April 7, 2025 • 46 mins
Gaslight
Course-End Exams
Vertical Alignment - To University and Beyond
Understanding Ordered Development
Setting Realistic Goals
Gatekeep - Gombert, W., Keijzer, M., & Verspoor, M. (2024). Long-term effects of structure-based versus dynamic usage-based instructional programs for French. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 8(1), 18–33.
Dynamic Usage-Based Programs vs. Structure-Based Programs
Homework and Accountability
Writing Complexity and Length
Changes in Accuracy Over Time
Girlboss
Let Novices Be Novices, Intermediates Be Intermediates, etc.
How Long We Have Our Students
Talk About Whatever, with Lots of Input
Read the Scoring Guides of Credit-Granting Exams
The Path of Pleasure Is The Only Path
References
Steve Smith’s Bluesky Profile (where we got tipped off about this study!)
AIM (Accelerative Integrated Methodology)
Conversations About Language Teaching - Podcast
Ben’s “Real World Homework” Template
Text us about how you’ve Gaslit, or Girlbossed your language classroom.
Email us at info@slayyypod.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
bill (00:00):
Hello and welcome back to another episode of SLA Second
Language acquisition foreverybody.
This week we are Brian Less,unfortunately.
So you were just with Ben andBill
FishRod (00:16):
Listener you may be thinking to yourself.
I thought they were gonnacomplete their infinity gauntlet
of all the teacher of the yearcandidates from this last year,
you would be correct.
We are going to get Carlos nextepisode is the hope.
So be on the lookout for ourfinal teacher of the year,
regional candidate coming to thepod.
We are so lucky to have theirwisdom and expertise.
It has been such a joy talkingto Kay and to Amanda, to Sarah
(00:40):
and to.
bill (00:41):
It's been great to have, have those experts on our show
with us.
So this week let's get into it.
We're gonna talk about anarticle from 2024 on a
comparative study of a moretraditional classroom and a
more.
Communicative based classroomand how they turned out on some
(01:08):
what was the assessmentspecifically for?
It was an achievement test.
FishRod (01:13):
An achievement test at the end of their secondary
school study.
bill (01:17):
So since this was a comparative.
Since this was a comparativestudy it kind of compared
grammar based teaching andcommunication based teaching.
So Ben, what do you think?
Where do we maybe gaslightourselves?
What are some things that we do?
In order to maybe work towardssome sort of test, you know, in
(01:40):
the US Anyway, we've got the APtest.
We've got the national Spanishexam national French exam.
I'm sure probably has one.
FishRod (01:52):
Yep.
And there's the National Germanexam.
bill (01:54):
Yeah.
And other, other tests like, atmy school, we just finished up
doing stamp, which we just do atthe end of each year just to
kind of check out how studentsare doing see how we are with
like our goal setting for saySpanish four or, or whatever.
(02:15):
And sometimes like we want toprepare our students for those
kind of tests.
But do we think maybe we'respending too much time on one
thing, not enough time onanother, all in like this, the
efforts to get good scores?
Thankfully for me, and I'll,I'll girl boss a little bit
(02:40):
here, but I'll expand at theend.
Like, since we do stamp Idecided that I wanted to do the
advanced training last year.
And if you go check out theadvanced training and look
around at some videos, you mightsee the smiling face of one
Benjamin Fisher Rodriguez as hetalks about his experience with
(03:02):
it.
But that kind of like.
Changed some of my teaching'cause I did kind of teach to a
test, but I liked what the testwas testing.
FishRod (03:15):
I think what you've just touched on is the reality
for many teachers where theyfeel the pull between their
professional organization andtheir professional publications
advocating for a proficiencyoriented approach that speaking
front and center.
All teachers, I think, wouldacknowledge that students want
(03:36):
to be speaking the language thatis ultimately their goal.
So they feel this tensionbetween.
goal of being able to speak anduse the language proficiently
and the way that is packaged andsold in textbook, in district
curricula.
And there's a lot of tensionbetween that.
I think.
I'm thinking, you know, from mypersonal experience, there has
(03:58):
been tension in my work betweensetting students up for success
in a specific course or examversus.
Setting them up for success inthe language.
So we sometimes, you know, Iused to work in a middle school
and I've also worked, you know,within, with same language
colleagues.
(04:18):
I'm currently now the onlyGerman teacher at my school, so
I have to align to myself.
But in other times when I had toalign to higher level courses
where the students would getpassed along to different
colleagues, there was kind of anunderstanding that you needed to
get them ready for these upperlevel courses.
That were super grammar andstructure heavy because the
(04:39):
colleague who taught it was verystructure heavy, very grammar
heavy.
Or because they, that colleagueor the set of colleagues who
were teaching that upper levelcourse felt beholden to whatever
authority that they needed toteach these structures because
that was the expectation.
You know, I'm in, I'm in aschool now that offers.
Not ap, but mostly college andthe high school courses.
(05:02):
So dual enrollment.
And I know that in theseprograms in my district and in
my area that if they teachstudents with a proficiency
oriented approach that.
Lets novices be novice in theiraccuracy that lets intermediates
be intermediate in theiraccuracy, which Bill alluded to
(05:23):
the avant advanced training thatreally developed my
understanding of what accuracylooks like holistically at each
sub-level.
That if we essentially let goperfect accuracy as one of those
goals for our novices in lowintermediates, that we would be
setting them up for failure atthe college level.
Because the colleges that wealign to, or that many of our
students anticipate studying atare going to put them on a
(05:46):
program of extremelystructure-based learning.
We know that to not be entirelytrue, that all, you know, that
there are certain colleges thathave really leaned into
proficiency oriented instructionas well.
We see these colleagues at ourconferences.
They might even be listening,hi.
But this, that, that feelingbeholden to some sort of a
(06:06):
higher power, I.
Is really a strong deterrent formany teachers to turn towards
proficiency oriented practicesbecause they see them as
something that they have to slotin and that it has to compete
with.
The preparation for whatstudents in quotation mark will
actually have to do once theyget to college, once they get to
quote unquote serious languagestudy.
(06:28):
And so I, I felt that tension inmy own work as a lower level
teacher of a language and seeingit in my own district and in my
own area, that especially thelower level teachers, sometimes
what they do if they use acomprehension based approach.
The, the upper level teacherswill be like, well, they were
just playing fun and games allthe time, and now they're not
(06:49):
ready for serious languagestudy.
And that just speaks to a lot ofissues of alignment and common
ground and common language whenit comes about practice in
general, but also just aboutmisaligned goals.
But, and in even zoomed out fromthat understandings of how
language is acquired, what thatdevelopment of language looks
like over time.
(07:10):
what ultimately gets the resultsthat people want from layer
language learning sequences,which is proficiency in the
language
bill (07:18):
Yeah, I think it might've been, well first, sorry.
First I really like what you hadsaid about letting
FishRod (07:26):
I.
bill (07:26):
novices be novices, like we don't need to.
Force them or don't need to tryto force them to produce
intermediate, mid proficiencylevel output if developmentally
they're just novices, likethey're just starting out in the
(07:47):
language, they're they've gottastill build like a rudimentary
system of where words even goin, in the sentence before.
Like how long does it take forstudents to remember, or for it
to start coming naturally?
Even that like, adjectives comesecond in Spanish.
(08:10):
Like I can say it as much as Iwant but they're still gonna say
um, Casa.
Um, Like it's just where theyare.
That's just where their brainhas built the language together
(08:34):
so far.
I think sometimes we also put.
Like, oh, if I don't expectperfect accuracy then I'm
lowering my expectations.
And, you know, we've talkedabout expectations before, but
you know, I think it just bearsrepeating that like realistic
(08:56):
expectations.
Or like changing yourexpectations so that they are
realistic is not loweringexpectations, it's just making
them realistic.
cause if the goals are notrealistic, you're just setting
everyone up for failure.
If I had to create a studentlearning objective or student
(09:20):
growth measure, student smartgoal, whatever, for Spanish one,
I'm not going to make thatmeasure something that I would
expect from someone in Spanishthree or four cause they're not
gonna be able to meet that goal.
And then I'm gonna know thatthey weren't gonna meet the goal
and nothing to do about it.
(09:40):
So it's, but that wouldn't belowering the expectation.
It'd be making it reasonablefor.
That particular student.
FishRod (09:49):
It kind of comes from our perspective
bill (09:50):
And then,
FishRod (09:51):
Go ahead.
bill (09:52):
And then I was just gonna say like, I think it was, I
think it was Bill Van Pattondiva that had said something
about like, you know, we reallyneed to.
Like when at, at in departmentlevel meetings or whatever, you
really need to make sure thatyou have the same goal.
If you're not all workingtowards the same goal, then
there's just going to bedifferent outcomes and then
(10:15):
just, sorry, one more thing.
I was scrolling on the tiktoksand I came across this video of
some guy talking about best wayto learn Spanish and pulled out
dustino.
Right.
Talked about, like, talked abouthow great Dustino was and, and
(10:36):
like even talked about some oflike the theory behind it.
But anyway, so there's a, alittle BVP shout out.
FishRod (10:42):
Some of our hangups about expectations like that
come from our perspective assomeone have, you know, bill and
I are l two learners of ourlanguages.
And so we have spent a lot oftime polishing and perfecting
our own language skills for avariety of reasons, you know, to
use in professional settings, touse in school settings.
And we come at our students nowwho are, you know, my students
(11:05):
are 14 to 18 and we want that.
Polish for them so that they canshow off so that they can feel
the same sort of sense ofaccomplishment that we have.
But we're setting, again, we'resetting a crazy goalpost.
I think of, I, you know,something that just came up in
my mind was that I have beenrunning a lot for exercise like
three times a week.
(11:25):
And I've been running in littleraces like five Ks and 10 Ks
trying to improve my speeds andthings.
If I set the expectation formyself a slay, if I set the
expectation for myself.
That I'm gonna run like anOlympic runner, I am gonna be
disappointed.
But if I set the expectation formyself that I'm gonna do what a
beginning to intermediate runnermight do, I'm gonna meet that
(11:47):
goal and that's going to be whatmotivates me to keep going with
my running.
Much as we setting, settingrealistic goals for our students
is gonna be what motivates themto keep going.
also of like the theory of howthey think this happens, like
how some teachers think thishappens.
this is alluded to in thearticle as well, that many
teachers still treat language asthey treat skill building so
(12:12):
that there is periods oflearning the skills, explicitly
practicing the micro parts, andthat they all come together with
fluency through automatization.
And and I and Brian come atlanguage learning from more from
an approach that.
Language learning is built viaacquisition, which is a
(12:34):
piecemeal, abstract process viathe comprehension of
communicatively embedded input.
And if you, again, havedifferent understandings or
philosophies, I'm not sure whatquite the right word is here, if
you have different to how peoplelearn language in the first
(12:54):
place.
Then yes, you are gonna behorrifically misaligned, with
ultimately what you want yourstudents to be able to do,
whether that is perform on aspecific test well, have
proficiency in the language,which might be two different
paths.
bill (13:12):
And I think that kind of encapsulates, that's the wrong
word.
Encapsulates it.
Encapsulates, I don't know,
FishRod (13:21):
that was good.
bill (13:21):
That, yeah.
I think that kinda encapsulatesthe reason that.
You, Brian and I even like,started doing this anyway, like
this podcast, we like readingresearch stuff and we think it's
helpful.
And if more people.
Understand it, then, like we canset realistic expectations for
(13:45):
our students which in turn isgoing to lead to more positive
outcomes just within ourprograms and more more
proficient speakers.
So like you know, just.
Thanks for listening and lettingus do this and whatnot.
FishRod (14:05):
The one final thing, and it is just on the, it's on
the front page of the study, istalking about how teachers who
pursue these form focusedcourses of study instructional
programs for their students.
up regretting the overemphasison the written forms that they
gave in their instruction.
(14:25):
And I think that that made meharken back to when I was
gaslighting myself as a youngerteacher, that the way that I
learned language, that I was sointo learning language via the
structure was the way that allstudents were gonna be
successful in learning thelanguage that way.
And that I found myselfexperiencing exactly that, that
I.
(14:46):
Knew that ultimately the kidswanted to speak language, but I
was so caught up in the way thatI had learned language, that
when students were not able tohandle the language out of the
context of like a workbook page,that felt very disappointing and
confusing and disorienting thatwhen I, you know, when on the
page they could do the littlegrammar transformations, but
(15:09):
then I'm like, and they're like.
My students were able to doworkbook pages and do the little
grammar transformation, but assoon as I asked them like, Hey,
all of a sudden their brainswould 4 0 4 error page not
found, the Spanish languagedidn't exist in the part of
their brain that was responsiblefor just chatting with their
teacher.
(15:29):
made me feel sad.
I wanted to be able to shoot thebreeze with them.
I wanted to be able to exchangeexperiences and opinions all the
sort of functions that we.
Have in language and in languageteaching in proficiency based
teaching.
wanted to be able to do that.
But you know, a structureproficient student does not a
(15:50):
language user make.
I, do you have any finalmoments, moments of guest lam
before we jump in?
bill (15:57):
No, I think I think that's good.
How about we move on intogatekeeper?
We've read the research so youdon't have to.
FishRod (16:07):
Let us un gatekeep the article we're reading today and
that we'll link in the notes iscalled Long-Term Effects of
Structure Based Verse, dynamicUsage Based Instructional
Programs for French by Gumbar,Kaiser, and Vepo.
produced for the Journal ofEuropean Second Language
Acquisition.
Nice to hear from our Europeancolleagues on this one is
(16:28):
lovely.
I believe we found this.
Study because it was shared bySteve Smith on Blue Sky.
So shout out to Steve if you'relistening.
And if you're not thanks.
Anyways, this study to me wasexciting because it is a rare
longitudinal look at languageproficiency based on the type of
program.
And there are so many factorsthat you have to control for
(16:49):
when you're doing research about
bill (16:50):
Hey Ben, what's longitudinal?
FishRod (16:55):
So a longitudinal study is one in which they look at the
effects
bill (16:58):
Oops.
FishRod (17:00):
over the long term.
It's got the long in it, right?
So instead of just doing atreatment like, oh, we're going
to teach the kids using thisgrammar lesson and then give
them a test afterward and seehow they do on that test.
going to do whatever theirintervention is and then follow
those students who receive thatintervention over time.
To see what the, the long-termeffects are we get a better
(17:22):
picture because we know thatlanguage proficiency develops
over long periods of time.
want it, want to know how those,how the choices we make in those
first year classes play out allthe way through their, in this
case, 60 year class.
so here we go.
The study took some schools inthe Netherlands who were
(17:44):
teaching French as an additionallanguage had them implement what
they call the DUBA di DynamicUsage based Approach.
This would be, this, based on myreading of it, is roughly in
line with comprehension basedcommunicative language teaching
as we talk about all the schoolsdid it for about three years,
then some of the schools feltthat they were not preparing.
(18:06):
The students for the secondaryschool leaving exam essentially
with, by not emphasizinggrammatical accuracy.
And so some of the schoolschanged to a, what they call an
sb, a structure-based programfor language acquisition.
However, one of the schools waslike, actually the, the, you
(18:26):
know, the comprehension basedone was pretty sick and we were
into it, so we're just gonnastick with it.
And so that school continuedwhile the others pursued a more
tructure based programming.
And so we ended up with studentswho got the same first three
years base, but then had threeadditional years in two
different kinds of programs.
(18:47):
And so we're able to see thenwhat effects those might have.
The group is kind of, as we'vealready described, they're
looking for automatization ofgrammar rule application, that
they're able to learn the rule,practice the rule, apply the
rule.
So PP, P, present, pr, produce,practice, produce.
(19:07):
Whereas the, the DUB, thedynamic usage based group was
really looking for using highfrequency colocations using
associative learning.
Understanding that learningcomes at an individual pace in
terms of accuracy, using lots ofchunks of language.
So functional groupings of wordsthat you would see usually
(19:29):
together.
The idea being that if you learnin those chunks, you're more
likely to produce those chunks,understand those chunks and
you're gonna produce more fluentlanguage instead of having to
analyze the function of everysingle word, you're using groups
of words as tools to fulfill afunction within what you're
trying to communicate.
So.
The study made some hypothesisbefore they started about which
(19:51):
group would be kind of betterunquote in one skill versus
another based on the emphasis ifa structure-based program is
really emphasis on reading andwriting.
The hypothesis was that.
The students in those finalexams, the secondary school
leaving exams would showstronger reading and writing
(20:13):
scores.
But that the group that wasdynamic usage based, which had
been receiving far more oralinput of the language, lots of
input, interaction in thelanguage that they would have
stronger listening and speaking,because that is a lot of how
they had acquired their languagewas through oral.
(20:34):
Oral input conversation, youknow, interaction with written
and oral input.
They were using a specificmethod, which I have heard about
before, but not done a lot ofresearch into, which is a IM
accelerative integrativemethodology.
so we'll put a little link.
They have the website linkedhere and the.
(20:55):
goal of AIM was to give studentsin from the article meaningful,
multimodal, authentic exposure,means that they
bill (21:04):
You would say that that was their aim.
FishRod (21:06):
boo.
They were hoping not to havefocus on the forms, but rather
on the functions of what washappening in the input and in
the conversation and theinteraction.
So all the students received thesame amount of instruction, and
indeed, the.
E even both groups were kind ofprepared for these final exams
in a similar way in terms ofthis is what the exam looks like
(21:27):
and you're, you know, we need tomake sure that you get you know,
the preparation for the speakingtasks or the writing tasks in a
similar way.
But where the structure-based,go ahead.
bill (21:38):
Sorry, and I don't wanna like like cut you off if you
were gonna say this already, butwasn't there also something
about the dynamic usage basedgroup just not being used to
this type of testing anyway,like the multiple choice,
comprehension
FishRod (21:57):
Yes.
That they didn't,
bill (21:58):
kinds of.
FishRod (21:59):
over the course of their years of study, been doing
those sorts of tasks that theyhad been doing
bill (22:06):
Right.
So,
FishRod (22:06):
an article, watch a
bill (22:08):
so even,
FishRod (22:09):
about it.
Yeah.
bill (22:10):
right.
So they did get like test takingskills but it was just like
before the test.
FishRod (22:19):
Yeah.
bill (22:20):
Yeah.
FishRod (22:20):
The, the part that I found interesting too is that in
addition to, obviously theinstruction in class is gonna
look very different.
The structure based one is gonnabe focused on, I.
learning of grammaticalstructures and practice of those
and production of those.
The homework is then grammardrills and transformations and
things like that.
The homework for the dynamicusage based group they were
(22:42):
asked to listen to French mediaand read authentic French
magazines.
Without completing any readingcomp questions or grammar
drills.
so I found that, I found thatvery interesting because they,
in quote unquote, had noaccountability, but they were
getting more exposure to naturalinput in the wild that they
might want to absorb as users ofthe language anyways.
(23:05):
And I thought that an an, anintended or unintended side
effect of this might also bethat students would discover
something that they like andthen stick with it.
I.
I found that I was a huge nerdfor German news media and I just
stuck with it.
I just listen.
I still listen to news podcastsin German.
And that was the result of zeroaccountability.
No one was telling me to dothat.
Finding something I enjoyed andsticking with it.
(23:27):
The.
bill (23:28):
that real quick on, I forget if, I don't know if it
was their most recent episode,but Diane and Reed on, I.
Conversations about languageteaching.
Just talked about like thefinding interesting like on
topic media as a languagelearning tool, like for
independent study which waslike, just great to hear them
(23:51):
say that because that was likekinda validation of.
This little, this little page onour class course that I've put
up a bunch of different, like,YouTube channels that are in
Spanish, but like, they're like,crash course in Spanish or like
how it should have ended inSpanish or what's another one?
(24:11):
I a bunch, a bunch of differentones.
So students can just like findthings that.
Are gonna be interesting tothem, and then they're gonna get
that vocabulary, that language.
So that was just like a, a sidenote as well that other people
are talking about it.
FishRod (24:31):
Yeah.
Well, and, and
bill (24:32):
Good stuff.
FishRod (24:33):
just engaging with someone online about
bill (24:34):
Mm-hmm.
FishRod (24:34):
do.
My, in my upper level classes,especially, I have them do what
I call real world homework,which is find something out in
the real world that allows youto.
Enjoy German and go do that.
And I got
bill (24:46):
Yeah.
FishRod (24:46):
through Minecraft.
Let's play sort of videos wherethey're just watching some
German dude play Minecraft andcomment on about what he's
doing.
bill (24:53):
We're in like
FishRod (24:54):
learned all the words for all the materials.
And you're like, neat.
bill (24:57):
tiktoks or Instagrams like we watch like some TV shows in
class.
So like we've checked out theirInstagrams, like, of the actors
and like go follow them andlike.
Find what they repost.
If you like it, then like, youknow, find that community
elsewhere as well.
FishRod (25:16):
Yeah.
I just, I just thought that thisis, that was kind of like an
aside into the actual study, butI found that like I.
Again, this is kind of we inhere, in the United States, we
have the community standard,which is, you know, continue
lifelong learning of thelanguage for personal and
professional goals.
And again, like, oh, my homeworkwas to like find something that
(25:37):
I like and, you know, findarticles that were interesting
to me.
Find media that was interestingto me and just enjoy it.
that is something that you canbuild a habit of doing and then
becomes that lifelong learning,which begets more language
proficiency in the long term.
Anyways.
bill (25:51):
Yep.
FishRod (25:52):
The exams that they use to, to test students after the
fact.
So again, to to recap, they gotthree years of, everyone got the
dynamic usage based, very inputfocused associative learning,
multimodal input, sort oflearning for about three years.
And then the schools divergedwhere some went towards a
structure-based and where somestuck with the kind of input
(26:15):
forward.
Dynamic usage space approach.
But at the end, all studentswere accountable to the
Netherlands required centralexams for reading and listening,
which were, you know, it lookslike they were multiple choice
tests, basically.
Pretty straightforward, youknow, listen to this thing and
answer some true false close andmultiple choice sort of stuff.
(26:36):
And then the writing exam.
They, all those students acrossthe programs had received the
writing intervention that I kindof mentioned, which was
essentially the test prepcomponent, which was kind of
talking about interestingacademic topics.
Starting with input on thosetopics, so, you know, articles
and videos about those topicsand moving towards free response
tasks, like debates anddiscussions about those tasks.
(26:59):
So then the writing exam was toprepare.
For one of those topics, butthen also for one where they had
to produce more spontaneously.
So there was a mix of preparedand spontaneous.
To do speaking skills.
They used something called theStudent Oral Proficiency
Assessment Protocol.
Essentially, it sounds a lotlike the the actual OPI where
(27:20):
essentially subjects areintroduced to the student in a
kind of very safe, easy warmupsort of way.
And then the, the conversationdevelops more towards talking at
length about the chosen topicusing more extensive language
and open-ended questions.
Fairly similar in terms of thestructure of the OPI, as I
understand it.
(27:40):
And so you have, again, I feellike I'm recapping every four
seconds, you have standardizedmultiple choice reading and
listening.
You have somewhat preparedwriting and you know, OP iLike
speaking.
What were those results?
Did they get the results thatthey thought?
Did they get.
The strong reading and writingfor the structure base as they
expected with the strongerspeaking and listening for
(28:02):
dynamic usage base.
Well, let me tell you, in termsof reading and listening scores
the dynamic.
Usage based groups.
So using more of a comprehensionbased approach scored slightly
higher.
The effect was not as big inreading but definitely higher
according to their results.
So that did not meet theirhypothesis even though the
(28:26):
structure-based group had beendoing a lot of.
I don't wanna say paperwork toreduce it, but a lot of, you
know grammar transformations viaworksheets and that's in
workbook sort of stuff.
They weren't necessarily thestronger readers in that
situation.
And of course, the dynamic usagebase did better on listening
because they had been exposed tomore oral input in terms of
(28:47):
writing the scores, the holisticscores were actually roughly the
same.
And so even though there was asuch a strong eff e.
Emphasis in the structure basedon writing and on the
grammatical accuracy and allthat sort of stuff.
holistically, the scores werealmost the same when you, they
broke it down into thecomponents of complexity,
(29:08):
accuracy, and fluency.
the complexity is roughly samey,although the dynamic usage
based, comprehension based grouplonger average sentences.
The accuracy was actually prettyclose.
The subject verb agreement wasslightly better in the dynamic
usage based group, whereas thedeterminer now in agreement was
(29:32):
like slightly lesser in thedynamic usage based group than
the structure based group.
But the, those in the, the dub,the DUB group, were producing
more words in general.
Their texts were longer.
They were using more chunks oflanguage, so groupings of words
that they learned altogether.
That fulfilled some sort offunction terms of oral
proficiency.
The students were given scoreson each of the, you know, four
(29:55):
tasks that they were givenwithin this kind of oral
proficiency interview, thestudents in the dynamic usage
based group.
So the comprehension based groupscored significantly higher
according to my reading of it.
And so as it, as it played out.
The benefits that we thoughtthat structure-based students
would have in writing andreading did not really
(30:17):
materialize.
They were either more or lessthe same or with like slight
advantage towards the dynamicusage-based group, which again,
is more of a comprehension basedcommunicative approach as we
understand it.
And then the speaking andlistening scores were so
stronger that it kinda leavesyou asking what's it what's that
all about?
What are these programs doing?
bill (30:38):
So something to.
Note just looking at the samplesize that they've got here the
Stan the SB group has 55students in that group versus
the 73 and the DUB group whichlike in these data that.
(31:05):
They use the mean they use takeaverages.
Like that's kind of showing thatlike more students were still
scoring that much higher,
FishRod (31:19):
Yes.
A larger group of
bill (31:21):
like overall.
FishRod (31:22):
those scores
bill (31:23):
Yeah.
Which they do talk about at theend, like, you know, they didn't
have an experimental group,which, sorry if I stepped on
your toes there, but they didn'thave an experimental group here.
So they don't want to generalizetheir findings.
At best they were talking aboutlike, it's really, really,
(31:44):
really good data for thisspecific location.
But.
Looking at it from like a, abroader view.
Still pretty cool.
FishRod (31:55):
Yeah.
bill (31:56):
Still pretty cool stuff.
Like in in, in this competition,it looks like dynamic usage
based teaching.
Got the dub.
FishRod (32:04):
Ooh.
Part two, the, the discussion Ifound really great is that
again, they all, they got thesame speaking intervention, so
like they were prepared forthose speaking tasks kind of
equally wealth or for in 30hours, which to me is a pretty
substantial speakingintervention when you consider,
I don't know, I see my kids forroughly.
Four-ish showers a week, four orfive hours.
That's, you know, a couple weeksof preparation on this sort of
(32:26):
thing.
So they were theoretically reyou know, this, the preparation
that happened before, becausethis is only, you know, such a
small percentage of the overallprogram.
The preparation that happenedbefore is what caused the
dynamic usage-based students tofeel so much more prepared for
those speaking tasks and fororal proficiency and for using
the language which need.
(32:46):
I remind everybody, includingmyself, is, is what students
come to our courses for.
They provided a quote thattalked a lot about how the use
of the language in communicationis what to more proficiency.
And again, I think it, I speakfor Bill and Brian when I say
that we're we studying thelanguage as an object in class
at all times.
We are instead using it to learnabout each other in the world.
(33:09):
And that is what in this study.
Allowed students to achievehigher levels of oral
proficiency, even if the focusin communication was on
comprehension at times.
And not always on production andnot always on super accurate use
of the language.
Another note that they mentionedis that the dynamic usage based
group took more time to achievethe writing accuracy that they
(33:30):
achieved, that those effectsachieved with the time that they
had the students in thestructure-based group.
initial strength in accuracy,like producing the forms very
accurately compared to thedynamic usage based group.
But tho those differences,essentially those pluses leveled
out over time.
As the dynamic usage based groupgot more input and interaction
(33:53):
in the language.
I highlighted a quote right atthe end of the discussion that I
think nice.
And I quote, apparently, animplicit approach to the
teaching of grammar.
In our case with an aimapproach, with a carefully built
up program lots of repetitionand corrective feedback is as
effective as an explicitapproach to develop writing
skills.
After six years, it has theadded value that without time
(34:17):
spent on explicit grammar, thereis ample time to promote spoken
and written fluency skills.
That, to me, kind of, I waslike, oh, damn, they, they
really?
Mm-hmm.
Really slammed the, the footballdown in the end zone there.
They don't do that in Europe.
They really, they really playedsoccer.
I don't, I know a good metaphor.
Anyways.
They really, they.
bill (34:37):
Sorry.
FishRod (34:37):
but I think that again, they emphasized that the test
that they, they did not developsome sort of wacky,
experimental, like only used forthis test
bill (34:47):
Mm-hmm.
FishRod (34:48):
to see the effects of these programs.
They were using tests that arealready available and widely
used and have to be used, youknow, required usage in the
Netherlands to assess thesestudents' oral proficiency boom,
the students in the dynamicusage based group performed as
well or better in all of thedifferent domains.
I.
bill (35:06):
And they also brought up another meta-analysis that was
done on, like to find out ifthere was bias towards like,
explicit groups or ex explicitinstruction groups as well.
So like, just pointing out thatthis like assessment tool that
they were using.
(35:27):
Yeah.
It wasn't just a, like aconstructed for research sake.
It was like an actual real worldassessment.
Anyway you wanna talk about howwe've girl lost this
FishRod (35:44):
I think to me
bill (35:45):
concept?
FishRod (35:45):
this, the, this, what the lessons that we can take
away from are that when we'rebreaking our brains over our
first and second years, youknow, in American high schools,
I get my kids if lucky, I.
For four years.
And so the
bill (36:00):
Mm-hmm.
FishRod (36:01):
that they were describing, they were describing
700 plus hours of lessons in thelanguage.
And I'm like, oh boy.
I'm lucky if I get in the, youknow, you know, 500 ish range
over, over
bill (36:13):
Mm-hmm.
FishRod (36:14):
and many students only take it for two or three.
What can I achieve?
It reminds me to kind of let goof any.
Quibbles I have about theiraccuracy and just celebrate all
their language use and just, youknow, be their biggest
cheerleader for whateverlanguage use that they can
accomplish in the time thatwe're together.
And also, I don't know, enjoythem as humans.
(36:34):
Like we're using the languageto, like I said, learn about
each other in the world.
if that's the case, then we canjust enjoy that time in class
and let accuracy lie for a whilebecause these students, again,
were given six years of lessons.
To develop that proficiency.
We just have less time.
And so, you know, set realisticexpectations.
Enjoy the humans that are in theroom and whatever language that
(36:55):
they come up with during thatkind of compressed time, and use
an approach that gets away fromthis structure-based learning,
which has its effects in themoment that then dissipate over
time.
The study kind of laid out someprevious research on that about,
you know, some of these explicitteaching interventions show.
Effects right there and then inthe moment and you feel good
(37:17):
'cause you're like, wow,everyone is so accurate.
'cause of the cool accuracything I did.
then as soon as, you know, timepasses that those gains
disappear.
Whereas an approach based oncomprehension and language use
sticks around much longer.
Those effects stick around muchlonger.
And I, I, you know, that's whatwe want.
That's what, that's what we'redoing.
That's what we're shooting for,is that kids actually can use
(37:38):
the language.
bill (37:40):
And something that I carry around.
Or that I've been carryingaround with me for a while as
like a reminder is that like,you know, if, if we're leading
with comprehension and we'remaking sure that we're not, or
we're doing our best to do, noharm to the students in front of
(38:01):
us or their pers perspective ofthe world, then do whatever else
but like give a lot of input.
Do our best to be kind, thenwhatever else really like you,
whatever else you think is gonnawork for your students is what's
(38:24):
going to hopefully work for yourstudents.
I know that I have like goneback and forth with like,
weighing the importance ofaccuracy and whatnot in my
classroom, and like thankfully,I've stumbled upon some ways to
do that.
Like I.
Structured input activities orlike, just even just thinking
(38:47):
about the principles of inputprocessing, like knowing that
students don't pay attention towords that don't carry meaning.
So like in Spanish, we've gotthe personal ah, which is like,
you could say veil, I see a dog.
(39:08):
But you have to say like, veil.
Ah.
Ben, I see Ben.
The ah doesn't carry anymeaning, but it's there because
Ben is a person.
Even like circling keeping thosethings in mind.
while circling questions orwhatever, like break or thinking
about where I break up sentencesso that the first thing that
(39:28):
students hear is what's going tobe like the most important thing
that I want them to hear.
So like something that I do withsubjunctive, for example, like.
Does Ben's, I don't know doesBen's husband want him to cook
dinner or does Ben's husbandwant him to,
FishRod (39:54):
Do the dishes.
bill (39:55):
don't know, clean the house, do the dishes?
What does Ben, what does Ben'shusband want him to do?
Clean the dishes or cook dinnerusing the appropriate
subjunctive forms there.
But like that's going back allthe way to like episode two,
right?
Like question strategies.
(40:15):
But like there's all thesethings that we can do to keep
language as comprehensible aspossible while still also
focusing on or being aware.
How to manipulate the languagethat we as teachers use to most
benefit students.
FishRod (40:34):
Absolutely.
I'm with you.
The, like you said, going backto the questioning strategies
episode that we talked about,about how to get more input into
students' brains purely by thequestions we ask.
I.
But I think that Bill, I thinkthis is, we, we've had a burden
for a long time that we need todo an episode just about sort of
structured input interventions.
More, you know, that we talkmore explicitly about that
(40:55):
because are a lot of things thatwe can do to manipulate input to
make.
These features meaning moresalient.
There's a lot of things that wecan do
bill (41:02):
Yeah.
FishRod (41:03):
Like you said, break up sentences in a way that
emphasizes those grammaticaldifferences.
bill (41:08):
Input enhancement might be a common enough term, but a lot
of times we see see this when welike bold a word or we emphasize
something in our speech to drawattention to it.
And that is a great reminder forme.
Like if I bold something, if Ibold a new word or bold a new
(41:30):
phrase in.
Something that we read togetheras a class.
I try my best to like bold thatthe entire way through the text
so that when we read it, I'mreminded even if it isn't like
doing anything on the studentside.
'cause I know like there'sdebate on the effectiveness of
(41:50):
input enhancement.
I like it.
But if, if not for anythingelse, because I can be reminded
of.
Hey, I wanted to make sure thatstudents were getting this word,
so or getting this kind ofphrase.
So let me bold it each time so Imake sure that I ask a lot of
strategic questions, eitherusing that new word or using
(42:12):
that structure.
I said the word priest 16 timesthe other day so anyway, that's
just like a tip.
Ben girl bossing from you.
And to wrap us up,
FishRod (42:26):
Another way to Girl Boss is to really, with maybe
with
bill (42:30):
I.
FishRod (42:30):
too, you know, if there's a, we talked about
misalignment of goals andexpectations.
there's a way to sit withcolleagues and look at the
ultimate, bearing exams that youuse in your area.
That might be a sobering or arealistic conversation.
I'm thinking of like how the APexams are scored.
If you're able to go to an APtraining with your colleagues
and discover where the accuracymeasure lies in each level, a 1,
(42:55):
2, 3, 4, 5 you'll find thatthere is a little bit more
generosity for errors than weare afraid of and that students
can do well.
I had, you know, I had studentswho passed the AP exam after a
diet of comprehension basedlanguage teaching.
Their accuracy was fine, butthey were able to pass based on
not without me having toemphasize that sort of stuff.
There are stories of people whostudents accomplish these things
(43:17):
without that heavy emphasis.
The same goes for in my state.
You can use the stamp exam likeBill said to get credit for the
seal of Biliteracy.
You can use the Apple exams, etcetera.
And you'll find that.
The score ranges that studentsneed to fall in to get that seal
of Biliteracy credit to getthose high school credits or
whatever it is, actually do havea lot more wiggle room for,
(43:40):
quotation marks, grammaticalinaccuracies than we might
think.
And that, you know, this maybemakes it sound that these, you
know.
Our comprehension based studentsare all willy-nilly with their
grammar and everything is likewild and crazy.
But there are a lot of studentswho, who come out producing very
accurate forms because they'vehad exposure over time to useful
chunks of input that they justare hearing and using over and
(44:02):
over again.
And it becomes, you know, partof their system because they got
a lot of input in it.
so I think again, if you look atthose exams, if you look at
something like Stamp, using thattraining that we talked about,
it was so powerful for thatreason.
Is that I'm like, oh, I couldget a kid to accomplish a, a
score of a five or a six orwhatever.
With this level of accuracy justin the present tense is really
powerful because it speaks tohow much they can do in the
(44:24):
language.
and it also speaks to just kindof how we use language in the
real world anyways, that peoplemake.
Mistakes in speaking their firstlanguages, their second
languages, their third languagesall the time.
And yet the world turns on andpeople understand them and the
conversation can continue andlearning and interpersonal
interactions can continue quoteunquote despite these errors.
(44:48):
So I think that, you know, theoveremphasis on structures and
grammatical perfection.
Is so at this point it's boringto me'cause I'm like, come on
man.
But I get that the, thoseoutside pressures at the same
time as we've seen with thisstudy, you could do the more
joyful, more long-term,efficacious route.
(45:10):
Get the same slash betterresults.
I think it was, maybe it wascrash.
And at one point who says thepla path of pleasure is the only
path when it comes to languagelearning.
And I stick with that.
I'm like, I think it's morejoyful for me.
It's more likely to get kidsinto.
Types of input that they willstick with over time kind of
like we talked about earlier.
(45:31):
And it's, it's just gonna beless painful for everyone
involved and we'll get betterresults.
Like, I'm like, come on man.
This one feels like a, feelslike a dead ringer.
I.
bill (45:41):
All right.
Well if nothing else, thanks forjoining us again for another
episode of SLA.
Go out there and slay.
Bye.
FishRod (45:52):
Hi.
Hello and welcome back to another episode of SLA Second
Language acquisition foreverybody.
This week we are Brian Less,unfortunately.
So you were just with Ben andBill
FishRod (00:16):
Listener you may be thinking to yourself.
I thought they were gonnacomplete their infinity gauntlet
of all the teacher of the yearcandidates from this last year,
you would be correct.
We are going to get Carlos nextepisode is the hope.
So be on the lookout for ourfinal teacher of the year,
regional candidate coming to thepod.
We are so lucky to have theirwisdom and expertise.
It has been such a joy talkingto Kay and to Amanda, to Sarah
(00:40):
and to.
bill (00:41):
It's been great to have, have those experts on our show
with us.
So this week let's get into it.
We're gonna talk about anarticle from 2024 on a
comparative study of a moretraditional classroom and a
more.
Communicative based classroomand how they turned out on some
(01:08):
what was the assessmentspecifically for?
It was an achievement test.
FishRod (01:13):
An achievement test at the end of their secondary
school study.
bill (01:17):
So since this was a comparative.
Since this was a comparativestudy it kind of compared
grammar based teaching andcommunication based teaching.
So Ben, what do you think?
Where do we maybe gaslightourselves?
What are some things that we do?
In order to maybe work towardssome sort of test, you know, in
(01:40):
the US Anyway, we've got the APtest.
We've got the national Spanishexam national French exam.
I'm sure probably has one.
FishRod (01:52):
Yep.
And there's the National Germanexam.
bill (01:54):
Yeah.
And other, other tests like, atmy school, we just finished up
doing stamp, which we just do atthe end of each year just to
kind of check out how studentsare doing see how we are with
like our goal setting for saySpanish four or, or whatever.
(02:15):
And sometimes like we want toprepare our students for those
kind of tests.
But do we think maybe we'respending too much time on one
thing, not enough time onanother, all in like this, the
efforts to get good scores?
Thankfully for me, and I'll,I'll girl boss a little bit
(02:40):
here, but I'll expand at theend.
Like, since we do stamp Idecided that I wanted to do the
advanced training last year.
And if you go check out theadvanced training and look
around at some videos, you mightsee the smiling face of one
Benjamin Fisher Rodriguez as hetalks about his experience with
(03:02):
it.
But that kind of like.
Changed some of my teaching'cause I did kind of teach to a
test, but I liked what the testwas testing.
FishRod (03:15):
I think what you've just touched on is the reality
for many teachers where theyfeel the pull between their
professional organization andtheir professional publications
advocating for a proficiencyoriented approach that speaking
front and center.
All teachers, I think, wouldacknowledge that students want
(03:36):
to be speaking the language thatis ultimately their goal.
So they feel this tensionbetween.
goal of being able to speak anduse the language proficiently
and the way that is packaged andsold in textbook, in district
curricula.
And there's a lot of tensionbetween that.
I think.
I'm thinking, you know, from mypersonal experience, there has
(03:58):
been tension in my work betweensetting students up for success
in a specific course or examversus.
Setting them up for success inthe language.
So we sometimes, you know, Iused to work in a middle school
and I've also worked, you know,within, with same language
colleagues.
(04:18):
I'm currently now the onlyGerman teacher at my school, so
I have to align to myself.
But in other times when I had toalign to higher level courses
where the students would getpassed along to different
colleagues, there was kind of anunderstanding that you needed to
get them ready for these upperlevel courses.
That were super grammar andstructure heavy because the
(04:39):
colleague who taught it was verystructure heavy, very grammar
heavy.
Or because they, that colleagueor the set of colleagues who
were teaching that upper levelcourse felt beholden to whatever
authority that they needed toteach these structures because
that was the expectation.
You know, I'm in, I'm in aschool now that offers.
Not ap, but mostly college andthe high school courses.
(05:02):
So dual enrollment.
And I know that in theseprograms in my district and in
my area that if they teachstudents with a proficiency
oriented approach that.
Lets novices be novice in theiraccuracy that lets intermediates
be intermediate in theiraccuracy, which Bill alluded to
(05:23):
the avant advanced training thatreally developed my
understanding of what accuracylooks like holistically at each
sub-level.
That if we essentially let goperfect accuracy as one of those
goals for our novices in lowintermediates, that we would be
setting them up for failure atthe college level.
Because the colleges that wealign to, or that many of our
students anticipate studying atare going to put them on a
(05:46):
program of extremelystructure-based learning.
We know that to not be entirelytrue, that all, you know, that
there are certain colleges thathave really leaned into
proficiency oriented instructionas well.
We see these colleagues at ourconferences.
They might even be listening,hi.
But this, that, that feelingbeholden to some sort of a
(06:06):
higher power, I.
Is really a strong deterrent formany teachers to turn towards
proficiency oriented practicesbecause they see them as
something that they have to slotin and that it has to compete
with.
The preparation for whatstudents in quotation mark will
actually have to do once theyget to college, once they get to
quote unquote serious languagestudy.
(06:28):
And so I, I felt that tension inmy own work as a lower level
teacher of a language and seeingit in my own district and in my
own area, that especially thelower level teachers, sometimes
what they do if they use acomprehension based approach.
The, the upper level teacherswill be like, well, they were
just playing fun and games allthe time, and now they're not
(06:49):
ready for serious languagestudy.
And that just speaks to a lot ofissues of alignment and common
ground and common language whenit comes about practice in
general, but also just aboutmisaligned goals.
But, and in even zoomed out fromthat understandings of how
language is acquired, what thatdevelopment of language looks
like over time.
(07:10):
what ultimately gets the resultsthat people want from layer
language learning sequences,which is proficiency in the
language
bill (07:18):
Yeah, I think it might've been, well first, sorry.
First I really like what you hadsaid about letting
FishRod (07:26):
I.
bill (07:26):
novices be novices, like we don't need to.
Force them or don't need to tryto force them to produce
intermediate, mid proficiencylevel output if developmentally
they're just novices, likethey're just starting out in the
(07:47):
language, they're they've gottastill build like a rudimentary
system of where words even goin, in the sentence before.
Like how long does it take forstudents to remember, or for it
to start coming naturally?
Even that like, adjectives comesecond in Spanish.
(08:10):
Like I can say it as much as Iwant but they're still gonna say
um, Casa.
Um, Like it's just where theyare.
That's just where their brainhas built the language together
(08:34):
so far.
I think sometimes we also put.
Like, oh, if I don't expectperfect accuracy then I'm
lowering my expectations.
And, you know, we've talkedabout expectations before, but
you know, I think it just bearsrepeating that like realistic
(08:56):
expectations.
Or like changing yourexpectations so that they are
realistic is not loweringexpectations, it's just making
them realistic.
cause if the goals are notrealistic, you're just setting
everyone up for failure.
If I had to create a studentlearning objective or student
(09:20):
growth measure, student smartgoal, whatever, for Spanish one,
I'm not going to make thatmeasure something that I would
expect from someone in Spanishthree or four cause they're not
gonna be able to meet that goal.
And then I'm gonna know thatthey weren't gonna meet the goal
and nothing to do about it.
(09:40):
So it's, but that wouldn't belowering the expectation.
It'd be making it reasonablefor.
That particular student.
FishRod (09:49):
It kind of comes from our perspective
bill (09:50):
And then,
FishRod (09:51):
Go ahead.
bill (09:52):
And then I was just gonna say like, I think it was, I
think it was Bill Van Pattondiva that had said something
about like, you know, we reallyneed to.
Like when at, at in departmentlevel meetings or whatever, you
really need to make sure thatyou have the same goal.
If you're not all workingtowards the same goal, then
there's just going to bedifferent outcomes and then
(10:15):
just, sorry, one more thing.
I was scrolling on the tiktoksand I came across this video of
some guy talking about best wayto learn Spanish and pulled out
dustino.
Right.
Talked about, like, talked abouthow great Dustino was and, and
(10:36):
like even talked about some oflike the theory behind it.
But anyway, so there's a, alittle BVP shout out.
FishRod (10:42):
Some of our hangups about expectations like that
come from our perspective assomeone have, you know, bill and
I are l two learners of ourlanguages.
And so we have spent a lot oftime polishing and perfecting
our own language skills for avariety of reasons, you know, to
use in professional settings, touse in school settings.
And we come at our students nowwho are, you know, my students
(11:05):
are 14 to 18 and we want that.
Polish for them so that they canshow off so that they can feel
the same sort of sense ofaccomplishment that we have.
But we're setting, again, we'resetting a crazy goalpost.
I think of, I, you know,something that just came up in
my mind was that I have beenrunning a lot for exercise like
three times a week.
(11:25):
And I've been running in littleraces like five Ks and 10 Ks
trying to improve my speeds andthings.
If I set the expectation formyself a slay, if I set the
expectation for myself.
That I'm gonna run like anOlympic runner, I am gonna be
disappointed.
But if I set the expectation formyself that I'm gonna do what a
beginning to intermediate runnermight do, I'm gonna meet that
(11:47):
goal and that's going to be whatmotivates me to keep going with
my running.
Much as we setting, settingrealistic goals for our students
is gonna be what motivates themto keep going.
also of like the theory of howthey think this happens, like
how some teachers think thishappens.
this is alluded to in thearticle as well, that many
teachers still treat language asthey treat skill building so
(12:12):
that there is periods oflearning the skills, explicitly
practicing the micro parts, andthat they all come together with
fluency through automatization.
And and I and Brian come atlanguage learning from more from
an approach that.
Language learning is built viaacquisition, which is a
(12:34):
piecemeal, abstract process viathe comprehension of
communicatively embedded input.
And if you, again, havedifferent understandings or
philosophies, I'm not sure whatquite the right word is here, if
you have different to how peoplelearn language in the first
(12:54):
place.
Then yes, you are gonna behorrifically misaligned, with
ultimately what you want yourstudents to be able to do,
whether that is perform on aspecific test well, have
proficiency in the language,which might be two different
paths.
bill (13:12):
And I think that kind of encapsulates, that's the wrong
word.
Encapsulates it.
Encapsulates, I don't know,
FishRod (13:21):
that was good.
bill (13:21):
That, yeah.
I think that kinda encapsulatesthe reason that.
You, Brian and I even like,started doing this anyway, like
this podcast, we like readingresearch stuff and we think it's
helpful.
And if more people.
Understand it, then, like we canset realistic expectations for
(13:45):
our students which in turn isgoing to lead to more positive
outcomes just within ourprograms and more more
proficient speakers.
So like you know, just.
Thanks for listening and lettingus do this and whatnot.
FishRod (14:05):
The one final thing, and it is just on the, it's on
the front page of the study, istalking about how teachers who
pursue these form focusedcourses of study instructional
programs for their students.
up regretting the overemphasison the written forms that they
gave in their instruction.
(14:25):
And I think that that made meharken back to when I was
gaslighting myself as a youngerteacher, that the way that I
learned language, that I was sointo learning language via the
structure was the way that allstudents were gonna be
successful in learning thelanguage that way.
And that I found myselfexperiencing exactly that, that
I.
(14:46):
Knew that ultimately the kidswanted to speak language, but I
was so caught up in the way thatI had learned language, that
when students were not able tohandle the language out of the
context of like a workbook page,that felt very disappointing and
confusing and disorienting thatwhen I, you know, when on the
page they could do the littlegrammar transformations, but
(15:09):
then I'm like, and they're like.
My students were able to doworkbook pages and do the little
grammar transformation, but assoon as I asked them like, Hey,
all of a sudden their brainswould 4 0 4 error page not
found, the Spanish languagedidn't exist in the part of
their brain that was responsiblefor just chatting with their
teacher.
(15:29):
made me feel sad.
I wanted to be able to shoot thebreeze with them.
I wanted to be able to exchangeexperiences and opinions all the
sort of functions that we.
Have in language and in languageteaching in proficiency based
teaching.
wanted to be able to do that.
But you know, a structureproficient student does not a
(15:50):
language user make.
I, do you have any finalmoments, moments of guest lam
before we jump in?
bill (15:57):
No, I think I think that's good.
How about we move on intogatekeeper?
We've read the research so youdon't have to.
FishRod (16:07):
Let us un gatekeep the article we're reading today and
that we'll link in the notes iscalled Long-Term Effects of
Structure Based Verse, dynamicUsage Based Instructional
Programs for French by Gumbar,Kaiser, and Vepo.
produced for the Journal ofEuropean Second Language
Acquisition.
Nice to hear from our Europeancolleagues on this one is
(16:28):
lovely.
I believe we found this.
Study because it was shared bySteve Smith on Blue Sky.
So shout out to Steve if you'relistening.
And if you're not thanks.
Anyways, this study to me wasexciting because it is a rare
longitudinal look at languageproficiency based on the type of
program.
And there are so many factorsthat you have to control for
(16:49):
when you're doing research about
bill (16:50):
Hey Ben, what's longitudinal?
FishRod (16:55):
So a longitudinal study is one in which they look at the
effects
bill (16:58):
Oops.
FishRod (17:00):
over the long term.
It's got the long in it, right?
So instead of just doing atreatment like, oh, we're going
to teach the kids using thisgrammar lesson and then give
them a test afterward and seehow they do on that test.
going to do whatever theirintervention is and then follow
those students who receive thatintervention over time.
To see what the, the long-termeffects are we get a better
(17:22):
picture because we know thatlanguage proficiency develops
over long periods of time.
want it, want to know how those,how the choices we make in those
first year classes play out allthe way through their, in this
case, 60 year class.
so here we go.
The study took some schools inthe Netherlands who were
(17:44):
teaching French as an additionallanguage had them implement what
they call the DUBA di DynamicUsage based Approach.
This would be, this, based on myreading of it, is roughly in
line with comprehension basedcommunicative language teaching
as we talk about all the schoolsdid it for about three years,
then some of the schools feltthat they were not preparing.
(18:06):
The students for the secondaryschool leaving exam essentially
with, by not emphasizinggrammatical accuracy.
And so some of the schoolschanged to a, what they call an
sb, a structure-based programfor language acquisition.
However, one of the schools waslike, actually the, the, you
(18:26):
know, the comprehension basedone was pretty sick and we were
into it, so we're just gonnastick with it.
And so that school continuedwhile the others pursued a more
tructure based programming.
And so we ended up with studentswho got the same first three
years base, but then had threeadditional years in two
different kinds of programs.
(18:47):
And so we're able to see thenwhat effects those might have.
The group is kind of, as we'vealready described, they're
looking for automatization ofgrammar rule application, that
they're able to learn the rule,practice the rule, apply the
rule.
So PP, P, present, pr, produce,practice, produce.
(19:07):
Whereas the, the DUB, thedynamic usage based group was
really looking for using highfrequency colocations using
associative learning.
Understanding that learningcomes at an individual pace in
terms of accuracy, using lots ofchunks of language.
So functional groupings of wordsthat you would see usually
(19:29):
together.
The idea being that if you learnin those chunks, you're more
likely to produce those chunks,understand those chunks and
you're gonna produce more fluentlanguage instead of having to
analyze the function of everysingle word, you're using groups
of words as tools to fulfill afunction within what you're
trying to communicate.
So.
The study made some hypothesisbefore they started about which
(19:51):
group would be kind of betterunquote in one skill versus
another based on the emphasis ifa structure-based program is
really emphasis on reading andwriting.
The hypothesis was that.
The students in those finalexams, the secondary school
leaving exams would showstronger reading and writing
(20:13):
scores.
But that the group that wasdynamic usage based, which had
been receiving far more oralinput of the language, lots of
input, interaction in thelanguage that they would have
stronger listening and speaking,because that is a lot of how
they had acquired their languagewas through oral.
(20:34):
Oral input conversation, youknow, interaction with written
and oral input.
They were using a specificmethod, which I have heard about
before, but not done a lot ofresearch into, which is a IM
accelerative integrativemethodology.
so we'll put a little link.
They have the website linkedhere and the.
(20:55):
goal of AIM was to give studentsin from the article meaningful,
multimodal, authentic exposure,means that they
bill (21:04):
You would say that that was their aim.
FishRod (21:06):
boo.
They were hoping not to havefocus on the forms, but rather
on the functions of what washappening in the input and in
the conversation and theinteraction.
So all the students received thesame amount of instruction, and
indeed, the.
E even both groups were kind ofprepared for these final exams
in a similar way in terms ofthis is what the exam looks like
(21:27):
and you're, you know, we need tomake sure that you get you know,
the preparation for the speakingtasks or the writing tasks in a
similar way.
But where the structure-based,go ahead.
bill (21:38):
Sorry, and I don't wanna like like cut you off if you
were gonna say this already, butwasn't there also something
about the dynamic usage basedgroup just not being used to
this type of testing anyway,like the multiple choice,
comprehension
FishRod (21:57):
Yes.
That they didn't,
bill (21:58):
kinds of.
FishRod (21:59):
over the course of their years of study, been doing
those sorts of tasks that theyhad been doing
bill (22:06):
Right.
So,
FishRod (22:06):
an article, watch a
bill (22:08):
so even,
FishRod (22:09):
about it.
Yeah.
bill (22:10):
right.
So they did get like test takingskills but it was just like
before the test.
FishRod (22:19):
Yeah.
bill (22:20):
Yeah.
FishRod (22:20):
The, the part that I found interesting too is that in
addition to, obviously theinstruction in class is gonna
look very different.
The structure based one is gonnabe focused on, I.
learning of grammaticalstructures and practice of those
and production of those.
The homework is then grammardrills and transformations and
things like that.
The homework for the dynamicusage based group they were
(22:42):
asked to listen to French mediaand read authentic French
magazines.
Without completing any readingcomp questions or grammar
drills.
so I found that, I found thatvery interesting because they,
in quote unquote, had noaccountability, but they were
getting more exposure to naturalinput in the wild that they
might want to absorb as users ofthe language anyways.
(23:05):
And I thought that an an, anintended or unintended side
effect of this might also bethat students would discover
something that they like andthen stick with it.
I.
I found that I was a huge nerdfor German news media and I just
stuck with it.
I just listen.
I still listen to news podcastsin German.
And that was the result of zeroaccountability.
No one was telling me to dothat.
Finding something I enjoyed andsticking with it.
(23:27):
The.
bill (23:28):
that real quick on, I forget if, I don't know if it
was their most recent episode,but Diane and Reed on, I.
Conversations about languageteaching.
Just talked about like thefinding interesting like on
topic media as a languagelearning tool, like for
independent study which waslike, just great to hear them
(23:51):
say that because that was likekinda validation of.
This little, this little page onour class course that I've put
up a bunch of different, like,YouTube channels that are in
Spanish, but like, they're like,crash course in Spanish or like
how it should have ended inSpanish or what's another one?
(24:11):
I a bunch, a bunch of differentones.
So students can just like findthings that.
Are gonna be interesting tothem, and then they're gonna get
that vocabulary, that language.
So that was just like a, a sidenote as well that other people
are talking about it.
FishRod (24:31):
Yeah.
Well, and, and
bill (24:32):
Good stuff.
FishRod (24:33):
just engaging with someone online about
bill (24:34):
Mm-hmm.
FishRod (24:34):
do.
My, in my upper level classes,especially, I have them do what
I call real world homework,which is find something out in
the real world that allows youto.
Enjoy German and go do that.
And I got
bill (24:46):
Yeah.
FishRod (24:46):
through Minecraft.
Let's play sort of videos wherethey're just watching some
German dude play Minecraft andcomment on about what he's
doing.
bill (24:53):
We're in like
FishRod (24:54):
learned all the words for all the materials.
And you're like, neat.
bill (24:57):
tiktoks or Instagrams like we watch like some TV shows in
class.
So like we've checked out theirInstagrams, like, of the actors
and like go follow them andlike.
Find what they repost.
If you like it, then like, youknow, find that community
elsewhere as well.
FishRod (25:16):
Yeah.
I just, I just thought that thisis, that was kind of like an
aside into the actual study, butI found that like I.
Again, this is kind of we inhere, in the United States, we
have the community standard,which is, you know, continue
lifelong learning of thelanguage for personal and
professional goals.
And again, like, oh, my homeworkwas to like find something that
(25:37):
I like and, you know, findarticles that were interesting
to me.
Find media that was interestingto me and just enjoy it.
that is something that you canbuild a habit of doing and then
becomes that lifelong learning,which begets more language
proficiency in the long term.
Anyways.
bill (25:51):
Yep.
FishRod (25:52):
The exams that they use to, to test students after the
fact.
So again, to to recap, they gotthree years of, everyone got the
dynamic usage based, very inputfocused associative learning,
multimodal input, sort oflearning for about three years.
And then the schools divergedwhere some went towards a
structure-based and where somestuck with the kind of input
(26:15):
forward.
Dynamic usage space approach.
But at the end, all studentswere accountable to the
Netherlands required centralexams for reading and listening,
which were, you know, it lookslike they were multiple choice
tests, basically.
Pretty straightforward, youknow, listen to this thing and
answer some true false close andmultiple choice sort of stuff.
(26:36):
And then the writing exam.
They, all those students acrossthe programs had received the
writing intervention that I kindof mentioned, which was
essentially the test prepcomponent, which was kind of
talking about interestingacademic topics.
Starting with input on thosetopics, so, you know, articles
and videos about those topicsand moving towards free response
tasks, like debates anddiscussions about those tasks.
(26:59):
So then the writing exam was toprepare.
For one of those topics, butthen also for one where they had
to produce more spontaneously.
So there was a mix of preparedand spontaneous.
To do speaking skills.
They used something called theStudent Oral Proficiency
Assessment Protocol.
Essentially, it sounds a lotlike the the actual OPI where
(27:20):
essentially subjects areintroduced to the student in a
kind of very safe, easy warmupsort of way.
And then the, the conversationdevelops more towards talking at
length about the chosen topicusing more extensive language
and open-ended questions.
Fairly similar in terms of thestructure of the OPI, as I
understand it.
(27:40):
And so you have, again, I feellike I'm recapping every four
seconds, you have standardizedmultiple choice reading and
listening.
You have somewhat preparedwriting and you know, OP iLike
speaking.
What were those results?
Did they get the results thatthey thought?
Did they get.
The strong reading and writingfor the structure base as they
expected with the strongerspeaking and listening for
(28:02):
dynamic usage base.
Well, let me tell you, in termsof reading and listening scores
the dynamic.
Usage based groups.
So using more of a comprehensionbased approach scored slightly
higher.
The effect was not as big inreading but definitely higher
according to their results.
So that did not meet theirhypothesis even though the
(28:26):
structure-based group had beendoing a lot of.
I don't wanna say paperwork toreduce it, but a lot of, you
know grammar transformations viaworksheets and that's in
workbook sort of stuff.
They weren't necessarily thestronger readers in that
situation.
And of course, the dynamic usagebase did better on listening
because they had been exposed tomore oral input in terms of
(28:47):
writing the scores, the holisticscores were actually roughly the
same.
And so even though there was asuch a strong eff e.
Emphasis in the structure basedon writing and on the
grammatical accuracy and allthat sort of stuff.
holistically, the scores werealmost the same when you, they
broke it down into thecomponents of complexity,
(29:08):
accuracy, and fluency.
the complexity is roughly samey,although the dynamic usage
based, comprehension based grouplonger average sentences.
The accuracy was actually prettyclose.
The subject verb agreement wasslightly better in the dynamic
usage based group, whereas thedeterminer now in agreement was
(29:32):
like slightly lesser in thedynamic usage based group than
the structure based group.
But the, those in the, the dub,the DUB group, were producing
more words in general.
Their texts were longer.
They were using more chunks oflanguage, so groupings of words
that they learned altogether.
That fulfilled some sort offunction terms of oral
proficiency.
The students were given scoreson each of the, you know, four
(29:55):
tasks that they were givenwithin this kind of oral
proficiency interview, thestudents in the dynamic usage
based group.
So the comprehension based groupscored significantly higher
according to my reading of it.
And so as it, as it played out.
The benefits that we thoughtthat structure-based students
would have in writing andreading did not really
(30:17):
materialize.
They were either more or lessthe same or with like slight
advantage towards the dynamicusage-based group, which again,
is more of a comprehension basedcommunicative approach as we
understand it.
And then the speaking andlistening scores were so
stronger that it kinda leavesyou asking what's it what's that
all about?
What are these programs doing?
bill (30:38):
So something to.
Note just looking at the samplesize that they've got here the
Stan the SB group has 55students in that group versus
the 73 and the DUB group whichlike in these data that.
(31:05):
They use the mean they use takeaverages.
Like that's kind of showing thatlike more students were still
scoring that much higher,
FishRod (31:19):
Yes.
A larger group of
bill (31:21):
like overall.
FishRod (31:22):
those scores
bill (31:23):
Yeah.
Which they do talk about at theend, like, you know, they didn't
have an experimental group,which, sorry if I stepped on
your toes there, but they didn'thave an experimental group here.
So they don't want to generalizetheir findings.
At best they were talking aboutlike, it's really, really,
(31:44):
really good data for thisspecific location.
But.
Looking at it from like a, abroader view.
Still pretty cool.
FishRod (31:55):
Yeah.
bill (31:56):
Still pretty cool stuff.
Like in in, in this competition,it looks like dynamic usage
based teaching.
Got the dub.
FishRod (32:04):
Ooh.
Part two, the, the discussion Ifound really great is that
again, they all, they got thesame speaking intervention, so
like they were prepared forthose speaking tasks kind of
equally wealth or for in 30hours, which to me is a pretty
substantial speakingintervention when you consider,
I don't know, I see my kids forroughly.
Four-ish showers a week, four orfive hours.
That's, you know, a couple weeksof preparation on this sort of
(32:26):
thing.
So they were theoretically reyou know, this, the preparation
that happened before, becausethis is only, you know, such a
small percentage of the overallprogram.
The preparation that happenedbefore is what caused the
dynamic usage-based students tofeel so much more prepared for
those speaking tasks and fororal proficiency and for using
the language which need.
(32:46):
I remind everybody, includingmyself, is, is what students
come to our courses for.
They provided a quote thattalked a lot about how the use
of the language in communicationis what to more proficiency.
And again, I think it, I speakfor Bill and Brian when I say
that we're we studying thelanguage as an object in class
at all times.
We are instead using it to learnabout each other in the world.
(33:09):
And that is what in this study.
Allowed students to achievehigher levels of oral
proficiency, even if the focusin communication was on
comprehension at times.
And not always on production andnot always on super accurate use
of the language.
Another note that they mentionedis that the dynamic usage based
group took more time to achievethe writing accuracy that they
(33:30):
achieved, that those effectsachieved with the time that they
had the students in thestructure-based group.
initial strength in accuracy,like producing the forms very
accurately compared to thedynamic usage based group.
But tho those differences,essentially those pluses leveled
out over time.
As the dynamic usage based groupgot more input and interaction
(33:53):
in the language.
I highlighted a quote right atthe end of the discussion that I
think nice.
And I quote, apparently, animplicit approach to the
teaching of grammar.
In our case with an aimapproach, with a carefully built
up program lots of repetitionand corrective feedback is as
effective as an explicitapproach to develop writing
skills.
After six years, it has theadded value that without time
(34:17):
spent on explicit grammar, thereis ample time to promote spoken
and written fluency skills.
That, to me, kind of, I waslike, oh, damn, they, they
really?
Mm-hmm.
Really slammed the, the footballdown in the end zone there.
They don't do that in Europe.
They really, they really playedsoccer.
I don't, I know a good metaphor.
Anyways.
They really, they.
bill (34:37):
Sorry.
FishRod (34:37):
but I think that again, they emphasized that the test
that they, they did not developsome sort of wacky,
experimental, like only used forthis test
bill (34:47):
Mm-hmm.
FishRod (34:48):
to see the effects of these programs.
They were using tests that arealready available and widely
used and have to be used, youknow, required usage in the
Netherlands to assess thesestudents' oral proficiency boom,
the students in the dynamicusage based group performed as
well or better in all of thedifferent domains.
I.
bill (35:06):
And they also brought up another meta-analysis that was
done on, like to find out ifthere was bias towards like,
explicit groups or ex explicitinstruction groups as well.
So like, just pointing out thatthis like assessment tool that
they were using.
(35:27):
Yeah.
It wasn't just a, like aconstructed for research sake.
It was like an actual real worldassessment.
Anyway you wanna talk about howwe've girl lost this
FishRod (35:44):
I think to me
bill (35:45):
concept?
FishRod (35:45):
this, the, this, what the lessons that we can take
away from are that when we'rebreaking our brains over our
first and second years, youknow, in American high schools,
I get my kids if lucky, I.
For four years.
And so the
bill (36:00):
Mm-hmm.
FishRod (36:01):
that they were describing, they were describing
700 plus hours of lessons in thelanguage.
And I'm like, oh boy.
I'm lucky if I get in the, youknow, you know, 500 ish range
over, over
bill (36:13):
Mm-hmm.
FishRod (36:14):
and many students only take it for two or three.
What can I achieve?
It reminds me to kind of let goof any.
Quibbles I have about theiraccuracy and just celebrate all
their language use and just, youknow, be their biggest
cheerleader for whateverlanguage use that they can
accomplish in the time thatwe're together.
And also, I don't know, enjoythem as humans.
(36:34):
Like we're using the languageto, like I said, learn about
each other in the world.
if that's the case, then we canjust enjoy that time in class
and let accuracy lie for a whilebecause these students, again,
were given six years of lessons.
To develop that proficiency.
We just have less time.
And so, you know, set realisticexpectations.
Enjoy the humans that are in theroom and whatever language that
(36:55):
they come up with during thatkind of compressed time, and use
an approach that gets away fromthis structure-based learning,
which has its effects in themoment that then dissipate over
time.
The study kind of laid out someprevious research on that about,
you know, some of these explicitteaching interventions show.
Effects right there and then inthe moment and you feel good
(37:17):
'cause you're like, wow,everyone is so accurate.
'cause of the cool accuracything I did.
then as soon as, you know, timepasses that those gains
disappear.
Whereas an approach based oncomprehension and language use
sticks around much longer.
Those effects stick around muchlonger.
And I, I, you know, that's whatwe want.
That's what, that's what we'redoing.
That's what we're shooting for,is that kids actually can use
(37:38):
the language.
bill (37:40):
And something that I carry around.
Or that I've been carryingaround with me for a while as
like a reminder is that like,you know, if, if we're leading
with comprehension and we'remaking sure that we're not, or
we're doing our best to do, noharm to the students in front of
(38:01):
us or their pers perspective ofthe world, then do whatever else
but like give a lot of input.
Do our best to be kind, thenwhatever else really like you,
whatever else you think is gonnawork for your students is what's
(38:24):
going to hopefully work for yourstudents.
I know that I have like goneback and forth with like,
weighing the importance ofaccuracy and whatnot in my
classroom, and like thankfully,I've stumbled upon some ways to
do that.
Like I.
Structured input activities orlike, just even just thinking
(38:47):
about the principles of inputprocessing, like knowing that
students don't pay attention towords that don't carry meaning.
So like in Spanish, we've gotthe personal ah, which is like,
you could say veil, I see a dog.
(39:08):
But you have to say like, veil.
Ah.
Ben, I see Ben.
The ah doesn't carry anymeaning, but it's there because
Ben is a person.
Even like circling keeping thosethings in mind.
while circling questions orwhatever, like break or thinking
about where I break up sentencesso that the first thing that
(39:28):
students hear is what's going tobe like the most important thing
that I want them to hear.
So like something that I do withsubjunctive, for example, like.
Does Ben's, I don't know doesBen's husband want him to cook
dinner or does Ben's husbandwant him to,
FishRod (39:54):
Do the dishes.
bill (39:55):
don't know, clean the house, do the dishes?
What does Ben, what does Ben'shusband want him to do?
Clean the dishes or cook dinnerusing the appropriate
subjunctive forms there.
But like that's going back allthe way to like episode two,
right?
Like question strategies.
(40:15):
But like there's all thesethings that we can do to keep
language as comprehensible aspossible while still also
focusing on or being aware.
How to manipulate the languagethat we as teachers use to most
benefit students.
FishRod (40:34):
Absolutely.
I'm with you.
The, like you said, going backto the questioning strategies
episode that we talked about,about how to get more input into
students' brains purely by thequestions we ask.
I.
But I think that Bill, I thinkthis is, we, we've had a burden
for a long time that we need todo an episode just about sort of
structured input interventions.
More, you know, that we talkmore explicitly about that
(40:55):
because are a lot of things thatwe can do to manipulate input to
make.
These features meaning moresalient.
There's a lot of things that wecan do
bill (41:02):
Yeah.
FishRod (41:03):
Like you said, break up sentences in a way that
emphasizes those grammaticaldifferences.
bill (41:08):
Input enhancement might be a common enough term, but a lot
of times we see see this when welike bold a word or we emphasize
something in our speech to drawattention to it.
And that is a great reminder forme.
Like if I bold something, if Ibold a new word or bold a new
(41:30):
phrase in.
Something that we read togetheras a class.
I try my best to like bold thatthe entire way through the text
so that when we read it, I'mreminded even if it isn't like
doing anything on the studentside.
'cause I know like there'sdebate on the effectiveness of
(41:50):
input enhancement.
I like it.
But if, if not for anythingelse, because I can be reminded
of.
Hey, I wanted to make sure thatstudents were getting this word,
so or getting this kind ofphrase.
So let me bold it each time so Imake sure that I ask a lot of
strategic questions, eitherusing that new word or using
(42:12):
that structure.
I said the word priest 16 timesthe other day so anyway, that's
just like a tip.
Ben girl bossing from you.
And to wrap us up,
FishRod (42:26):
Another way to Girl Boss is to really, with maybe
with
bill (42:30):
I.
FishRod (42:30):
too, you know, if there's a, we talked about
misalignment of goals andexpectations.
there's a way to sit withcolleagues and look at the
ultimate, bearing exams that youuse in your area.
That might be a sobering or arealistic conversation.
I'm thinking of like how the APexams are scored.
If you're able to go to an APtraining with your colleagues
and discover where the accuracymeasure lies in each level, a 1,
(42:55):
2, 3, 4, 5 you'll find thatthere is a little bit more
generosity for errors than weare afraid of and that students
can do well.
I had, you know, I had studentswho passed the AP exam after a
diet of comprehension basedlanguage teaching.
Their accuracy was fine, butthey were able to pass based on
not without me having toemphasize that sort of stuff.
There are stories of people whostudents accomplish these things
(43:17):
without that heavy emphasis.
The same goes for in my state.
You can use the stamp exam likeBill said to get credit for the
seal of Biliteracy.
You can use the Apple exams, etcetera.
And you'll find that.
The score ranges that studentsneed to fall in to get that seal
of Biliteracy credit to getthose high school credits or
whatever it is, actually do havea lot more wiggle room for,
(43:40):
quotation marks, grammaticalinaccuracies than we might
think.
And that, you know, this maybemakes it sound that these, you
know.
Our comprehension based studentsare all willy-nilly with their
grammar and everything is likewild and crazy.
But there are a lot of studentswho, who come out producing very
accurate forms because they'vehad exposure over time to useful
chunks of input that they justare hearing and using over and
(44:02):
over again.
And it becomes, you know, partof their system because they got
a lot of input in it.
so I think again, if you look atthose exams, if you look at
something like Stamp, using thattraining that we talked about,
it was so powerful for thatreason.
Is that I'm like, oh, I couldget a kid to accomplish a, a
score of a five or a six orwhatever.
With this level of accuracy justin the present tense is really
powerful because it speaks tohow much they can do in the
(44:24):
language.
and it also speaks to just kindof how we use language in the
real world anyways, that peoplemake.
Mistakes in speaking their firstlanguages, their second
languages, their third languagesall the time.
And yet the world turns on andpeople understand them and the
conversation can continue andlearning and interpersonal
interactions can continue quoteunquote despite these errors.
(44:48):
So I think that, you know, theoveremphasis on structures and
grammatical perfection.
Is so at this point it's boringto me'cause I'm like, come on
man.
But I get that the, thoseoutside pressures at the same
time as we've seen with thisstudy, you could do the more
joyful, more long-term,efficacious route.
(45:10):
Get the same slash betterresults.
I think it was, maybe it wascrash.
And at one point who says thepla path of pleasure is the only
path when it comes to languagelearning.
And I stick with that.
I'm like, I think it's morejoyful for me.
It's more likely to get kidsinto.
Types of input that they willstick with over time kind of
like we talked about earlier.
(45:31):
And it's, it's just gonna beless painful for everyone
involved and we'll get betterresults.
Like, I'm like, come on man.
This one feels like a, feelslike a dead ringer.
I.
bill (45:41):
All right.
Well if nothing else, thanks forjoining us again for another
episode of SLA.
Go out there and slay.
Bye.
FishRod (45:52):
Hi.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.