Retrieval Practice - Rotating Lists

Previously, I wrote a blog post about Retrieval BINGO, an activity involving retrieval practice which I learned from Liam Printer's "The Motivated Classroom" podcast. To restate Printer, retrieval practice is way to aid in the output process:

'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. 

Once again, Florencia Henshaw defines output as "expressing meaning retrieving from your (language) system."

So as a way to review a reading which we had been working on in Latin, I did a variation of Retrieval BINGO but based on Eric Richards' Rotating Desk activity.

1. I organized students into three groups of 9 students.
2. Each student had a whiteboard, marker, and rag.
3. I had students number 1-9 on their boards.
4. I then told students to write any Latin word which they remembered from the story for #1.
5. After that, I told students to pass their board to the person on their left.
6. Now, they had to read word #1 and write a new word for #2 (it could have been the word which they wrote for #1 as long as it was a different word).
7. I then had them pass it to the person on their left, read what was written for words #1 and #2 and write a new word for #3.
8. They did this routine until they got back their board and now they had to read what words had been listed.
9. Once they did that, a'la Liam Printer's Retrieval BINGO activity,  I had them all stand up and then I read off 5 words which I had chosen. If the word was on their board, they had to sit down. Whoever was left standing was the "winner".

Observations

1. Yes, this was a very guided, sheltered form of output, yet it was solely based on words from a previous reading with which students were familiar.
2. In re-reading the list of words each round, students got input, with the hopes of maybe using one of those words later if they got stuck and could not think of a word. 
3. Again, I was surprised at what words students recalled which I did not even consider when I made my list of five words.
4. Once again, the standing up at the end created a sense of suspense based on who sat down each time I said one of the words and who was left standing.
5. Yes, a student could write down the same word nine times (the probability is very low of this as the activity progresses), but at the same time, the student is receiving continued input in reading the lists of words each round. Hopefully, these words will start to take root in that student's mental representation of language.

Retrieval Practice - BINGO

In a recent post, I discussed how Liam Printer in his podcast series The Motivated Classroom spotlighted the importance of developing the "retrieval process" of language in students to aid in their output process. 

'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 Henshaw's definition of output: expressing meaning retrieving from your system. However, we must also quickly understand that output in and of itself does not lead to language acquisition. We must build up students' language systems with input so that they have something from which to retrieve for the purpose of expressing meaning.

In that podcast episode, Printer lists 11 quick and easy activities which one can implement with students which are geared towards developing language retrieval in students and are very guided, sheltered "output" in nature. The first one is simply called Retrieval BINGO. I tried this out after the first two weeks of class, and it went very well. 

1. Every student has a whiteboard or piece of paper.
2. Have students number 1-5 on their whiteboard/paper.
3. Give students 1-2 minutes to write down ANY target language word which they remember from the current reading.
4. At the same time, you write down four words from the reading too.
5. After the time is up, have students stand up.
6. Tell students that you have written down four words yourself and will read them off one at a time.
7. If you read one of their words, then they have to sit down.
8. Whoever is left standing by the end is the "winner".
9. The winner reads aloud their list of words to the class.
10. Repeat the activity again.

Observations

1. I love this activity! What a great sheltered way for students to "output" (per Henshaw, "retrieving from their system").
2. Because it is based on the current reading, this gives necessary parameters for students.
3. I was absolutely surprised at what words students wrote down - many wrote down words which I was not targeting in the reading, but yet somehow students' brains had latched onto them in their mental representation of language.
4. The standing up and sitting down nature added a bit of kinesthetic learning to the activity.
5. Although this was a sheltered "output" activity, students still received A LOT of input with them writing down their known words, from me reading my list of words, and from the winner(s) reading their list of words.
6. It was a novel way to review the reading, because when a target word was said aloud, I said the context sentence from the story.
7. When we played the second time, now that students knew what the activity was, many really tried to come up with a new set of words from either their own memory or from what words they had just heard read aloud.
8. Yes, when we played the second time, students could have written the same list of words again. I will give students the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to that these are the words which students are able to retrieve from their language system. This is okay - hopefully with more continued input to their system, the next time we play, these students will be able to retrieve additional words.
9. Students want to play this game again and again!

Thanks to Liam Printer for this fun yet quick "output" activity!

True/False PQAs using "Has"

At this past summer's CI Summit in Cincinnati, I had the privilege of watching Bryan Kandel demo a very simple, true/false purposefully communicative activity. Bryan is an absolutely master communicator, as he made this low-prep activity SO personable and compelling for us. This activity can be found in his book Give Them What They Want: A Guide to Increasing Enrollment in World Language Class, and it is so amazingly simple to facilitate.

1. Create a list of sentences in the target language about different students in your class. The sentences can be anything which is personalized about the students. These sentences can include target vocabulary or language structures. Examples: Joy wants a dog, Amayah has seen the movie Spiderman: No Way Out, Charlene went ice skating this weekend, etc.
2. Project the sentences. 
3. Have students write True or False for each sentence on paper/whiteboards to predict what they think the answer is. Students may not ask the specific students if their sentence is true or false.
4. Review each sentence with the class by asking the student in the target language about whom the sentence is if the statement is True or False. 
5. If students have predicted correctly, they give themselves a point.
6. Continue the activity by asking the student and class extension PQAs in the target language related to the statement.
7. Total points upon completion to determine a "winner".

In my Latin 1's a month ago, I recently did this activity on day 4 of class. Because I was targeting the word "has," I created the following statements in Latin for each of my three Latin 1 classes - yes, because it was day 4 of Latin 1, there were a number of words which I had to gloss for them such as "driver's license," "sister," "brother," and "job".

• ______ has an xBox.
• ______ has a brother.
• ______ has a dog. 
• ______ has an iPhone. 
• ______ has a driver's license.
• ______ has a sister. 
• ______ has a job.

Observations

1. Wow, I was surprised at how well this activity went with Latin 1 students, even with limited vocabulary! What a fun way to learn about each other in the target language!
2. Students were actually engaged in the activity - I think the predicting and running point total added to that.
3. I randomly picked students ahead of time for each sentence, so I personally did not know the answers. Plus, because it was the 4th day of class, I had no idea who the students actually were yet. 
4. This was a great example of purposeful communication, because students were learning about each other in the target language. I definitely learned a lot about them.
5. Extension PQAs seem so natural to do after finding out if the statement is true or false.
6. Students whose names were not used have asked me if we are going to this again, because they want to have a sentence about them!
7. I plan to do this activity again with the word "wants".

Get Bryan Kandel's book, because he has so many great communicative activities in it. Thanks, Bryan!