Translation Rubric

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observations:

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

Caveats:

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

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

Proficiency-Based Grading - Writing Rubric level 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observations

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

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

2025 CI/ADI Conferences

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

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

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

Purposeful Communication through Pets

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

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

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

Day 1

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

Days 2, 3, and 4

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

Day 4 

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

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

Observations

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

Give this a try - thanks, Anne Marie!

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!

Top 5 of 2024

With December here and the end of the semester nearing, I will take my annual holiday break from blogging. In keeping with tradition, I will post here my "Top 5 Most Read Blog Posts of 2024". I have been blogging for 11 years now, and I am always amazed that I have not run out of topics about which to blog. I feel like I am always in a constant state of learning about CI/ADI from others, whether it be in-person or virtual. I am thankful for these people in my life! I am also thankful to all of you who read this blog. I wish a restful holiday season and end of the year for you, and here's to 2025!

1. My Elevator Speech on Language Acquisition 
2. My Professional Learning Goal for the Year - Being Purposefully Communicative
3. Experience L3 Literacy Myself - My Reading Experiment 
4. Character "Has/Wants/Is/Does not Want.../" Warmup 
5. What is Behind the Door? 

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?