​The Binder:

• Proficiency Tracker - This is based directly on the 2017 ACTFL Can-Do statements.  As students are able to read, listen to, and discuss a variety of texts, they will complete performance activities which assist in demonstrating overall proficiency.  Each time we complete one of these activities, students will write the date in the appropriate box (I will tell them which row and/or columns they should be using) under the proficiency that best aligns with how they did.  Again, this is not attached to a grade beyond completion - my hope is that students will be able to consistently see that they are increasing in proficiency across a wide variety of topics, ultimately resulting in increased global proficiency.
• How does my brain learn languages? - This is a worksheet where students look at this poster created by Eric Herman and discuss what each part of the acquisition process is and what it means for students.  I am going to use this as my launch-pad for discussing rules and expectations for my Spanish class.
• Rubrics - I am including any rubrics that students will be evaluated with regularly.  This year, this includes the Interpersonal Communication Skills Rubric (50% of students' grades, put in weekly) and Habits of Strong Readers Rubric, both by Tina Hargaden.  I am also including my Writing Proficiency Assessment rubric, which I will use as my summative writing assessment and students use to evaluate their own writing throughout the course.
• Book report - Students will complete a novel and demonstrate their learning from the novel using their choice of book report format.  I purchased Bryce Hedstrom's book Meaningful Reading Comprehension Checks and am going to give my students the option of doing Light Reading Book Report #2, 5,7, 9, 11, or 13 - They cannot use the same book report format within the same year.
• Speed Reading Graph from Eric Herman - I use these at the end of each semester for students to gain confidence in themselves and as an additional measure of their growth and achievement.  During the week of review and finals, they read each story once and graph their words per minute as well as their score on a comprehension check.  Once they score a 6 or below on two stories in a row, then I let them be done as I feel that's an indicator they've reached the limit of their comprehension.  Ideally, students in Spanish 1A would be able to read roughly the first third to half of the stories while Spanish 1B would be able to read most of the stories 1-30 (but starting where they left off with Spanish 1A).  This is NOT part of their grade - it's just another artifact measuring their growth and accomplishments.
• Syllabus - I put this in last because it does have important information, but we really don't use it as often as all of the other stuff.  Putting it here is just a practicality decision.
• Back pocket: Questions for La Persona Especial - I  have a handout with all of the pre-planned questions that might pop up in La Persona Especial or in other interpersonal speaking exercises (see Tina Hargaden's Interpersional Speaking Game/Rubric).  They might also pop up on a final exam or review.  In any case, it's useful for students to have a list of the questions that will come up that they should hopefully be able to ask or respond to organically at some point in the course, but I don't use this as a comprehensive list.  I also feel it will help lower the anxiety for students who are called upon as La Persona Especial since they have a good idea of what questions have been or might be asked.  I put this in the back pocket for quick access and so that it's easy to pull out and use if necessary.

Do you use interactive notebooks in your comprehensible input classes?  What do you include and why?  Are there things you choose not to include?  Share your thoughts below!

Must teachers be 100% comprehensible? Is there room for noise? And, if so, what amount or type of noise is acceptable?

First, here are a few comments from this article, The Case for Non-Targeted Input (Krashen, 2013)

"For an item of grammar to be acquired, the language acquirer must be ready to acquire the item. It must, in other words, be at the acquirers' i+1, where i = aspects of grammar that were most recently acquired."

"An important corollary of the Comprehension Hypothesis is the "Net" Hypothesis: Given enough comprehensible input, i+1, all the vocabulary and structures the student is ready for, is automatically provided. In Krashen and Terrell (1983) this was referred to as the Net: "When someone talks to you in a language you have not yet completely acquired so that you understand what is said, the speaker "casts a net" of structure around your current level of competence, your "i". This net will include many instances of i+1, aspects of language you are ready to acquire" (p. 33)."

"Ray and Seely (2008) emphasize the importance of translation because they feel that students must understand every word of what is said in class and what they read. As noted earlier, this may indeed be very helpful at the very beginning, but the transparency requirement should give way to the requirement that students feel that they are understanding everything. If only the feeling of full comprehension is required, if input is allowed to contain some i+n, we are no longer restricted to translation as a means of making input comprehensible. We are free to use pictures and realia, as emphasized in Natural Approach (see also comments by Carol Gaab in Ray and Seely, p. 235), as well as other means of making input comprehensible that do not obviously provide a one-to-one mapping from form to meaning (e.g. background readings that provide a general context for a story). If, in fact, the input is truly compelling, it is likely that students will not even notice the "noise" or bits of incomprehensible and nontransparent elements in the input."

I believe there is a difference between "total translatability" and "total comprehensibility" (I dislike the word "transparency" because I think it is confusing and could apply to either case).

Total translatability - students have a one-to-one connection for each and every word. This limits what you can communicate to students as well as the intention of communicating it: the emphasis is on learning forms, not on understanding messages.

Total comprehensibility - I'm beginning to think that acceptable "noise" does not come in the form of incomprehensibility, but rather that the meaning of words that would be incomprehensible on their own are made clear through other methods. For instance, when Diane Neubauer told us the story about the Zodiac, there was a part where the rat jumped over the ox's head. Had she focused on us understanding the words in that part of the story, it would have been overwhelming as well as disrupted the flow of the story - we were right at the climax and focused on what was happening, so it would have been much less compelling (not to mention out of bounds) to sit and focus on the somewhat more-complex language involved in communicating that idea. However, we completely comprehended that very critical part and kept the "flow" of the language going thanks to her gestures. We learned plenty in the process - and she could still use that story for valuable input (as opposed to being "barred" from an otherwise comprehensible story because a key part would have been "out of bounds"). This still counts as noise, however, because I didn't make any connections with the actual target language and couldn't have told you what the words were, even just after hearing her say them.  And, frankly, I didn't care - I understood the message and wanted to hear the rest of the story!  They key is that the message was, in fact, 100% comprehensible even if it did include noise, which was important because it lowered my affective filter and kept me in "flow".  In other words, I didn't get stressed about trying to achieve a deeper level of comprehension than I was ready for nor was I stressed that there were details I was missing, because I felt confident that I had comprehended the entire message.

With regard to i+1 - there have been a few that say if everything is "100% comprehensible", then it is not providing the "+1". However, this position confuses what is acquired with what can be understood. It is important to understand that "i" is NOT what can be understood - it is what is already acquired, meaning that it can be used by the student. The "+1" is the language that is not yet acquired but can be understood (and therefore has the potential to be acquired). This area of "+1" is very broad and flexible as it contains all of the language that can be made comprehensible. For instance, novice students who have never been exposed to the target language before, have zero "i"; thus, the entire first lesson (or series of lessons) are all within the "+1" range. As students acquire "i" from the "+1" input, their ability to comprehend additional "+1" expands, although much of the language that was "+1" will remain "+1". This is why I agree with Krashen (2013) that non-targeted language is ideal for differentiation - students convert the "+1" into "i" at different rates according to the natural order, but as long as students are provided with a "Net" of language that includes "+1" for all students, all students will be able to continue acquiring the language they are ready for at their own pace .

With regard to noise, I don't think that "noise" can be acquired - the grammar and vocabulary from the language used MUST be made comprehensible before acquisition of that particular form can occur. In my above example with the Zodiac story, I had no chance of acquiring the structure for "jump over" because I never really even wrapped my head around the target language words in the first place.  However, that was not a bad thing - in fact, it enabled Diane to tell a compelling story while staying "in bounds" and keeping the affective filter low.  I believe that teachers need to skillfully judge and plan how they will tell a story knowing that the majority should be comprehensible at an level which students can acquire it, but be able to bridge these sections with tiny bits of comprehensible noise (if that makes sense) in order to make up for bits of language that might be beyond the "+1" level yet are still necessary to be compelling.

So, to answer my initial questions:
YES, teachers MUST be 100% comprehensible - meaning that students feel that they are comprehending everything.  Some misunderstandings will occur - that's fine.  That is part of language development and their understandings will become refined as they receive more input (also noted in Krashen, 2013).  This keeps the affective filter low as students become comfortable and confident about comprehending messages, forgetting to focus on individual words and whether they can translate them.
YES, there is room for noise, but it must be comprehensible noise that is strategically used only when necessary. In other words, the messages must remain comprehensible even if the language is not.  Moreover, teachers need to use their best judgement in order to maximize the amount of "+1" at a level that is possible for students to acquire.  Yet, they should not feel constrained to only providing input that is at the "+1" level - comprehensible noise can be used as a tool to help students access input opportunities that might be otherwise compelling and comprehensible for students.

Someone recently asked about how much time I plan my lessons, especially now that I'm working to differentiate for my classes. While it may look like a lot of work, my lesson planning is even easier and more enjoyable than ever before. Here's what I do:

Step 1: Select contexts and strategies for providing compelling CI
What will my stuents find compelling?  I use a variety of contexts for authentic and compelling input for my students.  I emphasize auditory input, with the "critical input" activities followed by reading what students heard.  Here are a few examples of contexts, although this is by no means exhaustive:

• Morning news and agenda - We talk about the date, the agenda, the weather, and calendar events (no reading)
• Comprehensible Comics - I show a comic and describe what is happening in each scene as well as make any dialogue comprehensible (followed by listening and reading OR listening and looking at the comic as well as a formative self-evaluation for student comprehension)
• Story Listening - If you're not familiar with this activity, please see my other more-comprehensive posts about what this entails (followed by reading, formative self-evaluation of comprehension, and "interaction" with the text using a menu of activities)
• Co-Creation - I use this to refer to the variety of methods from TPRS and Ben Slavic which involve creating a character, siuation, or story (often followed by write and discuss and reading)
• Personalized Questioning and Answering (PQA) - Essentially, using the target language to interview and talk about students.  Please research the particular skills and routines associated with this if you're not already familiar with them.  (not usually followed by reading)
• Structured Reading and Discussion - This refers to a variety of strategies used to read and re-read a text, including discussion and listening.  I recommend looking at Ben Slavic's Big CI Book.
• Free Reading - Students self-select reading materials based on level and interest.

I have a distict "flow" to my class, so this is a sort of "drag and drop" activity for me and takes only about 10-15 minutes to arrange into a weekly outline.  I might adjust it from there, but this is my "weekly planning".

Step 2: Select the language that will be used and how you will make it comprehensible
What will you talk about and how?  What do you need to do to "stay in bounds," or in other words ensure that students can comprehend what you are saying and not get overwhelemed or oversaturated?  This involves identifying:

• Words that students already know and can be readily and easily used
• Words that are familiar but not yet known - these require context or other cues for meaning
• New or tricky words - these will require the highest level of support
• "Noise" words - words you might use but that students don't need to necessarily know or even be aware of to understand the message.  These words do not go on the board nor are they intentionally repeated or used in a way that expects students to understand them (assuming you've made meaning clear another way).  For instance, you might "gloss" over a part of the story where you can make meaning clear through drawings or gestures, but where a focus on understanding the auditory input might push students beyond the i+1 level or oversaturate them.  This also provides differentiation for students who might already understand the "core" auditory input and be ready to acquire the "in between" or "extra" words.  After providing the input and assessment may wish to provide a list of these words to students who desire them.

For teachers new to the profession or new to CI, this might be the most difficult step as you get to know where the i+1 level is for your students, what language will work, and what language won't.  However, once you're comfortable with this, it's simply a matter of rehearsing in your head or writing down what you plan to say.  For me, this involves writing up a quick reading for things like Comprehensible Comics or Story Listening using the language I feel will be at the i+1 level, which can be planned ahead of time.  If I have multiple levels, I simply copy and paste and then revise/add/delete the language to match the proficiency level of my other classes.  For my students who I need differentiation (which I'm mainly just doing for Story Listening), I copy and paste the reading onto a new graphic organizer and then delete all but the key words they need to know and write the English translations.  Next, I copy and paste those words into a Quizlet flashcard set (the beauty is that these growing pains are only temporary and you can re-use these free resources next year).

When I get to class, I pick word cards that correspond with the story to guide me and to show to my students as I provide input (these are like my verb word wall, but in GIANT magnetic form with Spanish on one side and Spanish/English on the other).  For more organic activities, I just have an idea of what language I might use to facilitate the conversation and then adjust the conversation and make it comprehensible as appropriate during class.  This does require skill to think on-the-spot about what will be "in" and "out" of bounds, and what you will do with that language.  For this reason, I feel that Story Listening, Comprehensible Comics, and other pre-planned activities are easier for new CI teachers.

Step 3: Determine how you will check for comprehension
This can be done a variety of ways, although the teacher must be careful not to raise the affective filter and make students anxious or feel put-on-the-spot.  I use a variety of methods, and they differ based on the activity.

• Signals - Students are expected to signal me, either with a red card or a time-out sign, if I've confused them.  I make sure they know that it's the message that's important, not individual words.  However, if they get "lost", then it's time to signal me so that I can do my job better (my job is to make the language comprehensible for them).
• Questioning - This could be circling or another type of comprehension check.  I do not use extensive questioning during stories, if at all, because it disrupts the flow of the story (the exception is when I ask a "natural" question that fits with the telling of the story, such as those a kindergarten teacher might ask when reading out loud to her students).  However, during interactive activities such as PQA or even finding out what students think about the weather, I circle and compare responses as long as it is still compelling.
• Body Language and Authentic Responses - this is a much more subtle way to check comprehension and I encourage newer teachers to have a "back up" of some sort to get a second meansure.  However, body language and the ways students respond to information they understand can often communicate comprehension clearly, especially with smaller groups where the teacher is able to pay attention to the behaviors of all of the students.  TPR gestures can also communicate comprehension.
• Translation, summary, or other reaction to information - I use this at "checkpoint" moments in order to make sure everyone is at the same point.  For instance, at natural transition points in the story, I may ask for a volunteer to summarize what has happened so far.  This lets me know how I'm doing making information comprehensible AND it makes sure that everyone is up-to-speed to the current point and can continue comprehending.  I might also ask for a ticket-out the door which summarizes or responds to the story in some way (What was your favorite part?  Which part would you change, why, and how? etc.)  Finally, I usually only use translation when reading, in which case we might orally translate as a class.
• Formative Feedback - This is where I get most of my data.  Students simply indicate how much they understood.  They do this either through a single-digit score out of four points (4 = understood nearly everything, 3 = most, 2 = half, 1 = less than half) and/or by highlighting the text that they understand as I read it aloud to them.  I use this information to measure how well I did to make language comprehensible as well as to identify my struggling students.

For me, these are tied directly to my "comfort zone" and style, so there is little preparation beyond the initial student-training and communicating expectations to students.

Step 4: Determine whether a grade will be attached to an activity, why, and how
This is where each teacher will have to determine what fits with their philosophy, goals, and program.  I've changed my grading system three times this year alone, but I do feel that the most recent system might stick because it's easy and authentic.   I grade anything that is formative as a completion grade - these make up 50% of their overall grade.  Students are letting me know how well I am doing my job - it's my 50%, so as long as they let me know how I did, they get the grade.  The other 50% is based on their behaviors aligned with my expectations for them, since those behaviors will lead to acquisition.  Because I have pretty clear routines in my class and pre-made forms, this requires no extra preparation beyond printing copies of resources.
​

That's it!  As long as I'm not trying anything new (or blogging about it!), it usually only takes me about 15-30 minutes to plan for all of my classes each day.  I take about 15 minutes to plan my weekly outline ahead of time.  Then, all that is left to do during the week is picking language to use and writing up the reading and any related materials.  Assuming I already have a story, comic, or other context in ind, this takes about another 15-30 minutes to create the resources and differentiate them by class level and student need.

To be completely honest, what takes much more time is finding stories and other contexts to talk about, especially for Story Listening.  Selecting the right context and/or story means becoming familiar with many stories and how they might be both compelling and comprehensible for your students.  However, this is becoming easier and easier as I build a bank of resources (such as this, this, or this, with more listed here) and listen to stories other teachers are telling.  One of my best stories was one I learned as a student of Chinese Story Listening!

Teachers like strategies.  We keep lists of them.  Nearly every teacher has owned (and likely still owns) books of strategies on top of the lists of strategies they've developed themselves that they like to use.  And when we sit around a table and talk, strategies are often the topic of conversation.  How did you do this or that?  How did it work?  How could I try it in my room?
 
Strategies often come in the form of a pre-packaged "method", which includes research-based approach along with clear design and procedure for using in class (Richards, 1986).  In other words, research says _____ increases student learning, so we're going to do that by doing A and B, and the expected outcome is C.  A "method" can form an entire curriculum or even set the context for a school (i.e. "Montessori method" or "Suzuki method").  

Methods are nice - they tell teachers "we've done the research and the work to make you a tool - go take it and teach!"  It allows teachers to focus on their immediate classroom needs.  The trouble with teaching by methods, however, is that teachers are limited to the artificial walls created by whoever designed the method.  If teachers only understand the methods and then hold themselves to the methods, two problems arise: First, they miss opportunities to meet the needs of their students which might be served by a different method that they have either rejected or are not familiar with.  This leads to the second problem, where teachers modify the method in order to meet the needs of their students.  However, this modification can fundamentally alter the method to a point where it is no longer achieving the goals intended.  They may be achieving some goal, but it's like the game of "telephone" - the end result is often some sort of message, but it isn't the original message that was intended.  While this might seem good on the surface (look!  He's learning better now!), it is problematic because the "original message" was research-based and the final message received is not.  Thus, we may no longer be teaching with "research-based" methods.  Obviously, the researchers did not work with our kids and adjustments will always need to be made - this is why we hire professionals to lead our classrooms.  So, how can we know that our real-life decisions in the classroom are really what is best for our students beyond a set methodology?

In other words, we need to take a step back and ask what principles make a particular method useful, and how can we apply those principles as we adapt our instructions to the students we have in our classroom and the needs of our circumstances (including your own teaching preferences)?  We need to look at the research itself and understand its implications at a deep level.  It's helpful to become familiar with methods based upon the research to understand some examples of application to the classroom while still understanding that most research looks at the nuts and bolts of learning rather than prescribing certain methodologies.

Moreover, we need to use this research to evaluate every method or strategy that we might employ.  This not only includes taking a critical look at any pre-designed methods, but it also breaks down those artificial walls to allow teachers to create new methods based on the needs of their students while adhering to research on student learning.

So, how do we do this?

First, we have to understand the principles established by extensive research.  These are at the core of our teaching philosophy, and so each teacher must carefully research, consider, and eventually adopt the principles they feel are most appropriate for their classroom.  Although we should come to some consensus about what these principles are, teachers teaching by someone else's principles that they do not fully understand and endorse will likely lead to a misapplication of the principles and ineffective teaching.
In the short-term, a teacher who is only ready to teach by methods can "borrow" principles, as we implicitly do each time that we agree to use a method.  Moreover, principles should be constantly reviewed and adjusted based on new learning - both in the world of research and in the teacher's own professional development.

​I am working on a post which more fully articulates the following principles that I have developed for my own instruction (second language acquisition), but here is a brief summary:
​

Once we have these principles, we can explore, modify, and create endless methods while ensuring they are still firmly grounded in our instructional philosophies and principles.  As I explore new ways to reach my students, I apply the following questions based on my established principles:

1. CI is most effective and efficient:   What comprehensible input are students receiving?  Are there any components that are not comprehensible input, such as output, grammar instruction, correction, etc.?  To what degree are they used and for what function?  Are they necessary?  Is there a modification that could be made to increase the amount of comprehensible input?  What effect will this activity have on the affective filter?
2. Compelling: Will this be interesting enough to my students to be compelling?  Why or why not?  Am I providing this input because I want to teach the students something, or am I providing this input because I know the students will be interested in it?  How will I measure and respond to student interest level?
3. Rich Language: What language am I using and why?  In what ways might I be limiting my language and why?  How will I ensure that what I'm saying is comprehensible?
4. Navigate meaning through interaction: What behaviors will show that my students are comprehending the input?  What will they do when they understand?  What will they do when they don't understand?  How will I measure and respond to these behaviors?
5. Flow: How will the lesson flow?  What interruptions to flow might occur?  Are there any elements of the method that will inhibit flow?  What is the intent of those elements and could they be adjusted to increase flow?  How will I handle those interruptions?
6. FVR: What are the actual effects on reading for students?  How to students feel about reading during this activity?  Are they more or less intrinsically motivated to engage in independent and voluntary reading?  Will this eventually lead to students engaging in FVR?  Why or why not?
7. Assessment: Is the assessment authentic or contrived?  Is it based on what students can do with their proficiency with regard to comprehension and communication?  Is the assessment contextualized?  Are students being graded holistically or on specific skills?  Does the assessment format and resulting feedback honor what students can and cannot control or influence (can: behaviors; cannot: acquisition)?

Note to the reader:

• If you are unfamiliar with Story Listening, I recommend you visit the Story Listening page to get a general idea of what it it involves.
• The primary person responsible for developing this particular methodology as well as the research behind it is Dr. Beniko Mason, who teaches English to her Japanese students exclusively through Story Listening supported by Free Voluntary Reading.  I highly recommend reading this post, where Dr. Mason details Story Listening in her own words.  It is worth noting that Dr. Mason is successfully using this method to teach her students to listen, read, write, and speak a non-cognate language with a different form of writing.  Moreover, English is not a phonetic language, presenting additional challenges for reading and writing.
• Finally, there will be those who say that this is "nothing new".  Of course storytelling is not new.  We've been telling stories since the beginning of human history.  That in and of itself should be compelling enough information to consider using more stories in education.  We are wired for language and stories.  However, using it in an academic classroom with specific learning goals and timelines is a new concept, as are the specific techniques and behaviors that accompany Story Listening that Dr. Mason applied and researched extensively with a variety of students.  I am excited to see this research grow as more teachers with different circumstances and students test this method in their own classrooms.  Finally, using Story Listening is a new frontier for me as a teacher, as I imagine it will be for others.  I share my own insights on this, as with anything else, so that teachers who might wish to explore this frontier might be able to do so productively and meaningfully.

For the last three weeks, I've been trying out Story Listening for the first time in my classes.  I was struggling with the Story Asking as we would get stuck, I had trouble choosing details that kept everyone engaged, and many of my students were getting lost in the chaos or frustrated with the "flow" of the story.  My "low" kids weren't understanding what was happening.  My "high" kids wanted to keep moving.  And my "easily distracted" kids were off in their world.  I wouldn't say it was a hot mess, but it was close.  The kids were learning, but I didn't feel like we were going anywhere fast and I was frustrated and exhausted.  I'll readily admit that there are people more talented at "Asking a Story" than I am - but it just hasn't really ever "clicked" for me.  So, after a particularly rough first period, I decided I would let myself off the hook and simply tell a story to the next class.  I knew I had to pick something interesting, and the first thing that came to my mind was "La Llorona".  I found a quick summary of the story online to refresh my memory, printed it out, and "told" it.  Despite the minimal preparation, it was a hit!  I didn't do any drawing - I just put the words they needed help with on the board with the English translation.  After that, I pre-drew my pictures and vocabulary and told the story of "La Llorona" to my remaining classes with the pictures under the projector.  After each class, I asked the students to show me how they felt about the activity by holding up fingers.  A "3" meant they learned about the same, a "1" meant they learned a lot less, and a "5" meant they learned a lot more.  Even with my minimal understanding of Story Listening and almost no practice, every student in every class rated the activity as a "4" or a "5"!  I was sold!  I've made a number of adjustments since that first week and would like to share my "beginners guide" to getting started with Story Listening.

First, it's very important to understand exactly what Story Listening is and is not.  It is not simply storytelling.  Storytelling puts the emphasis on what the teacher is doing and will likely not meet the acquisition needs of students, whereas Story Listening is focused on the person who is listening to the story and responsive to what they need.  In order for story listening to be effective, the following conditions must be met:

• The story chosen must be compelling.  This is perhaps the most difficult part of Story Listening - accurately predicting which students will best engage students
• The story chosen must be at the appropriate level.  The content of the story must be easy to follow for the level of students you are telling (generally speaking, concrete, logical, and straightforward stories are easier to understand than abstract, nonsensical, and/or complex stories - silliness is perfectly fine, but it's usually easier to follow a logical train of thought and rationale for events).  You must also be able to tell the story with language at the i+1 level.
• The teacher must be skilled at measuring whether the story is compelling and comprehensible at all times and be able to adjust the story and their strategies for delivering it when needed in order to meet the first two conditions.

It is also helpful to understand the potential similarities and differences between Story Listening and other methods of CI Instruction.  NOTE: I use the word "potential" because CI instruction can take many forms.  Almost all language teachers agree that we must actually use the language for students to learn it.  In some cases, this takes the form of stating sentences that the students understand.  Most traditional classes use the language in order to give instructions, although this use is incidental to the "real" instruction (i.e. vocabulary, grammar, worksheets, comprehension questions, etc. taking place.)  For this particular list of similarities and differences, I'm going to narrow the list to items that differ between Story Listening and other methods that are grounded in the idea that the instruction itself should be through CI and focused on meaning and proficiency rather than skills and vocabulary.  Even here, however, we find a lot of variance in how teachers instruct and the strategies they use, and and almost strategy has the potential to be used similarly or differently than the strategies employed in Story Listening.

Potential Similarities

• The bottom line for using CI methods (which includes many different strategies for delivering CI) is that students learn through listening to and reading the language at a comprehensible level.  Story Listening addresses the "listening" aspect.
• CI strategies 
• Story Listening and other CI methods are intended to get students listening to, processing, negotiating meaning through interaction, and enjoying the language.
• CI methods must be compelling, meaning that students are so interested that they are intrinsically motivated to attend to meaning.
• Story Listening and other methods are student-centered as they respond to what students find interesting and what is comprehensible to them.

Potential Differences: (many of these items overlap, so I apologize for any repetition)

• Many CI methods ask for explicit, verbal feedback and interaction to measure student comprehension and/or master of the language being used. For example, teachers might "circle" a particular word until all students are able to respond accurately and confidently with little to no hesitation.  While this may be helpful to some teachers and students, this is only one form of student interaction and feedback for the teacher.  When doing Story Listening, teachers use primarily non-explicit forms of interaction and feedback to judge comprehension and interest, such as student body language, pre-established signals, and authentic reactions to the input (gasps, excitement, comments about the story, etc.).
• Many CI Methods attempt to get students engaged and make the information compelling by including student suggestions and ideas.  Story Listening gets students engaged and makes the information compelling by careful selection of a story based on its appeal to students.  Often, the best stories are those that have stood the test of time and transcended generations and even cultures, such as fairy tales and legends.  Once teachers know their students well, they may wish to find more modern stories or even write original stories that will interest their students.
• Students are not expected to master anything in particular.  They are only expected to listen and enjoy the story.  Moreover, the teacher does not "teach" the story.  The story is used just enough to be meaningful to students and instruction moves on before students lose interest in it.  Teachers may or may not choose to reinforce what students heard by reading the story.  However, these activities are viewed in the lens of providing additional compelling input and opportunities to negotiate meaning at a deeper level.  Thus, just telling the story is often "enough" and teachers should avoid over-working any particular story.
• Similarly, Story Listening is untargeted The stories told are not selected for any "content" value, such as vocabulary or grammatical patterns.  The teacher uses rich language at the appropriate level for students to understand what is happening.  The teacher may "target for meaning" (in other words, use the word just enough times to ensure that students understand what is happening), but does not continue to target anything more than needed to facilitate telling the story.
• Building upon these last two points, students are not held accountable for anything in Story Listening. There is no quiz and the teacher does not assess the students with comprehension questions (although the teacher might ask an occasional question "in the moment" in order to make sure students are ready to move on to the next piece of information).  Students are simply expected to listen with the intent to understand and signal to the teacher if they become confused.
• Questions are asked with different intent.  Some methods ask questions intended to check comprehension, get repetitions of a particular language chunk, or otherwise aimed at "teaching" students something.  With Story Listening, questions asked are intended purely to clarify meaning (What does ____ mean?) or simply because it is an interesting question.  There are no hidden motives - the teacher is simply communicating authentically with his or her students.  As with any communication, these honest questions and responses do indicate comprehension although that is not necessarily their intent.  
• Story Listening uses rich language.  Students are exposed to the grammar and vocabulary needed to tell the story at a comprehensible level.  As students are exposed to this wide variety of language, they acquire vocabulary and grammar at their own pace along the natural order of acquisition.  Thus, stories are inherently differentiated, as some students are focused on "understanding" a particular chunk of language while other students are acquiring the language at a deeper level that will eventually lead to mastery.
• Story Listening is predictable for the teacher.  The teacher knows what language will be used and can use if effectively.  Moreover, because I know what is going to happen with the story, I can pay more attention to whether or not students are actually comprehending the story and be responsive to their needs.  I imagine I am not the only teacher who has felt overwhelmed with simultaneously creating a story and ensuring that all students are comprehending the story (not to mention the other things teachers must attend to as they teach!).
• Story Listening gives students more structure.  Because students have clearly defined roles and know what will be happening, they are able to feel more secure in that role.  Although it may not be true for all students, many of my students appreciate knowing all they have to do is listen to the story and react naturally to it (including letting me know they are confused).  They don't feel pressure to speak up in order to get their ideas included in a story, to compete with other students, or to demonstrate that they comprehend.  Consequently, most of my students feel more secure with Story Listening and feel that they get more out of class with the richer language and increased "flow".
• "Flow", or when students are so absorbed in the experience and meaning of what is happening in class,  takes top priority in Story Listening.  There are fewer interruptions to the story by things like deciding on a detail, "targeting" a particular word or phrase, checking comprehension, extensive circling, etc.  Instead, the story flows at a pace that maintains interest.

Finally, I'd like to touch on a few differences in my personal preference for various strategies:

• I do not get tunnel vision - I can focus on my kids because I already know the story and can anticipate what my students need to make it compelling and comprehensible.
• Class is calmer and more secure for my students.
• I am able to provide better language, both in quantity and quality.
• My students enjoy these stories more.  They're happier, more interested, and have indicated that they feel they are learning more.  Consequently, almost all behavior issues and student frustrations have disappeared.
• It's just easier for me.  We each have our own styles, and with Story Listening my voice is better, I'm not tired, and I enjoy it more.

So, if you'd like to get started with Story Listening, here are a few tips from my personal experience:

• Read MANY stories - and sit on them a few days before you choose one to tell your class.   Be sure to consider a wide variety of stories your students might be interested in, including content, emotional affect, themes, etc.
• Know your story inside and out so that you can focus on telling it in an engaging manner and responding to your students with regard to how compelling and comprehensible your story is.
• Practice telling the story - and tell it out loud until you are comfortable.  What words will you use?  How will you make them comprehensible?  Especially for non-native teachers, are you comfortable using the language you want to tell the story with (yes, this is an opportunity for you to grow, too!)
• Draw live.  This slows you down and builds interest.  I'm a terrible artist.  My creativity lies in how to adequately illustrate a story with stick figures.  I think they like my drawings better because they are *so* bad, yet they get the point across.
• Plan your drawings.  You can do this mentally, but at least consider what images you will draw in order to make the meaning clear.  I recommend including key vocabulary with your drawings and connecting them to the images - you will also want to plan this.
• Get dramatic.  The kids LOVE to see adults do crazy things.  I yell, beg, sing, smack items, use gestures and facial expressions. Each story is a little more dramatic than the rest.  I love entertaining my kids.  Like with my drawings, I'm a terrible actress - but my kids give me credit for trying.  They know I'm giving them my best and putting it all on the line for them, so they really want to see me succeed and make me feel good, too.
• Get student feedback about what students like.  My students have started giving me "story requests" - today my students made me promise to write a story about the Chupacabra.
  
• This is just a personal preference, but I teach my students transition words with rejoiners.  For instance, I say "así que" in a certain way, often with a hand gesture (especially at the beginning) and my students are trained to respond "sooooo" in the same way that I said it in Spanish.  Other words include "but", "however", "therefore", "then", "before", "after", "although", etc.  Add one word at a time and train yourself to say the word the same way and use the gesture every time.  Practice it a few times and then use them in your stories!  This will give a little extra "flair" to your students' vocabularies, increase interaction, and help connect the ideas in the story.
• Most importantly, DON'T GIVE UP!  If a story fails, ask yourself why.  Was the story itself simply not compelling?  What about how you told it?  Was the language too difficult?  Was there anything that interrupted "flow" - both of the language and of the story?

Good luck with your Story Listening!  I would love to hear from more teachers trying this in their classrooms and will continue to post videos regularly of my own.

Let’s discuss this for a moment.  This means that the following instructional activities become unnecessary and even disadvantageous: grammar instruction and drills, vocabulary lists and exercises, output (speaking and writing), comprehension questions, drilling, repeating, corrective feedback, and any other conscious learning process. (For more research on this, see Chris Stolz's research page).

It is important to note that the results of instruction through Compelling Comprehensible Input are qualitatively different than other methods and so cannot be measured the same way.  Traditionally, language acquisition has been measured through the completion of isolated language tasks such as translating sentences, vocabulary tests, verb conjugation, etc.  These almost always require conscious effort to recall and apply explicit rules and information to communicating in the target language.  The assumption is that by learning the skills, students will eventually be able to communicate.  However, these types of activities do not reflect real and authentic communication and so do not translate to real-world skills and proficiency.  In order to successfully apply skills to real-world scenarios, language learners must know the rule, be thinking about the rule, and have time to apply the rule (SOURCE: Krashen Keynote).  Unfortunately, these conditions are usually only met in artificial classroom environments.  In authentic conversations, participants usually have an extremely limited amount of time to comprehend, process, and respond and would be focused on the conversation rather than the linguistics used to form individual words, phrases, and sentences.  Moreover, most people simply don’t care about the language and rules in the first place - they simply want to be able to communicate and understand meaning.

With Compelling Comprehensible Input.  By understanding compelling and comprehensible input in the language, the students subconsciously acquire the skills in order to develop proficiency.  Moreover, the students develop these skills along the unalterable natural order of acquisition at their own unalterable pace.  Because the skills are subconsciously acquired and we cannot control the order nor the pace that they are acquired, it would be unfair to mandate that students learn specific language patterns along a set course or timeline, nor would it be fair to hold teachers accountable for student mastery of those patterns.  Moreover, the most important vocabulary for students to learn is the vocabulary that is meaningful, compelling, and useful to them, which cannot be appropriately covered using a predetermined list from a textbook.  Through Compelling Comprehensible Input, students are continuously exposed to both the vocabulary and grammar that they need in a contextualized manner that is interesting, fun, pleasure, and more efficient and effective than any other way.  The product of such instruction is natural and authentic holistic language proficiency.
​

Note: This is my expansion on the ideas presented in a blog post on T1 and T2 by Dr. Stephen Krashen.

A key difference between Compelling Comprehensible Input and other similar approaches lies in the use of language and targeting/circling.
​
Language chunks can be described as WHAT is taught and are defined as “groups of words that can be found together in a language” (SOURCE).  Than can take various forms, but the rule of thumb is that they should communicate meaning rather than exist as an isolated word or word segment.  Occasionally all you will need to make communication meaningful is a single word, but teachers should make an effort to contextualize the words within a meaningful chunk.  Collocations (words that are often found together) expressions, idioms, and phrases that illustrate grammatical patterns are all examples of chunks.

The language chunks introduced in a class usually come from two sources: the curriculum (established chunks) and the students (emergent chunks).  Traditionally, the language to be learned has been established by a pre-determined curriculum.  While this may allow for comprehensible input, focusing on a particular chunk at the sacrifice of student interests will likely inhibit learning in two ways.  First, it focuses student attention on the language to be learned rather than simply comprehending the messages.  Second, it focuses teacher attention on using the chunk rather than catering to student interests and ensuring that the input is compelling.  While many talented teachers can use established chunks to provide Compelling Comprehensible Input, these chunks are unnecessary and many other teachers are restricted and feel pressure to artificially infuse them into a lesson that would otherwise be focused on using the language that would be naturally compelling for students.  Emergent chunks are the slices of language that emerge from a compelling context as necessary to communicate meaning within that context.  These are solely focused on student interest and needs and have no hidden agenda behind them, although much, if not all, of the vocabulary and grammar that students will eventually need to acquire is present in them.

Targeting (or a lack thereof) involves HOW the language is used and can be described as using a particular language chunk repeatedly in order for students to acquire that chunk at a certain level.  Circling is a specific type of targeting where a teacher asks a series of questions using the language being targeted.   There are multiple types of targeting that can be differentiated based on the intent behind repeating the language chunk.  Only one type of targeting is fully compatible with Compelling Comprehensible Input.

Targeting for Meaning
This is the only type of targeting that Compelling Comprehensible Input encourages.  Essentially, the teacher repeats the language chunk as necessary in order for students to comprehend the message.  They might repeat the chunk while pausing and pointing to the board, recycle the chunk as they build context around it, use the chunk in different contexts, do TPR (Total Physical Response) by adding actions and having students do the appropriate actions the words they hear, use gestures or images, ask the students to chorally translate, etc.  As soon as the students understand the language chunk, the teacher moves on.  This process might have to be repeated each time the chunk comes up, but the sole intent behind targeting the word is simply to ensure that all students understand what is being communicated.

Targeting for Repetitions
Students often need to hear language chunks used numerous times before they can acquire it.  Thus, teachers sometimes attempt to maximize the number of repetitions that students hear and read within a given lesson or series of lessons, especially when the chunks are pre-established by a curriculum that teachers feel obligated to address through the language they use.  Whether the language chunks are established or emergent, intentionally getting as many repetitions as necessary focuses teacher and student attention on the language being used rather than comprehending meaningful messages.  It also inhibits the level to which he messages are compelling.  Some chunks are more “sticky” than others and require few if any repetitions for students to understand them.  Additionally, students will acquire the chunks at different rates, so intentional repetitions of a particular chunk will likely become boring and students may disengage as a teacher attempts to use the chunk enough times for all of the students to acquire it.  Not only is this undesirable, but it is unnecessary.  By putting Compelling Comprehensible Input first and focusing on simply communicating compelling and comprehensible messages using the language chunks necessary when they are necessary, the teacher quickly establishes and clarifies meaning where needed.  Over time, students will get the input and repetitions necessary to fully acquire the language.

Targeting for Mastering Grammar
Finally, some teachers target with the intention to help students master the grammatical patterns associated with a given chunk, usually associated with verb conjugations.  They repeat the chunk in different forms, often various conjugations, in order for students to hear the different grammar patterns.  The idea is that by using the different forms, students will acquire the grammatical patterns and be able to apply them when using the particular chunk and eventually to similar or related chunks.  Again, this diverts attention away from communicating and understanding compelling and comprehensible messages, can become boring, and focuses students and teachers on conscious learning rather than subconscious acquisition.  While teachers should ensure that all of the grammar is contained in the language used, they should do so through using rich language rather than intentional repetitions of specific language chunks various forms.

​

Although I felt like my prior posts on using Kagan with CI caused a bit of a stir and a fair amount of conversation, I didn't realize just how much those ideas might endure and be attached to me until someone approached me at a Conference this weekend and asked me about using Kagan.  Due to this, I feel like I need to post an update about my current position on Kagan Cooperative Learning in the CI classroom:

Due to my experiences over the past few months, I've had a "rebirth" of sorts into the CI world.  Because of this, I have taken some significant steps away from using Kagan as a main method in my classroom and instead focusing on simply storytelling and communicating compelling and comprehensible methods.  However, Kagan and the underlying principals of cooperative learning do still have their appropriate places and are used often in my classroom - just not as extensively and not in the same way that I was using them before.  I do still feel that cooperative learning is essential in my classroom for a few reasons - it demonstrates my faith in students to figure something out on their own, allows them to build relationship through supporting one another, adds variety to the classroom, and especially because it gives me an opportunity to hear how they verbalize their internal processing of the language - I occasionally realize that the class was "understanding" something in a different way than I intended, and this gives me a quick break from instructing to monitor and adjust instruction as we move forward.  I generally use teacher-centered instruction for co-creation of stories, which forms the backbone of the language that we use in class.  The cooperative activities (including Kagan) come into play when students are processing input together, such as re-reading a story that we co-created.  There are excellent structures beyond Kagan that utilize cooperative learning, such as the "Running Dictation" or any variation thereof.  As long as students are engaging in Positive Interdependence, have Independent Accountability, have Equal Opportunities to participate, and are Simultaneously Interacting, then all of the benefits of true cooperative learning are present and valid.