Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:1651] An East Asian Problem?
From: Adamson (adamson46844@mni.ne.jp)
Date: Tue 15 May 2001 - 00:02:18 MEST
From: "Adamson" <adamson46844@mni.ne.jp> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:1651] An East Asian Problem? Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 07:02:18 +0900
Lawrie Hunter said that he did not want to turn the discussion "into a Japan
insider forum". Considering the lack of contributions, I am beginning to
wonder if this is not primarily an East Asian problem. I am well acquainted
with this problem as it exists in Japan and have been told that the
situation is similar in Korea and Taiwan. However, I have little knowledge
about what has been happening in other countries. I guess that it is
possible that the problem does not exist outside of East Asia, since I just
assumed that it would exist in other areas as well.
Assuming that the above is true, I can image a number of conditions that
might prohibit the problem from occurring. For example, I have heard that
in the US most English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers are part time.
If this is true, it would be quite reasonable to assume the following:
[1] Due to economic conditions, they have never developed the skills to
prepare their own materials. In other words, it would be silly to spend
uncompensated time developing material when you could use the time to teach
a few more classes and increase your income.
[2] Due to the part time nature of the job, the teacher develops little
motivation to develop programs for the school which will not even give them
a full time job.
[3] Due to the possibility of not being rehired for the next semester, the
teacher are under much greater control by the program administrators, the
very people who in the first place purchased the computer lab without even
minimal concern as to its effect on the curriculum.
A couple of more possibilities are:
[4] It may be that computer labs are not installed by the administration and
forced on the faculty. It is conceivable that computer labs are installed
and utilized only under conditions where the faculty members want them and
that teachers are not forced to hold classes in them.
[5] It may be that we have already lost the war to the publishers. Less
than
10 years ago, a group of publisher's representatives sat on a panel at a
CALL related conference in Japan. One of them stated and the others agreed
(they shall go nameless for obvious reasons) publishers had a natural right
to control the content and methodology used in CALL. They seemed to be of
the opinion that the teacher should just do as he or she is told by the
text.
They also indicated that they would use their giant advertising budgets to
insure that this condition became the norm. Maybe they have succeeded on a
broader scale than I imagined. In Japan it is obvious that they have been
succeeding. Each year the new crop of teachers, including those with MAs in
the field, contains a higher percentage of teachers who believe that success
in teaching is achieved through selecting the appropriate popular text.
These teachers also argue against the idea of doing needs analysis or
setting specific goals for classes, either insisting that the book does it
or that it is impossible to do.
Can anyone on the expand on any of the above points or indicate their
accuracy? Is there anyone on the list who is neither using a commercial
produce nor is part of a large developmental group?
>From the moderator, Charles Adamson, Ph.D.
Professor, Faculty of Nursing Miyagi University Miyagi-ken, Japan
---------------------------------------------------------
List address to send message to everyone:
ifets-discussion@catfish.valdosta.edu
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue 15 May 2001 - 02:01:51 MEST