Whether you love it or hate it, Comprehensible Input (CI) is definitely the world language buzz word right now and, moreover, this decade’s way of teaching.  Comprehensible Input is an umbrella term for a number of different strategies that all underline the idea that language is learned when learners hear or read new language that they can understand.  It is the difference between learning a language in a natural way similar to how babies do v. the old school method of learning L2 grammar rules in the L1 and never being able to actually speak in the language.

I’m excited to attend the Comprehensible Midwest conference for the first time tomorrow, but before I do so I want to reflect on some of the things I love about CI and some of the things that quite honestly, I’m not sold on.  I have a background in immersion teaching and have been most influenced by my time working at Concordia Language Villages.  Being such a proponent of immersion methodologies, and let’s be honest, a natural skeptic, has made it hard for me not to look critically on some parts of CI.

Before I go into detail it’s important to note that, like anything, moderation is the key.  As a world language student in the late 90’s my Spanish classes followed the same format for each chapter of the textbook: Watch the introductory video, learn the vocabulary then grammar for the chapter, watch the video again, then write a group dialogue to perform for the class.  My memory of these dialogues was that I did most of the work for my group, the teacher gave us back an edited draft with corrections that we didn’t understand, I was nervous about performing in front of the class, and I generally had no idea what the other groups’ were saying when they performed their dialogue.  Not the best method for language acquisition.  However, at the time it was thought to be the best way to do things.  That being said, creating and performing a dialogue is not a bad activity; it’s usually very motivating for students, a good way to review or consolidate prior learning, and can mimic more real-life situations.  Like anything, the key is to not get carried away with the latest trend, do things in moderation and remember that variety is the spice of life.

This need to keep things new and interesting was underlined for me when I went to a TPRS workshop by Blaine Ray in the early 2000’s.  I liked the idea of storytelling, personalization, and story asking, and was eager to learn more.  Some of the teachers at the workshop had been doing TPRS for a year or two and asked what they should do when their students were tired of storytelling and TPR (obviously, this would happen if they were doing stories every day).  The response was basically that they should do more stories that the students where interested and that anything that was not TPRS wasn’t as good as TPRS.  This kind of turned me off to TPRS and made be want to pick and choose what I did in my classroom instead of becoming a TPRS convert.  For example, I love teaching with the TPRS novels but I don’t make my whole class around them.  If I did more than one (or possibly two) in a year they would lose their novelty.

Things I love about CI

Equity: The idea that ALL students can be successful language learners in CI classrooms.  In the past, students who were not college bound or academically motivated to study grammar and vocabulary outside of class would not be successful.  CI techniques level the playing field and make language accessible to all.

Assessment: Assessments like free writes allow students to use all the language they have instead of punishing them for not knowing a specific word or verb conjugation as text book multiple choice tests do.  For Novice levels, writing out questions in English makes sure that students are being tested on their comprehension of the text and not the question.  It also prevents them from copying the answer from the text without showing comprehension.

Less focus on grammar: Gone are the days of memorizing every single irregular verb and asking grammar-specific questions on tests (eg. For which pronouns does a stem-changing verb not change?).

CI is great for: Everyone! But especially younger students and languages like Mandarin that don’t have verb tenses or many grammar rules.

Things I don’t love about CI

Any grammar instruction is evil: The original TPRS/Krashen view and some purists seem to believe that all language should be acquired naturally and grammar rules should never be explained.  To me this seems like an extreme swing to one side.  Grammar does have a place and the languages need to be compared and contrasted.  This is a good way to reinforce a learner’s knowledge of English grammar also.

Only teaching the first and third person singular forms: While yo and él/ella may be the most important forms, only teaching those forms and not exposing students to other forms is limiting.  Obviously, if students are going to communicate on even the most basic level the second person (tú) form is vital.  A conversation won’t go anywhere if you can’t talk TO someone.  Also, it can be misleading to make blanket statements like va is goes because it is not for the usted form.

100% comprehension: Teachers are told to instruct their students to stop them when they don’t understand and that everything the teacher says should be comprehensible.  I don’t feel that this sets up learners for real-life situations.   Are you going to go into a restaurant in Paris and stop the waiter mid-sentence because you don’t understand every word he is saying!?  As a language learner a HUGE part of the learning process is learning how to figure things out when you don’t understand words.  A language learner’s world is ambiguous.  While it’s true that the sink/swim dichotomy of immersion is frustrating and disheartening to many students, it’s also much more realistic.  Some time of uncertainty is ok.

The silent period: Krashen’s hypothesis about the silent period says that learners who are just starting need time to be silent and don’t need to speak.  I disagree.  Certainly, the speaking that we expect students to do in novice level classes should be basic, but there is no reason that student’s shouldn’t be speaking in simple question-answer partner activities or as a class when given yes/no, either/or questions.

CI can be very frustrating for high students: lots of circling gets boring quickly and making sure every student understands means that higher students might not be challenged.

and for students who want to know the why: students who want to know how the language works will be frustrated by never being told the rules.  Imagine a German student never being told that German nouns are one of three genders.

All that being said, I think there are a lot of great things coming out from underneath the CI umbrella that everyone should check out.  But, as with every methodology, picking and choosing which parts are best for you and your students is key.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.  Would you consider yourself a 100% CI teacher?  Will we all head towards that in the future or will a new method come in the next decade?