Davidcharles Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 I am not talking about University students. I am wondering how much the average English School insists you teach Past perfect progressives/conjunctions etc. I would have thought it would make learning English that much more difficult for Thai kids. Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives etc, OK. But not much more than that surely?. "Tut Tut" I hear the purists mutter........"who is this guy?" But you don't have to be a Skilled Auto Engineer to be a decent Driver, so why complicate what is already a hard task, by going into the intricacies of Grammar? What do you think Guys and Gals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tutsiwarrior Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 you got to differentiate between the conversational and the academic approach to the subject. Most Thai language students aren't gonna look at technicalities, nuance and etc...they just want to speak read and write the mother. Generally speaking most serious Thai students just want to finish what's required to take standarized tests for further education purposes for which only a simple expository skill is required. Anybody know how to diagram a sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nat Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Anybody know how to diagram a sentence? Now, where are my crayons? Can't draw lines on here so use your imagination with my diagram as it's very poor All sentences have a subject and predicate - to diagram a sentence first draw one main line, which represents the sentence. Then split it in two by drawing another line down the middle. One half is for the subject and the other for the predicate. (Here's my attempt ) Simple subject and predicate Sentence: Bud disappeared. Diagram: Bud l disappeared Obviously the diagram gets more complicated once you start using compounds, phrases, clauses, etc. In regards to learning grammar, agree with Tuts. The esl industry tends to focus on the communicative approach. What is going to be taught depends on the students needs and for what they’ll be using English – so generally grammar isn’t the key focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_Pat_Pong Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 You are not just a pretty face Khun Nat. An erudite being, with a sense of humor. Unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nat Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 I know it's rare - but not always a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samsara Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Yes, and yes, and yes, and yes... The final cause in most cases is a test, be it the TOIC, TOEFL, etc. For these tests, believe it or not, grammar isnt really needed. Errr, lets qualify that abit and say it need not be your primary concern. Will it help, yes. Will it guarantee a high score...no. Most tests are IQ based anyway--pattern recognition and the like--so a grammar intensive approach hardly yields the desired result. Due to this and other things, ESL has become the leader in the field. After all, is not language at root, in its simplest form, just a communicative activity? Why then confuse the student with grammar? Why not contextualise the shit and teach it through a fun medium? This is what ESL does. Heres the funny thing, though. Despite all this being known, language schools still yearn for the academic who knows the grammar shit but who usually cant make good conversation with his own mother. You get the idea. As a result, students might know the grammar shit, but cant conduct a simple conversation in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nat Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Most tests are IQ based anyway--pattern recognition and the like Sorry, I know I'm being picky but which tests are you referring to? True pattern recognition is a part of IQ tests (the WAIS, Stanford Binet, Raven etc), but I was under the impression that most tests (those in the educational environment) were mainly achievement and aptitude based. Agree that grammar intensive approaches hardly yield the desired results and that language should be taught in a contextual and fun way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samsara Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Referring to language competency tests. When you break down those tests, as most people who are serious end up doing (practice tests, etc.), you start to see patterns in the questions, answers, etc. Therefore, if you know these patterns and can recognise them, the actual knowledge being used decreases, i.e. becomes less important. Im sure you wont argue this point. Its just one of the problems with standardised tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nat Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Samsara I would never argue - it's not ladylike Agree that patterns arise once these tests are broken down. Experts have criticised such tests as coaching improves performance. The validity of a test is a serious issue and one must look at the correlation coefficient to determine how much faith you can put into the results. I was referring to whether the tests tap into intelligence or aptitude. Intelligence tends to refer to a persons innate abilities and general potential which is idependent of prior learning. Whereas aptitude refers to the potential for learning a specific skill. Learning a language would refer to learning a new skill, so would assume that these tests were aptitude based Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_Pat_Pong Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 I got a Ph.D with much less erudition UP THE CHALKIES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nat Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 so you really are Dr - full of impressive surprises :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_Pat_Pong Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 so you are a teacher....where in Oz ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_Pat_Pong Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 a real teacher....as opposed to the group teaching parsar Angrid. There's some witless amongst that lot. The plural of you is youse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nat Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 very close Dr I'm in melbourne and a mixed bag of tricks. Am qualified to teach and about to take the plunge, however my educational background is in a different field all together (bit scared to say in what as people may run a mile). Whereas my professional experience couldn't be further from my qualifications. hee...hee youse :laugh: that's a bit sheepish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_Pat_Pong Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Bahhhhhhh email me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidcharles Posted October 24, 2003 Author Share Posted October 24, 2003 Apart from the little exchange between the good Doc & Nat, everything posted was music to my ears......Thanks everyone!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_Pat_Pong Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 The life of an Administrator here David ...desperately needs spice. Interchanges with Nat accord me that spice heheheh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samsara Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Nat, I think we agree, just semantics getting in the way of accord. Just curious: why does Dr. PP kiss Nat's ass? Gender issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_Pat_Pong Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Samsara...as an educator I thought you'd know that opposites attract. It must be a bugger being a bugger ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nat Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Just curious: why does Dr. PP kiss Nat's ass? cause it's lovely :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaVisionBurma Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 cause it's lovely \o/ Nice one Nat - and under the anonymity of the forum we are unable to disagree with you either. Here's to all of us on the board having great <deleted>, ...as opposed to making great <deleted> of ourselves on the board!! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samsara Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 You certainly are opposites, in more ways than Ill mention here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tutsiwarrior Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Dr PP...your pedantry is unfortunate regarding the use of colloquialisms such as 'youse'. If you are on the loading dock humping freight and the boss, who you don't like, comes by and says "ah's duh supuvasuh heah and youse gots to respect me...' whaddaya gonna do?...correct his English? If it's a Teamster job the wages and benefits are too good to give up. English is a dynamic and changing language... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_Pat_Pong Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 Sorry Tutsi....I like it to be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 Here's to all of us on the board having great <deleted> Saw a statistic somewhere, 80% of all women feel their <deleted> are too big, 15% think: 'too tight' and only 5% are happy with the one they mnarried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidcharles Posted October 30, 2003 Author Share Posted October 30, 2003 According to the latest research Cigarette Smoking makes your arse SAG! Now I am sure you will all agree, that if I Post and Post for the rest of my life, I will never disseminate a more important bit of info than that....Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinN Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Dr.PP, not to kleek the subject of ass's But if youse is the plural of you ,then is mongeese the plural of mongoose? Just thought I would ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_Pat_Pong Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Dr.PP, not to kleek the subject of ass's But if youse is the plural of you ,then is mongeese the plural of mongoose? Just thought I would ask. It is clearly M O N G O O S E S Kev, as we ( you'se and me ) versed in erudition well know. But I seek help from you to enable me to comprehend the meaning of K L E E K, and its linguistic roots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidcharles Posted November 3, 2003 Author Share Posted November 3, 2003 THIS IS THE SORT OF ENGLISH, UP WITH WHICH I WILL NOT PUT! (Winston Chuchill. Written it the margin of a memo from Naval HQ.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IT Manager Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 An erudite being, with a sense of humor. Unusual. How unusual is it do you think. Erudition is a function of properly applied educative science, closely coupled with an understanding of the principle of haste makes waste. Do it quick, forget it; do it right, stays alight. The perspicacity of board users, affilites and actual members seems to uphold the precept that intelligence seeks company, and succeeds in finding it, here. What do you think Khun Nat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now