Job Discussion Forums

[shmooj]

In an attempt to lower the discussion on this forum consider, if you will, Ye Affective Filtere as posited by Mr. Crash-on et al.

i. Is it real?
i+1. Do you actually proactively/consciously do something about it in your classes?
i+2. If so, what do you do?
i+3. If so, does it work?
i+4. If so, (ha harrrr... prooove it buddy....) how do you know it really works?

[leeroy]

i - yeah, definitely
i+1. Usually before, actually
i+2. Change it every time
i+3. I assume, though I've never tried it without
i+4. My coffee always tastes nice, and never with any "bits" in it.

[denise]

[shmooj]

[quote="denise"]

Shmooj--

Do I detect some anti-Krashen sentiment? [\quote]
Nope, I found the books of his I've read to be very interesting and practically relevant.

[shmooj]

[denise]

[quote="shmooj
Filter denise, filter... [/quote]

I'm sorry, but I still don't get it...

I agree that trust is crucial. Laughter--yes, it helps, but... Depends on what the alternative is. Do we want our students to like us, or do we want them to learn? I do not mean to suggest that the two are mutually exclusive--the more they like us/trust us, as you said, shmooj, the more they will take risks, feel comfortable in class, etc.

But... I read an article (by loads of people--can't remember all their names) along the lines of "let us [TESOL grad students] reflect on our own teachers and see which ones were 'effective.'" Years later, the teachers who were remembered in the most positive light were not those who were the most fun, the coolest, etc., but often the strict ones--it was those from whom the authors felt that they had really learned.

Ideally, of course, our students will both like us and learn from us, and the learning will happen if not instantaneously then at least at some point during our contact with them. Reality might not always be that positive, though.

d

[johnslat]

Dear denise.
In my admittedly personal and anecdotal experience, the teachers I still consider the most effective were both "strict" and "fun". They made me eager to learn, both because I respected them and because I thorougly enjoyed their classes.
Regards,
John

[Dr.J]

Being respected is better than being liked (for the students at least).

Try to be liked, but if you have to make a choice go for respect.

PS Filter as in coffee filter. It's that darn "think outside of the box" thing again isn't it? The square pegs don't go in the round holes BTW.

[denise]

Oh, I get it now!!!

Sorry--I don't drink the stuff... (I HAVE, though, I assure you, seen such a filter in my life...)



d

[dduck]

I've heard much talk about the affective filter; I agree that students learn better when they're not nervous or worried. But, isn't the opposite also true, don't we all preform better, learn more, when we're engaged, and happy, having a laugh? Therefore, isn't it more effective to aim for more fun in the classroom than strictness?

Diverting the subject, I remember one teacher very fondly, he was very strict in class but he was always telling jokes. The sort of jokes that would get you beaten up these days.

Iain

[dmb]

my manager today interupted a class of colleague. As he was walking past the classroom he heard student laughter. so luckily the manager entered the room and told the teacher to stop the students from laughing because If they are laughing they are not learning. We can't have students enjoying themselves.

[Stephen]

Hello all,

I've been reading the Natural Approach (not quite finished it yet), and I found the first couple of chapters great, but the more I read about the methodology the more I get uncomfortable with it. For example i+1, so we needn't regulate our language, this presumably means that using the future perfect continuous in a class with students who haven't yet aquired will or going to would be quite ok. Afterall it is i + whatever. Also, he goes on about TPR a lot, great but reading the stuff written by the TPR people might give a few ideas more on that. But could he actually provide a bit more in the way of non-TPR stuff. It was when he mentioned suggestophilia (or however it is written) that the alarm bells really started ringing.

Incidentally, this zero correction stuff, so I let my students continue to confuse "he" and "she", because they'll pick it up naturally from i+1. For most of my students this means that they will aquire it when they go overseas and get hit, abused etc. because of the offense this mistake caused. (Silly me I noticed that correction done the right way actually made some impact on this, but to really resolve it they need i + x, where x = the number of trips to casualty the error must cause before it is knocked out of them in the Natural Approach.)

Ok, rant over. Any comments are welcomed.
Stephen

PS. What happens if students can't hear i+1, for example certain verb endings or weak forms?

[Wolf]

[dmb]

Wolf, were you wondering or wandering? Is there a joke here or is it a typo.(guilty of them myself)
Anyway i+1. i= interlanguage(the students language) +1 means using language just a little bit higher than they are. I can't remember, or even if it is stated, if this refers to productive or receptive skills.

[denise]

I think the +1 is receptive--meaning we as teachers can talk at a "+1" level and the students will notice the difference. (I could be mistaken, though...)

Has anyone come up with a suitable definition of what +1 is?

Kinda reminds me of Spinal Tap--"This one goes to 11!"

d