I wrote already about Princeton's potential new language policy, but the New York Times posted a "debate" a couple days ago on the subject, with three opinion pieces written by high schoolers. The misconceptions in the essays themselves are understandable, given the age of the authors, but some of the opinions in the comments section also evidenced some misunderstanding of the process of language learning and the reality of language teaching. I've divided my reactions into multiple parts.
A lot of comments boiled down to the idea that language learning is difficult, either lamenting or lauding that quality and recommending mandatory language requirements accordingly. Against: Multiple posts were from people who failed language classes multiple times (often French, oddly enough), including one who dropped out of college for not being able to fulfill the foreign language requirement of being an English major. Maybe these individuals could’ve tried a different language with different characteristics (more transparent spelling than French, fewer conjugations than Spanish, no case markings like German or Russian). Or maybe they were victims of suboptimal teaching strategies that provided more analysis in English than input in the L2 or rote dialogue and conjugation practice than meaningful communication. In favor: “Study of both phonetics and indo-european linguistics can be a great help getting started" A dubious recommendation about how to introduce languages, promoting practices that would make language learning harder and less accessible. I can’t think of a better way to turn the average person off studying a language than to begin by studying its rules, with the intention of eventually learning to communicate. Haven’t we been doing just that for so long, to end up with students who lament that all they remember how to say after years of study is “¿Dónde está el baño?” For the larger segment of the population for whom linguistics and grammar are not innately interesting, the more effective order would be the reverse—learn to communicate, then study the rules to refine that communication or just for general interest (as we do w/the L1—we don’t teach toddlers grammar; we communicate with them and then eventually 10-12 years down the road they learn some of the rules in school and either internalize them if they are so inclined, or don’t). “Proficiency in a second (or third) language is beside the point. The actual learning process enforces a discipline that incorporates several facets of adult education - logical thinking, memorization, multimedia exposure (video, audio, in-person interaction, etc). Learning a language creates good study and education habits” “The phrase "rote memorization" is way over used in criticism of education but it very much applies to learning a foreign language. To learn one well takes vast hours of memorizing grammatical constructs and vocabulary. Understanding the rules is not enough. You need to repeat these things over and over in your brain until they become automatic. Whenever someone says "I just picked it up" I know they are either lying or don't speak the foreign language very well.” Again, indicative of a suboptimal model of language learning, given that it’s a skill and not a content. Any content provides practice of study and education habits. Language is a unique subject, and though it has historically been taught through memorization and logical application of rules, that doesn’t mean it has to be or should be. We ought instead to recognize the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 acquisition, taking advantage of both in their own ways.
0 Comments
I wrote already about Princeton's potential new language policy, but the New York Times posted a "debate" a couple days ago on the subject, with three opinion pieces written by high schoolers. The misconceptions in the essays themselves are understandable, given the age of the authors, but some of the opinions in the comments section also evidenced some misunderstanding of the process of language learning and the reality of language teaching. I've divided my reactions into multiple parts.
One quote from the comments section almost pains me to protest, but it's a popular overgeneralization of research (which is a gap my own research seeks to help fill), so I feel compelled. "There are so many ancillary benefits to learning a language that it's hard to justify not making it mandatory. Learning a foreign language benefits brain heath by increasing one's 'cognitive reserve'." With the mention of ‘cognitive reserve,' the commenter is likely referencing the infamous Alzheimer’s studies (Bialystok et al. 2007; Craik et al. 2010), which are popularly misconstrued as indicating that bilingualism prevents Alzheimer’s Disease. The actual results (which I take pains to make sure my students in Bilingualism can articulate properly) indicate a delay in the onset of recognizable symptoms of AD, w/o any corresponding decrease in the damage to the brain. Therefore, bilingualism seems to allow the brain to compensate for the damage done by the disease longer. But key here are facts about the population: they were lifelong bilinguals, immersed in their L2, highly proficient in both languages and using both regularly. These studies say nothing about the effects of formally “learning” a foreign language, after adolescence, and especially not just for a period of a couple years. "Studies have shown that people who speak more than one language are generally more adept at finding solutions that demand looking at problems from multiple perspectives." Same as above—I’m not sure what “studies” are being referred to here, but the population is important, and the characteristics of early/heritage bilinguals who regularly speak multiple languages cannot be assumed to generalize to formal late second language learners. I wrote already about Princeton's potential new language policy, but the New York Times posted a "debate" a couple days ago on the subject, with three opinion pieces written by high schoolers. The misconceptions in the essays themselves are understandable, given the age of the authors, but some of the opinions in the comments section also evidenced some misunderstanding of the process of language learning and the reality of language teaching. I've divided my reactions into multiple parts.
From Opinion 2: This essay makes the confusing claim that because not everyone is interested in studying a language, it should not be mandatory in college. But it should be mandatory from K-12. But then optional in college. The idea that language exposure should start in middle or elementary school was echoed in a lot of comments. While a valid suggestion, it demonstrates some naiveté regarding the realities of language education. Unless it's an immersion school, how that is implemented is to give students maybe 15 minutes of "instruction" a couple times a week, which of course is ludicrous. This results in parents who say "my child has been studying Spanish for years, why can't she speak Spanish yet?" while completely ignoring that the cumulative hours of exposure over the course of those years might be less than a single semester and entirely lacking in the continuity and consistency that study of anything (including and perhaps especially language) requires. I am fully in support of bilingual and dual immersion education, but we have a long way to go before we're ready on a nationwide scale to implement early foreign language in an effective way. I wrote already about Princeton's potential new language policy, but the New York Times posted a "debate" a couple days ago on the subject, with three opinion pieces written by high schoolers. The misconceptions in the essays themselves are understandable, given the age of the authors, but some of the opinions in the comments section also evidenced some misunderstanding of the process of language learning and the reality of language teaching. I've divided my reactions into multiple parts.
From Opinion 1 A foreign language requirement "assumes that the same process of learning new “languages” and ways of thinking can’t be accessed by simply studying a different discipline" Yes, it does in some sense assume that, and probably correctly. As much as we try to find analogies for language learning (learning to play an instrument, riding a bike, etc.), there is no other skill as complex that is learned in the same way as language, at least if we're thinking about the L1. It's true that the L2 learning process is different, distinctions that are often compounded by the way L2s are taught. But that doesn't change that language is a skill, not a content, until the point at which content can be taught via the language. A foreign language requirement assumes "students will learn a language well enough to actually experience a culture. My own experience suggests that this isn’t the case" ... "The level that high school students reach even after years in a foreign language course can make real fluency seem unattainable." This complaint was echoed in a lot of the comments as well. True that years of high school and/or 2-3 semesters of a language don't often result in satisfactory proficiency, but part of that might be attributed to how languages still tend to be taught, especially at the secondary level (English descriptions of L2 grammar rules). It could also be an indicator in support of increasing the requirement, not eliminating it. The author of Opinion 1 grew up in Poland and now attends an International school in Laos and appears to be at least trilingual. To say that language study is best left to experiential immersion comes from a place of profound priviledge that she does not seem to recognize. Formal language study is the only option for the vast majority of students, and if left only to those with the money to travel or inclination and opportunity to pursue international careers, multilingualism becomes even more of an elite status marker than it already is in the U.S., which is exactly the wrong direction. |
AuthorThis is a place where I record thoughts on second language research and pedagogical theory Archives
June 2019
Categories |