Job Discussion Forums

[Larry Paradine]

In my neck of the woods (the Volga region of Central Russia) I've noticed a trend to extending the use of native Russian speakers in schools that split teaching activities between native English and Russian speakers. Five years ago, Russian teachers had exclusive control of "beginners" (i.e. students who even have to be taught the Latin alphabet), shared "elementary" groups with their native English speaker colleagues on a 50/50 basis (the understanding being that the Russian teacher was linguistically better equipped to explain difficult points of grammar and language structure) and were phased out altogether by the "Intermediate" stage. Now I have no part in teaching lower levels at all, and intermediate groups are shared on a 50/50 basis with Russian teachers . The "justification" is that students at intermediate level don't have enough confidence to handle lessons taught exclusively by a native English speaker, but I think this is a classic case of confusing cause and effect. What do other teachers think about this? ( By the way, what applies to Russia applies, ipso facto, to TEFL in any other country of the world).

[moot point]

I think the L1 teachers play important role in TEFL. Especially, since these L1 teachers have already gone through the frustrations and hardships of acquiring a L2. They know the difficulties, or common mistakes, as they've made the same at some point in their learning. I don't necessarily think it is a matter of having them deal with beginner students only, however. They could bring equally informed ideas to higher level classes.

Similarly, I don't think it's necessarily a wise move to not put beginner students with a native English speaking teacher. Perhaps those non-Russian speaking teachers would have difficulties explaining English grammar, but on the other hand the experience itself would teach those beginning students basic communication strategies. A well-prepared teacher could steer their course in that direction discreetly and more efficiently in order for the students to obtain survival language, basic ways of maintaining discourse through limited use of vocab/grammar, and techniques of convergence.

[ls650]

I suspect it's simply a matter of economics: foreign teachers are much more expensive to hire for a variety of reasons.

How's the local economy doing - improving or declining? That might be your answer right there.

[Jyulee]

On the one hand I can understand students wanting (needing?) native speakers of their own language at lower levels - I found it useful when I was starting out learning Spanish to discuss things in English sometimes. This is no substitute for practice - rather I found it a useful complement.

In terms of having Russian teachers only at lower levels, I don�t think the issue is "them being Russian" per se, rather it is "how do they teach?". If all they do is simply lecture in Russian about the English language, then, no, it�s not very helpful. But if they are leading student-focused communicative classes where students have ample chance to practice target language (while having the safety net of falling back to Russian should any serious problems arise), then fine - IMHO. In lower level classes here, should the need arise, I sometimes resort to Spanish to settle something quickly and easily.

Others are of the opinion that "L1 should never be used in the classroom", and I can see their point of view. But, to be honest, this contradicts my own experiences of learning languages - at lower levels at least. While L1 certainly shouldn�t be overdone, I don�t believe it should be demonised either.

[Deconstructor]

L1 must never be used in the classroom under any circumstances. If you're going to learn a foreign language, you must be immersed in it up to your eyeballs. The student must come to terms with the fact that there are many things that he/she can�t understand or use simply because they are not ready yet. It doesn�t matter how much L1 is used; no improvements can be achieved simply because the L1 is used.

Learning a foreign language is not a question of objectively understanding everything that is produced in the class by the teacher, nor is it about translating difficult grammatical points and vocab because very often there are no equivalents in the L1. And even when there are, and the student feels satisfied that they have understood the point, they are by no means ready to produce the new knowledge. Language is not like learning engineering; it is dynamic and demands time. It is not learned through a rational process but an intuitive one. Only the patient can master it. The rest will try to bulldoze their way through it and ultimately get stuck eternally in intermediate I.

The use of L1 is the perfect demonstration of bulldozing through language hoping that it will succumb to the student�s will. It never does. The harder one forces language into one�s brain through rational means, the faster that language moves away from the student.

Using L1 in the classroom in any capacity is nothing short of charlatanism and a clear demonstration of the utter incompetence of the teacher who clearly doesn�t have what it takes to get his/her point across in an effective manner and doesn�t understand what students ought to know and produce at a given level.

The students, on the other hand, who choose to learn another language by having their L1 as a frame of reference will find that their fluency and clarity is, and shall always remain, comparable to that of a severe stroke victim.

I have come across Russian �English teachers�. Their arrogance is legendary while their mastery of the English language is at best laughable and at worst subject to major study in understanding illnesses profoundly effecting the speech centers of the brain.

[ls650]

[Deconstructor]

[guest of Japan]

Deconstructor, you might be a bit dogmatic on this one. A lot will depend on the goals of the curriculum. I'm guessing you are in a situation where the students are expected to learn to use English. In Japanese high schools the students are expected to learn about English. This means that the content they are supposed to learn about is far beyond their ability. To follow an unachievable curriculum the teachers must rely on the L1 in order to expose the maximum number of student to the maximum quantity of English for testing purposes. The final goal of English learning at this level is to simply provide a measuring tool for university entrance. An IQ test would suffice just as well.

The teacher is the bottom player in the education game. They still have to teach no matter how rotten the system is. Sometimes what you would consider to be ineffective teaching is the best way to be effective in an ineffective curriculum.

[Deconstructor]

Guest of Japan, I understand your points clearly and agree with you. You have a specific task in mind and are trying to achieve it. I wouldn't call what you describe taking place in Japan language learning. My point is: if you want to learn English, i.e. to be able to work and/or function effectively in an Anglophone country under any circumstances, then using L1 in the classroom is unacceptable.

[EnglishBrian]

[lumber Jack]

Nothing will ever come to any good in our profession until we realize that the best kind of class depends on the stage the learner is at. Personally, after long years, I have reached the stage where working with a native speaker in the target language from the get go would be the best thing - good habits from the kick off. I used to need the crutch of being able to revert into my native tongue.

In general, a local teacher doesn't have a chance to be as effective as the very best native speaker. So what. The most effective native teacher will drill you like a demon in phonetics before you do much else. Such sound and effective teaching will probably humiliate and scare off all the students. A local teacher who has an excruciating accent may be very popular.

[Deconstructor]

[SandyMcIvor]

[Deconstructor]

[dyak]

I agree with Decon, L1 must be put aside as much as possible if students are to progress beyond a half-arsed translation of their L1 when speaking English.

What is the point of hiring a native English speaker that uses L1 in the classroom? The point of having a native speaker standing there is that the students HAVE TO communicate in English, at least with him/her. Removing L1 use removes the crutch and creates the, 'I have to communicate in English, somehow, or I can't communicate at all', feeling. These are survival skills. Or at the very least it motivates the student to find out what to say in certain situations without relying on their L1; or what to say next time if they said nothing at all.