Robert got error messages when trying to post this reply about the 10,000 hour discussion. Here it is as a post. It is long but, as with everything from Robert, definitely worth the read:
#1 – Ben has mentioned a couple of times that someone has estimated 10,000 hours are necessary for mastery of anything. But as he says, trying to quantify acquisition is dicey. It’s sort of like the brouhaha on the moretprs list about “70 repetitions” – something that was intended to represent “you need a lot more repetitions than the typical teacher gives” and got taken as a “magic number”.
2. What are those people in North Carolina smoking these days? It certainly isn’t what RJ Reynolds has traditionally grown there. The only group I know of that has done any serious look at the amount of time on task involved in learning (and I use the term deliberately) a language is the Foreign Service Institute (formerly Defense Language Institute) in Monterey, CA. They determined that it takes an average of x number of hours for their students to learn specific languages, depending on the similarity of that language to English. The number of hours is different for each category of language.
To reach “General Professional Proficiency” in Speaking and Reading on the Language Learning Continuum (“Superior-low” on the ACTFL guideline), the FSI reports the following <b>class hours</b> for each category: 1 – 575-600 hours (French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish) 2 – 750 hours (German) 3 – 900 hours (Indonesian, Malaysian, Swahili) 4 – 1100 hours (Greek, Hebrew, Polish, Serbian, Turkish, Vietnamese) 5 – 2200 hours (Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Japanese, Korean) My list is not exhaustive. Cherokee has no quantitative analysis because it is not taught at the FSI. Even within categories, some languages are more difficult for English speakers than others. Here’s the URL of a website that lists all of the FSI languages: http://www.effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-guide/language-difficulty
Based on just the information above, how can North Carolina contend that 300 hours will get someone taking Arabic to the same level of proficiency as someone taking Spanish?
But wait, there’s more. Those numbers are based on <b>class hours</b>, not exposure to language. The FSI program calls for three to four hours <i>per day</i> of directed self-study. The schedule of classes calls for 25 hours of class each week, plus self-study. In other words, this is all they do for the time they are there. Now let’s do the math: Category 1: 1020 hours to General Professional Proficiency (600 class hours @ 25 hours per week = 24 weeks of instruction) (24 weeks x 5 days x 3.5 hours per day = 420 hours of self study) (600 + 420 = 1020) Category 2: 1275 hours to GPP Category 3: 1870 hours to GPP Category 4: 2740 hours to GPP How do those North Carolina numbers look now?
It becomes increasingly difficult to move from one proficiency level to the next. To go from 0 to Novice Low requires less than to move from Novice Low to Novice Mid, and that requires less than the movement form Novice Mid to Novice High. Yet, if even if we assume that progress is linear, four years of instruction will get a student only to Intermediate Low/Mid in the best of circumstances, and then only for Category 1 languages.
But wait, there’s more. The North Carolina numbers assume bell-to-bell Comprehensible Input instruction. They blithely quote the number of “instructional minutes” provided each year. But that means a. the teacher must use the target language 100% of the time b. no instructional time is lost to testing c. the student is never absent d. there are no interruptions e. no instructional time is lost to school business (including fire drills, announcements, etc.) Does this sound like any public school you know?
But wait, there’s more. The FSI bases its numbers on its students. So let’s see who their students are. As the Draft of the CA Standards noted, “It must be kept in mind that students at FSI are almost 40 years old, native speakers of English, and have a good aptitude for formal language study, plus knowledge of several other foreign languages. They study in small classes of no more than six. Their schedule calls for 25 hours of class per week with three to four hours per day of directed self study.” So here is the baseline student: -mature (“almost 40 years old”) -specially selected for aptitude -already knows at least one foreign language -in a small class (no more than six) -with no other academic work -motivated (not specifically listed, but anyone who knows FSI knows that the students who see the course through are motivated; jobs are on the line. I know of a student who became ill during the course of study and missed 3-5 days of class; he was booted from the program and lost a posting to an embassy because of it.) Sound like any high school students you know?
But wait, there’s more. To be classified Novice High, for example, according to ACTFL a student must <b>maintain</b> all of the descriptors for that level, not just be able to hit them briefly, and also be able to perform some of the tasks of the next level. I doubt seriously that North Carolina is defining students at each level the same way.
In your specific case, it looks like the 150 hours is a realistic estimate – if you are able to stay in the target language with Comprehensible Input at least 95% of the time. And I would say that most likely enable most students to have fulfilled the descriptors of Novice Low and be working on Novice Mid. (They are certainly not Novice Mid by the ACTFL definition – they can’t maintain all of the proficiencies described for the level.) However, you have to factor in other things. Until something is firmly set in the long-term memory (or acquired), lack of use allows it to slip away. This is one reason summers are so devastating to traditional programs. Students forget over the summer because everything is still in short-term memory.
#3. I really don’t know about this one. If a lot of the real work of acquisition is done by the unconscious mind, e.g. during sleep, then that assimilation time may be good. My gut feeling is that it is better than a semester and a summer off between classes.
#4. No, I don’t think the expectations are realistic. I don’t think any state has truly realistic expectations. Most base their expectations on false models. I had heard for years that it too “600 hours to fluency”. That’s wrong on numerous counts. First, “fluency” is not defined here. If they mean full native fluency, not even FSI claims that for their students. Beyond General Professional Proficiency on their scale are General Professional Proficiency Plus, Advanced Professional Proficiency and Advanced Professional Proficiency Plus, before arriving at Functionally Native Proficiency. (Those all fall under ACTFL’s “Superior” and “Distinguished” ratings.) Second, the 600 hours are a false number as I showed above. Third, our students do not meet the baseline on which the numbers are based. There are other reasons as well.
Jason Fritze has told me on more than one occasion that we are fortunate if we get students to be fully Novice High by the end of four years of instruction. But most people are expecting students not to be starting to work on Novice Low (or Novice Mid) proficiencies; they are expecting them to fulfill those proficiencies. In the public school setting, that just isn’t going to happen.
I will send Ben a pdf file that I created comparing the levels according to the Common European Frame of Reference (CEFR), ACTFL, the Interagency Round Table (ILF) and the Language Learning Continuum. It also has section showing what California expects in a K-12 course of study and a 9-12 course of study, compared with what AP tests. As you can see, AP is geared to the exceptional student, even after 13 years of language instruction in public school. Is it any wonder that most of the students who do well on it are native speakers?
[ed. note: I will put that pdf file on the resources page of this site.]