My worry is related with the topic
we have just seen in the lesson. Do we have to talk our children in our own
language while we are teaching them? Is it good if we translate them some
vocabulary which they may do not know?
As I see it, to learn a new language
it is much better to hear the new language as much as possible. Teachers should
speak using the foreign language most of the time during the lesson. But from
my point of view, that would just work in higher levels when children have
already enough knowledge to understand the explanations, definitions or new
vocabulary without the necessity of using your own language.
It is said that translating words or
using your own language from time to time is not good for children. But right
now I want to post you a question: What about if the pupil cannot understand
any word of what you are saying? What about if the student cannot follow any of
the explanation which of course influence his learning?
Students who are in first or second
grade cannot even read perfectly in Spanish, how can we ask them to read
properly in English? We know that all our students are different and each one
has their own level or learn in a different way.
Most of the students who come from
kindergarten cannot even spell a word or they cannot transcript correctly the
words they are listening, for example while doing dictation. As you all know,
words in English are not written as they sound. That makes them even more
difficult to learn this new language. My experience with a first year child has
taught me that even if he has studies a word and the child has written it
twenty times before, when you ask him to write it again saying the word using
the correct pronunciation, he won´t know the word. Young students have
difficulties relating words and sound.
We were taught using a translating
method and generally, our oral and hearing skills are very low. New students
are being taught without using it, without even translating a word. Do you
think that it will work out?
I consider that we should mix up
both methods, what is your idea about it?
I am really looking forward to
hearing your opinions, thoughts and arguments. I will probably learn from you
all.
Thanks.
Julia.
I´ve tought about this same theme a lot of times too. I´ve always tought that we have to mix both languages because, as Julia says, maybe some students can get lost while explaining something or pupils just do not understand some words. But last year, when I was on TP in a 2nd year class, the English teacher spoke to his pupils all time in English; maybe he talked in Spanish sometimes but never for explaining what he had already said in English related with the theory. I leart that it is possible just to speak in the foreing language. The teacher used to ask children if they had understood the explanation and he usually asked more to the pupils he knew had more difficulties in English.
ResponderEliminarBut a little part of me still believes that we have to combine both languages. I have the same opinion as Julia when she says that the more we talk to a child in English the better he will learn, but I think that we can´t be so close-minded when trying to speak all the time in English. I think we have to be flexible and if we think we have to use our native language, go ahead and use it; but always taking into account that if we abuse of our native tongue, this will probably produce bad consequences to the pupils.
Really good point, Julia!! It's one of my 'eternals questions' too.
EliminarI have no doubt about what would be the 'ideal' education (for me). English as a second language in that ideal education would be taught trying to assimilate the way we learn our own language. How did we learn Spanish? During approximately one year, we weren't allow to pronounce a word, but we understood what people said (LISTENING). Then, we were able to speak! We couldn't speak properly, but we could communicate with others (SPEAKING). After that, we went to nursery and primary school, where we were taught how to read and how to write, at the age of 5 or 6 (READING & WRITING).
So I strongly believe that English should be taught in the same way that we learnt our own language.
However, how did we learn English? We mainly learnt how to write and how to read. After that, we tried to improve our listening skills (so difficult!!); we couldn't understand the speakers, but we could understand a text. And speaking? well, nothing to be said regarding to this. We think that we know English, and then, when we really need to use it, we realise that nobody can understand we!
We've been studying English for a long time, but we don't have the level we were supposed to get after being studying it for so long time. Something didn't work. And I would say it is not working either. 'We' (teachers) try that a '0 year old child' (comparing with the acquisition of our mother tongue) learns how to write; we try that a '1 year old child' learns how to read; and then we hope they can understand and speak perfectly! What a mess!! I think it works the way around.
All in all, I think that English lessons have to be taught totally in English. However, our 'brilliant' Educative Spanish System doesn't really matter about the speaking skills (have you ever been examined orally?). And here I post my question: Should we (as teachers) follow the law? or should we 'leap' over it?
I would like to contribute to answer the question Julia did in class as well as she has posted right here.
ResponderEliminarWhenever you want a human being to learn a language you have to speak them in that language. You have to.
It's not an excuse whatever the age of the pupils. even when they have no words to name their ideas it does not make their knowledge narrower.
For us , teachers, the simplest way to teach a language is using the translating method (giving synonyms to translate ideas), as it is thought that labelling concepts is the way children are able to learn them.
And let me say, this is an awful mistake, especially when trying to learn a language so different in structure from ours.
The thing is that beginners in a language should have the opportunity to learn by being given examples and practising more than translating. For instance, if you want to teach the adj. happy, you'd better giving that child a representation of the word meaning (for example "happy" :flashcards, gestures, symbols, e.g., one that allows them to continue thinking in the learning language)than saying "happy=contento" that is no other thing than looking for a translation.
So for those cases when you think the only possibility is giving a synonym, avoiding the mother tongue and giving the synonyn in the learning language is the reasonable thing to do.
The thing we have to realize is that
children do not have to previously know the words you use with them, because the don't.
We shouldn't forget that children as young as they are understand pretty well explanations by gestures, and most of the times they deduce form context ideas, concepts, whatever we are expressing.
So when finding difficult not using the mother tongue, we'd better helping ourselves with any other means of expression.
As Julia and Victor say, I think that this is one of the “key questions” of teaching in general and of language teaching specially. I find many problems to answer it. But I have always thought that our main problem is the following question: “What do we really want to teach?”
ResponderEliminarWe know perfectly that according to the current curriculum, a teacher has to help his students to develop the key competences. Some years ago, I attended a lecture about the communicative competence. The lecturer, who was an English teacher, said that to teach English is not to talk in English in all the session. She told us that an English teacher has to teach his students to communicate. And if they communicate in English, perfect!!! The lecturer told us an anecdote that I always remember:
One day, a seven year old student asked to his teacher: “I can go to the toilet, please?” The teacher answered: “That’s wrong!” because the child had made an obvious mistake. Then, the child repeated the question with the same mistake and the teacher’s answer was the same again. Then, the boy who really needed to have a pee shouted in Spanish: “¡¡Que si puedo ir al servicio, por favor!!”
The lecturer asked us the following: “Was the child’s question really bad?”, “Didn’t the teacher understand what the boy wanted to say in English?”, “Did the boy communicate with his teacher in English?” Then she said that the child was an excellent child because he had used English to communicate something although he had made a mistake.
The teacher, who wanted that in her class everybody talked in English and properly, didn’t know that the child was trying to communicate something extremely necessary, and he was doing a great effort. It seemed that the teacher didn’t understand English…
P.D.: Finally, the child went to the toilet.
According to Gonzalo's comment, I would like to say, that if we want our students to speak in English, we obviously have to correct their mistakes, but not always. I mean, we can't say the all day, this is not correct, you have to say ... because if we are continuously correcting them, they are going to leave it, and speak Spanish.
ResponderEliminarSo in my opinion, related with the situation before, I think that the child should have been able to go to the toilet, because he tried to communicate in English and made an effort, so this is the important thing,for me, that he is trying to use it, time (and us, like teachers) will correct his mistakes.
Clap your hands for Carmen. Totally agree with u :)
ResponderEliminarWhen I was in the practical period I went for an hour to Arts and Crafts class in 2nd year. The teacher spoke English perfectly and she pronounced the words slowly, making gestures. In this class she wanted the children cut a piece of paper and she explained it in English at the same time as she was doing it with the scissors and a piece of paper. The children understood it perfectly and they started to do it.
ResponderEliminarThe teacher told me that with demonstrating technique is useful for the children to understand what you mean. The no-verbal communication complements the verbal one.
Now that we are studying different methodology I realize that she used the direct method giving importance to the listening skill and teaching vocabulary through the association of ideas and gestures with words.
Because of this, I think it is possible to use only English in Arts and Crafts but it is more difficult to do it in other subjects. For example, how can you explain, using demonstrating ,the meaning of feature of a landscape??? It’s not easy. You can use images or a further explanation but sometimes students understand it perfectly with the Spanish word. However, I think there is a problem in translating words: the children understand the English word in the moment but then they forget it. It has happened to me a lot when I was at school. On the other hand, it is easier for the teacher to use it, as Susana has said, but all we think that it is more important what children can learn with us than how easy the lessons are for us. So, the dictionary can translate a word for them at any time in their lifes but we can make easier to remember this word helping students to join it with a image or with our own gestures.
I think it is a difficult, essential question the one Julia has asked. Now we can give our opinions but the answer only will come when we will try them at schools.