Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ExtensiveReading] Implicit instruction

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Sheen
    ... noname was scanned and no virus found ( American University of Sharjah - Network Section ) noname was scanned and no virus found ( American University of
    Message 1 of 58 , Oct 12, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ***SK speaks of his use of "instruction" as follows:

      * The term is an umbrella term encompassing both implicit and explicit instruction. That's how it is used.
       
      ***No, that's how SK uses it.  Who other than SK and his fast-diminishing followers when discussing the issues of learning grammar refers to sustained silent reading as "instruction"?
       
      As to the works SK cites, I am at the moment in the unhappy position of being established in a new U and awaiting the arrival of my container.   May I, therefore suggest to SK that he publishes on the List works which he thinks answers my queries.   This will then allow all members to have access to them and both follow and join in the  hopefully ensuing discussion.
       
      Meanwhile, I'll wait for SK to respond to my other questions such as the one concerning his definition of "efficient" as a criterion for evaluation.
       
      As to the list of publications he continually cites, if he claims that they support his conclusion on the greater efficacy of implicit methods they must be as selective as others he has chosen to publish.
       
      SK also writes:
       
      With comprehensible input, we do not teach along a grammatical syllabus.
      I have discussed this in several places, going back to 1981 (Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning).
       
      ***Members should be aware of the following.  SK has elsewhere admitted that exposure to CI alone DOES NOT result in the acquisition of the myriad redundant features which characterise the proficient language learner's production.  So if as a teacher you have no interest in your students' acquisition of such features carry on following SK's advice.   If on the other hand, you do wish your students to have a chance of becoming proficient language users and having a chance of reaching near-native status, follow the advice of people more in touch with the problems of teaching languages at school.  Like so many applied linguists who have been very active in publishing, SK has simply not had the time to try implementing what they advocate in the long term.  If they had and were obliged to implement what they propose on a day to day, week to week basis, they would soon change their tune.   In the last two years, I have had this experience with elementary classes in Quebec - a most instructive experience.
       
      As to his suggestion that I continue to hold my breath, I tip my hat to his witty remark.


      Ron Sheen



       
    • Charles Jannuzzi
      ... mainly w US kids, And US kids have always included immigrants JPL. That was the non-dogmatic point. And dialect speakers, and I doubt if you can sitting at
      Message 58 of 58 , Feb 18, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > Hardly. Go back & reread. I said LEA was used at lst
        mainly w US kids,

        And US kids have always included immigrants JPL. That was
        the non-dogmatic point. And dialect speakers, and I doubt if
        you can sitting at your pc verify who was corrected,
        assimilated, denied a language other than ENglish, etc.


        > More reading in. Whoever said " the US's tradition
        is only
        > pragmatism is pretty silly
        > Americanfirsterism"?

        I said it JPL. I never said you said it. WHo is 'reading
        in'?



        Another of your inventions or reading your own
        > misinterpretations bw other writer's lines.

        No, I was making an assertion counter to what is often
        asserted about American education being so unique and
        pragmatic. What's so pragmatic about wasting billions on
        phonics programs for a bunch of over-funded Texans anyway?


        > NOT SO OBVIOUSLY.
        > INDEED IT WAS AN OVERALL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT MODEL SEEING
        4 PHASES.
        > LIT ACQUISITION WAS ONLY 1 OF THOSE 4.

        The 'language development' needs of native speakers tends to
        be to get students ready for academic work in a standard
        language--so back to the original comments about dialect,
        etc. You need to infer a bit more JPL.

        CJ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.