Masculinity and teaching young kids

[Chirpy9]

It seems that in order to reform English education in Japan, this issue of high regard for impractical knowledge teaching, or others might call broadening perspectives, needs to be somehow get around. Unlike the US, where education mostly translates into practical knowledge, Japan has many stabling blocks to head for such an efficient, effective approach.

That's right, the education system should change.
In India also, the focus is now being shifted from traditional teaching to more practical and playful learning.

 

[Glenski]

If I understand correctly you are saying there is a causual relationship between English teaching methods and motivation to learn English.

Yes.

I don't agree. Then if they change the methods then all students will be motivated to learn English.

Why do you say "all"? I didn't. But teaching methods will certainly change SOME people.

I think English should be an elective course. To do that English should be eliminated from the college entrance exams.

That has been bandied about. Problem is the J government.

I think there is a disconnect between what people think is required and the reality of most workers. Let us say they started English education early, from 1st grade through HS. After twenty years when these children have done their 12 years of grade school and another 4 years of college what percentage will have ended up in positions where English is needed?

I already told you...80% right now.

Over a longer period of time where several classes have graduated and have started working. They now form a significant part of the working population. I still think the percentage that needs English is still small relatively.

You and the J government have something in common.

Has this been an effective approach to schooling? Has this been an effective and efficient use of resources? Can you still justify teaching everybody English?

Now you are comparing the crappy teaching methods with the needs. Bad, bad! There's a disconnect if I ever saw one.

 

[Charles Barkley]

80% of students will need English? Or do you mean that 80% of the small percentage of the population working to move up in mid-sized or greater corporations need English?

The hairdressers, traffic controllers, bakers, restaurant employees, store attendants, gas station attendants, bulk of teachers, farmers, fishers, construction workers, factory workers, unemployed (or housewives), etc etc who make up a large majority of workers in the cities and the overwhelming majority of workers in small towns seem to get by quite easily without English.

The kids at the high school I taught at did not know what toeic was and I would be surprised if any of them ever end up taking it.

 

[otoko]

Why do you say "all"? I didn't. But teaching methods will certainly change SOME people.

I say all because I don't think changing SOME is justification for teaching everybody.
I think proving that there is a causual relationship between teaching methods and motivation would be very difficult(scientifically speaking). Rather there would be a causual relationship for some. SOME doesn't make it a true statement. If it were true then changing the teaching methods would lead to all students being motivated. I suspect that teaching methods do not have as big an impact on motivating all Japanese students to learn English as you believe them to be. On the other hand pinpointing those who would benefit the most from better teaching methods seems to be a better use of students' effort and time.

That has been bandied about. Problem is the J government.
I already told you...80% right now.

My point is that companies may require the Toeic, but the reality for their workers is that they won't use that ability. As Charles Barkley stated, 80% in regards to what companies? All companies? Only companies in some industries?

Now you are comparing the crappy teaching methods with the needs. Bad, bad! There's a disconnect if I ever saw one.

I am not comparing crappy teaching methods with needs. I am comparing all teaching methods with need. If you can say that changing all teaching methods to what you consider good then a majority of Japanese students will be motivated to learn English then we will just have to agree to disagree. If it is not a majority then I think there could be a better use of resources.

 

[grapefruit]

Is it possible to view the existence of unmotivated students as a sign that the great majority of Japanese can get by without speaking or knowing English? If English is really necessary, the issue of motivating students will probably not surface. The process of assimilation will take care of the issue, if children perceive the need and usefulness of the language in their society. In cases, the force of assimilation can reduce the child's ability to speak his/her own native language.

 

[Emoni]

Is it possible to view the existence of unmotivated students as a sign that the great majority of Japanese can get by without speaking or knowing English? If English is really necessary, the issue of motivating students will probably not surface. The process of assimilation will take care of the issue, if children perceive the need and usefulness of the language in their society. In cases, the force of assimilation can reduce the child's ability to speak his/her own native language.

Heh, you haven't really been around children have you. Kids don't do what they need to based on necessity like mature adults (notice I didn't say adults, cause there adults that don't either). I know many children who would never bath for a week, eat only corn dogs and peanut butter if they could. Motivation has nothing to do with necessity in the eyes of most children. Motivation has to do with usually the way something is taught, the experiences with it, and the reward that the child sees for themselves.

 

[grapefruit]

Heh, you haven't really been around children have you. Kids don't do what they need to based on necessity like mature adults (notice I didn't say adults, cause there adults that don't either). I know many children who would never bath for a week, eat only corn dogs and peanut butter if they could. Motivation has nothing to do with necessity in the eyes of most children. Motivation has to do with usually the way something is taught, the experiences with it, and the reward that the child sees for themselves.

I think you misunderstood me. The word "assimilation" does not refer to what one needs to do. Indeed, the term used in the context of bilingualism refers to what you described, children consciously and unconsciously learn the value of a language in society through witnessing adults' behavior, own experience with it, and the reward that the children see for themselves.

For immigrant children in the US (and everywhere in the world), this process leads them to more use of English and steer them away from their native language.

So what I meant was that those students in Japan have already learned that the ability to speak English is not rewarding through their life experience, since they know that English is useless in their immediate lives. If they had perceived speaking English rewarding, they would have started to use it without anybody's prompt. We do not need to teach kids how to use the cell phone or computer, but they start to use or desire it anyway, because they know from their experience that it is useful and rewarding.

I said "need" because language is necessary for communication. If you are monolingual, this might not look transparent since you have no choice but speaking English. If you are minority with a different mother tongue, you "need" to switch to English outside home for communication.
I agree with that kids can get away with not taking a shower or eating only corn dogs. But, they surely need to sleep and eat. Communication is something people need to do, very fundamental. It is different from preferring candy over vegetable.

 

[Glenski]

80% of students will need English? Or do you mean that 80% of the small percentage of the population working to move up in mid-sized or greater corporations need English?

I mean that according to a report or two I read, 80% of employers in Japan require TOEIC scores for some purpose or another.

Traffic controllers (in airports, if that's what you mean) definitely need English!

:The kids at the high school I taught at did not know what toeic was and I would be surprised if any of them ever end up taking it.

Not surprised that they didn't know what it was. Some in my university had never heard of it. They learn just before they graduate.

 

[Glenski]

if they change the methods then all students will be motivated to learn English.

Glenski: Why do you say "all"? I didn't. But teaching methods will certainly change SOME people.

otoko: I say all because I don't think changing SOME is justification for teaching everybody.

If the number is small, yes, I agree.

I think proving that there is a causual relationship between teaching methods and motivation would be very difficult(scientifically speaking). Rather there would be a causual relationship for some. SOME doesn't make it a true statement. If it were true then changing the teaching methods would lead to all students being motivated.

It has been shown that it works, trust me.

As for leading to all students being motivated, no. Untrue. That's practically impossible because of the vast differences in how students learn. Pedagogy has to deal with the masses and try to reach the majority. Teachers do the best they can if that (good pedagogy and motivation) is their goal.

I suspect that teaching methods do not have as big an impact on motivating all Japanese students to learn English as you believe them to be.

Fine. We are never going to find middle ground then, because I am diametrically opposed to such a rigid stance. You obviously cannot see the slightest bit of reasoning behind this. Dead wrong, but let's not bandy words more on this.

On the other hand pinpointing those who would benefit the most from better teaching methods seems to be a better use of students' effort and time.

Now you are saying that SOME change in teaching methods benefits SOME students? Totally illogical considering what you just wrote above. Leave teaching and teaching theory to teachers, ok?

My point is that companies may require the Toeic, but the reality for their workers is that they won't use that ability.

I will try to dig up the report(s) I read, just so I can be more clear on this, but you must realize that English is used more than you probably perceive. Even if it's not used on a daily basis for the majority of time in a Japanese office, companies obviously feel a good TOEIC score gives students a reason to study for TOEIC. I'm not saying TOEIC scores reflect excellent communication skills. They don't in many cases. I'm just saying companies these days usually require some level of TOEIC score for hiring people, giving them promotions, and offering them overseas transfers. Speaking ability is only one of the four communication abilities in any language, by the way, so don't imagine that "needing English" in the office is limited to just speaking it. I think reading and writing is probably more often the norm for English use.

Here's one good reference article. No 80% figures, but over 50%, and that's not bad for 2001. Very straightforward info, too, with nice references from newspaper articles (meaning, they will be easy to digest by the layman).
http://www.nucba.ac.jp/cic/pdf/njlcc051/02Rebuck.pdf

 

[Glenski]

Is it possible to view the existence of unmotivated students as a sign that the great majority of Japanese can get by without speaking or knowing English? If English is really necessary, the issue of motivating students will probably not surface. The process of assimilation will take care of the issue, if children perceive the need and usefulness of the language in their society. In cases, the force of assimilation can reduce the child's ability to speak his/her own native language.

Emoni makes a good point. Students' perceptions (especially by young ones) about what is needed cannot be used to decide whether they truly need something or not. This could be said about many things, including awareness of sexually transmitted diseases.

Can students "get by" without English? Sure. But in a world with advancing globalization, why should they? In fact, with Japan's horrendous record of TOEIC test scores, it's pretty clear they need to up the ante. Just getting by is not going to cut it.

Caveat: Certain jobs will certainly not require much English. This is a given. But there are cases where someone thinks he may never need English, only to be proven wrong down the road. Catching up is hard to do.

English is necessary for many/most, despite what naysayers (including some politicians) say. Students just don't realize it. Why? One reason is poor counseling in school. Another is low motivation to even care about looking into it, because of the crappy teaching methods from their J teachers, which are largely based on crappy entrance exams for colleges.

children consciously and unconsciously learn the value of a language in society through witnessing adults' behavior, own experience with it, and the reward that the children see for themselves

Yes, and as I wrote, they are not getting proper motivation from the adults (teachers and politicians) who sway them. They find out only too late, just before a job interview, for example, that they should have studied harder in English.

We do not need to teach kids how to use the cell phone or computer, but they start to use or desire it anyway, because they know from their experience that it is useful and rewarding.

Yes, personally rewarding because of games and their vicious cycle of lack of social skills face to face. Immediate gratification by cell phone contact. And, if I may take this a step further, we DO need to teach them how to use computers. Too many are using their cell phones instead, and I have students in uni classes who barely know where the keys are on the keyboard or how to use Word or Excel or a simple Internet search function. Rewarding to them is how they use the tools in the short term (games, email, McDonalds' discount coupons, etc.), but they are kids that don't realize how much of their lives will be spent in front of a computer terminal all day.

 

[grapefruit]

I
I will try to dig up the report(s) I read, just so I can be more clear on this, but you must realize that English is used more than you probably perceive. Even if it's not used on a daily basis for the majority of time in a Japanese office, companies obviously feel a good TOEIC score gives students a reason to study for TOEIC. I'm not saying TOEIC scores reflect excellent communication skills. They don't in many cases. I'm just saying companies these days usually require some level of TOEIC score for hiring people, giving them promotions, and offering them overseas transfers. Speaking ability is only one of the four communication abilities in any language, by the way, so don't imagine that "needing English" in the office is limited to just speaking it. I think reading and writing is probably more often the norm for English use.
Here's one good reference article. No 80% figures, but over 50%, and that's not bad for 2001. Very straightforward info, too, with nice references from newspaper articles (meaning, they will be easy to digest by the layman).
http://www.nucba.ac.jp/cic/pdf/njlcc051/02Rebuck.pdf

Not all companies in Japan have branches outside of Japan. In fact, most of the companies don't. Even if some companies managed to have foreign offices, only a few percent of the staff will be assigned to the posts outside of the country. Then, that's a huge wast of resources. it's not easy for Japanese to learn English, especially inside of Japan.

 

[grapefruit]

If the number is small, yes, I agree.
Now you are saying that SOME change in teaching methods benefits SOME students? Totally illogical considering what you just wrote above. Leave teaching and teaching theory to teachers, ok?

Actually, what otoko san was trying to say made sense to me.
I believe he was trying to say that the effect of a good teaching method on students' motivation is limited to a small number of students who have potential or desire to really focus on learning English. It's not easy to set one's heart on learning English and Science or Engineering at the same time for most of the students.

Caveat: Certain jobs will certainly not require much English. This is a given. But there are cases where someone thinks he may never need English, only to be proven wrong down the road. Catching up is hard to do.

Catching up is not hard. Maintaining the language is hard. It is the laziness that creeps up to everyone after graduating from school. If you don't use it regularly, it is impossible to do so.

 

[grapefruit]

English is necessary for many/most, despite what naysayers (including some politicians) say. Students just don't realize it. Why? One reason is poor counseling in school. Another is low motivation to even care about looking into it, because of the crappy teaching methods from their J teachers, which are largely based on crappy entrance exams for colleges.

Actually, i didn't think English teachers in Japan were that ineffective at teaching English. Focusing on grammar is the right thing given the fact that Japanese and English are so different. Aural ability is not everything.

Yes, personally rewarding because of games and their vicious cycle of lack of social skills face to face. Immediate gratification by cell phone contact. And, if I may take this a step further, we DO need to teach them how to use computers. Too many are using their cell phones instead, and I have students in uni classes who barely know where the keys are on the keyboard or how to use Word or Excel or a simple Internet search function. Rewarding to them is how they use the tools in the short term (games, email, McDonalds' discount coupons, etc.), but they are kids that don't realize how much of their lives will be spent in front of a computer terminal all day.

To the average Japanese, the cell phone is more useful than the computer. That's all. In the US, the computer is more useful, because the cell phone here is so crappy.
In the long run, Japanese might invent something more useful with the cell phone.

 

[Glenski]

Not all companies in Japan have branches outside of Japan. In fact, most of the companies don't. Even if some companies managed to have foreign offices, only a few percent of the staff will be assigned to the posts outside of the country.

Perhaps one of us should come up with some actual figures instead of the subjective drivel you are throwing out.

Companies in Japan send workers overseas. If it's to an English-speaking country, they will usually require the worker to have a certain TOEIC score.

All companies? No. Never said that.

However, you are only hitting one of the many reasons why companies require TOEIC, and trying to make it seem like this is the only one. Laughable.

it's not easy for Japanese to learn English, especially inside of Japan.

Sure it's easy, with the right instruction. Are you trying to say that Japanese brains can't handle English? How do you respond to the fact that OTHER countries learn sufficient English?

Actually, what otoko san was trying to say made sense to me.
I believe he was trying to say that the effect of a good teaching method on students' motivation is limited to a small number of students who have potential or desire to really focus on learning English.

Prove it! If the teaching method is really good, it will instill motivation into many students, even those who may not have the potential... blah blah. blah. All? no. Some? yes.

It's not easy to set one's heart on learning English and Science or Engineering at the same time for most of the students.

Nobody ever said it was easy, least of all me. And, for your information, I teach science majors. They take only the bare minimum of English courses, sometimes skipping the intro courses until the last semester before they graduate, suffer intolerably, beg for passing grades even though it was their own damned fault for having such a gap in their learning, and then suddenly realize to their horror just how much they should have studied because of the immense English load put on them to read, write, and speak/listen at conferences/presentations. I feel no pity, but I try to motivate them early.

Catching up is not hard. Maintaining the language is hard. It is the laziness that creeps up to everyone after graduating from school. If you don't use it regularly, it is impossible to do so.

Maintaining is easy. People's laziness (and yes they ARE lazy!) is the cause for their not keeping up. But, truly maintaining and practicing is easy. People just don't see that, so they let it slide. Result? They have to catch up, and NO it's NOT EASY. I've taught plenty of people to know. Eikaiwa, HS, and university.

Actually, i didn't think English teachers in Japan were that ineffective at teaching English.

Test scores like TOEIC and TOEFL and YLE prove you wrong. So do the simple results of any entrance exam or conversation with someone.

Focusing on grammar is the right thing given the fact that Japanese and English are so different.

It's only one thing, and if you know anything about the "grammar" that is taught here (and I know you do), you would not have made such a statement. It's horrible, and the target is inane and arcane college entrance exam questions, not real tests of grammar.

I see that you are a Japanese who has lived in the USA for 10 years. Just how good is your English, and how did it get that way? Moreover, do you consider yourself an average Japanese in terms of English ability?

Aural ability is not everything.

True. But, to write like that means you think it is NOTHING. I disagree, of course.

In the long run, Japanese might invent something more useful with the cell phone.

Thanks for agreeing with me on the fact that Japanese use their cell phones more because they find them more useful. I don't argue that. However, you divert the point by the statement above. Smokescreen! Besides, not meaning to get off topic here, Japanese creativity in inventions is notoriously poor.

Ok, back to "English only".

 

[grapefruit]

Sure it's easy, with the right instruction. Are you trying to say that Japanese brains can't handle English? How do you respond to the fact that OTHER countries learn sufficient English?

I'm saying compared to those who speak SVO languages, those who speak the SOV language have more trouble learning English. Koreans struggle learning English too.

Prove it! If the teaching method is really good, it will instill motivation into many students, even those who may not have the potential... blah blah. blah. All? no. Some? yes.

Somehow, the image I receive from your comment is that of an English teacher trying hard to advocate the importance of speaking English in the world. Of course it is important from your point of view.

The fact is that students have life outside of the classroom. Learning English is just a small fraction of their life.

Sure, I can logically prove the impossibility of motivating everyone by adopting a good teaching method. Suppose there were lots of good teachers who can somehow motivate all of their students to learn their subjects math, English, geography, etc. One student happened to take all courses taught by these excellent teachers. He/she would be temporally motivated to study all of these courses. When the contents of the courses were manageable, this student would look motivated enough. When the contents started to become difficult, the person would need to narrow down his/her efforts. What if the person started to have interest in some competitive sport? What if the person needed to help his/her family business? In these cases, the effectiveness of the teacher's teaching method would have no bearing on how the student behave. It is great that you believe that teachers can have great impacts on students. But as you gain more teaching experience, you will know reality is not that simple.

Nobody ever said it was easy, least of all me. And, for your information, I teach science majors. They take only the bare minimum of English courses, sometimes skipping the intro courses until the last semester before they graduate, suffer intolerably, beg for passing grades even though it was their own damned fault for having such a gap in their learning, and then suddenly realize to their horror just how much they should have studied because of the immense English load put on them to read, write, and speak/listen at conferences/presentations. I feel no pity, but I try to motivate them early.

Yes, English is important for science majors too. However, more important for them is what they can do with their major. English is not their priority. Even in the US, these international students majoring in science do not need much English if they excel in their subject areas. Besides, for scientists, it is reading and writing skills that should be emphasized. Oral communication skill is a plus but not necessary.

Maintaining is easy. People's laziness (and yes they ARE lazy!) is the cause for their not keeping up. But, truly maintaining and practicing is easy. People just don't see that, so they let it slide. Result? They have to catch up, and NO it's NOT EASY. I've taught plenty of people to know. Eikaiwa, HS, and university.

When you retire to your country, you will personally realize the difficulty of maintaining a foreign language in a place where the language is not actively used, especially if the proficiency of the foreign language is not high. You will easily forget Japanese words and expressions. You might remember how to engage in daily conversation but not other less used expressions. (But, I hope internet access changed this picture at least for reading and writing.)

Test scores like TOEIC and TOEFL and YLE prove you wrong. So do the simple results of any entrance exam or conversation with someone.

If the native language is different, the score naturally changes. If the society requires English, the score sharply increases. It is meaningless to compare the Japanese average score with that of another country. Too many factors are involved.

It's only one thing, and if you know anything about the "grammar" that is taught here (and I know you do), you would not have made such a statement. It's horrible, and the target is inane and arcane college entrance exam questions, not real tests of grammar.

It sounds like you are a true believer of the "communicative approach." Your "horrible" English teachers probably know better about English grammar than you do. Without a solid foundation of grammar, Japanese cannot reach high levels of proficiency. Teaching English in the EFL context is different from teaching English in the ESL context of the US or Britain. By the way, what do you mean by "real" tests of grammar?

I see that you are a Japanese who has lived in the USA for 10 years. Just how good is your English, and how did it get that way? Moreover, do you consider yourself an average Japanese in terms of English ability?

Of course, I am not an average Japanese in terms of English ability. If one lives in the target society for 10 years, the person is, naturally, expected to have an ability more than the average.

Besides, not meaning to get off topic here, Japanese creativity in inventions is notoriously poor.

I have an ambivalent stance on that. What you descried is a common view, and I don't intent to argue against it. However, I also heard some pointing out the recent success of Wii. Of course, a single case doesn't prove anything. I can only think of a few others from the popular TV series Project X: the cup noodle, digital camera, and convenient store.

 

[Glenski]

Grapefruit,
Gimme a break with the snobbishness of your replies, ok? Let's discuss this like adults.

I'm saying compared to those who speak SVO languages, those who speak the SOV language have more trouble learning English. Koreans struggle learning English too.

Then why are Koreans and Chinese better than Japanese?

The fact is that students have life outside of the classroom. Learning English is just a small fraction of their life.

Never said otherwise. Keep the condescending tone out of this thread, ok? The above remark is pointless to the discussion. Many people learn English despite "life outside of the classroom".

Sure, I can logically prove the impossibility of motivating everyone by adopting a good teaching method.

Your "logic" is all a hypothetical situation. Nothing proven there. Good try, though. Proof requires substantive evidence, not hypotheses.

Yes, English is important for science majors too. However, more important for them is what they can do with their major. English is not their priority.

If they cannot use English, their major and what they can do with it becomes limited, though. Very much so.

Even in the US, these international students majoring in science do not need much English if they excel in their subject areas.

Prove it!

Besides, for scientists, it is reading and writing skills that should be emphasized. Oral communication skill is a plus but not necessary.

Total hogwash! How do you think they communicate with each other over the phone, videoconferences, in classrooms, in direct face to face conversations (in the lab or at meetings), in presentations?

When you retire to your country, you will personally realize the difficulty of maintaining a foreign language in a place where the language is not actively used,

Don't need to go to my homeland to realize that.

especially if the proficiency of the foreign language is not high.

Which is why they need to learn it well, then find ways to maintain it. Some do. The majority don't.

You: Actually, i didn't think English teachers in Japan were that ineffective at teaching English.

Me: Test scores like TOEIC and TOEFL and YLE prove you wrong. So do the simple results of any entrance exam or conversation with someone.

You: It is meaningless to compare the Japanese average score with that of another country. Too many factors are involved.

You are avoiding the simple point I made. You are still wrong.

It sounds like you are a true believer of the "communicative approach." Your "horrible" English teachers probably know better about English grammar than you do.

That's your opinion, and you are making a grand assumption. Plus, it still doesn't make the J teachers that good. They are still (on average) poor.

Without a solid foundation of grammar, Japanese cannot reach high levels of proficiency.

True, but they don't get that solid foundation with the J teachers. Grammar-translation methods still rule in Japan.

Teaching English in the EFL context is different from teaching English in the ESL context of the US or Britain.

Not much. Do you teach either? If by "context" you mean the environment, then sure.

By the way, what do you mean by "real" tests of grammar?

You're Japanese, right? Obviously, you wouldn't know.

Of course, I am not an average Japanese in terms of English ability. If one lives in the target society for 10 years, the person is, naturally, expected to have an ability more than the average.

And, just how do you propose that Japanese improve their English without sending all 127 million of them to live abroad? No cute answers now.

Re: inventions vs. creativity
I have an ambivalent stance on that. What you descried is a common view, and I don't intent to argue against it. However, I also heard some pointing out the recent success of Wii. Of course, a single case doesn't prove anything. I can only think of a few others from the popular TV series Project X: the cup noodle, digital camera, and convenient store.

Japan invented the convenience store??????

 

[kusojiji]

Are you trying to say that Japanese brains can't handle English? .

Um, didn't you say:

the Japanese' poor ability to learn spoken English

in another post?


More self-contradiction?

Then why are Koreans and Chinese better than Japanese??????

Who said that they were?

 

[kusojiji]

Japanese creativity in inventions is notoriously poor.

That is a notoriously tired stereotype.

 

[grapefruit]

Grapefruit,
Then why are Koreans and Chinese better than Japanese?

Chinese is a SVO language. The Japanese and Korean are SOV languages, but other factors are also involve. The educational systems, societies, interests, and a host of things are different between Japan and Korea. If anything what Koreans and Japanese do, I bet there is always a difference. It is not the difference per se where our attention should be drawn to. The question is how much. What interests me though is how much and why Japanese is behind Koreans compared to the world average score. Could it be related to the proportion of students sent to English-speaking countries, an educational system that allows fostering elites, or more intense college entrance competition? There must be someone analyzing these issues.

Never said otherwise. Keep the condescending tone out of this thread, ok? The above remark is pointless to the discussion. Many people learn English despite "life outside of the classroom".

It might have been irrelevant. However, must of the language learning involves what students do outside of the classroom. Plus, the motivation, which you regards as key to the student's success, largely lies in the world outside of the classroom. It might worth investigating what the average Japanese student do outside of the classroom. It is possible that Japanese society might lack something that other countries that score high on TOEFL, TOEIC, and so on.

Your "logic" is all a hypothetical situation. Nothing proven there. Good try, though. Proof requires substantive evidence, not hypotheses.

In mathematical or philosophical terms, hypothetical deductions count as proof. Proof and evidence are two different things.

If they cannot use English, their major and what they can do with it becomes limited, though. Very much so.

It is true occasionally Japanese scientists need to mingle with non-Japanese-speaking scientists or those who are worldly known have opportunities to use English more often. The majorities of scientists working in Japan do not need collaboration with non-Japanese scientists. This however do not mean they do not need to know English. English is more likely used as a tool for reading or writing papers.

Prove it!

Scientists know. Plus, they have another international tool for communication: mathematics. Actually, understanding of mathematical formula is more important in some areas of science.

Total hogwash! How do you think they communicate with each other over the phone, videoconferences, in classrooms, in direct face to face conversations (in the lab or at meetings), in presentations?

First of all, aren't we talking about scientists in Japan, not those in the US, are we? They can use Japanese for communication.

Even when submitting papers to English scientific journals (most of Japanese scientists do not even need to submit papers to English journals because they have Japanese journals), English skills are not much required these days because most of the recent scientific projects involve multiple authors. As long as there is one native speaker in it, which is usually the case, scientists whose native language is not English can get by. Besides scientists can understand issues at hand with graphs, formula, writings, data sets, etc.

I am not saying there is no English skill required. I am just stating that their high school English is sufficient for most of the Japanese scientists for oral communication. It is more important for them to devote more time to their research fields. Speaking English is just a plus.

Don't need to go to my homeland to realize that.

Great.

Which is why they need to learn it well, then find ways to maintain it. Some do. The majority don't.

So, why not focusing our resources on those who strive for achieving high proficiency?

You are avoiding the simple point I made. You are still wrong.

Isn't it too simplistic to account for the differences in test scores by the issue of motivation?

That's your opinion, and you are making a grand assumption. Plus, it still doesn't make the J teachers that good. They are still (on average) poor.

Are you saying teachers in Japan are poor compared to teachers in the US or foreign teachers in Japan like yourself?

True, but they don't get that solid foundation with the J teachers. Grammar-translation methods still rule in Japan.

What is the better method? A communicative approach?

Not much. Do you teach either? If by "context" you mean the environment, then sure.

No language use outside of the classroom is a huge difference: the fact that ESL students are surrounded by native speakers of English outside of the classroom, and that students in Japan are not.

You're Japanese, right? Obviously, you wouldn't know.

I'm still curious about what you meant by the "real" test of grammar.

And, just how do you propose that Japanese improve their English without sending all 127 million of them to live abroad? No cute answers now.

Didn't Otoko-san propose that? I agree with abolishing the blanket approach. Besides, if you whittle down those unfit for English, the average scores on many exams might go up! After all these indexes are results of averaging the poor and excellent students. Japan has been avoiding elitism. I heard that during the Meiji period , when the government adopted a educational system that raised a small group of elites, Japanese were good at foreign languages.

Japan invented the convenience store??????

I don't know. You can contact NHK.

 

[Chayssie]

It's a heroic thing to do...

I like teaching children. I have before, but (unfortunately) not very much. Now that I will be going to Japan to teach English, I look forward to teaching children. I like children in general. But there is one thing that I keep thinking about.
Maybe I am being silly about this, but the idea of playing with puppets and stuffed animals just doesn't seem... well, it just doesn't seem very masculine. I wonder what others would think of me as I played with a stuffed teddy bear or puppet and sung songs with little boys & girls. That's the crux of it.
Don't get me wrong. It sounds like a total blast and I think I would enjoy doing these things very much. I want to make a difference in the lives of these children and help them improve their language skills.
Maybe some of you men can enlighten me on your experiences teaching kindergarten-age children in Japan and how you felt about it. Thanks.

Hello there,friend....I don't think doing things like what you said you did was "not a nice thing" to do when you are a man....It is good to know that there are still people who have "passions" in teaching, not because it was his/her "job"...but because they look at it as a good investment-planting good seeds for future generations! That's a quite a "heroic" thing for me...I know how difficult it is to teach (I have 3kids!!)...and I remembered my good teachers and "not so good" ones ,who somehow influenced me on what I have become today! One should really be resourceful and creative in teaching..or else no one will listen or...not all(students) will learn/understand things taught...They say heroes does not exist today...only in books or in monuments that they are seen....But teachers like you should be called one of them!
Most people think that only the "females" cry...which is, like your way of teaching is also "weird" and a "no!no!" for both boys and men. Well, I think men who cry are really brave...they are not afraid to show their feelings!!! It takes "tons" of 'pride lowering' for a man to cry...
Well, I hope that I helped you evaluate yourself...Good day!!!

 

[Chayssie]

Hello there,friend....
"A good coach will make his players see what they can be rather than what they are."
-Ara Parasheghian-
A coach? A teacher?....You can be both....Moreover, children see you as a friend....and as they get older, a hero!...a builder of good foundations-both in their minds and hearts!!!

 

[otoko]

I think there is one main issue we have differences over. Whether introducing "good" teaching methods would motivate enough students. We both know the number is not all students. I think the number would not be large enough to justify the use of resources. For me large is more than half. I have never distputed whether methods have an effect in general on motivating students. I dispute to what extent they do. You say that there is a causual relationship between teaching methods and motivating students. I say that there is only a causual relationship in those instances where it is shown that it is true. This is why I say some change for some people. Actually my argument is logical. For example if you say:
There is a causual relationship between teaching methods and student motivation for all students, this would be false if you showed that this was not the case just for one student. I already argued this if you read carefully. So some change would result in motivation for some students is a true statement.

Fine. We are never going to find middle ground then, because I am diametrically opposed to such a rigid stance. You obviously cannot see the slightest bit of reasoning behind this. Dead wrong, but let's not bandy words more on this.

Actually I am advocating more flexibility. Those that have no interest in English can pursue something else. You as a teacher would be left with only the most motivated students.

Now you are saying that SOME change in teaching methods benefits SOME students? Totally illogical considering what you just wrote above. Leave teaching and teaching theory to teachers, ok?

See above.
I think actually the introduction of English at a young age would be helpful in that it would weed out those not interested. Yes good teaching methods would help I think. Eventually as they head into JHS and HS those who want to continue would, and those that have no interest would have something else to pursue.

 

[Glenski]

grapefruit wrote: it's not easy for Japanese to learn English, especially inside of Japan.
my response: Are you trying to say that Japanese brains can't handle English? .
no real reply came.

kusojiji then felt I was being self-contradictory when I was quoted as saying: "the Japanese' poor ability to learn spoken English"

Fair point, kusojiji. If I can rephrase and explain?
Japan's education system for teaching English sucks, pure and simple. Perhaps it was inaccurate of me to use the word "ability", when I should have stated their situation is what makes it difficult for most to learn English. That is what I meant. No contradiction intended, intentional or otherwise.

As for Koreans and Chinese better than Japanese, look at their TOEIC scores for one thing. p.5 of this report gives one example. p.6 gives more.
http://ftp.ets.org/pub/toefl/TOEIC0203report.pdf

Originally Posted by Glenski
Japanese creativity in inventions is notoriously poor.

kusojiji: That is a notoriously tired stereotype.

Prove it's wrong.

Chinese is a SVO language. The Japanese and Korean are SOV languages, but other factors are also involve. The educational systems, societies, interests, and a host of things are different between Japan and Korea. If anything what Koreans and Japanese do, I bet there is always a difference. It is not the difference per se where our attention should be drawn to. The question is how much. What interests me though is how much and why Japanese is behind Koreans compared to the world average score. Could it be related to the proportion of students sent to English-speaking countries, an educational system that allows fostering elites, or more intense college entrance competition? There must be someone analyzing these issues.

Well, at least we agree about Koreans having higher scores. I agree, by the way, about one of the reasons being educational differences. Thanks for bringing that up. Now, do you think if those differences were applied to Japan, things would improve here?

It is true occasionally Japanese scientists need to mingle with non-Japanese-speaking scientists or those who are worldly known have opportunities to use English more often. The majorities of scientists working in Japan do not need collaboration with non-Japanese scientists. This however do not mean they do not need to know English. English is more likely used as a tool for reading or writing papers.

Circular logic which still finds its way back to my own thoughts. Thanks again for the support. Then again....

First of all, aren't we talking about scientists in Japan, not those in the US, are we? They can use Japanese for communication.

No, we are talking about communication with other scientists -- period. It is a widely recognized fact, by some Japanese Nobel winners among others, that Japan needs to communicate more outside of its own borders, and that means using English. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

(most of Japanese scientists do not even need to submit papers to English journals because they have Japanese journals)

Unsubstantiated smokescreen answer. Nice dodge, but the fact remains, Japan DOES need to submit to English journals. Look at the 2003 issue of The Scientist for stats on how many journals worldwide are published in English, let alone the fact that the past top cited articles are only in English.

Even when submitting papers to English scientific journals , English skills are not much required these days because most of the recent scientific projects involve multiple authors.

Again, nice attempt at a dodge. If multiple authors means multiple Japanese authors, somebody has to know enough English. Perhaps you should really get that The Scientist article...

I am not saying there is no English skill required. I am just stating that their high school English is sufficient for most of the Japanese scientists for oral communication.

Nope. It isn't. You know it, and I know it.

So, why not focusing our resources on those who strive for achieving high proficiency?

Why not focus resources on having more people motivated to achieve that high proficiency? We've already established the need. If you want more need, look at the declining birthrate and Japan's overall refusal to import enough foreign labor.

Are you saying teachers in Japan are poor compared to teachers in the US or foreign teachers in Japan like yourself?

Well, let's look at it logically.
1) Most Japanese teachers of English have no true education in teaching EFL. Look it up. Most are only lit majors.
2) J teachers are the ones who instill in students the fundamentals of grammar, and it is the J administration who sets one target for them before graduating HS: the college entrance exams. You know full well how poorly an example of learning practical English those are. So, basically, with poor educational background and a lousy teaching curriculum, their efforts are wasted in creating fluent (or even close to fluent) speakers even with all the hours of makeup exams, study support, juku, and eikaiwa to help the kids. Grade inflation doesn't help either. Uh, you do know about that little one, don't you?

What is the better method? A communicative approach?

In part, yes. In part, changing or eliminating the college entrance exams so that the backwash effect in secondary schools is removed.

I'm still curious about what you meant by the "real" test of grammar.

To use scrambled sentences and arcane rules is not a test of grammar. Neither is grammar translation/rote memorization. Eliminate those for starters. Tons of research has been written on this. Look it up.

Besides, if you whittle down those unfit for English, the average scores on many exams might go up! After all these indexes are results of averaging the poor and excellent students.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Japan has been avoiding elitism.

Please explain this little gem. Grade inflation says otherwise.

I think there is one main issue we have differences over. Whether introducing "good" teaching methods would motivate enough students. We both know the number is not all students. I think the number would not be large enough to justify the use of resources.

And, what justification can you give for not reaching more than half? Zip, that's what.

I have never distputed whether methods have an effect in general on motivating students. I dispute to what extent they do. You say that there is a causual relationship between teaching methods and motivating students. I say that there is only a causual relationship in those instances where it is shown that it is true.

And, just how does anyone come up to your standards? They would have to test all students, which is a physical impossibility and totally unnecessary.

Actually my argument is logical. For example if you say:
There is a causual relationship between teaching methods and student motivation for all students,

Wait. Stop. We've been over this, and it was me who brought up the caveat about talking about all. Thanks for supporting me, but do we have to go over old ground again?

Actually I am advocating more flexibility. Those that have no interest in English can pursue something else. You as a teacher would be left with only the most motivated students.

Again, old ground. Sorry, not biting twice.

I think actually the introduction of English at a young age would be helpful in that it would weed out those not interested.

I think you have totally missed the point. Get them when they're young so that you instill the motivation and reduce the number of those who feel little or no interest!

 

[kusojiji]

Prove it's wrong.

I don't have enough posts to link to other url. If you cared you could research all of the many inventors/inventions from Japan and even find some data about the environment of innovation in Japan.


Creativity is a human characteristic. It needs only the opportunity to express itself.

 

[Glenski]

Oh, please! Let's not continue with the snobbishness again Kusojiji. I care. You just flat out said I'm wrong and won't support your claim. The "creativity" thing was done to death on another thread, so I'm not going to dredge that up again, either.

What does having "enough posts" have to do with posting a link, anyway?