This is a guest blog by Paul Nitz on Learning Another Language Through Actions , expanded 7th edition, by James J. Asher, Originator of the Total Physical Response known worldwide as TPR. Paul teaches Greek in Malawi and will be attending the Fresno BLC workshop this summer. Comments are welcomed:
I had been looking for a better method. I found an APPROACH!
My grandfather, father, and every Greek student I have ever known were taught by the traditional grammar/translation method. When I inherited the job of Greek instruction at our Lutheran Bible Institute (Lilongwe, Malawi) I followed the teaching tradition. But I quickly started to feel discouraged. My students were not getting to a practically useful level of competency. The idea was niggling at me that there must be a better method of teaching Greek.
Isn’t there a better method?
My students are language sponges when it comes to learning a living language. Couldn’t we tap into that ability somehow? Maybe auditory learning was the key. I emphasized fluent reading to my students, “Read, read, & read a phrase until you think the Greek!” Better, but not great. I felt like I was teaching musical notation with the promise, “Study hard and someday you’ll hear the music in your head.” The niggling was beginning to hurt.
I heard about BLC and worked through Living Koine – Part One (the picture book). Part Two went on the back burner as I filled up my time searching for a better method (B-Greek, SLA papers). Meanwhile, I was also trying to increase my own Greek comprehension (rapid reading, memorization with gestures). I had heard of Total Physical Response and had Asher’s book, Learning Another Language Through Actions sitting on my shelf for a year.
Eureka!
Last week I finally picked it up. Eureka! I expected to read about a method. What I was absolutely delighted to find was an APPROACH. The approach is characterized by using commands to couple language and action. Read “κάθισον = sit!” and you have faint learning. Hear κάθισον, and obey by sitting, and you have bold-faced learning that instantly enters into long term memory.
Interestingly, one of the key points Asher makes is that production interferes with the painless and efficient reception of meaning. Hear and obey, but don’t speak. Let speech spring naturally from internalization. This came to him together with his eureka moment about language acquisition.
Asher had been using his training in psychology to research language acquisition. He found that in order for language to be internalized efficiently, new content had to be true, believable, or useful. He hypothesized that this condition could be fulfilled if cause/effect could be established through hearing and acting. He and his secretary were the first experiment. A Japanese friend barked out orders and modelled the action. They verbally repeated the command and actively obeyed. But as each new command was uttered, the last one was erased from their minds.
His intuition told him to leave out the production. No repeating this time. The Japanese friend gave command after command, making things more complicated. Within one session, Asher and his secretary were comprehending and obeying commands as complex as, “Run to the window, pick up the book, put it on the desk, then sit on the chair.” The three of them were amazed at the results, and the Total Physical Response (TPR) approach was born.
More than the Imperative Mood
TPR makes extensive use of commands, but is not limited to teaching the Imperative mood. Nouns, adjectives, and adverbs can be easily added to commands. Different moods, tenses and constructions can be embedded in commands and coupled with action,
ἐὰν ἔλθῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, δέξασθε αὐτόν
If he comes to you, welcome him!
An added benefit is that vocabulary is added in meaningful chunks, rather than disconnected lists.
This approach is based on an understanding of how efficiently the right hemisphere of the brain can uncritically and instantly comprehend with meaning. Our right brain receives speech every day and processes voluminous chunks of language with instant comprehension. That receptive ability is something we can tap into when lessons are aimed at the right brain. When we play solely to the left brain with explanations, terms, and paradigms, learning slows to a crawl. But Asher does not by any means dismiss instruction directed at the left brain.
Grammar-Translation has a role
In fact he encourages appealing to both hemispheres. Within a lesson he suggests doing “brainswitching.” Do something coupling language and movement, or make some other appeal to the right brain (music, manipulating props, observing action). Then switch to the left brain (explanation of grammar, writing down what was commanded, use of linguistic terms).
In this way, the approach can easily be added to an existing program based on any textbook. Simply teach some of the upcoming content through right brain activities, and then teach it according to the text.
The hope of comprehension
My desire for improved learning has blossomed into a more confident hope for real comprehension. Could my students acquire a reading comprehension of Greek? That makes my four point list of the benefits of studying Greek look stingy.
Probably the biggest obstacle in my case is the competency of the teacher. But I can work on that. In the meantime, my right brain is swimming with the possibilities. Commands, gestures, storytelling, comics, and more. I set out to find a better method. εὕρηκα! I have found a storehouse of better methods through this APPROACH. Thank you Dr. Asher.
(uploaded on behalf of Paul Nitz)
συμφήμι γε τοῖς καλοῖς λόγοις σου, ὦ ἄριστε Παῦλε. κινῶν γὰρ μανθάνω, μὀνον δὲ ἀναγινώσκων, οὐ.
τοῦτο τὸ βλογ καλόν ἐστιν.
ἔρρωσο.
Fixing a non sequitur
Now that the blog is posted, I see a non sequitur…
That makes my four point list of the benefits of studying Greek look stingy.
My list of the benefits of studying Greek, EVEN IF studied only through the grammar-translation method:
1. Appreciation of the potential value of reading Scripture in the original.
2. Ability to understand the commentary and exegesis of others.
3. Understanding the hermeneutical limitations of translations.
4. A better sense of languages in general.
Add COMPREHENSION to that list and the rest looks stingy.
Thank you for your blog, Paul.
Asher provided a breakthorugh for second language teaching. I would add a comment on mentioning the joining of TPR with a traditional textbook or grammar-translation. They are not weighted equally. Asher mentioned using the last 10% of classtime for grammatical summaries and Q&A. If a teacher started doing, say, 50% of the time in English and grammar explanations rather than 90% in the target language, then the immediate question arises, Why? Why would someone spend 50% of the time in something that is not leading to internalization? So, yes, Asher affirms the proper use of ‘left-brain’ systematicization, but he is careful not to let it drown out the living language development that takes place through TPR.
Another way to look at the left/right learning paradigm is to consider what Blaine Ray calls mini-grammar points. Ray will sometimes take a “timeout” and present a 30-60 second explanation of the target language structure in English. That is very reasonable when one has a class with a shared background language. I have found over the years that this works and that if something cannot be explained in a minute, the time is not right for the explanation and classtime is better spent on more target language with meaningful input and usage. There is always the universal rule of grammar: “We do it like that, because that is the way they do it.” All children learn that rule brilliantly. They learn it so well that it can be scary to parents. 🙂
χαίρετε
δεῖ τὸ grammar/translation εἶναι 10% τῆς διδασκαλίας.
κατά με, δεῖ διδἀσκειν παλαιοὺς κύνας καινὰς τέχνας.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNCX6dD0PHs&feature=g-all-u
εὑρήκαμεν δή.
ἔρρωσθε.
καὶ δυνάμεθα διδάσκειν τὰ γραμματικὰ ἐν τῇ ἑλληνικῇ ἐν τοῖς 10%.
So, 10% max of a lesson should be about grammar, and that in the target language. Interesting, but…
[b]I’m not going to quibble about 10% when I have a 90% in my eye![/b]
Scant instruction on grammar is necessary. While I agree, I think talking about 10% of a lesson being grammatical explanations is a moot point for most Greek instructors interested in TPR. They, like me, have bigger problems. [b][i]Instructor incompentency[/i][/b].
I spent 45 minutes making sure I had “sit” and “stand” imperatives correct, [u]only to find out I got one out four forms wrong[/u] (I’m hoping Buth’s new Morphology book will help shorten my prep). There’s no way I’m going to be prepared to run a 100% TPR class lesson after lesson before my next Greek class in the Fall.
But Asher holds out hope. Add a [u]little[/u] TPR.
“[i]A Spanish instructor at Stanford University was required by her department to use the traditional left-brain type textbook. She did this: One day in her class, for five minutes only, she used a sample of TPR activities; then for the rest of the period worked with the book[/i].”
Other TPR instructors suggest making TPR exercises for all the vocabulary in the book. “[i]Comb the textbook to find all action verbs… Then, write TPR exercises that use the action verbs with other vocabulary in thebook including nouns, adjectives, and adverbs….[/i]” (p. 3-20).
These people limited their TPR because of objections from their institutions. I would limit because TPR because of my incompentency. But either way, some TPR would be done and a course would be improved. After a couple more years of part-time work on raising my competency, maybe I can start to discuss whether grammatical explanations should be 10%. In the meantime, left brain activities are much more likely to be 90% of my lessons.
Actually, to be honest, grammar is grammar, in whatever language it is done. Grammar explanations are talking about a language and they break any real communication and create a different conversation than whatever the text under discussion was saying.
Grammar in Greek is not a big help at the beginning, but at higher levels it provides students with vocabulary to ask sophisticated questions about choices between various structures. Actually, beyond ‘noun’ and ‘verb’, Greek grammar in English is not very helpful for beginners either. ‘genitive, dative, accusative, etc., are all ‘blank words’ in English and do not have any common English meaning. The meaning is slowly built up through usage of a language that uses such categories. (genitive, dative, accusative are just transliterations from Latin, which were originally translations from Greek to Latin “source/character quality” “giving quality” “stipulation quality”)
The ideal on grammar teaching is probably to work with pieces of a language where the teacher can get in and out in a minute. If not, then the student is usually better off accepting a block of input with a general meaning and waiting for further knowledge and/or explanation of the pieces until later. This is often done, for example, in grammar translation classes, too. A subjunctive or participle may be translated for an immediate beginner early in a course although the structure will be taught later in the course.
ὦ χαῖρε φίλε Παῦλε!
ἔγραψας:
<These people limited their TPR because of objections from their institutions. I would limit TPR because because of my incompentency.
ἐὰν σὺ βλέπῃς τοῦτο πολλάκις,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stNHxR2Zn50&feature=related
ἄρα σὺ δυνήσῃ οὔτως διδάσκειν?
εἰ σὺ οὐ δύνασῃ ποιεῖν 90%, ποίει 55%. ἔρρωσο.
Thank you Paul for this first summary!
One of the biggest challenges in trying to implement an immersive approach to Seminary teaching is, as has often been noted, the sheer lack of time allotted for language learning. At the Seminary in Aix, we have approximately 72 class hours for first year introduction to Greek. After the first year, that number drops to 24 class hours per year and is more translation than anything else. From what I understand, this is generous compared to many American Seminaries, so I’m not complaining. But it is entirely insufficient for acquiring a capacity to understand and speak and, in addition to that, to get a grip on basic Greek grammar/vocabulary sufficient for reading the New Testament with relative ease. Real language acquisition requires hundreds of hours (actually closer to 2,000 – 3,000 hours to speak fluently). This is where the fully immersive approach breaks down in a Seminary setting. There simply isn’t enough time, and even doubling the number of class hours isn’t the solution.
So I find it interesting that Asher promotes a mixed “left brain/right brain” approach. This is actually what I’ve been toying with over the last 2-3 years, working (one hour a week) with a few students who have already “learned” Greek via traditional methods and focusing on immersive, TPR and TPRS approaches. BTW, this includes the use of Greek grammatical terminology so that, in a one hour class period, maybe five minutes at the most is in a language other than Greek. The results have been very encouraging on the whole; within the first few weeks, the students are able to formulate simple sentences and by the end of the year they can understand spontaneously formulated questions and converse on basic biblical subjects.
I know this is not what Asher is advocating (or Randall B. for that matter, συγνώμην μοι ἔχε, Ἰωάνα!). However, in a Seminary setting–even providing that students could avail themselves of the opportunity to speak Greek outside the classroom and in the hypothesis of a weekend or two a year of intensive group work (i.e., a “Greek only weekend.” Why not?)–an immersive-only, or almost only, approach is in my opinion unrealistic. So it seems to me that a diversified approach, even if not ideal, has a lot of promise.
I’ll be looking forward to the following posts!
Donald Cobb
Aix-en-Provence, France
Thanks for your realism, Donald. Classroom teaching of Greek (by any method) will not likely reach the goal of full comprehension of a language. It doesn’t lead any of us to a pessimistic conclusion: “Why spend any time on Greek at all?” Teaching of Greek, even by grammar-translation methods alone, can achieve important benefits (see my tentative list of four achievements above).
Adding a TPR component to a class at whatever level is feasible, will achieve more:
5) enjoying Greek classes (not a small thing!);
6) approaching Greek as communication, rather than code;
7) gaining reading comprehension for some simple texts;
8) inspiring students to the hope of reading comprehension of more of the Bible.
This all leaves four questions I want to dig into. I’ll just pose one today:
1. A Greek instructor is interested in adding TPR to his class. What are his best resources? Add to or revise this list::
a) Attend a BLC workshop or course.
b) Buy Living Koine books.
c) Get the Buth Morphology book to reduce hours spent hunting for the right forms.
d) View Rico videos.
e) Buy Rico books (does anyone have these? Are they worth it?)
f) Read Asher’s book “Learning Another Language Through Actions.”
g) Get some of Asher’s other books??? (Brainswitching?)
h)
i)
j)
k)
Paul and Don,
there is an added benefit to TPR and comprehensive/communicative-based approaches to language learning. They bring a person ‘inside’ the language in a way that grammar-translation cannot do. They also enable a different experience when reading. This is most forcibly brought home to those who are fluent in Hebrew and read the Bible to the point of including that dialect in their fluency. For such people the comparison with 20years Greek grammar-translation compels one into living methods (real language use) as a non-negotiable must for Greek. Most multilinguals who compare traditional Greek learning come to the same conclusion, as long as they don’t assume that it can’t be done. The Monterey Defense Institute knows that it can be done in a controlled environment.
PS: Louis Sorenson over on b-greek posted the following 5 minute demo link on TPR:
TPR Demo Clip
It delightfully compares how children learn and adults can learn in class, and even mentions the number of studies that support this method. James Asher often points out that no technique in SecondLanguageAcquistion has been as widely researched and verified.
Paul, you wrote: “It doesn’t lead any of us to a pessimistic conclusion: “Why spend any time on Greek at all?” Teaching of Greek, even by grammar-translation methods alone, can achieve important benefits (see my tentative list of four achievements above).”
Totally agreed! We cannot invent a world in which our students spend hundreds of hours per year working on language acquisition–I know of no place in the world where that is possible, intensive training sessions notwithstanding (and I’m fully for them!). But we can be doing more to instill in our students a more intuitive and lasting understanding of Biblical languages building an acquisition that is active and “from the inside”, and TPR, as well as well as TPRS, are major components in that. If we could achieve a 30% immersive approach versus a 60% “traditional” approach in our Seminaries, that would already be a huge step forward! (What I’m doing with my students is 50/50, but again, that’s with second and third year students.)
Practically speaking, I would plead first of all, though, for teachers to create opportunities among themselves for regular conversational Greek (via Skype, for instance) as a way of working toward fluency, for it is only as teachers themselves build up a comfortable reserve of vocabulary and ease in speaking/understanding, that they can really implement a valid immersive approach. I think this is one of the greatest challenges at the present time.
Another point: Paul, you asked about Ch. Rico’s book (as far as I know there is only one for the moment); it is good in that it begins with a classroom setting and lots of aorist imperatives (giving orders) and takes it from there. It’s the resource I’ve used the most in working with my students–although as of late, I’ve been using some picture-books and working toward a more story-based approach (TPRN).
TPRN?
Mistake. TPRS
I thought you might have meant TPRNarrative.
Explanation:
Some of our TPRS storytelling at BLC is like Blaine Ray discusses in his method where a story is built interactively with a class. However, especially because of limited time, we often use TPRS techniques with the fixed texts being read: Jonah, Genesis, or various ancient Greek texts. They are usually narrative, in past contexts, and one might give such a specialized form of TPRS its own acronym.
Actually that WAS the source of the mistake. In my mind, there isn’t much difference. Over the last couple months I’ve been using alternatively a children’s storybook and the story of Jonah, and presenting them both as διηγήματα.
In both cases, I begin by telling the story (or part of it), then go back and ask the students questions on it, then finally ask them to tell it (usually using questions to prompt them about details).
On a completely different level, since I usually get together with these students after the required Greek reading class, we often discuss, in Greek, the text they’ve just translated, i.e., ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ περικοπῇ τί λέγει ὁ Παῦλος; This usually works pretty well because they’ve already spent time on the text itself, with its vocabulary, and it’s a good way of cementing the words and phrasing of the passage.
All three of my remaining big questions are touched on above. But I’ll just ask one at a time:
A Greek Instructor wants to increase his internalization via a right-brain approach. What can he do?
This is a knotty question for me. I’d love to be the object of TPR methods. I will be shortly at Fresno). I need to internalize this Greek better. I need a more right brained methods.
Gesturing and memorizing has worked wonders for me and I’ll keep that up. I am doing some slogging through forms, but it’s a drag and (I think) inefficient.
I appreciate that speaking could help to internalize (and I have done a little talking to myself) but I just don’t want to push that before it’s time. Failure and frustration is not good for learning. My impression is that it’s like teaching kids to read before their time (something they’ve just found causes dyslexia, btw).
So, what sort of self-teaching have you done that has really increased internalization?
” So, what sort of self-teaching have you done that has really increased internalization?”
ποιῶ ήχωγραφὰς καὶ πέμπω τοῖς φιλοῖς. πολλάκις δὲ άκούω αὐτῶν.
http://www.circuluslatinusinterretialis.co.uk/html/scapi_sonori_soundfiles.html
καθ’ ἡμέραν γράφω ὀλίγον.
http://percipiolinguamgraecam.wordpress.com/
λαλῶ δέ ἐν Σκυπε.
ἔρρωσθε.
I’m hoping others will chime in here, but here are a few things that have helped me:
– First of all, I agree that trying to memorize forms and paradigms by rote and in the abstract is very un-motivating and not always helpful.
– Start by telling yourself those activities your are in the process of doing and will be doing following that. Example: ἐν τῷ νῦν, πρὸς τὴν πόλιν ἔρχομαι· ὅταν ἐκεῖ ἥξω, βιβλίον τι ἀγορἀσω, κ.τ.λ. This will also help you to get a handle on what vocabulary you need to learn.
– Read as extensively as you can outside the NT : the Apostolic Fathers, Chariton, Epictetus, etc. (in order of difficulty).
– As you read a passage in the NT (or outside the NT), summarize out loud, in Greek, what you have just read.
– Start writing a few sentences in Greek. ΣΧΟΛΗ really is a great place for that, and you don’t have to write a lot.
– Listen to recordings of the NT, i) trying to understand what is being said and ii) repeating out loud the sounds you hear as they are being said. This is also good for improving your accent. One Greek woman, Pella, has recorded several books of the NT (Mt, Jn, Col, 1-2 Pet, Jm); the recordings are amateur, but she generally doesn’t speak too fast (espec. for Mt) and her voice/diction is very enjoyable!
– Speaking with others really is a great help, even if at the beginning, it’s like pulling teeth! Nothing motivates like using a language for real communication!