[TheHistoryStudent]

(Original post by L i b)
Well, for a start, an understanding of beauty, that words can be more than simply technical tools. Poetry is also extremely useful in understanding meaning since they tend to deploy non-literal communication more often than prose.

As for recitations, good for the memory - but even better for improving self-confidence, public speaking and so on. I don't think there's enough of that in British state schools.

On your first point - learning by heart and then reciting doesn't equal understanding does it though - to give an example, I could learn to recite an extract from a book on advanced physics, but that doesn't mean I'll understand it. I think also the problem comes with because kids would be forced to do it, they would immediately be turned off by it, and so what chance they would have to understand could well be scuppered by lack of interest - although it wont be 100% of pupils, I think the majority would react in this way.

On your point on recitations, good for memory yes, but why not recite something which could prove much more useful? - Like Multiplication tables? You get the same sort of benefits, but instead of reciting poems which you may not use again and hence will probably forget, you will be reciting something which you will use over and over throughout your life, and so times tables might well be more useful.

Originally Posted by TheHistoryStudent

but Latin and Greek? Why?

Well French, Italian and Spanish are Latin languages so if you can understand the tongue from which they originate they are easier to master.


Originally Posted by TheHistoryStudent

One is a dead language, so has no real use, and the other I just can't see it being as useful as the others

As I said, because it is no used doesn't mean knowledge of it wouldn't help quicker understandings of languages which split off from it, such as French, Italian and Spanish.


Originally Posted by TheHistoryStudent

so really here we've just got another Tory thing of "it was better in the olden days" approach, something which I personally feel, will fall on it's backside in an increasingle globalised and advancing world.

Erm, are you seriously pulling the whole class war nonsense on just because you're having a tantrum about something taught at Eton? What, are you jealous of them? Because that would suggest you want to learn Latin despite you calling it 'useless'. I don't really understand your point. Not only do you call it useless, you also claim it'll fall on it's back in an 'increasingle' globalised world, which doesn't make sense because knowing the source language of these Latin languages helps you master them better. Moreover, you can also find it easier to master non-Latin languages, such as the ones which are Sanskrit sourced. So, basically, you are somehow trying to argue that the best way of globalising a world is to somehow not teach people to master languages easier? I don't get it.

But French, Italian and Spanish are not impossible to master without the use of latin are they? Sure it is useful for...building bridges between the languages so to speak, in that it connects many of them and makes them easier to learn, but similar if not the same bridges can be found between those languages anyway (e.g. between spanish and italian), which still makes it slightly easier to learn them. Latin, i admit, would also have it's use in some scientific fields too. I just think however, that it would be more useful to study languages which are likely to become very widespread in the near future, spanish, madarin, possibly hindi and so on.

No I'm not jealous of being educated at Eton, and I'm not pulling a tantrum about them being educated there either - so this isn't an issue about class (because frankly I dont care about class) it's an issue about policy, I feel that it would be a bad idea to start teaching kids a dead language again (amongst other things) because of the limited use it now has in the world, something which I think will be exacerbated as time goes on, making it less and less relevant (my argument is the same for greek, it'd be useful for reading classical sources and stuff like that, as well as when you're in Greece obviously, but it is hardly a global language, and it's not likely to become so in the near future). I do also think that Gove is occassionally influenced by traditionalist thought too (although granted I was incorrect to attribute that to the whole Tory party), and I feel that Latin/Greek is one example amongst a few things that he's said whilst he's been in office.

[Kolya]

(Original post by stifa)
The way we are teaching foreign languages does not work. The reason many Europeans master English very well is because of immersion. We are exposed to a lot of American and British media. Listening to songs sung in English, watching TV shows and movies where English is spoken and communicating via online message boards such as this one makes it much easier to learn English than for instance German or Spanish, because most of us are only exposed to those languages in the classroom when they are often presented by a teacher speaking about its grammar or using a few example sentences -- which tend to be very awkward at times. I am sure that if all my favourite TV shows were in German, and if my favourite bands' songs were sung in German, I wouldn't suck so bad at it.

Heck, the very reason children actually learn their mother tounge rather well is because they are constantly hearing it being spoken around them, and then their minds will put together the pieces and subconsciously learn the grammar rules; they won't be able to explain them very well, but they can often sense when a sentence is oddly phrased.

That's just how I see it.

I think you're spot on. Motivation and drive is everything. Starting at an earlier age won't help that. Learning a language is something much bigger than the classroom. The curriculum change will be a waste of time if it doesn't look and question the culture the lessons are happening in.

[stifa]

(Original post by Kolya)
I think you're spot on. Motivation and drive is everything. Starting at an earlier age won't help that. Learning a language is something much bigger than the classroom. The curriculum change will be a waste of time if it doesn't look and question the culture the lessons are happening in.

Yeah. Perhaps they should promote exchange programmes for secondary school more? In Norway, it is quite common for year 12 students to take a year in USA, England, France or Germany. Is this sort of thing common over there too?

[Kolya]

(Original post by stifa)
Yeah. Perhaps they should promote exchange programmes for secondary school more? In Norway, it is quite common for year 12 students to take a year in USA, England, France or Germany. Is this sort of thing common over there too?

It's not really common, but it could be a good idea. Give students the opportunity and give some intense preparatory language lessons before they go. That would be far more useful than just doing the same pretty-lame thing that English schools do now, just from an earlier age.

I would only offer it as an option though, for those that are interested. English is widespread enough now that I don't see why other languages should have a place in schools that treats them as more than enjoyable intellectual pursuits for the adventurous.

[Foo.mp3]

'Scrap science and make language compulsory', when most boys switch off in foreign language lessons in my experience (6 years worth of lessons wasted on most of us at my school), when we need more high tech/engineering type industry in the UK as it is (starting kids off on science/sparking their interest at an early age is indispensable), and when those of us that do make an effort to try to speak the language of the natives in a country like France just get treated with contempt for not having perfect sodding comprehension and/or natives speak our language better/by default anyway!..

..pragmatic policy from a government just churning out the good ideas these days

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by TheHistoryStudent)
The first 4 I can understand, with Mandarin and Spanish probably being the most important (since they might well become a language as big as English in the future, and so will be very important), but Latin and Greek? Why? One is a dead language, so has no real use, and the other I just can't see it being as useful as the others

Languages in general have no real use, but the Roman Empire is more interesting and frankly more important to the history of the world than the Hispanosphere, which could disappear tomorrow without anyone noticing.

[Alexandra's Box]

For most children, Year 1 is too young to learn Spanish or Mandarin - they need to have a basic command of English. A child that may only just be 5 would get confused.

[stifa]

(Original post by Kolya)
It's not really common, but it could be a good idea. Give students the opportunity and give some intense preparatory language lessons before they go. That would be far more useful than just doing the same pretty-lame thing that English schools do now, just from an earlier age.

There is no need for those intense preparatory language lessons before they go. If you know some basics before you go, you would easily get up to a conversational level very quickly. I know people who've done exchange years in Japan with little or no language preparation, and they managed; when you are constantly surrounded by the langauge, it doesn't really take much time before you are able to speak it yourself.

Most Norwegian exchange students go to the USA though. The ones travelling to other countries are a minority, who are motivated to learn another language.