Let's stop teaching languages in schools.

Here is the podcast
LingQ launches tomorrow, Aug 1!
Recently I had a conversation at a local sushi bar. The person beside me was originally from Japan and had lived in Canada for over 30 years. His English was OK but not great. He commented that Canadians who go to Japan learn English better than Japanese who come to Canada. Of course this is not always true but it is often the case, even though Japanese people have up 10 years of English in school.

Most English- Canadians take French in school and cannot speak French. Tens of thousands of Canadian public employees have been sent to language school and did not become fluent in French. I have former colleagues in the Diplomatic Service who studied Chinese or Japanese and are unable to use the language. Yet Canadians who go to Japan to teach English often come back fluent in Japanese. I have two of them working for me in my lumber business ( we export lumber to Japan)

I have even read that graduates of French immersion in Canada do not become bilingual , and that it makes no difference whether they start in grade 1 or grade 7. Certainly the many ESL schools funded by government to teach immigrants English here in Canada, do not produce fluent speakers, and in fact have very little real impact.

It is impossible to teach an unmotivated learner. I do not mean motivated to get a better job or pass a test, but motivated to speak the language well.Why not stop trying?

I propose that we offer children comparative language as a subject in grades 1-7. This would consist exclusively of listening to and reading stories. No marking, not output expected. Children could choose one or two languages a year. They would be able to change every year or stay with the same languages. The purpose would be purely exposure.

Thereafter language would be optional. The students could continue with this exposure approach but would be asked to concentrate on one or two languages. They would be expected to start writing and speaking. But the main thing would remain listening and reading.

If the emphasis were on choice and pleasure, perhaps a larger percentage would end up genuinely motivated to learn. And once they decided to commit to learn they would be more flexible and better prepared for success.

In any case what we are doing now in schools does not work for most students.

Comments

[Chris]

I was talking with one my undergraduate advisors at Uni a few weeks back, where I found out that a lot of students never get scholarships to go overseas, and consequently graduate, with a degree in the language, and aren't fluent! So, a person will be holding a qualification in a language and yet won't be able communicate very well. It seems almost too difficult too believe.

At highschool, the traditional instruction worked because I had a sudden explosion of interest at the end of my second year and absorbed virtually everything as a result. Even obscure grammar points taught several years ago I somehow remember because of this. This is also largely a result of having a great teacher who related to students and knew them individually. Chinese on the other hand, at University, was traditionally grammar-based, and yet I have no desire to continue studying in a classroom environment for the next three years, as it's essentially pidgeon-stepping. I guess the classroom is no longer for me.

It would be interesting to see a new system integrated into language education, as you're definitely right, it doesn't work most of the time. It does ultimately come down to motivation.

[Roni]

I think there are many language schools, textbooks, internet systems and so on that publicise there distaste for language learning in schools. Partly as a way to sell their product, partly as truth. Having voiced your views on language learning the advancements that I hope will take place, What can you now say about the rest of the school system? I'm sure you must have thought about how some of the principles of this approach can be used in many other forms of education. If it is a valid approach to language learning, then it must be a valid approach to learning in general.

Taking this basis of enjoyment and interest as the root from which students choose what and how to learn, do you have any opinions on how this could transpire to the rest of the curriculum? This basis, of course, is in direct conflict with the problem of a government prescribing a curriculum, i.e. having a list of things student have no choice in being taught.

In terms of massive input first, have considered any other areas? What about showing classes of students myriad science-related things, exhibitions, displays, films, shows, without explaining anything, allow interest and discovery to grow in themselves.

With the above being said, this would create an entirely decentralized educational system, i.e. no fixed curriculum, which would essentially be anarchic. Do you have any views on this? What might be the knock on effects to society?

[Art]

I just forget, what school do your grandchildren attend to? Is this post a king of preaching one thing, doing the opposite?

[Steve]

Art,

I do not control what they teach in the schools and I do not control my grandchildren's education. I am not sure what your point is.

[paulino brener]

Steve,

As a language teacher myself this article makes me very uncomfortable. Even more coming from someone like you, who promotes language learning and makes a profit from it.

I am grateful to be able to work in a private school where I have total control, flexibility and creation of my curriculum and decision over method(s) of instruction. I just need to follow the guiding principles underlying our school (I work in a Waldorf school). But the rest is totally up to me. In this sense I think I am privileged that I am able to "experiment" different ways to reach my students. I understand that most mainstream or public schools do not have that luxury.

Nevertheless I believe that (at least in US, where I live) public schools still don't have the level of support that the teaching of foreign languages deserves. Despite the many years of research and strong evidence of its advantages and benefits foreign language learning is not regarded as a priority or even considered as a core subject. Some progress is being made at a very slow pace, though.
Posts and comments like yours, especially when titled “Let's stop teaching languages in schools” might lead the general public into miss-informed or wrong directions. I would strongly encourage you avoid such language.
I do agree with you that some reform might need to happen for schools to teach languages more effectively. I also sympathize with your proposed methodology. It’s very radical and innovative. Although I could see some challenges in its implementation. May be we can talk about it some day.

Take and give care,

paulino

PS: BTW, I believe that you meant to say “He commented that Canadians who go to Japan learn JAPANASE (not English) better than Japanese who come to Canada.” right?

[Steve]

Yes Paulino I meant Japanese. Yes let's talk some day. Right now Skype is not working but I will contact you.

Roni,

Yes I think this approach could be used for other subjects as well.