Well, I haven't really gotten into how the curriculum 'folds' on itself, but yes. It's the same thing I use for 2 year olds. I just decerease the vocab down to 6-8 items. I generally just focus on vocabulary and the target language is passive at this point. I don't expect production but just yes/no answers to the questions or some response to the vocabulary.
If you get production, great!
I generally just focus on the vocabulary for really young learners, as stated above. I try to get them to answer yes/no questions and as time goes on, more.
But simple questions like, What's your name? How are you? What's she? Are you? , sure. I think they can be exposed to these and answer them. My students do.
Now, some of them may be just memorizing the exchange as such and have very little understanding of the language involved, but that's OK with 1-3 year olds, imo.
I start off every
class with this. It'sds just been a habbit and for my students, they have come to expect it.
They will do a couple round of cards just for review or practice and then a round as a game which ends with some reward should they win. To be honest, they don't know any better and it works well for me, so I've stuck with it.
I guess it could be boring for them but the content changes lesson to lesson and generally it's something they need to review or practice so I never really see any rolling eyes or anything.
For me, it is routine and I guess if I think about it, it could be boring, but it's sort of my job. A lot of what I do is repetitious, it's the different people that make it unique and interesting, I guess.
I do TPR for a while with kids and then for me it sort of runs it course. We haven't gotten that far in the curriculum yet, but at some point, I'm not really moving forward with my use of TPR. From that point, I move away from TPR and focus more on reading and work with worksheets.
I don't do much with TPR beyond elementary school and lower students. I'd like to do more but I always seem to be in a situation where there's just not enough time to get all that I'd like to do, done. My younger students seem to do well with a little movement to break up the lesson. The older students are generally 'seasoned' (they've been with me for a few years) and want to do more active learning these days.
Well, the whole 'short answer' thing really throws a monkey wrench into the equation. I think we could do a whole episode on this or at least, I could chew your ear off for a while
Is it do, dis, am ,aren't, I it, he, is, can, have ... ????
I generally start with just yes/no. Then I build to 'long' answers:
Yes. I am hot.
No. I'm not hungry.
Yes. I can play the piano.
No. I didn't watch TV yesterday.
Anyway. I believe it's much easier to teach the whole thing and have then understand that. Then, show them how it reduces, rather than teach them the reduced form and have them just learn both. For me, it seems that students learn these 'short answers' as formulated responses and then spend what I see as unnecessary effort, an enormous amount of time, trying to perfect their execution of these formulated responses, when all they really want to say is 'yes' or 'no'.
If they can form the sentence, I can explain quite easily (later) how we eliminate the understood infomation. Then, they can see that the 'short answer', if needed, is just what they would say, but truncated to save time.
I do the same thing for realtive clauses as well. I teach my students the full relative clauses and then later show them how they can be reduced. First:
I know the girl that is swimming in the pool
and much later, I explain that it can be reduced to
I know the girl swimming in the pool
It seems to work well for me and for my students. They understand the reduction and not just memorize a pattern.
Here in Japan, I see a lot of pattern memorizing. It works well for answering the test questions, but when anything deviates just slightly from the memorized pattern, systems seem to shut down. So, with my students I focus heavily on understanding within English, not translation and while we do plenty of pattern practice, I try to alter it so much that it's language practice as opposed to just pattern practice.
Does that make sense?