C.O.F.L.T. and W.A.F.L.T. under the conference leadership of energy ball Tina Hargaden jointly put their annual gig on in Portland. I got to meet, well, a zillion interesting languages teachers and a few luminaries, and sit in on a load of workshops, oh and enjoy the rain, epic Mexican food and arguments about gluten-free diets. So here’s my notes in zero discernable order.
First, we got a TPR demo from the glowing Karen Rowan. Total Physical Response– revived and popularised by James Asher in the late 1960s (he did not invent it)– is basically, the teacher says and does an action, and then students do the action while the teacher says it. T.P.R. has its advantages: it’s easy, fast, memory-sticky and fun. Its disadvantages: it gets old really quickly, it’s basically limited to command forms, and what is “TPR-able” tends to be low-frequency vocab (eg touches, walks, hand, eye etc).
Rowan threw down some good reminders: we aren’t teaching all you teachers here just a method, but mostly a way to meaningfully connect with students and we are always trying to keep everything 100% comprehensible even though we can’t always do that.
Now if caffeine is available, your odds of running into one Dr Stephen Krashen are higher than they would be if you went to, say, a Donald Trump rally (not that Trump would come to Oregon– he would be murdered by people hurling artisanal tofu at him). And there was Himself, ordering literally 6 coffees for a crew which included one Dr Beniko Mason.
For himself, Krashen ordered– and I quote– “a gigantic latte with extra espresso.” The good Doctor said hello in einem ausgezeichneten Deutsch and then threw down some Japanese to get Dr M. a cuppa Joe.
Now when you get to meet Dr K. you better have your questions ready. Here are mine:
Me: So did you have any specific epiphanies on the way to developing the hypothesis that languages are acquired through getting comprehensible input?
Dr K.: Yes, two. One was in 1975 in New York when I was giving a presentation to language teachers. There was a Japanese student of English there whose spoken English was not very advanced, yet her English writing was excellent. And then it hit me that there were two systems operating here: the conscious and the implicit, and they either weren’t or were only minimally connected.
The other was driving down the freeway in Pomona, when I asked myself “in what order should we teach words and grammar rules?” and I realized, it doesn’t matter, because the order of acquisition [of grammar “rules,” as has been confirmed] is mostly fixed, and there is very little we can do to change them.
Me: so do you still lift?
Dr K.: OK let’s start that again, you should be saying “so I see you still lift.” 😉
Me: Yes of course [he was wearing a huge baggy jacket and pants!] I can see you still lift. When you won the press award, what did you weigh and lift?
Dr K.: I weighed 181 and I incline-pressed 285.
Me: Wow; cool you still lift. May I ask how old you are?
Dr K.: I’m 75. But I read like an 80 year old.
Me: Well I’m 47 but I lift like I’m 10.😜
Dr K.: [switches into German] Well, you’re on the uphill.
Me: [in German] Hey I loved that video of you doing C.I. in German.
Dr K.: See how much German you picked up from just five minutes of comprehensible input?
Dr K.: LOOOOOOOL
So after that bit of banter, Krashen wandered off under loads of coffees, muttering I’m going to find a piano, and there were more T.P.R. basics with Karen. Here is one cool idea: dialogue bubbles! Here are Lynn and Ethan acting a scene from Karen’s demo. A great way to start with relative beginners. Lynn’s reads “I want to touch your hand” and Ethan’s reads “with what?”😉
So then there was an epically varied lunch set out.
In the afternoon, C.I. offerings being as scant on the ground as Donald Trump in Oregon, I went to something I ended up hating: ” _______ In The Second Language Classroom.” Here was the schedule:
- 10 minutes “everybody say your name and where you teach and what brought you here”
- 15 min. “OK everybody share with your group on thing related to ______ that you did recently”
- 15 min. “OK can each table report out to the whole room please”
- 15 min. the presenter showing us how to do two things which, basically, you learned when you yourself were in high school
- 10 min. feedback and fill out the form.
If you’re gonna present, plz a. have something to present, and b. if it’s a “sharing session” please CALL IT a sharing session, and c. we want to learn things other than each others’ names.
That evening after Mexican with my teaching BFF Sarah-Beth, it was the COFLT/WAFLT social where I got to finally meet Mike Coxon and Karen Rowan. I had made some offhand online comment about “Karen if ever I meet you, beers are on me” so the cunning Karen had me buying her evening’s worth of drinks (two whole glasses). She likes red wine, can’t remember what kind. Also present was Von Ray who is this mass of warm vibes just like his Dad but not drinking: the Rays are L.D.S. folk. Then appeared Martina Bex and her husband. Bex, who has four kids under 5 (she left them with Oma in Alaska) AND who publishes non-stop, was presenting Sat, but tonight was Date Night and hubby Matt hung around while Bex made precisely one tour of the room before whisking her off to kid-free cocktails YOU GO GIRL.
Then appeared Carol Gaab who at 4’11” you have to look carefully for but OMG what an energy ball, first ppl she is 32 not 52, second she is a grandmother (how do grannies look 32?), third she has the most solid sage advice on anything you can imagine and fourth Gaab has a remarkable quality of fusing public principles, private beliefs and personality, etc, into one package. You always feel when talking to Carol that you are getting the full meal deal. Gaab’s point from her #iflt2014 session: it is quite possible– indeed easy– to do higher-level thinking even with beginners. Women are superhuman, basically, is what I realised AGAIN watching the energy-tornado Gaab, Supermom Bex and multi-tasker Rowan.
Friday the Philipines had extra rain so they sent it over. Now it was time to see Dr Beniko Mason‘s presentation about free voluntary reading (FVR) and story listening in the 2nd language class. I’m gonna sum it up quick:
- Mason has experimented with having her Japanese-speaking students do a ton of self-selected reading in English, and write occasional summaries in Japanese (L1). At the end of this process, she found that despite having not “practised” English writing, their writing was much improved. She speculates that this is because when they are summarising in Japanese, they are focused on reading (processing) the English and don’t worry about English writing, so they absorb more. [edit: Mason clarified that it was not the Japanese writing per se that improved acquisition, but rather that it was the English input]. Bill VanPatten has also replaced writing exercises with processing exercises in his Spanish classes. Students get the individual sentences from a story, and have to read and order them, à la Textivate).
2. She had students who had failed English 1 classes at Japanese universities who spent one semester in her class doing only FVR and listening in English. These students outperformed the second-year students of English who had passed English !!
3. Mason discussed how she uses folktales translated into English. She said she is not a huge user of props, actors etc (partly cos Japanese kids are trained to sit and listen) but prefers reading and asking questions, which her students seemed to enjoy. Here’s Claire Ensor’s intro to how to do story-listening. Insofar is it is possible to measure…
4. …FVR seems to double the rate of acquisition of language by direct instruction or other non-C.I. classroom practice.
5. [edit: Mason also mentioned how corrective feedback did not do anything to improve acquisition of English.]
The vendors’ area was interesting: in one room you had vendors like these side-by-side. The language teaching world in microcosm: weird new-wavish (and fun, and effective) on the left (that’s Mike Coxon and Von Ray), and tradition on the right.
In the background of C.O.F.L.T. was the debate on targeted vs. untargeted input. Basically, how much control over the story vocab— and not just the details as in classical T.P.R.S.– should the kids have? Ben Slavic, Tina Hargden and others have been experimenting with 100% student-generated stories and love it. Others, such as me, were initially somewhat skeptical. So it was cool to hear Mike Coxon and Von Ray and whoever stopped by their or Carol Gaab’s table to argue the this way and that. And then Mike said, “this is amazing…we’re arguing like we always do about teaching…but we’re arguing C.I. methods vs other C.I. methods, rather than C.I. versus other approaches.”
One of the things I love about the C.I. world is what Blaine Ray has repeatedly said: “if we find something that works as well, or better, we add it to T.P.R.S., or we change T.P.R.S.”
AND THEN I GOT TO POSE IN A PHOTO WITH THE COOL KIDS!
L-R: Karen Rowan, some guy, Terry Waltz, Martina Bex and Craig Sheehy
Terry Waltz was passing through so she got railroaded into coming and hanging out. Of course I have been fanboying away to meet all these people, and there was Terry, ripping along in fluent Mandarin with a crew of Chinese teachers. After I said hello, we chatted:
Me: OMG so you can speak 13 languages? OMG
Terry: Well, I can get into trouble in 13, but I can only get out of trouble in about 7
Terry’s T.P.R.S. With Chinese Characteristics is being translated into written Chinese. Terry told me that this had proven a bit of work, as somebody either knows killer Mandarin but not T.P.R.S. well enough, or they know killer T.P.R.S. and not Mandarin well enough. Classic translation problem in any field. I also thought, translation is a good idea, because there is something authoritative about the heft of a book in your own language, plus you can spend your time going back, re-reading, re-thinking, etc. T.P.R.S. is work to master; in Chinese, you have additional steps and tricks (e.g. cold character reading) cos the language is not written phonetically and it has zero cognates. It will be very helpful for Chinese-literate teachers to have these tricks in the language they are teaching.
Terry also made remarks about Chinese teaching culture, to the effect that books still carry a weight of authority about them in a way they don’t in North America. E.g. you can officially learn via webinars, blog reading, group Skype lessons etc in North America but the Chinese– with their 4,000 year old tradition of literacy– still like books as authorities.
Note the amount of brain power in that pic, minus the random guy. Karen and Terry are legendary disagree-ers and have generated some amazing discussions about everything from targeting to method labels to the value of output. Sometimes, when you hear them discussing C.I., you imagine this:
but then when they talk in person it’s more like this:
OMG awieeee OMG
ANYway, the targeting debate came up again, and some of the points raised included
- if you want to train a newish T.P.R.S. teacher, is it not easiest to start with structured stories so they have one less thing to think about while learning to slow, circle etc?
- will kids “choose” low-freq vocab if you let them decide whatever they want?
- how do you support untargeted stories with writing (eg novels)…do you simply write up what each class came up with each time? (cool, but lots of work)
- Terry brought up some solid points re: Mason’s research, noting that the Japanese students reading English had a massive foundation on which additional English input scaffolded and that it was not necessarily best practice for Level 1 and 2 students in any L2 to just read a ton.
No, I do not have any answers heh heh.
The human buffet continued: next I got to meet the smart, funny, articulate, determined (oh and gorgeous) Claire Ensor come all the way from Tennessee. Here’s Claire and Dr. K:
Claire is cool. She teaches E.S.L. and is going to do her PhD in S.L.A. She is interested in untargeted input, and how poverty affects S.L.A., and a million other things. How awesome is that, running a thesis idea past Dr K.? Claire and a few of us discussed her research project idea: measuring acquisition gains through comparing story listening with FVR and “standard” TPRS…details to come when the experimental design gets hammered out.
So Friday late aft was Dr K. showing & discussing C.I. case studies and other, more general educational stuff. I’ll be brief:
- Mexican immigrant Armando worked at a Moroccan restaurant run by Moroccan Jews in L.A., and acquired enough Hebrew– via listening– that he fooled Israeli embassy staff and other Hebrew native speakers into thinking him a NS. Krashen notes that he basically only listened, got unsheltered grammar, and got restricted vocab mostly focused around customer service, food, kitchen stuff and “hey what did you do last night?”-type routine conversation.
- Hungarian Kato Lomb acquired dozens of languages– starting at age 20– basically by reading books she liked and listening to whatever radio she could get.
- U.S.-born children of various immigrants who find interesting reading– in any format– in their parents’ language acquire and retain significantly more language than do other second-generation immigrants. If you have native speakers in your class, get them to read.
- There is basically zero research showing that anything language-related that people do on a computer– other than read or watch understandable stuff they find interesting– helps anyone acquire a language.
- Because I stopped caring about Star Trek about the time Picard’s series got canned, I tuned out of the alien languages discussion but apparently Arrival is worth a watch.
- Ok modify that, I watched Arrival and I hated how it pretended to be deep bla bla, however, the aliens and their writing were cool.
Saturday morning was Tina Hargaden showing us in French how to use “the Invisibles”:
Basically, this is what you do for The Invisibles:
- The kids invent a character– a talking potato, a doll, a human, whatever.
- The class artist draws the character while it’s being developed.
- The class invents one or two more.
- You show the class the drawings and circle a bit.
- Then the kids make up a story about them. You can have kids holding the (in)Visibles and doing the dialogue or teacher can do the dialogue.
- There has been argument: should teacher have a plan re: grammar and vocab (a list of “structures”), or should kids run the narrative show? Dunno…as long as you restrict the vocab, get loads of reps, and keep it comprehensible, it doesn’t really matter.
- You provide some kind of reading once the story has been asked. The challenge with the Invisibles is, if the stories are newly-made every time, you have to write each one up which takes a lot of time but also it’s customised for each class.
Saturday afternoon was Bex-a-rama. Martina’s Herculean task: show us how to use “authentic documents” in the language classroom. Nobody– including Bex herself– has been able to convince me its realistically possible– or worthwhile– to use things made by and for native speakers in a language class, but by golly did Martina ever come close.
The gist of it is this: you have to use something that has as few words as possible (songs and short newscasts/articles best), that repeats the words as much as possible, and you have to not focus on all the words, and go for general rather than specific meaning.
I personally don’t buy it, but Martina is super-helpful for teachers who are forced to “use authentic documents” by Adminz or Textz that don’t get S.L.A. If you must use # authres, Bex’s plan is where you start.
Finally, in the evening I managed to round up most of the cool kids and convince them to let me tag along, and we went for beers and dinner. Dr Beniko Mason speaks killer German (better than mine anyway) and Krashen can throw down pretty good in prolly six. He is enjoying Aramaic (what Jesus spoke; still used today) but griped about troubles finding people to acquire from. So here is the random good stuff from Dr K, Dr M, and a fascinating crew of teachers.
- Krashen studied classical piano for a bit when younger (and still plays). For him a major breakthrough was the fake book. These are simplified versions of complex music, most often jazz standards and now pop music. These are the C.I. of music: they make something that’s too complex for beginners comprehensible and playable. Just as you don’t start acquiring Blablabian by reading legendary Blablabian writer Jðkvar Sqkvðd’s 3,700-page opus “Krœy Hrâ B’nÿä Pö” with its 19 unreliable narrators and allusions to everything from Moby Dick to the Baghavad Gita to Taylor Swift longs, so we don’t start learning music with Rachmaninoff concertos.
- Mason: she acquired a LOT of her very excellent German in Germany not just from reading etc but from routine interactions. If every time you go to the store you hear kann ich Ihnen mit etwas helfen? (literally “Can I you with something to help?”), you will first understand and then over a longer time pick up the “rules” behind this odd word order). This is good C.I.: restricted vocab, unrestricted grammar, and useful repetition.
3. Mason: loves folktales (and simplified versions of Hollywood etc films) because if people know the story in advance, much of the decoding work has been done and the brain can focus on meaning. Mason does not do much T.P.R.S.-style co-creation but is 100% into stories.
4. Krashen: in music as in language, listening is the foundational pre-requisite. He praised the Suzuki method, where students acquire music from songs, rather than songs/pieces from musical theory, as the C.I. of music. In the Suzuki method, students first learn a super-simple song (say “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star”), and then gradually more complex pieces. Sight reading comes much later, and musical theory last. Man, I wished I’d learned piano this way: I started with sight reading at 6 years of age and I’ve been trying to un-learn classical habits ever since. This echoes what Bill VanPatten wrote me when I asked him about language and music: “most of what is in a musician’s head does not get there from conscious learning and practice.”
5. Krashen reminded me of my Uncle Alan, who was sent to Jewish school 50 years ago in Montréal and who can to this day throw down a whole lotta Hebrew songs despite not having spoken it for years…because of music. The kids were taught Hebrew hymns (?) and these were also discussed so Alan has a stock of Hebrew from which to draw. Music anchors this stuff in memory. But does it help us acquire language? Hmmm…I know that I remembered (and still do) a lot of French songs from French Immersion kindergarten. I also know that I didn’t know what most meant until later, because we did a lot of singing and clapping but most of the lyrics were not explained.
6. I thought about my Muslim kids, who come (linguistically) in two varieties: those who have been forced to simply memorise the Qu’ran, and those who have memorised and learned meaning. In some places– e.g. rural Somalia– simple Qu’ranic memorisation seems to be the norm and the imams appear to think that, gosh, the meaning of words will simply reveal themselves. These kids can say things in Arabic, and make sounds from written Arabic, but literally have no idea what they are saying. In other places, the kids memorise bits of the Qu’ran, but also learn its meaning and discuss it. These kids are the ones who can actually understand (and sometimes speak) Arabic.
Islamic religious instruction could be good C.I. if the Arabic’s meaning were made clear, the Qu’ran were presented in a compelling way, etc. The Qu’ran (which I have only read in English) uses a lot of classical liturgical tricks: it repeats things a lot, it plays around with variations on sentences e.g. “Allah asks us to keep our houses clean. Why does Allah ask us to keep clean houses? Because a clean house…” when it takes up a topic, it restricts the vocabulary, it “circles” its thematic words, etc.
After bringing the Drs K. and M. back to their hotel, I went for locally-sourced, artisanal, organic, vegan, free-range, fair-trade craft beers with this pair of live wires, Elena Overvold and Tina Hargaden.
Elena is like 20 years younger than me which makes for super-cool intergenerational teacher talk. We had a discussion about feminism applied in the classroom. A few of the topics that came up:
- there’s a lot of heterosexism built into many TPRS story scripts e.g. the girl obvs wants a boyfriend, the boy obvs wants a GF, etc, and…
- …this is also an opportunity to “undo” this…through gender reversal, LBGTQ characters, surprise endings etc (“no, class, the girl didn’t want a boyfriend…she wanted a good book!“)
- to what extent am I, a male teacher, being sexist when during PQA I say something like “I like Angelina Jolie”? Elena pointed out that this could be interpreted two ways: I value her as a good-looking woman (and nothing more) or if given context as good-looking and an interesting human being, and…
- …this point transfers over to the kids. Say we do PQA (or stories) and we ask a student do you like ____? why? and the student answers because _____ is super hot! Fair enough…appearance is the first thing that grabs our attention. But we can– and probably should– also take it a step further by (even humorously) asking questions like is ____ a nice person? do you like ____ because they are hot, smart, compassionate, or all three? etc. We have the chance to remind kids that life (even their language-class-invented-personality lives) can be more complex than what popular culture often hands us.
Ok well that was COFLT/WAFLT. Great workshops, a fascinating crew of people, good food and Portland delivered on its rainputation. I hope C.O.F.L.T. does another such conference and thanks to Ms and Mrs Mason, Krashen, Rowan, Waltz, Bex, Gaab, Hargaden etc for their contributions & workshops & willingness to sit and chat with all comers.
Ok here is a picture of some guy and Stephen Krashen.