An Intensive Method of Language Teaching

Jan J . Solecki

ABSTRACT In the summers of 1969 and 1970, the Department of Slavoriic Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, carried out a n experimental Russian Language program at basic and intermediate levels (each carrying six units of credit). Students remained i n the program premises from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. T h e pro- gram constituted a combination of grammar and oral approach-with a daily issue to students of

exercise material. No recourse was made to for. ma1 memory drills. Students were made to speak Russian from the first day. Daily news in Kus- sian, song sessions, and visits to Russian ships in port and to a local Russian community center were additional opportunities for learn ing and speaking the language. In 1971 the pro. gram is ta be extended to include a Workshop in Russian Drama.

IN T H E SUMMER of 1969 a new six-week program in Russian language was intro- duced at the University of British Columbia. T h e novel aspect of the program was that students were required to remain within the premises set aside for the workshop from 8:30 a.m. to 9:OO p.m. Only Russian could be spoken in the building.

T h e aims of the new program-designated Russian 180-were (a) to teach students the basic principles of Russian Grammar, (b) to give them a vocabulary of approximately 2,000 words, and (c) to provide an environ-

JAN J. SOLECKI (M.A. in Slavonic Studies, Univ. of British Columbia, M.A. in Economics, Univ. of Wash- ington) is Chairman of the Total Immersion Rus- sian Language Workshop at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, where he has taught since 1961. He has done extensive research on Economic and Forestry Problems in the USSR and the Chinese Mainland, and has held Canada Council Grants for pre-doctoral research and for research in the USSR. His publications include Economic Growth, Re- sources, Forest Industries, 1967; and Economic As- pects of the Fishing Industry in Mainland Chinu, 1966. He is a member of the American Economic As- sociation, AATSEEL, the Association for Asian Studies, the Canadian Institute of International Ai- fairs, the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America, and the Canadian Association of Slavists, for which he served as Secretary-Treasurer 196748.

ment i n which the knowledge of grammar and vocabulary could be integrated and a facility in speaking Russian developed. The principle underlying the instruction was that each student must learn tlie basic rules of grammar and a core vocabulary while at the same time being given every opportunity to allow progress at his own pace and tlevelop- ment of his abilities in tlie way he found best. T o achieve this, no structured drills were used and very little stress was laid on memory work in the accepted form. Rather i t was assumed that through constant and prolonged daily use of the language, students would absorb vocabulary and grammatical and idiomatic patterns. It was assumed that words and forms occurring most frequently would be absorbed most quickly. On the first day of work, students were required to buy a Russian/English dictionary and become accustomed LO using it.

Each day, students were issued booklets of the material for that day. These booklets were prepared especially for the program, and incorporated grammar, vocabulary, dia- logues, and exercises to be translated from or into Russian, conversational expressions, or songs. For quick reference, tlie vocabulary

278

JAN J. SOLECKI 279

used throughout the day was given at the end of each booklet.

The daily

8:30- 9:OO 9:oo-1 1:OO

11 :00-11: 45

12:oo- l:oo

1:OO- 1150 2:oo- 2:50 3~00- 3:5O

3:50- 4 ~ 3 0

4:30- 5:15

5115- 6:OO

6:OO- 7:OO

7~00- 9:OO

routine in the workshop was:

Review and questions. Presentation of Russian gram- mar and vocabulary (instruc- tion in English). Period of supervised, directed study in grammar, by sections (4 sections of 9). Lunch in groups supervised by instructors, with only Rus- sian spoken. Students divided into four groups which rotated as fol- lows: three groups had peri- ods of oral drill or supervised study, while one attended the language laboratory. 1 ea. Daily news given in Rus- sian. Instructions regarding the program. Conversational drill by sec- tions (4 sections). Conversational drill by sec- tions (4 sections). Dinner at the student resi- dence, with faculty members supervising; only Russian spoken. Recreational form of instruc- tion. Singing (nearly evet y day), dancing, lectures in Rus- sian about USSR with slides, discussions, poetry readings, etc.

r -

Every Wednesday morning students were given written and oral tests to assess their progress and to show instructors where addi- tional help was required. At first, partici- pants were grouped in equal sections of nine, but, as weeks went by, they were re- arranged according to their knowledge of the language. T h e weakest section was given some extra attention, while the ablest stu- dents were allowed to move ahead at their own pace. At the end of the program there were written and oral exams.

Forty minutes were set aside for tea. Dur- ing this period all students gathered in the main Blue Room where the section on duty prepared tea and coffee. Having been served, the students settled down to hear the news taken from the CBC 8 o’clock news and other sources and recorded in Russian by instructors. This was a deliberate attempt to expose students to spoken Russian, with the added advantage of being topical and current. Initially the news was immediately translated in to English by the instructor; later, translation work was done by some of the better students. Although tedious at times, the organized news period prevented students from talking in English. With forty people in the room, individual super- vision could not have been carried out during this period. O n the other hand, it was imperative that the students be given a long break during the prolonged period of afternoon study.

T h e after-dinner period was based on ,I

recreational approach to language teaching, which provided variety and extensive vocab- ulary. At least two evenings a week, the stu- dents sang Russian songs and danced. A Russian piano teacher was found to assist iri leading song sessions conducted by the in- structors, song sheets were prepared, and the students quickly accumulated a considerable repertoire of Russian songs.

A number of lectures were given about the USSR. As an economist interested in Soviet Studies, I have made a study of the USSR for a number of years and have an extensive collection of slides of the Soviet Union taken during a trip to that country. 1 spoke to the students about the country in general and about individual cities. Lectures were also given by other instructors. Attempts were al- ways made to develop general discussions, in Russian, of course. On several occasions, outside guests were invited to sing or speak to the students.

To sustain interest and vary the program, a number of special events were organized, including visits to Soviet ships docked in Vancouver, where students were able to see Russian films and talk to seamen. On one

280 A n Iiztensiue Method of Language Teaching

occasion, for example, students were able to see the entire film of War and Peace, in Rus- sian. A trip was taken to Seattle to visit the Russian House there. Several visits were made to Russian centers and churches in Vancouver. Students were given an opportu- nity to prepare a complete Russian dinner in the kitchen of the Russian Center. Some members of the Department of Slavonic Studies, a few Russian Vancouverites, and seamen from the Soviet ship were invited to join the party. Making use of the beautiful panorama of British Columbia, the group organized several picnics and startled the public by singing Russian songs.

The concentrated yet relaxed manner of learning in a Russian language environment gave the group a sense of its own identity, which was strengthened because no other classes were being held in the building (New Arts I) with the workshop. I t was therefore possible to make the group into an isolated, Russian-speaking community.

Some students were strongly opposed to examinations, which they felt caused pres- sure and thus diminished the joys of learn- ing. While agreeing in principle, the instruc- tors felt that tests were essential, despite the unpleasant aspects of giving them. T h e tests made it possible to maintain a systematic record of the students’ weekly performance. They furnished an opportunity to reassess students and to regroup them where they would get the greatest amount of assistance, which inevitably created weaker and strong- er groups. Students in the weaker groups suffered some loss of face in their own eyes, but the small size of the weak section made it possible to give these students more assist- ance and to meet their particular needs. Some students showed an intensely competi- tive attitude on tests. This had to be cor- rected as unsuitable to the program.

T h e university administration required that students in the workshop be assigned final grades-a number of points out of 300, this being a six-unit course. T h e weekly tests and the final examination provided an ac- curate assessnient of each student’s perfor- mance over the entire period.

General Remarks

In the instructors’ opinion, the course war a great success. T h e students not only learned Russian grammar and vocabulary, but also acquired the skill and the habit of speaking in Russian. These must be consid. ered achievements.

The group quickly became a closely knit community, enthusiastic about learning the language, and surprisingly free of friction despite long hours together. Toward the end of the program, participants were asked to write an unsigned evaluation of the work. shop. The majority chose to put their names to their reports.

As can be expected, there were differences of opinion on how the program could be improved. Some students asked for more in. dependent study time, some wished to have pattern drills, others opted for small group discussions. All the suggestions, however, were for minor adjustments. The main fea. tures of the workshop received complete approval.

One of the most crucial and difficult prob. lems to resolve was the students’ varying ability for oral work. The majority soon shed their natural shyness and began speaking in Russian to the best of their ability, but a few found the transition quite difficult. One student lacked the confidence to speak Rus- sian in public until the last day of the course.

Putting on too much pressure, acting in an arbitrary fashion, would not give the de- sired results. If a student could not bring himself to speak in the foreign language, forcing him to do so would only make him break down and leave the course. It is per- haps better to allow such a student to tag along in the hope that he or she will eventu- ally join in to a limited degree. It niiist be remembered that a student incapable of oral expression, although a hindrance to the workshop, does nevertheless benefit by listening to others speaking the language. Teachers must use tact and judgment in applying pressure or taking a permissive at- titude to the particular difficulties of the un- fortunate few.

JAN J. SOLECKI 28 1

It is interesting to note that those who find it difficult to talk are the ones who do want to talk. In assessing the course, they are the ones who chide the instructors for their leni- ency in enforcing the rule of speaking Rus- sian only. The causes of student shyness are too complex to be considered in this paper, and the only recommendation that can be made as a result of our experience is for pa- tience and understanding, and for leniency wherever possible.

Two factors may have decided the success of the program. One pertained to the struc- ture of the teaching program, the other to the administrative organization. From the beginning, the program was designed so that each student could proceed at his or her own pace. The amount of various exercises was more than even the most industrious and ambitious student could handle. There was always work available. On the other hand, the absence of pattern drills in class or of other formal exercises prevented the slow students from being pushed beyond the limits of their ability. At first, some students attempted to cover all the material given to them, but were soon defeated. Since the phenomenon was univer- sal, they accepted it as one of those un- reasonable attitudes on the part of instruc- tors who obviously had no idea of the limi- tations of the human brain.

Shifting students between groups helped to lessen tension, although only a few stu- dents may have realized this. The uniformi- ty of language mastery level within each group gave each participant some feeling of security.

In an informal program design with no definite and rigid requirements, each student could use his special abilities. Faced with the task of answering a barrage of spon- taneous questions in class, some students concentrated on learning vocabulary, others tried to make more effective use of the limited vocabulary they already knew, and others made humorous responses. This made for lively, vigorous classes. The re- quirement stated that the student should talk. It did not matter whether he philoso-

phized, used long and difficult words, or clowned; in any case the language was alive.

The other successful factor was the en- lightened attitude of the university authori- ties, the summer session administration, and the Department of Slavonic Studies. The workshop staff were given all the assist- ance they requested. The New Arts I Build- ing contained all the requirements for the workshop. It provided a place where the group could live as an independent com- munity, speaking in its own language, wres- tling with its own problems. The staff were also allowed a sum of money for small ex- penses. This was used to hire a pianist to play Russian songs, to help charter a bus to take the group to Seattle, to arrange nu- merous visits to Russian-speaking centers, to prepare impromptu snacks for visitors who came to visit the workshop and who were a valuable source of conversational opportunities. The instructors and students could organize entertainment to supple- ment the rigorous program of instruction. All participants found i t easier to fuse into an academic community whose essential characteristic was liveliness. Without such pleasant additions, the program could not have been so interesting or effective.

The method of teaching a language in a specially created environment was ex- tended in 1970 to the intermediate level. A special program has been written for the beginning course, to integrate the formal study of grammar and syntax with the oral approach. T h e next step will be an advanced course-Workshop in Russian Drama. Ad- mission requirement will be four years of Russian language. The program will include a daily lecture on Russian drama in Russian, plus a number of lectures, in English, on the position of Russian drama in world litera- ture and the influence of English language drama on the Russian theatre. Students will be expeoted to study one play a week in depth, and eventually to stage m e of these in costume. All work on the presentation 01 the play will be done by the students under the supervision of instructors. The final pre- sentation will also be video-taped to serve as

282 A n Intensi-oe Method of Language Teaching

a teaching aid in future courses. In later years the Workshop in Drama will alternate

Literature. Another course with two sections is being prepared. It will offer an advanced Workshop in Russian Language anti an vanced Worksllop in Scientific and Techni- cal Translations. available to them.

The Summer Workshop is integrated wit11 the normal program of the Department of

Columbia, allowing students either to ac. celerate their studies or to widen their I m k . grounds to include subjects I lOt otherwise

with Worksl’oPs in Russian Slavonic Studies at the University of British