Last September Martin Lapworth wrote a blog post called “On CI, TPRS, Acquisition, etc. (I so want to believe…)“. As I read it and the comments on it (which, incidentally, include one authored by CI king Stephen Krashen), I found myself asking a question that I’ve felt for a long time is forefront in the minds of the majority of language teachers.
It’s a question that burns in my mind because as a language teacher I know you get asked all the time, “Oh, I wish I spoke X! I’d like to learn X! How can I learn X?” And you know what your answer is?
“Take a class in X!”
Ha! No, it’s not. You’d never answer that way. I’d never answer that way. What do we always say? People know it. They answer it themselves.
I know, I need to just immerse myself in a culture, get off a plane in Mexico or something, then I’ll learn it.
It’s a question that burns in my mind because whenever I meet someone who finds out I speak Spanish, which happens a whole lot because I speak it to my children in public, I get asked:
Where are you from? Is your family Latino? Did you grow up in another country?
No, I didn’t. I spent 6 weeks in Ecuador when I was 15, and other than that I haven’t spent longer than 2 weeks in a Spanish-speaking country (though I did spend a couple of summers in McAllen, Texas, which is a lot like a Spanish-speaking country).
It’s a question that burns in my mind because of what Martin wrote, because it’s something that nags at the back of our minds, those of us who teach language and wonder if any of it will stick, if anything will make a difference for every student:
I really want to believe in CI and second language acquisition, but I am not entirely convinced that students can effectively acquire a second language unless they are in a total immersion environment. And in most school scenarios that just isn’t possible.
Martin goes on to talk about his family’s experiences with learning language, how with French he started with a grammar-oriented experience but couldn’t really speak it until he went to France. How with Spanish he immersed himself in it but couldn’t really speak it well until he worked on the grammar. How his children believe immersion is the best way to go and their Spanish immersion included heavy grammar classes, but they haven’t had success learning German in their grammar-oriented classes. How as a teacher, it seemed that
most students find languages really hard, and only the very able seem capable of achieving a reasonable level of competence. Now, all of the scenarios described above involve a LOT of exposure to the language – and I tend to feel that it is just not possible to provide anything like this level of exposure in regular language classes. But I’ve never actually tried an approach such as TPRS. My concern, as I’ve tried to outline above, is that I’ve always found the inclusion of grammar to be of benefit – not a focus on grammar as the end result, but as a facilitator, whereas proponents of CI seem to say that this is in fact counter-productive.
Here’s the question I think we’re all wondering:
Is this the best we can hope for: to reach those who have language aptitude and motivate the rest to seek an immersion experience?
You’ve asked it, right? I’ve seen it presented from some really good teachers, defending why they do something like Genius Hour with novices who can’t handle Genius Hour – because it’s motivating, and that’s my only hope, to motivate them to continue past me. Because I’m teaching life skills here, not just language.
You may have seen the example I used in my post What I hate about TPRS. One teacher has a student who has come from a TPRS class and can’t handle the coursework. The teacher hates to move her to a lower level, but other teachers recommend it. Because you know, TPRS students really struggle with that grammar stuff. Everything’s better in moderation. Better balance that TPRS with some grammar worksheets.
I apologize for this post being a bit all over the place, but that gives an accurate picture of the dilemma in my mind. If all I do is work with random language, am I cheating my students out of some life skills I could have approached if I’d been willing to abandon TL use for a bit? If I give my students motivating projects that maybe fudge a bit – or a lot – on the level of comprehensible input they’ll be exposed to or the output I can reasonably expect from them, am I cheating them out of the opportunity to actually learn what I say I’m teaching – that is, language?
And then Steve Smith comes along and defends “pencil-case” teaching – using boring classroom objects to teach boring functions like prepositions, object pronouns, gender, and verbs, as well as providing fodder for vocabulary games, because:
A teaching activity is a means to an end. We engage in artificial classroom activities because we know that, if they are well done, they can lead to long term acquisition. Clarity is vital and the humble pencil case can play a very useful role.
Is he right? Is there a place for artificiality in the classroom? He wonders if CI-based teachers will raise an eyebrow at what he has to say, but honestly, it reminds me a lot of Ben Slavic:
I want to buy a butterfly, class!
Derek, do you want to buy a butterfly?
Well, class, I want to buy a pink butterfly!
Andi, do you want to buy a butterfly?
Where do you want to buy a blue butterfly, Andi?
Susan doesn’t want to buy a butterfly.
Susan wants to buy a cat.
Susan needs a pencil.
Susan needs a yellow pencil.
Susan doesn’t eat pencils.
Does Susan eat beans?
Who eats green beans?
Who doesn’t want to buy a butterfly?
Does Derek want to buy a butterfly or does Derek want to play football?
Derek, do you want to play basketball?
Do you want to buy a butterfly or play football?
What color is a football?
I think Steve unknowingly hit on the big question here: is the best we can hope for having our activities be a means to an end, or can students actually achieve the end in a classroom?
I believe the answer is yes, and I believe the answer lies in one word: meaning. I’m not talking about absurd, random Susan-doesn’t-eat-pencils, is-the-butterfly-on-the-desk meaning. Unless everything we do has realistic, level appropriate meaning attached to it, from the unit names to the assessment criteria to the “vocabulary games,” this really is the best we can do. We’ll continue to think we motivated kids who were already motivated and they’ll go study abroad and speak the language and the rest will join the hordes who talk about their school language classes in terms of crepes and Spanish Mike. When we sit down and say that is it, I’ve had it, no more multiple choice questions, no more games coming up with a word that starts with L, no more translation vocabulary quizzes, no more talking over their heads, no more what words do you recognize in this BBC Mundo clip, then we’ll see higher percentages of students achieving measurable proficiency in their required courses. They may not be able to talk about global warming, and they may not be able to put an indirect object pronoun in the right spot (or explain to you what an indirect object pronoun is), but they can do something for meaning, and I’ll tell you this – that is exactly what they want to do. And being able to do what you want to do is the most powerful motivator of all.
The blog post that you refer to above — “On CI, TPRS, Acquisition, etc. (I so want to believe…)” — was inspired by the following:
(a) I had recently come across TPRS and thought it sounded like a good idea, backed up by the likes of Krashen, no less. Many proponents of TPRS were saying things like “speaking practice isn’t important”, a focus on output / forms is not constructive etc. I took this to mean there was no place for grammar in TPRS and CI based teaching.
(b) This did not square at all with my own experiences of learning / acquiring languages. I have always felt that grammar was essential. I could not imagine anybody being able to *acquire* a language without total immersion.
I think as part of the discussion process on that blog post, via the comments etc, I came to the following conclusions:
1. There is a role for grammar in TPRS / CI teaching. It’s just not in your face. The very fact that TPRS teachers structure stories around a particular structure (or 3) is a grammar focus of sorts, and grammar pop-ups help students to notice what is going on in the language.
2. None of my experiences were in an i+1 environment, so in fact I wasn’t comparing like with like. At that point I hadn’t come across the term “optimized immersion”, which I really like. My own experiences were extremely polarised: French >> grammar translation followed by immersion; Spanish >> immersion followed by my picking up a grammar book. My children were truly thrown in at the deep end, and they had a LOT of time to get fluent in Spanish — they were immersed in it constantly at school and their friends were Spanish. AND they had a strong grammar focus in their “lengua” lessons, which I am certain helped them a lot. (They had verb tests every week — not because they were learning it as a foreign language; all the Spanish kids did them too.) BUT none of the experiences I described involved i+1 / optimized immersion. So… how do *I* know whether it works or not?
I’m still not sure what’s the best way to go…
As I said on my blog (and as you quoted), most children do not do well in traditional language classes (whatever that means…). I did. You did. Most teachers currently teaching languages in schools probably did too. (Certainly the vast majority of non-native teachers). We are the ones who liked languages, who ‘got’ languages.
So what do we do with all the others who don’t get / like languages? One thing is for sure: we don’t simply carry on doing something that hasn’t worked in the past and clearly isn’t working now. (And waiting for them to grow up and go and immerse themselves in the target language culture isn’t really a solution, is it?)
I think CI-based teaching (maybe with elements of TPRS) could be a good way to go. Make it comprehensible. Make it rewarding / enjoyable. Don’t worry too much about authentic — it’s irrelevant as long as the input is interesting. Don’t force output too early, but do include activities that force students to consider structure, accuracy etc, (but without it being all about dry grammar activities). Focus on input AND output, meaning AND form. Use lots of comprehensible input and lots of repetition but structure activities so that students notice the structures, help them to spot the rules (for want of a better word).
An important point I’d make from a UK perspective is that we should be focusing much more on feeding the pig and much less on weighing it. Constant assessment and pressure on teachers to demonstrate that their students are making progress every 5 minutes forces teachers to focus on short-term gains — learn this tense / set of vocab items — rather than playing the long game.
Really fantastic points, Martin. I’ve long believed that CI-based teaching was the way to go and after all these recent discussions I’m even more convinced. What form that CI takes and how it’s delivered may vary from teacher to teacher, and that’s okay.
I do think that authentic materials are important for 2 reasons: 1) it’s the best way to prepare students to navigate authentic materials, which is what they want to do, and 2) it’s the best way to incorporate culture, a key element of the language class.
Thanks for joining the conversation as always.
Sara-Elizabeth,
You may want to remove the photo you have on this entry. It was accidentally clicked on by my pet while the computer was on the sofa as I was reading and it took me to a very inappropriate site that I’m sure you do not want – listing “lude, crude males.” I did not stick around long enough to figure it out! I’m not sure how or why it would have happened, but it seems to be some link to the photo. Considering the nature of your blog and the rest of your work, I did not think you would want this on your site.
Thank you so much Kathy! I pulled the photograph off of Flickr CreativeCommons and it would seem that the photographer likes to photograph other things that I certainly don’t want linked here! I have changed the photo.
First off, thank you for your blog. I have been learning quite a bit reading through your posts and clicking every link available! I am in my 9th year of teaching foreign language and asking many of these same questions. I have been a very traditional FL teacher but have felt for the last few years that this is not the best way. So I’m very glad to have found you. I am the only teacher at my school!
My question is regarding college preparedness of students from a CI class. My students who take 4 years consistently are speaking well, reading well, and doing so with excellent grammar. They generally test out of 3-4 semesters of college Spanish. What percentage of students in a CI class test out of all the basic lower level classes of college Spanish?
I am worried that a change to “proficiency-based” curriculum will result in low grammar and therefore low scores on college entrance exams.
I don’t have any research for you, but I can tell you that 100% of my students who have tried have tested out of introductory level classes of Spanish. Remember that “proficiency-based” doesn’t mean there’s no grammar. We highlight and talk about grammar all the time, but not for its own sake; it’s always to show how it changes the meaning in what we’re trying to understand, or how we can clarify our own meaning in what we’re trying to say. For example, today, we were looking at a news article about a drug kingpin who was shot in Mexico. The headline used “muere.” We have a couple of words in this unit that are helping us deepen our vocabulary, fallecer and perecer. So we took both of those words in the same tense, fallece and perece, and then put all of them in the sudden past: murió, falleció, pereció, which is how we would retell the story to someone else. So you see the point is always meaning and clarification, refining accuracy for the purpose of communication, practicing within the context of meaning and never outside of it.
Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!