Living the dream: why live questioning is a good thing

I’ve been reading some of the articles in the journal Latin Teaching, which was published by the Association for the Reform of Latin Teaching, whose archives I have begun to explore. I came across this interesting little description of a weekend refresher course the ARLT ran in 1971 in London. I reproduce it here, with some comments below, as it brings to the fore, I think, the way in which teachers were beginning to understand how the Cambridge Latin Course actually worked in practice.

Indeed, new teachers today, who use the Latin reading method, could learn a lot from these simple descriptions.

A Lyre player - live music

Extract from a report of the ARLT and Classical Association Weekend Refresher Course, held at The French Institute and Lyceé, Kensington, on March 12^th and 13^th 1971.

The prizewinners from the Classical Association (London Branch) reading competition then performed for us. Almost equally entertaining was another second year demonstration lesson, this time by Mr M. A. Thorpe of Emanuel School, using the Cambridge Schools [sic] Classics Project. It is well enough known that the Cambridge Project does not set out to teach English-into-Latin translation; but is, as Mr. Thorpe carefully explained, specifically a course in reading as opposed to translating in either direction, angled at extracting the significance of the Latin as much as possible while it still is Latin. He had therefore chosen to show us one of the reading sections, rather than the linguistic section that goes with it, for the benefit of those with traditional qualms about the Cambridge Project’s approach to learning the linguistic material. I will record that the grasp for the Latin shown by this class seemed to me a good advertisement for the Project, for Mr. Thorpe, or both.

First Mr. Thorpe read a paragraph or so of the text, then he would ask questions about each sentence at a time, starting from general ones of the “Who is doing what to whom?” variety, and ranging inwards to precise points on word meaning or sentence structure, and outwards to cover “What was so-and-so’s reason for saying that?”, and “What sort of man is he?” One of the greatest strengths, on this showing, of the Cambridge Project is the way that Latin is presented, even in the early stages, as material that really means something. Thus it was perfectly in place when it came to the boys reading the passage aloud for themselves for Mr. Thorpe to pull up one boy to suggest that he was reading a speech in the wrong tone of voice (imagine doing that with the traditional courses of your choice!). The whole was a delight to eavesdrop upon, and, not least of its virtues, brought out clearly the considerable with which the Project materials are written. (Justin Pinkess, with Anne Spratling and Glesni Harries (London Institute of Education)).

A number of points occur to me about the events described in the report:

1.      It is well enough known that the Cambridge Project does not set out to teach English-into-Latin translation… This must have been a radical departure form the traditional approach to O level Latin, where translation from English into Latin was the main thing. The ‘reverse-translation’ of the past has led, in my view, to the still-lingering belief that Latin somehow manages to train the mind in ways which other subject areas do not or cannot (more on this in a later blog). More than that, it maintains the expectation still held amongst many Latin teachers that a student should memorize the full accidence of each type of noun, verb and adjective ‘just in case’ they might need to render an English form into a Latin one. The reading approach of the CLC must have been an idea that shocked such teachers to the core.

2.      …but is, as Mr. Thorpe carefully explained, specifically a course in reading as opposed to translating in either direction…This point is something I have to explain again and again to my own student teachers: reading and translation are different skills. Nowhere in the narrative of the CLC does one find the instruction ‘translate’.   You will find the word ‘translate’ in separate, shorter test passages, which are controlled with a smaller and more focused vocabulary and syntax. But not in the narratives. What, then, does one do with those narratives? Read on…

3.      First Mr. Thorpe read a paragraph or so of the text, then he would ask questions about each sentence at a time, starting from general ones of the “Who is doing what to whom?” variety, and ranging inwards to precise points on word meaning or sentence structure, and outwards to cover “What was so-and-so’s reason for saying that?”, and “What sort of man is he?” Note the importance of the reading aloud – first by the teacher, and, later, by the students. Here we conceptualize Latin as a language, not as a code, which conveys meaning not just by its arrangement of words, but by its performance as a living thing.

Thorpe’s questioning bears close attention. He starts with the basic meaning, using a variety of simple ‘Who? What? Where? When?’ questions. Then he uses ‘inward’ questions, as he focuses on individual words and phrases, both where the meaning needs clarifying or is especially rich and where there needs grammatical attention (what we might call today ‘pop-up grammar’). He follows with ‘outward’ questions, as he draws out aspects of character description, motivation, the cause and consequence of events, maybe even setting a sense of expectation or anticipation.  This is the approach I thoroughly recommend to my own student teachers.

Anyone who uses translation for these narratives will miss the opportunities to discuss the above-mentioned ideas because most of the lesson will be spent in silence grunt-work, with only a few moments left at the end when everyone has had enough and couldn’t care less when the lunch-bell is ringing.

4.      The whole was a delight to eavesdrop upon, and, not least of its virtues, brought out clearly the considerable with which the Project materials are written. If you are doing individual words or the sort of drab, disconnected sentences that populate some of the more traditional courses used today, there is nothing to say about what the students have learnt – apart from the fact that they have got the tense right or the singulars changed into plurals or whatever. Anyone who has taught CLC or other reading courses such as Suburani will know that students really engage with the stories. As a teacher, you need to ‘live the story’ and share the jokes, the highs and lows just as much as the students are living with them in their lesson too.

Martin Thorpe was a teacher at Emanuel School in London, had trialled the Cambridge Latin Course materials and was an eager adopter. He went on to become President of the Joint Association of Classical Teachers and Principal of Shrewsbury Sixth Form College. He also contributed to a number of school textbooks on Classical Civilisation topics, including Homer (1991) and Roman Architecture (1998), both now published by Bloomsbury.