Not every teacher shares how well their students are doing—probably out of fear of being criticized—and I don’t blame them one bit. This data is often kept under lock and key, so it’s hard to get a sense of whether all the talk amounts to something. SPOILER ALERT: it does. The reports I’ve seen on how well students have been doing under a…NOT…grammar-translation approach tend to attribute success in different ways, though. Today, I’m looking at two such programs to see if we can narrow down what contributes success:

Program 1:

• 69% of Latin V students score Intermediate Mid (I4+) on ALIRA
• Focus on reading
• Translation of what is understood (vs. in order to understand)
• Uses LLPSI (Lingua Latina per se Illustrata)
• Uses novellas & other sources of input
• Speaks Latin whenever possible (i.e. judicious use of English)
• Establishes meaning in English (i.e. fēlēs = cat) when students ask
• CI is necessary, but not sufficient for acquisition
• Extensive interaction is most important

Program 2:

• 64% of Latin IV students score Intermediate Mid (I4+) on ALIRA
• Focus on reading
• Translation of what is understood (vs. in order to understand)
• No textbook
• Uses novellas & other sources of input
• Speaks Latin whenever possible (i.e. judicious use of English)
• Establishes meaning in English (i.e. fēlēs = cat)
• CI is necessary, and sufficient for acquisition
• Interaction is important

The results are very close by the end of each program, and there’s definitely more in common than not, but what isn’t in common makes for differently-enough teaching and learning environments. Both are just as successful, but what can we attribute that success to? Let’s look into those differences a bit more…

Continue reading →