Spanish at St. John’s: Complete Version
In the St. John’s Spanish program we are committed to giving up-to-date instruction which is research based. This means significant changes in the way language is being taught. At St. John’s we want our students to actually acquire and use the language (as the California Foreign Language Framework asks us to do) across all four language skills (reading, listening, writing and speaking). To understand how that will be done, it is important to understand a little bit about how we actually acquire a language and then look at how we can best meet those requirements methodologically.
Over the past half century a lot has been learned about how we acquire languages. While much could be said about this, I will narrow this discussion to a few core understandings that have played an important role in the way foreign languages need to be taught. Research has shown several things that reflective language teachers have known for many years: we learn languages at different speeds, and we grasp different aspects of the language at different times than our peers. I like to call this the “readiness to grasp” phenomenon. While seemingly simple in idea, it has deep ramifications for the language classroom. In short what has been shown is that students do not grasp grammar or vocabulary until they are ready (unpredictable to the teacher) and the teacher has to take this into account when teaching and assessing. As will be shown, this along with several other key language acquisition understandings set the stage for a huge paradigm shift in how we can effectively teach languages and assess students’ progress. To better understand the implications of these findings, let’s look more closely at what is going on in a traditional foreign language classroom.
In traditional language classes, language has typically been approached like math or science: as a logical progression. This is often done because the commercial books around which the courses are organized are put together this way (a leftover which was set up by linguists, pre-mid-20th century, before language acquisition research began to inform language teaching). In these traditional language classes, students are given vocabulary (often in large quantities) which follows a theme. These thematic units are “hung” around a framework of grammatical progression (first comes simple present with subject/verb agreement, then gender agreement, then plurality, and eventually move on to more “advanced” grammar like preterit and imperfect). The idea is to have students memorize lots of vocabulary, learn a grammar point or two, and bring it all together in activities meant to show how much they have learned. Once that theme is finished, the students are tested and the class moves on to the next theme, which introduces new vocabulary and the next grammatical point in the progression.
The flaw in this approach to teaching, and the reason so many students struggle with (and often fail at) foreign languages, can be seen clearly through the lens of research. If I teach present perfect to the class today, only a certain number of students in the classroom will get it (this refers to the “readiness to grasp” idea—only those who are for whatever reason ready to grasp it will—and there are many variables which can influence readiness which are out of the teacher’s control on any given day). Because this “readiness to grasp” phenomenon is natural to learning a language, the teacher who engages in this type of teaching is limiting their teaching to the few in the classroom who are ready. [Aside from running counter to the research, this is the absolute opposite of what we are being asked to do in modern instruction (language or otherwise)—differentiated instruction attempts to reach all students instead of just a few]. If follow up assessment then focuses on these points, assessment completes this unfair circle as only those who got it the first time, or who reached their point of being ready to grasp while figuring it out at home, are going to stand a chance of passing. It is my hope that once I have completed this discussion of what is known about language acquisition and how it needs to be approached methodologically, that this kind of teaching is seen for what it is: at best inefficient and uninformed, at worst, harmful.
Returning to recent discoveries, and to further enlighten this discussion, modern research has shown that we acquire a second language in ways both different and similar to our first language. While brain research suggests that around the age of four a part of our brain wired for acquiring aspects of grammar switches off, the brain is able to continue acquiring language, including grammar, using different areas of the brain. What is significant is that this second language acquisition process is facilitated by the same kind of language activity that facilitates first language acquisition, namely 1) lots of repetitious exposure to compelling, comprehensible input (reading and listening), 2) a genuine desire/need to communicate and 3) a focus on meaning (as opposed to focusing on linguistic knowledge, most commonly known as learning about the language through grammar).
Let’s go back to our example of the traditional language classroom to see how it fairs with these criteria. The first category—repetitious exposure—is one area where traditional language teaching has typically fallen short. Thematic units do not lend to repetitious exposure. To better understand this need for repetition, and the flawed thinking behind thematic vocabulary, we first have to look at studies (as far back as the 80s—if my memory serves me) which show that within two weeks of initial introduction, use and memorization of a list of vocabulary, 80% of un-recycled vocabulary will be lost. With this research in mind, to think that students will acquire vocabulary by seeing it a few times in stilted context, practicing it in a few drills or fill-in the blanks, taking it home to memorize, regurgitating it on a quiz and then not seeing it again, takes on an air of the absurd and gives a good definition to what we call “busy work.”
The flaws in this approach become gapingly obvious when we attempt to recycle all that vocabulary. Think of teaching 20 words about school (school supplies, things in the room, etc.) to students over a 7 day cycle, then switching to a weather theme and teaching 20 new words in the next cycle. According to research the students need to see those 40 words, repeatedly over that two week period, and continually on into the future—when the list will have grown even more, and themes grown more disparate! It can quickly be seen that it is near to impossible to recycle this ever increasing, thematically focused list of words in a meaningful or engaging way.
Of the three conditions mentioned above, “providing a genuine desire/need to communicate” is the one that the traditional language classroom has the best chance of fulfilling. Because teachers have the control to depart from the commercial books used in most traditional language classrooms, they have the opportunity to create activities for both input (reading/listening) and production (speaking/writing) which can create the desire/need for students to communicate and acquire—and a teacher who knows what s/he is doing will do this when faced with the worst-case scenario of having to work from a commercially produced book. When talking about need to communicate and engagement, it must be understood that books are written to appeal to a wide audience. This is a hit-and-miss process which can be better understood if reflected on. “Is what is interesting to kids in Southern California the same as what is interesting to kids in Georgia or Minnesota?” and because the books end up being used for many years, “Is what was interesting to students in general in 2010 still interesting to them in 2016?” The safest answer to these is “it depends.” The book companies try hard and do get some themes right, but they fall way short of the percentage of engagement a teacher can get when they design their own activities around the interests of a specific group of students.
The third point, “focus on meaning,” is perhaps where the traditional language class falls shortest. Anytime a grammar point becomes a lesson focus (as focus of a lecture, a worksheet, or a drill), the amount of comprehensible input drops off significantly. As well focus on meaning takes a subordinate role to analysis of how the language works (a first language cognitive process—not language acquisition). A grammar explanation in lower levels has to take place in English. Those not ready to grasp are typically bored or lost (I hate grammar usually really means, “I don’t get it”). Those that do get it haven’t gotten it in the language rich context in which modern language classes deliver it and therefore these students lose an opportunity to grow by leaps and bounds rather than tiny steps.
It must be understood that it is not to say that language cannot be learned this way. A very small percentage of students will learn a language no matter how it is given to them.* We could say they are ready to grasp more often than others. So the argument is not: ‘Can a language be learned this way?’ rather, ‘How effectively is it being learned?’ If grammar teaching is reaching only a limited audience, providing limited input for those who do grasp it, and de-motivating those who don’t get it and robbing them of an opportunity to truly acquire a language, then it is clearly an inefficient use of class time and a misinformed approach to language teaching.
To further this point, lengthy, out-of-context grammar lessons usually culminate in activities which likewise involve limiting input: verb conjugation drills and fill in blank exercises come to mind. These activities not only provide limited input, they also run the risk of teaching skills that don’t foment language acquisition at all. It is well known that students, once they grasp the idea of changing verb endings, can fill in blanks with the proper conjugation—or pick out the proper form on a multiple choice question—without actually understanding the sentence they are working on. These types of activities also tend to inhibit development of natural language production and raise premature, unrealistic expectations in both teacher and student for levels of accuracy—something which contributes to high attrition rates in traditional language classes. (When you speak English with a friend do you pause before talking and ask yourself consciously if you should use present perfect or simple present to express your next thought? This is what we are asking students to do when we press for accuracy too early. The result: delays in attaining fluency and developing such important language skills as circumlocution. ).
Now that we’ve looked at how traditional language classes fall short, let’s look at what these up-to-date methods are doing to meet the criteria for facilitating foreign language acquisition.
First, through reading and listening, students need to be exposed to lots of language that contains elements a little above their level while the bulk remains understandable (comprehensible input). A baby learning language hears a lot of language that he can’t comprehend, but also is surrounded by people who understand this and therefore monitor their speech (baby talk). Between “baby talk” and natural filters for too much incomprehensible language we are kept from being overwhelmed. We could say that the teacher in the modern language classroom acts as that filter—keeping the language challenging, but comprehensible. As well this comprehensible input which is a little above their level needs to be about subjects which engage the learners’ interest. In terms of producing language, students need to be given meaningful opportunities to speak and write the language.
In light of the discoveries covered in this article, how grammar and accuracy are approached has changed quite profoundly. As pointed out, grammar in the traditional language classroom is sequenced. Students are expected to be able to at least recognize correct forms (multiple choice tests) or even produce this grammar accurately from the start. Students who don’t get the grammar, and as such can’t recognize correct forms, or produce it accurately enough on written or spoken assessments are eventually culled out of language classes, leaving only those who do get it well enough to pass the class. (It is for this reason many traditionally oriented language programs tend to have lots of students in the beginning levels, and relatively few at upper levels. Programs which use up-to-date methods tend to have much larger numbers reaching higher levels.)
In the modern language class grammar is approached keeping in mind that language develops over a period of time (and this includes accuracy) and in an order that cannot be dictated. As such students can be exposed to a wide variety of grammatical features from the beginning (as long as it remains comprehensible). To honor the fact that students will develop at their own pace regardless of what the teacher does, accuracy needs to be teased out or developed slowly and not be made a focus of assessment early on. This doesn’t mean that grammar is ignored, rather it takes second billing to meaning and must be done (and assessed) in a way which recognizes the “ready to grasp” phenomenon.
Let’s look then at how it is dealt with. Studies have shown that grammar is more effectively addressed in context. This is done in several ways, most often by briefly pointing out (or guiding students to discover) target grammar points while students are using the language. These are known as awareness raising techniques (some refer to it as “contrastive grammar”). These brief grammar “lessons” are then repeated frequently so that students who were not ready to grasp the target grammar point the first few times it was introduced, are provided with frequent and continuous opportunities for it to sink in.