Lessons learned from fifty years of theory and practice in government language teaching

[Finny]

This is an oldie but goodie from the original HTLAL forum, and I figured it was worth posting for folks who hadn't read it before, as well as for the chance for further discussion here.

Lesson 1. Mature adults can learn a foreign language well enough
through intensive language study to do things in the language (almost) as
well as native speakers.

Lesson 2. “Language-learning aptitude” varies among individuals and
affects their classroom learning success (but at least some aspects of aptitude
can be learned).

Lesson 3. There is no “one right way” to teach (or learn) languages, nor
is there a single “right” syllabus.

Lesson 4. Time on task and the intensity of the learning experience appear
crucial.

Lesson 5. Learners’ existing knowledge about language affects their learning.

Lesson 6. A learner’s prior experience with learning (languages or other
skills) also affects classroom learning.

Lesson 7. The importance of “automaticity” in building learner skill and
confidence in speaking and reading a language is more important than has
been recognized by the SLA field over the last two decades.

Lesson 8. Learners may not learn a linguistic form until they are
“ready,” but FSI’s experience indicates that teachers and a well designed
course can help learners become ready earlier.

Lesson 9. A supportive, collaborative, responsive learning environment,
with a rich variety of authentic and teacher-made resources, is very important
in fostering effective learning.

Lesson 10. Conversation, which on the surface appears to be one of the
most basic forms of communication, is actually one of the hardest to master.

The entire read is fascinating; I remember coming across it years ago on the old boards and loving it, as well as the book referenced within it about seven exceptional language learners (which was also available as a PDF elsewhere on the forum). Rereading / skimming it reminded me of a lot of interesting bits. Among my favorites were the emphasis on the need for time with the language, and the correlation between time spent and proficiency, as well as the difficulty of conversation, the plurality of effective methods for language acquisition, and the note about children spending between 12k and 15k hours in native language acquisition, compared with the minimal time in which high proficiencies are reached by adults in optimal conditions due to learning efficiency.

This point, in particular, is one of my absolute favorites, because of how little time adults are often socialized to give themselves in skill acquisition before giving up. AJATT really hammered this point (giving yourself time!) in the olden days, and it left a profound mark on me.

[IronMike]

Totally agree with all of these "lessons." Russian remains my best L2 and I know that it is because of my immersive experience at DLI.

[Finny]

Indeed, IronMike. I'd be interested in learning what the DLI / FSI / etc has found since then about language retention, especially since that was one of the biggest questions in which the authors expressed interest at the end of the paper.

Having made this investment [in learning the language], it is crucial to determine what can be done
to maintain the language skills that the graduates have achieved or, preferably, to
improve them. Language maintenance at post may not simply be a matter of giving
the speakers a set of strategies to use there, but more one of attaining a “critical
mass” of language proficiency. Informally, we have observed in the languages
that we have worked with that an individual departing for post following training
with a borderline professional proficiency (or lower) is very likely to experience
attrition. An individual with a strong professional proficiency (S-3 or S-3+) will
maintain or improve proficiency, and with advanced professional proficiency (S-
3+ or S-4) will almost certainly continue to improve.

The key finding seemed to be that the better you learned a language, the more you were likely to retain it. This is not the first place this finding has been mentioned, but it's always worth repeating.

[Ani]

This is the article I go and read every time I start to get discouraged. I don't know why exactly I find it so inspiring but I really do. I love that they assert that it comes down to time on task. Also that the average FSI student speaks what was it.. 2.3 languages? And that the best predictor of success was having already learned another language to a high level in a classroom (not bilingually). I feel it gives me permission to take even longer as I am learning my first second language, but that the whole project is quite possible.

[reineke]

Lesson 6. A learner’s prior experience with learning (languages or other
skills) also affects classroom learning.

The entire read is fascinating; I remember coming across it years ago on the old boards and loving it, as well as the book referenced within it about seven exceptional language learners (which was also available as a PDF elsewhere on the forum). Rereading / skimming it reminded me of a lot of interesting bits. Among my favorites were the emphasis on the need for time with the language, and the correlation between time spent and proficiency, as well as the difficulty of conversation, the plurality of effective methods for language acquisition, and the note about children spending between 12k and 15k hours in native language acquisition, compared with the minimal time in which high proficiencies are reached by adults in optimal conditions due to learning efficiency.

This point, in particular, is one of my absolute favorites, because of how little time adults are often socialized to give themselves in skill acquisition before giving up. AJATT really hammered this point (giving yourself time!) in the olden days, and it left a profound mark on me.

Lesson 6. "If learners already have learned a foreign language to a high level, that is a great advantage in learning another language, regardless of whether or not it is related to the first". That's relevant everywhere. If you emphasize classroom study, the FSI lessons might get easily dismissed as only relating to courses. A famous Youtube polyglot did just that.

The note about children is my least favorite part. The 15,000 hour figure refers to the time spent by the age of six.

[IronMike]

Indeed, IronMike. I'd be interested in learning what the DLI / FSI / etc has found since then about language retention, especially since that was one of the biggest questions in which the authors expressed interest at the end of the paper.

I don't think they do enough research on language retention. The vast majority of DLI's customer base (~95%) are only required to take Listening and Reading tests annually. So few military linguists are required to take the oral assessment (called OPI for Oral Proficiency Interview). Listening and reading skills are easier to maintain than speaking.

DLI publishes a few journalson SLA/SLTeaching, and I think some of them have articles free for downloading. I used some of them for my L2 thesis.

[Cainntear]

I'm inclined to disregard a lot of what the DLI comes up with, because they preselect their students with an aptitude test. What that means in practice is that they select a cohort who are predisposed to deal with a particular type of task that reflects how they'll be taught.

For them, it works. Their goal is to produce enough competent users of various languages to fill roles that need speakers. They also have a significantly higher number of applicants than spaces available so they can afford to leave out people that would be capable of learning, but might not match their way of teaching.

Lesson 7 is quite contentious, and actually slightly underhand: "The importance of “automaticity” in building learner skill and confidence in speaking and reading a language is more important than has been recognized by the SLA field over the last two decades."

Automaticity is undoubtedly the goal of every language teacher and learner; and in fact of learners and teachers in most fields.

It is incorrect to assume that just because something is the end goal, it is appropriate as a teaching method. For example, it is tempting to say "to learn to be an expert, just do as experts do", but when you consider that what experts do is apply the knowledge they have internalised and follow habit patterns that have led to success in the past, it is clear that a learner cannot do what experts do as they do not have the prior knowledge, the habit patterns or the past successes.

Following habit patterns is basically automaticity, and therefore part of expertise. Using expertise to learn is clearly back-to-front. But it's an appealing narrative, and as long as you stick to the word "automaticity", people will follow. But your learners don't and can't have automatic control of a foreign language, so you have to turn to the cheap version of automaticity: rote learning. Rote learned patterns come automatically, but it's not real language -- it's just parroting.