Job Discussion Forums

[FreakingTea]

I'm about to begin my first semester of EFL teaching at a university, and I've been reading as much as I can about uni teaching in China and EFL in general. I learned how to use PPP in my certificate course, but when I came across the lexical approach, I was pretty excited because the Observe-Hypothesise-Experiment cycle sounds much closer to how I have learned foreign languages effectively (and I've been in a variety of language classes with varying methods that were not all effective to the same degree) than the Present-Practice-Produce cycle.

Here's a brief article on the approach: http://myenglishpages.com/blog/lexical-approach/

So has anyone here put it into practice? I read in another thread that idioms work well in the Chinese classroom, so maybe this approach might be more successful overall than a grammar-based one? Thoughts? Opinions? Rants?

[Denim-Maniac]

If Lewis spent some time in a Chinese classroom he may note that the lexical approach is followed with little success in terms of increasing communicative ability.

Language is frequently taught in chunks here. Students love to write down idiomatic phrases and recite 50 sentences using the word 'tickets' (or insert any other random word). Generally it doesnt increase their ability to communicate effectively, but students like it because they think learning language is about reciting / remembering words and phrases. Do idioms work well in a Chinese classroom? Well, can anyone print off a list of 50 idioms, give to students, and waste a lesson or two explaining them? Yes. Does that increase students ability to do anything except remember words? No. Teaching idioms is pretty much always a waste of time linguistically I think. 3 or 4 idiomatic phrases in the context of a large lesson, yes. Teaching idioms as the lesson? C'mon.

I think one is better teaching chunks of language and collocates within a PPP / communicative environment. The lexical approach has merits, but not as the sole vehicle of language instruction IMHO. It could be a moot point however ... someone is bound to chip in soon with a 'dont think too much / just make em talk' methodology. And thats Chinese university work 98% of the time.

[Non Sequitur]

Denim is right.
Don't get too caught up on methodology at this point.
In 5 weeks or so you will be in front of the little darlings and can choose your approach then.
Rather think your way through the logistics as generally your classes will be 40+.
best
NS

[FreakingTea]

Yes, I agree with both of you. The methodology stuff was rather peripheral in what I've been reading, because having 40+ students is a bigger concern to me than getting them fluent or anything! I was just wondering whether anyone had incorporated this approach into their lessons and what the results were. I guess I'm just getting ahead of myself.

[Non Sequitur]

Keep that level of keenness as you'll need it to keep you going when the inevitable negative experiences kick in.
My impression is the Chinese students learn English as a bit of code. It just has to be memorised to be mastered.
Opening their eyes to its career-enhancing possibilities can be rewarding and vocational students can be more tuned in to this than say English majors who are going teaching.
I make a point of telling the better ones as they reach a level of proficiency that they could visit an English-speaking country unaided. Book a room and order a meal. Visit the Dr and apply for a job.
You can see the realisation of this dawn on their faces.
A sophomore student from my first year (2004) whom I still am in contact with said she 'turned on' when her high school FT told her to use English to travel. Prior to that my former student says she learned English because she was told to.
We DO make a difference!
OP look at the companion threads on school and class issues in the first week.

[roadwalker]

I agree that the approach is already used in Chinese-designed oral English/conversation classes. The university-provided textbooks, as horrible as they invariably are (spelling, grammatical, and cultural errors), do at least put useful chunks of English into a context, which is often missing in those cram books some students are seen and heard reading from mornings before classes. A typical conversation book will be divided into such units as greetings and introductions, food, shopping, leisure activities, travel, etc., which provide a context for fixed phrases and frequent collocations to be learned in a useful way. That's one reason I don't just throw the book in the trash upon inspection. I can still use the book at the very least as a template for my own materials, and often some exercises are effective.

Generally speaking, each unit has an introductory short reading, some vocabulary practice and set phrase exercise, then a dialog(ue) and finally some "what do you think?" questions designed to spur conversation using the newly acquired material. Note, it's possible you won't be provided with a book. Hasn't happened to me for oral English but I've read complaints here.

Freaking Tea, you may be asked to teach something other than conversation/oral English but you most likely won't be asked to teach grammar per se, or reading. Foreign English teachers do sometimes teach literature, writing and listening as well as culture and special purpose classes like business English. English majors are taught "Comprehensive English" (which I believe is basically grammar and usually taught in Mandarin!), listening, composition, intensive reading, extensive reading, literature and translation before they are finished. Those classes are almost always taught by Chinese teachers, some who do a good job and some who drone on into a microphone to a sleeping class.

[Bud Powell]

If the OP has a good sense of classroom, a good assessment of the students' needs, and knows how to conduct himself in class, he can throw out the theory. Theory is theory and teaching is teaching. In theory, theory, theory works. In practice, theory is still just theory.

I took a couple of practicum classes when I studied for my MA, and while my work was monitored by faculty to see how well I "applied" theory, I found that the more i concentrated upon students' needs, the better the class performed.

Studying theory is great, and it raises one's consciousness of students' needs and raises awareness of different methodologies. After a few terms, however,the novice teacher puts theory on the back burner and addresses the what of the teaching process and discards the strictures of theory.

Jazz musician Charlie Parker once said, "Learn your scales, chords, harmony, and theory. Then forget all that and just play." I think this is true of teaching.

I've read case after case of Andrea Lundsford's experiences in ESL. I wouldn't have said this while I was in school, but I believe that 75% of her findings in ESL are drivel to be read, be considered, and then be discarded.

[tangal]

[Denim-Maniac]

Isnt the lexical approach one that discards a PPP (or similar structure) teaches the utterances as described (collocates / semi-fixed phrases / idioms ) with the hope that inductive learning may take place which the student can apply when using said 'chunks' of language? That is, the main focus is on the utterances? That's my understanding of it, although I could accept its quite a simple understanding.

For me, this approach is the death of language learning as typified by many of the Chinese students I encounter who have spent months (sometimes years) memorising hundreds of sentences, proverbs, idioms and utterances in the vain hope that this will increase their fluency, accuracy and communicative abilities.

Some of my students on weixin keep posting 'moments' which include 1000 useful sentences, 50 sentences with 'tickets' (I posted that earlier simply because one of my students posted his sentences using that word). Even if their sentences are accurate, common and useful ... concentrating mainly on such sentences and the memorisation of them hasnt appeared to produce many competent speakers in my classrooms. Or when it has, it has taken many many more study hours than other methods might take.

I see the lexical approach as part of vocabulary teaching ... after all we all include common collocates and typical sentence patterns, but I cant really see it as the main vehicle for language instruction.

[FreakingTea]

[Bud Powell]

My FAO said that I will have access to textbooks, and that it's up to me whether I want to use them.

Check the books out. Take what you can use and leave the rest.

For oral English, what has worked for me are situational conversations where you present two or three students with a situation, then have them create a conversation around it. In time, many (or most) will be able to overcome their reluctance to speak and lose themselves in the situation. Encourage spontaneity and humor, even silliness.

[Non Sequitur]