Ecclectic ramblings of an English teacher

Hi

Thank you all for your patience.

I am slowly coming to the conclusion that I am not a teacher, like Mike who sees his role as a coach I see my role as a facilitator of the English language. In this role I believe there is a necessity to draw upon whatever resources we can and in my practical experience, the private schools I have worked in may not the resources readily available or willingly accept change. Regardless of this, currently, my viewpoint is the lexical approach, genre and SFL provide rich resources waiting to be exploited by us as we “facilitate” the students learning of the English language.

The problem and critique of the lexical approach is the lack of a detailed learning theory and the memorization of an abundant number of “chunks” (Thornbury, 1998). However given the theoretical basis of noticing is not clearly defined, input that becomes intake is likely to be enhanced by the lexical approach and I tend to agree “it is likely to be helpful to make learners explicitly aware of the lexical nature of language” (Lewis, 2000, p.161), and without focusing explicitly on the grammar. This was clearly illustrated in the idea of “a game” (Lewis, 2000) where the generalisations and analyses provide incomplete rules. However students want explanations and what can I do except use the standard grammar descriptions? Clearly the answer is more training but in what! SFL offers an approach to provide an explanation which is more complete than the traditional grammar approach and I view it as something we as teachers can draw upon to explain to students as required when they are being exposed to lexical chunks. Of course this is provided I know SFL which at present I find daunting!

The school I work in has prepared its own materials and has a set syllabus which I have taught and the focus is on form, vocabulary, listening, reading and communicative competency Assessments for students are based on the first four “skills” and the last is by the teacher being observed. There is little time to do anything else as there are tests based on this material every six weeks. Success in these tests results in the students moving up to the next level as they have demonstrated they have attained the necessary competency for that level. There is no writing assessment and clearly the grammar points, which they have “mastered” is ineffective when the students write a short essay. Writing is left for the IELTS and EAP classes.

My criticism is not directed at the approaches but the practical application in the classroom. In particular, the issues revolve around private language schools, which need to cater to the whims of the international student and they tend to take a factory mentality approach with teaching staff. Firstly, International students have preconceived ideas of what makes a good teacher, teaching methodology that is “radically different” to their expectations results in complaints, especially if they do not have a productive component in the lessons. For instance, “we do not have a chance to speak or use English”, “we want to speak more English” resulting in a focus on communicative competency. However there are other students who see this as unhelpful as they want to study a degree programme or go to a New Zealand university so they have specific English requirements such as doing an IELTS course or an EAP course. Here the benefits of having a repertoire of “approaches” that we as teachers can draw upon are invaluable. For instance “reaching in” to the genre approach and using moves for the different types of text from letters to more academic expositions I believe offers students more in terms of noticing and understanding the English language for their specific requirements.

Secondly, teachers do not have enough time to prepare materials especially when they are teaching at least 5 hours a day and have to supervise activities as required for pastoral care. However it does not mean that we should not try to learn more or get more training, it is getting the institution to recognise the teachers are an asset to be developed rather than be used.

To conclude the more I learn the less I know but I find it stimulating as we explore the approaches.

L8ter

Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocations: Further developments in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Thornbury, S. (1998).The Lexical Approach: A journey without maps? Modern English Teacher.