The Simple View of Reading and the CI/ADI Classroom

As you know from previous blog posts, topics about about which I can talk forever (besides CI/ADI instruction and theory) are Star Wars and the Brady Bunch. However, in the past 12 months, I have become a HUGE fan of the podcast series Sold a Story, which details the effect of teaching students to "read" (more like "to guess") using the faulty balanced literacy/three cueing approach and how educators have neglected the science of reading. As a result of this, I have been very interested in this one question: what role (if any) does structured literacy (an alternate name for the science of reading) play in second language acquisition if as Krashen states:

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.

In a previous blog post, The Necessity of Background Language Knowledge for Reading in the CI/ADI Classroom, I wrote about the need for background language knowledge in reading in the target language. I discussed Hoover and Gough's hypothesis which addresses the importance of both word recognition and language comprehension when reading:

If one can do both of those processes when reading, then reading comprehension occurs. But if one lacks one (or both) of these processes when encountering a word, then comprehension cannot take place.

Gough is also known for his Simple View of Reading hypothesis (which is essentially the same as the above hypothesis). Essentially, it entails the same concepts as above but uses the term decoding (instead of word recognition) and presents it as a math equation. With Tumner (1986), Gough's Simple View of Reading is:

Decoding (D) x Language Comprehension (LC) = Reading Comprehension (RC)

In a nutshell, both skills are needed when reading. If a student is able to decode words (i.e., translate written words into spoken language through the mapping of sounds which those letters represent), the decoding score is 1.0. However, if the student does not know what those words mean, the language comprehension score is a 0. Therefore, 1 x 0 = 0, and no reading comprehension has occurred.

The inverse is true too. If a student possesses a huge background knowledge of language (primarily gained through listening), the language comprehension score is 1.0, but if the student cannot decode the word itself when reading, the decoding score is a 0. Therefore, 0 x 1.0 = 0, and no reading comprehension has occurred.

Notice that the reading comprehension score is NOT an average but a product. According to the Reading Rockets webpage, "When one variable is strong, [reading comprehension] will be equal to the weaker variable."

• 1.0 (D) x 0.5 (LC) = 0.5 (RC)   

In addition, "When BOTH decoding and language comprehension are less than strong, reading comprehension will be lower than either decoding or language comprehension."

• 0.5 (D) x 0.5 (LC) = 0.25 (RC)

Here is a video which does a great job of explaining the Simple View of Reading:

So What?

Whether or not you agree with the science of reading and structured literacy, you cannot deny that when students experience difficulty in reading comprehension of the target language, we usually chalk it up to a lack of language understanding, whether it be vocabulary or structures. I have already discussed this in The Necessity of Background Language Knowledge for Reading in the CI/ADI Classroom.

However, how much does decoding play a part in our students' struggle to read? What if their reading issues are with decoding target language words and not with language comprehension itself ? I think that we as world language teachers immediately project our students' current English reading level onto their target language reading level and assume that it is a 1:1. In reality, it is not. We must remember that our students are novice-level learners in the target language (babies/toddlers, if you will, in terms of their target language development). Therefore when students are learning to read the target language, their brains immediately and subconsciously will flip to their native language decoding system (assuming that they know how to read in their native language) and apply this pronunciation system to the target language. 

For example, it is difficult for me to read French, because I do not know the French system of pronunciation, letter sounds, vowel sounds, etc. So to me, the French which I know from hearing looks nothing like the French which I see when written - I cannot decode French when I read it. Hence, my reading comprehension score of reading French words which I know solely from hearing would be a 0, because my decoding score is a 0. When I read French, my first instinct is to apply English pronunciation rules to it. Even if I were to apply Latin pronunciation to French, it is incorrect. For example, the French word for bird is pronounced "wuh-ZOH." If I were to hear that word, I know for sure that it means "bird." Yet, in French it is spelled oiseau - to me, that word is pronounced "OY-sue." I have no idea why those letters and vowels when put together make a "wuh-ZOH" sound, because I do not know the French system of phonemes. Therefore, I certainly would not recognize the word when reading/decoding it.

Now I am not saying that we as World Language teachers need to do full-on target language phonics lessons in our classrooms and to drill individual phonemes/sounds in our students or that we should be explicitly correcting students' pronunciation - I do not even agree with the "I say the word and you repeat after me" drills which goes on in many classes. But how can we as CI/ADI teachers teach students target language phonemes necessary for decoding when reading without going overboard and yet still remain true to CI/ADI philosophy? The answer is that most likely we are already doing a number of these strategies but just need to tweak them a bit.

Stay tuned - that will be a future blog post.

Novellas - Balancing Comprehensibility and Compelling

If you want to get me talking at length about anything, mention the following to me: the Brady Bunch, Star Wars (specifically the recent season 2 of Andor [episodes 7-9 and 10-12] which is the BEST Star Wars I have ever seen) or the podcast Sold a Story. Honestly, I cannot get enough of that podcast - I have found it SO informative about the whole language/balanced literacy/three cueing system taught to beginning readers since the 1980's which essentially taught students to guess words and not to truly employ phonics/decoding when reading. If you are currently concerned about the current state of student literacy, I challenge you to learn all about this, because it will both sadden and anger you!

As I have listened (and re-listened) to this podcast, I am finding so many parallels to reading in the CI/ADI world language classroom. Allow me this excursus to detail the philosophy behind this three-cueing/balanced literacy reading methodology - I think the following video does a good job of summarizing the whole language vs. science of reading approaches to teaching reading (and I hope it does not oversimplify the bases for each):

The primary foundation of the whole language approach rests on the idea that much like learning to speak is natural, so learning to read follows the same premise, i.e., beginning learners do not need explicit instruction on how to read and to sound out words since babies do not need explicit instruction in learning to speak; because we learn to speak subconsciously from hearing/interacting with speakers, so will learners pick up reading by being read to and interacting with reading without explicit instruction. As a result, the idea is to surround students with plenty of books to read and to provide ample opportunities for them to read and to be read to. In these ways, novice readers will then develop their own reading skills. Proponents believe that teaching students to decode/sound out words is too boring and burdensome for beginning readers and will actually impede their enjoyment of what they are reading. 
 
Upon this foundation emerged the balanced literacy/three cueing system. Developed by Marie Clay in the 1960s, this methodology eschewed teaching developing readers to sound out words but rather instead to follow these "three cues" when encountering words:

1. look at the picture on the page to guess the meaning of the words/sentences.
2. look at the first letter of the words, then scan the word for other letters, and to guess a word which best fit that pattern. This is called isolated phonics, so it is incorrect to say that the whole language approach does not ever teach phonics.
3. look at the context of the sentence to guess the meaning of the words.

From this developed the "leveled readers". Replacing the decodable books, which focused on students sounding out words and had sentences which followed predictable sound patterns, leveled readers allowed for the plot to dictate which words these readers encountered, regardless of whether these words were level-appropriate. These leveled readers had plenty of pictures to aid readers in determining meaning of the sentences. Lower-level readers focused on predictable word patterns, instead of sound patterns, and had plenty of pictures from which readers could deduce meaning. The concept posited that these leveled readers were viewed as compelling for beginning learners, since they were "word-driven" instead of the boring, "sound-driven" decodable books; because these readers had compelling plots, this would cause beginning readers to want to continue reading. However, the reality was that these beginning readers were not actually reading but guessing based on pictures or context and were never truly reading the individual words - thus it gave the appearance that these students were reading. Therefore, when the readings became longer and more complex and the pictures began to disappear, many students began to flounder, because they never truly had possessed the necessary foundation needed for reading. 
 
For roughly 40 years, this is how students were taught to read. Meanwhile, scientific studies began to reveal that students actually need explicit instruction in how to read and that decoding words is an essential skill for reading development in the brain and for orthographic mapping, a key part of reading. I will end my excursus here, since I could continue. The three cueing system may be a strategy which can be implemented MUCH MUCH LATER following YEARS of reading but should not be used as the sole substitute for teaching students to read. Because of the popularity of the Sold a Story podcast and tons of parents becoming informed about this, states have begun to ban the balanced literacy/three cueing approach from schools in favor of the science of reading (which is so much more than just phonics).

 
Side note - In a communication with Martina Bex about the Sold a Story podcast, of which she is a fan, she wisely noted to me:

So interesting how it’s the SAME THING we have in world languages, with language acquisition but reversed—kids don’t need explicit instruction to acquire language but that’s the wrong idea that has been perpetuated by publishers forever.

So with all of the above in mind (I appreciate you continuing to read this), while balanced literacy and world language instruction is not a 1:1 comparison, I do see some of the same principles applied to so many novellas today: we sacrifice comprehensibility for compelling, especially at the novice-level. Because we want our students to read the target language (Krashen himself says that reading plays a key role in language acquisition), we often rush into creating plots which we think will be compelling but as a result, we overload our readings with vocabulary or structures which we think that they should know (again, we have been influenced too much by what textbooks say). It becomes an overload of language and structures for novice-level readers. These novellas should rather be marketed as intermediate level readers (notice that the terms "Spanish 1" or "German 2" are not used but rather ACTFL proficiency levels).
 
While we teachers (the experts in the room who can read the target language very quickly) may think that true novice-level readings are too boring and predictable for beginning language learners due to a focus on sheltering vocabulary, in reality we need to realize that for these students, it probably is not boring at all! Do we ever extol and laud our students by telling them that they are reading another language?! It is very possible and doable to have level-appropriate comprehensible novellas which have compelling plots, especially at the novice level. I will point to the Confidence Readers and Pablo Paloma by Adam Giedd and the Mosca series by Margarita Perez Garcia. 
 
But at the same time, I do worry that students are applying the cueing system when reading novellas:

1. if there are pictures to help guide students, do they rely solely on the pictures for meaning and not on the words in the target language?
2. if sentences are predictable in nature at the novice level, do students rely on the pattern for meaning and not ever really look at the words per se, i.e., they know the pattern in their L1 so they do not find it necessary to focus on the L2 words? Could they just be memorizing the L2 pattern of words for L1 meaning but never really knowing which specific L2 word means what in L1?

Enough of my grumpy old man tirade (I turn 55 next month!). If you have not been made aware of the balanced literacy approach taught in schools, I hope that this has enlightened you some, and I would love to hear your comments on this.

New Page on my Blog - Literacy in the World Language Classroom

While combing through my blog posts, I noticed that in the past 16 months or so, I have written many addressing literacy in the world language classroom. As a result, I have decided to gather them all into one page. You can find them in the link below, as well as on the navigator bar in my header on my main blog page. I hope that you will take a look at some of my posts on the topic!

Literacy in the World Language Classroom page 

The Necessity of Background Language Knowledge for Reading in the CI/ADI Classroom

As I told you in an earlier blog post, I have been voraciously listening to (and re-listening to) Emily Hanford's podcast series "Sold a Story," a documentary about the shortcomings of the whole language/three-cueing approach to teaching students to read and why the science of reading matters. One of her earlier audio documentaries on the topic was "What the Words Say," and in it, Hanford discusses a reading hypothesis proposed by Wesley Hoover and Philip Gough in their article, "The Simple View of Reading" (1986). Hanford also interviews Hoover to discuss this further. Allow me this excursus to summarize this hypothesis (which has been verified in over 150 studies) - I promise that it will lead to a bigger application of what we do in our world language classrooms:

Hoover and Gough's Hypothesis

According to Hoover and Gough, learning to speak is a natural process for humans (unlike reading which is not), so by the time students begin school, they already possess a huge knowledge of spoken language in their L1. Gough writes:

“The average American 6-year-old has a mastery of English [that] would be the envy of any college graduate learning English as a second language.”

However, while these beginning students probably understand the majority of what is spoken to them, they cannot yet read those words which they already they know how to say. Hence, they must be taught those skills. In the podcast, Hoover states, 

"What happens when [students] come to school, their language comprehension is fairly high, and what they have to do is learn word recognition, and so if they're taught word recognition, they can read to the level at which they can comprehend language."

As a result, whenever we read, Gough and Hoover believed that two processes happen simultaneously in our brains for reading comprehension to occur:

• Word Recognition - the actual process of reading the individual words accurately. This happens through decoding, phonics, familiar word recognition, and sight words. 
• Language Comprehension - knowing what each individual word means (either through spoken, listening, or read). Essentially, this happens through the possession of background knowledge of vocabulary, inferring from context, and grammar. 

If one can do both of those processes when reading, then reading comprehension occurs. But if one lacks one (or both) of these processes when encountering a word, then comprehension cannot take place. For example, Marty is reading a sentence. A number of things can happen:

• Marty reads the words and possesses the language comprehension of these words. Successful reading comprehension has taken place.
• Marty cannot read the words. Language comprehension cannot occur; therefore, reading comprehension is not successful.
• Marty reads the words but does not possess the necessary language comprehension of them. Successful reading comprehension cannot fully occur. From here, Marty can infer meaning from the context of the sentence; however, this does not guarantee 100% correct overall comprehension.
• Marty cannot read the words nor possesses the necessary language comprehension even if he could have read them. Successful reading comprehension cannot occur.

Hoover explains,

“Word recognition is complex. Language comprehension is complex. But the big idea of reading is that if you can master those two complex skills, then you can master reading comprehension.”

(NOTE - as we know, poverty can greatly affect incoming students' language comprehension and background knowledge of possessed vocabulary. This is known as "word gap" - those children from lower socioeconomic families are exposed to fewer words earlier in life those from more privileged backgrounds).

So what does all of this mean in our world language CI/ADI classrooms? 

Application to the CI/ADI Classroom

We know that Krashen is a huge advocate of reading:

"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." 

When students arrive in our classrooms in level 1, most likely they posses absolutely LITTLE to NO language comprehension of our L2 language. So on day 1, if we were to give students something to read in L2, students might be able to read/decode the words, but those words would have absolutely no meaning if there was not any L2 language comprehension involved. 

Hence, there is a great need for us as teachers to deliver comprehensible input to our students for them to acquire words to build up their L2 language comprehension. The traditional "introduce words on Monday, vocab quiz on Friday" does not build up true L2 language comprehension - that is considered conscious/active learning (see Eric Richards' blog post on the difference between language learning and language acquisition - it is GOLD!) and does not lead to acquisition; there is no true retention occurring (I call this the "cram and flush syndrome" - students cram for a quiz, take it and get an A, and then flush it from their minds).

When our students build up their language comprehension and then we introduce reading to them based on that, then the language acquisition process can continue. If we have students read material for which they do not possess the necessary language comprehension, then essentially we have set our students up for failure, because they are unable to understand and process what they are reading. However, this is based on the assumption that our students can engage in word recognition first.

Regardless of what side you are on in the Reading Wars, there are some truths about teaching students to read which can be applied to our CI/ADI classrooms.

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!

Spanish Confidence Readers by Adam Giedd

(This blog post is a continuation of a series on literacy in the language classroom)

Last semester, in my search for comprehensible novellas for my department, I came across Adam Giedd's Spanish Confidence Readers. For these readers, he describes, 

For someone learning a new language, reading their first book in that language is a huge milestone — one that inspires immense confidence. That confidence is like rocket fuel propelling towards fluency...Traditionally, students had to wait months until they could independently read most “level 1” graded readers for language learners. Confidence Readers change that. Now, learners can start reading on day one.

Since I am novice-low level reader of Spanish, I immediately thought, "I need to check these out myself!"

I bought all five and immediately started reading them. Wow, these are SO good! As soon as I finished one, I began reading the next one. What I loved about these readers:

• TONS of repetition of high frequency words.
• Short sentences, with each primarily focusing on one main idea.
• Lots of usage of cognates which allows for readers to focus then on the meaning of the high frequency Spanish vocabulary.
• The text is not written as paragraphs but individual sentences, with only maybe 3-4 sentences at most per page.
• Even though the readers are not very long, the plots are VERY compelling. This indeed proves that one can actually create a very interesting, entertaining story with a limited total word count.
• Lots of humor interjected in the plots - I can tell that these were written with middle school students in mind!
• Predictable, repetitive sentence structures - as a novice reader, I am realizing just how important that is for beginner readers.
• Every page has color illustrations - that definitely leads to the compelling nature of the readers. While allowing for double input, it also makes the readers feel like true books.

But most importantly: I cannot tell you how incredibly successful and confident I felt in reading them as a novice-low level reader of Spanish! The length of each reader was exactly what I needed in terms of input. I think too often we rush into novellas for our novice-low readers and thus overwhelm them with too much input which they cannot handle due to length or not level-appropriate (and then we blame students when the blame actually should be on us as teachers!). As a result, we have to wait months until they are ready. These readers definitely do inspire confidence in reading! These Spanish readers are great material for FVR, since they are incredibly easy to read and do not take long. Check them out!

I wish we had these in Latin and that more Latin novella authors would create readers like these Confidence Readers!

If I were to Write a Latin Novella

(This blog post is a continuation of a series on literacy in the language classroom)

I have been asked a number of times why I have not yet written a Latin novella for students. Prior to April 2024, my response would have been , "I have no idea where to start or what to write about. I do not fully know what truly characterizes a novice reader for beginning L2 learners. While I do understand the concept of sheltering vocabulary, not grammar, and I do implement it with my own students when I create readings for them, the difference is that these readings are for my students, not the Latin student community as a whole." 

However, I have a completely different mindset now after reading several of the novice level Spanish novellas which Margarita Perez Garcia has written. For someone like me with very little knowledge of Spanish, that was such an incredible learning experience for me (see blog post here). Moreover, I am blown away and honored that Margarita left a lengthy comment on that post thanking me for what I had written and then explaining her thought processes in writing her novellas (read her comments at the bottom of the post - they are a goldmine of knowledge!).

In her About the Author section, Margarita notes that she "write(s) fiction and non-fiction in Spanish that beginners and struggling readers can read" and that she is "passionate about supporting beginning Spanish learners in their reading journey." I like that description very much, because it truly shows her heart, and Margarita's novellas definitely reflect that vision. So if I were to write a Latin novella, writing one which "beginners and struggling readers in Latin can read" would be my primary goal - one which would be geared towards Novice Low Latin students.

To achieve this, I would do the following:

1. Keep a low overall head word count, yet facilitate continued exposure of this focused vocabulary, i.e., shelter vocabulary.
2. Use short, simple sentences, which consist of predictable repetitive patterns of word chunks and sentence/grammatical patterns - these are characteristics found in the majority of Novice Low L2 readers, including English.
   
3. Include compelling subject matter and characters which create an emotional connection to readers.
4. Write the text not as paragraphs but as individual sentences which are formatted on the right margin of the page. The Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities suggests "Text should always be aligned on the right hand side of the page, and images should be aligned on the left hand side of the page [to help struggling readers]." Margarita Perez Garcia does this in her novice-level novellas - now I know why!
5. Implement other Easy Read standards (again from Margarita Perez Garcia):
1. No more than 15 words per sentence.
2. One idea per line, one sentence per line and if the sentence must break, then break it at a natural "breathing point" where it makes sense.
6. Include illustrations which can serve as additional input for text.
7. Maybe use Roman culture as its background. While I understand that L2 novellas are a great way to embed and to teach culture, quite often I do get tired that Latin readings are stuck in ancient times. I guess my SALVI, spoken-Latin background is screaming, "You do realize that Latin is still used communicatively to talk about today's modern world and is not bound to the first century!"

Now that I have some parameters, maybe one day I will get around to writing a Novice Low novella!

Why FVR Fails at Times

(This blog post is a continuation of a series on literacy in the language classroom)

I have a confession to make: I have never been a big fan of Free Voluntary Reading (FVR) in my classroom. However, I do not oppose the concept at all, because I see SO MANY benefits of it. Krashen is a huge advocate of reading as a necessary part of the language acquisition process: 

• "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." 

Krashen also advocates the need for pleasure reading in the target language (known as FVR) and defines it as “reading because you want to, no book report, no questions at the end of the chapter. FVR means putting down a book you don’t like and choosing another one instead.”

So if there are definite language acquisition benefits to FVR, then why am I not a big fan of it? Because I see my own students struggle with it. Further, I do not see my students as the problem but rather the FVR novellas/materials which I have provided for them to read.

What is wrong then with the FVR novellas/materials which I have provided for them?

1. Much of the FVR materials is beyond students' current L2 literacy levels. When reading for pleasure, most people tend not to gravitate towards readings which are above their literacy levels - instead it is the opposite! When reading for pleasure, people will drift towards materials which are below their level of reading. This is why I do not read scholarly articles for pleasure! For example, People magazine is written at an 8th grade reading level, and most journalists will write articles at a 10th grade reading level. We need to remember that our own students still possess a novice level L2 literacy rate even after a few years of our language classrooms.
2. The amount of unknown vocabulary is way too much for my students. If the name of the game is reading for pleasure, well then there is nothing pleasurable at all about reading something where you do not know the meaning of the majority of the words. While we 4%ers may possess the resolve and be meta enough to refer back constantly to the glossary at the end of the novella to establish meaning of unknown words, most students are not. This is by no means the fault of our students - we 4%ers are the weirdos! Whatever we want our students to read, they need to know 95% of the words so that students are spending their time actually reading and not decoding.
3. The material is not compelling enough to hold their interest. In addition for novellas/readings to be comprehensible, they also need to be compelling enough for students to want to persevere in reading them - remember in FVR, because students can choose what they want to read; they are not bound to continue reading if the topic is not of interest to them. In a research study, Cho and Krashen found that a group of Korean English language learners who had read Sweet Valley High books for pleasure made more progress in their language acquisition than those who had not read for pleasure. 

So then is my not being a big fan of FVR the fault of the authors who have written Latin novellas/readings? No, rather it is my choice of materials which I have offered students. HOWEVER, while there is emerging a large number of Latin novellas being published, I will also say that I have found very few Latin novellas out there truly written for novice readers. 

My next post will cover what I would like to see in novice-level Latin novellas. 

Experiencing L3 Literacy Myself - My Reading Experiment

(This blog post is a continuation of a series on literacy in the language classroom)

Recently, I purchased some novellas for teachers in my department, and among them, I bought a single copy of many novice-level Spanish novellas written by Margarita Perez Garcia for my teachers to peruse for possible future use. Margarita had presented at the virtual Voces Digital Spring Conference about reading, and she mentioned many of her novellas which were written for novice-level students and aligned with the proficiency levels as outlined by the Extensive Reading Foundation. I was very intrigued by the novice-level Spanish novellas which she mentioned in her presentation, especially due to the low headword count in them.

When the novellas arrived, I decided to read them myself. I know very little Spanish, and if you have ever been in a CI/ADI coaching session which I have led, I am ALWAYS the "barometer student" in a Spanish demo. Since these were novice-level Spanish novellas, would I be able to read and to understand them with my limited knowledge of Spanish? The answer is a resounding YES!

Observations

1. I began with El Ultimo Arbol and then read Mosca, Mosca, Itipuru, Arroz con Cosas, Mosca en Leche, and Juliana in that order due to the headword count. That was very important, because I was able to build up slowly to longer sentences and more vocabulary.
2. Immediately I could tell that my brain was trying to make some type of sense and meaning of this L3 (Latin is my L2!) into my L1 (English) - what L1 meaning my brain was able to latch onto, it kept; that which it was not able to, it tossed aside. Luckily, due to the frequent repetition of words/phrases and predictable nature of the sentence structures (a key component in any novice readings!), I found that my brain was able to create meaning after awhile.  
3. In the beginning, there was some degree of decoding happening (i.e., stopping at individual words to look up the L1 meaning in the glossary), since there were many Spanish words which I did not know. However, as I progressed in the novellas, I found that this occurred less and less due to the repetitive nature of sentence structures and vocabulary. 
4. When reading sentences in Mosca, Mosca like Mosca no tiene talento. Tiene problemas, my first instinct was to translate it as "The fly has no talent. Has problems." In other words, because the first use of tiene had a specific word serving as a subject, I knew to translate tiene as "has" but not specifically as he/she/it has when used the second time without a stated subject. This is exactly what I see my own students do with Latin verbs when there is an understood repeated subject - they will not add in the subject implied with the verb ending. In other words, this is normal in the language acquisition process!
5. I loved that even though these novellas were novice-level, culture was definitely embedded in them, nor did I feel like the culture was forced into the plot; it seemed very natural.
6. The plots in these novellas are definitely compelling and engaging! I felt some type of emotional connection to the characters in each of the novellas and truly wanted to know, "Will they succeed in their endeavors?" 
7. Formatting of the text played a HUGE role in my being able to read the novellas. As a novice-level reader of Spanish, I definitely appreciated in Margarita's early novellas that instead of writing paragraphs, she wrote each sentence as an individual line. This made it so much easier for me to read and kept my affective filter low. This is something which I need to remember with my novice-level students when I create readings. 
8. When I began reading Juliana, I noticed that the font was now smaller and that the story was written in paragraphs. I will admit that my affective filter rose quite a bit! Now I know how my students feel!
9. HOWEVER, Margarita has a very specific style of writing which carries through each of her novellas, so while Juliana is formatted in paragraphs and smaller font, the sentences continue to follow her style and the choice of vocabulary from previous novellas. That made the paragraphs very easy to read, Krashen refers to this as narrow reading and states that narrow reading actually is a great way to deliver comprehensible input: "Since each writer has favorite expressions and a distinctive style, and each topic has its own vocabulary and discourse, narrow reading provides built-in review."
10. I cannot tell you HOW SUCCESSFUL I felt in reading these novellas! Even though they were novice-level readings, I was actually reading Spanish and not translating/decoding but READING!!
11. I can honestly say that as soon as I finished one of the novellas, I grabbed the next one to read!

Now, I can no way by any means say that I know Spanish as a result of reading these novellas. Nor based on the reading can I say that I acquired any grammar rules. BUT I CAN READ some novice level Spanish with success, and I want to read more! In fact, I had some of the novellas on my classroom desk, and in the last 10 minutes of my 6th period when I had finished teaching, often I would pick up the current novella and read. My Latin students who were heritage Spanish speakers were shocked that I was reading a Spanish book (since they cannot read Spanish even though they speak it at home) - one of them said, "Every day you've been reading a new Spanish book!" What else could I say but that these Spanish novellas were comprehensible and compelling!  

Maximas gratias, Margarita - I look forward to reading more of your novellas!

Reading/Literacy - Voces Digital Spring Conference

Last week was the Voces Digital online Spring Conference, and there were many great presentations delivered. One session in particular which I attended touched on many points about which I had written in my last blog post regarding literacy in the world language classroom -  the presentation was "Teach Reading? Try This!" by Margarita Perez Garcia, who has written multiple novellas in Spanish (see video below).

Although much of what Margarita presents surrounds low-prep pre-reading and post-reading activities which teachers can implement in their classrooms, she begins by addressing the need for level-appropriate readers, especially elementary/basic readings. In the video, around the 3:21 mark, Margarita discusses that reading unfamiliar and unseen texts can be very hard for students, especially those with lower reading skills. Most importantly, reading can serve as a great divide in a classroom between those with stronger reading/faster processing skills and those who are slower processors/struggle with reading (I had never ever considered this before as an equity issue!). Margarita's focus in the presentation then addresses how we teachers can help students improve their L2 reading skills.

Take some time to watch the entire video (she has a lot of good ideas!), and consider getting some of her Spanish novellas!

Literacy & the Language Classroom

(This will be the first in a series)

I think that I can honestly say on behalf of all language teachers that the pandemic and the year of hybrid teaching definitely affected the literacy levels of our current students. I would not go so far to say that as a result we are in the midst of a literacy crisis per se (that remains to be seen in future years), but I can say with conviction that current student reading and writing abilities are not where they were pre-Covid. For so many students, losing a year of in-person schooling delayed their literacy development. NOTE - I am also not going to oversimplify in saying that Covid is the sole cause for this. 

Although there is huge debate regarding the definition of "literacy" in general, research has shown that there is a definite correlation between students' reading/writing levels in L2 and their pre-existing levels in their L1 - the higher these L1 levels which students bring into their L2 classes, the higher their levels will eventually be in L2, with the converse being true as well. As I began to research student literacy in general (and I will admit that I knew very little), I learned a few things:

1. Traditionally in American schools, grades pre-k to 3rd/4th are when the actual teaching of reading skills and fundamentals are targeted.
2. Following this, student classroom literacy skills are continually developed through the reading of level-appropriate content material in various academic subject areas.

Based on this model then: our post-4th grade L2 classrooms should be another avenue for students to develop, to reinforce, and to further their literacy skills through the reading of level-appropriate L2 content material. So a few questions then:

1. Why is reading so important in literacy and language development? I think Krashen says it best: 
• "Reading, especially free voluntary reading, is crucial for developing high levels of literacy and academic success, with research supporting its benefits, including improved comprehension and vocabulary, and it is easier for both students and teachers compared to traditional skill-building methods." - Krashen
• “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.”
• "You want to get better at a language? Listen and read, listen and read."
2. What effect does reading in L2 have on one's reading ability in L1? The answer is A LOT! A 2016 study was done involving Turkish students who were involved in an L2 reading course and were given an L1 reading test afterwards. These students' L1 reading skills were positively affected by their reading in L2, as they scored higher than those students who took the same test but were not involved in that L2 reading course. So, reading in L2 does have a positive effect on students reading ability in L1!
3. Why the need then for level-appropriate L2 content material? While reading in L2 plays a major role in both students' L2 language acqusition and in their continued reading ability development in L1, we as teachers must be very deliberate in ensuring that what our students read in L2 is level appropriate for their literacy levels in L2 (and not in L1!). We need to understand that while our students may be entering our L2 classrooms with an 8th grade or higher reading level in their L1, they are still novices when it comes to understanding what they are reading in L2.

I am not going to be so idealistic to think that reading in L2 will magically restore student L1 literacy levels to to where they were pre-Covid, but I will say that reading level-appropriate L2 material will definitely benefit and have a positive effect in students' L2 language acquisition and continued L1 literacy development.

Next blog post: Characteristics of Novice-level Readings