Four years, no fluency

“Foreign-language instruction in U.S. high schools focuses on grammar over speaking. It’s time to rethink that. At a Glance The percentage of Americans who can speak a second language is small in comparison to European nations. Many high school foreign-language classes focus on grammar, rather than conversation. Natural language development begins with spoken language before proceeding to written language and instruction in grammar. By focusing on conversation, high school foreign-language classes would enable more students to become fluent in a second language. High school foreign-language instruction in the U.S. has not been able to build a population of fluent speakers of multiple languages. Although we offer foreign-language classes, our young people typically don’t go beyond the basics of simple phrases, like “¿Dónde está la biblioteca?” (Where is the library?) Even after four years of instruction, many students can’t effectively use or apply a foreign language outside the classroom. In fact, most adults in the United States today will tell you they spent four years studying a foreign language in high school with little to show for it. According to a survey by Gallup, about 25% of Americans report being able to hold a conversation in a language other than English. In comparison, data from the European Commission show that 59% of citizens of the European Union can hold a conversation in at least one foreign language, 28% in two, and 11% in three. Why such a large discrepancy? Could it be that Americans are just bad at learning languages? Or could it be that our instruction has missed the mark in effectively teaching them? Grammar vs. oral language When you enter a typical U.S. high school foreign-language classroom today, you’ll likely notice instruction consisting of pre-constructed phrases, fill-in-the-blank worksheets, and conjugations galore. Grammar takes center stage. As a survey by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL, 2023) found, many experienced language teachers in the U.S. prefer grammar-based approaches. But grammar is only a small part of language — and not the primary one. The primary component of language is its oral expression. Think about it. The oral expression of language came way before hieroglyphics, symbols, and written forms ever entered the scene. Research consistently demonstrates that a significant portion of language acquisition occurs through oral communication, while written language is built upon and dependent on oral proficiency (Berninger & Abbott, 2010; Shanahan, 2006). As educators, should we not be attuned to the natural development of language and work within it instead of against it? Grammar-centric approaches often involve asking students to begin learning a new language by dissecting sentences and words of a language they don’t even yet speak or understand. The focus is not on what comes first — oral expression — but on what comes second — the written form. Stephen Krashen (1982) argues that language acquisition is most effective when learners are exposed to meaningful and understandable language in context — precisely what oral interaction provides. Similarly, Lev Vygotsky (1978) posits that learning occurs through social interaction, supporting the role of dialogue and collaboration in language learning. Even Noam Chomsky (1965), often associated with the view that grammar knowledge is innate, argued that language is acquired through exposure to rich linguistic environments, not just through explicit grammar drills. As educators, should we not be attuned to the natural development of language and work within it instead of against it? Or are we satisfied with simply teaching students the grammar rules of a language without effectively teaching them how to naturally and practically use them in conversation? Perceptions of foreign languages The grammar-centered approach to foreign-language teaching has impacted more than just foreign-language fluency in the U.S. It has also shaped perceptions of what it truly means to speak a foreign language, and it has influenced how we engage with speakers of other languages. Among Americans who studied a foreign language in high school, two common perceptions have emerged about what it means to speak a foreign language. The first is overconfidence. You see this among those who claim to speak another language while only being able to speak or comprehend two or three phrases. They can conjugate a verb but haven’t been taught what it really means to be fluent in another language. Still, they figure studying it for four years must have counted for something, right? Unfortunately, this translates into arrogance and ignorance when interacting in the real world with international acquaintances who actually have proficiency in that language. The grammar-centered approach to foreign-language teaching has impacted more than just foreign-language fluency in the U.S. It has also shaped perceptions of what it truly means to speak a foreign language, and it has influenced how we engage with speakers of other languages. The second result is a lack of confidence. You see this among those who see learning a foreign language as unattainable. They often have already concluded that foreign languages must not be “their thing” or that they “simply aren’t good at it,” largely because they equate success in a foreign language to memorizing and understanding its grammar rules. To relate to someone who speaks a different language, they may mention they studied that language in high school but don’t claim to speak it themselves. They recognize their limitations and are honest about them, yet their attempts to connect often fall short due to their inability to communicate. Their frustration in high school has led them to see learning a foreign language as simply too hard, often discouraging them from even attempting to learn another language in their adult lives. Language to communicate The proof is in the pudding. According to General Social Survey data, fewer than 1% of students achieve fluency solely through school-based language instruction (Caplan, 2012). School-based instruction is not achieving the desired results. Have you ever wondered why you or your friend’s kid who studied a language for four years in high school still can’t speak the language, but your friend’s cousin who studied abroad for just a small fraction of that time came back with at least some working proficiency in the language without much, if any, formal instruction? Those who live abroad are not siloed to the language’s written form. Instead, they are surrounded by the reality of oral and cultural exchange — they are required to use language to communicate. Their learning is built on the foundation of how language naturally functions. Their experience is centered on the primary function of language. When we limit foreign-language learning to its grammar instead of prioritizing its communicative properties, we ignore language’s very essence! European countries’ success in foreign-language fluency further supports this reality. According to a recent survey by the European School Education Platform (2023), 70% of European high schools reported using communicative language teaching methods to some extent or a great extent. This does not mean that its written form holds no value, but instead that a heavy prioritization of grammar reduces language learning to simply short-term memorization at best (ACTFL, n.d.). Well-rounded instruction By implementing a communication-centered approach, however, we would be wise to not go too far in the other direction. Although oral communication should naturally be prioritized, all components of language matter when it comes to competence in fluency. Linguists like Michael Swan (1985) agree that communication should be the central goal of teaching, while also cautioning educators not to maintain an exclusive focus on one component of language over others. Data shows that European high schools use communicative language teaching methods to some or to a great extent, but not in the entirety of instruction (European School Education Platform, 2023). Communication can be prioritized, while still leaving room for grammatical instruction. If we aim to cultivate students who are both culturally and linguistically competent with lasting language skills, we must focus on what comes first, not second, in language learning so that both spoken and written forms can be long-lasting and hold value. This means emphasizing and prioritizing communicative proficiency while thoughtfully integrating grammar as a supportive element of instruction. It’s time to move beyond simply “checking the box” and embrace meaningful change that leads to real outcomes. Let’s make those four years count! References American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (n.d.). Oral proficiency interview (OPI) . ACTFL. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2023). ACTFL annual report on language teaching trends . ACTFL. Berninger, V.W. & Abbott, R.D. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and written expression: Related yet unique language systems in grades 1, 3, 5, and 7 . Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (3), 635-651. Caplan, B. (2012, August 6). The numbers speak: Foreign language requirements are a waste of time and money . EconLog: Library of Economics and Liberty. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . MIT Press. European Commission. (2024). Eurobarometer: Europeans and their languages . European Union. European School Education Platform. (2023). Communicative language teaching in Europe’s secondary schools: Methodology trends. Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Pergamon Press. Glisan, E. W. (2012). Guest Editors’ Message. Foreign Language Annals, 45 (S1). Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 171-183). Guilford Press. Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach (2) . ELT Journal, 39 (2), 76-87. Troyan, F. J. (2012). Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Defining the Constructs and Researching Learner Outcomes. Foreign Language Annals, 45 (S1), S118–S140. U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). Language spoken at home: 2023 American Community Survey . Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Harvard University Press. This article appears in the Summer 2026 issue of Kappan, Vol. 107, No. 7-8. The post Four years, no fluency appeared first on Kappan Online .

Summary generated from the RSS feed of Phi Delta Kappan. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on kappanonline.org.