Voces Digital Conference/Central States Conference

A confession: as a teacher, I feel like my well has run dry. There are only two more months left in my school year (last day of school for students is Wednesday, May 21), and if you are like me, you are dragging and are SO ready for things to be over. As a CI/ADI teacher, I hate this feeling, because I so want to continue giving understandable and engaging input to my students, but the reality is, I am TIRED and feel like I have nothing left to give.

This is why meaningful (note that word!) professional development is SO important for us as CI/ADI teachers, and recently I took part in two PDs, one online and one in-person. I attended the first evening's slate of sessions for Voces Digital's digital Spring into Reading conference, and then later that weekend I attended the Central States Conference on Teaching Foreign Language (CSCTFL). Both of these could not have come at a better time for me!!

I was only able to attend the first evening of the Voces Digital online conference, but there were some really good speakers that evening. Below are the videos from that evening:

•  "Free Voluntary Reading: Free to Read but Still Accountable?" by Margarita Perez Garcia
• "Engaging Students with Reading" by Eric Richards
• "Zero Prep Reading for True Beginners" by Mike Peto

All of the presentations were great! Although I had never seen Mike Peto present before, I had always heard great things about him - he did not disappoint!

Later that weekend, I attended my first Central States conference in Kansas City. This conference is nicknamed "The Friendly Conference," and indeed it was - much like my experience at Comprehensible Iowa last summer, Midwesterners indeed are friendly and hospitable! I had always heard that Central States always had a good slate of CI/ADI presentations, and indeed - it seemed like each session time had a CI/ADI presentation, and I did my best to attend as many as I could. Shout out to Mira Canion, Caitlyn McKinney, Valentina Correa, Carrie Toth, Jeremy Jordan, and Eric Richards for their sessions - you gave me so much to think about and to use in my curriculum. Mostly what I enjoyed was catching up/hanging out with other CI/ADI folks - people whom I primarily only see at conferences but we share such a deep mutual respect for each other. I needed definitely needed to be with folks all of whom we were on the same page pedagogically with CI/ADI. If you have the chance next year, attend Central States! I am seriously considering now submitting a proposal for next year's conference in Chicago.

Are you in need of some CI/ADI professional development? Check out my post on CI/ADI offerings for 2025, and get your cup refilled!

Hard Words Podcast - A Blog Post by Eric Richards

I am not one who listens to podcasts. Unless it is a podcast about the Brady Bunch or The Facts of Life, I probably will not listen to it (I am being 100% honest). HOWEVER, recently on his blog, Eric Richards wrote up a post about the podcast "Hard Words: Why aren't kids being taught to read?" Published in 2018 and produced by educational reporter/journalist Emily Hanford, this audio documentary details and questions the "whole language/cueing system approach" for teaching students how to read (instead of a phonics approach). As I said, I normally do not listen to educational podcasts, but THIS PODCAST WAS EYE-OPENING to me! I had heard of this particular reading method, but I had NO IDEA what it entailed or that it was not based on any scientific research. Yet, over these years I have noticed a decline in students' reading ability and literacy - I just chalked it up to students not reading as much, COVID years, etc. Now I was learning essentially it was due to how students were being taught to read. 

Due to such an overwhelming public reaction to her radio documentary. Hanford followed up with a podcast series called "Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong," and I have voraciously binge-listened to this over and over again in the past two weeks. Recently I asked my high school Language Arts colleagues about what they have witnessed over these years regarding student reading abilities, and many of them said the same thing: Many students today possess a false literacy. A large number are not actually reading the words at all but are just either good/bad guessers.

With Eric's permission, I am reprinting his blog post here, because not only do I think that it is that good, but he asks SO MANY good questions about how all of this applies to the world language classroom. 

I invite you to listen to the podcast "Hard Words: Why aren't kids being taught to read?" - Eric posts a link to it on his blog. Then I ask you to continue with the podcast series "Sold a Story," because it goes into much more depth. I feel a bit of a connection to the information presented in "Sold a Story," because my district Gwinnett County Public Schools (GCPS) is mentioned in Episode 5 as one of biggest customers of the Heinemann publishing company (we are the 11th largest district in the nation), and Missy Purcell, a former balanced literacy trainer who became disillusioned with the cueing system of reading due to seeing it not addressing her own son's dyslexia and reading problems and is now a leading advocate against Reading Recovery, was a former teacher in GCPS. My district has now dropped the Reading Recovery program and has embraced the science of reading curriculum. 

I am not naïve or trying to oversimplify the solution that the teaching of phonics will solve student literacy or that we should spend all of our time on phonics instruction. We know that poverty plays a HUGE role in literacy. Yet, these reading issues were showing up just as much in upper-class, white districts, but students were able to afford to pay for reading tutors who then explicitly taught phonics to address their deficiencies (Listen to episodes 11, 12, and 13 about Steubenville and how the Success for All program transformed this high poverty district's entire school environment into becoming one of the top-scoring reading programs in Ohio). As schools, we also need to greatly increase students' background knowledge of words so that their brains can make mental connections with words which they read and to give them plenty of level-appropriate, compelling material to read at an early age. However, we need to realize that we are not giving most students a chance if they cannot read words first.

Below is Eric's original post - if you have any comments related to Eric's post below, please post on his blog so that he can respond:

Hard Words: Why aren’t kids being taught to read? – A Podcast

I wanted to share one of the more impactful podcasts that I listened to recently: “Hard Words: Why aren’t kids being taught to read?”

The podcast can be found on many podcast platforms, including: Apple, Spotify and many more; simply do a search wherever you listen to podcasts and you’ll most likely find it.

Here is the link to the website, which includes the transcript, graphs, and pictures:
“Hard Words: Why aren’t kids being taught to read?”

Although the podcast does not directly address L2 language acquisition and reading, I feel that it has implications for world language education.

Here are some takeaways from the podcast, which ultimately highlights how ineffective reading instruction (in the L1) affects student literacy in the U.S.

• Many American schools use ineffective reading instruction that hinders literacy development.
• According to decades of research, phonics-based instruction is crucial for teaching reading.
• Popular cueing systems, which encourage guessing words, lack scientific backing.
• Explicit teaching of sound-letter relationships is needed, because reading is not a natural process.
• Teacher preparation programs often neglect evidence-based reading strategies.
• Resistance to phonics stems from entrenched beliefs in the educational system & insufficient training.
• Scientific approaches benefit both native and additional language learners.
• Efforts are growing to realign reading instruction with cognitive science findings.

As I stated earlier, this was an impactful podcast for me. Not only because I see the reading struggles in my own classroom, but also because I want to know what the implications are for world language education.

In short, I have questions:

• What are the overall implications for world language education, especially reading and acquisition?
• If students struggle to read in their L1, how does it (specifically) affect their L2 literacy and acquisition?
• Will reading in their L2 help with literacy in their L1?
• Important: If reading is not an innate skill and explicit teaching of sound-letter connections is necessary, does this imply that we also need to explicitly teach reading/phonics in the L2?
• What implications does this have for FVR/SSR? If students struggle to read in their L1, what are they getting out of FVR/SSR?
• How does this information change/shape future world language teacher preparation and training?
  • Will there be resistance to any changes?

I had the chance to bounce some of my questions off language educators. (Our conversations have been great!) Now I would like to invite you to listen to the podcast and share your thoughts!

Please share any thoughts, feelings, experiences, and/or expertise that you have relating to this and world language education!

And if you can help answer any of my questions, it would be much appreciated!

I look forward to the conversation!

Interpretive Reading Comprehension Rubric

Recently in my Latin 1 classes, I gave them a sight reading comprehension assessment and graded it using a proficiency-based rubric created by Martina Bex and the Comprehensible Classroom. Because Martina's interpretive rubrics are on TPT(they are free!), I will only post a link here to her blog page which discusses how she uses them - her blog post has the actual link to that TPT page. 

I already have a blog post from a few years ago written about my experience doing a sight reading comprehension assessment, so I will share that here. However, let me sum up/recap what I did and the whys:

I gave students a short level-appropriate passage which they had never seen before but primarily used vocabulary which we had been targeting. This way then the reading was at least already 95% comprehensible (that is key!). Also, the sentence structures/patterns needed to reflect what they had seen - now was not the time to spring on them a different writing style since that was not what I was assessing! I only used a few words which needed to be glossed and did not overdo it (if a passage has too many glossed words, then it is not really readable/comprehensible since that disrupts reading flow). Why did I create a sight passage?

• It needed to be a sight passage of primarily known vocabulary, because this way I could tell if they had acquired these target words and could understand them in a new context.
• It also needed to be a sight passage of primarily known vocabulary in order to assess their reading comprehension skills. If I were to use an already-seen/known passage, that would not give me a true understanding of their proficiency, i.e., many students could fake their proficiency skills, because they already knew the passage ahead of time and could just answer from memory without ever reading the passage on the assessment.

For the record, I had ChatGPT create a framework of a story using the prompt, "Create a short story in 4th grade Latin using the words ___________________________. Repeat these words as much as possible. Do you understand?" Once ChatGPT created the story, I heavily edited it to fit my needs.

The rubric does address various depth of knowledge (DOK) reading comprehension questions, such as basic information, finer details about the plot, and inferring about the conclusion. As a result, the sight passage needed to have a basic plot but with underlying details to address, and a conclusion where an inference could be made about characters' motivation, choices, etc. All of the questions and answers were in English (see Martina Bex's blog post why reading comprehension should be addressed in English). 

I hope you will consider creating a sight-reading assessment and using the proficiency-based interpretive rubrics by Martina Bex!

Translation Rubric

Last week, I posted about using a proficiency-based rubric to grade student writing. Following that, a Latin teacher contacted me, asking if I had a proficiency-based rubric to grade student translation into L1 (English). The answer is, "Yes, I do, but..."

The question which was asked is a rather, complex one because of the terms "proficiency-based" and "translation." In many ways, the two terms are polar opposite. When we Latin teachers use the term "translation," we are grading for "accuracy" - did the student translate this word correctly and its form correctly, translate the verb tense correctly, indicate singular vs. plural, translate the participle/ablative absolute correctly, translate the sequence of tenses properly in light of the sentence, etc. From there, we mark off/deduct points - this is "performance" grading. Performance grading is quantifiable and reflects student performance in terms what they did not do correctly.

As stated in my previous post, proficiency-based grading is the opposite: 

This type of grading is not based on performance, which is the traditional "marking errors and deducting points," but rather on proficiency, i.e., what is it that students can do and what skills are they exhibiting in their language learning process? Language learning proficiency-based grading is holistic in nature and implements rubrics which are aligned with the ACTFL proficiency guidelines.

This now bring me to the other issue at hand: translation of L2 into L1 is not considered an ACTFL proficiency skill, and I fully agree with this. If you look at Bloom's Taxonomy, translation is listed as a very low-level skill, because in translating something from L2 into L1, all which a person is doing is establishing meaning. While translating may involve some degree of higher level thinking, no new meaning is created other than now the artifact exists in that person's L1. In a traditional Latin class, once the text has been translated from Latin into English, further higher-level discussion takes place in English.

So returning back to my original point - I have created a rubric for grading student translation. Translation is A skill which I teach, but it is not THE skill which I teach in my Latin classes, i.e., I also am focusing on listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills of the Latin language. Also, it is not based on ACTFL proficiency levels (Novice Low, Mid, etc), because these proficiency levels do not exist for translation. Rather, I have created a general "proficiency-inspired" translation rubric which can be used regardless of the level. 

Observations:

1. I love the holistic nature of the grading, because again, it shows me what students can do and not what they cannot.
2. Because I am already expecting there to be some grammar/translation errors due to their language level, that is not my true focus.

Caveats:

1. The key words are "instructional level" - I will simply say here that I believe that Latin needs to seriously realign what is considered to be "at instructional level" with what is actually realistic in terms of language acquisition. In upper level Latin courses, we are asking students to translate Superior-level Latin just after 2.5/3 years of the language.
2. This rubric could be applied for upper level classical readings or AP Latin, but I also would express caution. In my previous days of teaching AP Latin, I have found that most students will just memorize the English translation of a classical text and "spit it back" for a translation assessment. Essentially, the assessment becomes more about their memorization skills than translation abilities.

So if you are wanting to assess translation according to a rubric, consider using this but also understand that proficiency-based instruction (and not performance-based) is informing it.

Proficiency-Based Grading - Writing Rubric level 1

For the past few years, I have been serving as a coach for Acquisition Boot Camp (ABC), the online CI/ADI course presented by The Comprehensible Classroom and led by Martina Bex and Elicia Cardenas. This online course is an absolutely wonderful class for those new to CI/ADI, as well as a great refresher for those who are experienced! Even as a coach, I feel like I am learning (and relearning/deepening my understanding) about the basics of CI/ADI.

One of the week's modules of lessons addresses assessments/grading and how to implement standards-based grading using the ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Although I was familiar with the ACTFL standards and what they represented in terms of the language acquisition process, I had never thought of aligning them for grading purposes. As I learned more about this, it made all the more sense to use them! 

Although the ACTFL proficiency standards are not based on "levels" (such as Spanish 1, Spanish 2, etc), they can be applied to what target proficiency markers students should be demonstrating at which level:

• Level 1 - Novice Mid
• Level 2 - Novice High
• Level 3 - Intermediate Low
• Level 4 - Intermediate Low  (yes, level 4 target is still intermediate low, since the intermediate level is so "messy")

One of the biggest shifts for me has been that this type of grading is not based on performance, which is the traditional "marking errors and deducting points," but rather on proficiency, i.e., what is it that students can do and what skills are they exhibiting in their language learning process? Language learning proficiency-based grading is holistic in nature and implements rubrics which are aligned with the ACTFL proficiency guidelines.

Already I am hearing some of you say, "But students need to know their correct endings, how to spell words correctly, say/write/translate things perfectly, etc.." Yes, I completely agree with you, BUT the accuracy component comes so much later in the language acquisition process with continued input. Essentially when we are expecting correct grammar from beginning language learners, we are wanting native-like language from novice learners right away! The accuracy component will eventually kick in - not just immediately! (see reference to my blog post on the theory of ordered development). As language teachers, we have based our idea of language learning on textbooks and our own experiences, which are centered on the notion that language learning is linear in nature, when in reality it is NOT! This is why World Language is unlike any other subject area.

So in researching the use of rubrics for proficiency-based language learning, I found so many good resources:

• Martina Bex
• Scott Benedict
• Carrie Toth/Kristy Placido - CI Diaries podcast

Recently I had my Latin 1 students do their first timed write (before, I had been doing guided writings with them). In many ways, this was not a true proficiency based writing since it was a retelling of a clip chat which had been doing the past few days, and they had a lot of support for the writing (pictures, possible questions to answer about the pictures, practice doing a few pictures the day before), but it was their first time writing for 10 minutes on their own. For this, I implemented the following rubric. This rubric is a consolidation of so many other teachers whom I greatly respect, so any praise goes to them and any blame goes to me!  NOTE - since the expectation is that students will be around the Novice Mid level, that is an 85. If they demonstrate Novice High in their writing, then that is a 100.

NOTE - this is a level 1 writing rubric. Since the target for level 2 is Novice High, the exemplars listed for Novice High here (the "above instruction level" here) would be shifted to "at instruction level" on a level 2 rubric.

Observations

1. Oh my gosh, the rubric made grading SO MUCH easier and quicker. While I was still using my shorthand for "errors" (still a difficult habit for me to break!), after reading the students' writings, I knew exactly where they fell on the proficiency scale in terms of what skills they were communicating. Because I was anticipating errors to begin with, I was only looking to see if the errors impeded comprehension for me, a "sympathetic reader accustomed to non-native language communication" (an ACTFL term) and to what degree those errors did.
2. The majority of students scored 85s and 100s, showing me that for this timed write, they were demonstrating Novice Mid and Novice High writing (again, this timed write was just spitting back to me a retelling of a clip chat, so not a true free write), i.e. exactly where they should be.
3. I did have a number of students score 70's (Novice Low) and 50's (emerging). These students have been chronically absent and have not been here for much of the semester. In other words, their grade did correctly reflect their level of proficiency.
4. Remember that this rubric is based on proficiency, hence there are no grammar mastery indicators, such as "exhibits proper use of the dative case," etc.
5. I have used the picture below in many of my blog posts, but it accurately represents how we should be viewing student communication in the target language:

So if you are have not considered doing proficiency based grading aligned with the ACTFL standards, I encourage you to look into it. It will give you a much more honest, realistic view of language learning expectations.

2025 CI/ADI Conferences

Yes, I know that it is January, but it is never too early to begin considering attending a CI/ADI Conference or training whether it be in person or online.

• Mitten CI (in-person) - April 4-5 in Saline, Michigan
• Comprehensible Iowa (in person) - June 13-14 in Des Moines, Iowa (I will be there!)
• Teaching and Assessing for Acquisition (in person) - June 14-15 in Chicago(ish), IL
• CI Reboot (online) - July 7-10, 2025
• Conference in the Clouds (online) - July 14-17
• CI Summit (in person) - July 21-23 in Norman, Oklahoma (I will be there!)
• Agen Workshop (in-person - France) - July 21-26
• TCI Maine (in person) - October 16-17, 2025 in Lewiston, Maine

Did I miss any? Let me know in the comments. Hope that you will consider attending one!

Purposeful Communication through Pets

I have been back in school for a 1.5 weeks now (even throw in a snow day here in Atlanta!). Since it is the beginning of a new semester, with my Latin 1 students, I want to focus this semester on readings involving animals. I also really wanted to get back into being purposefully communicative with them (I feel like I began to slack off last semester). 

Remember that in purposeful communication, our goals are to learn about ourselves, each other, and the world around us. These goals are what guided this multi-day activity.

Anne Marie Chase (Senora Chase) has a great lesson about Picture Talks/PQAs involving students and their pets, along with a Google Slide in different languages which you can download. I implemented this and then extended it into purposeful communication.

Day 1

• Assignment - students filled out the Latin Google Slide as an assignment on Google Classroom. Each student was assigned just one slide to fill out, instead of a class slide which everyone filled out.

Days 2, 3, and 4

• I picked slides to project and did a few Picture Talks with students about their pet(s). The slide has all of the language/established meaning there on it. I only spent out 10 minutes/day on this.
• A way to extend the activity and to bring up past knowledge is to ask students about earlier slides from days past: "Who has a cat named Mr. Whiskers?" "Who wants a small lion?" etc.

Day 4 

• This is something which I learned from Bill Van Patten and then saw demonstrated again at this past ACTFL. After the last round of Picture Talks on Day 4, I then projected the following slide (CFA is the Latin abbreviation for the United States of America - Civitates Foederatae Americae):

• Using the chart, I began asking in Latin: "In America, what animals do most Americans have? In America, what animals do fewest Americans have?" From there, I began asking individual students in Latin, "Do you have a fish? Do you have a reptile?” to see if their pet reflected the chart.
• I then asked students to raise their hands when asked in Latin “Who has a dog?” “Who has a cat?” Draw attention that the class most likely reflects America in respect to pets: “Most students also have a dog. Fewest students have a bird or reptile." This took about 10 minutes.

Observations

1. Students actually want to talk about their pets, so a personalized Picture Talk is a great way for students to learn about each other.
2. It is a very easy, comprehensible activity to do with level 1 students.
3. If possible, consider creating a slide of your own and talking about your pet(s) you have or want. I do not have a pet but I am 100% a dog guy! Let students learn about you!
4. Extending this communication to learning about the world around them and then comparing it to students' own lives is not that difficult and is rather a natural extension.

Give this a try - thanks, Anne Marie!