|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| For a few months I met with a young Chinese lady who spoke neither Korean nor English to practice my Chinese. It was fine for practicing what I already knew, but largely ineffectual for making fast progress, and getting any of my questions answered in a satisfactory fashion was painful. If she had known English, it would have been so much more productive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. I think it can be reasonably established that people learn differently. If we accept the premise that nearly all of us are going to be teaching different learners, and likely simultaneously, we can arrive at a conclusion.
2. Given that that this classroom environment is the case, the rational thing to do would be to teach in your native language but have the capability to explain things one on one with any student who is confused and needs clarification. The students who learn more successfully in an "immersive" environment get that, and the students who need things explained get that as well. Knowing Korean has little chance of damaging the immersive student's learning experience, however NOT knowing Korean could SIGNIFICANTLY impact the student who needs explanations in their native language.
3. Thus, the logical conclusion is that knowing at least SOME Korean is beneficial for at least SOME of your students and for your classroom as a whole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
le-paul
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hate to keep repeating myself, but if complete imersion was effective, linguistic programmes (for example Rosetta Stone, Michel Thomas, Pimsleurs etc.), that have obviously been researched and refined, would teach the language without any instruction in your own language - and they dont.
Why is that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NinjaTeacher
Joined: 31 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| robbie_davies wrote: |
| What's Ninja teachers views on the ongoing discussion? |
Glad you asked 
As someone mentioned earlier, I made the video for prospective English teachers, who want to know:
A) Do you need to speak Korean to get a job?
B) Can you get by in Korea without speaking Korean?
So, in terms of NECESSITY, no you don't have to speak Korean. I'd say about 80% of teachers won't ever use Korean in the classroom.
What everyone is debating about in this thread is whether speaking Korean makes you a better teacher, or if you can even be effective at all without it.
As for that topic... I don't really feel strongly enough about it to get into a heated online debate about it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| le-paul wrote: |
I hate to keep repeating myself, but if complete imersion was effective, linguistic programmes (for example Rosetta Stone, Michel Thomas, Pimsleurs etc.), that have obviously been researched and refined, would teach the language without any instruction in your own language - and they dont.
Why is that? |
Well, although I'm on your side here, let's be 100% fair: Rosetta Stone is an effectively advertised yet fundamentally terrible piece of trash. No one should buy it, and no one should use it even if they can get it for free. It preaches, "Oh, you can learn naturally! Like a child!" but forgets that children take more than a decade of continuous exposure to even begin to grow competent with their language. Embracing the least efficient method of language acquisition possible and turning it into your primary focus is madness. Pimsleur's is a little better (because it includes some degree of explanation in English), but the actual amount you learn is incredibly tiny (each lesson is 30 minutes, but the actual amount of unique native audio in each lesson would be better measured in seconds), and it seems to be oriented around sex tourism. Whatever you think of a language teacher who refuses to explain grammar rules and cannot possibly answer any questions in the student's L1, they're still going to be better than these programs, because more or less anything is better than these programs.
I'll also mention one case where I think pure L2 actually works somewhat well: Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata. It's a great text for learning Latin. But, it only works because as English speakers we can intuit the meanings of a huge number of Latin words, which makes it feasible to use those words to illustrate the grammatical patterns right from the start and create a foundation upon which to build. You would have a much, much harder time doing the same thing with a language whose vocabulary was less familiar.
Last edited by Fox on Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I hate to keep repeating myself, but if complete imersion was effective, linguistic programmes (for example Rosetta Stone, Michel Thomas, Pimsleurs etc.), that have obviously been researched and refined, would teach the language without any instruction in your own language - and they dont.
Why is that?
|
Because there are lots of different theories about the most effective way of learning a language and different customers like different products. Because the language programs you mentioned are not designed for use in the class room.
In my experience adults above a certain level generally prefer their class room lessons with a teacher to be conducted in L2. I think 'complete immersion' is a misnomer as well, as in an EFL context they're coming to lessons a few times a week for quite a short period of time so it's hardly going to be stressful for them to leave their L1 behind at the door.
Complete immersion also sounds like the kind of scenario when a kid just gets thrown into a foreign speaking envrionment without any help. I think teaching English in English is a better description and a good teacher will be able to explain anything the students need to know in words they're already familiar with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| le-paul wrote: |
I hate to keep repeating myself, but if complete imersion was effective, linguistic programmes (for example Rosetta Stone, Michel Thomas, Pimsleurs etc.), that have obviously been researched and refined, would teach the language without any instruction in your own language - and they dont.
Why is that? |
Well, although I'm on your side here, let's be 100% fair: Rosetta Stone is an effectively advertised yet fundamentally terrible piece of trash. No one should buy it, and no one should use it even if they can get it for free. It preaches, "Oh, you can learn naturally! Like a child!" but forgets that children take more than a decade of continuous exposure to even begin to grow competent with their language. Embracing the least efficient method of language acquisition possible and turning it into your primary focus is madness. Pimsleur's is a little better (because it includes some degree of explanation in English), but the actual amount you learn is incredibly tiny (each lesson is 30 minutes, but the actual amount of unique native audio in each lesson would be better measured in seconds), and it seems to be oriented around sex tourism. Whatever you think of a language teacher who refuses to explain grammar rules and cannot possibly answer any questions in the student's L1, they're still going to be better than these programs, because more or less anything is better than these programs.
I'll also mention one case where I think pure L2 actually works somewhat well: Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata. It's a great text for learning Latin. But, it only works because as English speakers we can intuit the meanings of a huge number of Latin words, which makes it feasible to use those words to illustrate the grammatical patterns right from the start and create a foundation upon which to build. You would have a much, much harder time doing the same thing with a language whose vocabulary was less familiar. |
And especially so when the script is unfamiliar too. You could work around by introducing one letter at a time I suppose. Something like this:
Imash li? Ne, nyamam. Ima li? Ne, nyama. Иmam lи? Ne, nyamash.
For Korean I could see it working if you started with romanization, then changing the spacing of the letters before introducing hangul. Like this:
haksaeng (rest of sentence)
then later:
| Code: |
h a s ae (rest of sentence)
k ng |
Maybe do that for about two chapters.
How to explain the difference between 가 and 는 and things like that though would be pretty tough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| Quote: |
I hate to keep repeating myself, but if complete imersion was effective, linguistic programmes (for example Rosetta Stone, Michel Thomas, Pimsleurs etc.), that have obviously been researched and refined, would teach the language without any instruction in your own language - and they dont.
Why is that?
|
Because there are lots of different theories about the most effective way of learning a language and different customers like different products. Because the language programs you mentioned are not designed for use in the class room.
In my experience adults above a certain level generally prefer their class room lessons with a teacher to be conducted in L2. I think 'complete immersion' is a misnomer as well, as in an EFL context they're coming to lessons a few times a week for quite a short period of time so it's hardly going to be stressful for them to leave their L1 behind at the door. |
I've noticed a preference for that at around the intermediate level. Total beginners are afraid of immersion for the most part, and those that are highly proficient in a language seem to appreciate being explained the subtle differences between one word or another in their own language. A lot of people at this level are starting to get into translation (or have it forced on them at work) and are now beyond the "I want to be able to talk in English" level and are now at the "I need to translate and send off this email for my boss and don't want to make mistakes" level. That's why Fox prefers someone who can explain things in English from time to time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| those that are highly proficient in a language seem to appreciate being explained the subtle differences between one word or another in their own language. |
Do they? I've never come across that before. In practice 'advanced' students in Korea could always do with more fluency and listening practice and less complex grammar/vocab discussion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
How to explain the difference between 가 and 는 and things like that though would be pretty tough. |
Even with English explanations foreigners seem to have a hard time learning the subtleties of these particles. And that's a fairly simple and fundamental distinction when compared to some of the things which pop up later in the language. Trying to grasp the difference between ~한, ~하던, and ~했던 just from reading untranslated examples? Trying to puzzle out the subtle nuance between ~니 and ~니까 (or ~았으니, ~더니, ~았더니)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsk
Joined: 31 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
The most effective English teachers I met in Korea were fluent Korean speakers who spoke both English and Korean in the classroom.
If I were taking Korean classes, I would want a teacher who can speak English who can translate things on the fly. IMO, a teacher being able to speak fluent English and Korean and who is at least a competent teacher is more effective than an English-only doctorate or masters graduate in English or TESOL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| le-paul wrote: |
I hate to keep repeating myself, but if complete imersion was effective, linguistic programmes (for example Rosetta Stone, Michel Thomas, Pimsleurs etc.), that have obviously been researched and refined, would teach the language without any instruction in your own language - and they dont.
Why is that? |
Well, although I'm on your side here, let's be 100% fair: Rosetta Stone is an effectively advertised yet fundamentally terrible piece of trash. No one should buy it, and no one should use it even if they can get it for free. It preaches, "Oh, you can learn naturally! Like a child!" but forgets that children take more than a decade of continuous exposure to even begin to grow competent with their language. Embracing the least efficient method of language acquisition possible and turning it into your primary focus is madness. Pimsleur's is a little better (because it includes some degree of explanation in English), but the actual amount you learn is incredibly tiny (each lesson is 30 minutes, but the actual amount of unique native audio in each lesson would be better measured in seconds), and it seems to be oriented around sex tourism. Whatever you think of a language teacher who refuses to explain grammar rules and cannot possibly answer any questions in the student's L1, they're still going to be better than these programs, because more or less anything is better than these programs.
I'll also mention one case where I think pure L2 actually works somewhat well: Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata. It's a great text for learning Latin. But, it only works because as English speakers we can intuit the meanings of a huge number of Latin words, which makes it feasible to use those words to illustrate the grammatical patterns right from the start and create a foundation upon which to build. You would have a much, much harder time doing the same thing with a language whose vocabulary was less familiar. |
What is a good resource for learning Korean? And any other resources for any other languages out there? Lingua Latina sounds interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
What is a good resource for learning Korean? And any other resources for any other languages out there? Lingua Latina sounds interesting. |
Decent Korean Specific Resources:
1) The Integrated Korean series of textbooks.
2) Korean Reader for Chinese Characters.
2) 외국어로서의 한국어 문법 사전.
3) Korean Grammar Dictionary.
4) Naver Web Comics.
5) If you have a smart phone, the Doosan Dong-A Prime KOR/ENG dictionary (iTunes, Play Store).
5) If you have an Android phone specifically, the DioDict English/Korean Dictionary and it's companion application DioDict Pop, which allows you to look up any Korean word in any application just by touching it and copying it, without needing to leave the application, making using Korean news sites or reading Korean epubs on your phone very convenient.
General Language Resources:
1) Anki (SRS for vocabulary acquisition).
2) Lang-8 (writing practice).
3) Lingq (free reading and listening practice).
4) Live Mocha (for meeting language partners, not for its actual lessons).
5) The How To Learn Any Language Forum (many questions which a learner might have will already have been answered here).
6) Italki (if you want to actually work with a tutor, which I generally don't, but lots of people do). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeoulNate
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
Location: Hyehwa
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
How to explain the difference between 가 and 는 and things like that though would be pretty tough. |
Even with English explanations foreigners seem to have a hard time learning the subtleties of these particles. And that's a fairly simple and fundamental distinction when compared to some of the things which pop up later in the language. Trying to grasp the difference between ~한, ~하던, and ~했던 just from reading untranslated examples? Trying to puzzle out the subtle nuance between ~니 and ~니까 (or ~았으니, ~더니, ~았더니)? |
I wanted to address this point when you brought it up last week Fox but it slipped my mind.
Anyway, here goes: (btw this is LONG way off topic)
Hangul is not a language. At least it isn't something that would be defined as a language by the majority of modern day linguists out there. Korean is a language. Hangul is simply a simplified phonetic variation that attempts a close approximation to the original Hanja (for intended meaning only). Most (I can't say all as I am not fluent in all of the Hanja characters) of those same questions you asked can be answered with Hanja (or wouldn't come up in the first place).
Now I am by no means an expert on Hanja, I have just studied enough to get by on a few tests and for writing a few papers while I was doing my MAT, but this gap between Hangul and Hanja is one of the foremost reasons why the Korean language is a difficult language to learn and a difficult language from which to acquire an L2.
When a student (not child, natural acquisition has been proven a poor method for adults) in attempting to learn an L2 they will use the system of grammar that they have in their L1 to try and understand the new information in the L2. They will modify their interlanguage to incorporate new or different features of the L2 until their 'picture' of the L2 is complete. For Korean speakers (and learners) there is a HUGE gap here since the vast majority of Korean students study zero Korean grammar (needs to be studied in Hanja) and most Korean teachers (Koreans teaching Korean) have extreme (in my experience) difficulty explaining grammatical rules of Korean.
In a long loop back to the OP: English teachers here need to understand the above points and realize that they are going to be teaching grammar from the bottom up to Korean students. Whether or not you need to be fluent in Korean can be up for debate, but you do need to understand why the students are having difficulty.
EDIT: I suppose I should add (before someone brings up the same point): Yes, I am aware that Hanja is not really Korean either, Korean had no written form (as far as I know) before the influx of Buddhism when Hanja was adapted from Chinese. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SeoulNate wrote: |
Hangul is not a language. At least it isn't something that would be defined as a language by the majority of modern day linguists out there. Korean is a language. Hangul is simply a simplified phonetic variation that attempts a close approximation to the original Hanja (for intended meaning only). Most (I can't say all as I am not fluent in all of the Hanja characters) of those same questions you asked can be answered with Hanja (or wouldn't come up in the first place). |
Eh? The concern I was expressing was that it would be incredibly difficult to figure out the subtle grammatical distinctions between those points just through reading examples of their use. I don't see what that has to do with Hangeul in particular; it would be just as difficult for an English speaker to decipher the subtle differences between these particles in a listening context (probably harder, in fact). I do agree with you regarding the importance of grammatical education.
As far as Hangeul vs. Hanja goes (again, not really relevant to my point, but it's an interesting topic), historically the overwhelming majority of Hanja has been used to either write in a different language (Classical Chinese rather than actual Korean), or more recently, used in mixed-script, with nouns being written where applicable in Hanja, and morphology (like the particles I mentioned above) being written in Hangeul. An example of mixed script:
| Quote: |
前文
悠久한 歷史와 傳統에 빛나는 우리 大韓國民은 3·1 運動으로 建立된 大韓民國臨時政府의 法統과 不義에 抗拒한 4·19 民主理念을 繼承하고, 祖國의 民主改革과 平和的統一의 使命에 立脚하여 正義·人道와 同胞愛로써 民族의 團結을 鞏固히 하고, 모든 社會的弊習과 不義를 打破하며, 自律과 調和를 바탕으로 自由民主的基本秩序를 더욱 確固히 하여 政治·經濟·社會·文化의 모든 領域에 있어서 各人의 機會를 均等히 하고, 能力을 最高度로 發揮하게 하며, 自由와 權利에 따르는 責任과 義務를 完遂하게 하여, 안으로는 國民生活의 均等한 向上을 基하고 밖으로는 恒久的인 世界平和와 人類共榮에 이바지함으로써 우리들과 우리들의 子孫의 安全과 自由와 幸福을 永遠히 確保할 것을 다짐하면서 1948年 7月 12日에 制定되고 8次에 걸쳐 改正된 憲法을 이제 國會의 議決을 거쳐 國民投票에 依하여 改正한다.
1987年 10月 29日 |
Beautiful, right? There actually was a system called Idu through which Hanja were used in the past to phonetically depict Korean morphology, but it fell out of favor over time, and I've never had the pleasure of reading anything written in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
