by Whitey | May 29, 2008 | Thoughts
I didn’t begin pursuing a life of ministry in Japan because I thought I would fit in here. I fell in love with Japan because of having lived here. I also didn’t have a great sense that my personality or talents would lend themselves to ministry in Japan specifically. But, having already decided to follow God’s leading back to Japan, I had a lot of time to think about the future and where I might fit. And though I’m still figuring out the specifics, there are some things I’ve realized about myself that lend themselves to ministry in Japan.
In some ways, my personality lends itself to acculturation in Japan: I think I’m pretty flexible and willing to change, as would be needed if I moved to any foreign culture. But I also share some personality traits with what’s considered the “norm” here in Japan, such as my dislike of confrontation, or my friendly but generally-quiet and not-pushy personality.
I also have a desire to focus my ministry on youth and young adults — which, as it turns out, is a particular area of need in Japan. My talents and interests in comics are an asset, too — or could be in the future — because comics (manga) are such a big part of pop culture here (where the highest selling comic sells as many copies in a week as the highest-selling US comic does in a year). I also think the Japanese church is in need of some new ideas, and being a creative person in general could be useful.
On the other hand, there are sides of my personality that could be a problem (for me or others) sometimes. I’m a non-traditional, non-conformist person in a 4,000-year old, highly-conformist culture. I’m also working with a very traditional, conservative national church here in Japan. Will my new ideas be heard? Will I be able to use my talents and gifts to their fullest potential? Will I rub people the wrong way if I’m unwilling — or unable, or unsure of how to — adapt?
The potential is definitely there for me to feel squeezed into a mold that doesn’t fit me. The potential’s also there for me to offend or damage relationships if I don’t handle differences appropriately or adapt where I should.
But there is also a lot of positive potential if I’m willing to learn and adapt in the ways that I need to.
by Whitey | Feb 13, 2008 | Thoughts
Today’s post is another paper from the correspondence TESL course I was taking back in the Fall. This assignment was on the question of whether or not grammar should be taught explicitly in the ESL classroom. Any thoughts? Feel free to comment, especially if you’re a language teacher — or student, for that matter.
———————————–
Grammar is an unavoidable part of teaching English as a second language. In any language, grammar is the “code” that helps us understand each other. It ties words together so that we can make sense of what someone is saying. If one is going to help another person learn English, grammar must be taught. The questions are, “How?” and “How much?”
Should ESL students be taught grammar explicitly? That is, do they need to know the names of all the different parts of the sentences and tenses? Do they need to learn all the rules of English grammar by heart? Or can grammar be picked up implicitly? Can students simply become aware of the patterns and rules of grammar through practice?
The answer, I think, lies somewhere in the middle. As Jim Scrivener points out in Learning Teaching, the kind of grammar an ESL teacher needs to teach is not the informational kind but the practical kind: “Scott Thornbury, in his book Uncovering Grammar, has suggested that we could open up our concept of ‘grammar’ if we start thinking of it as not just a noun (i.e. the information), but as a verb as well (i.e. the active skill of using language). It’s probably this ‘verby’ kind of grammar that we most need to help our learners work with in class.” (Scrivener, p. 253)
Our students don’t necessarily need to know all the names of the different tenses and sentence parts. If we are honest, most native English speakers – even ESL teachers — don’t know all of these aspects of grammar. For example, let’s look at this sentence: “Bob will already have taken the test when I arrive tomorrow.” Before I started taking this TESL class, I couldn’t have told you (without looking it up) that it is in the future perfect tense. However, I could have hold you what it means: Bob will take a test tomorrow. After that, I will arrive. Bob will be finished taking the test before I arrive.
That is the kind of practical grammar learning our ESL students need. They need to be able to hear or read a sentence and understand it. They need to be able to speak or write and be understood. How do we teach them this kind of “verby” grammar?
I would suggest what I would call “situational” grammar teaching. In other words, given a certain language context, certain grammar points naturally come up as teaching topics. For instance, a lesson in which you talk about “How I spent my summer vacation” would be used to talk about past tenses. Depending on the skill level of the class, you could talk about a number of different past tenses, in a situational, conversational context instead of a list of names and rules.
In part, what I’m talking about is teaching by example. Students learn a grammar point by seeing it “in action”. But it’s not enough to just hope that they pick up the pattern. There needs to be some explanation as well – but it needs to be practical and geared toward the skill level of the class. And it needs to be followed by a lot of practice.
In short, a brief explanation followed by plenty of practice would be preferable over a long, explicit explanation. Language is meant to be used.
by Whitey | Feb 6, 2008 | Thoughts
This week and next I’m continuing my series of writings on Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL), using more material taken from assignments I did for my TESL course. Today’s post was written back in mid-December, and is about teacher vs. student talk time in the language classroom. I should add that there’s quite a bit of student talk time in the Japanese class I’m taking now. This is a good thing.
There is a big difference between accuracy and fluency. This is an idea I have thought about frequently during both my private Japanese-language studies and my teaching English course.
I have studied Japanese off and on for a few years now. If tested, I would probably discover that I have a fairly large vocabulary. I also know the basics of Japanese grammar and pronunciation fairly accurately. However, I am far from fluent. In fact, it is a struggle for me to carry on even the most basic of conversations in Japanese.
So what’s missing? It is true that I could (and should) spend a lot more time studying. But probably the thing I need the most is more practice actually using what I already know; I need more talk time. I heard someone point out recently that in real, every day conversations, it’s actually more important to be fluent than it is to be accurate. In other words, getting an idea or message across to the person we’re speaking to should be our concern, rather than making sure we get every word and grammar use exactly right. I think this is true. Of course we should always aim to improve, but real communication can still take place even while we’re still learning. And in the process of trying, failing and trying again, we learn more than we could have without trying at all.
If practice is so important in learning a second language, then in ESL conversation classes it is important that we as teachers give the students ample opportunities to put into practice what we have been teaching them. If we’re going to do this, we need to be willing to talk less. Teacher talk time is important, especially as we introduce new concepts. But without actually putting these new language items to work, students are less likely to remember them when the class is over. If the students do not get talk time in class, they will not improve in their ability to actually communicate in English. This is especially true if we are living in a non-English speaking country, where students don’t get many opportunities to use English in their lives outside the classroom.
For these reasons, I think it is important for teacher talk time to be limited so that student talk time takes up a large part of each lesson. As for an exact ratio, that it would depend on the size of the class. In smaller classes, there can be more teacher-to-student interaction without any students being left out. In larger classes, students will have to talk to each other more and to the teacher less. In either case, though, the teacher should err on the side of speaking less (20-40% of class time). Teacher talk time should always be less than half of the lesson, with that percentage being lower the more students there are.
by Whitey | Dec 23, 2007 | Thoughts
Check out this short article about a non-Japanese person who’s become a part of a very-Japanese part of society:
Japan Today – News – Japans first ever foreign geisha debuts
The interesting thing to me is that it says she’s spent half of her life in Japan, and yet the article’s title still calls her a foreigner. It’s interesting because of what it says about Japan’s attitude toward foreigners: no matter how long a person’s been in Japan, and no matter how integrated they become in that society, they’ll always be considered a foreigner if they weren’t born there (or if they were born in Japan but aren’t Japanese racially speaking). Now, to be clear, I’m not saying that they’re racist or anything; just that it’s such a homogenous society it’s nearly impossible for an outsider to become an insider. Even the Japanese word for foreigner — gaijin — itself carries the connotation of being an outsider.
Kudos, though, to Sayuki the Geish, for becoming more of an insider than most of us could ever dream of.
So how does a skinny, white, English-speaking, Canadian boy like myself get “in”? I love Japan, its culture and its people, but no matter how long I’m there I’ll always be gaijin. It may be a frustration I’ll just have to live with.
by Whitey | Dec 12, 2007 | Thoughts
With my move to Japan less than 3 weeks away (eek!) I’ve got lots of little things to do, as well as some not-so-little things. The visa application is out of my hands, the plane ticket is booked for the 28th, and just yesterday I shipped two boxes of stuff to Nagoya. The rest of the week my focus is on finishing my TESL course.
And on that subject, on to the real topic of today’s post: Teaching Methods. This article is a copy of one of my TESL course assignments, done several weeks back and posted here for you to read if you have any interest in teaching English. If you’re a teacher yourself, I’d love to hear your thoughts, so feel free to respond with a comment.
It is certainly possible to adhere to only one teaching method throughout an entire lesson. The examples Larsen-Freeman shows us in Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, for instance, are all one-method lessons. All of these teaching methods have some value, but whether or not it is a good idea to use one method exclusively is another question. I think there is more value in using a variety of methods in the second language classroom.
Every learner is different, and comes to class with a unique mix of talents, weaknesses, and learning preferences. Each learner would best be served with a different teaching method. Some people learn best by hearing, some by seeing and some by doing – and for each of these learning styles there are a variety of possible methods to use in teaching. If all our classes were one-on-one, it might be possible to use one method for each student, with lessons targeted specifically for that one student and his/her learning needs. The reality is, though, that most English teachers need to teach a variety of personalities in the same class. It’s also probably true that each learner, while he/she might have a particular learning strength or preference, is actually mix of different strengths and learning styles. Therefore, a variety of methods would be a great asset in the ESL classroom.
Choosing the right method depends not only on the students, but on what aspect of the English language is being taught. Since language is meant to be used in the “real world”, it would be wise to give the students a lot of opportunities to practice. After all, this is how we learn our own language as children – by trying it out for ourselves, not by copying notes from a board or listening to a lecture. On the other hand, reading and writing, as well as listening and speaking, are important components in language learning. And some concepts do need some explaining before they can be practiced.
Before I became involved in ministry or considered living and teaching overseas, I was a graphic designer. When I was in community college learning graphic arts, there were a variety of classes and subject matter being taught. As such, there were a variety of teaching methods being used as well. For topics such as law and business, there was a lot of lecture and discussion. For software use and design techniques, there was more “hands on” learning.
Personally, I learn best by doing. In fact, there were many techniques and tricks I learned on the job, after finishing school, that I didn’t learn in the classroom. On the other hand, even in regard to the practical, on-the-job aspects of design, I needed both to be told what to do and to have the chance to do it for myself – to learn by trial and error. I might not have learned by doing without first having someone give me some direction. And it might not have “stuck” if I didn’t have the opportunity to put theory into practice.
I think language learning is much the same. For the sake of different learning styles, as well as the different parts of English to be taught, ESL teachers should use variety in the classroom. We need to remember, too, that not every method will work in every situation. So there is trial and error on the part of the teacher as well as the student. This will lead to even more variety, as we experiment to see what works in our own context. What is important is that the students are learning. It couldn’t hurt to keep things fun, either.
by Whitey | Nov 14, 2007 | Thoughts
The following article is from a paper I wrote for my Teaching English as a Second Language course. It’s based on the interview I did a while back, which I also used for my podcast. The focus of the paper is, of course, on language learning.
Haruka Kudo comes from Saitama (near Tokyo), Japan but has been living in Fredericton, New Brunswick since 2002. She originally came to Canada to study journalism, graduating last year from Saint Thomas University, but liked Fredericton so much she decided to stay. Haruka now works for the Multicultural Association in downtown Fredericton.
Recently, Haruka and I had the opportunity to sit down at a local coffee shop and talk about her experiences learning English. She told me that speaking English was one of the biggest adjustments she faced when she first came to Canada. Like most young Japanese, she had taken English in school, from junior high through high school. In Japanese public schools, however, most English teachers are not native English speakers, and the focus is on grammar and reading, with very little practice in actually speaking the language.
After high school, when she was working but not yet in university, Haruka went to a private English school for lessons. Yet when she first moved to Canada, she still didn’t speak English very well. This was because in Japan, she didn’t have many opportunities to practice.
Haruka told me that the hardest things about learning English were pronunciation and slang. Proper pronunciation is hard to achieve without practice, especially when your native tongue is so much different than the target language. And slang, course, is usually not a big part of the curriculum in public schools. But in every day life, it can be a big part of communication.
Haruka said that meeting native speakers and having the chance to practice the language were the most helpful things in learning English. She also pointed out that TV and books were helpful tools. When I asked her what people in particular were most helpful to her, she said her university ESL teachers here in Canada were, because they knew how to communicate with non-native English speakers. They were very patient with her and were willing to slow down and speak clearly when talking to her, in order to help her understand what they were saying.
Haruka said that if there was any advice she could give to a person learning a second language, it would be to find lots of opportunities to practice with native speakers. She also said not to be shy – this was difficult for her at first. I can relate to that because I’m learning Japanese and am a little bit shy about speaking up when I have the opportunity to use it in the real world (which isn’t very often these days).
It would seem that immersing herself in an English-speaking culture was the best thing Haruka could have done for her English language skills. Immersion gives people the opportunity to talk to native speakers every day. And if a person is shy about speaking out in the target language, necessity might force them to do so like nothing else could. So it is probably the best thing any of us can do if we are learning another language.
Of course, not everyone has the opportunity to be immersed in a foreign culture. But what ESL teachers should learn from this is that students usually need practical experience as much as, or more than, being taught grammar, spelling or vocabulary. In a sense, if we plan our lessons well, we can give them an opportunity at a “mini-immersion” of sorts, even if it is just for an hour at a time.
