the value of "free" talking
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Hello Roger and Rania,
I understand that both of you have the best of intentions, and are promoting practices which, on their surface, seem to be laudable. Perhaps you summed it up well, Roger, when you suggested that what the two of you are advising would not only improve their language skills but also help to ‘form their character’.
Call me old fashioned, but here’s how it looks to me. When we teachers come from a foreign country to teach English, that is what the local people expect from us. They do not expect us to build the character of our students. Nor do they expect us to make our students into public speakers. The situation may be particularly delicate in your case, Roger, since you are in Asia. Perhaps only one in thousands of students there will desire to become accomplished at public speaking, and likely that student will have sufficient character on her own accord so as to learn public speaking without the help of her English teacher. The odds in Germany may be different, Rania, but the principle is the same. We may have excellent intents when we set out to build our students’ character, but are we, as English teachers, qualified to do that? Even more to the point, are we perhaps aiming to make our students be more like ideals we hold high in our own particular societies?
One of the most intense dislikes I have for the ESL program in California, which I discovered when I came here to teach after several years teaching in Asia (Taiwan), is the obsession local teachers and administrators have with something they call by the dubious name, “content-based teaching”. (As if other ESL approaches had no content!) What they have decided is that adult students here need not only to learn English, but also to learn how to write a check, how to apply for social services, how to shop for groceries, how to mail a letter or a package at the post office, and other such perfectly reasonable-sounding skills. The problem is, as was crystal clear to me coming in as an outsider but entirely opaque to them, that teaching these skills has become the unstated primary objective of the system. They are out to build the character of ESL students in our schools, and are overlooking the original ESL intent. That the students do not learn to use English in the process (except by highly biased testing measures administrators design specifically for the purpose of ‘proving progress’ to legislators empowered with providing funding) has escaped them. That the students themselves may not share their ideals about what is good character has also escaped them.
If you genuinely believe that having students stand in front of their classmates to deliver an almost certainly memorized speech will advance their English language abilities or the listening abilities of their classmates, then I suppose you must proceed. But I remain skeptical. Making speeches is not the norm I think most students are aiming for. And you might ask yourself how many competent native English speakers are able speechmakers? Why do we think we need to build character? What are we really aiming to create? Are we biting off more than we’re qualified to teach? Will such methods subtly alter the objectives of our classes in ways we might not intend?
Larry Latham
I understand that both of you have the best of intentions, and are promoting practices which, on their surface, seem to be laudable. Perhaps you summed it up well, Roger, when you suggested that what the two of you are advising would not only improve their language skills but also help to ‘form their character’.
Call me old fashioned, but here’s how it looks to me. When we teachers come from a foreign country to teach English, that is what the local people expect from us. They do not expect us to build the character of our students. Nor do they expect us to make our students into public speakers. The situation may be particularly delicate in your case, Roger, since you are in Asia. Perhaps only one in thousands of students there will desire to become accomplished at public speaking, and likely that student will have sufficient character on her own accord so as to learn public speaking without the help of her English teacher. The odds in Germany may be different, Rania, but the principle is the same. We may have excellent intents when we set out to build our students’ character, but are we, as English teachers, qualified to do that? Even more to the point, are we perhaps aiming to make our students be more like ideals we hold high in our own particular societies?
One of the most intense dislikes I have for the ESL program in California, which I discovered when I came here to teach after several years teaching in Asia (Taiwan), is the obsession local teachers and administrators have with something they call by the dubious name, “content-based teaching”. (As if other ESL approaches had no content!) What they have decided is that adult students here need not only to learn English, but also to learn how to write a check, how to apply for social services, how to shop for groceries, how to mail a letter or a package at the post office, and other such perfectly reasonable-sounding skills. The problem is, as was crystal clear to me coming in as an outsider but entirely opaque to them, that teaching these skills has become the unstated primary objective of the system. They are out to build the character of ESL students in our schools, and are overlooking the original ESL intent. That the students do not learn to use English in the process (except by highly biased testing measures administrators design specifically for the purpose of ‘proving progress’ to legislators empowered with providing funding) has escaped them. That the students themselves may not share their ideals about what is good character has also escaped them.
If you genuinely believe that having students stand in front of their classmates to deliver an almost certainly memorized speech will advance their English language abilities or the listening abilities of their classmates, then I suppose you must proceed. But I remain skeptical. Making speeches is not the norm I think most students are aiming for. And you might ask yourself how many competent native English speakers are able speechmakers? Why do we think we need to build character? What are we really aiming to create? Are we biting off more than we’re qualified to teach? Will such methods subtly alter the objectives of our classes in ways we might not intend?
Larry Latham
Larry,
I always read your posts with great interest, and I can safely say you are very well-read and well-experienced, not to mention eloquent and articulate. I seldom find reason to disagree with you.
Now we are faced with a dilemma: on one hand, it's our job to enable our foreign students to use their knowledge of and skills in handling English. On the other hand, Rania and I are defending an approach that she and I have found to be more efficient, more rewarding for both the teacher and the student; yet there is this psychological or cultural stumbling-block that I think is PC.
For poltiical correctness, you are willing to sacrifice your students' right to excel?
Did I misunderstand you? Do you have other reasons why we should not ask our students to act like Westerners in a perfectly identical classroom situation???
Do you think it is overbearing on our part to ask them to do what their own teachers have not had the idea of asking them to do? But it is my view that our local colleagues need to learn from us how to teach more effectively. Our local colleagues are locked in a vicious cycle - we are Chinese and can never speak this language as native speakers do; therefore native English speakers must lower their expectations and adopt our teaching style.
You no doubt know, dear Larry, that a Chinese person's biggest enemy is his or her own illusions about themselves: not knowing what's wrong with their own English may save their face temporarily - as long as they are not in contact with a majority of English speakers; but this nurtures their inferiority complex, and reinforces the mediocrity of their education system!
It's a crippling effect. Most Chinese suffer through years upon years of a useless, dull, joyless school career, emerging with a numb mind and a memory bursting with useless facts and factoids, devoid of any interests safe for money, human automatons, fragile, mentally-habndicapped. Do you want to be accomplice in perpetuating this inhumane treatment of our charges here?
I have often heard Americans disagree with me over the use of oral English lessons. I am beginning to see why.
most Americans teach in East Asian countries, which began recruiting native English teachers after WWII. In the case of China, overseas-born English teachers began to be recruited 25 years ago - after Mao's death.
Maybe, maybe Americans are oversensitive? Maybe they want to be friends first of all with Chinese, and thus they feel constrained to be more accommodating?
But in my humble view, this is doing our learners a big disservice! It ill prepares them for socialising with people from the whole rest of the world. We often have to be too accommodating to the detriment of our students' abilities. Many a young learner finds that he has to invest horrendous amounts of his own savings to upgrade his English to the level that allows him to enrol at a Western university. The extra outlays many Chinese take upon themselves constitute a worrying amount of money.
I hold that if someone familiarises himself with a foreign language he cannot avoid being altered in his character to at least some degree: if you like a foreign language then you adopt it's spirit, and if you hate it, your hatred will come through it when you speak it with native speakers. Surely learning a second tongue is laying the foundation for becoming bicultural. A simultaneous interpreter, when speaking in one tongue, must not allow one culture to override the other. He must be at home in both of them.
If this is new to my American colleagues, then perhaps we have a major philosophical difference of opinion. It may explain why we have to accept so much mediocrity in the Far Eastern English teaching scene. But in assisting our East Asian English teachers in perpetrating this crime, we are equally guilty of harming the mental health of our students.
I always read your posts with great interest, and I can safely say you are very well-read and well-experienced, not to mention eloquent and articulate. I seldom find reason to disagree with you.
Now we are faced with a dilemma: on one hand, it's our job to enable our foreign students to use their knowledge of and skills in handling English. On the other hand, Rania and I are defending an approach that she and I have found to be more efficient, more rewarding for both the teacher and the student; yet there is this psychological or cultural stumbling-block that I think is PC.
For poltiical correctness, you are willing to sacrifice your students' right to excel?
Did I misunderstand you? Do you have other reasons why we should not ask our students to act like Westerners in a perfectly identical classroom situation???
Do you think it is overbearing on our part to ask them to do what their own teachers have not had the idea of asking them to do? But it is my view that our local colleagues need to learn from us how to teach more effectively. Our local colleagues are locked in a vicious cycle - we are Chinese and can never speak this language as native speakers do; therefore native English speakers must lower their expectations and adopt our teaching style.
You no doubt know, dear Larry, that a Chinese person's biggest enemy is his or her own illusions about themselves: not knowing what's wrong with their own English may save their face temporarily - as long as they are not in contact with a majority of English speakers; but this nurtures their inferiority complex, and reinforces the mediocrity of their education system!
It's a crippling effect. Most Chinese suffer through years upon years of a useless, dull, joyless school career, emerging with a numb mind and a memory bursting with useless facts and factoids, devoid of any interests safe for money, human automatons, fragile, mentally-habndicapped. Do you want to be accomplice in perpetuating this inhumane treatment of our charges here?
I have often heard Americans disagree with me over the use of oral English lessons. I am beginning to see why.
most Americans teach in East Asian countries, which began recruiting native English teachers after WWII. In the case of China, overseas-born English teachers began to be recruited 25 years ago - after Mao's death.
Maybe, maybe Americans are oversensitive? Maybe they want to be friends first of all with Chinese, and thus they feel constrained to be more accommodating?
But in my humble view, this is doing our learners a big disservice! It ill prepares them for socialising with people from the whole rest of the world. We often have to be too accommodating to the detriment of our students' abilities. Many a young learner finds that he has to invest horrendous amounts of his own savings to upgrade his English to the level that allows him to enrol at a Western university. The extra outlays many Chinese take upon themselves constitute a worrying amount of money.
I hold that if someone familiarises himself with a foreign language he cannot avoid being altered in his character to at least some degree: if you like a foreign language then you adopt it's spirit, and if you hate it, your hatred will come through it when you speak it with native speakers. Surely learning a second tongue is laying the foundation for becoming bicultural. A simultaneous interpreter, when speaking in one tongue, must not allow one culture to override the other. He must be at home in both of them.
If this is new to my American colleagues, then perhaps we have a major philosophical difference of opinion. It may explain why we have to accept so much mediocrity in the Far Eastern English teaching scene. But in assisting our East Asian English teachers in perpetrating this crime, we are equally guilty of harming the mental health of our students.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
It really is a pleasure to argue with you, Roger, since it appears we respect one another even when we disagree.
I believe you misunderstand my motives. I abhor political correctness. My political and social views are generally conservative, although I refuse to be held to any establishment, conservative or liberal.
My objections to your ideas about having students make speeches are strictly practical. I do not believe, as you (and perhaps Rania, and maybe a good many other teachers as well) apparently do, that these methods will lead to improvement in English skills. Even if a student manages to pull off a pretty good recitation, it is merely that. A recital is not the same thing as a conversation, which is surely more to the point for most students, whether they are Chinese or German or Brazilian. I did suggest that your situation in China may be particularly delicate because I know, as you do, that the thinking of your students and your Chinese teaching colleagues is radically different from your own. I do not doubt, personally, that your ideas about how best to teach language are superior to your colleagues', because yours are based to a greater extent on research and the scientific method of observation of results. Theirs, typically, are based much more significantly on tradition, and they can be blind to the inefficiencies of their methods. However, we must be careful not to say that their methods do not work. Their students clearly do learn, even if what they learn might be called into question, as you often do, for its relevance to modern requirements.
So, Roger, I guess what I'd like to see from you is an explanation of just how making talks in front of classmates works to further your student's language skills. Perhaps it does in some way that I simply don't understand. You and Rania seem to take it as an assumption, and I don't. Can you enlighten me?
Larry Latham
I believe you misunderstand my motives. I abhor political correctness. My political and social views are generally conservative, although I refuse to be held to any establishment, conservative or liberal.
My objections to your ideas about having students make speeches are strictly practical. I do not believe, as you (and perhaps Rania, and maybe a good many other teachers as well) apparently do, that these methods will lead to improvement in English skills. Even if a student manages to pull off a pretty good recitation, it is merely that. A recital is not the same thing as a conversation, which is surely more to the point for most students, whether they are Chinese or German or Brazilian. I did suggest that your situation in China may be particularly delicate because I know, as you do, that the thinking of your students and your Chinese teaching colleagues is radically different from your own. I do not doubt, personally, that your ideas about how best to teach language are superior to your colleagues', because yours are based to a greater extent on research and the scientific method of observation of results. Theirs, typically, are based much more significantly on tradition, and they can be blind to the inefficiencies of their methods. However, we must be careful not to say that their methods do not work. Their students clearly do learn, even if what they learn might be called into question, as you often do, for its relevance to modern requirements.
So, Roger, I guess what I'd like to see from you is an explanation of just how making talks in front of classmates works to further your student's language skills. Perhaps it does in some way that I simply don't understand. You and Rania seem to take it as an assumption, and I don't. Can you enlighten me?
Larry Latham
In my language learning career, I practiced ‘speaking’ with:
(a) Language Lab practice – sitting in a language lab with huge headphones on my head, repeating a text aloud into space (a text I didn’t understand, I might add)
(b) ‘Conversation’ classes about topics generally picked by the teacher: The Environment, Feminism, Racism etc. The same old topics in a variety of languages – highly exciting stuff (the first time round, anyway. After four years at uni with language study in three different languages ... snooze)
The ‘useful’ speaking practice came in spontaneous, interesting debates or class discussions. These often happened after a chance remark, sometimes they happened as part of the questioning or discussion that followed a talk or presentation prepared by classmates.
What you can learn from speaking aloud:
(1) On a really basic level: speaking aloud – where the goal was to be understood – helps your enunciation and pronunciation. Looking at the group you see whether what is being said is understood or not. As I said, a lot of people over here who learn English for business purposes need to hold a presentation or talk at some point in English.
(2) It helps you get used to the sound of your own voice in a foreign language. Has anyone out there ever noticed how odd your voice sounds when you speak a different language? It always took me a while to get used to my speaking voice in my L2, L3 (and L4!) – I used to make myself laugh at the beginning – it was a question of getting used to the way I sounded.
(3) It does help increase confidence – “If you can talk for five minutes in front of your classmates, you can talk in front of three examiners!” And most of my teenage students are prepare for university entrance exams, so they have to do oral exams and later colloquia in English – so, yes, it helps. At least, that’s what they tell me....
(4) It changes the pace of the language classroom – the students present and “teach”. It gives students with different capabilities the opportunity to display them. Some are enthusiastic about the opportunity to talk about their visuals, their realia. Others are interested in the fact-finding element and presenting their results. When a small group of students talks about their findings after project work, they generally are NOT reciting, they are presenting or talking or answering questions or feedback or comments.
(5) In terms of the ‘by products’ of such a class: learning to present a logical argument and counter argument is a skill needed by students in other disciplines, essay writing and comments (students preparing for school leaving exams,) and negotiation and meetings (English for Business Purposes.) The norms and linguistic features of same belong in a language classroom, if students need them.
I wonder if I may address my interpretation of your concern, Larry?
I wonder if you are thinking of ‘pure’ speech-making a la the House of Lords or Toastmasters? I could teach public speaking having competed in debates and public-speaking competitions for years – but I don’t, I teach English. What I do occasionally ask students to do, within the framework of project work or research, is to talk to their group and present their findings. It is not recitation, though students do have prompts or visuals to help them. I never ask an individual to speak for longer than 5-10 minutes… although more often than not I have problems getting them to shut up, especially when the subject is close to their – and their classmates’ – hearts.
My business English students specifically ask for practice in presentations and public speaking, so certainly in that area it is needed and I do offer it as an option.
It’s not something I do very often because I like to have students work together on something and present their findings – this requires time and organization (of students’ schedules, facilities etc.) However it is one of the famous ‘teaching tools’ – just because it may have fallen out of fashion, doesn’t mean that it cannot be used to achieve an end. And I believe it achieves its end.
(a) Language Lab practice – sitting in a language lab with huge headphones on my head, repeating a text aloud into space (a text I didn’t understand, I might add)
(b) ‘Conversation’ classes about topics generally picked by the teacher: The Environment, Feminism, Racism etc. The same old topics in a variety of languages – highly exciting stuff (the first time round, anyway. After four years at uni with language study in three different languages ... snooze)
The ‘useful’ speaking practice came in spontaneous, interesting debates or class discussions. These often happened after a chance remark, sometimes they happened as part of the questioning or discussion that followed a talk or presentation prepared by classmates.
What you can learn from speaking aloud:
(1) On a really basic level: speaking aloud – where the goal was to be understood – helps your enunciation and pronunciation. Looking at the group you see whether what is being said is understood or not. As I said, a lot of people over here who learn English for business purposes need to hold a presentation or talk at some point in English.
(2) It helps you get used to the sound of your own voice in a foreign language. Has anyone out there ever noticed how odd your voice sounds when you speak a different language? It always took me a while to get used to my speaking voice in my L2, L3 (and L4!) – I used to make myself laugh at the beginning – it was a question of getting used to the way I sounded.
(3) It does help increase confidence – “If you can talk for five minutes in front of your classmates, you can talk in front of three examiners!” And most of my teenage students are prepare for university entrance exams, so they have to do oral exams and later colloquia in English – so, yes, it helps. At least, that’s what they tell me....
(4) It changes the pace of the language classroom – the students present and “teach”. It gives students with different capabilities the opportunity to display them. Some are enthusiastic about the opportunity to talk about their visuals, their realia. Others are interested in the fact-finding element and presenting their results. When a small group of students talks about their findings after project work, they generally are NOT reciting, they are presenting or talking or answering questions or feedback or comments.
(5) In terms of the ‘by products’ of such a class: learning to present a logical argument and counter argument is a skill needed by students in other disciplines, essay writing and comments (students preparing for school leaving exams,) and negotiation and meetings (English for Business Purposes.) The norms and linguistic features of same belong in a language classroom, if students need them.
I wonder if I may address my interpretation of your concern, Larry?
I wonder if you are thinking of ‘pure’ speech-making a la the House of Lords or Toastmasters? I could teach public speaking having competed in debates and public-speaking competitions for years – but I don’t, I teach English. What I do occasionally ask students to do, within the framework of project work or research, is to talk to their group and present their findings. It is not recitation, though students do have prompts or visuals to help them. I never ask an individual to speak for longer than 5-10 minutes… although more often than not I have problems getting them to shut up, especially when the subject is close to their – and their classmates’ – hearts.
My business English students specifically ask for practice in presentations and public speaking, so certainly in that area it is needed and I do offer it as an option.
It’s not something I do very often because I like to have students work together on something and present their findings – this requires time and organization (of students’ schedules, facilities etc.) However it is one of the famous ‘teaching tools’ – just because it may have fallen out of fashion, doesn’t mean that it cannot be used to achieve an end. And I believe it achieves its end.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Hi there, Rania. It's nice to hear from you again. And as always, it's good to read your well thought-out ideas and explanations.
Your point about pronunciation practice is well taken, as is the one about getting used to your own voice making the sounds of a new language. There can be little doubt that at some point in the process of learning a new language, you have to start speaking it. And the more the better. That seems to be self evident. Questions do remain, however, about when in the process is the best time to start. And I have questions too about the type of speaking situation that will be most useful for learning the language. But I think few would argue seriously that students do not have to speak in L2.
Your business students and those who are preparing for oral exams in English represent an elite group. For those students in particular, the practices you have outlined appear to me to be not only appropriate, but probably necessary.
I'd also have to say that your point about pace changing in the classroom is legitimate. Teachers are always looking for something new to do (as are students
) and public speaking may offer some value there, at least for selected groups.
Yes, you are right, Rania. I am concerned about the specter of terrified basic English language students standing in front of their classmates, desperately trying to recall what they wrote down and tried to memorize until late last night, and just hoping that they don't make fools of themselves. Perhaps I misinterpreted what Roger and you were advocating. Perhaps not. It appears that some of your students have a reasonable and recognized (by themselves) need for not only English language, but also speech making training. I suspect Roger's students may not be in the same boat, however. We'll let him tell us.
It's always a pleasure to go toe to toe with you, Rania, even though I regularly get my ears boxed!
Larry Latham
Ahhh...I couldn't agree with you more! This is the stuff of really good and language-useful conversation. Not to mention just plain interesting for everyone...which in itself is valuable in the language classroom. Few things are more motivating than having a genuinely interesting class to go to (for both students and teachers!).The ‘useful’ speaking practice came in spontaneous, interesting debates or class discussions. These often happened after a chance remark, sometimes they happened as part of the questioning or discussion that followed a talk or presentation prepared by classmates
Your point about pronunciation practice is well taken, as is the one about getting used to your own voice making the sounds of a new language. There can be little doubt that at some point in the process of learning a new language, you have to start speaking it. And the more the better. That seems to be self evident. Questions do remain, however, about when in the process is the best time to start. And I have questions too about the type of speaking situation that will be most useful for learning the language. But I think few would argue seriously that students do not have to speak in L2.
Your business students and those who are preparing for oral exams in English represent an elite group. For those students in particular, the practices you have outlined appear to me to be not only appropriate, but probably necessary.
I'd also have to say that your point about pace changing in the classroom is legitimate. Teachers are always looking for something new to do (as are students
) and public speaking may offer some value there, at least for selected groups.Yes, you are right, Rania. I am concerned about the specter of terrified basic English language students standing in front of their classmates, desperately trying to recall what they wrote down and tried to memorize until late last night, and just hoping that they don't make fools of themselves. Perhaps I misinterpreted what Roger and you were advocating. Perhaps not. It appears that some of your students have a reasonable and recognized (by themselves) need for not only English language, but also speech making training. I suspect Roger's students may not be in the same boat, however. We'll let him tell us.
It's always a pleasure to go toe to toe with you, Rania, even though I regularly get my ears boxed!
Larry Latham
I don’t want to box Larry’s ears!
Actually, Larry, I really appreciate your comments. If this were a live discussion, we would clear up any misunderstanding immediately – sometimes what I say is unclear and it really helps me think about what I say when you pick me up on some of my points. And I appreciate your opinions – this forum is important to me because I work freelance and don’t have the opportunity to discuss what I do with other teachers, nor do I have a ‘mentor’ figure, so a lot of the time I’m clueless about what I’m doing… (Clueless in the sense that I have no sounding board for ideas or professional development.)
This brings me – in a convoluted fashion – back to the main point: the value of ‘free-speaking’ activities. As I said, I admire teachers who can successfully pull off such a lesson, who have students who actively participate and learn something from them. One concern I have about such lessons concerns a very small number of teachers, admittedly, but it touches upon an area you mentioned, Larry, namely a certain colonialist zeal, or the ‘inflicting’ of our value-judgments or culture on another. Obviously, just by being in a classroom we influence our students – the way I look, talk, dress, behave is clearly not German, so even without wanting to, my contact with students in some way influences them or their perception of my country, culture or English-speakers in general
What I do object to, however, are colleagues who feel the need to “educate” in students in ways they are not qualified to do so. For example, the teacher who decided to do a class on the Holocaust (I’m in Germany, so that’s obviously quite a sensitive topic over here) and wanted to, like, y’know, get people to open up and, like, share their thoughts and feelings on the Nazi regime. The fact that the class was a total disaster was a shock to my poor colleague, who could not understand that many older Germans (a) didn’t like discussing what they saw as ‘private’ opinions in a ‘public’ forum, (b) didn’t appreciate a young foreign teacher ‘patronizing’ them by making them ‘open up’ and (how I hate that word!) ‘share’, and (c) didn’t consider such a serious topic suitable in a ‘conversation’ class. In short, unless you know your students and your students’ culture and norms, it is best to keep certain subjects out of the classroom until you do – in my opinion, it’s our job to teach, not preach.
Of course, it is a cultural thing, but I know that, over here, when you get to know your students well, when a mutual trust has been built, people will open up and tell you all kinds of everything. But I think my job is to teach a language, not psychoanalyze or patronize or spread – as I may see it – my ‘superior’ value judgments. I might do it, though I hope not... but I have to accept I’m human. After all, I’m probably psychoanalyzing, patronizing AND spreading my value judgments here!
Sigh...
Sorry all...
Actually, Larry, I really appreciate your comments. If this were a live discussion, we would clear up any misunderstanding immediately – sometimes what I say is unclear and it really helps me think about what I say when you pick me up on some of my points. And I appreciate your opinions – this forum is important to me because I work freelance and don’t have the opportunity to discuss what I do with other teachers, nor do I have a ‘mentor’ figure, so a lot of the time I’m clueless about what I’m doing… (Clueless in the sense that I have no sounding board for ideas or professional development.)
This brings me – in a convoluted fashion – back to the main point: the value of ‘free-speaking’ activities. As I said, I admire teachers who can successfully pull off such a lesson, who have students who actively participate and learn something from them. One concern I have about such lessons concerns a very small number of teachers, admittedly, but it touches upon an area you mentioned, Larry, namely a certain colonialist zeal, or the ‘inflicting’ of our value-judgments or culture on another. Obviously, just by being in a classroom we influence our students – the way I look, talk, dress, behave is clearly not German, so even without wanting to, my contact with students in some way influences them or their perception of my country, culture or English-speakers in general
What I do object to, however, are colleagues who feel the need to “educate” in students in ways they are not qualified to do so. For example, the teacher who decided to do a class on the Holocaust (I’m in Germany, so that’s obviously quite a sensitive topic over here) and wanted to, like, y’know, get people to open up and, like, share their thoughts and feelings on the Nazi regime. The fact that the class was a total disaster was a shock to my poor colleague, who could not understand that many older Germans (a) didn’t like discussing what they saw as ‘private’ opinions in a ‘public’ forum, (b) didn’t appreciate a young foreign teacher ‘patronizing’ them by making them ‘open up’ and (how I hate that word!) ‘share’, and (c) didn’t consider such a serious topic suitable in a ‘conversation’ class. In short, unless you know your students and your students’ culture and norms, it is best to keep certain subjects out of the classroom until you do – in my opinion, it’s our job to teach, not preach.
Of course, it is a cultural thing, but I know that, over here, when you get to know your students well, when a mutual trust has been built, people will open up and tell you all kinds of everything. But I think my job is to teach a language, not psychoanalyze or patronize or spread – as I may see it – my ‘superior’ value judgments. I might do it, though I hope not... but I have to accept I’m human. After all, I’m probably psychoanalyzing, patronizing AND spreading my value judgments here!
Sigh...
Sorry all...
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
I fully agree, Rania. It recalls my ongoing feud with those who want to train their students...with those who equate training with education. I do not want to make students over by some ideal model I have in my mind. As much as possible, I want to help them do what they want to do. As you say however, Rania, I am only human, and so I'm sure I slip up regularly on this. But that is my goal.in my opinion, it’s our job to teach, not preach
(By the way, I have a great deal of trouble imagining you as "clueless" on any part of teaching English. Probably in any other area as well.
)Larry Latham
Thanks, Rania. you said so eloquently what was on my mind too; I won't rephrase your comments as there is hardly anything to add. Just that point about hearing one's own voice: It's a point I often try to raise with my Chinese charges. They complain about their horrible pronunciation, but since they never speak to each other except if you pair them up (I have learnt this while in China, but I am NOT satisfied with the outcomes this inevitably produces, including fossilisation, and the students' switching to their vernacular as soon as they perceive a chance to do this!).
If they want to learn to identify clean English then they must know how their own English sounds; therefore they need to listen to each other. However, their own teachers WON'T ever speak in English to them; and dialogues are never practised except in chorus, often with all students reading aloud both parts!
I even tell them to tape-record their own reading aloud practicing; as Rania said hearing your own voice in another language opens your mind! I have known that since an infamous radio programme in Germany in which I was being interviewed!
Now, Larry, you are right, of course, in observing that my students are not in the same boat as Rania's. That's true. I once opined they lack 'maturity'. Most English conversation lessons quickly veer off the topic. CHinese are very talkative, but I personally deplore their propensity to engage in mere chitchat. Even adults are inhibited in tackling serious issues - the political censorship is a contributing factor - and you have to accommodate their wishes for "easy" topics such as love and friendship.
And, as I pointed out in my first post, they don't know how to organise their thoughts in an orderly fashion. This often shows in their essays.
Now, do I have any success?
I think, considering the constraints under which I am working here, I do have some encouraging success. If I run adult classes, I make it a point to ask each and every one of participants to introduce themselves to their peers.
You should think anyone can do that, but in point of fact they usually struggle through their introduction, though they put on a brave face. After each spoke for a couple of minutes, I let the class decide whether the student had said enough about himself/herself. They usually pose further questions.
Sometimes, some student would give a long speech on their job, company or a current issue. But let's be frank: I wish I had more students capable of doing this.
Nevertheless, public speeches are the way forward, I am 200% convinced of this precisely because it's such a novel concept to Chinese!
Memorising their whole speech? If that's a problem, I reckon they learn to avoind memorising their speeches and become more spontaneous.
I don't see any difference between such speeches and students speaking to each other while in pairs rehearsing a preset dialogue!
If they want to learn to identify clean English then they must know how their own English sounds; therefore they need to listen to each other. However, their own teachers WON'T ever speak in English to them; and dialogues are never practised except in chorus, often with all students reading aloud both parts!
I even tell them to tape-record their own reading aloud practicing; as Rania said hearing your own voice in another language opens your mind! I have known that since an infamous radio programme in Germany in which I was being interviewed!
Now, Larry, you are right, of course, in observing that my students are not in the same boat as Rania's. That's true. I once opined they lack 'maturity'. Most English conversation lessons quickly veer off the topic. CHinese are very talkative, but I personally deplore their propensity to engage in mere chitchat. Even adults are inhibited in tackling serious issues - the political censorship is a contributing factor - and you have to accommodate their wishes for "easy" topics such as love and friendship.
And, as I pointed out in my first post, they don't know how to organise their thoughts in an orderly fashion. This often shows in their essays.
Now, do I have any success?
I think, considering the constraints under which I am working here, I do have some encouraging success. If I run adult classes, I make it a point to ask each and every one of participants to introduce themselves to their peers.
You should think anyone can do that, but in point of fact they usually struggle through their introduction, though they put on a brave face. After each spoke for a couple of minutes, I let the class decide whether the student had said enough about himself/herself. They usually pose further questions.
Sometimes, some student would give a long speech on their job, company or a current issue. But let's be frank: I wish I had more students capable of doing this.
Nevertheless, public speeches are the way forward, I am 200% convinced of this precisely because it's such a novel concept to Chinese!
Memorising their whole speech? If that's a problem, I reckon they learn to avoind memorising their speeches and become more spontaneous.
I don't see any difference between such speeches and students speaking to each other while in pairs rehearsing a preset dialogue!
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Nor do I, Roger. Reading, even reading aloud, preset dialogs has little to recommend it, but I'm afraid it's nearly a constant, a given, in English language classes across the world. Pretty much a waste of time.Nevertheless, public speeches are the way forward, I am 200% convinced of this precisely because it's such a novel concept to Chinese!
Memorising their whole speech? If that's a problem, I reckon they learn to avoind memorising their speeches and become more spontaneous.
I don't see any difference between such speeches and students speaking to each other while in pairs rehearsing a preset dialogue!
Roger, you are a knowledgable, experienced, and intelligent teacher, and if you really feel that public speeches are the way forward, then you should proceed with them. Perhaps you are right, and both you and Rania have pointed out some of the benefits that might ensue. But I remain dubious about their value for most students. Particular students who are preparing for oral exams in English, or for business careers in which they are likely to be required to make presentations need, of course, training in speech making. I should think, however, that those would be a distinct minority of the English student population as a whole.
I would be interested to hear from other teachers about their experiences with speechmaking as a teaching tool.
Larry Latham
-
serendipity
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:49 pm
- Location: Wiener Neustadt, Austria
I teach one "Free Talking" class here in Austria - to a very small class of students who've mostly just returned from a year as exchange students somewhere in the world - the US, Canada, Hong-Kong, Singapore and Australia, to be precise.
The class is actually a culture-awareness class, because the talk seems to go in this direction whenever they meet, simply because it's the one area where almost all of the students have some expert-knowledge that they wish to share. There is a real desire to communicate, and as English was the language of communication in the place where they were, none of the problems that you mention actually surfaces.
The ones who haven't been away, they just love the experience of talking about these things.
It's a very rewarding class, the way, I suppose, it was meant to be when the wise people invented the concept.
The class is actually a culture-awareness class, because the talk seems to go in this direction whenever they meet, simply because it's the one area where almost all of the students have some expert-knowledge that they wish to share. There is a real desire to communicate, and as English was the language of communication in the place where they were, none of the problems that you mention actually surfaces.
The ones who haven't been away, they just love the experience of talking about these things.
It's a very rewarding class, the way, I suppose, it was meant to be when the wise people invented the concept.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Yes indeed, Serendipity,
I believe you've identified exactly the type of class situation where 'free talking' is precisely what is needed. The class really just wants to come together and talk. Your function as teacher is, I suppose, merely to be an active participant and a ready resource in the relatively rare instances where help is desired. I expect all involved love the class.
Larry Latham
I believe you've identified exactly the type of class situation where 'free talking' is precisely what is needed. The class really just wants to come together and talk. Your function as teacher is, I suppose, merely to be an active participant and a ready resource in the relatively rare instances where help is desired. I expect all involved love the class.
Larry Latham
-
panjianhong
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:42 am
hi everyone,
i guess i am still learning the differences in the concepts of "private individual distance" between west and east, so if i seem to push you into an unpleasant situation,as in a public forum, to express things you may be not comfortable to in your culture, do forgive me.
yes, i agree that teaching language abroad firstly needs education qualification, more specificly, language qualification, as Larry has emphasized; and also that to "educate" students is a much bigger thing than what a good language teacher could possibly fullfill, in some way it could be an unpractical mirage lacking of humbleness in both west and east cultures.
however, putting the worries of having "colonial zeal" aside, are there anything "right" or "wrong" which could be agreed and shared internationally? i believe any culture should be respected equally, but is there anything wich might be wrong because it IS REALLY wrong, nomatter what culture it is from or what "colony" it is from?
is it possible that a language teacher, when faced with such confusions, try to explain their thoughts, by analyzing and discussing in a neutral position, other than in a "preaching" way?
i do believe a teacher from one culture and teaching in another culture does have more possibilties to be faced with these questions than teachers teaching in the same cultures as their own ones, meanwhile, unfortunately, they could often rise these questions in the process of language teaching! language teaching helps one to reveal those questions and in some way may answer part of the questions.
teachers are human too, yes, they are supposed to teach languages, but might also be interested in different things and different values, then they can learn as well as teach!
i do respect those very professinoal language teachers, and i like those of great curiosities as well.
i very much enjoy the way you all discussing things here in the forum, polite and direkt, so please object me if necessary , i won't mind any "preaching zeal".
i guess i am still learning the differences in the concepts of "private individual distance" between west and east, so if i seem to push you into an unpleasant situation,as in a public forum, to express things you may be not comfortable to in your culture, do forgive me.
yes, i agree that teaching language abroad firstly needs education qualification, more specificly, language qualification, as Larry has emphasized; and also that to "educate" students is a much bigger thing than what a good language teacher could possibly fullfill, in some way it could be an unpractical mirage lacking of humbleness in both west and east cultures.
however, putting the worries of having "colonial zeal" aside, are there anything "right" or "wrong" which could be agreed and shared internationally? i believe any culture should be respected equally, but is there anything wich might be wrong because it IS REALLY wrong, nomatter what culture it is from or what "colony" it is from?
is it possible that a language teacher, when faced with such confusions, try to explain their thoughts, by analyzing and discussing in a neutral position, other than in a "preaching" way?
i do believe a teacher from one culture and teaching in another culture does have more possibilties to be faced with these questions than teachers teaching in the same cultures as their own ones, meanwhile, unfortunately, they could often rise these questions in the process of language teaching! language teaching helps one to reveal those questions and in some way may answer part of the questions.
teachers are human too, yes, they are supposed to teach languages, but might also be interested in different things and different values, then they can learn as well as teach!
i do respect those very professinoal language teachers, and i like those of great curiosities as well.
i very much enjoy the way you all discussing things here in the forum, polite and direkt, so please object me if necessary , i won't mind any "preaching zeal".
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Hello again, panjianhong.
You are quite right in pointing out that language teachers are human, and have (or should have) personal interests and curiosities which may extend beyond the teaching of English (or whatever language). Moreover, students are also human, and have curiosities of their own. They may be particularly curious about the views of their "foreign" teacher in such areas as politics, social relationships, belief systems, legal and human rights, etc. Teachers who care about their students can hardly eschew participation in discussions of these things in a meaningful and sincerely passionate way without distancing themselves, indeed toxically rejecting reasonable relationships with their students.
But there is a fine line between meaningful participation in discussion and "preaching", as you so rightly put it, panjianhong. It is easy for a passionate holder of beliefs in certain political or social ideas to step over the line. This is, uncontroversially I think, not good, and teachers are correct to be on guard against their own possible desires to preach just because they have a captive audience, and they hold a position of authority with that audience.
However, you also asked a philosophical question, panjianhong, about whether anything can be right or wrong absolutely and without reference to any particular culture. I believe there are such absolute rights. For example, I believe it is wrong to murder for personal benefit, or to intentionally cause physical or emotional or mental suffering in another human being when there is an alternative behavior available. I'm not aware of any culture which would take exception to these notions, even though there are apparently individual people who do, since these afflictions do exist in the world. Again, however, a language teacher working in a cultural setting different from his own must exercise caution to properly distinguish clearly in his own mind what is universally right or wrong from his personal political or social ideas. Proselytizing, in my view, is not the proper business of a language teacher in a language class--even one who is working in a culture as a representative of a church or religious group. But then, now I'm preaching!
Larry Latham
You are quite right in pointing out that language teachers are human, and have (or should have) personal interests and curiosities which may extend beyond the teaching of English (or whatever language). Moreover, students are also human, and have curiosities of their own. They may be particularly curious about the views of their "foreign" teacher in such areas as politics, social relationships, belief systems, legal and human rights, etc. Teachers who care about their students can hardly eschew participation in discussions of these things in a meaningful and sincerely passionate way without distancing themselves, indeed toxically rejecting reasonable relationships with their students.
But there is a fine line between meaningful participation in discussion and "preaching", as you so rightly put it, panjianhong. It is easy for a passionate holder of beliefs in certain political or social ideas to step over the line. This is, uncontroversially I think, not good, and teachers are correct to be on guard against their own possible desires to preach just because they have a captive audience, and they hold a position of authority with that audience.
However, you also asked a philosophical question, panjianhong, about whether anything can be right or wrong absolutely and without reference to any particular culture. I believe there are such absolute rights. For example, I believe it is wrong to murder for personal benefit, or to intentionally cause physical or emotional or mental suffering in another human being when there is an alternative behavior available. I'm not aware of any culture which would take exception to these notions, even though there are apparently individual people who do, since these afflictions do exist in the world. Again, however, a language teacher working in a cultural setting different from his own must exercise caution to properly distinguish clearly in his own mind what is universally right or wrong from his personal political or social ideas. Proselytizing, in my view, is not the proper business of a language teacher in a language class--even one who is working in a culture as a representative of a church or religious group. But then, now I'm preaching!
Larry Latham
-
panjianhong
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:42 am
larry, as i've said, i don't mind your preaching at all.
let me explain some different ways of expressions in language based on the differences between east and west cultures.
1. in chinese culture, "heart" is the source of both feelings and intelligence, we have bunches of idioms to prove this, we also interpret "psychology" as " 心理学(xin li xue)" , meaning the knowledge of "heart" instead of "brain", as a westerner might hold.
2. " logic" is a word completely from the west culture. do chinese have logic? yes, our logic is "to feel", we feel instead of "think". just take a teaching material in any chinese primary schools, turn to any page of the book, you'll see "feelings" other than "logic thoughts"! take "essay homework" of any chinese pupils, you'll read feelings because nobody has taught them about the structures or organizing of almost anything.
3. therefore, chinese students are taught to say "we", where westerners might say "i"; they say "always"or "absolutely" where should have been "sometimes" or "perhaps" by logic.
4. this troditional way of thinking--or rather "feeling"---also reflects on many fields of this cultures, bringing about many problems in the culture.
is "logic" an international value even though it was not in our original culture? are we able to think logically?
i hold "yes" to both questions. i didn't mean focusing on the political or social problems in my english classroom, not at all, however, i can't avoid explaining the differences of two cultures in order to put them back to logic languages!
if there is a fine line between meaningful participation in language discussion and explaining something above language, i hold it as time, i mean i will limit it within certain length of time.
i've almost never proselytized anything, instead, i often ask students to object me in my class. Maybe that's another way to proselytize?
let me explain some different ways of expressions in language based on the differences between east and west cultures.
1. in chinese culture, "heart" is the source of both feelings and intelligence, we have bunches of idioms to prove this, we also interpret "psychology" as " 心理学(xin li xue)" , meaning the knowledge of "heart" instead of "brain", as a westerner might hold.
2. " logic" is a word completely from the west culture. do chinese have logic? yes, our logic is "to feel", we feel instead of "think". just take a teaching material in any chinese primary schools, turn to any page of the book, you'll see "feelings" other than "logic thoughts"! take "essay homework" of any chinese pupils, you'll read feelings because nobody has taught them about the structures or organizing of almost anything.
3. therefore, chinese students are taught to say "we", where westerners might say "i"; they say "always"or "absolutely" where should have been "sometimes" or "perhaps" by logic.
4. this troditional way of thinking--or rather "feeling"---also reflects on many fields of this cultures, bringing about many problems in the culture.
is "logic" an international value even though it was not in our original culture? are we able to think logically?
i hold "yes" to both questions. i didn't mean focusing on the political or social problems in my english classroom, not at all, however, i can't avoid explaining the differences of two cultures in order to put them back to logic languages!
if there is a fine line between meaningful participation in language discussion and explaining something above language, i hold it as time, i mean i will limit it within certain length of time.
i've almost never proselytized anything, instead, i often ask students to object me in my class. Maybe that's another way to proselytize?