Beth
- 2014-10-05
I often do the same when setting up a debate in class! I set the topic, get initial opinions and if anyone is strongly on one side of the argument, I have them debate the other perspective... I find it forces them to really think about thr language they use and it pushes them much more. It's easy to speak about something you're passionate about, arguing the opposite is a great way to stretch them linguistically!
I don't think that's what's at play here though, more a question of being unable to admit when you're wrong!
And no offense was taken, I just wasn't sure if you were looking for agreement on something! 
yu2fa3
- 2014-10-05
No, I'm sorry, they were not meant to be too clear; or was I in any way trying to bring you to task. Just the way I write my posts sometimes. I am sure the right person read it. You're doing a superb job. I suppose there must be some satisfaction in keeping an argument going when you know precious little about the subject. And not talking about you. I have asked students to debate using that technique. Not quite devil's advocate is it? Sort of bluffing technique.
Beth
- 2014-10-05
Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? Your last two posts are not really that clear?
I'm don't know if Turnoi had a degree, a doctorate or bronze swimming certificate! But he is clearly knowledgeable about a specific area of linguistics. Whether he has lifted that knowledge from the internet or actually studied it we can never be sure! My point is that he only teaches adults at a university, which means there are gaping holes in his knowledge and experience of teaching in certain areas of ESL, namely YL teaching from A1-C1 so he can have no credible input in to that area of teaching.
yu2fa3
- 2014-10-05
I'm not sure what you're passing on here? I agree that Turnoi has qualifications in specific fields. My point is that does not give him expertise in or experience of all branches of ESL teaching.
Yes but who do you agree with Beth and why? All I can say is that Turnoi finds himself in exactly the same position as many of us posting on this site. The position is is that we can all claim whatever we choose without providing any evidence for such claims. This agreeing about qualifications in specific fields, seems to me to be handing out wriggle-out-space. The alarming flaw in knowledge concerning pinyin numbers just doesn't give me any confidence that Chinese Mandarin would be one of the concessionary 'fields of expertise.'
Beth
- 2014-10-04
I'm not sure what you're passing on here? I agree that Turnoi has qualifications in specific fields. My point is that does not give him expertise in or experience of all branches of ESL teaching.
yu2fa3
- 2014-10-04
Nobody has suggested that you don't know about university teaching.
Pass. I would like to say that thousands of us are and have been 'acting university professors' in China. Most of us who say we've been employed as professors in China do not have doctorates like Turnoi has. Whatever your speciality is though your English should be exemplary. There also seems to be a good sprinkling, a ragtag brigade of odd-bod doctors who cannot be considered for posts in the west. They tend to be scruffy. They chain-smoke and smell like an old yan1hui1gang1. They are not employed because they will teach the students much but for promotional reasons.
Beth
- 2014-10-04
Nobody has suggested that you don't know about university teaching. You are obviously well versed in one specific area and that is fine.
But you do NOT know everything about teaching ESL, especially the area of YL teaching from Elementary to Upper-Intermediate. In this area you cannot teach 'descriptive' grammar; students learning a language from scratch need to have structure so they can unlock the language themselves. They need to know why we say certain things in certain ways and so as such, when teaching ESL, teaching the language how it is supposed to be spoken is the best and only way.
An example of your 'descriptive' grammar would be Welsh dialect; my Welsh friend would say "I seen that movie last night" in place of the correct past simple "I saw that movie last night". Whilst his use can be understood, it is not correct, however allowances are made when speaking to take in to account his regional interference, but in written English those same allowances would not be made. Another example would be the film 'Trainspotting' which used regional Scottish English and as such the use of subtitles were widely needed in English speaking countries such as Canada, America and Australia in order for watchers to understand the language used.
If a student, after gaining proficiency certification, wishes to take their studies further and investigate the nuances of language as it changes regionally or nationally, then fine, that is up to them and that is when how language is used in different places has value.
ESL learners, at any age or level, are not learning Chinglish, they are not learning the regional dialect of East London (for example) or the bastardisation of the English language when assimilated in to another culture. They are simply learning English, how it is spoken in either England or the USA, those are the only variants needed in an ESL classroom from A1 to C2.
To the student acquiring a new language for the first time, learning it correctly is the only way.
By saying otherwise you are confusing degree level studies with the teaching of English as a second language. They are two completely different things.