Purposeful Communication with Movement: A Collaborative Blog Post with Eric Richards

This is a continuation in my series on purposeful communication.

This is my first of what I hope are many collaborative posts with Eric Richards. I first met Eric at the 2023 CI Summit in Savannah. Both of us were assigned to serve as team members/trainers for the same cohort (woohoo - go Cohort 2 with Gary DiBianca and Andrea Schweitzer!). Although I had never formally met Eric before, I did know of his name (and that he was an ACTFL Teacher of the Year Finalist for 2021!) and had seen him present digitally at the 2023 Voces Digital Spring Conference - I was very impressed with both his presentation and very comfortable online demeanor and delivery. When Eric and I were on the same team, we hit it off, and since he teaches German and I am a Latin teacher, we were the ones tasked with doing the cohort L2 demonstrations since the majority of teachers in the cohort were Spanish and French teachers. I always learn so much about CI/ADI pedagogy from taking part in/observing L2 demos where I do not know that language, so I was able to see Eric daily demo PQAs in German (and a later presentation on writing) - all of Eric's demos/presentations were so good that I have now "Latinized" his first week PQA lessons for my own classes!

Anyhow, Eric recently wrote up a post on his own blog about his reflections on my presentation on purposeful communication at Comprehensible Iowa this past summer (read his post - it is a good one!). He had also emailed me about how he implemented a purposeful communicative activity involving movement with his classes similar to my pizza topping bellringer, which in turn motivated me to facilitate one based on his list of PQA questions. 

As a result, I asked Eric to write up his experience for this blog, and in turn, I would then add my own activity inspired by this. I hope that you will enjoy and learn from our posts here!

Eric Richards - Four Squares for more Purposeful Communication 

This school year, I’ve been considering the role of communication in the classroom, how I deliver content, and how I engage with my students. As I gave thought to this, I realized that I need to adjust the way I communicate and how I approach some activities in class. I need to be more purposeful in my communication and engagement with my students.

That is, I need to communicate (more) in a way that allows me and my students to:

• learn about each other and ourselves (build our relationships through language)

• learn about the world around us (learning information)

• entertain/create with language in fun, engaging ways (language play)

But why?

According to Bill Van Patten, “Language use without purpose is not communication.” That is, we may be using the language, but without purpose, communication may not be happening – and I definitely want communication to happen in my classroom!

(Let’s fast forward a bit.)

As I adjusted lesson plans for this school year to better meet my goals, I started thinking about if there was a way to get a little extra “bang for your buck” with the activities. After a bit of reflection, it hit me – incorporate more movement with the activities!

But, before we move on, let’s quickly review a few reasons why movement in the classroom is beneficial (for both students and teachers):

• Increased Focus and Attention: Short movement breaks or incorporating physical activity helps students refresh their minds, improving focus and concentration.

• Enhanced Learning and Memory: Movement activates multiple areas of the brain, which enhances learning, memory retention, and cognitive function. 

• Improved Behavior and Reduced Disruptions: Regular movement opportunities help reduce restlessness and behavioral issues. (Plus, it supports kinesthetic learning.)

• Increased Engagement and Enjoyment: Incorporating movement makes learning more engaging, which can help increase student interest.

So, with that in mind, I began incorporating movement into my lessons. Note: I kept it simple! I was not about to reinvent the wheel, and I sure was not going to throw all my lessons out and start over! As they say, “Ain’t nobody got time for that!”

Here is what I did: 

I made a quadrant in the middle of the room. (I have a deskless classroom, but you can simply label 4 corners/areas in your classroom to substitute the quadrant, if you don’t have space.)

That’s it!

Then, I started incorporating movement into activities that helped me achieve more purposeful communication. Note: I sometimes incorporate movement activities at the beginning of class and sometimes at the middle or end. It just depends.

Also, did I mention that I kept it simple?

Here are some examples of the activities:

I use this one the second day of German I. We are focusing on (very) good / (very) bad.

• This is another activity from the first week of German I. Once they are comfortable the structure, e.g., “Can you play ____?”, you can incorporate a new vocabulary word (using both text and pictures):

• Again, don’t reinvent the wheel! Use what you have and simply build on it! In this example, I simply added “good (well)” to an already familiar structure. It allows you to build in new vocabulary while also changing the “feel” of the question.

Here is another example of how you can level an activity. In this pizza topping activity, which I stole from Keith Toda, I had them sort the toppings on their note sheets (paper) according to how each student liked – or disliked – a topping. Then, they got up and moved accordingly (in the quadrant - good or bad -) as we had a discussion. Again, I repeat, don’t reinvent the wheel! Take what you have and level it up and down where you can!

As this was in German II, I led the discussion and questions at a more appropriate level. Obviously, they know “good” and “bad”, so I incorporated vocabulary like "majority" and "minority", e.g. After they moved, I would say, "Oh. The majority of the class likes pepperoni on their pizza." This scenario also gives you the chance to level up and introduce a structure like, “Would you eat ….”, e.g., “Would you eat a pizza with broccoli on it?” Or, introduce a relative clause like, "Would you eat a pizza that had broccoli on it?"

Not only did this provide a chance for oral input - because they had to listen to which topping I said and what questions I asked – it also gave the chance for students to respond and answer ‘why’, e.g., “I don’t like onions. They taste bad.”

Observations

1. This is a simple, effective, and well-received activity. The students enjoy it, and they appreciate the opportunity to get up and move around. In fact, when we do different activities that don’t involve movement, they ask if they can get up and do something similar. (And when I say ‘no’, I see plenty of frowns.)

2. Also, using a quadrant for movement is simple to incorporate into existing activities; in other words, it is low prep! It can easily be used to implement question and answer responses. Plus, you can adjust the level of the questions to fit the appropriate level of target language. That means, you can use the same activity for different levels! 

3. In addition, incorporating four squares and movement into your lesson gives students the chance to learn about others and use the language in an enjoyable, engaging way – both non-verbally and verbally. In other words, they are (literally) moving with purposeful communication.

Lastly, I will give you a couple of things to consider. Students will sometimes move to quadrants where their friends are, even if it isn’t their true answer. This can lead to side chatter (not in the target language) between peers and cause distractions. It also can bring about a lack of attention to the oral input that you are giving (in the target language). To help with this, you need to model the activity. You need to work with students and set expectations from the beginning – and stick to them! Don’t forget to explain to them that you are trying to make this enjoyable and effective for everyone!

Tip: It is okay to make them sit back down and get back up and do the same activity again until they meet expectations. 

Also, some students can be hesitant to get up and move. They are sometimes tired, “not in the mood”, etc. In this case, you’ll need to decide if you want to encourage them to participate or let them sit this one out. You just need to find the balance that works for you (while also not abandoning your expectations!)

I hope this helps get things “moving” in the classroom! Please let us know how it goes in the comments below!

Keith Toda - Moving Purposefully with Four Corners PQAs

When Eric had contacted me about how he was using movement with PQAs, especially with the pizza topping bellringer, I had never thought about connecting PQAs and purposeful communication with movement. However, I thought that this was a great idea! My PQAs were definitely getting rather stale (both teacher and student were hitting a wall when it came to academic motivation), so I decided to try out asking PQAs as a Four Corners activity.

At the time in my Latin 2 classes, I had just given a purposefully communucative, cultural lesson in Latin about popinas (restaurants), so the next day, I decided to ask students a series of questions related to fast food restaurants in a "Four Corners" kind of way (where student would respond by moving to that corner of the room which corresponded to their answer). Each corner of the room was numbered accordingly, and I projected the first slide. 

After students moved to their corners, I would then ask invidual students opinion questions:  "tua sententia, estne Carlos rectus? Taco Bellne optimum cibum Mexicanum habet?" After asking this a few times about different students, I then revealed my pick: "mea sententia, Chipotle optimum cibum Mexicanum habet." Then I proceeded to the next question and repeated the process.

Observations

1. I love these kinds of PQAs, because EVERY student has an opinion about fast food! I loved it that students would "argue" with each other and with me about which fast food restaurants had the best food!

2. Students really wanted to hear my opinion on which fast food restaurant had the best X - maybe they wanted to learn about me, or maybe they wanted adult validation for their answers!

3. I loved it when a particular corner would just have 1-2 students - I am glad that they felt safe enough to "voice" their opinion even if "unpopular." They were usually the ones whom I would ask the follow up opinion questions.

4. Because this involved every student moving, students got to see others' responses (which is different from a traditional PQA where I may ask individual students or ask for a show of hands). 

5. This activity definitely shows that purposeful communication does not always have to be verbal - we can still learn about ourselves and each other non-verbally. 

6. As a teacher, I learned a lot about my students, even if it was just about their favorite fast food restaurants!

7. This activity lasted about 10 minutes.

***************************************************************************************************************Anyhow, Eric and I would love to hear your experiences in the comment section - hope you can use these in your classrooms!

Is Circling/Asking Processing Questions Communicative?

This is a continuation in my series on purposeful communication.

So maybe you have been following my series about purposeful communication and are saying to yourself, "I implement Comprehensible Input (CI)/Acquisition Drive Instruction (ADI) in my classroom, so I am facilitating purposeful communication, right?" The answer is, "Well...it depends." CI/ADI in and of itself is not purposeful communication, nor is purposeful communication in and of itself CI/ADI. One can implement CI/ADI but not engage in purposeful communication, and one can facilitate purposeful communication but not implement CI/ADI.

What about circling/asking processing questions? Is that a form of purposeful communication? In circling/asking processing questions, am I not communicating with students?

As a backdrop, allow me again to quote Bill Van Patten's definition of communication and my previous explanation in an earlier blog post:

"Communication is the interpretation, expression, and/or negotiation of meaning for a purpose, in a given context." Based on that definition, Van Patten continues that our purpose should be that we wish to discover and learn information about each other, ourselves, and the world around us through communication, text, and input. In addition, in his book Van Patten adds that another purpose of communication is to entertain: "When we tell a joke or write a story...our purpose is to entertain in some way."

In his book, While We're On the Topic: BVP on Language, Acquisition, and Classroom Practice, Van Patten discusses that when we ask students questions, there are two types: display and context-embedded. Asking display questions IS NOT the same thing as being communicative. Here are examples of display questions:

• Circling/asking processing questions - The purpose of this is not to learn anything new about someone or something. When circling/asking processing questions, one is purely verifying information which has been presented or the answer is obvious. This is NOT to say that circling/asking processing questions does not have its place in the classroom - Circling/asking processing questions helps determine comprehension while also allowing for more exposure to targeted vocabulary, but in and of itself, circling/asking processing questions is not being communicative. 

• Asking questions for which one already knows the answer  - if I ask a student what color something is for which we can already see or know the answer, the very fact that it is obvious (such as the color of somebody's shirt, the color of something in a picture, the color of the sky), again asking that question is solely to verify information. As a class, we are not learning anything new about ourselves, each other, or the world. 

While display questions do have their place in a classroom, in general they do NOT equate to being communicative. Van Patten refers to this type of questioning simply as a way to "practice the language:"

Display questions are designed to elicit a specific response in order to demonstrate that the responder understands something and can respond with the (one and only one) correct answer.

I love this Bill Van Patten quote: "Just because mouths are moving does not mean a classroom event is communicative."

However, the opposite type of questions is context-embedded questions, those which are "designed to get information about a topic." Any time when you are asking students a question where you yourself do not know the answer by nature is a truly communicative event, since as a result, that response is teaching us "about ourselves, each other, or the world." In addition, a question where you need student response and input to help "create and to entertain in the language" is a communicative question. Examples of these types of questions are Personalized Questions and Answers (PQAs), StoryAsking questions, One Word Image questions, and opinion questions. 

The skill then lies in knowing how to incorporate both display questions and context-embedded questions, since they are both necessary and important in their own ways for language acquisition and communication. Here are some ways which I am learning to do this (emphasis on "learning"):

• Circling/asking processing questions leading into a PQA - when circling/asking processing questions, can it seamlessly lead into a PQA? Example from a Clip Chat:
• "The woman is eating dinner. What is the woman eating? (dinner). Yes, the woman is eating dinner. Is the woman making dinner or eating dinner? (eating dinner). Carol, what did you eat for dinner yesterday? Manny, what did you eat for dinner?"

• Circling/asking processing questions leading into an opinion question - when circling/asking processing questions, can it seamlessly lead into an opinion question? Example from a Clip Chat (same scenario from above):

•  "The woman is eating dinner. What is the woman eating? (dinner). Yes, the woman is eating dinner. Is the woman making dinner or eating dinner? (eating dinner). Class, in your opinion, is it a good dinner? (NOTE - she is eating pasta). Carol, in your opinion, is pasta a good dinner? Carol, in your opinion, what is a good dinner? In my opinion, a good dinner is _________." 

• Circling/asking processing questions leading into a world fact of some kind - when circling/asking processing questions, can it seamlessly lead into a world fact which you can tie into the discussion? Example from a Clip Chat (same scenario from above):
• "The woman is eating dinner. What is the woman eating? (dinner). Yes, the woman is eating dinner. Is the woman making dinner or eating dinner? (eating dinner). 80% of the world have rice or beans for dinner. Therefore, class, 80% of you should have eaten rice or beans for dinner yesterday. How many of you ate rice or beans for dinner yesterday?"

Again, I am stil learning how to do this. What has your experience been in springboarding into communicative-type questions from circling/asking processing questions?

Teaching Culture in a Purposefully Communicative Manner

This is part of a series on purposeful communication.

This past summer, I had the wonderful experience of observing Skip Crosby teach a middle school Spanish language lab at the CI Summit in Philadelphia. I ALWAYS enjoy observing Skip, because he is a master CI/ADI teacher with middle school students, plus I know little-to-no Spanish, so I love how he makes the language comprehensible. However, more importantly, I got to see Skip present a cultural lesson on vitilla (a sport in the Dominican Republic which is similar to baseball to a degree) in the Spanish language - what I loved most about it (other than just learning about this sport which I had never heard about before, its cultural connection to life in the Dominican Republic, and its possible correlation to why the Dominican Republic has the second largest representation of players in the MLB after America) was that although it was presented in Spanish (and I know very little Spanish), it was 100% comprehensible to me!

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog post about my purposeful communicative goals for the school year. This goal was based on Bill Van Patten's definition of communication - here is my explanation of it from that earlier blog post:

"Communication is the interpretation, expression, and/or negotiation of meaning for a purpose, in a given context." Based on that definition, Van Patten continues that our purpose should be that we wish to discover and learn information about each other, ourselves, and the world around us through communication, text, and input. In addition, in his book Van Patten adds that another purpose of communication is to entertain: "When we tell a joke or write a story...our purpose is to entertain in some way."

In that same blog post where I listed ways in which I aim to embrace this in my classroom, I wrote: [here is how I will use purposeful communication] "to learn about the world around us: 

1. teaching cultural topics and other content in understandable target language through readings and presentations."

Therefore, as part of my effort to engage in more purposeful communication, I have indeed begun to teach cultural topics in understandable Latin.

HOWEVER, this is NOT as easy as it sounds though: Teaching a target-language-based presentation is still INPUT, and crafting a cultural presentation in the target language means that it still has to be 98%-100% comprehensible. So often, culture has very specific non-high-frequency words, which means that while I can gloss those particular cultural vocabulary words in the presentation, the remaining words must be known/acquired words and cognates. If there are more glossed words than actual known/acquired words, then the input is not comprehensible and can become overwhelming for students.

My goal for the actual presentation was just student understanding and demonstration of comprehension in English - VERY low level on Bloom's Taxonomy. If I were to want to have a further discussion or application in L2, that would require much more specialized output - I just wanted students to show me in L1 their understanding of that L2 communication. Because my goal was comprehension and understanding, to ask questions in L2 and for them to respond in L2 would not let me know what they initially understood.

In my Latin 2 Honors classes, we are starting Andrew Olimpi's novella Clodia. The first chapter takes place at a Roman dinner party, so I decided to do a short presentation about the Roman cena in Latin. There are a lot of cultural nuances surrounding the cena embedded in that chapter which one will not catch without this knowledge. First off, the Roman cena can be a BIG topic in English, and if my goal is being 98%-100% comprehensible in Latin, I big time needed to "shelter vocabulary" and create lots of exposure of cognates/known words to balance out any glossed words. Below is what I crafted (this is part 1 - the cena is a BIG topic):

NOTE - I know that recumbebant is the better word to use than reclinabant, but my goal was to be comprehensible, so I used the cognate instead.

I presented the above using Google Slides and had students answer the following questions in English during the presentation:

1. Explain the dining seating arrangement in a Roman cena and how it differs from a traditional Western meal seating.
2. Nine people could recline on couches in a Roman cena. Explain what happens if there were more than nine.
3. Explain how social rank could affect one’s seating and food offerings.
4. The triclinium was the most decorated room in a Roman house - explain what different things a Roman could see when dining in the triclinium.

Observations

1. I really like the idea of presenting cultural topics in Latin - this is a great example of purposeful communication! However, the key is that the presentation/reading must be 98%-100% comprehensible. I know that Oerberg presents cultural topics in Latin in his chapters, but many times, those readings are overly vocabulary-intensive and turns into a frustrating decoding activity.
2. If I want to get meaty with cultural topics, then I will have to use L1 for that due to complexity of language needed.
3. I am still learning how to teach culture in a purposeful communicative way, but I was very pleased with what I wrote. Again, my goal was to deliver a cultural topic in L2 using 98%-100% comprehensible language where students at the end could demonstrate understanding and comprehension of that L2 in English.
4. I did spend the next day having students interact with the presentation as a reading with some post-reading activities, but that was it. It was not necessary to spend more than a day on it as a reading, since the reading was quite comprehensible to them already.

I am going to continue to do this! My next cultural presentation will be on the Roman popina - wish me luck!

P.S. In the second week of school, I did a comprehensible Latin version of Skip's vitilla presentation, since the first week we had focused on PQAs involving sports. I do not know if my other Latin 2 colleagues understood why I did it or what vitilla had to do with Latin, but I LOVED that I was teaching students about the modern world IN THE LATIN LANGUAGE!

My Professional Learning Goal for the Year - Being Purposefully Communicative

I have been teaching students for over two weeks already, and I feel like I am back in the swing of things, i.e., I have accepted that my summer break is over and that this is my life now for the next ten months (haha). I am back to lesson planning, and honestly, I am very excited about my professional learning goal for this school year: being purposefully communicative.

I have written a few posts on this blog about purposeful communication, but I feel like this past summer, I had the chance to interact with this concept continuously and have gained a whole new and expanded perspective on the topic. Purposeful communication is based on Bill Van Patten's definition of communication (if you have ever heard him talk on this topic, this is the definition which he always gives). In this book, While We're On the Topic: BVP on Language, Acquisition, and Classroom Practice he writes: 

"Communication is the interpretation, expression, and/or negotiation of meaning for a purpose, in a given context." 

Based on that definition, Van Patten continues that our purpose should be that we wish to discover and learn information about each other, ourselves, and the world around us through communication, text, and input. In addition, in his book Van Patten adds that another purpose of communication is to entertain: "When we tell a joke or write a story...our purpose is to entertain in some way."

This summer at Comprehensible Iowa, I gave a presentation on this topic called "Communicating Purposefully," where I demonstrated many ways in which we can be purposefully communicative in our classroom activities. However, earlier in April, a Coaching Summit was held prior to Mitten CI, where the coaching/skills lab model was overhauled to reflect an emphasis on this topic. This summer at Acquisition Academy, Fluency Matters Conference, and CI Summit where I served as a coach/trainer, this new model was implemented in the each of the coaching/skills lab. As a result of facilitating and interacting with this new model in the coaching/skills labs, my understanding of purposeful communication was greatly deepened and expanded.

As language teachers, our goals should be to deliver and to engage in purposeful communication with our students. We need to be incredibly mindful though that purposeful communication does not necessarily equate to full immersion, because while I can create a full immersive environment in the target language, if it is not understandable, no matter how purposeful our intentions are, that communication is a waste of time and just noise to students. And in addition while I can be 100% comprehensible to students in the target language, I could be completely missing the mark if that communication is not purposeful in nature. Van Patten states, "Language use without purpose is not communication."

So based on the above definition of purposeful communication, here are ways in which I plan to address its various components in Latin (both spoken and in readings). In many ways, I was already implementing many of these, but they were random and never intentional in purpose. This will be my guide and lens in lesson planning for this school year:

• to learn about each other and ourselves: 

1. Personalized Questions and Answers (PQAs) 
2. polling students in the target language
3. connecting with students and their interests through questioning in the target language
4. completion of communicative tasks 
5. SEL partner reading (although this activity is not really done in the target language, it can still lead to learning about each other).

• to learn about the world around us: 

1. teaching cultural topics and other content in understandable target language through readings and presentations
2. purposefully embedding cultural topics and facts into circling.

• to entertain/create with language in fun, engaging ways: 

1. TPRS/StoryAsking
2. One Word Image
3. the use of rejoinders in class.

Now not every activity which I will implement in class is going to incorporate purposeful communication primarily due to the nature of the activity, but I can strive to "communicatify" existing activities:

• GimKit/Blooket - when using these for vocabulary review, instead of showing isolated words, put those words in their original context from a reading.
• Grudgeball/Word Chunk Game/Trashketball - before a student shoots a basket, ask class in the target language for their opinion if they think that the student will make the basket; teach students to use rejoinders as cheers during the game,
• BINGO - instead of playing the traditional vocabulary BINGO, facilitate a game of Quick Grid BINGO.
• Sex Game - instead of the traditional Sex Game, instead play Sex Game 2.0.

I am actually looking forward to lesson planning now that I have this goal in mind! What are some ways in which you plan to be deliver purposeful communication in your classroom?

Embedding a Textbook Dialogue - Example

When we engage in communication with our students, the goal should be that it be purposeful in nature. According to Bill Van Patten, "Communication is the interpretation, expression, and/or negotiation of meaning for a purpose, in a given context." How do textbook dialogues align with this definition of communication?

By nature, textbook dialogues are artificial, because no true purposeful communication is occurring. Yes, there appears to be an exchange of dialogue, but most likely, when we have students recite textbook dialogues, that is all it is: reciting. It is memorization and contrived communication. 

In addition, many textbook dialogues are set in environments outside of the classroom, which contributes to its artificiality. To quote something which I had written in an earlier post about purposeful communication:

[Purposeful] communication needs to occur in a realistic context and setting. Therefore, since we as teachers are communicating in a classroom, our communication needs to reflect what would occur in a classroom. The traditional textbook dialogues/role plays of "a trip to the doctor's office," "ordering a train ticket," and "maneuvering through the airport" are not truly communicative, because they are artificially set and delivered in a classroom context (and not in a doctor's office, train station, airport). If you wish to do those dialogues, then students need to be in those actual environments for these activities to have a true setting.

By no means does this mean that textbook dialogues are bad per se, but if you wish to align them with purposeful communication, then do the following: embed them into a reading, such as a story, diary entry, letter, etc. In doing so, now the textbook dialogues are in the realistic context of a classroom and can therefore be discussed in a classroom setting.

Below is an example of a reading which I created back in 2015 (before I even knew about purposeful communication) - it is translated from Latin into English. It incorporated greetings into a reading, and it was about two students of mine named Ian and Mustafa. I know that there is a similar Spanish version of this story out there, since Meredith White took my story and adapted it into Spanish: 

Ian sees a girl. The girl is beautiful. Ian loves the girl. Ian says, “O girl, hello. How are you? My name is Ian. What is your name?” The girl says, “Hello, Ian. I am fine. My name is Go Away! Goodbye!” Ian is sad.

Mustafa says, “What is her name?” Ian responds, “Her name is Go Away!”

Ian sees another girl. The girl is beautiful. Ian loves the girl. Ian says, “O girl, hello, my name is Ian.  What is your name?” The girl says, “Hello, Ian. I am very well.  My name is You are Annoying. Goodbye!” Ian is sad.

Mustafa says, "What is her name?” Ian responds, “Her name is You Are Annoying!”

Since these greetings were set in a reading, as a class we could discuss and review them in a classroom setting much beyond the traditional way of simply saying hello to students and asking what their names are and how they are doing.

Consider embedding textbook dialogues into readings to create purposeful communication!

Grudgeball

This is another communicative-based activity which I learned from Andrea Schweitzer this summer at IFLT. It is very much like the Word Chunk Game/Trashketball but with a twist. The setup itself is the same like the Word Chunk Game/Trashketball, but the difference is that in Grudgeball, students can give points to other teams points or most likely take them away!. Martina Bex has a great writeup here with directions, so I will not waste blog space here rehashing her directions. You will learn that this activity is called Grudgeball for a reason!

Like the Word Chunk Game/Trashketball, I love how Andrea "communicatified" this game. If a team answered the question correctly, I asked in Latin "________, who will lose points? Team #1, Team #2, Team #3..." If a team answered the question incorrectly, I asked in Latin, "_________, who will receive points? Team #1, Team #2, Team #3..." And much like Word Chunk Game/Trashketball, I asked the class in Latin before the student attempted to score, "Class, do you think that ______ will score?" Previously in Word Chunk Game/Trashketball where most students would respond "Minime (no)!!", however because in this game there was the taking away of points of another team depending on the basket, most students yelled out, "Certe (yes)!" because they wanted to get on the good side of the student so that the student would NOT take away any of their points. Like earlier, I was able to ask again in Latin, "______, who will lose the points? Team #1, Team #2, Team #3..." This gave me an excuse to say the team numbers again in Latin for repetition.

Observations

1. In terms of a lesson plan, this activity took place late in the scaffolding of a reading. By the time we had played Grudgeball, students were quite familiar with both the English and Latin for the story.
2. In her presentation, Andrea said that when we facilitate "communicatified" games like Trashketball, Grudgeball, and The Unfair Game, although we are asking students questions to answer, our focus actually should be on engaging students in communication - asking the class to predict if a student is going to make a basket in the target language and then interacting with those responses are a great way to begin!

Write and Discuss - the OG version!

This summer I attended IFLT (the first in-person IFLT since 2019), and I did not realize just how much I needed IFLT to "refill my cup"- I came away with a renewed spirit for the school year and so many new activities (specifically communicative-based) which I cannot wait to try out in my classes. I have already blogged about "communicatifying" existing activities, and now I want to add Write and Discuss - the OG version.

I attended a session called "Write and Discuss with Sprinkles" given by Caitlin McKinney, who addressed how to do a basic Write and Discuss and then gave many variations of it. In the session, we actually took part in the basic Write and Discuss and other variations in English as if we were students. Although I had already blogged about my experience with Write and Discuss, I did not have much knowledge or experience with the original way to do a Write and Discuss, and I learned that there are SO many different ways to do one (hence, the "sprinkles" which Caitlyn presented also). Therefore, I will call this blog post "Write and Discuss - the OG version" and call my previous blog post about the activity "Write and Discuss as PreWriting".

A Write and Discuss (OG version) is another way to review a reading/story, and it is done quite early in the scaffolding process of a reading. Following a story introduction (such as a movie talk, picture talk, TPRS story, etc), ask students to tell you corporately what happened in the story in the target language for the purpose of creating a class recap. You can ask students processing questions to guide students and to garner responses. As students give you responses, you will type out the sentence out on a projected document for the class so that they can see what you are writing (Caitlin used a Google Slide for this, and that works great, but I can also see using Google Docs or some type of document). As students recap what happened in the story and continue to contribute, you can also give students the option to add sentences of events or descriptions which happened prior in the story (filling in the gaps) or they can continue moving forward with the story. When you are finished, now you have a class-created document of the story which you can then review the next day with students as a warm up.

Last week, my colleague John Foulk and I did a Write and Discuss (OG version) for the first time. We did this activity with our Latin 3 classes immediately following a Movie Talk (Sand Castle) but because it was an upper level class, we added a new element. The movie talk itself took about 30 minutes, so immediately afterwards we projected the vocabulary from the movie talk and told students that they had five minutes to write in Latin what they could about the movie talk (which hopefully was fresh in their minds since we had just completed it). We then collected their writings and read over what they had written to get an idea of what students were communicating. Then the next day, we returned their writings and showed the movie short again (to rejog memories and for those students who were absent the day before). Following that, using a projected Google Slide, we began the Write and Discuss:

We then asked students or called upon student volunteers one at a time to give us a single sentence in order to construct what happened in the story based on what they had written the day before. The first student had it the easiest, because that student just had to tell the opening of the story. As students told us sentences (either filling in the gaps or moving forward with the story), we typed up the story, serving as grammar and spelling editors while typing it up but not changing the student messages themselves.

I loved this activity so much, because although each class came up with the basic recounting of the Movie Talk, each class also differed in what they corporately wrote up. Below are my three different Latin 3 classes with their versions of the story:

Observations

1. Oh my gosh, I love this! What a great way to recap a story and have students do it for you, with you serving as their guide.
2. I like that what I am dictating from students is being projected for students to see. 
3. I felt that this was another way for students both to interact with the passage in the target language and to receive more understandable repetitions of the language.
4. Because this was a Latin 3 class, students were comfortable writing in the language prior to the Write and Discuss. NOTE - lower levels may not feel so comfortable doing a prewriting before the activity, so use your teacher discretion. Prewriting is not a requirement of a Write and Discuss. When Caitlin demonstrated a Write and Discuss in her presentation, I felt successful as a "student" with her just asking us questions aloud to elicit responses. 
5. It was John's idea for students do a writing of the story for five minutes immediately after the movie talk and prior to the Write and Discuss. When we did the Write and Discuss, students actually had something to which to refer when giving suggestions for the next sentence to add. 
6. I was surprised at how many students actually volunteered to provide a sentence. Again, maybe because they had already written something, this lowered their affective filters in offering a sentence instead of having to create/remember a sentence on the spot in Latin or answer me asking processing questions.
7. Many students wanted to "fill in the gaps" with their own sentences between sentences which had already been provided - wow, I was impressed!
8. I was surprised by how many students used vocabulary beyond what was provided for them or created their own sentences which were not originally from the Movie Talk.

So consider doing a Write and Discuss with your students (you do not have to do the prewriting portion that John and I did - a Write and Discuss functions just as well without it), because it is another great way to conduct a post-reading, communicative-based activity.  

Communicatify!

Communicatify is my new word for this school year! I can take absolutely no credit for that word - I learned it a month ago at IFLT from Andrea Schweitzer, who was my fellow co-member of the Intermediate-Low Cohort coaching team (along with Amy Wopat and Gary DiBianca, our leader). Andrea presented this topic to our cohort, as well as gave this presentation for the general IFLT audience.  Andrea's main message in her presentation was that although we may have a giant toolbox of activities which we do with our students, how many of these are actually communicative in purpose? 

However, there is no need to re-invent the wheel with our activities, because all we need to do is to modify them so that they now lead to purposeful communication. Andrea taught us two "words" and their purposes: 

• Communicatify: Make changes to shift the overall purpose of the game to that of communication as the means to achieve the overall goal of the game
• Vehiclize: Use the game as a vehicle for creating contextualized communication with your students (sort of like picture talk or movie talk etc).

These two words definitely have resonated with me, as I strive to create a communicative-based classroom and to facilitate activities which are rooted in purposeful communication. Not an easy task, but I am taking steps (baby steps, shall I say?) toward those ends! 

Last week in my Latin 3 classes, I played the Word Chunk Game/Trashketball. To be honest, I have never been a huge fan of this activity, but I would play it probably once a semester to give students both a break and a novel way with which to interact with a reading. However, Andrea showed us how we could communicatify and vehiclize this activity. The activity itself is still the same, but we can shift the game towards purposeful communication when it comes to students "shooting a basket" by asking students in the target language to predict if they think that the student will "make the basket/score a point". That seems like such a small, uneventful modification, but wow, when I asked students in Latin, "Do you think [student] will score a point?", I got a ton of participation from students answering yes or no!! I was then able to play with that, asking students questions and teaching them rejoinders for "go" and "boo". Suddenly, students were invested in the game IN LATIN!! Suddenly the activity was not about reviewing the reading per se (which was the vehicle) but about engaging students in conversation and providing understandable input for them with which to interact and to respond.

Here is an example in Spanish of how Andrea has "communicatifized" Trashketball in her classes (start video around 12:59):

Observations

1. In her demonstration of Trashketball, Andrea has a 2-point, 4-point, and 6-point line from which students can attempt a basket (with two chances), so in Latin I was also able to ask the student who was about to shoot a basket, "How many points do you want to score? Do you want to score 2 points? Are you sure you want to score 2 points? Maybe you want to score 4 points?" Meanwhile students of their own accord began yelling out, "Six points" IN LATIN to the student! And if a student missed the first shot, I could say in Latin, "Do you still want to score 4 points? Maybe you want to score 2 points." But students on their own were still yelling "Six points" IN LATIN! And then I could restart the whole questioning again, "Do you think Student A will score X points?"
2. I made a change to my original Word Chunk Game based on Andrea's example. I will still pull out a student's name from a bag and ask them a question. However, now the team can pick one person to be its representative to shoot a basket. This makes the conversation more focused when I ask the class if they think Student A will score points, and most likely, the student who is attempting the shot is okay with being the center of attention.
3. Wow, such a small change to Word Chunk Game/Trashketball suddenly made this a communicative-based activity, because I was able to engage in conversations with students in a very understandable way and to continue giving them comprehensible input.

I now love the Word Chunk Game/Trashketball and cannot wait to play it again with students. Last week, after I had played this new "communicatifized" version of the game, I texted Andrea, Gary, and Amy about my experience and profusely thanked Andrea for showing us this!

The Sex Game 2.0

I am currently at IFLT at the moment, and literally 30 minutes ago, I had a conversation with one of my absolutely favorite people in the world, Annabelle Williamson! Annabelle teaches a Spanish language lab for elementary school students at IFLT, and I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE watching her with those students, because I learn so much from observing her (as well as some Spanish). Anyhow, I told her that I had stopped by her lab briefly to see what she was doing. She then asked, "Did you see [the students] play your Seis game? I do something different with it." (The Seis Game is the Sex Game in Spanish. Again, in Latin, the word "sex" means "six"!!!). Immediately that got my attention, and Annabelle then showed me what she does with the game - I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS IDEA, AND I AM NOW GOING TO DO IT THIS WAY!! I just had to blog about it immediately!!

So the set up of the game is still the same involving dice and a text. The rules themselves have not changed, i.e., students will roll a dice and if they roll a six, they begin writing. However, the difference now is in the worksheet given to students. The way I learned it was to give students sentences in the target language from a known/seen reading, and the goal was to translate the sentences into English as quickly as possible. Annabelle has turned the activity into a reading game instead of one based on translation - she has the story written out for students but now it consists of a cloze sentences with a word bank at the top! So now when students roll a six, they have to pick the missing word from the word bank to complete the sentence and will continue to do this with other sentences until another student rolls a six and relinquishes control of the pen/pencil. Annabelle said to me, "Now it is a reading activity, because students have to read the sentences to know what word is missing."

My example of a Sex Game 2.0 sheet (added 8/12/22)

I am loving this change to the Sex Game, because:

1. like Annabelle says, the focus for students is on reading and not on translation itself. Thus, Annabelle's modification has transformed this activity into one based on purposeful communication.
2. it keeps the activity in the target language.
3. due to the cloze sentence aspect, it requires some higher order thinking for students.
4. students are receiving repetitions of understandable messages in re-reading the sentences from the story.

So consider using the Sex Game 2.0 version with your students - there is nothing wrong with the original version, and I will still continue to use it. I would love to hear how version 2.0 goes with your students. Thanks, Annabelle!!