I was recently asked a very good question about how to change one’s assessments to align more with CI. By that, we’re talking about comprehension-based language teaching (CLT) that prioritizes comprehensible input (CI) in the Latin classroom. First, it helps to think in terms of what standards were being assessed beforehand, even if they weren’t explicitly called “standards.” These old standards were mostly discrete skills you’d expect to find in tests accompanying popular textbooks, like vocabulary recall, derivative knowledge, grammar identification, and cultural trivia. New standards based on CI—whatever they are—will have meaning at the core. My suggestion is to focus on assessing comprehension of Latin, because that’s more than enough to ask for. One benefit of this standard is that is that it has those old discrete skills embedded within something larger and more meaningful that you can assess (i.e., comprehension). Let’s look at how each one of the old standards is contained within assessing comprehension…
Continue readingcomprehension-based
Latin & CI Criticism: Challenging Work & Higher-Order Thinking
A frequent complaint of comprehension-based Latin teaching is that students aren’t challenged enough. Critics point to Bloom’s “understanding” level, assuming that everything stops there, imagining students hanging out in the lower-order thinking levels. Given that assumption, the critic’s takeaway is that “CI Latin” is unchallenging, and lacks higher-order thinking.
Untrue.
What is true is that comprehension-based Latin teaching prioritizes understanding as step zero. Under such an approach, nothing is done without first understanding the Latin in front of all students. One immediate implication is that Latin texts must be level-appropriate for beginners in the first years of a new language. And that level is quite low. Therefore, it is true that these texts are at a much, much, much lower level than the kinds of texts traditionally used in Latin classrooms, but that’s just text level. This says nothing about thinking level. Do these truths mean that students do NOT engage in higher-order thinking with these lower level texts? Are students NOT challenged when reading and discussing in class?
Continue readingCrazy vs. Calm: Reverse Questions
Reducing listening activities and doubling-down on reading last year had amazing results, even for a year with the lowest interest in the language I had ever seen. We read novellas, embedded readings from MovieTalk clips, tiered versions of various existing texts, and Type ‘n Talk (Write & Discuss) class texts. Overall, instead of what I’m gonna call crazy content creation (CRAY-CC), I had a lot of success with all that calm content creation (CALM-CC). The former is something like 110% energy-filled classes with a massive focus on interaction. The latter isn’t. Both are different approaches to comprehension-based teaching prioritizing input. The former has a far greater emphasis on communicative language teaching, which isn’t necessarily sine qua non as some make it out to be. While I truly believe this applies to all languages, it is especially the case for Latin.
Of course, I don’t disparage anyone doing the former, though I do recommend that language teachers do what they can so new teachers see CRAY-CC as just ONE approach to providing input. In other words, it would benefit anyone new to the field if experienced comprehension-based language teachers presented and shared the non-negotiables and principles of CI more than specific CRAY-CC activities, methods, etc. For me, CRAY-CC was trending when I started teaching. Granted, I did learn most of my strategies and techniques from all that, but it would have been nice to be presented with other options that fit my speed, style, mood, etc., and especially that of my students. Luckily, I became more responsive to their reluctance, and adapted. In the end after 9 years of focusing on CRAZY-CC, I finally settled on CALM-CC classes for my 10th year. The reading development truly was magical. We generated class texts based on what were were discussing, learning, and reading, and it was all more than enough content. No order-at-cafe/taberna role plays, and no paired speaking activities that lacked a purpose, either.
Granted, that doesn’t mean I ditched speaking Latin altogether, and I certainly wouldn’t recommend that. At this point, I would recommend a kind of speaking Latin in the classroom that looks different, though, such as communicating with students (fully accepting their English responses), and just skipping on the kind of listening demands that seemed to require 100% silence on their end—ultimately leading to classroom management disasters—that so often accompany CRAY-CC. For a CALM-CC approach, many greetings, instructions, and daily interactions can be done in simple Latin, and have value. Then there’s questioning.
Questioning IN LATIN can be tricky given issues with asking questions when reading a text, which I found became more of a problem when reading ramped up. But let’s say I wanted to ask more questions IN LATIN, and let’s say you do, too. Assuming you had a classic Classical background with approximately 0% speaking Latin, maybe you recently went to a conventiculum, and now you want to speak more Latin in the classroom. That’s a great idea, though not everything you learned and experienced can be applied to your students who have an uncia of the prior knowledge you do. Just as well, here’s an activity inspired by a graduate student who recently presented a selection of Virgil (in English) during a mini lesson, asking yes/no, either/or, and “do you think that” questions that reminded me of what I used to ask IN LATIN as early as the first weeks of school. I call it Reverse Questioning…
Continue readingIf Only It Were That Simple: Schoolifying CI
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“Lowered Expectations”
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:
Efficiency & Effectiveness vs. Enjoyment
It’s my 9th year teaching, and I’m done. Finished. Kaputz. That’s it. I’m completely over the approach of talking to other teachers about efficiency and effectiveness. You won’t find me straying into a Twitter discussion circus trying to point out efficient practices for second language teaching. That ship has long sailed. The curtains have closed with me weighing in on comparing the effectiveness of Terrible Practice A and Undoubtedly Much Better Practice B. I might never update my page on Studies Showing the Ineffectiveness of Grammar Instruction & Error Correction, instead ignoring commentary on why I haven’t treated it like a formal annotated bibliography, or lit review, or part-time job. Ah yes, and 2020’s article on grammar-translation could be my final say on the matter.
I’ll be talking about enjoyment from now on.
Continue reading
Magister P. 