Language teaching: New or old?

Sep 5 18:41 UTC 1991

Most of you who have learned a foreign language probably remember certain
methods of teaching that you were supposed to learn by, such as repeated
grammar drills and lots of "busy work".  That was the method by which I
learned the first three foreign languages I had in high school, and similar
methods had been used for years before that.

The current trend in language teaching, however, is to have little to no
grammar instruction and an emphasis on spoken communication.  The school
I did my undergraduate work in taught German, for example, by the "Natural
Approach", a method first developed by Stephen Krashen.  They used NO
English in the classroom, starting the students in with very complicated
dialogues in the first chapter, and had the students speaking by the
second week.  They also taught the students almost no formal grammar.

The idea of the "Natural Approach" is that this is how people actually learn
language -- babies, for example, do not need to be overtly taught grammar
and vocabulary items.  The advocates of this method say that it is most
useful in language teaching to take advantage of the natural way our brain
seems to acquire language, and incorporate that into the classroom.  The
opponents of this method say that it isn't right to assume adults learn the
same way children learn.  Results of research done on this topic have been
conflicting.  What do YOU think?

Griz

P.S.  I'll try to be "fairwitness-y" about this, but please realize this is
a topic I have extremely strong opinions on.

response 2 of 24:

Sep 5 22:07 UTC 1991

I haven't "tried both methods".  I learned by one and helped teach by the
other.

Griz

response 4 of 24:

Sep 6 04:31 UTC 1991

That's seems ok for something like modern languages, but I can't see someone
learning Latin or Greek that way, let alone a semitic language.  

Actually, I guess I learned french by something similar to what Jennie 
described in #0.  (with a little rote grammar thrown in for good measure)
My Greek textbook was *terrible* in my opinion.  There was so much 
emphasis on translation that it seemed like grammar lessons got lost in the 
shuffle.  It was a lot of paragraph translation, with an accompanying 
section on the grammar you would need, but never was there, for example,
a list of sentences to demonstrate each specific grammar point.  That was
once instance where I would have loved to have some "busy work".

response 6 of 24:

Sep 6 11:05 UTC 1991

I learned by both methods.  In my college level Spanish courses, classtime
was conducted ALL in Spanish.  It was strenuous and you really had to 
conentrate on the lecture.  Although we probably did learn "every day
Spanish" quicker, I noticed that a lot of students would be too 
intimidated to ask questions because they were afraid they wouldn't
understand the prof's answer anyways.

response 8 of 24:

Sep 6 13:13 UTC 1991

Hm, my ancient Greek language textbook was full of rules and tables.

response 10 of 24:

Sep 18 15:11 UTC 1991

The few brushes I had with another language where the drill method, with the
exception of German.  I never took a German class, can't read it, can't speak
it...but 1 brother and 2 sisters all took 4 years of German in school.  I can
understand some phrases and questions just from being in the same house while
they did their work and practiced talking together.  One of them can ask a
simple question in German and I automatically answer in English without it
really registering what it was they really asked.  STeve one mumbled a question
in German and I answered him the same way I would have answered one of my sibs.
It blew him away as he knew that I hadn't taken any German and didn't speak it.

At this point I can still do this and feel that it probably won't be that 
difficult for me the actually learn German.  I may even try it at some point.

response 12 of 24:

Oct 31 21:22 UTC 1994

The biggest problem with immersion, in my experience, is not falling behind and
getting lost but rather that it is usually done with groups of students who
will simply use their native tongues with each other.  One motivation for 
learning language is realizing that you simply can't communicate without it.
If there is an alternate route of communication (being with others who speak
your langauge, restricting transactions to pointing and grunting, etc.),
language learning motivation is decreased.  I didn't start speaking my first
language until my father said, "Enough!  Nobody give him anything until he
*asks* for it -- no more pointing".  I was a little over two at the time, and
perfectly capable of speaking, but I had just gotten accustomed to more 
straightforward communication.

response 14 of 24:

Jan 1 19:54 UTC 1997

This discussion so far has pointed out two reasons for learning a foreign
language.  One is to be able to hear and understand (and to respond and be
understood) with the spoken language.  The other is to be able to read and
understand (and hopefully, at least eventually, to be able to respond by
writing something that is useful and/or meaningful).  As a child one learns
first the spoken language, and years later the written language.  As an adult,
one wants to make use of the ability to read and write, because it is quite
naturally understood to be a useful tool in acquiring further knowledge or
competence.  To rely upon a strictly verbal method prevents you from being
able to make use of taking written notes.  And a lot of our memory is
connected with having a "visual" as well as an "audio" association.  So most
people, once they are "literate" are happier to be able to have some "notes"
- or to be able to make some notes - to help them in the process of acquiring
another language.  

response 16 of 24:

Jan 2 22:23 UTC 1997

When I took Spanish in high school, I remember one student who was
from Mexico.  He could speak Spanish, yes, but had a terrible time
with formal grammar and written testing, as well as speaking formally
& politely.  I imagine he has had a difficult time in the job market.
In most modern societies where being literate (as in able to communicate
for purposes of transacting personal and other business, as well as
reading formal works of literature) is important, I'd say a combination
of both the "natural" approach for learning to speak the language
(hopefully properly and not the "gutter" Spanish that my fellow classmate
continued to spout while the teacher kept verbally correcting him in
formal Spanish), followed by a more grammatical approach to connecting
the spoken word with the written word would be reasonable for becoming
fluent in both written and spoken forms.  Isn't that much the way we learn
as children?  Guess it all depends on your goals for using the language.

response 18 of 24:

Jan 7 05:36 UTC 1997

Coyote- practice, time and exposure.  I still don't get a whole conversation
on tv, but I generally get the gist.  I'm happier with print, too, except
that reading classical Spanish lit. kind of made my vocabulary and speech
pattern a bit archaic for a while.  Which is really odd since I have a bit
of a Cuban accent.  (can't help it, I grew up in S. Florida, and when I'm
not absolutely sure of my grammar and word choice, I revert)

response 20 of 24:

Nov 17 01:47 UTC 1997

And how _were_ those noses, coyote?

response 22 of 24:

Sep 14 10:30 UTC 1999

i think both methods are useful.

response 24 of 24:

Sep 26 23:13 UTC 1999

The nitpick in me finds the idea that "age 16 is four years too late
to learn a foreign language
without an accent" to be something of an over-generalization, seeing as I
know people who have been an exception to this rule.  But that's
nitpicking.

Personally, I would really vote for the immersion idea.  I took six years
of German in junior high and high school, using the rote memorization
method.  I actually learned it fairly quickly, because I happen to be
fairly good at understanding grammar rules.  I think that most people in
the class weren't, and that this frustrated them.  It frustrated *me* in
addition,
because I truly wasn't learning anything.  We essentially reviewed the
exact same grammar rules the fourth and fifth years as we had the first
and second, going over the exact same things again and again, never
actually using the language in anything other than drills.  I suffered
through it because I really wanted to learn German, but it was an
unpleasant experience, and I think that everyone in my German classes,
regardless of how well they did, hated the experience.

Took French in college.  A very refreshing experience.  The first two
semesters were again memorization, except that they actually moved at a
college-level pace, unlike in high school where we would spend an entire
semester learning one verb.  They also mixed the grammar lessons with
readings in French, and by second year expected us to use almost entirely
French in the class.  This really helped and forced us to use the
language, to see it as a living method of communication and not simply as
an infinite list of verbs that could be conjugated.  After the second year
I went to France for a semester and was forced to rapidly improve through
immersion.  This helped amazingly, and I now speak French (which I've
studied for three years) much more fluently and comfortably than I do
German (which I've studied for over six).

Japanese was again some memorization -- I think that you have to do *some*
slightly repetitious work at first for the language to become familiar,
particularly when you must learn three foreign alphabets -- but once again
my Japanese teacher expected us to actually *use* the language, to talk
with one another in Japanese, to write compositions (short ones, since we
were only first-year students, but being made to write in the language
really helped to make it more active of a learning experience), to only
revert to English when we were absolutely stuck.  She integrated a lot of
things into the class, from a field trip to a Japanese market to some
games to having some of the Japanese exchange students come in and chat
with us in small groups.  It was unquestionably the most challenging
first-year language class I've ever taken, but also the most rewarding,
the most enjoyable, and the most educational.  

Um... this is more than long enough now... sorry.  The point is that I
very much favor immersion (with some grammar drills at the beginning), and
that I really really hate it when teachers underestimate their studetns'
intelligence.  So perhaps this is more a criticism of high schools than of
the rote memorization method.