My topic this time is reality and imagination
in learning, teaching and testing. It is an ambitious goal but I will try my
best.
Having taught people of all ages but mostly
children and teenagers, I can say that all age groups, particularly children
and teenagers, quite like the challenge of the “imaginary”.
Many course books focus on real-life dialogues
and then the students are expected to “create” a dialogue of their own using
the model to help them along. What the students typically end up doing is memorising
the mould and making slight adjustments to their own reality. There is no doubt
that there is some value in memorising whole chunks of language in the hope
that they will be remembered and hopefully retrieved when the occasion arises.
However, this is not a product of creativity
for various reasons. To begin with, structures and basic vocabulary are there
ready to use. When you create, I feel that somehow you search in your mind for
the raw material, which is ideas – whatever form these may take in the process.
Ideas do not necessarily get conceived in the target language but often in the
mother tongue. From then on there is a series of mechanisms engaged to render
this raw material into a finished product – written or oral. That is when
mother tongue interference mistakes are committed but that is also the stage
where the learner will activate whatever appropriate structures or vocabulary
items have been saved in their mind.
Often talking about real situations can be
demotivating and pointless. I would liken it to real nature as opposed to
nature as portrayed in paintings – at one or several removes from reality. Here
is a painting which illustrates my point. The painter has recreated reality by fusing
a range of hues in nature and enhancing the effect by having it reflected in
water.
Corn Field by Samuel Mutzner |
In teaching we often ask children to tell us or
write about their weekend or their house or their family. I normally get the
response that suits the task: unimaginative and poor in descriptive detail.
We often feel as teachers that more abstract or
“unrealistic” themes are not suitable for younger students. However, this is
not necessarily so. Writing a story about a cloud has in fact yielded much more
exciting projects than writing a story about a dog and provided great
opportunities for vocabulary development (scud, hover, float etc). What is
more, seemingly abstract themes can lead to questions about the science behind
and therefore become the springboard for further discussion and language
development. Here is a great website for popularised facts about clouds.
When testing students’ speaking skills, the
same assumptions apply as in writing books or setting exam topics. However, what
appears to be a facility may well turn into a predicament. Language production
is demarcated by images and questions which require the candidate, often a
teenager, to answer an abstract question based on a specific image. Risking
being regarded as naïve, I wonder what the point of this is.
The task is complex in a way it won’t be in
real life. If you get asked about the advantages of travelling by train or bus,
you won’t be given images of them simply because our knowledge of the world
makes it redundant. On the other hand, if you are to describe some images,
there are so many of them that would make the question worth answering. For example
the scene of an accident would elicit descriptive language (crash, drive
through the red light, being distracted, impact, severe injuries and so on) as
well as speculative conjecture. (must have been speeding, couldn’t have been
wearing their seatbelts, possibly, might have been intoxicated)
Are children’s letters to God realistic? The
answer is irrelevant. The point is that children have produced some unique
instances of humorous or scathing writing as a result. Can the sea speak? Of
course it can; and it would be a much more realistic monologue than having to
choose which image would be best to illustrate an article about the importance
of sport in people’s lives.
What I am saying here is that gearing our
teaching to exams or commitment to realistic tasks can be frustrating for both
our students and ourselves when there are so many ways of firing students’
imagination and fostering creative writing and oral production.
No comments:
Post a Comment