Job Discussion Forums

[Glenski]

[Glenski]

[fluffyhamster]

John, perhaps I was reading a bit too much into it, but you did preface your 'You seem to imply so, but perhaps I missed something in one of your recent posts' with the question, 'Are you currently employed?' (not to mention the misappellation), and to me that kind of implies you couldn't imagine (how) I could possibly have a job (and I don't mean in the 'Wow you're always on Dave's' sense, but in the 'You are exhibiting none of the qualities that a "good" teacher of English should have'). Part of the reason this thread has gotten so long is that you and particularly Moot seem(ed) so opposed to "a bit of knowledge" (going through the grammar) and its implications. Personally, I don't think a bit of knowledge is too dangerous, and I shudder to think of of how much less use I would seem (be?) to the average JTE if I didn't know even the little that I do.

Glenski, I'm not the one with the issues, Moot is. I know my "Whinger" thread went a bit overboard, but Moot is trouble pure and simple, as anyone reading the current thread will plainly see; and FYI I have only received the one PM from him (to which I have only sent one fairly innocuous reply). I'd prefer it if he just said what he wants to say or imply on the forum itself, wasteful of space though his stuff is. PMs are (or should be) for use between friends or people who seem to be on the same wavelength (so they are doubtless a real boon to gangs of troublemakers)...it makes you wonder if there is really such a need for them, when you consider the way the function can or might be abused. Anyway...

Glenski, are the differences that you allude to between the JHSs all due to genuine intelligence, or a fair bit of or wealth (that is, some parents can maybe only afford to send their kids to private high schools at a senior level)? And are you seriously saying that the public JHSs from which the "less able" come do not need to improve the English education they offer (partly because there is always your school to rescue them, like nowhere and nobody else could or should)? That's probably not what you meant, but it is hard to see what you're driving at exactly here.

I'd like you to also explain what you mean exactly by 'overwhelm' because as I've already (clearly? LOL) explained, the grammar I am using is not out of line with the syllabus's progression in Sunshine at least; and besides, you go on yourself to say that a lot of what they go on to study at SHS (and, I would argue, quite a bit of what they study at JHS level too) 'would make (my) examples look like Peanuts cartoon dialog'.

I don't feel you guys are engaging with what I'm saying about function. You seem to think I am just criticizing a few specific JTEs for no reason, but in the replies I'm getting here all I seem to be hearing are defenses for JTEs and their methods in the abstract (though John did call their lessons "handjobs" at one point LOL) in between contradictory rants about the general difficulties of the education system in Japan (with which I am already reasonably familiar, by the way, but thanks all the same), especially as it progresses: things just seem to be made harder and harder for the kids, all the while losing sight of the functional essentials.

Look, I'm not expecting the kids to be able to hold a very meaningful conversation at JHS or even SHS level: 'a conversation' is a simple word, but wide open in real life. What I don't think is too terribly ambitious, however, is being able to talk about e.g. movies stars (if that is indeed the way RPs among other things are contextualized) - they constitute a "talking point", a glimmering of a part of a wider "conversation". I'm perfectly willing to admit that there may be other good activities for RP practise out there, but I'm not hearing them on this thread so far (=feel free to put the boot into a crap plan from a JTE, or tell us what about a creation of your own that avoids whatever you think are the pitfalls of mine).

I don't know what the answer is when it comes to precisely what sort of texts to study and at what level (speech doesn't always provide explicit input, hedging and umming and ahhing as it does), but speech should be a cornerstone and a way of paraphrasing or talking about the more complex written variety of texts; and it also gives the student a very clear idea of the function of a grammar point, because it puts things much like the student themselves might/would/should.

[Glenski]

[fluffyhamster]

I felt like you were writing me off a bit towards the end of your previous post, Glenski, so it's nice you've tried to clarify things a bit more for me. That being said, I think we'll just have to agree to differ about what we see the exact aims of the varying approaches I've outlined as being, and we certainly seem to differ as to whether we feel the approaches are appropriate and useful for the students in at least the short-term.

I asked you if you thought that public JHSs need to improve their English education...you say no, but it seems more in answer to my further question about your school being there to rescue the fallen, because you go on to say 'public schools that crank out kids in JHS don't do a good job.' Can you please give me a straight answer (to the question, does English at at least the JHS level need to be improved/overhauled?).

It would actually be interesting, G, if you could tell us what YOU think would be useful at at least the JHS level, instead of simply saying that what I am proposing is not appropriate that level, nor useful for SHS (who, yes we've gathered, do a different thing entirely to JHS students...well at least it would appear so in your private HS); you are as tight-lipped as you are critical. (Apologies if I missed anywhere you alluded to your or another's specific approach that you wholeheardtedly endorse).

Try to imagine, if you will, a more integrated six-year course of study (it seems the government is considering this now), or at least the possibility that the grammar at heart is the same (whether it's movie stars or things much more involved and dry that the students are talking or reading about respectively at whatever point(s) in time) even if such a merger fails to materialize.

I still don't think you've quite grasped my point about "talking points" not being actual conversations, but rather things that allow one to not only have a limited "conversation", but to also at the same time grasp the (function of) the grammar with a view to proceeding onto whatever more complex texts are waiting (later and/or at SHS level); nor have you quite explained why you think students will (or is it won't?) understand (and certainly not be able to use?) much of the more complex stuff (albeit at a slightly older age), but absolutely will not understand or be able to ever use what I am presenting them at or from the slightly earlier age (JHS 3).

I really have to say that despite your assertions to the contrary, students DO understand what I am on about and seem to be showing a noticeable appreciation for the function of the form (e.g. 'who') in the contexts/activities that I've described: such a thing happened today, in fact, in a class where I got the lion's share of the time (it really helps when the AET is not given five minutes at the end in which to reveal the "communicative secrets" of English, those should be part and parcel of the entire lesson); and in contrast, the JTE who had offered me the "advice" (as he ran away to make a cuppa and get some senbei for his breaktime) those few days ago had a tough time getting the class to respond much to his activities (those functionless "combining" statement drills, or the 'Supply the missing pronoun' facts with "appreciable" amounts of elliptable redundancy within the sentences); it's not just a matter of "variety" (shunting me on stage), but of actually engaging the students' brains just when they are in danger of shutting down (it helps that when I do come onstage, I immediately begin to introduce the forms in a natural, conversational Q+A style). The students might not be able to immediately say or even repeat all the forms I'm using, but they do understand what is going on, which is more than can be said for e.g. the student who wasn't even thinking about which teacher rode the scooter she mentioned (I know a teacher. He/she rides a scooter > I know a teacher who rides a scooter. Who? Wakaranai!). Give me a little more time with them and I'm confident they'll be remembering my examples (and generating their own ones) more than the JTE's... (BTW G I'm not forcing them to talk just yet - like I'll get many more chances with them to have a crack at this grammar! -and certainly not to drone a load of meaningless crap, I'm getting them to LISTEN and try to UNDERSTAND not only what I'm saying but WHY I'm saying it).

Oh, and FYI I'm not 'getting headaches' over this, and nor I suspect are the JTEs. I suppose if I am at the same school next year (and there's no reason I shouldn't be) the planning could get 'interesting' (a little fraught), but that would be more due to the slight neuroses that ANY (only) average JTE DOES (not just might or seems to!) develop when forced to work alongside the average, relatively unassuming and mostly undemanding AET (which is how I see myself - I certainly don't bang on to a busy JTE like I do to you poor sods on Dave's...but d'ya reckon I should LOL? Or should I just become a total 'Yes!'-man?).

By the way, Japanese may have problems with pronouns (I'm assuming you mean pronoun substitution (for nouns)/reference), but this are not really the same thing as RPs. Is it really so difficult to appreciate that who, which, that etc = Japanese 'no'? (Apologies if Japanese is not quite as simple as I am making out).

Nice cop-out there at the end, G ('Well, that has not been the focus of this thread'). What really is or should be (should have been?) the focus then, if not this? Arguments or counterarguments based on (gross?) generalizations, without more specific facts/problems > analysis/implications > solutions/conclusions framework, lack force and ultimately conviction. But you're under no obligations to divulge your winning techniques or even your ways for getting through the workday when (JTE?) lesson plans for RPs rear their ugly heads.

I may not be flogging an entirely dead horse in my classes, but it seems the nag on Dave's ain't budging no more. Hats off.

[fluffyhamster]

Wait I think I've seen the glimmering of a chance to flog it a tiny bit more...

Glenski, you said something earlier about there being 'a method in the madness'. If by that you were referring to your highly confidential and (you yourself have said) "irrelevant" methods for teaching, among other things, RPs, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are doing an OK job of it.

If, however, you were instead trying to to say that the average JTE in especially public JHSs has much of clue and could find the AL section in Kinokuniya even with a map, then I'm afraid I would (still) have to disagree: I see little method, and only madness.

I think we need to distinguish clearly between e.g. talking about simplification generally being a good thing in our own (native) teaching, and whether it is a good thing in other's (non-native's) teaching when they start going beyond the point at which functionality and meaning cease to exist, especially when you consider how most JTEs are not slow on the other hand to complicate far beyond what is (functionally) necessary (sometimes even at the JHS level).

I know there are some good JTEs out there, but the effect they have is nullified by the fact that they often might only get to see a certain year's intake of kids for just one of their six high school years (then factor in the varying courses, advice, exams etc). It's a mess, but who's gonna fix it? Not the professors, it seems, and the Eduaction Ministry is about as much use as a fart in a hurricane. The JTEs still? Probably not, eh! Your average AET? Nope, we have to compromize pretty much ALL the time to keep our jobs...

There is one advantage to working in Japan: you get to thinking of alternative activities (not necessarily the best, but surely better in inportant respects) after experiencing the "best" that the collective wisdom of the entrenched educational establishment here can offer.

[Glenski]

fluffy,
How do I respond to someone who insinuates that I'm hiding things about my teaching techniques and ways of thinking? You read too much into matters. I simply try to answer your verbose messages as best I can. Let's see if I can clear some things up.

First and foremost, I resent the term "cop out". Most people here, myself included, have tried to respond to your main thrust, and that is the difference in styles of teaching between you and the JTE. I suggest you start another thread on RPs or do a search on the Teachers' Forum, or perhaps even visit the Linguistics forum.

Second,

[mrjohndub]

Ding ding ding.

We are pleased to announce in the eleventh round of this twelve round bout, the winner by TKO, Glenski. Stay tuned for the rematch.

[fluffyhamster]

Aw, I dunno John, all that Glenski seems to be doing is filling us in on the situation in his school (as I have filled you guys in on mine). I don't really have anything to say to all that specifically, apart from that it sounds like he too has his work cut out for him, and I'm glad to finally hear that I'm maybe not the cause of all the problems in the schools here in Japan (well, at least not the ones I haven't yet worked at LOL).

Thanks for the advice Glenski (about trying to get more than 5 minutes, ditching the books and needing to be very patient). I do my best with the first and last, but the books are non-negotiable (and actually not that bad compared to the JTE's own efforts).

Hmm, about "programming", not quite sure what you mean because even the JTEs seem to (want to) believe in communication and do try (it's just they don't have enough idea about what forms are genuine functional exponents and which aren't, and even if they have a few they can get lost in quite strange improvised discourse once in the classroom i.e. the JTE abandons the script they're unclear of and wings it as best they can). I guess you mean Robotology 101 becomes the main course at SHS or something? (BTW I've taught at public SHS level too, and I haven't noticed huge differences...maybe the SHSs I was at weren't the top ones, or they had special classes devoted to the exams etc that I never got to see? In the private combined J-SHS at which I worked, anyway, they had grammar classes totally separate from the eikaiwa ones (the former of which were taught just by the JTEs)).

G, you can recognize appreciation and genuine understanding is going on by all the vigorous nodding, yes yes yes! sounds and the like that are coming back at you as you give a very genuine, well-thought out and intense presentation, which is all clearly different from a class that is (and looks) confused, or is trying not to nod off to sleep, or is merely laughing politely at endless banter, silly jokes or mere clowning around. I'd given a lot of prior thought to the details of the "dialogue", and therefore led the students through stages and thought processes that were occuring to them as I more or less pointed the stages out, so I think I can safely say that a meeting of minds took place. I know that listening is not a sufficient precondition for fluent production, but it is a very necessary one that is often rushed in the drive for visible (i.e. audible) "results". You may be right that it'll be in one ear and out the other, but even when students complete a lot of spoken drills, it is by no means certain that they will not forget the form (especially if they aren't really appreciating what they are saying/being forced to say). Anyway, like I said, ideally there will be further (spoken) practise of this grammar (whether led by me or not), hopefully with good examples, but I the lowly AET cannot presume that the JTEs are taking this logical next step into their planning (they probably feel enough has been done with the dodgy practise they've had so far). If you feel I have got it all ass about tit then maybe you can go read Michael Lewis or somebody similar (he makes a case for increased listening and input before half-hearted production far better than I would be able to here).

I said that simplification (or KISS, if you prefer) is something we as natives are capable of doing at our discretion and within reason, so let's just extend the courtesy to each other (I have actually done so once to you already) of assuming that we both have enough common sense to not make (or at least not keep making) things so hard for students that they wouldn't even be able to understand let alone produce whatever it was that we were presenting.

I'm not contradicting myself when I say that JTEs can be a complex mixture of easy and difficult when it comes to the language they give students; and even if the JTE is reasonably consistent, they probably err on the side of being too simplistic whilst the book complicates things (and given a complex book there is always the temptation for the JTE to explain a bit more, then a bit more); the contradictions are part of the silly web that is weaved around English (but never out of enough real English), and a web thus which snares many an unwary JTE and countless more students. Anyway, when you think about it, stuff that is so simple that it makes no sense is actually going to be quite difficult to unravel in the long run...I suspect that the reason it takes so long for students to get any good at English is because what they are told is not internally consistent enough for them to build up an at all coherant picture of how the language works as an organic whole. They just end up awash in exceptions and conflicting pseudo-functions.

My last remark about compromizes was meant to engender fraternity and camaraderie, and from the sounds of it you have to compromize as much if not even more than I do now (my past job was more similar to yours I guess, though), so where's the beef, G? You're taking things a little too personally, maybe (to return a phrase you said of me back to you).

[Glenski]

[fluffyhamster]

Hmm, I dunno, I think quite a few JTEs do want to teach communication, but unfortunately they just do not have much idea of what exponents make functional sense, so they go about teaching a form of quasi-communication with lashings of (in Japanese) allusions to the grammatical forms, as if demonstrating their (the JTE's, and sometimes the students' too, as elicited by the JTE) very general "knowledgeablility" about English grammar will somehow translate anytime soon into the students themselves gaining a (better) command of the language than the JTE plainly hasn't (nobody is impolite enough, or more importantly, sure enough about things to point this out to the JTE, apart from the AET...who of course never does, or does so very indirectly and tactfully, usually after the relevant batch of classes are almost if not completely finished). It sounds actually as if the JTEs you've worked with have been "worse" on average than the ones I've had the pleasure (=immensely rewarding professional experience) of working with. Nice people and all that, there for the kiddies and whatnot, just not quite all there when it comes to the English.

Again, I'm aware of how the JTEs generally prefer to teach and indeed do teach (the lecturing can find its way into even what were meant to be communicative lessons) - like I say, I've been here in Japan in various schools all over and at all levels for a while now (I'm certainly not a newbie with absolutely no idea of what to do or how to act). A lot of your (at times quite blunt and rhetorical) "advice" (not wanting to appear too ungrateful here LOL) will succeed or fail depending on what the JTE wants to do: if they choose to hide at their desk/ignore or rarely talk to the AET/act busy then there's not a lot the AET can really do before or after class is there (unless the AET wants to get negative feedback via his or her dispatch company or BOE). I'm opting for an easy life and don't wanna create problems for the JTEs (and in turn myself) at this school (not that this prevents me from frequenting Dave's and posing my "innocuous" questions). Maybe you're the type who rocks the boat (a big no-no, apparently), who won't take no for an answer or compromize, Glenski! You certainly sound quite the man of action.

Shorter this time...we're running out of things to say.

[Glenski]

[fluffyhamster]

Hmm I'm not sure where I've stated the complete opposite of things I said earlier...the essential points I've tried to make about the necessity of taking account of functional and discourse factors would seem to have remained pretty constant. I guess if anything is reading differently it is because of that strange beast the lesser spotted JTE, an often mixed-up creature that remains an enigma to English explorers...

Did you get today's Daily Yomiuri? 'Mike Guest' (good name for a guest columnist) talks about teaching "conversation". Nothing really that new for anyone into Discourse Analysis, but nonetheless not a bad article:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/language/20051118TDY14003.htm

[Glenski]

[fluffyhamster]

I've been reading back through this thread, and a lot of what you say would seem to point to the need for change, Glenski. Now, I wouldn't presume to say that I have all the answers to Japan's problems in English education, but if the sort of changes that we (I think I can say BOTH) would like to see started happening (faster), then why would what I have said be so wrong or out of place? You can keep on pointing out that the changes have yet to occur, and that I am consequently barking up the wrong tree, need to do this rather than that etc etc, but your "advice" (so shoot me, I like scare quotes) doesn't ultimately invalidate my viewpoints or approach in any absolute (absolutely convincing) way, does it; in fact, there might even be some readers who are wondering quite what your point/"problem" is, G.

Yes, working with JTEs requires patience and tact; we can't ever expect too much of them or their students; and having at least a "conversational" understanding (that is, a familiarity with the complexities of the lexicogrammar as it appears in speech at least) is unfortunately never enough, never the focus for long (especially as they progress into SHS), but I really don't see where what I'm generally advocating would be such a hinderance or so unwelcome (to the long-suffering students at least...it would however entail quite a few JTEs having to admit that they don't know enough).

P.S. Did you read the DY article?