The Type of Course I Want in Italian
Reynold Harrs, Canada
Reynold Harrs has taught school and university, and has worked as a technical writer before retirement. He now lives in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He has been studying Italian for more than 10 years, but strictly as a hobby. He holds a bachelor’s in science from Trinity College, Dublin and a Ph.D. in English literature from Columbia University, New York. He also writes a blog, which can be read at the following link:
www.studying-italian-abroad.blogspot.com.
E-mail: reynoldh@shaw.ca
Menu
Introduction
Previous courses attended
Approaches to conversation classes
Utilitarian Approach
Philosophical Approach
Pitfalls to avoid
Group Approach
Summary
For the past decade I have been trying to learn Italian with the objective of becoming fluent enough to hold a relatively coherent conversation with Italian friends. I realise that a major hurdle to my effort is that I am living in English-speaking Canada. To counteract the pervasive influence of the English language, I partake in an Italian book club; a cineclub where I watch Italian films with Italian subtitles; and in regular conversations with an Italian friend via Skype. Yet any progress in my ability to speak Italian has been at best at a glacial pace. I’m told that the quickest way to achieve fluency would be to live in Italy for a year, but, unfortunately, this choice is out of the question. The best I could do in the past was to attend “conversational” courses in Vancouver and one-month courses at various schools in Italy. My hope is that the type of course I am proposing in this article will be realised by some school(s) in Italy. Of course, there is no reason why other language schools cannot also embrace the approach. I am aware that the type of lessons I am asking for may already be in practice. If such is the case, then I hope someone will preach to the “unconverted” in the Italian schools. Or, if a reader should know of a school in Italy that offers the approach I want, please do let me know.
I have taken the gamut of evening classes offered by the Vancouver School Board. These classes served as an introduction to the language: a familiarisation with the different verbal modes and other grammatical points. I followed these classes with private group lessons, conversational classes, and (on-going) home study. I believe I have reached an “intermediate” level, and now want to develop the ability to converse.
For each of the last four years I also attended a one-month course in Italy -- in Siena, Perugia [University for Foreigners -- a place I would not recommend to even my worst enemy], Verona, and Roma. Except for the University for Foreigners at Perugia, the three other schools were all “commercial” schools. Scuola Leonardo (Siena) and Linguait (Verona) were excellent schools. Linguait focused on the language used everyday. Still, all three schools offered courses that were really no different in philosophy from my Vancouver evening courses in that they all stressed grammar.
At all three schools, the morning lesson started with the instructor asking each of us to recount what we had done the day before. Somewhere in the two hours we might be asked another question, and this was our allotted “conversation”. However, Linguait and Leonardo da Vinci (Siena) also had a period after the grammar lesson for conversation. We played word games at Linguait, and at Siena we had one-to-one debates. Unfortunately, at Scudit (Roma), which claimed to emphasise “conversation,” there was no such practice. Paradoxically, Scuola Leonardo, which was the most traditional in its approach, gave me the best opportunity to converse. What I needed, and need now, is a school with a very different approach to teaching Italian at the intermediate level – one in which the emphasis is placed on conversation with grammar underpinning the lesson but remaining in the background.
For teaching purposes I divide conversation into either utilitarian or philosophical. By “utilitarian” I mean experiences dealing with concrete objects used in our daily life as, for example, objects used in the bathroom or at breakfast. By “philosophical” I mean discussion on abstract subjects, or as some wag put it, conversations on sex, religion, and politics. For convenience I am dividing these two approaches into separate courses, although there is no reason why the two could not be combined in a course of four weeks (or whatever duration).
For each planned situation or event there would be a list of words and grammatical points, which the instructor will prepare ahead of time and will teach through the acting out of the scene. In other words, the lesson’s grammatical points will evolve out of the conversation. More importantly, re-iteration and repetition will occur. By re-iteration I mean different permutations of students will act out the given scenario during the lesson. The scenarios will be repeated on another day [and more if needed] until the students have assimilated the list of words and the necessary grammar so that there is no hesitation in using them. I think this assimilation of a limited body of words for a given situation is a lot more useful than receiving a long list of words over a four-week course in which only a few are ever remembered. Of course, there is no reason why there could not be a list of peripheral words that also evolve from the lesson. However, assimilation of the words into one’s speaking vocabulary is the objective.
After all these years of studying Italian, I think I have a good-size reading vocabulary. At the very least I have a large personal lexicon on my computer! On the other hand, my speaking vocabulary is much smaller and plagued by that horrible recurrence of forgetting the word when I need it most! Furthermore, if I were placed in a room -- any room -- and asked to name the objects in the room I would fail miserably. Or ask me to name the parts of the body or the clothing I am wearing and I am sure I don’t know everything. I am also sure I have come across the words, either in a lesson or in my reading. They are probably all in my lexicon. Unfortunately, I have not assimilated them.
An example of a theme could be the dressing of oneself. The instructor needs to know clearly what elements of grammar and what list of words are to be learnt. There will be aids such as large cut-outs, or large photographs, or the actual object, and, at least at the beginning, labels. The instructor will have devised different ways by which the list of words will be learnt: students in pairs or more will act out the scene with dialogue – one the dresser and the other or others the “butler” assisting. The situation can change location from home to hotel. “Incidents” can be introduced, for example, a rude assistant, the wrong item, or whatever else the instructor can devise. The person dressing will have to ask for the specific item, and even describe it to the “dumb” assistants. With a little thought I am sure the instructor can devise a list of different scenarios, what one might call variations on a theme. During another lesson this topic and scenes are to be repeated without labels. As a review session on still another day, perhaps the class could be divided into teams to see which gets “dressed” the quickest. Not only the words, but the correct commands or requests expressed in the desired grammatical form would have to be used to “receive” the item. The instructor’s role during the class would be to introduce, to inform, and to correct the spoken language. I believe that at the end of this process of reiteration and repetition, and where each student is given the opportunity to play each role, most of the students would have mastered the educational goals for the lesson. In short, the words and grammar would not just be absorbed passively but would enter the student’s active vocabulary.
For a given course of four weeks, one approach might be to focus on one theme, for example the “house” – the different rooms, the typical events that occur in a room such as breakfast, lunch, dinner, guests, and dinner parties. The instructor could add variety by introducing incidents, which the students would have to act out. Another major theme might be “walking in the park” and, perhaps, the scenario might be a scene of flirtation. But whatever is chosen, the key is planning: what “incidents,” what words, and what grammatical points the instructor wants the students to assimilate.
As the students become conversant with the list of words, the labels would be removed, and to increase the challenge a modicum of competition could be introduced, or if not, then some kind of consequence. For example, if the diner requests a spoon but mispronounces the word, or fails to ask using the right verb form, the “waiter” is free to give anything else. Or “punishments” could be introduced. Whatever is added, the purpose of these introductions is to make the lesson interactive and fun. However, without a clear plan and target on the part of the instructor, the class could deteriorate into a haphazard activity. It is also critical that the exercise is repeated more than once during the lesson and on more than one day. The more acting out the more “real” it becomes, where words and language become not theoretical but real. Depending on the instructor’s imagination and energy, there could be variations on a theme. The more variation the less the number of new situations or locations required. For example, the dining room if fully explored could consume several weeks: breakfast, lunch, dinner, dinner party, guest dropping in, unwanted guest [how to get rid of the person], or a stingy host. I could even foresee a school introducing a series of courses each focussed on a separate theme or group of themes.
The “utilitarian” approach is perhaps easier to apply successfully than a typical philosophical discussion on a topic. The problem is to get everyone involved. My classes at the private schools were never more than 10 – 12 students so that a one-to-one debate should have been possible. Expecting the others to join in will not work. The whole exercise is too amorphous. On the other hand, if the instructor had analysed the topic and had come up with a list of positions each with its own angle, and made each student choose a position and group of words to be used, I think there could have been more articulate debates. At university we were told to narrow down our topic before ever writing. Well, it’s no different here. The narrower the perspective, the better chance of a clear path for the debaters to take. By “narrow” I don’t just mean being for or against, but also from what position. Examples of a position could be that of a feminist, another from the position of an economist, still others from the social, political, and religious points of view, to name but a few with the given vocabulary that comes with that role. The instructor can even tell a student to take an extreme position and to defend it. I would imagine the more extreme the position, the more interesting and hilarious a debate.
While two are debating others could be the jury and others the judges so that everyone has a role to play. Then the roles would be switched so that everyone gets a chance to become familiar with using the different groups of words. At a later stage, the debaters would be changed without allowing the new ones to prepare or to make notes. Finally, there could be a free-for-all debate but without notes. The instructor could slightly modify the topic if need be. I must stress that I am not asking that these examples are necessarily adopted but rather as examples of how one could programme the classes and the course to avoid the disconnection that comes from an unplanned series of so-called debates. To use an analogy: the instructor is taking the students on a train ride, but if the instructor does not know the destination and the different stops, the journey loses its specificity and becomes a wandering in the fog of uncertainty.
A third possibility might see the instructor introduce a scene and leave it to the students to run with it. Here too, role-playing works better than a free-for-all. In the best conversation class I ever received, the instructor introduced a comic strip and we had to take a character and act out the role. We were first given guidance by discussing the strip so that we all understood its drift. Again, there is no reason why a list of specific words and grammatical points could not have been introduced. Furthermore, these comic strips have a theme, which then can lead to a debate. While the instructor guides with respect to grammar and vocabulary, it is also critical first to allow the student to speak. I remember that in one of my classes in Vancouver the instructor would correct us before we had even finished the sentence. Needless to say, after some time we were reluctant to speak!
There are at least two pitfalls that I can foresee from my experience as a student. Both stem from a lack of clear purpose on the part of the instructor. The first pitfall is the temptation in a course that emphasises conversation for an instructor to be unprepared or half-prepared and “wing” it. At one school I attended, the instructor often repeated himself without realising we had already completed the material. Repetition is a useful and important tool when used with purpose, but what the instructor inflicted was more the result of a lack of preparation on his part. I’ve also had instructors whose idea of a conversation class is to introduce a subject and nothing more. This might work at a more advanced level, but even here there are too many pitfalls, such as ignorance of the subject, leading to one or two students dominating and the others bored silly. On one occasion the instructor handed out a newspaper article on an incident and asked what we thought about it, but not getting much of a response, -- at least insufficient to generate a heated discussion—kept talking, and talking, and talking. So much for our discussion!
I suspect that in many of my classes the approach of the instructors was to make a last-minute decision as to what was to be discussed. The decision could have been made the night before or five minutes before entering the classroom. In no class did the instructor have a very clear idea of what the students were to achieve specifically either in grammar or in the words learnt. For example, it is not good enough for the instructor to think that the discussion will somehow involve the use of the conditional; the requirements laid down must specifically require the conditional. And listing the words “learnt” during the discussion will prove of little use unless they are assimilated in our active vocabulary – and this requires reiteration and repetition.
How successful the method proves depends, then, on how specific the instructor can shape the lesson; that is, there is better chance of success when the instructor has a very clear target, with little left to “inspiration”. What is important is that there should be a detailed syllabus and a detailed lesson plan for each class. The instructor must know clearly what is the purpose of each lesson: what words and what points of grammar that must be assimilated.
The second pitfall is more likely to occur with the discussion of an abstract topic. One or two students dominate the “discussion” while the rest remain silent. Everyone must have equal opportunity and time to speak and so practise the selected words and grammar. I’ve had courses where a few students dominated the conversation because they were more conversant with the language or knew more about the topic. And the instructor became an unwitting accomplice by turning to these students or allowing them to dominate the discussion. To put it crassly, we all pay and so we all deserve to be allotted the same amount of time. A variant of this imbalance is the situation where an instructor hands out a list of topics, divides the class into groups, and asks each group to take a side. A member from each group then articulates the respective group’s position, and then time ran out, and the class moved on to the next group. Did the rest of us learn anything? I don’t think so. We may have heard the relevant words, but the next day I doubt if we could remember many of them. The main problem was the lack of shape, specificity, and -- most of all -- practice.
Although I have placed the onus on the individual “instructor,” I think the best approach is for a group of instructors [or the whole school] to make a communal effort to create and agree on a set of themes and scenarios with props and objectives, as well as words and grammatical points for each scene. Obviously the more “real” the prop, the more realistic the situation. The whole course and each lesson should be so planned in order to avoid the “play it by ear” approach to teaching. Such a course would also be open-ended, in that the amount completed will vary with different groups of students. At the end of a month’s course I may not have been “taught” as much as in a so-called “regular” course, but what I will have been taught I would be able to use without hesitation. And if courses were established by certain “themes,” students could then return to the school and continue assimilating vocabulary and grammar that they would find useful.
In a non-academic course at the “intermediate” level, that is, at the level where the students have all studied some amount of Italian grammar, emphasis should be placed on conversational fluency. This can be done by acting out scenes or by holding debates, but the key is to make everything highly specific both in terms of vocabulary and in terms of the grammar to be learnt. Only if the instructors know precisely what these objectives are for a given lesson will they avoid leading the students into that fog-like experience that so often passes for a “conversation” class. The selected words and grammatical points must be practised until the students assimilate them. Reiteration during the lesson and repetition of the scene or subject on other days is the key as are props and labels. Such a course would be open-ended because given a specific period of time different groups of students will vary in the amount each will learn. The goal is not quantity but quality in the form of assimilating what is taught to the point that the student can use the material instantaneously. For this reason, whole courses could be divided by specific “themes,” so that learning would become an open-ended experience. Most importantly, the success or failure of such an approach will depend on how precise and detailed the instructors have prepared their class material.
Please check the Creative Methodology for the Classroom course at Pilgrims website.
|
