Independent language learning (was Uzbek)

[Patricia Chaput]

Just one correction.  Greg Thomsom wrote:
"Obviously, Patricia (and Genevra) and I come at
the issue of how to advise the would-be independent language learner
based on our specific personal histories. Surprise!"

My opinions come from directing a language program in Slavic for 22
years, supervising instruction in a dozen other languages for around 10
years, and supervising independent studies in languages such as Uzbek,
Georgian (and others), also for around 10 years.  I have read extensively,
taught courses on the subject of language teaching, published,
and have a book in progress to be published by Yale U. Press (2002).
Nothing in my postings indicated that my opinions were based on my own
personal history, except insofar as that history encompasses all of
my experience with instructors, students, the literature of
language learning, and the courses I have taught on language and language
teaching for over 22 years.
        Neither do my opinions exclude the conception of language as
social practice or the importance of contact with native speakers--just
the opposite, but that is another topic.
        For anyone interested in the range of opinions on language
learning and the extent to which people *do* rely on personal histories,
the Chronicle of Higher Education's Colloquy on the Drake University
decision to eliminate its department of modern languages is instructive.
You can reach it by going to the Chronicle site (www.chronicle.com),
clicking on Colloquy, and then on the Colloquy archives (or "previous
topics" or something like that).  A great deal of the comment _is_ based
on personal history, and in fact only a very few comments cite any
research or scholarship in this area.
        This fact, the reliance on personal history, should alarm all of
us who care about effective language study and teaching.  When
administrators who make decisions about funding, hiring, class sizes, and
a myriad of other issues, believe it reasonable to base their
decisions on their own personal histories (as is implied by the Chronicle
quotes of Drake U. president David Maxwell), then we who teach language
may be prevented from doing an effective job, and then blamed for the
poor results.  Please note that my point does not depend on the truth of
whether or not David Maxwell relied on personal history, but rather that
the belief in the sufficiency of personal history as a basis for
decision-making in language is both widespread and dangerous in its
possible consequences.  In language, it would seem, everyone is an
"expert," yet much of that expertise comes from experience with "methods"
and approaches that are outmoded or known to be ineffective.  (Many of the
deans and other administrators who today are making decisions about
language  studied according to grammar-translation and/or
audio-lingualism.)
        Personal histories *are* useful, in showing us what beliefs people
bring to a discussion of language study, and they are also a source of
ethnographic data about language learning.  But they are only raw data and
only one source of useful information.  Pat Chaput

Patricia Chaput
Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures
Harvard University

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                http://members.home.net/lists/seelangs/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------