|
Post by Otaku on Jan 15, 2008 9:41:52 GMT 8
I created this thread because I want to know what problems you see with your textbooks. Any of MEXT's English textbooks are okay. The website might only have 4 textbooks on the site right now but it will eventually have all 7. This isn't a bitching thread but a thread about legitimate problems with the textbooks. Meaning, if you post a problem, back it up with a concrete reasoning. Posts that resemble "I think the 'because' grammar shouldn't be taught cuz it's bad," will be deleted.
I normally don't like to focus too negative things too much because it can easily leak into your attitude at work but I am looking to create a webpage that will list all the problems with the textbooks. I believe in order for the textbooks to ever have a chance of being fixed and corrected, the problems must first be identified.
Here's the problems that I've noticed:
1. 1st graders' first lesson is the alphabet. Their second lesson is words. There is no teaching the students how to read.
3. 'Written' grammar rules are found on 'conversational' pages. Just like Japanese grammar, spoken and written English grammar rules differ.
4. Superscripted katakana over words the students might not know how to read.
5. Everyday useful words aren't taught (dish, chopsticks, plant, glue, scissors, directions, etc.) Instead, the textbooks have randomly useless words (starve, technology, biotechnology, Freddie, curfew, grounded, discipline, chemicals, cancer, life of Rachel Carson, environmental, pollution, scientist, lullaby, rock concert, fester, braille, etc.)
6. Textbooks focus on 'internaltionization' rather than focusing on English. They even go as far as telling the students about countries whose 1st language isn't English. The English classes reflect social studies classes rather than focusing on REAL English.
7. Since the early grades in elementary school and into JHS, the subject of 'time' is taught, but never ONCE does it ever mention the big thingy that displays the time -- clock. The word 'clock' is not in New Horizon's English textbooks. "o'clock" is mentioned but not "clock".
Let's go folks! Help me build a webpage!
|
|
|
Post by hellndie on Jan 15, 2008 11:28:09 GMT 8
Internationalization in Japanese Education is not internationalization.
1. Japanese students who study aboard probably boost up their English and gain some perspectives to the country's cultures/traditions. They return to Japan for HS or college entrance exam and it seems as though the moment they step back home, they are almost guarantee to begin the process to "be Japanese" again. I have articles to prove that these returnees are put in classes to re-Japanized once they are back. Reasons are that students need to get familiar with the Japanese education system again so that they can pass the HS/college entrance exams, students need to get familiar with how society functions so they can survive, etc. This society is not ready to accept other cultures. There are exceptional schools where teachers will encourage students to share what they learn in other countries but they are still compelled to prepare these students for entrance exams or society. The question comes to be... if you can't acknowledge another culture or tradition, is that internationalization?
What is the significance of teaching about other cultures or countries in the JHS textbooks IF they are just meaningless words? Also, teaching about a landscape of a country or a foriegn word in the JHS textbook IS NOT internationalization nor saying anything about that country/ culture.
What does internationalization means in this country?
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Feb 19, 2008 14:34:20 GMT 8
In the 1st grade New Horizon textbook, the students learn the word 'bike' on page 27. The word 'ride', which is the verb for bike, is not taught until page 84. AND, the 'ride' verb only references a boat. The textbook doesn't even put the two verbs together -- ride a bike.
Sheesh!
|
|
yopparaisaru
Englipedia Fana
I drink copious amounts of fire and piss excellence
Posts: 312
|
Post by yopparaisaru on Feb 21, 2008 8:26:01 GMT 8
My biggest beef with the New Horizon book (what I use at my JHS) is that for first years, while they learn verbs like cook and make, and have an entire unit on ordering hamburgers, they never learn the verb To Eat. You would think thats prolly one of the most basic verbs in the English language. I was caught in a class once, asking the students what they like to eat. Only to have the JTE take me aside and say have, what do you like to have, the students don't know eat. I was like what the hell? First of all What do you do like to have and what do you like to eat have completely different meanings. "I have toast in the morning" my reply: Congratulations, do you put in your mouth and chew? Perhaps even swallow afterwards? Hmm I wonder if there's a magical word that easier to say than have that could explain this mystical process. Oh wait I know, EAT.
Also can't say wake/woke up, cause they don't know that either (1st years again) gotta say got up. But then I guess thats just symanitcs, since they can mean the same thing, I guess I just like using the specifically correct verb in question. I eat rice, I wake up. etc... Ok well thats my rant for today.
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Feb 21, 2008 11:19:34 GMT 8
Drunken Monkey, I exalt you! Rant on anytime. Well said, Yopparaisaru! I too have run into the 'have' versus 'eat' problem. I just tell the teacher that I am completely fluent in the language they are teaching and I will not change how I speak to appease a textbook that was created by people who speak English as a second language. I would NEVER DARE tell a Japanese person to choose one Japanese word over another! That would be an insult!
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Mar 3, 2008 9:26:01 GMT 8
Here's another problem with textbooks and maybe Raindrop can chime in on how she teaches this in class.
My JTE, god bless her soul, was giving a quiz today where she was testing the students on the new words. One of the new words consisted of 'get to'. To me, this sounded strange and I asked her to use it in a sentence. She said, "I get to school at 8:10."
AAAHHHH!! I finally understood! The problem is 'to' is connect to school in her example sentence NOT the verb. I knew this couldn't be something that she was screwing up on purpose so I went to the textbook and sure enough, on p.78 it teaches 'get to'.
As much as I am disgusted by the Nazis and all the book burnings, maybe it's time for Japan to do that with the MEXT ok'd English textbooks. WAIT! Then, Englipedia would become a moot site...or would it. NOT! The site's foundation index is based upon grammar...something the textbooks don't have a clue about.
|
|
|
Post by regi2 on Mar 5, 2008 7:35:14 GMT 8
Griping with this for a while now...
Textbooks are defined as 'a book used in teaching, giving the main facts about a subject'. In light of this, textbooks should be used as a basis of facts (which we know the JHS books lack in their acknowledgment of). If the facts are wrong, then the learning is wrong.
Also, the study of language or any subject extends beyond the facts and should look into the application of these facts to the real world. Textbooks should be used as a BASIS for learning, but should not be the unquestionable be-all end-all of study of a subject area.
The textbook doesn't need to have a section teahcing students how to read- it should be up to the teacher to realise this is an essential aspect and thus include it into the curriculum at their discretion.
I think the focus on social issues gives the students something to focus on that they normally wouldn't in other subjects. In what subject do they learn about social issues inthe world? Linking the culture to language learning as opposed to linking a culture in which they will more likely shy away from using the language is important. It is important to see the language as unattached to their culture, and yet later on fior the link to be made that it can be made useful in their culture.
The textbooks need backing with a teachers own thinking. We know this is not happening in Japan, which makes the structure of the textbook idealistic and impracticle. When the Japanese teachers start to think outside the textbook and use it as a GUIDE for content, then the textbook problems will not seem so big to foriegn teachers.
|
|
|
Post by grumpyoldbastard on Apr 15, 2008 14:52:08 GMT 8
Not aware of the other books, but New Horizon lists the pronunciation of wh in words like "white" or "why" as [hw] when NOONE DOES THIS ANYMORE. [w] has been the standard pronunciation in the majority of English speakers worldwide for at least a couple of generations. Whose idea is it to put it in these books? I used to think it was cute but now I'm sick of my kids saying "FEN IS YOUA BASDAY!?"
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Apr 15, 2008 16:24:58 GMT 8
GOB,
Are you talking about the IPA alphabet placed next to the target vocabulary?
|
|
|
Post by grumpyoldbastard on Apr 16, 2008 7:51:00 GMT 8
Yup.
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Apr 16, 2008 8:21:45 GMT 8
In my personal opinion, I think IPA is a waste of time to learn if you are an ESL student or learning multiple languages at the same time. Phonics is the way to go. IPA is biased because the sounds written in the textbooks have an American midwest accent (I think it's midwest). However, people from all over English speaking countries come to Japan with different accents. You can spend weeks trying to learn the IPA alphabet, then look at a page full of English text and still not be able to read one word of it without being superscripted in IPA. I think IPA is the Roman alphabet version of katakana...of course, with more sounds. I know a lot of Asian countries use it in their classes but that is not a sound argument in my book. The whole world believed earth was flat...and it only took one radicalist to sail past the horizon to prove it wasn't true. PHONICS! PHONICS! PHONICS!
|
|
|
Post by grumpyoldbastard on Apr 16, 2008 9:22:28 GMT 8
What do you mean by phonics? IPA is actually an internationally (that's the 'I') recognized system created by linguists, with the direct intention being one symbol for every sound (roughly) in all of the world's languages. It's been adapted, with obvious simplifications, for ESL and other language learning and I have found knowing it incredibly useful in my own studies.
The IPA in New Horizon is used to describe word with a mishmash of 'standard' (yeah, mid-western) American English and British pronunciations (what American pronounces during [djuring]?), but that doesn't necessarily mean IPA as a whole is 'biased' towards American English.
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Apr 16, 2008 11:17:03 GMT 8
I'm eventually going to write a methodology on IPA vs. Phonics because it is something I have spent time researching. My first response to the 'I' in IPA being 'international' is that just because the America calls the baseball finals 'World Series' doesn't mean that it represent the entire world of baseball. The same goes for the IPA's acronymic 'I'. I will grant that the IPA alphabet does include every sound for every language. When I spoke of IPA being 'biased', I didn't mean toward the American English necessarily but rather in the ESL community in Japan. Meaning, with over 70 countries speaking English, the word "dog" is obviously going to sound different based upon who says it and and what country they are from. Even within one's own English-speaking country, people say the word differently. The impact of Japan's English textbooks being superscripted with IPA is it only assigns ONE way of saying the word, when I believe pronunciation should rest in the hands of the teacher, rather than a set of weird characters that assign one sound to a word, which is detrimental when that language is spoken all around the word. On the flipside, Phonics is unbiased in that it teaches a set of rules to when and where those sounds make those sounds. I believe Phonics is the glue that binds the English language. Any English teacher from any English-speaking country can use the same Phonics rules to teach their students how to read and pronounce words. I am also aware that Japan's English textbooks favor American word choices and grammar but I don't necessarily agree with MEXT's decision on which country's English to adopt. Furthermore, one could make the argument the textbooks do try to include other country's English by commonly leaving out the period (.) after Ms and Mr. However, grammar and word choices is another argument altogether. At the end of the day, even if we argee only American English accents should be taught in Japan's English classes, the IPA is accent biased because north, south, east and west accents differ. I believe it is detrimental to the ESL learner to assign an American mid-west accent to an English word, especially in Japan where things are followed in a painful and systematic method and rules are never questioned. On a side-note and facetiously speaking, I think the IPA alphabet was created by an elitist group wanting to form their own secret club and create a new lexicon of pompously sounding words to degrade and barrage anybody wanting to speak commonly about the English language. Come one, dento-labial, linguo-alveolar and glottal sound more like words a dentist would use...
|
|
|
Post by grumpyoldbastard on Apr 16, 2008 12:16:13 GMT 8
Exactly how little time have you spent researching this? Again, I feel a little hindered arguing with you because you still haven't explained this "Phonics" thing you are referring to, but your views on IPA are rather misguided.
IPA is not itself biased, if you were going to make the argument that its current use in Japanese textbooks is then I completely agree with you. However, IPA is a scientific notation and is completely suitable for explaining, for example, the differences between Southern American English and Mid-West American English or British English or even Swahili for that matter. Just because Japanese textbooks misuse it doesn't mean it's completely useless.
Also, I don't particularly see the problem with setting one type of English as a goal for a certain textbook. You say it should be based on the teacher, but seeing as grammar varies just as much as pronunciation from region to region, how do you possibly come up with a textbook that could suit every person who might possibly teach it? In other words, you argue that you want to neutralize pronunciation, but how do you neutralize grammar, or spelling for that matter?
I'm assuming you've studied some Japanese, what dialect of Japanese were those books written in? Kansai? Aomori? No, I'm sure your textbook was written in the standard Tokyo dialect, and that your teacher adhered as best they could to 'standard' Japanese.
And to completely agree with your side-note, IPA (the A is for alphabet, by the way, no need to say it twice) was written by an elite group, scientists. Just like dentists have their own vocabulary, so do linguists, and it just so happens that in the context of learning how language works linguistic vocabulary can be really useful, even if it's just the teacher who gets off his lazy ass and learns it. Like junior high math class uses a simplified version of the exact same notation that theoretical mathematicians use, why can't we use a simplified version of IPA?
And for the damn record, IPA is actually international, as opposed to the World Series.
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Apr 16, 2008 14:03:37 GMT 8
We both agree that IPA does have its purpose. We both also both agree that IPA application in Japan's English textbooks are quite bias. Let's also clear up my 'bias' comments in reference to IPA. Every time I have said 'IPA is biased', I have been talking about in regards to Japan's JHS English textbooks. This is my area of study and experience. I have never made a sweeping generalization of the entirety of IPA's usefulness. I'm sorry if it was misconstrued in that way. I think pretty much sums up the whole Japan-using-IPA-in-JHS-textbooks discussion. But, let's talk about IPA being used in general in the ESL classroom. I want to be very clear that I'm not arguing whether IPA should be used is the 'SL' classroom but rather its validity in the 'ESL' classroom. English is rather unique in that it has a set of rules (phonics) that are specific to the language and not the culture. Granted phonics works 60% of the time but from my experience in Japan's JHS English textbooks, that number is quite higher. Additionally, I would argue the 60% would be much higher if it didn't take into account English loan words. I'm not quite sure if you were trying to bait me when you made your quip about you being "hindered arguing about phonics". You basically said I have never given a definition of it. Let's step outside the debate's forum of rules, where it specifies you must define the main points, if you were truly confused, a simple google search would clear up any 'hindereance' you might of had. However, I thought I made it perfectly clear in my prior posts when I said, "Phonics teaches a set of rules to when and where sounds make those sounds...it teaches students how to read and pronounce words." If you are looking for specific examples of Phonics rules, you can go over to the Englipedia website and look through the phonics curriculum I've created. IPA was created mainly for 'elitist' groups to sit around and talk in-depth to each other about various languages. It was never meant to be used as a base for LEARNING a second language. Call me crazy, but in the ESL classroom, I think the educational materials used should be English-specific, which is exactly what phonics is. You asked the question about how you create a textbook to suit every person, seeing that English grammar and spelling are different? I would say the first step is to take out as much of the English bias as possible, which the most obvious is IPA. The moment you put it in the textbook, you create a bias. Meaning, you are telling the students the word 'dog' should be spoken in a American midwest accent. However, seeing that English is the unspoken 'I' language, it should remain as unbiased as possible and the word 'dog' should be dicated by the ESL teacher. So you might be asking, if the students don't have IPA, how do they read the words? The answer is quite simple: phonics. Phonics is not country-specific and it does not follow a certain country's spelling rules. Next, you asked, "you argue that you want to neutralize pronunciation, but how do you neutralize grammar, or spelling for that matter?" I'm not going to answer this question becaue you're now fading off topic into ESL methodologies. Additionally, IPA doesn't solve for neutralizing countries grammar and spelling differences so I'm quite uncertain as to why you asked this question to begin with. Finally, like I mentioned before, IPA was created mainly for linguists to come together and talk about all languages from a linguists' point-of-view. A 'simplified' version of IPA would simply create a simplified way for linguists to communicate; it has no specific relation to the ESL classroom and teaching ESL students. However, creating a 'simplified' phonics curriculum would help younger students read and pronounce words, including words they have never seen before...all while looking at English pages that don't contain IPA-crutched characters. Let's hypothetically delve into an ESL world of IPA. Let's say in this world every ESL teacher and student was fluent in IPA's 60 or so sounds that make up the English language. Students will no doubt fill in the textbooks with superscripted IPA and everybody will be talking in American midwest English accents. I argue that the students will be so dependent on their crop-circle-looking symbols that they won't be able to read any down-to-earth dick-and-jane English page without the help of their Rosetta stone IPA cheatsheet. However, if we could possible ween these IPA-addict off the sauce and give them a firm phonics foundation, we could give them a set of tools by which they could open up a regular English novel and start reading, a luxury IPA doesn't afford. I'm sure I've ruffled feathers by now but I want to let you know it was not my intention. I hope we can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Apr 17, 2008 8:36:46 GMT 8
I am only vaguely familiar with IPA so forgive me if I'm way off the mark. I am assuming IPA are the little funny characters found in the dictionary to aid in pronunciation. If so I admit they would be handy to know when I don't know how to pronounce a word, or if I wanted to know how it was pronounced in British English (just to name one of the many English dialects).
I agree with Otaku that phonics is a better way to introduce reading to students in Japan. However I also have to agree with grumpy that IPA is in fact more 'international and accurate' when one wants to know how to pronounce a word.
Phonics is a guide, a skill to help students decipher a word. There is no EASY way of looking at a word and knowing if it follows phonic rules and/or which rule it follows. It also doesn't give any clues on how the same word can be pronounced in different countries.
I teach phonics, but when I teach the short vowel sounds, I am 100% guilty of using an American accent. I cannot teach another accent because I don't know it. I have heard of stories in which non-US ALTs who are asked to teach US phonics by the Japanese teachers. I know I couldn't do it and I can imagine their frustration. To be fair the the Japanese teachers, I doubt they are aware of the differences.
In teaching English to beginners I think it is important to stick with one way of pronouncing words. It would be too confusing to say this is the British pronunciation and this is the US, Australian, Filipino.... Much easier to keep it to one. I am not saying, though, that it has to be the American mid-western accent.
My guess is that the IPA in JHS textbooks is more for the teachers to use. Luckily I haven't met a JHS teacher who teaches this to their students. It is probably used to coincide with the pronunciation on the CDs.
|
|
|
Post by grumpyoldbastard on Apr 17, 2008 9:19:44 GMT 8
While I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, that post actually unruffled my feathers, O, if that's actually a phrase. In complete honestly I did not know what phonics is, to me it was a vague word that needed explaining (isn't any method of teaching English something that "teaches a set of rules to when and where those sounds make those sounds"?)(anyway I got off my ass and looked it up, still not exactly sure what it is, but hey I'm just an unqualified ALT).
However, I did feel the need to defend IPA in general as you had some choice words about it. And while I never suggested using it as a base, especially to the extent of your example of students needing to superscript entire texts, my point was that as a methodical way of describing English, it could have use in an ESL setting. Of course phonics (as I understand it now) are necessary too, but as we all know English spelling is far from an accurate or methodical description of the spoken language (however essential it is to learning the language).
Pure phonics was devised and is useful for children who are native speakers of English, with no other language background, and for whom English is presumably the only language context in which they will be operating for a while. To assume that the same method will work for adolescents coming from a different language background is mistaken, in my opinion. If a child in Texas is reading a book and he doesn't understand how a word is pronounced, he can ask his mother or his brother or a friend or whomever. In Japan, who are the kids going to ask when the ALT isn't around?
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Apr 17, 2008 11:06:29 GMT 8
The International Phonetic Alphabet are those little squiggley marks you see in your textbooks next to the new vocabulary (usually only found in 2nd and 3rd year books). The IPA alphabet was created so linguistic scientists could disect languages and study them. Much like how the English language and the internet has connected the world, IPA has connected the people who study languages. Basically, IPA is the common language linguists communicate in. It is in this arena, I believe the IPA should remain. IPA is 'international' in the aspect that you can virtually take any word somebody says from any language and spell it using the IPA symbols. I think the idea of IPA is awesome! It's about finding a commonality or rather a base-platform where all language can co-exist at the same time. To me, that's a cool idea. However, what I'm about to say next, I'm sure I might be considered a 'radicalist'. I'm not comfortable with IPA being in dictionaries because it is assigning one pronunciation to one word and not taking into account accents. If you line up one person from California, Texas, Montana, Wisconsin and New York and have them start speaking, you will notice an immediate accent difference. If you were to use the IPA alphabet to spell every word they said, you will see the IPA spellings are often and sometimes radically different. The moment you assign one of these IPA spellings to correspond to a word in the dictionary, that IPA spelling is biased because it is telling the reader (if they can even read IPA) that particular word is pronounced in specific way. This is wrong because who is the authority to say how a word is exactly said? If such an authority existed, we wouldn't find different dialects and accents in the same country. I know what you must be thinking: "If IPA isn't included next to every word, what is the alternative way to read the word if you can't read it?" I have no idea what the alternative is; I'm not a genius but I would say something along the lines of teach phonics in school. What I'm saying is IPA spellings are biased to an individual or region. That being said, many dictionaries these days are combining IPA spellings and pseudo-phonetical spellings. This is a quote from the newest American Heritage Dictionary about their pronunciation symbols: "A list of the pronunciation symbols used in this Dictionary contain AHD and IPA. The column headed EXAMPLES contain words chosen to illustrate how the AHD symbols are pronounced. The letters that correspond in sound to the AHD symbols are shown in boldface. Although similar, the AHD and IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) symbols are not precisely the same because they were conceived for different purposes. I think dictionaries are finally catching onto the idea that IPA was not created or ever intended to be used in the public sector by the common person. Now, onto Phonics... Phonics has been around for more than 100 years but its rival is usually "Whole Language". Whole Language theory basically says that given ample exposure to a language, seeing a word over and over again, you will eventually osmosis it. Phonics is rarely pitted against IPA because English as a Second Language is a fairly new blip on the 'international radar'. I understand 'ESL' is not new, what I'm saying is ever since the creation of the internet (which is roughly 90% English), English has been non-verbally pushed into the international spotlight and been classified as the nonofficial-official international language. Like I stated before, Phonics has been around a long time but it has become an extremely heated discussion since 1955. I'm sure a lot of you have heard of the 'Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test'? I believe Microsoft Word uses this test. Well, one of the two people who created that test was Richard Flesch, author of the book "Why Johnny Can't Read," which was published in 1955. This book shunned the "Whole Language" theory because " it required learners to memorize words by sight. When confronted with an unknown word, the learner was stumped." In Plain English, Flesch loved phonics! For the next 25 years, 'Phonics' and 'Whole Language' did battle in the American education system. Unfortunately, Whole Language kept winning because the smart people kept screaming 'Whole Language is tradition,' while Phonics was regarded as a mere theory and their "English has rules" voices fell on deaf ears. It wasn't until the mid-80's that the government stepped in to take a new look at this 'phonics theory' and decided that maybe it did have some credence. I guess I can't rail too much on Japan's English education system because in 1984, the American government reassessed phonics. It wasn't until 1990 that Congress started getting on the 'phonics bandwagon', and it wasn't until 2000 that Congress and the National Reading Panel (formed in 1997 to assess effective reading strategies) finally publicly announced that: "phonics instruction is an effective method of teaching reading for students from kindergarten through 6th grade, and for all children who are having difficulty learning to read. They also found that phonics instruction benefits all ages in learning to spell. They also reported that teachers need more education about effective reading instruction, both pre-service and in-service."THAT WAS IN 2000! When looking at the entire history of English education, 2000 was just yesterday. In 2002, Britain's education system started seriously taking a look at this 'phonics theory'. Why? Because, phonics is a set of rules that is region-free! It is a set of rules that all English-speaking countries can use and apply to teach the basics of English. Now, on the the international aspect... So now we have 'English' and 'IPA' swirling around on the international table. It's not very surprising to see them collide with each other because those were the only two things on the table that could blend. However, with new trend in the English education policymakers, we are seeing a shift back towards phonics. This shift has resulted in a boxing bout between phonics and IPA. The greatest weapon phonics has in its corner is its English-specific rightcross, and the IPA's knockout blow is its tenure in the ESL community. So what SPECIFICALLY are these weird phonics rules? I'll briefly lay out a simple rule and show why it is truly unbiased and it doesn't matter what English-speaking country you're from. Let's look at the "short-vowel rule" (I call it the 'Usotsuki Mother' in my phonics classes). The rule is specific to 3-letter words that have a pattern of consonant-vowel-consonant, AND whose final consonant doesn't end in R, W or Y. For example, "bag, can, cap, cat, bed, get, net, big, sit, box, dog, not, bus, but, run, etc," which are just some of the short-vowel words found in your 1st year textbooks, which there are a total of 83 short-vowel words in New Horizon's textbook. The short-vowel rule says that the vowel used in these types of words ALWAYS have the same sound. Here's the impact of the rule, let's take for example the word 'cat'. Americans will say the 'a' with a nasal sound, as in 'apple'. However, a British person's 'a' will sound a bit different, depending on what part of Britain they are from. BUT, the phonics rule HOLDS THE SAME in both countries. The 'a' always has the same sound in short-vowel words. Despite it sounding differently in Britain versus America, the RULE IS THE SAME. It is my belief that phonics is the superglue that binds the English language. Yeah, phonics was designed be taught in an L1 (native language) environment, hence is why I created an 'original curriculum' designed for Japanese students. The Bubbleboy phonics curriculum differs from how phonics is taught back in America. Is the Bubbleboy curriculum infallible? Who knows! However, I've tested the entire curriculum in the classroom and have ironed out all the problem areas. It has proven to be successful in my schools, so much the teachers decided the students' new supplimental English books should have phonics in it. However, their decision made me want to cry because the book tries to teach phonics explained in katakana. However, that is a whole other discussion. I hope this has shed some light on some of my shorter 'pointed' posts.
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Apr 21, 2008 14:51:57 GMT 8
Moving onto additional problems I see with the textbooks, particularly New Horizon, is story discrepancies, misaligned stereotypes and too much Japanese culture. New Horizon starts off the 1st year book with Ms. Green, tall blonde bimbo (I will explain why in a second), entering to a Japanese JHS as a new English teacher and meeting two of her Japanese students. Totally ignoring WHY the ENGLISH textbooks create a storyline like a manga comic book and tries to effectively teach English from within Japan culture is beyond me. Realistically speaking, how much English does the average JHS student use? In class, about 20%...if lucky. Outside of class, 1%. Why not base the storyline in a culture that SPEAKS English on a REGULAR BASIS? I'm guessing because the textbook writers didn't think the Japanese students couldn't connect with other culture as well as their own. They really put a lot of thought into this, I can see. BUT, they totally ignored the fact that ENGLISH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JAPANESE CULTURE. Forcing one's culture into somewhere that doesn't belong, I think, would be a bad example for the students. It seems to me pretty ethnocentric to have the Japan-based storyline if the students don't ever REALISTICALLY use English outside of the classroom. If I were Japanese student, I would wonder why the storyline wasn't set in an English-speaking country, but that might just be me... Personally, I would make the textbooks as neutral as possible and try to teach as much English I could while remaining culturally unbiased. I would think if you were going to introduce 'culture', there are 70+ English-speaking cultures that would be more appropriate for ENGLISH CLASS rather than teaching a culture Japanese students already know extremely well. What exactly are the students learning about Japanese culture in English class that they don't already experience in real life? Let's move onto the blonde bimbo. The textbooks make it seem like Ms. Green doesn't even need to use any Japanese because all her Japanese students seem to be happy-go-lucky and pretty fluid in the language. Upon entering the school in Unit 2, she and her English-fluent students are around a 3D model of I'm guess is the local city. While pointing at a building, she asks: "Is that a school?" However, her finger is ALMOST pointing directly at an ambulance parked on the side of the hospital she is asking about. Honestly, if I was the student, I would have thought she was a moron! The storyline doesn't get any better because when you turn the page, BOOM! Up walks another stereotypical blonde boy from Australia. After digging through a student English textbooks, I couldn't figure out what this little Australian boy is doing at a JHS in Japan. I opened up a teacher's edition and found out he's a 3rd year JHS student at this school but I still couldn't find anything that said what he was doing at that school. I would naturally think he was an exchange student but didn't want to jump the gun, so I asked a JTE. I received the reply: "Who cares". Fair enough, but I would think an English textbook that seems to be more worried about telling a manga story rather than teaching the students how to read AND a textbook that seems to embrace stereotypes, I would have thought they would have spent more time on the logical details. Speaking of lack of storyline details, the next example is found int the very next unit. On page 24, Ms. Green is teaching her English class. Who's in the class...the fluent little blonde boy from Australia. What the hell is he doing in a basic English class!?!?! Shouldn't he be in a special Japanese class studying Japanese and not throwing out stupid questions to Ms. Green, like: "Do you come to school every day?" But why stop here? Turn to Unit 4, and this little blonde boy is with ANOTHER little foriegn girl from America. Am I to believe there are TWO little foreign students that attend this school and who are apparantly origami masters as seen on page 27? In a textbook that seems to embrass stereotypes, why must they go against the stereotypical mold? On page 37, the little blonde boy tells us he eats rice and miso soup for breakfast. WTF!?! I would think if a textbook is going to use stereotypes, that they would be constant in their stereotypical assertions. I can't speak for all blonde boys, but I would prefer cereal to rice and miso, any day! Speaking of details, if you look on page 60 & 61, the students are talking with Ms. Green's brother in Toronto. Toronto has a 13 hour time difference from Japan. However, look at the clocks on the wall... Alright, enough blowing off hot air...
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Apr 21, 2008 18:49:23 GMT 8
I am not agreeing with the way the NH is written, but I have a different view on what to center the class around. I have been spending a lot of time around the students. What they are interested in, what they like etc. For example, I can spend a whole lesson on one single sentence. Taro likes big chocolate cake with strawberries and kiwis from Fujiya. If you know how to engage the students by comparing, contrasting and adding funny details, you can do so with close to 100% English in an elementary class. This really works! What is even more surprising is that all students are engaged. You know because all eyes are on you and some are even on the edge of their seats. Why? Because you are talking about them and they can relate. Only after I know that they have acquired the language, do I try to introduce culture. If I do this right, I can also do this mostly in English, too. I would never have thought this was good class material, but it works because it is 100% comprehensible, about the students, and repetitive. Even if you have an entire class interested in the culture of English speaking countries, you still have the barrier of whether or not they have acquired enough English to understand you. Admittedly teachers could introduce the language using the students and then use the textbook to reinforce the language and introduce culture. In this way New Horizon does leave a lot to be desired....
|
|