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?