Ideally we all want our students to be interested in what we are saying, but just like we all have different tastes in foods, books, and music, so will the reaction vary as to how our students react to us. For a long time, teachers have relied on the idea of "motivation" as to how well students react to information. I hear a lot of times that "if students were just motivated.... X would happen", but that's not how things work. While "compelling" is not  necessarily required to acquire language (simply put), it is required for fully successful SLA (Krashen, 2011; Patrick, 2019). When input is compelling, there is not need for "motivation" because one is so drawn in that they "forget" they are actually acquiring language and enter what Krashen (2011) calls a state of flow (Krashen, 2011). You don't have to want to improve, it will just happen because you find the material so compelling; the resulting progress may even be completely unexpected (Krashen, 2011). Patrick (2019) notes the immediate connection between this hypothesis and the affective filter, "choice may be one way of lowering the affective filter and inviting students into the understandable input that we have planned for them - if our planning has taken [student choices] into consideration" (Patrick, 2019, p. 42). This is why I said yesterday that the compelling input and affective filter principles are the most important, in my opinion, when it comes to being a teacher who truly understands and employs CI principles. Everything we do must be run through a CI filter. Every decision we make must be comprehensible, allow natural order, avoid the monitor until they are ready, provide input, lower the affective filter, and be compelling. 

If that list overwhelmed you, I get it. It can be a lot and no one is perfect. We adjust. In the next two sections, I am going to reflect myself on the questions I posed yesterday and then show how I might consider the 6 principles of CI when looking at a topic often covered in Latin classes. I hope you can see how this principle and all 6, when fully understood and applied, provide a classroom where students are valued and respected for who they are and included as people who belong in the classroom with me. 

Before I do. Thank you for coming with me on this journey. While my daily blogging pauses here for now, the conversation isn't over. I would love to consider a follow up post (or a few) addressing any specifics, questions, or ideas we share in our community. There has already been great discussion on various social medias about this. I'd like to see more. 

Let's look at a common topic taught in Latin classes, and one I previously discussed: the house and home. Here are some quick suggestions for how I consider the three CCCs of CI and the six principles. This is not exhaustive. Please, if you'd like, reach out and let's talk more!

Krashen (1983) really describes this well, "Performers with certain types of motivation, usually, but not always 'integrative' and with good self-images do better in second language acquisition" (Krashen, 1983, p. 38). Patrick (2019) goes on to say that without this principle, would create an environment with no link between the students and the teacher (Patrick, 2019). 

This principle gets to the heart of every other principle. Without fully understanding the affective filter and the effect it has on our students, nothing else matters. Our affective filters are "made up of... motivation and lethargy, self-esteem and self-doubt, confidence and anxiety, calm and stress" (Patrick, 2019, p. 42). The lower the filter, the more open one is to receiving input and, thus, acquiring language (Krashen, 1983). 

A lot of the argument against Comprehensible Input as an inherently more equitable set of principles than others does not take fully into account, particularly, how this principle affects all the other principles. Scattered throughout each of my posts are examples of how a whole and true understanding of the Comprehension Hypothesis requires an anti-racist, multicultural, and restorative approach to teaching and working with students. If you aren't applying this daily, hourly, moment by moment to your work, you are not providing comprehensible input and you are missing a major piece to understanding this work and its importance. Further, if you are, there is still and always will be work to do. I don't say this to call anyone a bad person or to say that anyone shouldn't do this work. I say this to say, "this IS the work." Full stop.

Tomorrow's post is on the last principle, the Compelling Input Hypothesis. It is, in my opinion, the second most important piece for CI, after this one. To quote my father (yes, the one who wrote one of the articles I keep referencing), "You have to love the kids more than the content". For the practical part of today, I want to give some reflective questions that I will, hopefully, provide some discussion of tomorrow. I'd love to see your thoughts on these questions. 

The input hypothesis is commonly referred to as the i+1 hypothesis. It states that we acquire language when we receive understandable input that is just outside of what we have already acquired (Krashen, 1983). This is not to be confused with forced output or immersion classes (Patrick, 2019). There is a distinct difference. Further, traditional grammar-translation teachers can also be guilty of this by forcing translation, exposure and engagement with grammar topics, or forcing composition before students are ready (Patrick, 2019). So, how can one ensure they are providing proper input? Krashen provides a few ways in his work. Caretakers restrict language to what is most important in the moment, use their desire to be understood, and simplify language (Krashen, 1983). Language teachers must provide support to students to establish clear meaning: visuals, slowing down, repeating, asking yes/no questions, and scaffolding questions (Krashen 1983). If you are thinking that this does not apply to you as a Latin teacher because your goal is not necessarily to get them speaking, you are not alone. Patrick (2019) makes a great note of this and points out that as Latin teachers we also want our students to read and access texts of various literature traditions (Patrick, 2019). 

So, how does this apply to a proper understanding of CI and its inclusion of equity? 

This is how you should be applying this principle: all day, every day. The input hypothesis, like them all, applied to language acquisition, but also to everything we do. This principle, in particular, speaks to our disabled students, and our students who work, who are needed for help in the home, or who suffer ACEs, to name a few. So, for today, I am going to do this piece as a list. I am going to do my best to provide resources for each, but you can see my References and Resources list for specific books and sites I've consulted and work with regularly. 

1. Provide Visuals - This includes everything from visual vocabulary (pictures) to a visual schedule. Provide models, act things out yourself (don't rely on students to act for you), and let students provide visuals to you (see item 5). This will help and support students who are autistic/have ASD, are deaf/hard of hearing, have specific learning disabilities, ESL students, students with speech/language impairments, students who struggle with executive functioning, students with memory concerns, intellectually disabled students, and more. 
2. Provide Audio - Record yourself reading stories. Record yourself describing images in Latin and English. Record class if you can. Record Dictations. Let students provide you with audio as well (see item 5). This specifically helps blind/vision students, students with processing disorders, students with speech/language impairments, students with ADD/ADHD, and more.
3. Provide gestures/muscle memory - Our bodies remember things. It is part of what makes triggers so dangerous. Our muscles remember things. It is part of what makes "riding a bike" something you "can't forget". In my class, I use American Sign Language as a way to communicate with and help students communicate with me. You can also use hand created gestures, Total Physical Response (TPR), etc. Let students communicate in this way with you when appropriate. In addition to being a way to ensure understanding without requiring forced output, it is another form of expression (See item 5). This will help serve students with speech/language impairments, who are deaf/hard of hearing, autistic students/students with ASD, students with memory concerns, students with ADD/ADHD, students who are non-verbal, and more. 
   
4. Stop saying "it's easy..." - When we say things like this, students feel stupid. If it's easy, why aren't they getting it. If a student fails to understand something in my class, it's likely my fault... in that I didn't provide proper input for them. This is what drives students to say, "I'm no good at language". Further, I often this phrase followed by, "you just need to memorise Y" or "just make some flashcards and review them every night". For our students who work, who struggle with memorisation, who baby-sit their family members, who go home to situations that are dangerous, scary, and more,  these things are not easy. They are, at best, difficult and often impossible. Consider how these words affect your students who do not fit into the affluent, white student mold. Consider how this affects your disabled students who often have to face a label of "being stupid". Consider how this makes your students who suffer ACEs feel.
5. Provide brain breaks - All of our brains get tired. We all know that feeling. As teachers, especially if we don't see our students first thing, we need to take those breaks. There are a multitude of them out there, but I've provided some in my example below (marked with a green bb) and a link in my resources to some of my favourites. These help serve our kids with ADD/ADHD, intellectually disabled students, students with mental health issues and emotional concerns, students with ACEs, students with executive functioning concerns, and more. 
   
6. Provide multiple forms of engagement, representation, and expression. This sums it up. These are the three principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). When you consider it, providing CI is providing UDL. In order to provide true CI, you must also provide true UDL. Let's close with a quick example. I will mark various forms of engagement with a red e, representation with a blue r, and expression with a purple x. 
   

Let's say that I am working with my students on reading some teacher created stories about the Roman gods and goddesses. I have already looked at considerations for vocabulary, culture, triggers, etc. Here is what the first 3 days might look like:

• Monday - vents and brags, Vocabulary power point (Latin + English + picture E/R, TPR, circling), dragon breath BB, Vocabulary Power Point (dictation E/R), students turn in notes from dictation in translation, note, or drawing format X. 
• Tuesday - vents and brags, TPR vocabulary review (either with TPR or ASL E, R, X), dictation review (using kids' sentences and pictures from previous day E, R), Would you Rather BB, Task activity E, R
• Wednesday - vents and brags, Gimkit activity with vocabulary E, R, Story listening of full story (using Latin, English check ins where needed, and images) E, R, The Wave BB, Story Listening E, R, Exit Ticket - What happens next (show in writing, or drawing, X)

So, I'm going to start today's blog with a story. It is a year's old story and one I often share in person but rarely in writing. I was at a speaking Latin event, often shared over a meal, and was engaged in conversation in Latin with a number of people. Someone asked me a question and I answered it. However, I used a word that another person in the conversation did not prefer. They proceeded to "correct" me using a vocabulary word they liked, but one I was not familiar with. I tried to continue the conversation, but they insisted on repeatedly "correcting" me and wanting me to repeat back what I'd heard. I did not. Instead, I became incredibly anxious that I was using Latin incorrectly and completely disengaged. I only answered questions briefly and mostly spent my time trying to figure out this word I didn't know. When I finally got home, I researched both words only to discover that not only was my use of the word correct, it was more common. I was baffled at the experience. Why was the preference of one word over another, when both were correct, such an issue?

This hypothesis/principle is two fold. The first piece speaks to language acquisition theory and states that, when certain conditions are met, conscious learning can happen and can be useful (Krashen, 1983). We can self correct or edit our output and it happens in both first and subsequent languages, when enough comprehensible input has been received and language has been acquired (Krashen, 1983). The second piece of this principle is a warning. When there is too much of this self-consciousness, too early, or at inappropriate times, it can cause damage and harm (Patrick, 2019). Knowing these things, it is clear to see what happened to my brain in the above story. When the monitor is applied inappropriately or before someone is ready, it raises anxiety levels to a point where, at worst, no communication happens and no comprehensible input is received. Now imagine what happens to a student...

Patrick (2019) describes these moments really well, "Relationships become awkward, and dangers and opportunities can be misread with too much self-consciousness... in great amounts can become entirely paralysing" (Patrick, 2019, p. 41). As teachers, we must be very careful with this hypothesis. If we force the monitor on students too early, they will shut down. If a student comes to us, asking for more, and we silence their questions, we shut them down. But even more so, consider these points of equity:

1. Charts are inequitable - I discussed this in the previous posts, but it bears repeating. When we use charts and use them as a method of evaluation, we are excluding a number of students. Even if we ignore the fact that most learners will not excel and succeed using traditional methods... even if we ignore that. Using charts and memorisation as a method of evaluation and requirement in class excludes (not exhaustive list) dyslexic students, students who struggle with executive functioning, students with OCD, students with motor functioning concerns, students with intellectual disabilities, students with developmental delays, students with ADD/ADHD, and so many more. Make charts available.... but don't make them required as notes until students are ready and please... please don't make them required on assessments. 
2. Using TL grammar as a way to "teach" English grammar is inequitable and racist. There, I said it. The requirement of specific English grammar and speaking is racist. It actively ignores cultural norms that BIPOC populations value and use actively (Emdin, 2016). It ignores the very valid expressions of English throughout the US and in other countries. When "ain't" is okay but "axe" isn't, that's racism. Sure, formal English grammar has a a place. But every day, colloquial, culturally normal language is always evolving and for too long teachers have valued and pressured students into using white people's English, often shaming them for their own cultural and racial experience and identity. If you are using your language class to support what is often called "proper English" you are engaging in colonialism and are supporting a system of oppression and racism. There is value to all forms of English. They are all beautiful.
3. It will happen when it happens - If we are providing truly comprehensible input (see my first post), then students will become ready for the monitor in their own time. If we force it, based on our own notions of what is appropriate, or based on what our gifted populations tell us, we are doing a disservice to the rest of our students and actively telling them they aren't good enough and do not have a place in our class. This isn't about being "smart enough" it is about letting students have the time, whatever time that is, to grow and acquire language as they are meant to. This goes back to my discussion yesterday of wanting "all smart kids". How do you define that? What is the cut off? Who are you excluding from the room you share with your students for the sake of having the "smart ones"?

The accusation is often made that because CI teachers don't teach explicit grammar until students are ready that "we don't use grammar". (1) Of course we use grammar. We use it every time we use the language. (2) What this argument really suggests it that we let our students "run rampant" all "willy nilly" with language. That isn't true either. I get it though. It's an easy jump to make when I say things like " I have no charts in my room" or when my students tell their friends at other schools, "we don't take grammar notes". So, if you'll indulge me, I'd like to share when I DO engage the monitor hypothesis. 

• When a student asks a question - If a student asks me something directly, it displays a readiness to know. As the teacher, as the expert, it is up to me to determine how ready they are for something. Unless a student at the lower level asks for more, I will answer directly, simply, and move on. In the upper levels, I will ask how much they want to know. 
• When the class as a whole begins to tell me they are ready - It happens at different moments. It can happen and then "unhappen". The last set of students I took straight through four years showed me that. About halfway through Latin I, they said they wanted some grammar, so we did. We slowly discussed the basics of verbs and nouns. About 3 months into Latin II, they said they were done. So we refocused. By the end of August Latin III, they wanted more. So, we added explicit grammar back in. They continued with bi-monthly grammar lessons through the end of Latin IV. 
  
• To build a resource - With these students mentioned above, I made two rules clear: (1) You will take these notes and (2) I will never test you on them. Instead, we built a resources of grammar notes that they could access whenever they wanted. I then taught them to edit their own work and so, each time we completed a free write (they were writing for entire class periods at this point), they then got a class period to edit their writing and ask all the questions they wanted about grammar and vocabulary. 
  

Emdin, C. (2016). For white folks who teach in the hood: And the rest of y’all too. Boston, MA:
    Beacon Press. ​

Krashen, S. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Alemany Press.

Patrick, R. (2019). Comprehensible Input and Krashen's theory. Journal of Classics Teaching, 20(39), 37-44. doi:10.1017/S2058631019000060

This is part 2 in a 6 part series. If you haven't, please go and read part 1 first. It is on the first principle of the Comprehension Hypothesis: Acquisition and Learning and its role in social justice in the classroom. 

The natural order hypothesis holds that "grammatical structures are acquired... in a predictable order" (Krashen, 1983, p. 28). However, one should note that this does not mean that every learner will acquire grammar in the exact same order, nor does it state that we know the exact order for each learner or each language (Krashen, 1983; Patrick, 2019). There are some grammatical concepts that are more naturally acquired early on and some that can wait (Krashen, 1983). Whatever order something may be acquired in, the key to it is understandable messages in the target language (Krashen, 1983; Patrick, 2019). 

I want to address what I see as two pieces to this hypothesis and its role in social justice separately. The first is the use of high frequency vocabulary as a leading factor when considering in what order one should "teach" something. The second is a further discussion on the argument some make against CI in the first post: that by following CI, one is "dumbing down" language or presuming that BIPOC cannot survive or flourish in a traditional, non CI, classroom. 

There are a number of frequency lists out there for any language: top 5 verbs, top 7 verbs, 50 Most Important Verbs, etc. All of these lists are important and can play a great role in helping teachers determine what words they want to focus on, target, etc. (please note that this is not the post to argue for targeted vs. untargeted... WHOLE other thing). What I want to consider, however, is that these lists are just the beginning of the work we need to do as teachers to use this hypothesis for the delivery of comprehensible input. 

Frequency lists are often based on verbs that apply to daily situations or situations people find themselves in most often (and that is useful). Latin frequency lists tend to look at literature (from a time period, from a certain style, etc) and pull the words most frequently used (and that is useful). However.... our students are coming with their own experiences and histories. Just because a word is used a lot in one place does not mean that it will be meaningful, comprehensible, or culturally responsive for our students. As teachers who use the Comprehension Hypothesis, we must look at all of this and make rational and culturally responsive choices about the words we use with and put in front of our students every day. 

Take, for example, the Latin word villa. This word means a country-house or a farm or villa. It does not mean "house". And yet, quite often Latin textbooks will introduce it early on to mean house or home and subsequently teachers will use it to mean that as well. I did this at one point in time too. villa​ does not appear on the Dickenson Core Vocabulary list at all. domus, which does mean house or home, is number  73 on that same list. casa which means a simple house, a cottage, a hut, shed, cabin, etc. does not appear on the list either. insulae, which means (in this context) literally means "house for poor people" opposite domus or villa , means something akin to an apartment building/apartment and is number 908 on the list.  When one considers these three words and their original Roman meanings and what they would be today, it is hopefully clear how inappropriate a word like villa would be as a "stand in" for house. Even a word like insulae and domus would need context. Frequency lists are just the start. In order to deliver true CI to our students, we must consider these lists, the words in our target language, AND our students' own experiences. When comparing my home to that of the Romans, I likely lived in a casa maybe a smaller domus; in my dreams it's a villa meaning farm. It is a one story home with a larger yard and lots of trees. When I first started teaching... I lived in a town home. I could have probably used insulae or casa to describe the setting, with some context. Long story short: we have to use words and know their FULL meaning. The fact is, housing is an issue steeped in racism. Red-lining is real. Chances are your district was built in a racist way. We need to be aware of that.

Teaching and education are systems that has long valued and both overtly and covertly pushed a white supremacist agenda. I say this as a white teacher who has benefited from this system. There are a host of resources on this. I will direct you to this page of my site for some resources. At the top are resource by type; I am always looking to add to it. The one I want to focus on today is Christopher Emdin's work. If he is not part of your reading and research, move fast, and add him to your list. 

Take a minute and really think about the things most schools value: dress codes that target girls, LGBTQIA+, and BIPOC girls and boys, sitting quietly, speaking in a certain manner with specific language (e.g. ask vs. ax), etc. All of these things feature and put on a pedestal the typical experience and expectations of white children (Emdin, 2016). They target anything that doesn't fit into this image. Black students in particular are often targeted for their language use, clothing choice, natural hair, etc. Girls and LGBTQIA+ youth are targeted for any clothing that "pushes an agenda" or shows off a shoulder. The same is true of a grammar syllabus. I am also going to put this out there: If you argue that you want all "smart" students including BIPOC, you still have a problem. 

Grammar syllabi, wanting all "smart" kids, etc disfavour and discriminate against: BIPOC, disabled children, children who do not come from affluent homes, children who suffer from Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). When you say things like this, when you teach explicit grammar or require things learned in a certain format, order, etc., when you then test on these things and require perfection, what you really are saying is that you only want a certain type of learner.

Comprehensible Input, when truly and properly considered and used, requires that we do this work. CI looks at the students in your room and say, "how best can I help these students acquire language and succeed"? So, let's take a look. Who is in our classroom and how can we help them succeed on their terms?

Emdin, C. (2016). For white folks who teach in the hood: And the rest of y’all too. Boston, MA:
    Beacon Press. ​

Krashen, S. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Alemany Press

Patrick, R. (2019). Comprehensible Input and Krashen's theory. Journal of Classics Teaching, 20(39), 37-44. doi:10.1017/S2058631019000060

This post is a long time coming. I want to be clear in that. Over the past year or so it has popped up throughout a variety of forums and in a number of ways. Many say that no single teaching "method" is inherently equitable... and I agree with that. However, I disagree that Comprehensible Input is a teaching method. It is a philosophy and hypothesis. Today I want to (quickly I hope) break down the six pieces and how they relate to social justice. This is not meant to be an exhaustive piece. This may turn into a much larger series of posts, but for now, let's get into it.

EDIT: As I started writing, I realised this is going to be MUCH longer than I anticipated.... So, it will be a series of 6 posts. Today's is on the first principle of Comprehensible Input: Acquisition and Learning.

This may be the most well known piece of the Comprehension Hypothesis. It states that language acquisition happens subconsciously when one understands the messages one receives in the target language, whether through reading or listening (Krashen, 2012). Learning refers to the explicit teaching and learning about a language: its gears and parts (Patrick, 2019).  With acquisition, we are not aware of the processes happening inside our brain. With learning, we are. 

The idea has been stated recently that because of this distinction, the use of CI in the classroom is actually racist on the premise that CI teachers are "dumbing down" content for BIPOC. However, this argument is built on a misunderstanding of CI principles. Nowhere in the hypothesis does it say that learning does not have a place in the classroom. What it says is that learning does not help language acquisition. When students are ready, CI teachers will employ the use of explicit learning language strategies to help them further their skills and make use of their inner monitor. The key piece, however, is when students are ready. This speaks to this principle's purpose in a culturally responsive and social justice aware classroom. Rather than holding students (any student) to a standard decided upon by adults, students get to communicate their level of comfort and readiness for explicit learning topics. They are part of the conversation. They have a voice. This is not a "dumbing down" of content, but a restructuring. 

I'd like, bearing in mind that I do not want these posts to be miles long, to suggest some ways practical and real ways that this principle, when applied correctly, is socially justice minded and culturally aware. 

1. Memorisation of charts - This discussion of inclusion of disabled students in the classroom is a major one and there is not enough space here for me to go into all the details; they will be included in each piece explicitly. I'm going to put this out there. The use of charts with the requirement of memorisation of said charts (especially when used on assessments) is ableist. Charts in and of themselves are not. However, there are a number of disabilities that make such things as memorization difficult and when you make that a core tenant of how students are evaluated, you are closing the door and conversation for a number of students. CI, when employed directly, allows the brain to relax to some extent and enjoy the language. Students can make progress. When students are ready, we can provide charts as a resource. 
2. Memorisation of vocabulary - Another piece to this. This is one of the top things I hear when a disabled student says they are afraid of language class. They say things like, "I'm just no good at memorising" or "I can't remember vocabulary". The proper use of CI takes away this sense of "memorisation requirement" and puts the work back on the teacher. If a student cannot remember a vocabulary word, what am I doing to support them and help them get more CI. Language acquisition is a subconscious process. Memorisation is not. 
   
3. Comprehensible... No, really - Comprehensible means understood. It doesn't mean, oh, once I've figured out the context of a thing, I get it. Comprehensible in on the teacher. In our classrooms, in order for things to truly be comprehensible, we must be culturally and racially aware and responsive. As teachers who employ the principles of CI we must always be considering how comprehensible something truly is, from many angles. On the one hand, yes, simple English equivalent is the first piece. You will have some students in your classroom who struggle to understand abstract concepts. It is key to this principle that you make even the English comprehensible. You will also have students for whom English is not their first or most comfortable language. What work are you doing to ensure that something is truly comprehensible for them? Some vocabulary words/ideas/concepts are things that speak to racism, affluence, etc. How are you working to ensure that these terms are comprehensible to all in your classroom AND do not further ideas of racism and elitism? These are ALL key pieces to this principle. 
   

These are just three examples. This list is incomplete. I would love to see in the comments more. If needed, I can make another post on more. 

So, I'd like to close today's post with this. If you, as a teacher, are not ensuring that your content is truly comprehensible to your students in the multitude of ways it can be, you are missing some key points about this principle of the Comprehension Hypothesis. There is work to be done. In order to use the Comprehension Hypothesis and be a "CI teacher" you do not have to be perfect. I am not perfect. You do, however, have to do the work. This is the first part of the work. 

Krashen, S. (2012). The comprehension hypothesis extended. Input Matters in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 81-94. Retrieved from: 
​http://sdkrashen.com/content/articles/comprehension_hypothesis_extended.pdf

Patrick, R. (2019). Comprehensible Input and Krashen's theory. Journal of Classics Teaching, 20(39), 37-44. doi:10.1017/S2058631019000060