taken from "SpeakYourMind: an Introduction and Practical Teaching Guide."
"You can’t communicate successfully without grammar but you certainly can without knowing about it. Everyone probably knows instinctively (but possibly doesn’t believe) that mistakes in grammar are much less serious than mistakes in words. Which mistake is ‘worse’: ‘Your husband look great!’, or, ‘Your husband looks gross!’?
Nonetheless, grammar is an integral part of communicative competence, and an inadequate grasp will often leave learners stranded in their attempts to communicate. With communicative competence as the overall aim of the course, teaching grammar has a fundamental role in SyM. Learning major grammatical structures is set as a prime general objective of the course and more specific grammatical accuracy is a constant aim and as such, the presentation of ‘correct’ target language and correction of mistakes are among the teacher’s priorities in the classroom.
Learners approach learning a language with a range of preconceptions, worries and beliefs about grammar. Some may hate its very mention and switch off the moment they hear something like ‘preposition’, ‘article’ or ‘past tense’. Others are convinced that a clear and complete knowledge of a set of abstract rules, together with the specialised terminology, are indispensable. Many people are in awe of ‘grammar’ even if they know or remember very little about it. It’s also true that many learners arrive in the classroom with their heads full of wrong or half-remembered ‘rules’ that often cause a real obstacle to learning."
"Just as words are always presented in context, new grammar is presented in easy-to-grasp contexts and is usually contrasted with existing related structures or notions in order to allow learners further opportunities to recognise and understand when and how to use it.
Grammar, like vocabulary, is not mastered as it is met, but is incorporated into the learner’s own English over time. Whereas memorising vocabulary can be, in many cases, a relatively straightforward process, the learning of grammar is far more unpredictable.
Although many learners memorise rules or memorise examples, ‘grammar’ is not memorisable in the same way that words (‘blue’, ‘book’, ‘big’) or lexical chunks (‘by the way’, ‘at the moment’, ‘knife and fork’) can be, even though memorised chunks can be useful indicators or clues as to how underlying grammar works, (‘I don’t know’, ‘I’ll see you later’, ‘How do you say?’)‘.
Grammar is usually less translatable than ‘words’. While it’s possible for learners to find a roughly direct translation in their own language for words like ‘shoe’, ‘write’, ‘tomorrow’ or ‘slowly’, or, less directly, for chunks (which is often more useful) ‘strong wind’, ‘hang on a moment’ or ‘have you got a light?’, learners who look for equivalents in their own grammar may make wrong assumptions."
"SyM adopts a mixed approach when dealing with grammar and structures. While many structures are learnt implicitly through frequent contextualised use, other grammatical features are presented explicitly, in terms of ‘guidelines’ (‘we usually say’), or where applicable, ‘rules’ (‘we have to say this when ……’)."
"Some learners may benefit from grammatical instruction but all learners benefit from regular exposure and use. Whenever grammar is taught explicitly, the syllabus is designed to place new grammar in a rich learning-opportunity environment. Preceding material may anticipate the need or usefulness of new grammar and, since 'words’ more than ‘grammar’ make language interesting to learners, the following sections that present new vocabulary will provide plenty of scope for relevant practice.
Dec 24, 2008
thoughts on authenticity
taken from "SpeakYourMind: an introduction and practical teaching guide."
"CLT has appropriated the good words. The word ‘communicative’ itself is a good example; one implication somehow being that any other method either doesn’t aim to, or fails to, teach people how to communicate. ‘Authentic’ is another powerfully persuasive word. It is another ‘good’ word. If you go to a Moroccan restaurant you’d expect ‘authentic’ Moroccan food and if you spend a lot of money on an antique chair you want to be sure it is ‘authentic’. In our own experience of the world, if something is not ‘authentic’ it is ‘fake’ or ‘pretend’, in other words ‘bad’.
The notion of ‘authenticity’ in EFL has gained a considerable and enthusiastic following. The goals of many CLT teachers are to teach ‘authentic’ language, to foster ‘authentic’ relationships and, in lessons and replicate ‘authentic’ situations.
This all sounds reassuringly good: let’s face it who would want to learn or teach ‘unauthentic’ language? But there are objections.
Firstly, the value of authenticity is in proportion to its availability. You can’t find authentic Moroccan cooking on every street corner (outside Morocco) and authentic antique chairs are hard to find and are set to become harder to find as time passes. Language is different: you don’t need to be a trained cook or a long-dead craftsman to produce it. All of us produce and are exposed to authentic language in authentic situations almost constantly. ‘Authentic language’ is not a rare commodity and we are all experienced experts in the authentic communication field.
There was a recent thread on an internet ESL forum by a teacher who was asking for help and advice: he was having trouble finding useful samples of ‘authentic language’ that he could use in classes at beginner and elementary levels. He could find samples of authentic language that contained elementary structures but in term of lexis and/or style were too inaccessible to low-level learners. What could he do? The reasoning behind this search was that the materials and texts used in published course-books are not ‘authentic’: it all is specially written for a specific teaching situation. Being ‘unauthentic’ they lose their value and their use in teaching is therefore illegitimate."
"CLT has appropriated the good words. The word ‘communicative’ itself is a good example; one implication somehow being that any other method either doesn’t aim to, or fails to, teach people how to communicate. ‘Authentic’ is another powerfully persuasive word. It is another ‘good’ word. If you go to a Moroccan restaurant you’d expect ‘authentic’ Moroccan food and if you spend a lot of money on an antique chair you want to be sure it is ‘authentic’. In our own experience of the world, if something is not ‘authentic’ it is ‘fake’ or ‘pretend’, in other words ‘bad’.
The notion of ‘authenticity’ in EFL has gained a considerable and enthusiastic following. The goals of many CLT teachers are to teach ‘authentic’ language, to foster ‘authentic’ relationships and, in lessons and replicate ‘authentic’ situations.
This all sounds reassuringly good: let’s face it who would want to learn or teach ‘unauthentic’ language? But there are objections.
Firstly, the value of authenticity is in proportion to its availability. You can’t find authentic Moroccan cooking on every street corner (outside Morocco) and authentic antique chairs are hard to find and are set to become harder to find as time passes. Language is different: you don’t need to be a trained cook or a long-dead craftsman to produce it. All of us produce and are exposed to authentic language in authentic situations almost constantly. ‘Authentic language’ is not a rare commodity and we are all experienced experts in the authentic communication field.
There was a recent thread on an internet ESL forum by a teacher who was asking for help and advice: he was having trouble finding useful samples of ‘authentic language’ that he could use in classes at beginner and elementary levels. He could find samples of authentic language that contained elementary structures but in term of lexis and/or style were too inaccessible to low-level learners. What could he do? The reasoning behind this search was that the materials and texts used in published course-books are not ‘authentic’: it all is specially written for a specific teaching situation. Being ‘unauthentic’ they lose their value and their use in teaching is therefore illegitimate."
some thoughts on 'reality' in the classroom.
"The extent to which L1 acquisition resembles and differs from L2 acquisition is not wholly understood. One obvious difference is that when we learn a foreign language we already have another language to refer back to and make comparisons with – something that is inevitable and which can be both helpful (when this heightens awareness of language or triggers ‘ring bells’, especially in recalling lexis) and distracting (when this leads to word-for-word translation, especially with grammar).
One other fundamental difference is clear: for most people (the ones that interest us), the fact of learning a second language is a conscious decision and effort, and the process of learning is conscious as well as unconscious. Students do not need to be immersed in a ‘real English world’ for effective learning to occur. Learners know they are in an "artificial" environment once they enter the classroom and they often have expectations about how learning should take place, but although they will normally prefer to learn language that they really need and prefer to learn language in a way that they will really use, they are prepared for and equipped to deal with the strategies (and constraints) they encounter in a real classroom environment."
"No matter how ‘natural’ lessons are in terms of recreating the conditions and processes where acquisition occurs, there is always a filter –and however much what happens in the classroom can resemble ‘real’ communication it remains essentially pseudo-communication. Would that group of people meet through spontaneous and free choice? Would they really to choose to talk about this rather than that? Would they defer to the person who happens to be the teacher? Would they even speak in English?"
One other fundamental difference is clear: for most people (the ones that interest us), the fact of learning a second language is a conscious decision and effort, and the process of learning is conscious as well as unconscious. Students do not need to be immersed in a ‘real English world’ for effective learning to occur. Learners know they are in an "artificial" environment once they enter the classroom and they often have expectations about how learning should take place, but although they will normally prefer to learn language that they really need and prefer to learn language in a way that they will really use, they are prepared for and equipped to deal with the strategies (and constraints) they encounter in a real classroom environment."
"No matter how ‘natural’ lessons are in terms of recreating the conditions and processes where acquisition occurs, there is always a filter –and however much what happens in the classroom can resemble ‘real’ communication it remains essentially pseudo-communication. Would that group of people meet through spontaneous and free choice? Would they really to choose to talk about this rather than that? Would they defer to the person who happens to be the teacher? Would they even speak in English?"
Oct 15, 2008
teacher
It's back to school and/or back to work. For many schools that means a new intake of teachers and the trials and the pleasures that involves. Here at our school we ran a training course for new (and hopeful) staff and what an experience that turned out to be. I think (and hope) I learned a couple of important lessons. Seeing new teachers' response to the method on these courses is always enlightening. Most have already observed lessons as part of the selection process and have read introductory material on the methodology and approve of what they have seen. However, learning to work with it comes, to some, as an unexpected effort; like with many things, it looks easy when you see it being done well but that 'ease' is the result of experience, intuition and attention.
On this training course were two teachers (from a total of five) who came from a relatively long backround in TEFL (the others all had between six months and two years experience) and who both seemed keen to work with a method that was new to them (all credit to them). What soon transpired was the difficulty they had working in lessons where there is a tight focus on language and learning, and where any issues that emerge need to be faced and addressed. They were both happier in the kind of classroom environment they were used to: a kind of self-created space which allowed them to move in any direction that seemed to lead towards least 'trouble'. In our classroom practice sessions, 'trouble' emerged most evidently in the awkwardness there was with dealing with some areas of grammar. Teachers don't need to be 'authorities' on grammar but they do need to know more than the people they are likely to teach: when this is not the case the ice they tread on is horribly thin and I saw it break. I was frankly appalled - and the trainee in this case saw so (and dropped out the following day). Both teachers showed remarkably little awareness of 'language accessibility' - how to make yourself understood to learners at different levels, and they seemed irritated when this aspect of classroom teaching was mentioned (possibly for the first time in their teaching careers).
What amazed me was that these teachers had been teaching for years. I can just think that they had become 'teachers' simply because that is what they had been called for so long. In some schools the role of teacher seems to be virtually 'sacred'; teachers expect autonomy and school owners and students alike need to take it on trust that their much vaunted 'creativity' will see things through to a satisfactory conclusion. These two teachers were used to working in a vacuum with no objective and observable standards. Pleasant manner and good intentions are enough. We were not asking them simply to 'conform to the method' thoughtlessly, we were asking them to apply their skills, knowledge and experience within the framework that the course provides. The training course was no leisurely stroll I admit, and when push came to shove, they simply didn't have the knowledge or the skills - and they didn't like that being touched on either. I hope the students of the respectable school that one of these trainees is now working for don't press too hard on 'troublesome' language issues (like conditionals or the present perfect).
Reading through teaching forums the question 'what is a 'teacher' in TEFL?' occasionally crops up. Any contributions?
ome
On this training course were two teachers (from a total of five) who came from a relatively long backround in TEFL (the others all had between six months and two years experience) and who both seemed keen to work with a method that was new to them (all credit to them). What soon transpired was the difficulty they had working in lessons where there is a tight focus on language and learning, and where any issues that emerge need to be faced and addressed. They were both happier in the kind of classroom environment they were used to: a kind of self-created space which allowed them to move in any direction that seemed to lead towards least 'trouble'. In our classroom practice sessions, 'trouble' emerged most evidently in the awkwardness there was with dealing with some areas of grammar. Teachers don't need to be 'authorities' on grammar but they do need to know more than the people they are likely to teach: when this is not the case the ice they tread on is horribly thin and I saw it break. I was frankly appalled - and the trainee in this case saw so (and dropped out the following day). Both teachers showed remarkably little awareness of 'language accessibility' - how to make yourself understood to learners at different levels, and they seemed irritated when this aspect of classroom teaching was mentioned (possibly for the first time in their teaching careers).
What amazed me was that these teachers had been teaching for years. I can just think that they had become 'teachers' simply because that is what they had been called for so long. In some schools the role of teacher seems to be virtually 'sacred'; teachers expect autonomy and school owners and students alike need to take it on trust that their much vaunted 'creativity' will see things through to a satisfactory conclusion. These two teachers were used to working in a vacuum with no objective and observable standards. Pleasant manner and good intentions are enough. We were not asking them simply to 'conform to the method' thoughtlessly, we were asking them to apply their skills, knowledge and experience within the framework that the course provides. The training course was no leisurely stroll I admit, and when push came to shove, they simply didn't have the knowledge or the skills - and they didn't like that being touched on either. I hope the students of the respectable school that one of these trainees is now working for don't press too hard on 'troublesome' language issues (like conditionals or the present perfect).
Reading through teaching forums the question 'what is a 'teacher' in TEFL?' occasionally crops up. Any contributions?
ome
May 30, 2008
Easy
I was at a miserably attended conference a short while ago on the mind-shattering theme "Why foreign languages are important." This was taking place in the most prosperous region of Italy, where international links are possibly at their strongest; not in a village in the tundra a century ago. The mainly teenage audience were barely stifling their yawns (they'd been forced to be there, I think) - it was something that didn't really seem to relate to them directly.
The speaker pointed out the huge advantages there would be in their future working lives, as well as their personal lives, if they were to spend six months or so in a foreign country once they graduate from High School. They would make genuine improvement in their knowledge of a foreign language (the speaker was dealing specifically with English) and they would make the kind of friendships that would broaden their horizons and deepen their understanding of 'life'.
At the end of this, an older woman (I suspect a teacher) stood up and made the point: if after 10 years of studying English at school they know next to nothing, how are they expected to even survive abroad? What kind of job could they get and what kind of social contacts could they make? You need at least a reasonable base to launch from - a base they didn't have.
"What's the solution?" she asked. Private language schools are too expensive for most families and the cheap courses organised by the town council or other organisations ivariably turned out to be a waste of time. 'Ah', said the speaker, and went on to say that the trouble was that schoolkids these days are simply not prepared to make the effort. In his day, (possibly twenty-five years ago?) he and his friends would spend hours listening to their favourite rock bands, writing down lyrics and working away with dictionaries until they made some sense of things. It was hard work but so what? Was there any alternative? And it was all so worthwhile too.
Is it, then, that these teenagers listening to this just don't care enough about learning a language? Is it that they would like to learn as long as it didn't require any extra effort and time? Is it maybe that after years of tedious and pointless English lessons they had come to the conclusion that either English was too difficult or that they simply weren't cut out for learning?
Blimey!
The speaker pointed out the huge advantages there would be in their future working lives, as well as their personal lives, if they were to spend six months or so in a foreign country once they graduate from High School. They would make genuine improvement in their knowledge of a foreign language (the speaker was dealing specifically with English) and they would make the kind of friendships that would broaden their horizons and deepen their understanding of 'life'.
At the end of this, an older woman (I suspect a teacher) stood up and made the point: if after 10 years of studying English at school they know next to nothing, how are they expected to even survive abroad? What kind of job could they get and what kind of social contacts could they make? You need at least a reasonable base to launch from - a base they didn't have.
"What's the solution?" she asked. Private language schools are too expensive for most families and the cheap courses organised by the town council or other organisations ivariably turned out to be a waste of time. 'Ah', said the speaker, and went on to say that the trouble was that schoolkids these days are simply not prepared to make the effort. In his day, (possibly twenty-five years ago?) he and his friends would spend hours listening to their favourite rock bands, writing down lyrics and working away with dictionaries until they made some sense of things. It was hard work but so what? Was there any alternative? And it was all so worthwhile too.
Is it, then, that these teenagers listening to this just don't care enough about learning a language? Is it that they would like to learn as long as it didn't require any extra effort and time? Is it maybe that after years of tedious and pointless English lessons they had come to the conclusion that either English was too difficult or that they simply weren't cut out for learning?
Blimey!
May 9, 2008
does the world need beer goggles?
We recently got a mail from Cambridge University Press presenting their latest publications, including Face2Face. As proof of what an up-to-date and relevant course this is, they show a sample of text in which the word 'beer-goggles' is introduced.
There are definitely places and times for entertaining little insights into 'real english' but why choose 'beer-goggles' to represent a course? I was a bit bemused by this: who are Cambridge University Press trying to impress? Is it like a when you're a kid and your dad puts 'pop music' on the radio to show what a trendy chap he is?
Maybe they were trying to lend a hand to the pub trade which is a bit in the doldrums by attracting to Britain lots of youths who are unable to drink enough beer in their own countries.
Or am I being a fuddy-duddy by thinking that those students who do need to know 'beer-goggles' will probably find out for themselves.
There are definitely places and times for entertaining little insights into 'real english' but why choose 'beer-goggles' to represent a course? I was a bit bemused by this: who are Cambridge University Press trying to impress? Is it like a when you're a kid and your dad puts 'pop music' on the radio to show what a trendy chap he is?
Maybe they were trying to lend a hand to the pub trade which is a bit in the doldrums by attracting to Britain lots of youths who are unable to drink enough beer in their own countries.
Or am I being a fuddy-duddy by thinking that those students who do need to know 'beer-goggles' will probably find out for themselves.
Feb 29, 2008
miracles
I bumped into an old acquaintance in Verona the other day and we started talking about English - suprise, surprise.
It turns out that she's now a journalist and she was telling me that some of her colleagues are in a real state because they are due to go to China to cover the Olympic Games and they can't speak English! How will they cope?
Since Italy was never even a candidate for the 2008 Olympics, the fact that a foreign language would be useful should come as no big surprise but nonetheless, less than four months before the event, here they are fretting and possible making plans for a 'crash course'. Of course, even if they do get round to doing a course they will never learn as much as they want, and dissatisfied with their meagre results, will give up rather than carry on only to re-live the same scene in four years' time: when the Olympics are being held in London.
I know the British are not exactly champions of language learning, so I'm aware this could sound like it's coming from the wrong pulpit, but why do so many people still seem to regard learning a language (primarily we're talking about English here) as an optional extra rather than the essential business?
Some (not few) intelligent adults seem appalled by the idea that learning English up to a decent level will take them years of part-time study. They need it in weeks!! And this despite the fact that as school-kids they learnt next to nothing in eight or ten years of English study.
Maybe it's because they see learning as drudgery and schools as unreliable.
They do have apoint there - and that is what we at SyM really set out to disprove.
Can learning be fun? Yes, but remember that it won't be sheer pleasure every single minute.
Can learning be effective? Yes, learning and improvement will surely come as a result of commitment.
Can learning be fast? Yes - but not as fast as lot of unrealistically hope for. Is seventy or a hundred hours a lot to reach a level that will get you by in most 'travel' contexts and be able to get to know people a bit? I certainly don't think so.
Can a school be fair and professional? Yes - and I modestly (or proudly) place ours among the many that are (it's a serious shame the market gets such a bad name as a result of unprofessional or unscrupulous operators).
Iain McInally 1 March 2008
It turns out that she's now a journalist and she was telling me that some of her colleagues are in a real state because they are due to go to China to cover the Olympic Games and they can't speak English! How will they cope?
Since Italy was never even a candidate for the 2008 Olympics, the fact that a foreign language would be useful should come as no big surprise but nonetheless, less than four months before the event, here they are fretting and possible making plans for a 'crash course'. Of course, even if they do get round to doing a course they will never learn as much as they want, and dissatisfied with their meagre results, will give up rather than carry on only to re-live the same scene in four years' time: when the Olympics are being held in London.
I know the British are not exactly champions of language learning, so I'm aware this could sound like it's coming from the wrong pulpit, but why do so many people still seem to regard learning a language (primarily we're talking about English here) as an optional extra rather than the essential business?
Some (not few) intelligent adults seem appalled by the idea that learning English up to a decent level will take them years of part-time study. They need it in weeks!! And this despite the fact that as school-kids they learnt next to nothing in eight or ten years of English study.
Maybe it's because they see learning as drudgery and schools as unreliable.
They do have apoint there - and that is what we at SyM really set out to disprove.
Can learning be fun? Yes, but remember that it won't be sheer pleasure every single minute.
Can learning be effective? Yes, learning and improvement will surely come as a result of commitment.
Can learning be fast? Yes - but not as fast as lot of unrealistically hope for. Is seventy or a hundred hours a lot to reach a level that will get you by in most 'travel' contexts and be able to get to know people a bit? I certainly don't think so.
Can a school be fair and professional? Yes - and I modestly (or proudly) place ours among the many that are (it's a serious shame the market gets such a bad name as a result of unprofessional or unscrupulous operators).
Iain McInally 1 March 2008
Jan 24, 2008
The only blogs I've really dealt with so far have been of the Joe variety, so this is going to be a new and wonderful adventure for all (both?) of us.
For the sake of simplicity I will start with the day before yesterday and our latest staff training encounter. These are regular four-weekly occasions and, to everyone's credit, are a very enjoyable and productive part of our working schedule.
What were the themes? It was a back-to-basics talk: are we meeting our students expectations, not in terms of providing rewarding and enjoyable 'lessons', but in terms of ensuring a 'course' that delivers the hoped-for goods?
Primarily: are we maybe conducting lessons at a pace which we as teachers find congenial but which might not match the potential (or preference) of learners whose priority could be to get as much as possible from the investement they've put into this six or eight months? Do we want our students to be thinking 'well that was very good but I think I should have learnt more'? Of course we don't.
Clearly this is a many-sided and many-shaded theme and there was no attempt to find 'the answer', other than to perhaps shake up our thoughts a wee bit and check if our priorities are in tune with our students' each time we walk into a classroom.
We have already agreed to discuss with each class what they preceive as 'progress' or 'improvement'. Is it simply 'quantity' i.e. to learn as many words as possible? Is it increased accuracy which they can measure in terms of making fewer and fewer mistakes? Or does it mean the growing sense of feeling 'at ease' in speaking English? I'm looking forward to hearing what teachers report back from these talks.
This is not what is usually meant by the misleadingly enticing title 'learner-centred teaching' but it is, in practical terms, largely what I see it as. But more of this at a future point.
For the sake of simplicity I will start with the day before yesterday and our latest staff training encounter. These are regular four-weekly occasions and, to everyone's credit, are a very enjoyable and productive part of our working schedule.
What were the themes? It was a back-to-basics talk: are we meeting our students expectations, not in terms of providing rewarding and enjoyable 'lessons', but in terms of ensuring a 'course' that delivers the hoped-for goods?
Primarily: are we maybe conducting lessons at a pace which we as teachers find congenial but which might not match the potential (or preference) of learners whose priority could be to get as much as possible from the investement they've put into this six or eight months? Do we want our students to be thinking 'well that was very good but I think I should have learnt more'? Of course we don't.
Clearly this is a many-sided and many-shaded theme and there was no attempt to find 'the answer', other than to perhaps shake up our thoughts a wee bit and check if our priorities are in tune with our students' each time we walk into a classroom.
We have already agreed to discuss with each class what they preceive as 'progress' or 'improvement'. Is it simply 'quantity' i.e. to learn as many words as possible? Is it increased accuracy which they can measure in terms of making fewer and fewer mistakes? Or does it mean the growing sense of feeling 'at ease' in speaking English? I'm looking forward to hearing what teachers report back from these talks.
This is not what is usually meant by the misleadingly enticing title 'learner-centred teaching' but it is, in practical terms, largely what I see it as. But more of this at a future point.
Jan 17, 2008
SyM on Forums
some interesting discussion on http://www.antimoon.com/forum/f1.htm under the subject of "what do you think about the Callan method?"
1st post
SpeakYourMind - what is it? Who is it? Where is it? Why is it?????
All this and more, coming soon!
All this and more, coming soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)