Last year I did workshops at Simon Fraser University for Janet Dunkin’s French methods class. Dunkin, a longtime French teacher in North Vancouver, is on a two-year secondment to S.F.U. where she teaches student teachers how to “be a French teacher.” She has an academic colleague, Timothy Cart, who co-teaches. Congrats to Janet Dunkin for inviting CI/TPRS practitioners in to meet her student teachers. Next up– presenting the method to U.B.C. And U.Vic. languages teacher candidates.
A few of the STs are at myb school and I got a chance to talk to them and their cohort so today’s question is should– and do–student teachers try TPRS, and, when they do, how does it work out?
First, there is significant resistance to TPRS/CI in many schools. As noted earlier, teachers are generally a conservative bunch who operate in conservative environments and who learn from people steeped in tradition. Many languages teachers don’t want to/don’t know how to change practices. This makes it difficult for innovators– especially younger ones– to try something their mentor/mentrix isn’t familiar or comfortable with.
Second, there is a power differential in a student-teacher situation. The student teacher has to do a “good job,” and that usually means doing what the mentor/mentrix wants. The all-important letter of reference and final evaluation will too often be dependent not on authentic language acquisition but on whether or not the student-teacher did what his/her “boss” wanted done.
Third, student teachers often don’t know the method thoroughly. Anyone who’s tried TPRS knows, as Adriana Ramírez said, that there is a three-year time needed to go from start to something like mastery. So a student teacher often cannot get the results the method delivers right away, which makes them– and the method– superficially “look bad.” In my experience, bad TPRS trumps good grammar grind/communicative teaching hands-down, but the results are long term…kids will not immediately spit out awesome French/Spanish/whatever. In the grammar grind class, or even the communicative, you appear to get immediate results— “Look, the kids are talking! Look, the kids are doing worksheets, or revising their paragraphs!”– which is pleasing to anyone who doesn’t really get how language acquisition works.
Fourth, student teachers do not know the research. I can argue with anyone because I’m a geek. People like Eric Herman, Ben Slavic (and me, to a lesser extent) read studies etc, plus we practice the method daily, so we can say things like “Lightbrown and Spada, 2013, argue for very limited grammar instruction, and show that grammar instruction has very limited results.” So…unfamiliarity with research and method makes justifying “weird” practices like TPRS much harder.
Fifth, the lack of initial output in a TPRS/CI class is disconcerting. If the goal of language acquisition is speaking and writing– the “markers” of acquisition– then the choral responses, masses of input and lack of one-on-one speech seems weird to traditional teachers. We know, as Wong puts it, that “a flood of input must precede even a trickle of output,” but to the uninitiated, it looks…weird. Most languages teachers put the cart before the horse: speaking and writing are the result of acquisition, not the cause .
Sixth, Universities do not generally choose innovators to instruct student teachers. I have looked in detail at the languages methods programs offered by the Univeristy of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University and the University of Victoria. S.F.U. offers a basic intro to comprehensible input. We’re working on UBC and UVIC.My best guess is that what happens with helping teachers, co-ordinators, etc, is that they get out of the classroom– they get bored or ambitious or whatever– and when in an advisory role they stop experimenting. These people too must please the powers that be. So it is almost everywhere: you gotta lick the hand that feeds you. (This is not, however, universally true. For example, Christine Carrioux– languages helping teacher for the Delta School District– is a major innovator who has urged her staff to see TPRS/CI demos and workshops; S.F.U.’s Janet Dunkin is very open to new methods.)
So, the odds are not good that a student teacher will find a TPRS/CI-friendly classroom environment. However, this is a blessing in disguise. If you are a student teacher, your practicum can “teach” you by negative example. If you must do the grammar grind/communicative thing whilst learning your trade, because your mentor/mentrix “has always done it this way,” you get to reflect. Ask yourself these questions:
- Does this work?
- What does “it works” mean?
- Do the kids like it?
- How much time getting quality input in the target language do the kids get? Can you stay in the target language 90% of the time, as the A.C.T.F.L. says you should?
- Are they improving? What is “improving?”
- Do they want to take the language again next year?
- How well has communicative/grammar grind teaching worked for them in the past?
The answers to these will guide student teachers when they finally get their own classroom. Sometimes you need to see what works– TPRS/CI stories and reading– and what doesn’t to make your instructional decisions. If you are a student teacher who wants to try CI/TPRS, I would suggest you try…but the bottom line is, you need a solid ref from your mentor/mentrix so we can get you into the system. You may have to suck it up and play the game. Once you’re in, and you have no conservative/non-innovative people to please, you’re good to go, and you can then explain why you have chosen method ___ over method ____.