Thai editorial: In teaching English, say it first, grammar later

[DP25]

Think one poster hit the nail on the head why not give retiree,s free extensions and work permit in return for them helping students learn English. One cost would be nothing really just ink in passport The retiree's would be giving something of benefit to Thai's instead of sitting are drunk all day. the retiree's would benefit from the teaching of English and most likely learn more Thai in the process and all schools would have English program at little to no cost.

The Thai teachers are too proud and don't want non degree holding retirees getting work permits and higher pay than they do, even though they graduated and taught for years yet can't speak the language they are employed to teach. Native English speaking retirees could be of huge benefit to Thai students, but that is of little importance in Thailand.

Thailand is moving towards more difficult requirements for foreigners, not easier, while the pay remains poverty tier.

[AGareth2]

about time

who cares about chemical symbols on a white board

[alien365]

I'm currently teaching a general communication course that is run by a Thai teacher. I was asked what I thought of the book beforehand and I said it was awful as there was no real opportunity to get the students to speak. Lo and behold she chose the book anyway. As you can imagine we are having lots of fun with the endless vocabulary that is not given in context; when to use ooh, uh-oh and shoot; grammar points like causative's, need+passive infinitive or need+verb+ing. It's great if you like to sit at the front of the class with the microphone just reading the teacher's book to the students, but it means I have to do so much more because i need to cover all of that and find time to get a class of 35 speaking too. Incredibly frustrating!

[Just1Voice]

I know a young Thai couple who are so proud of their Master Degrees in English from Chulalongkorn. When I try to talk to them, I have to "dumb down" like I'm speaking to a 6 year old kid from the ghettos of LA.

[jaywalker]

I agree with the editorial.

Back in my school days (long time ago) we learned English by playing role plays - e.g. how to buy things at the grocery, making sketches, we saw English movies without subtitles, listened to and read pop songs, listened to the BBC news etc. Then after a couple of years we started learning more of the grammar - at that time we were all confident in speaking English and you could start fine-tuning the grammar.

Of course the English teacher is most important person, and if the teacher doesn't understand nor speaks the language you can bring all your good intentions and achieve nothing.

I don't understand why Channel 3, 5 or 7 are not broadcasting e.g. Sesame Street or other high quality children's programmes in English - that would support the overall English (and math) learning of kids and adults.

My daughter flipping LOVED Elmo off of Sesame Street when she was a kid, Dora The Explorer too.

Yes English language TV helps a LOT.

Elmo even helped me potty train her.

---------------

I got her an Elmo doll once when she was 2. It would dance and sing & spin around.

She was TERRIFIED of it.

[TEFLKrabi]

Soooo... How did we all learn our native languages? In a classroom studying grammar?

No, we learned from our mothers and others and we could speak and listen long before we saw a classroom. The grammar doesn't begin to make sense until one knows the language just a bit.

The author is absolutely correct about methods, and that the present system doesn't work as proved by the clear fact that Thai children can't speak English after 12 years of it.

Sorry to spoil your illusion but first language acquisition and second language acquisition are very different matters. Learning grammar alongside everyday usage is essential if you want to be proficient in a second language. The major problem is that Thais spend 2 hours per week using English and that just isn't enough to learn it properly. Try learning Thai using the same method and you'll get nowhere.

[carter1882]

The notion that learning English is the be all and end all of education is at best nonsense and at worst just cultural imperialism. The focus should be on a more imaginative approach in teaching other more valuable subjects like maths and science, as others have posted. Indeed Thai language with its simplicity should be promoted as a world language. That should really stick it to the Blighty and Yankee imperialists who seek to dominate with their language.

[Lunchbob]

You are way behind. An article was already published that admitted most of the teachers cannot speak English and so of course they cannot teach it. Very simple. There are many solutions.

And the reason these teachers can't speak English, and therefore can't teach it, is because they are Thai! They sa-peak Thai! Toning down their silly nationalism and false pride would be a start to opening up to the fact there's a world outside of Thailand and they must now engage with it.

I am sure everyone can see how ridiculous this quoted post is. Thais or martians or zebras who teach a particular subject must know about that subject.

[pauleddy]

I taught for some years at one of the nation's "leading" unis.

There are a number of problems to be overcome. Who knows where to start?

Most or all of the points raised above are germane. Compound the poor quality of early years or juniors teaching (especially up-country) along with the crazy Thai nationalism thing/chip on shoulder and then stir in lack of work ethic, self discipline-- or big laziness, along with a large dollop of "unable to fail you". Add a splash of boys/girls and IPhone 6s "are all more attractive than English". Blend in the fact that TEFL is something that backpackers do during a gap year, leading to variances in style and actual knowledge and blood alcohol levels. Whip in some Filipinos who, despite working hard for 15,000b, speak with an odd whine and make grammar and syntax mistakes as big as the Titanic. Penultimately, add in corrupt officials and teachers at all levels who take tea-money or sell exam papers, or even trouser large shedfuls of money which was destined for new classrooms or laptops but which miraculously transmogrifies into a Mercedes or a nice house.

Finally, add "new initiatives" every six months which only serve to make all teachers more confused than before, along with 12,000b Thai Dancing and Cooking weekends (er..."culture" courses). Then, bake slowly in the Immigration Office/Labour Dept where foreign teachers must queue all day to sort out a visa which enables them to teach at all.

Store the above for about fifty years and let the product mature...until 2015.

Then, repeat as required.

Eddy

[sawadee1947]

Soooo... How did we all learn our native languages? In a classroom studying grammar?

No, we learned from our mothers and others and we could speak and listen long before we saw a classroom. The grammar doesn't begin to make sense until one knows the language just a bit.

The author is absolutely correct about methods, and that the present system doesn't work as proved by the clear fact that Thai children can't speak English after 12 years of it.

No, that's nonsense.

To learn a foreign language - NOT YOUR MOTHER LANGUAGE !! - you have to learn GRAMMAR. Otherwise you can't use vocabulary. Easy as that.

[Goethe]

The internet is a very democratic institution: it allows everyone to participate in discussing any topic -- whether or not they have any knowledge or expertise about that topic.

Unfortunately, almost all the responses to and opinions expressed about this topic reveal a complete ignorance about the process of learning a second language.

1. Comparing the learning of one's native language to learning a second language is a false analogy. You are immersed in your first language from birth, 24 hours a day Starting to learn a second language around the age of 7 of 8 years of age in the classroom for even one hour a day will ensure that progress is painfully slow. Two years in a classroom is equivalent to one week in the country of the target language.

2. Those who advocates "speak first; grammar can come later" fail to realise that even the simplest phrases ("Hello, how are you") are based on correct grammar. There are three goals of language learning: reading, writing and speaking. The last one (speaking) is the hardest to acquire and requires years and years of practice.

3. Without some study of grammar all second-language speakers will speak fractured English -- O.K. for everyday communication, but a handicap when aiming for better-paying jobs (e.g. hotel receptionist).

4. To conduct an intelligent conversation in a second language requires approx. 3000 hours of study and practice -- that is, 10 hours a week for six years. Individual results may vary (some people have a "knack" for languages), but the average person will never speak truly fluently with a wide vocabulary without years of study and/or years spent in the country. How many farang do you know who speak fluent Thai? What percentage of the total number of permanent residents do they represent?

Trust me, I'm a Doctor - a retired Professor of Languages.

[ratcatcher]

You can't communicate effectively unless you know how to change the verb to match context - eat, eats, ate, has eaten, is eating, was eating, will eat, is going to eat, will have eaten, had eaten etc. Grammar is essential otherwise people speak like bar girls - you eat mango today, you eat mango tomorrow, you eat mango now and that's just about it.

But you could transport a bar girl to a foreign (English speaking) country and she would survive on her own.

95% of Uni grads would starve

Quite true.

Laugh, as many will, at "bar-girl" English, the fact is that a many of the ladies who have made their way in the "R & R" business are far more competent at "communicating" in English , and sometimes other languages, than most of the people with university degrees employed at department stores, banks and other retail areas.

"Bar-girl" English is an effective way of communicating, hard on the ear for grammar purists indeed, but nevertheless effective and rewarding (for them).

I speak enough basic Thai to try to make myself understood, yet, unfortunately for me, have never had an hour's Thai language teaching. I learned by listening to Thais speak, both family, friends and TV and movies. Yet when I enter a bank or e.g. , an AIS office, I am lucky to find one basic English speaker.

I don't have a problem with the argument "Well, TIT, so speak Thai, but these people have all spent hours listening to a Thai teacher droning on about English grammar and sentence structure, without even having a basic conversation.

Some fortunate souls have had an overseas education and it shows.

[eliotness]

The notion that learning English is the be all and end all of education is at best nonsense and at worst just cultural imperialism. The focus should be on a more imaginative approach in teaching other more valuable subjects like maths and science, as others have posted. Indeed Thai language with its simplicity should be promoted as a world language. That should really stick it to the Blighty and Yankee imperialists who seek to dominate with their language.

I hate to pour cold water on your theory, but since the end of ww2 most science, maths and engineering is conducted in English. There are many examples of people fighting this "language imperialism", Afrikaners and Welsh spring to mind, both failed miserably. The French have had an ongoing battle with this since 1945 and are losing ground every year. There are many variations of English spoken around the world, so only a fool would try to teach "Queen's English". Heck, even in the UK there are big differences how it is spoken. Plus the use of incorrect grammar is becoming more and more obvious in multicultural Britain. As for promoting Thai as a world language, have you just landed from a different planet ?

[Loaded]

You can't communicate effectively unless you know how to change the verb to match context - eat, eats, ate, has eaten, is eating, was eating, will eat, is going to eat, will have eaten, had eaten etc. Grammar is essential otherwise people speak like bar girls - you eat mango today, you eat mango tomorrow, you eat mango now and that's just about it.

But you could transport a bar girl to a foreign (English speaking) country and she would survive on her own.

95% of Uni grads would starve

Quite true.

Laugh, as many will, at "bar-girl" English, the fact is that a many of the ladies who have made their way in the "R & R" business are far more competent at "communicating" in English , and sometimes other languages, than most of the people with university degrees employed at department stores, banks and other retail areas.

"Bar-girl" English is an effective way of communicating, hard on the ear for grammar purists indeed, but nevertheless effective and rewarding (for them).

I speak enough basic Thai to try to make myself understood, yet, unfortunately for me, have never had an hour's Thai language teaching. I learned by listening to Thais speak, both family, friends and TV and movies. Yet when I enter a bank or e.g. , an AIS office, I am lucky to find one basic English speaker.

I don't have a problem with the argument "Well, TIT, so speak Thai, but these people have all spent hours listening to a Thai teacher droning on about English grammar and sentence structure, without even having a basic conversation.

Some fortunate souls have had an overseas education and it shows.

It's true bargirls can be transported by their dahlings to a western country and survive but that's because they primarily only need to communicate with the dummie, their sponsor, who married them. innit.

[arfurcrown]

Loaded post # 44

It's true bargirls can be transported by their dahlings to a western country and survive but that's because they primarily only need to communicate with the dummie, their sponsor, who married them. innit.

To make a statement like you just have is indeed demeaning to both the Thai's and the foreigners they are married to.

Perhaps we should judge you and your views and opinions by the same yardstick.

[toybits]

I taught my kids English. They Aced their TOEFL exams. I am not an English teacher.

[Seastallion]

"Students should be learning with their ears, gradually absorbing the subtleties of the language, just as they did in learning to speak their native language as infants. They should be encouraged to listen and then speak English without having to worry about grammatical errors."

I STRONGLY agree with this.

I had this discussion with Wifey a few days ago. She disagrees. Her speciality is English grammar, and she could teach most of us here a thing or two, so it's her pet subject and she wants to promote it.

My stance is, forget teaching the confusing and complicated grammar rules until the students have a large enough vocabulary to put the rules into practice. Then, only some rules. More rules as their need for higher English proceeds. The level of grammar that Wifey teaches is above my knowledge (technically), and really is only for academic levels of English, but she is teaching to vocational teenagers and matayom 2 students.

English is a bastardised language, born of multiple cross-cultural parents and thus has conflicting spelling and grammar rules. Name one spelling or grammar rule that does not have multiple exceptions!

As the OP suggests, learn English as the students learnt Thai, and indeed as we learnt English, by listening. How many of us have heard a NES child say something like, "I go'ed to the park with Mummy" (in answer to the question, "Where did you go?"). The child is displaying a grasp of the patterns of the language by forming a word he/she has never heard before, but seems to fit the pattern of words she/he has heard before.

I'm learning to speak Thai. I am thus far surviving with following the patterns of speech and resisting the attempt to translate in an English grammar way (Gin kao laow yang? Yang mai gin (instead of mai yang gin)). Once my vocab is right up, I might learn Thai grammar rules...but I suspect that it won't be needed because I will have already grasped the patterns for conversation, and it is only if I was to be writing or speaking at a high academic level that I would need to know some intricacies of the grammar. Same for English learners.

When Primary 1 or Primary 2 Thai kids are being taught (parrot fashion) about "the verb "to be"", and do not have nearly enough vocab, or even the mental maturity to grasp the concepts involved, it's a complete waste of both the teacher's time and the student's.

[Seastallion]

I taught my kids English. They Aced their TOEFL exams. I am not an English teacher.

Exactly. And if you're anything like me, your knowledge of the actual grammar rules and how they work is minimal, but you do know how to put a sentence together without knowing the "why". It just is.

[Lunchbob]

The internet is a very democratic institution: it allows everyone to participate in discussing any topic -- whether or not they have any knowledge or expertise about that topic.

Unfortunately, almost all the responses to and opinions expressed about this topic reveal a complete ignorance about the process of learning a second language.

1. Comparing the learning of one's native language to learning a second language is a false analogy. You are immersed in your first language from birth, 24 hours a day Starting to learn a second language around the age of 7 of 8 years of age in the classroom for even one hour a day will ensure that progress is painfully slow. Two years in a classroom is equivalent to one week in the country of the target language.

2. Those who advocates "speak first; grammar can come later" fail to realise that even the simplest phrases ("Hello, how are you") are based on correct grammar. There are three goals of language learning: reading, writing and speaking. The last one (speaking) is the hardest to acquire and requires years and years of practice.

3. Without some study of grammar all second-language speakers will speak fractured English -- O.K. for everyday communication, but a handicap when aiming for better-paying jobs (e.g. hotel receptionist).

4. To conduct an intelligent conversation in a second language requires approx. 3000 hours of study and practice -- that is, 10 hours a week for six years. Individual results may vary (some people have a "knack" for languages), but the average person will never speak truly fluently with a wide vocabulary without years of study and/or years spent in the country. How many farang do you know who speak fluent Thai? What percentage of the total number of permanent residents do they represent?

Trust me, I'm a Doctor - a retired Professor of Languages.

Doctor, can a person who does not speak a language teach it?

[Seastallion]

Soooo... How did we all learn our native languages? In a classroom studying grammar?

No, we learned from our mothers and others and we could speak and listen long before we saw a classroom. The grammar doesn't begin to make sense until one knows the language just a bit.

The author is absolutely correct about methods, and that the present system doesn't work as proved by the clear fact that Thai children can't speak English after 12 years of it.

No, that's nonsense.

To learn a foreign language - NOT YOUR MOTHER LANGUAGE !! - you have to learn GRAMMAR. Otherwise you can't use vocabulary. Easy as that.

Nonsense. NS is absolutely correct.

It's called "learning by ear" and how I learnt two other languages. Thai will be my 3rd, 4th if you count English as learnt from my mother...by ear.

[Time Traveller]

Well with the current thai national school program revealed - as outlined in this week's NY Times article - to be promoting trivial school contests instead of academics. It's quite obvious the last thing this government wants in Thailand is Thai people proficient in English.

Stay dumb, stay loyal is the motto.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Time Traveller

[Fookhaht]

When I first started teaching English in Thailand, the head of the English department in the college where I worked could not hold a simple conversation.

To communicate with him, because I had not yet learned Thai, I had to bring with me one of my better English students for translation.

Not only was it an embarrassment to both of us adults, but it was such a wretched model to the good student.

Pitiful situation, which has not changed a great deal over the years.

[Fookhaht]

The internet is a very democratic institution: it allows everyone to participate in discussing any topic -- whether or not they have any knowledge or expertise about that topic.

Unfortunately, almost all the responses to and opinions expressed about this topic reveal a complete ignorance about the process of learning a second language.

1. Comparing the learning of one's native language to learning a second language is a false analogy. You are immersed in your first language from birth, 24 hours a day Starting to learn a second language around the age of 7 of 8 years of age in the classroom for even one hour a day will ensure that progress is painfully slow. Two years in a classroom is equivalent to one week in the country of the target language.

2. Those who advocates "speak first; grammar can come later" fail to realise that even the simplest phrases ("Hello, how are you") are based on correct grammar. There are three goals of language learning: reading, writing and speaking. The last one (speaking) is the hardest to acquire and requires years and years of practice.

3. Without some study of grammar all second-language speakers will speak fractured English -- O.K. for everyday communication, but a handicap when aiming for better-paying jobs (e.g. hotel receptionist).

4. To conduct an intelligent conversation in a second language requires approx. 3000 hours of study and practice -- that is, 10 hours a week for six years. Individual results may vary (some people have a "knack" for languages), but the average person will never speak truly fluently with a wide vocabulary without years of study and/or years spent in the country. How many farang do you know who speak fluent Thai? What percentage of the total number of permanent residents do they represent?

Trust me, I'm a Doctor - a retired Professor of Languages.

Doctor, can a person who does not speak a language teach it?

Thank God he's retired. Hopefully the theory will die with him.

[Singharh]

Most of the schools have a budget to employ NES teachers but they pocket most of the money hence can't find English teachers for the salary they offer...

[trigpoint]

The kids in Cambodia speak more and better English, even the ones that don't go to school, that's because they want to, unlike Thai kids. Most them (Cambodians) write English on their face book page as well.

[toybits]

Burmese speak better English as well...

[Tywais]

Soooo... How did we all learn our native languages? In a classroom studying grammar?

No, we learned from our mothers and others and we could speak and listen long before we saw a classroom. The grammar doesn't begin to make sense until one knows the language just a bit.

The author is absolutely correct about methods, and that the present system doesn't work as proved by the clear fact that Thai children can't speak English after 12 years of it.

When I was studying for my TESOL/TEFL certification I had to teach students from a variety of countries. The Japanese were masters of grammar, probably exceeding my own knowledge but speaking and understanding - no. On the other side, students from Indonesia and especial Brunei seemed to have rules of grammar and comprehension down.

The course used total immersion and contextual methods of learning. The very first day of the course the instructor walked into the room and started speaking Japanese. For the full hour that is all he used combined with visuals to produce a context. By the time that lesson was over we all could speak to each other in rudimentary Japanese conversation. Very powerful method.

I studied Spanish in high school for 2 years and it was memorize, memorize, memorize. Required to memorize 100 word each week and tested on them. Still can't speak Spanish.

[LannaGuy]

Speak it first is the right approach and worry about technicalities later. When I used to go to Russia a lot I could communicate quite well and had NO clue about the technicalities, I am a native English speaker for decades and still don't understand the technicalities I just communicate!

Thais don't speak much English because they are xenophobic and think Thai is the number one language in the world and they don't 'need' foreigners!

[Goethe]

The internet is a very democratic institution: it allows everyone to participate in discussing any topic -- whether or not they have any knowledge or expertise about that topic.

Unfortunately, almost all the responses to and opinions expressed about this topic reveal a complete ignorance about the process of learning a second language.

1. Comparing the learning of one's native language to learning a second language is a false analogy. You are immersed in your first language from birth, 24 hours a day Starting to learn a second language around the age of 7 of 8 years of age in the classroom for even one hour a day will ensure that progress is painfully slow. Two years in a classroom is equivalent to one week in the country of the target language.

2. Those who advocates "speak first; grammar can come later" fail to realise that even the simplest phrases ("Hello, how are you") are based on correct grammar. There are three goals of language learning: reading, writing and speaking. The last one (speaking) is the hardest to acquire and requires years and years of practice.

3. Without some study of grammar all second-language speakers will speak fractured English -- O.K. for everyday communication, but a handicap when aiming for better-paying jobs (e.g. hotel receptionist).

4. To conduct an intelligent conversation in a second language requires approx. 3000 hours of study and practice -- that is, 10 hours a week for six years. Individual results may vary (some people have a "knack" for languages), but the average person will never speak truly fluently with a wide vocabulary without years of study and/or years spent in the country. How many farang do you know who speak fluent Thai? What percentage of the total number of permanent residents do they represent?

Trust me, I'm a Doctor - a retired Professor of Languages.

Doctor, can a person who does not speak a language teach it?

Yes: students can rise above the limitations of their teacher -- in all fields of study. There is a foolproof method for learning a language: several years of study in the classroom (including basic grammar), followed by a year in a country where the target language is spoken = fluency.

[SoilSpoil]

Speak it first is the right approach and worry about technicalities later. When I used to go to Russia a lot I could communicate quite well and had NO clue about the technicalities, I am a native English speaker for decades and still don't understand the technicalities I just communicate!

Thais don't speak much English because they are xenophobic and think Thai is the number one language in the world and they don't 'need' foreigners!

Thais don't speak much English because Thai is the official language here. I have never met 1 Thai who thinks that Thai is the number one language in the world.

And what about this 'don't need foreigners' statement? Thais are more than capable of taking care of them selves. They've done this for ages, with or without English.

Edited September 23, 2015 by SoilSpoil