Unlock with PatreonThe Problem with CI
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
End of the Scope and Sequence? – 2
Share:
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn
Ben Slavic
Get The Latest Updates
Subscribe to Our Mailing List
No spam, notifications only about new products, updates.
Related Posts
CI and the Research (cont.)
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
Research Question
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
We Have the Research
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
11 thoughts on “End of the Scope and Sequence? – 2”
Relevant to this issue of scope/sequence, the following is part of my Mid Year Exam Evaluation /Reflection comments which I submitted for Spanish 1. A, B, and C are the questions to be addressed and the numbers represent the paragraphs of my responses.
I included more than may be relevant to the post, but I wanted to give context. Especially pertinent are points C.5 – C.9. My concern for teachers to develop at their own pace is expressed in points C.5, C.6 and C.9. The call for a new curriculum map is in C.7 and C.8. We are supposed to discuss exams in February. I appreciate any suggestions and feedback.
A. Test Content
1. Topics Tested: family, personality, appearance, clothing, colors, pets, numbers /age,
dates /mos /days, possession
2. Skills Tested: 1. Listen and choose answer. 2. Read and identify morphological markers for matching
B. Are these consistent with curriculum mapping and state framework? Are there any gaps? What changes should be made to insure better alignment?
1. Yes and No. It is consistent with the curriculum map which is taken from a textbook table of contents. But it does not line up with the state framework. It represents the old-fashioned grammar-based, vocabulary list syllabus. Focusing on grammar items and word lists leads to a pressure to “cover the material” so as to prepare for exams which test for morphological matching and word lists. The framework, on the other hand, is focused on communication, that is, on the understanding and expression of meaning is a given language. This requires a different approach than that of the presentation and practice of isolated grammar and vocabulary.
2. There are two general concerns:
First, part of the problem we face with MT and Final exams is created by time constraints. We have a small turnaround time to give and correct exams, do grades, write exam reflection pieces and continue to offer meaningful instruction in our classes. We have more to do in the same amount of time. This often leads to easier to correct exams like multiple-choice and matching.
Second, while trying work efficiently within our time constraints, greater importance being placed on the MT and Final as summative exams. A summative exam should reflect the goal of a language course, which as is expressed in the state framework is communication. This exam does not promote a communication focus. Instead, it puts the focus on memorization of vocabulary and grammar rules.
Thus we must grapple with how to make an exam which is not onerous in correction while at the same time promoting language communication with a focus on comprehensible input in the interpersonal mode.
3. Part of the problem is that language acquisition is not like other subjects. Other subjects are based on presenting and mastering a body of knowledge or a set of skills. Language is acquired by understanding messages. Initially these must be spoken messages because language is acoustical. Once there is a listening vocabulary built up, written messages can be read for comprehension with ease. Continued comprehensible input will lead to varying degrees of language acquisition in our students and prepare them to be able to understand and interact with spoken Spanish at the upper levels.
4. While explicit learning of grammar does lead to success on grammar tests, it has not been proven to lead to language acquisition, which is the goal of the framework. This becomes obvious when grammar tested students get into the higher levels.
5. The compartmentalization of vocabulary leads to learning grammar for the unit and then setting it aside as the focus moves on to the topic of the next list. While this approach leads to the memorization of lots of words, it does not lead to the acquisition of language, which is the goal of the framework. This becomes obvious when vocabulary memorizers start Spanish III.
6. The textbook syllabus is exclusive in nature. It excludes those who do not have the skills for traditional language foci: memorize vocabulary and grammar. What is needed is a more inclusive approach.
7. The much more inclusive approach is to focus on what every human focuses on: meaning. When the essential question is, “Do you know what this means?” we level the playing field. When we make full disclosure of the Spanish sound and its English meaning, everyone gets to hear and understand the sound. And everyone has to pay attention in class to succeed. This has three ramifications for the inclusion of students. First, nobody gets an automatic advantage for being grammar whizzes or vocab memorizers and no one gets disqualified or sent to the slow class for not having those abilities. Second, listeners are allowed to take advantage of their ability and connect the spoken sound to the written word as it is paused and pointed to on the board. Third, the grammar and vocab whizzes are not shortchanged, ending up with a lot of memorized forms while lacking practical command of the language.
C. Changes that need to be made to the curriculum, instructional strategies and/or next year’s mid-term exam:
1. The course should be conducted 90%+ in Spanish, using English in a judicious way for clarification of meaning
2. It should focus on building a listening vocabulary so that students can understand all spoken Spanish used in the class and interact according to abilities (this may be as basic as a yes/no or a hand signal to request clarification)
3. Increase the amount of narration (oral and written) through the use of a) high frequency verbs with complements and proper nouns as a foundation, b) discourse markers to carry the narrative forward, and c) prepositions, high-interest nouns and a limited number of adjectives and adjectives to maintain interest.
4. Continue personalization by tying focused vocabulary structures to students. Follow veteran teacher Laurie Clarcq’s suggestion, “What can I learn about these students using this word/phrase?”
5. Learning 21st century ways of teaching language requires the teacher to adopt a new mind set, to rethink the teacher-student relationship, to figure out what will most work effectively to deliver comprehensible input to the students, how to engage the students from a comprehensible input perspective and what the consequent student roles will be.
6 Because the above is a lot of work and takes a lot of courage, teachers should be allowed to try things out in accordance with their comfort level. At the same time, teachers who have worked at trying to grasp comprehensible input in a practical way should not be held back from research-supported best practices.
7. It is suggested that we create a minimal curriculum map which would allow both grammar-based practitioners and comprehensible input practitioners to work from a common curriculum which can be expanded in a direction which is still at the comfort level of the teacher and the interests of the students.
8. The minimal curriculum map must include high-frequency verb forms and complements which are necessary for description and narration, basic nouns, prepositions, connecting words, some adverbs and adjectives to create variety and interest. We may also want to include our classroom expressions and proverbs.
9. It is unjust to insist that those who are bravely attempting to travel the 21st century road be detoured by 19th and 20th century maps. While we do not want to force someone to do something that are not trained for or comfortable with, we likewise do not want to hold back those who are training, researching, and attempting to implement in the classroom.
10. This is not an issue of personal preference. There is only one way that language is acquired: through comprehensible input. It starts in the interactive mode due to the acoustical nature of language. In time, as the student reaches greater independence in the language, comprehensible input can be increased tremendously in the interpretive mode through listening and reading.
LIKE
C 7,8, and 9 are spot on too. To answer Ben’s question to do or not to do a curriculum map – do we try to fight the battle of not offering one or do we give them one that works for us, check that off their list, and go on providing solid CI. Nathan, I love what you wrote. Thanks so much.
Nathaniel, your number 7 is well stated and is probably the best piece/document that a TPRSer can have. A document like this provides a concise outline for teaching with CI and hopefully does not marginalize any type of teacher.
“7. It is suggested that we create a minimal curriculum map which would allow both grammar-based practitioners and comprehensible input practitioners to work from a common curriculum which can be expanded in a direction which is still at the comfort level of the teacher and the interests of the students.”
Sometimes we need a like button. Mike, I was just going to post the very same thing. Some very clear thinking from Nathan. Especially timely just after midterms.
YES! That jumped out at me too. So brilliant! 🙂
It kinda sounds like from the responses here to Nathaniel’s Mid Year Exam Evaluation /Reflection above, that a curriculum map is important to find common ground among grammar teachers and CI teachers alike.
I personally love Nathaniel’s B7:
7. The much more inclusive approach is to focus on what every human focuses on: meaning. When the essential question is, “Do you know what this means?” we level the playing field. When we make full disclosure of the Spanish sound and its English meaning, everyone gets to hear and understand the sound. And everyone has to pay attention in class to succeed. This has three ramifications for the inclusion of students. First, nobody gets an automatic advantage for being grammar whizzes or vocab memorizers and no one gets disqualified or sent to the slow class for not having those abilities. Second, listeners are allowed to take advantage of their ability and connect the spoken sound to the written word as it is paused and pointed to on the board. Third, the grammar and vocab whizzes are not shortchanged, ending up with a lot of memorized forms while lacking practical command of the language.
“Do you know what this means?” as an Essential Question is spot on. It gets real frustrating having to fabricate some b***s*** as I’m writing these unit plans and curriculum maps. I can’t stand digging holes in the ground (thanks for the analogy Ben) for the sake of looking like I’m doing some labor intensive work.
When we had to endure the exercise of stating it as an Essential Question we wrote,
“Do you understand the message and can you show me?” Some colleagues even had to post it for a while til the misguided admin ‘went away.’ [‘Message’ cuz it can be spoken or written; ‘can you show me’ to deliver on evidence, data, etc.]
I am stealing this, in case I ever have to do this again.
“Do you understand the message and can you show me?” Says it all. I am stealing this one also and replacing my non sense on Atlas Map with Alisa’s. Thank you.
I added Alisa’s suggestion to our current list for those who need to deal with the Essential Questions thing:
https://benslavic.com/blog/essential-questions/
(or just click on the Essential Questions category on the right side of this page)