Photo by John Schnobrich on Unsplash

If I had a dollar for everytime someone told me they took French in high school but can no longer speak the language, I could treat us all to a café and some pâtisseries with this blog post. When it is common – and even easy – to forget a second language learned through formal high school structures, how is it that there are those who can speak multiple languages they learned outside of the classroom? I argue that although there are many factors that contribute both to the failure and successes of formal and informal language learning, one key element of success in informal settings is leveraging affinity spaces (Gee, 2004). In this post, I will examine the ability to find success in informal learning through affinity spaces as a tool to maximize learning opportunities through the lens of language learning. 

There are three key elements that make learning through affinity spaces so successful: the intrinsic nature of the learners’ motivation, the fluidity of the roles available to teachers and learners, as well as the ability to connect a sense of achievement by engaging with the social group (Gee, 2004). Tapping into these elements of language learning – motivation, autonomy, and achievement – allow the learner to have access to enriched learning opportunities and therefore have more success than their peers who may have had the perceived benefits of a structured language class. Kumaravadivelu in his 2002 book Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching discussed the nature of formal teaching as the following:

Teaching, however purposeful, cannot automatically lead to learning for the simple reason that learning is primarily a personal construct controlled by the individual learner. Every teaching act will be seen through the prism of what the individual learner brings to it as well as takes from it. (p. 44) 

If we build upon this assertion that students should be the center of learning, they should also play a part in its authorship to maximize learning outcomes. This is where affinity spaces can add value for those seeking to learn outside of a formal classroom. James Paul Gee coined the term affinity spaces as an alternative to the idea of communities of practice. Within a community of practice, there can be a wide variety of motivations for members of these communities and there is an inherent difficulty in trying to label in and out group affiliation for these communities (Gee, 2004). Gee instead, encouraged a focus on the space as a vehicle for learners to engage with the “endeavor or interest around which the space is organized” (p. 77). For this reason, learners within an affinity space are primed to engage with one another about a common passion, which is intrinsically motivating. 

Another key element of an affinity space is the level of autonomy experienced by the learner. The learner can benefit from what Gee (2004) calls the “…whole continuum of people from new to experienced, from unskilled to highly skilled, from minorly interested to addicted and everything in between…” (p. 77). In this way, learners in informal spaces can find opportunities to ask questions to more experienced language learners, act as a more knowledgeable other to more novice members of the community by sharing tips and tricks that helped them, not to mention the myriad of other opportunities they could choose to engage with to explore francophone cultures around the globe.  This allows learners to have autonomy over their learning and also affords them the sense of achievement when they can participate socially in the space. 

Within a classroom setting, learning is designed within the constraints of formal education such as a standardized syllabus, predetermined learning outcomes, and contracted meeting times. As fidelity to these constraints relies on the instructor, they must try to provide each student with enriching learning opportunities while also remaining within the confines of a classroom setting. While there can be benefits to this structured system, it becomes challenging to create engaging learning in a system that is still heavily influenced by didactic teaching methods. It is likely for this reason that many learners couldn’t order a café and a pâtisserie based on their learning experience in school. Without opportunities to engage actively in their learning, and absent motivation and opportunities to feel achievement in their learning, it is not surprising that many language learners exit these programs without reaching proficiency goals. 

References: 

Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. Routledge.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2002). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Yale University Press.