Author: magisterp

Bethany Sawyer’s Table Qs

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

At CANE’s Annual Meeting last week, Bethany Sawyer shared a reading comprehension strategy “in chart form” that I’m calling Table Qs. This EZ format breaks up a text while giving students something specific to do while reading that focuses their attention. I think of this as giving students’ minds a job to do. When I brought this idea to our Director of Curriculum & Instruction, she (also an ELA teacher) found it similar to when they first do annotations. Instead of just “hey, annotate,” there’s always an “annotate for ____” prompt to guide students. It follows, then, that a “hey, read” prompt very well might result in students looking at the text, and maybe registering certain words, but something short of processing the Latin and really comprehending. Table Qs is one support for that. This kind of structure is also a great example of schoolifying CI. In short, students answer a question in the left column, underlining/highlighting its Latin in the right column. All you gotta do is drop text into a Doc, and make some Qs.

The key?

Don’t make obvious questions that allow students to avoid reading altogether! That would defeat the whole purpose. While it took me about 15 minutes to put a front/back Table Q page together, I’d consider it wasted time if all students were to do would be skimming the Latin to answer a question. While making these Qs is certainly a skill, consider rephrasing ones that call for a single word that’s basically already given in the question. Also consider avoiding “who?” Qs when there’s only one proper noun in the selected text. If that’s the case, at least add a follow up (e.g., “who ____ and then what do they do?”).

Check out the fourth Q in the screenshot below. That could’ve been “Marcus is what?” or “Is Marcus confused?” However, the Q allows for a number of responses that all indicate comprehension, such as “he’s not Egyptian” or “he doesn’t know hieroglyphics,” and encourages reading the whole segment (i.e., NOT just picking out only the Latin needed to answer a poorly formed Q). As a confirmation of understanding and to support their answer, students underline (or highlight if a digital Google Doc) the specific Latin. The following screenshot is from the second chapter of Mārcus et scytala Caesaris:

90%, 95%, 96%, 98%, 100%—Misinterpreted Numbers Demystified

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

Here are some common numbers floating around the language teaching world, their misinterpretations, and some clarifications to go with each one:

90%
This figure comes from an ACTFL position statement on target language use. The biggest misinterpretation I’ve seen is thinking something like students should be speaking the target language 90% of the time. The 90% figure is actually about percentage OF language during class that IS the target language. For example, if you’re reading a 100% Latin text during class and ask SOME questions about it 100% in English, it’s quite possible that target language use is still above 90% (e.g., students read 1,000 total words of Latin and hear 100 words of English questions = 90% target language use). Students need input. This 90% figure is an attempt to prioritize high quantities of language. The alternative to avoid would be something like doing a close reading on a short paragraph of Latin with the discussion entirely in English, perhaps resulting in the opposite 10% target language use, which was quite common in the teaching of languages prior to ACTFL’s statement. Somehow, you’ll still find such low levels of target language use today, despite ACTFL’s efforts back in 2010. N.B. if you do a general search, some ACTFL page might come up that contradicts their original 2010 statement, referring explicitly to class time. It also name-drops Krashen, pointlessly throws in the i+1 concept that itself became misunderstood, cites Vygotsky in some kind of weird sociocultural nod, and ends with an obligatory reference to Long & Swain’s work on output theory. This hodgepodge of ideas is startling, but probably represents how ACTFL tends to remain as NEUTRAL as possible, taking bits and pieces from way too many popular ideas and approaches as if it makes sense to combine them all. Don’t fall into that trap. Follow principles that you know align with each other and don’t conflict!

95%
See 98%, below.

96%
Perhaps more commonly known as “4%,” the figure of 96% represents the students who typically do NOT continue beyond the second year of language study, here in the US, with the dominant paradigm having been grammar-based teaching. Although programs have been moving to comprehension-based, and/or communicative approaches, it’s still possible that the 4% figure represents some programs today, though the origin dates back to a 1969 speech, detailed in this post. A common misinterpretation has been to claim that individual “4%ers” are the only students capable of learning a language via grammar-translation (GT). This is untrue. The “4%ers” are simply those who tend to stay enrolled. Recently, I’ve argued they represent the pedagogically immune.

98%
I’ve seen this (as well as 95%, and even 90% in some cases) shared as “minimum comprehension level” that students should have when reading. This figure actually represents recommended minimum text coverage while reading. It’s from various studies, detailed in this post. In short, a text coverage as high as 98% has been shown to produce comprehension scores as low as 70%. That’s not incredibly good. Also from the studies, a text coverage of 95% produced scores as low as 55%! You don’t want to know what the scores were for 80%!

100%
I’ve heard people say that knowing 100% of words means a text will be 100% understandable. That’s not true (see above). In an age of promoting “productive struggle” and “grit,” the accusation is that a 100% understandable text is undesirable because students will somehow not get their +1 level to their i (again, see this post on that whole concept demystified). This is most definitely untrue. Even when comprehension is 100% there are aspects of language (e.g., word order, forms, etc.) that can still be learned. Given what is known about text coverage, there’s very little justification for using target language students don’t know, like above-level texts. Therefore, the 100% figure should be a goal for text coverage or known vocab.

Crowdsourced Quizzes/Comprehension Checks

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

I’ve written about sneaky quizzes in the past. Originally, they were intended to get a grade for the gradebook (I had not discovered ungrading) while being another source of input. I called them “quick quizzes,” rebranded as “comprehension checks,” and then went back. Call them whatever you like. This update is a new way to go about them, scaled to whatever you need, like breaking up a long class with a 5-minute quiz, or adding group collaboration to get a 20-minute activity. In a nutshell:

  • Collect quiz content from each student.
  • Use those for the quiz.
  • Go over the quiz.

About quizzes…I haven’t been putting a single score on anything this whole year, and I’m not going back. If you do, though, have students score their own work. I also haven’t assigned any specific work to turn in this whole year (see portfolios), and I’m not going back. If you do have specific assignments students are expected to turn in, though, report these scores in the gradebook like you would anything else. Here’s more detail…

Continue reading →

Read & React + Read & Reflect

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

As part of “schoolifying CI,” here are two more follow-up activities in addition to Read & Summarize and the ole’ standby, Read & Translate:

Read & React (or Listen & React)
Students react to narrative events. You could choose a variety of prompts, having students respond to a certain number, etc. based on your class needs. Here’s a selection from Novella Month, which for me is now going to end the school year instead of occupying the February weeks before break. I’ve selected 5-8 of these, and given “respond to 2” etc. instructions depending on scope of text and time:

  • What could make the story better for you? Is there anything missing?
  • What other story does this remind you of? How did that connection help you understand the story better?
  • How are you alike, or different from any of the characters in the story?
  • How does this story make you feel? When have you felt that way in your life?
  • What is a message, or lesson in this story? Could it help you, personally, in life?
  • What can you figure out that isn’t directly in the book? What clues did you use to figure that out?
  • Why do you think the character(s) acted the way they did?
  • What do the character'(s)’ choices, or actions tell you about them?
  • What is the mood, or tone of this story? What makes you say that?
  • How did the character(s) change during the story?
  • What traits do the character(s) have? What clues in the story make you believe that?
  • What questions do you still have? What are you wondering? What would you like to know more about?
  • What would you like to ask one of the characters?
  • If you were to reread this, what would you be trying to figure out the second time?
  • What are the most important parts of the story [so far]?
  • What do you want to remember after reading this story?

Read & Reflect
Unlike responding to prompts about the narrative, this reflection focuses on the reading experience itself:

  • Describe how easy or hard it felt to read the text. Why do you think it felt that way? What was it about the text or your reading that made it easier or harder for you?
  • How many times do you think you flipped to the glossary in the back?
  • Did you look up the same word more than once?
  • Which kinds of words do you think you looked up the most? Were they names of places? Were they tiny words that can’t really be drawn, like the word “however?” Were they shorter words? Longer? Actions? Descriptions?
  • What might be a way that today’s reading has made you a better reader? Is your mind making new connections? Did it strengthen ones already formed? Did you notice anything different?
  • Were there any signs today that your reading has improved? What might they be?
  • Did you accomplish much during reading today? Why or why not? What might have caused that?

Listen & Reflect
For listening, the prompts can be slightly different, recognizing that a lot of the experience is out of the student’s control (vs. reading):

  • Describe how easy or hard it was to listen and follow along in the text. Why do you think it felt that way? What was it that made it easier or harder for you?
  • How often did you have to skip reading words/phrases you didn’t understand in order to not get behind with the audio?
  • Did the same kind of unknown words come up more than once?
  • What might be a way that today’s listening has made you better at understanding Latin?
  • Were there any signs today that your understanding has improved? What might they be?

If Only It Were That Simple: Schoolifying CI

/ magisterp / 1 Comment

It’s all there. All the evidence that humans baaaaaaasically need to hear/view/read language (i.e., input) that they understand (i.e., comprehensible) is at this point un-questioned. N.B. While the second language acquisition (SLA) field has dropped the word “comprehensible,” now referring to “input” only, teachers are far more likely to identify these researched practices under the broad “CI” term. Bottom line, CI-based practices cannot be dismissed. They can’t really be expected to cause a stir anymore. Instead, it’s discussion involving a mix of opinion and research about “the X amount of Y beyond input” that causes a stir these days. However, let’s recognize the outcome of that discussion is not nearly as important as providing input. It’s not equal. It’s not even 3/4ths. Focusing on input gets us probably 90% there. Add some interaction and purpose for hearing/viewing/reading input, and that’s like 99%.

If only it were that simple.

Continue reading →

No More Stories

/ magisterp / 3 Comments

After a most terrible teaching experience (i.e., remote year 2020-21), I wrote about wanting to double my storytelling efforts for the next year. In 2021-22, it didn’t really happen, with us creating only 10 class stories total, all very short, amounting to something like 700 total words of Latin. Come this year, we made just four (about 300 total words) up until November. This is not much Latin at all, and I’ve come to question its value in my classes.

Besides, I don’t miss it one bit, not really enjoying the storytelling process as of late. Did I ever? Not sure. The learning curve for collaborative storytelling is real steep. It’s hard to tell what might have been productive struggle or just stressful struggle. I certainly loved being a student in storytelling demos—what a friend dubbed “Workshop CI”—but I can’t say for sure that I loved asking stories to a classroom of actual teenage kids who were neutral at best, but who usually couldn’t care less. I know I know, the key is to bank on interests and personalize and make class fun and memorable and make students forget they’re learning a language, blah, blah, blah, but that just doesn’t match my reality. It never has (though it was much closer when teaching middle school). Such a magical storyland context certainly exists for some teachers in some schools teaching some languages to some students. Not mine.

So, I’m getting rid of storytelling.

No worries, though. We have plenty of other activities, and plenty of texts since I began writing these for the absolute beginner. Granted, we still need MORE low level books for independent reading options, yet we’ve reached a point where the number of books exceed what could be read as a whole class for the year (which would be boring, anyway, only reading these books by just one author). In terms of novellas (and now novellulas Pīsō… & Quīntus…), we really do begin reading a book the first week. No need to wait until the spring. So, books are a significant part of class content. They’re anchors we use to explore Roman topics. Aside from those anchor texts, we actually have enough sometimes feels like content overload:

I do, however, want to keep the idea of students-as-content. In my experience, this has helped build a safe learning environment and sense of belongingness right from day one of school. Our class stories were always based on something the student liked. Therefore, this new idea just eliminates the story…

Continue reading →

The Fair Game

/ magisterp / 1 Comment

My classroom days are certainly numbered. Just yesterday, the Unfair Game backfired tremendously, with a kid actually thinking I was picking on their group, prompting them to leave the room. I understand how adolescents can be, I’m just losing interest in this kind of stuff real fast. Anyway, I decided to remove myself as much as possible from gameplay next time, though in a way that still maintains high levels of input during the activity.

In short, students (re)read together in a group, as usual, but are also tasked with creating the questions and answers. When it comes time to use these Qs in the game, check to see if the answer the original team came up with was correct. If not, -10 points. Otherwise, the wheel has only positive values. Correct response from a team means they spin. Otherwise, move on to next team.

I also wanted to leave it up to the original team as to how specific and picky the answer had to be. For example, when I asked how a character was described, the correct answer being “more suspicious,” the response of just “suspicious” wasn’t quite right. Yes, I was being picky, but its place in “The Unfair Game” made things worse. In The Fair Game, however, a team can choose to highlight something like that comparative, requiring a specific answer. It’s up to them (and not me), adding to the competitive nature, but removing myself as some kind of arbiter.

Here’s The Fair Game.

A Year Of Grading Research: 30 Articles, 8 Books, 1 Pilot Study

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

You’re looking at my school desk. There’s some wormwood lotion for our desert-like winter classroom conditions here in New England, some peacock feathers (why not?), one of the deck prisms my great grandfather made in his line of work, the growing collection of my ancient wisdom series obsession, and what remains of this year’s unread novella order. What’s not there is the stack of articles and research reports that had been piling up since last spring. I’ve finally read them all during my planning periods. Of course, each report itself produced at least another to read, and often two or three more, making the review process more like attacking a hydra, but those are now tucked away in a “To Read/Review” folder in Drive. My desk is clear, and that’s enough of an accomplishment for me while teaching full-time. Aside from the reports, I’ve read 8 books, too:

  • Hacking Assessment 1.0 & 2.0 (Sackstein, 2015 & 2022)
  • Ungrading (Blum, 2020)
  • Point-less: An English Teacher’s Guide to More Meaningful Grading (Zerwin, 2020)
  • Proficiency-Based Instruction: Rethinking Lesson Design and Delivery (Twadell, et al. 2019)
  • Embedded Formative Assessment (Wiliam, 2018)
  • Assessment 3.0 (Barnes, 2015)
  • Grading and Reporting Student Progress in an Age of Standards (Trumbull & Farr, 2000)
  • Punished By Rewards (Kohn, 1993)

In case you’re wondering and were to ask for my current top five, which includes Grading for Equity (Feldman, 2018) that I read a couple years ago, it’d have to be Ungrading, Pointless, Punished by Rewards, and Hacking Assessment. Beyond the books, this year I also completed a small-scale pilot study, which I’ll be presenting at the CANE Annual Meeting. While not specific to Latin teaching, a case could easily be made that *any* grading research can apply to *every* content area. In fact, it’s somewhat remarkable what researchers have found, yet the profession just doesn’t seem to know. And there’s consensus. I’m not prepared to make sweeping claims and cite anything specific, but my impression of the consensus so far is:

  • Grading does more harm than most people think. It’s one of the few relics of antiquated education still practiced today en masse, in pretty much the same way, too. Considering everything that’s changed for educators in the past two, five, 10, 20, and 50 years even, now realize that the current dominant grading paradigm predates all of that. The fact that most grading systems are still based on the 0-100 scale with a “hodgepodge” of assessment products that are averaged together to arrive at a course grade is nothing short of astonishing.
  • Schools with a more contemporary (i.e., 30-year old) approach that claim to have standards-based learning (SBL) and grading (SBG) systems are actually still in their infancy, with some not really implementing the systems with much fidelity at all, thus, giving a lot of SBG-derived or SBG-adjacent practices a bad name. It’s mostly teacher/school misinterpretation and poor rollouts of these practices that render the efforts ineffective, not the practices themselves.
  • Gradelessly ungrading is probably the only sure bet for fixing the mess that grades have gotten us into. If you’re putting all your time and effort into SBG, I recommend that the second you understand the basics, see if you can skip right on over to a) using portfolios, b) getting rid of all those points, and c) having students self-assess & self-grade just once at the end of the term. You’re gonna need to provide a bit of feedback with this kind of system, too, so maybe try Barnes’ SE2R model.

Interverbal Fan Fic

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

I haven’t given midterms in years. Back when I did, though, it was a self-assessed analysis of fluency writes (I no longer do any sort of timed write, either, but that’s another story). Now, aside from the infuriating last-minute “all courses must have a midterm” decision we got hit with coming back from holiday break, I had a major discovery when giving the [ungraded] midterm this year.

Continue reading →

Translating Isn’t The Problem

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

When the updated Standards for Classical Languages were shared, one key difference was the near-omission of the word “translating” as an active task, mentioned just once under a description of advanced learners at the postsecondary level (i.e, “Learners conduct research in the target language or assist in the translation of resources for the benefit of others.”), and then appeared in one example learning scenario submitted by a university professor. Granted, these standards have been in draft form—somehow—since 2017, but Latin teachers have been lauding that lack of “translation,” preferring nowadays that students focus more on reading Latin than doing translation exercises. However, it turns out that translating, per se, isn’t the problem…

Continue reading →