"Locus of control" was a new term that I heard for the first time yesterday. It is a concept that was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and is now an important tool in personality studies. Locus of control is about the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result mostly from their own behavior and actions.
It is applied to many different fields, but basically it says that people with a high "internal" locus believe that they control what happens to them. People with a high "external" focus believe that they have no control over what happens to them, that events are controlled by gods, aliens, or "the government."
This concept was interesting to me, because it gives me another tool for understanding my students and how they learn. Locus of control seems to help predict academic success, like in this study by
Gifford, Briceno-Perriot, and Mianzo that found, "first-year students who entered university with lower scores on the locus of control scale (internals) obtained significantly higher GPAs than those who scored higher (externals) on this same scale." This scale also seems to vary between cultural backgrounds and gender. This study by Takaya Kohyama shows that,"Students from both Japan and Taiwan exhibited higher levels of external orientation than did students from the USA."
In discussions with my son about this issue, it is his opinion that externalizing influences in Japanese society are so strong that it would be nearly impossible to overcome, even if the students possessed the knowledge of the differences.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
What does Education Have to Offer: Should Foreign Languages Be Offered at Public Schools
This morning I saw two bits of news on education that initiated this rant. First I saw a report on television news about a physical fitness assessment of nursery school aged children in Japan, which showed that some children in urban areas and then read that Illinois is gutting its foreign language education curriculum. That started me thinking about what the purpose of public education is anyway. What is its purpose? What does it really deliver, and what parts of it are essential and what are not?
If Illinois is having to think that hard about whether to keep its foreign language curriculum, then maybe it isn't that important to begin with. There will be all of the usual arguments, that if students don't get another language they won't be competitive, that foreign languages help us process information differently and better, that Americans are not multilingual enough. Those are all fine arguments, but what does that have to do with what public schools should offer and what they shouldn't? Fundamentally public schools should teach children the bare minimum, reading, writing, and 'rithmatic, and the rest is expendable. In fact, that is all they are capable of doing anyway, capable in terms of finances and pedagogical ability. I want my children to be in class learning how to read and write in the language on offer, how to crunch some numbers, and that is it. I want them the heck out of there. I will take care of the rest. I will chose how much of anything else they get. Just keep the state out of my kids' heads.
"Oh, but that isn't fair, " some will say. "What about the kids who can't afford more than what public education has to offer." It isn't fair now. Kids in poorer areas get less than kids in richer areas. The only way that is going to get better is if more people get interested in helping all children in their communities to thrive. It isn't fair in Japan either, even in this country where homogeneous is the order of the day. Kids who go to cram schools don't study at school, because school doesn't offer the quality or quantity that cram schools do. The kids who don't go to cram schools or can't afford them don't get the same advantages. That means that the hours and hours of sitting in classes, being evaluated by teachers on everything from their ability to solve simple math to their willingness to obey without question is part of a pedagogical agenda that has little to do with the state's ostensible concerns about equality. Just keep the state out of my kid's heads.
My son is taking an "Ethics" class now at school. If I thought they were trying to teach them ethics, I would yank him out of that school yesterday. I have no confidence that the teachers at the school he is attending have the slightest clue about what Ethics is about. Instead they teach some basic Philosophy, which I do not object to. Even that is unwelcome from the state. I do not want the state deciding with philosophy is appropriate for my children to learn. It doesn't matter what my leanings may be. I may feel that Marx and Bookchin are appropriate for my children. Just keep the state out of my kids' heads.
We also need to face the realities of modern pedagogical agendas. The paradigm of most education now was institutionalized around the beginning of the industrial revolution to create a workforce capable of operating machinery and sitting for long shifts of brain and body numbing work. It was developed to classify and segregate information in minute detail, not to examine the intricate connectedness of all things. Look for example at English education in Japan. This isn't taught to help young people to communicate. It is a tool to segretate and separate students who can by innate talent or through brute force of will commit to memory the minutiae of English grammar as defined by the Japanese state from those who can't or won't. Just keep the state out of my kid's heads.
Then that's fine. If Illinois doesn't have the money to teach foreign languages, or art, or physical education, or political science, then turn the kids out early and quit trying to micromanage their lives. If Japanese kids can't run or throw a ball as well as kids twenty years ago, and that is important to the communities where they live, then the residents should get together and provide safe, clean places for their children to play, not expect the state to do something it isn't able or willing to do now.
If Illinois is having to think that hard about whether to keep its foreign language curriculum, then maybe it isn't that important to begin with. There will be all of the usual arguments, that if students don't get another language they won't be competitive, that foreign languages help us process information differently and better, that Americans are not multilingual enough. Those are all fine arguments, but what does that have to do with what public schools should offer and what they shouldn't? Fundamentally public schools should teach children the bare minimum, reading, writing, and 'rithmatic, and the rest is expendable. In fact, that is all they are capable of doing anyway, capable in terms of finances and pedagogical ability. I want my children to be in class learning how to read and write in the language on offer, how to crunch some numbers, and that is it. I want them the heck out of there. I will take care of the rest. I will chose how much of anything else they get. Just keep the state out of my kids' heads.
"Oh, but that isn't fair, " some will say. "What about the kids who can't afford more than what public education has to offer." It isn't fair now. Kids in poorer areas get less than kids in richer areas. The only way that is going to get better is if more people get interested in helping all children in their communities to thrive. It isn't fair in Japan either, even in this country where homogeneous is the order of the day. Kids who go to cram schools don't study at school, because school doesn't offer the quality or quantity that cram schools do. The kids who don't go to cram schools or can't afford them don't get the same advantages. That means that the hours and hours of sitting in classes, being evaluated by teachers on everything from their ability to solve simple math to their willingness to obey without question is part of a pedagogical agenda that has little to do with the state's ostensible concerns about equality. Just keep the state out of my kid's heads.
My son is taking an "Ethics" class now at school. If I thought they were trying to teach them ethics, I would yank him out of that school yesterday. I have no confidence that the teachers at the school he is attending have the slightest clue about what Ethics is about. Instead they teach some basic Philosophy, which I do not object to. Even that is unwelcome from the state. I do not want the state deciding with philosophy is appropriate for my children to learn. It doesn't matter what my leanings may be. I may feel that Marx and Bookchin are appropriate for my children. Just keep the state out of my kids' heads.
We also need to face the realities of modern pedagogical agendas. The paradigm of most education now was institutionalized around the beginning of the industrial revolution to create a workforce capable of operating machinery and sitting for long shifts of brain and body numbing work. It was developed to classify and segregate information in minute detail, not to examine the intricate connectedness of all things. Look for example at English education in Japan. This isn't taught to help young people to communicate. It is a tool to segretate and separate students who can by innate talent or through brute force of will commit to memory the minutiae of English grammar as defined by the Japanese state from those who can't or won't. Just keep the state out of my kid's heads.
Then that's fine. If Illinois doesn't have the money to teach foreign languages, or art, or physical education, or political science, then turn the kids out early and quit trying to micromanage their lives. If Japanese kids can't run or throw a ball as well as kids twenty years ago, and that is important to the communities where they live, then the residents should get together and provide safe, clean places for their children to play, not expect the state to do something it isn't able or willing to do now.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Having doubts about textbooks
Until now I thought it was handy to have a textbook. It gave me and the students a kind of road map for how to procede. It was easy to make tests for because I could more easily quantify and qualify what we had covered, and so could the students.
This semester I used another method of study in addition to a textbook. Now I am regretting that I required my students to buy the text. First, I started using a method that would get students communicating in English based on their own experiences. I found this idea on Duane Kindt's site on TIPS (Tools for Increasing Proficiency). His method included having students tell other students about themselves, starting from who they are as people and then progressing on to their families and lifestyles.
This process convinced me of some points:
a. Students do not naturally approach grammar as it is presented in textbooks in any skill area, listening, speaking, reading or writing. (Available texts don't approximate what my students want to say.)
b. Traditional testing patterns are not sufficient for helping students learn a language. (Classroom events should steer testing, not artificially imposed criteria.)
c. All class content can be generated from student communication.
d. The teacher's role, at least in the university setting where I find myself, is to introduce a method or methods for learning, to encourage and guide communication, to provide criteria for evaluation, to contextualize student needs and language requirements, and occasionally provide evidence based intercultural perspective.
Textbooks are not written to provide this kind of support.
There are limitations to this approach. It is time consuming, and necessitates a teacher be available to students. That means that this may not be useful for teachers who are paid to teach by the hour. Their jobs are to be with a class for a period, not to plan, or evaluate outside of the class. For those teachers texts are probably an essential resource.
This semester I used another method of study in addition to a textbook. Now I am regretting that I required my students to buy the text. First, I started using a method that would get students communicating in English based on their own experiences. I found this idea on Duane Kindt's site on TIPS (Tools for Increasing Proficiency). His method included having students tell other students about themselves, starting from who they are as people and then progressing on to their families and lifestyles.
This process convinced me of some points:
a. Students do not naturally approach grammar as it is presented in textbooks in any skill area, listening, speaking, reading or writing. (Available texts don't approximate what my students want to say.)
b. Traditional testing patterns are not sufficient for helping students learn a language. (Classroom events should steer testing, not artificially imposed criteria.)
c. All class content can be generated from student communication.
d. The teacher's role, at least in the university setting where I find myself, is to introduce a method or methods for learning, to encourage and guide communication, to provide criteria for evaluation, to contextualize student needs and language requirements, and occasionally provide evidence based intercultural perspective.
Textbooks are not written to provide this kind of support.
There are limitations to this approach. It is time consuming, and necessitates a teacher be available to students. That means that this may not be useful for teachers who are paid to teach by the hour. Their jobs are to be with a class for a period, not to plan, or evaluate outside of the class. For those teachers texts are probably an essential resource.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Teachers should quit if they don't like anthem: Saitama gov.
Teachers should quit if they don't like anthem: Saitama gov.
Public shaming isn't just for kids anymore, it's on the list for methods in treating nonconformist teachers. Not only does Kiyoshi Ueda believe that teachers should quit if they don't stand up and sing the national anthem, he believes that their schools should be humiliated publicly by having the names published. You know what that means.
Public shaming isn't just for kids anymore, it's on the list for methods in treating nonconformist teachers. Not only does Kiyoshi Ueda believe that teachers should quit if they don't stand up and sing the national anthem, he believes that their schools should be humiliated publicly by having the names published. You know what that means.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Translation as a teaching tool
I've been doing some thinking about using translation as a teaching tool after sharing tweets with CotterHUE. I have never used translation in any of my classes as a formal activity, but I know my students do it all the time we talk to each other. They want to know how to interpret something in Japanese or English. Since our class is a core curriculum class, one of the very few that they have in their course of study, I am obliged to offer basic humanities style content in addition to the English skills development curriculum. The content I offer is usually comparative culture, which is also a kind of translation or interpretation. My conclusion is that whether we offer translation to our students as a formal activity or not, they are engaged in high level interpretation/translation of words, grammar, and concepts during much of their study.
I do not plan to use formal translation as an activity in my classes though, for two reasons. The students who come to this university have been exposed to translation before in schools, and it has been used as a proscriptive activity where word and phrase equivilants are memorized and regurgitated in meaningless drills, aimed only at creating distinctions between students who-can-and-do and those who-can-but-don't. Somewhere someone has gotten the activity wrong, and has been using it as a punishment rather than a creative activity.
Translation can be a creative activity. I had the privilege of working with a professor in Kumamoto who was translating some of the works of John Steinbeck into Japanese. We talked about his work several times, and discussed how translation is akin to writing a creative work itself, because the translator has to interpret the content of the work on many different levels and create ways to communicate that in another language. On the other hand, our students are expected to be able to read some text and switch it mechanically into the accepted alternative.
The other reason I do not plan to introduce translation as a activity in my classes is purely of time constraints. I do not want to spend the time in class on it, considering the factors above. My students will naturally fall into the role of translator as they progress in their language abilities. They will have to accept the role of people straddling the line between cultures and interpreting them for others.
I do not plan to use formal translation as an activity in my classes though, for two reasons. The students who come to this university have been exposed to translation before in schools, and it has been used as a proscriptive activity where word and phrase equivilants are memorized and regurgitated in meaningless drills, aimed only at creating distinctions between students who-can-and-do and those who-can-but-don't. Somewhere someone has gotten the activity wrong, and has been using it as a punishment rather than a creative activity.
Translation can be a creative activity. I had the privilege of working with a professor in Kumamoto who was translating some of the works of John Steinbeck into Japanese. We talked about his work several times, and discussed how translation is akin to writing a creative work itself, because the translator has to interpret the content of the work on many different levels and create ways to communicate that in another language. On the other hand, our students are expected to be able to read some text and switch it mechanically into the accepted alternative.
The other reason I do not plan to introduce translation as a activity in my classes is purely of time constraints. I do not want to spend the time in class on it, considering the factors above. My students will naturally fall into the role of translator as they progress in their language abilities. They will have to accept the role of people straddling the line between cultures and interpreting them for others.
Japan's problems with Non-Japanese (Nurses)
Since I teach at a nursing college, some of my students tell me that they have discussed the topic of Non-Japanese (NJ) nurses coming into the country. I was curious about their thoughts so I asked some about their ideas. They generally answered that having NJ nurses would be a great way to alleviate some of the problems of a declining population of young people and a growing percentage of elderly. It would also be a great way for NJ nurses, who usually come from countries which don't have such high levels of medical care, to come and learn in Japan. I'm still not buying it. For two reasons; it isn't in the Japanese nurses' best interests, nor is it in the NJ's best interests.
First, it is union busting, put simply. If the motivations were alleviating demographic pressures or exchanging nursing technology for the betterment of the world, then the country would open its doors to all nurses and give them equal support for coming here. As it stands the country has made some deals with Indonesia and the Philippines, both countries with lower standards of living than Japan. Why don't they make deals with the US or European countries? They don't want to hire nurses that will actually expect higher wages.
Why don't they have such programs for other professions which are experiencing shortages in qualified personnel, like physicians and lawyers? My guess is that they know that by introducing programs that open up the medical and legal professions to NJ professionals will challenge the status quo. The government is unduly influenced by powerful men in those professions and they will have nothing to do with it.
Second, it isn't in the best interests of NJ nurses, because this country can't get its head around how it feels about NJ anybody. Police agencies put out posters that say, "Turn in suspicious foreigners." They stop random people on the street in Roppongi, clearly using racial profiling, and demanding urine tests. There are frequent reports of cops stopping bicycle-riding NJ's, ostensibly so that the police can check to see if the bikes are stolen, and then grilling the riders on issues totally unrelated.
This country can't get its story straight about why they want to import nurses, and they can't get their feelings about NJ's together enough to either treat them as criminals and exile them all or welcome them as fellow citizens of the world and immigrants to Japan. Of course I can't vote either, so have no say, but I would oppose such programs.
First, it is union busting, put simply. If the motivations were alleviating demographic pressures or exchanging nursing technology for the betterment of the world, then the country would open its doors to all nurses and give them equal support for coming here. As it stands the country has made some deals with Indonesia and the Philippines, both countries with lower standards of living than Japan. Why don't they make deals with the US or European countries? They don't want to hire nurses that will actually expect higher wages.
Why don't they have such programs for other professions which are experiencing shortages in qualified personnel, like physicians and lawyers? My guess is that they know that by introducing programs that open up the medical and legal professions to NJ professionals will challenge the status quo. The government is unduly influenced by powerful men in those professions and they will have nothing to do with it.
Second, it isn't in the best interests of NJ nurses, because this country can't get its head around how it feels about NJ anybody. Police agencies put out posters that say, "Turn in suspicious foreigners." They stop random people on the street in Roppongi, clearly using racial profiling, and demanding urine tests. There are frequent reports of cops stopping bicycle-riding NJ's, ostensibly so that the police can check to see if the bikes are stolen, and then grilling the riders on issues totally unrelated.
This country can't get its story straight about why they want to import nurses, and they can't get their feelings about NJ's together enough to either treat them as criminals and exile them all or welcome them as fellow citizens of the world and immigrants to Japan. Of course I can't vote either, so have no say, but I would oppose such programs.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Japan's problems with Non-Japanese (Nurses)
Since I teach at a nursing college, some of my students tell me that they have discussed the topic of Non-Japanese (NJ) nurses coming into the country. I was curious about their thoughts so I asked some about their ideas. They generally answered that having NJ nurses would be a great way to alleviate some of the problems of a declining population of young people and a growing percentage of elderly. It would also be a great way for NJ nurses, who usually come from countries which don't have such high levels of medical care, to come and learn in Japan. I'm still not buying it. For two reasons; it isn't in the Japanese nurses' best interests, nor is it in the NJ's best interests.
First, it is union busting, put simply. If the motivations were alleviating demographic pressures or exchanging nursing technology for the betterment of the world, then the country would open its doors to all nurses and give them equal support for coming here. As it stands the country has made some deals with Indonesia and the Philippines, both countries with lower standards of living than Japan. Why don't they make deals with the US or European countries? They don't want to hire nurses that will actually expect higher wages.
Second, it isn't in the best interests of NJ nurses, because this country can't get its head around how it feels about NJ anybody. The police agencies put out posters that say, "Turn in suspicious foreigners." They stop random people on the street in Roppongi, clearly using racial profiling, and demanding urine tests. There are frequent reports of cops stopping NJ's while riding their bicycles, ostensibly so that the police can check to see if the bikes are stolen, and then grilling the riders on issues totally unrelated.
This country can't get its story straight about why they want to import nurses, and they can't get their feelings about NJ's together enough to either treat them as criminals and exile them all or welcome them as fellow citizens of the world.
First, it is union busting, put simply. If the motivations were alleviating demographic pressures or exchanging nursing technology for the betterment of the world, then the country would open its doors to all nurses and give them equal support for coming here. As it stands the country has made some deals with Indonesia and the Philippines, both countries with lower standards of living than Japan. Why don't they make deals with the US or European countries? They don't want to hire nurses that will actually expect higher wages.
Second, it isn't in the best interests of NJ nurses, because this country can't get its head around how it feels about NJ anybody. The police agencies put out posters that say, "Turn in suspicious foreigners." They stop random people on the street in Roppongi, clearly using racial profiling, and demanding urine tests. There are frequent reports of cops stopping NJ's while riding their bicycles, ostensibly so that the police can check to see if the bikes are stolen, and then grilling the riders on issues totally unrelated.
This country can't get its story straight about why they want to import nurses, and they can't get their feelings about NJ's together enough to either treat them as criminals and exile them all or welcome them as fellow citizens of the world.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
English as medium of instruction in Asian countries
I have been following the discussions concerning the use of English as of medium of instruction in Malaysia and the Philippines for a while, and it raises some serious questions for me about the effectiveness of teaching a language in schools with communicative ability being the objective.
First you have the whole national identity problem to manage. In Malaysia English is the medium of instruction for Science and Math. Malay has been pushed aside in these two classes so that young people can learn English, the perceived lingua franca in those disciplines. People see that policy as a betrayal of their national identity.
In an article expressing support for the policy, the writer makes several erroneous statements. "Japan and South Korea, for example, made great advance in the area of scientific and techonlogical development and innovation without having to impose the learning of English and other Western languages on their students," (English spelling errors the writer's). Japan and South Korea do impose the learning of English on their students. And though, "China did not have to depend on English to launch and develop its modern technological industry," "China made English compulsory in primary schools from Grade 3 in 2001, while big cities such as Beijing and Shanghai have already introduced English at Grade 1. According to Graddol's research, an estimated 176.7 million Chinese were studying English in 2005 within the formal education sector," says the Asia Times.
I can also see where the writer is going with his recommendations, and none of it is going to lead to citizens who can function comfortably in the language. "Hence, I can appreciate the minister's shock as (at?) having English lessons in our schools without the proper teaching of the eight parts of speech of its grammar is certainly unsual and even outrageous." (my parenthesis, author's spelling of unusual) Sorry, but what are "the eight parts of speech? "The decline in our standard of English must be arrested fast. Making the language a compulory exam subject is perhaps the most significant major measure to do it." An appeal to fear. (with more misspelled words. Sentence fragment mine) "This is when they start learning English words, like "A for apple", "B for ball", etc."
This article catalysed some thoughts I have been having about language education, and helped me formulate a unified idea. It is that learning English for test taking purposes can be done in a traditional classroom setting, not very efficiently, but it can be done. If the objective is communicative ability, then the traditional classroom is inappropriate, and cannot fulfill its promises to the students, to the parents, or to society.
First you have the whole national identity problem to manage. In Malaysia English is the medium of instruction for Science and Math. Malay has been pushed aside in these two classes so that young people can learn English, the perceived lingua franca in those disciplines. People see that policy as a betrayal of their national identity.
In an article expressing support for the policy, the writer makes several erroneous statements. "Japan and South Korea, for example, made great advance in the area of scientific and techonlogical development and innovation without having to impose the learning of English and other Western languages on their students," (English spelling errors the writer's). Japan and South Korea do impose the learning of English on their students. And though, "China did not have to depend on English to launch and develop its modern technological industry," "China made English compulsory in primary schools from Grade 3 in 2001, while big cities such as Beijing and Shanghai have already introduced English at Grade 1. According to Graddol's research, an estimated 176.7 million Chinese were studying English in 2005 within the formal education sector," says the Asia Times.
I can also see where the writer is going with his recommendations, and none of it is going to lead to citizens who can function comfortably in the language. "Hence, I can appreciate the minister's shock as (at?) having English lessons in our schools without the proper teaching of the eight parts of speech of its grammar is certainly unsual and even outrageous." (my parenthesis, author's spelling of unusual) Sorry, but what are "the eight parts of speech? "The decline in our standard of English must be arrested fast. Making the language a compulory exam subject is perhaps the most significant major measure to do it." An appeal to fear. (with more misspelled words. Sentence fragment mine) "This is when they start learning English words, like "A for apple", "B for ball", etc."
This article catalysed some thoughts I have been having about language education, and helped me formulate a unified idea. It is that learning English for test taking purposes can be done in a traditional classroom setting, not very efficiently, but it can be done. If the objective is communicative ability, then the traditional classroom is inappropriate, and cannot fulfill its promises to the students, to the parents, or to society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)