Do you think that it's better for beginners to learn a new language in a class where their native language is spoken?

Question

I understand that ESL classes are, by necessity, taught only in English to students who speak a variety of languages. However, is it just as easy to learn a language in this way? I cannot imagine walking into a beginning Chinese class, for instance, and being given a textbook written entirely in Chinese and being taught by a teacher who speaks no English. It seems to me that that would be incredibly frustrating and counter productive. In beginning high school and college foreign language courses professors tend to teach in the native language of the student as well as in the language being taught and textbooks are bilingual. However, someone was telling me just the other day that there is a prestigious English school in Italy where the teachers are not allowed to speak Italian even to beginning students.

I volunteer to teach an ESL class for Spanish speakers and the director of the place where I teach wants to keep the class open to speakers of other languages. I feel like it would be to the disadvantage of my Spanish speaking students to be taught solely in English when it seems to help them immensely to have grammar explained in Spanish, have bilingual classroom materials, do translation exercises, etc. Am I wrong?

Thanks for your opinion.

Answer 1

This has been a subject of debate for, at least, fifty years. The traditional model for language teaching (before that time) was based on the teaching of Latin and Greek. Since these are dead languages, the question of conversational proficiency/fluency never came up. The goal was reading/writing not conversation. Also, in those days, the teaching of English grammar was done largely following the model of Latin grammar (so that much of the terminology used [and the way of looking at grammar] was slanted towards Latin).

In the English speaking world, if one wanted to study a "modern" language, the obvious choice was French (although its popularity was in decline) it had a long tradition as the "international" language of choice. French (like all the Romance languages) is sufficiently close to Latin, in its grammar, that it was easy (and useful) to explain French grammar in the same terms that had been developed for Latin.

However, at about that time two things happened. There was a drastic decline in the teaching of "classical" languages (and in the teaching of "formal" grammar in English speaking countries) and a surge in interest in the learning of languages that were not Romance (often, not even Indo-European). When studying such languages (e.g. African, oriental, etc.) a thorough grounding in the grammar of English/Romance languages may help on occasion but, for the most part, "it's a completely different ballgame".

In the course of World War II, the American army realized that they were sadly lacking in competent translators (and finally, acknowledged that this might relate to the way that languages were taught). The result was, essentially, a wholesale adoption of the "Berlitz" method (which had already been around for some fifty years) and implied instruction (exclusively) in the target language. When I studied Arabic in the Army Language School, we were provided with simple "equivalents"/glosses for nouns, verbs and adjectives but there was no attempt to "explain" grammar. The basic attitude was "this is the way you say it" (y punto).

This is, of course the same approach that we (everyone) adopt towards teaching language to children. A normal person does not say to a four/five year old child (assuming that the child has just said "It's me toy!", "'me' is the direct/indirect pronoun, what you want is the possessive pronoun, 'my'." Si me efuerzo, puedo imaginar a a Lazaro diciendo a Ana (su hija, para los debutantes) "pues usamos el subjuntivo porque no no es una declaración", pero me cuesta trabajo.

Normal people learn the grammar of their own language without any formal study (they simply figure it out for themselves). Hundreds (possibly, thousands) of times they are told "Don't say X, say Y" No explanation is given. Years later, they may study grammar and be taught an explanation for the choice but by then they will have already learned what they should say (albeit, without understanding why they should say it).

• very nice - Izanoni1 Apr 23, 2010
• there is a school of thought which thinks that children have an inate sense of grammar, they seem to speak using complex grammar without being taught right or wrong. - ray76 Apr 24, 2010

Answer 2

This is an interesting question, Alba, and I certainly don't have an answer for you. However, Aerokay's response reminded me of something I read a few months ago. It was an article about improving competency in learning a foreign language. One of the keys to fluency, according to the article, is to stop thinking in your native language (easy enough for me I rarely think at all).

I put it to a test, and as I went about my daily routine or chores, I thought about everything I did in Spanish. I was amazed at how much more quickly I remembered vocabulary and phrases.

Now, after seeing your question, I wonder if teaching in both the native and foreign language is a help or a hindrance. Initially, it is probably very helpful, but what about in the long run if we continue to put students in a position where they are constantly translating their thoughts versus thinking in the desired language to begin with.

Great question!

Answer 3

I think that in terms of the immediate gratification that can come with understanding how something is said in another language, it is probably better to teach using the dual language method. However, if actual fluency is the goal then it might be better to utilize a monolingual approach. The problem with the dual language approach is that using both languages prevents true immersion and retards overall language development. A person taught this way is never forced to actually think within the confines of the language but rather merely as a referent to another already known language. Or as nametaken has put it they are never really forced to "sink or swim."

It takes me back to my own experiences with learning a language in high school and to that of my peers (not to mention my eldest son who has been taking Spanish in school for the past five years). I am reminded of the fact that 5 year olds often can and do speak, hear and intuitively understand a language with more proficiency than someone who has taken 5+ years of that language in school. Think of all the people you know who are learning Spanish as well as to your own experiences, and in this context, think how long (if you have even achieved this at all) it took you to be able to actually "hear" spoken Spanish or to think in Spanish consistently for more than a few consecutive and simple sentences/phrases.

This observation makes me wonder how much more effective it would have been to spend 5 years totally immersed (during those times in which Spanish was being taught) in that single language rather than passing back and forth between the two currents (especially if one of those currents is pulling you off course). Personally, I find studying Spanish grammar in a Spanish-Spanish format to be more rewarding, so I am not sure that the same might not be said for all formats of learning. In any event, a very thought-provoking question, Alba.

• Hi Iza - forced to "sink or swim." you say - What if they sink? - ian-hill Apr 24, 2010
• Then you pull them out of the water and throw them in again ;) - Izanoni1 Apr 24, 2010
• Not if they've already drowned or given up. - ian-hill Apr 24, 2010
• touche :) - Izanoni1 Apr 24, 2010

Answer 4

I'm a student taking spanish in high school right now, and I know that for me, I learned more spanish when the teacher spoke in spanish all the time, even when explaining a spanish word or concept I didn't comprehend. The first week of class was difficult because I had no idea what the teacher was talking about, since she only spoke in spanish. However, after a couple weeks of trying to understand what she was saying, I realized how much I learned in just that short amount of time. Learning spanish words on flashcards is great for memorization and stuff like that, but if you really want to learn and understand a wider variety of spanish vocabulary in a short amount of time, being taught spanish in spanish really helps. I hope that answers it for you!

Answer 5

This is a very interesting question .

I studied French at high school, and for the first year, we were spoken to in English, and learned French through English instructions and I did quite well. In my second and third year, we were spoken to in French only and we were only permitted to speak French. I hated it that we weren't allowed to speak in English and I didn't understand a single word that was spoken in French (even after learning it for a year ). I swear, it took me about six weeks to realise that every time the teacher came into the classroom she asked what time it was .

I came to the conclusion that I was terrible at learning languages and gave up trying within about five weeks of my second year and detested French lessons. If they weren't compulsory, I would have stopped going to them.

Having said that, there were people in my French class who thrived in second year (to me it seemed like everyone did, but that was only because I was doing so badly, so I can't give you a ratio).

Maybe it's a sink or swim kind of thing? Or something that only suits some people... And I have to admit, I never really had the desire to learn French, so that couldn't have helped. I think if your students are driven enough to learn English, they'll learn it one way or another.

• P.S. sorry for the essay! - --Jen-- Apr 23, 2010

Answer 6

I studied German in high school and college. I would never have gotten very far without English translations in the early stages. But I really took off when I was in classes where mostly German was spoken. And I at first floundered, then excelled when I was in an environment, in Germany, where I was forced to read, write and speak only German to get through each day. I think beginners need bilingual education, but to become truly proficient, students need immersion.

Answer 7

Alba, your concern is precisely why there is a varity of methods for teaching a foreign language. Obviously, student level is major factor for choice of method, but location plays a major role as well. In your case, I believe teaching ESL in the USA should be done mostly, if not entirely, in English because your students are already immersed in English. Of course, adjustments have to made for students with zero knowledge of the language.

In a different country, you may need to use the national language more due to lack of immersion. In both cases, student level makes a big difference. Once you are able to communicate with your students, on any kind of level, it is advisable to use as much of the language being taught as possible.

The end result is to cause students to think and process grammar questions in the studied language and to rely on the teacher less and less as time goes on.

Answer 8

I think sometimes it definitely is necessary to use English when you are reaching some fine point in grammar because if you don't have a reference for how that feels in your native language, sometimes you don't know the nuances of what you are learning. That said, you want to get off your native language crutches as much as possible.

Answer 9

I teach English to different language speakers and they don't seem to worry , remember they are being flooded in English anyway living in an English speaking country. I was taught Japanese and only Japanese was spoken and we progressed much more quickly with that method, I think the key is to be child- like in your approach to learning.

Answer 10

there is a school of thought which thinks that children have an inate sense of grammar, they seem to speak using complex grammar without being taught right or wrong

I have heard this contention before, and I think that this stems largely from ones ability to recognize patterns. Grammar is simply made up of accepted patterns of usage, and learning a new language requires the learning of new patterns. This requires that old patterns be set aside temporarily - a stickier prospect as we age and as language patterns become more intrinsic to our personalities. The longer one has been exposed to a particular pattern of speech (i.e. associated with a particular language), the more expected this pattern will be.

In regards to a child's "innate sense," I don't know that children recognize patterns any better than adults do. The place where I think children (and especially smaller children) do have an advantage over adults, however, is in their ability to suspend expectations. Because they have not reinforced these patterns as strongly as an adult might have, they are more willing to look in a different direction.

Consider a person who as a child was led through a thicket by the distant call of his mother's voice, every day and in the same direction until, as an adult, a path had been etched in the country-side, and the child no longer needed his mother's voice to lead him in the right direction. He has the path to guide him. The adult walking down this well-trod path would certainly be less likely to stray from the path into the dense brush. A child, however, who has not yet trampled out a path will be less distracted, and therefore, more likely to follow only the sound of the voice (perhaps a Spanish voice, for example) and less likely to rely so heavily on an already established path to guide him. He will be less hesitant to blaze new trails.

As language learners, it is important that we learn to be trailblazers. To leave our comfort zones. To get off of the beaten paths. Or as Ray76 has said, "To be child-like in our approaches to learning."

Answer 11

I feel like it would be to the disadvantage of my Spanish speaking students to be taught solely in English when it seems to help them immensely to have grammar explained in Spanish, have bilingual classroom materials, do translation exercises, etc. Am I wrong?

The above was Alba's question, and while many schools almost prohibit the use of the native language while teaching English, in my opinion this completely misguided and the "total immersion" idea is flawed.

Of course that is how we all learn our own first language (until we attend school) but unless one is living in the country where the language we wish to learn is spoken it is not practical to learn that way.

Most English teaching material does not use the first language of the students but that has nothing to do with it being a bad idea - it is because the same material is sold everywhere in the world. It is for commercial reasons in other words.

Most schools teaching English as a second language in an English speaking country will have students whose first languages are not the same making reference to them almost impossible.

Where the students all speak and understand a common language, say Spanish in most of South America then reference to that language makes sense.

For example in my opinion the first lessons should be taught almost exclusively in Spanish. Why?

To explain how the English verb system works for example - this can be done in about 1 hour and with one handout (of course it will take the student much longer to learn it) Let them know from the start how much easier English verbs are and in that way boost their confidence levels.

To explain that English spelling and pronunciation are illogical - they are not phonetic. And that students should not get frustrated by this. That it is not their fault.

There are other things that could be added.

Answer 12

I have often thought about the fact that Language is the only subject that is taught using the subject being taught.

Give a child a box of paints for the first time and he / she will make a mess.

Explain how colours are mixed and a picture is constructed in a language they understand and the result will be better.

Just painting a picture for them will not be as effective.

In other words in language teaching just using the language they don't yet know is not the complete answer.

Answer 13

Hello Alba,

I have never studied a foreign language until I decided to try to learn Spanish. I had no idea it would be so hard. There is no way I would have a chance if I only had Spanish speaking instructions. There may not be much chance with bilingual instruction - but that is another topic.

Answer 14

However, someone was telling me just the other day that there is a prestigious English school in Italy where the teachers are not allowed to speak Italian even to beginning students.

HI Alba, I am a teacher and I find this a mistake. Unless it is an inmersion in the language, where the student is surrounded by the language all day long, the students tire of not understanding a word, especially when they are very small.

I teach several 5 year olds, thewould be bored to death. I give orders in English, take the scissors, where are the colours, cmon, let's do it...but when I see that "look" on their faces... I tell them in Spanish.

I want my students to be happy, apart from learn the language.

I have several students who are fluent, I only speak English in the class.

Answer 15

Hi Alba,

Great question! I don't know the right answer. When I learned how to teach English our instructors insisted that total immersion was best, and that we should always speak only English in the classroom. They used the famous adage "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach him to catch fish, you feed him for life." to illustrate what they meant, i.e., translating a word into a student's language was just giving him/her a fish. But if you help a student to learn the word in their own way, you are teaching them how to catch the fish.

By the end of the course, the students of the class (including myself) had come to a consensus that "While if you teach a man to catch fish, you may feed him for life, but if the man is starving, give him a dang fish!"

In other words, as in all things, a balance is best.