Job Discussion Forums

[dduck]

In the context of TEFL, there's a lot to be said for local teachers: they can often outperform a native speaker. Some of the reasons have already be highlighted:

(1) They understand the learning process and it's pitfalls because they learnt English as a foreign language.

(2) They often have a better rapport with the students because they are familiar with the native culture and language.

(3) They often offer more stability to the school and students, as they are familiar with the working environment and the operational problems that can arise. Consequently, they are less likely to become disgruntled and leave.

However, there is still hope for native teachers: they can acquire greater understanding of the learning process, by learning a second language; also the job itself provides an opportunity to learn where the students' problems lie. It is dubious whether even a local teacher would know all the pitfalls from learning English.

Secondly, native speaking teachers are never going to be able to establish the same cultural rapport as a local teacher. However, this, I believe, can be largely compensated for by learning the local culture and its language. What the NS teacher has to offer, that the local teacher lacks, is their exoticness. This can simulate significant student interest, in the correct environment. Further, for higher level students, NS teachers can offer a deeper familiarity with the target language, and in doing so enrich the learning process.

Iain

[jud]

In my Celta class there were non-mother tongue teachers doing their training and I would without hesitation send any student to them.

BUT, here in Italy try to speak English with local teachers. While there are certainly excellent teachers, many of them can not string an English sentence together.

In fact, many of our students studied English for years but have an incredibly low level of fluency. This is why "mother tongue" teachers are very popular here. I think the most important point is that the definition of mother tongue is expanding. A Nigerian teacher is a mother tongue teacher. A South American teacher who is bilingual (not fluent, bilingual) can be a "native" English teacher. For me someone who passes the Proficiency Exam could be a native teacher as their English is by definition at the level of a native speaker (as per the Cambridge examiners).

I do have a problem with the idea of "explaining" grammar.
Does knowing "why" help you to speak? Most students need real practice using the language. The most important point is that the teacher is qualified and has learned another language, and therefore understands the process in general.

[dduck]

[denise]

Jud--

There are of course loads of native speakers out there who don't know the "why" behind the language, and they do quite well. Similarly, there are language learners who have maybe not learned the formal rules but who have acquired some level of fluency--and maybe even accuracy?

Still, I do think there is something to be said for knowing "the rules," whatever those might be. Unless language learners are immersed and get enough input to be able to inductively figure out how certain structures are formed/used, they have to get that information in a condensed form--meaning that if you go and spend 12 years traveling through South America and conversing only with locals, you might be OK, but if you only take a Spanish class twice a week, you will not have nearly enough exposure, and you will likely need someone to tell you how to say things correctly.

I think a lot of my rambling so far has dealt with the "how" of grammar rules, without touching on your question of "why." As to why they need to know "why", I'd say that once they know a basic pattern/structure, they are more free to form new phrases, sentences, etc.--give them (or let them figure out...) a rule, and they can apply it elsewhere. If we just tell them "that's how it is--that's just how we say it," they may not be able to apply their knowledge to other forms.

Does any of this make sense to anyone?

d

[jud]

I'm actually very big on grammar in classes, so I'm surprised what I said was taken as cutting out grammar.

I'm talking about "explaining" grammar as opposed to giving presentation and practice for grammatical points. Students should understand when to use a structure and the conceptual whys, if we must use that word (why).

Example, I say, "I'm taking the 11 o'clock train." This is a fixed plan. It's in my diary. I use present continuous for the future.

Most students say, I will take the 11 o'clock train. Because will is future for them. Stop.

What's important is for them to learn when to use the former and when to use will. What I find unimportant, and what I'm unqualified to do, is to explain WHY we don't use one form for the future.

Most of them have learned will as it's an easy solution and closest to their language.

[shmooj]

[johnslat]

Dear shmooj,
Yet another of the mysteries of English grammar - how some verbs ( e.g. start, begin, end, finish leave, come, arrive, etc. ) can use the present simple for a future action ( almost always one in the near future - Classes begin tomorrow ), but with the other verbs, it won't work. Thus in the example:

"I take the 11 o'clock train, get a taxi from the station and arrive in time for the flight. The flight leaves at 6 and gets in at 8:30. "

all the verbs in the first sentence would convey a "usual action" meaning.
However, the two verbs in the second sentence (in a different context) could speak about a future action:

" His flight leaves tomorrow at 6 and gets in at 8:30."

However - as when the present continuous / progressive is used to express future time - there do need to be some "future words" somewhere in the context.
Regards,
John

[shmooj]

So, this guy up and posts on the forum. He says to me, he says..

[Capergirl]

[johnslat]

Dear Capergirl,
Just a guess here - but I suspect that what jud meant by a "fixed plan" was not a "usual action" - but something the speaker/writer felt SURE was going to happen in the (usually near) future. There are SO many ways to express future time in English:

I'm leaving on the 11:00 train tomorrow.
I leave on the 11:00 train tomorrow.
I'm going to leave on the 11:00 train (tomorrow).
I'll probably leave on the 11:00 train (tomorrow).

and then, there are all those verbs that, when you have the infinitive and a future word, express future time, too.

I want/need/hope/have/plan/intend (etc.) to leave on the 11:00 train tomorrow.
Regards,
John

[jud]

Don't worry, Capergirl, I'm unpickable.

Let me preface this by saying that I would not discuss this in this way with students, so we can avoid getting the green guy angry.

The use of the present continuous for the future is when you have a definite, diary plan. It can often be exchanged for "going to" and mean the exact same thing. It does not necessitate a "time word" though it may use one.

If I say, I'm cleaning my bathroom this weekend, it sounds slightly more definite than "I'm going to clean my bathroom this weekend", which is a planned intention. In this case, the difference is minute.

However, this can be important for higher level students in terms of nuance.

Shmooj, listen to the wise Johnslat. He knows whereof he speaks. Present simple is used for the future for timetables. I'm really careful about this as in Italian students will incorrectly say, "I meet you at 5 tomorrow, ok?"

[Capergirl]

@jud...Your example pretty much illustrates my point. "I'm cleaning the bathroom this weekend" offers a time expression (this weekend). If you were to say only "I'm cleaning the bathroom", that doesn't indicate the future by itself. A time expression would be necessary in that sentence in order to change from the present to the future. Johnslat's examples also include a time expression (tomorrow). However, jud, reading your post just now has made me realize that your first example (in your other post) does indeed include a time expression (11 o'clock), in which case I was wrong.

Now I must run home and have dinner before my evening conversation class.

[Lynn]

[jud]

Capergirl, it seems silly to belabor the point, BUT,

I'm going to clean the bathroom,

without a "time expression", could also mean right now. However, it's still future.

I'm cleaning the bathroom,

could be the present, but the person I'm speaking to would see I'm not doing it and therefore infer the future, no?

The point is, it's all CONTEXT and the speaker's intention. There's no rule about the "time expression" being included. If you weren't clear you'd say, what, you're cleaning now? No, Capergirl, this weekend.

Have you ever reak Swan's Practical English Usage? It's a very good book for questions like this.

[johnslat]

Dear jud,

"Shmooj, listen to the wise Johnslat."

Blush, blush ( I refuse to use those darn "emoticons". Don't know exactly why - except that maybe I overdosed on "smiley faces" back in the 60s).
But wise?? Ah, well - possibly. But only by Socrates' definition:

"Socrates: So I withdrew and thought to myself: 'I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know'.�

Wise only in this: that every day I know more how very little I know. At this rate, in a few more years, I'll know I know absolutely nothing. Perhaps that IS wisdom.
And, for once, no irony intended.
Regards,
John