Since SD bases his view of correction on his experience as a learner, it's time to ask this favourite question of mine. When you learn a language, or back when you did, what kind of learner are you? Is it relevant?
For myself, 8 years ago, when I first took a post high school language class, I was clueless and out of my depth, and I liked fun activities and an early finish. I have been in a number of classes using various languages since then, and I now generally appreciate a serious grammar lesson along with some corrected communicative activities. It depends on the class though, since whether you are high or low level within the class determines your behaviour to a vast degree.
When I think of the times I have taught language teachers, or seen them being taught, or taken a class myself, I would say the major inclination of the language teaching professional-as-student is to clown about. What does that tell us?
What kind of learner are you?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
It maybe tells you that these teachers are enjoying their break from teaching (and perhaps compensating for what they perceive as a lack of personality or fun in their teacher). They might also see themselves as helping make the class more of a "success", that is, just be acting in the way they wished their own students would (sometimes at least) act. Of course, whether such clowning around helps or hinders learning is hard to say, but a class entirely devoid of levity will drive a teacher (and here I mainly mean the one who has to teach it, not one who has to endure the teaching!) bonkers after a while.
Am I right in assuming that these teachers were taking a limited number of foreign-language classes to give them a taste of what being a learner is like (as part of initial training)? If so, then they might have been expressing contempt; that is, hypocritical as it might be for monolingual teachers to take no serious interest in foreign languages, perhaps they were justified in "not seeing the point" of being FORCED to take the odd few lessons (that is, motivation is very important).
My own experience of language learning is that of learning almost no French at all at school (the teacher spoke English almost all the time, and seemed to think we should be committing verb conjugations to heart at THAT age); as a postgrad of learning what seems to be passable Chinese from an affable bilingual Taiwanese professor who spoke mainly English, but who from time to time broke into well-contextualized and clear Chinese for our benefit (I also had a lot of books that I dipped into in my own time); and of being frustrated with strict direct method lessons (as a trainee or JET participant), of which I have no written record (guide to pronunciation), and that I can consequently remember absolutely nothing about. Waste of time, eh!
Am I right in assuming that these teachers were taking a limited number of foreign-language classes to give them a taste of what being a learner is like (as part of initial training)? If so, then they might have been expressing contempt; that is, hypocritical as it might be for monolingual teachers to take no serious interest in foreign languages, perhaps they were justified in "not seeing the point" of being FORCED to take the odd few lessons (that is, motivation is very important).
My own experience of language learning is that of learning almost no French at all at school (the teacher spoke English almost all the time, and seemed to think we should be committing verb conjugations to heart at THAT age); as a postgrad of learning what seems to be passable Chinese from an affable bilingual Taiwanese professor who spoke mainly English, but who from time to time broke into well-contextualized and clear Chinese for our benefit (I also had a lot of books that I dipped into in my own time); and of being frustrated with strict direct method lessons (as a trainee or JET participant), of which I have no written record (guide to pronunciation), and that I can consequently remember absolutely nothing about. Waste of time, eh!
Re: What kind of learner are you?
Since SD bases his view of correction on his experience as a learner, it's time to ask this favourite question of mine. When you learn a language, or back when you did, what kind of learner are you? Is it relevant?
I think there was a misunderstanding. I base my view on my experience as a teacher. It just so happens that I have experience learning other languages, and I know I prefer to be corrected. I don't know how one could have received the impression that I base my view on my experience as a language learner alone.
I think there was a misunderstanding. I base my view on my experience as a teacher. It just so happens that I have experience learning other languages, and I know I prefer to be corrected. I don't know how one could have received the impression that I base my view on my experience as a language learner alone.
Last edited by SD on Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SD said:
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 14
LarryLatham wrote:
Are mistakes bad for our EFL/ESL students? I mean does it impede students' progress or likelihood of eventual success if they make mistakes that we teachers don't immediately correct? Can there be a debate here, or is this a no-brainer?
Larry Latham
I find that students like being corrected. I think there is a good chance of errors becoming fossilized if this is not done.
A Brazilian recently asked me, "How come people don't correct my errors when I speak?" One of the places he was thinking about was his workplace. Amongst other things, I explained to him that this is because they understand what you are saying, and this all that they feel is required. They might be afraid of offending you as well. Or maybe they just don't want to concern themselves with it.
We should expect more from language teachers. I have no problem whatsoever correcting students, and I've seen that they appreciate it. It's always good to be able to provide an explanation as well. I mean tell them "why" they can't say that.
It also helps to pick the right time to make corrections, of course. Different situations call for different times to make corrections.
The shorter the spoken discourse, the better it is to make on the spot corrections. The longer the discourse, the better it is for the teacher to take notes and then talk about the errors after. This is as I see it and have experienced it.
In tutoring situations I, without doubt, make corrections. The students expect it. It's part of getting their money's worth out of the lesson.
tact, tone of voice, how, when, why - We should consider all of these when making corrections, of course.
Sometimes it's good to just let the students talk in order to develop fluency, but in the end not making corrections can, I believe, frustrate students' efforts to speak the language accurately. And in turn this can frustrate students.
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 14
LarryLatham wrote:
Are mistakes bad for our EFL/ESL students? I mean does it impede students' progress or likelihood of eventual success if they make mistakes that we teachers don't immediately correct? Can there be a debate here, or is this a no-brainer?
Larry Latham
I find that students like being corrected. I think there is a good chance of errors becoming fossilized if this is not done.
A Brazilian recently asked me, "How come people don't correct my errors when I speak?" One of the places he was thinking about was his workplace. Amongst other things, I explained to him that this is because they understand what you are saying, and this all that they feel is required. They might be afraid of offending you as well. Or maybe they just don't want to concern themselves with it.
We should expect more from language teachers. I have no problem whatsoever correcting students, and I've seen that they appreciate it. It's always good to be able to provide an explanation as well. I mean tell them "why" they can't say that.
It also helps to pick the right time to make corrections, of course. Different situations call for different times to make corrections.
The shorter the spoken discourse, the better it is to make on the spot corrections. The longer the discourse, the better it is for the teacher to take notes and then talk about the errors after. This is as I see it and have experienced it.
In tutoring situations I, without doubt, make corrections. The students expect it. It's part of getting their money's worth out of the lesson.
tact, tone of voice, how, when, why - We should consider all of these when making corrections, of course.
Sometimes it's good to just let the students talk in order to develop fluency, but in the end not making corrections can, I believe, frustrate students' efforts to speak the language accurately. And in turn this can frustrate students.
It's clear from my comments that I base my view on my experience as a teacher.
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=1701
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=1701
I have never taken a language course with another language teacher, but I have studied many languages, in classes and privately. (No, I'm not great at any of them, but it was interesting!;) ).
When I teach my classes, I teach the way I would like to be taught, trying also to bear in mind that different students learn in different ways. I remember one class in Cantonese I had (we used romanized writing btw) that was spent entirely in grammar/translation. Around the room, read a sentence, translate into English. Boring and pretty useless as far as I was concerned.
Then there was the Japanesse class in which the teacher would ask questions and the students would answer. (Where is the book? It's on the table.) On the last day of the semester, the students rose up as one and insisted on asking the questions too. The teacher was flabbergasted to see that we were very capable of both asking and answering questions....duh.
Finally, there was a Cantonese class I had in which the teacher put us into groups and we did role plays. That was the one I thought was done rather well. Of course, role plays weren't the only thing she did, but it was a little less "traditional" than some of the other classes I had had.
My son was taking Japanese in high school. His teacher spent all three years (!) making them write conversations and memorize and present them, but never having them speak off the cuff. I think there's a place for memorization, but it should never become the centerpiece of a language class as far as I'm concerned.
By the way, I'm a visual learner. I need to see things written down. I understand, however, that not everyone is like that, so I try to take that into consideration.
When I teach my classes, I teach the way I would like to be taught, trying also to bear in mind that different students learn in different ways. I remember one class in Cantonese I had (we used romanized writing btw) that was spent entirely in grammar/translation. Around the room, read a sentence, translate into English. Boring and pretty useless as far as I was concerned.
Then there was the Japanesse class in which the teacher would ask questions and the students would answer. (Where is the book? It's on the table.) On the last day of the semester, the students rose up as one and insisted on asking the questions too. The teacher was flabbergasted to see that we were very capable of both asking and answering questions....duh.
Finally, there was a Cantonese class I had in which the teacher put us into groups and we did role plays. That was the one I thought was done rather well. Of course, role plays weren't the only thing she did, but it was a little less "traditional" than some of the other classes I had had.
My son was taking Japanese in high school. His teacher spent all three years (!) making them write conversations and memorize and present them, but never having them speak off the cuff. I think there's a place for memorization, but it should never become the centerpiece of a language class as far as I'm concerned.
By the way, I'm a visual learner. I need to see things written down. I understand, however, that not everyone is like that, so I try to take that into consideration.
Re: What kind of learner are you?
I would say you have had a few bad experiences. My experience of the same situations has been the opposite. Those people seem to appreciate the teacher and get as much as possible from the class.When I think of the times I have taught language teachers, or seen them being taught, or taken a class myself, I would say the major inclination of the language teaching professional-as-student is to clown about. What does that tell us?
<I find that students like being corrected. I think there is a good chance of errors becoming fossilized if this is not done.
A Brazilian recently asked me, "How come people don't correct my errors when I speak?">
Do many of the same students remeber all the corrections you made in, say, a couple of months?
metal56 wrote:<I find that students like being corrected. I think there is a good chance of errors becoming fossilized if this is not done.
A Brazilian recently asked me, "How come people don't correct my errors when I speak?">
Do many of the same students remeber all the corrections you made in, say, a couple of months?
Sometimes yes and sometimes not. I know I see people taking down notes when we deal with corrections. But of course corrections can't be counted on as the only way of teaching and learning. Some people can, however, learn something by being corrected. I believe the Brazilian that asked me that is the type that could benefit from corrections. You know - different people have different ways of learning. And if you ask me, the guy that asked me that question most likely has the aptitude to learn in such a way. Some people need to be shown, taught and given the explanation multiple times. Lots of practice, of course, helps.
And as far as learning through exposure goes, that's not always possible. He's in circumstances where English is spoken daily, but it doesn't permit really having the chance to really converse and really listen. It's a work situation, so the type of exposure he receives to natural spoken English is limited. The types of linguistic demands made upon him in order to communicate effectively are minimal.
I think he's the type that has the aptitude for getting explanations of the structures and then applying the structures in his speaking.
Additionally:
As there might be too much emphasis placed on grammar and structure at times, so might there be too much emphasis placed on communicative activities. Lessons that take into account structure and real communication, I think, are best. Sometimes it is the actual conversing about grammatical structure itself that I believes permits the learning to take place. Sometimes, not all the time.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Re: What kind of learner are you?
SD does not base his views on his experience as a learner.woodcutter wrote:Since SD bases his view of correction on his experience as a learner,
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Active, reflexive, theorical, pragmatic....
Good mornging all!
Well, let's see if I understand the question that heads this thread:
"When you learn a language, or back when you did, what kind of learner are you? Is it relevant?"
This past school-year I took an internet course called something like "Formation of adult education teachers" (Formador de Formadores). In the material there was an explanation of the different styles of learning: (translated from Spanish)
"Educators should know the profiles of their future students with the object of being able to form groups according to their learning styles. For each style of learing there is a method of teaching.
Honey [sorry, don't have bibliographical information on this guy, nor know who he is....] establishes the following learning styles in students:
Active: motivated by novelty, variety, challenge and competition.
Reflexive: needs time to assimilate, likes detail, is not an enemy to improvisation.
Theorical: likes to ask questions and present ideas, generalizes
Pragmatic: likes to solve concrete problems and experiment."
This is not the gospel of learning styles, nor do I want to seem to be promoting these learning styles as the only that exist or that each student must necessarily fit into one of these categories. Have to disclaim such before being accused of such!
I share them in order to have a place to start....
I guess I would be pragmatic, then. I recently passed the driver's exam here in Spain, after only two weeks of intensive (at least three hours a day) study. About an hour was spent simply reading the text, highlighting answers to questions I had failed on sample tests, the other two hours were spent grinding through hundreds of sample tests. I finally passed the test with only one mistake, I knew all the answers. The objective of this study was to pass the test, nothing more, nothing less, I've been driving for nearly 30 years, but Spain does not accept the fact, nor the license from the States. (sigh!)
Yet, addressing the original question, which asked about language learning, I would have to admit that I am all of those types of learners. Pragmatic in that I was constantly being faced with concrete problems (have to buy vegetables, so, have to learn the names of the things I want to eat, have to learn how to manage numbers, have to be able to defend my rights as a consumer....often at fruit markets they try to give men the worst fruit, thinking that men don't know anything about shopping....). Theorical in that I did several tit-for-tat type lessons with liguists here, telling them about English while they told me about Spanish, on a purely teacher-to-teacher level, neither was student in this situation though both were learners. Reflexive in that even when I call up for bottles of butane gas, something I have been doing for fifteen years, I still run over the phone conversation in my mind before dialing, this is not an improvisable conversation and I still remember that time that I asked for two light-bulbs of gas instead of two bottles of gas....Finally, Active, since after only a couple months of personal study (that is, no teacher, just me with the books and tapes) I simply came to Spain and looked for adventure, which was not at all hard to find.
I don't understand woodcutters last statement: "I would say the major inclination of the language teaching professional-as-student is to clown about.", do you mean that when a language teacher takes a language class that teacher acts like a clown? Hmmmm, don't know, have given theory classes to EFL teachers here and all of them seem to take my classes quite seriously, but I am not at all democratic in class, rather very overbearing and generally the boss. We have a good time but we hardly stray from the objectives that the students and I have agreed on pursuing. I am not a clown as a student, nor as a teacher, though am certainly a clown when asked to entertain with fire juggling at village festivals....
peace,
revel.
Well, let's see if I understand the question that heads this thread:
"When you learn a language, or back when you did, what kind of learner are you? Is it relevant?"
This past school-year I took an internet course called something like "Formation of adult education teachers" (Formador de Formadores). In the material there was an explanation of the different styles of learning: (translated from Spanish)
"Educators should know the profiles of their future students with the object of being able to form groups according to their learning styles. For each style of learing there is a method of teaching.
Honey [sorry, don't have bibliographical information on this guy, nor know who he is....] establishes the following learning styles in students:
Active: motivated by novelty, variety, challenge and competition.
Reflexive: needs time to assimilate, likes detail, is not an enemy to improvisation.
Theorical: likes to ask questions and present ideas, generalizes
Pragmatic: likes to solve concrete problems and experiment."
This is not the gospel of learning styles, nor do I want to seem to be promoting these learning styles as the only that exist or that each student must necessarily fit into one of these categories. Have to disclaim such before being accused of such!
I share them in order to have a place to start....I guess I would be pragmatic, then. I recently passed the driver's exam here in Spain, after only two weeks of intensive (at least three hours a day) study. About an hour was spent simply reading the text, highlighting answers to questions I had failed on sample tests, the other two hours were spent grinding through hundreds of sample tests. I finally passed the test with only one mistake, I knew all the answers. The objective of this study was to pass the test, nothing more, nothing less, I've been driving for nearly 30 years, but Spain does not accept the fact, nor the license from the States. (sigh!)
Yet, addressing the original question, which asked about language learning, I would have to admit that I am all of those types of learners. Pragmatic in that I was constantly being faced with concrete problems (have to buy vegetables, so, have to learn the names of the things I want to eat, have to learn how to manage numbers, have to be able to defend my rights as a consumer....often at fruit markets they try to give men the worst fruit, thinking that men don't know anything about shopping....). Theorical in that I did several tit-for-tat type lessons with liguists here, telling them about English while they told me about Spanish, on a purely teacher-to-teacher level, neither was student in this situation though both were learners. Reflexive in that even when I call up for bottles of butane gas, something I have been doing for fifteen years, I still run over the phone conversation in my mind before dialing, this is not an improvisable conversation and I still remember that time that I asked for two light-bulbs of gas instead of two bottles of gas....Finally, Active, since after only a couple months of personal study (that is, no teacher, just me with the books and tapes) I simply came to Spain and looked for adventure, which was not at all hard to find.
I don't understand woodcutters last statement: "I would say the major inclination of the language teaching professional-as-student is to clown about.", do you mean that when a language teacher takes a language class that teacher acts like a clown? Hmmmm, don't know, have given theory classes to EFL teachers here and all of them seem to take my classes quite seriously, but I am not at all democratic in class, rather very overbearing and generally the boss. We have a good time but we hardly stray from the objectives that the students and I have agreed on pursuing. I am not a clown as a student, nor as a teacher, though am certainly a clown when asked to entertain with fire juggling at village festivals....
peace,
revel.
Re: Active, reflexive, theorical, pragmatic....
Those seem quite connected to these:revel wrote:
"Educators should know the profiles of their future students with the object of being able to form groups according to their learning styles. For each style of learing there is a method of teaching.
Honey [sorry, don't have bibliographical information on this guy, nor know who he is....] establishes the following learning styles in students:
Active: motivated by novelty, variety, challenge and competition.
Reflexive: needs time to assimilate, likes detail, is not an enemy to improvisation.
Theorical: likes to ask questions and present ideas, generalizes
Pragmatic: likes to solve concrete problems and experiment."
The theory of multiple intelligences was developed in 1983 by Dr. Howard Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University. It suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited. Instead, Dr. Gardner proposes eight different intelligences to account for a broader range of human potential in children and adults. These intelligences are:
Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple ... gences.htm
Revel, did your mother never tell you about clowning around with fire?I am not a clown as a student, nor as a teacher, though am certainly a clown when asked to entertain with fire juggling at village festivals....
peace,
revel.
