Korean Job Discussion Forums

[chaz47]

Which is most likely to benefit an adult Korean student, grammar or vocabulary? The majority are in their 50s and teachers so I think they probably have the grammatical groundwork of a native speaker in middle school... is this an overestimation?

If not then I feel the emphasis should not be on grammar, but on vocabulary. When I recall my own adolescence it was about this age that my vocabulary really started to take off. I have read accounts of studies that suggest similar learning styles are more appropriate for adult learners.

It shouldn't be purely lists of obscure words, but vocabulary in context... phrasebook/sitcom style infotainment? Maybe it would work for adults, the English vocabulary certainly isn't shrinking...

Thoughts or suggestions?

[Fredbob]

Do some research on the term False Beginners, even google it with ESL and Korea, there's a lot out there.

[Moldy Rutabaga]

I'm curious where you work. You have a very similar job to mine, which is teaching older teachers.

My trainees in their 40s and 50s have extensive knowledge of English grammar; they hardly need more. What you can offer them, I guess, depends on what subject area you've been asked to teach. If you have carte blanche, I would concentrate on two things:
- listening & pronunciation, because many of them are excellent at conjugating past perfect but are terrible at spontaneous conversation; lots of group activities to make them talk will help. You might even need to work on raw vocalization techniques.
- building vocabulary, especially slang and idiomatic expressions. I find my students good at academic English but poor at street language. I spent much of a class today convincing my older students that children no longer use 'whom' very much!
It sounds a little mean, but some of your students may be too old and set to speak clear English, and you might have to settle for at least increasing their confidence and their knowledge of casual speech.

Ken:>

[ella]

Yes, where are these jobs teaching adults, including other teachers?

[chaz47]

I work at a public school, the staff trains with me for 2 hours a week... formally. Informally they chat me up at any opportunity. At first they were shy because their speaking skills are quite low, but they're all pretty cool people now that they have loosened up a bit.

[susmin]

If you are going to teach any grammar, do it in the context of something else. For instance if you want to work on past tense, have them talk about their childhoods or something like that. Do not just do a bunch of grammar drills. I think your best bet is to have directed discussions about topics adults are interested in. From there you can focus on vocabulary and grammar.

[Atassi]

To the OP: Don't be offended, but I think your question is a little off track. I agree with susmin, but would take it further. Grammar is not something to "build a groundwork" in just for the sake of it. It needs to be taught as needed, either to the class in 5 min. mini lessons or to smaller groups or individuals. Wait for the "teachable moment", when communication breaks down, and address it accordingly. Your students will appreciate the help.

Regarding vocabulary, it is extremely important in the lower levels, and less so for higher level students. I would personally first observe and see what situations they might encounter, and how well-built their lexicons are for those situations. They will appreciate vocabulary that is first useful and interesting to them.

Through all of this, the focus needs to be on real language use. This can be through discussions, tasks, projects, games, and many other activities. And as teachers, we can just sit back and wait for that next "teachable moment" to happen. Good luck with the classes.

[Hank Scorpio]

If they actually want to obtain some fluency? Grammar, grammar, grammar, and more grammar.

Vocabulary without grammar is pidgin language, which is truthfully fairly useful, but is no substitute for actually learning a language. Particularly a bastardized language like English with wonky rules and exceptions to all those rules.

Remember that adults aren't ever going to become fluent in English. Their minds are set already, and even if they get quite good at English and even move to an English speaking country there will likely always be idiosyncratic elements to their speech for the rest of their lives. My grandfather emigrated to the US from Germany when he was 22, and even though he lived into his seventies he never rid himself of some quirks. By hammering grammar you can reduce a lot of those quirks, and with adults I've always felt that that's the most important thing you can impart.

Vocabulary is relatively trivial. Grammar is the most difficult concept of any language.

[gang ah jee]

[susmin]

If students study grammar they learn to memorize grammar rules, tenses, etc. Students need a context in which to practice speaking and the grammar will develop over time. While certainly it may be difficult to obtain fluency as adults, it is not impossible. Many have done it. Grammar without context is just a bunch of rules. Read some Krashen.

[Atassi]

Just for the record, research disagrees with just about everything Hank Scorpio said. My eyes also hurt when reading that post. "Grammar grammar grammar" approaches have been abandoned long ago. No extreme is correct, and my previous post illustrates the importance of grammar as needed.

Language is not grammar rules.

[Atassi]

Regarding adults acquiring languages, they are usually fully capable of perfecting their second language skills. Capable, but not willing or able . They may lack the motivation to do so, as they may become frustrated early or they may be comfortable with their current levels. Also, language learners often lack the proper strategies to deal with language learning, perpetuating the frustration. Again, a lot of what Scorpio said is misleading, or simply false.

[Moldy Rutabaga]

I agree that grammar is necessary to a beginner, but not if the OP is teaching teachers as she writes. I instruct teachers also and their grammar skills are advanced already. What they lack is street vocabulary-- jargon and idiomatic expressions -- and ability to speak clearly in on-the-spot conversation. Thus I give them lots of full-class and small-group activities where they share their opinions to decide an issue or discuss a topic. I discuss grammar topics when necessary, but I piggyback it onto the conversational topic; just saying, 'today we're filling in the blanks' on a grammar handout is awfully boring for adults who've already learned English like we used to learn Latin-- intricate knowledge of everything except how to speak it.

I work at a university in Gangnae. The teaching aspect of the job is fun, but instructors are not always treated much better than hogwan teachers. The grass is always greener..

Ken:>

[some waygug-in]

I used to think that all they needed was to sit down with a Side by Side book and go to it.

While, I agree that grammar is necessary, it should not be the focus of the lesson. Neither should vocabulary.

Both of the above should be related to context and meaningful communication. I suppose if you were teaching a writing class, you could put more emphasis on grammar, but certainly for a conversation class, worrying about grammar too much will be more of a hindrance than a help. You need to encourage your students to speak and not be afraid to make mistakes.

If a student ever asks you to be a grammar policeman, tell him or her to buy a set of Side by Side tapes and work with them at home. That will help far more than any kind of in class corrections.

Just my 200 won.

[Atassi]