Don't worry - be happy

[woodcutter]

Sally Olsen once said:

Just to play the devil's advocate, different styles of teaching have been researched and if the teacher cares it doesn't matter if the classes are run in a teacher-in front, controlled manner, a teacher-in-front entertainer or a student-centered focus with groups and projects. The students come out the end with the same love of the subject and mastery of it and the same proporation fail and pass

And I've being wrestling with it ever since. It doesn't actually matter what we do then, right? However horrible my method (and you all know that it is!) it isn't going to matter in the end..........

[woodcutter]

OK then, ignore me. I posted this due to the relevance to the arguments about Berlitz on the other thread. Let me try again.............

Does the method matter?

[fluffyhamster]

Yes, if it's a dodgy, could-be-bettered-with-a-bit-of-thought method.

[woodcutter]

But Sally's prof's research shows that the important thing is that I go at my favoured method with enthusiasm.....

I should be far more extreme, therefore! As I have repeatedly told you, I am in reality a relatively conventional Headway'n'Hangman clown, with a trusty old guitar. I may possibly be able to score more popularity points than you fellers at that.

If you look at the great experiment that is ongoing in every school every place, you will in fact see that every single method can bring results, and the acheivements of a Penny Ur, or a grizzled old grammar buff, or a first year TEFLer are similar enough.

As to not thinking about methods, Fluffy, I would have thought that since I bore you all with my ideas so often I might at least be spared that jibe....

[fluffyhamster]

As to not thinking about methods, Fluffy, I would have thought that since I bore you all with my ideas so often I might at least be spared that jibe....

You obviously have great faith in your method (NOTE: singular, vs. plural 'methodS'!), woody, but there is a difference between faith and knowledge/"facts"; and in between, touching each term, is "belief", but belief towards the knowledge end of the "belief spectrum" is liable to modify itself or even change totally in the light of experience, reflection, learning, debate, argument etc.

It's obviously natural and healthy that a method should grow and adapt to, or rather, be adapted by a teacher, rather than remaining carved in stone on tablets from on high. I (re)read and have a lot of respect for e.g. Michael Lewis, but sometimes I don't understand what he says, or misunderstand it, or just plain don't see his point, I can only "absorb what seems useful" to me, and I have things to add that are "specifically my own" (not that I'd presume to tell Mike he needs to listen to me...yet! ).

I believe that a teacher should be guided by the facts of language use first and foremost, but I also have to accept that language can't just pass students by the once: things have to be bought into focus somehow, underlined, repeated perhaps, explained even. Actually, the exact pedagogy to use escapes me - I don't think there can ever be a uniform pedagogy for every differing item or aspect of a thing as complex as language...so, I would not be opposed to being "Direct" at times.

I think the important thing is that a teacher has enthusiasm, passion, knowledge, integrity, whatever positive attribute you can name, not necessarily attached to any method, but not divorced from their thinking, behaviour and being during preparation, in the actual lesson, and after, reflection. The key feeling that emerges in all this, for me, is potential, unrealized potential. A method can help realize certain facets, but too much and it extinguishes the spark (but to have none at all won't fire anything).

Waffling away whey hey!

[woodcutter]

Within the narrow space we have available to make a difference (the students themselves are more important than us) enthusiasm and passion and our general knowledge is one aspect. If such things are really all that count, however, there isn't much point discussing methodology.

And since only you will talk to me fluff, I guess the world agrees......

[fluffyhamster]

Within the narrow space we have available to make a difference (the students themselves are more important than us) enthusiasm and passion and our general knowledge is one aspect. If such things are really all that count, however, there isn't much point discussing methodology.

And since only you will talk to me fluff, I guess the world agrees......

Even the tumbleweed that blows through Dave's Ghost Mining Town doesn't enter this here Happy Saloon. The only explanation for the absence of human, equine or bovine life must be the hoedowns going on elsewhere...or the shootouts that some young crazy Billy the Kid "started" (despite the dangers they sure can draw a crowd, pardner!).

[Tara B]

I have heard that the research says that teaching is more effective when the teacher strongly believes in his/her method. I think that many methods are equally effective if the teacher is committed to them.

But I have also heard that some part of student success depends on the students' perception. Students also need to be converted to the teaching method. If the teacher has a method that the student thinks is way out there, usually there's very little success. That is one reason--I think--that we continue to teach grammar to adults, despite what the research seems to indicate that it is a lot of work for not very many results. The students think they need it.

This makes for a challenge in a diverse class. Some of the students prefer a warm, caring teacher, while others expect hard work and expertise. I have had several Asian students who were turned off by my attempts to lower the "affective filter" in my class.

[fluffyhamster]

I guess the answer is to not just think in terms of "This is a grammar lesson", "This is a skills lesson", "This is a reading class today", "This is a conversation class", "This is mainly a vocab-building session" etc etc. We should have a core text in mind at least and have several activities that cover and could all build upon its various aspects. I personally like to teach indirectly, and always aim to introduce things in a conversational, flowing manner (simply because most classes are sold as "conversation" ones in the contexts in which I've been working). Other classes e.g. TOEIC ones are a different matter, but I sometimes feel they get the emphasis wrong with e.g. just studying past papers etc, as if the secrets of English were contained only within those papers.

[stephen]

I remember at school we had a teacher who was incredibly enthusiastic about German; she was also dull as ditch water. Suprisingly, I don't remember learning too much in her classes. In fact, the only German I learnt in a year with her was that the German word for townhall is pronounced rathouse (not spelled that way, but I did say I learnt very little.) Therefore, I'd say enthusiasm is not sufficient. Think back to your own secondry school teachers, and I am sure you'll find one or two to illustrate my point! I think being able to engage your students in some meaningful way is certainly a key part of teaching, but enthusiasm alone is not enough to do this.

Stephen

[Tara B]

I have heard that the research supports the view that more important than the teaching method itself, the teacher should be converted to the method he/she is using.

I have also heard--and no one has mentioned it so far--that student success is also related to the STUDENT being converted. The student has to believe that the teaching method actually works. My own experience has supported this.

That sometimes makes for a dilemma in a mixed class. Students from different cultures often come to the class with different expectiations, and its hard to please everybody. Some students prefer a warm, caring teacher; others, funny and relaxed; still others want strict discipline and hard work. Many students don't believe that interviewing a friend is really homework; even though that may be what they need, if they don't believe in it, how much are they really going to learn?

Some things that teachers do on purpose to "lower the affective filter" turn certain students off if they're not on the "lower affective filter" boat, so to speak. Even though WE know it's important, I can see how it would be hard to learn from a teacher who you don't take seriously.

[woodcutter]

Yes, and that's why the method coming from the school, rather than the individual teacher, has many advantages. That means the
student has chosen the school (after a trial lesson), and is therefore partially responsible for the method.

If the teacher has to dance this way and that, changing the method as the class composition alters and the "alpha" students who make their opinions felt and influence the class mood come and go it doesn't make for a good program of study.

[fluffyhamster]

Woody, you seem to live in a world of hypothetical classrooms full of meek method-worshipping convert cultist students, rather than the one in which, to borrow your phrase, "alpha" students come in every now and then to p*ss against your chair and lesson plan folder.

How do method schools deal with this kind of "lone wolf", who may actually have a bark worse than his/her bite and just want a decent chat? (Maybe that's what the others secretly want also, but they're just too scared of their own voices to say so).

I must say though, if you get a pack of them, hunting teachers together, the best thing would be a cull...send in those method marksmen and blam blam blam!

[stephen]

Tara B does have an important point. If the students actively resist the methodology applied by the teacher, it will fail! Students here in Taiwan often believe that they need to learn more grammar. The fact that a mere six years of grammar during their state school education, perhaps a few more at university, and possibly even more at bushibans (Taiwanese Language Schools) have failed to achieve the desired results does not make the penny drop, and indeed, psychological reasearch indicates that this would be so. Psychologists have found that when a person has invested a lot of time, energy or money in something, it is very psychologically difficult to admit that it has been negative. Therefore, students with years of studying grammar and shocking productive ability (the intermediate come pre-elemntary brigade who have memorised every rule and can barely string a sentence together in less than 5 minutes) will have a psychological need to view those years of studying grammar as valuable. This belief makes it very easy for them to accept that they need to master grammar better rather than change the way they study. Thus, arguably the most important challenge for the teacher is to convert the students to a more productive method of study.

Stephen

[Stephen Jones]

Tara has made good points, both here and on the other thread.

I do not believe, however, that the situation is unsolvable. Let's take the example of the Taiwanese student who has spent various years mislearning and being mistaught "Grammar". What he needs to be told is that what he has learned is very useful and that he is now going to be taught how to use all of his knowledge. If he persists in claiming he wants more rules, pander to his desires with a vengeance. Show him the 1728 pages of the Cambridge English Grammar and tell him that that is the beginners explanation.

And there are many cases of people becoming fluent in a matter of weeks ince they have the opportunity to build up on their passive knowledge.

Finally we must remember a quotation of Bernard Spolsky's, Professor Emritus at the University of Tel Aviv. Different students learn languages successfully in a myriad of different ways, and this suggests that there is no one successful way of teaching somebody to learn a language. And to counterbalance that we should quote Fowler, "In Foreign Language teaching all roads lead to Rome, but some take a lot longer to get there than others, and some follow a route so circuitous that the travellers dies of old age and exhaustion before he ever reaches his goal."[/code]