Novellas - Balancing Comprehensibility and Compelling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literacy in the World Language Classroom page 

Left/Right PQAs - Purposeful Communication

This past weekend, I attended/presented at Comprehensible Iowa in Des Moines. This was my second time attending/presenting at this local conference, and again, it did not disappoint at all! I truly love Comprehensible Iowa (you can read my post about it from last year), because the organizers put on a such a great conference - lots of very good presenters, a very communal and welcoming Midwestern atmosphere, a great social gathering following the Friday workshops, and plenty of food and snacks!

On the first day, I co-presented a 3-hour adult German language lab with Eric Richards - since Eric is a German teacher, he did most of the heavy lifting in leading it, while I led the debriefs. Because of this, I was able to participate in the language lab; I absolutely LOVE being a participant in language labs where I do not know the language, because then I can experience learning a language like one of my own students. Years ago, being in Linda Li's Mandarin Fluency Fast class was such a turning point for me in my CI/ADI journey, and Eric is a master at implementing CI/ADI as a German teacher! Every time I sit on a German session led by Eric, I learn so much from him.

One activity which Eric facilitated during this language lab was Left/Right. Eric wrote the words "links (left)" and "recht (right)" on the appropriate sides of the board and then projected a question slide similar to this one:

Our job was then to move to the proper side of the board which best reflected our answer. Although a very simple activity, Eric did SO much with this:

1. After we had moved to our sides, Eric counted us in German and then said in German, "X have brothers." Then depending on the numbers, he said, "More do have (not) a brother. Most have (not) a brother."
2. He then in German asked some of those who had brothers "Is your brother older or younger? Do you have one brother? Is your brother friendly? What is your brother's name?"
3. From then, Eric projected a new slide asking us a new question, and as previously done, he repeated the same pattern of questions.

I absolutely LOVED this activity which Eric did for so many reasons:

1. Even though the activity was in German, Eric had scaffolded the lesson already to such a degree that the necessary vocabulary had already been previewed and meaning established, so it was incredibly comprehensible for us.
2. It was a wonderful example of purposeful communication in that all of us participants were able to learn about each other nonverbally based on what side of the board we were standing and then verbally through Eric's followup questions.
3. The movement aspect made the activity quite compelling and novel, instead of the traditional "raise your hand" kind of response.
4. This activity was done throughout the 3 hours so although each time it involved a new set of questions, we became very familiar with it.
5. Eric changed up the slides so that not every one was necessarily a question, e.g., "I swim __________" (left - good, right - bad); "I have a _________" (left - iphone, right - Android phone); "I need more ________" (left - luck, right - patience). I not only loved how our responses were not always to a question but that Eric snuck in the first person singular forms. However, since the focus for us participants was not on grammar per se but rather on the activity, I do not think I even noticed that the form of the verb had changed. 
6. Although it started out as a group PQA, by Eric then asking individuals about their answers, it turned into an individual PQA. Eric did a master job at "keeping the balloon in the air" (I think this is a Ben Slavic phrase?) with questions until he felt that it was time to move on.

This is just one of the many CI/ADI strategies which I learned this past weekend at CI Iowa, and I will be blogging about them. I hope that you will consider attending CI Iowa in summer 2026 - I am already planning to attend, so I hope to see you there!

P.S. If you are attending CI Summit next month, Eric will be leading the German language study class and will be doing this activity as part of the lab. Consider taking the German class, because you are in for a treat! 

What Does Latin 2 Look Like?

Not too long ago, I was speaking with a Latin teacher about novellas, and he asked, "So what does a Latin 2 novella look like?" While a simple question, it is actually MUCH bigger than a simple answer for a number of reasons - the bigger question is what does Latin 2 look like?:

• There is what textbooks say. Textbooks are not written with second language acquisition theory in mind, because namely, they further the misinformed concept that language learning is linear in nature. Textbooks will introduce a chapter on a particular grammar concept, with the "introduced on Monday and mastered by Friday, and ready to move on to the next concept" model. Because of this, there are particular grammar concepts which we tend to think of as "higher level," because textbook have "told us" that they are, e.g., subjunctives, gerunds, gerundive, sequence of tenses, etc. Big picture, however, novice learners can use these concepts quite early - we just tend to think that they cannot and are not ready for them!
• There is what the National Latin Exam syllabus says a Latin 2 class should cover (which is basically a rehash of what grammar-translation textbooks say).
• There is what traditional grammar-translation Latin expectations say, namely that by the end of Latin 2, students should be able to translate Caesar. As a result, teachers should have covered ALL necessary grammatical concepts

HOWEVER, regardless of what textbooks and tradition may say, language levels are NOT determined by grammatical constructions, vocabulary, or cultural topics. ACTFL defines language levels by proficiency, where the primary difference between profiency levels lies in the complexity of tasks and the amount of language in which an individual can perform them. 

Most CI/ADI teachers who use ACTFL standards-based grading define the anticipated target proficiency levels for language levels as follows - ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines - 2024 :

• Level 1 - Novice Mid
• Level 2 - Novice High
• Level 3 - Intermediate Low
• Level 4 - Intermediate Low (note that level 4 is still considered Intermediate Low, since the Intermediate level is considered a much wider range of proficiency compared to the Novice levels)

Nowhere in the ACTFL proficiency descriptions is grammatical acuracy mentioned as an exemplar of a Novice or Intermediate learner. In fact, the expectation is that these learners will make LOTS of grammatical errors when communicating! ACTFL guidelines state that communicators at these levels can be understood by sympathetic receptors who are accustomed to non-native communicators.

So to return to the original question of "What does a Latin 2 novella look like?", here is what ACTFL says regarding reading proficiency at the Novice High level:

At the Novice High sublevel, readers can understand, fully and with relative ease, key words and cognates, as well as formulaic phrases across a range of highly contextualized texts. Where vocabulary has been rehearsed, they can understand predictable language and messages...

Based on this, a Latin 2 novella would continue to employ formulaic sentences and predictable language and messages (as found in previous Novice Mid readings), but the assumption is that now there is a greater foundation of vocabulary and of grammatical constructions from which to draw. Again, let me say: TOO MANY LATIN NOVELLAS ARE WRITTEN WITH A TEXTBOOK MODEL IN MIND! Latin textbook readings are not written based on ACTFL proficiency guidelines and are overly complex in terms of sentence length and too much vocabulary for the specific levels. Keep in mind that "complex" grammar structures can indeed be introduced in the novice levels - just be sure to use them over and over again so that they are formulaic and predictable in nature! This is not "dumbing down" or removing "rigor" from reading Latin - rather, this is aligning L2 reading with realistic expectations and second langauge acquisition! I love introducing "cum clauses + pluperfect subjunctive" very early in Latin 2 readings and using them over and over again so that students become very familiar with them. 

Horizontal Conjugations

A question which CI/ADI teachers often get asked is, "So what about grammar? If you do not explicitly teach grammar, then how do you get your students to learn it?" My answer has always been, "We do indeed teach grammar - it just looks different." Many times I have relied on grammar timeouts in class - drawing attention to a specific grammar point which has come up for about 15-20 seconds and then returning to back to what we were doing. In many ways, that is enough. However, sometimes students need more than that, but I have never realized how to go beyond grammar timeouts without "going all grammar" (and believe me, I LOVE grammar, so I could go on and on about the grammar point). Recently, I learned from Martina Bex about Horizontal Conjugations, and I am loving this concept!

Rather than rehash Martina's directions, here is a link to her post about horizontal conjugations.

Below is also a video which Martina made on the topic:

Recently with my Latin 1 students, I tried out a horizontal conjugation, since I was wanting to draw attention to 1st person singular, present tense verb forms. Students had already been reading these forms, but I had been using the pronoun ego (I) previously as a word clue - I had never fully explained how the verb form changes to reflect the person change to 1st person. I was also wanting to start taking away ego, since in Latin it is mainly used as emphasis and really unnecessary to use. Essentially, I need students to start paying attention to the verb endings.

Here is what I gave them:

I also began to do some horizontal conjugating with bellringers:

Observations

1. I love that students are conjugating verbs without really "conjugating" like I learned to do it! As much as I love doing conjugation charts, since they are novice language learners, students do not need to know how verbs are fully formed, from what conjugation they are, what stem-vowels are, what irregular forms of which to be aware when conjugating, etc. However, they do need to start paying attention to the verb endings. 
2. I really like the communicative aspect of this. Horizontal conjugations take place in a given context of a reading, instead of an isolated verb chart. 
3. Because I am using sentences from the reading with which they are familiar, students are re-reading understood content and gaining more input.
4. I am looking forward to doing this with verb tense changes.
5. Since Latin is an inflected language, I am wondering how to apply this to noun endings and use this as a horizontal declension?

What has been your experience with horizontal conjugations?

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

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

Hoover and Gough's Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hoover explains,

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

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

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

Application to the CI/ADI Classroom

We know that Krashen is a huge advocate of reading:

"Our reading ability, our ability to write in an acceptable writing style, our spelling ability, vocabulary knowledge, and our ability to handle complex syntax is the result of reading."

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

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

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

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

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

Voces Digital Conference/Central States Conference

A confession: as a teacher, I feel like my well has run dry. There are only two more months left in my school year (last day of school for students is Wednesday, May 21), and if you are like me, you are dragging and are SO ready for things to be over. As a CI/ADI teacher, I hate this feeling, because I so want to continue giving understandable and engaging input to my students, but the reality is, I am TIRED and feel like I have nothing left to give.

This is why meaningful (note that word!) professional development is SO important for us as CI/ADI teachers, and recently I took part in two PDs, one online and one in-person. I attended the first evening's slate of sessions for Voces Digital's digital Spring into Reading conference, and then later that weekend I attended the Central States Conference on Teaching Foreign Language (CSCTFL). Both of these could not have come at a better time for me!!

I was only able to attend the first evening of the Voces Digital online conference, but there were some really good speakers that evening. Below are the videos from that evening:

•  "Free Voluntary Reading: Free to Read but Still Accountable?" by Margarita Perez Garcia
• "Engaging Students with Reading" by Eric Richards
• "Zero Prep Reading for True Beginners" by Mike Peto

All of the presentations were great! Although I had never seen Mike Peto present before, I had always heard great things about him - he did not disappoint!

Later that weekend, I attended my first Central States conference in Kansas City. This conference is nicknamed "The Friendly Conference," and indeed it was - much like my experience at Comprehensible Iowa last summer, Midwesterners indeed are friendly and hospitable! I had always heard that Central States always had a good slate of CI/ADI presentations, and indeed - it seemed like each session time had a CI/ADI presentation, and I did my best to attend as many as I could. Shout out to Mira Canion, Caitlyn McKinney, Valentina Correa, Carrie Toth, Jeremy Jordan, and Eric Richards for their sessions - you gave me so much to think about and to use in my curriculum. Mostly what I enjoyed was catching up/hanging out with other CI/ADI folks - people whom I primarily only see at conferences but we share such a deep mutual respect for each other. I needed definitely needed to be with folks all of whom we were on the same page pedagogically with CI/ADI. If you have the chance next year, attend Central States! I am seriously considering now submitting a proposal for next year's conference in Chicago.

Are you in need of some CI/ADI professional development? Check out my post on CI/ADI offerings for 2025, and get your cup refilled!