I want to learn to speak Elvish

Everything else
21

Be a little cautious about this. Lots of language courses, especially for Asian languages, are taught by native speakers of that language. Native speakers are often not very good language teachers (because the language is easy and intuitive for them). Also, conversational level courses are often advanced courses for people who’ve already studied the language. There’s also some risk that lots of the class will be sort of native speakers (people who immigrated as children, or grew up speaking both languages) either trying to improve their grammar or get easy As, which makes the course tougher than otherwise.

Excuse me, refrigerator? You’re describing terrible teachers, not native speaking teachers. Just because a language comes easy for a teacher doesn’t mean they haven’t/can’t/usually don’t put in the linguistic and grammatical research to back up their lessons. I think you may find that sort of unsympathetic native-speaking teacher more often simply because native-speakers are more available to teach the language.

It’s hard to reach that starting with teachers who can’t clearly explain grammar, or the basics of pronunciation, or word meaning.

I believe the recommendation was for a university course, not a Craigslist lesson. A lot of schools are going to require evidence of your teaching skill and knowledge of the grammar before they let you set foot in a classroom. Demonstration lessons and ‘pop quizzes’ during the initial interview are not unknown. (TAs conscripted into teaching, exempted)

22

If you read my post again, you’ll note that I didn’t say that native speakers could not be good teachers, just that they were more likely to not be good teachers. Again, I think that that is because it’s harder for native speakers to analyze their own language. But, it might also be for the reasons you give. In any case, native speakers would be more likely to be not as good teachers; that is, if a teacher were a native speaker, the odds of him or her being not great would be somewhat higher than if they were a non-native speaker.

I believe the recommendation was for a university course, not a Craigslist lesson. A lot of schools are going to require evidence of your teaching skill and knowledge of the grammar before they let you set foot in a classroom. Demonstration lessons and ‘pop quizzes’ during the initial interview are not unknown. (TAs conscripted into teaching, exempted)

Well, TAs conscripted into teaching make up a huge percentage of people teaching lower division courses at larger universities. And at larger universities, no one cares about how well you teach when they hire you (I’ve been told this quite explicitly a number of times by people on hiring committees). At smaller colleges I’m told one is more likely to find good teachers. Just because someone is paid partly to teach, one should not assume they are any good at it - it’s worth doing a little research.

I’m just giving some general things to keep in mind, based in my knowledge of teaching and learning languages. I’m not trying to say that this is true for every single person in the world

23

If you read my post again, you’ll note that I didn’t say that native speakers could not be good teachers, just that they were more likely to not be good teachers. Again, I think that that is because it’s harder for native speakers to analyze their own language. But, it might also be for the reasons you give. In any case, native speakers would be more likely to be not as good teachers; that is, if a teacher were a native speaker, the odds of him or her being not great would be somewhat higher than if they were a non-native speaker.

Should we also generally assume people with intuitive mathematical sense unable to explain their thought process? I know the stereotypical image of some doddering old prof lost in his work. And what about Latin or Sanskrit? They must have the finest good to terrible teacher ratio in the world with no native speakers.

If you read my post again, you’ll notice I used three different modal phrases denying any sort of connection between native speaking and teaching. I meant the odds are the same for both groups - there are just more native speakers than foreigners ready to fill the jobs.

At my university, English, Linguistics, Asian languages, Education and TESOL are all different master’s. And by that I mean that native or inherent knowledge in any one of those does not imply success or failure in the other - much as a degree in creative writing or a six-book publishing deal by 16 doesn’t reflect on your ability to pass your skill onto others.

Checking a course before you enroll is a good idea (TAs, office hours, etc)… but coming into it with any preconceptions about the teacher’s culture or personal details is not. If I sound irate about this its because, well, it causes problems for both the teacher, student, and the classroom as a whole. Believe me, it’s pretty disheartening to hear some of these comments before you’ve even had a chance to teach a proper lesson.

24

I’ve been using Livemocha to learn French and definitely recommend it.

25

This is dead on.

Hangeul’s designed to be logicial when it comes to the writing system so you should be able to pick it up after a day or two of study.

26

[b]Courtesy of the Department of Defense…[/b]

If one of those NCsofters turn out to be a North Korean spy, you’ll be ready.

27

Surely this only applies to teachers that have not done any teacher training? In which case, how are they being hired at universities?

28

I would. Intuitive processes are un-articulated, pre/un-conscious processes. They are often hard to articulate or make conscious. So, when you compare people who do the same task, but one person does it intuitively and the other does not, or one has always done it intuitively, and the other at some point did it more consciously, it will generally be easier for the latter to explain how to do the task then the former. Research in other tasks (not language teaching - I’ve never researched that) bears this out.

If you read my post again, you’ll notice I used three different modal phrases denying any sort of connection between native speaking and teaching. I meant the odds are the same for both groups - there are just more native speakers than foreigners ready to fill the jobs.

Well, I’ve given my reasons for thinking the odds are not the same. And these reasons are born out by my experience and the experience of others. I could be generalizing too quickly, it’s true, but you haven’t given any evidence that I am. I didn’t mean to offend you but, I don’t think I’ve said anything that merits taking offense. I don’t mean to suggest that you are a bad teacher. And I agree, that once you are in a class, it’s a bad idea to assume a teacher is not good for any reason. My point is that one should do some research before picking classes, and don’t assume that skill in a language translates into skill at teaching it, because the opposite can be and often is true.

29

If it’s a bigger university, it probably considers itself a research university. These quite often don’t care much about teaching ability. Very few people I know who are either professors or who are training to be professors have any teaching training.

30

So these native, untrained, language teachers are doing research into the language at the university? Huh?

Look, people have already given you some sort of reasonable out- some teachers of a language may be native speakers with no formal training in the language. In contrast, there are few non-native speakers who didn’t receive some formal training in the language (either as teacher or student). In effect, a native speaker can wake up one day and make claims to teach a language.

Your “it’s too intuitive to them” line is just straight flying out of your ass.

31

Are you using the pay or free lessons for French?

32

I pay the monthly subscription. It’s definitely worth it.

33

Native spanish speakers can do graduate study-level work in Spanish lit at American universities. (Your “untrained” qualifier is a bullshit red herring which I’ll ignore.)

Your “it’s too intuitive to them” line is just straight flying out of your ass.

No, it’s not. He has explained his position pretty well, and it’s true in other fields. Math geniuses do tend to make poor intro-level math teachers, no matter how much training they’re given. The basics are so intuitive, and so obvious, that they’re often unable to break it down into chunks small enough for the less gifted students (i.e. the rest of us) to understand.

I disagree with Nengjanggo that much skill is needed to learn languages, but that may be a personal bias. If someone has trouble with the basics, (e.g. understanding how to conjugate verbs) then it probably would be more helpful to study under a non-native speaker. They’ve gone through the exact same process that the student needs to go through, so they can break it down better.

The facts that A)you don’t understand his position, and B)feel the need to be an asshole about it reflect badly on you, not Nengjanggo.

34

First, I’d call the UT Center for East Asian Studies (CEAS) and ask them about their course offerings in Korean. My reading of their website suggests that yes, the Korean courses have graduate course numberings, but a lifetime of experience with higher ed/Research One schools suggests that this is probably for administrative convenience. It’s not unusual for beginning language classes to have graduate course numbers, especially if the language is considered to be less in demand.

Since you’d not be a degree-seeking student, taking a class on either the grad or undergrad level is irrelevant to your situation. You’d be either a continuing non-degree seeking undergrad or grad student. The only real issue for Spring 2011 is that the beginning class may be Fall-only.

Second, assuming that you’re too late in the academic year to start the sequence, you could ask CEAS about tutors. The tutor could work with you using the standard text used at UT, but your pace may be slower, since you’d be able to work around job constraints. Typically, foreign language classes at the university level fly like the wind, so taking a bit of time to work with a tutor will help you gain a foundation. I’m not sure of the going rate in Austin, but locally, tutors are about $20-$35 per hour.

You can use some of the online programs/educational software programs listed, if that’s your preference. If you tend to be one of those people for whom languages come more slowly, the tutor may be the better route.

35

The “untrained” red herring was stated by Nenjanggo, not me. But hey, reading before you start spewing would probably waste too much of your time.

His point, which made no sense, was that universities would be grabbing untrained native speakers to teach these language courses. Such would not be the case. Any native speaker teaching a language at a university would have as much teacher training as a non-native speaker teaching the same course (e.g., a non-native Spanish lit grad student). Now, that teacher training may literally amount to TA’ing a low-level course. But that happens with both native and non-native speakers. Essentially, no credible university will let a native speaker slide with less than what they would hold their non-natives to.

Good teachers are good teachers and bad teachers are bad teachers. Nenjanggo’s recommendation that you should be cautious of a given language teacher precisely because they are a native speaker is ridiculous.

36

Consider two people, neither of whom have training to be a teacher, or both of whom have very little teacher training. For one, the subject they are teaching is easy and intuitive; they do not remember learning it. For the other, they have learned relatively recently, and had to put a lot of work into consciously learning the material. The second is more likely to be able to communicate the lower level material to an untrained audience than the first.

Sure, good teachers are good teachers and bad teachers are bad teachers. That does not mean that there are no factors that are useful in predicting teacher ability.

In any case, I did a little googling. Here’s one study (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a769868552:

Now, the researchers ultimately conclude that teaching evaluations are not a great tool for assessing the performance of individual teachers, but they do think that they tell us something. Perhaps you’ll google up some contrary data.

The “too intuitive” stuff is consistent with a vast range of research in a number of areas. I understand that the average person on the internet is an idiot, and so I don’t blame you for assuming that I am as well, but in this area I am pretty well informed (I wrote my PhD dissertation in part on unconscious knowledge acquisition and information processing).

37

I would. Intuitive processes are un-articulated, pre/un-conscious processes. They are often hard to articulate or make conscious. So, when you compare people who do the same task, but one person does it intuitively and the other does not, or one has always done it intuitively, and the other at some point did it more consciously, it will generally be easier for the latter to explain how to do the task then the former. Research in other tasks (not language teaching - I’ve never researched that) bears this out.

No, it’s not. He has explained his position pretty well, and it’s true in other fields. Math geniuses do tend to make poor intro-level math teachers, no matter how much training they’re given. The basics are so intuitive, and so obvious, that they’re often unable to break it down into chunks small enough for the less gifted students (i.e. the rest of us) to understand.

This assumes that the intuitive math genius always attempts to dredge up an explanation from their unconscious mind, rather than consider the educational side of their work a different field/study entirely, and begin from there. Moreover, merely because a person finds it easy to articulate a task or break it down into steps does not imply that their ‘explanation’ will be easy for others to understand. If I’m describing a step-by-step process to myself I don’t make sure it’s open standard so that everyone can use it.

…but you haven’t given any evidence that I am…

I’m not interested in evidence here - I wouldn’t like to see the faux-scientific study that claims to have found a respectable slice of language teachers and determined whether or not native competency affects teaching ability. This is a problem of the school and organization taking people or are either unqualified or uninterested in teaching and putting them in the classroom. Of course the math genius will do poorly despite all his training! He doesn’t give a damn!

But the math genius with a certificate in teaching or a native English speaker with a Pass A on their CELTA will do just as fine as their opposites with the same qualifications. If we accept your hypothesis, then we should always find at least a small discrepancy between the intuitive and learned. I find it ridiculous that students assume I begin all my lessons by reaching back to how I learned the language or my second language. That’s a reasonable starting point(sometimes), but it’s only one among many, and sometimes it simply doesn’t work.

What I’m interested in are the ethics. Students make noise and complain when teachers ask them to talk with their non-native classmates because they assume they’ll pick up bad habits. Others make request for a native teacher because they assume only THEY with their native knowledge will know enough (and strangely also be a natural teacher like it’s the same damn thing). And others still will request that they have a non-native teacher to explain the mechanics of the language even if the native teacher they’ve had one for one hour for one day uses the same material and the same training and same curriculum. And you know what? It hurts. It’s bias based on faulty rationale no better than any other. Those students spend more time complaining and looking for the ‘right’ teacher (a criteria which is usually based on anything but their teaching ability) before they ever begin to pick up the basic grammar.

Teaching is teaching. And by that tautology, I mean that like any profession we should consider it by its own merits and not the adjunct or offspring of any other study or profession.

38

I’m not interested in evidence here…

I understand now that you are posting just to vent, not to actually engage with anything I say. But, for those who might be listening and not posting, I want to say one last thing:

Teaching is teaching. And by that tautology, I mean that like any profession we should consider it by its own merits and not the adjunct or offspring of any other study or profession.

I might be misunderstanding you here, but if you mean what you seem to mean, you should be ashamed to say this. One can only understand what counts as a merit of teaching by understanding other disciplines (often psychology). If we do not look to other disciplines to evaluate our own, we will not improve.

In any case, the student’s responsibility is to seek a good education for themselves. Whatever the reasons (university policy or whatever), if a certain class of teachers if often not as good as another, then students should seek out the good and avoid those less likely to be good.

39

Supertanker, hello from a Livemocha representative! Where do your kids go to school? We’d love to start a feedback loop to hear what we’re doing right and how we can rapidly improve! The classroom setting is new terrain for us. We want to make sure we get it right!

Best,
Kira
Livemocha Community Manager

40

No, I’ve engaged several things you’ve said, as well as things other people have said. You’ve google-dropped one study, said things like:

“That does not mean that there are no factors that are useful in predicting teacher ability.”

No one remotely said this, or even suggested it. Honestly, do you think this is the issue we’ve been discussing? I’ve spent several posts venting (which I’ll freely admit to) that native competency is not a factor. That’s one factor. Not that there are no factors.

I might be misunderstanding you here, but if you mean what you seem to mean, you should be ashamed to say this. One can only understand what counts as a merit of teaching by understanding other disciplines (often psychology). If we do not look to other disciplines to evaluate our own, we will not improve.

You are misunderstanding me. My words were, “…not the adjunct or offspring…”

Adjunct

— n

  1. something incidental or not essential that is added to something else
  2. a person who is subordinate to another
  3. grammar
    a. part of a sentence other than the subject or the predicate
    b. (in systemic grammar) part of a sentence other than the subject, predicator, object, or complement; usually a prepositional or adverbial group
    c. part of a sentence that may be omitted without making the sentence ungrammatical; a modifier
  4. logic another name for accident

— adj
5. added or connected in a secondary or subordinate position; auxiliary

So, when exactly did I profess that teachers should not look to other disciplines, like psychology? Because I’m pretty sure I just stated that teaching should not be subordinated to or be considered dependent on other disciplines, like psychology. Again, my posts are long and winding and definitely venting… but that sentence wasn’t overly complex.

Let me break this down for you. If there is a factor to be considered as to what constitutes good teaching, both schools and students use it. There are plenty of schools on DavesESL that swear by your method, and many of them are awful. If at a university they are interviewing applicants and state to a candidate that they are seeking only native or non-native speaking applicants, regardless of proof of fluency and professional or academic qualifications, this will turn out to be a big problem. Luckily, my university did not do that and we had this great Korean program.