The thing about the military is these guys are used to obeying orders:
A: Learn this language!
B: Sir, yes sir!
Likewise, the mormons will have a strong faith drive to motivate them. The same principle can't be applied to your average student.
Do Second Language Teachers ever succeed?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Londo Molari
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:19 am
Well that's only fair Revel, after all I gloss over your posts amongst others. I rarely find anything worthy of interest or comment in them. I wrote TWALT for people just like you, by the way! You hate it because you see yourself in the parody, only for you it's serious teaching...or so you thought! 
I agree with what lolwhites says about obeying orders. They just do it because they have to and it works!
I think that Mormon education would be much like traditional Catholic education in that it very academic in its approaches. There's none of this VAK nonsense or other touchy-feely stuff, and it works! Traditional language learning is grammar based. Need I say more?
Interestingly enough, in military schools they use an intense audio -lingual methodlogy - the other part of my recommended learning method. The students are not treated with kidd gloves as they are in language schools. If something is wrong it gets corrected. If work isn't done the students get told they are not pulling their weight. If they are supposed to have learned something but did not, they are pulled up on it. They are even played off against one another too. There is none of this avoiding correction because it supposedly leads to lack of confidence. They are soldiers and they should be able to take it so they have to adapt to the proven but difficult methodology that gives results in the end (rather than our language school approach that moulds itself to the whims of the lazy masses). How do I know? One of my university lectureres was an ex-forces interpreter who considered himself a failure at languages before he joined the army and received intensive instruction. I didn't like him, actually. He brought his military attitude into the classroom, but guess what? We all worked harder and learned a lot! The point was not having fun and smiling and liking the nice teacher! The point was learning and whether we enjoyed it or not didn't matter.
So what am I saying here? Should we be intimidating students? No, of course not! But there is a lot to be said for the hard work that is expected of students and the extremely low tolerance for error that intensive military courses use. So the answer is YES! There is a way to teach students languages effectively but you could never do it at a language school for obviousl reasons! The point is that, as I have said before, the key to success lies with the students and what THEY put into it and are willing to tolerate. That is usually very little, and what is more, modern attitudes ('There's no such thing as a bad student') and methodlogies pander to the market and put all the onus on the teacher to get the students to succeed, even though the methods are questionable, to say the least. Either they want to do it for the sheer love of the language or they have to do it as a soldier would and as long as they are willing to accept the hard work and responsibility there is a good chance that they will succeed. Otherwise they just aren't the 'right stuff'! Our classes are full of the wrong stuff! We are given a method to use and a course to follow so we just have to do the best we can. The trouble is, no method creates results like hard work!
The question we should be asking is not whether we can succeed as teachers, but whether 'they' can succeed as students.
Molari over and out.
I agree with what lolwhites says about obeying orders. They just do it because they have to and it works!
I think that Mormon education would be much like traditional Catholic education in that it very academic in its approaches. There's none of this VAK nonsense or other touchy-feely stuff, and it works! Traditional language learning is grammar based. Need I say more?
Interestingly enough, in military schools they use an intense audio -lingual methodlogy - the other part of my recommended learning method. The students are not treated with kidd gloves as they are in language schools. If something is wrong it gets corrected. If work isn't done the students get told they are not pulling their weight. If they are supposed to have learned something but did not, they are pulled up on it. They are even played off against one another too. There is none of this avoiding correction because it supposedly leads to lack of confidence. They are soldiers and they should be able to take it so they have to adapt to the proven but difficult methodology that gives results in the end (rather than our language school approach that moulds itself to the whims of the lazy masses). How do I know? One of my university lectureres was an ex-forces interpreter who considered himself a failure at languages before he joined the army and received intensive instruction. I didn't like him, actually. He brought his military attitude into the classroom, but guess what? We all worked harder and learned a lot! The point was not having fun and smiling and liking the nice teacher! The point was learning and whether we enjoyed it or not didn't matter.
So what am I saying here? Should we be intimidating students? No, of course not! But there is a lot to be said for the hard work that is expected of students and the extremely low tolerance for error that intensive military courses use. So the answer is YES! There is a way to teach students languages effectively but you could never do it at a language school for obviousl reasons! The point is that, as I have said before, the key to success lies with the students and what THEY put into it and are willing to tolerate. That is usually very little, and what is more, modern attitudes ('There's no such thing as a bad student') and methodlogies pander to the market and put all the onus on the teacher to get the students to succeed, even though the methods are questionable, to say the least. Either they want to do it for the sheer love of the language or they have to do it as a soldier would and as long as they are willing to accept the hard work and responsibility there is a good chance that they will succeed. Otherwise they just aren't the 'right stuff'! Our classes are full of the wrong stuff! We are given a method to use and a course to follow so we just have to do the best we can. The trouble is, no method creates results like hard work!
The question we should be asking is not whether we can succeed as teachers, but whether 'they' can succeed as students.
Molari over and out.
revel makes a rare reply....
Good morning all!
I'd ask Londo to quote me where I led him to believe that I hate his writing on TWALT. That assertion is quite mistaken on his part, the truth is I read it all and enjoyed it. The truth is I've read all of his posts and what I was trying to say is that I haven't enough material to come to any real conclusions. I mean that I've read dozens of posts by others because they have written dozens of posts on dozens of subjects that range from A to Z. Londo has written several posts generally on CLT, and seems to have made it clear that certain practices in the classroom, that often go under the heading of CLT, usually for marketing reasons, are to him not an economic use of class time. And I agree. I'd accuse myself of writing without clarity (and rereading the post in question, it's true, I hadn't been very clear, not pay attention to could certainly be interpreted as meaning ignore or skim over) but he's admitted to skimming over my posts (which I'm sure many do, so what?!¿) so it doesn't surprise me that he might not see that I agree with where he's coming from.
I'll repeat an anecdote (here those skimmers can hit the "advance page" key) here that seems to apply. Near the end of a course last year, I appologized to the students for making them do so much structural work (which included hours of pattern exercises though not exclusively such work) and they all objected to my having appologized because I had said "boring pattern drills". They all (this was an adult group, by the way) chimed in to let me know that they had enjoyed this heavy-duty practice work despite the repetitive nature. Before anyone gets excited and assumes that I'm using the Army Method (I think that's what it was called back in the '50s) exclusively in my classroom, I'd suggest that anyone interested skimmed over my writing in "Interpretative ESL". I simply won't be put into the CLT fill the time and collect the paycheck category.
I personally don't think that "having a good time" should be in the list of main objectives for any class. I do think, though, that in the longer, more detailed list of objectives that should support the main objective, "having a good time" ought to be included. Who's to say that those workers for AMOCO back in the '60s (?) didn't have a good time in the forced Arabic language camps they participated in on middle east soil, totally immersed in the language, the culture etc....(didn't they even live in tents during their training, or am I just being romantic?).
Hmmmm, guess that's all.
peace,
revel.
I'd ask Londo to quote me where I led him to believe that I hate his writing on TWALT. That assertion is quite mistaken on his part, the truth is I read it all and enjoyed it. The truth is I've read all of his posts and what I was trying to say is that I haven't enough material to come to any real conclusions. I mean that I've read dozens of posts by others because they have written dozens of posts on dozens of subjects that range from A to Z. Londo has written several posts generally on CLT, and seems to have made it clear that certain practices in the classroom, that often go under the heading of CLT, usually for marketing reasons, are to him not an economic use of class time. And I agree. I'd accuse myself of writing without clarity (and rereading the post in question, it's true, I hadn't been very clear, not pay attention to could certainly be interpreted as meaning ignore or skim over) but he's admitted to skimming over my posts (which I'm sure many do, so what?!¿) so it doesn't surprise me that he might not see that I agree with where he's coming from.
I'll repeat an anecdote (here those skimmers can hit the "advance page" key) here that seems to apply. Near the end of a course last year, I appologized to the students for making them do so much structural work (which included hours of pattern exercises though not exclusively such work) and they all objected to my having appologized because I had said "boring pattern drills". They all (this was an adult group, by the way) chimed in to let me know that they had enjoyed this heavy-duty practice work despite the repetitive nature. Before anyone gets excited and assumes that I'm using the Army Method (I think that's what it was called back in the '50s) exclusively in my classroom, I'd suggest that anyone interested skimmed over my writing in "Interpretative ESL". I simply won't be put into the CLT fill the time and collect the paycheck category.
I personally don't think that "having a good time" should be in the list of main objectives for any class. I do think, though, that in the longer, more detailed list of objectives that should support the main objective, "having a good time" ought to be included. Who's to say that those workers for AMOCO back in the '60s (?) didn't have a good time in the forced Arabic language camps they participated in on middle east soil, totally immersed in the language, the culture etc....(didn't they even live in tents during their training, or am I just being romantic?).
Hmmmm, guess that's all.
peace,
revel.
-
Londo Molari
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:19 am
OK, OK! I take it back Revel. Sorry!
But I'm still right! HA!
And I don't skip over all your posts. I read the bits where I'm mentioned and ignore the rest.
You looked at TWALT and decided you couldn't take me seriously, right? That's just my 'humourous' side. Don't knock it! It's all that's left. Still, if you sniggered at TWALT there may be hope for you yet. It's the genuinely indignant ones you have to watch but, unfortunately, there are so few of them it's rather disappointing!
I know! I'll do a special version for Japan! There are some really po-faced apologists out there who take CLT far too seriously!
But I'm still right! HA!
And I don't skip over all your posts. I read the bits where I'm mentioned and ignore the rest.
You looked at TWALT and decided you couldn't take me seriously, right? That's just my 'humourous' side. Don't knock it! It's all that's left. Still, if you sniggered at TWALT there may be hope for you yet. It's the genuinely indignant ones you have to watch but, unfortunately, there are so few of them it's rather disappointing!
I know! I'll do a special version for Japan! There are some really po-faced apologists out there who take CLT far too seriously!
Regarding the military programme (and I'm quoting from memory here so I could be wrong), the soldiers who took part in it were hand picked i.e. the top brass selected their smartest soldiers. The other thing I remember from the documentary I saw was that every soldier had their own private language lab booth to work from.
So, all it proves is if you hand pick the smartest people, which have been trained to follow orders, and put the resources at their disposal commensurate with a military rather than educational budget, hey presto! They learn a language!
Hardly a milestone in Applied Linguistics, is it?
So, all it proves is if you hand pick the smartest people, which have been trained to follow orders, and put the resources at their disposal commensurate with a military rather than educational budget, hey presto! They learn a language!
Hardly a milestone in Applied Linguistics, is it?
One other thing I've just remembered from the documentary I saw many years ago is that the soldiers on the programme basically did nothing else but learn their chosen language- it was very high intensity training. They didn't have a day job - it was their job.
So, again, I fail to see how this can be transferred to your common or garden classroom environment.
So, again, I fail to see how this can be transferred to your common or garden classroom environment.
Hey--
Just to clear up some misconceptions here, the Latter-Day Saint language school is called the Missionary Training Center. I have not been, but many of my friends and family members have; both of my parents taught there before I was born. It is a two-month program (three months for Asian languages), not two years. The teaching method is audiolingual, really the only choice considering the short-term nature of the program. I believe many military programs are also audiolingual for the same reason.
Why does the MTC work? First of all, it doesn't all magically come together in two months. Most of the missionaries getting off the plane don't understand word one. Most of them will also tell you that they spend about the first 6 months in their country quite confused and basically tongue-tied. Eight months to fluency . . . still not bad! To answer my own question I'd say that discipline (the missionaries at the MTC aren't allowed to speak their native languages), hard work (they study 16 hours a day), the age of the students, high motivation, working in an occupation that basically just consists of talking to people all day have a lot to do with it. Not to mention a whole lot of prayer:)
But again, realize that most of them have only oral skills. At first it's pretty amazing a missionary could read the Bible in a foreign language, but that's only because they already know the stories. (This sort of teaching method would not be very effective preparation for completely unknown text, filled with all sorts of cultural assumptions.) In order to, for example, prepare an ESL student to attend an American University, 2 months of audiolingual training wouldn't cut it. You'd have to get some reading and writing in there, and that takes time. As the research shows, audiolingual isn't a magic answer to everyone's language problems. It does work quite well for some specific situations, though. . .
Just to clear up some misconceptions here, the Latter-Day Saint language school is called the Missionary Training Center. I have not been, but many of my friends and family members have; both of my parents taught there before I was born. It is a two-month program (three months for Asian languages), not two years. The teaching method is audiolingual, really the only choice considering the short-term nature of the program. I believe many military programs are also audiolingual for the same reason.
Why does the MTC work? First of all, it doesn't all magically come together in two months. Most of the missionaries getting off the plane don't understand word one. Most of them will also tell you that they spend about the first 6 months in their country quite confused and basically tongue-tied. Eight months to fluency . . . still not bad! To answer my own question I'd say that discipline (the missionaries at the MTC aren't allowed to speak their native languages), hard work (they study 16 hours a day), the age of the students, high motivation, working in an occupation that basically just consists of talking to people all day have a lot to do with it. Not to mention a whole lot of prayer:)
But again, realize that most of them have only oral skills. At first it's pretty amazing a missionary could read the Bible in a foreign language, but that's only because they already know the stories. (This sort of teaching method would not be very effective preparation for completely unknown text, filled with all sorts of cultural assumptions.) In order to, for example, prepare an ESL student to attend an American University, 2 months of audiolingual training wouldn't cut it. You'd have to get some reading and writing in there, and that takes time. As the research shows, audiolingual isn't a magic answer to everyone's language problems. It does work quite well for some specific situations, though. . .
Now what would be really interesting would be to compare groups of students who'd had 16 hours a day of AL with another that had had 16 hours a day of TWALT, another of 16 hours daily of GT (if they could survive it) and compare their levels after 8 months. I suspect the clincher here was probably the 16 hour day combined with high motivation (orders from a commanding officer in one case, opportunity to spread good news in the other).
Probably not the most feasible experiment to set up in the real world, but if it was done I'd expect a pretty reasonable standard from all of them but wide differences when comparing individual skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. Even here in the UK, one of the main factors that determines how much a student will learn after 8 months isn't what book you use, but how much exposure to English the students have outside class. For some reason, the Spanish and Chinese tend to be the ones who spend most time hanging out with those from their home countries and, surprise surprise, they make the least progress.
My Spanish really took off when I lived in Spain, sharing a house with people who spoke no English. I got 16 hours exposure a day then, too.
Probably not the most feasible experiment to set up in the real world, but if it was done I'd expect a pretty reasonable standard from all of them but wide differences when comparing individual skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. Even here in the UK, one of the main factors that determines how much a student will learn after 8 months isn't what book you use, but how much exposure to English the students have outside class. For some reason, the Spanish and Chinese tend to be the ones who spend most time hanging out with those from their home countries and, surprise surprise, they make the least progress.
My Spanish really took off when I lived in Spain, sharing a house with people who spoke no English. I got 16 hours exposure a day then, too.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Yes, Lol, I agree, but the point is this. If you kick students bums and make them work to a system, and work long hours, they learn languages well. Therefore, we can dismiss the notion that one only learns language on one's own. The search for the best methodolgy is also worthwhile, for we have to follow one in our teaching.
As an individual you cannot kick bums very well, unless perhaps you have the charisma of the late Billy Graham. Students are resistant to having pain in their posterior. The authority to do so must come from the school. A strict school which encourages rigorous application of a sensible procedure will always do better than lots of free-wheeling CLT "approach" classes, in which teachers are forced to manage the prickly egos of ignorant students. Only the dictates of the market make us go down that road, pretending that successful learning is "fun, fun, fun". I don't think that the "please the customer" ethos is the end of the world, but let's wake up to the reality of the situation at least - it creates less effective teaching. Modern universities are also not immune from what the market dictates, by the way.
As an individual you cannot kick bums very well, unless perhaps you have the charisma of the late Billy Graham. Students are resistant to having pain in their posterior. The authority to do so must come from the school. A strict school which encourages rigorous application of a sensible procedure will always do better than lots of free-wheeling CLT "approach" classes, in which teachers are forced to manage the prickly egos of ignorant students. Only the dictates of the market make us go down that road, pretending that successful learning is "fun, fun, fun". I don't think that the "please the customer" ethos is the end of the world, but let's wake up to the reality of the situation at least - it creates less effective teaching. Modern universities are also not immune from what the market dictates, by the way.
I don't see the connection at all, Woody. Kicking their bums may well work so long as you have a captive audience, but that doesn't mean it's the only way. A well motivated student may well learn on their own and I've never said that anyone only learns on their own. Neither is fun incompatible with successful learning. Believe me, I expect my students to graft, but I find getting them on side with a "fun" activity helps to get more work out of them than ramming grammar down their throats. I don't just sit back and let them prattle away in bad English the whole time and I know of noone who does. Maybe I'm naive but I don't know of any teacher who cares only about "fun, fun, fun".If you kick students bums and make them work to a system, and work long hours, they learn languages well. Therefore, we can dismiss the notion that one only learns language on one's own.
Let me give you an example from a Spanish lesson. The student had a fairly standard "Preterite or Imperfect" exercise to to, but rather than have 10 sentences on a worksheet to go through, they had a boardgame where each square had an incomplete sentence where they had to decide the most likely (not correct) tense. By using the latter format, the students worked together on the problem, and the smarter ones were able to do my job for me by explaining the examples to their classmates while I monitored. They enjoyed the activity and actually all did more work (and learned more) than they would have done had it been in a grammar worksheet format. A worksheet would have done more harm than good - the bright ones would have finished it in 5 minutes flat and left the rest behind, thereby demotivating half the class. Everyone worked and I didn't need to kick one bum.
Now, I don't care what label that activity falls under but it certainly wasn't TWALTing. Was it effective? Yes? Who chose the activity? Me. Did I make a difference? Clearly.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
You appear to be doing a strict, well planned version of the "Headway Method" which, to my mind, was not really born of the ravings of CLT writers, but is a secret partial get out clause from such wittering. If everyone in the school is like you (or you see your classes for ages), and the administration functions well, puts decent classes together and supports you, then it can work well enough. I very much doubt everyone is like you though, administrations seldom support well, and I would argue that other methods achieve higher efficiency.
And exactly because instead of kicking bums, you are led into motivational activities, and those consume time both in planning and execution.
Aren't you attracted to Londo's world, by the way? You would be one of the few people qualified to survive in it, a valued language warrior, at last.
And exactly because instead of kicking bums, you are led into motivational activities, and those consume time both in planning and execution.
Aren't you attracted to Londo's world, by the way? You would be one of the few people qualified to survive in it, a valued language warrior, at last.
I suppose if I have any technique that qualifies as a method, it's to be as varied as possible. That's not about doing "anything that tickles my fancy" as someone said earlier, but about getting to know the class and selecting stuff that deals with their needs. I actually hate teaching with Headway but then again any book becomes a chore if you don't supplement it. Actually Headway has plenty of grammar drills but they call it "Practice" (i.e. between "Presentation" and "Production") to make us think it's "Communicative" and therefore innovative. It wouldn't be quite so bad if so many of their grammar explanations weren't wrong/
Another principle I learned during me teacher training (not language, but general) is that students learn more when they explain it to someone else (and before Londo jumps in, yes I do use monitoring and feedback to makesure that what hey're explaining is right). The game activity I described earlier is a classic example. It was more effective than a grammar drill because it got the students testing their ideas on each other so that (a) the smart ones got to reinforce their knowledge and make it clearer in their own heads and (b) the slower and/or shyer ones got to test their ideas in front of 2 or 3 people instead of the entire class. They were all talking (in English, not Spanish but they were on task so it didn't matter).
Another principle I learned during me teacher training (not language, but general) is that students learn more when they explain it to someone else (and before Londo jumps in, yes I do use monitoring and feedback to makesure that what hey're explaining is right). The game activity I described earlier is a classic example. It was more effective than a grammar drill because it got the students testing their ideas on each other so that (a) the smart ones got to reinforce their knowledge and make it clearer in their own heads and (b) the slower and/or shyer ones got to test their ideas in front of 2 or 3 people instead of the entire class. They were all talking (in English, not Spanish but they were on task so it didn't matter).
Is there a method to my madness?
Good morning all.
Interesting debate here.
I'm going to divide us into two categories for a moment. Those who use the "m" word and those who do not. The "m" word seems to have a couple of different uses. It means, on the one hand, a system used to reach certain objectives. On the other hand, a "m" is a marketing point to ensure enrollment. When it is the first, it seems to mean a "militant" or "sectarian" way of presenting material and getting students to assimilate it. When it carries the second meaning, it has little to do with the client and a lot to do with making sure the client repeats. I'm willing to be corrected, but those who are so critical of using a "m" to sell courses are also those who seem to have a "m" of their own.
Those who use their own personal madness in the classroom get accused by those with a "m" of using one or another "m". Those of us who choose madness over "m" have also admitted to not having observed this CLT waste of time in their own experience. It very well may be that we close our eyes to it. It may well be because we work in places where "m" is not so clearly outlined to prospective clients in the publicity or sales. It may be, at least in my case, recognizing that what goes on in other classrooms is not in the least my business, I'm rarely going to get someone else to do things the way I see fit, and thank goodness, it's not a personal objective of mine. (Ohhh, the things I've offered in teacher training that I know will not be tried....)
In the "Interpretative ESL" thread (a bit of publicity for myself), it was pointed out, and I agreed, that probably what I describe there is me-centered, that is, that hardly anyone else would be able to immitate my "success rate" using such ideas and activities and materials. That means that the teacher is an important part of the learning process. The other part, the student ought to come motivated, but if he/she is not particularly, well part of the equation is out of it. I get my portion of the unmotivated student pie, but I don't agree that most students are unmotivated. The "truth" be known, I've always found some way to motivate the unmotivated, and there is no method in that.
Thanks, Tara, for the explanation of the LDS way of helping their missionaries get ready for their witnessing adventures. An interesting point you make about them already knowing the stories and thus finding it less stressful reading the bible in a new language that they've only had a few months' contact with. Comprehension often depends on recognition, making students realize this is one of my core objectives.
I had a brief experience concerning "Army Method". I didn't have any money to go to university so I tried getting into the USAF. Because of my interests, they offered me a particular plan. I was to choose four to six languages that interested me. I would be put through special language training in those four to six languages for six months. I would then choose three of those langages and would spend more time studying those three. Once I was capable of using one or two or three of those languages, I would be employed as a translator, interpreter, writer, etc....after a certain period of time I would have been given security ratings etc.... I guess my other contact with the "Army Method" would be some of the pattern drills I use, which come directly from the development of that same Method.
peace,
revel.
Interesting debate here.
I'm going to divide us into two categories for a moment. Those who use the "m" word and those who do not. The "m" word seems to have a couple of different uses. It means, on the one hand, a system used to reach certain objectives. On the other hand, a "m" is a marketing point to ensure enrollment. When it is the first, it seems to mean a "militant" or "sectarian" way of presenting material and getting students to assimilate it. When it carries the second meaning, it has little to do with the client and a lot to do with making sure the client repeats. I'm willing to be corrected, but those who are so critical of using a "m" to sell courses are also those who seem to have a "m" of their own.
Those who use their own personal madness in the classroom get accused by those with a "m" of using one or another "m". Those of us who choose madness over "m" have also admitted to not having observed this CLT waste of time in their own experience. It very well may be that we close our eyes to it. It may well be because we work in places where "m" is not so clearly outlined to prospective clients in the publicity or sales. It may be, at least in my case, recognizing that what goes on in other classrooms is not in the least my business, I'm rarely going to get someone else to do things the way I see fit, and thank goodness, it's not a personal objective of mine. (Ohhh, the things I've offered in teacher training that I know will not be tried....)
In the "Interpretative ESL" thread (a bit of publicity for myself), it was pointed out, and I agreed, that probably what I describe there is me-centered, that is, that hardly anyone else would be able to immitate my "success rate" using such ideas and activities and materials. That means that the teacher is an important part of the learning process. The other part, the student ought to come motivated, but if he/she is not particularly, well part of the equation is out of it. I get my portion of the unmotivated student pie, but I don't agree that most students are unmotivated. The "truth" be known, I've always found some way to motivate the unmotivated, and there is no method in that.
Thanks, Tara, for the explanation of the LDS way of helping their missionaries get ready for their witnessing adventures. An interesting point you make about them already knowing the stories and thus finding it less stressful reading the bible in a new language that they've only had a few months' contact with. Comprehension often depends on recognition, making students realize this is one of my core objectives.
I had a brief experience concerning "Army Method". I didn't have any money to go to university so I tried getting into the USAF. Because of my interests, they offered me a particular plan. I was to choose four to six languages that interested me. I would be put through special language training in those four to six languages for six months. I would then choose three of those langages and would spend more time studying those three. Once I was capable of using one or two or three of those languages, I would be employed as a translator, interpreter, writer, etc....after a certain period of time I would have been given security ratings etc.... I guess my other contact with the "Army Method" would be some of the pattern drills I use, which come directly from the development of that same Method.
peace,
revel.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Tara's information is very confusing - I wonder if different languages are treated differently. If the mormons (I'm sorry, I don't mean to be offensive, but I ain't going to say "saints") are really able to achieve what they do in Korean from two months in school and a brief period of "picking it up" in the country, then it is something quite incredible.
I shall accost the next smartly dressed gents I see, and pester them about their beliefs.
Lol is back with the old "class diagnosis" then, ever in olympian aloofness to the world the rest of us live in. My classes are seldom stable, I seldom see them for long, and they are seldom made up of people who seem to have any particular needs in common, (apart from the need we all have to bring willingness into the classroom and apply ourselves methodically). The university does not run language teaching very well, so I cannot even hope to match the theoretical perfection of your perfectly judged, superbly designed flexible approach. And who considers this a problem? Fun, fun, fun and different needs and learn by yourself and anything goes is really scientifically better Mr.Woodcutter, so why bleat.
I can pretty much guess whether people are going to be able to answer the questions in a test I give them in a few weeks time after a couple of days though. If they appear to be trying, and they appear to be at the level the class assumes them to be at, they will.
I shall accost the next smartly dressed gents I see, and pester them about their beliefs.
Lol is back with the old "class diagnosis" then, ever in olympian aloofness to the world the rest of us live in. My classes are seldom stable, I seldom see them for long, and they are seldom made up of people who seem to have any particular needs in common, (apart from the need we all have to bring willingness into the classroom and apply ourselves methodically). The university does not run language teaching very well, so I cannot even hope to match the theoretical perfection of your perfectly judged, superbly designed flexible approach. And who considers this a problem? Fun, fun, fun and different needs and learn by yourself and anything goes is really scientifically better Mr.Woodcutter, so why bleat.
I can pretty much guess whether people are going to be able to answer the questions in a test I give them in a few weeks time after a couple of days though. If they appear to be trying, and they appear to be at the level the class assumes them to be at, they will.
Speak for yourself, Woody. I'm not saying I psychoanalyse every student in my class, but I do get an idea of their strengths and weaknesses and do a variety of activities so that over the course of 2 or 3 classes there will have been something for everyone. They don't all have to have the same needs for that approach to work. It ain't rocket science - just look at the homework and monitor them closely when they work in groups.Lol is back with the old "class diagnosis" then, ever in olympian aloofness to the world the rest of us live in.
I hope that isn't supposed to be a serious attempt at representing my views. Who said anything about "scientifically better"? Who said "anything goes"? If that's not a straw man I don't know what is.Fun, fun, fun and different needs and learn by yourself and anything goes is really scientifically better Mr.Woodcutter, so why bleat.