Job Discussion Forums

[Snoopy]

I like to think that I can teach regardless of age, ability and, to some extent, motivation. Teaching those who have emerged woefully ignorant from their secondary �education� is both easy (because they don�t remember a thing from the day before) and frustrating for the same reason. Invigilating an exam in anatomy and physiology, I saw a candidate repeatedly trying to divide a number by one and announcing that the calculator was no good. Another spent ages with his calculator (to do what should have been a simple piece of mental arithmetic) to arrive at the conclusion that the the patient�s pulse rate was 0.01 beats per minute. Another, asked which part of the exam had been the most difficult, replied �potato gland� (pituitary, in case you were wondering).
To reach this exalted level, they had had to pass the foundation year, which consisted mostly of English. One of the questions, which they knew was coming in both spoken and written exams, was to name parts of the body. (Head, arm, leg, hand for starters. Ankle and elbow were difficult for many.) One labelled most parts �blesk�, in the hope that he might have one somewhere. Another label was �froget�, which presumably meant �I froget what this part is called�. The best, in a speaking test, was when I pointed to the knee, and the candidate told me it was the �bozy�. I think it is safe to assume that he was unfamiliar with the life of Oscar Wilde.
I pride myself on the ability to keep a perfectly composed manner in such situations, and I did. He passed his foundation year with one of the highest marks.
Any other examples of sheer incompetence and wilful damage to the English language?

[Deconstructor]

Unfortunately idiocy is very common both on students� part as well as the teachers'.

Just yesterday I was teaching reading to a low intermediate class; that is to say providing students with strategies to deal with the English language; for example, how to preview a text, scan it for different purposes, how to use the context surrounding unfamiliar words, chunking paragraphs, etc.

As I circulated I noticed couple of my students grumbling to the fact that "what English class this? Why we read? I want grammar" etc. As I got closer, and they finally began to do their work, clenching to their dictionaries, I noticed that they were reading out loud at grade 2 level. These are students who have studied English off and on for many years and are forever stuck on low intermediate level precisely because they come to class with $500 electronic dictionaries, their cherished grammar books and want the teacher to spoon feed English to them. Anything innovative and imaginative, rubs them the wrong way.

I told them after class, that unless they do some serious and systematic reading in English their chances of improvement are as great as mine learning Klingon.

Parenthetically, certainly there can be a debate about the role of reading in EFL/ESL. My stand is that if one doesn�t live in an Anglophone country and encounters English only in the classroom, reading becomes fundamental. There can be no improvement without it. Haven�t you noticed that the vast majority of EFL/ESL students are permanently trapped in intermediate levels and couldn't read simple directions to find a toilet?

[Guy Courchesne]

Hmmm...I'm going to take a dissenting view on this. While I've met a lot of people and students who have struggled greatly with a foreign language, their OWN language, or simple instructions on how to work a pencil, I've never met a complete 'buffoon' who couldn't do at least one things well.

I like to think that in a language class context, everyone has their route to learning the language.

I have a student in a beginner level class who I'm sure is only semi-literate. Has difficulty reading English or Spanish, is 40 or so, a self-taught electrician, terrible on just about everything we try in an English class. We ended up drawing electrical circuits on the board and what do you know? Turns out he's a whiz at electrical logic AND making others understand it.

[Deconstructor]

Guy, your point is well taken. The students I'm talking about are the middle class, university graduate, well travelled ones who couldn't shout "get out of the way" fast enough to save a man on a path of a truck.

[Guy Courchesne]

Oh no doubt there are people who fit that bill. Some get elected to high office in first-world countries. They must be good at something though.

[Gordon]

[Roger]

I do second the opinion on the usefulness of reading. Let's suppose none of us had ever read a newspaper - would we be able to discuss world politics? I can't believe we could! The lingo used by hacks is full of esoteric phrases and words.

And our students have too little exposure to English-from-the-horse's mouth! When they hear it they bail out because "the teacher speaks too fast" or "I don't understand HIS English"...

There are a heap of other reasons as well.
Our students acquire English in a piece-meal, equate-each-item-to-a-mother tongue-item fashion. This 1:1 approach is not conducive to acquiring the ability to communicate effectively using their second tongue. It hamstrings them. They are overreliant on their L 1.

I have for years been advocating the teaching of literature and advanced reading/writing. My students, no matter how old they are, seldom have learnt the most fundamental bgasics in these disciplines. They certainly don't understand English on its own, through its own medium; they see the meaning of an English expression through their Chinese mind/eyes.

What they need is a firm grounding in English. They need to develop INTUITION, a feel for the language rather than their bookish, pseudo-academic understanding.

What I find IDIOTIC in China is the wide-spread assumption that speaking English to foreigners automatically leads to mastery of the language. English learners are indoctrinated into pitying themselves for not having "a chance to speak English" to enough native speakers, and that therefore their English skills can never be better than mediocre. Thus, morons like Li Yang have a monopoly on commercial English-speaking activities with his ridiculous claim that "if you speak LOUD and QUICK English you are speaking GOOD English".

[Deconstructor]

Roger,

I wholeheartedly agree with every word you've said. I have argued long and hard that the best way to learn English is to completely participate in it. We as teachers must help them develop strategies to cope with English and give up the idea that explaining is teaching, that if I quickly give a student a clear definition of a word, it will be efficient, that if I use L1 in class it is respecting the student's language and helping them learn better.

We must help students develop the intuition for language, which is not simply the sum of syntax, lexicon and grammar, but culture and a way of being in the world. Language is not as much learned as it is experienced; though we haven't figured out how to help students achieve this. Notice I did not use the word "teach" because I am not sure if it's possible; but we can create the environment and build strategies with this end in mind.

Again, Language is not as much learned as it is experienced.

[The G-stringed Avenger]

[Guy Courchesne]

I find this an interesting point of difference between cultures perhaps, and I can appreciate the greater difficulty one must have in teaching (or helping to learn, Decon) in China than here in Mexico.

In Mexico, and likely for Spanish-speakers everywhere, learners have an advantage in reading English given a similar language script. Here, there is always heavy emphasis in language institutes or speaking/listening practice or activities. This fits with my own experience in what students believe and indicate they want to learn.

Mexico's proximity to the US might make this a unique place to teach. Radio, movies, newspapers...a lot of English comes over the border in a constant stream. What students here don't get a chance to do is participat with it...to respond.

Decon, I'm not going to bring this back to the L1 in the Classroom debate, but here is a difference that stands out for where I teach.

[moonraven]

Sometimes what teachers label as idiocy, stupidity and lack of motivation is really lack of academic infrastructure.

Case in point: Here in Mexico I have heard endless and very tiresome whining from EFL teachers about how stupid and unmotivated the students they are teaching in universities (mind, PUBLIC universities) are. They blame the students for their lack of learning and poor test scores.

I find that attitude 100% reprehensible. Students who enter public universities here have never seen a complete academic year. Their teachers are frequently not in the classroom--in some states they are in the state capital camped out in tents in the main plaza striking for better wages and benefits. Don't get me wrong--teachers should be paid better.

However, their students enter university with holes in their preparation big enough to drive a Mack truck through. Something needs to be done about that--and this poster designed and taught a course this academic year called "Estrategias de Aprendizaje" in order to give incoming students the tools they need to succeed in their learning process. It was very successful (reduced attrition from 50% to 15%, was enthusiastically evaluated by the students, and I saw an ENORMOUS difference in them over the course of only 8 weeks).

Why not stop whining and blaming, figure out WHY students are not performing at the level they should be and DO something about it. Isn't that your job as an educator?

[once again]

On stopping blaming students and doing something about it, Moonraven, I could not agree more. There are plenty of stratagies out there to help, without resorting to nebulous pleas of "we must help them experience language, but we don't know how to do it". The teacher must take responsibility, and then work with/within the situation they are in.

[Deconstructor]