What follows will be neither a review nor a complete step-by- step how-to guide for the new site, SentenceBuilders.com . I have been a beta tester for the site, so I would not be able to do a review with the appearance of impartiality, but I don't work for the site either so I will leave the creation of detailed instructions to them.

Background

If you are a teacher who is unfamiliar with the use of sentence builder type knowledge organizers and/or the work of Gianfranco Conti , I suggest some reading before exploring further. Conti has written several books with Steve Smith, but I am linking a helpful blog post he did below for a quick glance at his method.

​
EPI/Sentence Builders approach - Gianfranco Conti
https://gianfrancoconti.com/2018/07/30/patterns-first-how-i-teach-lexicogrammar-part-1/

Simona Gravina’s Padlet with examples & explanations of EPI approach
https://padlet.com/simograv/svi55fluxeolisi9

My blog post about how I incorporate the EPI into US proficiency-based instruction
https://madamemichael.weebly.com/mon-blog

Twitter thread about importance of understanding the whole method and not just using a sentence builder in isolation: https://twitter.com/j_st_88/status/1384942779051167750?s=09

How To Videos

I created several demo videos to show how to use various aspects of the site.

​

Need to Know

• Premium resources (Language Gym)
• Community resources
• Private/School resource
• Import from a sentence builder you create
• Easily import terms from Quizlet
• Limitations & suggestions for teacher-created - work in progress on Martin Lapworth’s end - will be adding more functionality
• Sequences follow Conti’s Listening/Reading as Modeling approach
• Data analysis available
• Easy to differentiate for students - create different assignments with the same set
• US - easy to use along with stories and authentic resources (what I do)

​Considerations

• Will take a while to learn how long students will take to complete activities for pacing
• Important to understand whole method - intentionality in your instructional design
• Cost - more teachers = better deal
• No packaging with Language Gym or other Lapworth sites - Textivate or TeachVid - not possible because of the way their businesses are set up
• Some overlap with Language Gym -I plan to use both
• If you are not full-in Conti method/materials and need something customizable, you may want to only choose Sentence Builders
• Tech support as a beta tester has been OUTSTANDING!

Want more information or still interested in a demo? Reach out via my Contact Form or Twitter !

A votre service,

​Dawn

I have had this blog post in my head for months now, but felt guilty blogging when my focus " should" have been on managing the 6000 ring circus of pandemic teaching. It is now officially winter break, and I have no excuse - and I need to blog more, for my own professional development. Alors, allons-y!

For the past 4 to 5 years, I have worked very hard to design instruction based around authentic resources, as this is considered the goal of our ACTFL and Ohio standards - what can a student do with authentic resources designed for native speakers. From the first weeks of Level 1, I would use authentic resources  in class, and I was very proud of how well most  of my students could handle an Integrated Performance Assessment (IPA) based on authentic documents or audiovisual. However, there were always students who struggled, such as students with learning disabilities that affected reading, students who were designated as ELL, students who lacked successful literacy strategies in English. And no matter what sort of pre-reading or scaffolding I offered, many of these students were so anxious or afraid of the authentic texts that they would not attempt - or would rely on using their phone or Google Translate to try to sneak by that way. While I was very proud of my chops as a "standards-based proficiency-focused teacher", I was uneasy knowing I was not helping ALL my students feel like they could succeed in French class. It happens too often that the students who struggle are simply considered as afterthoughts - we must modify our instruction to make it doable for some who cannot do it as designed - rather than design instruction that will work for ALL students in the first place. (Check out Universal Design - I learned about this after I had figured out I needed to shift my design perspective, but it definitely informs my practices now)

Along the way I discovered the work of GianFranco Conti  and began incorporating some of his lessons and units into the lessons I had written and the ones I had adapted from Français Interactif. My level 3 students in particular raved about how much they liked it, because they were able to quickly create compound and complex sentences that felt natural to them, and did not need to struggle to assemble individual words and phrases to communicate at a level that felt like high school, and not elementary school. The more activities that I added in his style, the more impressed I was with what ALL  the students could do with the language, confidently and with accuracy. As I learned more about his method (see his blog and books, I am not going to attempt to summarize), I decided that it was more conducive to enabling ALL my students to learn language than my existing strategies which revolved around authentic resources. A more equitable pedagogical method was the clear choice.

This year I am using Conti materials and methods along with my own materials that I write with Conti principles in mind. For the first time in probably 5 years, I did not start my Level 1 students out right away with authentic resources (infographics usually) and spent some time with the Conti beginner workbook activities and stories I wrote using the structures and vocabulary we had been working with. I have created listening and speaking activities as well, using GoFormative because we have been either hybrid or virtual all year. As time goes on, I am incorporating a few authentic resources in Level 1, but I still see the students who lack confidence shutting down completely as soon as they encounter something they know is "real" French,  so I still have some work to do to reassure them.   But on the whole, the students have responded very favorably to the method - they feel empowered to create sentences and communicate at a level that feels less child-like, and it is still a joyful surprise to me each time I see a level 1 student creating strings of compound or even complex sentences with a high degree of comprehensibility.   Levels 2 and 3 are getting regular work with authentic resources, but supported by language practice that is based on  Conti's or using his materials from Language Gym and TES (I often adapt them for our needs). The students often tell me, this stuff works! The sentence builders, the repetition, the scaffolding - it all facilitates acquisition and builds students' confidence in using the language. My colleague @profe_hanna and I both say, the only way they won't learn with Conti methods is if they won't do the work!  And yes, to be honest, there are plenty of students who are not working for a whole variety of reasons, so I am not going to pretend that what I am doing is a magic bullet that will lead to 100% engagement. But, I will say that I know that the way I am teaching now is absolutely more equitable, and I know that ALL of my students can learn French this way.

So, Conti + authres? This is the way.

(A second part to this blog post will follow with a sample outline of what class looks like for me at all 3 levels)

I have blogger block - I think and think about what I should and want to write, but then I don't do it because I'm afraid it won't sound brilliant. I need to stop with that and just produce. In other words, I need to do what I teach my students - worry less about my form and more about my message.

I know there are many language teachers who start the year 90-100% target language (TL). I understand the reasoning, and I will never quarrel with them about it, because that's their prerogative to do what they feel serves their students best. For me and my students, the goal at the start of the year was to lower the level of affect and build a sense of trust in me as a teacher and the proficiency-oriented classroom.

Classroom culture

In all my classes, French 1-3, we did a PearDeck - Notre salle de classe -  so I could establish trust and norms  - I want my students to feel safe and comfortable being human, having emotional needs, and knowing that I do not expect robotic compliance or plastic happiness. Judging from the verbal responses I heard, and the feedback in the PearDeck, this was a success. And since doing that, even the kids I had previously have been more open about sharing their moods and needs with me. This was a good thing, and I wish I would have done this previously. (I have always had them fill out a Who am I? activity, but this went deeper) You can find this PearDeck/Slides  here.  I also continued the use of my backchannel communication - just a simple "Tell Tatie" form that is always available by my desk - and it's already been used. Kids can let me know anything they don't feel comfortable telling me in person. I also prefer this to an online tool because it's untraceable and not on the district server. That form is here.

Language Learning by Level

French 1:   We spent a bit of time learning about what proficiency is, what the state standards are for their level, and how that looks in assessment and grading. This is a monumental shift for students who came from other language classrooms that were hyperfocused on grammar and accuracy, and I wanted to erase any existing anxiety they had from those experiences. I used the same presentation with the students that I shared with parents.  That is available here.

We began with giving basic personal information about ourselves (je m'appelle, je suis de), the alphabet and how letters sound in French, bearing in mind that developing phonemic awareness is fundamental in growing listening skills. Students recorded several Flipgrids to practice speaking - with no concerns about grades or being corrected on their pronunciation - and response was enthusiastic and engaged! We did 3 Flipgrids so far: Je me présente (Je m'appelle, je suis de); Je peux epeler mon nom (Je m'appelle, ça s'écrit); Folie Flipgrid (talk to 5 classmates, introduce each one and spell their first name). We wrapped up with examining the school schedule of the seconde year at a high school in France, Gimkitting school subject vocabulary, doing a dictée with the school subjects to reinforce letter/sound/spelling, and then writing/speaking their own school schedules from a template in Seesaw. The #authres based school schedule activity I wrote is here.

French 2: French  2 is my data class for the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES), so I had to do the pre-assessment IPA for those classes. That's not a great way to build emotional support - starting with a test - but I spent a lot of time reassuring them that this is zero stakes for them, and they seemed to buy in (for the most part). The speaking part of the test was the most anxiety-producing.  I then started an IPA-a-day style review based on #authres - which by the way, is the EASIEST way to build instructional materials, and if you're not doing this, let me talk to you one-on-one to explain how to! We've reviewed giving personal identifying information by using CVs as the authentic resources, and we're looking at school subjects and materials using the model school supply lists and lycée scheduling documents on education.gouv.fr (this led to intercultural discussions as well). Using the IPA or partial IPA format as a daily instructional model greatly lowers the affective filter for students on actual test days, because they are so familiar with the format. I use InsertLearning for most of these since I'm 1-to-1 this year and all the kids can get on a computer. We did have one writing mini-assessment, the kids all did well (vive proficiency-oriented instruction and grading!), and I hope that builds their confidence as we continue. I'm so impressed with where they are coming off a 3 month break!

French 3:  Pushing into the intermediate range, we have started with  describing our academic load, our plan of studies, and what we did during summer vacation. Every starter involves writing about what they HAVE DONE  the past few days since the last class (we are on an A/B day schedule).   Tomorrow we will wrap that up with some interpersonal speaking and some presentational writing, and then discussing stereotypes about Americans and French. The students in the class came in ranging from Novice Mid through Intermediate Low, so I'm working on getting those kids who are still at NM to level up with lots of scaffolding - for example, I provided a Quizlet set with personal questions and the sentence starters for the responses to get them off to a solid start in their productive skills. This group is excited to be working in the target language - for the most part - and is mature enough to understand that is what it will take to grow. Beginning the year with talking about ourselves is helping to lower the affect level and increase their willingness to take risks with the language.

Overall, I'm quite pleased with the atmospheres we are creating in class, and I am excited to see my students grow over the next months. A suivre...@madamednmichael

 Here we go again. New school year = new curriculum maps. Well, new map. I'm fairly satisfied with my French 1 and French 2 maps, which I revamped last year to align with the AAPPL test, so those remained fundamentally the same. French 3, well....

French 1 and 2: The only significant change that I made to both was to remove any mention of discrete grammar points, and instead replaced it with the term "lexis" (see Gianfranco Conti's work). This was also inspired by the Williamson County (Tennessee) Scope and Sequence documents which also reference "Language Chunks" - for their Level 1 document, click here.

French 3: To use a turn of phrase my students like...see what had happened was...I needed to streamline this class because it was too much work. I have a chronic autoimmune disease that requires vigilant management that is essentially my full-time job. So I thought I should make this course easier to deliver. While I was contemplating the new direction of the course, I saw many discussions on Twitter in my PLC, #langchat, about delivering content through language, rather than language being the content, and calls to emphasize interculturality (@doriecp) . Adrienne Brandenburg tweeted asking if anyone was using the Teaching Tolerance Social Justice Standards, and that inspired me to consider those in my design. Finally, I considered my own academic background - I began as a political science major in undergrad, and had a concentration in French civilization for both my M.A. and Ph.D. programs - and decided that a course focused on cultural questions would not only align best with my foundations, but also be the most provocative experience for my students. Level 3 is the terminus of my program at this point, and while many of these themes are typically considered Level 5/AP, I am going to work with them as well as I can at the Intermediate Low/Mid level. I pulled out an old edition of an intermediate university level text I taught from over 10 years ago (Quant a moi, 3rd edition) to examine some of the themes and language structures they used, and then built from there. 

If you examine this map closely, you will notice it's very open-ended. In fact, I did not list any language chunks or lexis at all; instead I stated "Structures: As determined by communicative context". I'm a Department of One again in my district this year, but I'm hoping that another world language educator would be able to infer that if students need to be able to propose solutions, they may need to learn some subjunctive constructions, or if they are comparing, they need to learn comparatives and superlatives. What I don't want is to limit myself (or my students) to a discrete list of resources or language functions because it's on a document I have created in August.    On verra!

I want to be certain to acknowledge  two  language educators whose work informs my own:  I've listed Lisa Shepard's blog as a possible resource, and as always, will use Gianfranco Conti's methodology of teaching presentational skills  in chunks as I create practice materials for writing and speaking.

MAPS

(If you grew up in the 70s & 80s, you may recognize that line from a jingle advertising a sugar-laden, artificially-colored breakfast cereal...)

As promised on the #langchat, I'd like to share my AAPPL implementation plan and experience.

Background: Last year, my principal emailed me and a colleague asking us about the STAMP test for the Seal of Biliteracy. Our district contracts with an ESC to provide Chinese instruction, and they were using the STAMP to test their students, and he was wondering if we should be doing it for French and Spanish. I'm the kind of person who would rather implement changes on my own timeline than be mandated by the district, so I volunteered to test my French 3 class at the end of the year, knowing that it was unlikely any level 3 would reach the level for the Seal.My experience with STAMP and examination of their average scores in French led me to ask to switch to the AAPPL test for this year.  (I'd be happy to discuss that experience individually, I don't think this is the appropriate forum for that).

Plan: With the goal of getting some Level 3 students to the Seal of Biliteracy, my tentative plan is as follows:

• French 1: take the Form A Presentational Writing test. Writing is where many students often lag, and I want the measurements early so I know how much I need to build.
• French 2: take the Interpersonal Listening and Speaking test. This will give me another benchmark and expose the students to that part of the test.
  
• French 3: take all 4 parts, hoping that some of the most proficient students will reach the level for the Seal (Intermediate High).

After my principal approved this plan in theory, I examined my curriculum guides, and added themes where needed to make sure they aligned generally with the AAPPL topics. I did not have much to change or to add, fortunately. Once the year began, I switched from using the ODE-created proficiency rubrics for scoring to the AAPPL level descriptors  in order to align my expectations to those students would see on the test. This required very little shift in practice on my part, as I was already grading based on proficiency-level descriptions. The nice thing about the AAPPL descriptions is that they are easy for students to understand as well. Before my 1st semester French 1 class took the AAPPL, I scored their last writing assessment and explained to them which level they had reached. They were really excited to see how well they had done, and to have an idea of exactly what they would need to be able to do to reach that level on the AAPPL. (I had no such way of preparing students for the STAMP)They also did the demo test, which was identical in format to the test, which lowered the level of affect when they reached the testing session.

Round 1: My first round of AAPPL with this French 1 group went very well. The State of Ohio sets Novice Mid as the target for Year 1; I teach with Novice High in mind for an A grade. This meant N-2 and N-3 (Novice MId) would be at-level scores, and N-4 (Novice High) would be above level (see AAPPL to ACTFL proficiency levels). 80% of the class scored at N-2 or higher, with 40% scoring at N-4 or I-1. I felt like the grading I was doing in class using the descriptors was generally aligned with their AAPPL results, and there were no surprises in the results. (Note: I did request 1 rescore, which I have not yet received. I really liked that I can see the students' responses and scores, it is very helpful for me to calibrate my scoring in the classroom).  With so many students at N-4/I-1 at the end of Level 1, I feel hopeful that I may be able to get a few high-achieving students to I-5 at the end of Level 3. (Note: Level 3 target in Ohio is Intermediate Low  - I1. ) It was also extremely valuable to have a 'standardized' measurement of my students' work, both for shaping my own practices, and for providing data to my administrators.  The high percentage of students who were at or above level is evidence of the effectiveness of my proficiency-based instruction, and provides a validated measurement that those of us in 'untested' areas do not usually have. Honestly, if I could use the AAPPL for testing for evaluation purposes, I would .

Unknowns: I did not have any students who required accommodations in this group. I am not sure how well some of my students who have severe challenges with literacy or  attention (IEP or 504) will do with this test as it is entirely on screen. I do not know if LTI/AAPPL tracks that subgroup and has any relevant, I will look into that to see.

Takeaway: I'm all in for the AAPPL. I found the preparation information (topics, score descriptors, practice tests) to be transparent and aligned with the actual test. I will report back after the spring and further testing at the other levels!

You have one minute to build a solid Lego building. Which stack do you choose?

The answer, obviously, is the stack on the right. While the little pieces provide detail and variety, the larger blocks will allow us to build quickly, and reach our goal within the designated time frame.

Before Ohio transitioned to proficiency-based standards, I was the Queen of Cover It. I was so proud of the fact that we could "get to" recognition of the passé composé at the end of Level 1, and I was excited about all my grammar PowerPoints to teach the formulas for si-clauses. I remember talking about students who were unsuccessful because they "couldn't conjugate verbs" or "form the passé composé correctly."

Being a 'teach what I'm supposed to teach' kind of girl, when the standards changed, so did I. I spent hours reading about IPA assessment, attended training, rewrote my curriculum, and have been reworking my instructional materials. I no longer teach grammar out of context, and instead rely on "chunking" or "lexis" (see Gianfranco Conti) to present lexical units containing the grammatical structures necessary for the communicative goal. The longer I teach this way, and the more I see how others teach to proficiency, the more I have developed instructional tools to help students learn language in meaningful units (phrases, sentences) rather than individual words or verb forms. The results have been amazing!

Grammar-accuracy/Cover It Dawn would have had few students be able to comfortably produce paragraphs by the end of Level 1 (try putting together all those little Legos!). Many could answer matching or fill in questions, but could not spontaneously produce much beyond rote phrases. Now - in September, some students in my semester-long French 1 were able to write paragraphs describing their preferred activities, complete sentences including adverbs! Nearly all could write in sentences (big Legos). This exceeds the state target for Level 1 - Novice Mid - and after only a month of class! Students had NO DIRECT GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION OR VERB CONJUGATION PRACTICE. None. And yet, many could communicate at sentence and paragraph level! Those who were still at word and phrase level are still on track for the standards, but I hope with continued scaffolding, their skills will develop as well.

I wasn't trying to collect data to justify my shift in practices - I do believe that it is my professional responsibility to teach to the standards set by the State of Ohio, and that alone was justification enough. But given what I'm seeing my students are able to do with language now, I would use my lexical Legos  example to explain to any critic why proficiency-based chunking is the way to go!

Allons-y! Let's build!

Over the past week, I have reworked my curriculum maps for French 1-3 in order to support student proficiency in all modes of communication, and with the goal of the French 3 students consistently reaching Intermediate Low. I have requested AAPPL testing for each level next year: writing for French 1; reading/listening for French 2; full 4 part test for French 3. Our hopes are that some of the French 3 students may reach Intermediate High and be awarded the Seal of Biliteracy. While the target level for Year 3 in Ohio is Intermediate Low, there are usually some high achieving students with strong skills who can function at higher levels, and as we do not offer a French 4 or 5, we are hoping that this will give those strong French 3 students the chance for the Seal.

I didn't have to do much to my existing curriculum maps to make sure that they were AAPPL ready - one minor tweak in French 1, trimmed down French 2 to give more time to develop, and shift/trim down French 3.  I'm including the AAPPL topics, my new maps, and brief commentary about changes with the French 1 & 3. (Level 2 earned its own blog post!)

FRENCH 1 MAP (Ohio target: Novice Mid)
Unit numbers correspond with chapter number in Français interactif
1.Personal and Public Identities: Education and Career Connections and Choices
2. Families and Communities
3. Weather, Seasons and Geography; Contemporary Life/Activities
4. Beauty & Aesthetics – Describing the Self and Other – Physical appearance, Characteristics, Clothing**
5. Food and Drink
6. Community

**This was my only tweak. I had previously treated CLOTHING as optional in French 1, because it falls in my French 2 curriculum based on the Français interactif sequence. However, since I see it appears in the Novice topics for AAPPL, I thought it best to make sure we include it in French 1, as well as in French 2. One can never be too well-dressed, n'est-ce pas?

FRENCH 2 MAP (Ohio target: Novice High)

1. Review – Review of key topics and functions from Level 1 (include Unit 6/Ch 6) - Francais Interactif Ch 1-6
2.  Families and Communities – Holidays, Rites and Customs - Francais interactif Ch 7
3. Contemporary Life - Housing - Francais interactif Ch 8
4. Daily Life – Clothing & Health - Francais Interactif Ch 10
5. Contemporary Life – Schooling/Education* (May be mini-unit dependent on time) - Francais interactif Ch 11
6.  Future Plans - Career Connections & Social relationships – Professions, Love & Money -Francais interactif Ch  12 & 13

Having dropped the Media unit (Chapitre 9 of FI), and having shifted much of the time spent on clothing to French 1, this slims down what I had previously tried to do - unsuccessfully. These topics overlap from Novice through Advanced on AAPPL, which may help some more proficient students reach Intermediate on AAPPL in French 2.

FRENCH 3 MAP (Ohio target: Intermediate Low)
1.Personal and Public Identities
2.Communities and Social Relationships
3.Global Issues and Challenges (STEM/Interdisciplinary): Climate, Geography, Nature, Environment
4.STEM/Interdisciplinary: Body & Mind: Health/care, Fitness, Nutrition
5.Contemporary Life: Housing, Daily Life
6. Global Citizenship: Travel

I trimmed down from 8 planned units on the previous map (which I could never possibly have completed!) to these 6, which spiral from French 1, through French 2, and expand into some interdisciplinary work. I will have students in French 3 who will enter very low - students who received Ds in French 2, or haven't had French for several years - so the spiraling should help pull them up and support them as we move towards Intermediate. The themes were ones I already had in place, and should provide a broad preparation for AAPPL testing at the end of the year.

REFLECTION

While I see many of my #langchat colleagues doing more current event based units (or TPRS, but it's a whole different conversation about why I cannot do that), and while I do foresee adding in elements as we move through the year, I need the structure and redundancy that this spiraling curriculum map provides. It works well for me with my health limitations to have a foundation to build on (rather than constantly building brand new units with 5 preps a year, so much work with so little rest), and it works well for my many students who require a great deal of support. It is much less anxiety-producing to shift away from the "we need to COVER so much to be rigorous" and towards the "let's build comfort and proficiency, one level at a time". At the end of the year, I will examine AAPPL and classroom assessment
data to decide if the maps - and the proficiency destinations - need to be changed for the following year. It will be an interesting journey!
 

Background: I teach in Ohio, where our proficiency-level goal for Level 2 is Novice High. This is quite a change from the grammar-intensive, textbook-driven instruction I had been accustomed to delivering that included use of the passé composé and imparfait in Level 2.  Also, I was the solo French teacher for 2 high schools in the district for years, so we only offered Levels 1 and 2 for quite a while. I felt that I owed it to my students to give them as thorough a base as possible in the language in those two years, so I pushed higher. I always offered weighted or differentiated assessment items so that students who were at Novice High were scored as being at level, but students who were able to use different tenses (or other Intermediate Level structures) were rewarded for that. In a nutshell, I was trying to do a whole heck of a lot in Level 2.

I have been using Francais interactif  as the basis for my curriculum since 2012. I had split it into two years, Chapters 0-6 for Level 1, 7-13 for Level 2; the goal was to provide them with close to a year's of university level French in 2 years of HS instruction. Remember: there was no French 3. Also relevant: I began my career teaching university French, and have taught dual enrollment, and I'm particularly sensitive to the fact that quality WL experience in high school means the ability to test out of WL in college (and earn some costly credits for free). So I've always wanted my high school students to get the most bang for their buck.

Problem: It was too much for 90% of my students. Cramming an entire 2nd semester of college French into one year of high school French was too much, even with adapting instruction and assessment to proficiency-based and the goal of Novice High. The amount of themes was daunting. Working around the month and half of testing that goes in April and May in Ohio was a nightmare, and we could only scratch the surface of the last few chapters/themes. Many of my students have low reading levels, or history of low academic engagement (low GPA, credit deficient), and they simply did not have the learning strategies or literacy skills to succeed in a L2 classroom moving at that pace. Additionally, they HATED the media chapter - Chapitre 9 - of Francais interactif. Every year. They would be marginally interested in discussing films and learning how to plan a movie outing in France/Quebec, but had no interest in discussing news or other media use. This past year, I left it out entirely.

Insight: I had a French 3 class for 2017-2018. As the year progressed, I noticed that while most of my students could read at a very high level in French (I use authentic resources from the beginning of French 1 on, they are flooded with textual input, and their reading comprehension generally is very good), their interpersonal and presentational skills were fossilized at Novice Mid - Novice High. In my push for "covering" so many themes in levels 1 and 2, I had not taken the time to help ALL of my students - not just the higher achieving ones - develop their productive language skills.

Solution: Do more with less in Level 2. Level 1 is fine, we comfortably work with the first 6 chapters, leaving aside most of the grammar instruction of Francais interactif (although I will do lessons in context  for some of the points). But with Level 2, we will take our time, reviewing the themes from Level 1 and structures we need to communicate.This will help the students whose proficiency levels are lower as they enter Level 2, giving them support and establishing a more comfortable experience for them . I will spend more time doing interpersonal communication practice with students and less time worrying about "covering" themes, which will lower affect (anxiety about keeping up) and increase student self-confidence.

Here's what the curriculum unit map looks like now:

The Daily Life unit will be divided into 2 mini-units; it isn't ideal, but Francais interactif has these 2 topics in the same chapter, with the common thread being BODY, so I simply divide it into 2 smaller units. Future plans involves thinking about our life 10 years from now, so it is very personalized; we do NOT do anything with the Ch 12 & 13 materials other than use the vocabulary and AV resources for interpretive practice. Students reflect on which professions interest them, and what sort of studies/training they need to enter that profession (links with Education unit). They consider where they will live, and their family status as they imagine it in the future. I introduce the futur simple for them to use at this point, which allows them to climb up into Intermediate Low, communicating in another time frame. They create a final project predicting multiple aspects of their lives 10 years into the future, with both a presentational writing and speaking component. It's very personal, very engaging, and gives them a taste of communicating at  higher level, where more than one theme may occur in a text or conversation.

Reflection: I think this creates an experience for Level 2 learners that will simultaneously provide comfort and support for students who need it, but opportunity to stretch higher for those who are able. It removes the stress of trying to cram in so much vocabulary and introduce structures so quickly that most students are not able to gain more than a superficial familiarity with the relevant language. I hope that this will set more students up for success, and result in fewer students giving up during the second semester because they feel irretrievably lost.

NOTE: If you are interested in which structures/tenses I DO introduce and when, you can examine the Francais interactif chapters to get a general idea, or shoot me an email/Twitter DM, I'd be happy to explain in more detail.

In light of some discussion by the #langchat Twitterati about an article about the effectiveness of Duolingo, here's my argument for its legitimacy as an element in my proficiency-based classroom.

First, there are few things that I am dogmatic about. As far as language instruction goes, these are the few things I will fight you in the octagon about (no,not literally...my OG status is for my gift with words, not for physical prowess).

1. Grades should be based on student performance towards the relevant state/local/national standards.
   
2. In the State of Ohio, discrete grammar points are NOT part of those standards.
   
3. Therefore, student grades should not be based on assessment of discrete grammar points.
   

Now, obviously learners need to learn to use the appropriate language structures - grammar - in order to communicate. While there are many camps who feel adamantly that their method is the best (or only) way to help students effectively learn a language, I am not a dogmatic adherent to any particular camp. My classroom is proficiency-based. We use many, many authentic documents/audiovisual resources for learning, and I rely on resources entirely in the TL (such as CLE's Français progressif series) to flood input. I assess students  using the ACTFL-based  rubrics provided by ODE. I am not teaching or measuring for grammatical accuracy, per se. However, I am constantly searching for ways to model and provide input to help students learn the structures that they need to advance their proficiency in the language.

Enter Duolingo. (Note: If you have never actually used Duolingo, get off my blog, go sign up, do some lessons. You have no business chiming in on the tool if you haven't used it!) It's gamified and fun - my phone-addicted, Fortnite-fool students love that. It's adaptive - I don't have to do a thing to differentiate its use for my IEP/504/behavior plan students. It requires NOTICING of structures without being explicit!!! This is the big thing - students are learning to recognize the difference between indefinite/definite article use, verb conjugation, adjectival agreement, WITHOUT BEING EXPLICITLY TAUGHT.   It works on iOS, Android, and web - all my students can access it either at school or on their phones if they have it.  There's a teacher end where I can track and monitor progress.  It's free. And I don't have to create any activities myself, which is important as a single mother, shared staff with 3-5 preps a  year, and the sufferer of autoimmune disease.

Does Duolingo replace CI in my classroom? NO. Does it replace me? NO. Does it stand alone as curriculum? NO. Is it just a way to occupy my students (busy work)? NO. Does it produce fluent speakers/writers of the TL? NO. Does it help students think about the language, notice patterns, gain exposure to additional vocabulary AND do it in a way that most find engaging? YES. Can I track progress and use it as an additional practice tool without spending hours developing my own stories/forms/PBL/videos/etc? YES.  Does this make my instructional practice any less about about proficiency? I don't think so. 

You do you. If Duolingo doesn't fit for your practices, so be it. But before categorically dismissing a too and those who use it in the classroom (again, if you haven't even used it, you should before you cast judgement...Green Eggs and Ham principle), consider that for some practitioners, this IS a useful and helpful tool. Pragmatic >dogmatic.