MORE From mARGOT kiNBERG on language immersion:
Kinberg begins her discussion on language immersion by sharing examples of different programs that have been available for students since the 1970’s. One of her big arguments is that “the nature of immersion programs dictates a primary focus on communication rather than on accuracy” (Kinberg, 25). When students are immersed in a culture they care less about the simple grammatical mistakes that they would be making, but more on just being able to get by in terms of understanding and speaking the language. This relief of grammatical pressure, but added social pressure has had positive results in learning a foreign language. This two-way learning system of immersion, that Fortune and Tedick mention, has been proved to have very successful results. When Kinberg comments on classroom learning, she says that students that learn a language in a classroom do not really have the opportunity to use it outside of the classroom. With cultural immersion, students have no other option but to use the language in their every day life. Many people say that the only way to learn a language is through practice, and Kinberg supports the fact that immersion programs provide nothing but practice.
When speaking of her own personal experience, Kinberg says that when she “spent time in Spain and France [it] amazingly regenerated and invigorated [her] second language learning interest and ability” (Kinberg, iii). This source also emphasizes the fact that not only lingual ability is improved with immersion, but also desire and motivation to understand this foreign language is increased in an immersion setting, rather than in a classroom setting. In a classroom, students are constantly focused on their weaknesses and where they get stuck in the language, whereas in an immersion program, students are forced to look past their weaknesses just to get by in the culture. This added component of being surrounded by the language 24 hours a day, 7 days a week improves student’s cognitive ability to understand more than they would think. Kinberg even quotes, “The mind is like a muscle: it must be exercised to avoid atrophy” (5). Immersion is the only way to constantly exercise the mind without taking one step forward, and two steps back. With classroom learning, what a student learns in class can easily be forgotten after a two-day weekend, or even an afternoon.
Kinberg continues her discussion by mentioning when teaching in classrooms, “time was devoted to rote memorization, drill, and recitation, since it was believed that these activities would exercise student’s minds” (5). Her point is definitely valid, but it is truly exemplified in Bridget Pei’s personal narrative for project 1. Bridget discusses her experience being immersed in America, while also having been taught English in a classroom setting back in her hometown. Bridget offers a very valuable perspective because she has experienced both types of language learning. She states that even though she did very well in her English class in China, speaking English in America was a very different experience. For example, a sign that said “smoke free” confused Bridget; She was not sure if it meant “smoke freely here or smoking is banned here” (Pei, project 1). In China she just learned the expression “no smoking”, but was never taught other ways of saying smoking is not allowed. This is a great example that exemplifies the discord between classroom learning and immersion learning that Kinberg greatly diverges into.
When speaking of her own personal experience, Kinberg says that when she “spent time in Spain and France [it] amazingly regenerated and invigorated [her] second language learning interest and ability” (Kinberg, iii). This source also emphasizes the fact that not only lingual ability is improved with immersion, but also desire and motivation to understand this foreign language is increased in an immersion setting, rather than in a classroom setting. In a classroom, students are constantly focused on their weaknesses and where they get stuck in the language, whereas in an immersion program, students are forced to look past their weaknesses just to get by in the culture. This added component of being surrounded by the language 24 hours a day, 7 days a week improves student’s cognitive ability to understand more than they would think. Kinberg even quotes, “The mind is like a muscle: it must be exercised to avoid atrophy” (5). Immersion is the only way to constantly exercise the mind without taking one step forward, and two steps back. With classroom learning, what a student learns in class can easily be forgotten after a two-day weekend, or even an afternoon.
Kinberg continues her discussion by mentioning when teaching in classrooms, “time was devoted to rote memorization, drill, and recitation, since it was believed that these activities would exercise student’s minds” (5). Her point is definitely valid, but it is truly exemplified in Bridget Pei’s personal narrative for project 1. Bridget discusses her experience being immersed in America, while also having been taught English in a classroom setting back in her hometown. Bridget offers a very valuable perspective because she has experienced both types of language learning. She states that even though she did very well in her English class in China, speaking English in America was a very different experience. For example, a sign that said “smoke free” confused Bridget; She was not sure if it meant “smoke freely here or smoking is banned here” (Pei, project 1). In China she just learned the expression “no smoking”, but was never taught other ways of saying smoking is not allowed. This is a great example that exemplifies the discord between classroom learning and immersion learning that Kinberg greatly diverges into.