Some Preliminary Thoughts and Why I Wrote This Book

I talk to a lot of teachers. Like, a lot. Like, you know how us teachers are surrounded by students, so we joke that we become like them? I am surrounded by teachers! So, I know a lot about how they think. Why they want to do more Comprehensible Input, or try CI. What they are up against with their administrators or colleagues. What they fear.

I wrote this book to support teachers who are not ready to dive merrily off CI Mountain and plunge into Talking in French Ocean, but who would still like to engage their students in more meaningful interactions in the language.

I also wrote this book to dispel some commonly-held "myths" surrounding CI.

Here are some responses to "myths" I hear a lot.

1. CI is an ingredient, not a method.

It's like "groceries" is the ingredient that leads to our having "brunch". But "poaching" and "toasting" and "grinding" and "brewing" and "popping corks" leads to eggs Benedict over toasted English muffins with freshly-ground coffee and mimosas.

And just like a good brunch consists of the ingredient "groceries" prepared with many different methods (e.g. "toasting" and "brewing"), the ingredient of CI is best delivered through many different methods. It just depends on your goals. Some people want to tell funny stories. Others want to teach culture. Others want to talk about the kids' lives and interests. Those are all "methods" to deliver CI. But they all deliver the ingredient, just like all the ways to prep your brunch still deliver the groceries to the table.

CI stands for "Comprehensible Input" and it is THE ingredient that our brains use to construct a mental representation of the language. It is the only ingredient that the brain needs and it is the only one that builds mental representation of the language and leads to acquired competence. (Learning the rules is a different process and leads to a different outcome, learned competence.)

CI is, quite simply, spoken or written messages that a student understands. The brain is a meaning-making machine and we are hardwired from birth, unless we have some very profound and rare learning differences, to acquire language from comprehensible messages. So, "CI Teachers" are the ones who self-identify as wanting to provide more and more of this ingredient, understandable messages.

The thing is, you are ALREADY PROVIDING CI in your language class. We ALL ARE. It's just a matter of how much. Every textbook I have seen gives CI. They have shifted a lot over the years, since we used the Deuxième Livre in my high school classes. Nowadays, many textbooks have more and more language in them for kids to interact with. If kids can read/hear the language and understand it, that is CI. So, we are ALL providing CI. And so in some sense we are ALL "CI Teachers" But, since CI is the ONLY ingredient that builds that all-important mental representation of the language, many teachers look at the textbook programs and think, "I want to give the students MORE of that ingredient than the book provides." So they begin to seek out ways to get more and more language into their students' ears in the form of listening and in front of their eyes in the form of reading.

Most people who say they are a "CI Teacher" or who "Teach CI" have mad a commitment to try to MAXIMIZE the amount of CI the kids are getting. So, they have probably sought out ways to bring more than the textbook provides.

What you need to know if you HAVE to or just WANT to use the textbook is that you can still provide more CI to your kids while still working with the textbook, or with whatever materials you have developed over the years. Many teachers have developed so many creative projects, games, resources, and activities. They have collected maps, menus, masks, pictures, and books. You can still use all of this. You can take a small step into doing some new activities that are focused on delivering messages to the kids and supporting them to understand. You can just do these a couple times a week, and see for yourself if this kind of activity is appealing to you and your students. And then you can decide for yourself if you want to spend more or less time on this kind of comprehension-based instruction.

A warning, though. Many teachers start this work and are so happy to see the level of engagement with the language that it brings to their classrooms, that they go a little bit overboard. Here is a cautionary tale I wrote once.

2. Themes are not the enemy.

Many teachers who are interested in using more Comprehensible Input in their classes seem to think that thematic units, such as what are generally found in the textbook, are the enemy. OK, I admit it, themes are not generally widely considered the MOST INTERESTING content. I mean, honestly, how many of our students these days get all that excited about "school supplies" or "taking the train"? But, there is a way to give students more and more listening and reading experiences with the language, and then writing, and eventually speaking, and still interact with the themes, and expose them to the vocabulary and cultural concepts from the book.

In fact, it is can be a more efficient use of time to teach the thematic vocabulary using CI than it is to have kids memorize it or work with exercises in the book. This is because our brains work more efficiently when the language is contextualized into an interesting, personally-relevant, meaningful context.

3. CI is not a zero-sum game.

You do not have to dive off the high dive into a thimble-sized pool of water that only contains a few thin tricks to support you. You can add a little comprehension-based instruction to your classroom and see where it takes you.