Masculinity and teaching young kids

[Ashikaga]

Get them when they're young so that you instill the motivation and reduce the number of those who feel little or no interest!

I would like to get back to this issue as it relates to the OP who was specifically talking about students who are so young that a would-be teacher considers employing the help of puppets, singing & dancing to teach. I think we are all agreeing with Glenski about "getting them when they're young", yes?

I see what grapefruit is saying. Some are naturally motivated while some just aren't. That may be true. With very young students however, I doubt that they perceive English (or any subject for that matter) as "something they will need in the future / something useful that will enrich their lives". The only thing that matters to a young child is, "IS IT FUN?". If it is presented right, they WILL bite. Does she/he really take into consideration how important the adults around her/his say it is when she/he decides to sit in front of a computer and play with it? They want to play with your cell phone not because they know it helps you keeping in touch with others but because it looks like fun (it has a lot of buttons and it makes noise and you can talk to your friends!).

We could argue forever about just how necessary English may be in today's Japan but there are enough people out there who believe it IS important for the next generations to have better English skills that they will be teaching it in every elementary school soon. I think we should focus on HOW we can motivate the students BEFORE they, the students, are old enough to start weighing the pros and cons of spending time studying English.

 

[kusojiji]

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?

"Snobbishness"?! Huh?

As for the URL thing, the system would not let me include addresses in a post because I haven't yet reached some minimum.


I do flat out say you are wrong and it seems to me the onus is on YOU to prove something so ridiculous as that an entire people are less 'creative' than all others. That just smacks of blunt bigotry.

 

[grapefruit]

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.

I'm not saying Japanese do not have brains to learn English. It is just certain languages are hard to learn for native speakers of certain languages. For speakers of English, it is much easier to learn and reach high proficiency in European languages, like Spanish, French, and so on. On average, American students have more difficulty learning Japanese than Koreans learn Japanese (despite the fact that Korean national sentiment is deadly against Japan and those who support Japan are looked down on). Similarly, it is much easier for Japanese to learn Chinese than English. The easiest language for native speakers of Japanese is the Korean language.

Japan's education system for teaching English sucks, pure and simple.

First of all, It is not nice to talk about another country's educational system without respect. What do you feel when you hear "the American education system for teaching foreign languages SUCKS PURE AND SIMPLE"? It sounds like there is no hint of respect when something is described. Japan has its own history and reasons for adopting the grammar translation method, you should try to understand.

Second of all, compared to American students, Japanese students are doing much better learning foreign languages No, I will take it back. It is not fair to compare students who already speak the world common language without any effort to those who have to struggle.

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
Prove it's wrong.
Well, at least we agree about Koreans having higher scores.

I found the report interesting. When I first looked at the numbers on pages 4 and 5, it shocked me. Then, careful observation told me more interesting things. First of all, the number of test takers and percentage. It's on Table 2 on page 7. The percentage of students who took the exam in Korea is only 14.6%, whereas in Japan it is 71.6% I'm sure the 14.6% of Koreans who took the exam belong to the motivated student group. Compared to the percentages of test takers from other regions, which are within a few percent points, Japan's 71.6% tells us something. Is it because more people are motivated/interested in English or many companies require the test. I don't know. But, when these numbers are different, it is hard to compare test results objectively. What is more, when you look at the numbers on Koreans on page 4 and compare them to those on Singaporeans, that is more interesting. Magically, South Koreans can compete with Singaporeans. Ok. Everyone knows that Singaporeans speak English and their education is offered in English. How could Koreans gain almost the same results? See. the more you read numbers carefully, the more you realize the danger of using results of standardized exams for measuring students' performance.

 

[Glenski]

I'm not saying Japanese do not have brains to learn English. It is just certain languages are hard to learn for native speakers of certain languages.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree.

Re: my statement about the J ed system sucking
First of all, It is not nice to talk about another country's educational system without respect.

I've worked in it for 10 years. It sucks. That's half the reason I posted here. Do you have another opinion?

What do you feel when you hear "the American education system for teaching foreign languages SUCKS PURE AND SIMPLE"?

I agree in many ways. Realize that when I talk about the J system, I refer only to the English education aspect.

Japan has its own history and reasons for adopting the grammar translation method, you should try to understand.

I do understand, and it is recognized as outmoded and antiquated and an improper way of teaching, but the J governement and education system won't work together to change what is needed.

So, we crank out poorly fluent students and have them face arcane and pointless college entrance tests.

Second of all, compared to American students, Japanese students are doing much better learning foreign languages No, I will take it back. It is not fair to compare students who already speak the world common language without any effort to those who have to struggle.

I hope the former remark was a joke. As for Americans, I can speak from experience that we don't learn foreign languages very well. Being an arrogant nation where only 20% of the population even has a passport (which would bring them into contact with foreign speaking people), it's not surprising. Pitiful, but not surprising.

I found the report interesting. When I first looked at the numbers on pages 4 and 5, it shocked me. Then, careful observation told me more interesting things. First of all, the number of test takers and percentage. It's on Table 2 on page 7. The percentage of students who took the exam in Korea is only 14.6%, whereas in Japan it is 71.6% I'm sure the 14.6% of Koreans who took the exam belong to the motivated student group.

You're sure. I'm not. Convince me.

Everyone knows that Singaporeans speak English and their education is offered in English. How could Koreans gain almost the same results?

Because they hold classes 12 hours a day or longer, according to the Korean students and teachers who visited my school recently. They also start out studying English at a younger age than Japanese.

See. the more you read numbers carefully, the more you realize the danger of using results of standardized exams for measuring students' performance.

Yes, there is a danger, but the simple fact is, according to this worldwide accepted exam, Japanese suck at English. That was the point. Sorry if you don't like the word "suck".

 

[grapefruit]

The only thing that matters to a young child is, "IS IT FUN?". If it is presented right, they WILL bite. Does she/he really take into consideration how important the adults around her/his say it is when she/he decides to sit in front of a computer and play with it? They want to play with your cell phone not because they know it helps you keeping in touch with others but because it looks like fun (it has a lot of buttons and it makes noise and you can talk to your friends!)

We hope kids are pure and simple, but they can sense lots of things that adults even don't want them to know. For instance, kids in the US know consciously or unconsciously the desired color of skin is white. When they color, this hidden value comes out. It is possible that they are sensing this based on what they see in their picture books or cartoons. Almost all the books with pictures sold in the US contain white skinned children as the main characters. Almost all the cartoons depicts white skinned people as the good and colored people as the bad. All the bad characters in cartoons have some sort of accent. And these kinds of things influence kids. Immigrant children in the US quickly learn that non-English speaking people are lower in status so that they stop using the language. Luckily this does not happen in Japan. Which also means that in normal life in Japan English is not something important.

Besides, I doubt the effectiveness of the strategy which only nurtures interest in kids. Japanese language education in middle school in the US is a good example. Most of the programs focus so much on the so-called cultural aspect like games, songs, and events that even after several years students' proficiency in Japanese are incredibly low. It surely serves the function of bringing interests to children but as a language course it is not effective.

 

[kusojiji]

Because they hold classes 12 hours a day or longer, according to the Korean students and teachers who visited my school recently.

LOL! That is too funny! What's more amusing is your completely transparent need to cling to any conclusion that supports your prejudice.

 

[Glenski]

Almost all the cartoons [in the U.S.] depicts white skinned people as the good and colored people as the bad.

Now there's a sweeping generalization that I'd like to see you back up!

Immigrant children in the US quickly learn that non-English speaking people are lower in status so that they stop using the language. Luckily this does not happen in Japan.

Naw, the kids don't learn that about foreigners. The adults do, especially those in the government. Please don't get this sidetracked on a discrimination issue or something related to Debito's "gaijin = n*gger" article.

Which also means that in normal life in Japan English is not something important.

It means nothing of the kind. You have really made no logical connection there.

Besides, I doubt the effectiveness of the strategy which only nurtures interest in kids.

And, from your vast wealth of experience as a teacher or educator (please clarify that), why do you have such doubts? Moreover, what do you recommend to stimulate the motivation of students to study English? You seem to be of the mind that is present in so many dinosaur-like legislators, who only say their mind and have nothing to support it. Sadly, they are in power. Happily, you are not.

Japanese language education in middle school in the US is a good example. Most of the programs focus so much on the so-called cultural aspect like games, songs, and events that even after several years students' proficiency in Japanese are incredibly low.

Don't blame just the activities above! Scores are low because the students are not taught properly overall. You know this, yet you sit back like some stupid foreigner who has never gone through the system here.

What you see above are the results of foreign strategies trying to instill the motivation and interest beyond what the current J curriculum provides. I believe JHS motivation and scores are higher than in SHS, too. Know why?

 

[grapefruit]

You're sure. I'm not. Convince me.

Do you know the reason why the reply rate is provided when showing any kind of poll result? That is because it is important to know what kinds of people occupy the pool who took the survey. Sociologists go to lengths to objectify sampling sets. If the sampled subjects are not unbiased, the results you gain are meaningless. The students who took the exam were not sampled randomly. The reply rates of Japan and Korea clearly show the groups who took the exams are not similar. Indeed, the majority of the report is dedicated to explaining how each country group was different. If two groups are different in many respects, comparison is useless.

 

[grapefruit]

Now there's a sweeping generalization that I'd like to see you back up!

You can check it all yourself. All non-white parents who attempted to purchase a picture book with a main character that looks like their son or daughter encourter the difficulty of finding one in the US.
You can pay attention to the English that Disney characters speak. Compare the English spoken by good characters and the English spoken by bad characters.

Naw, the kids don't learn that about foreigners. The adults do, especially those in the government. Please don't get this sidetracked on a discrimination issue or something related to Debito's "gaijin = n*gger" article.

Yes, it is all transmitted from adults. Adults' hidden values will be reflected in how kids behave.

what do you recommend to stimulate the motivation of students to study English?

I don't think the issue is motivation. Haven't you noticed many people buy the April issue of NHK Kiso Eikaiwa (or that sort) and stop after a couple of months? I think a great majority of Japanese would confess that one time in their life they bought an April issue but failed to continue p I was one of them too.) Ordinary Japanese all know that English is important, they all desire to acquire the skill to speak English. It would be a waste of resources if language specialists like yourself need to devote time and effort to advertising activity.
It would make more sense if skilled, well-knowledge teachers guided talented and motivated students and let "poor" teachers take care of the rest.

Don't blame just the activities above! Scores are low because the students are not taught properly overall. You know this, yet you sit back like some stupid foreigner who has never gone through the system here.

Not all people need to be competitive marathon runners, some can enjoy jogging for health and others can run on weekends. Some join a circle to meet friends. Some people prefer swimming. If one is really into it, he can attend a race and time how fast he can run.

 

[grapefruit]

We could argue forever about just how necessary English may be in today's Japan but there are enough people out there who believe it IS important for the next generations to have better English skills that they will be teaching it in every elementary school soon. I think we should focus on HOW we can motivate the students BEFORE they, the students, are old enough to start weighing the pros and cons of spending time studying English.

I'm not saying that English is not important. But your comment made me wonder how kids in Japan these days are thinking about English.
I'm curious, do they really hate English? :? I thought they would hate math more than English.

 

[pipokun]

Mean TOEIC Scores Across Native Countries

Glenski, just use the score distribution for your accurate analysis below as well.

II-2 Total score distribution for the SP test
http://www.toeic.or.jp/toeic_en/media/pdf/TOEIC_DAA2007.pdf

 

[grapefruit]

Glenski, just use the score distribution for your accurate analysis below as well.

This collection of numbers is interesting. I found the average score does not increase in students majoring in Science/Engineering/Agriculture (p. 12), compared to those in non-science major students.

 

[Glenski]

Do you know the reason why the reply rate is provided when showing any kind of poll result? That is because it is important to know what kinds of people occupy the pool who took the survey.

Not true. Reply rates simply show how many people responded to a survey out of how many were asked to take it.

Now there's a sweeping generalization that I'd like to see you back up!

You can check it all yourself.

No, the onus is on you to support it.

You can pay attention to the English that Disney characters speak. Compare the English spoken by good characters and the English spoken by bad characters.

More unsubstantiated hogwash. How do you even know the race of the people who provide the voiceovers? Besides, ever see The Jungle Book?

I don't think the issue is motivation.

You've been trying awfully hard to say the opposite here. I call you a troll now!

Grapefruit the troll's solution:

It would make more sense if skilled, well-knowledge teachers guided talented and motivated students and let "poor" teachers take care of the rest.

Bad idea. Blind lead the blind? Stupid. Makes more sense to have the good teachers helping the poorly motivated students.

I'm not saying that English is not important.

Could have fooled me.

 

[grapefruit]

I don't know why Glenski is so emotional...:?

 

[otoko]

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

The justification should be evident. That teaching those who have no interest and motivation is a waste of time and money.
To flip this question over, what is the justification for wasting that money teaching those who don't want it?

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.

What are you talking about? We have our sample which is all JHS and HS students. I never mentioned anything about testing, but FYI these students are being tested already. Let us say we could could control conditions for this huge sample of students. Introducing good teachers and good teaching methods. Even under these conditions there will still be students who are unmotivated. One can assume under the current imperfect conditions that there are many more unmotivated students compared to our hypothetical control group.
I don't doubt good teachers and good methods could increase the amount of motivated young children. Still the reality is that there will those not interested as they proceed through school. My idea is to allow them to have more choices as they proceed through the grades. When they are no longer small children and start thinking about what they want to do, I think they should have some flexibility to find something of interest.
In contrast you are being very inflexible. You want to continue teaching those who don't want it. And spend the money to do so. I don't see anything bad about a more tailored approach. Those teachers at the JHS and HS level would be left with only the most motivated students. Is this a bad thing? Less students would hopefully mean less teachers, but better qualified teachers.
I see the problem in this that it is not in the interests of bureaucracy to reduce anything, spending or personel. Those with vested interests will be against their department losing funds, or their job if they are at risk of being labeled an incompetent teacher.

 

[Glenski]

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.

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

otoko: The justification should be evident. That teaching those who have no interest and motivation is a waste of time and money.
To flip this question over, what is the justification for wasting that money teaching those who don't want it?

We've been over this already. Kids don't always realize what is important to them. Just because they have no interest or motivation in something, that doesn't mean it's unimportant.

Get off this line of "reasoning".


okoko (emphasis is mine):

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.

Me: 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.

What are you talking about? We have our sample which is all JHS and HS students.

Me: Really? Who has tested all of them? Show me the reports.

I never mentioned anything about testing, but FYI these students are being tested already.

How? And, just how fairly and accurately?

Introducing good teachers and good teaching methods. Even under these conditions there will still be students who are unmotivated.

Yes, I've already given that to you. No arguments. No system if perfect. However...

One can assume under the current imperfect conditions that there are many more unmotivated students compared to our hypothetical control group.

Go ahead and assume. I wouldn't be so bold as to make such a grand assumption, though. Back this up!

I don't doubt good teachers and good methods could increase the amount of motivated young children. Still the reality is that there will those not interested as they proceed through school.

And, I've agreed with you.

My idea is to allow them to have more choices as they proceed through the grades. When they are no longer small children and start thinking about what they want to do, I think they should have some flexibility to find something of interest.

How? I can think of only one way, and it goes back to the same old story we've hashed out here--that students don't always know what is good for them. You seem to think they can make those decisions. Isn't that what you are saying?

Less students would hopefully mean less teachers, but better qualified teachers.

Why would fewer teachers be better qualified? Do you even know the system now for choosing teachers here, especially foreign ones?

 

[grapefruit]

OK, suppose good teachers can really motivate all of their students well. But, there is one problem. Japan does not have enough good teachers to cover the entire students in Japan. What is the solution? Perhaps, to employ a great many good teacher-educators to train all Japanese JHS and HS teachers so that they get motivated and start to teach better in JHS and HS?

 

[otoko]

We've been over this already. Kids don't always realize what is important to them. Just because they have no interest or motivation in something, that doesn't mean it's unimportant.
Get off this line of "reasoning".
[/QUOTE
This isn't about "importance".
1. You are arguing for better methods to motivate students. Also you said young students are not necessary motivated by whether English will useful to them in the future. I find it odd you want to argue now about the importance of English to these students. You tell me that whether these students realize it is important or not is not a reason to decide to teach them English or not. You want to change your position to English being important to them in the future. And that while they might not find it important they should be motivated to learn. If you want to take this position that is fine. Though you have not been consistent up to this point.

Me: Really? Who has tested all of them? Show me the reports.
How? And, just how fairly and accurately?

You brought up the testing in the first place. I responded that I did not mention anything about testing. BUT since you brought up the subject of testing I said that these students are being tested anyway. They are being tested all the time in their classes, are they not? I don't think they are taking one general exam but they are being tested to get their grades right?


Anyway you picking at this point which I never mentioned in my original post is pointless. My point was allowing more choices. Let the students choose.

Go ahead and assume. I wouldn't be so bold as to make such a grand assumption, though. Back this up!

Glenski my post was not confusing at all. Read it again. Anyway I will try to explain it further. When scientists do studies they usually use a control group to compare results. I wrote that if conditions where controlled, i.e. if conditions were perfect(good teachers and good teaching methods) there would still be students who not be motivated. Sorry but it isn't much of an assumption there since there has really been nothing when even controlled for in any scientific study that has had 100% efficacy. Odds are drastically on my side, it isn't much of a leap. Since conditions are not perfect compared to our hypothetical control group one can assume that the results would be worse. Again this is not a grand assumption, this is elementary.

How? I can think of only one way, and it goes back to the same old story we've hashed out here--that students don't always know what is good for them. You seem to think they can make those decisions. Isn't that what you are saying?

I have already stated as students PROCEED through school, when they are not little children and start thinking about their future that they should have choice.

You argue:

Teaching children English because they don't always know what is good for them.

Changing the methods will result in less children being unmotivated compared to now.

You don't propose anything for those that don't want it.

You haven't yet reconciled the disparity between the small minority of adults that need English and teaching all students.

Eventually these students will be adults and will realize whether English was good for them. I think that it could safely be assumed once they hit the job market that they will know whether it was good for them. Or is that too grand of an assumption? Those that attend college also might have some idea.

What is so bad about giving students choice? Seriously can you answer this? If there were electives every semester, they could try many different things and find something interesting.

Why would fewer teachers be better qualified? Do you even know the system now for choosing teachers here, especially foreign ones?

Hey it is a bureaucracy I don't expect the system to be very good at all. I was speaking from a business perspective that less spots would increase competition for those spots. Better teachers would be selected. I don't expect anyplace that receives public funds to use those funds efficiently. I already mentioned the bureaucracy as the main problem confronting any change.

Private schools though could implement what I espouse. They could also try it your way. I think in a private school my way would result in a more tailored approach where all students could have a chance to learn something that interests them, or they find motivating or even important. Not only that it would also be a more efficient use of funds.

 

[Glenski]

OK, suppose good teachers can really motivate all of their students well. But, there is one problem. Japan does not have enough good teachers to cover the entire students in Japan. What is the solution? Perhaps, to employ a great many good teacher-educators to train all Japanese JHS and HS teachers so that they get motivated and start to teach better in JHS and HS?

That's one possibility. Another that has been discussed is to educate the J teachers better before they set foot in the classroom. Part of that education would mean getting a certain TOEIC score and being sent overseas for training.

There is no single solution.

We've been over this already. Kids don't always realize what is important to them. Just because they have no interest or motivation in something, that doesn't mean it's unimportant.
Get off this line of "reasoning".

This isn't about "importance".

Then this thread has no meaning.

In your mind, what is the current (evolved) topic of this thread about, if not the importance of providing good English education to Japanese students? It's gone way past the original topic, so please tell me in order that I might give sound advice and input. Kinda hard when you change the goalposts.

 

[otoko]

That's one possibility. Another that has been discussed is to educate the J teachers better before they set foot in the classroom. Part of that education would mean getting a certain TOEIC score and being sent overseas for training.

There is no single solution.


Then this thread has no meaning.

In your mind, what is the current (evolved) topic of this thread about, if not the importance of providing good English education to Japanese students? It's gone way past the original topic, so please tell me in order that I might give sound advice and input. Kinda hard when you change the goalposts.

I don't understand why you say this. You argue with me that whether the students realize English is important is not a reason to decide not to teach them English. Then you say that you teach them English because sometimes they don't realize what is good for them.

The entire thread you have accused others of being contradictory, illogical, writing "subjective drivel". Accuse others of changing the "goalposts" when they haven't been changed yet you have not been consistent yourself. I have been pretty consistent. Yet if you see my above post I laid out my argument. You won't comment on it. You pick one word and say this thread is moot and to get to the original topic. "Importance" is in regard to you yourself stating that the future importance of English is not a reason to not teach English.

 

[GodEmperorLeto]

I'm throwing my hat into the ring.

Another that has been discussed is to educate the J teachers better before they set foot in the classroom. Part of that education would mean getting a certain TOEIC score and being sent overseas for training.

There is no single solution.

For being a nation with the temperment of a dog that's been kicked one time too many, the Koreans have that idea. Their current president intends to see that through, much to the chagrin of the Korean people, who are pretty darn nationalistic and take umbrage at this.

Comparing American language education to Japanese (or any other country) is a straw man. It fails to serve the person's point. It just makes Americans look bad from a subjective standpoint. So Americans have poor language education. This makes Japanese language instruction what... good? I fail to see how.

The thing is, kids are kids. They don't want to learn, and are generally ignorant. The desire to learn isn't something teachers can just instill into someone. God knows my teachers failed miserably at this with me and my peers. If anyone instilled it in me it was my father, not some "educator." Perhaps teachers can work wonders in this regard if they are good. More often than not, they end up keeping a bottle of brandy in the bottom desk drawer to nip from when "those damn kids" aren't around because it helps them get through the day.

Nevertheless, from my experience, the Western education system does a better job instilling the concepts of reason and rational thought into its students. Granted, my experience is limited, but I keep meeting people with more experience in Eastern educational practices than I who remark on this. This might attribute to language acquisition in a big way. Languages function on rules, systems, and patterns--things that rational thought go a long way in preparing a young mind for.

In addition, I have studied a number of languages myself, and simple immersion, with no linguistic background (as I'm experiencing in Korea) is seriously inferior to actually having a firm basis in grammatical structure and vocabulary on a written level before such exposure. From what I've seen here, there is little serious instruction in grammar, most of it is all phrases and broad patterns of speech with little or no explanation of function or use. Thus, I see kids that have been taking English for 3 hours a day for the past 6 years give me sentences like "These is your the glasses?"

I dunno about you, but after six years of formal Japanese or Korean study for 3-5 hours per week, an American can damn near speak it fluently, and I can say this because I know several who have done just that. Granted, they were highly motivated, but nevertheless, that does not explain why kids can sit in a class for 3 hours a day for 5 (sometimes 6) days a week and get little more than "How many years is you?" The problem must be in the realm of instruction. Unfortunately, nobody seems to care enough. English is useful only for college entrance exams and getting a good job. After that, the people from these countries who are actually fluent in English get jobs using that English everyday. It's little more than a gauge of academic indoctrination in these countries.

If that's the way they want it, maybe there's no point in complaining.

As for being manly in a K-6 classroom... man, the OP has issues. I'm not going to bash him hardcore as some people have, but considering his thread on marriage, I'm more inclined to think he's 22 or 23, not 30.

 

[Glenski]

I've pretty much been consistent. Don't now how you see otherwise.

You argue with me that whether the students realize English is important is not a reason to decide not to teach them English.

Students are too immature to realize the importance of English, yes. That's what the above statement says, and I agree with it.

Then you say that you teach them English because sometimes they don't realize what is good for them.

If they are taught the importance of Enlish, and taught properly how to use it, and taught in a stimulating way, they will have more motivation and interest, which only makes the circle complete.


Since you were offended at my recent post, let's look at what seemed to have sparked that.

me: We've been over this already. Kids don't always realize what is important to them. Just because they have no interest or motivation in something, that doesn't mean it's unimportant.

otoko: This isn't about "importance".

What is this thread about now? The OP was about a guy who felt masculinity and teaching kids did not go together. We're nowhere near that idea now.

 

[grapefruit]

In addition, I have studied a number of languages myself, and simple immersion, with no linguistic background (as I'm experiencing in Korea) is seriously inferior to actually having a firm basis in grammatical structure and vocabulary on a written level before such exposure.

I totally agree. Grammatical instruction is essential to native speakers of a language, whose grammar is considerably different from that of the target language. Korean and English are too different for the direct method.

I dunno about you, but after six years of formal Japanese or Korean study for 3-5 hours per week, an American can damn near speak it fluently, and I can say this because I know several who have done just that.
ranted, they were highly motivated, but nevertheless, that does not explain why kids can sit in a class for 3 hours a day for 5 (sometimes 6) days a week and get little more than "How many years is you?" The problem must be in the realm of instruction.

There are also tons of Japanese and Korean students who can say "how old are you?" in English. Anyway, I don't think we are talking about this level of English.

If that's the way they want it, maybe there's no point in complaining.

Probably that is reality. Unlike colonized African countries, people do not need to use English (or French) to spend decent life in current Korea and Japan (many Koreans already suffered the hardship of using a second language in daily life under Japanese colonization). It is wonderful that students can attend college where their mother tongue is the language of instruction. Many African nations have to resort to the use of English to educate their students. It is a good thing that students who are not cut out for English can learn other subjects without knowing English.

 

[Ashikaga]

There was a whole discussion on another thread how the age of the students affects their language learning abilities and how different methods should be employed depending on how old/young the students are. Some of the posts touches on the "Grammatical instruction VS Immersion approach". Have a look if you are interested.

 

[grapefruit]

That's one possibility. Another that has been discussed is to educate the J teachers better before they set foot in the classroom. Part of that education would mean getting a certain TOEIC score and being sent overseas for training.

It is a great idea to send Japanese teachers overseas for training. I always wonder why the Japanese government spends an absurd amount of money on hiring under-qualified college graduates to teach English for the Jet Program (Some say the hidden goal is to produce Japanophiles, who will in the future become influential in their home countries). They should first invest more money in teacher education.