Teacher Discussion Forums

As I have just written elsewhere, it seems to me that there is a place for all kinds of language courses, because there are all kinds of students.

I'm afraid that I'm of the heretical opinion that certain kinds of direct method teaching are really rather good. I taught for a while with the Avalon method, which is an updated (I hear it needs it!) version of the Callan method, essentially a stream of questions directed around the class, with answers heavily corrected by the teacher. The students move through a series of books listing these questions with a variety of teachers, constantly going back and doing things several times. The teacher obviously has to present language points, and does a little class repetition. I feel that while some students disliked it, some students progressed very quickly indeed. Maybe because.......

A. A good teacher will respond to students answers with another question, making plenty of genuine communication. They also alter the questions on later revisions.
B. Every language point is revised at least four times. That is very important, and hard to do elsewhere.
C. It is very, very difficult to correct people adequately unless one does it systematically. (In fact teaching is v.v.difficult, and most teachers don't try v.v.hard)
D.Little time is wasted.
E.The students have the books and can easily revise and preview, and clearly focus on what they are learning.
F.People will generally be taught items of language at the right level for them, if the system works properly.

As a student, I would like to be taught that way. OK, it can get dull, but for myself, I would rather talk then play bingo. (It is most boring for the teacher, but hey, the teacher gets paid). It is one dimensional, but it focuses on the things that I most need an expensive teacher for, not the things I can do in my house.

It is not the be all and end all, but there is a real place for it, so it annoys me to have it dismissed on theoretical/historical grounds, especially since it chimes with a lot of research.

Not having seen (obviously!) the books used at Avalon, it's hard to say if what they have is ultimately any good (for me and my inimitable style, at least!). If the Q&As it provides are natural, and reflect real-life communication/communicative needs, then I guess it is okay or defensible for beginners, or those with quite large gaps in their language (would it be grammar/structure+vocab, bent to achieving functional ends, rather like "gambits"?).

I myself am wary of things that constrain what the TEACHER has to (=perhaps feels they need to) say (at any given moment, perhaps based on research and/or a more judicious selection of target language - if you believe in concepts like discrete "target language", that is!). For example, one of my past(!) employers expected me to use a book called "Thinking in English" (ed. Harold Palmer! OMG what a shock to see HIM connected with it!), which had ludicrous questions and a gross imbalance of question forms, and very outdated vocabulary; it didn't seem worth even the 20-30% of class it would've taken up). My business class didn't see much use in slogging through it, but my boss insisted I was wrong to withdraw it, saying students are like mirrors, reflecting the teacher and his/her beliefs and opinions (like I had set out a soapbox in class and ranted against the book for hours! Just asked 'em what they thought of it - is that a total no-no with paying customers?!). Had a hard time from her after that, and watched in a state of shock one day as she persisted in ever-more aggressively intoning the same question in a variety of ways, to an increasingly confused and bewildered-looking student.

Anyway (ah, those trips down memory lane!), presumably, the books themselves develop and become more "open" (not necessarily more "difficult") as the students gain confidence in their skills, and some of them realize that not only can they say more, but that they have more to say (I guess it's a bit chicken and egg isn't it, message and means!), right?

I'm a bit intrigued as to how mistakes are possible when the line the communication would take seems so (beneficially?) constrained...and also, how you would maintain whatever "flow" you've achieved (I mean, incessant correction is going to break the pace of even a drill, let alone a conversation).

I know I sound like I am being dismissive, but I can assure you I am not. The above questions are genuine, and your answers may have some bearing on what I might evenually do "on principle", when I begin to take methodology (more) seriously (whether it be more communicative types of methodology or not, as the case may be).

As you might have guessed, I myself am not taking methodology too seriously at the moment - I think it distracts teachers from educating themselves in the actual subject matter at hand, and won't compensate long-term for a lack of expert knowledge, or make up for such knowledge in terms of depth or confidence. Small wonder that so many leave the "profession" with "burn-out", disillusioned (for some strange reason). Did the training institutions fail them, or were they indeed fingers pointing at the moon? (I personally feel that the whole idea of a one-month preparation for a FT career sends out totally the wrong signal, but what the hell, at least it enabled me to get into the profession with limited funds; I couldn't take half of what they said, or rather, "demonstrated" - easier to demonstrate than convince with reason, do as I simply do rather than examine what I don't have to say! - seriously, and ended up viewing it as just another breadticket. Money would've been better spent on more of the books they recommend you read - and more books besides those few! - but never seem to seriously discuss...they promise to on Dips and Masters, but again, there are time constraints imposed which will surely limit what "is possible" with the latest intake of "dullards", I bet).

I prefer to look at the language and try to find a natural methodology in it (in its associations, collocations, discourse markers, general direction that talk about whatever topic consistently takes among this or that group of speakers etc. I suppose you could say I am convinced of the value of linguistics applied (to data, mainly); I have never been impressed for long with anything that strays too far from data, which more theorectical linguistics, or Applied linguistics, often do!).

To elevate methodolgy before the linguistic items have been really sussed out and "put 'in order' ", to include sophisticated as well basic items/series of items is to me like putting the cart before the horse (see Renouf and Sinclair's paper in Carter and McCarthy's Vocabulary and Language Teaching; they refer to methodology and/or non-linguitically selected syllabuses as being "degenerate", I recall).

Sinclair went on to say (in a linguistics roundtable at Georgetown University) that we teachers do so much in ignorance of - and, implicitly, perhaps in direct opposition to - incredible amounts of (now attestable) fact.

A teacher who continues to ignore those facts will increasingly seem like a cultist with outlandish beliefs, if not a "quack teacher".

Again, not saying anything about you, your ideas, or Avalon here, woody! Just spouting off, as usual .

A lot of this would've been perhaps better posted on your other, Applied Linguistics, thread, but I found my muse here rather than there!

woodcutter wrote:As I have just written elsewhere, it seems to me that there is a place for all kinds of language courses, because there are all kinds of students.

I'm afraid that I'm of the heretical opinion that certain kinds of direct method teaching are really rather good. I taught for a while with the Avalon method, which is an updated (I hear it needs it!) version of the Callan method, essentially a stream of questions directed around the class, with answers heavily corrected by the teacher. The students move through a series of books listing these questions with a variety of teachers, constantly going back and doing things several times. The teacher obviously has to present language points, and does a little class repetition. I feel that while some students disliked it, some students progressed very quickly indeed. Maybe because.......

A. A good teacher will respond to students answers with another question, making plenty of genuine communication. They also alter the questions on later revisions.
B. Every language point is revised at least four times. That is very important, and hard to do elsewhere.
C. It is very, very difficult to correct people adequately unless one does it systematically. (In fact teaching is v.v.difficult, and most teachers don't try v.v.hard)
D.Little time is wasted.
E.The students have the books and can easily revise and preview, and clearly focus on what they are learning.
F.People will generally be taught items of language at the right level for them, if the system works properly.

As a student, I would like to be taught that way. OK, it can get dull, but for myself, I would rather talk then play bingo. (It is most boring for the teacher, but hey, the teacher gets paid). It is one dimensional, but it focuses on the things that I most need an expensive teacher for, not the things I can do in my house.

It is not the be all and end all, but there is a real place for it, so it annoys me to have it dismissed on theoretical/historical grounds, especially since it chimes with a lot of research.

The Avalon Method seems to me to be like all other "banking" style (see Freire) methods of minimal use in getting students to understand how the language is used in real-life encounters. Nice for robots.

Metal-You take a piece of new vocabulary, such as "vacation" and you ask the student - "where did you go on your last vacation" or "what was the best vacation you ever had" or "which kind of vacations are popular with honeymoon couples" and assuming they are at the right level they will answer those without much correction, and you may ask them another question based on what they say. It's just an extended, corrected chat. It may be one dimensional but it has nothing at all to do with robotics, so that is a silly knee-jerk thing to say.

As to what Duncan wrote, of course it helps if the books are good, and I think they are at Avalon, but anyway you can adapt the questions a little bit. "The flow" is less important in those classes, most students adapt to the method, and try and meet you half-way, which they seldom do in a regular class, so one cannot simply march in and do direct method style teaching.
Limitations on the teacher are good in some situations, I think there are plenty of clueless teachers about, and also having such a rigid method makes everybody focused on what they are trying to do, classes are not held to ransom by difficult students. In fact many problems are ironed out, along with the spontaneity that is lost. If the student can treat the class as just one aspect of their personal quest for command of English, then they can be assured of getting a lot out of it. They won't be sitting there listening to the class big-mouth, for a start.

Good morning all!

Woodcutter wrote "If the student can treat the class as just one aspect of their personal quest for command of English, then they can be assured of getting a lot out of it." and there's the point of methods.

If the student has a good grammar teacher and is interested in grammar, the student will learn grammar.

If the student has a good pronunciation teacher and is interested in pronouncing well, the student will pronounce well.

If the student has a motivated oral teacher with thousands of resources and wants to practice speech, the student will learn how to practice and will improve.

If the student studies on his/her own, lives in the target language environment, makes friends, reads books, watches tv, listens to the radio, uses the telephone, goes to the shops, the student will in little time be speaking the language placed as an objective.

I haven't seen any one method that gets people speaking English. I have seen combinations of activities that have helped individuals achieve their linguistic goals. They are all aspects of the whole. Each contributes and thus is valid and can only be criticized when used in isolation in a dogmatic fashion. (said revel, dogmatically! )

peace,
revel.

Metal-You take a piece of new vocabulary, such as "vacation" and you ask the student - "where did you go on your last vacation" or "what was the best vacation you ever had" or "which kind of vacations are popular with honeymoon couples"

And that is supposed to be an example of real conversation? Phew!

revel wrote:Good morning all!

Woodcutter wrote "If the student can treat the class as just one aspect of their personal quest for command of English, then they can be assured of getting a lot out of it." and there's the point of methods.

If the student has a good grammar teacher and is interested in grammar, the student will learn grammar.

If the student has a good pronunciation teacher and is interested in pronouncing well, the student will pronounce well.

If the student has a motivated oral teacher with thousands of resources and wants to practice speech, the student will learn how to practice and will improve.

If the student studies on his/her own, lives in the target language environment, makes friends, reads books, watches tv, listens to the radio, uses the telephone, goes to the shops, the student will in little time be speaking the language placed as an objective.

I haven't seen any one method that gets people speaking English. I have seen combinations of activities that have helped individuals achieve their linguistic goals. They are all aspects of the whole. Each contributes and thus is valid and can only be criticized when used in isolation in a dogmatic fashion. (said revel, dogmatically! )

peace,
revel.

Hoorah for Revel!

I haven't seen any one method that gets people speaking English.

Math times tables certainly helped students mouth like robots, whether that was real maths or not is relevant to methods being talked about here.

Do you think the thousands and thousands of people in those direct method schools around the world emerge unable to speak English because they were answering vaguely unusual questions such as "what is the best vacation you ever had?". In fact, of course, many students are astonishingly succesful with such methods. They do better if they do other things too, but that applies to any class.
Many people were very successful with the dreaded grammar translation method too. Are modern learners so much better? And in modern British high schools, with only the most up to date of methodologies going on, I believe there is something of a languages crisis.
And again with the robotics! These students in an Avalon school are having all manner of odd or banal questions hurled at them by native speakers all day, and they become adept at dealing with that. If you encounter a direct method student out there in the wide world, and ask them a question, they may well answer it in a natural, well-structured way. They won't bleep!
Actually Revel, I feel these discussions amongst teachers come down too often to a "little bit of that, little bit of this, anything really" kind of conclusion. The direct method is reasonably comprehensive for conversational English. One of best things about the direct method is its efficiency. In 90 per cent of the CLT kind of classes I have seen, including the one's conducted by Trinity instructors, there are painfully long periods of silence and confusion, and 3 or less students seem to dominate everything. To get these classes really humming, and make them fair, is difficult. Most teachers in ESL are short-term, not well qualified and motivated mainly by a desire to travel. Methods, though they have faults, at least guarantee a reasonable level of instruction for all.

Hey everyone!

Have I finally gotten someone's fur ruffled?

A brief outline of my "method", then.

Adult class, ten to fifteen students, an hour and a half, pre-intermediate level. Objectives: Improve fluency; motivate use; confront timidity; rehearse specific conversational situations. Total hours: 50. Course sold to students: "Commercial English".

The first thirty to fifty minutes of class are spent in warm-up of the vocal apparatus:

1. Students do stretching exercises and a "silly" warm-up game, might be throw the rubber chicken around a circle with a short question/answer format, might be singing "heads shoulders knees and toes", might be a quick tap-dance routine. Laughter is had which relaxes the group (confront timidity).

2. Vowel and consonant articulation exercises with minimal pair exercises for about ten minutes.

3. These exercises are followed by concentrated drill work, usually transformation exercises (affirmation to question to short answer to negative) at times substitution exercises. The drill part can last from half an hour to an hour, depending on the performance of the students any particular day. (improve fluency)

The remainder of the class, students are paired up at random (hardly ever working with the same partner more than twice during the course) and are given two or three simple situational dialogues. Based on these dialogues, students must prepare and rehearse short sketches to be presented before the entire class. The teacher comments on these sketches, as do the students themselves. (rehearse specific conversational situations)

Homework is given, usually one of the drill exercises, sometimes a preparation exercise.

Perhaps a little bit of this and a little bit of that, perhaps that is what I am doing. However, the class is heavily structured, with at least half of the 90 minutes spent in controlled structure exercises. Students get past the "word for word, look ma! I'm constructing a sentence in English!" stage, begin to see the language as chains of sounds and not just as lists of rules and vocabulary. The muscles are taught to move in the right direction to make those sounds. Students stop listening for "the, to, at, from, a, with" and start understanding the key words in the sentences they hear. Finally, they gain confidence in that, whatever their "level" may be, they can certainly make themselves understood and understand.

I'm not a short lived teacher, been at it for 22 years. Have been using the same "materials" for the past 20. Good old Charles C Fries and Robert Lado and Grant Taylor. It's been a while since I spent a year at the New York Public Library reading every book on linguistics they had, so I don't know if part of my practice in class is "direct" or not. Most of my "method" comes from the study of classical ballet, theatrical voice lessons and rehearsal technique. Almost nothing is left to chance, and yes, those uncomfortable silences and slow moments in class are something I don't have to face, since they almost never happen in the class above outlined.

Now you all know where I'm coming from on "methods"!

peace,
revel.

Concluding, then,

I have pretty much the same opinion as woodcutter. When I moved in English Teacher circles in Barcelona, I was often shocked to find myself to be the only teacher who was not asking everyone else how to face a difficult teaching situation. I was shocked when this English girl or that boy from Australia, recently arrived, was charging their private students three times the money I was simply because they had the face to do so and because they were natives. Two come to mind, she was a secretary and he was without a particular profession, neither of them had had the least training as teachers, oh the hours I spent with them with a glass of anis, giving them ideas, actually planning their classes for them, guess I was a bit lonely my first year in Spain!

Expecting a class to "converse" without a clear structure leaves that class in the hands of the most "talkative" and timid students just don't say anything, or at most, get practice with short answers. Again, I agree with woodcutter, in a class based on structural exercises with clear, difficult but attainable objectives, everyone has the same chance to speak, the chatty kathys have to learn to listen, the silent sues have to learn to speak up. I like to consider it classroom economy. Three hours is only a little less than 2% of a week, that's not a h*ll of a lot of time for people who usually want to see results rapidly! Not even for people who take the classes just to gradually improve! Once divided among ten students, that 2% is hardly anything at all, so it must be intense and concentrated.

That is my opinion. Got to go do some concentrated exercise for my abdominal muscles, that is, off to the gym! This weekend I'll put the legs to work on a long mountain walk, the half hour in the gym is just to concentrate the force.

peace,
revel.

It seems like (and P.S you could use sounds like here, but this is a kind of imagined chat!) Revel is a one-man-method. If I taught that way, I would expect to have many students responding well to my enthusiasm, and big problems from others. So I don't, though I think it's fine.
Imagine though, that Revel has a school teaching the "Revel" method. Students would get a trial lesson, and those looking for something else could go elsewhere. Classes could be properly streamed, as they so often are not. Students could focus, and prepare well for what they were going to do in class, and get motivated, though Revel would also need to find teachers who believed in it......

Good morning all!

Yes, it's a bit like becoming a vegetarian (I am one). The first couple of years, in order to convince yourself that you are on the right track, you end up boring all your friends and especially your family with the whys and why nots of eating or not eating once furry or feathered critters. Then you realize that those are personal choices (conscious or not) of each individual and that yours differs from theirs and people start inviting you to dinner again, making sure that there is some creative main dish for you to eat as well.

I set up a summer camp last year for 85 teen-agers. The program was based on my "one-man" method, that is, since it was a summer camp and I expected the kids would not be too interested in sitting for a couple of hours every day listening to grammar explanations, I designed a very active set of activities that included what I outlined above, but with a lot more games and crafts and even nature excursions and activities. I then tried to find teachers to work the camp.

In the interviews with Irish people (don't ask why Irish, my boss insisted!), I spoke with more than fifty teachers with different experience. Only one admitted to playing the guitar and had never used it in class. Two of these teachers had a little amateur theatre experience. The remainder were simply ESL or TOEFL teachers who wanted to come to Sunny Spain to take in some rays. That may sound unfair, but the third day of the camp and the fifth time I advised these pale girls to use some tan-lotion, I was told that they had come to get a tan, that the teaching was secondary. I don't blame them, I am evidently not a good judge of character in telephone interviews.

Long-story-short then, though I had thoroughly explained the program, though I had sent them clear instructions, lists of games and activities, all the necessary materials to make their classes dynamic and fun, based on my own experience, the camp on this front was a terrible failure. None of the teachers was able to get these kids enthused. Naturally, when I substituted or led a particular activity, I could get them on their feet and make them have a good time, but as woodcutter points out, it's a one-man method and depends a great deal on my personal charisma.

So, I shut up and do my wonderfully fun classes. My boss gives me a "conversation" class and, again as woodcutter points out, I don't have a lot of luck with it, since the objective is to let the kids speak freely and my objectives are to use classtime effectively. My boss needs to recognize the particular talents of each of his teachers (he has one excellent grammar teacher, for example, who bores adult students to death but who would be wonderful for the review classes with teens) and filter the students into the classroom that would best meet their demands.

So, once again, have to agree with woodcutter in his comments. (or "her" comments, don't know your gender, sorry! :wink: )

peace,
revel.

Concluding....

Then, on getting teachers who believe in it....

I am trying to work out a weekend (at or on?) program for adults that would include two and a half days of intensive role-play in an isolated village here in Spain, as an alternative to trying to get to Ireland or the UK or even the US for intensive immersion. This method is used by a company here, (see www.vausys.com) and is popular. When I checked out their web site, I also discovered that they are looking for teachers. The thing that halts me from sending my CV and asking for work is that they seem to be looking for inexperienced people that they can train in their method, and I'm an old dog with old tricks. I ought to go ahead and apply, I am sure that I could learn a lot, I tend to share much of the basic philosophy of the businessman who set up the program, though many of his assertions would cause heated debate in this forum.

He specifically points out that applicants need not have studied to be teachers. Hmmm, sounds like he is trying to avoid people who have pre-conceived notions. He wants the teachers to believe in his program and that seems to work for him, if his claims to earnings are true.

That will be the most difficult part of my enterprise, getting a couple of teachers who are willing to take part in my project and forget for a weekend that they are ESL teachers. I will probably just look for a couple of actors with no ESL experience. I won't be selling the project as ESL classes, so won't have difficulty there, and clients will know what they are getting into, I know first-hand the problems of offering one thing and getting another, happens all the time in my academy!

peace,
revel.

<When I checked out their web site, I also discovered that they are looking for teachers. The thing that halts me from sending my CV and asking for work is that they seem to be looking for inexperienced people that they can train in their method, and I'm an old dog with old tricks. I ought to go ahead and apply, I am sure that I could learn a lot>

I would advise against it. I used to teach at the academy in Madrid.

Not so with El Pueblo though. A very succesful project which I admire a lot.

He specifically points out that applicants need not have studied to be teachers. Hmmm, sounds like he is trying to avoid people who have pre-conceived notions.

That works well and the reasoning is good, ESL teachers tend to have an artificial, compensative, way of speaking.

Hey, if you're thinking of something similar to the Soria project, we should talk. My main background is theatre.

You can e me if you like.

Can I attempt to sumarize here?

Woodcutter is frustrated, and with good reason. He is, if I remember correctly, relatively new to this business and wants to know how he should conduct himself in his classroom--a reasonable desire. He observes that certain "teaching methods" seem to produce results generally compatible with reasonable objectives that could be formulated for language classes. Some students do, after all, learn to speak English while enduring these method classes. (Of course, many more do not, but it's a lot easier not to think too much about those students, especially because we can always postulate that they must be lazy or incompetent since some of their classmates seem to survive). Woodcutter outlines a method he thinks makes some sense and declares his allegiance to it or some variant, despite some of the disquieting features he sees. His thinking is: any systematic approach must necessarily be better than the laid-back, anything goes, ideas he sees so much of here and elsewhere in similar discussions. Those people are irresponsible!

Duncan shares Woodcutter's frustration, and says as much at length. Duncan, I always read your posts with interest because of the obvious intelligence behind them, backed up with good experience. But I sometimes wish I had some way to disable the 'brackets' keys on your word processor.

Metal56 shares his own view, which is similar to mine, that all "methods" are nice for robots, maybe, but severely limited for real students. This view ruffles Woodcutter because it doesn't seem to be helpful. "What, then," says he, "should teachers do in the classroom? Certainly not...whatever!!" But Metal56 is steadfast. He doesn't think much of a "conversation" that starts out, in a classroom, "What did you do on your vacation?" Nor do I. M and I are looking for real conversation because real conversation contains elements that cannot be artificially injected into pretend conversations. Of course, real conversation is not easy...not in the classroom at least. One of the characteristics that must be present is great flexibility...and that requirement is probably what leads so many teachers who have substantial experience to appear laid-back. What they often mean is you take it as it comes. What happens in the classroom is controlled chaos, and that's just as it should be. Experience gives you the wherewithal to control things just enough to have real goings on but not so much as to be stultified. Chaos is reflective of the outside world. We all know how limiting classrooms can be, especially if they are superficially structured with "lesson plans", or even "lessons".

Revel then demonstrates for us something about how his classroom runs. It's a process he has refined over many years (probably by trial and error, mostly) and it works for him. He doesn't suggest that we all use his method, indeed he'd be horrified if something like that happened. His purpose is merely illustrative of his particular classroom process. "Get your own!", I'm sure he would be quick to say. He likes a little structure in his process, but his experience gives him the ability to pick and choose on the spot from his formidable list of useful exercises, depending on the nature of the moment. He abhors the "come latelys" who teach so that they can travel, but have no idea what they're doing, nor care. Probably most of us who are serious about teaching language share that feeling with him. When Woodcutter points out that Revel's method may not work for all, he readily agrees, and points out that his boss should recognize the individual talents of her several teachers and assign classes accordingly. Ah, if only the world worked that way...

So now here we are. Has anything been accomplished? Certainly. And also not much. Woodcutter and Duncan have gotten some things off their chests, and so has everybody else. Venting is almost always useful, if only in a limited way. What I take from this discussion so far is confirmation of my conviction that genuine experience is genuinely useful in the classroom. I have little patience, no, make that no patience with people who should be clerks or shopgirls or engineers (but definitely not teachers) who spend years in their classrooms doing the same thing session after session, year after year and still can't seem to come up with anything but follow the coursebook. And I have even less patience with school administrators who insist that teachers behave that way...who catch every new fashion that comes along in language teaching, and demand that their teachers follow suit. I am downright hostile to administrators like that, and there are so many. What kind of real teacher would submit to that? Real teachers are different from each other because they are different people. Celebrate the difference!Students, supposedly, come to them for what they know. (And therein lies one of the tangible difficulties that Duncan introduced by reminding us that teachers should at least know their subject). If all they get is some "method", then what's the point? Students can read the book by themselves. But if the teacher can challenge them, force them to think about English, force them to confront their bias's (English is like that!!!) by engaging them in something REAL, perhaps they just might really learn something. That's different than memorizing something. As important as vocabulary is (and it most certainly is), that's not all there is to English. And likewise, as important as grammar is (and it most certainly is), memorizing a bunch of "rules" is not all there is to it. One must learn to succeed in the target language, and that cannot be easily done if one is pretending.

Well OK. I'm up on a soapbox now, I must admit, and I didn't really intend that when I started here. My apologies, but then, I did say some things that needed saying, I think. I hope you'll forgive me for taking so long to say them. Blowing off a bit of steam makes me feel better too.

Larry Latham