Korean Job Discussion Forums

[moosehead]

I know there are some folks here who actually have advanced degrees in education and some liguistics pros so maybe you can chime in an opinion, please. I just have a humble science degree so am just wondering about something.

I was discussing language learning with a K teacher who teaches Mandarin and we were talking about how children learn languages (other than their own tho possibly it's the same for any language) and how they actually learn by making mistakes, working their way through to the correct structure, be it pronunciation, grammar, etc.

however, when one learns a subject such as math (which is the one that comes to mind, am not sure about other subjects) one needs to learn the correct method first before one can go forward. That is, one truly needs to master certain therories, functions, formulas, abstractions, etc. before one can go to the next level of mathematics; i.e., one does simply cannot do calculus until one has a strong fundamental grasp of algebra.

what exactly does this mean then? about how we learn language as opposed to something else? certainly we all can relate to learning the first few sentences of a foreign language and stumbling thru a greeting, or ordering in a restaurant, but one simply cannot stumble one's way through algebra and hope to understand calculus. one must master it first.

the same can be said for physics, and onwards to chemistry and then physical chemistry. these are subjects that must be learned through a cumulative process of mastering certain basic facts first, not by trial and error.

interestingly enough, tho, basic research may involve many instances of trial and error and upon analyzing results something maybe be learned. that's why it's called basic research.

yet when one is advancing one's knowledge learning a language it's almost as if it's just the opposite, one needs to make mistakes in order to learn the correct form, otherwise one won't progress.

comments?

[D.D.]

If people studied a bit about the brain teaching methods would be better.

Our society tends to favour certain characteristics of our brains over others.

The dominant pattern on the globe now is what people call left- brained or linear thought.

This type of thought is very dominant amongst males, but women have adapted it to be more competative in the work place.

All subjects should be taught both linearly and non-linearly, but the people that are linear tend to repress the non-linear people.

Our non-linear brain is actually more intellegent than the linear part.


Subjects like science and math are taught in a way that linear people do better.

The problem with most language courses is the left-brained linear people are trying to teach a very non-linear subject in a linear way.

for example: they gave our students a test this year and placed them in classes based on their test scores. I am doing a demo class with the top class but I can't get them to speak. The class that failed the test and are the lowest group talk a lot.

Based on that I can tell our school is teaching a linear approach to languages. It is a very sad thing that different types of thinking are not valued as being smart.


I am rambling now trying to fit 300 pages into one.

I will sum up by saying that people with a big Corpus Collosum are better at languages because both sides of the brain are needed to study languages. The Corpus thingy connect the two sides of the brain and is bigger in women.

It is too bad that with the billions that are spent on esl that the left brained idiots are still in charge of most of the tests and techniques.

If you want to become a very good esl teacher learn to think whole- brain thinking and pass the message on.

[Thiuda]

[ArizonaBill]

[D.D.]

The big difference is were speaking to relate real things. If we wanted an apple we learned to ask for an apple. They are learning the phrase " give me an apple" when there is no hunger and no apple.

Thats why memorizing as the predominant approach produces zombies who can't use the language to relate.

If we as teachers can get them to use the language to explain things from their own thoughts( right brain) then they could learn to relate to English people.

Koreans learn English but lose it because it is not related to anything in their daily lives.

They also get taught to use it as a left brained tool so the right brain deletes the files from it's hard drive.

If they were taught to study and use the language synapses would be set up that would work for life.


Very few teachers are actually teaching use of the language. The brain likes files that it can actually use not ones that are role plays of real scenarios.

If students could see the benefits in using the language there would be a huge change. Koreans are too proud of their culture and that blocks the use of the English language until it sinks in that there are benefits to using the second language.

Most of us still keep teaching the language in a way that it will not become useful.

[HapKi]

Until a language learner can internalize a grammar rule, there will be mistakes. Of course. The difference between math problems and speaking a L2 is that speaking is in constant motion. A student should not be applying a grammar rule mentally when his speaking partner is waiting for a response. Turn-taking demands a fast answer. A communicative method. like Long's Focus on Form works because any error correction that is given is done as part of a larger meaning based speaking activity.

Children understand this quite well. They learn their L1 without a set of grammatical rules, amd more importantly, most error correction given is on meaning, not form. Accuracy sorts itself out down the line through constant usage based on meaning. A UG or 'black box' or whatever is arguable.

[rationality]

[Thiuda]

[D.D.]

[ArizonaBill]

[Easter Clark]

[Mr. Pink]

[HapKi]

I certainly don't know it all, but I know that some here are taking an inatist, or structuralist view of language. I and others are taking a functional view.

[lifeinkorea]

It's interesting that math is being looked at as harder or possibly more advanced that language learning.

To me, language "learning" is not only getting down the rules of the language but also using them in a social construct. In normal everyday conversation, we can say the same thing to two different people and get two completely different results.

However, when we go into a store, all we have to do is plunk down some money and we are communicating in a common language. No speaking is necessary.

This is where we can "acquire" the language or not. By "acquire", I mean we can learn how to use a secondary method of communication compared to one which we are more familiar with. Do we do that with math?

[Thiuda]