Learning German grammar after English:
Let us give Ukrainian students a chance

Introduction

German is a second foreign language (FL2) in European context and is a typical FL2 after English in Ukrainian educational institutions, which makes the problem of the methodology of teaching and learning German as a second foreign language (GFL2) quite urgent.

Exam results show that the students’ command of GFL2 is insufficient. Out of 85 Master’s Degree students of Kyiv National Linguistic University who passed the state exams in 2017 – 2019 only 18.8 % got “excellent” (“А” in ECTS), 36.5 % – “good” (14.1% “В” + 22.4% “С”) and 44.7% – “satisfactory” (18.8% “D” + 25.9% “Е”).

Such low command of GFL2 depends on at least five groups of factors: а) scientific research; b) preparation of teachers; c) teaching materials; d) students; e) GFL2 itself.

The analysis of the given factors shows the insufficient level of methodological, linguistic, psychological, and psycholinguistic research in teaching and learning FL2 in Ukraine; lack of studies in the methodology of teaching and learning German as a second foreign language after English (GFLaE), in particular, developing German grammatical competence (GC). Scientific observation, interviews with academics, and the results of the survey show the predominance of the methods typical for teaching FL1, neglecting the regularities of interaction and mutual influence of three languages (native language (NL), FL1 and FL2) at different levels. The textbook market lacks GFLaE courses/textbooks for higher educational institutions preparing teachers, interpreters, translators, and philologists. The survey results revealed insufficient level of their learning autonomy, and language awareness. Except the factors mentioned above, students’ low motivation is caused by inadequate level of their metalinguistic awareness, in particular, lack of abilities to contrast both foreign languages (FL), use English as an aid for positive transfer, prevent interlingual interference (especially at grammatical level) that causes subjective overestimation of the level of difficulty of GFL2 and development of demotivational processes.

So, the aim of the article is to study the possibilities and ways of solving the given problems setting the following goals: to single out current approaches to the problem of FL2 teaching by analyzing the above-mentioned factors and their influence on unsatisfactory results of teaching and learning GFLaE, in particular, its grammatical aspect; and to theoretically prove the principles, methods, activities, and means for successful development of Ukrainian students’ GC.

Theoretical frame work

In the 1970s – 1980s, scientists generally studied the methodology of teaching GFLaE. The methodologists were mainly interested in the problem of positive transfer and interference in the process of learning vocabulary and grammar.

Some researchers examined only general questions of the methodology of teaching FL2, not taking into account the combinations of FLs in higher educational institutions.
However, at the beginning of the 1990s they started analyzing the psycholinguistic factors of the mutual influence of the languages in the process of learning and the possibilities of interference and transfer not only of the language means, but the positive influence of the developed speech-thinking mechanisms, sociocultural and learning skills, acquired while mastering FL1 (Baryshnikov, 2003; Bim, 2001; Markosyan, 2004; Marunevych, 1998; Chicherina, 1997, and others).

The four possible ways of mutual influence of the interacting languages, suggested by Bim (2001), let the scientists single out the models of such influence and anticipate the objective availability or lack of NL or FL1 aid for learning FL2 (p. 8). The problem of the source language for interlingual transfer and interference while teaching FL2 has been referred to not only in the mentioned above early works by A.Berdychevskyi, I.Kitroska, B.Lapidus, B.Lebedynska, and M.Reutov, but in more recent works by Anisimova (2010), Baryshnikov (2003), Bim (2001), Markosyan (2004), Chicherina (1997), and others.

Ukrainian scientists continue investigating the problem of teaching and learning GFLaE but the number of articles and theses for higher educational institutions is still insufficient (Anisimova, 2010, Kazhan, 2012; Okopna, 2012; Prokopchuk, 2019; Skliarenko, 2014; Tarnopolskij, Nesterenko, and Kukharenko, 2015, and some others). We can assume that the drop in the number of research projects can have an indirect negative influence on the teaching process and students’ results.

In Germany, the problem of teaching and learning FL2 has been fruitfully investigated since the mid of the 1980s when the scientists concluded that the methodologies for teaching both FLs could not be identical. The 1990s gave birth to the concept of tertiary language teaching Tertiärsprachenunterricht, in particular, German after English. Though at the very beginning German scientists focused on the use of contrastive linguistics research results for teaching FLs, taking into account the possibilities of transfer and interference, later they switched to investigating the conditions, factors, principles, and forms of such teaching (Hufeisen & Neuner, 2003; Hufeisen & Marx, 2005), content, methods, models, and activities (Neuner et al., 2009, pp. 48-118; Marx & Hufeisen, 2010), solving the problems of developing learning autonomy, specific for FL2 (Rampillon, 2009, pp. 85-104), preparing teachers (Marx, 2008; Neuner et al., 2009; Marx & Hufeisen, 2010). The main result of this 50-year-long research is the theoretically proved and empirically checked methodology of teaching and learning GFLaE (Neuner et al., 2009).

Methodology

In this article we used the following research methods: critical analysis of local and foreign scientific works; generalizing GFLaE teaching experience, scientific observation of teaching process; analysis of local and authentic programs and courses/textbooks in GFLaE for universities, and survey of Ukrainian students and academics, conducted in December 2019 – January 2020 with the use of Google Forms.

Both questionnaires consisted of 12 open-ended, semi open-ended, and closed-ended items. Most of the closed-ended items had several response options on a Likert scale (“yes”; “rather yes”; “do not know”/”cannot answer”; “rather no”; “no”). Rating and importance scales were also included.

There were 437 student and 37 academic respondents of 9 Ukrainian universities: Kyiv National Linguistic University, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Mariupol State University, and the state pedagogical universities of Kryvyi Rih, Uman, Ternopil, Nizhyn, Sumy and Vinnytsia.

Most of the female (89.2%) and male (10.8%) student respondents are second- (29.5%) and third-year students (40%).

The average work experience of 86.5% female and 13.5% male academic respondents is about 20 years, ranging from 12 to 35 years.

Results and discussion

The problem of teaching GFLaE is not new, but its topicality is currently growing because of the economic, political, and social changes in the country and society. The singled out five factors that influence Ukrainian students’ study results are analyzed below.

Though, the methodology of teaching GFLaE has been under research for a long time (see theoretical framework above) there is still a question: why the existing GFLaE teaching conceptions so thoroughly developed and proved are not successfully applied in mass FL2 teaching in Ukraine. We consider the other factors to be responsible for that.

b) Teacher preparation

The analysis of Ukrainian university syllabuses and the survey results show that 64.9% of the institutions that prepare teachers of English and German do not offer a course “Methodology of teaching a second foreign language.” Nowadays, the system of GFLaE teacher preparation hardly exists, the accumulated experience is not taken into account, and a new generation of academics either has not studied the mentioned above methodology or work relying on their own learning experience.
Bilingual preparation of teachers in both foreign languages and cultures is an essential condition and requirement for successful FL2 teaching, which is not fulfilled by 18.9% of the respondents (only 81.9% speak English).

Scientists have reached a consensus that FL2 and FL1 teaching bases must be different. Even 62.9% of the interviewed students intuitively share this point of view, whereas only 59.5% of academics think that the methodology of teaching FL2 should differ from FL1 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Comparison of students’ and academics’ answers

Nevertheless, even 59.5% of academics are not good enough at FL2 teaching methodology. Moreover, they cannot rely on high-quality GFLaE textbooks/courses, which, to some extent, could have compensated for lack of theoretical preparation.

c) Teaching materials

The next factor of students’ poor GFLaE is the lack of local textbooks/courses for higher educational institutions.

The use of authentic courses (Lehrwerke) is not the way out. First of all, they hardly exist, which can be explained by the fact that German publishing houses develop their authentic courses for the majority of countries teaching GFL; that is why these courses are universal and intended for students with different NLs.

There is some positive experience of publishing regional (national) courses in GFLaE in different countries, but most of them, at least the Ukrainian ones (“H@llo, Freunde,” “Viel Spaß!”), are for secondary, not higher education.

So, our survey shows that for teaching GFLaE, the majority of Ukrainian universities use authentic courses (Themen aktuell, em, Tangram, Sicher!, Starten wir, Menschen, Aspekte, Motive, Begegnungen) and some Ukrainian textbooks, none of which is developed for teaching and learning GFLaE.

Note that even students understand that their textbooks are not optimal for tutorials. For the question “Should the courses for German as a first and a second foreign language differ?” 39.6% of the students gave a positive answer, 25.7% answered “rather yes” (which makes 65.3% all in all). The answers of academic respondents were very close: only 34.3% answered “yes,” 25.7% - “rather yes” (60% all in all) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Comparison of students’ and academics’ answers

Providing educational process with suitable courses, including information technologies, belongs to external teaching conditions and is not analyzed as a separate factor, but included in other teaching process components such as the number of hours for GFL2. The insufficient amount of the latter is proved by the survey results and university curriculums analysis. However, note that a mere increase in the number of hours for FL2 will not solve the problem of quality of education, and the reserves should be looked for in other factors.

d) Student

Students play an essential role in modern teaching systems, which is taken into account in some methodological teaching and learning principles, for example, the principles of cognitive and reflexive teaching, student orientation (Lernerorientierung, Lernerzentrierung), learning autonomy (Lernerautonomie) and others. In our case, the “student” factor is among the key ones, and is included in some questionnaire items, the results of which will be analyzed below.
About 63% of the respondents did not learn German before entering the university, so, for the majority of students, German is FL2.

Unlike 47.7% of the respondents who made their own decision, the choice of GFL2 was influenced by parents’ (13.6%) and friends’ recommendations (11.2%). Except for sheer pragmatic factors such as working abroad (38.9%) or having more chances at job market (35.5%), 18.9% of students mentioned aesthetic and affective reasons. The rest of the respondents (27.5%) either chose German by mistake. So, it is logical to assume that one-third of 437 respondents had low motivation at the beginning.

e) GFL2 itself

About 61% of the respondents think that German is more difficult to learn than English. Of course, the answers to this question are mostly subjective, but this point of view can be proved by contrastive linguistics studies. Though German and English are genetically related, within the Germanic languages, they developed in different ways and nowadays represent the opposite syntactic and morphological types.

However, the decisive question is not only which language is easier to learn, but also the problem of combining and order of both foreign languages in the educational process. In GFLaE combination, German is objectively more difficult to learn, especially its grammatical system. Though NL plays an essential part in learning and interlingual interaction processes (Bim, 2001, p. 8; Shchepilova, 2003), the German language is more influenced by EFL1 than Ukrainian that belongs to the Slavic group.

The interaction of the three languages (NL – FL1 – FL2) is known to cause two main regularities: interference, slowing down FL2 learning, and positive transfer. The FL1 level also influences the frequency of interference and transfer. If it is high, students can use FL1 as an aid for FL2 learning (Baryshnikov, 2003; Tammenga-Helmantel & Maijala, 2018).

According to Bim (2003, p. 7), interlingual transfer and interference happens at different levels: the levels of language and speech, in particular, speech-thinking mechanisms and processes (short-term memory, visual and auditory perception, choice, combining, etc.); the level of learning skills acquired while mastering NL and FL1; and sociocultural level.

Interference comprises not only all the linguistic language levels (phonetic, orthographic, lexico-semantic, and grammatical) but also pragmatic and sociocultural, thus influencing the development of FL2 communicative competence in general. Due to the structural peculiarities of the given languages, most of the problems can be seen at grammatical level (Hufeisen & Neuner, 2003), making learning GFLaE grammar the subject and aim of our research.

The results of the survey and their analysis allow us to say that the main problem of teaching and learning GFLaE at Ukrainian universities is developing grammatical competence (GC) and its main components: grammatical skills, grammatical knowledge, and language (grammatical) awareness. Some external factors prove this conclusion.

Firstly, many people still associate the level of grammatical knowledge and skills with the general FL level. Secondly, the textbook market lacks GFLaE courses and corresponding practical grammar reference books. Thirdly, 60.3% of student respondents have difficulties with German grammar. It can be explained by German morphological structure and its quite complex syntax (in particular, topological SOV-model of a German sentence in contrast to English SVO-model). Many works in contrastive grammar compare and contrast these two related languages (Hall, 2010; Hellinger, 2013; König & Gast, 2012; Kretzenbacher, 2009; and others).
Our survey proved the fact that students have problems with the majority of grammatical phenomena. However, the quantitative results were a little surprising. Having compared the students’ answers with contrastive research on English and German grammatical systems, we obtained the following results (see Table 1).

Table 1. English interference in German grammatical phenomena.

On the one hand, the analysis of the given results proved the fact that most mistakes are made in the cases of minimal transfer and maximal interference: №№ 1-9 in the table. However, on the other hand, verbal government (№2 – 47.8% of answers) should be considered as a lexical problem, and it is logical to organize verbal government learning while presenting new lexical units (verbs), in particular, by using mnemonics. Also, there are mnemonics which help remembering prepositional government (№1 in the table – 58.6% of answers!), verb position after coordinating conjunctions (№5 – 29,5%), etc. These are rhymes, acronyms, and visual mnemonics.

The position of grammatical phenomena №№ 3,6,7,9 in the table is not surprising from interlingual interference possibility point of view, but the corresponding mistakes do not disrupt communication and are not considered serious. The reason for these points being ranked so high is that teachers often draw too much attention to grammatical mistakes in general and these ones in particular. However, the quite low percentage of answers for №8 (27.5%) is hard to explain as Konjunktiv is generally known to be one of the most difficult phenomena in the German language.
Sentence frame (Satzrahmen/Satzklammer), conjugated verb position in a subordinate clause and different types of simple sentences do not have analogues in English, and according to contrastive linguistics data should cause a lot of problems and mistakes (Hall, 2010; Hellinger, 2013; Kretzenbacher, 2009). However, the survey results do not prove this fact.

Some reasons can be singled out by analyzing the answers for the question about the learning forms and activities that students use to master German grammar:
77.1% – listening to teachers’ explanations
50.8% – learning by heart and giving examples of grammatical phenomena
35.2% – translation from German into NL and back (16.9%)
9.6% – translation into English.

Consequently, the first most frequent group of answers testifies to the fact of domination in classes (and most likely in self-study work) “traditional” outdated teaching forms and activities that induced the development of students’s learning habits.

The second group comprises the answers concerning grammatical knowledge. It is quite diverse and reveals, for example, either “traditional” learning styles (23.1% of the respondents prefer reading and learning the rules from a textbook), or lack of corresponding reference books (27.2% write down the rules in German and NL), or even lack of special skills for self-study work. However, there are answers in this group that illustrate modern inductive grammar teaching (entdeckendes Lernen): 27.9% of the respondents discuss language phenomena with a partner or in groups, and 9.8% prefer formulating rules by themselves.

And the third, final, group of answers concerning interlingual comparison and contrast of grammatical phenomena also gives interesting results. This way of grammatical knowledge acquisition (and grammatical and metalinguistic awareness development) is preferred by 24% of respondents who draw parallels between German and English, 23.3% - between German and NL, and 27.7% - between German, English, and NL.

Taking into account the given survey results, we can conclude that Ukrainian universities should change their methods of teaching FL2. We mean not only increasing the number of exercises and tasks to compare and contrast both languages in order to prevent interference and stimulate transfer. First of all, educational process should be organized in a way that will sensitize students to the problem of interaction and mutual influence of NL and both FLs, the possibilities of transfer, teaching methods used in textbooks, and organization of self-study work (Rampillon, 2009, pp. 85-104) by stimulating their reflective thinking and analytical abilities, broadening their language (grammatical) and metalinguistic awareness and the corresponding knowledge (Jessner, 2008).

The design of the GFLaE grammatical competence development system should start with the principles, as they set requirements for the teaching process, its goals, content, means, and forms of teaching.

Though the problem of FL2 teaching principles has been thoroughly investigated (Baryshnikov, pp. 23-34; Bim, 2001; Kazhan, 2012, pp.102-104; Tarnopolskij et al., 2015, pp.194-264; Hufeisen & Neuner, 2003; Neuner et al., 2009, pp. 39-47; Marx & Hufeisen, 2010, and others), the principles formulated even a few years ago cannot be considered final and constant. The analysis of the given works shows that the lists of principles often lack hierarchy, and, in many cases, adequate proof.

As the detailed analysis of the existing FL2 teaching principles is not among the goals of this article, below, we will present our own system. The hierarchy of methodological principles consists of several levels: the first comprises general conceptual statements that determine the theory and methodology of teaching and learning any FL (Syzenko & Diachkova, 2020; Tarnopolskij, 2015). Special principles that regulate the content and processes of teaching and learning any FL2 belong to the second level, which to some extent, modifies the principles of the previous one. And the third level includes particular methodological principles, relevant for developing GC in GFLaE.

Below we will briefly comment on the third level principles, as the first level is described in detail in scientific works, and the second one is realized and modified in teaching grammar, i.e., the third level.

1. Pedagogical grammar or “learner’s grammar” should be the basis for developing GC (Storch, 2001, pp.77-86, Koeppel, 2016, pp.182-185). Taking into account traditional domination of linguistic grammar in FL classes in Ukraine, this principle should belong to the general methodological ones. However, the advantages of pedagogical grammar, which is contrastive, concentric, specific and visual, selected by special criteria, concise, precise, simple, visualized, taking into account the level of difficulty, memorization peculiarities, frequency of use, etc. allow us to make it an indispensable part of GFLaE teaching and learning.

Using pedagogical grammar as a teaching basis will provide optimal realization of the first (cognitive teaching and developing learning autonomy) and second (intensification of the teaching process and student activation) level principles.

2. The principle of comparing and contrasting grammatical phenomena of both languages specifies the first two special methodological principles “considering artificial subordinate trilingualism” (Baryshnikov, 2003, p. 52-58) and “contrastive teaching (including possibilities of transfer and interference).” For GC development, this principle means that English is used as a language-aid and language-mediator, allowing students to apply their linguistic grammar knowledge acquired in other subjects. 

Comparing and contrasting grammatical phenomena of both languages should take place, first of all, while presenting new grammatical forms and structures, and be organized in a differential way (see the following principle).

3. The process of GC development consists of two stages: new grammatical phenomenon presentation and practice. The realization of the principle of differentiated presentation of new grammatical phenomena totally depends on the teacher. Grammatical phenomena that can be potentially transferred should be presented in contrastive bilingual exercises. Depending on the grammatical phenomenon level of difficulty, comparing can be done in the beginning or after the presentation. In both cases, teachers should stimulate students’ reflexive and analytical abilities by asking guiding questions, and leading them to the conclusion whether interference or transfer is possible. In this way, we can realize the second level principles, “contrastive teaching” and “considering students’ linguistic experience and developing their metalinguistic awareness” (see Example 2). Bilingual exercises can also be done in order to lessen the negative influence of English on grammatical phenomena belonging to the second group. Using reflection after the exercise will prevent interlingual interference. Grammatical phenomena that have no correlations in English are presented in traditional monolingual exercises, but having taken into account the fourth and fifth principles.

Example 1 (presenting grammatical phenomenon that belongs to the second group and may cause interference)

a) Wo lebt man heute in der Ukraine? Ordnen Sie die Sätze zu.

1 – b, 2 –  , 3 –  , 4 –  , 5 –  , 6 –  , 7 –  , 8 –  .

b) Tragen Sie „leben“ und „live“ ein. Unterstreichen Sie die Endungen und ergänzen Sie die Tabelle.

c) Prüfen Sie, ob die Regel funktioniert. Nehmen Sie 3 andere Verben und bilden Sie kurze Sätze. Ihr Partner hört zu und sagt vor.

4. According to the fourth principle justified and tested by German researchers (Neuner et al., 2009, pp.72-79), new grammar should be presented in parallel (bilingual) texts of different types and levels. In this way, we will not only provide the students with the possibility to understand the text and the functions of grammatical phenomena, but will also realize the inductive way of grammatical knowledge acquisition, which is called Entdeckendes Lernen and is the fifth principle in our list (see Example 2). 

An example of a grammatical structure Futurum 1 presentation in parallel texts is given below.

Example 2

a) Lesen Sie den Forumseintrag eines Optimisten: zuerst die deutsche Variante und dann die englische.

This principle is also applied to the second stage of GC development (practice) (see steps 7-8 of Example 2 below). 

5. The next principle refers to grammatical knowledge acquisition. Under pedagogical grammar statements, it is necessary to use different forms of grammatical information such as various rules (descriptive, rules-instructions, rules-generalizations, rules-algorithms, visualized rules), models, schemes, speech examples, illustrative tables, cognitive verbal and visual metaphors, etc. They are available in modern textbooks, but in the case of inductive way of grammatical knowledge acquisition, the enumerated forms can be created by students.

Unlike deductive, inductive way of grammatical knowledge acquisition is considered to be more effective and motivating for students. As formulating a rule requires FL1 to be used as an aid, it stimulates metalinguistic awareness. Formulating a rule may be done by answering the question, choosing from the suggested answers, filling in the gapped text (Lückentext) with or without tips, completing an illustrative table, scheme, picture, etc.

Example 2 (continued)

b) Kommt Ihnen ein solcher Text bekannt vor? Sicher. Wovon handelt er? Warum denken Sie so?

c) Nun unterstreichen Sie die Verben in den Sätzen mit je zwei Verben. Schreiben Sie die Verben aus:

werde … beginnen;     will begin

Was fällt Ihnen auf? Notieren Sie:

d) Jetzt können Sie die erste Regel formulieren: 

Wie wird das deutsche Futur I gebildet?
Und das englische Future?

e) Vergleichen Sie nun die Wortstellung und ergänzen Sie die Aussagen:

f) Jetzt können Sie die zweite Regel formulieren: Wie ist die Wortfolge in den Sätzen mit Infinitiv I?

The following two steps illustrate practice stage in the process of GC development.

g) Glauben Sie, dass OPTIMIST alles macht, was er vorhat?

Besprechen Sie mit Ihrem Partner:

- Wird er wirklich ein neues Leben beginnen?

- Ich bin sicher. Er wird wirklich ein neues Leben beginnen.

(- Ich weiß nicht, ob er ein neues Leben beginnen wird.)

h) Sie glauben nicht, dass OPTIMIST alles macht, was er vorhat. Fragen Sie ihn danach.

- Wirst du wirklich ein neues Leben beginnen?

- Klar! Ich werde ein neues Leben beginnen!

6. The sixth principle extends the effect of the fourth one, as by presenting new grammatical forms and structures in texts for reading, we start developing receptive grammatical skills. When the rule is formulated, we should offer students some receptive exercises (visual and oral) for identification of grammatical structures and forms by their formal features, teach them to correlate these features with meaning and functions, differentiate new structures from the similar ones, and then go on to productive skills.

7. The principle of mastering specific grammatical learning strategies and techniques specifies special principles of developing students’ learning autonomy with the aid of their FL1 and NL learning experience and improving language and metalinguistic awareness. As these processes may develop spontaneously, especially among the linguistics department students, they were included in the principles of teaching and learning FL2 and GFLaE.

Learning tips (Lerntipps) play a special role. They can be of different types, for example, advice, hints, stimuli, instructions, etc. In the presentation stage, it can be stimuli and advice, in the practice stage – instructions, hints (how to make use of transfer, prevent interlingual interference, and others).

Example 3 (A learning tip with elements of an instruction)

Probieren Sie diese Techniken aus. Analysieren Sie: was hat (nicht) funktioniert? Warum?

Conclusions

The analysis of the current teacher trainees and translators/interpreters preparation in GFL2 revealed the reasons for the unsatisfactory level of GC as an essential component of German communicative competence. The main reasons include an insufficient number of recent psycholinguistic and methodological research projects, lack of GFLaE courses, domination of passive reproductive learning style among students, which leads to the low level of their learning autonomy and language (grammatical) and metalinguistic awareness that should have been mastered while learning EFL1. The study of scientific sources and survey results let us single out the key tasks of different levels of complexity and importance, and suggest solutions. The article presents specific methodological ways of improving Ukrainian students’ GC, such as the hierarchy of GFLaE teaching and learning principles, illustrated in a series of exercises that demonstrate some FL2 teaching strategies, and others.

The suggested solutions cannot be considered final. Further investigation is necessary for creating a methodological typology of German grammatical phenomena in correlation with English and NL, designing classification and system of exercises for developing German GC and assessing its levels. Publishing new GFLaE curricula and courses, or at least grammar reference books, is among the priority tasks.