Job Discussion Forums

[gaijinalways]

Ouch, that smarts.

Thanks for dropping by Mike. I have found your column at times interesting, but here maybe you have bit off more than you expected. You claim it's only an op-ed piece, but that doesn't preclude you from making points that you can back up with some evidence. The biggest obstacle you have run across is this statement about kids not conversing. I'm confused at best, if they don't communicate (and loudly at times), I don't know what they do.


JimDunlop2 posted

[mikeguest]

I thought I�d offer some more thoughts regarding the assertion made in my article that �children don�t have conversations� since it seems to be a major source of conflict (or, in some cases, outright disbelief).

I think we can all agree that at some age children do not have anything that we could reasonably call a conversation and that by a certain age, most normal people can. So, any discussion would probably admit there is at least an age cline on this issue. My son is 11 and we�ve been having what I�d call conversations only for a short time.

Obviously this will hinge a bit on what one means by conversation. So let me define myself by saying what conversations are NOT.

As mentioned in the article, exchanges of the instrumental type (�Where�s the remote control? Under the TV. Where? Under the TV!�) or basic social exchanges (�Thank you. You�re welcome� etc.) would not normally be called �conversations� by most. (This begs the initial poster's question as to why not teach these kinds of exchanges- which I plan to deal with later).

Service encounters (e.g., in a shop- clerk and customer) are not conversations, although they can evolve into conversations.

Interviews, like Grandma asking a series of questions to Johnny- with Johnny offering only answers, are not conversations although Grandma will be apt to say, �I had a nice conversation with Johnny today!�. But, to use a structurally parallel form, when questioned by the police you wouldn�t say that you had just had a �conversation� with them.

The use of a single gambit also does not constitute conversation, although I suspect that this is what teachers are referring to when they say that they teach conversation. Do corpora of children�s speech indicate a combination of gambits? Not that I know of.

Those of you familiar with conversation analysis will be knowledgeable about the various qualities that characterize L1 conversation (turn-taking, sequencing, TCUs, pragmatics, topic-selection and change, repair, features of face and politeness, the appropriate choice of gambits, plus those all-important features of extension and development. I think you�d probably agree that many of these demand higher-order cognitive and social interaction skills. Even where kids utilize one or two of these features (and they do!) in L1 it tends to be in a very limited and immature form- which shouldn�t surprise anyone- they�re kids after all!
(I�m sure that none of you actively teach �conversational analysis features� to your child students but many of the models, expectations, texts, formulas, targets, practices etc. do seem to assume them. After all, without them it wouldn�t be�well� conversation).

Finally, have you ever read a novel where children speak or have seen a movie where children have large parts? Doesn�t it often seem like they don�t really talk like children- that they seem to be utilizing some higher order socio-cognitive skills that real kids generally don�t exhibit? That it seems a little forced, artificial? This is because in such cases adults are projecting an adult view of conversation (or other complex social interactions) onto children. I think that some textbooks, activities, ESL approaches, and teacher-made classroom materials make the same mistake.

I welcome thoughtful comments on the above. Anyway, I�ll write a little more on some of the other controversial (or, IMO, misunderstood) parts of the article next.

Late note- I see that there have been some responses since my previous post. I�ll try to deal with some of the points raised soon. It�s a busy time of year and there are several points one could discuss�

Yoroshiku,
M.G.

[fluffyhamster]

I'm interested in 1) the way that children talk (~ naturally) to each other (this ranges from exchange to conversation, just like adult-adult talk does); 2) the way that adults talk to children (and vice-versa), and how this might differ from 1; 3) what kind of language is generally taught to kids and how (based upon an understanding, or not, as the case may be, of 1 and 2); and 4) what kind of language could be taught to kids, and how, and WHY (see below).

I wonder how far 3 diverges from 2 let alone 1, even with teachers who are aware of the differences - there is a temptation, indeed a tendency to treat kids either like miniature adults (e.g. by forcing them to never quite master a variety of actually quite formal/adult phrases: Sts: Nice to meet you (too)! T2+: I haven't even told you my name yet!; (later) T2+: How are you? Sts: How are you? T2+: Nooo! LOL), or as "children" too much (to the extent that the 'English' they learn is always defective in relation to at least its context of use, and perhaps in general too. See for example the 'Cucumber, please' skit that chirp mentioned on page 1, and note the omission there of the indefinite article (or ?the number 'one' - though the latter would be acceptable in a list of e.g. 1 cucumber, 2 melons and 6 apples, please). I'm not criticizing chirp, he sounds a good teacher, I'm just asking if the intricacies of ordering vegetables whilst shopping are approriate for these 'non-paying' customers, especially when there are easier and/or more valuable linguistic items to learn (and cries of 'Too difficult!' if one did indeed foolishly dare to do justice to the language by means of this area of 'vegetable(s LOL) shopping').

Generally I try to be pretty wide-eyed and child-like with kids, so that I am talking and relating on their level, and when I do reason more as an adult might with them, it's in order to explain, comment upon, highlight things (in ways that adults could feel were slightly patronizing i.e. about things that are obvious to adults at least...but actually, I never set out to patronize even kids, sometimes I maybe even talk to them like they are fellow adults - 5) (> 4)?)=adult-adult speech, which we all presumably know quite a bit more about than the other types I listed above). The main thing though is valuing what they say, especially when it's in English (perhaps the very English that you've taught them!).

[mikeguest]

I suppose I should write some justifications for a focus on reading over conversation in primary schools:
1. Domain- The private sector already specializes in conversation.
2. Difficulty- Reading is receptive, conversation is productive. It�s pretty much an established notion that productive skills and more difficult to teach and develop than receptive skills. You can take a poll of Japanese learners of English on this one if you like.
3. Complexity- Conversation utilizes speaking, listening, pronunciation, an interlocutor, some knowledge of social propriety, real-time responses and interactions. Reading (in normal cases) contains none of these complex variables.
5. General Utility- Which- conversation or reading skills- are Japanese people likely to utilize more frequently and widely (remember, this is EFL AND the age of the internet)
6. Fecundity- Which is more likely, that patterns encountered when reading can be adapted into productive (esp. conversation) skills? Or that conversation skills will somehow aid in reading? I think you�ll find that the research supports the former (although in ESL you can find research out there to back up almost anything)
7. Resources- Which, reading or conversation, is a Japanese teacher going to feel more comfortable with and to be able to contribute more accurately to?
8. Extra-classroom utility and reinforcement- This is EFL, not ESL. Conversation demands an interlocutor. Once the lesson ends where will it be used? Reading demands only a text. It can be studied alone, at home and according to the interests of the reader.

Of course virtually anything that one does regarding or related to English in a classroom could possibly have some positive effect, but questions of priority and utility are paramount. Listing bus parts could conceivably impact a learner in some way but the returns would clearly be limited.

Another thought- It is pretty widely believed now that there is no viable pedagogical grammar. So I find it curious that some would seem to argue that there is somehow a �conversation pedagogy�.

Anyway, indicating a preference for developing reading skills over conversation skills is fairly widespread among teachers, theorists, and casual observers, often because of some or many of the above reasons. Taking this position is hardly a shocking one at all. Many primary school teachers I have talked to have expressed such feelings, some certainly more ferociously than me, which was one of the buoys for writing the article. Some have expressed agreement on this thread too. A lot of what I said has pretty widespread support out there- if I thought it was truly of Swiftian proportions- in terms of willful absurdity- I wouldn�t be publishing it..

Sidebar to Jim D.-
I don�t set out to be unorthodox for unorthodoxy�s sake but, as I said earlier, I do try to take positions that do not just reinforce the standard conbini-style ESL and hopefully, generate some 2nd thoughts. If I can get pretentious for a moment (and you know that I will!), I want the articles to be the rhetorical equivalent of a tritone in music. It may somehow feel �wrong� at first but the more you listen to it, the more you may find that it �holds up� aurally than more �standard� musical forms.

And actually, I think a newspaper is precisely the place to do this. After all, it�s not a research paper- lacking evidence, as you say- so research journals would be inappropriate (although studying to what extent children actually exhibit qualities of conversation might well be a good research proposal). Newspaper readers will also know that such a piece is not reportage, but commentary. You�ll find that- especially in the supplements that the Yomiuri often include- frank, and opinionated, discussion columns of various relevant issues is a staple of the newspapers. And of course what you�ll also find here is not �evidence�, but rather �support�, which is more rhetorical and anecdotal. And that�s what the Yomiuri seems to want from me.

P.S. Everybody calls me Mike except my son, who will call me �gaijin� on occasion. Oh- and I did have one more credential but lost it in a poker game to David Nunan.

Yoroshiku,
M.G.

[mikeguest]

Hi "gaijinalways".

Regarding your post. I do make a (fairly large) distinction between conversation and communication. The former is a (fairly complex) subset of the latter.

Clearly children do communicate and I certainly do believe that L2 communication skills can be learned by children. But the notion of actively teaching discrete-item targets and presuming that this equals communication, and that the kids will somehow append these to some more holistic L2 system is something that I find problematic. I'll deal with this more in my next post.

Yoroshiku,
M.G.

[MrCAPiTUL]

Challenge kids - don't lower the bar.

Watch the movie Idiocracy if you ever get a moment. That movie has a very strong message.

[JimDunlop2]

Despite your latest response(s), Mike, my original challenges still stand. That is, if you care to address them. If not, that's fine -- where my responses to your op-ed piece will rest is just where I left them.

Anyway, seeing that we probably won't see eye to eye on the definition of a conversation, I still ask you the same question as in my last post: namely, what kind of reading can a person teach when the kids are exposed to L2 for 45 minutes once every two months, with NOTHING in between (due to equally unqualified teachers who cannot even review the simplest of materials with the kids)?

[Glenski]

MR. CAPITUL,
Your remarks are unworthy and undeserved here. If you have nothing productive to say, why post such lame comments? If you seemingly support Mike, why the puerile comments equating the rest of us to children?

Mike,
It's early morning and I don't know if I can respond to everything you've written. Still working on my first jolt of caffeine. I'll give it a try, though. You've written 2 fairly long posts, so it will take a moment to get through the info.

FIRST POST.

[gaijinalways]

Mike,

Thanks for your timely responses. More of the background of the thinking behind your oped column has emerged, and we realize due to space and time constraints that your column couldn't cover all aspects that you might have liked to examine in the article.

An issue I would like to raise is whether you think Internet skills or communication skills (we differ on the definition of conversation, we'll leave that point of contention for the moment) are going to be more useful. Your column hints at that you feel the average Japanese kid is unlikely to have a conversation with a non-Japanese speaking kid (or adult) and thus reading skills which can be used to navigate the Internet might be more useful. I think it would depend on the child and how often they travel. Also to consider, many of my university students don't possess good Internet searching/reading skills in Japanese, so I would guess that younger kids are even less likely to have such skills, especially in a second language.

As to whether conversation/communication is already taught in the numerous language schools, I don't know if that matters as many of these young kids are not taking lessons there (though that is slowly changing as English becomes to perceived as more essential by some parents). One factor is cost and another is time. I'm sure as a parent, you are well aware of the constraints that extracurricular activities place on the budget and a child's schedule.

As to whether conversation/communication skills can be taught using proposed discrete-item targets, this is debatable. Even for adults, it is at best a metod that will help learning, but still assumes that the students will probably need other exposure to more realistically framed communication/conversational patterns. But short of transporting these kids to an English boot camp or moving them abroad, given the time constraints given by Jim Dunlop, the kids will at least be given a head start toward conversing/communicating in English via these methods.

Of course, all skills based lessons wouldn't hurt either, but until the Japanese government decides to introduce English as a regular subject rather than as a requirement for an exam section, the amount of time to promote communication/conversational skills will be severely limited. Even teaching reading under these conditions is unlikely to produce good results without much parent participation and home instruction.

[MrCAPiTUL]

[Glenski]

[markle]

[gaijinalways]

Well Glenski beat me by a minute and docuemented his points a lot more than I did. Thanks Glenski, you have solidified our theoritical positions and I eagerly await Mike's response.

b]Mr Capital posted[/b]

[MrCAPiTUL]

Markle, I was a public school teacher in Florida for a few years (middle grades). I am thoroughly aware of the issues and challenges that exist in education. Honestly, I held the bar above their heads and made them reach for it. I would catch flack sometimes saying I was too hard on them, but come next school year students would come back from the high school and personally tell me that I was the only teacher who prepared them for highschool.


Glenski, no harm no foul.

I, too, apologize for not clearly explaining what I was referring to.

[Glenski]

Markle,
I agree with MR. CAPITUL in not lowering the bar in Japan. I also taught in high school (private) for 4 years. That school had an escalator system for kids to enter a sister university, but it only meant half of them went there. Those kids didn't even have to take an entrance exam! Did I take it easy on them? Nope. Please explain why anyone should.

I realize that Japanese schools have their quota system for grades (ie, a certain percentage of kids are supposed to get the equivalent of As, Bs, Cs, etc.), and I often had to juggle my grades to meet that quote, but did I lower the quality of my teaching to establish the grades in the first place? Heck no!