Krashen tells an interesting story of the time he studied French. He talks about how his "excellent" teacher taught grammar and taught vocabulary and corrected errors -- and how they learned through comprehensible input.
~~~
A Summer as an Intermediate French Student
By way of conclusion, I would like to report on some recent personal experiences as a student of French. The class I attended in the summer of 1978 in Los Angeles was a private class, with a small number of highly motivated, highly intelligent, and mature students. The official "method" used was the Pucciani-Hamil approach (Langue et Langage), used with much apparent success at UCLA and at many other schools. The method is "inductive", that is, students are led to induce, or guess, the rules. In a typical lesson, the teacher asks what are hopefully meaningful, interesting questions of members of the class in hopes of preparing a context for the target structure. The following exchange is a good example (taken from the instructor's manual, Pucciani and Hamel, 1974; p. 321). The purpose in this exercise is to teach the conjunction "bien que" and the fact that its presence requires that the following verb be in the subjunctive mood:
Teacher: Fait-il beau aujourd'hui?
Student: Non, il ne fait pas beau maintenant.
Teacher: Irez-vous cependant à la plage pendant le week-end?
Student: Oui, j'irai cependant à la plage pendant le week-end.
Teacher: Irez-vous à la plage bien qu'il ne fasse pas beau?
Student: Oui, j'irai à la plage bien qu'il ne ...
My excellent teacher followed this sort of pattern, and often tailored questions to individual students' interests. For example, one member of the class was a dedicated beachgoer, and the example given above was actually used with this student. My teacher also allowed some "free-play". If the student did not give her the structure she was looking for, she tolerated some "conversation", as long as it was in French (a cornerstone of the Pucciani-Hamil approach is the exclusive use of the target language in the classroom). Indeed, despite the fact that the class was a first-year (third quarter) level class, it often had the flavor of a conversation class.
The explicit goal of the class was learning, conscious control of structure. There was error correction, and after enough examples of the above sort had been elicited, there was explanation of the rule (in French), along with further examples if necessary.
What is particularly interesting is that many of the students felt that the obvious success of this class was due to grammar work. One excellent student (a man in his sixties) felt he needed to "firm up" his grammar before doing conversation in French, and he told me that he felt our teacher's finest quality was her ability to explain complex rules of French grammar. My hypothesis is that much of the success of the class was due to the teacher's use of teacher-talk, her ability to provide a simple code that provided nearly optimal input for acquisition. The class was conducted entirely in French, as mentioned above. Besides the actual pedagogical examples, such as exchanges of the sort given above, teacher-talk included explanation of grammar and vocabulary, the teacher's participation in the "free play" surrounding the exercises, mentioned above, occasional anecdotes, classroom management, etc. My fellow students reported that they understood nearly everything the teacher said in class. The teacher-talk, not the grammar per se, was probably what motivated the same student who needed to firm up his grammar to comment: "She gives you a feeling for French ... she makes you want to speak French." This is language acquisition, not language learning.
Showing posts with label methods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label methods. Show all posts
03 October 2008
Grammar teaching? Try it, observe & convince yourself
I don't think I ever stated people should not teach grammar. I only said it does not work.
I never teach grammar rules. My students have had enough of that and after about 10 years they still don't have their grammar straight.
However, I do correct incorrect grammar when I hear it. So does that indicate that I believe teaching grammar works? No, to the contrary. I have students that I have corrected for over a year on pronouns of gender and they still are frequently getting the pronouns of gender wrong.
So I will not tell you to take my word for it. Don't take Krashen's word for it. Don't take Truscott's word for it. Just do it. Do it yourself. Go ahead and correct your students. Make it Action Research. Do it and observe and after you observe then reflect and you will convince yourself. Choose a clearly observeable grammar point like pronouns of gender and correct your student everytime in everyway everywhere. Keep track of how many times your student gets it right and how many times he gets it wrong.
I suggest all teachers do this.
I never teach grammar rules. My students have had enough of that and after about 10 years they still don't have their grammar straight.
However, I do correct incorrect grammar when I hear it. So does that indicate that I believe teaching grammar works? No, to the contrary. I have students that I have corrected for over a year on pronouns of gender and they still are frequently getting the pronouns of gender wrong.
So I will not tell you to take my word for it. Don't take Krashen's word for it. Don't take Truscott's word for it. Just do it. Do it yourself. Go ahead and correct your students. Make it Action Research. Do it and observe and after you observe then reflect and you will convince yourself. Choose a clearly observeable grammar point like pronouns of gender and correct your student everytime in everyway everywhere. Keep track of how many times your student gets it right and how many times he gets it wrong.
I suggest all teachers do this.
What can teaching students pronouns of gender teach teachers?
A teacher, implying the near impossibility of the effectiveness of Comprehensible Input, wrote:
"How many hours of standard, educated English will a native speaker have been exposed to by, say, age 15. Whatever number you pick, if you expect an EFL student to use the language at an equivalent level without error correction or grammar instruction, you'll have to find a way to get that student an equal amount of exposure. Get out your calculators, folks at ten hours exposure to English per week (a generous amount for a Chinese EFL student), the number of YEARS required is going to be well into the triple digits. Your students great-great-grandchildren will all be retired before your students will have acquired the ability to write like a 15-year-old."
Krashen's theories on the "acquisition" of language facilitated through "comprehensible input" at a level of "i+1" is not just something that sounds like a good idea until someone pulls out a calculator and does the math. Although the subject is widely debated, there is a lot of evidence that it works and you can read research after research on Krashen's website at: http://www.sdkrashen.com/.
Also, in what the teacher said, is the implied assumption that grammar teaching actually does work. There is no evidence that teaching grammar results in the student truly acquiring the grammar. A certain degree of retention is possible in the student's conscious "monitor" (an internal editor), remembering some grammar rules, but this is limited.
Clearly grammar cannot be acquired in such a conscious way. One of my favorite examples of this, which I have brought out many times before is pronouns of gender ("he", "she", "his", "hers"), a grammar rule that can be taught in ten minutes it is so simple but can take a student a year or two to master.
Grammar "teaching" doesn't work.
"How many hours of standard, educated English will a native speaker have been exposed to by, say, age 15. Whatever number you pick, if you expect an EFL student to use the language at an equivalent level without error correction or grammar instruction, you'll have to find a way to get that student an equal amount of exposure. Get out your calculators, folks at ten hours exposure to English per week (a generous amount for a Chinese EFL student), the number of YEARS required is going to be well into the triple digits. Your students great-great-grandchildren will all be retired before your students will have acquired the ability to write like a 15-year-old."
Krashen's theories on the "acquisition" of language facilitated through "comprehensible input" at a level of "i+1" is not just something that sounds like a good idea until someone pulls out a calculator and does the math. Although the subject is widely debated, there is a lot of evidence that it works and you can read research after research on Krashen's website at: http://www.sdkrashen.com/.
Also, in what the teacher said, is the implied assumption that grammar teaching actually does work. There is no evidence that teaching grammar results in the student truly acquiring the grammar. A certain degree of retention is possible in the student's conscious "monitor" (an internal editor), remembering some grammar rules, but this is limited.
Clearly grammar cannot be acquired in such a conscious way. One of my favorite examples of this, which I have brought out many times before is pronouns of gender ("he", "she", "his", "hers"), a grammar rule that can be taught in ten minutes it is so simple but can take a student a year or two to master.
Grammar "teaching" doesn't work.
06 December 2007
How students learn for tests
When our students take the big exams are the only questions they get right the ones the teacher "taught" them? I don't think so. I would like to know how effective is teacher "teaching" as compared to indirect learning.
I think they are answering some questions on the test correctly for items that they were not "taught". If so, then how did they learn them? I believe Comprehensible Input is playing a bigger role than we realize.
Krashen tells the story of how his French teacher wanted to only speak French to them and was explaining a grammar point, in French. Finally frustrated, she told them in English. However, her effort to explain it in French, all that French speaking to explain something, actually constituted Comprehensible Input for the students and helped their French.
Every time the teacher talks to the students in the L2 is Comprehensible Input. Teachers are naturals for adjusting their English speaking so students can understand them.
So between the teacher's speaking and the student's own study they are getting a lot of CI.
Perhaps the student is reading a business text and it is talking about international finance and the teacher wants the student to learn some language about stocks, bonds, interest rates, prime lending rate, etc. Perhaps the student has some degree of success in learning some of those terms but there are many things in the text that the student was not studying but was learning such as "carry on" when it says "banks cannot carry on making risky loans" or something like that.
I think they are answering some questions on the test correctly for items that they were not "taught". If so, then how did they learn them? I believe Comprehensible Input is playing a bigger role than we realize.
Krashen tells the story of how his French teacher wanted to only speak French to them and was explaining a grammar point, in French. Finally frustrated, she told them in English. However, her effort to explain it in French, all that French speaking to explain something, actually constituted Comprehensible Input for the students and helped their French.
Every time the teacher talks to the students in the L2 is Comprehensible Input. Teachers are naturals for adjusting their English speaking so students can understand them.
So between the teacher's speaking and the student's own study they are getting a lot of CI.
Perhaps the student is reading a business text and it is talking about international finance and the teacher wants the student to learn some language about stocks, bonds, interest rates, prime lending rate, etc. Perhaps the student has some degree of success in learning some of those terms but there are many things in the text that the student was not studying but was learning such as "carry on" when it says "banks cannot carry on making risky loans" or something like that.
04 September 2007
Thinking outside the book
One thing that students and teachers really struggle with is boredom. Maybe I'm just easily bored but I have yet to find a book or teacher that really keeps the student's interest from cover to cover, it doesn't matter how good they are.
Sometimes I think that the way English teaching works is that we often trap ourselves into thinking "inside the book". Publishers have little interest in helping teachers think otherwise and because we often lean on manufactured materials we always wind up with a book.
We are basically teaching the same way Socrates, Plato and Aristotle taught thousands of years ago except for the addition of the printed book invented by Gutenberg.
Of course, there are guys who have rebelled against the book. You can find a bunch of them at Dogme. They have a Yahoo group and their leader has published in The Guardian newspaper ELT pages.
But to me, they seem more readily identified for what they are against than what they are for. And from my experience, it really helps to have a course or plan for students as otherwise the training can seem a bit aimless to the students.
So how can we escape the book but still have a plan?
First, let's brainstorm a list of all the new tools and technologies and other things that are available to us since the days of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Gutenberg. Without much order, here is my list:
Computers
Email
Telephone
Phone messages
PowerPoint
YouTube
PDA
Chat rooms
Blogs
Websites
Fax
MP3
MP4
Video
Email spam
Voice spam
Television
Shopping malls
Perhaps your list is longer. Now, just as a thought exercise to stretch us "outside the book", what if you assigned yourself the task of using each of these to provide some part of a training course.
There was once a game called Majestic by Electronic Arts. They described it as "The suspense thriller that infiltrates your life through the Internet, telephone and fax, then leaves you guessing where the game ends and reality begins." To play this game you had to check websites and periodically you'd receive frantic phone calls with clues or cryptic faxes.
I think something so pervasive would be an exciting way to teach and learn. What would a "Majestic" English course be like? The student would be receiving training from so many directions at so many times. Of course, not all of this is possible with every teacher and every student, but employing some of these technologies could really get us "out of the book". Consider the possibilities that a ficticious Chinese student named Jerry Liang would experience:
- Jerry gets a daily Email that has a short lesson, story or MP3. This Email is pumped out to Jerry and all the other students by a program similar to those used by spammers.
- Jerry also receives a daily SMS phone messages that reminds him to study an assignment, do homework or join some activities that the teacher has organized.
- Every week, Jerry is directed to watch a certain TV program or movie which all the other students and teacher will be watching. Jerry doesn't have to participate if he is busy that night but he does need to participate in at least two per week. Jerry tunes in the program and starts the chat program on his computer. While he is watching the program on his home TV, other students and the teacher are watching it and chatting with him about it, about the story, actors, what they like or don't like, etc. ("Don't go in that dark room!...don't do it!...Ugh! I knew it!!!")
- Jerry posts assignments on the blog.
- Jerry gets SMS phone messages with new vocabulary on set days. After first contact with the new vocabulary in a lesson he receives the vocabulary in a message on day 2, 5, 12, 19, 33, 63. He has a look at the words and reviews them.
- He has some specially recorded lessons made by his teacher or other teachers in MP3 format in his MP3/MP4 player or PDA which he listens to throughout the day.
- When Jerry visits the popular local mall he takes a walking tour via MP3. The teacher has made a short recording and guides the him through the mall, describing interesting things about the mall and shops and introducing more new vocabulary. ("Starbucks took its name from a coffee-loving character in the famous American novel called 'Moby Dick', a story about a man hunting a whale. Starbuck's strategy is to become people's 'third place', the main place people go outside of home and work.")
- Sometimes Jerry receives a phone call from the teacher to practice his speaking, but more often than not, the teacher (randomly?) assigns Jerry and the other students speaking buddies, other students, who he calls to practice a particular speaking activity. Every week Jerry recieves an Email with a speaking lesson to practice and his speaking buddy's phone number. Sometimes the buddy is in his class but most of the time the buddy is a student in one of the teacher's other classes, perhaps a manager in a company. It's interesting to have this way to talk to various professionals that he wouldn't normally meet (and Jerry thinks it's always interesting to talk to girls).
- Twice a month, Jerry is given a phone number to a company in an English speaking country that provides information about their services along with one or more questions that he needs to ask about. For example, he once had to call Trump International Hotel in New York to find out if they allow dogs in the room. (They do if the dog is under 10 pounds but the guest must pay a non-refundable $200.) This provides a real English challenge and practice for Jerry.
- Etc, etc, etc.
All of this is possible with current technology but will never be offered by a book publisher. It just remains for the teacher to sort out his content and figure out the different ways to deliver it.
A student, going through a course like that, would have an experience they've never had before. But as I said, maybe I dream up this stuff because I'm the kind of person who is easily bored.
Sometimes I think that the way English teaching works is that we often trap ourselves into thinking "inside the book". Publishers have little interest in helping teachers think otherwise and because we often lean on manufactured materials we always wind up with a book.
We are basically teaching the same way Socrates, Plato and Aristotle taught thousands of years ago except for the addition of the printed book invented by Gutenberg.
Of course, there are guys who have rebelled against the book. You can find a bunch of them at Dogme. They have a Yahoo group and their leader has published in The Guardian newspaper ELT pages.
But to me, they seem more readily identified for what they are against than what they are for. And from my experience, it really helps to have a course or plan for students as otherwise the training can seem a bit aimless to the students.
So how can we escape the book but still have a plan?
First, let's brainstorm a list of all the new tools and technologies and other things that are available to us since the days of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Gutenberg. Without much order, here is my list:
Computers
Telephone
Phone messages
PowerPoint
YouTube
PDA
Chat rooms
Blogs
Websites
Fax
MP3
MP4
Video
Email spam
Voice spam
Television
Shopping malls
Perhaps your list is longer. Now, just as a thought exercise to stretch us "outside the book", what if you assigned yourself the task of using each of these to provide some part of a training course.
There was once a game called Majestic by Electronic Arts. They described it as "The suspense thriller that infiltrates your life through the Internet, telephone and fax, then leaves you guessing where the game ends and reality begins." To play this game you had to check websites and periodically you'd receive frantic phone calls with clues or cryptic faxes.
I think something so pervasive would be an exciting way to teach and learn. What would a "Majestic" English course be like? The student would be receiving training from so many directions at so many times. Of course, not all of this is possible with every teacher and every student, but employing some of these technologies could really get us "out of the book". Consider the possibilities that a ficticious Chinese student named Jerry Liang would experience:
- Jerry gets a daily Email that has a short lesson, story or MP3. This Email is pumped out to Jerry and all the other students by a program similar to those used by spammers.
- Jerry also receives a daily SMS phone messages that reminds him to study an assignment, do homework or join some activities that the teacher has organized.
- Every week, Jerry is directed to watch a certain TV program or movie which all the other students and teacher will be watching. Jerry doesn't have to participate if he is busy that night but he does need to participate in at least two per week. Jerry tunes in the program and starts the chat program on his computer. While he is watching the program on his home TV, other students and the teacher are watching it and chatting with him about it, about the story, actors, what they like or don't like, etc. ("Don't go in that dark room!...don't do it!...Ugh! I knew it!!!")
- Jerry posts assignments on the blog.
- Jerry gets SMS phone messages with new vocabulary on set days. After first contact with the new vocabulary in a lesson he receives the vocabulary in a message on day 2, 5, 12, 19, 33, 63. He has a look at the words and reviews them.
- He has some specially recorded lessons made by his teacher or other teachers in MP3 format in his MP3/MP4 player or PDA which he listens to throughout the day.
- When Jerry visits the popular local mall he takes a walking tour via MP3. The teacher has made a short recording and guides the him through the mall, describing interesting things about the mall and shops and introducing more new vocabulary. ("Starbucks took its name from a coffee-loving character in the famous American novel called 'Moby Dick', a story about a man hunting a whale. Starbuck's strategy is to become people's 'third place', the main place people go outside of home and work.")
- Sometimes Jerry receives a phone call from the teacher to practice his speaking, but more often than not, the teacher (randomly?) assigns Jerry and the other students speaking buddies, other students, who he calls to practice a particular speaking activity. Every week Jerry recieves an Email with a speaking lesson to practice and his speaking buddy's phone number. Sometimes the buddy is in his class but most of the time the buddy is a student in one of the teacher's other classes, perhaps a manager in a company. It's interesting to have this way to talk to various professionals that he wouldn't normally meet (and Jerry thinks it's always interesting to talk to girls).
- Twice a month, Jerry is given a phone number to a company in an English speaking country that provides information about their services along with one or more questions that he needs to ask about. For example, he once had to call Trump International Hotel in New York to find out if they allow dogs in the room. (They do if the dog is under 10 pounds but the guest must pay a non-refundable $200.) This provides a real English challenge and practice for Jerry.
- Etc, etc, etc.
All of this is possible with current technology but will never be offered by a book publisher. It just remains for the teacher to sort out his content and figure out the different ways to deliver it.
A student, going through a course like that, would have an experience they've never had before. But as I said, maybe I dream up this stuff because I'm the kind of person who is easily bored.
07 August 2007
Making podcasts for low level English students
Here are a few ideas for making podcasts for your students:
1. Make recordings of your experiences like the time you met someone famous or thought you were going to die in an accident. Don't be boring but be simple.
2. Interview friends and other teachers. Don't rely on the friends to be simple enough or talk slowly enough. If the friend is using some language that you feel is too advanced for your students then jump in and ask your friend to define it or define it or restate it yourself.
3. Take your students on a tour to a favorite local haunt. There is a shopping mall here that is immensely popular with all students in this area. Record a tour of the location that they could listen to and use to follow your footsteps. Describe what you see, tell some funny stories and go in to the shop and talk to some clerks about their products. I did this with my notebook computer in my bag running Audacity with a microphone clipped on my shirt. Many mobile phones have recording functions on them. You can include some insights into some of the businesses or some of the fashions even if you have to look them up on the Internet. Check this out.
4. Make your case for your method. Students always want to know what is the best/fastest/easiest way to learn English. Explain how you are teaching your students. Some of our teaching methods are counter intuitive. I think Grammar-Translation makes a lot of sense but is not as good as Communicative Approach. If our teaching method is not always easily accepted by students you should take every opportunity to "sell" your teaching methods over and over.
5. Don't just make a recording on any subject but try to steer it in a way to augment units you are teaching in one of your courses. This way you can further the unit, even if you have to 'assign' the listening item, or you can use it as a collection of materials students can listen to on a voluntary basis. For example, if you have a unit discussing Human Resources you can interview a friend about their experience in hiring or with working with colleagues.
6. Record your lessons. This is normally quite boring but it can be very effective if you just extract some of the jewels, ancedotes you tell your students, special tips on learning English, fun facts, a story about your travels, etc.
I am also trying some projects along this line and am starting to post them at GCAST.
1. Make recordings of your experiences like the time you met someone famous or thought you were going to die in an accident. Don't be boring but be simple.
2. Interview friends and other teachers. Don't rely on the friends to be simple enough or talk slowly enough. If the friend is using some language that you feel is too advanced for your students then jump in and ask your friend to define it or define it or restate it yourself.
3. Take your students on a tour to a favorite local haunt. There is a shopping mall here that is immensely popular with all students in this area. Record a tour of the location that they could listen to and use to follow your footsteps. Describe what you see, tell some funny stories and go in to the shop and talk to some clerks about their products. I did this with my notebook computer in my bag running Audacity with a microphone clipped on my shirt. Many mobile phones have recording functions on them. You can include some insights into some of the businesses or some of the fashions even if you have to look them up on the Internet. Check this out.
4. Make your case for your method. Students always want to know what is the best/fastest/easiest way to learn English. Explain how you are teaching your students. Some of our teaching methods are counter intuitive. I think Grammar-Translation makes a lot of sense but is not as good as Communicative Approach. If our teaching method is not always easily accepted by students you should take every opportunity to "sell" your teaching methods over and over.
5. Don't just make a recording on any subject but try to steer it in a way to augment units you are teaching in one of your courses. This way you can further the unit, even if you have to 'assign' the listening item, or you can use it as a collection of materials students can listen to on a voluntary basis. For example, if you have a unit discussing Human Resources you can interview a friend about their experience in hiring or with working with colleagues.
6. Record your lessons. This is normally quite boring but it can be very effective if you just extract some of the jewels, ancedotes you tell your students, special tips on learning English, fun facts, a story about your travels, etc.
I am also trying some projects along this line and am starting to post them at GCAST.
29 May 2007
How can we encourage autonomous television watching?
Some teachers speak of autonomous learning. Some teachers feel their students are too lazy. Some teachers feel students need to always be pushed to learn.
Why is it difficult to get students to study English but it is not difficult to get students to watch television?
Is it because watching television is, to put it simply, brainless? Do people have an inherent need for brainless entertainment?
Are all television programs brainless? Do viewers never learn anything useful from the tube? Is there no useful educational content in television?
Or is it that the makers of television programming have learned to be "student-centric"? Do they work under the pressure that viewers can switch to another channel with one click? Does this propel them to captivating content?
If our students could get up and leave our classrooms at anytime with no negative repercussions would it change the way we teach?
Are there any teachers out there that could compete with television? Are television programs always more engaging than English lessons?
Is there anything we can learn from television?
I am not recommending television watching or movies here, although I think those are great tools. My point is that we can learn a lot from these people, like television producers, who must, every night, attract the attention of what is a fickle public.
Rather than take the approach of making a boring processes more palatable to students, what if we really challenge ourselves to present materials as interesting as TV to make our training thoroughly engaging to the students?
I think that would motivate students to be truly autonomous.
Why is it difficult to get students to study English but it is not difficult to get students to watch television?
Is it because watching television is, to put it simply, brainless? Do people have an inherent need for brainless entertainment?
Are all television programs brainless? Do viewers never learn anything useful from the tube? Is there no useful educational content in television?
Or is it that the makers of television programming have learned to be "student-centric"? Do they work under the pressure that viewers can switch to another channel with one click? Does this propel them to captivating content?
If our students could get up and leave our classrooms at anytime with no negative repercussions would it change the way we teach?
Are there any teachers out there that could compete with television? Are television programs always more engaging than English lessons?
Is there anything we can learn from television?
I am not recommending television watching or movies here, although I think those are great tools. My point is that we can learn a lot from these people, like television producers, who must, every night, attract the attention of what is a fickle public.
Rather than take the approach of making a boring processes more palatable to students, what if we really challenge ourselves to present materials as interesting as TV to make our training thoroughly engaging to the students?
I think that would motivate students to be truly autonomous.
07 May 2007
Is English learning golf?
At teacher compared learning various sports to practicing and drilling in English learning when he said, "This is like saying that the only way for a goalie to get better at soccer is by playing soccer games. Golf players should never go to driving ranges, because they can't get a sense of the lie of the land there. Tennis players should never practice against a wall because the wall won't spin the ball the way another player will. Baseball players should spurn hitting practice because it lacks the context of the position of the players."
No, I don't think it's the same. Can we really compare becoming proficient in English to becoming proficient in sports? Wouldn't we say that English communication is infinitly more complex than sports?
Take golf, for example, the number of variations for a putt are highly limited compared to the number of variations in expressing something in English. In fact, many skills in sports are dependant on the player being able to replicate the motions the same way every time.
That is why repetitious practice can help players. They practice their swing over and over and over until they are like a machine. Of course, in the game, the lay of the land may require some judgements in how to hit the ball but those judgments are calculated into the stroke that the player has mechanically practiced.
Perhaps there are only a few ways to sink a putt but there can be a hundred ways to explain you are going to the store to buy some sugar. I'm sure Tiger Woods would disagree but I believe language is more complex than golf and they cannot be learned in the same way.
Drilling and repeating is not effective. Students can learn English by using English following Krashen's theories of Comprehensible Input.
No, I don't think it's the same. Can we really compare becoming proficient in English to becoming proficient in sports? Wouldn't we say that English communication is infinitly more complex than sports?
Take golf, for example, the number of variations for a putt are highly limited compared to the number of variations in expressing something in English. In fact, many skills in sports are dependant on the player being able to replicate the motions the same way every time.
That is why repetitious practice can help players. They practice their swing over and over and over until they are like a machine. Of course, in the game, the lay of the land may require some judgements in how to hit the ball but those judgments are calculated into the stroke that the player has mechanically practiced.
Perhaps there are only a few ways to sink a putt but there can be a hundred ways to explain you are going to the store to buy some sugar. I'm sure Tiger Woods would disagree but I believe language is more complex than golf and they cannot be learned in the same way.
Drilling and repeating is not effective. Students can learn English by using English following Krashen's theories of Comprehensible Input.
14 March 2007
Grammar teaching - a fading star
A teacher said, “That is what I wanted to hear - 'Communicative Language Teaching doesn't exclude grammar or even translation' !!!”
Rest assured, Grammar will never be without a job.
Up until the 1970's, Grammar used to be the mega movie star of English teaching, a true prima donna. Grammar was simply adored by all fans; teachers and students, alike. Grammar's name featured prominently on every textbook or coursebook. People memorized every aspect of Grammar. It was near worship. Then Chomsky released his blockbuster which, while not widely accepted by the entire public, marked a new era and saw Grammar's popularity begin to wane. Grammar suffered further humiliation when Krashen came along. Now many people respect Grammar just as many people regard Casablanca or Gone With The Wind, one of the greatest movies ever made. But when most people want real entertainment, they don't go to these old movies any more.
That doesn't mean Grammar is out of a job by any means. It still plays an important supporting role in many movies just like many former stars appear in smaller parts in movies and TV shows. (Alan Alda even won an Oscar for his supporting role in the new movie Little Miss Sunshine.)
As Krashen puts it:
"I recommend delaying the teaching of these rules until more advanced levels. I would first give acquisition a chance, and then use conscious knowledge to fill in some of the gaps. There is no sense teaching rules for Monitoring that will eventually be acquired. Grammar, thus, is not excluded. It is, however, no longer the star player but has only a supporting role."
More from Krashen:
In my reviews of these studies, I have concluded that they confirm the correctness of the Comprehension and Monitor Hypotheses: they show only that even after substantial grammar study, even very motivated students show only modest gains in accuracy, and these gains occur only on measures that encourage a focus on form. Truscott (1998) has arrived at very similar conclusions.
Some have interpreted this position as a claim that all grammar teaching is forbidden. Not so. There are two good reasons for including grammar in the EFL curriculum.
The first is for "language appreciation," otherwise known as "linguistics." Linguistics includes language universals, language change, dialects, etc. The second is to fill gaps left by incomplete acquisition and places in which idiolects differ from the prestige dialect. Society’s standards for accuracy, especially in writing, are 100%: We are not allowed "mistakes" in punctuation, spelling or grammar. One public error, in fact, can result in humiliation. Even well-read native speakers have gaps, places where their grammatical competence differs from accepted use.
Consciously learned rules can fill some of these gaps, which are typically in aspects of language that do not affect communication of messages. The place to use this knowledge is in the editing stage of the composing process, when appealing to conscious rules will not interfere with communication.
I recommend delaying the teaching of these rules until more advanced levels. I would first give acquisition a chance, and then use conscious knowledge to fill in some of the gaps. There is no sense teaching rules for Monitoring that will eventually be acquired.
Grammar, thus, is not excluded. It is, however, no longer the star player but has only a supporting role.
More: http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/eta_paper/02.html
Rest assured, Grammar will never be without a job.
Up until the 1970's, Grammar used to be the mega movie star of English teaching, a true prima donna. Grammar was simply adored by all fans; teachers and students, alike. Grammar's name featured prominently on every textbook or coursebook. People memorized every aspect of Grammar. It was near worship. Then Chomsky released his blockbuster which, while not widely accepted by the entire public, marked a new era and saw Grammar's popularity begin to wane. Grammar suffered further humiliation when Krashen came along. Now many people respect Grammar just as many people regard Casablanca or Gone With The Wind, one of the greatest movies ever made. But when most people want real entertainment, they don't go to these old movies any more.
That doesn't mean Grammar is out of a job by any means. It still plays an important supporting role in many movies just like many former stars appear in smaller parts in movies and TV shows. (Alan Alda even won an Oscar for his supporting role in the new movie Little Miss Sunshine.)
As Krashen puts it:
"I recommend delaying the teaching of these rules until more advanced levels. I would first give acquisition a chance, and then use conscious knowledge to fill in some of the gaps. There is no sense teaching rules for Monitoring that will eventually be acquired. Grammar, thus, is not excluded. It is, however, no longer the star player but has only a supporting role."
More from Krashen:
In my reviews of these studies, I have concluded that they confirm the correctness of the Comprehension and Monitor Hypotheses: they show only that even after substantial grammar study, even very motivated students show only modest gains in accuracy, and these gains occur only on measures that encourage a focus on form. Truscott (1998) has arrived at very similar conclusions.
Some have interpreted this position as a claim that all grammar teaching is forbidden. Not so. There are two good reasons for including grammar in the EFL curriculum.
The first is for "language appreciation," otherwise known as "linguistics." Linguistics includes language universals, language change, dialects, etc. The second is to fill gaps left by incomplete acquisition and places in which idiolects differ from the prestige dialect. Society’s standards for accuracy, especially in writing, are 100%: We are not allowed "mistakes" in punctuation, spelling or grammar. One public error, in fact, can result in humiliation. Even well-read native speakers have gaps, places where their grammatical competence differs from accepted use.
Consciously learned rules can fill some of these gaps, which are typically in aspects of language that do not affect communication of messages. The place to use this knowledge is in the editing stage of the composing process, when appealing to conscious rules will not interfere with communication.
I recommend delaying the teaching of these rules until more advanced levels. I would first give acquisition a chance, and then use conscious knowledge to fill in some of the gaps. There is no sense teaching rules for Monitoring that will eventually be acquired.
Grammar, thus, is not excluded. It is, however, no longer the star player but has only a supporting role.
More: http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/eta_paper/02.html
08 March 2007
The problem with movies in the classroom
Although I love movies I seldom use them in the classroom. The biggest problems are that the language is normal or even above normal (flavored with special accents that I have seldom come in contact with in my 20+ years around the world, or peppered with the vocabulary of special interest groups of people like maybe hip-hop). I have few real advanced students who could understand 80-90% of this, most of mine are upper or lower-intermediates.
I buy into Krashen's input hypothesis which holds that the learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'.
The second problem is time. Movies run to 90-120 minutes. If pauses are added that brings it to 120-150 minutes which in my situation is too long.
When I do show a movie I will preview the movie 2-3 times jotting down an outline of the movie, transcribing a few bits and also selecting certain sections to skip to cut the movie shorter. Of course, I also try to find the script on the Internet but seldom have success for the movies I have shown. But I do try to create some sort of hand out for the students to emphasize points I want to teach.
The bottom line has been that that they can take enormous amounts of time trying to prepare, show and teach from a movie.
Later I will discuss some great ways you can use movies.
I buy into Krashen's input hypothesis which holds that the learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'.
The second problem is time. Movies run to 90-120 minutes. If pauses are added that brings it to 120-150 minutes which in my situation is too long.
When I do show a movie I will preview the movie 2-3 times jotting down an outline of the movie, transcribing a few bits and also selecting certain sections to skip to cut the movie shorter. Of course, I also try to find the script on the Internet but seldom have success for the movies I have shown. But I do try to create some sort of hand out for the students to emphasize points I want to teach.
The bottom line has been that that they can take enormous amounts of time trying to prepare, show and teach from a movie.
Later I will discuss some great ways you can use movies.
"Grammar lessons do not help children write proper"
Further to our favorite topic, Grammar Translation vs Communicative Language Teaching, I submit this piece of news. I realize it is not exactly on our topic but useful for our discussion:Grammar lessons do not help children write proper
The Guardian
Joanne Lawson
Tuesday January 18, 2005
New findings suggest that teaching children grammar is of little use in improving their writing skills.
The study undertaken by researchers at the University of York found that teaching children old-fashioned grammar was not as helpful as teaching them skills such as how to combine short sentences into longer ones.
The funding for the research has come from the Department for Education and Skills, which undertakes regular reviews of the evidence to establish what are the best educational practices. The University of York English review team looked at the results of over 100 years of studies on formal grammar teaching, including previous government-backed reviews.
07 March 2007
The disease is fatal. It's called "boredom"!
Troubleshooting a teacher's problem.
A teacher is having some problems with his classes. Despite his efforts he said his classes were too boring. Here is what he said he was doing to get his students interested in English:
1. Play English Videos with Chinese subtitles
2. Role -play
3. Use scores to stress them
4. Ask the students to recite passages
5. Organize some English contests such as speech contest, etc.
1) Beginners and lower intermediate students will always focus on the L1 subtitles. Sometimes they are unable to watch the action as they have to watch the subtitles so closely. They are long and take up a whole class or more. Watching them is a passive event. The students sit and receive information but don't have to interact with it. Finally, watching a movie is something they commonly do outside of class.
For beginners and intermediates, movies are not an easy language learning tool except for listening (and reading). There are a few simple movies that you can watch with your intermediate students in English with English subtitles that they will follow the language enough to laugh when something clever is said and shed a tear or two at the end. Try "Big" with Tom Hanks, "Trading Places" with Eddie Murphy, "Don Juan Demarco" with Johnny Depp and Marlon Brando.
But even with these, they are passive events which only challenge the students' listening and reading ability. They are not as good as something that makes the students interact with the language.
2) Role plays are good if they are interesting for the students. Students seem to especially love anything with negotiation in them. Negotiation is like a game for them.
3) Scores (like death and taxes) always seem to be with us. But (like death and taxes) they should be a motivator of last resort.
4) Reciting passages is an effort of rote memory. It also doesn't require interaction between the student and the language unless the student is studying drama.
5) Speech contests are rote memory efforts with a bit of drama and a score coming up at the end. Debates would be better. Debates are a verbal game or challenge requiring student interaction with the language. For beginners and intermediates it may be best to keep the debates on fun or light-hearted topics to avoid focus on win-lose issues. For example, what is better: KFC or McDonald's? Pizza or ice cream? One million dollars or one million flowers?
A teacher is having some problems with his classes. Despite his efforts he said his classes were too boring. Here is what he said he was doing to get his students interested in English:
1. Play English Videos with Chinese subtitles
2. Role -play
3. Use scores to stress them
4. Ask the students to recite passages
5. Organize some English contests such as speech contest, etc.
1) Beginners and lower intermediate students will always focus on the L1 subtitles. Sometimes they are unable to watch the action as they have to watch the subtitles so closely. They are long and take up a whole class or more. Watching them is a passive event. The students sit and receive information but don't have to interact with it. Finally, watching a movie is something they commonly do outside of class.
For beginners and intermediates, movies are not an easy language learning tool except for listening (and reading). There are a few simple movies that you can watch with your intermediate students in English with English subtitles that they will follow the language enough to laugh when something clever is said and shed a tear or two at the end. Try "Big" with Tom Hanks, "Trading Places" with Eddie Murphy, "Don Juan Demarco" with Johnny Depp and Marlon Brando.
But even with these, they are passive events which only challenge the students' listening and reading ability. They are not as good as something that makes the students interact with the language.
2) Role plays are good if they are interesting for the students. Students seem to especially love anything with negotiation in them. Negotiation is like a game for them.
3) Scores (like death and taxes) always seem to be with us. But (like death and taxes) they should be a motivator of last resort.
4) Reciting passages is an effort of rote memory. It also doesn't require interaction between the student and the language unless the student is studying drama.
5) Speech contests are rote memory efforts with a bit of drama and a score coming up at the end. Debates would be better. Debates are a verbal game or challenge requiring student interaction with the language. For beginners and intermediates it may be best to keep the debates on fun or light-hearted topics to avoid focus on win-lose issues. For example, what is better: KFC or McDonald's? Pizza or ice cream? One million dollars or one million flowers?
Are you being idiot-proofed?
Michael Swan, although a supporter of coursebooks, nevertheless warned: "The danger of ready-made textbooks is that they can seem to absolve teachers of responsibility. Instead of participating in the day-to-day decisions that have to be made about what to teach and how to teach it, it is easy to just sit back and operate the system, secure in the belief that the wise and virtuous people who produced the textbook knew what was good for us. Unfortunately this is rarely the case."(1)
Allwright explained from another perspective: "According to this view, we need teaching materials to save learners from our deficiencies as teachers, to make sure, as far as possible, that the syllabus is properly covered, and that exercises are well thought out, for example. This way of thinking might lead, at one extreme, to the idea that the 'best' teachers would have 'teacher proof' materials that no teacher, however deficient, would be able to teach badly with."(2)
Although coursebooks can be an invaluable contribution to the training of new teachers it could be argued that they "deskill" experienced teachers.
I will not say that Swan and Allwright are anti-coursebook extremists. I am not an anti-coursebook extremist but I have found myself going through some transitions.
I went through being coursebook dependent to coursebook embellisher to coursebook modifier but arriving at coursebook frustration when the coursebook didn't fit my students at all.
At this point, the teacher is faced with a quandary. He lacks the confidence that he can teach his students without a commercially prepared coursebook even though the coursebook isn't doing the job. He is unable to believe that he can make the next logical step. Why do we fear this?
As Richards points out: "[a] potentially negative consequence of the use of textbooks is that they can lead to reification. Reification refers to the unjustifiable attribution of qualities of excellence, authority, and validity to published textbooks, a tendency often supported by the promotional efforts of publishers. In promoting their products, publishers often support the idea that their books represent the theories of experts or the most recent scientific research. With our without publishers' efforts, however, there is the general expectation among teachers that textbooks have been carefully developed through consultation with teachers and specialists and through field testing, and that the exercises and activities they contain will achieve what they set out to do. In some situations, this belief may be reinforced by culturally based views on the attributes of the printed word.
Teachers in some parts of the world, for example, tend to assume that any item included in a textbook must be an important learning item for students, and that explanations (e.g., of grammar rules or idioms) and cultural information provided by the author are true and should not be questioned; they assume that they do not have the authority or knowledge to adapt the textbook. They likewise believe that activities found in a textbook are superior to ones that they could devise themselves."(3)
We should be sure that we are using coursebooks and coursebooks are not using us. Perhaps it's time to make our own.
=======================
(1) Swan, Michael 1992. The textbook: Bridge or wall? Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching 2(1):33
(2) Allwright, R. L. 1981. What do we want teaching materials for? ELT Journal 36(1):6
(3) Richards, Jack 1998. Textbooks: Help or hindrance in teaching?; Beyond Training:131
Allwright explained from another perspective: "According to this view, we need teaching materials to save learners from our deficiencies as teachers, to make sure, as far as possible, that the syllabus is properly covered, and that exercises are well thought out, for example. This way of thinking might lead, at one extreme, to the idea that the 'best' teachers would have 'teacher proof' materials that no teacher, however deficient, would be able to teach badly with."(2)
Although coursebooks can be an invaluable contribution to the training of new teachers it could be argued that they "deskill" experienced teachers.
I will not say that Swan and Allwright are anti-coursebook extremists. I am not an anti-coursebook extremist but I have found myself going through some transitions.
I went through being coursebook dependent to coursebook embellisher to coursebook modifier but arriving at coursebook frustration when the coursebook didn't fit my students at all.
At this point, the teacher is faced with a quandary. He lacks the confidence that he can teach his students without a commercially prepared coursebook even though the coursebook isn't doing the job. He is unable to believe that he can make the next logical step. Why do we fear this?
As Richards points out: "[a] potentially negative consequence of the use of textbooks is that they can lead to reification. Reification refers to the unjustifiable attribution of qualities of excellence, authority, and validity to published textbooks, a tendency often supported by the promotional efforts of publishers. In promoting their products, publishers often support the idea that their books represent the theories of experts or the most recent scientific research. With our without publishers' efforts, however, there is the general expectation among teachers that textbooks have been carefully developed through consultation with teachers and specialists and through field testing, and that the exercises and activities they contain will achieve what they set out to do. In some situations, this belief may be reinforced by culturally based views on the attributes of the printed word.
Teachers in some parts of the world, for example, tend to assume that any item included in a textbook must be an important learning item for students, and that explanations (e.g., of grammar rules or idioms) and cultural information provided by the author are true and should not be questioned; they assume that they do not have the authority or knowledge to adapt the textbook. They likewise believe that activities found in a textbook are superior to ones that they could devise themselves."(3)
We should be sure that we are using coursebooks and coursebooks are not using us. Perhaps it's time to make our own.
=======================
(1) Swan, Michael 1992. The textbook: Bridge or wall? Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching 2(1):33
(2) Allwright, R. L. 1981. What do we want teaching materials for? ELT Journal 36(1):6
(3) Richards, Jack 1998. Textbooks: Help or hindrance in teaching?; Beyond Training:131
Why my students hate me
One teacher confided, "The first thing I do is to explain why I'm asking for change."
I've had entire classes rebel and reject me when they thought I didn't teach enough grammar. I've been told I was the worse teacher a particular student ever had (and he was an adult.) I have taught in classrooms with a big "No Pain - No Gain!" sign over my head that the students' regular teachers had placed to make sure the students knew that learning was supposed to be an academically masochistic(1) experience.
A teacher has two options in these situations.
A) Go along with what everyone wants. After 10-12 years of grammar translation training in school they have at least reached low intermediate level -- so just give them more of it.
B) Help them learn about learning and teach them about teaching.
This is the same thing a doctor does when he introduces a new therapy, drug or treatment. He explains the research. He explains the results. He explains the problems with the older and the advantages of the newer. The doctor teaches you. He doesn't say, "Well, if your mother always said cod liver oil will heal anything, then let's try that."
We have to explain the history of English teaching and the advances that have been made in understanding how the mind and language works. We have to sell our methods and set their minds at ease. I tell my students about Dell Hymes. I tell them about Krashen. (I'm going to have to start telling them about Mert.) I don't follow a Krashen plan (nor Mert plan) but I mention these things to show them some of the ideas involved in current research. I think we have to hit the problem head on. Teach them exactly why we are going to do things differently and really sell it. Teach them exactly why they don't already know English from their previous learning experience if it was under strong Grammar Translation.
Of course, this doesn't preclude the possibility that cod liver oil is just what some people needed nor the possibility that many people learn best with a strong grammar translation method. I had an American buddy who loved grammar. To him it was like a puzzle. We picked up a how to learn Japanese book with lots of grammar in it and after three months he was speaking Japanese and I knew nothing.
But if Grammar Translation and Audio Lingual are so great then everyone in China should be speaking English fluently by now.
(1) A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
I've had entire classes rebel and reject me when they thought I didn't teach enough grammar. I've been told I was the worse teacher a particular student ever had (and he was an adult.) I have taught in classrooms with a big "No Pain - No Gain!" sign over my head that the students' regular teachers had placed to make sure the students knew that learning was supposed to be an academically masochistic(1) experience.
A teacher has two options in these situations.
A) Go along with what everyone wants. After 10-12 years of grammar translation training in school they have at least reached low intermediate level -- so just give them more of it.
B) Help them learn about learning and teach them about teaching.
This is the same thing a doctor does when he introduces a new therapy, drug or treatment. He explains the research. He explains the results. He explains the problems with the older and the advantages of the newer. The doctor teaches you. He doesn't say, "Well, if your mother always said cod liver oil will heal anything, then let's try that."
We have to explain the history of English teaching and the advances that have been made in understanding how the mind and language works. We have to sell our methods and set their minds at ease. I tell my students about Dell Hymes. I tell them about Krashen. (I'm going to have to start telling them about Mert.) I don't follow a Krashen plan (nor Mert plan) but I mention these things to show them some of the ideas involved in current research. I think we have to hit the problem head on. Teach them exactly why we are going to do things differently and really sell it. Teach them exactly why they don't already know English from their previous learning experience if it was under strong Grammar Translation.
Of course, this doesn't preclude the possibility that cod liver oil is just what some people needed nor the possibility that many people learn best with a strong grammar translation method. I had an American buddy who loved grammar. To him it was like a puzzle. We picked up a how to learn Japanese book with lots of grammar in it and after three months he was speaking Japanese and I knew nothing.
But if Grammar Translation and Audio Lingual are so great then everyone in China should be speaking English fluently by now.
(1) A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
Why it is difficult for Chinese English teachers to use the communicative approach
[Photo: Professor Li Xiao Ju and Dave]There was tremendous resistance to the Communicative Approach (CA) when it was first introduced in China in 1980 by Professor Li Xiao Ju at a conference at the Guangzhou University of Foreign Studies. In fact I was told, only one young teacher at the conference welcomed the idea. Even though the Ministry of Education later accepted it as the approved way to teach it seems they had to back down a bit later due to some pressure.
For those who embrace CA it is an uphill battle to spread its acceptance in China. Why? Perhaps there are two reasons. Before I discuss them I'd like to set some definitions. I believe ALL teachers want their students to learn grammar. The question is how? Grammar-Translation (GT) advocates believe rule learning and a direct understanding of the mechanics of the language are essential. CA advocates believe language mechanics study is an extra step leading to complicate and even frustrate the learning of the language. They believe the best way to learn the language is to use it and the grammar will be learned internally. But in the scope of CA advocates is a range of extremities. Many hold Krashen as the most extreme.
Back to the reasons, first, there is not complete acceptance of CA amongst western teachers. Many teachers in the west believe GT to be a required part of language teaching. This has been witnessed on this list with the subject of GT vs. CA flaming up about once a year. But what I think is more interesting is what I consider the second reason of why CA has not spread around China more easily. Can Chinese teachers do it?
The question was "Can Chinese English teachers make use of the Communicative Approach?"
The skill level of Chinese teachers varies widely. With some teachers you forget they are not native English teachers because their English is flawless. But some teachers have very poor English. It is difficult for them to communicate in a conversation. They are hard to understand and it is hard for them to understand you. I'm not sure how to quantify the number of teachers at these various levels of skill. Another thing is that we must factor in some cultural factors and the politics of academia. After all of that I would guess that less than 25% of Chinese teachers could operate in a CA classroom without losing face and my guess is probably very very generous.
On the other hand, GT is a much more comfortable way of teaching. Rules are laid out, memorized and recited. Drills are given with structured sentences that require only one correct answer. The teacher does not have to score a sometimes convoluted mass of words that the student has used to describe something. The teacher has to check if the correct word is filled into the blanks. Certainly I'm over-simplifying this but I use it as an illustration.
This leads us to a bigger question. What do you do in a country with 100 million English students to teach and only a small percentage of your teachers have near native English skills themselves? Is Grammar-Translation the answer?
05 March 2007
China is in the past with "New Concept"
A teacher wrote us: "I noted recently the, I think, generally unannounced passing of LG (Louis) Alexander in June 2003. Alexander was a giant of TESOL in the early 70s when I began using his texts in TEFL situations. When I returned to the field a few years later his hour had passed and he wasn't heard of again. Too much repetition; too much focus on habit formation."Alexander and his "New Concept" series, published in 1965 (with only superficial changes since) predating even Dell Hymes' and the Communicative Approach (is it still a new concept?) is the number one best seller in China even today. It seems like Chinese students and Chinese teachers think it is the greatest invention in English teaching since the dictionary. They erected a statue to Alexander in Beijing .
A teacher suggested an examination of methodologies of the past to see what good things from them may have been overlooked. Obviously, more work needs to be done to get the world's largest English learning population out of the past and at least to the present. So much has changed in the English teaching world since "New Concept" was published. The study of linguistics has benefited a lot from the research of Noam Chomsky, Stephen Krashen and many other researchers and modern thinkers. "New Concept" is in the past. It is the old concept. Time for a "new" new concept.
21 February 2007
Finding suitable authentic newspaper materials for reading
It is not easy to find authentic newspaper materials that are at an accessible level for students and interesting as well. Krashen always recommended reading materials that were L+1, a level just slightly above the student's level which causes the student to have to "reach" a little.
I have scoured the Internet for years for such things. Something I like is from a column called "The Boss" in the NY Times. They have a simple life story of a top boss. Typically the story touches on things about the person's childhood, school, influence of parents, first jobs and the lessons of life.
They are also success stories and lots of students have some hopes to be successful in life and find these stories interesting. At the bottom is an example of one of "The Boss" stories that you can find in the NY Times.
HOW TO USE THEM & THE PROBLEMS WITH PRE-TEACHING
There are a couple approaches involved in reading. I don't recommend "pre-teaching" the vocabulary from the text as many course books do, notably in China is "New Concepts" (which is actually a very old concept course book being written in the 1960s and only receiving superficial modifications just recently.)
Although pre-teaching sounds like a practical idea it is very boring for the students. Good teaching allows an element of mystery and curiosity and the thirst for knowledge. Good teaching provides the salt first and then the water. The good teacher gets the student to search his memory, his personal resources in his recollection, and draw on what the student already knows to apply to the problem. Good teaching also gets him to personally recognize what he doesn't know which causes him to be curious and want to learn it.
So typically, before letting the students look at the material, get them to talk about what they know about some of the points in the story.
Pre-teaching sort of digests the text for the student leaving little mental exercise beyond simply trying to remember what he was told a couple minutes ago.
Encourage the students to guess the meaning of what they don't understand. You'll find, in a text as below, that there are a few words the student may not know and may not really need to retain.
GUIDING THE STUDENT'S VOCABULARY ACQUISITION
I think it was H.D. Brown who talked about the Active Vocabulary, Latent Vocabulary and the Unknown. Some vocabulary the students encounter is destined for their Latent Vocabulary, words that will be important for them to be able to read or recognize when they hear them but are not necessary for them to be able to produce them on the spot like their Active Vocabulary. Some words they may only see once or twice in their lifetime and could well do without ever learning them. So equal stress should not be made on all words that students will encounter. Some words should be pointed out more than others because they will be more useful for students.
I've always said that language learning is like packing a suitcase. You've got to choose what you will likely need and leave the rest behind. Our students don't have an unlimited capacity to retain everything and that's one place where the teacher is most needed. Decisions about what to teach are as important as decisions about what NOT to teach.
It is not a sin to finish a reading exercise with the student not understanding 100% of the words. The teacher has to remember that sometimes English is a buffet. The student does not need to eat everything but he should eat enough to grow.
In the sample text below the intermediate student might need to acquire vocabulary like: headhunter, recruiter, certified, pulled me out of school, over the course of my career, I was No. 2 for eight years, early on.
However, this following vocabulary may not be as important to retain in the student's Active Vocabulary: Amgen (company name), squadron commander, adventurer, overstate, hammered people, flight physical, class of ship, at the top of his lungs.
Still, the student could be encouraged to guess some of these and should be encouraged to find that he can figure some of these out without a dictionary. He may be able to figure out: adventurer, overstate, hammered people, class of ship.
Some words the student can easily forget without serious damage to their English competency like: Admiral Hyman G. Rickover (name).
AND SPEAKING?
Of course it is an ideal time to do some speaking after all the time invested in reading the text. There is a lot of vocabulary covered in what they just read and some speaking can help to consolidate it and allow the student to test his understanding and usage of it.
If my goal was solely speaking and I wanted to use a text I'd use a very short one. "The Boss" is too long for that purpose. But if we used a long text for something else then let's roll into a speaking exercise. Here are a couple ideas that could be done in pairs or small groups:
1. Students could be asked to talk as if they were the characters. In "Say It" fashion, they could do a short monologue explaining themselves and what happened and why they felt the way they felt and adding in made-up details and parts of the story.
2. They could try to isolate various aspects of the story such as the lessons of life and people of influence and discuss those. Then they could follow up with their own personal lessons of life and people of influence.
================
THE BOSS
Ready for the Admiral
As told to GLENN RIFKIN - June 20, 2004
I had no background in health care or biology before I came to Amgen. The only time I touched biology was in ninth grade, and I didn't do very well.
I was working at MCI when I got a fax one day from a headhunter, asking if I knew anybody who wanted to be president of Amgen. I had never heard of Amgen and didn't know what it was. This was 1992. I checked it out and asked some friends, and called back the recruiter and said, "Yes, I want to be president of Amgen."
It was already a 12-year-old company with 2,000 employees, two successful biotech products, and it was clearly going to be a success.
I was ambitious, and I wanted to be a C.E.O.
My dad, who is still alive, was a naval aviator and a career naval officer. He flew jets early on and was a squadron commander. It's hard to overstate the psychological impact, as a young boy, of seeing airplanes come out of the sky, knowing that your father is flying one.
My mother was a very strong, independent woman who was a real adventurer. She loved travel, the arts, literature. When I was a senior in high school, my mother pulled me out of school to go to the Los Angeles Philharmonic to see Isaac Stern play the violin.
I went to the Naval Academy at Annapolis and studied aeronautical engineering on the misconception that it had something to do with flying airplanes. When I failed the flight physical in graduate school because of poor eyesight, I had to decide, at age 23, what to do with my lifelong ambition thwarted.
A friend had joined the submarine force, so I decided I'd go see Admiral Hyman G. Rickover about that option.
Rickover was famous for grilling people, and he asked me why I hadn't come to see him when I was at Annapolis. I told him that I wanted to fly, but since my eyes didn't work, he was the second choice.
It was not the answer Rickover was accustomed to getting. He usually hammered people for failing grades or poor performance, and I had none of those things.
After about 45 seconds, he said, "Get out."
In those days, that was the highest praise you could get from him. It meant you'd been accepted.
Later, when I was the chief engineer of the Memphis, which is in a certain class of attack submarines, on its initial sea trials, I encountered Rickover again. Admiral Rickover would ride every ship on its initial sea trials. So there I was in the control room and Rickover was screaming at the top of his lungs, "Where's the chief engineer?" He thought the ship wasn't performing properly.
I told him: "Admiral, you're wrong. I'm the chief engineer of this ship, and you certified me, and I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. The performance you are looking for is from another class of ship, and here's the data."
There was a real twinkle in his eye before he went on to attack me on another point.
That experience paid off when I left the Navy and was interviewing for a high-level job at General Electric. Jack Welch asked me, "Have you ever taken a risk in your life?"
I replied that at 27 years old, when you are guiding an attack submarine all alone in the teeth of the Russian fleet in the North Atlantic, that was a risk.
I mentioned Tom Clancy's "Hunt for Red October," which gives a pretty accurate depiction of what it was like.
I guess he agreed because I got the job at G.E. and later became part of Welch's staff. I left the Navy because I was a typical young guy in a gigantic hurry.
In fact, over the course of my career, the one place I've been patient is at Amgen, where I was No. 2 for eight years before becoming C.E.O.
I have scoured the Internet for years for such things. Something I like is from a column called "The Boss" in the NY Times. They have a simple life story of a top boss. Typically the story touches on things about the person's childhood, school, influence of parents, first jobs and the lessons of life.
They are also success stories and lots of students have some hopes to be successful in life and find these stories interesting. At the bottom is an example of one of "The Boss" stories that you can find in the NY Times.
HOW TO USE THEM & THE PROBLEMS WITH PRE-TEACHING
There are a couple approaches involved in reading. I don't recommend "pre-teaching" the vocabulary from the text as many course books do, notably in China is "New Concepts" (which is actually a very old concept course book being written in the 1960s and only receiving superficial modifications just recently.)
Although pre-teaching sounds like a practical idea it is very boring for the students. Good teaching allows an element of mystery and curiosity and the thirst for knowledge. Good teaching provides the salt first and then the water. The good teacher gets the student to search his memory, his personal resources in his recollection, and draw on what the student already knows to apply to the problem. Good teaching also gets him to personally recognize what he doesn't know which causes him to be curious and want to learn it.
So typically, before letting the students look at the material, get them to talk about what they know about some of the points in the story.
Pre-teaching sort of digests the text for the student leaving little mental exercise beyond simply trying to remember what he was told a couple minutes ago.
Encourage the students to guess the meaning of what they don't understand. You'll find, in a text as below, that there are a few words the student may not know and may not really need to retain.
GUIDING THE STUDENT'S VOCABULARY ACQUISITION
I think it was H.D. Brown who talked about the Active Vocabulary, Latent Vocabulary and the Unknown. Some vocabulary the students encounter is destined for their Latent Vocabulary, words that will be important for them to be able to read or recognize when they hear them but are not necessary for them to be able to produce them on the spot like their Active Vocabulary. Some words they may only see once or twice in their lifetime and could well do without ever learning them. So equal stress should not be made on all words that students will encounter. Some words should be pointed out more than others because they will be more useful for students.
I've always said that language learning is like packing a suitcase. You've got to choose what you will likely need and leave the rest behind. Our students don't have an unlimited capacity to retain everything and that's one place where the teacher is most needed. Decisions about what to teach are as important as decisions about what NOT to teach.
It is not a sin to finish a reading exercise with the student not understanding 100% of the words. The teacher has to remember that sometimes English is a buffet. The student does not need to eat everything but he should eat enough to grow.
In the sample text below the intermediate student might need to acquire vocabulary like: headhunter, recruiter, certified, pulled me out of school, over the course of my career, I was No. 2 for eight years, early on.
However, this following vocabulary may not be as important to retain in the student's Active Vocabulary: Amgen (company name), squadron commander, adventurer, overstate, hammered people, flight physical, class of ship, at the top of his lungs.
Still, the student could be encouraged to guess some of these and should be encouraged to find that he can figure some of these out without a dictionary. He may be able to figure out: adventurer, overstate, hammered people, class of ship.
Some words the student can easily forget without serious damage to their English competency like: Admiral Hyman G. Rickover (name).
AND SPEAKING?
Of course it is an ideal time to do some speaking after all the time invested in reading the text. There is a lot of vocabulary covered in what they just read and some speaking can help to consolidate it and allow the student to test his understanding and usage of it.
If my goal was solely speaking and I wanted to use a text I'd use a very short one. "The Boss" is too long for that purpose. But if we used a long text for something else then let's roll into a speaking exercise. Here are a couple ideas that could be done in pairs or small groups:
1. Students could be asked to talk as if they were the characters. In "Say It" fashion, they could do a short monologue explaining themselves and what happened and why they felt the way they felt and adding in made-up details and parts of the story.
2. They could try to isolate various aspects of the story such as the lessons of life and people of influence and discuss those. Then they could follow up with their own personal lessons of life and people of influence.
================
THE BOSS
Ready for the Admiral
As told to GLENN RIFKIN - June 20, 2004
I had no background in health care or biology before I came to Amgen. The only time I touched biology was in ninth grade, and I didn't do very well.
I was working at MCI when I got a fax one day from a headhunter, asking if I knew anybody who wanted to be president of Amgen. I had never heard of Amgen and didn't know what it was. This was 1992. I checked it out and asked some friends, and called back the recruiter and said, "Yes, I want to be president of Amgen."
It was already a 12-year-old company with 2,000 employees, two successful biotech products, and it was clearly going to be a success.
I was ambitious, and I wanted to be a C.E.O.
My dad, who is still alive, was a naval aviator and a career naval officer. He flew jets early on and was a squadron commander. It's hard to overstate the psychological impact, as a young boy, of seeing airplanes come out of the sky, knowing that your father is flying one.
My mother was a very strong, independent woman who was a real adventurer. She loved travel, the arts, literature. When I was a senior in high school, my mother pulled me out of school to go to the Los Angeles Philharmonic to see Isaac Stern play the violin.
I went to the Naval Academy at Annapolis and studied aeronautical engineering on the misconception that it had something to do with flying airplanes. When I failed the flight physical in graduate school because of poor eyesight, I had to decide, at age 23, what to do with my lifelong ambition thwarted.
A friend had joined the submarine force, so I decided I'd go see Admiral Hyman G. Rickover about that option.
Rickover was famous for grilling people, and he asked me why I hadn't come to see him when I was at Annapolis. I told him that I wanted to fly, but since my eyes didn't work, he was the second choice.
It was not the answer Rickover was accustomed to getting. He usually hammered people for failing grades or poor performance, and I had none of those things.
After about 45 seconds, he said, "Get out."
In those days, that was the highest praise you could get from him. It meant you'd been accepted.
Later, when I was the chief engineer of the Memphis, which is in a certain class of attack submarines, on its initial sea trials, I encountered Rickover again. Admiral Rickover would ride every ship on its initial sea trials. So there I was in the control room and Rickover was screaming at the top of his lungs, "Where's the chief engineer?" He thought the ship wasn't performing properly.
I told him: "Admiral, you're wrong. I'm the chief engineer of this ship, and you certified me, and I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. The performance you are looking for is from another class of ship, and here's the data."
There was a real twinkle in his eye before he went on to attack me on another point.
That experience paid off when I left the Navy and was interviewing for a high-level job at General Electric. Jack Welch asked me, "Have you ever taken a risk in your life?"
I replied that at 27 years old, when you are guiding an attack submarine all alone in the teeth of the Russian fleet in the North Atlantic, that was a risk.
I mentioned Tom Clancy's "Hunt for Red October," which gives a pretty accurate depiction of what it was like.
I guess he agreed because I got the job at G.E. and later became part of Welch's staff. I left the Navy because I was a typical young guy in a gigantic hurry.
In fact, over the course of my career, the one place I've been patient is at Amgen, where I was No. 2 for eight years before becoming C.E.O.
The real challenge is to not demotivate the students
Shoppers 'set their own prices'
A supermarket reportedly let customers pay what they liked for their shopping after a thunderstorm knocked out the cash tills. The Mirror says the Asda store at Monks Cross in North Yorkshire was soon packed as word about the give-away spread. Bosses reportedly let people guess their shopping bill rather than make them wait for power to return. Manager Colin Storey said: "It was worth it to keep our customers happy."
The question is not IF vocabulary should be taught but HOW. Those of us who adhere to more communicative approaches believe it should be presented in an authentic way that interests and engages the student. We believe that once the interest is aroused it will allow vocabulary to be retained much better.
After reading the above story the students will be very interested in understanding: thunderstorm, knocked out, cash tills, packed, give-away, worth it.
Imagine one teacher asking this:
"Students, remember the ten words we learned on Monday?" or
"Students, remember the story about the supermarket that let customers pay what they want?"
In which case will the students best be able to retrieve the words and use them in a proper context?
The story above came from the Ananova news website. They have a special section called Quirkies and it's full of curious news items under the categories: Eccentrics, Quirky gaffes, Strange crime, Sex life, Animal tales, Sporting quirkies, Showbiz quirkies, Business quirkies, Heartwarmers, Rocky relationships, Bad taste and Unlucky.
Of course, the teacher should create some opportunity for the students to use the words they learned. Perhaps they could talk about what they would do if they were a manager or customer in that situation or if they were a business consultant examining it.
People have a natural curiosity and motivation to learn things. As Andrew Littlejohn, author of Primary Colours and Cambridge English for Schools, said when he visited us in China, "It is not the teacher's job to motivate the students - it's the teachers job to not de-motivate them."
A supermarket reportedly let customers pay what they liked for their shopping after a thunderstorm knocked out the cash tills. The Mirror says the Asda store at Monks Cross in North Yorkshire was soon packed as word about the give-away spread. Bosses reportedly let people guess their shopping bill rather than make them wait for power to return. Manager Colin Storey said: "It was worth it to keep our customers happy."
The question is not IF vocabulary should be taught but HOW. Those of us who adhere to more communicative approaches believe it should be presented in an authentic way that interests and engages the student. We believe that once the interest is aroused it will allow vocabulary to be retained much better.
After reading the above story the students will be very interested in understanding: thunderstorm, knocked out, cash tills, packed, give-away, worth it.
Imagine one teacher asking this:
"Students, remember the ten words we learned on Monday?" or
"Students, remember the story about the supermarket that let customers pay what they want?"
In which case will the students best be able to retrieve the words and use them in a proper context?
The story above came from the Ananova news website. They have a special section called Quirkies and it's full of curious news items under the categories: Eccentrics, Quirky gaffes, Strange crime, Sex life, Animal tales, Sporting quirkies, Showbiz quirkies, Business quirkies, Heartwarmers, Rocky relationships, Bad taste and Unlucky.
Of course, the teacher should create some opportunity for the students to use the words they learned. Perhaps they could talk about what they would do if they were a manager or customer in that situation or if they were a business consultant examining it.
People have a natural curiosity and motivation to learn things. As Andrew Littlejohn, author of Primary Colours and Cambridge English for Schools, said when he visited us in China, "It is not the teacher's job to motivate the students - it's the teachers job to not de-motivate them."
Do teachers need to know grammar?
Forgive me for beginning with an off-topic question but I'll explain why I am doing this later. Did you sleep good last night? Please answer it. Before you go on reading this message think of your answer. Did you sleep good last night?
One teacher told me that she is running into some problems in teaching correct English form for the CET test.
This kind of problem divides the men from the boys (and the women from the girls). Many of us are opposed to teaching grammar rules in our classes as, according to many theories on English teaching, it does not facilitate or even impedes acquisition.
Consequently, there are many of us who are teaching who don't have a strong grasp of all the grammar rules. (I'll put my name on this list.)
We have a tendency to lean on what "sounds right" but then sometimes have a difficulty knowing why something is right (or wrong). Surprisingly, this is often not a problem for the work that native EFL English teachers do as they focus on helping students learn to communicate.
But occasionally there is a time when the teacher has to get into the mechanics of the language and saying "it doesn't sound right but I don't know why" or "there are no rules for English anymore" just doesn't do the job. (Some teachers employ elaborate schemes to avoid having to explain a grammar point or even event some academic gibberish and get off the subject quickly.)
Let's look at driving. You may happily drive your car for years without really understanding how it works. Perhaps you know something is wrong when you hear some odd noise but knowing when your car "sounds" right or wrong is sometimes not sufficient. If you can interpret a distinctive knocking sound coming from the engine whenever you accelerate you can know exactly what is wrong and how to fix it or what mechanic to get to help you. Some people are drivers and some of are driver/mechanics.
Some of these tests revel in the realm of grammar mechanics and are a minefield for teachers who are not well grounded in the mechanics of grammar and usage.
A large percentage of native English speakers use incorrect grammar. This is a vast gray zone. On the one hand a certain way of saying something is incorrect. On the other hand if enough people will use it then it will become accepted.
Let's look at our question at the beginning of the message. For some of you it sounded odd and some of you didn't notice. Some of you knew exactly what was wrong and some only thought it did not sound right.
A lot of Americans think nothing of saying "Did you sleep good?" and it has almost become accepted speech even though "good" is an adjective and "well" is the adverb we need. These kinds of things are in the Twilight Zone of English usage. I think Britons would have little tolerance for such usage but it is no problem for Americans.
The dictionary reminds us here that "[good} should not be used as an adverb with other verbs: The car runs well (not good). Thus, The dress fits well and looks good."
Many people say they speak "good English". They are actually stating that they have chosen one good English over the bad Englishes and they can speak it too. However, we still don't know if they can speak that good English well.
Lots of teachers would like to steer clear of such a job as master mechanic of the English language. But if you find you have such a job then take it as a heaven sent opportunity to dig out those grammar books and get it all straight in your mind.
Although we may not think teaching grammar rules is good pedagogy it does not excuse the teacher from not knowing the rules.
One teacher told me that she is running into some problems in teaching correct English form for the CET test.
This kind of problem divides the men from the boys (and the women from the girls). Many of us are opposed to teaching grammar rules in our classes as, according to many theories on English teaching, it does not facilitate or even impedes acquisition.
Consequently, there are many of us who are teaching who don't have a strong grasp of all the grammar rules. (I'll put my name on this list.)
We have a tendency to lean on what "sounds right" but then sometimes have a difficulty knowing why something is right (or wrong). Surprisingly, this is often not a problem for the work that native EFL English teachers do as they focus on helping students learn to communicate.
But occasionally there is a time when the teacher has to get into the mechanics of the language and saying "it doesn't sound right but I don't know why" or "there are no rules for English anymore" just doesn't do the job. (Some teachers employ elaborate schemes to avoid having to explain a grammar point or even event some academic gibberish and get off the subject quickly.)
Let's look at driving. You may happily drive your car for years without really understanding how it works. Perhaps you know something is wrong when you hear some odd noise but knowing when your car "sounds" right or wrong is sometimes not sufficient. If you can interpret a distinctive knocking sound coming from the engine whenever you accelerate you can know exactly what is wrong and how to fix it or what mechanic to get to help you. Some people are drivers and some of are driver/mechanics.
Some of these tests revel in the realm of grammar mechanics and are a minefield for teachers who are not well grounded in the mechanics of grammar and usage.
A large percentage of native English speakers use incorrect grammar. This is a vast gray zone. On the one hand a certain way of saying something is incorrect. On the other hand if enough people will use it then it will become accepted.
Let's look at our question at the beginning of the message. For some of you it sounded odd and some of you didn't notice. Some of you knew exactly what was wrong and some only thought it did not sound right.
A lot of Americans think nothing of saying "Did you sleep good?" and it has almost become accepted speech even though "good" is an adjective and "well" is the adverb we need. These kinds of things are in the Twilight Zone of English usage. I think Britons would have little tolerance for such usage but it is no problem for Americans.
The dictionary reminds us here that "[good} should not be used as an adverb with other verbs: The car runs well (not good). Thus, The dress fits well and looks good."
Many people say they speak "good English". They are actually stating that they have chosen one good English over the bad Englishes and they can speak it too. However, we still don't know if they can speak that good English well.
Lots of teachers would like to steer clear of such a job as master mechanic of the English language. But if you find you have such a job then take it as a heaven sent opportunity to dig out those grammar books and get it all straight in your mind.
Although we may not think teaching grammar rules is good pedagogy it does not excuse the teacher from not knowing the rules.
Do textbooks reflect language teaching theory? Maybe not
Rod Ellis said: "The zero grammar approach was flirted with but never really took hold, as is evident in both the current textbook materials emanating from publishing houses and in current theories of L2 acquisition."
Rod Ellis says he's hedging his bets. For example, it sounds like he says he believes in just about everything except, of course, zero grammar. The same can be said about Krashen who also does not believe in zero grammar. The key is how much grammar.
While I don't subscribe to the zero grammar approach, I find that this statement can be very misleading. Many people may not realize that the type of textbook that is published may have nothing to do with current research and theory.
Jack Richards should know as much as there is to know about textbooks. He tells us,
"...it must be recognized that any set of working principles so derived must be compatible with the local context. Principles derived entirely from research and theory might not always fit well with the school teaching and learning culture....Both top down and bottom source of information are needed, or in publishing terms what can be called product-driven as well as market-driven factors."[1]
For example, zero grammar enthusiasts or people like Krashen, who is nearly zero, usually support Voluntary Free Reading[2], Extensive Reading and theories on the positive affects of massive amounts of Comprehensible Input. The idea is that the student will read lots of books that he chooses himself according to his interests. There will be no textbook for this and never will be so it is easy for "grammar" books to be more pervasive.
Although there are no textbooks, nor can there be, there is a lot of current research and activity going on about the positive effects of FVR, ER and CI. Yesterday I was reading a research paper called "Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study" and published in Reading in a Foreign Language, April 2006.[3] Though it was focused on vocabulary it did discuss grammar and how both are acquired by reading without grammar study.
Krashen even hinted at something which almost sounds similar to Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex relationship,
"It could be the case that researchers are defending their own economic interests. They continue to search for a role for grammar not because they believe in it but because they have sold out to big publishers who make profits from grammar-based materials. I have no evidence that scholars have been deliberately dishonest, but the potential for conflict of interest exists."[4]
I don't think this alludes to a conspiracy theory. It's a fact that if you've built your life and livelihood around something that you will naturally wish to protect it. Teachers who promote FVR, ER and CI are striking at their own livelihood. They are promoting themselves out of a job.
Some people say, for example, cancer research is a big business and that there is much more
economic incentive to not find a cure for cancer than there is to find one.
So a few questions about publishers. Given a choice between publishing grammar textbooks or no textbooks, which would the publisher opt for? Is the publisher's primary concern language acquisition for students or is it profits through publishing? If a non-book solution to learning English appeared to be more effective than a textbook approach to learning English, would publishers invest in researching and promoting it?
Although most of the time publishers are the teachers' allies, we must bear in mind that they have their own priorities which may diverge from the priorities of the teachers and students.
[1] http://www.professorjackrichards.com/pdfs/materials-development-making-connection.pdf
[2] http://www.sdkrashen.com/handouts/88Generalizations/01.html
And http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/pac5/all.html
[3] http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/April2006/pigada/pigada.html
[4] http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/why_support/03.html
Rod Ellis says he's hedging his bets. For example, it sounds like he says he believes in just about everything except, of course, zero grammar. The same can be said about Krashen who also does not believe in zero grammar. The key is how much grammar.
While I don't subscribe to the zero grammar approach, I find that this statement can be very misleading. Many people may not realize that the type of textbook that is published may have nothing to do with current research and theory.
Jack Richards should know as much as there is to know about textbooks. He tells us,
"...it must be recognized that any set of working principles so derived must be compatible with the local context. Principles derived entirely from research and theory might not always fit well with the school teaching and learning culture....Both top down and bottom source of information are needed, or in publishing terms what can be called product-driven as well as market-driven factors."[1]
For example, zero grammar enthusiasts or people like Krashen, who is nearly zero, usually support Voluntary Free Reading[2], Extensive Reading and theories on the positive affects of massive amounts of Comprehensible Input. The idea is that the student will read lots of books that he chooses himself according to his interests. There will be no textbook for this and never will be so it is easy for "grammar" books to be more pervasive.
Although there are no textbooks, nor can there be, there is a lot of current research and activity going on about the positive effects of FVR, ER and CI. Yesterday I was reading a research paper called "Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study" and published in Reading in a Foreign Language, April 2006.[3] Though it was focused on vocabulary it did discuss grammar and how both are acquired by reading without grammar study.
Krashen even hinted at something which almost sounds similar to Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex relationship,
"It could be the case that researchers are defending their own economic interests. They continue to search for a role for grammar not because they believe in it but because they have sold out to big publishers who make profits from grammar-based materials. I have no evidence that scholars have been deliberately dishonest, but the potential for conflict of interest exists."[4]
I don't think this alludes to a conspiracy theory. It's a fact that if you've built your life and livelihood around something that you will naturally wish to protect it. Teachers who promote FVR, ER and CI are striking at their own livelihood. They are promoting themselves out of a job.
Some people say, for example, cancer research is a big business and that there is much more
economic incentive to not find a cure for cancer than there is to find one.
So a few questions about publishers. Given a choice between publishing grammar textbooks or no textbooks, which would the publisher opt for? Is the publisher's primary concern language acquisition for students or is it profits through publishing? If a non-book solution to learning English appeared to be more effective than a textbook approach to learning English, would publishers invest in researching and promoting it?
Although most of the time publishers are the teachers' allies, we must bear in mind that they have their own priorities which may diverge from the priorities of the teachers and students.
[1] http://www.professorjackrichards.com/pdfs/materials-development-making-connection.pdf
[2] http://www.sdkrashen.com/handouts/88Generalizations/01.html
And http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/pac5/all.html
[3] http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/April2006/pigada/pigada.html
[4] http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/why_support/03.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
