Using Paul Nation’s Four Strands to Learn Greek Efficiently

Meaning-focused input

Activities in the meaning-focused input (MFI) strand involve two essential components: they must be meaning-focused and involve input. Input involves reading and listening where the communication is an input to the student and not an output from the student. To be meaning-focused, the material must be on the appropriate level for the student, so that the learner is focusing on the meaning. In terms of vocabulary, Nation suggests that the student knows 95–98% of the words in the text or audio (2007:2). Knowing less than this does not allow the student to focus on the meaning of the communication as a whole. Individual words might be learned, but the activities of reading or listening are not deeply engaged if too many words are unknown. Although Nation’s primary focus is on amount of vocabulary words known, the same can be said about syntactic constructions and grammatical morphemes – if the reader needs to repeatedly stop because of difficult syntax or other unknown elements, the activity can quickly turn into language-focused learning (on which, see below).

In the world of SLA, the importance of input was most vehemently argued for by Stephen Krashen whose Input Hypothesis was highly influential – both in the advocates and critics it garnered. The basic idea of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (1985) was that learners should be exposed to language at a rate of i + 1 where i = the current knowledge of the student, and + 1 is one element that was previously unknown to the learner. This has two main advantages. First, it ensures that the material is not too difficult. Learning a language at a rate of i + 5 would not result in actual learning – too much of the input would be unknown for the learner to comprehend it. By giving only one new element, the student can deduce the meaning of that element from the other known elements in the utterance. Second, the + 1 ensures progression. The only way for a language learner to progress is exposure to new comprehensible material in the second language. If the learner knows 2,000 words, and they are only ever exposed to those 2,000 words in the texts that they read, they will, of course, never know 2,001 words. New input is, in fact, the only way to learn more of the language, since none of the other strands involve exposure to new words or constructions not already known by the student.

Meaning-focused output

Whereas input involves the skills of reading and listening, output involves speaking and writing. As with MFI, meaning-focused output (MFO) must involve activities that are on the student’s level. Even more than input, output should involve making meaning where the topic is “largely familiar” to the learner (Nation 2007:3). While an unknown element in input may be guessed correctly with context clues, it cannot be produced correctly without prior knowledge. If I do not know the word drank in Evie thirstily drank the water, I might be able to guess it, but I could never produce such a sentence if I did not know drank to begin with.

There are some unique benefits to output in the language-learning process, two of which we note here. First, Swain & Lapkin (1995), who came up with the output hypothesis to counter Krashen’s input hypothesis, note that output can have a triggering function to alert the learner to what he or she does not yet know. If I see a situation in the world that could be described with Evie thirstily drank the water but I do not know the word drank, trying to produce the sentence will trigger to me that I do not know how to describe such a situation; particularly, I do not know the word that would refer to the event of drinking. This helps learners to see gaps in knowledge and allows them to go back and fill those gaps later.

The second primary benefit of output is that language production (output) has been shown to be more effective than comprehension (input) in acquiring the grammar and vocabulary of a language (Hopman and MacDonald 2018). The basic idea is that producing the language requires greater depth of processing, so engaging in this skill commits the language to long-term memory more efficiently. With output, there is also carryover to easier comprehension skills, but the reverse is not necessarily true. If you can produce a word by speaking it, you can understand it when listening, and if you can produce a written word, you can read it (Hopman and MacDonald 2018; see also Laufer and Nation 2013:166). The implication of this research is that the fastest way to learn to read may be to practice the harder skills of speaking and writing.

Language-focused learning

Language-focused learning (LFL) is essentially the grammar-translation method. Nation (2007:5) describes it as involving “the deliberate learning of language features such as pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary, grammar and discourse.” In other words, language is not used in this strand as a means of communication (whether through production or comprehension); rather, the learner focuses on features of the language. This may involve several different features, as Nation’s list testifies, and some may have more or less overlap with other meaning-focused activities. For example, vocabulary flashcards are meaning-focused in that attention is given to the meaning of the words, but they are language-focused in that the individual word is not being used in meaningful communication. On the other hand, learning that the letter γ is pronounced [g] or [γ] has nothing to do with the meaning of γεωργός (‘farmer’), but it is a prerequisite to learning the word. Going even further afield from meaning, we might learn that the root of εἰμί is εσ, and we might also learn how to derive all the various forms of the word from the root. This sort of explicit knowledge is not necessary to learn all the forms of εἰμί and what they mean, and many native speakers of Greek probably did not know the root of the word. Although this kind of knowledge might be helpful in learning the forms, it is not necessary to making meaning with Greek.

There are an almost endless variety of activities that might fall under language-focused learning, including reading this textbook (and any other Greek textbook). Although this strand is important and certain activities (such as vocabulary flashcards) have been shown to effectively accomplish their end (Nation 2001:296–316), it is easy for a classroom to engage in language-focused learning almost exclusively. However, Nation (2007:5) suggests that “the language-focused learning strand should not make up more than one-quarter of the time spent on the whole course.” Although talking about the grammar and deliberately learning language features has its place (especially when first beginning to learn a language), it will not make you acquire the language. For that, you must use it meaningfully.

Fluency development

If you claim to know a second language, you will almost certainly be asked, “Are you fluent?” When people ask this question, they are often asking if you can rattle off something in the language with another language speaker. Hence, fluency is often connected with speaking. However, Nation says that “fluency development … should involve all four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing.” In other words, you can be a fluent reader of a language without necessarily being a fluent speaker. We will focus on reading fluency in more detail in SLA B, but for now, we give a simplified definition of fluency and discuss how we can become more fluent.

Nation (2007:6) describes this strand as a way for learners to “make the best use of what they already know.” Developing fluency involves becoming more automatic and faster at processing known components of the language. If you walk up to a non-native speaker of English and say, “Good morning, how are you?” and they stare at you blankly for several seconds before saying, “Good morning. I am well. How are you?” with stutters between words, then it may indicate that they are not fluent with greetings. They still answered correctly, so they do “know” how to greet someone in English; however, they take far longer than a native speaker would take to process and produce greetings, so they are not yet fluent (at least in that domain). If the answer were given automatically, accurately, and quickly, we would call that person fluent, at least in that domain of the language.

As hinted at, fluency must be developed not only within the four language skills, but also within different language domains, such as vocabulary about certain topics. Speed is the essential component of fluency development, and this governs both the nature of the activities as well as their content. Because fluency is about automatically and quickly using language, fluency drills should involve “some pressure or encouragement to perform at a faster than usual speed” (Nation 2007:6). Repeated timed reading is a classic example of a reading fluency activity. Nation’s (2013) 4-3-2 drill, on the other hand, practices speaking fluency – the student repeatedly retells a story and tries to do so quicker each time (in 4, 3, and 2 minutes). The content of these drills must also be easy enough to facilitate speed. Whereas meaning-focused input might have content where 98% of the words are known, fluency practice should have 100% known words. Because the focus is on speed, you cannot afford to stop for unknown words. Grammatical constructions must also not be too difficult, nor should the content be unfamiliar. Nothing about the content should slow the learner down in a fluency activity.

Traditional textbooks vs. Living language vs. Biblingo

At the outset, we said that part of Nation’s (2007) motivation for developing the four strands was to provide a framework by which language courses could be evaluated. If we use the four strands to evaluate a traditional language classroom in seminary with a traditional textbook, an immersive course with a living language curriculum, and Biblingo, how do the three stack up? If you are learning as an individual, you can also use this to evaluate your own learning activities. To illustrate a traditional seminary Greek class, we can look at the syllabus for the Introduction to NT Greek taught at Princeton Seminary in 2022. The syllabus states that there are 6 learning outcomes for the course:

1. Understand basic Greek grammar, syntax and vocabulary.

2. Apply this knowledge to the translation and interpretation of New Testament texts.

3. Use basic print and digital resources for the exegesis of the New Testament in Greek.

4. Come to see themselves as active interpreters of New Testament texts.

5. Value the utility of Greek in the interpretation and teaching of the New Testament.

6. Prepare for further study of the New Testament in the curriculum and the continued utilization of Greek in ministry contexts and/or the academic study of Scripture.

When looking at these outcomes, the most glaring deficit is that reading, writing, listening, or speaking Greek is not mentioned. In other words, students at the end of this course should not be able to use Greek as a language with the four language skills. This is further evident by the “recommended, typical daily schedule” (to which I have added in italics a label giving which of Nation’s four strands the activity would fall under):

1 This syllabus can be found online here

Traditional textbooks vs. Living language vs. Biblingo 39

Even being as generous as possible to the diversity of activities, almost everything falls under the category of LFL, and this is consistent with the outcomes prescribed. Much time is spent learning about Greek, and very little time is spent using Greek. The practice and review sentences in Croy would normally be categorized as LFL exclusively since they involve translation, but because they are more “meaning-focused” (and in the spirit of generosity), I included MFI and MFO in those in addition to LFL. Reading from Jeong’s A Greek Reader is a serious improvement, but even this may or may not fall into the category of MFI strictly speaking. In order to be MFI, over 95% of the vocabulary words should already be known, and attention must be given to comprehending the text rather than language features. Jeong’s book itself, though certainly a step in the right direction, includes grammatical notes, which would make at least that part of the text LFL. Such notes are certainly not bad, but they push the activity to be more about analyzing the grammar of the text rather than intuiting the meaning. It is uncertain what would be done during a “precept,” but given the student outcomes, we have assumed it is LFL. This leads to the following breakdown of percent time for the four strands, with each activity with multiple strands being split evenly:

Students in this class will almost certainly not be able to fluently read the Greek New Testament after the course is over. The course is not designed to teach them that skill, nor is that a stated desired outcome. This is neither good nor bad, yet it must be recognized. Reading Greek need not be the goal of a course, but students and teachers should simply be aware of the outcomes that the activities are leading towards. I, myself, learned the basic elements of Greek grammar from a course like this.

When we come to living language classrooms, I rely primarily upon my own experience as a student. I learned to speak Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew by taking classes with the Biblical Language Center (BLC) and the Polis Institute. I must say at the outset: I appreciate greatly what they are doing. Particularly at the Polis Institute, I increased my language proficiency dramatically. While these programs are evolving and do differ from one another in several respects, there are fundamental similarities between the two. In both courses, the teacher normally does the most talking in the classroom, which means that MFI will be the largest strand, probably amounting to 60–75% (or more). In my class with BLC, there was no discussion of paradigms, no explicit vocabulary learning, and no grammar discussion within the classroom itself – in other words LFL is essentially 0%.2 At the Polis Institute, grammar and vocabulary are discussed, but they are all done in the target language. This makes comprehension much more difficult (which we will discuss more fully below). Some MFO drills are done in pairs, but MFI still predominates. In the two years I took classes at either BLC or the Polis Institute, we never did a timed drill where attention was placed upon getting fast and fluent at language we already knew. This description leads to three primary issues: the nature of MFI, lack of LFL, and lack of fluency development.

The greatest advantage to these immersive programs is a very large quantity of input. Because the courses are “immersive,” input necessarily occurs. However, this input is comprehended at varying degrees by the students. Those with little language background often struggled to understand a lot of the input in the classroom, and once a student got behind, it was very difficult to catch up. If proficient students understand 95% of what is said to them, but a struggling student understands 50%, MFI is only occurring 50% of the time for the struggling student, while it is occurring 95% of the time for the proficient student. The result is that the stronger students get far more genuine comprehension practice than the weaker students, so the gap between the strong and weak widens. The problem is that strict immersion makes it very difficult for the instructor to be comprehended by everyone. Because the instructor must stay in the target language, more difficult words and grammatical concepts must be explained in the language itself with more sophisticated language, and this will often only be understood by the stronger students. Immersion guarantees input, but it does not guarantee meaning-focused input.

The second issue is the lack of LFL. While this neglect was more pronounced in the BLC class I took, the total immersion hindered effective LFL in both settings. It was not infrequent that struggling students would approach the teacher after class and ask them questions (in English) about the grammar or vocabulary that was just explained in the previous 30 minutes. When the teacher would answer in English, they would take 2 minutes to explain the concept. If that 2-minute explanation was given before the concept was explained in Greek, the struggling students might have been able to follow the Greek explanation, making the input at least more comprehensible. The point is that the main benefit of LFL is to focus on language features, and if the student is not already quite proficient at the language, this may be difficult to accomplish in the target language.

Finally, little attention is normally paid to fluency activities in communicative approaches. Some automaticity often still develops, but because it is not an explicit focus, fluency often lags behind comprehension. In my own experience, it was not until I started practicing with basic language with a language partner outside of class that I started developing speaking fluency, and it was speaking fluency that helped me the most with reading fluency. Had I not engaged in this concentrated fluency practice, I would not have reached nearly the level of fluency I now possess (which can, of course, always be improved). More concentrated fluency practice in these courses would greatly facilitate long-term language development.

While living language courses could be improved upon, they are usually more effective than the GTM at language acquisition. On the other hand, GTM courses will normally result in students who can explain grammatical concepts at a more nuanced level than communication-based courses. These courses employ activities that produce different (complementary) outcomes.

At Biblingo, we see value in both approaches and allow you, the student or teacher, to decide which strand to focus on more. Although students have a variety of goals, we assume our users want to read the Bible well. To accomplish this, we utilize production (MFO) as the most efficient means to language acquisition, and we balance this out with consistent reading on your level (MFI). Language features (LFL) are explained in the first language, so that concepts are understood better, and other more meaning-focused activities in the LFL strand stress deep engagement for maximum retention. Finally, the option to time any activity allows for fluency development in both comprehension and production.

Traditional textbooks vs. Living language vs. Biblingo 41

In our current system as of 2026 (which is always evolving), users earn XP in the three categories of learn, retain, and fluency. These categories are ways of doing each of the above activities: learn refers to completing the activity for the first time, retain is a review mode with a focus on accuracy, and fluency is a review mode focusing on speed. Because fluency development is a way of doing an activity, each of the above activities can be completed as a fluency drill. This system offers a balanced approach between the four strands and between learning new material, reviewing old material, and developing fluency in old material.

Problems remain with the Biblingo system – that is why we continue to develop it in new directions. However, the current system does provide enough variety to accomplish a number of disparate goals, whether fluency development or grammatical precision. This section has not been an advertisement for Biblingo nor a way to disparage other approaches. The four strands have been presented as a framework to help language learners and instructors evaluate their own activities and outcomes. Traditional grammar-translation classrooms will produce students that know grammar but might have weaker reading skills; communicative classrooms (as I have experienced within the biblical studies world) will produce students with decent comprehension skills, but they might have weaker analytical skills. The Biblingo app has been designed to incorporate activities from both ends of the spectrum, but you as the learner (or teacher) must decide which activities to focus on according to your desired outcomes.