Job Discussion Forums

[Jbhughes]

What follows is a very long post regarding my own personal problems with teaching. In the past I have written many since posts, but never been brave enough to really open up and post them to Dave�s. Well, now I am going to. I understand if there are little responses, as I�m not the best writer and it is exceptionally long. I am thoroughly grateful to anyone who manages to put aside the time to read the whole thing, let alone post some advise.

-------

Last night I was watching my girlfriend play cards on the computer and she was saying the names of the cards in Spanish as she was playing. As I was watching, I tried to copy her and in turn tried to remember the Spanish names for the cards. Then I told her that I wanted her to say the Tagalog names for the cards in the next game. During this whole time we were both speaking a weird mix of Vietnamese, Tagalog, and English, as we usually do. Again, as she said the Tagalog words, I repeated and attempted to remember the Tagalog words. She was playing quite quickly and given the previous attempt at saying the Spanish words and us speaking some Vietnamese and Tagalog as well (and her often forgetting to say the Tagalog and �automatically� saying the Spanish), I was sufficiently removed from both my English (language) way of thinking and more importantly attempts at connecting the Tagalog words to the English to have a kind of semi-epiphany. I realised that the approach of not connecting the Tagalog words to the relevant English ones was going to take far longer than if we had simply have worked on learning the Tagalog words from the equivalent English ones. I mean this in a sense of �immediate understanding� or �immediate recall� I don�t know the correct linguistic or should it perhaps be psychological terms, but I mean this in the sense where one can quickly understand a term and recall its meaning without having to think for too long. I further realised however, that the intended purpose of learning the Tagalog words (numbers, in this case), which surely would be communication (and likely of the spoken, transactional type) would actually take longer if we had have decided to work with the English equivalents. What I am saying is that translating the words into my mother-tongue would certainly have brought about an understanding, but this understanding would be limited, and ultimately inhibited by the very English words that I�d have used to learn the Tagalog ones in the first place. My point is that I would always be imprisoned by the requirement to have to refer back to the English words before I could produce the Tagalog equivalents or indeed react to an utterance involving the Tagalog equivalents. I will concede that this imprisonment needn�t be permanent and that with enough practice, I would eventually forget the English equivalents and live in a new world where the Tagalog sounds for numbers registered in my mind as the actual numbers themselves, rather than the English equivalents, and that I would readily be able to produce them on demand, again without further recall. But this would take time. And I am convinced that this way of learning would take longer than the original way of learning where I attempt to connect the sounds, letters and self-utterance of the Tagalog words directly to their inherent concepts (in this case simple numbers, yet one can surely see the implications for more involved concepts), despite the fact that I wouldn�t necessarily understand and recall the numbers particularly very quickly at first. This however, wasn�t my epiphany. Even I, with my basic CELTA training and a little nous gained on the job, understand that learning a second language without constantly referring back to L1 will bring about better results in the long-run.

My epiphany was related to 90% of the learners that I teach, and what they believe and consider it means to learn a second or foreign language. Like I would imagine most people reading this (certainly at least the fellow Brits!), when I was in high-school, my idea of learning a new language was little more than simply the concept of being able to translate back and forth between L1 and L2. When we had French exchange students, none of us could communicate at all with them in French and almost all talking was done in English. We didn�t think much of this at the time, of course (my first kiss was a very French one ). I am certain that �my� learners are the same. In fact I am certain that if there is some way this attitude could be worse, then �theirs� is. �They� believe grammar is learnt to do exercises (and rarely ever produce the required in speech, or recognise for that matter), they ask each other the Vietnamese equivalents when they don�t understand, they record the English and Vietnamese words together in the notebooks and I am sure go home and do their best to remember the two together. And they are ruining the whole thing completely. Vietnamese isn�t like French or something where you might have a hope at finding an equivalence beyond simply isolated words (�enlightened� or not, I�m still a Brit and the reader will likely have to replace French with a language that actually is similar to English). SVO or not, Vietnamese is bloody miles away from English, not least phonetically, but in sentence structure, word-meaning, word-grammar (half the time Vietnamese barely seems to have parts of speech) and the list goes on. I am not saying the learners are at fault. These are not stupid people (although their education doesn�t necessarily make them particularly encourage critical thinking). They are not lazy people, either. But they are doing completely the wrong thing and ideologically teacher and student aren�t even in the same library, let alone page in the book.
Here are some examples from the classroom, that I believe bear out my point:

-Even at what I believe are my �best� points in teaching individual items of lexis, where the meaning is wholly clear, the sts demonstrate their understanding via both body language (nods etc) and by correctly answering concept checking questions (or an activity that replaces them), and subsequently they pronounce the word(s) correctly in drilling. But I know that the students are mentally �ticking-off� the word. Often they will actually murmur together in unison the Vietnamese equivalent when I am teaching the meaning. Now, don�t take it from me that I am some kind of amazing or very astute teacher, so for the sake of my argument, assume that the concepts I am teaching are as simple as the numbers I myself was learning above, let�s not make this about me (at least not yet, anyway).

-Sts tire quickly of practice (without it somehow being fun or without varying interaction-type frequently). In itself, of course we can look to my lesson plans and say I should provide differing activities etc etc. But again, my point here is with the learners. The reason that they are not prepared to continue extensively with practice is because in their head, they are thinking �I already know this, why can�t we continue with something else, so that I can learn more.� This thought can develop further into �Why doesn�t my teacher realise that I already know this? Is he stupid? Does he think I�m stupid? This is easy.� But they haven�t learnt it. When it comes to replicating real life tasks or another opportunity to use it in a fluency-based task, they will either not produce it (most likely) or produce it incorrectly. All they have achieved is what I wrote about earlier and called �immediate recall�. They haven�t achieved communicative fluency and don�t consider the building steps of getting there with it to be important, or don�t even understand the concept of converting this knowledge somehow into communicative fluency. They simply have ticked their mental box with �ah, I understand this word now.� Which in reality means �ah, I know the corresponding Vietnamese word now.�
When it comes to tasks where I create a scenario where learning without L1 is either required or preferential in completing the task, learners will actively resist. They simply don�t understand the point and consider it too hard and or unnecessarily so and want to go back to the mental box ticking which they consider to be language learning (again, please assume that the concepts I am teaching are easy enough as to even a lowly-teacher could convey the meaning relatively easily).

Furthermore, when I actually do translate words for sts (largely done for time management purposes, or to help under-achieving learners � I will admit done when I simply can�t think of a way of teaching a concept, but this is also related to a different kind of time-management), they are pleased. And I feel dirty. Often at these times the word(s) concerned are free and unadulterated. Out of all the words that I pre-teach or check or deal with as some kind of vocab set, it is often these words that get translated that are the most virginuous of them all, prior to translating that is. They rise up like a perfect bubble of soap in a washing bowl, fresh and clean, separate from the mire and dirt surrounding them. I feel like they should be nurtured and guided around the room, allowed to be examined carefully, by everyone, while we look at all angles together, sharing the experience, breathing and being, allowing the word to exist in its own right.
Translating just kills it. It�s worse than popping a bubble. It�s like stopping a still beating heart. It�s instantaneous death. Gone is the possibility of using this word again. Gone is the possibility of connecting this word up with all the others. Gone is the possibility of actually pronouncing this word correctly. All that is left is bleakness. And the students love it. They bath in their new-found knowledge, while I slump in my seat in self-loathing and disappointment.

So, I have characterised the problem. Sts think one thing and teacher thinks other. What of the solution, then? Well, I see three potential paths (and I have written a post about this, so am more than willing to consider other paths � or perhaps wayposts as to how to get on the following ones):

1. Teach better. Force the sts better into only using L2 in their learning and provide them with better support and more time during the �first stage� or building understanding without using L1 as back-up. Often I think the most successful ways of dealing with this in the past have been essentially building up a fa�ade. Distraction and trickery or simply just a damn game. I am not against games for language learning, far from it. I am just a little leery to resorting to a game to bridge this particular gap, somehow it seems cheap.

2. Learner-training. I am certain this is what my CELTA-trainer would�ve suggested. But how? Time is of the essence. Lecturing to the sts how learning in English is better than learning using L1 is better is something I have already done ad-infinitum. Sts seem to be aware of this fact somehow, yet they choose only to give it lip-service and never take it seriously. Like it is true in a perfect world, yet out here it isn�t worth bothering with. Encouraging, cajoling, badgering, coaxing, and playing around with sts to get them not to speak L1 only has some effect.

3. Accept. What was all that about focusing on the learner we often hear about? These learners believe this is what language learning is. This is what they expect, want and probably even pay for. Give it to them and they will be happy. A more positive spin on this would be attempting to go the long way round with sts. This is what I mentioned about above. We learn the L2 with the L1 equivalents first, then we practice, practice, practice, practice until most of the L1 has been wrung out and all that is left is the L1. Yet again, time is of the essence. Furthermore, sts switch off. They see this as a waste of time and I would have to resort to some kind of fa�ade again, ultimately games would be luring their colourful, yet daunting heads before long.

So, what is the answer with these type of learners? Perhaps the issue lies with my almost fascist standard point, and some flexibility would best. Perhaps they are right, my ideas of learning via L1 vs attaching the correct concepts to L2 are as poor as they are under-researched.

Please, anyone who has read this long, pitch in. I feel that I have found the root cause of many niggling problems in my classrooms, yet can�t quite see the door that leads to utopia from the door that sends me further into oblivion.

[Glenski]

1. Tell your students the class rules have changed. No L1 is allowed. Period. If they really want to use it, they must pay. Bargaining chips, fake money, whatever. The main point is to stop using any L1 in the class.

Then, make life easier for them by saying that as long as they can get their ideas across, perfect English grammar is not needed. Strive for it, but initially strive for pure communication.

2. Give them the drills and vocabulary to practice at home. Quiz them immediately upon starting the class. Anyone late? Zero score. Anyone forget to study? Suffer. You don't have time to practice drilling (unless it's pronunciation demo, or a review of something they obviously studied but got horrendously wrong). After the quiz, get to the in-class practicing, Q&A, whatever.

3. Yes, the main point is communication, whether grammar is good or bad, but students need to use language with a purpose. Give it to them. Real life situations as much as possible. This will be determined by who the students are and how they will be expected to use English. Give us some idea of your situation so we know. (For example, Japanese students have English for 6 years before entering university, but practically no oral practice in their last 2 years because study is all directed at passing tests and harping on grammar-translation word by word in sentences. Colleague of mine tells his uni kids on the first day of oral comm class that he does not review or teach grammar. They were taught enough. The school is a med school, so his oral comm classes give them vocabulary and situations to practice reading charts, taking patient information, dispensing meds, etc. like real doctors and nurses. How about your kids?

4. Hardest part for any language learner is to internalize the new language so that they DON'T pause to translate in both directions. It just HAS to happen early on. Try to give them enough time for this, but slowly over the course of the semester, cut it shorter. In Japan, kids know about 60% of the necessary most common words -- i.e., not enough -- plus a few uncommon ones. Be sure your kids get plenty of vocabulary and pronunciation and TEST THEM! My own kids tell me at the end of the semester that they prefer more vocab tests. Also, expose them to more listening. I bet your students don't have the best listening comprehension. Give them plenty of things to listen to, whether for tests (like TOEIC) or just general situations (what a store clerk might say, or a hotel front).

5. Vocabulary is an individual thing. I can't give kids enough vocabulary fairly. Some already know 90% of my list, while others know only 10% of it. So, aside from some specialized words from the teacher, students need to make their own vocab notebooks and STUDY THEM. Do spot checks or regular checks. Give them themes to put words together for the week (things and actions in a bank, while cooking, in a sport, etc.). Then pick a random number from each week's list and test each student on his own notebook. Personalized vocab testing. (My problem is having 150 students, but there's a way around the hassle.)

[Denim-Maniac]

Interesting post, and Im sure we have all debated this things in our staff rooms, or just whilst daydreaming. The key statement to me is teachers think one thing, students think another, and you could add to this that researchers and linguists probably think something else entirely different.

As Im about to start a DELTA, I have been reading a book called 'How Languages are Learned', as its part of the reading list. They investigate and analyse a number of methodologies in there, from the old to the new, and including theories by Krashen and the like. They look at each method, and find evidence which supports it, and then proceed to find evidence that debunks the theory too. So I kinda think, there isnt any one way. We can probably all find a student who has made remarkable progress by learning entirely in L2, but we can also probably find a student who has made progress through rote memory drills and grammar translation with teachers who only use L1 to teach L2. What's more, you might find two students in the same class who report success from wildly different language learning experiences. Its a 'chicken or the egg' scenario I think. I try not to think too much about it (although I know its impossible sometimes).

Ultimately, I think success in language learning is the responsibility of the learner and all I can ever hope to do is create an environment where people have opportunity to learn, create or plan activities where learning may take place, and vary said activities enough to include all learners, all learning styles, and all the methodologies I am aware of.

Maybe that's a cop out. Not sure. All I know is that in my recent employment in China, my two room-mates and I were all learning Chinese. One of us hated structure, grammar and study preferring the L2 only immersion. One was obsessed with characters and rote memorisation and had post it notes stuck all over his room with characters and words on. The other liked a balanced approach with graded materials and varied activities.

All I know is that all of us had crap Chinese. So our variety of methods and learning styles all ended up with the same results.