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

Dear Novice-Level Authors...

Dear Novice-Level Authors,

I am a novice-low/mid reader of Spanish (I am a Latin teacher who knows very little Spanish, so my reading is self-taught), and over the past few years, I have begun to read many of your novellas which are targeted for novice-level readers. First off, thank you so much for your novellas! 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."

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

But what I appreciate mostly is how you have written novellas with a true understanding of those actual linguistic supports which emerging novice-low/novice mid readers truly need.

• I love that you shelter vocabulary with predictable sentence patterns. Those two concepts need to go hand-in hand. When I read your novellas, I loved that I was able to focus on a limited number of vocabulary words but that the predictability of the sentence patterns allowed me to focus on reading. As I continued reading those novellas, I noticed that my reading speed increased. And once I recognized your particular writing style, I loved reading other novice-low/mid novellas which you had written, because I knew your sentence pattern! 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." 
• I love that each of your sentences only focused on one idea. I did not get lost in your sentences due to too much information!
• I loved that while your sentences focused on one idea, you would then combine those sentences as a compound sentence to reinforce continued exposure to that vocabulary. Because I had already read them as individual sentences, a longer compound sentence did not seem too much language.
• I love that while your novellas did have a glossary, I did not rely on it after the first few pages. The constant repetitions of those words reinforced those words which I had to look up to the point that I no longer needed the glossary.
• I love that you wrote your story as individual sentences - one sentence per line. I recall seeing some novellas which were written as paragraphs, and I remember right away feeling overwhelmed by the sheer sight of it (even though it was very comprehensible Spanish). Now I know how my own novice-low/mid students must feel sometimes when seeing a paragraph of Latin, even if 100% comprehensible. Seeing each sentence as a line made the reading appear doable and lowered my affective filter.
• I love that while you were using a limited amount of vocabulary, you still found a way to create compelling plots. Granted they probably did not have a major conflict with rising tension, major character development, a climax, and denouement/resolution which had a twist ending, they did not need all of that. Your plots kept my interest! 
• I love that you made me feel successful as a novice-low/mid reader of Spanish!

Thank you for showing me how I want my own emerging novice-low/mid Latin readers to feel when reading something which I have written. You have served as great examples! I look forward to reading more of your novellas in the future.

Keith

P.S. Special shoutouts to Margarita Perez Garcia, Mira Canion, and Adam Giedd for your wonderful novellas!

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

Implementation Science and CI/ADI

As you know, I am a HUGE fan of the podcast "Sold a Story". As a result, I am a big advocate of the Science of Reading and have been thinking much about how it can be applied to the world language classroom since we are seeing low literacy skills in our students. There is so much which we can learn from the Science of Reading.

Recently, I saw the following video of a presentation about the Science of Reading and Implementation Science led by Emily Hanford of "Sold a Story" fame. I had never heard of Implementation Science - it is a relatively new science. While watching the video, I could not help but think about how Implementation Science relates to the barriers which we CI/ADI teachers encounter. Regardless of your views on the Science of Reading, the discussion of Implementation Science has much bearing on education, especially the Simple View of Outcomes (patterned after the Simple View of Reading).

The video is about 90 minutes, but I found the 45-minute presentation and then the 45 minutes of Q/A to be very informative about Implementation Science. 

One of the points which caught my attention surrounds the Simple View of Outcomes - that so often we bombard and overload attempts at change with "knowledge," as if knowledge itself is what will effect change. While knowledge in and of itself is necessary, that alone is not enough. I think that we as a CI/ADI community have been good at focusing on getting the knowledge out there, but how can we fix "systems" in stages to implement that CI/ADI knowledge? 

Here are some "barriers" which I see teachers new to CI/ADI experience. As I reflect, I do not think that we address these very well:

• How can I wean myself from the textbook? The textbook is all I know.
• What does a CI/ADI assessment look like? I do not know that looks like. I need examples.
• There are specific topics which I must cover in a semester. How do I do this?

I think so often our response to these situations is just to offer more knowledge, but folks need TANGIBLES in order to progress - what does this look like? I feel like so often are message to newcomers is "Here is the knowledge. Now, good luck on implementing it." This is definitely something on which I need to ponder further.

So what are some "low-hanging systems within our reach" which we in the CI/ADI community can address and fix, instead of just throwing knowledge at them?

Grammar According to ACTFL and the College Board

The following is taken from a presentation which I delivered at Comprehensible Iowa a few weeks ago.

When it comes to the topic of grammar, so often I hear from language teachers, "I must teach explicit grammar starting from Day 1 of level 1. I must focus on grammatical accuracy from the very beginning, since I need to prepare my students for AP!" While that may have been the case 20 years ago (actually did the College Board ever feel that way?), both ACTFL and the College Board are very clear in their expectations of grammar when it comes to language learning, and you may be surprised by what they have to say on the matter.

However, first we must establish a few foundational tenets of second language acquisition theory:

1. Language acquisition is not linear in nature.
2. Language acquisition is subconscious and not explicit in nature.
3. Learners do not acquire language at the same rate.

In addition, there is the theory of ordered development (see blog post here).

The following is what ACTFL states on its website about grammar instruction in a language classroom. In fact, there is a WHOLE PAGE dedicated to the topic!

Grammar should be addressed within meaningful communicative contexts as one element of language proficiency. Instead of focusing on grammar rules and diagramming sentences, teachers should guide students towards an understanding of how grammar functions.

Grammar is an important element of communication, but research shows that explicit teaching of grammar has little effect on people’s language acquisition, comprehension, or writing abilities. Traditional approaches to grammar instruction that emphasize direct grammar instruction often encourage memorized, rehearsed use of language.

- Taken from “Teach Grammar as a Concept in Context: How to approach grammar in language instruction” (on ACTFL web site). Sentences in bold are my emphasis.

I especially like how ACTFL states, "Grammar should be addressed within meaningful communicative contexts as one element of language proficiency" (again the bold/underlined is my emphasis). I think that we need to realize that grammar indeed does have a place in language teaching but just not THE place!

In addition, the 2012 ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines mentions the sympathetic receptor: Novice/intermediate communicators "may be understood by sympathetic [receptors] accustomed to dealing with non-natives.” As our students are at novice/intermediate proficiency levels, we must expect and accept that our students will communicate with incorrect grammar. However, the key is that they will be understood by a sympathetic receptor familiar with non-native communication. You as a language teacher by nature should be a sympathetic receptor!

Here is what the College Board says regarding grammar on the AP exams. The following was taken from the new AP Spanish Language and Culture Course and Exam Description:

The AP Spanish Language and Culture course strives not to overemphasize grammatical accuracy at the expense of communication. 

The AP Spanish Language and Culture course strives to promote both fluency and accuracy in language use and avoid overemphasis on grammatical accuracy at the expense of communication.

As language teachers, our primary goal should be student communication in the language. However, when we place too much emphasis on grammatical accuracy, we can impede their communication development. It is possible that while students may be grammatically correct in what they say, they also may not be saying much/anything due to an overfocus on accuracy.

Below is how grammar accuracy correlates to AP Scores. Again, the following was taken from the new AP Spanish Language and Culture Course and Exam Description:

Like ACTFL, the College Board states that our emphasis should be on communication. One can communicate successfully with incorrect grammar. So while grammar does play a part, it is only just one component of communication.

I hope that this post has informed you about how both ACTFL and the College Board view grammar and its place in assessing communication. Hopefully, you will begin to view student grammatical errors in a positive way.

Additions to my CI Family Tree

In 2016, I wrote a blog post about those teachers who had played an instrumental role in my development and journey as a CI/ADI instructor. In 2017, I added Linda Li to my pantheon list. Now, almost 10 years later, I wish to add three more people to my CI family tree:

Martina Bex and Elicia Cardenas - Over these past years, I have served as a coach for their online course Acquisition Boot Camp (there is also an Assessment Boot Camp course). Acquisition Boot Camp consists of over 20 learning modules covering CI/ADI topics such as second language acquisition theory, foundational tenets, strategies, and assessing students. In each module, participants watch a short 10-minute video on a topic and then write short reflections in the online forum. As one of the coaches, my role is to respond to these reflections, to answer any questions, and sometimes to "herd" participants towards a more complete view and understanding of CI/ADI. Even though my responsibility in this course is to serve as a coach, I am still learning a great deal each time this course is offered! I am constantly reviewing their videos and although I am quite familiar with them, I still find myself saying, "Oh wow, now that concept is finally making sense to me!" My understanding of second language acquisition theory has deepened a great deal over the years from this course, and it is because of Martina and Elicia that I have moved away from performance-based grading to proficiency-based grading (and I am so glad that I did!). So often when discussing second language acquisition theory either online or in-person, I find myself using the exact language which they use in their videos. I am incredibly grateful to Martina and Elicia for trusting me to serve as a coach for their online course. 

Eric Richards - I have only known Eric a few years (I met him when we were both serving as mentors for the same squad at CI Summit in 2023), but I have learned so much from him over these past three years. If you ever get the chance to see one of his presentations or to be a student in one of his German labs which he is leading, do it - Eric has a such a calm, positive demeanor when he presents that he immediately puts you at ease. I absolutely love how Eric's mind works, because he is able to come up with so many great ideas (I am great at adapting other people's ideas, not creating them on my own). I have taken so many of his German lessons and "Latinized" them for my own classes. His book "Grafted Writing" has served as a tremendous resource for me in getting students to write in the target language. Eric is one of the first people whom I consult when I want to try out a new idea or need someone to bounce an idea off of (it helps that we both teach inflected languages). Eric and I have cowritten a number of blog posts here, and we have submitted a co-presentation proposal for this year's ACTFL (fingers crossed it will be accepted. It was turned down last year). He is also the one who got me to attend and to present at Comprehensible Iowa, a conference which I love, support, and will be attending for the third summer in a row!

Who are those who are part of your CI/ADI family tree?

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.