I’d like to add some points to Christopher Pye’s informative survey. .

 

1. Michel Thomas was a friend of mine, and his discoveries in the field of language teaching are, I believe, consistent with the brain research evidence on the formation of neural networks. Above all, he did not go too quickly at the beginning. Christopher is correct, though, in saying that supplements are needed in vocabulary – the basis of Michel’s work is in grammar and shared words (aka cognates, a word I don’t care for). We also need to teach children to write, and the approach on my site using Clicker 6 is a way of doing this while using the same principles as Michel. For what it may be worth, I showed it to him on our last meeting, about a year before he died, and he was extremely enthusiastic about it.  I don’t see Michel’s approach as building oracy, though. It builds understanding.

 

2. I’ve not used AIM, but I’ve used similar methods, verb songs and gestures. I’m happy with as much of the new language to be used as possible, as often as possible, provided the children understand it.  It is essential, though, that they be able to put a sentence together, positive and negative, and this is the key to Michel’s approach, adapted for Mandarin by Harold Browne.

 

3. We don’t learn a new language as we learn our first for many reasons, not least that the structures of the first remain in place. My ppt Eliminating Failure in Language Learning summarises much of the evidence on this, but see Swan and Swan, Learner English, for evidence of the influence of first language on children learning English. I suggest that what we are doing is grafting new learning on to what we already know.

 

4. The only evidence I have is cases, but they are very consistent. In Hackney, I had classes of seven and eight year olds writing accurate sentences in French and Spanish – easier to start in Spanish – with full understanding of what they were doing. My approach is similar to Michel’s, though I developed it myself in work with people with reading difficulties. At the BETT show in 1998, I shared a presentation with a Hackney teacher who brought in the work of a whole class in French. I regularly rescue, pro bono, GCSE candidates who don’t understand their work. The latest is on my site. I do not teach spoken language and writing separately, but together, from the beginning. This builds up children’s understanding of the connections between them.

 

5. I very much like these sites. My pupils have all loved Zim Zam Zoum too.

 

6. The thematic approach is at the root of many of our problems, and we should get rid of it. Children need to learn to adjust their thinking to communicate in the new language. Once they can do this, they can branch out in any direction. The thematic approach does not build understandiog of grammar.

 

7. In short, I’m sure I’ve cracked this issue in European languages, and  believe Kingsford School has cracked it in Mandarin.  Most of the rest of current practice in European languages is based on errors that are not the fault of practitioners, but of trainers and academics. See 

http://johnbald.typepad.com/language/lost-in-a-fog/

 

Happy to have any further correspondence, either via the site or privately.

 

John Bald

 

 

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com