|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Chancellor
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 1337
Location: Ji'an, China - if you're willing to send me cigars, I accept donations :)
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| spiral78 wrote: |
We don't present lessons focused on our version of historical events, or current events either. But newspapers and magazines and current news are an extensive part of our curriculum, and clearly the day's events can raise such issues. It's not to approach such things as 'we're right' 'someone else is wrong' - it's a matter of saying "Canadians think/do/act in this way."
Quite honestly, I don't know how you can teach anything other than pure beginners without involving the culture of the language, unless you're never moving above sentence level and are focused on grammar alone...even grammatical constructions are culturally bound! |
Of course grammatical constructions are culturally bound, and it's perfectly appropriate to help students understand the culture behind the constructions - to put the constructions into a larger context. If you're teaching about the culture in order to give students a better understanding of the (to quote Gordon Lightfoot) "wherefore and the why" of the language, fine. I'm just not seeing the value in getting off the teaching of English in order to discuss current events. It seems the sociology class or the history class would be better suited for this.
My objection is to the kind of attitude that seems to be expressed in the original poster's statement: "In my uni, my Chinese students have no desire to hear an American perspective on their "motherland." They constantly argue when I bring up anything China-related. Don't get me wrong, a well-thought-out argument is excellent, but a knee-jerk reaction with no justification is not."
I really don't think it's the place of English teachers to offer their "perspective" on a student's homeland. In fact, I'm not even sure teachers really have any business bringing their own opinions and beliefs into the classroom with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spiral78
Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 11534
Location: On a Short Leash
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, with that clarification, I agree with you, Chancellor. I would think it entirely inappropriate to shove whatever current news items focused on China in any way that made judgements about their history/culture/society on my learners. I avoid controversial issues unless students themselves bring them up, and even then I try to minimize. The focii of my classes are very much language skills.
I don't 'get off' the teaching of English to discuss current events. I don't teach conversation classes - my classes are make-or-break get into university in Canada - or go back to China (for example). It's very intense, and the focus is very much on the skills the learners will need to be successful in academics and professions in Canada. But culture/events/society is bound up in this, and in this context, it comes up constantly in our classes.
And, you're right - I would never presume to offer my personal perspective on any student's home country. That would be really out of line, and, frankly, at my uni, it would likely be grounds for loss of a job.
But I do hope that the approach that "this is the way most/many Canadians say/write/and (sometimes - approach)" this or that is useful information for my students. They are entirely free to do as they wish with the info.
I think the OP (Jizzo) probably just worded his original post a bit strongly after a tough day....he/she has been pretty balanced and professional in past posts, and I can relate to a bad day at the uni.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chancellor
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 1337
Location: Ji'an, China - if you're willing to send me cigars, I accept donations :)
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spiral78 wrote: |
Ok, with that clarification, I agree with you, Chancellor. I would think it entirely inappropriate to shove whatever current news items focused on China in any way that made judgements about their history/culture/society on my learners. I avoid controversial issues unless students themselves bring them up, and even then I try to minimize. The focii of my classes are very much language skills.
I don't 'get off' the teaching of English to discuss current events. I don't teach conversation classes - my classes are make-or-break get into university in Canada - or go back to China (for example). It's very intense, and the focus is very much on the skills the learners will need to be successful in academics and professions in Canada. But culture/events/society is bound up in this, and in this context, it comes up constantly in our classes.
And, you're right - I would never presume to offer my personal perspective on any student's home country. That would be really out of line, and, frankly, at my uni, it would likely be grounds for loss of a job.
But I do hope that the approach that "this is the way most/many Canadians say/write/and (sometimes - approach)" this or that is useful information for my students. They are entirely free to do as they wish with the info.
I think the OP (Jizzo) probably just worded his original post a bit strongly after a tough day....he/she has been pretty balanced and professional in past posts, and I can relate to a bad day at the uni.... |
I think it's important for the students to be made aware of how English is most commonly used in the particular country where they're attending university. I'd even say it's important to discuss regional differences (such as the differences between the way people speak here in Western New York State and the way people speak in my ancestral Appalachia). Even in middle and high school here in the States, such things are often taught in foreign language classes: there's no reason not to teach them to foreigners who are learning English. But whether the OP was just having a bad day and communicated poorly or whether there was another intent, I will maintain that I think it inappropriate for a teacher to bring one's opinions into the classroom - regardless of the subject being taught. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jizzo T. Clown
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 668
Location: performing in a classroom near you!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good stuff, guys. Yes, I was having a bad day, and looking back, I was a bit out of line and failed to express myself well.
I wasn't actually offering MY version of the truth or my personal perspective. I do my best to keep my opinions to myself, and to encourage critical thinking. Thinking critically is impossible when you are married to your opinions and refuse to acknowledge other points of view.
During the lesson, we were talking about movies (Kundun, in particular). I was telling the class the plot and that's when things started to go south. The Taiwanese students wanted to know more about it and the Chinese students were saying that it was a lie. Other nationalities listened without prejudice.
I'm well aware that I'm not qualified to teach history, but it is my job to train our students to participate in class discussions and to thoughtfully articulate their responses. Sometimes controversial topics arise out of a seemingly benign discussion, as was the case here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is possible to take impartiality too far. Completely excluding opinions that one has arrived at not by prejudice, but by careful reasoning is impossible and leads to absurdity. Jizzo is right in that sometimes things come up and you are expected or need to or should offer an opinion and then defend it. As a teacher.
| Quote: |
The Error of Impartiality
By G.K. Chesterton
The refusal of the jurors in the Thaw trial to come to an agreement is certainly a somewhat amusing sequel to the frenzied and even fantastic caution with which they were selected. Jurymen were set aside for reasons which seem to have only the very wildest relation to the case--reasons which we cannot conceive as giving any human being a real bias. It may be questioned whether the exaggerated theory of impartiality in an arbiter or juryman may not be carried so far as to be more unjust than partiality itself. What people call impartiality may simply mean indifference, and what people call partiality may simply mean mental activity. It is sometimes made an objection, for instance, to a juror that he has formed some prima-facie opinion upon a case: if he can be forced under sharp questioning to admit that he has formed such an opinion, he is regarded as manifestly unfit to conduct the inquiry. Surely this is unsound. If his bias is one of interest, of class, or creed, or notorious propaganda, then that fact certainly proves that he is not an impartial arbiter. But the mere fact that he did form some temporary impression from the first facts as far as he knew them--this does not prove that he is not an impartial arbiter--it only proves that he is not a cold-blooded fool.
If we walk down the street, taking all the jurymen who have not formed opinions and leaving all the jurymen who have formed opinions, it seems highly probable that we shall only succeed in taking all the stupid jurymen and leaving all the thoughtful ones. Provided that the opinion formed is really of this airy and abstract kind, provided that it has no suggestion of settled motive or prejudice, we might well regard it not merely as a promise of capacity, but literally as a promise of justice. The man who took the trouble to deduce from the police reports would probably be the man who would take the trouble to deduce further and different things from the evidence. The man who had the sense to form an opinion would be the man who would have the sense to alter it.
It is worth while to dwell for a moment on this minor aspect of the matter because the error about impartiality and justice is by no means confined to a criminal question. In much more serious matters it is assumed that the agnostic is impartial; whereas the agnostic is merely ignorant. The logical outcome of the fastidiousness about the Thaw jurors would be that the case ought to be tried by Esquimaux, or Hottentots, or savages from the Cannibal Islands--by some class of people who could have no conceivable interest in the parties, and moreover, no conceivable interest in the case. The pure and starry perfection of impartiality would be reached by people who not only had no opinion before they had heard the case, but who also had no opinion after they had heard it. In the same way, there is in modern discussions of religion and philosophy an absurd assumption that a man is in some way just and well-poised because he has come to no conclusion; and that a man is in some way knocked off the list of fair judges because he has come to a conclusion. It is assumed that the sceptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour of scepticism. I remember once arguing with an honest young atheist, who was very much shocked at my disputing some of the assumptions which were absolute sanctities to him (such as the quite unproved proposition of the independence of matter and the quite improbable proposition of its power to originate mind), and he at length fell back upon this question, which he delivered with an honourable heat of defiance and indignation: "Well, can you tell me any man of intellect, great in science or philosophy, who accepted the miraculous?" I said, "With pleasure. Descartes, Dr. Johnson, Newton, Faraday, Newman, Gladstone, Pasteur, Browning, Brunetiere--as many more as you please." To which that quite admirable and idealistic young man made this astonishing reply--"Oh, but of course they had to say that; they were Christians." First he challenged me to find a black swan, and then he ruled out all my swans because they were black. The fact that all these great intellects had come to the Christian view was somehow or other a proof either that they were not great intellects or that they had not really come to that view. The argument thus stood in a charmingly convenient form: "All men that count have come to my conclusion; for if they come to your conclusion they do not count."
It did not seem to occur to such controversialists that if Cardinal Newman was really a man of intellect, the fact that he adhered to dogmatic religion proved exactly as much as the fact that Professor Huxley, another man of intellect, found that he could not adhere to dogmatic religion; that is to say (as I cheerfully admit), it proved precious little either way. If there is one class of men whom history has proved especially and supremely capable of going quite wrong in all directions, it is the class of highly intellectual men. I would always prefer to go by the bulk of humanity; that is why I am a democrat. But whatever be the truth about exceptional intelligence and the masses, it is manifestly most unreasonable that intelligent men should be divided upon the absurd modern principle of regarding every clever man who cannot make up his mind as an impartial judge, and regarding every clever man who can make up his mind as a servile fanatic. As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end. We say that the juryman is not a juryman because he has brought in a verdict. We say that the judge is not a judge because he gives judgment. We say that the sincere believer has no right to vote, simply because he has voted. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bonanzabucks
Joined: 29 May 2007
Posts: 27
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
The description of the girl coving her ears made me laugh out loud. Hilarious!
I never taught any Chinese students, but my ex-girlfriend was from Mainland China, but she lived in the US for seven years. I�ve been to China before so I know that they�re taught a different view of history than we are here in North America. I always tried to steer away from political discussions with her. Though, she would always bring up a few things about Chinese being superior and how much she hated being in the States. I usually kept quiet and said nothing.
One time, she really pissed me off with her comments. I finally had enough and told her off. Basically, I said that having been to China and having friends and relatives who lived there (no, I�m not Chinese), I know it�s not a paradise and I know what the CCP says isn�t always true. I also told her that I know the CCP likes to espouse how superior and �good� the Han race is, especially compared to the gweilos (or lo-wais). I asked her that if the Chinese were so much better, then why the hell wasn�t she back with her ex-boyfriend (a Mainland Chinese dude who spoke no English and used to beat the crap out of her every day, cheat on her and gave her an STD) and why did she hate her father (alcoholic who beat the crap out of her mother). I also asked why she always complained about how lousy Chinese guys were. She kept quiet and looked kind of solemn. She never really said much about politics after that except that China was too corrupt and would never change and that the last great period of Chinese history was one of the dynasties (I forget which one she mentioned).
What I seem to gather is that it�s a �face� issue with them. Amongst themselves and those they get to know really well, they probably hate their government and complain about the party and the state of the country, but if you don�t know them that well, they want to put on a good �face�.
Another thing I noticed is that for all the unity rhetoric that the CCP says about the �Motherland�, Chinese seem to hate each other deeply. My ex hated the Taiwanese, people from HK, Chinese from Singapore and Chinese-Americans. They even hate people from different regions within China! My ex was from Shanghai, so she said they were better than the Cantonese in the South and much better than the "peasants" in the West. She also hated the Japanese (obvious reasons) and Koreans (!). The latter surprised me because Koreans never invaded China nor did anything bad to them. If anything, China has done a lot in the past to mess with Korean affairs. What really stunned me was that she wished that China would �nuke� Korea and Japan! Is this what they teach their kids in school? For a rising superpower and this being the next generation of leaders, I think we�re in for a really scary future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GambateBingBangBOOM
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 2021
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Why did you resurrect a thread after seven months? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He probably just read it.
Besides, the Chesterton piece above is worth a read!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canadashirleyblue
Joined: 06 May 2007
Posts: 162
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
It was interesting reading about the type of discussions you have with your older students. I teach primary, mainly in the middle east. We never talk about anything controversial. Well, almost never. When we read about Alice in Wonderland I had to explain what wine was. We covered the picture of the pig on the front of Charlotte's Web when we photocopied it (it passed the Islamic teacher but we didn't want any trouble!). In Kuwait there is no place called Israel. In every book, on every map or poster we had to white out "Israel" and write in "Occupied Palestine". It's not called the "Persian" gulf either. It's the "Arabian" gulf. That needed changing, too.
I wonder if it changes in secondary? Somehow I don't think so.
It must be quite a shock for these older students to be in a classroom where everything they always accepted as "true" and never really thought about is suddenly questioned! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
