"Purpose guided" curricula for Enlgish in China?

[Machjo]

I've come across so many Chinee who've studied English for a decade and still can't speak it. I've also come across some who spoke English well wen I first met them but then, meeting them again a couple years later, noticed a pronounced deterioration in their English due to the fact that they didn't really need Enlgish in their daily lives. I'd also met one man, a university professor, who reads and writes in Enlgish all the time (and he writes very well, might I add) but hasn't spoken it for years and so can barely speak it (after all, English isn't the most phonetic language in the world, is it?).

My question is this:

Bearing in mind that many Chinese will never really need to use Enlgish in their lives, and others will only need to know passive reading and maybe active writing skills, in the language, would it not be more efficient from an economic standpoint (bearing in mind that China, still a poor country by international standards, must be spending billions upon billions of RMB/year on English language instruction alone when it has so many other issues to deal with), for students with proven language ability to start learning English in middle school and the others choosing easier to learn regional languages such as Japanese, etc., and to not place too much emphasis on the active spoken language (perhaps not even before university for those who want to specialize in Enlgish) bearing in mind that such instruction could turn out to be a complete waste of time for many students, and a financial burden on Chinese society, in the end?

And how would such instruction be carried out, specifically? For instance, would the teacher merely teach teh pronunciation quickly, and as long as teh student's pronunciatin is approximate and he knows the meaning of the word when he sees it, the teacher would just move on the the next? And what about text reading? Would it simply involve text reading, with the students proving their undertaning by translating it into Chinese?

Whatever the solution, it appears that the current system of having every child learn English (and the spoken language at that, in such a homogenous society) is simply a massive waste of money, with even those who do learn the language well just forgetting it after university!

What are your thoughts?

[Andrew Patterson]

Bearing in mind that many Chinese will never really need to use Enlgish in their lives, and others will only need to know passive reading and maybe active writing skills, in the language, would it not be more efficient from an economic standpoint (bearing in mind that China, still a poor country by international standards, must be spending billions upon billions of RMB/year on English language instruction alone when it has so many other issues to deal with), for students with proven language ability to start learning English in middle school and the others choosing easier to learn regional languages such as Japanese, etc.,

I can see that Japanese might be more useful because it is in the same region at least with regards to the East of China, but what evidence do you have that it would be easier to learn than English?

This might be a different matter in Manchuria. Manchurian is close to Korean and so is related to Japanese, though clearly Korean would be even easier there. Some Koreans want Manchuria back as part of Korea, though, so that might go against that.

Surely another Sino-Tibetan language would be easier to learn, notwithstanding that the aphabets may be different. Examples include:

Vietnamese, Thai, Lao, Khmer and Burmese. Tibetan is of course also a Sino-Tibetan language, though I can't see that one being first in line all things considered. There are also several related languages within China such Mandarin is obviously the most spoken, but there's also Cantonese and Wu. These do share the same alphabet and are even more closely related too.

[Machjo]

I was trying to think about an economically more powerful nation such as Japan, thus forgetting my initial point being that some children find second languages too hard in the first place. So to replace a difficult language with another difficult language would certainly defeat the purpose.

So you're certainly right that for those students who found language too difficult in primary school, easier languages in middle school such as the ones you mentionned would be more useful for them in their lives than Japanese, because they could at least learn them to a reasonable level of fluency.

That's the same mystake many make with English. they say English is useful. Yes, it is, but only once you've mastered it. So if it's too difficult for you, then an easier language would certainly be more uselful in that case.

Seems I was the pot calling the kettle black by falling into the same trap of just looking for the 'money' languages while forgetting the primary purpose of language learning, which is to be able to communicate to a reasonable level of fluency before you give up on it.

Thanks for the correction!

[Stephen Jones]

Yea, Japanese is perfect for dealing with hotel receptionists in Thailand, Trinidad and Timbuctkoo, for selling cigarette lighters to Germans and Argentinians, and everybody knows its the lingua franca for computer science, molecular biology and quantum physics.

[revel]

Good morning, all!

The way I see it, we are getting ready for the fall of an empire and we may all be studying Chinese within a couple of decades! There are certainly a lot of people on this planet with that language in their mouths, and English could well follow the path of French. China is certainly a country to respect in world development.

peace,
revel.

[Machjo]

That the Chinese dialects can be as different as English and French, and not all Chinese know the standard language.

[Roger]

it (
My question is this:


And how would such instruction be carried out, specifically? For instance, would the teacher merely teach teh pronunciation quickly, and as long as teh student's pronunciatin is approximate and he knows the meaning of the word when he sees it, the teacher would just move on the the next? And what about text reading? Would it simply involve text reading, with the students proving their undertaning by translating it into Chinese?

?

I am at odds with this question and your attempt at answering it yourself. Surely you know that a teacher's job is not to merely choose words for his students to memorise?
You teach a LANGUAGE, not just its component parts called WORDS; you must take a holistic approach and cover the language's structures. Acquiring vocabulary is a student's business; once he is familiar with the more widely pertaining pronunciation rules he can help himself to new vocables. The teacher must concentrate on how the language communicates thoughts, and these don't get communicated in single words but in whole sentences and texts. Building a house also requires tonnes of bricks; the individual bricks are worthless, but interlocking them gets the builder to make walls.

It is true that currently, China is wasting colossal amounts of money on its outdated education system. It indoctrinates its students in so-called Political STudy lessons - there is no economic benefit to derive from this. It teaches English in an amateurish way, and clearly, the results are laughable. Scheming? One is tempted to think so!

I personally believe, the exams should screen out the underachievers. Students ought to have a CHOICE - modern languages, with English being one of them, and Japanese, Korean, French, German, Arabic second foreign tongues. At high school level leading up to college, they should major in those, while others should focus on sciences or arts. Students who don't score high enough to enter college should be sent to vocational schools or enter the labour market. English should be taught only to dedicated students, bydedicated teachers. And foreign terachers should determine the aptitudes.
Since English is a de facto compulsory subject everybody takes the right to study it for granted; with this "right" goes the belief that once in an English class you are also going to PASS the final exam. That's humbug, and that should stop!

[woodcutter]

I think the results in China are sometimes quite impressive. In England, with all the advantages of well equipped classrooms and progressive, theory laden teachers, the results in French classes are laughable.

And Americans suck at Spanish too, by and large.

[LarryLatham]

And Americans suck at Spanish too, by and large.

Yes, sad to say...unless they are Mexican-American, and then they learn their Spanish at home. Not in classrooms.

It seems self-evident that despite our theories, our supporting research, our well-equipped classrooms, our glossy books and papers, our impassioned, earnest, smiley teachers, and yes, even our good intentions, we are forced by the available evidence to admit that we don't do a very good job. Roger and Woodcutter are right: the results are laughable.

Perhaps we have to look outside the field to find new inspiration.

Larry Latham

[Machjo]

That the Chinese teacher, at least in middle school and university, is dealing with students who can't enter university unless they pass a government English sets, whereas in the USA and Britain, English is generally thought of as sufficient language knowledge in the world of today.

And second point...


Yes, the Chinese do much better in their English tests, but I'd hate to know the suicide ratein Chinese universities. I hear of new cases on a regular basis. So is the price China is paying really worthwhile for students the majority of whom will never leave China and might never even meet a foreigner. And what about all the money society has invested in his education just for him to jump off a bridge in the end. It doesn't matter how good his English got. It's a waste in the end. One must consider the larger picture also.

[LarryLatham]

Few people with exposure to the system of education in most Asian countries would argue that there's no need for overhaul of the system. But that overhaul should go much deeper than the way English is taught.

Suicides of young people is but a tragic symptom of something fundamentally amiss. However, the thrust of many of the posts here in this thread suggests that Western educational administration, while not so much suffering from the self-inflicted demise of its students, is hardly a shining model upon which Asian authorities should base their modifications. They could do even better (if they tried).

Larry Latham

[woodcutter]

It's quite funny really, that the Anglo-Saxon world wants to spread the gospel of language learning methodology. Our monolingual missionaries are everywhere. Yet even our cooking skills measure up better in global terms!

[Roger]

hey, woodcutter,
I am terribly at odds with your claim about monolingual missionaries in the world at large, really I am!
I do deplore the fact that so many monolingual TEFLers are roaming the world in search of thrill, excitement, and the somewhat pompous title of being a "teacher" when they have never learnt a second tongue themselves.
But neither machjio nor I belong to this category. And, I would have a lot more respect for CHinese English techers IFN THEY COULD DO THEIR JOB THEMSELVES. Fact is they can't, - in sharp contrast to what you see in many other countries that are also under-equipped; have you ever been to Kenya or Zaire?

Also, English has acquired the status it has through no fault of itself; it's CHinese people themselves that force their kids to take English extracurricular classes on weekends and throughout their holidays.
Chinese children spend on average an estimated 50 hours per week in classrooms; timetables are geared towards occupying as much of their time as possible with some academic activity, preferably not as individuals but as a group of 50 to 100 pupils. Can you imagine such a monotony? They have to sit 8 to ten hours in cramped classrooms, and teachers supervise them during their evening "homework time".

How can this inspire young learners with the desire to learn more? This is a purely quantitative approach.
CHildren also are extremely emotionally starved in China. Parents prefer putting their kids through boarding-schools. Thus, many a child doesn't see their family for up to ten months a year. From age 12 on through 18...

Recreation? What recreation do they have? I tell you: next to zero!

Again, compare likes with likes: how many hours does a British student spend at school? I read somewhere that no one spends more than 20 hours at school a week...

Of course, not every child in Britain or the West in general has an ideal upbringing; but methinks that the CHinese exaggerate in that they take any choice away from their children.
They often perceive this as their "patriotic" duty...
Yes love the motherland of China, hate foreigners but do learn their foreign lingo so as to benefit your home country in the future..

[coffeedecafe]

i am not completely aware of the school conditions in china that machjo has mentioned, but i am intrigued with the notion of concentrating on written comprehension as a prerequisite. i had a conversational french class back in high school where we were not allowed to learn the book language as that was considered an impediment to learning proper vocal french. to my algebra -style mind that approach did not work. i would think that a person, even self taught in a languages written comprehension would gain a practical verbal use of the language just from reading his books out loud. almost as important is the lesson to not be afraid to mispronounce anything if it helps you to be understood in the language you are learning.

[woodcutter]

Roger, some of the things you say seem true to me. But many Chinese learn English very well. Many have great enthusiasm. An unwillingness to grind at language learning is one reason why I think that our own young geniuses don't measure up.

Furthermore, I am not really a fan of Chinese food. China, however, does not need British chefs.