Revel and I are probably sounding a bit two-faced here - we've given some advice, but now seem to be p*ss*ng on our own parade. But it isn't a paradox really - these trainees aren't veterans, so belle can "get away" with silliness and fun a lot more (and that activity I suggested could be a lot of fun and revealing in some ways)...I just hope things aren't too reductionist, simplistic or patronizing is all. Only belle will be in a position to judge how "thowaway" or "imponderable" to appear about the issues that are raised...
By way of anecdote (got your popcorn and revels ready, revel?
), on the CTEFLA teacher training course I completed, the topic of the day was going to be writing. We were all sitting there, wondering what kind of activities had been planned.
The trainer came in and simply said: "Have you got a piece of paper and a pen? Write down the following title:
'Writing is simply speech written down.' Now BEGIN! You have 40 minutes."
All the other trainess apart from me sighed, shifted in their seats and practically threw their pens down in exasperation if not disgust. Oh no! What a difficult topic to write about!! they were "thinking". Meanwhile, I was preparing to sketch out an essay outline, based upon my study of Chinese and connected reading of the works of John DeFrancis (do a search for his name here on Dave's to find out about his opinions, I've mentioned him before); I was probably also aware even then of the primacy of speech in linguistics, but to really write more than half an essay it would've helped for me to be aware of the work of Douglas Biber, perhaps Halliday etc (I didn't get into Corpus Linguistics until I had read some Lewis, after finishing the course).
Anyway, the trainer soon called time and said she was only joking about needing to write an essay - we could "see" what was involved in "writing", all, I recall, without the need to even
talk the topic through (perhaps the implication also was that speech=ESP, mind-reading etc).
I suppose you could say that in essence, the trainer had touched upon an issue or two, but without it being made explicit, I don't know if anyone went away with anything that day; I just feel that as the only one in the room who seemed to "know" anything, the trainer's approach raised more questions (to me) than it answered. All well and good, you might say, all a teacher can do is point to the moon, but there are important things such as academic references, acknowledging and providing sources (especially when time for reading/discussing/rehashing them is short)...and when a trainer doesn't provide them, it makes me start to wonder if they are actually coming from anywhere in particular at all. The end result is that nobody is helped, and a feeling of "bogus sophistication" fills the air.
How I wish that somebody had come in and gone through at least the kind of issues that I had in mind - you'd think that they could hire somebody capable of that, given that we were paying good money! Why do trainers skirt around the subjects so? It is patronizing at best...revealing of their ignorance at worst...
I take the attitude that you either know something, or you don't; admittedly, there are degrees of knowing and mastery, but there seems to be no excuse for deliberately excluding items on the grounds especially of "there won't be time" or "not important for
them to know this at this time". This kind of thinking really holds people back in their development and does nothing to help the profession's image. Before we can expect teachers to be better informed, maybe we need to get the trainers themselves to improve; I for one don't like to be kept waiting until I begin an MA to broach these subjects (and I bet that AGAIN, they are passed over too quickly or not mentioned at all, because by that point, it is probably assumed that we know enough about things or can find out for ourselves. Does anyone anywhere outside of academic publications provide helpful references?! Here indeed is a difference between writing - albeit academic - and speech, the latter of the vehemently anti-academic kind, it would seem
).
I told a great colleague who'd trained at International House (after teaching "unqualified" in China for over a year) about that training activity (I guess that Sinophiles have reasons aplenty for talking about writing systems!), and he seemed shocked; at IH, they'd been scribbling I-Love-You's and more at breakneck speed and running around the room in an attempt to make writing "match" speech's speed, or something like that. I was quite glad I'd trained elsewhere after hearing that (being the old unfit fogey that I now am, and perhaps always have been).
The two approaches had a lot in common, except that only one would've been in danger of turning into a wet T-shirt contest (I sweat a lot - and no, I DON'T have br*asts just yet, thank you!!
).
He passed with an 'A' grade, by the way...hmm I wonder why...maybe we soon get to a point where we don't need training (at least, not of the SINGLE type and "quality" that is on offer EVERYWHERE at this "level").
) to your class c*cktail, should you actually go ahead with using it. Hopefully you'll get a few more replies (and better ones at that) before your session is due, to give you more of a choice! I'll try to think of something else myself... 
(if you can remember that far back hahahahaha 
