Whose side are you on? Targeted 1, Targeted 2 or Non-targeted?
I don’t handle anger well. Some people thrive on it and some people, like my husband, know how to turn it into laughter. I can get upset and dwell on it and feel bad for days. Perhaps it comes from being the oldest of eight children. I was not supposed to get angry; I was supposed to be the peacemaker. Whenever I do get angry, it feels like a defeat, a major failure. Yet, I realize that many people feel that getting things out in the open frees the discussion and clears the air. As I said at the beginning, some people thrive on anger and find it energizing. I’m not one of them.
Recently I was talking to a colleague, a fellow CI teacher, about some of the discussions currently going on in the TPRS/CI world about Story-Listening, about circling, about targeted and non targeted. She said that she was worried because she has been working hard on a presentation to a group of important teacher trainers here in France. She wants to introduce them to the many different approaches used by CI teachers and furnish links to sites where they can learn more about TPR, TPRS, Movie Talk, Story-Listening, Embedded Reading, etc., etc. “If they are curious and look it up and then see all this in-fighting,” she said, “they won’t take it seriously.”
Chris Stoltz and Tina Hargaden have started a Facebook group called CI Fight Club. The starting point was an argument that had been going on elsewhere and had been closed down by moderators in the name of public peace. Chris and Tina wanted to create a space without censorship, where CI people could unload their thoughts and shout at each other if they felt like it.
I was rather surprised to be invited to join, and lurked cautiously at first. Soon some excellent discussions got going that were frank and passionate, and sometimes snarky, but never boring. People were forced to develop their ideas and to defend their ideas and be more explicit. Very often it seems that they agree on the fundamental ingredients and disagree on their dosages. I soon noticed that left to their own devices, the fighters didn’t hit below the belt, as if it was enough to treat them like adults for them to act like the responsible adults they all are.
Some of the discussions are about Story-Listening, a strategy for delivering Compelling Comprehensible Input to students that was developed by Beniko Mason Nanki and presented to teachers from around the world at the Agen Workshop 2016. Kathrin Shechtman has been using it in Germany, Ignacio Almandoz in Spain and Claire Walter has promoted it in the States, and they all are very happy with the results. Beniko has done workshops and demonstrations in the States and in Europe and the Stories First Foundation is promoting collections of stories that teachers can use with the method, along with videos that demonstrate Story-Listening.
Dr. Beniko Mason Nanki is a recognized expert in Comprehensible Input, one of Stephen Krashen’s most faithful disciples. She has an impressive collection of studies that validate his theories. Story-Listening is the method she has adopted to furnish her own students with Compelling Comprehensible Input. She has studies showing that her students progress and score higher on tests than students who have followed traditional methods. I have written a post on this blog describing Story-Listening, a post which Dr. Mason read and approved and which I included in the Agen Workshop Handbook 2017.
Personally, I enjoy telling my students stories. This is something that I have done whenever I felt that my students were able to understand and follow the narrative. I do not use Story-Listening exclusively so I don’t say that I do Story-Listening. But that doesn’t stop me from watching the videos and borrowing things that are helpful. I often use a story to prepare my students for a scene in a film or a text that I want them to read. Or I simply tell them a joke. I’m talking, telling a story, and they are listening and understanding. They are getting compelling comprehensible input. (Jokes are great because you don’t need to do comprehension checks. They either laugh or they don’t.)
Some teachers got excited about Story-Listening, saying that it was easier to do than TPRS story asking. Others felt defensive and began to criticize it. The discussion on the moretprs list got very heated. Unfortunately both sides felt attacked and thus felt justified in attacking the advocates of the other method.
Is there really a conflict here? We are all looking for ways to engage our students with rich Compelling Comprehensible Input. In the past the discussions were between TPRS teachers, 90% of whom lived and taught in the United States. As methods for giving students Compelling Comprehensible Input become better known around the world, the group of teachers becomes more varied as do the situations in which they teach and the students they work with. Any particular method may work very well with a certain teacher in a certain place with a certain public, and may need a not of adapting elsewhere.
Craig Sheehy posted this on the CI Fight Club Facebook Page :
“In order for acquisition to occur, the input must be comprehensible, repetitive and interesting.” I have to assume that he is quoting Dr. Stephen Krashen here. (see footnote) Craig goes on to say, “If it is comprehensible and repetitive but not interesting, no one is listening. If it is repetitive and interesting but not comprehensible, then no intake is occurring. And, if it is comprehensible and interesting but not repeated, then the neuroconnections in the brain are not made and reinforced. Targeted or non-targeted, the input must meet these three criteria and if it does then it is good input!”
I don’t think it is possible to argue with Craig. These three requirements must be met for acquisition to occur. “The input must be comprehensible, repetitive and interesting.” Our strategies may vary in that some are more repetitive, some are more interesting and some are more comprehensible, but all three qualities must be present in varying degrees. Teachers may prefer one strategy over another because of their students’ needs, or because of their own personalities, preferences and abilities, yet we can agree that these three requirements must be met.
My own position is not to judge other teachers’ decisions. An experienced teacher knows her students, their culture and their needs and her own personality and possibilities better than anyone else. No one can make her decisions for her. If what she is doing is working, if her students are acquiring language, no one can criticize it. In her classroom, she is the only expert. If it’s not working, she knows it before anyone else. We may have the remedy, but a wise doctor waits for the patient to ask for help. We cannot force teachers to use any method, no matter how effective it may be. And I am sure no one on any of the Facebook groups or anywhere else would want to oblige teachers to use any method, no matter how effective it might be. Too many TPRS teachers have suffered from not being allowed to teach as they wanted to, from being forced to use outdated textbooks and methods. Could we even imagine requiring someone to use Comprehensible Input strategies if that person was not convinced that CI was the only way to acquire language?
I’m sure that the people on the CI Fight Club will find other subjects to debate, and I hope that their discussions will be as passionate and as honest and as uncensored as they have been. Yet, I would like to remind them that there are ways of arguing, that we can disagree with people we respect. I try to follow these rules, borrowed from Megan Phelps-Roper, when I want to present my own point of view.
1) Don’t assume bad intent. The other person sincerely believes they are doing the right thing. (When I hear someone accusing their opponent of ulterior motives, I tend to suspect the accuser of having similar ideas.)
2) Ask questions. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from. And it signals to someone that they are being heard. By asking honest questions, we permit them to ask their own questions.
3) Stay calm. If you feel yourself getting angry, take time to pause, breathe and walk away. This is a question of your own sanity and respect for the other person.
4) Make your argument. Don’t assume that your position is so automatically, obviously right that it doesn’t need to be explained. Present your point of view and justify it with facts and logic. Again, this will encourage your opponents to present their own arguments in a calm and rational manner.
I guess what I am trying to say with this very long post is that discussions and disagreements can be healthy. They can force us to examine our positions carefully and honestly. Sometimes they can be eye-openers. As long as we respect the other person enough to listen to them carefully, as we hope they will listen to us, a good argument can sort the chaff from the wheat and strengthen our team. So yes, let’s fight and strengthen our ideas. But don’t forget that we are all on the same team, the team that believes that “in order for acquisition to occur, the input must be comprehensible, repetitive and interesting.”
Well, I feel better now. I’ll continue listening in on CI Fight Club, but if I feel a strong disagreement coming on, I will try to apply these rules to my posts. Does anyone want to fight about them?
PS Stephen very kindly answered my query about what I thought was a quote from him : “I have said “comprehensible and interesting.” never mentioned repetitive. If there is enuf input, and especially if it is narrow, repetition takes care of itself.”