Literature review

Although not referring to specific techniques, Schools Minister Nick Gibb has recently argued that teachers must be allowed to use methods that ‘have been out of fashion for up to 50 years’ (Barker I., Reference Barker2016). It could be interpreted that one such technique he is referring to is rote-learning, as one of the key concepts underpinning the Coalition government's examination shake-up was the idea that ‘memorisation is a necessary precondition to understanding’ (Gove, Reference Gove2012). The Oxford English Dictionary (2010) defines rote-learning as learning ‘in a mechanical or repetitious manner…by memorisation without proper understanding or reflection’. In Latin teaching this method of learning can be seen in the form of grammatical paradigms or vocabulary learning. Whilst Gove has argued that content needs to memorised to be understood, others have argued that the more meaningful the content, the more rapid the acquisition and the better the retention (Vinacke & Smith, Reference Vinacke and Smith1959). It is difficult to see how rote-learning could be an effective teaching tool in isolation because at some point students need to develop a meaningful understanding of the content that has been memorised to be able to make use of it. In addition to rote learning of grammatical paradigms, Lister (Latin in Transition, Reference Lister2009, pp. 192-193) points out that, much to universities’ dismay, A Level exam boards have implicitly encouraged the rote-learning of translations of whole passages of complicated Latin over the teaching of the skills to translate them.

Rather than being used in isolation, rote-learning is an integral part of the grammar-translation approach to Latin teaching. Hunt explains that rote-learning is used to memorise grammar rules and vocabulary and only after these have been ‘mastered, the student applies their knowledge to practice sentences, from Latin into English and from English into Latin’ (Hunt, Reference Hunt2016, p. 34). This approach seems to embody Gove's rationale. Beard (Confronting the Classics: Traditions, Adventures and Innovations, Reference Beard2014, p. 7) refers to this approach as ‘the old-fashioned grammar grind’, reflecting on the dullness of this style of teaching and the type of reputation that it holds. This is the same view that was held in the 1960s, with Morris (Viae Novae: New Techniques in Latin Teaching, 1966, p. 9) concluding that ‘the analytical nature of the method is found boring by the majority of the pupils, who give up Latin as quickly as they can’. Although this method gives students a solid understanding of the mechanics of the Latin language, it has been criticised for being so dull that it turns students off the subject. However, for it to be in use for so long, it must have been seen to be effective.

So why did rote-learning and the grammar-translation approach dominate for so long? In the ancient world itself, Latin was taught by a combination of reading texts with a translation followed by learning grammatical paradigms (Dickey, Reference Dickey2016). By the Victorian period, classical languages dominated the curriculum, serving as ‘an important marker of social status’ (Stray, Reference Stray and Morwood2003, p. 1). This was a time when state secondary education did not exist – education had to be paid for. There was also a myth ‘that of the effortless superiority of the classically educated man, able by the virtue of his training, to master any problem in any sphere of life so long as it was amenable to intellectual analysis’ (Sharwood Smith, Reference Sharwood Smith1977, p. 1). It was not the language itself, but the grammar-translation method of teaching that gave Latin its place at the heart of the curriculum. This is at the same time as where we see the rise of theories of faculty psychology about how the mind works (Morris, Reference Morris1966). Morris (Viae Novae: New Techniques in Latin Teaching, 1966) explains how ‘the mind, accruing to these theories, consists of separate faculties or powers – reasoning, memory, accuracy, perseverance etc.’ which could be trained and improved. Moreover each one corresponds with a stage of the grammar-translation process – for example memory / rote-learning, perseverance / the study of Latin as a whole. Goldhill (Love, Sex and Tragedy: Why Classics Matters, Reference Goldhill2004, p. 318) summarises that ‘Greek and Latin provided the furniture of the Victorian mind’. Latin was seen as the ultimate intellectual exercise, with elite universities such as Oxford and Cambridge having O Level Latin as an entry requirement for every undergraduate degree until 1960 (Forrest, Reference Forrest2003, p. 42).

However, even at the height of teaching by rote and grammar-translation, not all were convinced by this pedagogical approach – with Charles Dickens even commenting that this meant literature was viewed as ‘a mere collection of words and grammar, and had no other meaning in the world’ (Richards, Reference Richards2016). Teachers also criticised the method, with one 19^th century handbook remarking ‘little benefit results from these exercises; indeed, in some cases they are prejudicial to the true advancement and improvement of the pupils’ (Northend, Reference Northend1863, p. 93). The teaching of Latin rapidly declined after the 1960s, when Cambridge and Oxford dropped it from their university entry requirements – after two world wars and a cold war stirring, scientific education was becoming ever more important (Stray, Reference Stray and Morwood2003, p. 2). Suddenly new approaches to teaching the language were adapted in an attempt to revive the teaching of Latin in schools, most notably the development of reading courses such as the Cambridge Latin Course (CLC).

The CLC approach focuses on reading Latin, with grammar gently drip-fed in along the way. Whilst the grammar-translation approach initially favoured for training the mind, the reading approach, inspired by cogitative psychology and the theories of Noam Chomsky, ‘aim[s] to promote reading comprehension of Latin’ (Hunt, Reference Hunt2016, p. 38). The CLC has been praised for being able to ‘engage and motivate less able students while at the same time challenging and rewarding enough to stretch and inspire the next generation of classics scholars’ (Lister, Exclusively for everyone–to what extent has the Cambridge Latin Course widened access to Latin?, Reference Lister, Archibald, Brockliss and Gnoza2015, p. 187). It is for this democratisation of Latin that the CLC and the reading approach has been praised. A study by Coe (Relative difficulties of examinations at GCSE: an application of the Rasch model, Reference Coe2006, p. 9) has demonstrated that GCSE Latin is significantly more difficult than other subjects and the Cambridge School Classics Project (CSCP) (Who is Latin for? Access to KS4 Latin qualifications, 2015) argues that more still needs to be done to make Latin an accessible subject for all. However, the CLC tends to polarise Latin teachers, with some condemning its lack of grammar content and others praising its accessibility (Story, Reference Story and Morwood2003). Nevertheless, the CLC is used by 82% of schools which teach Latin, reflecting the success of the approach (Cambridge School Classics Project, 2008, p. 83). Furthermore, after many years of decline, Latin is currently being offered in more state schools than ever, rising from 100 to 600 in the past 10 years (Woolcock, Reference Woolcock2015).

In contrast to the CLC’s reading approach at secondary level, many Primary Latin courses have taken a more grammar-focused approach. In the 2013 National Curriculum it is compulsory for students in Key Stage 2 to study either a modern or ancient language (Department for Education, 2013). However, the document sets out that the focus of modern foreign language study is ‘practical communication’, whilst the focus of an ancient language if chosen is ‘to provide a linguistic foundation for reading comprehension and an appreciation of classical civilisation’ (ibid). Bell (Minimus, Reference Bell and Morwood2003, p. 63) explains that her Minimus course, the most popular primary school Latin course, ‘is about teaching English grammar…through simple Latin.’ Even though the course was first published in 1999, it seems particularly prevalent today with the recent changes to the primary English curriculum which place emphasis on grammatical knowledge (Department for Education, 2013). In addition, the Latin Programme is a project which aims to improve literacy by teaching Latin to students in inner-city London schools. The Latin Programme organisers describe their approach to teaching Latin as ‘fun yet rigorous’ (The Latin Programme, 2016). Wing-Davey (Playing with Pedagogy: A Fresh Approach to Latin at KS2, Reference Wing-Davey2015), the director of the programme, explained that the course is very grammar-focused, but at a young age, students’ brains are very absorbent. The Latin Programme teaches complicated grammar concepts to young students by utilising four key elements: competition, repetition, movement and music / sound (ibid). Using these elements, they are able to successfully teach Latin grammar to students of a young age.

This experience of teaching by the sensory experience of movement and sound is not new – one of the pioneers of a sensory learning approach was Maria Montessori. Although her work mostly relates to the ‘absorbent minds’ of young learners, she argues that ‘movement enhances thinking and learning’ (Bates, Reference Bates2016, p. 62). She advocated that by learning through the senses, students could learn through discovery, one of the principles of ‘play’ which underpins primary learning. I wanted to see if this would work in the secondary classroom (Briggs & Hansen, Reference Briggs and Hansen2012).

Furthermore, modern foreign language (MFL) teaching tends to include far more sensory sound and movement than ancient language teaching (Barker K., Reference Barker2010). This could be because MFL examines 4 key skills – reading, writing, speaking and listening (Department for Education, 2015). Until recently, Latin has only examined the reading skill, with (basic) writing being added in in the new GCSE qualification (Ofqual, 2015). Latin is rarely spoken. Rouse experimented with spoken Latin (known as the Direct Approach) during the 1920s but for various reasons it never took off (Sharwood Smith, Reference Sharwood Smith1977, pp. 32-35). Interestingly, the Direct Approach is growing in popularity in American Latin teaching (Gruber-Miller, Reference Gruber-Miller and Gruber-Miller2006). There has long been conflict between grammar teaching and a more direct communicative approach in the MFL classroom (Meiring & Norman, Reference Meiring and Norman2001). I knew that my school favoured an immersive communicative approach to MFL teaching, including as little grammar teaching as possible. This meant that far more classroom techniques were used using sound, linking back to the audible nature of MFL examinations (speaking and listening skills). Could sound and movement also be used in the Latin classroom to consolidate and reinforce understanding?

As has already been mentioned, one of the main criticisms of the grammar-translation approach was that it was boring, which meant students didn't wish to study Latin. However, at primary school level, by teaching Latin grammar by using sound and movement, students seem to be far more engaged. One of the reasons that sound and movement work so well at primary school level is because these activities are seen to be fun and engaging. Griffith and Burns (Engaging Learners, 2012) have utilised Csikszentmihalyi's work on flow – moments of high engagement which the individual learner loses themselves in. They acknowledge these moments appear when high challenge meets high skill (Griffith & Burns, Reference Griffith and Burns2012, pp. 10-11). They also identify that fun is a useful motivational trigger which ‘positively aid[s] learning and memorising’ (Griffith & Burns, Reference Griffith and Burns2012, p. 85). I wanted to see if I could make the stereotypical grammar learning fun, thus making it more engaging.

Lesson Sequence

My sequence of lessons was aimed at a set of Year 7 students at an independent girls’ school in West Sussex. The school is very small with 300 students aged 3-18. Students in the prep school follow the Minimus course in Year 6. Students start the Cambridge Latin Course (CLC) in Year 7 with some having done Latin in the prep school, others coming from other schools which have not. They follow the CLC course, but much supplementary material is used in conjunction with the course, mostly to make up for the lack of grammar included within it. This reflects some of the criticisms some teachers have made which have been mentioned by Story (The Development of the Cambridge Latin Course, 2003). Furthermore, MFL teaching at the school includes hardly any grammar teaching at all. The Latin classes have two lessons a week and are of mid- to high-ability as weaker students are taken out of language classes for extra literacy or EAL support. The class size was 9 students.

My students were starting Stage 6 of the CLC where the imperfect and perfect tenses are introduced. This can be a difficult topic for students because they often think of the past tense in English as ‘the past’ rather than learning the nuances of ‘the simple past, past progressive, past emphatic and present perfect’ (Goldman & Szymanski, Reference Goldman and Szymanski1993). (It will be interesting to see if this changes, when students who have been taught the new primary grammar syllabus have come through the system.) I wanted my sequence of lessons to have a clear grammatical focus so that my students could understand what was going on behind the sentences that they were reading. The lesson sequence is given in Figure 1.

Figure 1. | Unit of Work: Introduction to the Imperfect and Perfect Tenses.

Being taught Latin by a fast-track grammar-heavy course myself, I am sceptical of the level of language understanding the CLC provides. I have noticed that students using this approach alone get the gist of the stories but will not be able to tell you what is going on grammatically in the sentences. This might get them through a GCSE paper but I wonder what impact this might have if students wish to pursue Latin further. I particularly wanted the Year 7 class to establish a clear understanding of the difference between the imperfect and perfect tenses as I had noticed that my Year 8 class were still struggling with the concept a year later. My Year 8s were also struggling to identify the subjects of verbs as they did not have a clear knowledge of verb endings. I also felt it was important to have a more grammatical focus that than the CLC gives because of the most recent changes to the GCSE qualification. The GCSE is now required to include explicit grammar questions or English–Latin translation which requires students to have an in-depth knowledge of Latin grammar (Ofqual, 2015). Teachers can no longer hide students from the grammatical maze of the Latin language. I wanted my students to feel comfortable with the grammar whilst learning it at the outset, rather than having to adapt something half-understood at a later stage. But I also wanted my students to enjoy my lessons rather than dread them. The grammar-translation approach has been criticised for being so boring that it put people off, but primary Latin teaches Latin grammar in a fun way. So my scheme of work incorporated the fun element of primary Latin teaching, in particular the methods incorporating sound and movement. A list and description of the specific activities in my lesson sequence incorporating sound and movement can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. | Activities utilising sound and movement.

My first lesson was designed to lay the foundation of the difference between the tenses, only focusing on identifying the third person. I wanted my students to have a very clear understanding of the difference between the tenses before adding in the 1^st and 2^nd person verb endings. After introducing the concept of the past, I used a physical demonstration to distinguish the difference between a continuous action and completed action in the past and how these would be expressed. The lesson continued by identifying the difference in English before introducing how to spot the 3^rd person perfect and imperfect tenses in a piece of Latin text. Much colour coding was used throughout the lesson. The lesson finished with a spoken exercise inspired by the maths game ‘fizzbuzz’. Students read through the text as a class, taking one word each, but when they came to a verb they had to say its tense rather than the word itself. This exercise demonstrated that they had made much progress during the lesson. I set translation homework of the Latin text that had been colour-coded earlier, and that we had done the spoken exercise with, which would guide the students to apply their knowledge. Furthermore, this lesson contained a student who was on a taster day at the school and had never done any Latin at all before, who by the end of the lesson demonstrated understanding of the topic.

My second lesson was initially designed to introduce the rest of the perfect and imperfect endings. However, I changed it to just focus on the imperfect ones instead, to avoid an overload of information. The lesson started by consolidating what had been learned the lesson before and reinforced by the homework. One activity used to this was a tarsia where students had to match up vocabulary on pieces of card to make shapes. This kinaesthetic activity engaged learners as they wanted to see what shape would be created in the end. Furthermore there was a competition element to the task as the class had been split into two groups which motivated the students further, reinforcing Wing-Davey's four elements (Reference Wing-Davey2015). I chose to introduce the imperfect tense endings with one of the raps that is used by The Latin programme itself. After listening to it I wanted to see if my students could recall any of the verb endings that were featured in the video. The rhythm of the music seemed to help them recall the endings as I could see some students tapping it out as they tried to remember. We read through the imperfect verb endings as a class as we did the ‘Latin hand jive’. I had already used this method when introducing the present tense endings so my students were familiar with it. By assigning an action to each ending it helped the students associate it with the meaning. This became clear in future lessons. When students were stuck I was able to prompt them by using the action and then they could work out the meaning themselves. To consolidate the hand jive we played Simon dicit (the children's game ‘Simon says’). This also added an element of competition which kept students engaged. This exercise showed their understanding of giving meaning to Latin words.

I had not initially intended to start the third lesson of the sequence with a peer-assessment, but after having a quick look at the homework that was handed in the previous lesson it was clear that the students were struggling to apply the grammar to the translation, despite the colour-coded scaffolding. I once again reinforced the difference between the continuous imperfect and the completed perfect. Through questioning the students seemed to understand the concept but when applying it themselves they struggled. Because I had mentioned we would play bingo in the previous lesson but we had not had enough time to play it, we used it as another consolidation activity of what had been learned before. The students had the Latin verbs written in a table; I would call the English meanings, and they would cross off the Latin. This is an exercise in English-Latin translation, one of the new requirements of the GCSE. The students were initially engaged: once again the element of competition hooked them in. However, soon they were very confused. During all of our previous sound / movement and rote-learning exercises they had been able to look at words in the sequence that they were rote-learned in. It was difficult for them to listen to my English, identify what it meant in terms of Latin grammar and then think of the correct Latin verb. This is a complicated process for them to do in their heads, especially without any written sequential prompting. The confusion was clear at the end of the exercise when students were calling out ‘bingo’ including words I had never called, or at the end of the exercise realising I had called words that they had not crossed off correctly. They were better at giving meaning to the Latin (as exemplified during the Simon dicit exercise), rather than turning English into the Latin. We moved onto the endings of the perfect tense, once again looking at the verbs in grid form. Using post-it notes I got the class to see if they could discover the endings for themselves by recognising patterns from the present and imperfect endings. Once these were revealed, to help them remember them, I split the class in two groups and we did a Mexican wave through the endings. This is another activity that is used by The Latin Programme, including an element of competition as well as sound and movement.

My final lesson was intended to include the imperfect endings for the irregular verb esse. However, I later felt that it would be more beneficial to spend the whole lesson on consolidation of what had already been learnt. In the first part of the lesson the students did another tarsia in two teams. The first tarsia included a variety of vocabulary from the homework which helped them solve it, whereas this one was just testing knowledge of verbs by having various forms of portare. The students became confused at points and it was during this activity in particular where I could refer back to the Latin Hand Jive to prompt them. For the rest of the lesson they worked on a worksheet to consolidate their understanding and that could be used as a reference in future. This was carefully scaffolded, using various activities done over the sequence of lessons, each one building up to the next. The final task on the sheet was a gap fill exercise which included both Latin-English and English-Latin translation.

Reflection

Overall I feel that the sensory activities enlivened my sequence of lessons and helped to improve engagement and student understanding. The Latin Hand Jive activity was particularly useful, especially where students were familiar with the meanings of each action before. It was a useful guide for students who were stuck without giving them the answer straight away. This links back to the work of Montessori who pioneered the work of sensory discovery, and also advocated that students should discover things for themselves (Bates, Reference Bates2016). I feel that it could be used later on when introducing more difficult verbal material such as the passive voice or subjunctive mood. I will continue to include such techniques throughout my teaching practice and would like to expand my repertoire. The activities including sound and movement in particular engaged the class. The students seemed to enjoy some of the activities so much that they asked if they could do them again. Also some of them referred to them as ‘games’ which also reflects their enjoyment of the activities. This reinforces the idea of the importance of fun as a motivator (Griffith & Burns, Reference Griffith and Burns2012). Also it shows that rote-learning does not have to be as dull as it is often described. It is an approach with much opportunity to be creative. There are limitations to some of the activities that I used. I was very fortunate to have such a small class to work with, so am sceptical to how some such activities would work in a class triple the size. Furthermore, my class was Year 7, so barely out of primary school. It would be interesting to see if such techniques would still engage students in Years 9 and 10.

By focusing on instruction by rote-learning, I noticed that students seemed to understand the concepts very well in isolation, especially when aided by sensory instruction. The problem came when applying this knowledge to translation. I had heavily scaffolded my lessons, using consistent colour-coding throughout to support my students, a technique I had been using with them previously. For the translation homework, we had spent the lesson colour-coding the verbs according to the tense. However, their knowledge that they had expressed verbally in the lesson did not seem to have been applied to the translation exercise. I felt that the focus on rote-learning helped my students remember the content but more needed to be done to aid application. I contest Gove's argument that ‘memorisation is the precondition to understanding’ (Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove gives speech to IAA, 2012). Memorisation is more useful if taught alongside skills. There is no point in knowing information if you cannot make any sense or use out of it.

What also became clear was that Latin to English translation is a different process to English to Latin. It was the English to Latin that students seem to find more difficult which was particularly demonstrated by the bingo activity. This is because it contains an extra step cognitively between converting the input phrase into grammatical understanding when forming the translation. We automatically know how to express our understanding in our native language because we think in that language and understand the world through it. However, when translating into Latin we need to take the extra step to identify how to construct our understanding in that language. Figures 3 and 4 show the extra step required for English-Latin.

Figure 3. | Steps for writing Latin-English.

Figure 4. | Steps for writing English- Latin.

This may explain why English-Latin composition was seen to be the pinnacle of a 19^th century Classical education. Commenting on the translation of Tennyson's ‘The Lady of Shallot’, Beard (Confronting the Classics: Traditions, Adventures and Innovations, 2014) remarks the ‘exercise [was] as pointless as it was prestigious’. This reflects Victorian attitudes to the grammar-translation approach as a form of brain training. Students translate from Latin to English to be able to read and understand Latin texts. It can be argued that there is no point going the other way. We have already seen how Latin is a difficult subject in comparison to others, and by adding in the extra element of English to Latin translation, the government has made the qualification more difficult and less accessible. However, English to Latin translation can also be seen to be the ultimate demonstration of understanding. After coming to this realisation I have returned to the MFL literature which has confirmed that writing (creating text in the target language) is more difficult than reading (comprehending the target language) (Poole, Reference Poole and Swarbrick2002, p. 211).

Furthermore, the problem with rote-learning verb endings in a particular sequential order is that students tend to only remember them through that order. This is a problem I also face as someone trained by a grammar-translation approach, particularly with declensions of noun cases which contain 12 ending sequences over the verb conjugation's six. The rote-learning certainly aids memory, but I wonder if it is the sequential nature of the rote-learning which acts as a hindrance to application. The reading approach, championed by the CLC, teaches students to understand meaning of sentences as a whole. They comprehend meaning by reading Latin from the start of the sentence to the end, taking into account word order. Rather than making students memorise endings, the reading approach encourages the recognition of patterns. However, this may not be suitable for the new GCSE grammar and English-Latin requirement as it lacks the in-depth grammatical knowledge needed to answer the grammar questions or to construct English to Latin. Maybe there is another way to get students effectively to identify verbs and their endings over rote-learning, or the second guessing of reading, and we just have not worked it out yet. Nevertheless, to get students to succeed in Latin I still feel that grammar is important, and teaching it using engaging methods utilising sound and movement can greatly enhance the learning experience of students. However, I have also learned that whilst rote-learning is useful in getting students to recognise endings and remember them, it needs to be taught alongside application and translation skills as students struggle to apply their memorised knowledge without clear guidance.