Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Real Reality]

English-Only Classes Not as Effective as Claimed

[ddeubel]

What a pile of BS.

I will state for all those journalistically dumbfounded....takes more than a few months to notice, know , of any results in L2 acquistion.

This is what gets my goat with so many "studies". They preport to note significant blablabla.......without noting the most worthy competitor or jestor -- TIME.

DD

[plokiju]

I think it all depends on the students level. Students with low to medium understanding won't gain as much as more advanced students. Lower level students probably just get frustrated. I know that for most my elementary hagwon students, it's a waste of time for everyone concerned. I at least get paid for it.

[ddeubel]

[susmin]

As a former teacher in Korea, and now as an ESL teacher in the states, I do have to say that use of the L1 as a means of clarifying and helping students connect the two languages can be very beneficial. That being said, you certainly want to keep use of the L1 to a minimum, so that it does not end up being a translation class.

[jajdude]

[Jizzo T. Clown]

Give me a beginner over an advanced student any day. It's true that the lower the student's level, the more evident progress becomes.

Advanced students think they know everything already...too many bad habits already in place. A beginner is a clean slate, and is a real opportunity to see your teaching doing some actual good!

In the case of these students, an English-only classroom is not only beneficial, it's necessary. The key is to grade your language and activities to the level and interests of your students.

[mnhnhyouh]

Are there any studies out there that address this properly? I mean randomly assigned students and teachers to the two treatments (L2 only and L1 and L2), with proper replication?

Or is everybody just making up "Just So Stories"?

h

[sadsac]

I don't understand the need for Koreans to want to learn complex elements before they have even a basic understanding. They seem to want to start at the top and work their way down. I agree with many, basic, low intermediate are far more enjoyable to work with from my teaching perspective than adults, advanced or returnee students.

[Yu_Bum_suk]

[some waygug-in]

This is a very complicated issue and I don't think there is an easy "one size fits all" answer.

I have found the use of L1 benificial at times, but it must not be over-used, as is so often done with K- teachers.

To be able to teach only in the L2, the teacher really has to know what they are doing, and I don't mean this as an offence to anyone. It's f***ing difficult to learn and difficult to teach when students can't understand anything.

You can't expect the average hagwan Joe to be able to pull off a successful "only English class" until they have either a lot of experience or some useful training or both. Even then, it's still not easy.

[bosintang]

I agree that not every class should only be in L2, but many of them should be, and in classes where L1 is used, it's better if it's use is limited.

Too many students want instant gratification. They want English to be a science where you can just plug in formulas and spit out an answer. If a Korean teacher explains in Korean that "trust" is a lower form of "confidence" , the students then think they "know" the answer, but it doesn't mean anything. There are far too many words in the English language to be explained in a manner like this. And the worst news for the learner looking for instant gratification is that not every English speaker -- native or not -- uses words in the exact same context.

[cubanlord]

Complete immersion into an L2 classroom is the best way for those whose LAD is still relatively active. In other words, children and early adolescents would bode well as they would acquire the language versus learn the language; acquiring language is the fastest way to achieve native like fluency.

In contrast, late adolescents and adults would fair better in a classroom where L1 was used for clarification purposes. At their stage, adults and adolescents, for the most part, learn a language versus their counterparts whom acquire a language. In this case, complete immersion would not make the theorized impact that many believe.

There is a common misconception that you can simply throw any student into a complete immersion program and they will learn. Sure, they will learn the extreme basics such as the imperatives, but only with TPR being employed as the method of choice. Even then, the language itself isn't learned, rather, the action associated with the sounds that were uttered by the instructor are learned. The basic morphemic components are not learned via this method as there is a stream of sounds which are combined and associated with the action.

L1 can be beneficial in an ESL/EFL classroom as long as the instructor does not resort to using it as a crutch. Furthermore, Instructors must be resilient enough to adapt and find new ways or even employ some already proven effective methods in teaching an L2 if they are to produce English speaking students.

[jaganath69]

Never mind the professional interests of Korean academics in keeping English out of the work environment, protecting their cushy status and crushing competition. I've heard similar bullcrap from so called 'educators' here that I am beginning to think there is a conspiracy.

[Alyallen]

Of course it's not as "effective." Students rely so much in the memorization-regurgitate style of learning that they often are dumbfounded by the idea that they can't just memorize things and be correct.

It surprises me that anyone really learns anything in this country sometimes....


It's all about the context and information available to the student. Students here and in other immersion programs wouldl have the same problems if the underlying issue isn't addressed. I think for Korean students the underlying issues is their overreliance on their short-term memory to guide them through the language learning process which won't work since in order to learn a language you really have to learn it. You have to internalize the language. You can't just fake it like they do with a lot of other subjects.

oh and if this was true, wouldn't this mean they are wasting tax payer money with English villages? Who would want to admit to that mistake?