Grammar-Translation is the Way

The following blog post is directed solely at Latin teachers.

Yes, I said it. Grammar translation is the way. If your goal as a Latin teacher is to get students to translate classical literature as quickly as possible, then by all means grammar-translation methodology is the way to do it. Implementing a CI/ADI approach which is aligned with second language acquisition research will not get students there in the same amount of time at all. However, be aware: based on ACTFL proficiency guidelines, in a traditional Latin curriculum where the goal is to begin translating classical literature after just three years, you are asking students to jump from novice-level readings to Superior/Distinguished level literature, and only a select few type of students can do that. 

Let me state up front: I LOVE grammar. I learned Latin in high school from the good ol' Jenny book in the mid 1980's. I THRIVED in Latin because grammar-translation totally appealed to me and how my brain processed information. I was a quick processor and recognized patterns immediately. For my first years of public school teaching, I taught grammar translation out of Latin for Americans, and by 2005, my colleague Bobby Guarnella and I had built up our Latin program to over 350 students using a grammar-translation approach. I was a damn good grammar-translation teacher. I know all about grammar-translation quite intimately! 

But does grammar-translation work for every learner? I would have to say a very hard "NO," because if that were the case, then every student would be successful with a grammar translation approach. If we are truly honest with ourselves, we know for a fact that only some learners will succeed. If you are okay with that, then that is your choice.

I think that a huge misconception among many is that somehow CI/ADI instruction is a fast track to language acquisition and to getting students to produce language at a quicker pace. The reality is that CI/ADI instruction aligns with how a learner's brain acquires language on a "realistic timeline" for language acquisition, and I use that term "realistic timeline" loosely, because all learners will acquire language at different rates. Language acquisition is unlike any other subject area because it is not linear in nature. To quote Long (1997):

“the idea that what you teach is what [students] learn, and when you teach [x grammar topic] is when they learn it, is not just simplistic, it is wrong." 

Bill Van Patten states,  "Language acquisition is slow, piecemeal, and stage-like and follows a path not dictated by instruction or external forces.” However, what we can expect is that there will be an expected range of language development among learners at any point in time, which ACTFL has defined as its proficiency levels.

As I stated in my last blog post "Grammar Translation Origins," I will say that grammar translation is definitely efficient. Yet, by no mean is it practical or realistic to the way in which learners acquire language. If your goal is that students learn about the language for the purpose of decoding classical literature, then grammar translation is the way to go. Go forth and prosper.