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
Robert Harrell on Output
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
20 thoughts on “Robert Harrell on Output”
Robert said:
…you are entitled to your informed opinion, not your ignorant one….
This is a powerful sentence. I mean, how long are we going to humor these misinformed fools? In what other business to fools run the show? This is one of my favorite lines ever. Thank you Robert!
Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8StG4fFWHqg&list=RD8StG4fFWHqg#t=0
Thank you. So timely. I had my pre-observation meeting today. Principal is “on board” with what I do and “loves being in my space” and “loves what I do.” And also began the dialogue about “…if a student moves into a different district there are certain expectations from a Spanish 2 class…” My pulse skyrocketed and I started shaking. I asked her point blank “are you telling me to teach verb conjugations? because if you are, I can’t do that.”
I will suspend my assumptions until our post-obs. meeting, but I now need to fire the big guns. My issue (personal issue) is I am too scattered and I have various documents about the research, etc. but it’s too wordy, and I have a hard time choosing the “bullet points.”
I know there are tons of articles here, and I will check those out, but I feel like I need a multi-pronged approach. Krashen, VanPatten, Mason and also integrated into ACTFL “standards” because…”standards.” I plan to go back through Tina’s thread and pull some zingers from there, but I have not acquired enough of the ACTFL lexicon to “speak fluent ACTFL.”
I suppose I need to start with the questions I have about her expectations, yes? There are probably many bridges. I feel she is in my corner, since after all she chose to hire me back after I was pink slipped, and the district is super stingy, yet I still got chosen over a 22 year old straight out of college who would have been way cheaper.
Maybe we can collect a few zingers to respond to the “What happens if they change schools and can’t conjugate verbs?” question.
Each of us can maybe offer one zinger in each comment field below for the next time that stupid question is put to us, just as jen reported happened to her this week.
Here is my ready retort:
“I appreciate the question but wish to point out that my national parent organization ACTFL does not mention verb conjuation in its web pages, even one time. This means that the school to which any student of mine might transfer is dropping the ball in terms of the national standards. We may need to discuss your arranging an articulation path meeting in that interest.
“I happen to have here in my computer the major instructional focal points of ACTFL. Would you like to see what I am supposed to be doing in my classroom according to the American Association of Teacher of Foreign Languages?”
Then if the person is still in the room go to:
https://lauraterrill.wikispaces.com/file/view/Interpersonal+Mode.pdf
https://www.actfl.org/news/position-statements/use-the-target-language-the-classroom
So jen the idea in play here is that the best defense is a good offense. We turn the attack into a counterattack from us. Any clear thinking administrator would agree that your points are worth further discussion, perhaps with the high school team that your middle schooler will matriculate to or the team from the school to whom your student will transfer.
I hope to see more ideas like this one, we can call them Zingers, below from other group members. Group members only are asked to contribute one.
Zingers –
Snarky:
– So, you’re asking me to do less than my best because someone else uses an outdated, substandard method of teaching a foreign language? Isn’t that a bit unethical?
– Would you ask a five-star chef to just put catsup on all the food because the kids will be going to a barbecue next week?
Less snarky:
– You know that I am committed to Best Practices in foreign language instruction, and I’m always willing to adapt what I do based on current research. Maybe I missed something. Could you show me the research that indicates verb conjugation leads to acquisition? Or have one of the Spanish 2 teachers provide me with a peer-reviewed article showing the research?
Bottom line: Why should you sacrifice what you know to be Best Practices based on research? Can the Spanish 2 teaches show research that supports their practices of conjugation in language acquisition? We really need to push back on a position that is unsupported. (I am now infamous in my district for being able to cite research support for what I do, and I occasionally have to hear, “I don’t have the research you have, but …” All the person is doing is giving me an opinion based on ignorance, and far too many decisions are being made on the basis of pooled ignorance.
Ed. note: Robert is not a snarky person. He is a gentleman, a chevalier. However, that doesn’t mean he can’t write great snark. And the zingers above are, without a doubt, some of the most sparkly snark we’ve ever had on the blog here. Man I wish I were still in a classroom. These zingers would be taped to my desk and I would take one minute between every class to commit them to memory. In that way I would be fully prepared should the moment arise. And oh my, what a moment that would be! Especially the one about asking the person to produce the (nonexistent) research that supports verb conjugations. Now, THAT is a zinger.
For the record, I am the only Spanish teacher in the district. I’m at the high school. So in my own fantasy CI world, I am vertically aligning with…myself 😀 At the risk of sounding like an “ambulance chaser” a huge perk to this situation is that I walked into a completely broken program last year as the fifth Spanish teacher in 5 years. I am the first one who stayed a second year!!!
All the talk about “certain expectations in a level X class” fuel my desire to spread the CI love. The program will evolve over time. The kids I inherited last year who had previously taken Spanish, were mostly Novice Low-Mid since they had never interacted in Spanish but had done many “projects” (aka type some @#$% in English into Google translate and read it to the class).
From what I can tell from the community and city politics and such…my position is tenuous because the budget will be cut AGAIN! I was pink slipped last year and was rehired at the end of July. So, how much energy do I invest in “the future of the program” vs the students in the here and now that I’m working with?
For me that makes it even more urgent to give kids an opportunity to experience authentic confidence and self-acceptance. This work is above all the work of love, connection and human rights.
Zinger:
In response to “how are you preparing them for college Spanish?”
My courses do not have an end goal of “preparing students for another course.” The goal is to equip them with a skill they can use autonomously and spontaneously in their lives. They will understand and be able to communicate in Spanish to varying degrees based on their personal investment, interest in communicating and number of hours focusing on messages rather than form.
I cannot control or predict who will go on to take college Spanish. Statistically that percentage is very low. Why should I design my instruction for such a small percentage of students when I can ensure that all my students develop a functional skill?
***Question about the 5 C’s***
The 5 Cs have always bothered me because my interpretation of them is that in our school programs we must focus on communication in order to guide kids toward proficiency. BUT the way the Cs are displayed (even by ACTFL) imply that we should devote equal time and focus to each C as a separate entity. This is how my school competencies are listed.
I feel that the Communication is what we focus on and that the other C’s are woven into that fabric. Anyone have a clear way of articulating that? This is where the math comes in, right? # of hours of input needed vs # of hours in a course / sequence of courses.
This is where I get bogged down “…students “should reach proficiency x” by the end of level Y???? Where is the research on that time table? How do I account for affective filter (trauma, etc) in this time table?
Jen said:
…I am the first one who stayed a second year!….
Those of us who were reading here remember! Those were touch and go days. This is what courage can do!
…this work is above all the work of love, connection and human rights….
I agree. Our work connects to lasting human values. Verb conjugation and the like connect to nothing lasting.
Jen asked:
…This is where I get bogged down “…students “should reach proficiency x” by the end of level Y? Where is the research on that time table? How do I account for affective filter (trauma, etc.) in this time table?…
This is my beef with Denver Public Schools. They want their kids at a certain proficiency level by a certain time and put a lot of stock in that progression. I’m not calling it wrong. Goals are good things. For example, the French team headed by Paul Kirschling in DPS had a 94% pass rate on the AP French exam last year. That is impressive. It’s good! But what about jen’s question? Shouldn’t it be asked? Is it better to drive kids toward a goal set up by ACTFL or the College Board or is it maybe all right to not have the kids progress along a certain time table? Is it bad to just let them enjoy the class and progress at their own rate? That feels right and best to me. And I know one thing – it feels right to the kids! We think that they won’t learn unless prodded by the carrot/test hanging over the head of the horse. I think that may be true with other subjects but not languages. Krashen once said something like if it’s interesting even the non-motivated ones won’t be able to not pay attention.
Hey, Jen.
The 5 Cs are prioritized. All other Cs are outcomes of the Big C, Communication, and dependent on the Big C.
Check out ACTFL’s current graphic:
http://aappl.actfl.org/sites/default/files/AAPPL/AAPPL_Measure_3_Modes.png
I’m so glad you shared that graphic, Robert. It’s heartening to see that ACTFL just may be trying to keep on top of things.
I love how the communication triangle in the middle of the graphic is all white. It’s like saying, “We don’t quite know what that communication looks like in the learning process. Help us fill in the color, please.”
OOH! I just thought of this. I can submit testimonials from former students who switched disctricts. Some of them reported anecdotally:
“I was confused at first. We hadn’t done charts and worksheets. But it was easy to figure out after a couple weeks.”
“The teacher never speaks French in class.”
“We don’t speak Spanish in class. We get packets to work on.”
etc.
Yes, jen! I think those quotes from your former students are zingerlicious!
The proficiency timeline idea, is of course an attempt to build-in teacher accountability. The only such documentation I’ve ever seen is based on number of hours of instruction, and also depend on which target language is being taught (i.e., whether it uses a Romanized alphabet makes reading easier – so more input is more accessible) and are different for little kids, vs. middle-to-high-schoolers, and adults.
I think there are guideline documents here on the PLC (Ben?) about number of hours of instruction & proficiency levels, no?
The only time I have seen numbers of hours attached to levels of acquisition is with the Foreign Service Institute. In the Draft version of California’s World Languages Content Standards, the following information was provided. In order to achieve “General Professional Proficiency”,
Category I languages (e.g. Spanish, Italian and French) require 600 class hours plus 3-4 hours per day of homework;
Category II languages (e.g. German) require 750 class hours plus 3-4 hours per day of homework;
Category III languages (e.g. Swahili) require 900 class hours plus 3-4 hours per day of homework;
Category IV languages (e.g. Vietnamese) require 1100 class hours plus 3-4 hours per day of homework;
Category V languages (e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Korean) require 2200 class hours plus 3-4 hours per day of homework.
General Professional Proficiency is the designation used by the Foreign Service Institute; it corresponds to the following designations:
ACTFL: Superior
Interagency Linguistic Roundtable: 3
CEFR: C1
In order to make any sort of comparison with public school instruction, we need to take into account the following considerations:
1. For FSI students, language learning/acquisition is their full-time job, and future employment depends on achieving a certain level of proficiency;
2. When we factor in just average homework time (3.5 hours per day), then contact time with the language becomes
2.1. Category I: 102o hours of contact
2.2. Category II: 1275 hours of contact
2.3. Category III: 1530 hours of contact
2.4. Category IV: 1870 hours of contact
2.5. Category V: 3740 hours of contact;
3. The typical Foreign Service student
3.1. is mature (nearly 40 years old)
3.2. is motivated (looking at a specific placement that needs the language)
3.3. has an aptitude for formal language study
3.4. has a knowledge of several other foreign languages;
4. The setting is
4.1. Small classes of no more than six students
4.2. Focused on language study (25 hours of class/week; 3-4 hours of homework/day)
4.3. Supportive of study (This is a full-time job, and the student is surround with other like-minded students)
Simply in terms of time on task, public school students suffer a tremendous disadvantage. I think we are being extremely generous when we estimate the amount of exposure to L2 in the typical high school at 150 hours. Even then, students at the end of a four-year course of study in a public high school will have had fewer than half of the hours needed for General Professional Proficiency in German.
Add to that the nature of the student and the setting, and it becomes utterly unrealistic to expect anything approaching the same level of proficiency in our setting. Our students are
– immature
– distracted
– unmotivated (usually)
in other words, essentially the opposite of the FSI students.
Our setting is
– extremely large class sizes (I have 43 students in my first-year German class)
– only one of several courses that demand students’ attention
– full of outside distractions (call slips, sports, assemblies, etc.)
It is genuinely no wonder that methods of foreign language instruction that do not grab students interest produce no lasting results. It is a testimony to the power of Comprehensible Input that this approach produces solid results.
Very interesting, Robert. Once again, you reference the Dept of State, this time the Foreign Service Institute, which seems apt when we talk about people seriously interested in acquiring and acquiring quickly.
To reach General Professional Proficiency (aka a Superior level on ACTFL) the FSI is saying it takes, what I interpret, a full year of study at full time with a good teacher and great peers. While that sounds possible for some select few skilled students, I’m doubtful that his Superior level actually is achieved in such a short amount of time. Any chance that Draft you are referring to from the California’s World Languages Content Standards also has some data on how many students achieved this GPP or the Superior level in ACTFL in those 600 class hours plus 3-4 hours per day of homework?
I wouldn’t be surprised if there is no data and that no one has really tested these students’ proficiency levels. But perhaps I’m wrong.
I agree Sean. It would be fun to make them produce some numbers. I knew a person who did a summer intensive in Chinese, like ten hours a day for a month, and she ended up in the hospital with a mental imbalance. And she was a four percenter. That stuff is all a smokescreen. I’d like to see them try their stuff on secondary school kids.
I’ve looked at several sources, including FSI’s website, and the shortest course is 24 weeks, for Category I languages; Category II language courses last 30 weeks; Category III courses last 36 weeks; Category IV courses 44 weeks, and Category V courses 88 weeks.
Chinese is a Category V language, so the FSI is saying that learning Chinese to General Professional Proficiency takes about 1 year 8 months of full-time study, and language study is considered a full-time assignment. I can understand how trying to learn Chinese in an intensive summer program could lead to a breakdown, especially if the expectations are unrealistic. Even the Category I courses at the FSI are geared to six months for GPP.
The categories are the FSI’s assessment of the difficulty in learning a particular language for an adult English speaker who has demonstrated “linguistic aptitude” (cf. VanPatten for the validity of that criterion), said assessment being determined by things like relative number of cognates, writing system, sentence structure, and a few other linguistic factors.
Remember that the learners at the FSI are highly motivated because their livelihood depends on achieving a certain proficiency. And we are talking about proficiency rather than acquisition. Krashen notes that there are two routes to proficiency: learning and acquisition. He does not deny that learning will get you to a certain level of proficiency. I don’t know what the FSI’s “method” is, though I have the impression it is a rather eclectic approach that involves a great deal of target-language input. How comprehensible that is, I don’t know.
The following is just my opinion based on what I have read:
1. Unless someone is a “false beginner” or a “fast processor”, I think that they spend more than 3-4 hours per day on “homework”. The FSI says that there are 3-4 hours of directed study; they don’t say how much self-directed study occurs, and I know that if my career were on the line I would make sure I excelled.
2. I have used “average” study time of 3.5 hours x 5 days per week just to get comparable numbers, but I imagine FSI students are spending time on the weekend with the language, so the number of contact hours is likely significantly higher than the official numbers.
Back to what I know and can reason from what I know:
1. I have read that missing class is not an option. If a student misses three class sessions – for whatever reason – that student is dropped from the course. I think they can take a subsequent course, but think of the cost in terms of advancement, posting to a station, etc. While Krashen points out that motivation is not necessary for acquisition, it is certainly a factor in learning.
2. A course catalogue from the FSI (https://fsitraining.state.gov/Docs/FSI_Schedule_and_Tuitions.pdf) shows that courses are of various lengths, from 12 to 31 weeks. German courses in the catalogue are either 36 or 37 weeks (which casts doubt on the 30-week figure from another website). So, the FSI is not necessarily trying to get all students to GPP in one fell swoop; they seem to recognize the need for different levels of proficiency. (BTW, ACTFL’s chart of the proficiency level necessary for various jobs is quite interesting. Our educational system’s emphasis on “academic accomplishment” fails to recognize that a great many people do not function at Advanced High, let alone Superior or Distinguished, in their native language.) The longer programs include at least one week plus federal holidays off. My supposition is that the students study during their breaks and days off, thus increasing the actual contact time.
3. The demographics between FSI students and our students are extremely different. I believe that we fail to recognize just how important the differences are. FSI students already have experience in learning a foreign language. Just think for a moment about the students in our classes who are ELLs; quite often they are the best students because they already have the experience of learning a foreign language. When they are not, it is usually because they are not interested in the course but in the credit. From personal experience, I know that subsequent languages are easier to acquire because your brain already knows how to process the new input. Even in a traditional setting, having studied a language previously can be quite helpful. When I was taking Modern Standard Arabic, I watched other students in the class struggle with the concept of the Idafah construction in Arabic. They took copious notes, had lots of questions, and needed multiple days of class time to start to understand it. My class notes on the Idafah consisted of a single sentence: “Similar to the Hebrew construct”. My cognitive load was much lighter, so I had the resources to concentrate on other aspects of the language.
As far as your question about proficiency after 25 weeks is concerned, I don’t have any data to give you, but I believe there are tests of proficiency along the way and a final that determines whether or not the student receives certification to be posted to a particular station where the language is used. (I have also long wondered about all of those language courses that advertise, “Speak Navi’ like a diplomat”. Just how well do the diplomats speak each language?) I’m certain the tests are geared to proficiency as defined by the FSI.
And yes, I would love to watch an FSI instructor teach my 43 first-year students and see what the results would be.
You know, Katya Paukova might be a good person to ask. She teaches at the DLI in Monterey. That’s the military equivalent to the FSI.
I have also seen advertisements for private programs that claim you can “Be Fluent in 3 Months”. All of them try to be an amalgamation of everything but downplay grammar study. At the same time, the put a great deal of emphasis on “speaking the language”. My opinion is that they are both good and bad and structure their courses as they do so that no one will have a solid basis for asking for a refund. They can always claim that the student didn’t do all of the things in the course (e.g. didn’t “speak” enough).
At the same time, I am increasingly convinced that the school setting is simply so unnatural that everything we do will always be an uphill battle until the system is reformed. Yes, I am a proponent of educational reform. I just think that the current reform movement is utterly wrong about both what the problem is and what possible solutions may be – they are most certainly not standardized testing and poorly trained deliverers of instructional services. In my more pessimistic moments, I wonder if even TCI/TPRS is sufficient to overcome the system; will we hear former TCI/TPRS students also claim that they had four years of language and still can’t say anything? And to what extent have other methods been unsuccessful for similar reasons, e.g. students are not truly “present” in class. [The preceding comments in no way reflect doubts about the superiority and and efficacy of TCI/TPRs. But it can be useful for us to ponder difficult questions.]
Okay, sorry for the rambling.
Oops, I have an inconsistency above.
When I first looked at the websites, the standard course for Category I was 24 weeks, but then I saw that they offered both “Basic” and “Fast” courses. Those courses are shorter than 24 weeks. Either they are designed for a lower level of proficiency or they are designed for students who already have experience in the language. I imagine the various courses are a mix of the two, but there were no course descriptions in the course schedule that I looked at.
Boy, those people that take these FSI courses for less than an year and reach Advanced, let alone Superior (!) proficiency levels have to be special human beings. I’m gonna guess I’m at an Adv Mid or Adv High, and I read, listen to the radio, teach heritage classes (well, last year), have my iPhone settings to Spanish. Though no, we don’t speak Spanish at home.
Your point here stands out for me: “Our educational system’s emphasis on “academic accomplishment” fails to recognize that a great many people do not function at Advanced High, let alone Superior or Distinguished, in their native language.)”
So, what I’m left wondering is what does it take to be like one of those special humans that can acquire and become native-like proficient in one year of full time study without having a mental breakdown. The FSI evidently knows students like this exist. I bet the brains of these special humans are similar to that of prolific musicians.