Job Discussion Forums

[Roger]

I think teachers ought to be amenable to a few critical observations on their language skills because they are, after all, supposed to pass their own critical judgement on to far younger and far less experienced charges.

There was, for instance, a guy who comnplained he might not get a job because "I may be of the wrong decent", when in fact he meant "descent".

Others never write "definitely" correctly; I am sure if you write "definately" you have an aural problem: how can "A" be pronounced as a short "E"?

Still others even flaunt their vernacular spelling variants; what sort of teachers are they? The first medium our students get to know is the written one; if you pass one a personalised version of the English language what are your students going to get from you that's worth preserving and cultivating?

[Talkdoc]

[Atlas]

Well-said Doc,

Now I know why it took Freud so many years to cure his patients!

Just kidding my friend! Your considered contributions class up this joint.

Seriously, posters like Doc, and heck, most of the people on this thread seem to be preaching to the choir, while absent are some of the more fringe grammar basket cases who haunt the forum, no names, but we've all seen them. Remember a certain unnamed poster who took the appellation of a deaf composer? He used to edit other people's posts with a liberal dose of [sic]'s yet on many occasions he committed many grammatical errors, but no one really cared enough to call him on his hypocricy. As I said before, anyone can make a small grammar error but only the aggressive posters use it as ammunition.

My true point is that while many of the teachers here in China bring a substantial level of professionalism to their vocation, in fact I wouldn't exactly call "Talk to the Monkey" a profession. There are a host of Chinese schools that don't deserve the contributions of truly academic professionals. For them I say, backpackers suffice. You get what you pay for!

[marblez]

Ah! The guidelines of APA publication are after me again! I think I revised my research proposal at least 30 times last semester. I also noticed that numerous students were unable to spell "psychology".

Psycology, physcology, etc.

[yaco]

Talkdoc

I agree with your analysis that about 50% of teachers who post on this forum, display deficiencies in grammar, spelling, syntax etc.

My question is

Why is this situation occurring ?

[Talkdoc]

[yaco]

Talkdoc

Thanks for answering my question.

I will provide a simple analysis as to why there is a deficiency in GRAMMAR.

There used to be 3 English subjects taught in Australia until about 1970-1974.

1) English
2) English Literature
3) English Grammar

After this time, English Grammar ceased to be a subject in Primary and Sceondary schools and was amalgamated into English or English Literature. Effectively if you are under the age of 40, you do not have a solid grammar base ( as you used in the EFL field of teaching ) to fall back on.

Secondly, In western culture we are taught to think and explore when in an education setting. Therefore examiners are more concerned with thought and ideas as opposed to perfect grammar.

[Old Dog]

Yaco wrote:

(i)

[Talkdoc]

After reading the last two posts, I am wondering to myself, at what age is it appropriate to stop blaming our parents and teachers for our own shortcomings and assume personal responsibility for them?

A fifteen year old girl, Sally A., who has an IQ of 118 (superior range) and had previously been an average student, is currently suffering from academic difficulties. Not only have her grades fallen off, but she has started drinking and using drugs on a regular basis and has recently engaged in high-risk, sexually promiscuous behavior. Initial examination reveals that eight months ago, her parents divorced in what was a extremely acrimonious and contentious battle. During the divorce proceedings, it was revealed to the patient that her father, whom she had always idealized and adored, had been involved in a series of extramarital affairs from the time she was five years old. This news served a crushing blow to the patient, it felt to her as if her entire world had come to an end and she reacted as if she was the one who had been cheated on for all those years. In addition, after the divorce, the patient and her mother were forced, through changes in their economic status, to sell their home and move to a small apartment in a less desirable neighborhood.

Sally�s reactive depression and resulting compensatory (and maladaptive) behaviors are understandable and most would agree are sufficiently explained by the radical changes in her life.

Twenty years have since passed. Sally is now 35 years old. She barely managed to graduate from high school and half-heartedly attended a community college for a couple of semesters but never returned after the first year. She has been involved in a series of highly volatile and emotionally labile relationships with a series of men and has never held a job for more than a few months at a time. She has two children, out-of-wedlock, ages 14 and 12, who are currently living with their maternal grandmother. Sally was remanded by the court into counseling after incurring her second DUI (Driving Under the Influence) within an 18-month period. When asked by the counselor what her understanding is of her present difficulties, she shrugged and replied �I dunno, I guess I had a crappy childhood. Drinking helps but like I don't do the hard stuff anymore. Besides, that cop was just out to get me because, I swear, I only had two beers when the jerk pulled me over. My lawyer's gonna fight this one and I'm gonna win. So I'm not really worried about it.� Patient does not appear motivated, at this time, to move forward in her life arguing, �I don�t really believe in therapy and like neither does my boyfriend Mark. People really can�t change their pasts, you know; like some people are totally lucky and have like really great childhoods, you know, like you see in the movies, but most people are totally f*cked up, like me and Mark.�

Sound good? Is everyone in agreement with Sally that she is doomed, and not the least bit responsible for her life and her behavior, because she was dealt a hard blow some twenty years ago?

The argument that foreign teachers should not be responsible for understanding (or acquiring) fundamentals of grammar or writing like mature and intelligent adults because formal classes in grammar were incorporated into other course syllabi is no less absurd or ludicrous; actually, it is considerably more so.

You only had 10 hours of formal grammar instruction instead of 30 or 50? Your 10th grade substitute English teacher, who taught you for the entire year and addressed all of his students as �Dude,� was a former heroin addict undergoing methadone treatment at the time and wasted most of the class�s time talking about his newly-found spiritual awakening? My heart bleeds for you, truly. I think that is genuinely terrible. Obviously, you are doomed for life, unfairly and cruelly relegated to a life of poor and, at times, incomprehensible written forms of communication. Like our poor heroine Sally, there is no hope, no future and no point in looking within yourselves for the answers.

I understand, truly I do. And I�m so sorry that I and others have displayed, what must appear to be, gross insensitivity to your hardship.

If only, just only, there was some way of acquiring these fundamentals and skills after leaving school. Nah, that�s just plain crazy; what am I thinking about? Of course, that would never work.

But there is a silver lining to this cloud after all; not all is lost despite what some of you might be thinking. Worst comes to worst, Sally and Mark can always become EFL teachers in China: as, from what I can see, they're certainly in possession of the proper mindset for it, they do speak English reasonably well, they are an attractive couple and, as an added bonus, Mark has a pretty good singing voice too.

Doc

[Atlas]

[Talkdoc]

I personally have not met anyone in my 50 years of life whose childhood experiences parallel those portrayed in the American family sitcoms of the late fifties and sixties such as Leave It To Beaver, The Donna Reed Show and last, but not least, Father Knows Best.

Most people have had less than ideal experiences with their parents and teachers and, yes, some high schools even graduate students who can't read. That's true enough. Speaking for myself, my childhood and early educational experiences were a far cry from being idyllic.

Early and late childhood experiences are a sufficient condition for explaining why we came to be the way we are but are never a sufficient condition for excusing why we have chosen to remain that way (assuming, of course, that way is maladaptive). There is something of a common misconception about psychotherapy which views it as providing something of an alibi for living a maladaptive and unproductive life. The antithesis is true.

The goal of any treatment, irrespective of professional school of thought, is to restore and improve psychosocial functioning. You don't achieve that by living in the past but only by learning from it. To learn, means to try new ways of doing things, to somehow find enough courage to leave behind what is familiar (and no one said that was easy which is why not everyone decides to change even if they are in a great deal of pain). If, in fact, we are all just victims of our pasts, there would be no point in ever trying to move forward; but we all know from our own lives, as well as the personal experiences of others, that people can overcome even the most dreadful of early childhood family and academic experiences to become relatively happy and productive in their lives.

If what Yaco and Old Dog are saying is true, then I probably have forgotten more rules of grammar than most younger people have ever learned. Even if that�s true (and I'm not convinced that it is across the board), it is absolutely no excuse for not assuming personal responsibility for acquiring the fundamentals and basics of proper writing and speaking which should be required of anyone calling him or herself a teacher even if that individual is �only� teaching Phys. Ed., Shop or Oral English.

Which leads me to another point � this rationalization of �Oh, well, you know, I speak well enough, it�s just that my grammar is atrocious so I really can�t write that well� is a predominantly specious one. Most people write the way they speak or, at the very least, the mechanics are the same (or very similar). No one who correctly states �Bill and Mary are my best friends� is ever going to write �Bill and Mary is my best friend.� It�s not going to happen. The mind�s eye will catch it and know that it is simply incorrect. People who write very poorly often speak very poorly; it�s just that by using enough words, they can make themselves understood and that certain errors in grammar and syntax are more difficult for the ear, than the eye, to discern.

It is possible for someone to speak properly and clearly and have difficulties with technical (as opposed to mechanical) writing points, involving such areas as punctuation, word usage, style and, possibly organization (although that is less likely). If someone�s thought processes are rational and his speech is grammatically correct and well-organized, then his writing will follow suit (not factoring in spelling errors and typos). His writing may not be eloquent (whereas his speech may be) and he may not win any awards for creative writing, but the fundamentals and the clarity of meaning will be there; I guarantee it.

If you don�t believe me, try an experiment. Select four people from this forum � two who write well and two who do not. Tape record them while they are teaching then, afterwards, transcribe the tapes and compare the number and, specifically, the type of errors in grammar and syntax. There is no doubt in my mind as to what you will discover.

This gross dichotomy between speech and writing, that some are trying to establish here, is simply a false one. It's a neat trick but ultimately it's purpose, as in sleight of hand, is to misdirect the audience's attention: in this case, to argue legitimacy for a specific type of teaching position (Oral English) where, in my opinion anyway, it simply doesn't exist. Of course, in China, our FAOs and employers are working together with us as confederates and the audience, so to speak, consists of our students and their parents.

Doc

[yaco]

I will allow Talkdoc and Old Dog to continue debating this issue.

I have 2 points

- I am more inclined to believe Old Dog as he appears to have a more solid grounding in this subject area.
- What is the relationship between Mary and grammar ?

[Talkdoc]

[Old Dog]

God forbid that anyone should be confused by this thread!

Let me summarize to avoid such a calamity:

OD says that teachers, for various reasons, have, to all intents and purposes, given up the teaching of grammar (in OD's view because they are ignorant themselves in this area).

TD then observes that the victims of an inadequate system of English language education defend their ignorance of grammar on specious grounds or bewail the fact that others have failed them and thus turned them into "language" victims. TD likens this process to that often observed by psychologists in which victims (Mary, for example) wallow in their "victimness" and fail to initiate personal action that would result in repair of the shortcoming and thence provide freedom from the victim state.

In other words, Mary, if your grammar is crook, stop blaming others. If, indeed, the system has failed you, stop bleating about it. Get your finger out and do something about repairing the damage yourself.

[yaco]

TD and OD are assuming that people understand, they have a problem.

I will allow you 2 wise scribes to continue, whilst I enjoy myself in Cambodia and Thailand.