|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IN OUR small department, we decided long ago that it was futile to try to achieve homogeneity in our elementary classes by administering standard placement tests. Instead, we coax students with prior language experience into appropriate levels by awarding them credit for any courses they are qualified to skip. Although this practice works fairly well, we nevertheless find that students in our 101 classes invariably differ significantly in preparation and aptitude. Heretofore, we have accepted this situation as a fact of life and dealt with it as well as possible by gearing our classes to the average student.
At the beginning of the semester one fall, I found myself faced with Spanish 101 students who were unusually heterogeneous in both previous training and linguistic aptitude. After the first two quizzes, I made an interesting observation—about half the class was about twice as good as the other half—and this led to an interesting (and bewildering) thought: the better half could probably progress twice as fast as the slower half if we could provide individualized instruction, something that staffing and budgetary limitations had always ruled out.
So how could I manage the class to keep the better students from sinking into boredom and the slower ones from just plain sinking? One day in class a rather radical but fascinating idea struck me: why not cover the semester's material three times as fast as usual and allow the top students to finish the course in as little as one-third the normal time? If I administered a comprehensive “final” exam after about five weeks, those who passed with a grade they could be happy with would have officially completed the course. Those who did less well than they would have liked could, in effect, repeat the “course” and try again after about ten weeks. Then after about fifteen weeks, the remaining students could take a final “final,” covering the material a third time.
When I explained the plan to the students, they were almost unanimously in favor of it and quite excited about the challenge it presented. I have to admit, however, that some, including myself, were a bit skeptical about its feasibility as well as the expected advantages.
To my knowledge, this “accelerated-repetitive approach,” as I chose to label it, had no precedent, but I was well aware that review and repetition improved comprehension and retention. I was also aware of the risks involved in treading unexplored ground, but since I could not foresee any disastrous consequences, I decided to explore the possibilities.
It didn't work. After about two weeks of struggling to triple my normal pace, I had to concede that I simply could not go that fast. This failure came as no surprise; I had been afraid triple time was too ambitious, and though it was worth a try, I was not devastated when I found that I could not do it. By then I had devised plan B, which was merely to cover the material twice instead of thrice. This proved both practicable and practical and more adaptable to various needs, interests, and goals.
It was not really difficult to go twice as fast, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that I was omitting almost no material or exercises that I had originally planned to cover. I simply dwelled less on grammatical explanations and kept reinforcement and unnecessary remarks to a minimum. I hated having to refrain from telling my favorite jokes, but the students didn't seem to mind at all.
An even more gratifying and significant discovery was that several of the “slow” students were able to keep up, doing about as well on the quizzes as they had at our more leisurely pace. I attributed this performance to their natural desire to do as well as possible on any test, a second chance notwithstanding, and also to finish several weeks ahead of schedule.
Out of the eighteen students in the class, seventeen took the first “final” exam shortly after midterm. (I should mention that we were already about three weeks into the semester when I implemented plan A on 19 September.) When the results of the comprehensive exam were averaged with the quiz grades, six of the seventeen students earned A's and three B's. These results largely confirmed my original assumption that about half the class could do very well at the fast pace. Of these students, the six with A's and one of the three with B's chose to take their grades and run, but I had them sign an agreement promising to review the material thoroughly before starting Spanish 102 the following semester. One C student also decided to stop at that point, but not because she was displeased in any way with our experiment; she was one of many who plan to take only 101 because 102 is not part of our general education requirements for the bachelor of science degree. It is also interesting to note that three of the six A students had had no previous training in Spanish.
Five of the remaining ten students failed the first “final” exam, and the other five wanted to try again because they hoped to do better. So we breezed through the material a second time, concentrating on the grammatical points that had given the students the greatest difficulty on the first exam. This approach helped them overcome their problems, and we turned out four more A's, one more B, three more C's, and two D's. I need to qualify these seemingly spectacular results by pointing out that these grades, though significantly higher than usual, were not a great deal better. A study I conducted several years ago revealed that students who take foreign languages at our university (where there is no requirement) have higher GPAs than do those in other departments in our college (humanities). It is also true that enrollment pressures influence our grading practices to some extent.
But even if the grades had not been higher than normal, the experiment would have been a success because it proved that the better students can do the work twice as fast with no apparent loss. (The same students went on to Spanish 102 and again did very well.) The accelerated-repetitive principle works, and it can be used to design unique intensive or nontraditional courses that can achieve more individualization and greater proficiency at no extra expense to the department. The following plans and explanations outline several interesting applications.
The first of these is an effective way of achieving individualization in a collateral intensive-traditional elementary course, permitting better students to complete the equivalent of two years of language training in one year without the department's incurring extra staffing costs. (The plan can be adapted to trimester and quarter systems; I use semesters, times, and numbers arbitrarily for simplicity of illustration.) Let's say that the 10:30 section of Spanish 101 can accommodate forty to sixty students in the fall. The section is divided into equal-sized subsections, A and B, with students assigned on the basis of odd and even numbers on the roll printout (also arbitrary).
Both the A and B classes are taught at the fast pace and given a “final” examination after about eight weeks. Students who perform satisfactorily now combine as subsection A and advance to 102; those who want a chance to improve their grades remain in or transfer to subsection B, where they can repeat the “course” with no penalty. At this point (midterm) group A may be joined by students who dropped out of 201, being taught concurrently, and by those who want an intense eight-week course to increase their credits for the semester. Students in group B may be joined by others for similar reasons. (This plan assumes that a mechanism for midterm registration is in place.) At the end of the semester, those in group A who do well are ready for an accelerated 201, taught during the first half of the spring semester. Those who are not satisfied with their grades may repeat 102. Students in group B take a final similar to the one they had at midterm, but with different questions. Knowing what to expect and “relearning” the material enable them to do considerably better, and they are much better prepared to advance to 102 in the spring.
By this time it is quite obvious which students can handle the fast pace, but it should be made clear that those who go on to 201 are committed to the accelerated plan for the entire semester and that those who enroll in 102 cannot transfer to a more advanced class at midterm, although the 102 students may adopt a variation of the acceleration principle, described below. At midterm of the spring semester, there is little or no transferring; while 201 dropouts can join the 102 students, they can take the course for review, not for credit. (Here I am assuming the absence of trailer sections.)
The second plan, a much simpler application of the acceleration principle, is designed for more traditionally minded instructors who might nonetheless like to achieve a significant measure of individualization in their classes. The semester is divided into two unequal time segments, one lasting ten to twelve weeks and the other consisting of the remaining two to four weeks. The instructor covers the normal semester's material completely during the first block of time and then administers a “final” exam to all students. Those who are satisfied with their grades have in effect finished the course two to four weeks early. They cannot enroll in a more advanced class at this point; so unless there is a special minilab, conversation, or reading course that they can take (perhaps for an extra hour of credit), they are free to go. The slower students then have the remainder of the semester for intensive review before taking the final “final.”
Although this version does not allow the better students to finish a two-semester course in half the time without special arrangements, its advantages will probably make it more appealing to most teachers. It can be implemented easily without enlisting the cooperation of a colleague, and it can be employed in practically any kind of class—not just a language course. When this approach was tried recently in our department, it had good results and enthusiastic student approval. The faster students were elated to have extra time to devote to their other courses, and the slower ones were pleased at having another chance to take the final exam and at getting three weeks (the time frame they preferred) to review the material they found most difficult. With the benefit of the intensive but extensive review and a much better idea of what to expect on the exam, all but one (a hopeless case) did much better the second time.
A modified version of this plan can provide a block of time to devote to the intensive development of oral proficiency or, instructors not enamored of oral testing, to reading, writing, translation, or other skills and activities. There are obvious advantages to having a block of time rather than brief sporadic segments, and the plan also permits a more natural context for review, because of the wide range of both grammar and vocabulary learned at an accelerated pace. These special time blocks can of course vary considerably in length — from two to sixteen weeks. At one extreme the entire first semester of a one-year course could be devoted to achievement (grammar) and the spring semester primarily to the development of proficiency. This version certainly suggests some enticing advantages and possibilities.
The greatest benefits that are derived from the accelerated-repetitive approach are significant individualization for all students and the opportunity for the better students to finish the equivalent of two years' work with substantially less risk to them and less cost to the department. A major problem with traditional intensive courses has been the greater commitment they demand of students. If students do poorly, the damage to their GPAs is twice as great, and they usually have to wait until the following year to repeat. The accelerated-repetitive approach solves these problems and reassures the fainthearted by allowing them to try again immediately without any penalty.
Even if instructors are not inclined to implement the first plan described, they should give serious thought to the advantages of the principle involved. “Double time” provides double exposure. If that pace seems too fast, the second application works very well. The first exposure gives students a precise, panoramic picture of the course content, permitting each to identify the items that will require the most attention the second time around. This immediate second chance to “get it right” has a salubrious effect on the way most students view foreign language study, and their improved attitude in turn has a positive effect on retention.
The author is Professor of Spanish at Murray State University.
© 1989 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
