Print

Mail

wiki links

Letter: Teacher literacy is crucial

The thought-provoking debates between Stephen Krashen (Letters, Oct. 21, page 8) and Dan Ritco (Letters, Oct. 18 and Oct. 28, page 8) have revived the century-old debate of how to teach English as a second or foreign language efficiently. The three letters have reflected the controversial problems of our English proficiency in Taiwan, substantially pertinent to both school examinations and professional functions as a whole.

Both Krashen and Ritco have touched upon the crucial issues of teaching and learning of English as a foreign language (EFL) in non-English speaking countries: Ritco assumes that a skill-based curriculum featuring vocabulary memorization, grammar study and training in "inductive and deductive reasoning" is indeed one of the paths to proficiency and English learning. On the other hand, Krashen claims that we acquire language when we understand what we hear and what we read.

While both authors argue their point well, an important issue that has been omitted in the discussion, and is even frequently ignored in practice, is that we cannot achieve the learning outcome advocated by the aforementioned theories unless we are provided with well trained and dedicated English teachers who demonstrate optimal literacy and proficiency as well as the motivation to use innovative teaching aids such as contemporary multimedia and information technology both in and out of the classroom. In this manner, students can experience an immersion-like environment for English learning, thereby enhancing their listening, speaking, reading, writing and translation.

Three categories of best practices in EFL teacher motivation -- drawn from the experiences of English language teachers in Taiwan -- can be used to empower EFL instructors so that they may cope with the challenge of EFL education in both secondary and post-secondary levels of schooling. The three categories of best practices are "thorough mastery of the target language," "extrinsic motivation for EFL teachers/instructors," and "effective application of Internet technology."

Bearing in mind the importance of the teachers' level of target language proficiency, we should be aware that the challenge we are facing today in Taiwan, and in many other Asian countries, is the crucial problem of motivating English teachers' to pursue lifelong learning and implement creative teaching methodology, as well as increase their awareness of student diversity.

Ultimately, student attainment, be it in general language proficiency or in performance in examinations, will depend in part on the English teacher's literacy and proficiency in English.

Furthermore, English teachers' motivation for upgrading their language skills will help them to perform better on the job. Likewise, students will benefit from proficient English teachers' in the long run.

As the English proficiency of Taiwan's high school and college students is declining, it is imperative that we focus on English teacher training and retraining so as to assist teachers to improve their English literacy and proficiency to brace for the challenges of the 21st century.

Chen-ching Li

Taipei

In my response to Dan Ritco's assertion that a skill-based approach to language teaching is the correct path, I pointed out that Ritco's position ignores the last 30 years of research (Letters, Oct. 21, page 8).

In his response to me (Letters, Oct. 28, page 8), Ritco claims that he is familiar with the research but feels that "research, statistics and facts can be, and often are, manipulated to support theories in many, if not all, academic fields."

It is extremely difficult to manipulate research to fit a theory. Very few scholars try to do this because those who do are always exposed when others cannot replicate their results. Nevertheless, even if some researchers cheat, this is not an excuse to ignore all research.

Ritco also points out that there are many things we don't know about "higher brain functions."

This is of course true, but this is no reason to ignore what we do know.

For readers unfamiliar with the research I mentioned, it rests on the hypothesis that we acquire language when we understand what we hear and what we read.

There is massive evidence supporting this: Studies consistently show that students in classes that contain more "comprehensible input" do better than students in traditional classes at both beginning and intermediate levels and that those who do more pleasure reading, in or outside of school, have better vocabularies, write better, spell better, read better and have better control of complex grammar.

There is a great deal of (healthy) debate in the field on the role of grammar study. My interpretation of the research is that it shows that grammar study is not useless but has very limited effects.

This research, some done by me but most done by others, has appeared in professional journals and scholarly books over the last 30 years. Researchers in Taiwan have made substantial contributions to this scholarship.

I have attempted to summarize this work and discuss current controversies in several books, easily available in Taiwan through Crane Publishers, and one book and many articles are available for free on my Web site at www.sdkrashen.com.

Stephen Krashen

Los Angeles
This story has been viewed 1944 times.