R E P O R T RESUMES ED 012 563 FL 000 483 THIRD LANGUAGESTUDY IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS,REPORT NUMBER THREE OF THE"ODERN LANGUAGE COMMITTEE (ONTARIO).(TITLE SUPPLIED). BY- MCCUAIG,MURIEL G. AND OTHERS ONTARIO CURRICULUMINST., TORONTO PUS DATE EDRS PkiCE AUG 65 MF-$0.50HC-$2.56 64P. DESCRIPTORS- *PROGRAM EVALUATION, *LANGUAGEPROGRAMS, *SECONDARY SCHOOLS, *LANGUAGE LEARNINGLEVELS, *MULTILINGUALISM, -GERMAN, ITALIAN,RUSSIAN, SPANISH, INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS, INSTRUCTIONAL AIDS,ONTARIO CURRICULUM INSTITUTE, A SUMMARY IS GIVEN OF EVALUATIONSMADE BY FOUR CURRICULUM COMMITTEES OF THE GERMAN,ITALIAN, RUSSIAN,AND .SPANISH PROGRAMS OFFERED IN ONTARIOSECONDARY SCHOOLS. EACH LANGUAGE, FOR AN OUTLINE OF THESPECIAL PROBLEMS TO THE PARTICULAR PERTAINING LANGUAGE, AN ASSESSMENTOF THE LATEST TEACHING AIDS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS,AND AN OUTLINE OFA PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR SEQUENTIAL COURSE OFSTUDY ARE PRESENTED. 'FINALLY, THE RECOMMENDATIONS FORBRINGING ABOUT THE ARE STATED. NEW PLANS APPROPRIVi: TEXTS FORALL OF THE LANGUAGESEXCEPT GERMAN ARE DISCUSSEDAND EVALUATED. WO ONTARIO CURRICULUMINSTITUTE Third LanguageStudy In the SecondarySchools REPORT NUMBER THREE OFTHE MODERN LANGUAGECOMMITTEE (4) 1 NINETEEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE Third Language Study in the Secondary Schools U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. ONTARIOCURRICULUMINSTITUTE ThirdLanguageStudy In theSecondarySchools REPORT NUMBERTHREE OF THE MODERN LANGUAGECOMMITTEE 1 01 The presentreport has been published and distributed bythe Ontario Curriculum Instituteto promote frank and full discussion of theissues raised. It must beclearly understood, however, that the studycommittee (the members ofwhich have beenlisted) is alone responsible presented and the for the material view expressed. Neitherthe Ontario Curriculum Institute nor any of the bodies representedon its Board, nor indeed member of the Board any personally, is necessarilyin agreement with findings. On the other all the hand, the Instituteis convinced that the is worthy of publication report and consideration,and heartily recommends responsible piece of it as a research which shoulddo much toopen up new vistas and advance the cause of education in whichwe are all so vitally interested. August 1965 V Contents Committee Membership vi Introduction 1 German 2 Italian 14 Russian 29 Spanish 40 Recommendations 56 vi Ontario CurriculumInstitute The ModernLanguage Committee July 1965 Chairman: MISS MURIEL G.McCUAIG Vaughan Road CollegiateInstitute Toronto Members: MISS FLORENCE E.BRADFORD Supervisor of French Ottawa Public Schools THE REV. SISTERCHARLES-AUGUSTE Couvent Sainte-Marie Sudbury MR. KIRK M. GIVEN Principal, BeverleyHeights Junior High Downsview School MRS. FRANCOISEHOWARD Fisher Park High School Ottawa MRS. RUTH LINDSAY Teacher of French Toronto Board of Education PROFESSOR G. E. MACDONALD Department of Psychology University of Toronto PROFESSOR HUMPHREYMILNES Department of German University College,Toronto MISS RENEE TAILLEFER Riverdale CollegiateInstitute Toronto Secretary: MRS. JOAN SANDIFORD Secretary to the Principal Beaumonde Heights PublicSchool Etobicoke 1 Introduction This report was prepared by theModem Language Committeeof the Ontario Curriculum Institute andis largely based on reportssubmitted by report the language sub-committeesappointed by the Institute. The present differs in a number of respects fromthose prepared by thesub-committees. There has been elimination ofdetail, reorganization of topicsand, in some cases, rephrasingof recommendations. The aimof such editorial treatment has been to ensure that the proposed programmesof instruction are consist- ent with the generalframework and principles recognizedby this Commit- tee for modern languageteaching. Although the report deals withthe programmes of instructionfor four different languages, there are anumber of striking pointsof common agreement. For example, thereis universal dissatisfactionwith the present conditions in Ontario for thirdlanguage teaching. Thisdissatisfaction stems from the apparent fact that theaims and objectives of thirdlanguage pro- the grammes arebeing determined more byexternal factors, such as than by the nature of the Grade 13examinations and the authorized texts, aims have intrinsic values of the languagesthemselves. These misguided xM resulted in totally inappropriateteaching methods and course content. The report whilh followswill make far-reachingrecommendations for change. The central theme ofthese recommendations willbe found in an emphasis on the communicativevalue of languages, andthe ways and means throughwhich language skills canbe achieved. German During the winter of 1964-65two sub-committees drew German in the secondary up reports on schools of Ontario.One was asked to reviewthe immediate problems in the field and theother drewup suggestions for a five-year sequentialprogramme. These reports by the Modem were discussed thoroughly Language Committeeand form part of thefollowing com- posite report. Theoriginals areon file in the office of the lum Institute. Ontario Curricu- MEMBERS OF THEGERMAN SUB-COMMITTEES Immediate Problems Miss R. Taillefer Riverdale CollegiateInstitute, Toronto,Chairman Mr. 0. Lemke Merivale High School,Ottawa Mr. R. Lightfoot Burlington Central HighSchool, Burlington Five-Year SequentialProgramme Mr, H. J. S. McKay Lorne Park Secondary School, Port Credit,Chairman Mrs. G. R. MacDonald Forest Heights CollegiateInstitute, Kitchener Mrs. H. G. Mitchell Northview HeightsCollegiate Institute,Willowdale Rev. M. C. Taylor St. Michael's CollegeSchool, Toronto GERMAN / 3 Contents I. ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENTSITUATION 1. Difficulty of theGerman Course 2. A Special Problem 3. The Present Grade13 Examination II.THE PRESENT COURSE III. A PROPOSAL FOR A NEWTYPE OF COURSE IV. OUTLINE OF A FIVE-YEARSEQUENCE V.EXAMINATIONS VI.RECOMMENDATIONS 4' 1. Immediate ty 2. Basic ProgrammeRevision SCHOOLS 4 / THIRD LANGUAGESTUDY IN EHE SECONDARY I: Assessment ofthe Present Situation 1. DIFFICULTY OF THEGERMAN COURSE of students (up to 60 percent. in someschools) discon- A large number three-year pro- tinue the study ofGerman after thesecond year of a four-year programme infavour of gramme, orafter the third year of a and pressure ofGerman some other course,usually because of the pace find that the German courseentails more frustrating in all grades. Students of the drudgery than others,and brings lesssatisfaction and less enjoyment Students in their last yearof German, who arepreparing living language. Examination, spend up to two themselves for theGrade 13 Departmental for the next day'sGerman hours per nightcompleting their homework of proportion with thatmade by lesson, a demand ontheir time that is out their other subjects. word list for Grade13 The lack of a uniform grammartext and a basic examined on a certainnumber is another difficulty.Students are inevitably have not met before.For the of words or idiomaticexpressions which they only a thoroughknowledge Grade 13 Examination,students must have not idiomatic uses ofprepositions and such gramma- of synonyms, antonyms, and dif- tical constructions asthe use of modals,participles, subjunctives, ficult word order, butalso certain esotericidioms. the unuonally highnumber These difficulties aredirectly responsible for beginning the study ofthe of students discontinuingGerman or not even schools are sometimeshesitant to begin a classfor language. Principals of enrolment of twenty to stu 'Ients ofGerman, becausethey know that an will mean an UpperSchool class of no morethan thirty in the first year another eight to ten. In somecentres students areasked to transfer to school if they plan totake German. limits the time that can be spent on The difficulty ofthe present course wealth of idioms andthe quantity of grammar tobe oral practice. The of the time be spent covered in a relativelyshort span demand that most translation exercises orthe teaching ofgrammatical structures. In on teachers might not have timefor schools offering athree-year programme, first year, at the most one or Authors work duringhalf or nearly all of the and two or three periods a two periods aweek during the second year, proficiency of most students week during the last year.As a result, the oral completed the written is very limited, evenafter they have successfully of Education. This Commit- Grade 13 Examination setby the Department that the German coursebe brought in line withtoday's tee recommends that trend towards a moreoral approach tomodern languages. We feel his needs, and such a coursewould be more satisfyingto the student and GERMAN / 5 that a greater number would begin the study of German and continueit to the Upper School level. Although the present course in Germanas outlined in Curriculum I. and S.15 was originally meant to be covered in fouryears, the length of the course has now generally been telescoped from four to three years. There is a complete lack of uniformity throughout Ontarioas to the length of the course and the grade in which it is introduced. Some schools begin the study of German in Grade 10 and finish in Grade 13 (although that isnow rarely the case); others begin in Grade 11 and finish in Grade13; still others begin in Grade 10 and finish in Grade 12 with students writingthe Upper School Examination at the end of that grade. Sucha diversity