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!

True/False PQAs using "Has"

At this past summer's CI Summit in Cincinnati, I had the privilege of watching Bryan Kandel demo a very simple, true/false purposefully communicative activity. Bryan is an absolutely master communicator, as he made this low-prep activity SO personable and compelling for us. This activity can be found in his book Give Them What They Want: A Guide to Increasing Enrollment in World Language Class, and it is so amazingly simple to facilitate.

1. Create a list of sentences in the target language about different students in your class. The sentences can be anything which is personalized about the students. These sentences can include target vocabulary or language structures. Examples: Joy wants a dog, Amayah has seen the movie Spiderman: No Way Out, Charlene went ice skating this weekend, etc.
2. Project the sentences. 
3. Have students write True or False for each sentence on paper/whiteboards to predict what they think the answer is. Students may not ask the specific students if their sentence is true or false.
4. Review each sentence with the class by asking the student in the target language about whom the sentence is if the statement is True or False. 
5. If students have predicted correctly, they give themselves a point.
6. Continue the activity by asking the student and class extension PQAs in the target language related to the statement.
7. Total points upon completion to determine a "winner".

In my Latin 1's a month ago, I recently did this activity on day 4 of class. Because I was targeting the word "has," I created the following statements in Latin for each of my three Latin 1 classes - yes, because it was day 4 of Latin 1, there were a number of words which I had to gloss for them such as "driver's license," "sister," "brother," and "job".

• ______ has an xBox.
• ______ has a brother.
• ______ has a dog. 
• ______ has an iPhone. 
• ______ has a driver's license.
• ______ has a sister. 
• ______ has a job.

Observations

1. Wow, I was surprised at how well this activity went with Latin 1 students, even with limited vocabulary! What a fun way to learn about each other in the target language!
2. Students were actually engaged in the activity - I think the predicting and running point total added to that.
3. I randomly picked students ahead of time for each sentence, so I personally did not know the answers. Plus, because it was the 4th day of class, I had no idea who the students actually were yet. 
4. This was a great example of purposeful communication, because students were learning about each other in the target language. I definitely learned a lot about them.
5. Extension PQAs seem so natural to do after finding out if the statement is true or false.
6. Students whose names were not used have asked me if we are going to this again, because they want to have a sentence about them!
7. I plan to do this activity again with the word "wants".

Get Bryan Kandel's book, because he has so many great communicative activities in it. Thanks, Bryan!

Grammar-Translation is the Way

The following blog post is directed solely at Latin teachers.

Yes, I said it. Grammar translation is the way. If your goal as a Latin teacher is to get students to translate classical literature as quickly as possible, then by all means grammar-translation methodology is the way to do it. Implementing a CI/ADI approach which is aligned with second language acquisition research will not get students there in the same amount of time at all. However, be aware: based on ACTFL proficiency guidelines, in a traditional Latin curriculum where the goal is to begin translating classical literature after just three years, you are asking students to jump from novice-level readings to Superior/Distinguished level literature, and only a select few type of students can do that. 

Let me state up front: I LOVE grammar. I learned Latin in high school from the good ol' Jenny book in the mid 1980's. I THRIVED in Latin because grammar-translation totally appealed to me and how my brain processed information. I was a quick processor and recognized patterns immediately. For my first years of public school teaching, I taught grammar translation out of Latin for Americans, and by 2005, my colleague Bobby Guarnella and I had built up our Latin program to over 350 students using a grammar-translation approach. I was a damn good grammar-translation teacher. I know all about grammar-translation quite intimately! 

But does grammar-translation work for every learner? I would have to say a very hard "NO," because if that were the case, then every student would be successful with a grammar translation approach. If we are truly honest with ourselves, we know for a fact that only some learners will succeed. If you are okay with that, then that is your choice.

I think that a huge misconception among many is that somehow CI/ADI instruction is a fast track to language acquisition and to getting students to produce language at a quicker pace. The reality is that CI/ADI instruction aligns with how a learner's brain acquires language on a "realistic timeline" for language acquisition, and I use that term "realistic timeline" loosely, because all learners will acquire language at different rates. Language acquisition is unlike any other subject area because it is not linear in nature. To quote Long (1997):

“the idea that what you teach is what [students] learn, and when you teach [x grammar topic] is when they learn it, is not just simplistic, it is wrong." 

Bill Van Patten states,  "Language acquisition is slow, piecemeal, and stage-like and follows a path not dictated by instruction or external forces.” However, what we can expect is that there will be an expected range of language development among learners at any point in time, which ACTFL has defined as its proficiency levels.

As I stated in my last blog post "Grammar Translation Origins," I will say that grammar translation is definitely efficient. Yet, by no mean is it practical or realistic to the way in which learners acquire language. If your goal is that students learn about the language for the purpose of decoding classical literature, then grammar translation is the way to go. Go forth and prosper.

Grammar Translation Origins

At the beginning of every school year, my goal is to daily read through Eric Herman's book Research Talks: Motivating Acquisition-Centered Classroom. The book's format is set up similarly to a daily devotional but instead of religious scripture, there is a research quote related to different second language acquisition topics such as input, communication, output, textbook grammar, etc. I have said before that I always mistakenly call this book Research Bites (much like the movie Reality Bites). I like calling it that though, because Eric presents this research in bite-size chunks and makes it very easy for my academic research-challenged brain to synthesize. 

In his Week 3 chapter, under the heading of Textbook Grammar, Herman addresses what many point to as the formal codification of the grammar-translation movement. While grammar translation had been employed throughout the ages prior, it was not until the late 16th century that it became a part of formalized language education. In 1540, St. Ignatius of Loyola founded the Jesuit Society, of which one of its primary focuses was the promotion of education. Its academic curriculum centered on the learning of humanities through classical literature and a heavy emphasis on Catholic theology as a response to the Protestant Reformation in 1517. In 1558, in the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus (Part IV, Chapter 15, Paragraph [471], Ignatius wrote: 

In the study of humane letters and the languages a definite period of time for their completion cannot be established, because of the difference in abilities and knowledge of those who attend the lectures, and because of many other reasons which permit no other prescription of time save that which the prudent consideration of the rector or chancellor will dictate for each student.

Essentially, Ignatius realized that when it came to a humanistic education of grammar, rhetoric, and language acquisition (immersive Latin), there could not be a prescribed timeline due to various factors which the students themselves brought to their education - wealth, previous education, natural abilities, etc. As a result, he advocated that learning could not be dictated by a timeline. Rather, the pace of study was something to be determined individually on a student-by-student basis with the student's teachers. Basically, Ignatius understood that when it came to language acquisition, not every student acquired language at the same rate; to state that in language learning that all students acquire something when one teaches it was wrong in his view. Therefore, Ignatius believed that the acquisition of Latin could not be bound to a designated timeline.

However, in 1599 (some forty years after Ignatius' death), in the Ratio Studiorum in "Rules of the Prefect of Lower Studies" in Rule 8, the Jesuit Society wrote:

All rules of Emmanuel (a standardized Latin grammar textbook written by Emmanuel Alvarez, a Portuguese Jesuit priest) must be divided into three books, of which each is appropriate for a single class...The master practically completes the book of each class during the first semester and begins from the beginning in the second."

Although the Jesuit Society did not invent grammar-translation methodology, it certainly standardized and streamlined it. However, while this made the teaching of Latin more efficient in spreading it over a 3-year period, it was neither practical nor realistic in terms of how language acquisition actually works and in truth was counterintuitive to the way in which one acquires a language.

So whatever your view is of grammar-translation, you can look to the Jesuit Society for its formal codification of this methodology and also see that its founder St. Ignatius of Loyola was a staunch opponent of the principle.  

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

2,000,000 Page Views!

Did I read that stat correctly?? My blog has passed over 2,000,000 page views??? Granted, I will admit that probably 50%-60% of these views are from AI/spam bots, but still when I began this blog in December 2013, I was happy that twelve people (and Latin teachers at that) read my blog. Based on feedback, the majority of people who read my blog now are actually modern-language teachers!

So roughly 480 blog posts later, here we are! Thank you all for reading my blog and for thinking that I have something to say! I look forward to continuing writing more posts and sharing what I learn about the CI/ADI classroom.

Reducing Cognitive Load and Clutter

Students returned last week. My first week back with students is done. My summer is officially over. 

With my Latin 1 classes, again I am doing a Latinized version of a German 1 lesson which I adapted from Eric Richards. This lesson focuses on the words play, well, badly, has, is, and not. At CI Summit this past summer, I demonstrated a very condensed version of this 5-day lesson plan in three 1-hour sessions with Squad 2 (who knew no Latin) so that they could experience learning Latin like one of my own students on the first days of school. 

After teaching gestures for the words play, well, and badly, I had students draw on whiteboards what they like to play (a sport, a game, an activity - not an instrument thought. In Latin, one does not play an instrument but rather sings with one). From there, I began PQAs with the target words. Sentences like "Marcie basketball ludit" "Marcie, ludisne basketball bene?" and "Barbara backgammon ludit." While the activity went well, I did have some participants ask me why I used the English words for basketball and backgammon and not the Latin words - are there Latin words for them? I responded, "Yes, there are indeed Latin words for them, but I deliberately chose not to use them, because my focus for this lesson was on the words ludit and bene. Using the Latin words for basketball and backgammon would have given you too much Latin on which to focus - I don't care that you acquire the words for basketball and backgammon - those are not important right now. I want you to begin acquiring the words ludit and bene. I do not want to waste your memory bandwidth on unimportant words at the moment." To use educationese, my goal was to reduce the cognitive load for these learners. 

Too often with novice-level learners, in our attempt to expose students to the language, we unknowingly overload our messages to them, even if those messages are comprehensible. Too many functions are going on in their brains. While Latin purists will have a problem with my use of Latinglish with these learners, I am doing everything I can to reduce the clutter which would impede their acquisition of my target words.  

One way to reduce clutter for novice-level students when trying to target specific vocabulary words are to use cognates (which does not always work, because as teachers we know that cognates which are obvious to us are not obvious at all to students), proper nouns, and brand names. Examples:

• Carlos has Takis.
• Sheryl goes to Target.
• Jamal is bringing a CrockPot.

A way to reduce clutter in novice readings is to present just one idea per sentence and then build upon it either with an additional idea, recombining of ideas, or a compound sentence. Examples:

• Marcus has a dog. The dog is big. Marcus has a big dog.
• Jolene sees her sister. Her sister is in the kitchen. Jolene sees her sister in the kitchen, and she shouts.

Anyhow last week, I began this lesson with my Latin 1 students on the first day of school, and it went well! My students Brendan plays football and plays it well, Zoe plays volleyball but not very well (she likes it though) and Sara plays Uno well (I do not know how one plays Uno badly lol). I look forward to learning about my students this year in Latin!