|
Post by Otaku on Dec 11, 2008 18:32:33 GMT 8
Okay, so I'm just finishing up building a couple new grammar pages on the site and I have a new gripe...feel free to correct my gripe if it's 'misfounded'. The grammar point I have a problem with is this one: S+V+O+O. Basically, this grammar point deals with the sentences in the following mathlish pattern: subject + verb + object1 + object2, with these objects being defined as either direct or indirect objects. I won't get anymore otaku on you than that explanation. So, let's take a look at all the textbooks example sentences New Crown: I will give you examples. Total English: My uncle gave me a book. One World: They sent us a videotape. Sunshine: I 'll give him a card. (On a side note, why would you conjugate the verb in the example sentence?) bum! bum! bum! .... NEW HORIZON! Show me your passport, please. Uuummm...where the hell is subject?!?!? Shouldn't the example sentence of a grammar point follow the S+V+O+O mold? I think the example sentences in these textbooks are especially important because it seems grammar points are taught in a mathlish formulaic way in them. Every other textbook has a subject in their example sentences...
|
|
|
Post by grumpyoldbastard on Dec 12, 2008 10:48:02 GMT 8
Apparently you ignored Mark's advice on the other thread so I'll back him up on this one... look, if I wrote a textbook, I probably wouldn't use that as an example, but it's there, we can't change it, I don't really see the point in complaining about it. Furthermore, with minimal effort in the classroom, we can incorporate our own examples and I'm sure any confused students will get it pretty quickly. We're not training dogs here.
Also:
mathlish mathlish mathlish
Are you aware there's a basic logic to language, and that it may be useful to TEACH this logic to the students? Are you aware that probably around half of your kids are analytic learners and learn things better this way? I see absolutely nothing wrong with teaching them the structure of English.
Also apologies if I'm missing a joke but it's 'unfounded.'
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Dec 12, 2008 16:44:06 GMT 8
WYSIWYG(What You See Is What You Get) This is what the majority of Japanese JHS students I've taught are...WYSIWYGers. Mind you, it's not because of personal choice rather than social norms and the pressures to conform but 99% of the JHS students I've taught in the 3 cities and 2 prefectures I've worked in are WYSIWYGers. In my 5.5 years experience in Japan, the majority of English teachers I've taught with coddle and spoon-feed their students the English information needed to pass their tests. The other day, a JTE I was teaching with spent an entire class period explaining the grammar point for 'when'. Instead of letting the students practice actually using the point, she spent the entire time explaining it. I'm not the smartest tool in the shed, but I know it shouldn't take 50 minutes to explain this point. Whenever yellow chalk touches the blackboard, yellow pens touch notebooks. Whenever a green squiggely line is drawn under a word, every notebook looks the same. Whenever fragmented sentences are written on the board, you can bet 35 students have the exact same fragment of a sentence written in their textbooks. The other day I corrected half a class' grammar mistakes in their notebooks before I looked up and realized the teacher had written on the chalkboard, "He is my friend s."...WYSIWYG. The other day I asked a 3rd grade student, Ken, "How are you?" He said, "I'm fine, thank you." I turned right around and asked the class, "How is Ken?"...to which I received blanks stares. Why? Students learn: How are you.., How many..., How long have you..., How much..., How's the weather..., etc. Despite the basis of the question being an 1st grade grammar point, I stumped an entire class because the pattern of which I asked the question. ...WYSIWYG. Now, whether WYSIWYG is good or bad is not the point of this thread. Additionally, whether 'mathlish' grammar is good or bad is also neither the issue. What I'm talking about is the dangers of teaching using a 'mathish' strategy approach, and then choosing example sentences that don't reflect the formula. Moving on, I question things I don't agree with. Just because something is printed in a book and you can't erase it the words, doesn't mean people shouldn't talk about the things they don't agree with. Talking about things you don't agree with is EXACTLY how change happens. Saying things like, "...it's there, we can't change it, I don't really see the point in complaining about it," is exactly the type of attitude that constricts change. Furthermore, I question when something doesn't make sense to me. Pointing out an example sentence in a textbook and then giving my opinions on why I think that it is a bad example sentence is hardly 'bitching'. GOB, you obviously don't like most of the stuff I post in any/all of my threads. I don't post things because I'm trying to create a bad environment; I post because I either don't agree with something and want to talk about it or I post to hopefully get other people to start thinking about things they never thought about before. I obviously have my good and bad days...and I'm sure my threads sometimes reflect the mood of which I'm in. However, these are MY OWN THOUGHTS...I'm not God...I am fallible. Other people here are more than welcome and HAVE challenged a lot of things I post about, which I think is great because it makes me sit down and think about things from a different angle. But, in my threads, I do try my best to give logical reasonings as to WHY I think and say what I post. Yeah, I'm a moderator here but I am by no means better than anybody else or don't expect to get my arguments stapled to the wall when I say something full of hot air. However, ever since your second post when we were discussing Phonics vs. IPA , you have been taking personal 'pop shots' at me and not my arguments. For example, "Exactly how little time have you spent researching this?"...referring to my thoughts on phonics vs. IPA, to which I unloaded about 3 pages worth on the thread about how 'little' I knew. Attacking arguments is one thing, but I would have to say that making an indirect reference that somebody doesn't know anything about what they are posting about when they have laid out the basis of why they think that way probably makes you look bad...not the other way around. You think I'm full of crap...fair enough. You think I have an IQ below plant life and everything I post is hot air...you're entitled to your own opinion. But, in the future, please refrain from throwing around personal attacks. If I ruffle your feathers, just remember that I am not doing do intentionally and that posting on the forums is not a requirement to using the Englipedia website.
|
|
|
Post by grumpyoldbastard on Dec 16, 2008 16:47:03 GMT 8
If I've gotten a little personal, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be disrespectful but I can get a little sarcastic and I apologize for that. I don't think you have the IQ of plant life.
I usually post here because I've wandered over from the main site and I've seen something that frustrates me. It hasn't always been things that you've written, but it turns out that you and I tend to disagree on a lot of things. I will try in the future to quit the ad hominem stuff, and in all seriousness it's nothing personal, but I completely disagree with your view of Japan (or at least the view that you are presenting here).
--
To quit derailing the thread, I'm not sure what you mean to 'change' by pointing out small flaws in the textbook. To put my previous post more politely, I think it would be more constructive to ask things like "This part in the textbook confuses my students, how can I teach around it?" Instead of "Here's ANOTHER mistake." We are not going to change the textbooks, they are written by Japanese people and will probably continue to be done so for quite a while.
About the mathlish, this example in the textbook is not actually breaking the formula. It's just implementing more than one rule at once. I can concede that this may be challenging to some students, but at the same time it can still be taught within the mathlish, WYSIWYG framework that the kids are used to.
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Dec 17, 2008 13:26:18 GMT 8
If I've gotten a little personal, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be disrespectful but I can get a little sarcastic and I apologize for that. I don't think you have the IQ of plant life. I usually post here because I've wandered over from the main site and I've seen something that frustrates me. It hasn't always been things that you've written, but it turns out that you and I tend to disagree on a lot of things. I will try in the future to quit the ad hominem stuff, and in all seriousness it's nothing personal, but I completely disagree with your view of Japan (or at least the view that you are presenting here). -- To quit derailing the thread, I'm not sure what you mean to 'change' by pointing out small flaws in the textbook. To put my previous post more politely, I think it would be more constructive to ask things like "This part in the textbook confuses my students, how can I teach around it?" Instead of "Here's ANOTHER mistake." We are not going to change the textbooks, they are written by Japanese people and will probably continue to be done so for quite a while. About the mathlish, this example in the textbook is not actually breaking the formula. It's just implementing more than one rule at once. I can concede that this may be challenging to some students, but at the same time it can still be taught within the mathlish, WYSIWYG framework that the kids are used to. No worries! I just wanted to make sure you weren't coming straight at me versus my arguements, which are fair game. I think a lot of the problem is putting 'textbook gripes' in the 'Teaching Forum'. I'm currently making a brand new forum, which I think will be really cool. Anyways, I have plans to separate 'Teaching' from a 'Textbook Forum'. I don't think anybody clicks on the Teaching Forum to read about issues people have with the textbooks. This new 'Textbook Forum' I'm going to try and not only point out the things I don't like but also the things that I do like in the textbooks.
|
|
|
Post by jessen100 on Jan 16, 2009 10:40:58 GMT 8
On the note of "what you see is what you get", I was talking with a japanese person the other day at dinner, and we were discussing English. My non-japanese speaking friend was there and asked what the word genki meant, and the japanese girl responded immediately that it means fine, which it clearly does not. It seems that people always want to take a direct and literal translation for everything they hear, which is obviously mistaken, considering the drastic difference in using English vs Japanese.
originally I had some sort of conclusion but i seem to have lost it.
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Jan 16, 2009 11:01:43 GMT 8
In my opinion, the girl translating 'genki' as "I'm fine" would not be a literal translation, rather a contextual definition.
A: "Genki desu ka" (How are you?) B: "Genki desu" (I'm fine.)
I believe a literal translation of 'genki' would be "energetic".
|
|
|
Post by jessen100 on Jan 16, 2009 13:47:13 GMT 8
yea, like i said. fine doesnt equal entergetic. she, as im sure many other people do, think genki=fine. that was not my conclusion if thats wht you were going for,
|
|