Do Second Language Teachers ever succeed?

[JuanTwoThree]

I shall be off to the beach tomorrow for a fortnight but I'd not like to leave without more soul baring, whilst we're in this confessional mood.

What are you? Teacher seems to resonate so many things that I don't do: I'm not partly responsible for the wider role of the education of the students. I don't even work in the same place as where most of their education takes place . It might be different if I was working as a team with the kids' other teachers whereas I sometimes seem to be working against them. I 'm happier with the term when it comes to other adults though.

Maestro is one of the Spanish possibilities, master in English. But my mastery seems to be increasingly of English and not the teaching of it. Many of my schoolmasters were the same: experts in their field but not necessarily good communicators. Though actually I don't think I'm that bad.

What I have noticed is that like my my more experienced colleagues I 've begun not to ever have really bad classes. Those classes you crawl out of wondering how things could have gone any worse. The price of that is that the really brilliant classes don't happen either: consistency seems to have a price to pay in making not only the valleys but also the peaks disappear.

Language facilitator? very trendy but for many of my students I'm just the bloke who can do what they need to be able to do. In return they don't behave like "students" : as though they were 16 again when they are 26 , 36 or 46. And they have a clear idea of their needs and priorities and realistic expectations of what can be supplied.

It's just semantics in one way but in another it's a measure of what you expect of yourself. Perhaps the higher and more noble an idea you have of the dignity of your calling , the more disappointed you'll find yourself in the end . But if you think of yourself as the plumber who's come to fix a problem and by and large the problem gets fixed, then maybe it's better all round.

[LarryLatham]

Not a bad way to look at it. If we regard ourselves as a "resource" that students can access when they need to, and which perhaps also is foisted on them once or twice a week at the same hour each time, then perhaps we can feel better about ourselves. I always thought I was at my best when students asked questions--the more difficult, the better. Because I did spend literally thousands of hours preparing myself in the nuances of English, I always felt well prepared to answer questions in detail, or at least to get into detailed discussion about it. Maybe in the end there is no final resolution of the question, but after a great deal of (rather fascinating, to me at least) talk about it, much more is known by everyone (including me), even if not the "final word". That is why I believe teachers will be better off to study their subject than to study teaching methods. Many will argue with me there, but that is how I feel, and I am pretty strong in that belief. I myself have never encountered a graduate who's been there who thinks the College of Education is among the strongest departments at the university. For good reason, I think.

When you respond to a student's question, you and she are in quite a different relationship for the duration of the ensuing discussion than you are when you are "teaching", which is to say, lecturing or anything resembling that. She asked you. She initiated it. She called the focus. She holds the interest. And if you are skilled with your responses, guiding her with questions of your own suggesting a path of inquiry for her, she will gain a great deal from the encounter. In this way, maybe we teachers can truly help our students.

In the meantime, why not simply TWALT? Or whatever. Anything you can do to encourage them to approach you with questions will be a good 'method'.

Larry Latham

P.S. Have a wonderful time at the beach, J23! Be wary lest that incredible bikini you're eyeing there is one of your students on holiday!

[LarryLatham]

My efforts might have been appreciated by some, but appreciation isn't what gets you effective in a second language.

(you=the student)

You may be more wrong than you realize there, Larry...but not as wrong as those teachers who seem hellbent on making the lessons as lifeless as possible.

All I'm saying is, if the method (textbook and methodology) aren't getting it quite right, what's a teacher to do? Give up trying to improve things? Make no effort provide the students with things that they will surely appreciate (and which would therefore surely AID acquisition)?

I'm not much of a believer in warm fuzzies, fluffy, when it comes to evaluating how good the teacher is. I know it is widely used in language academies all over the world. Students submit a poll each school session, indicating their answers to badly worded and highly biased questions aimed at determining if the teacher is "good". But I'm sure you will agree, the results are just so much BS. Administrators, however, hold them over your head, and teachers (being human and in need of employment, like everyone) play to the students, especially around evaluation time.

Nevertheless, your question has merit. What is a teacher to do? Maybe JuanTwoThree has an idea just above here.

Larry Latham

[fluffyhamster]

I wasn't talking about assessments of the teacher, Larry, at least not as conducted by anyone other than the teachers themselves; that is, I was more talking about teachers examining themselves and deciding how involved or not they are with their classes (especially any "problem" ones!).

It's nice to think that the purely linguistic aspects of the class will win the students over, but assuming those things are taken care of satisfactorily in a halfway-decent syllabus, well, then the interpersonal factors, the final "twist" given to the presentation, will be what helps determine success relative to failure, I would think. Of course being very knowledgeable and "professional" are important, but as JTT says, there is the risk that the real experts are ultimately only us teachers (but in ESL, this isn't usually a real risk LOL) - we have to ensure that the realizations that we reach about the nature of language, both general and exact, do actually find their way into the texts and ultimately the very discourse of the classroom. This will obviously require no small amount of imagination and resourcefulness on the teacher's part during preparation, and in the actual moment-by-moment execution also. (I can feel the call of Dogme once again).

[woodcutter]

Joshua 2000 has said this kind of thing - the students must be king of the class (as if some of 'em wouldn't tear each other limb from limb!). And if teachers make no difference then I quite agree.

However, how strange an assertion that is. Why are other teachers not musing this way? Do history teachers blame themselves so when the bottom set get bad marks? Do maths teachers play logarithm hangman when the class don't grasp logarithms? Do computer teachers make a big fuss about giving being highly cyber-educated and giving correct programming info in one paragraph, and then claim that any old dozy performance at the front of the room is as good as the next in the following paragraph?

Of course what you do makes a significant difference. The problem is that there are motivation issues, and there are pure language issues, and there ain't no way to measure it.

[woodcutter]

I shouldn't miss my chance here though. Hopefully, we can all agree that when learning a language you need lengthy, frequent exposure to lots of comprehensible input, and things will go better if you make some effort, and study in a systematic way.

Who is responsible for putting students in classes where they are at a similar level, and can all get the right input? The institution where you work.

Who is responsible for the ethos of the students when they walk in the door, the ethos in all the other classrooms? The institution.

Who is responsible for engaging the students long term in a program of sensible study? The institution.

Unless you run your own school and see your students 3 hours a day, five days a week, for a long time, you are just a cog in the machine. You can do your little part well, or badly. You won't see many results from what you do. You will see many results from where you work.

[Miz]

Wow, it's been a while...

I'm really glad to be back and find the very same people I talked to in the past. Hello again Larry, lolwhites, revel! I don't think you remember me.

Hmm... I decided to post something here because I've been thinking a lot about this subject lately - much more than before. That is because I started to work at a regular school in February and I'm having a hard time getting used to it. These are dark times, lol... I have never felt so frequently unsatisfied with my efforts and the results I get. Oh, well...

I've thought of a lot of reasons for my frustration: not having enough time for the lessons, having too many kids in class... But the conclusion I've come to is that it's useless. So I just blame it on myself =P Gosh, I need motivation. I love being a teacher, really, but I'm in the middle of a HUGE existential conflict right now. I don't feel I'm making a difference!

OH, WELL!

I'm not helping here, either =P

I'll try to cheer up and come back later!

Good to see you again, anyway.

Regards,
Milena

[strider]

Hello everyone,

Thanks for an interesting discussion!

Larry wrote :

But now, I'm beginning to come to terms with the possibility that all my efforts, and sincerity, and even knowledge, were, for all those many years, mostly irrelevant. What counts...really counts...is the student, and little else does. Teachers may be entertaining, disciplined, witty, fun, great explainers, warm, friendly, knowledgeable, determined...all of that.

Well I think all teachers can relate to feelings like this from time to time.

However, why not look at this from a different angle? What I mean is this - What about our own experiences of learning another language? Perhaps we would have made progress on our own, especially if we live in the country where the language is spoken. In my experience, I've had good teachers, mediocre teachers and at least one that I will certainly avoid in the future. But I learned something from each of them. At the very least, paying for a teacher made me make an investment of my time and energy to get something useful out of the experience.

And who can really determine the motivation of our students? I once had a group of evening class students who made very little progress. Only towards the end of the training did I discover that about half of the group were learning English because they couldn't get into the class they wanted (photography, woodwork, etc). Although I was tearing my hair out to find ways to improve my lessons, they were actually getting what they wanted - an evening out of the house, meeting with other people the same age from the same community and learning a few words in English.

As to whether the teacher makes a difference or not, Larry, didn't you once relate your own experience of learning engineering - how the teacher's enthusiasm and knowledge of the subject made each lesson stimulating and worthwhile?

Let's face it, each lesson can't be perfect and we're all going to have successes and failures. But in the grand scheme of things, to be able to touch people's lives in a positive way, even briefly, even if only teach language - isn't that something to be proud of?

[Tara B]

At some point in their career every good teacher comes to this realization. I'd like to go back to lol's quote:

I think that realistically we can divide most groups into 3 sets: the motivated students who will learn no matter what you do, the ones who won't get it no matter what you do, and the (usually) large middle group to whom your efforts will make a difference.

I think he has the right idea. Unfortunately, my experience seems to indicate that although motivation is essential, aptitude for language plays just as important a role. Some of my saddest teaching experiences have to do with highly motivated, hard-studying students, who see little progress even after years of study. I have never had a success story with any student who started studying their first second language after age 40. Hopefully further experience will un-jade me. . .

But back to the original discussion, the practical effect of this realization is not to quit teaching, but that you should teach to the middle of the class. As a beginning teacher, I taught to the top 10%. Once I learned how to be more in tune with my students, it broke my heart to leave anyone behind, and I tried to teach to the bottom 10%. I see now the wisdom of teaching to the middle, the problem for me is learning how to do it.

I like to think of my class as a little garden and myself as the gardener. I can do things to help them grow, like water them, put fertilizer, clear out the weeds. . . All of those things are helpful, even necessary, but ultimately, a seed doesn't grow because of those things. It grows because it's a seed and that what seeds do. (If you fertilized and watered a rock, would a plant come out?) Does that make the gardener expendable? Not necessarily; a garden doesn't just materialize out of nothing. It just means that we are not the Source.

As teachers we can do things that help students learn; we can do things that hurt them, too. But I think it's a good thing once in a while to remember that a lot of the growth that happens in our class, we can't actually take credit for. Many students could learn just as much without us, and some of them are actually learning in spite of us. They learn because of who they are, not because of what we (try to) give them.

[joshua2004]

I have been reading John Dewey lately and I think he has given me a lot of insight into my purpose of teaching and how to make it all come together and be successful.

The question I want you to ask yourself is "what is your job?".

I'll tell you what I think.

We live in a world where we have to interact and "get along" with others. This means more than just not violating others rights, its a responsibility to help others and be part of a larger community, just like here on Dave's.

We need to shift our thinking that we are in the classroom to just teach English and realize that we serve to educate people how to function in society. We are not the only mechanism that does this and therefor we don't bear all the responsibility for all of our students' education. But, when you are in your class and someone isn't learning or is disruptive or is causing some sort of problem, you can remember that it is your job to solve it. Does that mean you are a miracle worker? no! But it gives you the right to impose an environment to make it happen.

If you have a classroom where students are not learning, what have you done to change the environment so that they do not leave your classroom benefiting in some way?

Institutions we work for will not give you the answer, as much as I wished they would. We ARE the professionals. We MUST have the solutions.

If students are left to their own devices, to learn, to be obedient, to initiate themselves into larger society, then what purpose are we serving? Furthermore it has been argued that students left to their own devices will not be able to successfully learn from the previous generation. We have the responsibility of not only teaching English, but leading our students into a larger community.

To this aim, Dewey says to choose and simplify the subject material so that it is understandable. He also cautions in not becoming removed from the original purpose of leading students into the real world by teaching material that is pure knowledge and serves no purpose other than appreciation of that knowledge, mental gymnastics.

If students aren't learning, then we MUST find out why and solve the problem. If not, society as we know it will not be able to continue. Dewey notes that education is a necessary part of society due the shear volume of knowledge that must be learned and knowledge that would not be learned by just living and working. Education is necessary.

I am not offended by the topic question. I realize that there is a solution to the problem of students not learning and we have the duty to continue to educate the young and old in the interest of society.

Thanks for this opportunity to share my opinion.

[woodcutter]

Lots of English teachers have this kind of messiah complex.

If you are teaching kids, you have some extra duties. If you are teaching business people, just teach English. As for becoming a fully rounded person, it may well be that you need to learn from them.

[LarryLatham]

Certainly are some ideas around here to get me thinking. A big welcome to Miz and Strider, from whom I haven't heard in a long while.

I am working my way through my original position again as a result of what some of you are saying. I don't think I ever intended to intimate that being a teacher was anything but a laudable career. And I think I'm beginning to realize that some of the things I said up front do not apply universally. I was thinking rather narrowly about my own experiences as a teacher of English to adults who are learning a second (or third) language. And I still suspect that it was the students themselves, and what skills, talents, motivations, and time they brought to the experience that made far and away the most difference in how much they developed their English as a result of that experience.

I also was thinking of my experiences in learning Chinese. (I don't claim fluency in the language, but I can get along in China or Taiwan, in the markets and getting directions from locals, etc.) I did take some classes, and think that my teachers were at least as good as most of the English teachers I've met in schools where I've taught. But 95% of what I know about Chinese, I can attribute to my own personal study rather than to my classes or my teachers. There was a time when I was highly motivated, and studied hard and long on my own. I believe what I know and can use about Chinese would not be much different regardless of who my teachers might have been or what they did in classes I attended. So I'm left to wonder if my students are any different, and guess they probably are not.

And yes, Strider, you are quite right about my thoughts regarding my favorite teacher, a Professor of Engineering who I loved not because of what he taught me about engineering, but because of his genuine enthusiam for engineering (not the fake kind of happy faces I've seen on some teachers, but a real personal fascination for his subject) which was so infectious, so motivating, that he got us (his students) to work our butts off and love doing that. He was very demanding, but working hard in that class (and writing all the outside papers) was so much fun. I believe he was the best kind of teacher because he built fires under us. We each did the rest on our own terms.

Larry Latham

[Londo Molari]

HA!

[revel]

Good afternoon all.

There have indeed been some interesting comments here and I'm afraid I might have lost track with the changing tides the discussion is riding in on. I might not know just what I am saying here.

What woody refers to as "this kind of messiah complex" sounds like the young-teaching-the-old syndrome I went through when dealing with my employers in New York City. It was also a part of my own personal training. I probably don't go through the majority of my classes thinking that I am contributing to World Peace, but as I mentioned earlier, I'm peeing in the ocean and don't mind.

I have a favourite teacher story too, and maybe it should be considered valid as in both my and Larry's cases, having had those teachers had an important influence on our own way of approaching teaching. I don't know quite how to interpret Londo's "HA", mostly because I've not paid much attention to his writing once I had read the TWALT articles. I learned what I wanted to from all of my teachers throughout all those years that I sat in classrooms. I teach my students to get what they can out of me and themselves, because I also worked outside of those classrooms like any of us here reading these words.

peace,
revel.

[woodcutter]

Ironically, here in Korea, very few language teachers can speak Korean, almost none are fluent. Yet there are lots of fluent Mormons about. That's because they have a special 2 year training school in the US. There are some fluent military translators too - they have the same kind of deal. Now, I'm not quite sure what happens in those magic schools, but hear tell that it is strict and systematic, and you can bet it is nothing like the "hey guys, like, what shall we study today" kind of thing that Joshua 2000 advocates.

These mormons are living proof that it IS possible to teach languages well. If you see no progress, then either you are expecting too much in a short time, or, (wake up and smell the coffee!) your methodology is not of the highest order. Now that may not be your fault. The school probably set up your class, the general system of advancement, chose the book, set the institutional ethos in the ads that attracted the students, and deals with complaints. You should realise though, schools with tame students who really need to learn are doing something else, something better.