Korean Job Discussion Forums

[edwardcatflap]

I've been trying to convince my Korean teacher trainees of the usefulness of teaching English in English and many of them told me their native speaker co-teachers use Korean in the lessons all the time to try and bond with the kids. How widespread do you reckon this is? My opinion is that doing this is a double whammy. Giving the kids and the Korean teachers a bad example.

[tanklor1]

[edwardcatflap]

You don't have an opinion?

[sulperman]

Speaking it too much isn't good, but using a few words every class can be a major help. So what if 0.05 percent of my class is in Korean. Most Korean teachers' classes are, in my experience, conducted 99.5 percent in Korean. That, IMHO is a problem. Anybody who can't see the usefulness in a few words to clarify something has clearly never tried to learn another language themselves.

[shostahoosier]

[Chet Wautlands]

The use of L1 (in this case Korean) is fine with me, but like other posters have said it has to be used almost surgically.

If there is something that students simply aren't understanding through my English explanations, I'll say it once in Korean, then switch to English and have them repeat it. After that, if they say it in Korean, I make them say it in English.

There's this weird idea that students will pick up English better if they only hear English. It's not as simple as that.

I do hate it when a Korean co-teacher will translate everything I've said into Korean... that's not helping anyone.

[Unposter]

It really all depends on the level and the purpose or the goals of the class. Low level speakers generally to should have more L1 unless it is supposed to be an immersion or a "lab" class then the purpose is exposure and attempted interaction.

Generally, when you have a native speaker as a teacher, the purpose is to provide more input and more interaction in the target language. They are what I would call "lab" classes and L1 should be limited to non-used.

As students advance in the language, less and less L1 should be used even for gramatical explanations which should either be understood in the target language, have either been learned, or can be looked up in the L1 outside valuable class time.

I don't think KTs should have to teach exclusively in English, especially if the students are beginners and if they have a native-speaking co-teacher. But, I also don't think that KTs should teach exclusively in Korean either.

A KT should be able to teach in the target language and a KT should know when to teach in the target language and when not to.

I think if you are trying to teach your co-workers English or the value of teaching in English, you might want to start here. You might explain when it would be valuable to teach in English.

[nathanrutledge]

I study and learn all of the directions that I'm going to give and all of the key words of a lesson in Korean. There is zero benefit to spending 20 minutes explaining the rules in English over and over again a dozen different ways so that everyone understands them.

I give my instructions in English. I ask them how to say key words in Korean. This serves two purposes. If they can tell me the key words, I know that they understand the important points AND by writing the key words in Korean after they tell me, I'm showing them some effort to try and learn a difficult language too.

English in English is only good if you start small and build, but not knowing what they've learned before and how much they know, you're always having to start from scratch.

[edwardcatflap]

I've always aimed to teach kids (from beginner to advanced) entirely in L2 in every country I've worked in and have very rarely had to resort to their language. It used to happen before the internet sometimes when you tried to explain some difficult vocabulary item without being able to show a picture of it but hardly ever apart from that. I don't know what all these complicated activities you are trying to get them to do which require L1 mght be and I thought Korean teachers dealt with the grammar in lessons. However I know everyone has their own methods which work for them. I take on what sulperman says about learning a new language themselves - I needed some English when starting to learn Korean - but I think kids are different and much more at ease with the lack of complete comprehension. Look at the way young kids who don't speak each other's languages will quite happily play with each other for long periods when adults would get frustrated almost immediately and go their separate ways. I also agree with nathanrutledge says about starting from scratch - I guess the classes I've taught before I've always started with or inherited from someone using the same methodology. There is also the issue of class room management, which some people have alluded to, but I'd have thought if necessary, this was the KET's job.

My initial point was about teachers using L1 to bond with the kids, which I think is bad practice. Surely one of the main points of their presence in the classroom is to provide a genuine communication experience for the kids

[ESL Milk "Everyday]

[Weigookin74]

[ESL Milk "Everyday]

[nathanrutledge]

[Bloopity Bloop]

IMO, learning a language IN the language you're trying to learn sucks. I'd rather learn a language with the teacher doing most of the explaining in English. I learned 3 years of Japanese at the uni level in ONE summer taking a class primarily taught in English.

3 years of Spanish immersion classes in high school? Eh.

[The Cosmic Hum]