|
Post by Otaku on Oct 11, 2007 7:58:30 GMT 8
These two styles of teaching seems to be a hot topic these days. In some classes one style might work, while in other classes, it fails.
Why? Which style is of teaching is better?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 11, 2007 11:35:49 GMT 8
My experience has been that competition brings out (gee, surprise) competetiveness, which means that the students' goal is not necessarily to just use the English properly so much as to use it to beat their opponent. This means that students will tend to not worry so much about pronunciation/good grammar/proper usage/etc. but focus on the game/competition aspect. The kids get really genki, but that's all. Cooperation tends to get the kids to work together, so it includes even the shy ones (most of the time), and they must be more attentive to proper detail/grammar/pronunciation/etc., because if they fail, it's their group's collective rear-end on the line and not just their's. However, the kids (depending on the group) don't tend to be as energetic in this situation. So when possible, I like to have both. I like to have groups cooperating in a competition.
I typed this right before lunch, so my thoughts might not all be there/grammar/spelling might be a bit screwed up.
Tell me if I am wrong...or right.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 16, 2007 14:42:37 GMT 8
I will respond to myself, since no one else has and it is something I am quite used to when no one is looking...
I disagree...the kids who learn the most are the ones who are have the most competetive spirit- who want to win. If winning means that they must use English correctly in order to win, then they will use it correctly to win. Using cooperation, while it includes shy students, doesn't necessarily mean the students will use the English properly- just that ther are a cog in a wheel- if they say one word in a sentence while their fellow cogs say the other words then certainly they do cooperate, but each cog doesn't get to say the whole sentence, or for that matter doesn't necessarily want to say the whole sentence (beceuase others wouldn't get a chance to complete the sentence, or it's easier this way). But if each cog doesn't get the chance to say the whole sentence, then what will they do when they meet a foreigner on the streets and he/she says 'harro' to them? If there are no other cogs around, who will complete the proper responses?
|
|
|
Post by hellndie on Oct 17, 2007 9:23:12 GMT 8
competition - it gets the kids really genki in class.. however it also depend on the type of students. Matt is right, kids tend not to think and just say whatever comes to mind when they are competiting against each other - so chances are, they will be speaking and using EngRish. However, this is where the ALT/JTE can come in handy... only give points or rewards those who use the correct grammar points. This will motivate students to actually take a minute to think before they speak. However, in a school where kids cant understand "how are you? What is your name?" or been programmed to blurt out, "I'm fine, thank you and you?" AFTER you said "hello" and BEFORE you ask "how are you?".....then anything to encourage the kids to speak/get familiar with English before correcting their grammar/ pronounciation would be best.
cooperation should always be include in the lesson plans ...not only in japan.. students need to learn how to cooperate with one another. Even though there might only be 1 person doing all the work -- other students can learn from that one smart kid.. or not.
We cant really control or make the kids do what we want them to do.. they have to function on their own.. which mean we can only put them in the situation which will encourage them to cooperate or think...etc.. but it depends on them whether or not they will catch on.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Oct 17, 2007 11:28:14 GMT 8
First of all, I want to say that I'm happy!
This kind of discourse is what more teachers like us need to be discussing. We might already know all of what is being said, but given the surrounding pressures in every day life to comform to the culture, trouble for being accepted for who you are, putting up with junior college degree teachers who barely have an English-teaching certificate and definitely can't hold any form of English conversation ignoring all your English ideas and suggestions, sometimes we forget the deeper issues -- reading your class.
I personally think the only answer to 'competition vs. cooperation' question is "Every class is situational." I hate to use a cliche, "There is a time and place for everything."
Competition or cooperation in an unhealthy classroom environment is not good. Using any of these methods will most likely fail with in an unhealthy environment. I think the environment needs to be changed, FIRST, then we can start discussing Comp vs. Coop.
Once a 'healthy environment' is established, which is better? My answer would have to be "neither". Like I said before, you have to read your class. If you have a couple of low-level students or shy students who start crying every time they are singled out, individual competition is only going to be disasterous. BUT, having both Comp and Coop co-existing might prove beneficial. For example, having teams compete in groups but allowing each team to discuss the answers amongst their group. I bet a thesis could probably be written on this topic.
Lastly, I would like to say that I see no direct link between competition and a decrease in the quality of answers. Matt, I think you may have set up a false paradym. A decrease in the quality of answers in a competitive environment only exists if the ALT/JTL allows for poor quality answers to be accepted. However, you did correct yourself in your second post when you said, "If winning means that they must use English correctly in order to win, then they will use it correctly to win."
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 17, 2007 14:53:28 GMT 8
Well, in truth, there are a ton of pros and cons to both cooperation and competition. And in fact, it does depend on the class/lesson/student's attitude/etc. I decided to post two posts to try to 'see both sides' of the argument and offer ideas which are not necessarily 'correct' or 100 percent fool-proof simply for argument's sake. That being said, sometimes if we use a new game/situation, or are new at teaching (like me...STILL), actually see, in class, situations involving situations where students simply compete (despite what we try to design the game to do) without actually using English properly. So in a way, this stuff actually happens, albeit as a mistake rather than as unavoidable part of 'competition' in general. Just a thot! ;-)
|
|
|
Post by satyne on Nov 19, 2007 11:14:53 GMT 8
Why does it have to be either/or?! I utilize both competition and cooperation in my classroom. Divide them into groups for the most part and have them working as a team and then have said team compete against other teams. I don't accept half-arsed work (ie. rushing through their work just to beat the competition!), the kids know that if the do NOT do it properly they get sent back to do it again. This means they work slowly because they won't risk starting over again but they're genki and eager to win at the same time. I DO have an individual point system in place but because all of my activities are usually group activities, they need the help of their group members to score points. I think a healthy balance of the two works pretty darned well.
|
|