Job Discussion Forums

[Sashadroogie]

Actually, I do a lot of exam prep too, so I have some idea of what goes in to that. But I rarely have to teach these skills from scratch. As EFL teachers, the most we do is help students to transfer these skills from one language to another - which students very often fail to do. But this is an entirely different matter from teaching students how to read or how to think. Usually, they can read just fine in their own language, but instinctively (as we do). If they cannot, they need literacy classes, not EFL. The same goes for thinking. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to believe that learners in our type of classroom cannot think critically simply based on the evidence of speaking difficulties in a lesson.

[Nozka]

Well, thanks for indulging me.

Sashadroogie, you're right, it would be presumptuous to not consider language and transfer issues regarding the skills in question, and I will agree that that is often the only issue. But what do you do when it's not? I try to teach whatever I can, whenever I can; I guess that's all I'm trying to say.

[gaijinalways]

Sashadroogie posted

[Sashadroogie]

Deary me. With all this talk of respecting diversity in the classroom, meaning only gays apparently, here's a novel, even revolutionary idea: how about we start respecting our learners' intelligence and stop assuming that they have no critical thinking skills, no clue as to what social norms are per se, no reading skills, no understanding at all of the outside world? If teachers really believe that, based upon nothing more than some limited interaction in an EFL classroom, then I'd say they are the last people who should feel they are qualified to teach learners about respect and understanding.

[johnslat]

Dear gaijinalways,


"John, they may or not have words for them in their language, but that doesn't mean that they use them on a regular basis. We have formal medical terms in English, but it doesn't mean I personally know all of them (not having a medical background) or use them on a regular basis."

"Maybe I simply haven't taught in those "areas." but in my experience, students do already "know these things." What they often don't know is what we call them - i.e. inference and deduction."

Poor, misunderstood me - I'm not quite sure how you got "they may or may not have words for them in their language" out of "What they often don't know is what WE call them." This seems especially odd since my words before that:

"Maybe I simply haven't taught in those "areas." but in my experience, students do already "know these things."

make exactly the same point that, apparently, you seem to think I'm unaware of. Students are often unfamiliar with the "technical terms" inference and implication; however, once you give them a simple example, they always (at least in my experience) can see that they regularly perform the behavior represented by those words.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you:

"John, they may or not have words for them in their language, but that doesn't mean that they use them on a regular basis."

Assuming "them" refers to the actions of inference and implication, are you saying that there are students (or maybe whole societies) that DON'T
perform these behaviors (inference/implication) on a regular basis?
If so, I can say only that my experience would prompt me to disagree (quite strongly) with such an assertion.


Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

Dear John

I hear you and understand you. Even when we speak Natsat or Martian!

S

[johnslat]

Dear Sashadroogie,

Well, that makes two people who understand me: you and my wife. And my wife understands me far too well. You can make any inference you want from that implication.

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

Dear Johnslat

I have not had enough critical thinking lessons from my Russian teacher, so I'm not too sure that I can make those mental leaps unassisted. But I have learnt to swear like a Spetnaz trooper. I think this will be much more beneficial if I am ever caught up in a conflict with them.

I was not a full person before my lessons, yet now that my Russian teacher has educated me about life and the whole world and what opinion to hold, I feel I have really made progress.

My Russian is still poor though...

[spiral78]

Back to pet peeves, are we, Sasha? 'Don't try to teach me to think critically!'

I actually teach a fairly large unit called 'critical thinking in English,' but I now realise that the title is a bit of a misnoner. It would be more accurate to call it something like 'analysis of linguistic and rhetorical indicators of bias, opinion, and intent in English.'

I agree there's no place for teaching 'critical thinking' in a language classroom, and that teachers have to be quite careful to focus on the language needed to discuss controversial topics, rather than the controversies themselves. This may take a little practice and attention.

I'm able to discuss contentious issues for hours on end, without ever stating my own personal opinion, when needed All the while highlighting the linguistic and rhetorical cues that indicate a speakers' intent. What fun!

[Sashadroogie]

And what great language teaching, as well as fun!

This is what we should be doing. Not try to culturally colonise the minds of our learners and foist our 'weltanschauung' upon them.

Yes, you are quite right - this is a MASSIVE peeve of mine. The trouble this has caused - and all from culturally insensitive teachers claiming to teach 'culture'.

Ah, a pox on them all - I'm off to study my падежи.

[spiral78]

I doubt anyone's actually interested, but here's an illustration I use when training teachers.

We have two opposite, but equally well-written 'arguments' regarding bans on public smoking. They feature the classic structure of intro/3 main points/ conclusion, and all the 'expected' signalling language. They're carefully balanced in terms of rational/emotional-hot buttonl/fear-based/points.

I instruct 2 'battling' newb teachers to read 'with feeling.' Students vote on the best delivered argument, after analysing them for linguistic markers.

It's sometimes useful to show teachers how it's the language that is the focus - not the actual argument.

Case in point - if I read the 'public smoking bans should all be lifted immediately' argument - I always win for 'most effective delivery.' Then, it's easy to point out to the teachers later that ....uh....I don't agree with the argument. Nor do the students need to know how I feel about it.

[johnslat]

Dear sporal58,

Does the "most effective delivery" also always prove to be the most "convincing delivery?"

I'm reminded of Shakespeare's "Julius Ceasar," Act III, Scene 2.

Brutus gives his very logical, well-reasoned speech, defending the assassination of Ceasar.
He's a big hit - until Anthony gives his emotional tear-jerker of a speech.

Then the crowd wants Brutus's blood.

Regards,
John

[spiral78]

In my simplistic example, effective = convincing.
We carefully balanced them both, so that the emotive/rational ratio is equal in them.

It was - and is- fun:)

I recall the Brutus/Antony scene, but if I recall correctly, the techniques used by each protagonist were very different

Perhaps I should abandon our concoted pseudo-debates for the Master Shakespeare's example (but I think most of our newbies would find it harder to grasp).

[johnslat]

Dear spiral78,

" . . . the techniques used by each protagonist were very different."

As mentioned: "Brutus gives his very logical, well-reasoned speech, defending the assassination of Ceasar.
He's a big hit - until Anthony gives his emotional tear-jerker of a speech."

Regards,
John

[Chancellor]

[quote="Nozka"]