|
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 |
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:23 am Post subject: Teaching concepts without translation. |
 |
|
In another thread, someone (forgot who - sorry!) strongly advocated against the use of translating when teaching a foreign language. Teaching verbs and nouns are easy enough to teach without translation, but how do you express concepts, such as "sometimes", "love", "casual", etc.?
There was a time I tried to explain to one of my classes the concept "both", and they absolutely had no idea what I was talking about. After five minutes, I resorted to asking a Korean teacher to come in and explain. Let's use this as an example scenario.
The sentence we read was "Jack and Mary both have to paint the fence on Saturday." My question to them was, "Who has to paint the fence on Saturday?" To explain both, I wrote the two names on the board, drew circles around them, and connected them with a line. I said "both". There were other activities that only Jack or only Mary had to do, so I wrote these activites on the board and drew lines from each name to the respective activities they had to do alone. (The students understood "alone".) Then I drew lines from Jack and Mary's names to "paint the fence" and said, "Both Jack and Mary." The students didn't understand at all.
So how would you go about explaining this concept? Any other examples would be appreciated, as well.
Looking forward to some teaching/learning insight.
~Qinella |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:57 am Post subject: Re: Teaching concepts without translation. |
|
|
| Qinella wrote: |
In another thread, someone (forgot who - sorry!) strongly advocated against the use of translating when teaching a foreign language. Teaching verbs and nouns are easy enough to teach without translation, but how do you express concepts, such as "sometimes", "love", "casual", etc.?
There was a time I tried to explain to one of my classes the concept "both", and they absolutely had no idea what I was talking about. After five minutes, I resorted to asking a Korean teacher to come in and explain.
Looking forward to some teaching/learning insight. |
Wasn't me who advocated abstinence, but I will do so here.
The academic literature on second language teaching gave up on using translation as a method a hundred years ago, according to Hewitt's A History of English Language Teaching. Empirical studies three decades ago backed up the belief that translation isn't very helpful in most cases.
It can still be helpful with advanced learners but is entirely unnecessary for teaching elementary school age kids, most of whom are beginners or intermediate users.
Those of us who have taken the CELTA course find it easy to demonstrate and check concepts because we had to do a lot of it during our course, and got to observe other students and professionals doing it as well.
How to express "sometimes"? By doing a quick lesson on the board: "always"= 100%. Put up an example. Then elicit from them "never"=0% ("I ___ drive my father's car" "Your teacher _____ kills the students", etc). From there use examples which are not always or never. Draw a continuum on the board with "always" at one end and "never" on the other end. Introduce "rarely" and "usually" too. All of these concepts hang together and should be taught together, and can take as little as ten minutes of your class, or fifteen to be thorough. It depends on the students' level. But any students who can understand "I _____ watch television after school" is ready for adverbs of frequency.
"Love" is very easy to teach. Act it out. Use cultural examples. Korean children know Romeo and Juliet. Then, when you think they've got it, concept check by asking "Do you love your mother?" (They'll say: Yes!) "Do you love homework?" (No!).
"Casual" is a low frequency word and shouldn't be taught to beginners. Maybe intermediate students if it's relevant to a story or as an extra bit. Start off by using examples of "formal". Hum the wedding march (which they know) and pretend to straighten a bow tie or carry a long train on a dress. When their attention is directed to the imaginary clothes then say in a mock voice "These clothes are formal." Afterwards, concept check by asking them what is a formal greeting: "How do you do?" or "How are you?" Then introduce "casual" by asking "Which is not formal, a tie or shorts?" (if they don't know what a tie or shorts are, they shouldn't be learning "casual" yet, because they'll just forget it.) Then say "A tie is formal, shorts are... casual" (and get them to guess the spelling, put it on the board as they are guessing - they love doing that). Then use other examples from the students own clothing. Point at an uniformed kid in the class or hallway and ask "Is his clothes formal or casual?" etc. It doesn't take long to do this once you get used to it. It's a high-octane part of a lesson and fun and energetic for everyone.
"Both" is definitely not for beginners, though I have known to use it and students just naturally pick up on it. "Do you want a candy OR a chocolate OR both?" Demonstrate with your hands as you offer one, then the other, then both. It takes most students all of five seconds to shout "Both!" and the slower ones follow suit. Do something like that (e.g., with pencil/erasers if you supply them), later, after a lesson about likes and dislikes, "Does Johnny like pizza or chicken or both?"
Don't explain concepts: use them! Demonstrate through examples, check through questions. If a concept is too high for their level then skip it and find a simpler way to make a necessary point. Then move on.
Once you get the hang of it it'll become second nature.
Above all,... smile like the struggle to reach understanding is enjoyable!  Or frown in anticipation and anxious effort, then, when they get it right, grin and cheer.
It really is a great part of language teaching, IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Concur with VanIslander.
One instructor once told me that if students don't work it out for themselves, and learn to grasp the concepts on their own (without us telling them what it "means" in their own language), then they won't internalize the material.
In short, they won't acquire the language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazylemongirl
Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Location: almost there...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
sometimes my students surprise me with their grasp of concepts. I call my students gentlemen which they think is very funny.
The other day I was handing out some markers and was holding on to a marker waiting for one kid to say 'thank you' and his neighbor turns to me and says 'teacher, jae ho is not a gentleman.' Gotta love em. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pegpig
Joined: 10 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Qinella wrote: |
| The sentence we read was "Jack and Mary both have to paint the fence on Saturday." |
I don't know what level they were, but it must have been a little difficult for them to figure why the "both" is in the sentence, since it's optional. Perhaps that was what was throwing them off. Perhaps they understood the 'both', but didn't understand the redundancy. I don't know how I would explain that except to say that it's optional.
Who has to paint the fence on Saturday?
Jack and Mary both have to paint the fence on Saturday.
Jack and Mary have to paint the fence on Saturday.
Both have to paint the fence on Saturday.
Perhaps if all 3 were shown to the students they could understand.
Personally, if I'm desperate after a few minutes of trying, I'll use translation. I'm not going to kill 20 minutes to explain something easily translatable, when I only have them for 1 hour once a week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pegpig wrote: |
| Qinella wrote: |
| The sentence we read was "Jack and Mary both have to paint the fence on Saturday." |
I don't know what level they were, but it must have been a little difficult for them to figure why the "both" is in the sentence, since it's optional. Perhaps that was what was throwing them off. Perhaps they understood the 'both', but didn't understand the redundancy. |
Perhaps they were confused by "have to", which can be difficult for students to remember even if they've had a lesson on it, because of alternative uses of "have".
One could use examples of "must" ("I want to play games but I must do my homework." "I have to do my homework because my mother says 'Do it'".
| Quote: |
| I don't know how I would explain that except to say that it's optional. |
A textbook mistake. Avoid explaining a lower level concept by citing a higher level one.
| Quote: |
Who has to paint the fence on Saturday?
Jack and Mary both have to paint the fence on Saturday.
Jack and Mary have to paint the fence on Saturday.
Both have to paint the fence on Saturday.
Perhaps if all 3 were shown to the students they could understand. |
Huh? It took me a long twenty seconds to understand why you put those three sentences together. Perhaps it'd be clearer by the method of delivery used (underlining and colouring on the board). But I dunno.
| Quote: |
| Personally, if I'm desperate after a few minutes of trying, I'll use translation. I'm not going to kill 20 minutes to explain something easily translatable, when I only have them for 1 hour once a week. |
That's your way, fine.
I say... Pick and choose your battles. If the concept isn't important skip it. If it's something they should already know, then take five minutes. It requires more effort than time on the teacher's part, after some practice: Demonstrate with drama and examples, check for meaning with questions.
If one has a class only once a week, then it helps to develop a narrowly-scoped strategy (This class needs pronunciation, that class needs more question/answer, and focus priorities accordingly, around whatever core lesson material is used). I have a lot of twice-a-week classes, allowing for real progress to be realized before long. I even go beyond the basics by taking a sec at the end of a class to jot down in a journal/day planner some of the most common mistakes a particular class makes, for future reference, along with the gist of the day's lesson to remind me later to take 30 seconds and do a follow-up question or two the next few classes (e.g.,if last week's class covered "love" and "have to", then this week I take a sec to ask the class "Do you love your grandmother?" "What food do you love?" "Do you have to clean the dishes after dinner?" "What do you have to do tonight?" Altogether, that's at most a minute or two of class, great at the beginning when they are settling down and one or two come late.). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Van, both posts were very helpful. I truly appreciate the quality advice.
You mentioned "have to", which is another concept. Almost all of my students know this because it's easy to remember have to = ~�� �Ѵ�. How did you go about teaching this concept to your students? Did you just use repeated examples, such as the end of your post ("After dinner I have to wash dishes", etc.), or did you have another method?
More importantly, where did you learn how to do this? Was it all in a CELTA course, or is there a book you can recommend?
Thanks,
Qinella |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Qinella wrote: |
| where did you learn how to do this? Was it all in a CELTA course, or is there a book you can recommend? |
Well, I majored in Philosophy, especially the mid-twentieth century British school of thought often termed "conceptual clarification" (Austin's How to do things with words, Ryle's Concepts of Mind, Wittgenstein's remarks on meaning as use) that believed that most philosophical puzzles and issues can be dissolved by attending to how language is really used, as opposed to our thoughts and theories about it. I don't recommend these writers for ESL teaching (except Austin for MATESOL students) but I believe they have helped make it easier for me to show meaning than try to explain it.
The CELTA course is alll about showing meaning: demonstrating it not explaining it. The role of the teacher is to facilitate the use of the language, setting the stage for the contexts of use, then letting the students do things with the language, to use the words in a given situation. For example, ordering food in a restaurant.
Start off asking the students what they like to eat in restaurants (ENGAGE stage - to captivate interest and diagnose their ability) then provide an actual ordering of food (INPUT stage - if you want them to verbally order food at the end of the lesson, then give them an aural example, if you want them to write out a dialogue of an order, then give them a written input text). Once they are familiarized with the input (ask them questions about it, have them listen or read again to find the answers, then concept check), highlight meaning (M) and form/grammar(F) and pronunciation (P) (the MFP or LANGUAGE stage), not by explaining it to them, but by showing them or having them tell you. This stage of the CELTA method is difficult for some, and is the reason why a high school science teacher of ten years had to drop out of the CELTA course, because he was repeatedly failing to avoid the blah-blah-blah of explanations. He said he was gonna take the course over, even he saw the value of the CELTA method if properly used. After the MFP stage, give them a narrowly-scoped task to do (the CONTROLLED PRACTICE stage) such as fill in the blanks, organize cue cards into a natural order, etc. The point here is to see if they can basically use the vocab and grammar before setting them free amongst each other for pair or group work, using the language amongst themselves to achieve a purpose (the OUTPUT stage), in this case having them act out the roles of waiter and customer while the teacher goes about from pair/group to pair/group listening for tips to give during the last stage (FEEDBACK).
All of this can be done in 30 minutes, as CELTA trained me to do, or 60 minutes, as we had to do for the fifth and sixth classes we had to teach. I prefer the 30 minute form, because it allows for all sorts of side trails to be pursued and extended examples or exercises.
With the CELTA method, the teacher is to facilitate not lecture, a difficult shift in focus for all of us used to the structure of most university classes.
It is just one way among many, but it is fruitful.
It's a method designed for large classes of adult students. One has to sometimes adapt it with younger ages, and just use the basic principles with the youngest students (demonstrating, elliciting and concept checking are universal skills), who need an alternative structure. (I'm taking the CELTYL, young learner's extension certificate course, in Thailand this October, to develop my skills further in this regard.)
| Qinella wrote: |
| You mentioned "have to", which is another concept. Almost all of my students know this because it's easy to remember have to = ~�� �Ѵ�. How did you go about teaching this concept to your students? Did you just use repeated examples, such as the end of your post ("After dinner I have to wash dishes", etc.), or did you have another method? |
I show a picture of a slave driver with a big whip. "Do the men want to pull the big rock?" "No," the students say. "Can they stop and go home?" "No," the students say. (I act out trying to leave and getting whipped, if needed). My students know the meaning of "choose" because I often make them choose between candy or stickers at the end of class. "Do the men choose to work there?" "No." "Then,... why do they do it?... Because they must do it. They have to do it, or ...(whipping motion gestured)" I put these two sentences on the board. Then ellicit from the students a list of things they "have to do". Students often come up with "Have to do my homework" and "have to go to school". Do you have to play computer games? "No" If they say yes, then I act out the slave driver, say as a command: "Play games" and they all laugh. I then give them a task to do: pair up and ask "What do you have to do" and write down "Sally has to _____" If it's a bright class (and some are) then I ask them to find something they don't have to do (some students have to go to bed early, but others don't have to. I give them choices if they need them (go to bed early, brush your teeth, clean the dishes, take care of baby sister or brother, go to the store, take out the garbage - listed on the board through elliciting from students, mime helps prompt them to recall the lexis/vocab action terms).
With intermediate-level students I do a lesson on the difference between "must" and have to" revolving around examples such as: "I must hurry and finish my homework soon so I can play outside" (I must, I think, I choose). "I have to do my homework because my mother wants me to do it." (I have to, she says).
IF ALL THIS SEEMS COMPLICATED AND OVERWHELMING TO YOU... that's normal, at first. But after doing it several times, it comes quite naturally. The CELTA course really helped me structure my habits and focus my efforts. I did some of it, piecemeal, before taking the course (I took the course six months ago after two years of teaching), but not as efficiently, and with bad habits I've now abandoned (like trying to spoon feed them myself on the board, blah-blah-blahing, explaining, using other concepts they don't understand or don't know how relates).
I can't think of one book offhand that would be most helpful to you with the aforementioned (it's four in the morning! I'm tired and my boss sojued me up!) but I recommend the CELTA course if you're planning to be a teacher of any stripe for more than the next year or so. It really is focused skills training.
Instead of a book right now, try practicing a few principles next week:
(1) "Ask before tell"
Ask questions to try to ellicit answers before telling the students anything. It engages the students more (side bonus: and when one student "gets it" then s/he can help others get it too).
(2a) "Show them what to know"
Use drama, mime, pictures, cultural references, whatever means to demonstrate.
(2b) Don't explain.
Avoid ever asking "What does it mean?" and ever saying "It means..." or any equivalent attempt. This is hard to do because it goes against the grain of habits developed in a learning context where a common language is shared. Second language learning, especially in the foreign context, just doesn't lend itself to explanation, just as it doesn't help much to use translation.
Instead of explanation, demonstration is better and questioning is good. Description can help if used as "hints".
Start with the first principle. It's easier to get the hang of than the second one.
G'night!
Last edited by VanIslander on Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:27 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bosintang
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Location: In the pot with the rest of the mutts
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have to agree with Van and Gopher here. Even if an argument can be made that translation can be useful, it's still not efficient for a native speaker to be doing this.
Keep your language tasks within the students grasp of concept. If the students don't understand the language tasks then simplify them.
For instance in this example:
Jack and Mary both have to paint the fence on Saturday
A student who doesn't have a conceptualisation of both or have to is not going to understand this sentence. Translating this sentence may make it seem like the children will understand it, but will it help them conceptualise Both Pete and Rob have to go to school tomorrow?
So let's say you decide that your students are not comfortable with the concept of have to.
Lets look at your other example:
After dinner I have to wash dishes
The first thing I would ask, is can your students comfortably conceptualise After dinner? Is it necessary or even useful? Or is this just adding an unnecessary complication? Maybe you would want to simplify it even further to just I have to wash dishes.
For ways of explaining have to, one way you can do it is to juxtapose it with want to. For example:
I want to play. <-> I have to study.
another way you can do it is to parallel it with must:
I have to study <-> I must study. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bosintang
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Location: In the pot with the rest of the mutts
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Qinella wrote: |
More importantly, where did you learn how to do this? Was it all in a CELTA course, or is there a book you can recommend?
Thanks,
Qinella |
VanIslander gives some good advice. I have no formal EFL training myself, but I reccomend the following books:
Teaching English to Children in Asia by David Paul - You see this book reccomended on Dave's a lot for good reason. It's very easy to read and it's useful if you're teaching young beginners. It's probably too child-centred for most people, but it's great for getting you thinking about how children learn.
Introduction to Linguistics (4th Edition?) - I don't have the book with me and I don't remember the authors or exact title, but it's a classic textbook in linguistics and available at Bandi's and Luni's at the COEX. It's very academic, but I don't think it's hard to read. It's a good introduction to linguistics and getting you thinking about what exactly language is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NearlyKorean
Joined: 15 Mar 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
One instructor once told me that if students don't work it out for themselves, and learn to grasp the concepts on their own (without us telling them what it "means" in their own language), then they won't internalize the material.
In short, they won't acquire the language.
|
Agreed.
I read a series of studies where they say it takes about 3 years longer to learn a language if you use the student's native language. The the quality and retention level isn't as good. Good news for the hakwon. Bad news if you want to really teach English in Korea.
Personally, I would rather spend the extra time, to try and teach them without using a translation. You also have to balanace that with when they are getting to frustrated to try and learn it. I would move on to something else. When they visit an English speaking country, they are not going to be able to use Korean for words they don't know.
NK.
Both JacK and Mary have to paint the fence.
Both = 2.
Jack + Mary = (Have to kiss?) No! That's right, paint the fence.
Jack and Mary have to paint the fence.
Both Jack and Mary have to clean my apartment. No? What do they both have to do? Paint the fence, that's right. Well who has to clean my apartment? My mom and my sister? Are you sure? They both do?
But my mom lives in the USA and I don't have a sister.
Okay Sit down and Speak English......Hak-joon, you can't really fly, close the window and sit down.
Homework: Write 10 sentances using both.
For example, Both My friend and I are crazy.
If you don't do the homework then BOTH you and your mom have to clean my apartment and I will tell your mom to make you clean my toliet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vanislander, I really don't have anything to say. You've given me a lot to think about, and I truly appreciate it. I spend a lot of time outside of work thinking about how I can improve, and your posts have opened up some new doors. Thanks again.
| bosintang wrote: |
Lets look at your other example:
After dinner I have to wash dishes
The first thing I would ask, is can your students comfortably conceptualise After dinner? Is it necessary or even useful? Or is this just adding an unnecessary complication? Maybe you would want to simplify it even further to just I have to wash dishes. |
This reminds me of how I taught my students "before" and "after" when I arrived at this hagwon. Most of the students didn't know, and I consider it essential language, so I taught all of them. The way I did it was by drawing a number on the board, such as 8. Then I'd ask, "What comes after eight?" Of course no one knew, so I drew a 9. Then asked what comes before 8? No one knew, so I drew a 7. What comes after 9? Draw a 10. What comes before 10? Circle the 9. And just like that, everyone understood from then on.
As I've learned more Korean, I've tended to rely more on direct translation, thinking that was what works better. Honestly, the logic set forth in this thread by those espousing non-translation teaching tactics makes a lot more sense. I'm most interested in the facilitator vs. teacher idea.
I've much to ponder....
Cheers,
Q |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| The CELTA course is alll about showing meaning: demonstrating it not explaining it. The role of the teacher is to facilitate the use of the language, setting the stage for the contexts of use, then letting the students do things with the language, to use the words in a given situation. |
I want to emphasize that VanIslander really hits the nail on the head here. This is a nice, short, and sweet description of how we should teach EFL.
Up to this point, this thread is refreshing. Nice to see that there are indeed first-rate EFL instructors here in Korea after all.
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hari seldon
Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Has anyone in this forum already taken the CELTYL? I'd be interested in hearing about how useful they found the course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stalinsdad
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
Location: Jeonju
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is not just one method of teaching!
There are many.
Demonstrating a word may be fashionable at present, but allows the student to be passive. (It can be a cop out and misleading)
A true teacher is one that is flexible, adaptive and uses situations to demonstrate a point. I use direct translation frequently as well as other methods because the process of "doing" is more effective than other techniques.
Sure continual translation will disengage the students but it shouldn't be dismissed because teachers want to be "popular."
Since I've arrived in Korea (I have a TEFL cert) also 2 years experience back home. I have been stupefied by the methods of non-educational methods used by Koreans and foreign students in an attempt to teach uninterested students. This appeasement to the average Korean Ajumma is sending Korean student back into the dark ages.
It's not surprising EFL is considered UNPROFESSIONAL back home. |
|
| 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
