Korean Job Discussion Forums

[NinjaTeacher]

I shot a video covering this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki5aUEc1kEA

If you have any questions, let me know.

[le-paul]

I only watched the first few seconds where you said 'the short answer is no...'. I completely disagree with you.

In terms of time management, or checking comprehension (and a few other things), a direct translation is a lot more practical. It can take from between a few seconds to a few minutes to explain a words meaning, even then, there is no way to be sure a person comprehends it exactly.
Without being entirely sure of a translations comprehension, you are in danger of mis-educating people - as well as time wasting.

Try explaining the word shame as in 'its a shame' when the students dont know the word for 'pity' etc. I can translate it in 3 seconds and move on.

Or explain what the concept of messy and then they say 'Ah, you mean dorup-da (however you spell it)?!' You say, 'yeah, it must be', or whatever - youve just mis-informed someone.

There is a time and a place for explaining the meanings of words, and always isnt it.

[edwardcatflap]

You don't need to speak Korean but you need to know how to teach vocabulary properly. By that I mean you need to be experienced enough to know what mistakes students can make with vocabulary, give decent examples and and ask the right CCQs to make sure they get the message. Translations are sometimes necessary but electronic dictionaries are always on hand.

The concept of wasting time is not relevant as if you're communicating something effectively in the language you're teaching, it's a valuable learning experience for the students. What are you 'saving time' for? I would make an exception for very low level students who probably need translation occasionally to avoid demotivation.

IMO a lot worse damage is done by Korean teachers thinking something is a direct translation when it isn't and the students picking up fossilized errors such as 'I envy you', 'frankly speaking' or 'I played with my friends (from a 20 year old)

[Fox]

The way I see it, it's a tool in your toolbox. If you can speak Korean, the options for what you can do with your class and how you can explain concepts has increased. You'll be able to more easily take questions from your students, you'll be able to more easily confirm that they understand what you've taught them, and it also helps substantially with classroom control. You don't strictly "need" it, but it's beneficial, and it's not necessarily true that one will always have a Korean co-teacher.

[Stu_miller]

I pretty much agree with Fox. It's not essential to know a student's native language, but it can definitely help in terms of time and conciseness. Although, it should be noted there's a risk if the teacher is semi-proficient in the native language that they may end up mis-translating or giving inappropriate examples.

In Thai, I always try to check my essential vocab beforehand with a Thai native to make sure it's appropriate. Then when I give the Thai translation in class, I will try to ask CCQs in English and request examples sentences to confirm understanding, or lack thereof.

I guess it's like anything, don't overuse any one tool that you have, but if you include it appropriately as a small part of your skill-set, then it can definitely improve the standard of your teaching and understanding.

[le-paul]

at edwardcat;

'Saving time' so that I can move on and teach something more relevant, or at least try to follow my lesson plan (an example would be when reading, and a student doesn't understand a word - its very easy to get sidetracked and lose the flow of the session. Translate and move on).

Time is limited in a classroom - improving your language skills however, has few limits.

[edwardcatflap]

You could save even more time by just having the students ask questions in their language as well.

[/quote]I've never, ever felt this way in either of the foreign languages I've been learning. Not even once. [quote]

That's you. Learners are different and most adults in my experience, including myself, prefer not to use or have their L1 used in the class room.

[isitts]

Personally, I don't think translations translate very well. Sometimes I think it's fine, but other times it's clearly not conveying the right idea. So, I'm generally not a fan of translation.

That said, it does help to know Korean so you know where the errors are coming from.

For example:

"I talked to an uncle." Or, "I talked to a grandfather."
"Nice to meet you."
"Did you eat rice?"
etc.

Some ideas in Korean simply don't exist in English. So translating, itself, can be the waste of time.

[Fox]

[edwardcatflap]

[quote]

Yes, learners are different. Being able to accommodate those differences seems to me to be a strength.

[quote]

Difficult when you're teaching to a class.



Which languages have you learned to a high level of proficiency, out of curiosity? [quote]

None but I've known a few well enough to use them in the class room. Very
rarely needed to though.

[Fox]

[edwardcatflap]

This debate has been done to death before on here. You're entitled to your opinion but the majority of academic thought on the subject is against you at the moment. Also you can probably get away with using L1 at a public school or in a university but another fact is you will get complaints if you do it in a commercial environment

[Fox]

Thanks for the information about the academic orthodoxy. Fortunately truth isn't a democracy, so I'll stick with the minority of academics who suggest L1 has a limited role in the classroom, coinciding as it does with both my teaching experiences and my (efficacious) learning experiences. Thanks for the chat.

[le-paul]

[northway]

You have a funny accent.