User talk:Technopat

Welcome to Teflpedia, and thanks for signing up.  If you are new to wikis in general, or wish to know a bit more about us, we recommend that you read our newcomer's guide, our main page and our community standards. Alternatively, feel free to ask a question at the teachers' room.

Archive 1

Hi Technopat. Thanks for joining in. Really great to have you on board.--Bob M 05:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilbao

Hi TP. Don't suppose that I'm going to see you at this bash in Bilbao? Cheers.--Bob M 12:26, 25 February 2012 (CST)

Best way of learning English

Hi Technopat.

Reading your sectiion about Swan on communicative approach brought me back to an old hobby-horse of mine. How do we actually "know" that any methodology is "better"?

It seems to me that there is a lot if ivory-tower speculation going on.

In order to establish the best method you would need to test a group of existing methods simultaneously against a placebo.

First of all you would need to decide which systems you were going to test against each other and then recruit, say, 300 students for each one. You would need to ensure that the students had exactly the same natural ability, existing level of English and motivation.

Then recruit your teachers who would all need to have the same set of skills. Ability to motivate students, engaging personalities, enthusiasm, commitment to the methodology being taught etc.

Your control group would be taught basket weaving or, perhaps more realistically, just allowed to do whatever they liked in English.

The groups would be monitored over a two year period in order to see which group had the best results.

Obviously this experiment cannot be carried our for multiple practical reasons. But if it has not been carried out how can we say we know which system is best?--Bob M 01:49, 6 April 2012 (CDT)

3rd time lucky? - I've lost my reply to you twice now... stormy weather? Below, more or less what I've been replying so far:

Agreed. Have always shunned The Dogmatic Approach, whichever it may be, and in fact, I owe it to Swan for showing me that it was possible to be eclectic and use the best of each method/approach, call-it-what-you-will, to the benefit of the student.

In fact, one of the reasons I left my cushy job at a leading language school oh-so-many-years-ago was 'cos they wouldn't let me introduce supplementary material - however relevant - to pad out the coursebook of the day.

One of the advantages of being freelance and having my own portfolio of clients is that I can often monitor the long-term results of the students' efforts. Of course, there's always the possibility that they reach similar or even better results following a more dogmatic approach, but as you point out, we shall never know. My yardstick is that my ex-clients often call me up years later for refresher courses or to bring them up-to-scratch for speeches, etc.

Regs., --Technopat 05:25, 6 April 2012 (CDT)

Indeed. It all leads me to the conclusion that what we do is far more of an art than a science.--Bob M 05:29, 6 April 2012 (CDT)

Absolutely! What is language, if not an art? It's true that there are language skills, techniques, that can be learnt, like sales pitches, presentation skills, etc., but the basic use of language is pure, creative art. Or instinct? By way of example, I have an extraordinarily high level of vocabulary and a very wide range of registers in Spanish while my mother-in-law is basically illiterate, but my spoken language skills come nowhere near her native-level discourse, even given her numerous bloopers.--Technopat 05:45, 6 April 2012 (CDT)