actfl

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.

Cognates & Latinglish: I’m Not Finished.

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

Gotta love a trilogy, right? This is my final Winter 2023 post on the whole cognate kerfuffle.

One reason Chinese takes native English speakers a LOT longer to acquire than something like Spanish is because Chinese has approximately zero cognates. Terry Waltz has reported that Spanish has about 3,000 words most English speakers can understand without being taught any of them. Languages with more cognates are acquired faster because cognates play a role in the first developmental stage of second language learning. Check out what ACTFL has to say about the novice language learner and cognates:

Continue reading →

“Lowered Expectations”

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

There appears somewhere, in some publication, the following quote:

“…though he does not lower his expectations and students really do still have to memorize things.”

The source isn’t important. The “he” doesn’t matter (it’s not me, btw). It’s the rest of this statement that deserves a duly critique, not an ad hominem. Shall we?

Assumptions
In my research, I’ve been learning about “positionality,” which is making one’s interests, motivations, and assumptions known. I’ve also heard these referred to as “priors.” A researcher’s assumptions might be found in their theoretic framework section, which allows readers to understand the perspective, and situate the entire study. For example, the same study could be conducted by two teachers: one whose theoretical framework supports comprehension-based language teaching, and another who rejects that. Everything, from the epistemological view to the research question(s), data collection, interview protocol, analysis and interpretation—all of it—rests upon one’s assumptions. Well, in unpacking the quote above, we can identify three assumptions:

Continue reading →

9 Years & 90% Uphill Battle: Why I’m Not Choosing To Research Second Language Pedagogy

/ magisterp / 3 Comments

It’s absurd, really. After nearly a decade as a professional second language educator (i.e., employed AND trained as one, because those don’t always come in tandem), I can say that the opposition has been steep. No need to get into the weeds about Terrible Work Experience X, or Shockingly Obtuse Administrator Y, or even Internet Troll Z whose job seemed to be disagreeing with everyone about A) how languages are acquired, B) why acquisition-focused practices are the most equitable and effective way to teach second languages in public school, C) that you cannot update content without updating pedagogy and still call yourself a social justice advocate who promotes intercultural competence, and D) how all of the above apply to Latin.

Continue reading →

Communicate ≠ Communication ≠ Communicative Approach ≠ Comprehension

/ magisterp / 4 Comments

I thought it’d be helpful to go through some terms that seem to be used interchangeably. Why? The misunderstandings have an effect on pedagogical discussions, and there’s always room for reminders. So, communication, as defined by at least Sandra Savignon and Bill VanPatten, boils down to “the interpretation, negotiation, and expression of meaning.” Each researcher added details like “within a given context, and “sometimes negotiation,” but the basic idea us teachers can focus on is in the three words, also conveniently picked up by ACTFL and keyed to their three modes: interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational.

  • Examples of interpreting Latin would include listening and reading. You can do this alone. It’s one-way (input).
  • Examples of negotiating in Latin would include some interaction, which isn’t necessarily spoken because you can respond in non-verbal ways, and you can also do this via writing, such as email correspondence. You can’t do this alone. It’s two-way (input + output).
  • Examples of expressing Latin would include writing or speaking. You can do this alone, such as when writing a story, or publicly speaking. It’s one-way (output). When giving a presentation, there are people there, but you don’t necessarily have to interact with them. Think lecture without follow-up, or better yet, think videos. TikTok videos are people expressing meaning. Of course, any follow-up would involve interaction, thus becoming interpersonal communication.

OK, those are very clear examples of communication from a second language perspective. However, when most people say that they “communicate” with others, that usually just means speaking, and maaaaaaybe writing. That is, the verb “communicate” is often synonymous with “talk,” and almost always suggests two-way interaction. That’s…fine…but we start running into problems when language teachers use the two interchangeably…

Continue reading →

Independent Reading & Speaking Latin

/ magisterp / Leave a comment

I recently updated the Universal Language Curriculum (ULC) to include ongoing Class Days and Culture Days. This provides more of a balance to the year without the previous “Unit 1/Unit 2” structure that each lasted approximately an entire semester. I also made sure to list independent reading as a key component. Yeah, I obviously have a stake in whether teachers build class libraries and include my books, but the whole reason I got into writing novellas in the first place is because I bought into the idea of independent reading tenfold…

Continue reading →

Input Expectations: The Updated ONE Rubric

/ magisterp / 14 Comments

I’ve had great success reporting scores of any homework, assignments, and quizzes in a 0% grading category portfolio, and then using those scores as evidence to double check and confirm each student’s self-assessed course grade based on Proficiency Rubrics. However, I’m constantly open to streamlining any teaching practice, so I’ve just updated my rubrics, distilling them into a single one. Students still self-assess their own estimated ACTFL Proficiency Level, but that level is independent from the grade they also self-assess. So, what’s the grade based on? Instead of proficiency, it’s based on course expectations of receiving input! After all, input causes proficiency, so why not go right to the source?

Move over Proficiency-Based Grading (PBG)! Hello…Expectations…Based…Grading (EBG)? It’s not as wacky as it sounds, trust me. In fact, it’s probably the least-restrictive grading practice next to Pass/Fail, yet still holds students accountable and provides all the flexibility I’ve enjoyed thus far. Here’s the rubric:

Capture

Continue reading →

Universal Language Curriculum (ULC) & Sweet Sēdecim (Sweet 16) Reboot

/ magisterp / 9 Comments

I’ve just decided to drop Obligation from the Awesome Octō (i.e. is, has, wants, likes, goes + says, thinks, owes/should), and replace it with Knowledge (i.e. knows/doesn’t know). Here are all the posters.

This is the first step towards updating and embracing the Sweet Sēdecim (+ sees, hears, comes, leaves, brings, puts, gives, is able) that many successful language teachers have been using for quite some time. The result will be focusing on a slightly larger core vocabulary—instead of just the top 8—over a longer period of time. These top 16 naturally occur across many communicative contexts. Thus, the Universal Language Curriculum (ULC) is born.

In a nutshell, though…

  1. Can be used for ANY target language
  2. Curriculum is based on expanding vocabulary
  3. Content is driven by communication and student interests
  4. A repeating single-year organized into 2 units

Unit 1 Content, Years 1 – 4 (ACTFL’s Communication, Connections, and Communities)
“Who am I?”
“Who are we?”

  • Community: town(s), school, landmarks
  • Family: members, origin/ancestry, home
  • Self: age, likes/dislikes, wishes

Unit 2 Content, Varies each year (ACTFL’s Communication, Cultures, and Comparisons)
“Who were the target language speakers?”

  • establish suggested topics and poll students

Ideas Without Labels: A Discussion Framework

/ magisterp / 2 Comments

It was John Bracey who reminded me that if either of us just started discovering CI right now, we’d have NO IDEA what to do or where to begin. It was very clear a few years ago when Story Listening wasn’t as popular, and Ben Slavic had yet to write his Big CI Book, let alone create The Invisibles with Tina Hargaden. TPRS wasn’t even promoting its version of MovieTalk, which is now standard practice in its workshops as the easier gateway to story asking. These all have positively contributed in some way to those teaching in comprehension-based communicative classrooms—don’t get me wrong—but the culmination has also made communicating ideas about CI more complicated. For example, the Teacher’s Discovery magazine has begun selling products branded with “CI,” regardless of actual comprehensibility, let alone amount of input, and some methods mention CI while simultaneously drawing from older methods shown to be ineffective (i.e. Audio-Lingual), and aligning practices with the latest publications from the research-lacking ACTFL. This isn’t a jab at ACTFL, it’s just the reality that most of what they promote is determined by committees, not actual research.

There were fewer teachers interested in CI, too, which meant that there were fewer opinions. In a way, it was almost easier beforehand to be dismissed by most colleagues than it has been lately, falling into debate after debate over what used to be quite simple. Professional groups have also migrated to Facebook, a more active platform. Instead of ignoring messages from a single list-serve daily digest email, folks have been receiving notification after notification on their phones, and responding promptly. There doesn’t seem to be as much time as there used to be to absorb ideas, formulate thoughts, and respond accordingly. For example, while my principles about what language is have been refined since the release of Tea with BVP in October of 2015, many teachers are just now discovering that resource, some of whom have been responding on Facebook with their ideas that haven’t had much influence since the 70’s. It’s becoming difficult to communicate ideas about CI clearly.

So, there are a lot of voices now, which is great, but just not that much support, which is not great, and not as much clarity, which is really not great at all. Many ideas I observe being discussed share no guiding principles, yet teachers go back and forth as if they’re the same thing. Most ideas aren’t, or there’s a crucial difference that one or all parties don’t see. There might be a way to move forward together…

Continue reading →

“Getting Students to Speak” & Min/Max Partner Retells

/ magisterp / 1 Comment

How do we get students to speak the target language?

Provide input.

At least, that’s what no one disputes, though not every teacher does enough of it. The biggest misconception regarding how to get students speaking is based on the assumption that the goal—speaking the target language—must be part of the process. This makes sense, but we don’t have much evidence to suggest this is true, despite how intuitive it seems. In fact, if you want get all Second Language Acquisition (SLA) technical, in 1995 Merrill Swain—herself—called her own Output (i.e. speaking/writing) Hypothesis “somewhat speculative” (p. 125).

Continue reading →