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!

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!