Steve HirschhornPrincipal of EckersleyOxford
Contact:steve@eckersley.co.uk
Steve Hirschhorn has been teaching and training teachers for nearly 30 years. Before coming to Eckersley in January 07, Steve was the Head of the Language Teaching and Training Unit at St Mary’s College, University of Surrey and a Senior Lecturer on the St Mary’s MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT. He has taught and trained all over the world and in the last 12 months has lectured or trained teachers in China, Jordan, Peru, Germany, Japan and Holland. His main academic interest lies in the history of the development of English Language Teaching in the 20th century.
Bart J. Tkaczyk (The Teacher)University of California, Berkeley, USA
Contact: bart.tkaczyk@energizers.pl
Bart Tkaczyk is a Fulbright Fellow at University of California, Berkeley. He’s a fully-qualified teacher trainer, Business (English) trainer, team facilitator, educator, university instructor, exam interlocutor & reviewer (City & Guilds), linguist (UNESCO), e-publisher (MorphOn). He studied, worked and gave presentations in Belgium, England, Greece, Holland, Poland, Romania, Serbia and the USA. He is the founder of ‘ENERGIZERS – Training & Coaching. Engineered’ (www.energizers.eu), a company expert in smart teacher training, coaching, and trainer mentoring.
Bart: Hello, Steve.
Steve: Hi and welcome to EckersleyOxford. Bart: Let me ask you a couple of questions concerning the teaching (training) profession in general and the current methodology. First, please tell us something about yourself and your teaching (training) backgrounds. Steve: I started out as a teacher by chance when I was living in Switzerland many years ago; my girl-friend’s father was an executive for a large Swiss company and he asked me to take on a group of toxicologists who were taking an exam in English. As you might imagine, I failed miserably (and so did they) but it demonstrated two things for me: 1) there’s more to teaching language than speaking it and 2) although I had not done a good job, I had really enjoyed trying. So then I took the TEFL course at IH Hastings (sadly no longer there) and was utterly inspired by trainers such as Adrian Underhill. I gained an ‘A’ grade on that course which was quite rare and it gave me the impetus to launch myself into teaching English as a career. I’ve never looked back! I spent the next few years teaching for IH in Italy and the UK and later opened my own schools in Italy. During the period in Italy I became especially interested in the work of Caleb Gattegno and studied Silent Way under him. I also trained for Suggestopedia in the same period and both of these very different approaches have helped to inform my own teaching. These days I spend most of my classroom time training, either in-service or entry-level. Unfortunately I am stuck with lots of office-based work so I don’t spend as much time as I’d like in the classroom. Bart: To begin with, is teaching foreign languages the art? If yes, why? Steve: I think teaching, not just languages but any teaching, is a combination of art, science and intuition. I also think that a successful teacher is one who can balance those not necessarily happy bed-fellows. Bart: What, sometimes, makes learning foreign languages really boring? Steve: Well that’s an interesting question. Personally I love languages and could not imagine being bored while learning one but I can also recognise that if a teacher were to ramble on explaining things or not give me enough time to try stuff out, experiment, I could get frustrated more than bored. I think all language teachers should make a habit of attending language classes every couple of years or so – I took a short course in Japanese last year and it reminded me of so many basic problems which teachers and learners have. A teacher must empathise with his or her students – know where they’re coming from and what makes them tick. I think a teacher who is bored will have students who are bored and in that case it’s probably the right moment to consider a career break. Bart: What do you think of when you think of current trends in teaching English as a foreign/second language? Steve: Well current trends according to the literature must include ‘eclecticism’ and I guess ‘a’ (not ‘the’) lexical approach. Having said that we don’t really have a direction at the moment and I think there’s a sense that methodology, a more or less prescriptive way to work, is now unacceptable. Having said that, I think that many teachers are still asking ‘but how do you do that?’ which of course is a question to do with a methodology. The communicative approach has never formulated a theory of teaching and this has had an effect because teachers can see the logic of the language theory but are left wondering about delivery. There seems to be a lack of creative energy in teaching at the moment and teachers (not all of course but as a movement) are less ready to take risks, push the boundaries and discover things. After all, SLA research hasn’t really given the practitioner any straight answers – that’s not a criticism of research, it’s a fact based on the complexity of language acquisition – we don’t know how people learn languages and tied up with that of course is the notion that we therefore don’t know how best to teach! In fact I firmly believe that I don’t know what I’m doing and every step is a trial run. Perhaps we should be giving much more support to Action Research so that teachers can develop their own body of principles based on their own classroom observations. Bart: What demotivates students most – what do you reckon? Steve: That’s a tricky question because students are all different. Children, adults, those who are forced to attend, those who attend for specific reasons, no particular reason and so on. In general I suppose lack of success would apply to all, this is bound to demotivate. Many teachers are lumbered with having to teach students how to pass exams rather than actually get to grips with the language as a communicative system and in those cases, I feel for both teachers and students since neither group is doing what they might want to do. I suppose that as teachers we have to cope with many different scenarios and part of the ‘art’ of what we do is to encourage, inspire and motivate our students – that’s ‘affect’ really isn’t it? Since what we teach may well not get learned, we can at least create an environment in which learning could take place. To really begin to answer this question we would need to look at motivation types and decide which ones, we as teachers, can influence and which, we are unlikely to. I was talking with a Palestinian teacher a few weeks ago who was desperate because her teenage students were entirely unmotivated to learn English. She told me that she had tried everything to no avail – anything I suggested, she said she had done! In the end I told her we aren’t magicians, we can’t create a learning situation unilaterally, the process is collaborative. I suggested that ultimately one has to balance the stress of that working environment with the results and if they don’t match then take the final course of action which is to leave the job. This is not admitting defeat (assuming the teacher has tried everything they can) but it’s recognising that we are just people who do a job for the rewards it brings – if the rewards aren’t there – get out! Bart: World Englishes? Which one(s) to teach and why? Steve: That answer to that question is surprisingly simple: you teach a) what you can and b) according to students’ needs and wants. That’s it as far as I’m concerned. Bart: What fascinates you most about teaching English? Steve: That it’s so easy and yet so very difficult. Bart: Grammar teaching – the best way of teaching grammar is… Steve: Not to teach it! No, I’m kidding and yet in a sense there’s some truth in it. I suppose to give a proper answer we would need to define ‘teach’ and define ‘grammar’. I try not to ‘teach’ at all as teaching doesn’t equate to learning. Instead I try to lead and collaborate according to the needs of the moment. In terms of ‘grammar’, I like consciousness-raising activities because they recognise the importance for students of understanding how something works but they don’t cause students to engage in meaningless repetition or heads-down study of grammar rules. Rather, we are busy looking for patterns, coming to tentative conclusions and testing things out. In this way students can be intellectually involved with the processes rather than being told things – something which rarely works in my experience. My instincts tell me that Krashen is right: grammar can be acquired through exposure but my ‘scientific’ head, combined with the knowledge that few students receive sufficient exposure for that to happen argues that Larsen-Freemen is right: even if grammar can be acquired naturally, it can still be taught. Bart: Homework… – what to do to make sure homework is definitely not groanwork? Steve: I have 3 simple rules for homework: 1) never tell students to ‘write x sentences using y’, 2) always give students the space to create language and 3) always review homework. The results of applying all 3 rules is that students are often more motivated to construct something than simply to repeat a pattern and that all students’ work will be entirely different. This is great because it takes us away from the ‘right’/’wrong’ thinking into ‘let’s share our ideas’ and work from there. Learners usually expect the teacher to be the giver of information but it really doesn’t take very long for them to realise that they can learn more from each other than they ever will from a teacher. Bart: Innovations & technology in class? Why (not)? Steve: Yes, why not? I’m all for it as long as it helps the students in some way. I’m reminded of Gattegno (Silent Way) who advocated the use of a pointer as an essential classroom tool. It’s not technology but it’s relevant! The first time I heard him say that I thought ‘well... I can also use my hand to point things out.’ but Gattegno had a very good reason for insisting on the use of a pointer and that was to distance the teacher from the language. Now this may not make much sense if you aren’t familiar with Silent Way but the point I’m trying to make is that if something serves you and your students, if you can support its use, then use it. I don’t care if it’s a computer or a lobster. Bart: Is learning English the whole world over an absolute must these days or it’s just jazzy? Steve: Well, let’s hope it’s an absolute must because otherwise we’ll all be looking for different jobs before long! Anyway, if it’s a fad, it’s quite a long one! Bart: The key language you’d input teaching English as a foreign language on day one would be…, and how would you do this? Steve: Actually I can’t answer that because without a context, I can’t work. I hate working from strictly prescribed syllabi or even from course books. I’ll do it if I am forced to but I really believe that if someone is paying me good money, I should be using my experience, my art, science and intuition to respond to them not just drag them through a plan some dislocated ‘expert’ has put together. So what’s the ‘key’ language? That which students have just discovered a need for but are as yet unable to use. How do I do it? By getting them to work with me. Bart: Lexical approach – a current trend or a dead end? Steve: Well, as I mentioned before, I see ‘a’ lexical approach as being central to the way we proceed. Unfortunately Michael Lewis has not managed to encourage too many teachers to take up his challenge. And yet, even if you don’t follow his route directly, there’s plenty of interesting evidence and indications which suggest we might do well to see language from a lexical point of view. One doesn’t have to abandon everything else, in fact I’m convinced that many good teachers are already doing much which would fit into a lexical approach, without necessarily realising it. Personally I was working on collocations before I’d even heard the word used in this context. I think some of the technical implications are often redundant, I mean is it really useful for a teacher to have a taxonomy of lexical chunks? I don’t think so but I think many have been put off by the unnecessary complexity of some of Lewis’ advice. I’m still not completely clear in my mind what ‘lexicalised grammar and grammaticalised lexis’ really mean and so, in a way, I tend to ignore what isn’t directly useful to me as a teacher. Bart: Using the mother tongue in L2 class? Does it make sense at all? Steve: This debate has been going on from at least the late 19th century. The question is not ‘why’ in my view but ‘why not’. I think though that context is important here too. If you are teaching in the L1 environment, I know how easy it is to take ‘short cuts’ by using L1; it’s a rather slippery slope and before you know where you are L2 has become a curiosity rather than a system of communication in the classroom (which of course it is as well as being a communicative system in the broader sense). Students too in the L1 context often find it easier to communicate in L1 and why shouldn’t they? My view is that assuming all your students speak the same L1, you can use a limited amount of L1 in the classroom – the trick is to know when, and even more importantly, why you can do that. A quick translation of a lexical item might save a little time and I see no reason to proscribe that. On the other hand, you need to balance student challenge against gain. Do things remain longer in memory if we have invested some effort into achieving them? I think they probably do. So, personally, I tend to avoid L1 in the classroom because I see a challenge for myself in creating understanding and a challenge for students to achieve understanding. What I don’t like is when teachers give instructions in L1 and then say “well they wouldn’t understand in L2” I think that’s lazy and extremely patronising as well as being an avoidance of one’s responsibility as a teacher. What would those teachers do in a multi-lingual class? The answer then is going to depend on your context first and your philosophy of teaching second. In other words you decide but make it a rational decision! Bart: Teaching natural English (not ‘bookish’ English) – how and why? Steve: What you are calling ‘bookish’ is I suppose a reference to Grammar Translation. In the old days languages instruction was a means to gain access into the classics rather than as a means to communicative use and so the language taught tended to be ‘bookish’. There is no argument for that now unless you have an ESP course with those aims. Otherwise the language should be treated as what it is: a tool of communication. We are back really with my mantra: make the language suit your students’ needs. Bart: Will online teaching replace traditional in-class instruction at some point? Steve: Probably not. When convenience foods came in people said “Oh, that’s the death of the chef, the restaurant, no-one will be cooking in 20 years’ time” but here we are. When we are rushed we might eat convenience food but when we have time, we cook; we simply have more choice. I can see a place for online work – specifically for academic writing for example (we have such a course with students from all over the world who have had no previous experience of AW) and with the growth of Voice Over Internet systems like Skype I can imagine that some teaching will take place in those environments. That’s great because it gives us more choice. I’d like to learn Arabic but don’t have the time to attend classes – can I do from home? That would be wonderful but it won’t put us out of a job as long as we keep ourselves up to date. Bart: Queen’s English… should it be taught to learners of English as a second/foreign language? Do you believe in teaching ‘standard’ English? Steve: I’m sorry to be boring but this comes back yet again to responding to student need! It’s not for us to determine what variety of English is taught – that rather assumes a passivity in our students. ‘You’ll get what we give you and like it’. If someone asked me for a course of Queen’s English (unlikely but possible) I would ask them why they needed that variety. If the answer convinced me that indeed that particular variety was suitable for functioning in the chosen environment, I’d comply (in fact I would have to employ someone because I couldn’t do it!). Standard English is, by definition, a standard. Assuming that a student needs what we might call a ‘general variety’ for use in multiple environments then I guess SE would be what we would teach. To be honest I rarely think about this because it’s pretty difficult to teach a variety which isn’t your own. Problems would occur if for example I had a group of teens who wanted the jargon of their peers – can I at 56, deliver that? I’m not sure I could or would. I might be better off getting a teacher who is more in tune with that generation and their thinking. Bart: What makes a lesson absolutely fantastic? Is there some perfect teaching recipe? Steve: No! For a while a colleague and I used to challenge each other to give a lesson based around an object at 3 minutes’ notice. One day he gave me a woollen hat, the type skiers might wear. I had 3 minutes and a group I’d never met. I took the hat in, sat down and asked a couple of opening questions: “What’s this?” “What’s it made of?” etc, etc. And then I began to ask them to speculate about its ownership, its origins, expecting to be able to build a great story of, perhaps, a granny who had knitted it for her grandson and he loses it and has to go and tell her and so on.. It was to be a wonderful story allowing us to examine all sorts of useful language. The reality was stony, uninterested silence accompanied by the occasional shrug! A total flop, a miserable failure. I had failed to connect to my students and they had not been moved at all by the opportunities I thought I was giving them. So, connect to your students but of course that raises the question: how? Ask me in another 30 years and maybe I’ll have worked it out! Bart: Teaching slang? Does it make sense as it changes so quickly? Steve: Language changes quickly – let’s all wait until it stops and then learn it! If you teach something, ‘slang’ or not, there’s a chance that in a few years (or even months) it won’t be current any more. That’s fine because one doesn’t simply learn a language and then pop it in a box; one continues to refine it in use. The only problem I can identify here is that of the teacher who loses touch with target language changes in combination with students who have no other exposure to the L2. At the extreme, this teacher’s students could arrive in the L2 country and find themselves speaking a 1950s variety! I think this is unlikely and brings us back to the use of internet and other technologies – there’s no excuse for teachers or students to not keep up to date. Bart: A grammar question…btw, how many tenses do we have in English? Steve: Two. Past and Present. All the rest are aspects. Bart: Universal Grammar – do you believe in it? Steve: Not much use without the Language Acquisition Device! These ideas make sense to me; we are in some way pre-wired to ‘do’ language and the environment will determine which one. I don’t necessarily agree with all that Chomsky has ever said but I do like the notion that we all start with the same capacities and the same rough fundaments of language. Bart: Is being a teacher all about vocation or just skills training? Steve: It goes back really to an earlier question about whether teaching is an art. I used to think that you could train anyone to teach. I believed that for years as a teacher trainer – even when the evidence suggested otherwise! I now think you must have some basic human qualities, amongst them empathy, in combination with a good dose of common sense training. When we train entry-level teachers, there are those for whom the logic of what they learn is blindingly clear! Then there those who need more guidance and perhaps more hands-on help. Of these two categories, the first were teachers before they ever began training, they just hadn’t realised it. The second category though are the challenge – can you free them up so that they too can function naturally in the classroom? Bart: What to do so as not to burn oneself out when teaching English for years? Steve: Move into teacher training! Seriously though, this happened to my daughter; she was a natural teacher, brilliant ideas, great manner and so on. After 3 years she’d burned out and couldn’t stand going into a classroom. I suppose one answer is to diversify when possible, I mean teach different age groups for a while or take on an ESP course – do something which will challenge you. The other point is really a reminder to managers that their teachers need support and Professional Development. Managers should be looking for signs of burn-out and they should have training in how to best deal with it, assuming they want to keep their great teachers. Controversially, I wonder if in fact it’s the best teachers who are most likely to suffer burn-out; I’ll leave that there for you to consider. Bart: To your mind, an excellent teacher is the one who… Steve: Empathises with students, treats students as human beings and not as ‘subjects’, respects and responds to their needs and views but is professional enough to have natural authority. Bart: Why so few EFL/ESL course books input, say, ‘gonna’ when everyone seems to be using it these days? Steve: Course books can’t cover all features of language. That’s not their purpose. The can offer students and teachers a guide in terms of language use and usage but they only work in conjunction with a teacher. I think teachers often expect too much from course books; they may expect a book to do the job for them but in my experience, the best way to use a course book is as a reference tool. I know that teachers will say “We’re so busy, we don’t have the time to prepare every lesson” but then I’d like to examine with those teachers and the institutions they work for what learning outcomes are required and how best to maximise the effects of classroom time. Bart: Zero tolerance for grammatical mistakes? When and when not? Steve: Unequivocally not. This is harking back to Audio-Lingual drills which following the behaviourist tradition tried to eliminate errors on the basis that they led to ‘bad habits’. We should be encouraging students to risk-take and if they do, they’ll make mistakes. That’s what happens. The point is that errors and non errors alike offer the teacher an insight into the interlanguage development of each student. Errors should, in a sense, be prized because they allow us to monitor who is doing what with what language area. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to care about some form of correction but I would want to define exactly what that really means. When correction becomes a burden to be avoided by the student, a negative result of an attempt to use language, then something serious is going wrong. There isn’t time here to discuss the manner and effects of correction but in a nut-shell, let correction be process oriented, meaning that the students have an intellectual and collaborative role to play in making something ‘better’. Having said all of that, it’s clear that if one is teaching a grammar-based exam class, the way that grammar errors are treated is going to be rather different – I don’t want it to be but it is. Bart: Steve, thank you very much for the interview. Good luck with everything you do! Steve: And the same to you and your readers.