teaching grammar.. english or spanish?

[Suzanne M]

We are american's living in Costa Rica. We've been here for a bit over a year now but only been around other ticos for about 6 months. The girls are not fluent in spanish yet but can carry on good conversations and understand most everything that is said to them.

 

We are developing a self sustaining farm here so our long term plan is to stay in this country. My question.. which do I focus on more? Teaching them language arts in spanish or english? Both? I couldn't teach spanish language arts well as my kiddos are more fluent than I am but I'm sure I could get a good workbook system. I'm just trying to think long term and they will most likely grow up in this country so it will not help them to know all of the rules of english grammar and grow up in a spanish speaking country. But I want them to do well in english as well in case they want to move back to the states to attend college, etc..

 

Anyway.. any input?

 

I'd appreciate a good spanish language arts and spanish spelling curriculum suggestion as well.

[Ester Maria]

Both.

A native language is a native language - a solid literacy in a native language should NEVER be educationally compromised, in my view. On the other hand, realistically, if their society will be a Spanish-speaking one, they need an equivalent education of the one of their culture. Thus, your only real option is to teach both - not necessarily both at the same time (much of the LA content in the early years basically overlaps, no need to teach twice what is a subject and what is an object), but ultimately to teach both languages and both sets of literature (i.e. at some point to reach a full LA / Literature class in both languages).

 

If you are not fluent, I would consider hiring a language professor to work on the Spanish grammar with them for a few years in middle / high school - while you should, from the beginning, teach them English LA.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Many many English speakers never learn English grammar, and still they can talk and write properly.

You can't do that in Spanish though. You need actual grammar to be able to master the language, even for native speakers.

 

I've dealt with French/English and from my own experience, the kids didn't need much English grammar at all. A couple of pointers, and that's it. They are good spellers and write well.

 

But really, you can't go wrong. Grammar is needed, in at least one language. It provides a base for all other languages to hang onto.

Edited December 30, 2011 by CleoQc

[Ester Maria]

Many many English speakers never learn English grammar, and still they can talk and write properly.

You can't do that in Spanish though. You need actual grammar to be able to master the language, even for native speakers.

Why do you think that English can be spoken and written properly by a native speaker without some level of active linguistic awareness of how their language works, while Spanish cannot? :confused: I mean, either you hold a view that a native speaker does not need any formal grammar instruction by the virtue of being a native speaker, either you do not - but why would you hold it for one language and not for the other?

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

but why would you hold it for one language and not for the other?

 

Languages vary in their complexity grammar-wise. One needs grammar knowledge regardless of the language. It would be unfair to 'educate' someone with no grammar base at all. Yet I've seen it happen with English speakers - not that I condone it. Those English speakers have tons of problems when they decide to learn a second language as adults because they simply do not have the tools. One must have grammar knowledge, regardless of which language it's been taught in. Grammar concepts are very important to know.

 

Maybe it's because my background is in French. You simply cannot write French properly without a good grammar. French spelling depends on grammar, English spelling doesn't (for the most part). 'bleu', 'bleue', 'bleus' and 'bleues' are all valid spelling of the adjective you need to say 'blue'. And they all sound the same too. Which spelling to choose is based on grammar. There's only one valid spelling in English and grammar doesn't influence it.

So a French speaker has to learn about verbs and adjectives, and sentence constructions, most of which is transferable to English, with little changes. It's much easier to learn grammar when it has a visible effect on the spelling in a sentence.

 

As a French speaker, I was subjected to at least 9 years of grammar courses in school, and only one year in English. Once we were grounded in French grammar, we needed one year to see the differences between the two languages - yes, there are differences, mostly in punctuation and verb tense agreements. Once you have a good base in grammar - regardless of the language it's in, you're more than halfway there for other languages.

 

My daughter is learning Mandarin, a definitely not Latin based language. She uses her French grammar knowledge to learn Mandarin grammar, anyway. I have no clue if the same can be said for Hebrew.

 

As for the OP, I suggested Spanish grammar first instead of English grammar, simply because it's easier to grasp those concepts. When I look at English grammar books meant for English speaking kids, I pity those kids. The concepts are so strange when explained through the English language. Words can become nouns, adjectives or verbs, making it really hard to identify what's what. In Spanish or French, it's set in stone. Verbs are conjugated, adjectives must match the modified noun in gender and number. It's clear cut, and easy to grasp. While there are more rules to learn, the concepts are just easier to grasp.

[Ester Maria]

You simply cannot write French properly without a good grammar. French spelling depends on grammar, English spelling doesn't (for the most part). 'bleu', 'bleue', 'bleus' and 'bleues' are all valid spelling of the adjective you need to say 'blue'. And they all sound the same too. Which spelling to choose is based on grammar. There's only one valid spelling in English and grammar doesn't influence it.

I agree, quantity-wise, there are more such things in French than in English (although English is not entirely deprived of it either - think they're / their / there, or you're / your, or affect / effect, or Americans / American's / Americans', etc. - all of these are grammar-based choices too).

As a French speaker, I was subjected to at least 9 years of grammar courses in school, and only one year in English.

But that was because, I presume, French was your language of education, unlike English, rather than because French is inherently more difficult than English (even if we were to agree about that point). You had all those years of French grammar because any good education includes a thorough education in mother tongue. Likewise, people who learn French as a foreign language are capable of squeezing all of that grammar in about a year or a few, depending on their mother tongue (obviously, the amount of nuances covered differs vastly, but as far as technicalities are concerned, all of the grammar is covered).

I have no clue if the same can be said for Hebrew.

To an extent, yes - although if one wishes to learn Semitic languages well, at some point they have to divorce their inner logic from the kind of logic which rules Indo-European languages. Hebrew is largely based on some grammatical principles and constructions which do not exist in the other languages I know (e.g. possession being marked in the word itself, the patterns of vowel changes within the word with the root being the same, what are called Hebrew "tenses" does not strictly correspond to the notion of tense in other languages I know, etc.). While the essence of those constructions can be grasped via comparisons with how other grammars work, I find that to ultimately really get it, you just have to accept it is different from what you know, not necessarily a loose equivalent of something you know.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

..(although English is not entirely deprived of it either - think they're / their / there, or you're / your, or affect / effect, or Americans / American's / Americans', etc. - all of these are grammar-based choices too).

But those do not need grammar to be explained. you're and your, for example, do not pose any problem whatsoever when you know another language well enough, because they don't translate the same way at all. So the idea behind you're and your are so vastly different to a bilingual person as not to pose any problem in English. Beyond a 2 minutes explanation, no more work was done on those 'tricky concepts' because they're not tricky to a bilingual person. Same for they're/their/there and all others. Really, my kids' English books for native speakers spent pages on those concepts, year after year, and it was not needed at all. (I'm talking grades 1 - 5)

 

But that was because, I presume, French was your language of education, unlike English, rather than because French is inherently more difficult than English (even if we were to agree about that point). You had all those years of French grammar because any good education includes a thorough education in mother tongue. Likewise, people who learn French as a foreign language are capable of squeezing all of that grammar in about a year or a few, depending on their mother tongue (obviously, the amount of nuances covered differs vastly, but as far as technicalities are concerned, all of the grammar is covered).

 

If I look at what's done in English schools in my area, where French is expected to be mastered, they do all the grammar in French, not in English, even though they're English speaking kids (French kids are not allowed to attend English schools, so they're really English native kids). In fact, they learn to read in French first, learn grammar in French, etc... Then they spend one or two years in elementary school (grades 5 and 6) reviewing grammar in English language class. They start reading in English in grade 3, btw.

 

Based on my experience of foreign language learning curriculum meant for English natives - we tried quite a few, learning a foreign language seems to be very painful. First, English natives have to learn what it means to conjugate a verb. The simple idea that 'I go' and 'you go' require more changes than just I->you is apparently a very difficult concept to grasp because chapters will be devoted to just the concept, followed by chapters where actual conjugation is learned. How many times have I heard English tourists say things like "je venir" instead of "je viens" ... If cometranslates to venir , how come I come translates to je viens? And those tourists claim to have done 2 years if not more of French in high school. They haven't even got the concept of verb conjugation.

 

Then adjectives having to match the noun in gender and number is also another hard concept. Add in the fact that adjectives may go before or after the noun, *and* will change meaning if they do ( un grand homme is not the same as un homme grand) and English natives are clearly at a disadvantage. Eventually, you'll get to more advanced concepts like the subjunctive mode which barely exists in the English language but is used intensely in Spanish and Latin.

 

I've compared Spanish material meant for English natives, to Spanish material meant for French natives. We've used both. And French kids get further in Spanish grammar in a year than English kids do, for the same grade level. (grades 7-8 material). In one year, French kids will learn all Spanish tenses in all modes, including most exceptions. No time is spent on adjectives matching nouns. If you look at lower grades, the difference is even wider.

 

 

While the essence of those constructions can be grasped via comparisons with how other grammars work, I find that to ultimately really get it, you just have to accept it is different from what you know, not necessarily a loose equivalent of something you know.

 

I know zilch about Hebrew, I'm limited to my knowledge of Mandarin, Russian, and Greek - and that knowledge is very minimal! Mandarin is the most foreign, so I'll stick with that. I found that it's more important to have a grammar concept and see it apply in a very different way, than to simply not have the concept at all. So yes, possession might be expressed in a very different form, it's still the concept of possession.

[Suzanne M]

Thanks for the help. :) I'll start looking for a good spanish grammar program.

 

We've found learning hebrew to be a bit easier with our knowledge of spanish. The words have a similar pronunciation (at least more so than english and hebrew) and having a concept of the male/ femail words has helped as well.

[Ester Maria]

But those do not need grammar to be explained. you're and your, for example, do not pose any problem whatsoever when you know another language well enough, because they don't translate the same way at all.

I agree, but the opposite holds true too - a person who knows English truly well (if we ignore the fact that these are a rarity nowadays), who knows what their language is morphologically made out of and how that connects syntactically, does not have huge problems in learning foreign languages. They simply accept the fact that other languages are more morphologically burdened than English, that you have several inflected forms for what is in English the same form. It is not that difficult to accept - "go" also turns into "goes" and into "went" and into "going" and into "gone", it is simply a matter of degree. French has marked many distinctions which are for an English speaker purely in their head, but the concept of an inflected form is not entirely absent from English. The same can be said even about nominal inflection - the English possessive ('s) is essentially the old Germanic genitive, some English speakers still retain the distinction between nominative and accusative who (who vs. whom), "I" turns into "me" in some cases, "She likes him better than me." and "She likes him better than I." are not the same sentence semantically, etc. I am not trying to argue that these things are not a lot more *obvious* in French - French is a more grammatically explicit language, while English is essentially a language of subtleties where syntax makes up for the lack of morphology many times - but I do argue that if one had a thorough education in English of the kind you had in French (and not of the "modern pedagogy" kind that you may have witnessed in your children's textbooks - I ditched those too when my kids were little), they would probably not have significant difficulties with foreign languages.

If I look at what's done in English schools in my area, where French is expected to be mastered, they do all the grammar in French, not in English, even though they're English speaking kids

This is a choice that regards pedagogy, it is not impossible to set things up differently. Unfortunately, the English-language educators are the ones that have the craziest education ideas in general (not only in the field of language instruction), so as a result of that, many English-language curricula and pedagogical approaches are a lot more fuzzy than a more traditional approach in French, German, etc. schools. So, I can imagine that one would not learn English well because the leading pedagogy of learning English is grammar-less, intuition-based, lacking precision and distinction, taking three years to learn to read, etc., but at the same time that one would learn French well even as a foreign language because the French educational pedagogy is different - it is sad, in my view, that children experience a better quality instruction in their second language than in their first, but that is what it is, I guess. In international schools in Italy, if they follow the Italian curriculum for Italian, you also get this paradox of a more thorough Italian education than English education, but that has nothing to do with the language itself, but with pedagogy and approach chosen. The Anglos are quite notorious abroad for their "creative" pedagogical approaches (from learning to read by "guessing" rather than by sounding out the word, to Everyday Math, LOL) which in practice result in lack of competences. My point is simply that it does not *have* to be that way - it is not in the *language*, it is in the *approach*.

Add in the fact that adjectives may go before or after the noun, *and* will change meaning if they do ( un grand homme is not the same as un homme grand) and English natives are clearly at a disadvantage. Eventually, you'll get to more advanced concepts like the subjunctive mode which barely exists in the English language but is used intensely in Spanish and Latin.

I agree with these examples - plus subjunctive is often told to be the ultimate test. Sort of, if you can handle the subjunctive of the pluperfect - then maybe you may be granted that you can speak a Romance language. :D

I've compared Spanish material meant for English natives, to Spanish material meant for French natives. We've used both. And French kids get further in Spanish grammar in a year than English kids do, for the same grade level. (grades 7-8 material). In one year, French kids will learn all Spanish tenses in all modes, including most exceptions. No time is spent on adjectives matching nouns. If you look at lower grades, the difference is even wider.

I agree with this, but it is a bit of an unfair comparison. It is like marveling at my daughter's success in French (She has been studying French for a year and a half and she is reading Racine in her free time and off to a French-speaking school in a few weeks?!) - you can only marvel until I tell you that she is a native Italian speaker (so, something like an 80% "discount" on the matters of vocabulary and grammar), that she had overheard an insane amount of French in her life due to travel / family abroad / etc., all of which is a kind of a leg up that most other kids do not have. So, of course that French kids, with the "discount" they get at Spanish, will fare better. It would be more adequate to compare Mandarin, Hebrew, etc. curricula, and even there you would have a question of how much of the differences are pedagogy (since the Anglos tend to be "creative" rather than do things systematically, tend to assume zero knowledge in the topic, etc.), and how much of the differences are strictly language-based.

 

Adjectives matching nouns can be taught in five minutes even to English-speaking kids, provided they are grammatically literate in their own language. You simply explain that these things are morphologically bound in some languages, not so in others, that the distinction exists in English too, but only semantically, i.e. it is not marked in the word structure. It is the lack of the grammatical literacy in English that is causing problems there - the fact that you typically have to start with them on WHAT is an adjective, WHAT does "marked" mean, WHAT is a morphological distinction and what is a merely semantic distinction, etc. - not English itself.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Ester Maria,

 

I think I see where we differ. I am talking about teaching grammar to young kids who are not well grounded in grammar to start with. You are talking about teaching a foreign language to people who are already well grounded in grammar (presumably adults, or teens).

 

Foreign languages are just easier if your grammar base is good, we both agree on that. It's possible to get a good base, regardless of which language you learn it in. Each language will have weak points and strong points. I personally believe English has a lot of weak points compared to other romance languages, but nothing impossible to overcome. It's

 

Where we seem to disagree is how to get that grammar base. It's just easier to learn in a language where grammar actually makes a difference than in one where it's just pure theoretical concept. It's hard to explain to a *child* what an adjective is, when it has no impact on that child's body of knowledge. In French, and in Spanish, it's readily visible. Grammar rules for adjectives are not the same as for nouns. Grammar rules for verbs are different, so identifying a verb in a sentence is trivial. This makes the learning of the concept easier.

[Ester Maria]

Where we seem to disagree is how to get that grammar base. It's just easier to learn in a language where grammar actually makes a difference than in one where it's just pure theoretical concept. It's hard to explain to a *child* what an adjective is, when it has no impact on that child's body of knowledge. In French, and in Spanish, it's readily visible. Grammar rules for adjectives are not the same as for nouns. Grammar rules for verbs are different, so identifying a verb in a sentence is trivial. This makes the learning of the concept easier.

We agree. :001_smile:

 

I am just partial to native language (I think children should be first and foremost literate in their native language and language of education), so I tend to think that, unless the child is a bilingual and bilingually educated (in such a case, it really is a matter of personal preference on which language you are going to teach those concepts), and unless the teacher can cope with both (from what I gather, the OP is not really proficient in Spanish - maybe reasonably fluent for practical matters?), provided they do not outsource this particular area, that the native language should be preferred.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Unfortunately, the English-language educators are the ones that have the craziest education ideas in general (not only in the field of language instruction),

 

Let's find something else to disagree on ;-)

I'm not entirely sure this is true. Admittedly I have more exposure to French-language educators, and they have crazy ideas too. I have yet to encounter a crazy education thingy in English that I haven't met already in French. Whole-language is used in both to the same degree of success, everyday math is also in French. I don't know in which language it originated, but I was exposed to these ideas in French first. So, to me, it looks like English educators are copying the French weird ideas. Our education system here got completely revamped (it's called la Reforme) with a capital R. :lol:

Kids are no longer evaluated on what they know, but on what they can do. Can they do an oral presentation including powerpoint slides, jokes to keep the audience awake, etc..? They get full marks. Do they know *what* they're talking about? that's not worth any marks. All appeareances no substance. Talk about crazy ideas.

[cathmom]

 

Adjectives matching nouns can be taught in five minutes even to English-speaking kids, provided they are grammatically literate in their own language. You simply explain that these things are morphologically bound in some languages, not so in others, that the distinction exists in English too, but only semantically, i.e. it is not marked in the word structure. It is the lack of the grammatical literacy in English that is causing problems there - the fact that you typically have to start with them on WHAT is an adjective, WHAT does "marked" mean, WHAT is a morphological distinction and what is a merely semantic distinction, etc. - not English itself.

 

 

Right, five minutes, and then they always do it correctly.

 

:)

 

Or maybe not.

 

It's a simple idea, but a totally alien one for the English-speaking kids I teach (who do know what an adjective is). The idea that one would change the adjective just to match the noun is odd. They have trouble grasping it. And then, even when they understand it, they have trouble remembering to do it.

[Ester Maria]

Right, five minutes, and then they always do it correctly.

 

:)

 

Or maybe not.

 

It's a simple idea, but a totally alien one for the English-speaking kids I teach (who do know what an adjective is). The idea that one would change the adjective just to match the noun is odd. They have trouble grasping it. And then, even when they understand it, they have trouble remembering to do it.

I did not say they would always do it correctly - it does take practice to internalize and "automatize" something, to make it become a habit - but conceptually, if they are grammatically literate, you can explain it quickly.

 

It is like asking why do you attach possessives to the nouns in Semitic languages, or why do they have distinct verbal forms for male and female, why do some other languages decline words rather than using prepositions to express the same meaning, why some languages have only definite articles (and some other have none at all), etc. It may not be obvious or logical why a different language works in a different way, why some languages are more morphologically burdened. It does not even have to be "understood" at this level (to understand it, you need historical and comparative linguistics, the "why" of it is just too complex for non-specialist classes) - it only has to be accepted and integrated into one's speech and writing. "Remembering" do it is a matter of practice and how deeply the habit has been internalized, so beginners will have more difficulties because they had simply not spent the amount of time, whether in active or passive use of the language, that the advanced learners and proficient users have spent.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

"Remembering" do it is a matter of practice and how deeply the habit has been internalized, so beginners will have more difficulties because they had simply not spent the amount of time, whether in active or passive use of the language, that the advanced learners and proficient users have spent.

 

And this brings us back to my starting point. Since English grammar is intrinsically simpler to learn, start grammar studies in the most complex language that the child is comfortable with. (at a child level, of course). That way, more complex habits will be internalized right from the start, like adjectives matching nouns, verbs being conjugated, etc... You'll save lots of teeth gnashing in the long run.

And that's why French kids have a head start with Spanish, or even Latin, because the habit is already there. The how to match the adjective (adding a 'a' instead of an 'e' for feminine) is trivial to learn.

[Ester Maria]

And this brings us back to my starting point. Since English grammar is intrinsically simpler to learn, start grammar studies in the most complex language that the child is comfortable with. (at a child level, of course). That way, more complex habits will be internalized right from the start, like adjectives matching nouns, verbs being conjugated, etc... You'll save lots of teeth gnashing in the long run.

And that's why French kids have a head start with Spanish, or even Latin, because the habit is already there. The how to match the adjective (adding a 'a' instead of an 'e' for feminine) is trivial to learn.

True, but I still hold that one has a reasonable choice only if the child is bilingual / bilingually educated. :D

In the vast majority of other and not so clear-cut cases, I think the grammar should be demonstrated for the first time on one's native language, well-internalized system, even if that language is a less favorable one, because it makes little sense for me to acquire the first grammatical notions first in a foreign language, or a language one is not being educated in.

Kids are no longer evaluated on what they know, but on what they can do. Can they do an oral presentation including powerpoint slides, jokes to keep the audience awake, etc..? They get full marks. Do they know *what* they're talking about? that's not worth any marks. All appeareances no substance. Talk about crazy ideas.

These things are rampant all over the Western world nowadays, but I still get caught off guard how many of them seem to be more or less "made in the USA".

Ironically, some of the best educational materials I have encountered were American as well (but typically mathematical / scientific, with a problem-based approach), but that seems to be one of the inherent contradictions of the English-speaking world: in my eyes, they seem to have HUGE oscillations, to combine the very best innovations with the very most harmful one. In Europe (minus the UK, perhaps), there seems to be more of a balanced ground - so, true, you are extremely unlikely to find something like AoPS, but you are also extremely unlikely to find something like Everyday Math. Europeans (I am generalizing, of course) are maybe too much of traditionalists to accept some good innovations, as they tend to be careful about fundamental changes in how the content is fleshed out and what methodological approaches are used, but on the other hand, it is exactly due to being stuck up traditionalists (:D) that they are far less likely to give up teaching standard algorithms, teach elementary math relying on calculators, teach to read based on elaborate guessing or teach foreign languages by largely ignoring formal grammar.

 

I actually see a direct correlation between the educational "americanization" (on all levels of education, including tertiary) and lowered standards, focus on appearance rather than content, etc. YMMV, though. But I do see a huge shift towards more "creative" education in Europe, while some of the best American educators seem to be going right back to "traditional" education, because they figured out it went to the extreme end.

[Joan in GE]

I'll just jump in here as a native English speaker who was teaching/trying to teach French grammar to my children.....

 

I think you can teach the easy things in English - noun, verb, adjective, etc., well, as much as you can in English, and the things that only apply in the foreign language in the foreign language. :001_smile:

 

To do "all grammar" in the other language, I agree with Ester Maria in that the child should be bilingual AND would add that the mom/teacher should be bilingual or a native speaker.

 

BUT - I would say to take a tutor on after the child is speaking the foreign language fairly fluently, which depends on exposure, but at least by around 4 or 5th grade. They wouldn't be learning such complex grammar beforehand and the parent can introduce gender concepts, simple foreign grammar, etc.

 

My rational is this.........yes, I could read and teach from the French grammar books with their corrections. But in the last 6 years of 20 that we've had a tutor who has given them grammar that I cannot. Even though I'd had a fair amount of French grammar (2 years high school, 2 years college - all old school where you learn grammar rather than speech- + au pair time with French classes after that, then French classes here, I'm still only at B2/C1 level now and so was even lower before), I tended to be uncertain about more complicated grammar. So unless the teacher/mom has such an aptitude for foreign grammar that they can learn and use it all correctly beforehand (in which case they would then be 'bilingual' after all.) they are bound to also be teaching mistakes along the way. There will be a hesitation that might be passed on to the child. So I would recommend using a tutor of the native language, who can drill those parts of foreign grammar in an efficient and correct manner.

 

It didn't help matters that Swiss French speakers use different terms than the French (from France) - yes, they have now published an Atelier du language, Hatier - Swiss Romande version. And they have changed terms over the years as well. So reference books from France weren't accurate and led to confusion as well as Swiss workbooks from different years having different terms. I don't know if there is anything like that in Spanish grammar studies? (ie labeling in grammar)

 

Rod and Staff grammar books are really thorough and have brought me to a higher level of English grammar than I had leaving high school (as I study with my children). If you have a really good English grammar course, it will be helpful and more advanced at lower levels for more English complexities.

 

Unhappily for other language speakers, English is ending up being the most international language; so being most fluent in it, is probably best in the long run if your child has any international kind of tendencies, family links, career aspirations, etc.

 

Joan

[farouk]

There is nothing like being in country to get fluency and youngsters learn really fast.

 

Just bear in mind that Spanish and English grammar is rather different, and local Spanish teaching methods may be rather different from ways languages might be taught in North America and northern Europe. So there are a lot of issues there, some related, some distinct.

[Xilka]

We are also in Central America and homeschool in both languages.

But, I put a lot more emphasis on English language arts because spelling is a lot more difficult in English, and there are many more resources in English.

 

We do English grammar three times a week. For Spanish, it's mostly reading (in various subjects) and creative writing, and some spelling.

 

Your daughter will be surrounded by Spanish in Costa Rica, I'd worry more about the English. It's a lot more difficult to transfer from English to Spanish than it is from Spanish to English.

[La Texican]

http://classicalacademicpress.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=7&zenid=5aa5a1d6a866ea0032710c3bc2817ba1

 

I bought this bundle. It's American elementary Spanish grammar at an elementary school level. $100, low budget production. Excellent content and delivery.