Hi everyone,
Here is a report written by two members of the Foreign Service Institute describing their experiences teaching foreign languages. It is a very interesting read if you have the time.
FSI Report - Lessons learned from fifty years of theory and practice in government language teaching
The report is laden with gems.
Among the many things to take from it is its “definition” of what fluency is: to be able to conduct “ordinary social conversation.”
“The properties of ordinary social conversation imply that language learners
need to practice at least all of the following:
• following rapid and unpredictable turns in topic,
• displaying understanding and involvement,
• producing unplanned speech,
• coping with the speed of the turn-taking, and
• coping with background noise.”
I bet all of us language learners recognize how hard each of those bullet items can be.
Thanks for posting this fascinating and useful link.
Interesting. However, there are some assumptions here. One that the learning must take place in a classroom, and two that the learner must start speaking right away. Thus the learner “must choose” one of the many endings for a noun in Russian for example.
I make different assumptions. The classroom is not necessary for language learning and , second, the goal of language learning, for the initial period, should be comprehension. Thus the learner need not make these choices, but needs words in order to understand.
second, the goal of language learning, for the initial period, should be comprehension.
Agreed. One can keep a conversation going with native speakers by just adding a few words here and there (…how so?..is that effective?..I’ve never done that…that’s not a good idea…could be…), as long as you know what someone is saying. Young children do that with their parents all the time. Being able to talk by yourself without understanding the answers given is simply not as natural, or effective.
Content Edited.
You’re right, Imyirtseshem: diplomats do become highly fluent, and it is generally a matter of actual need.
What does this tell us?
I believe it tells us that motivation is absolutely key in language learning. Even a real firey passion for a particular country and its culture and literature, etc, can wear a little thin after a number of weeks of continual effort and learning - especially if the going gets really tough.
But if you absolutely NEED to master the language, then you’ll keep on getting back up for “one more round” - just like Rocky!
And just like Rocky, you’ll eventually find that bone crunching left hook which smashes the glass ceiling above level B2.
Content Edited.
BTW Here is another nugget from the report:
"Language learning is not an effortless endeavor for adults (or for children, for that matter). For the great majority of adult learners, learning a language rapidly to a high level requires a great deal of memorization, analysis, practice to build automaticity, and, of course, functional and meaningful language use. Learning as quickly as possible to speak and understand a language automatically and effectively in a variety of situations and for a range of purposes requires intensive exposure to and interaction with that language.
At FSI, we have found that it requires at least four class hours a day—usually more—for five days a week, plus three or more additional hours a day of independent study. Learning a language also cannot be done in a short time. The length of time it takes to learn a language well depends to a great extent on similarities between the new language and other languages that the learner may know well. The time necessary for a beginning learner to develop professional proficiency in each language— proven again and again over a half century of language teaching—cannot be shortened appreciably. FSI has tried to shorten programs, and it has not worked."
So there you have it - a language cannot be learned to a high level of functional fluency in three months unless the learner already knows a closely related language. (The average FSI course consists of at least 10 months of full time study!)
Way to go, Benny! 
And yet another nugget from the report:
" […] our experience is that in-country immersion is most effective where the learner is at higher levels of proficiency. There is no substitute for simply spending time using the language. Segalowitz and his colleagues have pointed out how crucial to reading ability is the simple fact of doing a lot of reading (e.g., Favreau and Segalowitz 1982). Our experience at FSI indicates unequivocally that the amount of time spent in reading, listening to, and interacting in the language has a close relationship to the learner’s ability to use that language professionally."
It sounds absolutely spot on to me - these guys really seem to know their stuff!
Content Edited.
@Steve: “…I make different assumptions. The classroom is not necessary for language learning and , second, the goal of language learning, for the initial period, should be comprehension. Thus the learner need not make these choices, but needs words in order to understand.”
I’m inclined to agree with you about the whole silent period thing, Steve.
However I think we need to remember that the FSI is essentially a language training school for US diplomats; and a diplomat has to be able to use a language actively as well as passively if he/she is going to be of much use when in post overseas!
(It’s different with the military: some of their people are only trained to understand passively - for example those whose job is going to involve listening to foreign radio traffic, etc.)
Content Edited.
Yeah, FSI school seems like a pretty hard road to walk, Imyirtseshem!
But diplomats (unlike students, business people, etc) really do HAVE to speak correctly. It would seriously dent the image and prestige of the US Government if it sent its officers over to Moscow speaking ‘Dog-Russian’ - i.e. randomly spraying around case endings, etc. (In the worse case scenario it could even lead to misunderstandings.)
It’s hard work to speak a highly inflected correctly - but that’s just the way it is!
If you’re a dudey pro, you feel the pain but do it anyway!
Content Edited.
Well, you need to become a DUDEY pro!
(So does Steve IMO)
Content Edited.
Quote from JayB.
But diplomats (unlike students, business people, etc) really do HAVE to speak correctly.
I met one diplomat (head of an office in Beijing) attending a school who did not speak that well even after four years of study in Beijing. I do not think it is a must. Maybe Steve can illuminate us.
Content Edited.
Who knows what those funny spy-people get up to?
JayB, I leran languages to speak them , and to speak them well. I do not think that 4 hours in the class are necessary. I think we can learn just as well on our own. But if I were a classroom teacher I would have a different opinion. I have seen many diplomat language learners who after 2 years of full time study at schools like FSI rarely use their language, and are not very fluent. Diplomats do not need to speak accurately, serious negotiations are conducted via interpreters. They mostly need to make small talk. I was a diplomat in Tokyo, learned Japanese on my own, and spoke it more often and more fluently and better than most who had gone through the two year program.