Learning languages the "painful" way (inspired by Cleopatra)

[jld]

I just read Cleopatra's post on Cleo's thread, and I can't count how many times I've heard similar comments. People really hate grammar-translation. I was teaching Spanish in the early 90s and heard other teachers' non-stop criticism of that "old-fashioned" approach. Immersion was the only acceptable way of teaching foreign languages.

 

I started Spanish in 1983 with the audio-lingual approach (don't remember the name of the textbook -- it was from the 60s) and then somewhat immersion approach (Valette's Spanish for Mastery). Then we moved to another state and my Spanish 3 teacher used grammar-translation (all her own notes), plus speaking to us regularly in the language.

 

It was like someone turned on the light! There were rules that clearly explained how to structure things. We didn't have to wait for this verb to be introduced, and then that one, and finally that verb over there. We learned how to do all types of a verb at once. Instead of looking for vocabulary, it was all right there for you, in a list. I was really able to begin making Spanish my own, so to speak.

 

I was the kind of kid who always tried to use Spanish outside of the classroom, even approaching people in stores who spoke Spanish and trying to speak to them. I wasn't embarrassed; I knew I was a beginner and I didn't care if I sounded foolish. I still don't.

 

I don't question the benefit of immersion. I spent a semester in Mexico in 1991, and after about a month, my comprehension improved so much, and after 3 months, my Spanish was better in every way. But I will always be grateful to the grammar-translation teacher I had my last two years of high school, and the professors I had in college who taught the same way. I went to the same college as my high school teacher, and was taught by the same professors.

 

I know it's a lot of work. I know that. But I don't think that makes it bad.

 

I learned French through living it. I met dh (French native) 3 mos. after I graduated from college. I had had a semester of French through the "natural approach" in college, and the first night I met him I used all 200 words that I remembered from that class. We moved in together two months later, and I have been learning French from him, our children, and our stays in France ever since (17 years). I feel comfortable speaking French and understand it okay. I almost never read or write it. I don't know the grammar anywhere near as well as I know (or at least knew at one time) Spanish. Sometimes, even now, but especially in the early years of our relationship, if I didn't know how to say something in French, I would think of how to structure it in Spanish, and put in whatever French words I guessed would work. It usually was close enough for people to understand me.

 

I really am grateful for the grammar-translation approach. I just don't understand all the negative feelings towards it.

 

I'm a pretty relaxed homeschooler, at least until the early teens or so, but I don't disapprove of stricter homeschooling methods. I think the parents who are teaching Latin to their 6 year olds are doing something pretty neat with them. And the kids who go through years of grammar instruction are learning something interesting, and hopefully helpful. Just because I don't do something doesn't mean I think it's bad. Just being hard doesn't make something bad.

[Cleopatra]

I'm glad I could inspire you! ;) It's interesting to hear from someone coming from an immersion experience and then seeing the benefit of the grammar-translation. I think you're right; we can't have one without the other and learn a language well. Perhaps my 'beef' is that we are offered so much translation and there are very few options to get immersion. People/teachers seem scared of it. If the students don't understand everything right away they get uncomfortable and can tend to switch to English to at least keep up the appearance that the student is learning.

 

My experience is: 7 years studying French in school (grade 6 to 12) and by the end, I could perhaps have a basic slow conversation in the present tense. And I always received A's! Then I look at my Swiss friend who took two years of Italian in school, the teacher spoke ONLY Italian, and she could speak it very well after the two years were finished. Seven years - grammar-translation - weak grasp of language. Two years - immersion - good grasp of language. What would you prefer?:001_smile: On the other hand, I took German for one semester with a teacher who spoke mostly in German and I learned more than in 2 years of French and felt much more comfortable speaking the language.

 

Immersion makes the student strong in speaking and understanding and grammar-translation makes the student strong in reading and writing. I think most people learn another language with the primary intent to communicate verbally, so logically I think the immersion approach is more valuable. But, of course, it's not the be-all-and-end-all; we do need the grammar-translation as well. It's just makes sense to me to try to learn a second language (or third, or fourth) as we do our native language; learn to speak it first and therefore think in it (even basically) and then learn how it goes together.

 

Now all this said, I am very grateful for the knowledge I acquired. We were in France a year ago and my French began to return so I could again understand basic conversations. I know if I'd stayed there longer I would be able to learn it at a much quicker pace than if I hadn't learned it at all and was starting from scratch, so there was value in my 'painful' instruction in high school. :001_smile:

 

Anyone else care to chime in? I'd love to hear and learn from more experienced viewpoints!

[jld]

I can only speak for myself. I have always been able to speak better than I could do anything else. I think grammar-translation, at least in my case, has helped me most with output, that is, speaking and writing. It gave me the tools to do something. Certainly immersion improved my speaking skills, too. But g-t gave me a start.

 

The passive skill of listening (always my worst area) definitely improved with immersion. I'm not sure about reading. I've never read much in French or Spanish (never more than I had to), though I picked up one of ds11's French books the other day and did okay.

 

You know, I remember an argument with a teaching assistant back when I was in college who told me grammar-translation didn't work, and that I only thought I had learned something with that method. She also told me it was impossible to learn a language by anything other than immersion. I just ended up stopping the argument because her mind was made up. She believed she had the answer to how I learned.

 

It's interesting to hear you say that there are more opportunities to learn through grammar-translation than immersion. In the schools I was teaching in, nearly 20 years ago, immersion was the only acceptable approach. Maybe it was just the areas I was teaching in.

 

I do think the teacher makes a difference. The immersion teacher I had for Spanish wasn't that great, and the g-t teacher spoke the language to us better and more consistently. Maybe you could even say it was modified g-t, as some people define g-t as no oral practice at all.

 

I was also highly motivated.

 

I'm not saying immersion isn't great. That's how my children have learned French (from their father). It's more or less how I learned French (but all that structure from Spanish helped). But my kids still need to study French grammar. And even though we're using a mainly immersion text for Spanish, my daughter wants more explicit grammar instruction and practice.

 

I do not mean to be arguing against immersion. I am just concerned that people want to throw out g-t without perhaps realizing what they may be throwing away. Once again, for me, g-t was like turning on the light in the dark. I cannot deny that.

 

I took a year of college level German in the mid-90s and the teacher was a fellow instructor in the foreign language dept. of the high school where I was teaching. He, typical of every other teacher I taught with at that time, only believed in immersion. I was confused throughout the course. I'm still embarrassed by how poorly I did (yes, he gave us all As, but you know inside how you're really doing) and finally asked him if he would reteach the lesson through a g-t approach. He did and I actually understood something. I remember feeling so grateful for that worksheet. It was, of course, the only time he did that, and I didn't dare ask again. I remember later that year, at a faculty meeting, when all of us were sitting around talking about how important immersion was, someone dared say that they still felt kids needed more work in grammar. Then another brave soul said she couldn't have mastered the language she was teaching without her own work in grammar -- lonely, somewhat boring work that just needed to be done.

 

I think those of us who were teaching knew that immersion was more fun, less stressful, and kept the enrollments up better than g-t. We also knew how truly important immersion is. But somewhere inside, at least inside the teachers who really knew their language (not a given, even with teachers who have been teaching a long time), they knew there were some benefits to g-t. And they couldn't deny them.

 

All I'm saying, not necessarily to you, Cleopatra (poor thing -- I didn't mean to take all this out on you, friend!), but in general, is this: All the tools in the toolbox are helpful, so let's not throw any out.

[Joan in GE]

I really am grateful for the grammar-translation approach. I just don't understand all the negative feelings towards it.

 

 

I think the negativity is if it is used alone because the purpose of learning a language is usually to be able to communicate with people who speak that language.

 

When you just learn grammar-translation, lots and lots of people end up not being able to speak the language.

 

I think of my own French and Spanish experiences.

 

For French I had 2 yrs in high school and 2 yrs in college. When I met my French prof on the street (towards the end of college) he greeted me with "Ca va?". I had NO clue what he was saying!

 

After 6 months in Belgium I could finally speak it well enough to have simple conversations (I was studying at the same time).

 

All the grammar did give a good base - especially for helping my children now, but I was quite inarticulate.

 

I think it also depends on how similar a spoken language and a written language are...You can speak French much more simply than it tends to be written in prose...

 

I had Spanish for 1 semester in a better university and I would say it was equivalent to those 4 yrs of French. The language lab was much better and the teacher taught grammar and conversation.

 

Even for natives grammar instruction is necessary. My son actually studied more grammar in 8th that the locals and did better than them on the grammar test. But they could speak rings around him.

 

In some cultures people are "graded" by how well they speak. In the UK I have heard that it can really affect school placement.

 

I have also noticed a certain prejudice based on oral conversation (I have it myself). If the person cannot express themselves well- especially when we first get to know them- it is easy to "presume" that is their level of thinking - which is of course false. But it takes a more generous and imaginative mind to allow the person to be thinking more than they are able to express.

 

So I vote for both, starting with immersion to hear before reading so that the visual doesn't affect pronunciation so much (since I think we tend to read with our maternal phonics).

 

Jld - how is your French accent since you have basically learned by immersion?

 

Joan

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

One aspect has been missing from this conversation. Kids tend to learn best by immersion, and teens and adults need the grammar approach to be added.

 

Yes, kids learn by immersion, but on the other hand, they will never reach the level of adult talk that is required of an adult. My kids learned English mostly by immersion, but my 5yo was speaking English like a 5yo, not like an adult. Expectations are different.

 

As for me, I totally failed at the immersion approach. I flunked English all the way through primary school, until grade 8 where we finally started dealing with grammar translation. But what really triggered my English learning was reading. As long as I wasn't reading in English, I didn't learn the language. Reading cemented the vocabulary and sentence rhythm. Nothing else worked for me.

[Nan in Mass]

Cleo - I just came here to say the same thing. I had high school French and couldn't do much with it (handy for writing, though). What really tipped me over into being able to use my French was reading, lots and lots of reading. Then, with a little work, I found that reading could be tranfered to listening. I think the real problem with badly done grammar-translation method is that one doesn't aquire enough vocabulary. Reading lets one aquire vocabulary without memorization. It also lets one learn not to translate the grammar. Once one has the vocabulary, one can use the language, but it is difficult to learn enough words to be able to have anything but a very basic conversation. The only thing that taught me to speak was having to speak GRIN.

-Nan

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

reading, reading and reading... When my Dad joined the Air Force without speaking English his commanding officer gave him a bunch of kiddy books to read. It was important to know where some expressions come from and to get idiomatic phrasing.

[In The Great White North]

One aspect has been missing from this conversation. Kids tend to learn best by immersion, and teens and adults need the grammar approach to be added.

 

Yes, kids learn by immersion, but on the other hand, they will never reach the level of adult talk that is required of an adult. My kids learned English mostly by immersion, but my 5yo was speaking English like a 5yo, not like an adult. Expectations are different.

 

 

I agree.

 

All the immersion promotion I've heard has been based on the idea that kids learn their native language by immersion, so that must be best. It totally ignores the fact that at some point in their education before they reach adult fluency, they get at least some grammar. (We could wish for more, but there is at least some.) It has to show up at some point in foreign language instruction also.

 

Immersion promoters also tend to disregard leaning style differences (ie. whole to parts or parts to whole.)

[enviromommy]

I learned French from a g-t approach. I started in 8th grade, had a very typical (though strong) prep-school French class culminating in AP lit in 12th grade. By the end of high school, I was not completely fluent, but was pretty proficient, and had a good accent. I LOVED French, did not find grammar boring (in fact, I'm a complete nerd that way, love grammar of any kind) and always felt I was making progress. I would add that clearly not everyone in my class felt that way!

 

I went on to major in French in college, usually taking 2 French literature or civilization classes per semester. When I got to France for my junior year, I already spoke/read/wrote well, but there is no question that actually being in France, living there and having all my classes in French, marked a HUGE leap forward in accent, comprehension, vocabulary, slang, etc. It's the difference between (a) being to have a one-on-one conversation, using good grammar, in a quiet room, with an interlocutor who is careful to speak correctly, and (b) being able to understand and converse at a loud, crowded party with the lights dimmed, or to understand a movie. It was around half way through my junior year in France that people started thinking I was French unless I told them I was American, and also that I stopped having a dictionary nearby when I read.

 

I am teaching 8th grade (first year) French for the first time this year in the school where my kids go (we are starting home schooling next year but I'll still be teaching one class at the school). I started with firm intentions of speaking only French to the students, and I backed off pretty quickly, because they stared at me in abject terror. There is a huge range of abilities in the class. I've been very frustrated with how slow the progress is, but I honestly don't think most of the kids are capable of learning more -- unless they were in an immersion environment. They have French Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday for 45 minutes per day. That's just not sufficient for most people.

 

So here's my take on the whole thing: if you are motivated and naturally good at languages, you can learn either way. In fact, for me, the way my brain works, I FAR prefer the systematic grammar approach. I've worked on other languages with the immersion approach (as an adult), and I think it's really annoying to be taught how to say "he goes" several lessons before "I go," and then before you are finished with the present tense they've taught you "I will go" or "I went" but not the rest of the future or past. I would far rather have a page of conjugations in front of me and just plain memorize it. When I do, I own it, and that's that. Otherwise I feel a bit anxious.

 

However, I recognize that for many students, particularly children, that's really, really boring, and makes them think of the language as just a "class," not a living language to be used with real people. I think whether either immersion or grammar works well depends mostly on whether the student really cares about learning the language, and also to some extent on native ability, once you get past a certain age. My two oldest kids (10 and 8) have had the same Hebrew teachers in Jewish day school, followed the same curriculum, but my 8 year-old is much more fluent than my 10 year-old, just because he's frankly more talented at it. However, if we went to Israel for 2 years (a girl can dream, right?) my guess is that at the end of that time even my now ten year-old would be fluent.

 

I think there has to be a happy medium. I agree with all of you who have said that immersion is great for little kids, since, after all, that's how they are learning their native language, but later, since adult brains work differently and are capable of more intellectual exercises, g-t is necessary. As children get older, they need grammar, spelling, etc. in their OWN language, so why wouldn't you do that for an adult learning a foreign language as well?

 

I've learned a lot in this first year of teaching. I think with next year's eighth graders, I will definitely speak more French in class with them, and be stricter about their asking me questions in French. However, it will not be total immersion, because it can't be, 45 minutes three days a week. As for my own children, especially the younger ones, I need to be more trusting of immersion. I have a strong tendency to jump in and translate because of my anxiety that they don't understand. For example, cuddling before bed, I'll say, "Je t'aime, Mattan. I love you" rather than just "je t'aime." And when I read or sing to them, I also translate as well as read. As I've posted before (I think) when they watch Muzzy, I tend to jump in and say, "do you understand? What does 'grand' mean? What does 'petit' mean? Did you hear him order a hamburger?" rather than just trust the process.

 

I'm hoping I'll do better with new baby (due in 8 weeks). If I speak French from the beginning, maybe I'll be less nervous about the whole thing.

 

Sorry this post is so long!!

[Cleopatra]

Aaaah! I just lost my post so here goes again ..... :001_smile:

 

One aspect has been missing from this conversation. Kids tend to learn best by immersion, and teens and adults need the grammar approach to be added.

 

Yes, kids learn by immersion, but on the other hand, they will never reach the level of adult talk that is required of an adult.

 

:iagree: as well!

 

I never intended advocating an immersion only approach, believe me! I just see so many younger children being taught by the grammar-translation approach and I feel the teachers are not taking advantage of their 'absorbability factor' at this age, which would give them a huge advantage if they decide to continue on with the language. But I definitely do believe you have to study a language to become proficient at it.

 

I live just outside the third largest city in Canada. Canada is said to be a bilingual country (English/French). Where I live, children are required to study French beginning at grade 5. They are taught from a grammar-translation approach unless they choose an immersion program. If they do, they are immersed only until grade 7, and when they reach high school, if they choose a French program there, only some of their classes will be in French. Sadly, the children who aren't immersed finish school knowing very little of the language, while the children who are immersed know infinitely more. If you try to speak French with someone here, very few people are able to speak it, in spite of the bilingualism and the years of French instruction. It seems bizarre to me! :confused:

 

I think we're all advocating good instruction with each method taught at the appropriate times. It's a shame that a child can have 7-8 years of language instruction and come out of school knowing so little about the language they've been studying.

 

It's interesting what Cleo and Nan said about reading ........ My 4-plus-language European friends have recommended LOTS of reading along with DVDs and CDs. We're trying to incorporate this into our learning.

 

And please don't worry, Jld ............... I did not feel picked on at all! :001_smile: I think it's wonderful that we can have these conversations and learn from each other. It's been so interesting to hear everyone's different experiences! I'm very envious that you were able to learn Spanish and French so well! Where have you stayed when you visited France? For the last two years, we were very fortunate to have the chance to visit Provence ---- the Aix-en-Provence and Nice areas ------ and we loved it!

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

cleopatra, humour me please :-)

 

which city is now listed as the third largest city? It keeps changing....

[Cleopatra]

cleopatra, humour me please :-)

 

which city is now listed as the third largest city? It keeps changing....

 

I think the order is ..... #1 Toronto, #2 Montreal and #3 ........ ta da! ..... Vancouver!!! Are you anywhere near Montreal? I've heard it's a beautiful city ..... and Quebec City, too!

[jld]

Ladies, thank you so much for participating in this thread. I feel like I've used it as a sort of therapy for those 3 frustrating years I taught in the early 90s, lol. I remember wanting to just :banghead: when I would come home from work. There was just so much antipathy towards the g-t approach that I myself had found so helpful as a student, and that I wanted to share with my own students. And there were plenty of other frustrations with teaching, too, like disciplining students (a whole other conversation!) and trying to stay out of departmental politics (what a drag - sigh).

 

Even though my methods teachers in college had said that as teachers, we students would be free to teach in any way we found best, I quickly found out that was not exactly the way it worked. There can be a lot of pressure in a dept. to do things a certain way. And the reality is that immersion keeps enrollments up better than g-t, hands down. And enrollment is what keeps teachers employed.

 

And it's so frustrating to try to explain the value of g-t to teachers, already teaching for ten or more years themselves, who are commenting to you on how "hard" the imperfect subjunctive is, or who don't seem to ever have studied phonetics. These are the leaders? I quickly learned that the best way to get along is to go along, but I always felt frustrated. And thankfully, I left teaching when dd was born.

 

You know, I don't mean that to sound snobbish, and I apologize if it does. I am not the best speaker of Spanish or French I've ever known, and I've only once been asked if I were French, and just a few times, many years ago, if I were a native Spanish speaker. It's pretty clear, when you live with a Frenchman and his 5 French-American children, that you're truly on the bottom of the language totem pole, and will always remain there. My children tell me my French accent is "cute". Dh says native speakers know I am not French, but they can't tell where I'm from. After 17 years, I'm not sure it's going to get any better, lol. Or at least not without some serious work in phonetics.

 

I was speaking Spanish to a friend I made in the city we used to live in (before ds was diagnosed with cancer nearly a year ago) here in India, and I was mortified by all the mistakes I was making. She didn't seem to care. She was probably just enjoying having a conversation in her native language. But you know, I have a degree in Spanish, and I have higher expectations for myself than what I seem any longer to be able to deliver on. That, too, is humbling.

 

I was talking to dd about this thread last night (she's in France right now with dh's parents) and she told me she thinks immersion is a great way to start a language, but that grammar study is necessary to perfect one's command of the language. She pointed out the mistakes her grandparents, native French speakers with an 8th grade education, make, and how they are unable to help her with her 4eme (8th grade) grammar book. That isn't to say she isn't super grateful to them for the immersion experience she is having there, but there are limits. She wants to have a higher level of education in French than they have, and that takes some extra work.

 

You're all right on about how different people have different goals in language study. Dh said last night that a lot of people just want to use a language, and immersion is the best way to go for that. But he said that some people really want to understand the mechanics of a language, and that is where g-t can be helpful. I thought his comments were pretty insightful.

 

And he would totally agree with everyone who says reading is so important. He's always reading in English. He loves Tolkien, too, Cleo! My kids have commented that the most interesting books today are written in English, and they don't like to read books translated from English into French just to practice reading in French. That's why I'm always scouting out good books written in French!

 

I don't read much in Spanish or French because it takes extra effort to get through the code and focus in on the message, and I'm lazy. The only times I've found myself reading in those languages is when I couldn't get the info I wanted any other way. For example, back in 2007, dh and I were supporting Bayrou in the French presidential elections. I was reading anything I could find about Bayrou! And back in 1999, I joined the LLL in France, and I would read their newletters in French. I really need to be motivated to read in any language besides English.

 

As a spin-off of that, I have to say I used to think I was a reader, before I joined these boards. I now know that I am not nearly the reader that WTM women are. I wouldn't even dare put myself in the reader category now. WTM women are amazing!

 

Jen, dh is from Normandy. He came to America when he was 22. We lived in Picardy for 6 mos. in 1999, and 16 mos. from Aug. 2006 - Jan. 2008, when dh was transferred to India. We have always spent at least two weeks a year in France, except for last year, because of ds11's cancer.

 

Once again, ladies, thanks for discussing this topic. It's always interesting to hear what has really worked for people in terms of language study. Different people really do seem to learn differently, and have different goals, and we all can truly learn a lot from one another. Thanks again!:)

[Nan in Mass]

jld- I just want to be clear that I think g-t is important. Immersion is great and necessary if you want to be able to use the language, but it is a really inefficient unless at some point you get some g-t. This is especially true if you have some idea of how languages work. (One of the reasons people learn Latin to learn the structure of Euorpean languages so they can learn new ones quickly, since you often don't know as a student which languages will be useful to you later.) I just think that g-t without immersion of any sort (and reading is an easy, convenient way to get immersion) isn't very useful, either. Most of us had years and years of g-t without any immersion and were totally frustrated by the experience. If we had spent two years of g-t and the done rest immersion-style, we would have been so far along! We can see that.

 

Now if you coul djust figure out a way to convince my 15yo that it is worth doing the g-t part LOL...

Actually, he is convinced, more or less. He just doesn't want to do it. And he keeps saying why can't I just teach it to him in context piece-meal as we go along and I'm not really qualified to do that since I don't speak French very well and write it even worse. And I'm not sure that is very efficient and we need efficient at this point. And I have no idea if it is actually working... It would be so much easier if he would consent to go through a grammar book, but how to find the time? Is it worth doing that rather than doing history and literature in French? Neither of us is convinced it is and we're having trouble finding the time to do even more French for a student who is headed for engineering and ought to be putting the time into math and science and who would rather, actually, put the time into learning another language at a functional tourist level, and once again I can rather see his point...

 

There is my wail... SIGH ... I'm currently trying to plan out next year.

 

-Nan

[Laura Corin]

For me there are two very successful way of learning languages: complete immersion, and grammar/translation. Both, so long as the latter includes enough oral practice, can lead to fluency. What I think usually doesn't work is a course that attempts to copy immersion but without a proper environment/commitment.

 

I have spoken French fluently (learned by grammar/translation plus occasional short trips overseas) and am still pretty fluent in Mandarin (learned by immersion). My boys are fluent in Mandarin (immersion) and are heading that way in French (grammar/translation with lots of oral practice).

 

Laura

[Embassy]

I think both methods are valuable and necessary to achieve fluency. I think the learning style of the child/adult will also influence how quickly you learn using a specific method.

 

I took Spanish in high school with a grammar and memorization approach. I had quite a bit of exposure to Spanish in my environment previous to that as well. I took one semester of German in college with a teacher who used more of a immersion method, but still incorporated some grammar. I learned so much so quickly. Memorization is not my thing. I also picked up some Korean pretty quickly from friends just from conversation.

[Matryoshka]

For me there are two very successful way of learning languages: complete immersion, and grammar/translation. Both, so long as the latter includes enough oral practice, can lead to fluency. What I think usually doesn't work is a course that attempts to copy immersion but without a proper environment/commitment.

 

:iagree: There, Laura just said in a couple of sentences what it would have taken me half a page to say! :)

 

I think the problem with what people are calling immersion in classrooms is that it isn't. I don't think it's possible to have immersion in a classroom - one can speak the target language 100% of the time, but it isn't immersion - it's hearing a foreign language for a few hours a week. Immersion is hearing it spoken pretty much 24/7, and to do that you either have to be in the country or at the very least live with a fluent speaker (like OPOL). To follow the metaphor, being immersed - head under water - not just dipping your toe, or your leg in the water.

 

Also, I think children before puberty learn very effectively by immersion - especially true immersion - but that adolescents and adults need a much stronger g-t focus (along with oral practice). This is simply a function of the way the brain processes language learning before and after puberty.

 

Of course, even with true immersion, grammar is going to become necessary, just as it would be even if it were your native tongue. (not so sure about translation, though, unless you want to be a translator or interpreter). And virtually no one is going to become fluent conversing in a language through g-t alone - at some point there has to be a strong oral component.

 

I learned German mostly by immersion (ie spending time in Germany), though I did learn grammar, it's not how I learned the language. I was also young - pre-puberty - when I learned the bulk of it. Mostly things just "sound right", like they do in English. I know I mess up adjective declensions regularly, but my accent is excellent and sentence structure very good. One of the reasons I sent my kids to Sat. School, though, is so they could hear native speech with hopefully correct grammar all the time, and have someone else teach the grammar. Although I can speak, understand, and read German just about as easily as I can English, I can have a hard time translating it directly (I just know what it means - I have to find the words in English), and when I'm writing I second-guess myself a lot because in writing I can't slur over case endings and I don't know the genders of many nouns.

 

Spanish I learned first by g-t, but then quickly added some immersion when I spent a summer in Mexico. Even though my Spanish has gotten a bit rustier than my German over the years (I sometimes have to search for words, where the German is just 'there'), I can translate it directly more easily, and have no trouble explaining the grammar, because that's how I learned it. I feel more confident teaching Spanish to my kids myself because of this. But I feel more confident conversing with them in German.

 

I read in both German and Spanish regularly - that's mostly how I keep it up, since I haven't got the time or money to fly about the world right now. I think reading in a lanauges is really important. I'm making sure my kids get lots of time reading in both languages - I agree with whoever said that's what starts really gluing things together, and that's what really increases working vocabulary (even in our native tongue we learn most advanced vocabulary by reading, not conversing).

 

I'm surprised to read that "immersion" is so popular in schools as a teaching method - maybe in elementary when kids are still language sponges, but in high school or college? I thought things were pretty much solidly g-t in high school/colleges... another reason I wouldn't want my kids learning by "immersion" from most high school teachers (non-native speakers) is that if they've learned g-t, their accents are often awful and that kind of defeats the purpose of immersion (and it's not really immersion anyway... :tongue_smilie:) But then the pure g-t approach used by many high schools pumps out kids who have taken 4 years of a language and barely utter a simple greeting. You need grammar, you need to speak.

Edited May 12, 2010 by matroyshka

[jld]

Thanks, everybody.:)

 

Matroyshka, I'm surprised that so many people mention g-t still being used in high school. Honestly, every place I taught (4 different high schools in the Midwest from 1992-1995) was immersion-based. Nothing else was acceptable. Was I just in a pocket?

 

I also want to be clear that I am not telling anybody what they "should" be doing. What other people do in their homeschools is none of my business. I am just saying it may not be a good idea to completely throw away one method, especially one that might be helpful at some point.

 

And I really do need to hear people reiterate how important reading in a foreign language is. Maybe if I hear it enough times, I'll get going on it.:D

[Nan in Mass]

The g-t way of teaching a student to write in a foreign language is to have them write out the excersizes in a language program. I have been trying unsuccessfully to do this with my son for some time now. This week, I finally hit a breaking point and said forget it - I am going to make him do it the same way I do it when I have to write something in French, which is write whatever I need to write, and then look up almost every single word. Over time, I improved enough that I began not to have to look up quite so many words. (This is how I learned to read French, also, after high school French classes, and how I learned to speak French - I just did it and looked up anything I didn't know or didn't remember, which was practically everything at first.) This is exactly what happened when I taught my son to understand French - I tried in bits and pieces and we didn't get anywhere and then finally I gave up and just spoke French to him. Perhaps this is the immersion way of learning to write? I hope it works as well as. He has been exposed to most of the concepts in a French 1 textbook, and some of the ones in a French 2 textbook as well. This is where doing Latin pays off. I gave him a checklist that has things on it like look up all your nouns, make sure their gender and number is correct, and make sure their articles and adjectives match. Maybe this is another example of the advantages of using g-t and immersion in the right places?

-Nan

[Cleopatra]

The g-t way of teaching a student to write in a foreign language is to have them write out the excersizes in a language program. I have been trying unsuccessfully to do this with my son for some time now. This week, I finally hit a breaking point and said forget it - I am going to make him do it the same way I do it when I have to write something in French, which is write whatever I need to write, and then look up almost every single word. Over time, I improved enough that I began not to have to look up quite so many words. (This is how I learned to read French, also, after high school French classes, and how I learned to speak French - I just did it and looked up anything I didn't know or didn't remember, which was practically everything at first.) This is exactly what happened when I taught my son to understand French - I tried in bits and pieces and we didn't get anywhere and then finally I gave up and just spoke French to him. Perhaps this is the immersion way of learning to write? I hope it works as well as. He has been exposed to most of the concepts in a French 1 textbook, and some of the ones in a French 2 textbook as well. This is where doing Latin pays off. I gave him a checklist that has things on it like look up all your nouns, make sure their gender and number is correct, and make sure their articles and adjectives match. Maybe this is another example of the advantages of using g-t and immersion in the right places?

-Nan

 

Very interesting, Nan ................ this thread has got me thinking as well. Do any of you do regular dictation with your dc in the language they're learning? I have a feeling that this might be helpful as well. Any thoughts?

 

The only thing that bothers me about grammar-translation is the translation part. Because of the way I learned, if I want to say something in French, I always have to think of the word in English and translate. Oh, how I long to look at something, say for example, cheese, and "fromage" comes to my mind first, instead of "cheese ..... fromage"! Am I correct, that thinking in a language can only come through immersion or could it come with copious grammar-translation and practice ........????? ...... or does it depend on aptitude to a degree ....???? Hmmmm .........???

[mcconnellboys]

I think learning a language through its grammar is the only way to go, too! (Unless, of course, you have the great benefit of living immersed in that language for some period of time.)

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Am I correct, that thinking in a language can only come through immersion or could it come with copious grammar-translation and practice ........????? ...... or does it depend on aptitude to a degree ....???? Hmmmm .........???

 

Based on my own experience, it only comes through immersion. However, I got it through reading tons of stuff. I never really got any immersion in English, even though I live in a very English part of town. All my activities were in French, I had no English friends. By the time I found myself in an immersion situation, (summer school in London UK) I placed into the highest group already. We read "A Tale of Two Cities" that summer, just to give you an idea of the level. Reading did the trick.

[AHASRADA]

What an interesting thread! I only have my own experience to speak from, but (at least for teens & adults) I have always believed that a base in formal vocabulary & grammar instruction, followed by (or coupled with) true immersion was the best formula for language learning.

 

I didn't realize there was such a schism among teachers regarding teaching philosophies. When I was a student, and later a teacher, in the 90's, I didn't experience anything approaching strict "immersion" or "grammar-translation". We always used a standard textbook, learning conjugation and vocabulary lists, practiced through oral exercises and using as much of the target language in class as possible. At higher levels, we read novels, studied history, etc. in the language.

 

I have learned 3 languages (to different degrees), two through formal instruction and one by immersion. In my case, I am most fluent in the language that I studied for the longest, completed the most formal study in, and have had the most and sustained opportunity to speak.

 

The next language I learned, I studied for 4 years in college, and became rather fluent through formal grammar-based instruction, coupled with extensive use of the language in class and during other activities. Unfortunately, my practice of the language was not sustained after college. I can still understand what I read, and some listening, but can no longer communicate :(.

 

In the last language, learned solely through immersion, but which I practice somewhat regularly, I can understand the vast majority of what is said, I communicate reasonably well and make myself understood. However, I know I make grammar and agreement mistakes (which I don't know how to correct), and will never sound "educated" in that language (because I'm not :)).

 

So, based on this experience, I cannot imagine anyone advocating one approach to the exclusion of the other. You need to know how a language works, how to put it together, and then have experience using that knowledge in a real communication setting.

 

For kids, immersion probably is best, with formal grammar introduced as they are ready for it. My in-laws live in North Africa, and their current private school formula is as follows:

 

- Immersion in 2nd language for pre-school and K

- side-by-side instruction in native and second language (using native lang. materials for both) beginning in Grade 1

- Addition of 3rd language once or twice per week in Grade 3

 

All that to say I agree, exclusive immersion, to the total exclusion of grammar instruction, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Grammar with no opportunity to communicate is also of little use.

 

I look forward to learning more about everyone's experiences.

[Ester Maria]

Sure, when children are small, they learn the best through immersion, being addressed in the foreign language, playing with other kids in the language and similar activities, but a meaningful grammar instruction can begin as early as its equivalent in the native language - naturally, the intensity will differ, and a good teacher will always keep in mind the age and the developmental stage of their students and adjust the ratio of formal instruction and other approaches, but there is really NO REASON that a child would not be taught formal grammar of a foreign language.

 

The approach favored nowadays is actually favored way more due to the laziness and less-than-decent academic preparation of foreign language instructors than anything else. It's certainly a lot easier and "more convenient" for everybody - students included - to do the least meaningful work possible and to emphasize various activities which should normally be fun extras and constitute maybe 10% of the language instruction. However, just because it's widespread, it doesn't mean it's good. Even if you learn to speak the language that way, chances are that you will be missing a lot of nuances that you would have been taught otherwise and that you will come off as somebody "who can speaks decent English, but they hasn't taught me much grammer since they say it was no importent and you needs just know to speak". So, I'm not talking about minor mistakes or things that give away a non-native speaker - they don't matter, but a fundamental illiteracy in the language does matter, and it's very easy to distinguish the two. Somebody who hasn't mastered Italian subjunctives DOES sound approximately the way that sentence sounds to you - I kid you not.

 

Grammar + lots of reading + speaking practice is the way to go in my opinion (and experience). I'm not sure I'd agree with a focus on translation though, since it teaches you to think through your native language too much - but to a point, it is needed.

[Nan in Mass]

I don't think translation is particularly useful in and of itself. It is, however, necessary to be able to say how something says what it says. We usually don't translate our Latin, but we often look at the case endings or the verb endings in order to understand the nuances (well - sometimes they are pretty important nuances LOL - nuances isn't the right word). And I resort to translation fairly often in order to get some sense of how well my son is understanding. It isn't very accurate, since he understand much more than he can translate, but it is sometimes more accurate than asking a tired, bored 15yo if he understood.

 

-Nan