As I've been working on an Ancient Greek curriculum project, I've come up with the following list of principles I'm trying to follow. Some of them are a little contentious; I'll try and return to this post some time to add footnotes that indicate where my ideas come from. Questions? Comments? Concerns? If so, please comment!

  1. The primary goal of teaching historical languages is almost always to enable students to read authentic texts in the historical language.
  2. Given the difficulty of acquiring* sufficient vocabulary to read goal texts in the target language, vocabulary acquisition should be strongly guided by the frequency of words in either the language as a whole--even, if possible, the frequency of words in the earliest authentic texts intended to be read.
  3. Whether the study of those historical languages [as perhaps the most time-consuming aspect of studying the classics] is truly accessible to a vast majority of students, is likely to be a major factor in whether classics as a discipline flourishes during an age of change in higher education. This is true both from an ideological perspective, because accessibility is increasingly recognized as an issue of justice rather than talent; and from a pragmatic one, because a department that is effectively open to only a small percentage of students is unlikely to maintain its funding.
  4. Research in second language acquisition and education suggests that the number of new words a student can acquire during one contact hour is, on average, 7 +/- 2. In one semester meeting three times a week for sixteen weeks, therefore, we should not expect students to acquire much more than 350 words. Given in addition the large number of inflections associated with most words in Greek and Latin, I do not think that it is realistic to expect that the average student is capable of retaining much more vocabulary than this.
  5. Because classics programs are universally structured around the expectation that students will proceed from zero knowledge of the target language to reading complex authentic texts within two years or less--an expectation which would likely not be considered realistic in modern language departments--it is vital for our language curricula to be as efficient as possible.
  6. Most time in and out of class should therefore be dedicated to the language-learning activities which have been shown to increase acquisition of the target language; conversely, we should not require students to dedicate significant time or effort to activities which have yet to be shown to increase acquisition of the target language.
  7. As a corollary, teachers should not be required to dedicate significant time and effort to activities which have yet to be shown to increase acquisition of the target language.
  8. Specifically at early stages of learning a language--which is to say, the first and perhaps the second semester--there is no indication in current research that the correction of students' production of the target language furthers their acquisition of the language. Teachers should therefore not be required to spend significant amounts of time or effort correcting students' production of the target language during the first semester or two, and students should not be expected to spend significant amounts of time or effort either making or reviewing those corrections.
  9. There is--perhaps surprisingly--no conclusive research indicating that the explicit teaching of grammar affects students' acquisition of the target language one way or another. Consequently, explicit teaching of grammar should occupy a minority of students' and teachers' time.
  10. Research does conclusively underscore the importance of comprehensible input in students' acquisition of the target language. Consequently, input in the target language, whether written or spoken, should occupy the majority of the students' time and effort in and out of class. Note that the implicit teaching of grammar is a core aspect of quality comprehensible input.
  11. Because students are human beings--and because their level of genuine interest may affect the language acquisition process--that comprehensible input should be engaging--whether interesting, entertaining, or both--whenever practicable. Engaging content has the additional benefit of fostering interaction and camaraderie among classmates and between students and teachers. Such community is beneficial both for students as individuals and for departments as a whole.
  12. Because historical languages--no less than any other language--provide a window into a foreign history and culture, and because students require some historical and cultural background in order to engage with ancient texts, that comprehensible input should provide, insofar as it is practicable, engagement with the world and the lives of those who spoke and wrote the target language.

*A note on vocabulary: I use the terminology of 'acquisition' rather than 'learning' consistently throughout, in order to imply that our goal is what Krashen et al. refer to as 'acquiring a language' rather than 'learning [about] a language'. I recognize that theirs is, at least originally, a peculiar distinction between the two words, and that the phrases 'learning a language' and 'acquiring a language' are entirely synonymous in most contexts.