40% reading, 10% interactive speaking, and 10% film. That is at least 80-85% CI. If I can aspire to that, I’m pretty darn close to pure CI.
However, if I was going to advocate on what I thought was totally best for the kids, I’d point all teachers to this blog and the big CI book. For right now, in my department, that is one step farther than I’m willing to go (risk going).
So if I’m in the second boat, I’m proud to be in that boat for now. It’s because of this blog and Blaine/Von Ray that I’m even in the river. My grammar department has purchased 6 class set novels for 5 teachers and one of them has started storytelling because of me bringing what I’ve learned to an ancient department. It’s a slow process. Keep up the good work.
Last year in Maine, I was Carrie Toth’s presentation about Understanding by Design (UbD): Planning Better for Learning in which she talked about Backwards Planning and Thematic Units.
I remember at a certain point wondering whether Carrie were a TPRS teacher or not, and how she fit TPRS into her units. Listening to her full presentation, her comments in the Q/A session, and personal interactions I was convinced that I had nothing to fear. She knows more about it than I do.
Two thoughts on Carrie’s presentation:
1. Carrie’s presentation was of a procedure for thinking through what the teacher wants the kids to know/do and how the teacher will know that they know/do it. Specifically, it is Jay McTighe’s UbD. The key is that Carrie’s presentation is from a TCI point of view. So, if someone must use UbD, she can apply it to a CI approach. The purpose is to identify the desired results instead of simply “covering the material.” UbD is one way to ask questions that all language teachers should consider: What does assessment mean to you? What will prove acquisition in your mind?
2. Carrie has this house called UbD. People can see her house but they cannot see what is happening in the rooms. Someone else might have a house that she calls Krashen Kids. We can see the house but not what is happening on the inside. Maybe its a textbook grammar lesson. Maybe it is TPRS. Maybe it is Wordsearches. What Carrie is doing in her UbD house is TPRS and a lot of CI. Many of us were at TCI Maine to learn better how to do the TPRS/TCI in our “houses,” and did not sense the need for UbD. Carrie did have several great insights for how to do TPRS/TCI.
Nuggets from Carrie:
1. “Have a Chuck-It Bucket for textbook vocabulary and use it liberally.”
2. RE vocab, ask, “Is this important and meaningful?”
3. The chore vocabulary was the first to go. None of my students iron their clothes and hang them on hangers.
4. “Stories must be engaging, but no necessarily silly, especially as your kids gain language and skills. Emotion engages.”
5. “If I talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If I speak in his language, that goes to his heart.”
Further reflections:
1. The Maine conference is called TCI, not TPRS.
2. Carrie was invited to present on some specific topics, and she did so with well-planned and well-presented workshops.
3. Carrie is convincing her administrators.
4. Carrie, like Bob and Skip, was the state teacher of the year and has put herself into a position of influence for the rest of us.
5. Carrie suggested skipping the “school supply” vocabulary and that seemed to me to be the tenor of this blog until Julie S flipped that thinking upside down.
6. I believe that it was Carrie (in the Q/A) who said that the last remnant of the old was required binders. She got to the point where she just couldn’t justify them anymore. (Yet we do have suggestions on this blog for those who do not have the liberty that Carrie does in dispensing with binders.)