Value of Non-targeting

2 thoughts on “Value of Non-targeting”

1. Ben Slavic

   September 20, 2019 at 8:23 am

   Sean said, referring to an advantage of non-targeting:”ALL the kids are following along and learning, not just the rock stars.” This reflects Krashen’s admonition in 2008 or 2009 to the TPRS community, which had begun targeting at a high level by then (vs. Blaine’s original non-targeted vision that was purely based on Krashen’s research in the early 1990s), to tone it down w the targeting lest there be a “constraint on interest” (Krashen’s term). Nobody listened to Krashen (he didn’t push the point enough in my view) and the result now ten years later are classes of regular kids not being able to keep up and the rock stars that Sean refers to above dominating, thus splitting the class and with that destroying the sense of community that was so delicately built up since the beginning of the year. Thus, one can say with some degree of accuracy that TPRS has lost its way in the pursuit of vocabulary list mastery instead of fluency.

   Log in to Reply
2. Ben Slavic

   September 20, 2019 at 8:24 am

   We tested multi-leveled classes in 2004 in Denver .Public Schools and it worked. However, I found personally (this was not the DPS conclusion but mine) that the level 2 kids suffered too much bc the level 4 kids tended to push things along too fast. My conclusions were that two levels (e.g. 2 and 3 combined, or 3 and 4 combined) were more workable than three. Another weird thing that I noticed about three levels combined was how crowded the rooms felt, just like any class above 30. The level 2s tended to hide and scrunch down in their desks.

   Log in to Reply