"We Are Not a College"
Or
How to improve a language school for adults

Reynold Harrs, Vancouver, Canada

This spring I took a four-week course in Italian at a language school in Siena. The experience was a positive one, and I have no hesitation to recommend the school. However, I did make several recommendations, which I offered two days before I left so that they could discuss any point they wished with me, but I was told that there was no need, and that everything was clear. Their response was that they were not a college but a language school with an ever shifting body of students who were not inclined to gather together but preferred to go their own separate ways. I also realise now that the school's low-key approach is to attract students who want to learn some Italian while having a holiday. What the administrator was implying was that the school has its own "system" and that my suggestions were an expression of a different approach. I think this view is a mistake, and I am offering my suggestions here because I think there may be other commercial and non-commercial schools who might benefit from my recommendations.

The school had many good things to offer: small classes, good teaching, approachable teachers eager to help, and many extracurricular activities such as lectures and guided tours, where Italian was spoken at a moderate pace. Siena was also not accursed like Firenze ( Florence) with waiters and clerks who insist on replying in English. If one is so minded, one could actually practise one's Italian!

I realise I went with many pre-conceptions on teaching because I have a Ph.D. in English and 10 years of teaching from school to university. I have also taken many night-school classes, including two years of Italian. In many ways these night classes had much in common with the school, in that the emphasis was "learn and have fun", rather than study as one would in an advanced university course. For the past year and a half I had been studying Italian on my own from a Review Grammar and finished 10 of 15 chapters. That's not to say that I had digested everything I studied or had learnt to apply the rules correctly. I would assess myself as someone who was not a rank beginner, had some knowledge of the grammar, but couldn't speak.

I went prepared to study (and did study several hours every night). The school only asks for one hour of homework, which consists mainly of filling in the blanks in the textbook. My approach was to write out each sentence because I believe that in the writing one develops a feel for the language. Furthermore, I also reviewed my errors each night and wrote out the corrections, but was quite surprised that no time was allotted to reviewing corrections. My first suggestion was that the first 15 minutes each day be allotted to reviewing corrections. This would encourage students to work over their errors, for I believe that one can learn as much if not more from corrections. In fairness, the instructors were happy to answer any questions raised about the previous day's work, but it was not a scheduled practice in the class.

The school offers 6 levels of classes from beginner to diploma and one-to-one instruction at an extra cost. Grammatical topics are spread over the six levels, which means one learns something but not everything on a topic. For example, at level 3 we learnt some of the rules for the subjunctive and only the present and past subjunctive. I can understand the logic in that one learns to apply the limited rules well, and then build on this learning. While such an approach works well for someone who is introduced to the topic for the first time, or has been rising through the levels, it can prove confusing for those like me who have studied the grammatical topic in greater detail. We know that other rules exist, we even know the rules, and so are tempted to use them, [sometimes incorrectly!], but in so doing we have passed beyond the body of knowledge being taught. In a sense, we are grammatically "out of bounds", and no effort is made to explain these rules.

While I can understand that for administrative ease everyone must fit into one of the six levels, I think that some students are short-changed by such a limited approach and that the school itself could show more flexibility. What I suggested was a seventh class to be called "Class Z" (or whatever), which would be a catchall for students like myself who have a fair to good knowledge of the grammar but cannot speak the language. The rules may not be at our fingertips, but we have studied them. I see such a class as repetitive but not repeatable. Students could take this course as many times as they want, but the topics would not be necessarily repeated because they would emerge from the conversation. The emphasis would be on conversation, but as grammatical errors are made, they get discussed, or serve as prompts for grammatical topics, which are discussed fully. Moreover, students are expected to study well the grammar discussed in the class. Such a class would be more intensive than the six levels, and for those who are not prepared to put in the extra work, they can slide into one of the six levels.

In Class "Z" the instructor would have some idea of the students' weaknesses because the school's practice is to give each student a test before being placed. I would like to add as an observation that in a class that emphasises conversation, it is most important that some method is used to control the duration of a student's conversation. An egg timer or something of that nature can be used. It has the advantage of forcing the student to get out the words while preventing any one student from dominating the class. Domination can come from knowledge, -- in which case the student speaks for longer than he should -- or from its lack, in which case the student struggles for words while the rest of the class sits in bored silence. I also think that the ideal instructor for teaching such a class would have some knowledge of the grammar books used in other countries. Free review copies should be readily available and a library maintained. The reason is that by referring to them, the instructor can place a grammatical point within a familiar context for the student.

I also think that the administrators or teachers should not interpret silence as an indication that the student is happy with the class or level of learning. Most students are too polite to object, and especially Asian students where culture comes into play. To judge from my experience, the same is true of European students. On the other hand, an American student, especially a mature student, is less likely to keep silent if not satisfied with the level of learning. The answer is for the school to hold periodical meetings with students. For example, in a four-week course, someone should have enquired about my level of satisfaction after two weeks. For a year course, a monthly meeting could be held.

I don't know if this is standard practice in commercial schools, but every two weeks there was a new intake of students at the school. What was unsatisfactory was the disruption the intake caused. Every second Monday morning was given over to testing the new students, which meant -- at least in my class -- that the established students had to mark time. The class should use the time to review the past two weeks, and it should be an established policy. This did not happen, and in fact the next few days were spent repeating what we had learnt so that the newcomers could catch up. No one would object to one day being spent on re-hashing points learnt, namely the Monday morning, but anymore and the week is more or less wasted. In fact, we spent four out of the five days of the third week backtracking.

I have used the term "commercial school" to define a school -- usually for profit -- where students go for classes and then disperse after the classes are over. The school may offer lectures or tours, but it does not see itself responsible for collegial activities. This was certainly the case at the school I attended, and when I suggested that a Common Room would be a good addition, the response was "we are not a college." Other excuses offered were that there was a shortage of space, and that when they tried to offer such a feature most students did not use it. In short, the school, or at least the administrator was not interested.

I believe that not having a Common Room in a language school is a fundamental pedagogical error and undermines the purpose of the school. I went to Siena to learn Italian - not just the grammar but also to speak the language. I didn't travel thousands of miles just to learn the grammar or to read, which I could have done in my own country. The ultimate goal was and is to speak Italian.

Over the years I had found great difficulty in speaking Italian when put on the spot, either because I was self-conscious, or I struggled for words that somehow abandoned me when I needed them. I could hold marvellous conversations with myself, or answer for the next person, but when the focus was on me, everything I knew went out the window! Interestingly, I never had this problem with French, which I learnt at a young age. To generalise from my experience, I would suggest that adult learners may have a shell of resistance or inertia that they must break through in order to speak in a foreign language.

I presume if one studies the language over a long enough period in a classroom one will eventually develop the ability to speak. However, this may not be true if one thinks of the many Japanese students who know the grammar of a foreign language but cannot speak it. The other approach is to steep oneself in the language very much as one dives into the water and either learn to swim or sink! Hence the trip to Italy. I lived with a family [home stay], the school was Italian owned, and I was surrounded by Italians, and so of course I would be certain to break out of my shell. Well, no! The family spoke a dialect, which I could not understand, and they spoke too fast. Nor did they have the patience to decipher my garbled attempts at speaking. They were a good family, but perhaps the school should be seeking out retired teachers or better educated people who might take a greater interest in helping a foreign student converse in their language. It was the other student also living with the family who served as intermediary. As to speaking to other Italians, the occasions were confined to waiters and clerks. One did not meet Italians socially. Classroom efforts were good, but limited by time and, besides, they tended to be artificial. So how did I learn to speak?

The other student staying with the family was Japanese, and since he did not speak English nor I Japanese, we had to speak Italian. We were in the same class, and as he had been in Siena for three months when I arrived, he became my guide. Similarly, I spoke Italian with the other students I met in class and out of class because we came from such diverse backgrounds. The advantage here is that the conversations were spontaneous and so one had to struggle to find the right words or rely on the dictionary. Furthermore, because we were all in the same linguistic boat, we tended to speak at the same tempo. There was no feeling of constraint because we were all making errors, but we were speaking [or trying to speak] Italian! It was this activity which eventually gave me the confidence to speak to the waiters and clerks. I also noticed that I was well aware that I was making errors in my speech, but as I grew more confident I was often correcting myself. In other words I could see a shift from error to correction to, I hope, correct speech.

Given what I noticed in my own development in speaking Italian, I have to conclude that any school that seriously wants to encourage its students to speak the language should create the necessary environment in which students can converse with each other. What I envisaged for the school was a Common Room. Shortage of space is a red herring because classes were held mainly in the morning, and the Common Room could be used in the morning as a classroom. For example, it could be used for conversation classes.

My idea of a Common Room is one where instead of the standard chairs there would be sofas or whatever; coffee/drink machines, and magazines and newspapers. As in a doctor's waiting room, these do not even have to be current. The curious hand will automatically pick up a magazine and attempt to read it. Having the room alone is not sufficient. The school has to encourage its students to use it. If the faculty would use it too, they would help create the right atmosphere. I would have signs saying that "Italian only, please" on each wall. The critical point is that the school must make the Room a central part of its teaching philosophy, because I believe it is here between students that one can comfortably try to speak the language. Not to have an active Common Room is to offer only half a language cake, and this applies to all types of schools be they college or commercial.

One final observation I wish to make is a suggestion to students that they get back what they put in. If they go to a language school abroad to learn a language, they would do well to practise the language inside and outside the classroom. Otherwise, they might as well remain in Idaho or wherever. I believe it is human nature to slide into what is most comfortable and least strenuous, and hence the temptation to speak one's own language at the slightest opportunity. I heard excuses like "we're out of the classroom," or "it's the weekend," etc. The "best" was "I can't speak this damn language!" Most students that I mixed with made valiant attempts to speak Italian, and very readily slipped back into Italian when caught out. We all slide, but we need to be held up, and faculty can play a role by creating the right atmosphere and exhorting its students to try.