 |
 |
Thank you, Christopher. It is a delight to read this thread. I absolutely concur with John's points (though can't comment on 5 and 7, of course!). *Re: Michel Thomas* I too have been more inspired by Michel Thomas than any other individual in the MFL space. In my view, what is lacking in his method as applied to Chinese is primarily the result of the method being developed for a different kind of language. Many of the problems he addresses simply don't exist in Chinese; other problems, which only exist in Chinese, he doesn't address at all. *Re: Oracy vs Writing* What I've found (not with Primary, but with Secondary and Adult students) is that if you focus on oracy, students will always try to write something down (even if only in their minds) no matter how much you tell them not to. I have concluded that it is much better to give them a real Chinese hook than to let them create their own which they will have to unlearn. In other words, better to give them Pinyin than let them make up their own spellings; better still to give them a character which doesn't negatively influence the way they speak. *Request for Help* Over the last year I have been trying to formularise my conclusions from the past 30 years' experience into something that others can use. I would really value colleagues' feedback (offline please!) . If you'd be willing to review the work in progress, please take a look at http://www.minutemandarin.com/how/ and let me know what you think: [log in to unmask] Best regards 加油! Tim On 4 February 2016 at 06:09, John Bald <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I’d like to add some points to Christopher Pye’s informative survey. . > > 1. Michel Thomas was a friend of mine, and his discoveries in the field of > language teaching are, I believe, consistent with the brain research > evidence on the formation of neural networks. Above all, he did not go too > quickly at the beginning. Christopher is correct, though, in saying that > supplements are needed in vocabulary – the basis of Michel’s work is in > grammar and shared words (aka cognates, a word I don’t care for). We also > need to teach children to write, and the approach on my site using Clicker > 6 is a way of doing this while using the same principles as Michel. For > what it may be worth, I showed it to him on our last meeting, about a year > before he died, and he was extremely enthusiastic about it. I don’t see > Michel’s approach as building oracy, though. It builds understanding. > > 2. I’ve not used AIM, but I’ve used similar methods, verb songs and > gestures. I’m happy with as much of the new language to be used as > possible, as often as possible, provided the children understand it. It is > essential, though, that they be able to put a sentence together, positive > and negative, and this is the key to Michel’s approach, adapted for > Mandarin by Harold Browne. > > 3. We don’t learn a new language as we learn our first for many reasons, > not least that the structures of the first remain in place. My ppt > Eliminating Failure in Language Learning summarises much of the evidence on > this, but see Swan and Swan, Learner English, for evidence of the influence > of first language on children learning English. I suggest that what we are > doing is grafting new learning on to what we already know. > > 4. The only evidence I have is cases, but they are very consistent. In > Hackney, I had classes of seven and eight year olds writing accurate > sentences in French and Spanish – easier to start in Spanish – with full > understanding of what they were doing. My approach is similar to Michel’s, > though I developed it myself in work with people with reading difficulties. > At the BETT show in 1998, I shared a presentation with a Hackney teacher > who brought in the work of a whole class in French. I regularly rescue, pro > bono, GCSE candidates who don’t understand their work. The latest is on my > site. I do not teach spoken language and writing separately, but together, > from the beginning. This builds up children’s understanding of the > connections between them. > > 5. I very much like these sites. My pupils have all loved Zim Zam Zoum too. > > 6. The thematic approach is at the root of many of our problems, and we > should get rid of it. Children need to learn to adjust their thinking to > communicate in the new language. Once they can do this, they can branch out > in any direction. The thematic approach does not build understandiog of > grammar. > > 7. In short, I’m sure I’ve cracked this issue in European languages, and > believe Kingsford School has cracked it in Mandarin. Most of the rest of > current practice in European languages is based on errors that are not the > fault of practitioners, but of trainers and academics. See > http://johnbald.typepad.com/language/lost-in-a-fog/ > > Happy to have any further correspondence, either via the site or privately. > > John Bald > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email> This email has been sent from a > virus-free computer protected by Avast. > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email> > -- -- Tim F Nash Mobile: +44 7507 809041 LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/timfnash Web: timfnash.com