Comments on: Why we really do what we do Part Three- Culture http://www.tefl.net/alexcase/teach-abroad/asia/japan/why-we-really-do-part-three/ Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:48:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: GO! Overseas http://www.tefl.net/alexcase/teach-abroad/asia/japan/why-we-really-do-part-three/comment-page-1/#comment-10889 GO! Overseas Tue, 01 Jun 2010 02:25:42 +0000 http://www.tefl.net/alexcase/?p=5747#comment-10889 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 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

]]> By: English Raven http://www.tefl.net/alexcase/teach-abroad/asia/japan/why-we-really-do-part-three/comment-page-1/#comment-10873 English Raven Mon, 31 May 2010 07:46:29 +0000 http://www.tefl.net/alexcase/?p=5747#comment-10873 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 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

]]>