Direct method positives

[woodcutter]

I'm sorry Larry, but I don't really want to be "summarized" by someone who didn't agree with a word I said. Reasoned disagreement will suffice.

"Chaos" in the classroom, quite often, represents a chat for the few and v.little for the many. If I badly needed to pass an exam, and I was going to a conversational kind of school, I would take an easy class and dominate it. And indeed, that's what many students do. It is good for very few people. It is OK for the teacher though. I like a good old chat.

Methods differ, some seem awful, but I have a better idea than the uninitiated would have of the particular results of the Avalon method. I would say that, far more than the first situation, the majority are catered for. Ironically, in view of your criticism, that may be the chief advantage. The downside is the restrictive, narrow nature of the beast.

I do not find you or any other posters here 'disquieting'. Once more, ESL is often the preserve of the uncaring short-term adventurer. At 5 years, I'm already towards getting veteran medals. I know you have taught far longer than that, but the fact remains.

And, like Metal 56, you refuse to let go of the false notion of row upon row of chanting monks being force fed rules. It is nothing at all like that. Every single question you ask requires a personal answer. Maybe you follow it up. It's almost too personal, it can get to be a problem. At the end of a session you know your students very, very well. There are 1001 examples of their personal lives coming out, all manner of questions, and it is all a bit more "real" than a forced discussion about something like abortion. And contrived questions occur in every classroom.

I also differ about student needs. Plenty of language teachers seem to think they were sent to earth to spead the gospel on western philosophical broadmindedness, or whatever their gospel is (often it is the actual gospel!). The function of a language teacher is to teach language. When I enter a Chinese classroom I want to be taught Chinese language, I do not want to be patronized. When you are a student of language, as I hope we all are, what do you you want? A few new pieces of information, and a chance to make sentences with them, and some feedback, wouldn't it be a good start? Students can think for themselves. They cannot get directed input and help in forming and saying well constructed sentences in a natural way in their own home.

[LarryLatham]

Plenty of language teachers seem to think they were sent to earth to spead the gospel on western philosophical broadmindedness, or whatever their gospel is (often it is the actual gospel!). The function of a language teacher is to teach language. When I enter a Chinese classroom I want to be taught Chinese language, I do not want to be patronized.

I certainly agree with you here, woodcutter. Language teachers should stick to language teaching, whatever "method" they may use.

Larry Latham

(BTW, I invite you to read my post again. It looks to me like you may have broadly misunderstood my ideas and my motives. Perhaps I wasn't writing clearly.)

[LarryLatham]

I'm sorry Larry, but I don't really want to be "summarized" by someone who didn't agree with a word I said. Reasoned disagreement will suffice.

You know, after letting it sit for 24 hours or so, and then reading it again, I'll have to agree with you, woodcutter, that you really don't need this kind of "summarizing." No one does. Although I set out to accurately recap what you said, I guess my frustrations were already building up somewhere down in there, and so what came out was a distortion of your views. So I do apologize for that. By the time I got to the end of that rather unfortunate post, my frustrations were rumbling full force, as I can see now. Sorry for that.

Larry Latham