Don't go there?

[fluffyhamster]

There seems to be no attempt to make the unfolding and very real social relationships we have with our students :

How can you be sure those relationships are so very real? Do you think the social relationships we have with our colleagues daily are always very real? I know my social relationship with my Mum is real, and even that took time to achieve, but students?

I noticed my agreement got a bit messed up just after the bit you quoted, strange. Sorry about that.

Anyway, I felt this would come up at some point on this thread, and sooner rather than later with the "help" of my input (that is, it seems I have made the question arise - wonderful me! ).

Okay, I admit, even with the best methodology and the greatest will in the world, there are limits to how "real" the social relationships of the classroom can ever become, but what else can you expect, when many teachers don't seem to want to ask themselves how they might introduce the language (that they are always proffering only at arm's length, along with healthy lashings of chalk, printouts, the whip-'em-up whip etc) in more subtle, friendly, real ways? I'm not demanding huge changes, just little things like "guessing" what a sound was, as opposed to what a sound is (or even could be), unless of course it is a continous sound (to add yet another factor that could've been considered, but seems not to have been, in Rinvolucri's activity there).

I'm not saying (with regard to continous sounds) that you should lie to your students about needing to take a whizz, set off the fire alarms in the school, walk nonchalantly back in and only then feel you have set up enough context to innocently ask, "What could that sound be?", making some recordings and pretending you were all wherever would achieve much the same effect. The continuous sound would also be more suited to "feeling a need to describe it" ('That's really irritating/loud') than with "past" sounds ('What was that? ?It was really loud > I don't know, maybe a bomb?!).

Rinvolucri's hasn't said which tense he would ask students to use, but I'll credit him with a brain and presume that in relation to his (presumably mainly non-continous sound-producing objects), he could easily add "past" for guesses vs. the descriptions, but here's yet another thought: You wouldn't need to ask students to close their eyes at all if you'd just made a tape, the tape would create a knowledge gap in terms of invisibilty and/or distance right away!).

Perhaps I'm frothing, but this to me saying 'Close your eyes' is the unnecessary layer of "methodology" that immediately makes this just another activity rather than something that could potentially feel more real. People don't close their eyes to listen to strange sounds (unless it's music), they tend to look (want to look, check, investigate, peek at the crazy teacher tapping his dead human skull).

If I want to tell students to close their eyes, chances are it will be to practice visualization or relaxation techniques, because I want those to be the topics now, for whatever hopefully linguistic reason (problem+advising functions+solution using imperatives, perhaps, a mixed bag perhaps, but nothing too complex, and who's to say we can't spread that sequence over two lessons, picking up where we left off last time? (Obviously I would accept that kind of "break" as being absolutely necessary ).

[fluffyhamster]

And finally ...

What's better ...

A crashing bore or a Krashen bore?

Who's Krashen? Never heard of 'im!



Nice links, metal, I was gonna post the HLT Mag one myself but you beat me to it.

I quite like(d) the following books that MR wrote or co-authored:

Once Upon a Time (CUP)
Dictation (CUP)
Vocabulary (OUP)
(More) Grammar in Action (Heinle?)

There are more to be sure, but those are the ones I can clearly remember. I found it hard to get into his 'Grammar Games' books for some reason. I need to take a look at them again.

[metal56]

There seems to be no attempt to make the unfolding and very real social relationships we have with our students :

Okay, I admit, even with the best methodology and the greatest will in the world, there are limits to how "real" the social relationships of the classroom can ever become, but what else can you expect, when many teachers don't seem to want to ask themselves how they might introduce the language (that they are always proffering only at arm's length, along with healthy lashings of chalk, printouts, the whip-'em-up whip etc) in more subtle, friendly, real ways?

There's certainly a lot to consider before one can say one is at a point of real relations with one's students. Mario gives one example:

Crooning in my ears I have the slow, maternal, didactic
speech of female colleagues teaching low level classes. Those
special language teaching voices for masking oneself from
genuine, straight, human, conversational contact with the students.
Do you have a low level “grammar voice”, “dictation voice”
“class room management voice”. Do you have several masked
ways of saying “Very Good”?

http://www.educa.rcanaria.es/tea/team1/24.pdf

< (he hasn't said which tense he would ask students to use, I'll credit him with a brain and presume he could easily add "past" for guesses vs. the descriptions>

And if he had the object still in his hand and was planning to repeat the sound for those who couldn't immediately identify the source? He might then use present simple or continuous. I think it is Mario, and not you, who gives credit for a brain to the teachers he is hoping will try his exercises. The moment, the context, will tell you which tense you need to practice.

<but here's yet another thought: You wouldn't need to ask students to close their eyes at all if you'd just made a tape, the tape would create a knowledge gap in terms of invisibilty and/or distance right away!>

Something happens to one's ability to focus when one closes one's eyes.

Perhaps I'm frothing, but this to me saying 'Close your eyes' is the unnecessary layer of "methodology" that immediately makes this just another activity rather than something that could potentially feel more real.

Did your mother never tell you to close your eyes when she told you a story? That wasn't only to get you to sleep, but so you might better experience the imagery of the telling.

[fluffyhamster]

< (he hasn't said which tense he would ask students to use, I'll credit him with a brain and presume he could easily add "past" for guesses vs. the descriptions>

And if he had the object still in his hand and was planning to repeat the sound for those who couldn't immediately identify the source? He might then use present simple or continuous. I think it is Mario, and not you, who gives credit for a brain to the teachers he is hoping will try his exercises. The moment, the context, will tell you which tense you need to practice.

<but here's yet another thought: You wouldn't need to ask students to close their eyes at all if you'd just made a tape, the tape would create a knowledge gap in terms of invisibilty and/or distance right away!>

Something happens to one's ability to focus when one closes one's eyes.

Perhaps I'm frothing, but this to me saying 'Close your eyes' is the unnecessary layer of "methodology" that immediately makes this just another activity rather than something that could potentially feel more real.

Did your mother never tell you to close your eyes when she told you a story? That wasn't only to get you to sleep, but so you might better experience the imagery of the telling.

Hi again metal, as you can see, I was making an edit, that anticipates some of the comments you've made here, perhaps. Nevertheless, good points, especially about me not crediting teachers with much of a brain. Still, I hope my proposed approach is interesting in general outline (or is it all just common sense? Hmm...maybe I should just shut up. I will for now anyway ).

[fluffyhamster]

BTW, I liked the "limits of consciousness" test/experiment where the guy focuses on the hand on his watch for as long as he can.

Yes, it's a shame we can't always be more self-aware (might mean we'd post less on Dave's for a start), and revert to back to being base creatures so often (re: the multiple posts on Dave's), but I'd prefer to be "aware" of the guy about to mug me for my watch than lose myself in the watch and as a consequence lose perhaps not only the watch.

[metal56]

BTW, I liked the "limits of consciousness" test/experiment where the guy focuses on the hand on his watch for as long as he can.

Yes, it's a shame we can't always be more self-aware (might mean we'd post less on Dave's for a start), and revert to back to being base creatures so often (re: the multiple posts on Dave's), but I'd prefer to be "aware" of the guy about to mug me for my watch than lose myself in the watch and as a consequence lose perhaps not only the watch.

I guess that must be the materialist in you. (Just teasin')

BTW, here's a little more detail about Mario's reasons for suggesting awareness and light switches I think it shows that Mario also knows how barmy things can first seem:

6. Electric light switches

Give your class this homework:

“between now and our next class, each time you switch a light
on or off, please note your state of mind and what you are
thinking about. Come to class ready to report.”
In the next class 50% or more of the students may well have
forgotten to do the homework.

Organise the class into an inner circle of people who have done
the work and an outer circle of those who haven’t.
Ask the inner circle people to report on what they remember
from their light switchings and how the exercise generally affected
their awareness.

Language note: my bet is that your students will never before
have paid any conscious attention to their inner world when
turning lights on and off. To talk about something new in the
target language is vitally useful, since most second language work
consists of tedious repetition of thoughts and feelings already
rehearsed in mother tongue. This activity, and other “surprise”
exercises, gradually change students’ underlying feelings towards
the target language : they begin to find it more acceptable, less
unreal, more assimilable and more reliable.

Perhaps some of you are by now scratching your head and
wondering why this article should appear in a serious teacher’s
magazine. What weird, off-the-wall rubbish.

“ I’d never use any of this stuff with my students- they’d think
I’d gone barmy and anyway would ask ‘ what has this got to do
with the test next Friday?’”

I sympathise with this viewpoint, in a way, since I am a person with very strong mental gestalten, and I do not like my thinking
perturbed by strong, invasionary ideas.

However, in my own case, I have often come round to seeing
the point of teaching ideas I initially violently opposed.
Conservative learners are like this.
Some of you may want to rush off and try one or other of the
exercises with your classes tomorrow.

Your enthusiasm will sometimes carry your students with you.

Have fun.

[metal56]

BTW, I liked the "limits of consciousness" test/experiment where the guy focuses on the hand on his watch for as long as he can.

Yes, it's a shame we can't always be more self-aware (might mean we'd post less on Dave's for a start), and revert to back to being base creatures so often (re: the multiple posts on Dave's), but I'd prefer to be "aware" of the guy about to mug me for my watch than lose myself in the watch and as a consequence lose perhaps not only the watch.

And as you mentioned real relationships with students, I think the comment in brackets below is a very real response from a veteran teacher. My purpose in getting the class to talk about their weekend is mainly to get them to talk about their weeken to each other. After years of listening to the same conversations, I sometimes find I am not listening, but hearing, these days. Sometimes my job demands that I exit myself from the real relationships and true communication in class in order to hear what they say and not listen to what they say. There, is an important distinction.

The quote:

I write on the board: What was the best and the
worst thing that you did at the weekend? (Three
minutes) The students immediately start
discussing the question in pairs (one group of
three). I monitor by squatting in the centre of
the room, smiling, laughing every time they do
(so at least they think I am listening to them!),

http://www.educa.rcanaria.es/tea/team1/29.pdf

[fluffyhamster]

When I read activities like that (detailed or not), I don't immediately slam my fist down, bellow 'A-hole!' and chuck my PC out the closed window. I try to appreciate the reasons (given) for doing it, and work out how it fits into the wider syllabus, especially linguistically.

However, the so-called-'Language note' that MR has written provides very little that would justify the time and energy involved in setting up and doing the activity.

The key passage to me is: To talk about something new in the target language is vitally useful.

My views could perhaps be expressed thus: To talk about something vital in the new language is useful.

[fluffyhamster]

BTW, I liked the "limits of consciousness" test/experiment where the guy focuses on the hand on his watch for as long as he can.

Yes, it's a shame we can't always be more self-aware (might mean we'd post less on Dave's for a start), and revert to back to being base creatures so often (re: the multiple posts on Dave's), but I'd prefer to be "aware" of the guy about to mug me for my watch than lose myself in the watch and as a consequence lose perhaps not only the watch.

And as you mentioned real relationships with students, I think the comment in brackets below is a very real response from a veteran teacher. My purpose in getting the class to talk about their weekend is mainly to get them to talk about their weeken to each other. After years of listening to the same conversations, I sometimes find I am not listening, but hearing, these days. Sometimes my job demands that I exit myself from the real relationships and true communication in class in order to hear what they say and not listen to what they say. There, is an important distinction.

Interesting. According to Oupensky (and me) I am outwardly, not inwardly, focusing, in response to which you suggest that the teacher needs to travel inwards to "hear" and not just "listen to" what they say. The compromize, of course, is to meet yourself and the student's words ("what they are saying") at that point known as 'the ear drum', and then 'the brain'.

But seriously, it is good to think of stuff like this a little...but seriously again, who doesn't have inward thoughts/awareness vs. no thoughts/awareness, and who's to say that there is a clear division between how these two states positively or negatively affect our response-ability? (Listening to my inner voice could make me miss what a student said, couldn't it! ). Or should we do all the "deep" thinking before rather than in the class (don't answer that I'm being silly. We obviously have to think, to use a more general term, both before, during and after tha class, that is, all the time, about how to teach. THAT, I think, is how we come to a proper awareness about issues and what to do about them).

I found it a bit worrying that the veteran teacher seemed to think he needed to be insincere to get through the class, if he has to work so hard at fooling the students that he cares about what they are saying, then perhaps it's time for him to move onto another career.

[metal56]

The key passage to me is: To talk about something new in the target language is vitally useful.

My views could perhaps be expressed thus: To talk about something vital in the new language is useful.

Who decides what is vital and is that person in the right frame of mind at the moment of speaking to know what is vital to them?

Going back to my experience with the silent German banker, one might think that it was vital for him to express his frustration and annoyance of having to return to English class at such a late stage in life, but he expressed how being pushed/invited to recall the first day he sailed his present yacht as being an experience that he hadn't realised as vital. It calmed him, made him less focussed on the negative side of learning, was pleasant, helped him see how stressed he was in his job - with not enough time for reflections and pleasant thoughts.

Often when I'm very stressed, I think it is vital to me to talk about something. what that something is, God knows. I go through many trial and error periods before I find the vital source. What is vital is not always at hand, unless you are talking more simply about the vital need to be able to buy bread in English.

[fluffyhamster]

To say something vital in the new language is useful - The importance of that should('ve) be(en) obvious enough to teachers at least. The teacher is the expert, so they should know what is vital (for the students) and what isn't (linguistically) to be able to survive, "then" get by, "then" succeed in (using) the language. I chose to put 'new' before language to not only say it will be new for the students, but also to imply that it should be considered anew and made as fresh as possible by the teacher, otherwise the teacher can very easily start surrounding the vital language with "old" language, the language of methodology, stale "routine" phrases etc (I appreciate that there are many "dreary", can-be-wearying routines in real English too, but the point is that just importing a few dreary greetings, farewells "signposts" and stock reactions into a classroom to bookend, punctuate and generally help "prop up" shaky cardboard activities that might well fall down without them, does not real English make or immediately create!). What is important is to chip away at all the accumulated debry, cut away all the strange execrescences to expose the vital forms. (I've said before how a lot of (too much in amount, and generally) classroom English can be like so many bum notes by a bad orchetra obscuring the line of the real melody people came to hear, not that there is a symphony waiting to be heard from maestro's forces (score, obedient orcehstra, maestro's "personality" and powers of interpretation etc).

But obviously we can't expect 100% motivation as an automatic given all the time from the students, which means we do have to have a wider understanding of what 'vital' could and does mean. It obviously means not only vital lexicogrammar, functions etc but also things of "vital" interest to the students, that they might concievably very well want to say. There is actually no obvious difference to me between the linguistic resources we (that includes the students) "need" (that is the teacher telling the students they need it, but they don't believe the teacher quite yet) and what we (most definitely including the students this time) want to be talking about. A good method will anticipate almost every student's wants by genuinely, completely accounting for their needs (somewhere in the course; and a really well-designed course could perhaps offer such flexibility that what students wanted to talk about could be instantly moved to, ready to fulfil their linguistic needs and thus their wants at short notice. Such "jumping around" would be less likely to be demanded, however, if the current class were a real blast!). The only unreal thing in all this is the fact that we are in a classroom and "choosing" to believe that we are often elsewhere, but if the set(-up) was convincing and the script is good, the students will buy it much more. It certainly beats the this-is-a-classroom-so-do-as-I-say-dammit approach.

[metal56]

To say something vital in the new language is useful - The importance of that should('ve) be(en) obvious enough to teachers at least. The teacher is the expert, so they should know what is vital (for the students) and what isn't (linguistically) to be able to survive, "then" get by, "then" succeed in (using) the language. I chose to put 'new' before language to not only say it will be new for the students, but also to imply that it should be considered anew and made as fresh as possible by the teacher, otherwise the teacher can very easily start surrounding the vital language with "old" language, the language of methodology, stale "routine" phrases etc (I appreciate that there are many "dreary", can-be-wearying routines in real English too, but the point is that just importing a few dreary greetings, farewells "signposts" and stock reactions into a classroom to bookend, punctuate and generally help "prop up" shaky cardboard activities that might well fall down without them, does not real English make or immediately create!). What is important is to chip away at all the accumulated debry, cut away all the strange execrescences to expose the vital forms. (I've said before how a lot of (too much in amount, and generally) classroom English can be like so many bum notes by a bad orchetra obscuring the line of the real melody people came to hear, not that there is a symphony waiting to be heard from maestro's forces (score, obedient orcehstra, maestro's "personality" and powers of interpretation etc).

But obviously we can't expect 100% motivation as an automatic given all the time from the students, which means we do have to have a wider understanding of what 'vital' could and does mean. It obviously means not only vital lexicogrammar, functions etc but also things of "vital" interest to the students, that they might concievably very well want to say. There is actually no obvious difference to me between the linguistic resources we (that includes the students) "need" (that is the teacher telling the students they need it, but they don't believe the teacher quite yet) and what we (most definitely including the students this time) want to be talking about. A good method will anticipate almost every student's wants by genuinely, completely accounting for their needs (somewhere in the course; and a really well-designed course could perhaps offer such flexibility that what students wanted to talk about could be instantly moved to, ready to fulfil their linguistic needs and thus their wants at short notice. Such "jumping around" would be less likely to be demanded, however, if the current class were a real blast!). The only unreal thing in all this is the fact that we are in a classroom and "choosing" to believe that we are often elsewhere, but if the set(-up) was convincing and the script is good, the students will buy it much more. It certainly beats the this-is-a-classroom-so-do-as-I-say-dammit approach.

The teacher is the expert, so they should know what is vital (for the students) and what isn't (linguistically) to be able to survive, "then" get by, "then" succeed in (using) the language.

Are all teachers expert users of their own language?

<does not real English make or immediately create!). >

If that is meant to be a piece of real English, then I'm living either in the land of Dracula or Shakespeare has just risen from his grave.

Maybe it's late here, because you lost me with the rest. Sorry.

[fluffyhamster]

I suppose I should say if there have been any sightings of that mythical "really well-designed course". Well, 'Yes', there have been...

Many people like dogs, own dogs, love their dogs. The chances are remote, but there could be a person who absolutely refused to do anything other than talk about their dog (and then only after you'd "suggested" it to them after class, they didn't want to hear your for all they don't know genuine suggestions during class, suggestions which might've actually been leading into a consideration of pets, who knows!). They will probably give you some details about their pet (name, breed, age), describe how fluffy and loveable it is, perhaps mention it/he/she is naughty boy/girl, possibly even start relating a few funny things that the dog has done (once did).

No suprises for guessing that that is all in the course. Dogs get the biggest mention towards the start of the book, but also are included in a few stories later. These activities (talking about pets, describing things you love) definitely cater for the above learner. But another type of learner, the one who got bitten by a dog and therefore says they are dangeroud or stupid at every chance, is catered for. "Dangerous dogs" are mentioned as a possible general type ('Dogs are cute/fluffy/adorable/danegerous/noisy etc') and as a consqeuence of the outcome of a story ('Dog bit man'), and it shouldn't be a matter of supreme grammatical law-making that we feel we couldn't jump between prsent and past (although, for less able students, perhaps all they could manage from the past section would be 'Dogs are dangerous - one bit me/A dog bit me (once) - they are dangerous (sometimes)'. Basically, to cut a long story short, courses should at least have something like a "Frame Semantics" (Fillmore, FrameNet II etc) informing their structuring (note I do not say just 'structure' in a more "fixed, finite, LINEAR arrangement of forms" sense), and use detailed research in lexicogrammar to make sure that all the language of the frames is a) being covered (obviously) - there aren't that many frames yet, and not all of them seem completely convincing - and b) actually presenting the detailed phrasings that students will need, to have more than a vague sense of the grammatical roles that are being played out in an as yet not fully formed "sentence" in their minds (put simply, knowing that English is SVO and that 'to finish with sthg' is one possible phrasal verb does not tell the student what objects commonly follow that verb, that is, if it differs from simply "to finish" to any noticeable degree = conflicting emotions about that pesky English).

How about the sailors in our classes, how are their potential wants (and therefore always potentially "definite" needs) met linguistically in the course? Well, I'll admit that I don't have as much idea of how to achieve them as with dog-lovers, it is a more specialized area and they are the experts, so chances are they'd be doing most of the telling/clarifying, and the teacher (or other students) more "humouring" them than "helping" them in the event that this student's more general English vocabulary was already of a high enough level to enable them to "easily" bore the pants off of everyone, sure. (That's not to say dog-lovers would be intrinsically more interesting for evrybody, for example, cat lovers, but I think we can assume that both like animals-as-pets ).

Hey maybe I just said something interesting there. Cats? Nah, I prefer dogs. Dogs? Nah, you need an elephant, makes a great pet. Elephants are pets? I thought they woz animals. Yes, but what's the difference between animals and man? And on it goes. The problem with Frame Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics is in knowing where to stop for practical purposes. Probably we don't need or want to arrive at a hypernym or superordinate term when a hyponym below is the more frequent and useful word. 'Sailing', however, is probably not as frequent (or useful) as, say, its likely superordinate '(a type of) sport' or '(a type of (leisure)) activity', 'things you do at the weekend (if you're rich) - yes phrases should be allowed as superordinates too, probably' etc etc. (Then, there is the question of how to relate 'sailing' to 'sail', if sail is a frequent word. I can't check the 3,000 top words in my LDOCE right now, as I need to reinstall the CD-ROM as some point to get it working again, copyguard software and all that).

So, the sailorboys among us might just need to content themselves with making passing reference to their chosen sport/activity/pastime, and cannot ultimately demand that it forms a part of a necessarily finite course (I'm talking classroom course here, not private 1-2-1, although most private lessons also come to and end eventually too, and if the student needs to be learning ESP rather than chatting away, then the talk about sailing will need to be somewhat limited even here too).

[fluffyhamster]

<does not real English make or immediately create!). >

If that is meant to be a piece of real English, then I'm living either in the land of Dracula or Shakespeare has just risen from his grave.

Maybe it's late here, because you lost me with the rest. Sorry.

Oh, didn't I tell you I grew up in Transylvani-ah and once lived with the dialect coach who taught Gary Oldman how to prepare for his role in Coppola's version of Dracula?

I knew the rest of my post there would be even harder on all non-Carpathians, so that's why I wrote another, longer post (now immediately above this one - I was working on it as you posted, m). Even if it isn't totally clear, I hope the refernces to Fillmore's ideas will spark or rekindle interest in the thread.

[fluffyhamster]

The key passage to me is: To talk about something new in the target language is vitally useful.

My views could perhaps be expressed thus: To talk about something vital in the new language is useful.

How about this (to save you ploughing through my many, long long posts above in a search for possible submerged seeds):

It is useful (and for native teachers, there is no ultimate excuse not to) to talk using vital items (in the new language), any such items ranging from frequent individual words, across the sentences they appear in, to how they appear in stretches of connected discourse, because the resulting talk will therefore be including and accounting for many important words, phrases, sentences, discourse (in a word, English) simultaneously and at the same time showing students how knowledge is used (knowledge vs. use is another dichotomy that results in unquestioned and, quite possibly, only "bad practice").

Hmm, regarding "practice", okay, that's something the students will obviously need to do, nothing wrong with reading the same lines in a script several times to get a feel for them and perhaps commit them to memory, but if there is no script to read in the first place, what does the teacher do, hope to write a good one as they're speaking, that fleshes out in subtle and satisfying nuances e.g. the ten words on their wordlist?

You could almost, when you think about, spend a whole lesson just filling out the "worlds" (mental spaces, times etc) that just a single word occupies (only joking, but still...).

The obvious objection to all this is that there are so many realities to map, so many stories to tell, so many ways to put it exactly. But I'm still not convinced that methodology divorced from real language (discourse) and "reality" (how the world might be structured) is doing a good job of presenting even one segment of reality well, in any logical or consistent, consistently unfolding way.

Maybe I just have to accept that a methodolgy provides the only practical means to structure reality in the classroom, though?