Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - In Defense of Callan Method

Get TEFL Certified & Start Your Adventure Today!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

In Defense of Callan Method
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Poland

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

redsoxfan

Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 178
Location: Dystopia

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:42 pm Post subject:

In response to buffinbridge:

Quote:

How can you encourage learner independence when the lesson is completely reliant on a parrot up front?

The primary obstacle to expressing oneself in a foreign language is vocabulary. If one is familiar with the basics of grammar, one can express oneself easily if one is comfortable with the vocab. Especially when we're talking about English. There is no way that students learn vocab faster with any other technique than with Callan. No way. After studying for, I'd guess, 6 months, students know perhaps 1,500 words. After each stage there is an exam, and even the poor students know almost all the vocab. I'm sure they don't even study for the exam. The problem with Callan method, as you pointed out, is that there is little independence. This is why I have said many times that after a year of study with Callan, the student should shift to more communicative techniques. The student will quickly lose the crutch of Callan, while retaining an amazing ability to understand spoken and written English. Once again, I would never recommend such a rigid method for those already quite comfortable with English. I really doubt the efficiency of things like pairwork for pre-int students, because even if the students speak English instead of their native language, they don't know enough to correct each other. As far as learning new words, if I even know the word in Polish and thus translate for them, it is unlikely that they will remember it because they won't revise it. Really, techniques like guided discovery are aesthetically more sound and more natural. I just don't think, from my own experience, that students learn as much material as quickly, and it's more difficult to correct mistakes. The reason why students learn less is that, although the technique is on a certain level superior to a repetitive one, the amount of correct English being spoken is nothing compared to a Callan class.

Why does everyone think Callan method is robotic? It's not. How can a student answer a question if he doesn't understand it? They do understand virtually every question, and need me only to prompt them with some grammar and an occasional word. "Parroting" is not an accurate discription. If you would just try the method with a foreign language you would agree.

Bottom line: results. Alex Shulgin was correct: a method should be judged on results, ie. does it work? Having not taught Callan and seen the students' rapid progress, it would be difficult for one to say it doesn't work. I don't care about theories if they are contradicted by reality. I'm often blown away when students on the later stages insist that they've never studied English before--just Callan for 10 months. HA! Many have an upper-int vocab, and decent grammar. So, you must pardon me if I bypass your theories in favor of what I can observe with my own eyes--indeed, do observe every day. Again, I say: Callan for a year, then knock yourself out. I don't disagree that advances have been made in teaching. I just think such techniques are more effective after a student has a solid mastery of the basics plus some.

Quote:

Compare a book like Cutting Edge to a book like Streamline Departures and you'll see why the cue response method has been discarded by any school that requires its teachers to have qualifications.

Can you clarify please? I didn't catch if you liked the Cutting Edge series or not. I was given it last year as the standard course book for a "pre-int" class. I quickly realized that they students knew absolutely nothing, though they had been studying for about 6 months. So, I started teaching them Callan-style (my own questions and such) and in about a week, they realized that they were finally learning something. I told them that I'd been using a technique similar to Callan method, and they decided to switch to Callan classes, and the original class totally disbanded. I only feel bad that they wasted their time in the first place. Callan students who had been studying for 6 months spoke English infinitely better. Nuff said.

Kymro

Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 244

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:56 pm Post subject:

slodziak wrote:

The Callan is method is taught extensively throughout Europe and Asia; for any method to prove this popular it must have something to it.

It isn't.

It's taught extensively in Poland.

Kymro

Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 244

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:12 pm Post subject:

redsoxfan wrote:

Bottom line: results. Alex Shulgin was correct: a method should be judged on results, ie. does it work? Having not taught Callan and seen the students' rapid progress, it would be difficult for one to say it doesn't work. I don't care about theories if they are contradicted by reality.

It's not the theories but rather your statements that are contradicted by reality.

From talking to FCE examiners the poorest pass rates come from the Callan schools.

Futhermore I have conducted perhaps hundreds of interviews and placement tests with former Callan students.

The 'rapid progress' of which you speak was not immediately obvious.

The claims of 4 X quicker are, frankly, lies, merely the uncorroborated statements of the Callan organisation.

The method is little more than over-hyped bullshit.

gregoryfromcali

Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1207
Location: People's Republic of Shanghai

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:57 am Post subject:

Quote:

So, I started teaching them Callan-style (my own questions and such) and in about a week, they realized that they were finally learning something. I told them that I'd been using a technique similar to Callan method, and they decided to switch to Callan classes, and the original class totally disbanded.

It's no wonder you didn't get the hours you wanted at the non-Callan school.

I'd hate to gang up on you but again we're just talking.

The previous poster brought up the FCE it got me thinking about a few things.

I keep seeing you present the same argument. Your argument is that the Callan method is 4x faster. Faster than what?

Just because you can easily see the results of a Callan class it doesn't automatically mean that the classes are better in the long run.

I have no doubt that if you took an English class and just just did speaking activities then the students would be better at speaking.

The question is at what cost?

Sure they can answer some questions and I imagine the most talented students probably continue to study other things at home.

But the problem is they're only good at one thing and that is answering questions.

Yet if they want to take the FCE they have to be good at writing, reading and grammar too. And even if they don't take the FCE they need to be good at these things if are going to use their English outside of hanging out at a bar.

And as we all know in Poland English students don't just want to learn to speak they want to be good at everything. I think the Callan method falls short of that.

Although it is cool that it has helped you learn Polish. I'm impressed by anything that makes Polish seem easy, but on the other hand as you were already teaching out of the Callan book I would imagine that it probably wasn't too difficult to figure out what the Polish version was once you figured out a few of the words.

Last edited by gregoryfromcali on Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

Alex Shulgin

Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Posts: 553

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:57 am Post subject:

Kymro wrote:

If Warren writes something and I agree on every single word then we know it must be true!

redsoxfan

Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 178
Location: Dystopia

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:55 pm Post subject:

Quote:

When you say students "from the Callan schools," I assume that you mean students who have only studied Callan method. How long have they studied English? Probably a year and a half at most, because I don't know what else they'd be doing at a Callan school after that point. So of course they're going to underperform compared with students who have been studying for eight years.

Second, I believe you that Callan students often failed to impress at interviews. This is often because they have not practiced speaking independently so much, and perhaps have some lack of confidence. Often, I think, they know a lot, but they need a couple months to shake off the crutch of the Callan method, and realize that they actually really do know a lot. They need to be forced to speak independently, and after such prodding, I would guess that most fit in quite well. They are like wild Polish mushrooms, if you will: one day you can't see them, and after just a bit of rain they explode almost overnight into tasty little morsels, delicious in sauces.

As you can tell, I am nearing the end of my postings on this particular subject. Wink

Thanks for your opinions. As I initially said, I have played devils advocate to some extent, and I recognize that there are shortcomings to the method. Indeed, there are shortcomings to any ideology. But in my experience, the method does work very well for a lot of students, and I still feel that it is a very efficient way to learn a lot of material in a short amount of time.

redsoxfan

Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 178
Location: Dystopia

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:45 pm Post subject:

gregory from cali wrote:

Quote:

It's no wonder you didn't get the hours you wanted at the non-Callan school.

I'd hate to gang up on you but again we're just talking.

I don't mind being the sole voice on a particular matter, but please read more carefully: First, which hours didn't I get? I specifically said that I WAS offered hours this year at four schools in Poznan besides the one I work at. I mentioned that in response to some comment that teachers who have taught Callan can't teach anywhere else, which is hooey. Second, the class that disbanded was not my class originally. They were being taught by another teacher, and only after I started filling in did they begin to make any negligible progress. They liked the method by which I taught--basically my own version of Callan--so much that they mutually agreed to end that class and transfer to existing Callan classes.

Quote:

I have no doubt that if you took an English class and just just did speaking activities then the students would be better at speaking.

The question is at what cost?

Sure they can answer some questions and I imagine the most talented students probably continue to study other things at home.

But the problem is they're only good at one thing and that is answering questions.

I mean, you clearly aren't familiar with the Callan method, because if you were, you would know that in each class there are separate sections for reading and writing. Students practice these things each day, and by the end can certainly read and spell fine. Can students only answer questions? What are you basing this statement on? The primary instrument for teaching is the answering of questions, but it is false that students "can only answer questions." I see every day that this statement is false, but you've never taught with the method, so how could you know this? I can't let such an unsupported assertion pass as an argument. You are correct on one point: that better students study at home. The method should require homework, and in this sense it is too confident in itself.

gregoryfromcali

Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1207
Location: People's Republic of Shanghai

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:37 am Post subject:

Quote:

I believe you that Callan students often failed to impress at interviews. This is often because they have not practiced speaking independently so much, and perhaps have some lack of confidence.

This to me is exactly the problem with the Callan method.

It doesn't put people in real situations.

Independent speaking is the most practical way of learning to speak.

The communicative approach is based on a goal. The goal is to get people to speak as they would in real life situations and we as teachers try to create real life situations to accomplish this.

I completely disagree with your assumptions that beginning students can't have conversations. They can have conversations but conversations at a beginning level.

I am learning Chinese and I do not go to Chinese classes because like most language teachers the last thing I want to do after teaching a language is to sit in a language class.

I have a driver who drives me around to different schools. We have very basic conversations in English and or Chinese as I speak basic Chinese and he speaks basic English. But we can still talk about the fact that, "Shanghai has too many people." that "Apartments are expensive." that "Micheal is going to Hong Kong." etc... Although they're not the most involved conversations and we don't understand every word that the other person says, but we do sometimes talk about one thing for a few minutes and I know that I can probably handle myself better in China than someone who learned Chinese through a Callan type school.

In fact I've seen this myself. I've met people who studied Chinese back at home and when they come here they don't know what's happening because they've studied some formal type of regional Chinese which is different from the Chinese you'll hear in daily conversations.

Kind of like the difference between the way most people speak English and the way Mr. Callan speaks English (as you pointed out early on).

Although these were not Callan type students, these were students who learned in a class where the situations were very different from real life situations where they had to communicate on a conversational level.

Think about how children learn language. Children hear their own language and learn to speak it because they need to and want to communicate. As we all know most children first learn, "I want it!" Because in some real life situation they want to communicate that thought.

But I've never seen a child parrot language word for word and without mistakes. Children make mistakes and with time they usually correct themselves and if they don't at some point the parent will correct them.

Do you go around and correct 2 year olds?

Then why should you constantly correct beginning students?

I'll take fluency over accuracy anyday.

Besides accuracy comes with time.

Needless to say this debate is endless. But at the end of the day, the main difference between the Communicative approach and the Callan approach is that we are trying to teach our students English as if they're in a real environment where they need to speak English. With the Callan approach I'm not sure what the model is based on and that is what baffles us non-Callan teachers.

We are not just a bunch of jealous old ladies.

redsoxfan

Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 178
Location: Dystopia

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:52 am Post subject:

To gregoryfromcali:

I think you have taken my words out of context. I accepted that some Callan students failed to place well at interviews, yes. But I went on to explain that after "some prodding" and practice, they will quickly find that they know quite a lot. Perhaps Callan students don't immediately place in intermediate classes after a year, but which students do?

As you said, the debate could go on ad infinitum. But I will add a couple thoughts. I think you are exagerating the difference between Callan method and "real life situations." English is English--to speak it, you need lots of vocab, and grammar to put the words together. Why are the English sentences spoken in Callan method so unnatural? We speak the same sentences as students would in a conversational class. "I woke up this morning and ate my breakfast before I took a shower." The question is not, Which is more natural or real-life?, but rather, Which method teaches the vocab and grammar more quickly?

Quote:

Although they're not the most involved conversations and we don't understand every word that the other person says, but we do sometimes talk about one thing for a few minutes and I know that I can probably handle myself better in China than someone who learned Chinese through a Callan type school.

That's an assertion which begs the entire question of the discussion.

Quote:

In fact I've seen this myself. I've met people who studied Chinese back at home and when they come here they don't know what's happening because they've studied some formal type of regional Chinese which is different from the Chinese you'll hear in daily conversations.

Callan method teaches Standard English. A few of the phrases are stilted, but frankly it's insignificant--it's all correct English. I would rather teach students correct English than incorrect English, and they'll pick up on a few more casual sayings later. Just details.

Quote:

Do you go around and correct 2 year olds?

Then why should you constantly correct beginning students?

I'll take fluency over accuracy anyday.

Besides accuracy comes with time.

Correcting toddlers and correcting university students are rather different. At an older age, we don't learn in the same way we did when we learned our native languages. I correct beginning students because they don't know what is correct, and they pay me to tell them what is correct. If a student says, "I'm not went to the cinema yesterday," I don't see what service it does to anyone to ignore that. This student clearly doesn't know the correct way to form the past simple, and other students may become confused about what is correct. When a student is corrected, he or she has a lesser chance of repeating the mistake, and an even lesser chance with each subsequent correction.

Fluency over accuracy? Umm, it depends. If you just want to be able to communicate for the most practical purposes, perhaps. But English students want to speak English well, and indeed must speak it well to pass exams. I have had students who speak English quite fluently, but they had such bad grammar. I could understand everything, but it was a challenge to teach the use of definite/indefinite articles when the student had been used to ignoring such formalities for the past six years. I'm not sure that accuracy necessarily comes with time, because I know people who are very fluent in English who have basically decided that they aren't concerned with grammar and just freely make mistakes. It's not a huge deal, but it's kind of annoying to listen to, and it needn't happen. The Callan method teaches fluency very well I think, because students are always speaking in complete, correct sentences. And they are speaking a lot; much more per class than conversational students. The conversational method is inefficient for beginners, because if they are careful enough to speak with more proper grammar, it takes so long for them to formulate sentences. Thus, Callan method better promotes fluency because students speak much, much more. It promotes accuracy because mistakes are corrected and revised. It teaches much more vocab because of its quick pace and efficient use of time, as well as using all vocab in carefully planned contexts.

It seems to me that you are still under the impression that Callan method is simply "parroting," which is perhaps 20% accurate and 80% innaccurate. If you tried the method with Chinese, I think you'd find that you'll absorb so much because your brain kicks into high gear. It really challeges the student intensely to listen, understand, and formulate sentences. I've mentioned my personal experience with it; maybe if you tried it for a couple months you'd post back and be my first open supporter! Actually, there are plenty of teachers who believe that the method is effective, but perhaps will not speak up because they fear being burned at the stake Smile

gregoryfromcali

Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1207
Location: People's Republic of Shanghai

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:54 pm Post subject:

Quote:

There is no way you can compare learning a language in its true environment and simply learning a language as if you're a robot on an assembly line.

The communicative method creates that true environment.

Also if you're really interested read Emotional Intelligence, perhaps you'd have a better understand of the angle that I'm taking.

Quote:

Fluency over accuracy? Umm, it depends.

Well I'll tell you what. My CELTA teacher trainer picked up Polish by simply hearing it and going home at night and speaking to his cat in the Polish with the he knew.

Today he is completely fluent.

As he says no one corrected his Polish.

Quote:

If you tried the method with Chinese, I think you'd find that you'll absorb so much because your brain kicks into high gear. It really challeges the student intensely to listen, understand, and formulate sentences. I've mentioned my personal experience with it; maybe if you tried it for a couple months you'd post back and be my first open supporter!

I haven't seen any Callan schools outside of Poland. I believe at one time that the Callan method was cutting edge, back when people were just doing grammar exercises out of books and trying to memorize words, but since then language learning has developed.

But again it sounds like you're happy teaching this method and I'm happy for you.

I do believe that you started this thread as a result of some of my other comments on this forum. And you can keep defending your method all you want but I'm going to keep telling people that if they're serious about teaching English as a career using the communicative method, in and outside of Poland, then stay away from the Callan method.

Now I've never seen you teach. But I do have some understanding of how you approach teaching and the way you think it works best. But I can tell that you are not someone with thousands of hours of experience using the communicative method.

Because I think that if a teacher with thousands of hours of experience in the communicative method walked into that class of beginners those students would have learned what they wanted to learn without having to cancel the class and go elsewhere.

This isn't a put down. I don't claim to know everything about teaching English, because I don't. But I do know that for every hour I teach using the methods we've discussed I become a better teacher and everytime I teach a lesson I do things slightly differently. I just don't know if the Callan method offers this type of teacher development that I believe is necessary if you are just starting out.

All the best. It's been an interesting thread.

Last edited by gregoryfromcali on Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:33 am; edited 1 time in total

Kymro

Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 244

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:

redsoxfan wrote:

Quote:

But you've been telling us the Callan method works 4 X faster.

If that were true a student who had studied at a Callan school would perform equally well as students who had studied for 6 years somewhere else.

So the claims made by the Callan organisation aren't, after all, true Question

Quote:

Second, I believe you that Callan students often failed to impress at interviews. This is often because they have not practiced speaking independently so much, and perhaps have some lack of confidence. Often, I think, they know a lot, but they need a couple months to shake off the crutch of the Callan method, and realize that they actually really do know a lot. They need to be forced to speak independently, and after such prodding, I would guess that most fit in quite well.

This hardly sounds like the rapid progress and results you were previously so keen to tell teachers more experienced and knowledgable than yourself all about.

zippy2k

Joined: 07 Sep 2005
Posts: 42
Location: Riyadh

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:04 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I haven't seen any Callan schools outside of Poland.

Neither have I. I'm told Poland has more Callan schools than anywhere else in the world. I wonder how much of that is down to the preceived need to be earning more in an English speaking country and the apparent "4 X faster" advertising(which I think could be described as aggressive marketing) of the method.

Quote:

Callan method teaches Standard English. A few of the phrases are stilted, but frankly it's insignificant--it's all correct English.

I approached the Callan Organisation this year, and asked them why they included phrases such as "Where are you coming from?"-"I'm coming from the door" and "It isn't a pen, but it's a pencil", comparing the usage of "coming from" as a phrasal verb in several dictionaries nowhere to be described as walking from a location, rather in a metaphorical/aesthetic sense such as "I see where you're coming from". I asked them why they included such phrases that can't be found in grammar reference books or dictionaries and was told "The Callan Method's not for everyone".

I asked them is they were going to bring out a 2005 edition of their book to update the 1960 one and was given no answer, rather impied I go somewhere else...

redsoxfan

Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 178
Location: Dystopia

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:50 am Post subject:

Thanks to anyone who has bothered to read this far. I apologize if my posts have been at all repetitious, but as I think my basic point has been ignored/misrepresented, I am obliged to state it once again, as I will do in a moment.

zippy2k wrote:

Quote:

"Coming from" was not listed as a phrasal verb because it is not a phrasal verb. It is simply the use of the verb "come" with a preposition. Dictionaries of phrasal verbs list phrasal verbs which are phrases; they don't list every possible permutation of verbs and prepositions. Why can't I say, "OK, I'll be a bit late, because I'm coming from work now."? Also, Callan uses "but" to reinforce that there is a contrast between two ideas. It's slightly awkward, but again, details...I suppose he could have used "but rather."

You are certainly correct that the method should be revised. However, every Callan teacher revises it as she goes along, and there are a few annoying/outdated questions that no one asks. So, again, details...

kymro wrote:

Quote:

I may have given lip service to the claim of 4X faster, perhaps to stir up some postings! I have also disagreed with this claim in other postings, and suggested that such a claim may be exagerated, or at least outdated. The Callan school in London guarantees students that they will pass the first Cambridge exam in a quarter of the average time. Other Callan schools are supposed to give the same guarantee. My school has some similar guarantee, but I believe that it is revised to account for absences, and it requires students to pass the exams at the end of each stage, which is a perfectly reasonable expectation because anyone who attends class and listens will pass them. I don't know if it's possible to quantify one's English abilities so precisely, and frankly I don't care. I won't stand behind the claim of 4X faster because I have no evidence at my disposal--the Callan organization says they do. Who knows.

I would bet that Callan students learn 4X the vocab as most students. I am looking now at Stage 8--about 10 months of studying. Students would know very well, on average, maybe 80-90% of the following words: leave out, deal, profitable, local, female, movement, wooden, act, suggestion, wing, value, couldn't care less, climate, midnight, plain, purity, a taste for, lack, sufficient, bloody, relation, get along well with, neighbor, reply, engine, active, steal, owner, organize. Those were just words I saw on a few pages which I randomly opened my book to. Now, do you mean to tell me that most students, studying by any other method, know the vast majority of these words after 10 months of study? Callan students really know the vocab. After each stage, students must pass an exam, the first part of which is vocab. Of the 40 words, the best students know all but one or two, and the worst students know at least 32. It is very rare that a student knows less than 3/4 of the vocab, and more than likely, this student often misses class.

Conversational methods are quite poor at teaching vocab to beginners because they are inefficient for beginners. Such students lack the skills with which to communicate effectively in English, so the amount of correct English being spoken is minimal. Thus, there simply isn't enough time to introduce and practice new vocab. This is why I think that an intensive, ordered, efficient method is best for beginners. It is also a bad idea for a native speaker to teach a conversation class for beginners, unless he or she speaks Polish well. At this stage, students lack the ability to understand explanations of new words, but instead, should be given the translations directly, and forced to practice these words. That is the essence of Callan method.

So, once again, while I would never recommend such a rigid method for students already comfortable with English, I think the best approach is to learn the meat of the language first, and practice it freely after that. Gregoryfromcali's central point is that there is a huge difference between learning a language in a real-life context, and learning it through individual questions and answers. I don't agree. Until one reaches a comfortable level of English, it's all basically the same. Most of the words we use on a daily basis come from a word bank of perhaps 1,500 words. These should be mastered and practiced ASAP, then practiced in conversation.

gregoryfromcali wrote:

Quote:

My CELTA teacher trainer picked up Polish by simply hearing it and going home at night and speaking to his cat in the Polish with the he knew.

Even cats are better than Callan teachers! Isn't it interesting that most of my detractors won't acknowledge any benefits of the Callan method? I have freely criticized it, both by pointing out and recognizing annoyances in the details, but also by repeatedly suggesting that it is only useful as an intensive preparation for conversational English. With the exception of gregoryfromcali, who appears open-minded, I haven't read any postings which seem remotely interested in contemplating the idea that, in fact, such a well-organized method may be quite useful to beginning and pre-intermediate students. Some of the criticisms put forth have some validity, as do some of my arguments. The truth may be somewhere in between. But, isn't it interesting that only I will acknowledge this? It seems that no matter how many well-reasoned arguments I advance, some folks have long made up their minds, albeit without any direct experience with the method.

slodziak

Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 143
Location: Tokyo

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:36 pm Post subject:

You have created one of the more interesting threads on this website, redsoxfan, be happy with that. I agree that some people seem to quote you out of context but I guess you had to expect that - Callan is unbelievably unpopular among teachers. Is there anyone out there who will help redsoxfan? There must be some clandestine Callanophone who has been stirred to come out of the closet by this passionate rearguard action. Let�s be hearing you.

gregoryfromcali

Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1207
Location: People's Republic of Shanghai

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:34 am Post subject:

Quote:

Even cats are better than Callan teachers!

Redsox fan,

I'm not comparing Cats to Callan.

I'm simply showing you that there is no need to focus on accuracy to the point where you stop a student everytime they make a mistake. (Which by the way is why teachers present grammar, this way the students understand why it is a mistake instead of simply being told it is.)

Accuracy comes with time and the motivation of students.

In the communicative method we too focus on accuracy and that is why we have tests and give out homework. So that the students can become aware of their weeknesses.

But the main goal is fluency.

If the student wants accuracy they study harder.

I know that when I speak Polish I can careless about getting the cases right. As much as I'd like to be accurate I'd rather spend my time doing just about anything else in the world than practicing Polish grammar.

Besides the more I hear Polish quicker I learn the correct cases anyway.

(I prefer learning languages lexically.)

My point is that when learning languages it is okay to make mistakes and as teachers it should be expected that our students are going to make mistakes.

But yes, you are correct is saying that I do think one can learn languages from a variety of teaching styles. I myself prefer cassettes with dialogues. But I should also add that my aunt learned German at a Berlitz language school. (Which I imagine would be the outfit to get in with for Callan teachers.)

Last edited by gregoryfromcali on Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:22 am; edited 2 times in total

Display posts from previous:

	Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Poland	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

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

Teaching Jobs in China