It has been twenty years since I gave my first English lesson. I was only 14 and we lived in the mountains surrounding the proud city of Málaga. I enjoyed it so much, that I seriously considered it as a future occupation. I was also interested in the European Union and its political manoeuvrings and I did part of my university course on the subject, along with two languages: French and Russian. So as I am now giving language training at the European Institutions, I can say that I have made it - I have arrived at the top of my profession; the pinnacle of my career.
The one thing I have learned in these two decades in pedagogy, with an estimation of 400 students who have taken my courses, is that every one of them is an individual with different learning needs, different habits in the classroom and different knowledge of one or other aspect of the language. The one thing they do have in common is that they fit a proscribed language level. But they are not school pupils where everyone learns together from day one. That's where the similarities end. Where one student may be good at grammar and theory but bad at speaking and writing, another one may be good at listening and reading but bad at grammar and theory. And that is why no one method can ever be applied in the classroom.
A certain international company based in the US giving language training goes one step further: it provides its trainers with manuals so that they never need their imagination ever again. The trainer is not allowed to use explanations and certainly not allowed to explain using graphs, lists or charts which show how the grammar of this language might work. If this wasn't enough, it then provides certain phrases per page in the manual that the trainer should spoonfeed the student with, e.g. "the photocopier doesn't work". Well hello! How in the name of sanity is the student then supposed to relate the negative form if he/she is not shown how it works in the first place? The student can know far more about grammar if a wider explanation is given concerning that point than just a poor lonely memory phrase.
Furthermore, the trainers at this establishment are told they will be docked bonus money if they deviate from the methods, or if anomalies are found in the progress of their clients. In other words, clients will not learn too quickly or the company will lose money, nor will they learn nothing or they will find alternative places to learn. Another striking aspect about this multinational is that people still go there to "learn". And the company keeps growing. This shows something about our tastes... In their localities they are the most expensive usually, and they pay the least. In Brussels for example they pay a pro-rata wage which on paper seems adequate, if you're called to work for the full amount of time. The reality is most trainers there earn about 36% of the average trainer's salary, due to being allotted very few hours. There is also a clause in their contracts stipulating that they cannot work for a competitor during this time either, something that everyone else is permitted to do.
Anyway, back to the methods:
One thing that has made my blood boil over the years is this "approach" word. Every language school has an "approach"; a way of delivering lessons in their own little bundle. What these people fail to realise is that each individual needs to be shown in a different way depending on their own abilities. Children until about 8 or 9 are able to assimilate languages pretty simply because their brain is still whole. But after then, the two lobes become ever more separate and this is where the senior school makes a great difference and also where it has got the balance right. People respond much better to an academic way of learning simply because it provides the student with rules and exceptions, tables and charts of grammar and vocabulary. Language learners of any age respond far more quickly to this because they had been doing it in senior school, and that is the method they are acquainted with.
This is not saying that everyone is like this, but as this method has withstood the test of time, it has a majority of supporters. If this is combined with some of the more realistic contemporary forms of learning, a win-win situation can only come from it. Sticking to the target language works for those above beginner level, and has to work if participant and trainer do not have a common tongue. But where they do, it would be wrong not to speed things up with a gentle nudge in the right direction as long as it does not become overbearing. Trainers, especially polyglots, should under no circumstances show off their language skills by translating. However, they should use their knowledge to provide clear explanations as to why rules are different between languages, where words come from, spelling and pronunciation differences and similarities. By simply telling the student this is how it is and that's all they need to know, you are cutting off the tentpegs of language memory and assimilation. By giving them a reason or an explanation you are making sure they can digest subtle differences far more easily than simply spoonfeeding the student with information.
However, my main aim in this entry is to tell you the most important word in language learning. The word which, if properly administered, can increase learning speed. That word is why. By answering it, you are opening up whole avenues of easily memorised words, grammar rules and spellings. For without an explanation, students have nothing to grip onto, no attachment to their own language (because let's face it, we all translate when learning languages). By giving that attachment, you are teaching the student to think outside their own language without knowing it and to detach him/herself from the mother tongue discreetly, almost clandestinely, whilst making them feel like you are giving them an easy and comfortable ride towards a higher level of understanding.
Most trainers usually enter a language training establishment with visions of smiling, happy students. They do not realise how disillusioning the experience can become if methods are forcibly applied when the trainer's own methods have been successful already. Especially as they know that applicant needs money. They can say and do what they want because at the end they pay you. But I say, do not let anyone bully you into accepting their "methods". Trainers do not work comfortably when they are not happy with the regime. It is a recipe for failure and simply has no place in the classroom. Be yourself; inspire; judge the student before applying the methods; don't allow pedagogical bigotry to spoil your profession. If they do want you to apply their methods, just agree - go along with what they say, and when they're not looking or listening (which is most of the time) carry on doing what you have always done! Your own methods are the best, whatever anyone says, and that includes the language schools.
No comments:
Post a Comment