Feb 16, 2010


I woke up in the middle of a dream. Not quite sure what the dream was about, probably my thesis.  But the first thought I had was this: TPRS is not really a methodology, it's a philosophy!

TPRS encompasses everything: how to handle classroom management - we never humiliate children, we relate to them as human beings, we never allow them to put other students down, etc.; what to do with the use of L1 (students' first language) - we don't allow it to be spoken in the classroom except for brief grammar lessons lasting no more than a few seconds, we use L1 to translate new structures on the board, etc.; every facet of second language acquisition in a classroom setting is covered.

Which leads me to another rambling thought. I love Dr. Krashen's work. I think he hits the nail on the head regarding second language acquisition. I love his newest thoughts about transparent language rather than 100% comprehension, and about the organic growth of language rather than planned structures in stories. I believe these are ideal situations for language acquisition. But, I don't believe they are ideal in a classroom setting. If I were to truly follow Dr. Krashen's beliefs, I would not be able to teach in a public school.  Because, in a public school, I have a curriculum I am required to follow, lesson plans I must write, I have colleagues who inherit my students every semester and an expectation that they be at similar places as far as the language they have been exposed to. I have 32 students in each class, maintaining +1 for each student while ensuring that the class is comprehensible to all the others, is a daunting task.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Gifted Education 2.0 Ning