O n f e r e n c e

Methodological Challenges 
Some of my methodological choices have been straightforward. By gathering exam 
statistics I established that ab initio pass rates vary widely across universities, with some 
indicating definite room for improvement. An ongoing survey of UK universities which I 
am administering is revealing a persistent emphasis on grammar-translation and showing 
that textbooks used in universities have changed very little over the past 20 years.
Interviews with Open University students show that many of them would like more varied 
stimuli and that some have found success with modern language methods where it has 
evaded them for Latin and Ancient Greek. Many show enthusiasm for wider use of 
technology to support learning. All these threads can be pulled together to make a 
strong case for change in current practice. 
It is when I reach second and third of the questions outlined in part a) and I begin 
proposing, evaluating and understanding changes supported by technology that my real 
challenges begin.
There are some fundamental and inescapable differences between ancient and modern 
language teaching and learning. Most obvious, is ‘the lack of surrounding environment 
(i.e. a country) where the langu
age is used’ (Coderch, 2011 p.17). This eliminates to a 
large extent some of the possibilities readily available to modern language learners - 
interaction with native speakers, visits to, and immersion in, a native-speaker 
community, access to second language materials relevant to modern life - written 
resources such as newspapers, magazines, fashion writing, recipes as well as video and 
audio material in TV or online broadcasts, films, podcasts, audiobooks etc. The materials 

---

-245- 
2014 CALL Conference 
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be 
usually made available to students of ancient languages comprise extracts from a largely 
unchanging corpus of texts and inscriptions left to us from the Classical periods of Greece 
and Rome. This material, much of which was written exclusively by and for an elite, 
well-educated class, is very distant in time and culture from modern learners and that 
distance can be a source of disconnection or alienation. 
The aims of ancient language teaching and learning are different from those of modern 
languages too. A central concern is the desire to give access to the legacy of ancient 
texts, while the ability to communicate or interact socially through the medium of the 
ancient language is not, of itself, a requirement. However, this does not necessarily 
imply that all effort should be directed towards translating or reading texts while 
neglecting other language skills which may have a beneficial effect on engagement with 
written material.
There are then, particular challenges in the field of pedagogy for ancient languages and 
there will be particular difficulties in determining the applicability of modern language 
learning theories in this field. My research will nonetheless turn to modern languages 
and to technology to find inspiration for ways in which we might improve the current 
ancient-language situation in UK universities. I consider the biggest problem I must 
overcome in my research is that of making explicit connections between theoretical and 
empirical worlds in which my research is situated, that is, relating theory to practice. 
My study seeks to bring together the theoretical domains of learning, language learning, 
ancient language learning, CALL and eLearning for ancient languages and the empirical 
domain of UK university 
ab initio
ancient language courses as illustrated in Figure 1. 
Within the theoretical domain, this study investigates the applicability of modern second 
language development and CALL to ancient language learning. In the empirical domain it 
evaluates and investigates the effect of a variety of mediations whose success is 
predicted by modern language learning theories and which can be delivered through the 
use of technology. The results of such evaluation can then reinforce or challenge the 
idea that a particular modern theory is applicable to ancient languages and deliverable in 
that field through appropriate technology.
The process I have chosen to adopt is illustrated in Figure 3. It is similar to the action 
research cycle described by Dowling and Brown (2010:39) but takes a slightly simpler 
Figure 1

---

-246- 
2014 CALL Conference 
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be 
form as I will not be taking a face-to-face role in teaching, nor designing a whole course, 
but determining and understanding the effect of additional resources and activities. 
I begin my research in the ‘Theoretical Domain’ pa
rt of the cycle and progress through 
the ‘Learning Design’ process to production of artefacts (resources or activities) which 
can be used in the ‘Empirical Domain’, the domain where experimentation takes place. 
‘Learning Evaluation’ then takes place in rel
ation to each artefact and reasons for its 
efficacy (or lack of it) are explored before feeding back into the ‘Theoretical Domain’.
There consideration of the implications of the ‘Learning Evaluation’ for theories of 
language learning and feed back into implications for and of language learning theories.
The evaluation phase includes reflection on CALL concerns including the role of the 
technology used to deliver artefacts and consideration of ways of improving on usability 
and usefulness. The cycle can then be repeated with each turn refining and enhancing 
understanding of the effect of a particular resource of activity.
My full paper will cover an example of this cycle which I have operationalised with Open 
University students. It will lead from identification of opportunities suggested by social 
constructivist theories of modern L2 learning to an implementation of active use of Latin 
in an online context. It will report on student perceptions of the value of this activity as 
indicated through online votes and comments, and individual interviews, and it will 
illuminate the challenges met when implementing the activity and interpreting the 
results.