As a CI Latin teacher, often I get asked by CI-seekers, "So what does level (insert number) look like in a CI classroom?" On the one hand, I completely understand the practicalities which these educators are asking, but at the same time, I see a mindset which is rampant in world language teaching which needs to be addressed.
The issue at hand is that we world language teachers tend to view language teaching and acquisition through the lens of textbooks. This view considers language learning to be linear in nature, and that acquisition occurs on a straight-line continuum and that language concepts and vocabulary introduced on Monday will be mastered by Friday. While I can understand the need for textbooks to do this in order to make material orderly and "efficiently-delivered," the truth is that this is not how language is acquired. Textbooks are set up to "shelter grammar, not vocabulary," e.g., if the grammatical topic for the chapter is the imperfect tense, the imperfect tense is pretty much all that is presented in that chapter (with other learned tenses as a contrast) with a LONG list of new vocabulary. As a result, then we assume that like most other disciplines, language acquisition can mastered in a straight-line method. Also when we view language levels through the lens of textbooks, we tend to associate certain grammatical structures with specific levels, e.g., that the subjunctive, gerunds, and gerundives are not topics covered in lower levels but are reserved for upper levels since that is how textbooks arrange their sequence of "acquisition".
So before you dismiss me as a textbook basher, I am not at all, because I understand why teachers use textbooks (I used one and was also a textbook trainer for years!). I am also a firm believer that one can adapt CI principles to the textbook and does not need to completely abandon it. But as someone who has "untextbooked" and does not view levels via a textbook lens, I will say this: language levels are not determined by complexity of language structures per se but maybe more by the level of proficiency in the "amount" of language which students can intake and can output. If CI teachers adhere to the "shelter vocabulary, not grammar" concept, then those language structures which we tend to think are too difficult can actually be introduced in level 1 as part of regular communication. This past year, I went all-in with "sheltering vocabulary, not grammar" with my Latin 2 classes, and I remember thinking halfway through the first semester, "Why do we not introduce cum clauses with subjunctives, indirect statements, and present participles in Latin 1? If I am 'sheltering vocabulary, not grammar,' it seems so natural because these are high frequency structures." And if we stay away from lengthy grammar discussions of these topics, then it is no problem for students to understand them when they encounter them.
When I say that language levels are determined more by the level of proficiency in the amount of classroom language which students can receive and can output, what a level 3 student experiences in the classroom vs a level 1 student will be different purely due to the amount of language to which those students have already been exposed over time. Even ACTFL notes this in that as learners progress in their language learning, the amount of language output and the level of learner language control will increase: from words to simple sentences to more complex sentences to ordered, sequenced paragraphs. ACTFL never mentions that knowledge and use of certain grammatical structures are what determine a level of proficiency! Accuracy itself of the delivered message does not determine language levels per se but rather was the communication at the novice/intermediate levels successfully understood by a sympathetic receptor? Cultural topics will also be probably different between levels, as lower levels focus on "self" and continue to expand to "the community at large" in upper levels.
To address the original question then of "What does level (insert number) look like in a CI classroom?" In the fall, I will be teaching Latin 2 and 3. In many ways, the two levels will still incorporate the same types of activities and will still be using novellas for their readings. The difference, however, will be in existing student language knowledge, reading ability and output in the language, and my own personal expectations of their proficiency levels. The novellas themselves will be what dictates the specific vocabulary and language structures which I need to cover in class.
So in this blog post, I hope that I have given you something to think about. Believe me, I am still trying to figure it all out too!
