I had an interesting experience the other day. You see, there is this guy on the Korean forums called David ("Mithridates") who is well known as the guy who speaks really good Korean. He runs his own bilingual website. After reading about the extreme mental effort he put into learning Korean, I posted the comments I once made here about learning languages being a hard slog, and that I had no time for the "I speak 15 languages" boastful crowd.
Anyway, I was writing to you lot when my wife called me down because there was a language genius on TV who was going to tell me the secret of how to learn brilliant Korean. It was him! They said he could speak seven languages, but after I wrote to him again he claims 12. So I've had to revise my former theory a bit. He grew up in Canada with Norweigan parents, and therefore gets about 5 Scandanavian tongues plus English and French fairly cheaply. I suppose if you are trilingual in childhood, and you speak a scandanavian and a romance language plus English, it is a great base from which to become a mega-linguist.
I've tried to get him to tell us "the secret" over here, but it doesn't look as though he will. Anyway, he seems to think that learning something from a new language family will take 2 years at least(?), and that if you have a base then the time can be reduced according how good that base is. How you keep them all up to scratch, I'm not sure. (remain sceptical!)
As far as I can tell, the "secret" (which didn't come out too much on the TV!) involves extereme hard work and mental obsession with the language, no surprise there (he tells us to really focus on one at a time, ideally). I think perhaps it works that if you practice 10 hours a day you can be like him, 8 hours a day will take you 5 years, 6 hours 10 years, 4 hours 20 years, and less than that is no good, or something like that?
Mithridates and his secret
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Is this guy better than Steve Kaufmann, then, woody?
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=2726
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8 ... e+linguist
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=2726
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8 ... e+linguist
It sounds like the "secret" of getting good at a language is the same principle that applies to any other skill; hard work, dedication and practice. Hardly a revelation, unless you actually believed the "learn a language effortlessly" ads in the Sunday papers.
Has anyone here every learned a foreign language effortlessly?
Has anyone here every learned a foreign language effortlessly?
-
call-centertrainer
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 3:40 pm
Secrets of learning a foreign language
If a child grows up in an ambience where two or more than two languages are spoken & the child is able to understand & speak those languages in his/her initial years then that child's probability of learning a foreign language faster than a child who could only interact in one language during his/her childhood. Off course dedication,passion & inner motivation have no substitutes but this has been psychologically proved that the usage of vocabularies of diverse languages as in the case of a bilingual or a trilingual individual inherently prepares a person to learn a new language faster.
I hope to receive comments with regard to my stand point.
I hope to receive comments with regard to my stand point.
It might be helpful to distinguish between "miltilingual" and "multiliterate" here. When we speak of "language acquisition," we are talking about oral language. A child, or an adult with a high aptitude for languages, can "soak it up" as long as the input is comprehensible. But written language, literacy, is not "acquired" like that; it has to be explicitly taught, even to native speakers. It takes a prodigy to teach him/herself to read.
Becoming educated in even your native language takes work; say maybe , 12 years of schooling or more. Although children can perhaps get the oral language down easily, by the sheer luck of being raised in the right "ambience," no one becomes highly literate in any language without work.
So if you're slaving away, don't feel bad. It's normal.
In the translator's world, being truly bilingual (speaking two languages with native proficiency) is a coveted skill. But even true bilinguals who have spoken their languages since childhood, generally have a stronger language and a weaker one. The strong one, the one they translate into, is the one in which they gained their university education.
Becoming educated in even your native language takes work; say maybe , 12 years of schooling or more. Although children can perhaps get the oral language down easily, by the sheer luck of being raised in the right "ambience," no one becomes highly literate in any language without work.
So if you're slaving away, don't feel bad. It's normal.
In the translator's world, being truly bilingual (speaking two languages with native proficiency) is a coveted skill. But even true bilinguals who have spoken their languages since childhood, generally have a stronger language and a weaker one. The strong one, the one they translate into, is the one in which they gained their university education.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Perhaps Mith is better than Kaufman, he claims 12 after all. (do you really have to be so 'been there done that' about everything FH?) The point is though, how different are the different languages. 12, each from a different family - that I don't believe.
Anyway, the reason why these people interest me is because they tend to show that language learning works on an exponential curve. Do a great deal each day, and you work wonders. Do a little, and you get nowhere. So when we play along with an enfotainment ethos, we are not really doing our job at all.
It's also interesting to reflect that children obsess over a first language at least 14 hours a day, for they have no choice. Therein lies their secret, perhaps?
Anyway, the reason why these people interest me is because they tend to show that language learning works on an exponential curve. Do a great deal each day, and you work wonders. Do a little, and you get nowhere. So when we play along with an enfotainment ethos, we are not really doing our job at all.
It's also interesting to reflect that children obsess over a first language at least 14 hours a day, for they have no choice. Therein lies their secret, perhaps?
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
I (still) find it very interesting that someone who recommends LEARNERS do 'a great deal every day' is content to allow teachers to get away with the old time-filling trick of 'I know what you're "trying" to say, but unless you use the full sentence we were just practising I'm afraid I will have to pretend I find something unacceptable about what you just communicated.' Talk about passing the buck...ah, but we've 'been there, done that' already, haven't we!
Woody, I dig up those old threads because usually the OP deserved to get a good kicking but didn't. The only reasons I can think of for this are 1) I lack the rhetorical skills to put the guy out of his misery for once and for all (then again, maybe I did, and there's nothing more for anyone to add?
) and/or 2) Few were really that interested in or convinced (or outraged) enough by what the wishy-washy "wacko" had to say to feel like responding at length if at all (that is, not all posters throw us a nice big juicy bone - they sometimes don't seem informed or articulate enough to make starting a proper dialogue appear worthwhile).
Woody, I dig up those old threads because usually the OP deserved to get a good kicking but didn't. The only reasons I can think of for this are 1) I lack the rhetorical skills to put the guy out of his misery for once and for all (then again, maybe I did, and there's nothing more for anyone to add?
) and/or 2) Few were really that interested in or convinced (or outraged) enough by what the wishy-washy "wacko" had to say to feel like responding at length if at all (that is, not all posters throw us a nice big juicy bone - they sometimes don't seem informed or articulate enough to make starting a proper dialogue appear worthwhile).-
Londo Molari
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:19 am
'Anyway, the reason why these people interest me is because they tend to show that language learning works on an exponential curve. Do a great deal each day, and you work wonders. Do a little, and you get nowhere. So when we play along with an enfotainment ethos, we are not really doing our job at all. '
Absolutely true, woodcutter! Couldn't agree more. Now factor in human laziness, and you will soon see that most students just aren't willing to put anything like enough into learning languages, especially with all these empty promises language schools make - 'Hey! Come to our school and we'll teach you fluent English in an hour a week!' (Of course, they are fobbed off with communicative activities that create the illusion of fluency and language ability, but they're happy, the schools make money and everyone's a winner!). The fact is, folk want the goodies without putting in the work. Far too much is put on the teacher thes days too. If the student fails, it's the teacher's fault, after all, 'There's no such thing as a bad student, only a bad teacher'. Right? If a student comes class once a week, except when he knows there is going to be a test and doesn't want to come face to face with reality (I had one or two of those in my time!), expects me to pour English into his head without him doing any real work himself. If he goes home and does nothing during the week to improve his English despite my advice regarding what he should do, then am I a bad teacher?
I am somewhat of a polygot myself. I didn't have the luxury of growing up in a bilingual household - my language journey began when I was 11, at secondary school. Since then I have learned several languages, many if you count 'communicative competence' as being of any value, and I have this to say about language elarning from my experience:
(1) You need to go at it with a passion - an obsession if you like. You need to love it like Beckham likes football!
(2) You need to work, work, work! Of course, it doesn't feel like work because it's a hobby! BUT take it from me, even as someone with an aptiyude for language syou still have to work very hard. That's what makes me laugh with all these namby-pamby communicative methods that ungifted learners are using. Obviously they don't work!
(3) I recommend intensive grammar-translation and pronunciation backed up with intensive audio-lingual leanning, THEN you are ready to begin the journey and start to try to talk, not before. Doing so too soon makes students speak pidgin TL and ingrains errors that they will never be able to irradicate, but they just won't be told! And as English is a big business, we give them what we want, NOT what actually works. So...
Viva TWALT!
Absolutely true, woodcutter! Couldn't agree more. Now factor in human laziness, and you will soon see that most students just aren't willing to put anything like enough into learning languages, especially with all these empty promises language schools make - 'Hey! Come to our school and we'll teach you fluent English in an hour a week!' (Of course, they are fobbed off with communicative activities that create the illusion of fluency and language ability, but they're happy, the schools make money and everyone's a winner!). The fact is, folk want the goodies without putting in the work. Far too much is put on the teacher thes days too. If the student fails, it's the teacher's fault, after all, 'There's no such thing as a bad student, only a bad teacher'. Right? If a student comes class once a week, except when he knows there is going to be a test and doesn't want to come face to face with reality (I had one or two of those in my time!), expects me to pour English into his head without him doing any real work himself. If he goes home and does nothing during the week to improve his English despite my advice regarding what he should do, then am I a bad teacher?
I am somewhat of a polygot myself. I didn't have the luxury of growing up in a bilingual household - my language journey began when I was 11, at secondary school. Since then I have learned several languages, many if you count 'communicative competence' as being of any value, and I have this to say about language elarning from my experience:
(1) You need to go at it with a passion - an obsession if you like. You need to love it like Beckham likes football!
(2) You need to work, work, work! Of course, it doesn't feel like work because it's a hobby! BUT take it from me, even as someone with an aptiyude for language syou still have to work very hard. That's what makes me laugh with all these namby-pamby communicative methods that ungifted learners are using. Obviously they don't work!
(3) I recommend intensive grammar-translation and pronunciation backed up with intensive audio-lingual leanning, THEN you are ready to begin the journey and start to try to talk, not before. Doing so too soon makes students speak pidgin TL and ingrains errors that they will never be able to irradicate, but they just won't be told! And as English is a big business, we give them what we want, NOT what actually works. So...
Viva TWALT!
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Communicative translation
Good morning all.
The more I read Londo, the more I realize that he and I share a lot of attitudes towards the work of the ESL teacher. What's funny to me, though, is though it seems that we are doing the same thing with our students, he calls it grammar translation and I call it Oral Workshop.
His complaints about student expectations based on programs sold by administrations are valid but won't ever change what the administration sells. Imagine a TV ad that goes like this:
Bob: (in a suit and tie, talking on the phone in a busy office) Sí, quiero dos docenas de cachivaches. Mándamelas por correo especial para que lleguen antes del martes que viene. Gracias.
Sally: (who has overheard Bob's telephone conversation) Wow, Bob, I didn't know that you spoke Spanish so well!
Bob: Yes, Sally, and thanks to my incredible fluency, I've just been promoted to Senior Vice President of the firm!
Sally: That's great! How did you do it? I've been trying to learn Sumalese for years and always seem to be a beginner. (pouts)
Bob: Well, Sally, it's taken me years of devoted study and practice. I've bought every grammar book I can get my hands on and have read them, out loud, from beginning to end. I've done all of the exercises orally, repeating each exercise at least five times, the harder ones up to twenty-five times. Three times a week I work with a pronunciation specialist who drills me on structural patterns. I fly to Cuba once a month and spend three days between intensive meetings with suppliers and simply mixing with the natives. I'm a really outgoing guy, and I make a lot of friends. We go out often and chat about current events over a couple of beers. I am married to a lovely woman from Madrid and at home we have a rule that we only speak Spanish. And, don't forget that year of sabatical that I spent in Panama....
Sally: Wow, I'd really like to improve my Spanish and get a promotion. What academy did you go to?
Bob: The Academy of Life, Sally, they guarentee that, if you spend your entire life working on it, you'll become more and more fluent as time goes by. But you have to work at it....
Sally: Thanks, Bob, I'm going to call them up right now, I'm ready to give up my family, take a part-time position in the company, get a babysitter and a woman to clean, shop and cook so that I can spend endless hours improving my language skills.
Yes, some people are lazy, though I'm not sure it's human nature. Most people haven't found the right motivation to move them to the constant practice they need. Teachers are trapped into doing this or that, but most simply do what they know how to do, be it a better or worse way of going about things. Students do, indeed, have the responsibility for learning. Teachers ought to ignore what the administration has sold and do the best they can in that tiny percentage of contact time the student has with the language. And as Londo implies, teachers should help students get into the habit, should teach students techniques that they can use outside of class, should offer hundreds of exercises and teach students how to use those exercises.
Doing a cloze exercise with a group of adults to fill the time is part of this TWALT thing Londo touts. Using a cloze exercise to teach students how to transcribe their favorite songs on their own is better. Using a cloze exercise to get students to focus on substitutable words instead of the straw padding of the "the, then, at, to, from, is, are, am" of sentences is useful. There I am, talking about objectives again. If the objective is the first, then I'm with Londo, TWALT. If the objectives are the second or third, then I would not be so fast to complain about the teacher who does such work with his/her students.
peace,
revel.
The more I read Londo, the more I realize that he and I share a lot of attitudes towards the work of the ESL teacher. What's funny to me, though, is though it seems that we are doing the same thing with our students, he calls it grammar translation and I call it Oral Workshop.
His complaints about student expectations based on programs sold by administrations are valid but won't ever change what the administration sells. Imagine a TV ad that goes like this:
Bob: (in a suit and tie, talking on the phone in a busy office) Sí, quiero dos docenas de cachivaches. Mándamelas por correo especial para que lleguen antes del martes que viene. Gracias.
Sally: (who has overheard Bob's telephone conversation) Wow, Bob, I didn't know that you spoke Spanish so well!
Bob: Yes, Sally, and thanks to my incredible fluency, I've just been promoted to Senior Vice President of the firm!
Sally: That's great! How did you do it? I've been trying to learn Sumalese for years and always seem to be a beginner. (pouts)
Bob: Well, Sally, it's taken me years of devoted study and practice. I've bought every grammar book I can get my hands on and have read them, out loud, from beginning to end. I've done all of the exercises orally, repeating each exercise at least five times, the harder ones up to twenty-five times. Three times a week I work with a pronunciation specialist who drills me on structural patterns. I fly to Cuba once a month and spend three days between intensive meetings with suppliers and simply mixing with the natives. I'm a really outgoing guy, and I make a lot of friends. We go out often and chat about current events over a couple of beers. I am married to a lovely woman from Madrid and at home we have a rule that we only speak Spanish. And, don't forget that year of sabatical that I spent in Panama....
Sally: Wow, I'd really like to improve my Spanish and get a promotion. What academy did you go to?
Bob: The Academy of Life, Sally, they guarentee that, if you spend your entire life working on it, you'll become more and more fluent as time goes by. But you have to work at it....
Sally: Thanks, Bob, I'm going to call them up right now, I'm ready to give up my family, take a part-time position in the company, get a babysitter and a woman to clean, shop and cook so that I can spend endless hours improving my language skills.
Yes, some people are lazy, though I'm not sure it's human nature. Most people haven't found the right motivation to move them to the constant practice they need. Teachers are trapped into doing this or that, but most simply do what they know how to do, be it a better or worse way of going about things. Students do, indeed, have the responsibility for learning. Teachers ought to ignore what the administration has sold and do the best they can in that tiny percentage of contact time the student has with the language. And as Londo implies, teachers should help students get into the habit, should teach students techniques that they can use outside of class, should offer hundreds of exercises and teach students how to use those exercises.
Doing a cloze exercise with a group of adults to fill the time is part of this TWALT thing Londo touts. Using a cloze exercise to teach students how to transcribe their favorite songs on their own is better. Using a cloze exercise to get students to focus on substitutable words instead of the straw padding of the "the, then, at, to, from, is, are, am" of sentences is useful. There I am, talking about objectives again. If the objective is the first, then I'm with Londo, TWALT. If the objectives are the second or third, then I would not be so fast to complain about the teacher who does such work with his/her students.
peace,
revel.
-
Londo Molari
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:19 am
This 'Bob' of yours sounds a lot like me, actually!
I am not going to get into a discussion about motivating students because I don't believe it is the job of the teacher. Yes, I know, it's an ideal world where students come to classes willing to hang on every word you utter and absorb it like sponges, but without that motivation from within, they will never really succeed at learning a langauge really well. You cannot manufacture it in your students; they have to find it for themselves. If you try to we get into the realm of making everything 'fun' that langauge specialists push for young learners which is total nonsense! Give them fun and they'll learn. That just isn't true! Yes, they have the fun and they get into the game but you can bet your bottom dollar that nothing significant is being acquired by osmosis. The only ones in the class who learn any English (or other TL) from those games are the ones who are interested and want to learn English anyway, and would be far better off treated to proper lessons rather than edutainment crap, in my experience. Language classes do not have to be 'fun'! They should be stimulating, if you call that fun, but the only people who really find them stimulating are those who love languages, so you're back to square one again!
OH, I agree, it wil never change. There are too many people who don't want the likes of me revealing that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.
So you like TWALT then do you? Maybe I'll share my answer to VAK with you one day - the SCROTUM model for learning, which is more geared towards other areas of study.
I am not going to get into a discussion about motivating students because I don't believe it is the job of the teacher. Yes, I know, it's an ideal world where students come to classes willing to hang on every word you utter and absorb it like sponges, but without that motivation from within, they will never really succeed at learning a langauge really well. You cannot manufacture it in your students; they have to find it for themselves. If you try to we get into the realm of making everything 'fun' that langauge specialists push for young learners which is total nonsense! Give them fun and they'll learn. That just isn't true! Yes, they have the fun and they get into the game but you can bet your bottom dollar that nothing significant is being acquired by osmosis. The only ones in the class who learn any English (or other TL) from those games are the ones who are interested and want to learn English anyway, and would be far better off treated to proper lessons rather than edutainment crap, in my experience. Language classes do not have to be 'fun'! They should be stimulating, if you call that fun, but the only people who really find them stimulating are those who love languages, so you're back to square one again!
OH, I agree, it wil never change. There are too many people who don't want the likes of me revealing that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.
So you like TWALT then do you? Maybe I'll share my answer to VAK with you one day - the SCROTUM model for learning, which is more geared towards other areas of study.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
I remember Revel told us about a student who challenged his methods. That's a good sign.
In a method school I was challenged all the time by unhappy students. Usually, however, I go very much out of my way to avoid this because bosses think UNHAPPY STUDENT = BAD TEACHER. In fact, however, the reverse is more true. A teacher who cares deeply about the successful education of the class will run into hassles.
Our institutions generally prevent us from giving students a friendly kick up the bum. That is the main advantage that method schools, of whatever stamp, have. They try to teach, not please.
More talented teachers than me no doubt overcome that contradiction with more skill - it isn't impossible. I do tend to worry, though, when teachers don't even appear to notice the general contradiction in their position that free-method business-minded management creates.
In a method school I was challenged all the time by unhappy students. Usually, however, I go very much out of my way to avoid this because bosses think UNHAPPY STUDENT = BAD TEACHER. In fact, however, the reverse is more true. A teacher who cares deeply about the successful education of the class will run into hassles.
Our institutions generally prevent us from giving students a friendly kick up the bum. That is the main advantage that method schools, of whatever stamp, have. They try to teach, not please.
More talented teachers than me no doubt overcome that contradiction with more skill - it isn't impossible. I do tend to worry, though, when teachers don't even appear to notice the general contradiction in their position that free-method business-minded management creates.
Teach them to fish....
Good morning all.
Yes, Londo, Bob is you, and Bob is me, I somewhere deep inside believe that Bob is any person, child or adult, who achieves that wonderful goal of thinking and expressing him/herself with different language constructs. At the base of all my communicative/oral teaching is the premise that the student will be at it all of their lives, and that means a personal devotion, motivational level, commitment that is not very easy to sell to busy parents or busy businessmen.
I also go on elsewhere about using class time economically, and once again, I agree that silly game-playing to fill up the hour is TWALT. I smile inside, an evil, self-satisfied smile, when a colleague complains that he/she doesn't know what to do in class. I don't mean to imply that I have all the answers and always know what to do in class. I do mean that I have so many materials and resourses and "teach them how to fish" exercises at my disposal, and there are so many thousands that I haven't even tried, that my complaint is usually that there is not enough "time" to get through it all.
Take my current adult formation class that I share with another experienced, motivated, excellent teacher. The other day we were chatting about where we were in our respective class-plans and she asked me if I couldn't spend some time with the students practicing orally making questions and negatives with the simple past construction. No problem, they already pretty much control the same thing in the simple present, it's a matter of substitution and a heavy-duty practice session. I had not gotten to the simple past exercises in my planning, I was still on "some/any/a little/a few/much/many/too/very", and she pointed out that she thought that practicing the simple past might be more necessary than gaining an automatic control of those quantity qualifiers.
This comment of hers was not to say that "the simple past is more important than some/any" but rather "there are only 60 hours left in this course and if there is no forward movement through the material there will be a feeling of being in a rut. Have to get through that book!" She is right, there, that one has to move forward. I could probably spend another ten to fifteen hours with these adults on "some/any". Thirty hours ago Javier was quite confused with the concept of "any" and his question and my answer are posted on the "English Questions" board where Vanesa had to look when she later asked the same questions. Now almost everyone has got a feel for the use, they need several hours of practice on simply using one of the many words included in thise theme, putting them in their correct place in the sentence, saying "How much coffee" without thinking "hmmmm, coffee is a mass item, it's uncountable, it's a singular form of a noun, thus, choosing between "much" and "many" I should choose "much"". Alas, only two out of ten in this group are actually practicing at home.
Students know, because I've right out told them so, that when I enter the class I expect to find them with their materials in front of their faces and their mouths moving through practice. I have offered them a dozen different practice exercises that they can do, from playing number and alphabet games with a partner, to preparing discourses to present to the others. When I do enter the class, I see each student with his/her materials open, in a low voice practicing the exercise from the previous class. Only once did a student take one of the other "gamey" exercises and use it with a partner to warm up for the class (this is one of the two students who bothers to pracitce at home....). Since I give them a quarter of an hour for this "I'll take responsibility for my actions" exercise, I've had to "justify" it with several different objectives in mind. In part, I have to do certain paperwork for this class and I refuse to do it outside of class time, so I use those fifteen minutes to take attendance and sign the roster and look over the materials and decide on the day's activities. In part, I know these adults are not being responsible outside of class and are still leaning on me too much as a motivational tool and I want them to notice that those who work on their own are getting on better than those who are not. I want them to see how effective a quarter of an hour can be so that they begin to practice a quarter of an hour here and there outside of class. I can also move from student to student and give a bit of personal attention without having the entire class waiting for me. I can also observe how they use those fifteen minutes and give them clear instructions and advice based on that observation. So many just don't know what to do when they get around to study.
Sorry, woodcutter, rather long. Wanted to say that, yes, I've been directly complained to about aspects of what I do in class and, yes, those comments from a dissatisfied client have certainly been of use in adapting my work to the needs and wants of the student. It is, indeed, a good thing, when a glitch is recognized and effort is made to repair the damage and avoid it in the future.
peace,
revel.
Yes, Londo, Bob is you, and Bob is me, I somewhere deep inside believe that Bob is any person, child or adult, who achieves that wonderful goal of thinking and expressing him/herself with different language constructs. At the base of all my communicative/oral teaching is the premise that the student will be at it all of their lives, and that means a personal devotion, motivational level, commitment that is not very easy to sell to busy parents or busy businessmen.
I also go on elsewhere about using class time economically, and once again, I agree that silly game-playing to fill up the hour is TWALT. I smile inside, an evil, self-satisfied smile, when a colleague complains that he/she doesn't know what to do in class. I don't mean to imply that I have all the answers and always know what to do in class. I do mean that I have so many materials and resourses and "teach them how to fish" exercises at my disposal, and there are so many thousands that I haven't even tried, that my complaint is usually that there is not enough "time" to get through it all.
Take my current adult formation class that I share with another experienced, motivated, excellent teacher. The other day we were chatting about where we were in our respective class-plans and she asked me if I couldn't spend some time with the students practicing orally making questions and negatives with the simple past construction. No problem, they already pretty much control the same thing in the simple present, it's a matter of substitution and a heavy-duty practice session. I had not gotten to the simple past exercises in my planning, I was still on "some/any/a little/a few/much/many/too/very", and she pointed out that she thought that practicing the simple past might be more necessary than gaining an automatic control of those quantity qualifiers.
This comment of hers was not to say that "the simple past is more important than some/any" but rather "there are only 60 hours left in this course and if there is no forward movement through the material there will be a feeling of being in a rut. Have to get through that book!" She is right, there, that one has to move forward. I could probably spend another ten to fifteen hours with these adults on "some/any". Thirty hours ago Javier was quite confused with the concept of "any" and his question and my answer are posted on the "English Questions" board where Vanesa had to look when she later asked the same questions. Now almost everyone has got a feel for the use, they need several hours of practice on simply using one of the many words included in thise theme, putting them in their correct place in the sentence, saying "How much coffee" without thinking "hmmmm, coffee is a mass item, it's uncountable, it's a singular form of a noun, thus, choosing between "much" and "many" I should choose "much"". Alas, only two out of ten in this group are actually practicing at home.
Students know, because I've right out told them so, that when I enter the class I expect to find them with their materials in front of their faces and their mouths moving through practice. I have offered them a dozen different practice exercises that they can do, from playing number and alphabet games with a partner, to preparing discourses to present to the others. When I do enter the class, I see each student with his/her materials open, in a low voice practicing the exercise from the previous class. Only once did a student take one of the other "gamey" exercises and use it with a partner to warm up for the class (this is one of the two students who bothers to pracitce at home....). Since I give them a quarter of an hour for this "I'll take responsibility for my actions" exercise, I've had to "justify" it with several different objectives in mind. In part, I have to do certain paperwork for this class and I refuse to do it outside of class time, so I use those fifteen minutes to take attendance and sign the roster and look over the materials and decide on the day's activities. In part, I know these adults are not being responsible outside of class and are still leaning on me too much as a motivational tool and I want them to notice that those who work on their own are getting on better than those who are not. I want them to see how effective a quarter of an hour can be so that they begin to practice a quarter of an hour here and there outside of class. I can also move from student to student and give a bit of personal attention without having the entire class waiting for me. I can also observe how they use those fifteen minutes and give them clear instructions and advice based on that observation. So many just don't know what to do when they get around to study.
Sorry, woodcutter, rather long. Wanted to say that, yes, I've been directly complained to about aspects of what I do in class and, yes, those comments from a dissatisfied client have certainly been of use in adapting my work to the needs and wants of the student. It is, indeed, a good thing, when a glitch is recognized and effort is made to repair the damage and avoid it in the future.
peace,
revel.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
I'm in an internet cafe right now, not at home (usually I'm at home), so have only given things a quick scan through...also typing fast. Apologies if I miss or misconstrue anything...
Interesting points about how long to spend on points/areas of grammar, revel. It's not good for a teacher to ever imagine that something will be automatically acquired just from exposure and favouring "fluency" more than accuracy, but then again, slogging through potentially "questionable" grammar practice exercises (that more often than not only want to deal in certainties than throw things open to doubt) can be more "interesting" than genuinely helpful (depends on how the students react to and interpret the exercises, I guess! Some students are never satisfied with just the one answer, even when the exercise is clearly meant to elicit a very limited range of answers and isn't designed to entertain the notion of there being alternative ways to say "more or less the same thing")...
But of course, there are dichotomies in all the above, quite possibly questionable ones...a good balance can be struck if the examples that form the basis of practise are selected in a principled manner (linguistically speaking), and the practise activities designed in such a way as to properly reflect diversity where it indeed does exist. If the students are using a "proportional" syllabus (re. Renouf and Sinclair) - one that includes all the essential words, realistically contextualized (i.e. the examples are reasonably authentic and, where need be, in longer stretches of discourse can usually be attributed with a relatively clear function), then students should hopefully be able to extrapolate, interpolate etc on that basis, because for all practical purposes, nothing further remains to be "said" regarding whatever grammar points - it is all right there in the course, somewhere, for those who know how and where to look (e.g. you could make a corpus from the textbooks and texts you are using, and study KWIC/concordances for revealing "facts" about the lexicogrammar) - no need for the teacher to supply improvised practise or "supplementary" material (supplementing or filling in what, exactly?) with answers that potentially could distort or not reflect what the students have heard or will hear later during the course (which, if it is a good one, should be more than adequate).
Now onto (back to!) woodcutter.
It's not really a case of JUST "giving students a kick up the bum", any teacher can do that, but to really "drive the (shoe)point home", the shoe has got to fit, and if the teacher finds things don't really fit (not enough attention has been paid to the functions of forms, or to genuinely advanced points of language - maybe small things that need to be highlighted well to really be noticed - or indeed to how the whole does indeed (come to) fit together quite nicely), then the teacher is never really going to get into their stride (it's nice to be developing professionally in all aspects, not just in AL drill techniques, for example).
There is also still the question of what students need. Obviously the linguistic needs are paramount in the teacher's mind, but why the insistence on delivering those needs in ways that are often quite divorced from, and thus probably unable to satisfy the other sorts of needs that even the most "motivated" of (your "good") students must have, woody? Is it really so hard to make the practice that bit more natural than you seem so reluctant to?
No, as you yourself said, it isn't hard for "talented" teachers to keep several plates spinning at once...I'd just like to add "knowledgeable" to that (there are doubtless many more words we could think of). You seem to think that believing in a method is a cure-all for everything...to that, I will just quote (from memory i.e. paraphrase) John Sinclair: A lot of what we are teaching is done in ignorance of vast amounts of facts (to which I'll add, 'and often, shamelessly so'). You can try to wiggle out of it or justify foot-dragging when it comes to bringing genuine knowledge to bear in improving practice(s), but you are then left with just a method rather than an approach. (But rather than keep saying 'Communicative Approach!' I'd prefer to just say, 'Here are some facts about English, with implications A, B and C').
Interesting points about how long to spend on points/areas of grammar, revel. It's not good for a teacher to ever imagine that something will be automatically acquired just from exposure and favouring "fluency" more than accuracy, but then again, slogging through potentially "questionable" grammar practice exercises (that more often than not only want to deal in certainties than throw things open to doubt) can be more "interesting" than genuinely helpful (depends on how the students react to and interpret the exercises, I guess! Some students are never satisfied with just the one answer, even when the exercise is clearly meant to elicit a very limited range of answers and isn't designed to entertain the notion of there being alternative ways to say "more or less the same thing")...
But of course, there are dichotomies in all the above, quite possibly questionable ones...a good balance can be struck if the examples that form the basis of practise are selected in a principled manner (linguistically speaking), and the practise activities designed in such a way as to properly reflect diversity where it indeed does exist. If the students are using a "proportional" syllabus (re. Renouf and Sinclair) - one that includes all the essential words, realistically contextualized (i.e. the examples are reasonably authentic and, where need be, in longer stretches of discourse can usually be attributed with a relatively clear function), then students should hopefully be able to extrapolate, interpolate etc on that basis, because for all practical purposes, nothing further remains to be "said" regarding whatever grammar points - it is all right there in the course, somewhere, for those who know how and where to look (e.g. you could make a corpus from the textbooks and texts you are using, and study KWIC/concordances for revealing "facts" about the lexicogrammar) - no need for the teacher to supply improvised practise or "supplementary" material (supplementing or filling in what, exactly?) with answers that potentially could distort or not reflect what the students have heard or will hear later during the course (which, if it is a good one, should be more than adequate).
Now onto (back to!) woodcutter.
...especially if what they consider essential for ensuring successful EDUCATION runs counter to what some entrepreneur turned amateur pseudo-linguist thinks is "language" (language-like), or deems to be "English".A teacher who cares deeply about the successful education of the class will run into hassles.
It's not really a case of JUST "giving students a kick up the bum", any teacher can do that, but to really "drive the (shoe)point home", the shoe has got to fit, and if the teacher finds things don't really fit (not enough attention has been paid to the functions of forms, or to genuinely advanced points of language - maybe small things that need to be highlighted well to really be noticed - or indeed to how the whole does indeed (come to) fit together quite nicely), then the teacher is never really going to get into their stride (it's nice to be developing professionally in all aspects, not just in AL drill techniques, for example).
There is also still the question of what students need. Obviously the linguistic needs are paramount in the teacher's mind, but why the insistence on delivering those needs in ways that are often quite divorced from, and thus probably unable to satisfy the other sorts of needs that even the most "motivated" of (your "good") students must have, woody? Is it really so hard to make the practice that bit more natural than you seem so reluctant to?
No, as you yourself said, it isn't hard for "talented" teachers to keep several plates spinning at once...I'd just like to add "knowledgeable" to that (there are doubtless many more words we could think of). You seem to think that believing in a method is a cure-all for everything...to that, I will just quote (from memory i.e. paraphrase) John Sinclair: A lot of what we are teaching is done in ignorance of vast amounts of facts (to which I'll add, 'and often, shamelessly so'). You can try to wiggle out of it or justify foot-dragging when it comes to bringing genuine knowledge to bear in improving practice(s), but you are then left with just a method rather than an approach. (But rather than keep saying 'Communicative Approach!' I'd prefer to just say, 'Here are some facts about English, with implications A, B and C').
Last edited by fluffyhamster on Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Why launch into the psuedo-scientific critique of "Avalon Method" again?
I am speaking of all methods. They are all designed by a language expert in order to provide a helpful program for learning. Most normal classes are not. They are designed to get through the hour with minimum pain and maximum fun, hopefully avoiding the disaster of a student running to the bosses office, because that way the teacher's life will become miserable. There is an underlying program provided by the textbook, but it is seldom taken all that seriously. When it is, such as when you can force unwilling kids to do the whole of "Let's Go!" twice, on top of school classes and with added homework, or something, then the results are much better. From where I'm sitting, anyways.
The trouble with this forum is that the CLT fans are not normal at all, most unrepresentative of their kind.
Now, I'm not against people going to class for a bit of fun, or for a (very effective!) blind date service. I just do feel like I'm selling "snake oil" when that is not made clear, when certain students expect a serious lesson.
I am speaking of all methods. They are all designed by a language expert in order to provide a helpful program for learning. Most normal classes are not. They are designed to get through the hour with minimum pain and maximum fun, hopefully avoiding the disaster of a student running to the bosses office, because that way the teacher's life will become miserable. There is an underlying program provided by the textbook, but it is seldom taken all that seriously. When it is, such as when you can force unwilling kids to do the whole of "Let's Go!" twice, on top of school classes and with added homework, or something, then the results are much better. From where I'm sitting, anyways.
The trouble with this forum is that the CLT fans are not normal at all, most unrepresentative of their kind.
Now, I'm not against people going to class for a bit of fun, or for a (very effective!) blind date service. I just do feel like I'm selling "snake oil" when that is not made clear, when certain students expect a serious lesson.