The Perils of "Rigor" - My View of "i+1"

The following is my own personal opinion and may not necessarily represent those of the CI/ADI community as a whole.

Often I hear the phrase "i+1" thrown around by teachers as a way to encourage rigor in a CI/ADI classroom (and if I am being honest, these teachers are usually CI/ADI dabblers/critics who feel that the implementation of CI in a world language classroom is dumbing down/watering down language learning since we do not "focus" on grammar, hence students really do not "know" the language). "i+1" refers to Krashen's principle in his Input Hypothesis: in order for learners to acquire language, they must be exposed to input which is both understandable and is slightly more advanced than their current level of language proficiency (hence the +1) to progress in their language acquisition process.

On paper, the concept of "i+1" sounds like a "no brainer," with the thinking "Of course, I want students to progress in their language proficiency, so they need to be challenged." However, I am going to recommend that we exercise caution with the concept of "i+1," because while I agree with it in principle, it is in its execution where I see problems and misusage. I see teachers blindly run with this as justification for adding "rigor" to their curriculum.

Allow me this excursus to refer to my elevator speech about language acquisition: 

1. Language learning is unlike any other subject area, because it is not linear in nature.
2. Because of this, learners do not acquire language on a prescribed timeline or at the same pace.
3. The language acquisition process is subconscious in nature.
4. When encountering L2, the brain on its own is constantly creating, making connections to, and revising its mental representation of that language.
1. That language which the brain understands, it keeps and then creates, adds to, and refines those existing mental connections.
2. That language which the brain does not understand, it throws out.
5. As a result, learners need to interact with/have constant exposure to understandable, meaningful, purposeful messages in L2 so that the brain can create/revise its mental representation of that language.

Therefore, based on the above, especially the concept that learners do not acquire language on a prescribed timeline or at the same pace, then it must follow that in any particular moment in a classroom, every learner's "i+1" is different and is distinct to that individual student. Because every student's mental representation of that language will differ at a particular moment in time, students cannot receive the identical "i+1" to progress in their language proficiency, since every student is at a different point on the continuum. What is one student's "i+1" is another student's "i+100," i.e., "i+1" cannot be a "one size fits all," "cookie cutter" application in the classroom. 

So the question then is how can we teachers supply students with "i+1" which is specific to their individual needs? I struggle big time with the concept and in its implementation. Here are some suggestions:

• Spiraling (with Recycling) - 
• Spiraling is an ACTFL term which I learned during OPI (Oral Proficiency Interview) training: the concept is that during an OPI, the interviewer will ask questions which will "sprial up" the proficiency levels until the interviewee plateaus at a specific step, and then the interviewer will "spiral back down" to the interviewee's comfort level and then "sprial up" again with possibly a new topic to determine if the interviewee can meet this new challenge. If not, "spiraling back down" will occur.
• In a CI/ADI classroom, the same concept can be applied. "Spiraling up" would be the "i+1," but the necessary component is the "spiraling back down" which allows for recycling/continued exposure of past material. In the "spiraling up" again a bit higher, recycling/continued exposure continues. The problem is that so often we never "spiral back down" and are only constantly "spiraling up". For the high-flying 4%er students, the summit of the "spirialing up" will be where they gain their  "i+1" needs, but for many students, the learning/acquisition of material will occur in those parts of the spirialing where recycling/continued exposure occurs, i.e., that is their "i+1". 
• Free Voluntary Reading (FVR) - Krashen himself is a HUGE advocate of free voluntary reading to develop and to further language acquisition in students. However, the key lies in providing students with readings of ALL levels and giving them the CHOICE to read what they want and to choose their "i+1". If the reading is too hard for them (or not compelling), then they can choose a new book to read which fits their current proficiency level or interest. In other words, students will self-select their own "i+1" needs. However, we can also facilitate FVR incorrectly and thereby defeat its purpose.  And it is perfectly okay if the reading is below their level of proficiency (read my blog post about the importance of "i-1" in FVR). Krashen states:

There is massive evidence that self-selected reading, or reading what you want to read, is responsible for most of our literacy development. Readers have better reading ability, know more vocabulary, write better, spell better, and have better control of complex grammatical constructions. 

• Student choice in input - When it comes to classroom work, in a perfect world, I would love to see students choosing both their level of "i+1" and how they best wish to experience, interact, and learn from input, such as graded/tiered readings and the use of technology (such as teacher-created websites, podcasts, videos, etc).  However, in reality as a teacher, I know that this would involve so much front-ending! Plus, I also know that if all of this were available for learners, students would take the path of least resistance, i.e., they are more concerned about ease than challenge, because to a large degree that is how I am! I will get back to you on this one when I figure this out.

And to be forthright, even Krashen himself has gone on record that he does not know what "i+1" looks like per se (one cannot point at something physical and say, "Yep, that is 'i+1'") since it is a nebulous concept and does not look the same for every learner at any point in time. This is not to say that "i+1" is not important to language acquisition - it is! It just cannot be quantified or manifested in the same tangible way for every student at the same time.

What are some ways in which you address "i+1" in your classroom?

The Necessity for i-1 in Reading

(Unbeknownst to either of us, Eric Richards has recently posted something very similiar on his blog about this topic - "Why Level-Appropriate Reading?" Take some to read it - very good and has research to back it up!)

If you are familiar with Krashen's theories related to Comprehensible Input, you should know the concept of "i+1 (input plus one)" - according to this hypothesis, Krashen states that while comprehensible and understandable input (i) is 100% necessary for language acqusistion, the "+1" represents the next level of understanding which is needed for a learner to progress in the language. Without oversimplifying this concept, our goal should then be to deliver messages and content which are completely comprehensible for students but also slightly (key word is slightly) challenge their current level of understanding in order for them to progress.

In this blog post, however, I am going to argue the absolute vital necessity for the opposite: i-1 (input MINUS one) when it comes to reading, especially Free Voluntary Reading (FVR).

Krashen is a HUGE advocate of reading and firmly believes that this is a major component  of language acquisition:

"Our reading ability, our ability to write in an acceptable writing style, our spelling ability, vocabulary knowledge, and our ability to handle complex syntax is the result of reading."

"The ability to speak is the result of listening [and] the result of reading." 

I have heard many CI/ADI teachers say that when we have students read L2, our goal for them should be that those messages translate into "moving pictures in their heads," i.e., that these messages should go beyond just words to them. While I am fully on board with this goal, I will also argue though that as novice language learners, our brains will automatically translate L2 messages into L1 (whether we like it or not), because our brains are trying to create mental representations of that L2. In order for our brains to transform L2 messages into "moving pictures in our heads," those messages then need to be BELOW our current level of reading proficiency so that these messages immediately "translate into images."

When novice language learners read messages in L2, numerous brain functions are occurring simultaneously:

• what does this individual word mean? (meaning)
• what does the form of the word tell me? (grammar and syntax)
• what do I do with this word? How do I put all of these words together to create overall meaning? (translation)

As a result, reading can be very overwhelming for novice language learners (and they may already struggle with reading in their L1) if too much is going on in their brains. When students encounter unknown vocabulary and forms, this can impede reading flow, because they are forced to stop to establish meaning. While some students are meta enough to persist in establishing meaning, most will not. 

When a reading is targeted at i-1, although the reading is targeted at a level below students' current reading proficiency, students are receiving repetitions and robust exposure to language with which they are already familiar, thus refnforcing the subconscious nature of the language acquisition process. When learners have constant robust exposure to vocabulary, the words can move from just being words to now "images in their heads." 

So when it comes to FVR (Free Voluntary Reading), although we want students to read for pleasure to reinforce language acquisition, the messages which they are reading need to be 100% understandable. In your own experiences, do you tend to read for pleasure messages which are above your current reading profciency? I would argue that most people do not. For the record, People Magazine is written at an 8th grade reading level.

Here is an example from my own experience. I HATE reading research articles; to me, these articles are written at a i+100 level!! If you want to torture me, forget waterboarding - force me to read academic articles! Whenever I read research articles, I can definitely tell you that there are NO MOVING PICTURES IN MY HEAD! Honestly, I am doing everything which I can to stay afloat in comprehension when it comes to reading scholarly material, because it is so above my reading proficiency level. To me, reading academic material is like translating one of Cicero's Latin speeches into English (Latin folks, you will understand that reference).

I would love to hear your take on "i-1 in reading" in the comments!