Why we really do what we do Part Three- Culture
Finally prompted to continue this series on WWRDWWD by Scott Thornbury’s thought provoking (as ever) piece on Flow, flow being something I’ve been pondering on for a while.
I have this strange obsession with making sure all parts of my lesson “flow”, if possible without students even noticing that they’ve moved from the chat about the weekend into the build up to the reading, or from the reading into the grammar presentation. I say “strange”, because this can lead still lead to total confusion when they are suddenly asked to open their books when they thought they were still chatting or even to irritation as they think a chat (which actually is no longer just a chat) or a transition between stages is going on for too long. Then there are the classes with 3 year olds, where their attention spans are so short that they hardly notice any connections, and complete changes would often be more useful in getting their attention and making sure we revise everything we have done so far in the course before it is too late and those memories are completely wiped. I still keep finding ”flow” at the front of my mind as I plan my lessons and decide what to do next in class though…
As with all these things I’ve been looking at the real reasons for, I could come up with logical explanations such as wanting to seem well planned, making the individual parts memorable by the way they tie together, recycling of similar language etc, but a much more likely reason for me continuing to teach that way year after year came to me when researching and then teaching a lesson on cultural differences in business meetings. According to my research and (limited) personal experience, British managers tend to put a ridiculous amount of effort into smoothly and cleverly linking into the business of the day from the chit chat, whereas the Japanese have a longer chit chat period followed by a very clear transition into a totally different down-to-business stage. This echoes the Japanese love of clear distinctions in general, most famously in uchi (inside) being not just the place you take your shoes off and drop your inhibitions, but also the usual word for “our”. This does match my experience, where a lack of clear markers between stages caused a lot more confusion (and with one group of executives even hostility, though there is an alternative explanation in that case!) than here in Korea, where smooth transitions don’t seem to be a problem but unexpected instructions tends to lead to more confusion than in Japan.
So there you have it- this generally time-wasting (in class and in my planning time) mania about bits of the lesson following each other still has more of an impact on what I do than linking to previous lessons or my estimation of exactly what students need at that moment, but now I can blame it on my parents! Unfortunately, for this particular thing there is an even bigger influence which I have realised more recently, which I will explore in WWRDWWD Part Four (unless I get distracted again). I’m sure being a Brit does affect hundreds of things that happen in my classroom, though. Anyone else got any other stories of their culture affecting their teaching, or cures for my own culture?
More on me and never quite adjusting to Japan (even though we often joke that I’m more Japanese than my wife) in The Big List of My Faux Pas on the TEFLtastic spin-off JapanExplained.
May 31st, 2010 at 7:46 am
I’m not so sure I’d (personally) be looking at this as a negative, Alex. I think the benefits of the “flow” are perhaps more intangible or submerged than you might guess, and even if you feel students would benefit from an awareness of the transition from one activity or mode to the next, I think this is yet another classroom opportunity for “noticing” (I have in the past asked students to review the lesson and to try and locate the transitions and think about why I might have worked things that way).
You are right of course to investigate your own background and culture in how you go about your work as a teacher, and also right to think about the learners’ context, expectations and preferences. But I don’t think you can ever be wrong for trying to mix things up a little and do them differently, nor for allowing your personality and personal modes to flavour the way you interact and teach learners.
Just with reference to your experience in Korea, I think your style represents a lot of plusses there. The Koreans love to work around the outside in a curve, with the core to be inferred, and digressions and tangents are not only welcome, they are actually considered desirable and maintain interest through a widening of the topic area. This is in reference to their discourse style, of course, whereas their learning style is fairly straight up A+B=C. I think a lesson with “flow” as you describe it would appeal to Korean learners, so long as there was a short A+B=C towards the beginning and/or end of the class.
I hope to goodness that made some sort of sense!
Cheers,
- Jason
June 1st, 2010 at 2:25 am
I would have agree that our own personal background definitely affects the way we are able to teach in a classroom. My own experiences come from teaching English in Taiwan for two years where I always tried to create a critical thinking environment in my classrooms. However, I quickly discovered that this does not go over particularly well within traditional Chinese culture. I had to adapt to suit the needs of my students.
Andrew