Masculinity and teaching young kids [Archive]

otoko

Sep 22, 2008, 12:47

And, although this is a side note, I totally DISagree with hanachan and Mikawa. There are many countries that teach more than one language simultaneously with success.
Besides, the main point of teaching English to youngsters (younger than JHS age) is to motivate them for JHS and SHS, where the education really begins (and sadly where the whole education process needs to change, but that is a whole other topic).

I don't think a foreign language is needed by most of the Japanese population most of the time. I also do not think that what other countries do is a reason for Japan to do something. The merits of learning a second language are enough to debate whether it is needed.

You point out that teaching youngsters English is to motivate them for JHS and HS. I don't see how that works. There will be kids who won't care for learning English at all. There will be kids who might have an interest but it would depend on the teaching methods or the teacher. Empirically I have not met many Japanese children, or adults who have gone through English language learning who have good English language ability. I do not think the blame can be on the education process. I think it is more simple, they don't care and there is no motivation to care because there is little use for it.

I understand the benefits of learning a second language. Most won't have any use for those benefits. Is "exposure" to a second language in school beneficial, I do not know. The idea is nice but whether it makes a big difference down the road compared to not being exposed I do not know. In my experience it just seems to have been a waste of time for most people.

My sister graduated from Keio HS in NY. She was born and raised there so she speaks English. She speaks Japanese because not only because she took JSL(Japanese as second language) at Keio but because her parents are Japanese and the language is spoken at home and the majority of Keio HS students are from Japan. The main spoken language on campus is Japanese. In contrast the majority of the student body in Japan born and bred. They attend a HS(though it is a boarding school) in NY and take English language courses with American teachers(at ridiculous tuition) and their English sucks after 3 years.

When there is no practical need for a second language I don't think those that don't care about learning a second language are going to find any motivation.

Emoni

Sep 23, 2008, 09:10

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.

I'm going to be very direct after reading this post and your previous one. You are not only being silly, but extremely immature. If this is a concern of yours I truly hope you find another line of work as a question this egocentric and insecure is disappointing when I know many who would be much more qualified applicants than one who behaves and thinks in this limited manner. Claiming that you want to make a difference, but posting this shows only that you are willing to say the words, but no willing to go forward with the effort behind them.

You should be concerned not about yourself and your image playing with puppets, but on best how to teach children. After seeing your previous post on how to marry a Japanese woman, and then this... it is very clear that your priorities are wrong from the start. Don't even apply please.

dreamer

Sep 23, 2008, 09:43

I agree with everyone who expressed the idea that *going down* to the kids level is absolutely not silly at all. Kids are kids and people think what they want. Teaching involves setting yourself at a level that is slighly above the kid's level and help him reaching it, making little progression at a time.

Why would you think of what other people are thinking of you if you play with puppets? Are you going to Japan to present an image of the masculine male to kids that young?

However, I do not really agree with the idea of focusing on learning the primary language first. Since My family comes from Hong Kong, cantonese is my mothertongue, but since I spent 7-8hours at school per day, I was also able to pick up french very quickly. Even nowadays, despite the lack of vocabulary (not gotten much practice) in cantonese, I can speak without any accent in both languages.

However if it is indeed a 2hours/day course, it might indeed be useless...

Glenski

Sep 23, 2008, 14:04

Anglo-Canadians speak and write French at native level,really ?
Didn't say that. Read more carefully.

I don't think a foreign language is needed by most of the Japanese population most of the time. With the age of the population where it is, and where it's going, that is perhaps true for the ancient ones here, but with globalization an eventuality, Japanese have to learn something. Chinese, Korean, English, whatever. Business at home is failing. Science at home is stifled.

You point out that teaching youngsters English is to motivate them for JHS and HS. I don't see how that works. There will be kids who won't care for learning English at all. There will be kids who might have an interest but it would depend on the teaching methods or the teacher.Yup, depends on that all right. I agree 101%. And, all the more reason why things should change right now, instead of suddenly implementing English in elem ed without training the J teachers how to do it.

Motivation is the key with the younger kids. Should be pretty obvious. If they think playing soccer is fun (not all will, of course, but give them the chance), then they will have more of a reason to go out for the team in HS and university. Same applies to English, except that it is actually mandatory in schools, so why the heck NOT motivate them before they get smacked in the face with nouns, verbs, dangling modifiers, etc.? Then, there is also the theory of getting them while they are young and their brains are more receptive...

Empirically I have not met many Japanese children, or adults who have gone through English language learning who have good English language ability. I do not think the blame can be on the education process.Me, too, on the first point. Totally disagree on the second point.

I do not think the blame can be on the education process. I think it is more simple, they don't care and there is no motivation to care because there is little use for it.Do you see the contradiction you just made, re: motivation? They may not see a use for it, because of the poor teaching methods and the educational system, which leads them to believe that getting good grades in HS is only a means to an end -- the stupid college entrance exams. Change this as well as motivate them early!

Oh, and by the way, there ARE reasons for needing English these days. TOEIC tests are required by about 80% of J businesses, for hiring, transfers, and promotions. If nothing else, this should stand out, but who tells the kids?

I understand the benefits of learning a second language. Most won't have any use for those benefits. Is "exposure" to a second language in school beneficial, I do not know.Again, you contradict yourself in 2 consecutive sentences! Which side of the fence are you on? Personally, I highly support taking a second language in HS (or earlier). Did so myself, even though I never used the language later.

Let me finish with an anecdote. Japan Times had this a few years ago. A Japanese businessman wrote in to say he had finally learned, almost too late, the value of English. In HS he never saw a need for it because he was going to work for his father's company instead of going to university or work for some big company. A few SHORT years later, the company decided to look abroad for business trade and other reasons. They needed someone to handle faxes, email, and other communications in English. His was the most recent education in English, so his father appointed the responsibility to him. He had to struggle to relearn what he had ignored, but it turned out to be far more important than he had imagined.

Never say never.

bruno

Sep 23, 2008, 20:40

You should be concerned not about yourself and your image playing with puppets, but on best how to teach children. After seeing your previous post on how to marry a Japanese woman, and then this... it is very clear that your priorities are wrong from the start. Don't even apply please.

Very good statement ! I agree with your opinion !

kireikoori

Sep 23, 2008, 22:07

I don't think kids that age should be subjected to the influence of gender roles so young, if this has anything to do with it, and not just the teacher worrying about his own masculinity.

I would rather be raped at that age then taught and coerced into being an image of masculinity.

HirokiNaka

Sep 23, 2008, 23:00

Just teach your kids like you want to do, you don't have to listen to anyone? You are the teacher >__<' so TEACH!!!

okay wait that sounded a bit ridiculous, no what I want to say is just do whatever you like in a way that you want to teach. If you think that puppets will help then do it, if you want to dress like an action figure or a kangaroo then do it. Like Uncle Frank said a laugh of a child is more worth then money.

To teach a child requires the strenght to become a child.
A good teacher always comes up with something new. :cool:

Chirpy9

Sep 24, 2008, 14:38

When I read this post, my first reaction was, Gawwwd, who this person is who is coming up with such silly ideas and questions..
Now that NewHero has got enought dose, I would sum it up thus for him.
In case you want to teach, teach with good intentions and innocence thinking that these are just kids, and that they do not, I repeat DO NOT, care if a guy is masculine enough or not in holding a puppy or a teddy. All they need is happiness and they get happiness in such little things.
In case you think you care too much about your "Masculinity" and less about "Innocence", I guess teaching is not the profession for you.

otoko

Sep 24, 2008, 15:24

Me, too, on the first point. Totally disagree on the second point.
Do you see the contradiction you just made, re: motivation? They may not see a use for it, because of the poor teaching methods and the educational system, which leads them to believe that getting good grades in HS is only a means to an end -- the stupid college entrance exams. Change this as well as motivate them early!

No, it was not a contradiction. There are those who will have no interest regardless of the methods used. There are those for whom it will matter. These are two different groups. That was my point.

There should be effort to help those with the motivation/interest. Those with no interest should be able to take something else. If I understand correctly you are saying there is a causual relationship between English teaching methods and motivation to learn English. I don't agree. Then if they change the methods then all students will be motivated to learn English. I highly doubt that.

I don't think the blanket approach being used is an effective use of resources. I think English should be an elective course. To do that English should be eliminated from the college entrance exams.

Oh, and by the way, there ARE reasons for needing English these days. TOEIC tests are required by about 80% of J businesses, for hiring, transfers, and promotions. If nothing else, this should stand out, but who tells the kids?

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? 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. 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?

Again, you contradict yourself in 2 consecutive sentences! Which side of the fence are you on? Personally, I highly support taking a second language in HS (or earlier). Did so myself, even though I never used the language later.
Let me finish with an anecdote. Japan Times had this a few years ago. A Japanese businessman wrote in to say he had finally learned, almost too late, the value of English. In HS he never saw a need for it because he was going to work for his father's company instead of going to university or work for some big company. A few SHORT years later, the company decided to look abroad for business trade and other reasons. They needed someone to handle faxes, email, and other communications in English. His was the most recent education in English, so his father appointed the responsibility to him. He had to struggle to relearn what he had ignored, but it turned out to be far more important than he had imagined.
Never say never.

I didn't know I had to be on one side of the fence.
I think on the surface English language education sounds like a good idea. At the early stages exposing children to English might be a good idea. I have not researched whether there are studies on this. Taking a long view though I become more skeptical.
Your anecdote is just that, an anecdote. Your anecdote could very well be any language. Justification for teaching millions of children year after year it is not.

grapefruit

Sep 24, 2008, 15:54

No, it was not a contradiction. There are those who will have no interest regardless of the methods used. There are those for whom it will matter. These are two different groups. That was my point.
There should be effort to help those with the motivation/interest. Those with no interest should be able to take something else. If I understand correctly you are saying there is a causual relationship between English teaching methods and motivation to learn English. I don't agree. Then if they change the methods then all students will be motivated to learn English. I highly doubt that.
I don't think the blanket approach being used is an effective use of resources. I think English should be an elective course. To do that English should be eliminated from the college entrance exams.
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? 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.
What you are saying is so true. Japan needs to re-think about its approach to English education.

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?

Definitely, the current system is an inefficient way of using resources. However, the justification of teaching English to everyone is not as simple as we wish to be. That is, the scope of current compulsory education is not limited to what is important and useful in life. If the sole purpose of English teaching was the usefulness, then I would agree with what you are saying. But, what are taught in public school generally include impractical knowledge. Say, what is the purpose of teaching complex mathematical concepts like calculus to all high school students? Music and art education will be included in this group of subjects. What about classical Japanese?

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.

Emoni

Sep 24, 2008, 16:21

I would rather be raped at that age then taught and coerced into being an image of masculinity.

I didn't know child rape was the alternative to stereotypes...

Chirpy9

Sep 24, 2008, 17:04

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

Sep 24, 2008, 18:11

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

Sep 24, 2008, 20:07

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

Sep 24, 2008, 21:20

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

Sep 25, 2008, 08:28

Emoni

Sep 26, 2008, 12:41

grapefruit

Sep 26, 2008, 14:17

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

Sep 27, 2008, 07:45

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

Sep 27, 2008, 08:44

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

Sep 27, 2008, 08:51

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 themselvesYes, 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

Sep 27, 2008, 12:02

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

Sep 27, 2008, 12:12

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

Sep 27, 2008, 12:19

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

Glenski

Sep 27, 2008, 16:56

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

Sep 28, 2008, 02:48

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

Sep 28, 2008, 09:53

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

Sep 28, 2008, 12:02

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

Sep 28, 2008, 12:22

Japanese creativity in inventions is notoriously poor.

That is a notoriously tired stereotype.

grapefruit

Sep 28, 2008, 12:53

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.:wave:

Chayssie

Sep 28, 2008, 13:25

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:cool:!!!

Chayssie

Sep 28, 2008, 13:33

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!!!
:wave:

otoko

Sep 29, 2008, 13:32

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

Sep 29, 2008, 21:13

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

Sep 30, 2008, 02:37

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

Sep 30, 2008, 06:57

ASHIKAGA

Sep 30, 2008, 11:08

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

Sep 30, 2008, 11:39

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

Sep 30, 2008, 12:24

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 :wave: 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

Sep 30, 2008, 12:44

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 :wave: 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

Sep 30, 2008, 12:46

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

Sep 30, 2008, 12:51

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

Sep 30, 2008, 12:55

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

Sep 30, 2008, 13:02

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

Sep 30, 2008, 13:34

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

Sep 30, 2008, 13:44

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.:relief:

pipokun

Sep 30, 2008, 19:45

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

Oct 1, 2008, 01:40

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

Oct 1, 2008, 08:53

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

[QUOTE] 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

Oct 1, 2008, 11:07

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

otoko

Oct 1, 2008, 13:08

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

Oct 1, 2008, 13:38

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

Oct 1, 2008, 14:11

otoko

Oct 1, 2008, 17:46

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.

[QUOTE]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

Oct 1, 2008, 17:50

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

Oct 1, 2008, 19:18

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

Oct 1, 2008, 20:03

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

Oct 2, 2008, 06:58

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

Oct 2, 2008, 11:29

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

Oct 2, 2008, 11:38

grapefruit

Oct 2, 2008, 11:39

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.:cool: 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.

GodEmperorLeto

Oct 2, 2008, 15:47

There was a whole discussion on another thread (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38621) 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.
I've read academic articles on the subject. I prefer a somewhat balanced approach, but the immersion method is the current "fad" in linguistic educational theory. I was friends with a number of linguistics PhD candidates in grad school and got to hear a lot of their arguments over this topic and after listening and reading some of it myself, I feel both methods applied properly can complement one-another.

(Some say the hidden goal is to produce Japanophiles, who will in the future become influential in their home countries).
That would explain why a lot of Japanophiles don't get the job--if they are already lovers of Japan, why bring them over? You'd be surprised (or, well, maybe you wouldn't be) regarding how many of my friends who speak Japanese and are very interested in the culture did not get hired, despite being very qualified for the job.

Then again, most American Japanophiles think the country is one big darn anime and wear cat-ears and stuff.

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.
Notice how the OP starts these provocative threads then just abandons them?