Job Discussion Forums

[fluffyhamster]

Just remembered this (in connection with the same school):
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/viewtopic.php?p=21347

The JTE accepted that as I hadn't been able to find any convincing conversational examples, it would be best to not continue mentioning the "alternative" exponent.

But like I say in the linked post, maybe these "little" differences of word order are nothing to write home about (certainly, they aren't as potentially complex as RPs) - or are they?

I don't expect JTEs (or AETs, and that includes me) to know everything, but it's nice if they dust off their aging plans from time to time and check the details with the native speaker sitting not five meters away, BEFORE going into class (and "thankfully" this time the JTE did make some time to chat with me).

[guest of Japan]

Fluffyhamster I've just waded through most of what you've posted and am afraid I've come away with the feeling that you want to make English too difficult.

The JTEs are simplifying the sentence structures to clear out any variables which distract from the forms. Of course these sentences can be said other ways and perhaps better ways, but they have a prescribed curriculum to follow which is based around S's, V's, O's and C's as well as a slew of other grammatical terms and functions.

In your examples you are using grammatical forms which the students may have never studied or at least not mastered, and throwing it all in with new grammatical material and vocabulary, and then expecting the students to be able to comprehend, manipulate and communicate.

In fact what you are advocating at the jr. high level is precisely what kills functional English language ability at the high school level. Textbooks throw seemingly every possible variation of a grammatical idea, and do it with vocabulary the students don't know very well in Japanese. The end result is that the students learn nothing, but those with good short term memories do better on tests

I'd say those teachers you work with who over-simplify are doing a great service for the students in their charge, because they are enabling the students to build a solid base on which to support later studies.

It's obvious that you know a lot about English grammar, certainly more than me. But, you might want to give those teachers the benefit of the doubt. Unlike you, they've moved through the Japanese school system as students and know exactly what lies ahead for those kids. Certainly there are things they can learn from you, but unless you write the tests and plan the curriculum you might want limit what you do a bit.

[moot point]

My only reaction to your excessive verbatim is that it is too bad you didn't have better luck hooking up with JTE's.

I've been fortunate, I suppose, where the teachers I work alongsidle witth are all extremely intelligent and on top of the current international teaching trends (sic)... Euro-American). Plus, they have always welcomed my feedback and suggestions about teaching.

What I respect most about them, however, is their confidence to reject new ideas proposed from textbook designers and the MOE when they know for experience the most effective method to teach their students the required curriculum (albeit with the goal of achieving well for the testing in their next stage of education).

Fluffy, instead of inundating us with your problems, why don't you move on to yet another position (and perhaps another and another and another) until you find your peace? You are obviously not the type of character to accept change, at least with your attitudes on this board, so perhaps you'll need to keep moving until you find where you can fit in.

It's really a sad state, fluffy. I feel for you. Good luck!

[fluffyhamster]

Thanks for the reply GOJ.

You say the JTEs want to simplify, but they're the ones actually who introduce alternatives all the time (and often questionable ones at that - re. 'The Running Boy').

I certainly wasn't aware that the grammatical strutures involved in the JTEs' as opposed to my thinking were at all different (and the links I posted aren't, with the exception of 'The Running Boy' - where me and me old pal JTT were kind of just having a laugh, due to the aforementioned questionable alternative being introduced by a JTE drom a crap book - that "heavy" in terms of grammar...context and function, maybe, but then, meaning is important if you ever want to develop the students' understanding). Perhaps you can point out where I am (advocating) going overboard in terms of actual target language? (I don't want to massively expand the syllabus in terms of quantity, just in terms of quality and internal consistency).

So, I fail to see how what I am suggesting is killing or would kill functional ability...I think it is the JTEs who hinder implementing (and who could conversely be of the greatest benefit in implementing, have the greatest "role to play", so to speak, in) more functional approaches. I would cut a lot out of the textbooks and replace it with just a little more of the more useful kind of stuff.

Simplification is sometimes necessary, but oversimplification helps nobody. Often the oversimplification is part of a vicious circle because the context and example just isn't making much sense (mainly to those who understand enough English to know it isn't making sense...the people who can't grasp (even) that probably haven't been taught well enough to understand much of anything...but I'll stop here because it may ultimately be unrealistic to expect much FL ability of JHS kids (not that this will ever excuse not trying to make the most sense we can to them)).

Moot, I thought you'd gone and crawled down a hole somewhere and died, but no, you couldn't even do the world that favour, eh? (For all those wondering why the animosity, our friend Mooty here decided to put the boot in in his very first reply to me quite a while back on the 'Was I a whinger?' thread. He seems to hold any writer that he reads and doesn't like responsible to an almost psychotic degree for having "wasted" his time. Well, moot, you didn't like my whinger thread so why'd you come back for more? If you always find your blood pressure rising whilst reading Dave's, just go click on a porn link or something else instead, OK? (Next thing you know, he'll be telling us he didn't like the movie "Animal Farm", and I don't mean the animated adaptation of Orwell's book ))

And yes, Moot, it is damn well fortunate for you that your Japanese colleagues are so intelligent, because it saves you from having to exercise what limited brain power you still possess from needing to think about English (which is just as well, what with all the complex typing and mouse-clicking you're compelled to do on Dave's to implicitly "brag" about your doubtless wonderful job and, apparently, your far-flung conquests (I myself am not sure if it smacks more of desperation or stupidity, shagging a JTE at your schools. Maybe we could run a poll?)).

I find it odd, Moot, that you talk about the value of change, the confidence to reject offical wisdom and the need for character, but presume to say that none of these apply to me, especially when your hostility in your posts to me at least hardly marks you out as a saint yourself (and certainly not a thoughtful or particularly considerate person).

In the wise words of Sweetsee, 'Try to imagine being wrong, and save the morality for people you know well enough to dislike.'

[moot point]

Dude, I ponder on whether or not to respond.

It's probably not worth it but you certainly have the knack to piss people off, don't you? I hope you don't practice such dialogue in public. It would be a reflection of you not being able to hold down a job, and your face would probably be a mess.

I'm sure you'll joyfully give us (me) another three or four paragraphs of insults, but why don't you simplify it to a 'F.U' and then go on to your original question, since you haven't seen many suggestions as a result of your selfish opinions?

[moot point]

Oh my God!

A revelation is about to happen. Someone is about to make a double post on Fluffy's string.

[mrjohndub]

'Glib way with words' is an insult that implies that you have some real knowledge of my command of the language. Guess what? You don't. You have a couple of replies to a post on an online message board.

Excuse me, professor, but I think you meant to say, "Your post was hardly eloquent. Perhaps you could make the case for your qualifications in disagreeing with me through a gratuitous display of diction. You know, that's what we do here on the internet."

Please. Criticizing somebody under these circumstances with such a strong word is moronic. It's like criticizing someone's wardrobe while they take the trash to the curb or criticizing a volunteer for not working diligently enough. I don't know if you've noticed, but let me fill you in on a little something: most people take the conversational path online when it comes to discussion. That means that they don't pull all the stops. You do. Congratulations. You win. Whatever...

I admire your willingness to delve into the deeper issues and intensity when discussing our common profession. I am also a highly (usually more so than is necessary) analytical person when it comes to most things. I just don't regard the internet as that much of a test of my ability to do so. Why do you hold other people to this unreasonable (read: laughable) expectation?

[guest of Japan]

The examples I was referring to were the ones in which you introduced the passive voice into your examples, and just to make it a little harder you used irregular verbs.

I don't remember exactly but they were something like:

Who was the boy who had thrown the ball.

This is the house that was built by Jim.

You are right in that relative clauses are used more often with sentences which are more complex, so maybe the books examples don't clearly express the needed function or usefulness or them. However, if the students have to spend time figuring out what the rest of the sentence means, then they are unlikely to grasp the target language quickly or easily. The forms expressed above are part of the high school curriculum.

Additionaly, I agree with the JTE in your choice of actors names. I don't have the foggiest idea who the actors in Harry Potter were, and I've seen all the movies. If you want to use actors' names stick to the mega stars.

As for the "running boy," the Japanese teachers guides tell teachers that the rule is that if it is only one word like running, crying, laughing, it goes before the noun. If it is a whole phrase like- running down the street, crying outside, laughing at a joke, then it goes after the noun. The idea of the rule is to prevent sentences like - I saw a running boy down the street. and This is a girl interesting.

On top of all that, when it comes time to make the test the teachers are probably going to pull the test questions directly from the textbook to make sure that all students were given the same opportunity regardless of who the teacher was. This means that for the purpose of students' immediate goals "the running boy" is the desired answer.

[Brooks]

yep, this board tends to attract the trolls and tools.
We know who actually wants to teach and those who are just killing their time.

I do think that being an evangelist when it comes to TEFL does not work because you will just get disappointed.
Remember that JTEs try to be faithful to the MOMBUSHO syllabus, and they think they are doing their job.

All we can do is do the best we can.

[fluffyhamster]

Thanks for your strange "conciliatory" PM, Moot, but like I said in my reply by PM, I don't have any "problems" (and even if I did, I wouldn't want to discuss them with a person like you!). I'll have to presume you were trying to lure me into divulging my personal details.

I'm also sorry to disappoint you further, but the only reason I've taken a little longer than usual to respond here now is because I was at a friend's place last night (yes, I have friends! Who'd've thought it possible! LOL), and whilst I took the opportunity to take a quick peek at what you and John had posted, I could hardly start bashing out an answer on his PC...so, you two haven't stunned me into silence just yet.

Moot, you seem to be incapable of understanding that I don't 'practice such dialogue in public' (?) until those times when morons such as yourself more or less force me to (not that I am incapable of walking away from potential fights for real). Oh, and seeing as you can't handle being p-ed off, don't be so quick to start the p-ing "contests" (or pl*y*ng with y*urs*lf or whatever it is that you can't seem to stop doing).

Talking of p-ing contests, I don't care one iota what "big" tools like you (thanks for introducing that word, Brooks!) think is acceptable or not on a discussion forum because...well, you seem to have no idea of what is acceptable full-stop. (Nuff said).

John, you may rival or exceed Shakespeare in other spheres, but here on Dave's yes, as you say, I only have what you post to go by...all I can say is you are blowing hot and cold...I honestly believe that you might have some interesting points to add (e.g. am I pulling out all the stops to win, or - as I want to now assure you in reply - merely because I don't want others to reinvent my wheel, and certainly not do my homework for me!), but for some reason you (like Moot) seem to think there should be unclear, arbitrary limits (imposed here by you at your whim) to internet discussion (even though the net actually provides a great means by which to have greater "discussions" than would be possible in real-time speech), and then would seem to want to insist on using rather inappropriate language (to be honest I can't be bothered to debate whether it is banal or 'hardly eloquent' or simply 'hair-splitting'), if only to enforce and underline your strange ideology ('I will use inappropriate/offensive/judgemental/loaded language, because I think this guy is a bore/loon/tw*t etc etc for posting anything so serious on "my" zany and fun fun fun website, and deserves to be disrepected in any and all replies'). If you guys simply "don't have (the) time" always for the/an actual discussion, might I respectfully suggest you simply not post? (You are, after all, perfectly within your rights to 'not regard the internet as that much of a test of my ability to (analyze and discuss our common profession)', even though I will again say, I find that unfortunate and just a little bizzare).

GOJ, thanks for taking the interest in the thread and the time to post. I know I posted several links (some with further links inside), sorry about that (it's confusing even for me)...but still, I haven't been able to find any examples that I wrote using the passive, other than something along the lines of 'and who then gets shot by Pacino' (i.e. do a search for 'Pacino'. I'd supply the exact example myself, but if I open too many IE windows my PC freezes up and I might lose what I'm typing here). Any examples you've read that include a passive (passive participle) are most likely those of the JTE's doing (i.e. mainly those industrial process>product or "object use" definitions for 'salt' in the "hints"-style listening game). Maybe you misunderstood me when I said 'It's perhaps easier to appreciate the power of a good example or two with the passive' - by that I meant the passive as a seperate area rather than in a 'passive sentences with relative pronouns in them' sense...but why we're on the subject of passive with RPs, why not include just a few for listening practice if nothing else? It isn't necessarily beyond the students...and passives necessarily involve the person (who "needs" relavitizing pedagogically) being (?*becoming) the same thing as the subject (i.e the RP) of the relative clause.
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/job/viewtopic.php?p=328185#328185

As for making things harder by using irregular verbs, the students have to learn them at some point and they may actually be easier (more salient to the memory) than the regular (that is, an irregular verb that gets memorized is more likely to stay memorized than a regular - applying a "productive" rule perhaps isn't as easy as we'd like to assume it is, especially when the speaker is a foreign learner of English). I recall Pinker at least saying something about this kind of thing (maybe John Taylor too).

[Glenski]

[Glenski]

[mrjohndub]

fluffer, I'm curious: Are you currently employed? You seem to imply so, but perhaps I missed something in one of your recent posts.

[fluffyhamster]

Hi again Glenski.

If I receive PMs from somebody that I should by all rights "take into my confidence", then of course the content of the PM ought to remain private; Moot however is not that kind of person, and I wasn't aware that members on Dave's had to act like priests with anything and eveything they are ever told "in confession". Put simply I did not expect to get the PM, and whilst it was not that offensive or threatening, I am just trying to make it clear here that I do not expect to receive any more from this person - I don't see why we can't confine our "discussion" to the boards (not that I particularly have anything to say to Moot, nor he to me, it would seem).

The problem with irregular verbs I think is that the students are expected to learn reams of them (infrequent as well as frequent) all at once from a list in the back of the book through chants or whatever (sometimes the verbs are grouped according to sound change, but often they are simply in alphabetical order), out of context (that is, the few verbs that are introduced in the actual text don't seem to be in a context that is strong enough to make much of an impression - it's kind of like the way my French teachers seemed to have expected us to have one day come into class knowing not only the verb table but also everything there was to know about how those verbs might actually be used in a real conversation); it is little wonder then that it takes a long time for any one verb you might mention and expect them to have learnt to actually have sunk in. If they concentrated on just a verb at a time, in short frequent and/or useful or memorable contexts (something like, for adult learners, 'You are in a bar, and somebody pours you a drink and starts saying 'nonde' quickly and repeatedly in groups of 3>6 thus: nonde, nonde nonde, nonde, nonde nonde'. But I appreciate Japanese verbs are more regular than English ones, and express more in the (choice of) inflection), I am sure they would retain more, more quickly, and from what little I've read of Psycholinguistics etc, there doesn't seem to be any reason why irregulars would be any harder to learn or produce than regulars, because (as I've said) the internal changes they undergo in terms of sound and spelling would seem to make them more salient than the the /d/, /t/ and /id/ of regular verbs (e.g. how often do your students hesitate over the pronunciation of a regular verb?). I don't see a huge difference in ease or difficulty in learning between the two types of verb, and I wouldn't put off learning one type only until after the "majority" (which in textbooks terms means only a few dozen or so verbs anyway) of the other has been learnt: mix and match when necessary.

There's nothing actually "wrong" with practising (or trying to practise) the necessary/grammatically required use of 'who' with just simple present or present continuous, but I still wonder if this doesn't impose contraints (on at least the JTEs thinking - hence the lame examples they dream up for the purposes of "combining"), and with continuous forms the RP gets reduced/ellipted anyway (leaving just the active participle).

Anyway, by the time in Sunshine 3 when RPs are studied, the students have already met irregular (past tense) verbs, the passive, and the two types of participle in reduced relative clauses, so they would seem to be at the point where my kind of examples wouldn't seem, on the face it at least, to be impossibly beyond them: where, then, is the problem with what I'm saying? The JTE's "regression" into previously studied forms (i.e. always just simple present) would be helpful IF things did not always stop there but came back through the list of forms I just mentioned, to bring students up to speed with what I have called (genuine functions for actual) "talking points".

So, as I have been saying to GOJ and now will repeat to you, G, I don't see where I am adding to the complexity grammar-wise (the grammar is the same in JTE or AET thinking as far as I can see). Like I say, the only "fluff" I'm trying to mix in is to do with meaning and function. I wouldn't go so far as to say something silly like 'Lesson aims in terms of discrete grammar points are of little use and doomed to failure', but they never seem holistic or wide-ranging enough notionally (differences between members of a notional set become obvious through a consideration of their function in discourse) to account for alternative "escape" strategies (i.e. alternatives discourse-functionally), with the result that a lot gets swept under the carpet or ignored (especially in terms of pragmatics) when the forms come under the stress of even the "expected" and plodding "use" in the classroom.

The reason I don't give the students the name of 'the school photographer at Hogwart's' is simply because he is not famous LOL, so mentioning the name to even native speakers would soon lead to blank stares and the need to define in terms of more-likely-to-be-known role in famous movie. Where I do mention the name, I might expect a movie buff to know the person, but again am ready with the role(s) if need be. Anyway, I don't do movie stars as a first step, I would use "past" party senes etc first so everybody had a very clear idea of exactly what we were talking about. Unfortunately good pictures don't grow on trees, and "I" didn't have time to design, draw, print and most importantly "sell" anything to the JTE this time (e.g they might not have appreciated the difference between such pictures and the earlier ones they'd used to practise active participles, even though my pictures would be to explicitly require and practise 'who' with finite/tensed (Simple past) verbs).

I must've mentioned JHS quite a few times, but I'll mention it again: JHS (public BTW) LOL. I know that in public JH schools the level is generally pretty low, and even in grade 3 (which is where this kind of language is introduced in Sunshine) they'll probably only have had 2+ years of English to be going on...but if the English is always held back, not allowed to fly (not saying let's wing it all, though), it'll be no wonder that the students are never ready to leave the nest. I know that JHS might not actually be the place where the students won't do more than hop out and fall to land on their heads, but let's not forget that there's another three whole years in which to be building on the basis supplied (let's presume) from the sum of their past JHS English education...but like I say, maybe John etc is right, maybe we only ever really will click after we are motivated or immersed adults; that doesn't stop me from wondering, however, how the one-sided compromizes that are always made ultimately affect the long-term acquisition (="quality learning") of English.

The interesting thing about working in that private combined J-SHS was that Get Real, whilst lapped up by the obedient first grade, was kind of painfully obvious (or so they thought, even though productively they still might've been having probs) for the second and treated almost with contempt by the very "lazy" third graders (reporting on the whole foreign teaching staff's opinions there, not just on my own classes); they had seperate classes with the JTEs in which they waded through lecture-style grammar classes complete with tricky grammar exercise books (leading no doubt to university past exam questions). I'll have to presume that in comparison, they positively lapped those things up; and that in public JHSs, the textbooks do not always strike the right balance on any given page between easy or difficult for the students. I think it would probably be better if JHS students did a course dedicated to teaching more spoken English than they currently study (though I appreciate that written texts can often provide more input in terms of vocab and especially "complex" - formally "obvious" - grammar than most spoken texts), and switched in SHS more to the study of texts (though still with some verbal comments or attempts at discussion); as it is, they often have to wade through quite dry/contrived written texts when the grammar could be entirely contextualized in terms of speech, but isn't ( or is done so perfunctorily and inadequately). The JTE knows the text as printed in the book will often be a struggle if not a bore, and needs extensive glossing over, so the JTE starts producing bricks when they realize they're gonna need to lead into the grammar slowly, themselves, yet without much if any proper (functional) guidance or surefire, proven example forms. So off they go to their "trusty" crusty library of complicated and often misleading books (rarely ones written by native speakers) to formulate answers as best they can; this wouldn't be so bad if those answers were more tentative and provisional than they can sometimes then be made or held out to be (which means the AET will be wasting a lot of time having to prove rather than merely assert that an intuition was in fact justified and borne out by what can only be described as glaringly obvious facts, for those who "need(ed)" to check).

Incidentally, does KISS mean anyone who wants to at all "complicate" things is stupid (foolhardy), or that it is the students who are always going to be the flies in the ointment, the spanners in the works? Myself, I try to take the view that for things to start proceeding more smoothly, yes, there must obviously be an attempt at simplication, at aiming for their level, but that equally, understanding will not always develop surely (eventually) or even smoothly (immediately) when things which would be (a) "given" in real life (what information is shared, and between whom? What is natural generally and makes sense?) are witheld for perhaps ultimately spurious or indefensible reasons (strong words that would not seem to admit a compromize, but then, they are only words, not me, and I am often willing to compromize - how else would ANY teaching/?"teaching" take place LOL).

Obviously if I am about to use a new word, I will be wanting to quickly present and explain it, but it is not always easy to get the JTE's full co-operation, even if you only have one or at the most two new words that you want to use in the lesson (and perhaps had to sneak in through another entrance, or admit when they come a-knocking needing entry); this lack of reciprocity is not justified when you think of how many (often random) words the AET is expected to model or contextualize at the drop of a hat.

Yes, John, I am currently employed - that should've been implicit (if not obvious) from me saying (in my previous post) that 'I can hold down a job (how else would I still be in Japan?)'. That, and 'I guess if a discussion does develop, the AL forum would be more the place to have it (even though I am describing my current job as an AET in a Japanese JHS)', right at the very start of the thread. My, you read things closely, don't you!

Oh, and FWIW, I think fluffers perform a necessary service, so I really haven't taken offence at the (mis)appellation.

[mrjohndub]