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!

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.

Vocabulary Sorting and Matching - Google Slides Manipulatives

A few weeks ago was the Teacher's Discovery/Voces Digital Spring into Reading Virtual Conference (click here for recordings from the conference). I always make an attempt to attend a few of the online sessions, because there is a such a great slate of presenters from whom I learn so much. The sessions which I attended a few weeks ago definitely did not disappoint. 

Margarita Perez Garcia has been a presenter for the past three years, and she has recently played a tremendous role in my growth as a CI/ADI teacher, especially in the area of the importance of level-appropriate, comprehensible readings for students (see my post on my own experiment with reading her novellas as a novice-low, Spanish reader). I know that I will always walk away from her sessions with some great ideas and a deeper understanding of CI/ADI instruction. This year, Margarita presented on word clouds and how to use them to develop pre-reading comprehension in students. I had never thought about using word clouds in this way! Below is the recording of her presentation:

This week, I had to be out of the classroom for a day of department head staff development, so I took an idea from Margarita's presentation about vocabulary groupings/associations (see 28:17 in the video). Essentially, the idea is for students to categorize vocabulary words by commonalities/associations. She states, "Classifying words into meaningful groups helps students to remember them." Margarita was demonstrating this with a word cloud for pre-reading comprehension, but since I was going to be out and needed a substitute lesson plan to post on Google Classroom, I created a Google Slide manipulative where students dragged already-known vocabulary word to their proper categories.

Here are some of my Latin 1 slides which I created (there were four slides total):

Observations

1. I really liked the higher-order thinking involved with this. Students had to think about not only the meaning but also to which category it best fit. This was for Latin 1, so the categories were rather basic.
2. I turned this into a Google Slides manipulative using already-known vocabulary solely because it was a sub lesson plan activity. However, I would like to use this using a word cloud like Margarita does as a pre-reading activity for new words and have students write their answers in the columns. Writing in the target language, even if it is just words, causes the brain to add to/refine its mental representation of the language. Because it would be used for pre-reading, students would then enter into the actual reading with a deeper knowledge of these words.
3. Notice that none of the categories were "grammar-related," e.g., adjectives, adverbs, 1st conjugation verbs, 3rd declension adjectives, etc. Instead, the focus was on meaning. The closest I got to naming a grammar category was "words where the subject is I," "adjectives related to size," "words a Roman would shout" (instead of using the word "interjections"), and "words which can complete this sentence."
4. Students told me that it was "fun," because it was a different kind of activity and did require some thought. 
5. Definitely telling students explicitly how many words were in each category helped! There was no ambiguity with words maybe being in more than one category or any words not used.
6. I think that grouping these words into specific categories did mentally help organize the vocabulary for students, i.e., in that although they have acquired a lot of vocabulary so far, there is a degree of logic when they are organized into common associations/groups.

As always, thanks to Margarita for this idea! I hope you will try it out using the word cloud as a pre-reading activity - let me know how it goes!

Being a Guest on Claudia Elliott's Podcast "Growing with Proficiency"

Recently, I had the opportunity to be a guest on Claudia Elliott's podcast "Growing with Proficiency," sharing about making dictations purposefully communicative (here is the original blog post). If you have not listened to Claudia's podcast, what a treasure trove of guests and topics related to proficiency-based, CI/ADI language instruction!

WOW, what a privilege and honor it was for me to be a guest on this podcast! Over the years on this podcast, I have listened to so many great teachers whom I so greatly admire and from whom I have learned a great deal - so to be invited to be a guest was something which I did not take lightly!

Although we had to record this episode twice due to technical issues the first time, I really enjoyed my time! Claudia has a great personality and is a wonderful communicator, so it felt more like an organic, spontaneous conversation between two teachers and not like an interview.

Check out this episode - Dictation + Communication: How to Make Dictation Purposefully Communicative (Ideas You Can Use Tomorrow)

Task Rotation

Are there classroom days where you need to leave something for a substitute or where you just need a break and you want students to work on something independently but you can still introduce some new material in a bite-size chunk way? Well, here is an activity which may work for you!

I am currently taking a gifted certification class, so I am required to implement a number of gifted strategies in my classes and to turn in lesson plans showing that I facilitated them with students. While these strategies work great for core subject areas, unfortunately most of them are not aligned with the second language acquisition process, so I end up having to tweak them to fit my situation (which ends up not really resembling the original but rather the "spirit" of it). Here is a "gifted" strategy which I tweaked and tried with students on a day where I just needed a break.

The strategy is called "Task Rotation," and the concept is for students to work with a concept through completion of tasks which address different learning domains: 

• mastery - ask students to remember and describe.
• understanding - ask students to reason and explain.
• interpersonal - ask students to explore feelings and relate personally.
• self-expression - ask students to imagine and create.

So on this day where I needed a break, I created a Task Rotation for my Latin 2 students where the goal was to introduce four new vocabulary words and then have students do different, short learning domain tasks with them - again, this activity in many ways just reflects the "spirit" of the original strategy. NOTE - I had to label the domains as part of my gifted assignment. When I do this again, I will leave out the domain titles. 

As a class, I first defined the four vocabulary words so that everyone had a common meaning for these words. After that I explained what the three other tasks were but that they could do them in any order.

Observations

1. Because I was using this to introduce some new vocabulary, obviously me defining the words for the class for the "mastery domain" is not true mastery. 
2. The interpersonal examples which were given in my gifted class were "Write a personal letter to a close family relative explaining your feelings about X topic" or "Describe the feelings you have when you must use the quadratic equation. How do you deal with those feelings?" These were level 2 students, and asking students to describe their feelings in the target language through writing a letter or a diary entry seemed WAY BEYOND their proficiency ability, so I just had them write a 3-4 sentence story in Latin which used three of the new words. This was not difficult for students to do, because they were already familiar with doing a 4-Word Story. In addition, it involved higher-order thinking, since students were creating their own meaning using the target language.
3. Afterwards, students told me that they liked doing different things with the new words and that it was not just "only write a story in Latin" or "only illustrate the following story" - they enjoyed the variety and that it was short but effective.
4. Did students acquire these new words as a result? By no means, but they were definitely more familiar with them because of the interaction with them and usage.

So consider this as an independent work day activity or when you have a sub. Also, if you do actually use the four domains as prescribed, I would like to see how you had students do it in the target language.

Voces Digital Blog Post - My Experience at CI Summit

Recently I had the privilege of writing up a blog post for Voces Digital about my experience at CI Summit, and yesterday it was released on the Voces Digital website. I hope that you will take time to read it and that it will inspire you to consider attending CI Summit this summer. I hope to see you there!

Voces Digital blog

Freeze Frame as a Listening Proficiency Assessment

Want a quick summative way for students to demonstrate proficiency in their listening comprehension? Consider doing a take on the Freeze Frame activity! Because proficiency-based assessments test language modalities in an unrehearsed scenario, Freeze Frame is a great way to determine if students have aurally acquired language. I wrote about this activity in 2014, but I know that there are many others who use this activity too (if you have ever seen Eric Richards' presentation on whiteboard activities, he demonstrates this).

Freeze Frame is simply having students illustrate one giant picture which they hear you narrate in the target language. Students are not illustrating individual cartoon frames but drawing one picture, to which they add more details which they hear you narrate. (see blog post for an example of the picture and paragraph to read). 

Directions

1. Using known vocabulary words and language structures, write a description in the target language of a single picture which you wish for them to draw. The more random the picture, the better! The description should be about 10-12 sentences.
2. The paragraph needs to be something with which students are unfamiliar so that what they are hearing is unrehearsed - this preserves the proficiency and summative aspect of the assessment. Also, keep in mind that the paragraph must be 100% comprehensible to students, hence you are definitely recycling known vocabulary and structures but just not identical to a known passage. Having students work with a passage with which they are already familiar is performance in nature and reflects a formative assessment. 
3. You can print up a sheet on which for students to draw or you can have them do it on their own sheets of paper.
4. Explain to students that you are going to read a description to them, and their task is to draw a picture of what you read to them.
5. Read the paragraph in "chunks," i.e., parts of the picture at a time. 
6. As students hear you read the "chunks," they are to illustrate what you say. Repeat the sentences MANY times!
7. Since this is a proficiency-based listening assessment, grade according to a rubric. Below is an example of one which I modified/adapted. I found this on Elicia Cardenas' blog The Deskless Classroom.

Observations

1. Wow, this was a fast assessment. It took about 10 minutes to administer!
2. Grading according to a proficiency-based rubric like the one above made it so easy and quick to grade. 
3. I would advise doing some practice with this kind of activity first before using it as an assessment so that students understand that they are drawing one giant picture and that you are giving them parts of the picture to draw a few sentences at a time.
4. The repetition of the sentences as they draw allows students to hear continued exposure of understandable messages.

Give this a try as a summative listening comprehension assessment!

My Experiment with Sheltering Vocabulary

As I have stated many times here, this year I have been focusing on sheltering vocabulary with my Latin 1 classes. If you are not familiar with the concept (one can always use a refresher), Kristy Placido recently made a short video about the idea - in it, she addresses the four types of vocabulary words.

I really like how Kristy puts it, because I feel that many of us have a wrong idea about what "sheltering vocabulary" is. I feel that so many teachers think sheltering vocabulary at the lower levels is keeping vocabulary limited to a set limit for a unit/reading, but then move onto a new unit/reading where that previous high frequency vocabulary is not recycled and instead shelter a whole new limited set of vocabulary, which again is hardly reused in the following unit/reading. This is incredibly confusing for students, because they do not know what words they really should know, and it is frustrating for us teachers, because we feel like "students should still know these words, because we introduced them, but they do not." I have been SO guilty of this!

So last semester, I truly began to shelter vocabulary, trying to focusing on high frequency vocabulary and constantly recycling/providing lots of exposure. Here is the cumulative list of words/phrases which I targeted last semester. 

Let me say a few things:

• I had NO idea where I was going with this. I was embarking on this blindly. My goal was to introduce 5 new words a week, while constantly recycling previous targeted vocabulary. 
• I based my curriculum solely on clip chats. This allowed me to find animated shorts in which I could target these words.
• In the beginning weeks of the semester, my focus was on verbs. In order for sentences solely to focus on the Latin verb, the sentences usually had a name and the brand name of an object, such as Elmo wants Takis, Dora has a Playstation, Carlita is bringing a BigMac. This way students could focus solely on the Latin word which was the verb.
• On the one hand, I wanted to focus on Super 7/Sweet 16 words, but at the same time, I did see some necessity to cover words which are on the Dickinson Latin high frequency list. Let me say, I do not fully agree with many of the words on this list, since it comes from those words found in classical literature, which is Advanced High/Superior level readings - maybe 15% of my students will go onto AP Latin, so why am I subjugating the other 85% who are not?! Often I will look at the words listed and say, "That is a Cicero word" or "That is a Vergil word" but were they actually high frequency among the everyday Romans?
• I only introduced ONE Latin verb for movement - ad...petit (heads for) - anytime a character in a story went somewhere, I used that phrase. This was absolutely deliberate, since petit is a high frequency Latin word. While many Latin textbooks will introduce ambulat (is walking) and currit (is running) quite early, those are not high frequency words and instead are rather "decorative" to me - they explain in what manner one is going. I can introduce those later on for descriptive purposes. I'd rather have students burn memory bandwidth on acquiring other words for first semester.
• I sheltered vocabulary like crazy and recycled these words OVER AND OVER. In other words, I was absolutely deliberate that these words appeared as much as possible in clip chats and readings throughout the semester so that they eventually became sight words for them when reading due to the rampant exposure.

Observations

1. While my goal was to introduce 5 new words a week (so that there would be around 90 words at the end of the semester), I found that there were weeks where I needed to "circle the plane" some to revisit words and give students a chance to "plateau" in their learning. As a result, I did not reach my goal of 90 words by semester's end.
2. In addition, there were weeks where I wanted to focus on introducing a new grammatical structure such as 1st person singular. Here is where I was truly able to shelter vocabulary, not grammar.  
3. Because my Latin 1 students are emergent Latin readers, sheltering vocabulary and recycling these words in their readings greatly aided their reading development. In addition, I patterned my stories after emergent novellas which contain predictable sentence structures/patterns and focus on 1-2 ideas presented in a sentence. 
4. Where I saw the benefits of sheltering vocabulary was in student writing! Refer to my blog post on Novice Writing Proficiency Assessments with Pictures
5. I found that I could introduce a lot of new adjectives once students were familiar with "sum (I am)," because it seemed to flow naturally and I could incorporate it into dialogues.
6. In the beginning, 5 words a week worked well, but I can see making it 6-8 words as the semester progresses, but this requires paying closer attention to actively recycling those words.

As I said, I was doing this blindly. This was a work in progress and still is. However, I have a MUCH better idea of how sheltering vocabulary works and am looking forward to improving how I implement this. 

2026 CI/ADI Conferences

With it now being the new year, it is never too early to consider attending a CI/ADI conference in 2026, whether it be in-person or online. Here is a list of conferences for this year:

• Mitten CI (in-person) - April 17-18 in Saline, Michigan

• Comprehensible Iowa (in person) - June 12-13 in Des Moines, Iowa (I will be there!)
• Strasbourg ADI Institute (in-person - France) - June 27-July 5
• TCI Oregon (in-person) - June 29-July 1 in Bend, Oregon 

• CI Reboot (online) - dates yet to be released
• NTPRS (in-person) - July 13-16 in Port Orange, Florida
• CI Summit (in person) - July 15-17 in Cincinnati, Ohio (I will be there!)
• Agen Workshop (in-person - France) - July 20-25 in Agen, France

Did I miss any? Let me know in the comments. Hope that you will consider attending one or more!

Revisiting Dictations - Embedding Purposeful Communication

I am not a fan of dictations. I find them boring, and while I understand how they can aid in both the acquisition of language and the creation of orthographic mapping in students' minds, my students really do not like them. One student told me, "This is like taking notes!"

I am currently reading Common Ground: Second Language Acquisition Theory Goes to the Classroom by Maris Hawkins and Florencia Henshaw. In the first chapter, Hawkins and Henshaw discuss how to transform traditional activities into ones which reflect a communicative aspect; among these, they discuss a dictation. This can be found on pages 17-18 (according to my Kindle, so the pages may be different in a hard copy).

I tried out this modified dictation today in my Latin 1 classes, and I really like how it went. I did make some changes to how they present it in their book, but the spirit is still the same. I TAKE NO CREDIT FOR THE FOLLOWING - THIS IS ALL HAWKINS AND HENSHAW!

As is the example in the book, the focus of my dictation was on introducing the phrase "I like" (in Latin, mihi placet - literally "it pleases me").

1. I looked online to find the top six ranked activities which American teenagers like to do. I used Gemini AI to help find the ranked activities (so take with a grain of salt the accuracy), but according to a 2025 Pew Report as found by AI, the top six activities in order are:
1. watching digital content (Disney +, Hulu, Netflix, etc)
2. being on social media (Tik Tok, Instagram, Snapchat, Discord, etc)
3. listening to music
4. playing video games
5. sleeping
6. playing sports
2. I then scrambled the order and wrote them up as dictation sentences in Latin with the phrase "mihi placet....". There were a number of words and phrases for which I had to establish meaning in English and Latin: social media, video games, to watch digital content. 
3. From here, I treated this as a regular dictation activity.
4. Once the dictation activity was done, I then asked students to rank these activities from 1-6 according to THEIR preference.
5. Then I asked them to rank these activities according to how they thought AMERICAN TEENAGERS had answered.
6. I then projected a slide, revealing the Pew Report answers in Latin one at a time, starting with #6. 

Observations

1. While it still was a traditional dictation in a way, I loved the purposeful communication aspect of it at the end. Students were learning about themselves and their interests compared to how they "ranked" on a national poll.
2. I felt that having students rank their interests at the end according to their preferences and then predict what American teenagers said gave a sense of anticipation when I revealed the rankings - it felt like a game show! 
3. As a teacher, I definitely felt more engaged in the activity, since I knew where the dictation was heading. Most times, I end up zoning out... 
4. In Latin, much like Spanish, the phrase "I like" is usually followed by an infinitive. I had not yet introduced the infinitive form, but because I had sheltered vocabulary last semester, students already knew the verb forms for hear/listen to, play, and sleep. So while I still established meaning for the infinitive forms during the dictation, I was able to do lots of quick pop-up grammar during it by saying, "You already know that ludit means 'plays' - ludere means 'to play' - the -re is where I am getting the 'to __________." Using the phrase "I like" seems like a natural way to introduce the infinitive of known verbs.

I would love to do more purposefully communicative dictations in the future - what are some suggestions which you all have?

Thank you, Maris Hawkins and Florencia Henshaw!

Who Would Say This? - 1st singular practice

As I have posted earlier, I am teaching Latin 1 this year. Although I did teach this level last year, that was after a 7-year hiatus (since I primarily taught Latin 2 and 3 then), and I was still trying to get back into teaching truly novice learners, i.e., I felt really rusty in what to do and in what order. Plus, in that time, I had grown a great deal as CI/ADI teacher, in addition to learning much about what are realistic expectations of language proficiency at various levels a' la ACTFL (and I had it wrong!)

One of the major changes which I have been implementing in Latin 1 is truly sheltering vocabulary by focusing on high-frequency words and basing my curriculum solely on clip chats (formerly known as "movie talks") - doing a curriculum centered around clip chats has been my dream, and I am loving it!! As a result of this, I slowly began to introduce first person singular forms in the clip chats as part of the dialogue but not target it per se. 

I did Take Me Home as a clip chat with the goal of introducing sum (I am) and volo (I want) as isolated vocabulary words and not in a full conjugation chart (with the goal of these words eventually becoming sight words for students through repeated exposure and interaction), so as a post-reading activity, I then did a variation of the "Which Character Would Say This?". Essentially I just turned much of the narration into 1st person statements and typed out a series of statements onto a document where students wrote which character would say that. Note the target words from the clip chat to establish meaning for those students who need it.

Observations

1. This is very low level in terms of reading and writing, since it is just copying. However, this does possess a higher level of depth of knowledge since students are having to analyze the statement in terms of who would say this.
2. I used this post-reading activity to reinforce pop-up grammar timeouts and horizontal conjugations, but by no means did I expect students to acquire/master 1st person singular forms because of this. Nor was the goal of acquiring this structure even on the radar! While I can expose students to this structure and learners can interact with this, I cannot force nor speed up the acquisition process - students will acquire it when they acquire it on their own timeline.
3. Note the establishment of meaning at the top as an aid. If the term differentiation is a buzzword in your school, this is a great way to demonstrate it - establishing meaning serves as a support for all students who may need it (or not) during a lesson.