An Important Insight

The single most memorable observation about Community Language Learning came from comparing two approaches to it: the traditional form in which students initiate and develop their own conversation, and the alternative version in which the teacher uses manipulatives as a springboard for students to develop their own dialog. [What emerged from this comparison? You go into it in the following paragraphs but it would be good to have the essence of the insight stated up front.]

First, in observing three CLL-based lessons, I noticed a significant span in abilities with the most traditional form of this method. Some students were able to hear a phrase once or twice and “parrot” it with ease, and some were even able to do this after the passage of some minutes, at the next phase of the exercise. Others had a hard time in hearing the sounds or in stringing them together, and were not able to recall the phrase at the next step.

I noticed a similar outcome for The Silent Way.

Second, I tried the alternative method recommended in our assignment: to give the students Cuisenaire rods and a topic to prompt their discussion. I asked them to “show” their families and talk about them. Once that parameter was established, the lesson was scheduled to proceed as for the traditional lesson.

I was struck by the difference in outcome between these two approaches. Students who had had difficulty with Spanish in my Silent Way peer-teaching (which was probably due largely to my lack of expertise) were suddenly able to grasp language basics. I don’t know, of course, if these different outcomes are representative, but I would like to hypothesize about factors that were different between the two.

1.      In my alternative version — talking about one’s family — the conversation was more authentic and flowed more like a real dialog. Compare:

“Hello.” “I am happy.” “What did you think of the snow this morning?” “I want to go snowboarding.” “I prefer tennis.”

“This is my father. This is my mother. I have a younger brother. I have two cats.”

While neither is scintillating, I consider the flow of the latter to be more natural and a wee bit more engaging. Still, the dialog remains student-generated.

2.      The family-related dialog (which was followed by the other person introducing her family, and then cross-discussion about the two families) is more personal, and thus more interesting and relevant to speaker and listeners. The students are not only practicing dialog; they’re learning about each other. My two students remarked on their interest in this aspect.

3.      Finally, and I think most importantly, the structure of the lesson allowed plenty of repetition, yet with variation. The key vocabulary was reinforced by hearing it again and again: “brother, sister, dog, cat.” And since, as far as this lesson got, we were able to use the same syntactical framing, that too was reinforced implicitly: “This is my ______.” After several repetitions, students understood something about elementary sentence structure as well as the nouns. And without knowing it, they also learned about masculine, feminine, plural and singular forms.

Why This Insight Is Important To Me

I admit that I am always driven by my own experience in everything I do. As a slower learner of language, I am exceptionally sensitive to how it feels to be the “dumb” one in a class, and I’m watchful for techniques that are inclusive of a range of abilities. Because while I may be in a minority of learners — certainly in this group at SIT — there must be others like me.

I think a modified form of CLL will be one I can use selectively in the classroom: Cuisenaire rods and a teacher-imposed topic. It would require a fairly small group, I think, of about six. (I even bought some Cuisenairae rods to take to Mexico.) The manipulatives and the teacher’s identification of a general topic focuses the conversation and maximizes relevancy. In contrast, the traditional form (at least at the beginner level) features conversations that are more random, sometimes disjointed and, more importantly, lacking in context and relevance. (I’m sure that’s not always the case, but it was in my limited observation.) In my experience with the traditional method, all I remember is that I heard a string of words I would barely say and could remember even less. I found myself having a hard time caring. A topic of mutual interest can foster interest; I’d want my students to have some investment in the exercise , beyond just wanting to keep up or (since we’re human) do better than the others. [I absolutely agree with this reasoning. What I should add re CLL, given that we have had very little exposure to it, is that with the emphasis on the development of ‘community’  the group does reach a point where they engage in meaningful exchanges, getting beyond the rather artificial set up that we had with observers as well.]

Because we hadn’t monitored our time well, I had a few minutes less than expected, and had to stop after the dialogue. I am guessing the next phase, of writing it on the board and reconstructing the conversation, would have been a positive reinforcement for the syntax my “students” had begun to infer. And that might have strengthened the success of the sentence structure by matching  index cards I had so brilliantly cut out. I should point out that this exercise, as I did it, is ideally suited for beginning learners. Layers of complexity need to be added as learners advance.

Further, it was satisfying as a teacher to see a distinct positive outcome: real learning. As David said at the end of the session, “I think I’ll even remember this tomorrow!” That was a great source of satisfaction for me. While I don’t expect instant gratification in teaching — and sometimes success after a long wait is even more exciting — it still was rewarding to feel that I was communicating successfully.

Ginna, once again this is a thoughtful, well-written and well reasoned response. You follow the requirements for the response paper, describing aspects of the teaching/learning process that are important to you and saying why this is so. You emerge from this reflective observation with knowledge that is generalizable, that you will be able to draw on in future. I’d be interested to know whether reading about the approach impacted your thinking in any way…? It is clear that you are concerned about engaging your learners in meaningful ways and ensuring that all types of learners are catered for. This echoes and extends what you commented on in your last paper. So, slowly your belief system is taking shape. This is not to say that it hasn’t been clear to you all along, but now you are giving reasons for the beliefs and linking them to practices as well. Good work, thank you.