Comprehensible Input and Social Justice (3)

This is part 3 in a 6 part series. If you haven't, please go and read parts 1 and 2 first. They are on the first two principle of the Comprehension Hypothesis: Acquisition and Learning, the Natural Order Hypothesis, and its role in social justice in the classroom. 

Acquisition and Learning

The Natural Order Hypothesis

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?

The Monitor Hypothesis

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...

The Monitor Hypothesis and Equity

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"?

How I use the Monitor Hypothesis

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. 
  

References

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