Robert tried to comment on the thread “Playing Tennis” but it disappeared somewhere so I am just putting it here as a regular blog entry:
At the risk of over-intellectualizing the discussion, here are a couple of random thoughts. As much as we may reject the theorizing and academic discussion of which methodology is “right”, etc., there is one question which we must answer prior to our going into the classroom: “What is the goal of my instruction?”
I’m not talking about for any given day – that will follow on its own. At the end of 2/3/4 years, what should my students be able to do? Using our sports/music analogies, we have to ask if we expect to produce NFL, PGA, NBA, NHL, Van Cliburn, Tchaikovsky Competition or similar caliber speakers. No one becomes a Wayne Gretzky, Gustavo Dudamel, Larry Bird or Rafael Nadal without putting in tons of time on the mechanics of what they do. They will also have spent years doing it and invested far more than the average person is willing to invest.
In our careers we will probably meet a handful of students who move to those levels if we are fortunate – and they won’t get there in the four years they are with us. Unfortunately the College Board (AP Exam), politicians who write educational policy and most administrators seem to think exactly that should happen: move students from monolingual to fully bilingual in 480 hours of instruction. (The State of California states that 13 years of acquiring the language, not learning about the language, will still get students only to minors/farm team, not the big leagues. I know lots of people who need to read that statement in the World Language Standards and think about what it means.)
Ben has made it clear that he rejects this hubristic posturing. He isn’t trying to produce the next Cristiano Ronaldo, he’s producing duffers, Saturday quarterbacks, weekend warriors and Stephen Valdeses – inspired amateurs who do what they do because they love it. So he emphasizes just going out there and playing the game at whatever level the student happens to be.
The irony is that he will get more people closer to the advanced stages (see the ACTFL performance guidelines”) this way than through all the “skill drills” from all the “educational service providers” in all the “educational institutions” of academia. I am unabashedly with Ben. He, his mentors and others like Anne have a realistic view of what’s possible.
My goal is that after four years of language my students will:
1. still love the language (today I heard one of my level 3 students talking to his girlfriend. They were looking at some student work on the wall in the hallway, and she had asked a question. I heard the reply, “Because German is the best language in the world.” Yes!)
2. have sufficient acquisition to function at a basic level in the language when they go to a country where it’s spoken (I have had students go on exchange programs and function well in German)
3. understand enough about how to learn a language that they a) can continue learning on their own if they wish, b) know what they need/want to get out of whatever language programs they choose, c) have the ability to advocate for themselves wherever they go. (I am still in contact with former students who are doing exactly that in their university programs.)
Until American students are in programs that emphasize acquisition over the course of 13 years of public school education, we need to concentrate on helping students simply enjoy the game and get to a level where they are not afraid to join in the pick-up games or sit in on the jam sessions.