| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should Japanese English teachers teach English in English? |
| Yes, they should. |
|
78% |
[ 11 ] |
| No, they shouldn`t. |
|
21% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 14 |
|
| Author |
Message |
patsensei
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 27
Location: Tokyo
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: English in English or Japanese? |
 |
|
Should Japanese English teachers teach English in English or in Japanese?
I think English would be better. I believe this could start as early as the first year of Junior high school. Obviously this would be a bit harder for the students but better for them in the long run. Also the Japanese teachers may have some pronounciation issues but there are many non-native English speakers and I think everyone has to be reminded that the purpose of a language is for communication not to be perfect. Japanese teachers may also be shy at first to speak in English but they`ll get over it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think a combination is okay (which you didn't have as an option in your survey, by the way). Which mix is ideal is difficult to say, but I would say approaching less usage of the L1 would be better, maybe a ratio of L2/L1 of 80-20 or 90-10.
This way Japanese teachers are taking advantage of their L1 skills, but also encouraging students to use L2 in the classroom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Venti
Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 171
Location: Kanto, Japan
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the focus of English education in Japan's public and private schools was on actually helping students to develop real-world English skills, I'd say teach mostly (80%?) in English.
But since the focus is on training students to pass the English portions of major exams, it's not necessary to teach them in English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patsensei
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 27
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gaijinalways wrote: |
| I think a combination is okay (which you didn't have as an option in your survey, by the way). |
Interesting idea but I think once you mix it you`ll find they use more and more Japanese |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorro (2)
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 47
Location: Newcastle, England
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are arguments for and against the use of L1 in the language learning classroom, and as with most things in the world of ESL there is no clear cut answer.
On the one hand teaching in L1 causes less confusion with regards to the understanding of grammar etc etc.
On the other hand teaching in L2 promotes an environment rife for 'acquiring' the new language. It is impossible for the students to not be exposed to the unadulterated, raw use of English!!!!
The arguments continue.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
junkmail
Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anytime I've studied a language it's been through the medium of my native language, English. I honestly prefer it that way.
It sometimes seems that the systems for TEFL are placed there to save us the trouble of learning another language.
That said. I answered Japanese. I think the purpose of the non native speaker IS to explain grammar and give insights into the use of English. It is the job of the native speaker to handle immersion in English. It's not a perfect system but, it's paid my rent a few times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
womblingfree
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There needs to be another option in this poll, 'a combination of both'.
Language classes solely in the L2 in a school environment where everyone speaks the same L1 are geneally not a very good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
markle
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Posts: 1316
Location: Out of Japan
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember meeting a group of German teachers and students in Thailand once and I was impressed by their grasp of the language (over and above the fact that these were obviously dedicated students and German is not that foreign to English). I asked the head teacher which part of Germany they came from and it turned out it had been East Germany. All of her teacher training to become an English teacher had been carried out in English and that was the only way she taught. This also included the Soviet era were people obviously couldn"t take a holiday to England to brush up every couple of years.
Personally I teach all of my classes in L2 (English), and not only because my Japanese is poor, I did the same in Thailand and I am fluent in Thai. I do it because no matter how confusing and challenging it is for the students that uncompromising exposure is the only way they will learn to understand and communicate with Englsih speakers. Is it difficult, hell yes, but not impossible. I'm sorry but using L1 in class, except in emergengies (medical, natural disaster, total discipline break down) is admission of your failure as a teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wintersweet
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 345
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 500
Location: Tokyo, Japan
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Basically English.
Teachers should speak English as much as possible. People generally learn languages best through understanding and using them. If the teachers aren't going to speak English, then the students just won't get any English input.
99% of Japanese English education is in Japanese, which is why nobody can use or understand English.
There's nothing wrong with using Japanese sometimes to help the students if they're really struggling, but I think it should be kept below 10% of teacher talking time.
As for grammar, it is helpful to have L1 explanations, but the students can read those explanations at home. In class, the teacher can teach grammar contextually and through demonstrations, ex. teach the past tense using a calender. The students will probably get it, but if they're still fuzzy, the L1 gramamr explanation will clear it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johanne
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Language classes solely in the L2 in a school environment where everyone speaks the same L1 are geneally not a very good idea. |
Sorry, but I would say the opposite is true. Using the L1 in a foreign language class is not a good idea. Foreign language classes should always be taught in the target language, expect for emergencies as mentioned earlier. Of course when the students are first learning a language this can be difficult but there are plenty of methodologies to address this. Japanese English teachers need to learn these techniques in their teacher training and then be able to train their ALTs to use them as well since being a native speaker is no guarantee of being a competant language teacher.
I've studied French and Japanese all in the target language and learned it far better than if I had been taught the language in English. I think in those languages when I am speaking them, even though my Japanese which is only at a 3 kyu level.
Of course, IMHO, to properly teach English in Japan the whole university entrance test has to be revamped as it tests so many skills that are frankly useless for communicating in English. It's almost as if those tests promote the teaching of English as if it were a dead language like Latin where arcane grammar rules dominate over real life English skills. If that remains the case, then I would say that the English teacher might as well teach in Japanese since he/she is not really teaching a language but just a set of rules about the language that must be memorized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
womblingfree
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| johanne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Language classes solely in the L2 in a school environment where everyone speaks the same L1 are geneally not a very good idea. |
Sorry, but I would say the opposite is true. Using the L1 in a foreign language class is not a good idea. Foreign language classes should always be taught in the target language...Of course when the students are first learning a language this can be difficult but there are plenty of methodologies to address this. |
Using the L1 is also a part of language teaching methodology, especially for communicative language teaching.
Remember students in high school are not paying customers eager to learn English. Lower level students are often only there because they have to be. For these classes especially the use of L1 can be very constructive and can avoid the students total disengagement from the class.
Communicative teaching can be split into two major areas known as weak and strong versions. These versions have areas of crossover and can be complimentary to each other.
In most Eikaiwa and 'communications' classes it is the weaker version which is usually implemented. It could also be said that it is the weaker version which produces classroom activities that are expected by observers looking for a typical communicative environment. The weaker version focuses on the practice of language using language models and structures which are introduced within a real life context, and then followed up with a communicative activity. This kind of practice based lesson can be difficult to implement in a large classroom where many students may not be able to hear the teacher fully even if they are all sitting quietly and paying attention, which is by no means a given.
The strong version can be more effective within a large class environment. Within the strong version emphasis is placed on how language works in discourse. Class material can take the form of text as opposed to language models. Students perform tasks designed to pose language problems which when solved, will help the student to unlock the text. This enables students to discover how the text is constructed and how it operates. This is, according to research, very much what children do when acquiring language naturally. CLT need not just take the form of practicing speech in pairs or groups. Text analysis can play a significant role in the CLT classroom. Students can communicate with a text rather than with each other, if tackling the text in a group then use of L1 is acceptable as they are discussing the text and preparing for its usage.
There are also issues of cultural appropriacy involved if teachers are forcing kids into speaking exclusively in a foreign language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patsensei
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 27
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joanne think you make a good point. I have always found it much better myself when I studied a language when it was taught in that language. I think teachers who revert into Japanese when teaching English are taking the lazy option. I mean of course it is easier for us to explain the lesson point in Japanese but I don't think we would be doing them any favors by taking that option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
womblingfree
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| patsensei wrote: |
| I think teachers who revert into Japanese when teaching English are taking the lazy option. |
I'd say it's being able to comfortably rely on a native English ability whilst using teaching methods that are outdated by 40 years that was lazy. Also the initial post asks whether Japanese teachers should teach exclusively in English, there's an even stronger argument against that!!
The idea of an 'English only!' environment being the best way to teach is based on behaviourist theory upon which most of the audiolingual lessons in Japan are based upon, although they masquerade as communicative teaching.
It's all rather outdated and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of an eikaiwa that would even bother to defend it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 500
Location: Tokyo, Japan
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| womblingfree wrote: |
The idea of an 'English only!' environment being the best way to teach is based on behaviourist theory upon which most of the audiolingual lessons in Japan are based upon, although they masquerade as communicative teaching.
It's all rather outdated and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of an eikaiwa that would even bother to defend it. |
"English only" does not equal "audiolingual", that's a bit of a stretch. Audiolingual is an English only method, but English-only can be a part of many different approaches.
Students should not be forced to speak English, especially beginning students. In fact, they'll be doing receptive activities for a long time before they start doing productive ones.
"English-only" can be applied after the students have reached a certain level of aquisition, but I don't think the students should walk in one day to find that -- surprise! -- their classroom has suddenly gone "English only".
Yes, students can interact with a text, and yes that is communicative. But there's simply no need to discuss the text in Japanese. It's up to the teacher to make sure that the students are given the support they need to be able to do the activity in English. Doing it in English provides them with more English input, it also provides the teacher with a chance to provide them with appropriate language at the appropriate time.
And, I would say that your "weak and strong" communicative methods seem to fail to include task-based communicative teaching. Students are not introduced to "dialogue models in real life situations", they're given a realistic task to do and they're given some support, but they're definitely not practicing dialogues.
This is a task that I found worked well in high school:
1) I described a few things and had the students draw pictures. I'd stand in the front and just describe an absolutely crazy person. The students usually have a blast trying to follow my description and then they show each other their pictures. During the course of my description, there are things students don't understand so I write vocab and some sample expressions on the board.
2) I give the students some pictures and ask them to describe the picture to their partner while the partner draws. I monitor and put more vocab and sample expressions on the board, perhaps note a common grammatical error.
3) I give the students a few minutes and ask them to think for a minute or two and try to come up with a really imaginative character. Then I have them try to describe their character to their partner wo tries to draw it.
4) Afterwards, you can use these characters in lots of ways. You can have students work on stories using them or any number of things.
That's a pretty straightforward task-based class. It could be preceded or followed by more passive classes involving texts that describe people and places.
But even in a text-based class, I just don't see the advantage of using L1, unless you're going under the assumption that students will just tune out in an L2 environment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
