Deleted

[Duncan Powrie]

Oh I see you posted just before I did, revel! I thought you said you were "currently ironing out details for work" (on the other thread)!

Hmm I am about to go out to get some more Dave's Brainjuice Replenishers TM (aka: "fermented grain beverages" in revel-speak), but I do have time to make one teensy comment:

One teacher teaches grammar quite well. I do not. I teach communication quite well. She does not.

Grammar and communication needn't be opposed, you know. Ah, but then you did surround that quote with:

I consider myself part of a team....Over the five or six years a student will spend with us, he/she will have the opportunity of trying both our "methods" and it's up to the student to get the best from each.

I am sure the grammar is being well taken care of in your own classes already, just not explicitly.

[LarryLatham]

I'd like to say, sure, but why spend so much time working on differing ways to say the one example? Are more than one or two ways valid or useful? I'd prefer in studying an authentic (and, I hate to say, native-speaker) example, appreciate why it was said its (single) way in its context (e.g. in a movie scene), and then move on to considering OTHER, unique examples.

Then, by all means, Duncan, do it your way. I think you guys are missing revel's point here in this thread. He is not suggesting that everyone should do it as he does. In fact, he as much as anyone, would be horrified if suddenly everyone would go into their classes tomorrow, line up the chairs two rows deep, and try to make the class into a theatre. I don't think he is proposing a "method" here at all. Not even "revel's method". Revel is merely describing how he works with his students to raise their awareness of prosody in communicating ideas with their English. You can agree with his way of doing it or not. You can even agree with whether it is an important part of English language skill or not. I happen to agree with him. Some of you may not. All that is OK. The most important part of your English teaching remains that which you do well, and with adequate consideration of what you are doing and how your students benefit from it.

Revel is right about this: No one of us can be the perfect teacher in all respects. But fortunately for the students, they will have the benefit (hopefully) of working with several teachers over the course of their English study (should they stick with it for long enough to do them any good). Each teacher will (hopefully) bring something useful to the table. What revel brings is a demonstration of how to make good use of what they might know of vocabulary and grammatical structure. You bring your own thing.

Larry Latham

[Duncan Powrie]

I appreciate that revel isn't insisting we all do it his way, Larry, and believe me, I also appreciate him taking the time to post his stuff on here (too few bother to write anything at all on Dave's).

So yes, perhaps it is unreasonable when guys like Woodcutter and I "start" on him...then again, (lengthy) anecdotes don't seem to generate a lot of discussion on these boards, do they (that is, the more general the better, although obviously, anything we say is coming from our experiences and knowledge and is therefore ultimately, potentially anecdotal)...I just thought I had made a relevant point about the prosody is all.

[LarryLatham]

I guess, Duncan, what I admire most about revel's thoughts as posted here, is that they reveal his passion for some aspect of the English language, and his ingenuity for passing what he knows about it to his (very lucky, I believe) students.

Perhaps what is very wrong about the state of English teaching (and all public teaching, as far as I know) is the insistence on the part of those on whose shoulders it falls to administer the process (who may be driven by political reality) that there is some "method" which will work best for all concerned. This is nonsense on the face of it. After all, anyone who has taught knows with deep certainty that students are all different, and they learn in different ways. All teachers know that personalities are a factor in the classroom. Teachers, at least those with some time under their belts, understand deep down that there are some problems with the "system" as it stands. Yet many teachers are seduced by the establishment, which, after all, has a great deal of incentive to bring teachers into the fold, into thinking that yet another "method" (and more money) will solve the problems.

Revel has demonstrated to us that maybe it is passion that is lacking, and individuality in the classroom. Revel's students are lucky not because of revel's "method", but because revel is an unabashed individual in his classroom. He does not follow the established method. He has what is important to him, and he works that way with his students. He uses materials that he thinks are valuable, and he uses them in his own unique way.

That raises his individual value to his students, and also increases his personal satisfaction with what he does. He loves it because it is his. And he can see the improvement and, yes, even the gratitude in his students. For those who suggest that some students might not go along with his ways, I think revel would say, "Students are free to choose not to participate if they wish." But he would use his considerable personality to try to convince them otherwise.

But the establishment doesn't like what he does. He is a revolutionist. He defies the system. He disrupts the sameness which the establishment wants in every classroom. He cannot teach all the students, they reason, so he should not give the benefit of his talents to only the few that he touches. "It's not fair to the other students."

See, society believes that everyone should have the same opportunities. Otherwise, life is unfair to some, perhaps even most. Revel is saying that he can't help that. But he is also saying that he can do something for those who come into his classroom. And he does it his way. (...bring up the Sinatra theme song to full volume now...)

Larry Latham

[revel]

Hey all, esp. Duncan and Larry (and you too, Woody!)

I want to say that I am so pleased with the contributions we are all making in this thread. I so often hesitate to open a new theme, though I might have something different to say on something, possibly because it would embarrass me if I threw the party and nobody came. I am very happy that you all have come and are speaking out.

Firstly, responding to Duncan's valid concern:
"....why spend so much time working on differing ways to say the one example? Are more than one or two ways valid or useful?"

I haven't been to clear on this yet, mostly because I haven't spoken in this thread on this theme. I believe I began realizing the importance of interpretation of ESL by students when I came upon an exercise in a "Business English" book. It was something like a simple sentence (The door is open) with four or five contexts (Bank manager looking at an empty safe; Boss sitting alone in his office inviting someone to come in who has knocked; Someone with a cold, wrapped in a blanket sitting on the sofa....etc). Naturally, the tone of voice, the emphasis on the different parts of the sentence, would be different in each of these situations. However, that is not an exercise that I use in class, mostly because of what Duncan has pointed out.

The point I try to get across to my students is that they can certainly speak ESL with their choppy vowels and monotonous word-by-word rhythms if they want, but that they are only using part of the resources available to them in the language. I don't want to say that Spanish or Chinese or French speak their own languages without interpretation; I rather say that when they speak ESL they may be putting too much emphasis on getting it right without having fun with tonality. I've never tried to teach my students everything and actually use ESL material as examples in teaching them how to do their own part of the work. It's the answer to a question I sometimes get "Why do Americans always seem to be shouting?", "Well," I try to respond, "that's how they use English to let people know what's going on in their heads. You don't have to do it, but be aware that millions do do it!"

So, perhaps what I'm doing are awareness exercises. Be aware, I'm telling my students, that if you say "coffee, cake and cookies" you are saying something different from "coffee-cake and cookies". Getting it down will take years, I've recently been told that despite speaking Spanish for let's say 15 years quite well, I still don't have a clear way of communicating irony in that language, or at least what I think of as irony is not interpreted that way by the natives.

That's long, again, what a wind bag. I'll make another post to continue.

peace,
revel.

[revel]

Addressing Larry's comments then,

His last post is quite complimentary in that for me at least it illustrates that much of what I contribute is clearly written. And, even when Duncan or Woodcutter "start" on me, they are also letting me know just where I have made my ideas clear and just where I have to be more careful in word choice. Again, I thank you all for taking part in making my writing here better, which I later share with others who might also benefit from my own improvement. Being perfect would be so dull, no room for growth, you know.

Larry's last comments on the establishment (yes, I did wear a little lapel button in the '80s that said "Question Authority"! ) makes me think about that dangerous word "methods". I think I will prohibit myself from using that word in relation to my teaching in the future. And I would say to those who continue using it to consider its abuse in the "real world" of language academies. "Methods" for me are International House or Inlingua or Wall Street Institute (whose methods, along with the similar method offered by "Opening" were a wretched failure here in Spain, resulting in questionable business practices and hundreds of students and teachers without classes). "Methods" for me are Berliz, who it seems were still hiding microphones in the classrooms in the '80s to spy on teachers to make sure that they did not stray one iota from the materials. "Methods" are Krashen's "Natural Method" thing that I've seen at least three times used as a marketing tool with uninformed parents for improving enrollment, while the teachers didn't even know who Krashen was, let alone Grant Taylor or Charles Freis or Robert Lado or even Chomsky (oops, used the "c" word there, sorry!)

I pick on my "simplified ESL grammar poster" collegue a lot here, he's a good bloke and is really trying to improve as a teacher, though like me, he suffers the old-dog-new-tricks syndrome and hasn't many years of experience which at his age is dangerous in the classroom. He asked me last term to give him some advice on how to set up a play for one of his groups. He has no theatrical experience and spent days on the internet looking for suitable scripts for this play. He tried to present it to his kids and unfortunately, though they liked the idea at first, theatre is not a good thing to do in an ESL academy, it's either too simple to be entertaining or too complex to be understood (and in Spain, who would be the public anyway, their parents might come to see the thing but wouldn't understand anything!). I myself never do plays, maybe little sketches, maybe a variety show with simple songs, but never let the kids think that they will be performing for others, they are not actors and this is not an arts school.

Larry says "Revel has demonstrated to us that maybe it is passion that is lacking...." and I am so glad that he did so. What frustrates me and finally bores me with so many "What do I do?" or "gerund vs infinitive" posts is a sometimes glaring lack of personal responsibility on the behalf of the person who begins those threads. And the passion is used up on de-baiting (sorry, liked that one, hehe) what each thinks is right or wrong. Before posting I read the entire Ideas cookbook on this site (anyone interested will see that I signed up, spoke up then shut up for several months before beginning my current activity here). That would be my general advice for those who sign up, ask a question, sometimes thanks for our individual wisdom, and then are never heard from again. And put a bit of passion in your classroom, nothing worse than a dull class with bored students and bored teacher and a boring text-book with a boring test at the end of the semester, no wonder I see the same students year after year after year!

Hmmm, not sure that was on the subject, but well, now that I've typed it up, might as well share it with you all. Duncan's right, usually one has to make a gross generalization to get someone's fur ruffled and it is gratifying that all of our longer posts here are generating our comments. I for one am enjoying this thread (but then, it's my party, isn't it? Going to join Duncan in having a fermented grain beverage now!)

peace,
revel.

[LarryLatham]

Well, if you young whippersnappers aren't paying attention to us old farts here, you are missing out on some acquired wisdom based on many introspected years in the classroom. If you're just glossing over this thread and discounting or dismissing what revel is teaching all of us, you're showing the foolishness of your youth. Look it over again...all of it, and heed well not only what is explicitly said, but what appears between the lines too.

If you care about teaching at all; if you truly want to be the best teacher you can be, then listen up: Try many things--your own ideas as well as those of thoughtful other professionals you can find--and choose what works best by your own observation. Learn to trust your own measures. Learn to develop a good bullsh*t meter of your own, and use it whenever anyone (including your boss) tells you how you should proceed in your classroom. Learn to trust yourself more than anyone else, because no one else lives in your shoes. Ponder your successes as well as your bombs, and figure out why they were what they were.

If you are very, very clever, and work very, very hard, and stay at it for quite a while, perhaps you too can grow up to be as good as revel is. But don't try it his way! That'll bomb for sure. There are lots of good ideas none of us ever thought of. Maybe you will. And maybe that'll make you (and maybe only you) a great teacher.

I'm feelin' a bit thirsty myself, now.

Larry Latham

[woodcutter]

The passion comes from the fact that Revel does what Revel does, not what student A or B wants, because that's what he believes will help them, and that's what he likes to do. That's why I call it a method. Of course the world doesn't have to follow suit, and of course there will be moments when we say to ourselves "well, hold on a minute mate.........". I suppose certain flatulent professors might even have a nervous breakdown observing his class.

I am trying to de-Nazify this word "method", but it's a very hard task.

[LarryLatham]

...because that's what he believes will help them, and that's what he likes to do. That's why I call it a method.

Come again? What's why you call it a method? Exactly how are you defining "method"? Sorry, but I am not following your logic here.

Larry Latham

[woodcutter]

Ah! Professor Latham would like a definition of "method". Providing such a definition is always a favoured way to start off an academic essay, but not a very enlightening or interesting way in general, I believe. I mean that, well, he has a method! He has a set way of doing things. A largely fixed procedure. An essentially one-size-for all approach.

And since he isn't preaching to everyone on earth from the ivory tower, since the students have other places to go, why not?

Or am I misunderstanding it all? I don't know why I keep talking behind your back, Revel!

[LarryLatham]

I mean that, well, he has a method! He has a set way of doing things. A largely fixed procedure. An essentially one-size-for all approach.

Well, OK. I guess I see now where you're coming from. Still, despite his apparent step-by-step recipe from his posts here in this thread, I have the feeling (revel, could you clear this up, please?) that he was writing it that way so we could understand what he does. But I also suppose he does not use his idea as a fixed procedure, a one-size-for-all approach. I suspect he can be very flexible in its application, so that for one class it works this way, and for another class (with different students) it works that way.

What he has, then, is an idea, not a method. There's a difference!

For the record, I define a "method" as a set of rules or directions prescribed for the purpose of creating an identical standardized procedure in all classrooms (or as near to that as possible).

I never got the impression revel was attempting to suggest that.

Larry Latham

[revel]

What a grey morning to start a new term!

Thank goodness I don't have any new classes this afternoon, and this morning I get to go shopping for cork board for our classrooms, might even treat myself to some new underwear!

woodcutter, don't worry about speaking about me in 3rd person. I actually consider it a good habit in forums like this one, like usted, it puts a bit of distance between speaker and listener and sometimes keeps verbal attacks at bay (learned this the hard way trying to be friendly with posters on other boards who were always looking for a fight!)

I've evidently not been clear enough for you, though, since your description of my "method" is not at all how I see it (though, if I'm not being clear, have to accept that you see it that way.)

"He has a set way of doing things."
Not at all. I have a set of materials that I tend to use because I know them as the proverbial back of my hand. I have some mind-f*ck techniques that I know work that I pull out of my hat when needed. I have a classroom routine or structure that helps maintain discipline. However, the only thing that is "set" is my yearly, personal growth objectives, goals I "set up" for myself and my students which change on a term to term basis. My boss laments that I don't set my ways in stone, thus making his job of selling my classes easier!

"A largely fixed procedure."
I have admitted to being old-dog in my procedures. I don't believe in experimenting just for a change. However, within the framework of this procedure there is room for the new, the exciting and especially the tailor made, which of course brings me to:

"An essentially one-size-for all approach."
which is were my boss really gets his fur ruffled with me. Fortunately, native teachers where I am are far and few between so he won't put me in the street with my walking shoes just because I know his attitude towards tailoring the classes to the particular students, to the dynamics of the group in question are wrong. He wants all his teachers to all teach all the same things. His main arguement is that, what if one of us is ill and another has to take over the class for a day? My answer is, why I would explain to that teacher where I am but basically let that substitute do whatever he/she wanted for that hour, would be a nice change for the students to experience something from someone else's bag of tricks. Then the boss argues that if I teach level one of something another teacher will be teaching level two and should depend on my having taught the things that precede what he/she will be teaching. I haven't seen a "new, improved" ESL sylabis ever, even the most "modern" books follow basically the same linguistic/grammatical patterns we've been using for fifty years, I'm not interested in changing so much the order of things so he's got nothing to worry about there!

The ideas I describe here are perhaps 15% of my teaching work. I would refer readers to my lengthy posts on pronunciation in that thread, which probably make up another 25% of my work. Then there are the review classes where I have to correct the damage done in the public schools so kids can pass their exams. Plus the help I give to students who have an official oral exam to pass. Then the business people who will be buying and selling in a language that will be second to their clients and providers as well. And let's not forget the bored housewives who use the classes as an excuse to be out of the house first thing in the morning!

Finally, if the objectives to the exercises I've offered are read, one can hardly call what I do "fixed" or "one-size-fits-all", since what I am trying to teach, always trying to teach, is that each of us has to take learning into our own hands, that teachers are helpful, but that the work is ours!

Thanks, anyway, woodcutter, for helping to de-nazify that "m"-word!

peace,
revel.

[woodcutter]

Thank-you for using the word "boss" Revel! It marks you down as an inferior being you know, because real teachers don't have them.

I don't blame you for wanting to escape my praise, and as Larry says I may have been taken in by your detailed description of particular steps in the process. Let me try and drag Duncan into my evil schemes instead. I don't quite know what "whipping the lexis into shape" means, but when it comes to each of us writing a textbook, I think that is a good idea. Obviously it isn't practical though, so in place of this, what I feel a good teacher does is develop a mental textbook of tried and trusted activities for each common area of language, which can be used in place or alongside the set text, to humanize the lesson. This may seem obvious, but I think a number of experienced teachers don't have any particular methods of their own, and just "do the book", or ignore structure altogether.

[Duncan Powrie]

Thank-you for using the word "boss" Revel! It marks you down as an inferior being you know, because real teachers don't have them.

I'll leave revel to make of that what he will, but actually, most teachers (unfortunately) do have bosses, who do sometimes try to boss and bully the teacher around. It's a shame really, because the relationship should be a cosy symbiosis (in fact, I dream of one day having a boss who works and THINKS harder than I do, but on the same wavelength, and therefore actually anticipates at least some of my needs, rather than ignoring them). And even when we are self-employed, there is always the biggest boss of all, English itself, to spank us every five minutes.

Let me try and drag Duncan into my evil schemes instead. I don't quite know what "whipping the lexis into shape" means, but when it comes to each of us writing a textbook, I think that is a good idea.

Indeed, I would whip the lexis into shape precisely in relation to writing a textbook. To see what this "whipping" involves, please refer back to the "I wish I (had) had a good textbook!" thread, especially those points where I mention the word "dictionary".

Obviously it isn't practical though, so in place of this, what I feel a good teacher does is develop a mental textbook of tried and trusted activities for each common area of language, which can be used in place or alongside the set text, to humanize the lesson. This may seem obvious, but I think a number of experienced teachers don't have any particular methods of their own, and just "do the book", or ignore structure altogether.

It might not be practical but I think it becomes a necessary thought i.e. always a potential undertaking at least, for anyone seriously NOT thinking of leaving the profession in their forseeable future.

Yup, we all (should) build up a set of fave activities to add depth to our textbooks!

[Duncan Powrie]

Hmm mental textbooks...interesting...the only problems with keeping it all in your head are that:

- you can forget things or get confused about them
- your ideas remain unamenable to inspection by others (worst of all, students) in their entirety (and perhaps unclear to yourself), and will thus probably always end up seeming to be only theories, not hard data or evidence needing to be seriously analyzed or compared to other accounts
- if you get hit by a bus tomorrow, the teacher who has to replace you will certainly wonder what the hell you were up to, even if the world doesn't notice your untimely demise

Hmm above reads more like a memo to myself...and a needed one at that!