annotated bibliography of recent scholarship in latin pedagogy

Melissa Cooper’s study explores the implementation and effects of an extensive reading program in a Year 10 Latin classroom, for the sake of answering questions such as: What are students’ attitudes towards reading Latin? How do they perceive an extensive reading program? What are their opinions on the Latin reading materials provided? Cooper emphasizes the lack of extensive reading practices in Latin classrooms, contrasting it with its success in Modern Foreign Languages (MFL). As a result, her study aims to introduce and evaluate the benefits of extensive reading in a Latin learning context. 

The research involved a short-term extensive reading program where students read Latin novellas for ten minutes at the beginning of each lesson over four weeks. Data were collected through student questionnaires, observations, and the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale (FLRAS).

Cooper’s program was, on the whole, well-received, with most students reporting increased enjoyment, improved reading speed, and better comprehension of Latin. However, a smattering of students did not enjoy the program and found it less beneficial. From these varied outcomes, the study suggests that extensive reading can be a valuable addition to Latin instruction but requires careful implementation to sustain engagement. 

Cooper notes that additional challenges include ensuring the continued focus and motivation of students, providing a diverse range of reading materials, and possibly extending the reading time to enhance the benefits. However, further research is needed to explore the long-term effects of extensive reading in Latin education.

John Gruber-Miller’s article challenges seven commonly held beliefs about Latin teaching (namely, All Students Learn the Same Way; If I teach the Grammar, My Students will know the Language; Drills lead to Skills; Communication is What Modern Languages Do; Translating = Reading; Culture is for Fridays; The Teacher is the Energy Center of the Classroom), using insights from SLA, linguistics, and educational psychology. His intention is to provoke reflection on traditional Latin teaching practices and offer alternative strategies that better align with how students learn languages. 

To set the stage, Gruber-Miller argues that many Latin teaching practices are based on outdated or overly simplistic assumptions, such as the notion that all students learn in the same way or that mastering grammar automatically leads to language proficiency. Instead, he advances a more nuanced and flexible approach to teaching that considers individual learning styles, emphasizes meaningful communication, and integrates cultural understanding. 

To edify its findings, the article draws on a range of research and practical pedagogical experiences. Gruber-Miller critiques each myth by presenting current educational theories and research, followed by suggestions for alternative teaching practices. He emphasizes the importance of adapting teaching methods to accommodate diverse learners, a change that naturally fosters both better language skills and increased cultural awareness. 

In conclusion, Gruber-Miller makes the case for effective Latin teaching as requiring a move beyond rote memorization and translation drills to include activities that engage students in meaningful communication and cultural exploration, with the author calling for a shift towards a constructivist teaching model, where the teacher acts as a facilitator who helps students to construct their own knowledge and to develop their language skills in context. 

Like others before have advised, Gruber-Miller exhorts Latin teachers to continue critically assessing their teaching practices and remain open to new approaches that better meet the needs of modern students in the language classroom. Such assessment, too, is tied to ongoing professional development to help teachers implement these changes effectively and sustainably. 

While I provide a synopsis of the entire article, I will bookend this entry by paying court to the fifth myth, which is the focus of this section: 

Myth 5: Translating = Reading.

Gruber-Miller localizes the ‘reading vs. translating’ dilemma in the notion that, for all that students may be able to translate individual words or even chunks of sentences, they may not have the means to put it all together and/or construe meaning—the natural result of reading. Indeed, Gruber-Miller notes that translation is truly “a subcategory of intensive reading,” (p. 205) one of the four forms of reading (skimming, scanning for information, and extensive reading being the other three). He continues on, stating that translation is a mode of reading driven by text, and, citing recent work in linguistic schema theory, he acknowledges the two processes (text-driven — decoding sounds, morphemes, words, and syntax - and reader-driven — integrating the meaning of a sentence with the reader’s prior knowledge) needed to interpret a reading passage. A marriage of the two allows readers to both intuit the organization and content of new discourse and to test their understanding of the text through their comprehension of words, syntax, and morphemes. Gruber-Miller ultimately affirms that understanding of this union is crucial for the success of students in the Latin classroom. 

From the text-driven perspective, given Latin’s ambiguous forms, Gruber-Miller states that it is necessary that students be able to make accurate predictions by variously making recourse to unambiguous words around the word(s) of confusion and to particular semantic categories (e.g., datives have a penchant for people as their referents, while ablatives tend to refer to things). 

Thereafter, with respect to the reader-driven perspective, which is concerned with the reader’s generalist knowledge about the Roman world, its culture, and larger discourse patterns, the author makes the suggestion that pre-reading activities can serve as useful frameworks into which students may merge new information. Gruber-Miller provides the example of a modern election and a Pompeian one, with the lesson being that, by activating students’ knowledge of modern elections, the instructor can then introduce vocabulary and concepts to understanding a Latin reading. “Supporters,” for example, may encompass a whole range of people such as barbers, students, innkeepers, spectators, etc. (this could be an opportunity to talk about Roman guilds, too) because of the candidate’s policies (e.g., “He furnishes good bread”). All of these things would be given in their Latin forms. 

Ultimately, Gruber-Miller concludes, such an approach bridges the gap between reading and translation by allowing for a more sensorial and cognitively engaging approach to learning for students, wherein they may feel more like co-creators of classroom content and in charge of their own learning than merely being dictated to.

Rebecca R. Harrison’s paper interrogates the inadequacies of traditional Latin grammar exercises in developing students’ ability to read Latin sentences effectively. She subsequently proposes a shift from focusing solely on grammatical knowledge to fostering predictive reading skills that align with Latin word order, improving comprehension and fluency in reading Latin. 

Harrison begins by focusing on the issues inherent to traditional exercises—namely, that many exercises are based on English word order and sentence structure, which does not help students learn to read Latin effectively. Indeed, such exercises often lead students to a “decoding” method rather than truly understanding the text in Latin. Rather, Harrison suggests the incorporation of exercises that focus on predicting the next element in a sentence based on Latin word order (providing, for instance, a prepositional phrase and asking students to select an appropriate verb that fits the phrase), with the aim of these exercises being the development of an automatic association between Latin forms and their meanings, improving students’ ability to anticipate the structure and meaning of Latin sentences. 

Harrison makes continual references to research on the process of reading and SLA practices, emphasizing the importance of understanding and using Latin word order. The main summation of her literature review is that effective reading strategies involve predicting meaning and structure as one reads, rather than translating word by word. 

To develop such predictive skills in students, the author proposes that teachers create or adapt exercises to focus on Latin word order, using methods like matching exercises, picture associations, and predicting verb types based on noun cases. In Harrison’s estimation, these methods can help students internalize Latin syntax and grammar, leading to better reading comprehension and fluency. 

Powerfully, Harrison asserts that, philosophically speaking, any shift in teaching should be towards what students can do (i.e., read Latin effectively), rather than what they know (i.e., Latin grammar in isolation). Ultimately, the goal is to develop students’ predictive reading skills, enabling them to understand and interpret Latin texts in their original word order.

Teresa Ramsby herein explores the shift in Latin teaching methods over the past decade, focusing on the movement from traditional grammar-translation and reading methods to more interactive and communicative approaches, often referred to as “Active Latin” (AL). Ramsby localizes her investigation around two key questions: How have Latin teaching methods changed in the past 10-15 years? What motivated these changes in teaching methods? 

Ramsby positions the article within the broader context of the turn to pedagogical innovation in language teaching, which are reflective of changes within the U.S. Latin teaching community — particularly, the adoption of methodologies that emphasize spoken Latin and comprehension over rote memorization and translation. 

Working with the data from a 95-person survey of primarily precollegiate Latin teachers to gather data on changes in teaching methods and the motivations behind these changes, the author found an array of illuminating trends in Latin teaching. Namely, these were: 

1. The Shift to AL: A significant portion of respondents (67%) reported adopting AL methods, which prioritize speaking, listening, and reading proficiency over traditional grammar and translation exercises. 

2. Decrease in Textbook Usage: Many of the teachers have moved away from textbook-centric teaching, instead utilizing self-created materials or Latin novellas. 

3. Student Engagement: Instructors cited the need to increase student interest and success as a primary motivation for changing methods. AL approaches were seen as more engaging and accessible, particularly for students with diverse learning needs.

4. Professional Development: Many teachers sought out professional development opportunities to enhance their teaching practices, influenced by SLA research and workshops on AL. 

Instructors reported that both lack of supportive materials for AL and the need for more resources tailored to these new methodologies were challenges. 

For Ramsby and others, the trend towards AL represents a significant, welcome change in Latin pedagogy, one requiring new resources and support for teachers. She notes that this change may impact the future of Latin teaching, including the potential need for adjustments in standardized exams like the AP Latin and National Latin Exam. 

From the results of her survey, Ramsby found that the future of AL is dependent upon the further development of resources to support Active Latin methods. She also notes the potential need for dialogue between precollegiate and collegiate educators to align teaching methods and expectations, ensuring a smooth transition for students advancing to higher levels of Latin study.

Teresa Ramsby essays the benefits and opportunities provided by Latin novellas in educational settings, particularly for enhancing accessibility and representation in Latin instruction. The main questions addressed include how Latin novellas can diversify learning materials and offer more inclusive narratives compared to traditional Latin textbooks. Additionally, Ramsby argues that Latin novellas are a valuable resource for addressing two major issues in Latin education: the limited and often narrow narratives of traditional textbooks, and the lack of representation of marginalized groups in classical sources, emphasizing that novellas have the power and ability to offer more personalized and engaging content, especially by featuring diverse characters, lived experiences, and perspectives. 

Ramsby makes her case in this article by deftly combining literature review, analysis of specific novellas, and reflections on pedagogical practices. In particular, she highlights Ellie Arnold’s Cloelia: puella Romana as a key example of how novellas can offer richer, more varied narratives that challenge traditional gender roles and provide a platform for exploring complex cultural themes that classical sources encountered by students may omit. 

Throughout the article, Ramsby’s resolve that Latin novellas are an essential tool for modernizing Latin education is evident. Her analysis shows that they provide a flexible, student centered approach to learning that can foster greater interest in Latin and help students connect with the material on a deeper, more personal level. Novellas also offer a means to introduce broader social and cultural issues into the Latin classroom, making the subject more relevant and accessible to a diverse student body. 

Ramsby proposes that while Latin novellas are a promising development, there is a definite need for continued expansion of the genre to include more diverse voices and experiences. Further research, too, into how novellas can be effectively integrated into different levels of Latin instruction and how they can be used to support students in transitioning to more complex, authentic Latin texts is exhorted.

Katharine Russell’s article advocates for teaching students to read Latin in its original word order rather than using what she calls the “hunt-the-verb” approach, which highlights the pedagogical tendency of instructors teaching students to reorder Latin sentences to match English syntax. Rather, Russell suggests that reading Latin as the Romans did—linearly and without rearranging the sentence—can lead to more fluent and accurate comprehension. The article is localized around the question of how students may be trained to read Latin in its original word order, and what the benefits of reading Latin in this manner compared to traditional methods are. 

Russell edifies her findings with a comprehensive literature review and a classroom experiment involving Year 10 students in a mixed comprehensive school. Specifically, she planned and evaluated a sequence of four lessons focused on improving students’ ability to read Latin in its original word order. 

From her experiment, Russell found that, by reading in the original Latin word order, students were taught to process sentences in the sequence the words appear, which helped them understand a sentence’s grammatical structure and its literary techniques more effectively. This method had the serendipitous effect of increasing pupils’ reading speed and confidence. 

Russell’s study also emphasized that grammar comprehension is crucial for reading Latin fluently. Indeed, by reading in Latin word order, students used grammatical knowledge to predict upcoming words and phrases.

The author also noted usage of pre-reading strategies, annotations, and prediction drills were key components of her lesson plans. These activities helped students become more aware of Latin syntax and improved their ability to comprehend texts. 

At the end of the experiment, Russell found a general improvement in students’ reading comprehension and grammatical accuracy. Furthermore, even those who initially struggled with confidence became more adept at understanding and translating Latin sentences. 

Russell concludes that the method of teaching students to read Latin in its original word order shows promise in helping them achieve greater fluency and enjoyment in reading Latin, proposing that, while this method requires a strong foundation in grammar, it can ultimately lead to a deeper understanding and appreciation of Latin texts. 

Like others interested in this area, Russell suggests further research to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of this teaching method and its applicability to more advanced Latin texts. She also astutely notes there is a need for more comprehensive resources and materials to support this approach in the classroom.

In this article, Colin Shelton explores the integration of Latin novellas into university-level Latin courses, concentrating upon how these texts can enhance language learning and cultural engagement. Shelton’s inquiry forms a constellation around two key questions: How can Latin novellas be effectively incorporated into college classrooms? What are the benefits and challenges of using novellas compared to traditional textbooks? 

Shelton localizes the use of Latin novellas as positioned in response to the limitations of traditional Latin textbooks, which often fail to engage students and may reinforce outdated stereotypes (e.g., Servi erant laeti).  As a result, Shelton advocates for a differentiated approach that both meets students’ varied needs and promotes deeper cultural understanding. 

Methodologically, the article is a reflective case study based on the author’s experience teaching Latin with the aid of novellas. Shelton makes use of anecdotal evidence, student feedback, and references to relevant research in SLA and extensive reading. 

All this leads the author to conclude that Latin novellas are an effective tool for increasing student engagement, improving reading proficiency, and facilitating a more inclusive exploration of Roman culture. While data from the case study is anecdotal, the positive student outcomes suggest that novellas can be a valuable addition to Latin curricula and programs tout court. 

Of particular note is the interest expressed by Shelton in further exploring the use of novellas with true beginners (i.e., those with ‘no Latin’ at all) and in contexts beyond Latin, such as Ancient Greek. Additionally, the scarcity of Ancient Greek novellas and the challenges of accessing self-published Latin novellas are highlighted by Shelton as serious desiderata.