Retrieval Practice - Complete the Sentence

As I continue to look into retrieval practice and its role in language output, I am learning that in some ways the concept itself is not as difficult as I thought when I base it on Henshaw's definition of output ("expressing meaning retrieving from one's system"). Retrieval practice is a very sheltered, guided way for students to output what is in their system but also a way for their system to gain more input.

Recently, in my Latin 1 classes I did a very simple, short activity which I am certain that many of you have done before but maybe never viewed it as a form of retrieval practice: Complete the Sentence. Essentially, it is cloze-sentence in nature. 

• I wrote a basic, unseen Latin sentence on the board but left out a word, leaving a line instead (and the part of speech underneath).

         Example: Uxor Cheetos __(verb)___. (translated as "The wife ________ Cheetos.")

• I told students to copy down the sentence on their whiteboards and to fill in the blank with one Latin word which we have covered that will complete the sentence. The sentence must make sense. I gave them 30-45 seconds.
• You as the teacher write down 3-4 words of your own which can complete the sentence.
• After 30 seconds, I then had students stand up (a' la Retrieval BINGO).
• I told them that I had written down words of my own and if I called out their word, they were to sit down.
• Whoever was left standing after I called out my words read their word aloud to the class and received a small prize. 

Observations

1. Wow, what a simple activity but one in which you can get a lot of bang for your buck!
2. This is such a low-stakes, guided output activity that in many ways, it does not even look like "output".
3. In the end, when those students who are remaining standing read their word, that is input for the rest of the class. 
4. Most students did not pick the obvious word "eat". Again, I was surprised at what words students wrote down, because many chose words which I had not been targeting yet but somehow had found their way into these students' language systems.
5. As always, the kinesthetic aspect of having students stand up and then sit down if I called their word added a huge student buy-in component. 
6. Because students already knew the sit-down component of the activity, many took effort in choosing their word carefully in their attempt to outguess me. Little did they realize that they were activating the retrieval process from their language system.
7. There is some degree of higher-order thinking involved, because students cannot just put down any word. Their word choice had to fulfill the required part of speech AND make sense in the context, e.g., in the example I gave, students could not write down the word "est (is)," because although a verb, it does not make sense in the context of the sentence.
8. A caveat - do not expect students to know grammatical terms/parts of speech. While there were many students who did understand what a verb was, I had to explicitly say over and over again, "I want an action word. Give me a Latin word which explains what the uxor did in relation to the Cheetos."
9. I would NOT turn this into a grammar exercise unless I knew that ALL students could do it flawlessly. I could have written "Ego Cheetos __________," and asked students to give me the first person singular form of a verb which completed the sentence, but to be honest, that is way too much for Latin 1 students who have only had 8 weeks of Latin. Way too much going on for students to focus. My focus is on meaning, not form.
10. Oh my gosh, after we did this, students BEGGED me to do another round (or two)! I had to come up with another sentence on the spot, so I chose a different part of speech for them to do (adjective).
11. Other fill-in-the-blank sentences can be adjectives, persons, family members, food items, places, rooms of the house, etc. 

Extension activity

1. Using the sentence, pick a word to complete the sentence. From there, do a One Word Image or do TPRS/Storyasking.

Retrieval Practice - Rotating Lists

Previously, I wrote a blog post about Retrieval BINGO, an activity involving retrieval practice which I learned from Liam Printer's "The Motivated Classroom" podcast. To restate Printer, retrieval practice is way to aid in the output process:

'Retrieval practice' is a study technique where mental effort is used to recall information. It focuses on bringing information to mind which enhances and boosts learning. Deliberately recalling information forces us to pull our knowledge “out” and examine what we know. 

Once again, Florencia Henshaw defines output as "expressing meaning retrieving from your (language) system."

So as a way to review a reading which we had been working on in Latin, I did a variation of Retrieval BINGO but based on Eric Richards' Rotating Desk activity.

1. I organized students into three groups of 9 students.
2. Each student had a whiteboard, marker, and rag.
3. I had students number 1-9 on their boards.
4. I then told students to write any Latin word which they remembered from the story for #1.
5. After that, I told students to pass their board to the person on their left.
6. Now, they had to read word #1 and write a new word for #2 (it could have been the word which they wrote for #1 as long as it was a different word).
7. I then had them pass it to the person on their left, read what was written for words #1 and #2 and write a new word for #3.
8. They did this routine until they got back their board and now they had to read what words had been listed.
9. Once they did that, a'la Liam Printer's Retrieval BINGO activity,  I had them all stand up and then I read off 5 words which I had chosen. If the word was on their board, they had to sit down. Whoever was left standing was the "winner".

Observations

1. Yes, this was a very guided, sheltered form of output, yet it was solely based on words from a previous reading with which students were familiar.
2. In re-reading the list of words each round, students got input, with the hopes of maybe using one of those words later if they got stuck and could not think of a word. 
3. Again, I was surprised at what words students recalled which I did not even consider when I made my list of five words.
4. Once again, the standing up at the end created a sense of suspense based on who sat down each time I said one of the words and who was left standing.
5. Yes, a student could write down the same word nine times (the probability is very low of this as the activity progresses), but at the same time, the student is receiving continued input in reading the lists of words each round. Hopefully, these words will start to take root in that student's mental representation of language.

Retrieval Practice - BINGO

In a recent post, I discussed how Liam Printer in his podcast series The Motivated Classroom spotlighted the importance of developing the "retrieval process" of language in students to aid in their output process. 

'Retrieval practice' is a study technique where mental effort is used to recall information. It focuses on bringing information to mind which enhances and boosts learning. Deliberately recalling information forces us to pull our knowledge “out” and examine what we know. 

This very much aligns with Henshaw's definition of output: expressing meaning retrieving from your system. However, we must also quickly understand that output in and of itself does not lead to language acquisition. We must build up students' language systems with input so that they have something from which to retrieve for the purpose of expressing meaning.

In that podcast episode, Printer lists 11 quick and easy activities which one can implement with students which are geared towards developing language retrieval in students and are very guided, sheltered "output" in nature. The first one is simply called Retrieval BINGO. I tried this out after the first two weeks of class, and it went very well. 

1. Every student has a whiteboard or piece of paper.
2. Have students number 1-5 on their whiteboard/paper.
3. Give students 1-2 minutes to write down ANY target language word which they remember from the current reading.
4. At the same time, you write down four words from the reading too.
5. After the time is up, have students stand up.
6. Tell students that you have written down four words yourself and will read them off one at a time.
7. If you read one of their words, then they have to sit down.
8. Whoever is left standing by the end is the "winner".
9. The winner reads aloud their list of words to the class.
10. Repeat the activity again.

Observations

1. I love this activity! What a great sheltered way for students to "output" (per Henshaw, "retrieving from their system").
2. Because it is based on the current reading, this gives necessary parameters for students.
3. I was absolutely surprised at what words students wrote down - many wrote down words which I was not targeting in the reading, but yet somehow students' brains had latched onto them in their mental representation of language.
4. The standing up and sitting down nature added a bit of kinesthetic learning to the activity.
5. Although this was a sheltered "output" activity, students still received A LOT of input with them writing down their known words, from me reading my list of words, and from the winner(s) reading their list of words.
6. It was a novel way to review the reading, because when a target word was said aloud, I said the context sentence from the story.
7. When we played the second time, now that students knew what the activity was, many really tried to come up with a new set of words from either their own memory or from what words they had just heard read aloud.
8. Yes, when we played the second time, students could have written the same list of words again. I will give students the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to that these are the words which students are able to retrieve from their language system. This is okay - hopefully with more continued input to their system, the next time we play, these students will be able to retrieve additional words.
9. Students want to play this game again and again!

Thanks to Liam Printer for this fun yet quick "output" activity!

Rethinking Output, part 3 - Retrieval Practice as Part of the Output Process

The following is part of a series on Rethinking Output. It is based on my summer of listening to podcasts. 

As part of this series, let me restate some non-negotiables regarding output according to second language acquisition research:

1. Output in and of itself does not lead to language acquisition. "Practicing the language" does not produce language acquisition. Oral grammar drills, singing mnemonic songs, and memorized scripts/scenarios do not cause the brain to acquire language.
2. Only input leads to language acquisition, as continued understandable input is what causes the brain to create/refine its mental representation of language.

In part 1 of this series on Rethinking Output, I focused on Florencia Henshaw's definition of output, "Expressing meaning retrieving from one's (language) system." Part 2 centered on why one's system and mental representation of language cannot be built with grammar charts and rules, per Bill Van Patten. This blog post will focus on the mental language retrieval practice to facilitate the output process. For this, I look to Liam Printer's The Motivated Classroom podcast. 

Printer has a podcast episode dedicated to the topic of retrieval practice. In the episode notes for that particular episode, Printer writes:

'Retrieval practice' is a study technique where mental effort is used to recall information. It focuses on bringing information to mind which enhances and boosts learning. Deliberately recalling information forces us to pull our knowledge “out” and examine what we know. 

This very much aligns with what Henshaw discussed as a guest on Claudia Elliott's Growing with Proficiency podcast:

It's so important to talk about the fact that [students] need to be retrieving from their system...One is because we need them to build a system in the first place...And the other one is that if they don't, then output is not serving the purpose of honing the skill of retrieving from the system, which is the function of output. So input helps to build a system. Output helps with the skill of accessing the system...And so to hone the skill of accessing something, you need to be accessing that something.

In his episode on retrieval practice, Printer gives examples of 11 very easy activities where the goal is to activate the retrieval process of vocabulary in students' brains. In some ways, I guess these activities could qualify as a form of output per Henshaw's definition, since students are retrieving this vocabulary from their brains (as opposed to you the teacher supplying it). However, these activities are incredibly sheltered and guided. Big picture, these activities also are a form of input for students. For those of you who have to deal with formal lesson plans, these activities are great "background knowledge activators"!

I invite you to listen to Printer's episode where he details the retrieval process and these 11 activities in just 27 minutes! I have already done a few of these with my Latin 4 students as a way to recall past vocabulary from previous years and had a lot of fun with them - I will write about them in future blog posts. 

Upcoming blog post: Output as Motivation in the CI/ADI Classroom

Rethinking Output, part 2 - The Wrong Kind of Input

The following is part of a series on Rethinking Output. It is based on my summer of listening to podcasts. 

When it comes to output in a language, based on second language acquisition theory, there are a few non-negotiables:

1. Output in and of itself does not lead to language acquisition. "Practicing the language" does not produce language acquisition. Oral grammar drills, singing mnemonic songs, and memorized scripts/scenarios do not cause the brain to acquire language.
2. Only input leads to language acquisition, as continued understandable input is what causes the brain to create/refine its mental representation of language.

If you have read my previous blog post in this series, you know that I am now basing my definition of output on how Henshaw defines it: Expressing meaning retrieving from your (mental language) system. As a result, there are many activities which may appear to be output-related but are actually input since no retrieval from one's system is occurring, i.e., students are not pulling this output from their brains. However, students cannot retrieve from their system if there is no input there to build that system.

So the question then is "If input is necessary to build that system, then why can't that input be grammar charts, conjugation tables, etc? Input is input, right?" 

For this, let us turn to Bill Van Patten. Van Patten is truly an expert on this topic, and I would venture to say that he has served as one of the most recent influencers of CI/ADI teachers due to his previous podcast series and his books. 

The purpose of input is that it creates, defines, adds to, and refines the brain's mental representation of language. That mental representation of language cannot be reduced to explicit, orderly grammar charts, because by nature, language acquisition in and of itself is an abstract system. When learning a language, that mental representation system is MESSY! 

On Claudia Elliott's Growing with CI podcast (episode 135), regarding grammar as input, Van Patten states the following:

If you don't understand how second language acquisition happens, if you don't understand about the nature of language, if you don't understand about the nature of communication and how these things fit together, what you're going to do as a teacher, you're going to say, oh, okay, I know what I need to do now. I need to take input and teach the same old thing a new way. So I'm going to teach verb endings with input.

I'm going to teach the past tense with input. I'm going to teach the food vocabulary with input, whatever it is that is in textbooks. People are going to say input is a technique because they don't understand second language acquisition itself or the nature of language or the nature of communication.

One statement for which Van Patten is known surrounds teaching explicit grammar. From his book While We're On the Topic: BVP on Language, Acquisition, and Classroom Practice: 

What’s on page 32 of the textbook is not what winds up in your head. 

Explicit rules and the mental representation we carry around for language are like water and fatty acid: One can’t become the other. They are fundamentally different. This would explain, then, why what an instructor teaches and has students practice on page 32 doesn’t become mental representation. What’s on page 32 is water. What winds up in the head is fatty acid.

Instead we should be using and exposing students to understandable message with the grammar embedded in that context. Our focus should rather be on communication and not grammar. One can communicate grammatically incorrect and still be understood - in fact, that is an exemplar of Novice and Intermediate language learners. ACTFL and the College Board even state this!

This is not to say that you cannot introduce grammar charts but that is usually something which is introduced LATER in the language acquisition process. By that time, students' mental representation of language has been built up to such a degree that it can handle it. 

CAVEAT - keep in mind that we language teachers are the ones who loved grammar charts, because we saw/loved the patterns. Those charts helped bring order for our brains in developing that mental representation of language. Let me say this: we are the exceptions, not the rule. And when we end up with a classroom full of students who are exceptions like us, we tend then to think that this is the norm in how language acquisition occurs. IT IS NOT! Or worse, we begin to think that only students who think like us should be the ones taking a world language class or can be successful in one.

There is no way that a topic like this can be reduced to a series of quotes and simplified into a blogpost. I invite you to listen some podcasts with Bill Van Patten on the topic:

• Two Myths About Language Acquisition That Keep Shaping Our Classrooms with Dr. Bill VanPatten
• Talking Language Acquisition with Dr. Bill VanPatten: What Every Language Teacher Should Know about SLA - Part 2

Future blog post on the topic: 

1. Output as Motivation in the Classroom
2. Activating that Retrieval System Needed for Output

Rethinking Output, part 1 - The Definition

I apologize that this is a long blog post. I appreciate those of you who read to the end!

A few months ago in the Facebook IFLT/NTPRS/CI Teaching group, there was a post about output and its role in a CI/ADI classroom. It led to a very good discussion, as there were those in the "input only/no forced output of any kind and only when students feel like they are ready" camp while others were saying, "There needs to be some degree of output (for various reasons) since this is a language class." 

Personally, I have been in the "input only/no forced output of any kind and only when students feel like they are ready" camp, because quite honestly, I was ALWAYS TOLD that a CI/ADI approach never forces output of any kind - I had just accepted it as truth without inquiries. HOWEVER, for the past few years, I have been questioning this for a number of reasons. As a result, this past year, although my classroom was still 100% input-based, I also focused on A LOT of very sheltered, guided writing with my level 1 students, and I was amazed at what they were able to produce throughout the school year in their proficiency-based, unrehearsed writings.

So, before I begin this discussion, let me reiterate a few foundational, non-negotiables regarding output:

1. Output in and of itself does not lead to language acquisition. "Practicing the language" does not produce language acquisition. Oral grammar drills, singing mnemonic songs, and memorized scripts/scenarios do not cause the brain to acquire language.
2. Only input leads to language acquisition, as continued understandable input is what causes the brain to create/refine its mental representation of language.

In the Facebook discussion, there were a number of podcasts which folks suggested that address the role of output in a input-based CI/ADI classroom - the majority of them are from Claudia Elliot's podcast series! This summer, I have been listening to them, and after much reflection, my view of output and its role has greatly changed. I am no longer in the "input only/no forced output of any kind and only when students feel like they are ready" camp.

The first podcast is Claudia's interview with Dr. Florencia Henshaw about output. Here is a link to Episode 56 of the Growing with Proficiency podcast, where Henshaw discusses this topic. She gave a definition for output, which has now become my foundation for what is output: "Output is expressing meaning retrieving from your (language) system." 

So Henshaw's definition of output consists of two parts: 

1. expressing meaning
2. retrieving from your system 

I think we can agree what "expressing meaning" signifies in language acquisition, but the "retrieving from your system" may be new. But I love that part of the definition, because to me, that is the key aspect. Henshaw continues:

Your system can be extremely precarious, but it is still a system. Your system may be a lot of memorized chunks, and it is still a system. But you are retrieving from whatever you have available in your head, as opposed to seeing something written down, seeing the translation of it, and simply reading that phrase. If that is what you are doing, then it is not coming from your system...it would be the equivalent of asking Google Translate, 'How do you say this?' and read it out loud. Is that output?

For the most part, to borrow an ACTFL term, proficiency (insert "output') is mostly "unrehearsed and real-world," meaning it is primarily spontaneous. When we ask students to output, we are asking them to retrieve what is inside them and to somehow put it together for the purpose of communication. That is why conversing in the target language is so hard - so many things are going on at the same time: it is necessary for a person to hear what is being said, to understand that communication, to formulate a response, and then for that communication to come out of that person's mouth ALL IN A MATTER OF SECONDS!

Henshaw states that if students are reusing language which you the teacher gave them in the moment such as readings, students asking each other questions which you provided, or creating language with a provided set of vocabulary words which you gave them, these activities may appear that output is occurring. However, in reality, it is still input which looks like output. Students are simply demonstrating that they understand the language which you the teacher gave them. 

Recently, there has been much discussion about Defining the Situation in TPRS 2.0, where students are orally "producing" what appears to be language sentences right away as a part of a TPRS story. There were very vocal critics on Facebook who were saying that Blaine Ray was now forcing output from students. However, if we go by Henshaw's definition, this is not output at all but rather continued input. First, this Defining the Situation in TPRS 2.0 is occurring only after LOTS of input. Secondly, all of the necessary vocabulary (which is very limited) needed for this sentence creation output is projected on the screen in both target language and English; therefore, there is NO retrieval happening from students' system. Thirdly, as students are hearing each other basically say the same sentences aloud, they are receiving more exposure and repetitions to the input. Essentially, the focus is to demonstrate that they understand the language being given to them.

Other examples of activities which may appear to be output but are actually input based on Henshaw's definition:

1. Bill Van Patten's communicative tasks
2. People BINGO, where students have a BINGO sheet of PQA questions in the target language and they have to gather responses from other students. 
3. Chat Mats
4. Quick turn-and-talk partner practice where you give students what is needed to be said. 

If there is no retrieval of information from students' systems to create communication, then per Henshaw, that is not output.

Wow, that definition is very clear. And it is actually very freeing!! A lot of what I did this past year with very guided, sheltered writing "output" was not really output per se but continued input. However, it was that continued "looks-like-output-but-was-actually-input" is what helped contribute to my students being able to do true writing output.

Questions which I still have and am still pondering:

1. How does the affective filter play into this?
2. How does this affect student motivation?

Let me end with this last part from Henshaw: 

It's so important to talk about the fact that [students] need to be retrieving from their system...One is because we need them to build a system in the first place...And the other one is that if they don't, then output is not serving the purpose of honing the skill of retrieving from the system, which is the function of output. So input helps to build a system. Output helps with the skill of accessing the system...And so to hone the skill of accessing something, you need to be accessing that something. 

In other words, while we teachers need to be building up students' internal language students with input in order to create/refine their mental representation of language (and this includes lots of "looks-like-output-but-is-actually-input " activities), we also cannot neglect developing students' retrieval skills so that they can eventually output.  

Upcoming blog posts from more podcasts on the topic of output: 

• How to Develop the Retrieval Process in Students
• Output as Motivation in the Classroom
• Why Explicit Grammar is not Input Per Se

Rotating Desks

If you have not gotten a copy of Eric Richards’ book “Grafted Writing,” please do so. In it, he details numerous ways to get students writing in a very guided manner - this is great for beginning writers! One of his ideas is called “Rotating Desks.” At the 2023 CI Summit in Savannah where Eric demonstrated numerous strategies from his book, I took part in this activity, and it is a lot of fun!

Directions (his and my adaptation)

1. Choose a text (or write your own), and use it to create a projectable slide presentation.
2. Remove an element from each slide, such as vocabulary or grammar, to create “blanks.” 
3. Label the blanks with the missing element (“noun,” etc.) so the students will know what they are looking for. Students will be adding their own details based on the "blank" description.
4. After you have created the presentation, you can do the following activity in class. First, have students start with a whiteboard (write their names on their boards) at the top but small OR use a piece of paper.
5. Then project slide one on the board. Students will write down the entire text from the slide and insert the missing elements/new details. Tell them to write small because there are a number of sentences.
6. Students rotate to the next desk, but the paper/whiteboard STAYS. Teacher projects slide two. Students read the previous sentence and then add the content of slide two to the paper/whiteboard.
7. Repeat until slides are done.
8. Students return to their desks and read them.
9. MY ADAPTATION - since I am in a trailer this year and am deskless, students used whiteboards, and the whiteboards "rotated" for each slide.

Here is what I recently did with my Latin 1’s:

1. Puer est in (name of place/ store/ city).
2. Is est (size) puer.
3. Ei nomen est (name).
4. Is (name of female cartoon character/ female singer / female celebrity) videt.
5. (name from #4) est tristis, et habet (name of object / thing/ food).
6. Puer (different object / food/ thing) fert.
7. (name from #4) non puerum amat, sed (name of male cartoon character / male singer / male celebrity).   

Student example (in English):

1) A boy is in Buc-ees.

2) He is a big boy.

3) His name is Oscar.

4) He sees GloRilla.

5) GloRilla is sad and has a CrockPot.

6) The boy brings Takis.

7) GloRilla does not love the boy but Cookie Monster.

Observations

1. I love this activity on SO MANY levels! I do not know where to begin. This activity definitely has a Mad-Libs feel to it. 
2. First, I love the guided output aspect of it. Although I am telling students what to write (and those messages are hopefully 100% comprehensible for them!), there still is a degree of choice for them of what details to add.
3. This is a GREAT example of purposeful communication, because students are playing with the language in adding their own details.
4. This is a written form of TPRS/Storyasking! Instead of asking students to come up with details orally, they write them down instead.
5. Because I am asking them to write down known vocabulary and phrases, students are getting repetitions of understandable language in a context which adds to/modifies/enlarges their brain's mental representation of Latin.
6. When students get a new whiteboard, they must read what has already been written before they can move onto writing the new sentence. What they read should already be 100% comprehensible by this point, because A) the sentence frames are recycling known phrases and words from class but also B) students have already interacted with those sentences by writing them down on the whiteboard.
7. I loved hearing students laugh when they got back their original whiteboard and read what students had added!

Consider adding this to your toolbox of writing activities!

Grammar "Errors" in a CI Classroom

Today, in my study hall, four of my Latin 1 students began to converse in Latin with each other. I was rather surprised to hear them doing this, because three of them had NEVER demonstrated any interest during class to converse in the language (outside of scaffolded output). What transpired between the four of them was a rather spontaneous 10-minute conversation in Latin, using language which we had been going over this semester. Now to be honest, it was not a high-level dialogue about anything in particular, and their language usage was FAR from correct - it was messy, full of "errors," and would have hurt the ears of many Latinists - but all I could think was "Oh my gosh, these students are communicating IN LATIN!" I cannot tell how happy I was to hear them conversing in simple Latin, errors and all. I just sat back and let them talk, not even trying to correct them and only giving them corrections when they asked. 

What transpired today reminded me of something which I had seen on Twitter not too long ago:

Which teacher are you - the one on the left or on the right? I can honestly say that I once was the teacher on the left for the longest time, because isn't error correction what we are supposed to do as language teachers? I think, however, that we as world language teachers forget just how difficult it is to for language to come out of the mouths of our students for the purpose of communication, let alone correctly.

How do I know this? Because I myself have been there when it comes to speaking Latin. To understand my situation, you need to understand that I learned Latin in high school, college, and graduate school with the grammar-translation method - quite honestly, I had no idea that any other method existed. Why should there be if our goal was simply to translate classical works into English and to discuss them in English, in addition to parsing the heck out of every word? Yes, being a 4%er, I really liked that (and still do to a degree now)...

So going into my first Rusticatio in 2010, even though I knew that I would struggle some since I had never had spoken Latin before, in my opinion, as I had both my B.A. and M.A. in Latin, and since I "knew" grammar, speaking should not be too difficult. Boy, was I wrong. Yes, although I had a brain full of grammar knowledge, I had never used it for communicative purposes. When it came to speaking Latin, I had no clue what I was doing. I remember how absolutely difficult it was to SAY ANYTHING in Latin, let alone communicate in a conversation in the language. For me, just to get ANY language to come out of my mouth was a major victory. I found myself making TONS of grammar errors, and I was absolutely frustrated that I was making what seemed to be very basic mistakes.

Luckily, Nancy Llewellyn, the leader of Rusticatio that summer, had warned us on the opening night that making grammar errors in the language was part of the process. In what I always call her "red pen" talk, she said,

You are going to make the same kinds of grammar errors that if your own students were to make them, you would skin your knees running to grab a red pen to correct them.

Rusticatio even has a rule about grammar correction: it is to only occur when the delivered message is incomprehensible and not understandable. This is a rule which I believe that we need to apply in our classrooms. But even at that, I think that we need to exercise a degree of caution, because in its speaking proficiency guidelines, ACTFL itself states that even "Intermediate Low speakers can generally be understood by sympathetic interlocutors, particularly by those accustomed to dealing with non-natives." The key word is sympathetic - even if what my students say is horribly wrong grammatically, can I still understand what they are trying to say? At my first Rusticatio, I remember saying "ego cena parat," and even though that is so grammatically wrong on so many levels, I remember as a beginning speaker how difficult it was for me to get that to come out of my mouth, but at the same, those around me knew what I was attempting to say.

I have even heard a number of CI teachers say that in many ways, there is no such thing as "conscious errors" for speakers, since they are applying their known knowledge of the language at that particular moment. Someone once told me that even recasting (the act of restating the speaker's error with the corrected form) is not always effective unless the corrected speaker actively knows that he/she is being corrected. 

So while we can make overt grammar correction for beginning speakers, in many ways, I firmly believe that these speakers simply need more input. If we as world language teachers believe that all students learn at their own pace, then we must also believe that students will produce correct language at their own pace. I believe Michelle Kindt says it best in this tweet regarding language acquisition:

Some random observations based on my students today

1. Even though I am nowhere speaking anywhere near the 90% target language goal in class, whatever I am speaking and having students read in the target language is still effective, as these students were able to produce language on their own without being forced. That makes me feel good that I am doing something right!
2. At the end of study hall, I told these students that I was impressed by their spontaneous dialogue in Latin. I told them, "You do realize that I never once made you make flash cards to learn those words." One student responded, "That is really weird. Somehow I just know these words inside me." That is proof to me of subconscious input and acquisition!

I'll Show You Mine if You Show Me Yours!

As part of a "I Will Show You Mine If You Show Me Yours" Twitter challenge from fellow CI/TPRS user Mike Coxon, here are some examples of student timed writes in Latin.

Much like Mike writes in his blog post, I use timed writes as a way for students to OUTPUT language after a great deal of INPUT. After going over a particular story multiple times over 4-5 days, I give students a set amount of time to retell the story to the best of their ability on paper. In most cases, the timed write turns into a free write, because if they complete the story before time is up, then they are to continue writing on their own in Latin what they think happens next.

The following are examples of some Latin 1 timed writes. This particular example is a 7 1/2 minute timed write, where the goal was 75-80 words for the time period - most far exceeded that goal. In this instance, for 4 days students had been going over a particular story (which I had written - the target structure was mihi placet + infinitive) in many different ways and modalities. Prior to the timed write, students were given pictures as a guide to retell the story aloud in Latin as a partner activity (another way for students to output after days of input). Immediately afterwards,I had them do a timed write, while the story was fresh in their minds.

Yes, the timed writes have errors in them, but that is expected - even ACTFL recognizes that there will be errors in communication at the novice and intermediate levels. Remember these are writings by Latin 1 students after just 1 1/2 semesters. Mastery of those concepts will come with time. The errors also show me what concepts which I need to review as their teacher. The other side of it too is that even though these are Latin 1 students who have only had 1 1/2 semesters of the language, look at what they are able to output after LOTS of input!! When I was took Latin under the grammar-translation approach, I never wrote anything in Latin!

182-word sample

136-word sample

111-word sample