Question:
A few questions for seasoned ESL instructors:
1. When is an ESL instructional method unsuitable for use on adult students?
Is there a bit of slop-over from elementary ed to ESL that makes instructors
tend to use some methods that are too childish for their students?
2. If a trendy method takes more time than traditional drill and covers the
same material, and there is no proof that it's more effective, is it "bad
method" not to use it? What if you have a batch of students who, due to the
the educational style in their home countries, are much better and more
comfortable at drilling and cramming than at learning from games and other
indirect methods?
3. Is there any point in taking class time for a "method" in order to teach
some concept, if the students will understand a plain, simple quick
explanation? I'm talking, for example, about various formats in composition
that the students already have a command of in their own languages. Why do
tricks to make them understand the concept of "comparison" or "persuasion",
when they have already become practiced at these things in their schooling at
home?
These are questions I've been contemplating in light of differences in teaching
styles where I work, and I was wondering if other ESL instructors have any
thoughts about them. I feel that a lot of native-born ESL instructors
condescend to their students and treat them as if they're simple or childish,
when they're quite the opposite.
Does anyone have any comments?
Answer:
As you've already defined the methods as "too childish", then they are
probably inappropriate. But I guess you are referring to methods that you
find too childish and presumably some other teachers don't.
I'm sure there are many things which are appropriate for children but not
for adults. Giving praise is one example. I'm not a qualified teacher of
children, but I believe it's a fundamental principle to praise children
when they do well as they respond well to it. I find that adults want
information rather than praise, and respond better to "That's right." or
"That's wrong." rather than "Well done!" or "Please try harder."
Are you saying that methods are either trendy or traditional? Your
question suggests you have a preference for traditional methods. In my
experience, effective teachers have a broad range of methods in their
teaching repertoire, which lets them select those that are appropriate for
a particular situation. Teachers who religiously follow only a narrow set
of techniques and methods (whether trendy or traditional) may satisfy
themselves but rarely their students.
Should foreign teachers conform to the educational style of the students'
country? If the methods are effective, then why not? But if the reason for
conforming is just because the students are used to it, then I'm against
it.
I taught in Japan for fifteen years, and was constantly being told how
Japanese students preferred to study, and how I should cater for such
preferences. (Oddly, it was never the students themselves who told me.)
Almost in the same breath, these same people would tell me that Japanese
were poor at learning English (which isn't true.). To me, this seemed like
a good reason for trying some different methods. But I think what was
expected was that I use the conventional methods, but with more effort.
(I'm not knocking Japan. I find all countries have self-declared experts
on conventions and traditions. Scotland is no exception.)
JK, I think you should ask less loaded questions. What are these "tricks"?
But I'm teasing you. I think I know what you're talking about, and I agree
that some teachers do over-teach concepts. One cause of this is probably
the TEFL training that many teachers receive on RSA courses. It may be
different now, but when I did my course, we were constantly developing
techniques (tricks?) to establish concepts. I remember we all learned very
"clever" ways to establish the meaning of "used to" as in "He used to be
rich." Then I go to Japan, and find out that no-one really has much
trouble in understanding this concept. In fact, it is the mechanical
difficulties of grammar that cause most problems ("I am used to" vs "I
used to"), and which are usually best dealt with through sufficient
practice, exposure, and correction. In those 15 years in Japan, I cut the
number of "tricks" for getting over difficult concepts down to about four
or five. (But I've refined those few so much that they are now very
"tricky" indeed.)
You mentioned "drills" a few times in your questions. I'm wary of getting
into a discussion on this. I've witnessed bitter arguments about drills
throughout my TEFL career, and I find people are often not talking about
the same thing. But if a teacher's only choice is between "mindless
drills" and "trendy tricks" then he or she should probably be doing a
different job.
But I'm beginning to ramble. I'd be happy to continue the discussion, but
it would probably be more fruitfull if we talked about specfics. For
example, good games vs. bad games, good drills vs. bad drills, good tricks
vs. bad tricks.
Submit Your
Own Answer!
