Hoping you can bear another Spanish question: whole-parts and parts-whole, & other ?

[AmeliaBinMO]

Hello, all!

 

I know there have been many Spanish questions here lately. I know, because I have been reading them all! If anyone can help with this question, I would appreciate it greatly! Thank you!

 

Can you please briefly explain the difference between whole-to-parts and parts-to-whole when referring to language programs? The feeling that I get is that whole-to-parts would involve more immersion, whereas parts-to-whole might involve more learning vocab, how to conjugate the vocab, and then put it all together (?). As an example, the kids have used Latina Christiana -- would this be a parts-to-whole program?

 

If my vague idea of what this means is anywhere in the ballpark, I'd like to look at a parts-to-whole Spanish program for the High School level. Can anyone here help me identify which of the high school Spanish programs are considered parts-to-whole? When making recommendations, please assume that I remember nothing of the Spanish that I had in high school, and will be no help whatsoever to the kids (sigh).

 

Thanks a million for your time!

 

With appreciation,

AmeliaBinMO

[Reya]

I prefer whole-to-parts for ALL languages.

 

Learning a language is NOT the same as learning to read. Language learning is built into people--making connections is natural and fluid. What you practice is what you become skilled at. Practice reading, writing, listening, and speaking a language, and you become skilled at reading, writing, speaking, and listening to a language. Practice conjugations and declensions and memorize vocabulary lists and you become good at conjugations and declensions and vocabulary lists.

 

Not terribly useful.

 

Part of the dismal history of foreign language learning in the US is due to the insistence on parts-to-whole learning. I'm saddened that there are so resources for Spanish in particular. As a result, my DS is much more skilled in Latin than Spanish, even though we started Spanish first and I'm fluent!!!!

 

It's pretty sad.

 

Anyhow, whole-to-parts is NOT just immersion. The inductive and deductive methods are the major whole-to-parts methods, and they each use carefully structured exposure to language--one uses instruction completely in the target language and calls your attention to the grammar as you go so you can figure it out (a la Lingua Latina), and the other uses target-language examples and explains them thoroughly outside of the language (a la Cambridge Latin).

Edited April 16, 2010 by Reya

[AmeliaBinMO]

Thanks so much for your reply, Reya! I especially appreciate the help that you gave to explain my whole-to-parts and parts-to-whole confusion!

[Reya]

Yay! :-) Glad it helped!

 

El Arte de la conversacion/El arte de la composicion is the only whole-to-parts book I know of, and it's upper level. I love it, though. It helped me SOOOOO MUCH!!!!

[Nan in Mass]

(I, too, prefer whole-to-parts for foreign language.)

 

Whole-to-parts doesn't mean there is no grammar and vocabulary instruction. It means that you are shown the grammar and vocabulary first in context, in the "whole". Then the grammar is explained. At least, when it is well done it works that way. I think whole-to-parts got a bad name because some of the earlier whole-to-parts texts (earlier as in late 1900s) experimented with no grammar instruction at all. That isn't a very efficient way to learn a language. It can be done (immersion is an example), but it usually needs hours upon hours of full exposure to a wide variety of interactive situations in order to make it work. Learning a language through immersion is a third way of learning a language. It has its advantages and disadvantages, also.

 

If you are the sort of person who gets upset when things aren't carefully explained to you before you are expected to work with them, then don't pick whole-to-parts. Whole-to-parts is very frustrating for perfectionists or people who are upset by reading something or hear something and having to guess at parts of it. Eventually, as Reya pointed out, everyone who wants to be able to really use a language at normal speaking or reading speed needs to be able to deal with only understanding part, guessing, skipping, ignoring, and understanding directly without translating into English, but many people are happier making that step later on in the learning process, not at the very beginning.

 

Most US language instruction never makes that switch, which is why we often can't use foreign languages we learned in school. The need to make the switch comes as a nasty shock to many people who were doing nicely in the parts-to-whole instruction. If you do whole-to-parts, the student is used to understanding without translating and being shown material that he hasn't seen before.

 

I think, too, people vary in their ability to convert grammar tables and vocabulary lists to at-speed, in context language. I'm sure brain wiring has something to do with this. People may be more successful learning without ever seeing the language written because it chops out the step of visualizing the word (me), or they may become extremely frustrated and be unable to remember the words if they never see them. I love Pimsleur but my mother would hate them.

 

Students who can put up with whole-to-parts in the beginning have to do less reviewing and find it easier to remember what they have learned because they get to continually use all the grammar and vocab, not just the newest things presented in the lesson. If you have bad memories, you definately want to go with whole-to-parts.

 

Some languages are more dependant on grammar for understanding than others. Some, like French, are dependant on grammar for part of the language, like the ability to write. If you learn French immersion-style, with no grammar, you will need to go back and learn grammar in order to be able to write the language. Some languages have different forms depending on who is speaking to whom, making them hard to learn immersion-style unless you are are exposed to many different situations.

 

Those are some of the advantages and disadvantages of each system, in my experience.

 

-Nan

[jld]

I hesitated to comment on this, but fwiw . . .

 

Some people may find some parts to whole instruction helpful, at least some of the time. While I agree that on the whole, whole to parts is better, (Nan, thanks for your excellent explanation) there have been times when a strict grammar-translation approach has really cleared up some confusion here.

 

Then again, maybe it's just me . . .

[Nan in Mass]

My own personal way of learning a bit of a new language is Pimsleur tapes, then some immersion, then a brief spell of parts-to-whole (now that I have some idea of the whole), then lots of immersion with a good dictionary and somebody to ask about things. I think that probably boils down to long-scale whole-to-parts, though LOL. I think whole-to-parts and parts-to-whole is mostly a description of which they give you first. I think both are valuable. I completely agree with you that grammar-translation can be enlightening.

-Nan

[emubird]

My own personal way of learning a bit of a new language is Pimsleur tapes, then some immersion, then a brief spell of parts-to-whole (now that I have some idea of the whole), then lots of immersion with a good dictionary and somebody to ask about things. I think that probably boils down to long-scale whole-to-parts, though LOL. I think whole-to-parts and parts-to-whole is mostly a description of which they give you first. I think both are valuable. I completely agree with you that grammar-translation can be enlightening.

-Nan

 

This sort of working back and forth is what works for me. However, I think this whole to parts- parts to whole dichotomy is thoroughly misleading. A good language program will do both, whatever they call themselves, and most language programs that I've looked at do seem to do both. (Even Pimsleur covers some grammar, in a basic way.)

 

There seems to be some sort of mantra in the homeschool world that one "way" is better than the other. But you need both. It's rather like the argument over reading by doing phonics vs. whole words. You really need both to get it to click, but some odd and vehement arguments have built up over the two methods. (I kind of wonder if the same people who tell you you have to do parts to whole for foreign language learning are the same people who think you can only teach reading using phonics and nothing but phonics.)

 

If you got a language program that seriously only did one method or the other, you probably wouldn't learn anything useful.

[Kareni]

Whole-to-parts doesn't mean there is no grammar and vocabulary instruction. It means that you are shown the grammar and vocabulary first in context, in the "whole". ...

 

Those are some of the advantages and disadvantages of each system, in my experience.

 

What a great explanation, Nan. Thank you.

 

Regards,

Kareni

[Jean in Wisc]

SOS Secondary (year 1 on a high school transcript) is basically whole to parts. Spanish I and Spanish II (year 2 and 3 on the transcript) switches to a more parts to whole approach. This is the 1st year I've used Secondary, and I'm amazed at how much my son has learned. I'm glad it will move to parts-to-whole next year, but this has been a very good intro to the language.

 

Jean

[AmeliaBinMO]

I am feeling like a "bear of very little brain" here at this point, but I am trying to keep afloat!

 

My main concern in not taking an incremental, super baby-step approach will be that my kids will be asking questions that I am unable to answer (since I don't remember the little Spanish that I learned). But perhaps that is why I'll probably need to have a tutor come in at least once a week from the beginning. Okay, knowing my abilities here (or lack thereof), I guess that I have just figured out that I'll need a tutor from the get-go. I was hoping to put off the tutor expense until later, but that does not seem wise.

 

Okay, ladies! Thank you so very much for your time and effort here. I really don't know where I'd be without you!

 

AmeliaBinMO

[AmeliaBinMO]

Jean, I've read many of your posts regarding SOS, and remember you saying that it was helpful that you knew Spanish so that you could help. Do you think that SOS is a program that my dd would be able to work on her own if I could have a tutor come in once a week for help or questions? My dd is bright and very proficient with grammar thanks to R&S.

 

Thanks for your input! I appreciate it!

 

AmeliaBinMO

[Nan in Mass]

Perhaps whether you need a tutor right away depends on whether you are willing to do the program with your children? If so, then you can probably figure it out. Even if you don't, it may be that you just need someone who will answer occasional questions, not a full fledged tutor, at first. Not that I am trying to discourage you from getting a tutor. I think that is a good idea. I'm just thinking that they are expensive and if you can manage even half a year without one, it might be helpful. On the other hand, a tutor from the beginning might help keep enthusiasm up, help with confidence and pronounciation, and help develop an ear for the language so it is easier to tell the words apart.

-Nan

[AmeliaBinMO]

Thanks, Nan! Yes, even a semester without a tutor would be great. This whole foreign language thing really intimidates me, though. With other subjects, I feel fairly confident that I can at least squeak along and help the kids until they get later in high school when they have other options such as dual enrollment. Foreign languages are a whole different story, though. I am useless at even the most basic level. I honestly know that I cannot even choose a program well, much less teach it. Perhaps I should start pricing tutors now, so that I have time to recover from the shock before I need to implement.

 

Thanks for the encouragement. Despite my inadequacies in this subject area, it is something that I really want the kids to learn.

 

Thanks again!

 

AmeliaBinMO

[Jean in Wisc]

Jean, I've read many of your posts regarding SOS, and remember you saying that it was helpful that you knew Spanish so that you could help. Do you think that SOS is a program that my dd would be able to work on her own if I could have a tutor come in once a week for help or questions? My dd is bright and very proficient with grammar thanks to R&S.

 

Thanks for your input! I appreciate it!

 

AmeliaBinMO

 

Many people have said that their children have worked through SOS alone. My dd did not want my "interference" in it, and she did not ask for help. My son is doing Secondary this year, and I ask him if he has questions each day, and he always says no. LOL! A tutor would be wonderful, though, if one is available.

 

If you've read about SOS through my other posts, you know that it is not a perfect program, but I think it is a great program for a good price.

[AmeliaBinMO]

This is great to know, Jean, thank you! I did not realize that your kids were able to work through it on their own. That is great news for someone with little or no knowledge of Spanish looking to teach her kids!

 

This was a very helpful piece of information - thanks again!

 

AmeliaBinMO

[Nan in Mass]

You know, perhaps a "bad" tutor would work for the first semester? A high school student who did well in Spanish could probably explain the first semester and provide someone live to practise with. Maybe you could ask the local high school Spanish teacher for a recommendation. That would be cheaper. Or perhaps a lonely old person would be willing to tutor cheaply.

[Brindee]

My own personal way of learning a bit of a new language is Pimsleur tapes, then some immersion, then a brief spell of parts-to-whole (now that I have some idea of the whole), then lots of immersion with a good dictionary and somebody to ask about things. I think that probably boils down to long-scale whole-to-parts, though LOL. I think whole-to-parts and parts-to-whole is mostly a description of which they give you first. I think both are valuable. I completely agree with you that grammar-translation can be enlightening.

-Nan

What of Pimsleur do you use? I looked at the Spanish, and there are all sorts of things available. Not sure which levels/things would be best to use??? Thanks for any help you may give! :001_smile:

[AmeliaBinMO]

Another great idea, Nan! Thanks again - I appreciate your time!

 

AmeliaBinMO

[Nan in Mass]

The basic Pimsleurs that I have seen were a set of 30 lessons per level with a reading booklet and tape/CD. Level I covered introducing yourself, numbers, time, directions, ordering food, buying things, discussing your family, and discussing your travel plans, or something along those lines. A level is expensive. I highly recommend trying your library. If you want to try Pimsleur to see if it works for you, you can get the $20 set, which is the first 10 lessons. The other choices I've seen related to which edition and whether they were on CD or tape. Once, when we chose to buy, we got a rebate on a whole set because we bought the ten lesson set first. If you try them, don't be afraid to experiment to find the best way of using them for you. I found that I did better listening to lesson 1+2 back-to-back the first day (a lesson is about half an hour), then lesson 2+3 the next, and so forth. I also do better if I am moving when I do it and not thinking about it too hard. One of my sons did best if he did a lesson twice a day. I can't skip days. I have never managed to do a new lesson each day; I always have some lessons that take me a few days to learn. Pimsleur teaches you the language patterns and leaves it up to you to learn more vocab, whichever vocab you need. So, for example, it teaches you the words for a few foods and leaves it up to you to learn the rest. It is easier to do Pimsleur if you have some idea of how a language works because it makes it easier to spot the patterns and reuse them for yourself. My oldest, straight out of public school with no grammar or previous foreign language experience, struggled. He did level 1 Spanish and then took Spanish 2 in high school, but it was hard. Pimsleur isn't designed to segue into public school courses. It is meant for adults, so you learn to order beer. In Pimsleur's defense, at the same time it teaches you to order beer and wine, it also teaches you to refuse the beer and wine and ask for water or coffee instead.

HTH

-Nan

[Reya]

I hesitated to comment on this, but fwiw . . .

 

Some people may find some parts to whole instruction helpful, at least some of the time. While I agree that on the whole, whole to parts is better, (Nan, thanks for your excellent explanation) there have been times when a strict grammar-translation approach has really cleared up some confusion here.

 

Then again, maybe it's just me . . .

 

That would still be a deductive whole-to-parts method.

 

If I can't have inductive, I prefer deductive!

Edited April 17, 2010 by Reya

[Reya]

Adding to what Nan says now!!!

 

The inductive method of whole-to-parts as used by Lingua Latina is the very fastest way I've EVER encountered to get to reading fluently in a target language, and it has no instruction in English whatsoever.

 

It is, however, an approach that can be used in precious few languages for the English learner! It'd be possible with Romance languages, but that's pretty much it.

 

Simple immersion is extremely inefficient and ineffective for language learning. That's not what whole-to-parts is. Whole-to-parts means that the parts are explicitly taught, one way or another. In Lingua Latina, they are taught in Latin and your attention is mostly just drawn to the different forms without giving explicit rules and grammar terms, even as these rules are being carefully taught. Every other program I've seen, though, includes explicit grammatical instruction in the first language (at the lowest level).

 

Now, I personally hate "simple immersion" methods as I want to generalize what I'm learning into rules that can be applied elsewhere. That hugely accelerates my learning. I have absolutely no patience for Primsleur, for instance! I like to know the overall structure of the language before I start, too--the big picture that I can slot details into as I go. I do think that Primsleur is a good program, for what it is, and a great start for many people, but I don't like it for what it is not!

 

Now, the big danger of studying with parts-to-whole is how efficiently such programs turn out people who are very capable of saying canned phrases and knowing lots of vocabulary lists and quoting grammatical rules and chanting forms but can't read a book or newspaper, write a letter or paper, or have a substantive conversation.

 

This doesnt' mean you can't assign credit for such a program. I use the schools as my standard, and as long as you're at least on par with them, assign away. (Just make sure you're not below!!!) But if your goal is to teach language for more than fulfilling a requirement, it's probably not going to serve you well, no matter what your "learning style."

 

Now, I'm not saying this as a poor parts-to-whole learner. I was incredibly good at turning grammar rules into language. As in, I was the best kid in my high school of 4000, without a moment's doubt. When I went to Costa Rica to study one summer, I shocked the instructors at how fluent I was, given my background. But it is GRUELING, EXHAUSTING work. You have poor rhythm. You have no "ear" for the language--nothing sounds wrong. You translate many things said to you in your head. Reading and writing are excruciating. The sheer mental processing power required for speaking well after a parts-to-whole program is staggering.

 

Learning parts-to-whole is effortless, in comparison. You develop grammatical knowledge through explicit instruction, which is important, and it has none of the flaws of the parts-to-whole method. I'd strongly disagree that parts-to-whole in terms of the primary vehicle of instruction is ever better in developing fluency. But, OTOH, a parts-to-whole grammar as an ancillary text or beginning with a snapshot view of the structure of the language as a road map can be invaluable. That's different from the main method of learning being parts-to-whole, though.

 

(BTW, I have to learn to read as I talk at first. :-) I have serious auditory processing weaknesses. Even in a familiar language, when hearing a new word, I visualize its spelling. But whole-to-parts doesn't necessitate an emphasis on speaking.)

Edited April 17, 2010 by Reya

[Nan in Mass]

So clarifying what Reya and I are trying to say (I hope - correct me if I am wrong or unclear - my first post obviously wasn't very clear):

 

There are three ways of learning a language:

 

Immersion: no grammar explicitly taught - works well for small children - takes serious amounts of time for most people, beyond what can be accomplished in one class period per day so not something most people consider unless you have access to fluent speakers and can live in the language (I did this with my youngest and French so I know GRIN)

 

Parts to whole: teaches language via grammar tables and vocabulary lists and lots of overt memorization, telling you the pattern and then having you practise it - explains grammar first then gives examples - avoids use of words and grammatical structures that haven't yet been presented to the student - encourages translation into English as a step to understanding - doesn't make the switch to automatic use of the language until later in the program

 

Whole to parts: discourages translation into English as a step to understanding - presents new grammar and vocab in context first, allowing you to see the pattern, and then explaining it afterwards - the bulk of the memorizing is done less overtly through repetition of the grammar and vocab by using the foreign language in a more natural way (lots of material to read and listen to) - natural, at speed language is used from the very beginning and it is assumed that more complete understanding will grow over time

 

I think part of which you prefer probably depends on whether you are the sort of person who needs to see the big picture in order to learn something. Take Saxon math, for instance. Saxon presented the math concepts in small bits, rule first and then examples using only that one rule, and one of my sons was unable to put the bits together into the whole. NEM, on the other hand, presented the concepts by the student use them first and then giving the box with the rule and the examples. I won't say my son did well at NEM, but at least he understood the math, unlike Saxon. Many people here, though, are frustrated by NEM and quickly give up on it. I myself could probably have learned math either way, but I vastly prefer teaching out of NEM because it is so much easier for me. I also would a thousand times rather learn Latin with Linga Latina than with something else. I guess I am a whole to parts person. I need Pimsleur because it makes me concentrate on what the words sound like first, rather than what they look like (my natural inclination), and that allows me to understand what I hear rather than just what I read. I am really, really good at reading a foreign language and bad at understanding what I hear. Pimsleur forces me to store the words as sound rather than as writing. It also forces me to store verbal patterns, making it easier for me to speak the language. I just say the next word rather than having to figure out what it should be. And, of course, it makes me pronounce the words properly, the way they sound not the way they look, since I can't see them. Or at least I visualize them in phonetic English. The speed of Pimsleur ensures that at least some of the words go unvisualized.

 

-Nan

[cathmom]

The problem with Pimsleur for me is that I can't remember a word if I haven't seen it. I only ever tried one lesson of Swedish, and it went over and over and over how to say "excuse me." Afterwards I couldn't remember it. Then I looked it up and now I have never forgotten it. Perhaps if I persisted with Pimsleur I would be able to overcome that, I don't know. It's just that near the end of the lesson I was so bored I was about ready to shoot myself! :lol:

[Nan in Mass]

I seem to be just the right amount ok-at-learning-by-listening-but-better-at-seeing for it to do the job by circumventing the seeing part. It is mind-numbingly boring and takes enough concentration that I can't do something like knit2/perl2 while I do it. (Obviously I can't chew gum and walk at the same time. ug.) I can walk the dog or do dishes. My mother is like that about seeing words. She would never be able to use it, either. That is why I hesitate to say one method is better than another for everyone. That and the whole Saxon thing. I try (and keep forgetting - sigh) to say that something worked well for me or for us or for my family. I think there are some things that are designed so that certain people cannot learn from them. Part of school seems to be teaching people to get good at learning a certain way, and it works for the people in the middle of the bell curve who aren't really strongly one way or the other, but the people at the ends are going to have to figure out that certain things aren't worth the time and effort.

-Nan

[emubird]

The problem with Pimsleur for me is that I can't remember a word if I haven't seen it. I only ever tried one lesson of Swedish, and it went over and over and over how to say "excuse me." Afterwards I couldn't remember it. Then I looked it up and now I have never forgotten it. Perhaps if I persisted with Pimsleur I would be able to overcome that, I don't know. It's just that near the end of the lesson I was so bored I was about ready to shoot myself! :lol:

 

I think you're right that Pimsleur is very much improved if you have a way of looking up the words and seeing them in writing. This is why, when I'm doing a Pimsleur language, I've usually tried to combine it with something else. I've gotten the farthest with Spanish. As Spanish is written so phonetically, I've found that I no longer have to look new words up when they show up on the Pimsleur CD.

 

Chinese has been another matter. I feel a bit like I'm "cheating" when I looked up the pronunciation in the Roman alphabet, but I sort of need to do it.

 

My daughter is starting Russian with Pimsleur, but I think she's going to need to learn the alphabet to do it.