Me too. I work with computer science and use math once in a while. I really enjoyed math in highschool and in college, but I've simply forgotten what I don't use, i.e. pretty much all the calculus.

Mentat_kqs,
Do you have any friends who work in factories in Japan? I have a boy living in Japan who's mother is a Nisei Brazilian and was layed off from Toyota in Aichi perfecture recently. She claims Brazilians living all over Japan working in factories are being layed off and can't find work.

I have friends that I met trought internet. I had a friend that was working in a factory last year but he was there for only 3 months. And that's true. 3700 of the lay offs from sony where brazilian 派遣社員.

igordesu Wrote:Lol. If you missed the point of me bringing the "math and science" thing into the discussion, you pretty much missed the point of my whole post. You say that the teacher must "motivate" the students. That's true, but it should only be true to the extent that it's true for math and science teachers. Those classes are just as important (imho, don't want to debate that point though...), yet those teachers (again, in my experience) don't spend a great deal of time motivating the students. Even when 80% of the class is failing. Why? Because if they have to dumb the class down so the students class or not teach certain difficult things, then they have failed as a teacher. Again, applying this sort of mentality to foreign language classes may not be realistic since foreign language classes unfortunately do not get the respect from school systems that other classes get...

And I think you missed my point, which was that motivating students and making a class enjoyable do not necessarily equal dumbing down. Even in a math or science class.

I think that allowing 80% of your class to fail is just as much a failure as dumbing down your class. The unfortunate thing is that most teachers don't care enough or are too lazy to put forth the extra effort to motivate their students or make their class interesting.

Being lazy and allowing kids to fail because your class is dull as dirt is allowable in the maths and sciences - because (as you said) the administration consider those subjects important. Foreign language classes, especially 'unusual' ones like Japanese, don't have that luxury, and are thus forced to turn out better pass/fail numbers. (Math and science will always be around, regardless of how crappy the teacher might be. But if your Japanese class isn't popular, it will get axed in the blink of an eye.) As a teacher, you have two options. 1) make your class easy enough that most of the kids pass. 2) motivate your kids and make your class interesting enough that they pass without you having to dumb it down.

I've always been a big fan of #2. But, sadly, many teachers seem to prefer #1. That, along with (thankfully) ex-president Bush's whole 'No Child Left Behind' agenda (i.e., drop the level of the class to the lowest common denominator) is the main reason I left that profession to begin with.

bodhisamaya Wrote:

igordesu Wrote:Lol. If you missed the point of me bringing the "math and science" thing into the discussion, you pretty much missed the point of my whole post.

I can't say that I have ever used anything beyond basic math in real life and have only used science because it is interesting to me. Every higher level math class I was required to take was a waste of time.

I think we all end up studying a lot of things in high school and college that we don't use in day-to-day life. The point isn't to be immediately applicable to our daily shopping, tomorrow's date or even our jobs. The point is to expose us to many different possible fields of future employment, and (perhaps more importantly) to make us well-rounded people.

It may be difficult to see the real benefits behind that sort of intangible asset, but I think it's valuable nonetheless. Who I am today is contingent, in large part, upon all the little bits of knowledge I've garnered over my life. And no small part of that was acquired in high school and college.

I really don't think that high school these days is about making you ready for immediate employment, but instead trying to help you see the different possible paths to follow in college, and, as I said, to 'flesh you out' as an individual. Both very noble aims, in my opinion.

Even if they aren't always successfully enacted in real-life.

I'm very, very skeptical about the "making your class fun without dumbing it down" thing. Like I said, I've never been a teacher, so I could be completely wrong. But I've been a student for a long time. I will be the first to say that I have NEVER, EVER learned a single thing from silly projects and presentations in foreign language classes. I realize that's a generalization. But, to be honest, I've done "silly projects and presentations" in my math and science classes (albeit, not as many). And I've never learned anything from those either. Surprise, surprise. If you can make language learning work without dumbing things down and by using things like "games" and whatever, then more power to you. But, like I said, I'm very skeptical. I don't think I've ever been in a class or met a teacher where they can make that work. At least not efficiently.

As a long time high school teacher, I think EnjukuBlack is correct. Elective courses that aren't popular are quickly canceled. While there are a lot of students interested in some facets of Japanese culture (anime, etc.) most are not motivated enough to do the work necessary to understand and speak the language--I'd estimate 5 or 6 in a class of thirty actually care enough to study outside of class.

My classes stay popular because I try to approach the language from a variety of angles, using textbooks, magazine and news articles, movies, manga, culture and history presentations, contests and games, etc. Those who are motivated rush right ahead, and those who are not are at least learning a lot ABOUT Japanese, if not exactly becoming fluent in using it. Does this make me a failure? My students and their parents don't think so.

I have learned a lot from the forum, though. I have begun using Anki in class. I have for some time been encouraging the students to download and use it on their own (I can't require it because many do not have computer access) but few have taken the steps. So far, as a class activity, it's working well.

Being a student doesn't make you an expert on pedagogy. You most likely do not know all the reasons for any given project chosen by a teacher.

Something that is being ignored here is that (public school) foreign language teachers are required to teach language skills as well as cultural knowledge. Some foreign language teachers value cultural knowledge as much as linguistic ability in their lessons. This may be true in some cases since teachers realize that there isn't enough time in 2 year long high school classes for students to get anywhere close to approaching fluency (without working on their own outside of class). Getting a nice mix of culture and language can hopefully give students a foot in the door as well as a lifelong interest in continuing to learn the language.

You might suggest learning about the culture 100% through the language, but the efficiency of this is questionable in most early level classes.

Another aspect being ignored is a student's role in their own learning. I say that if you learned nothing from silly projects and useless games, then you weren't applying yourself enough. So you say you can't learn from them. Well, you are one person. Maybe your classmate can. But maybe your classmate can't learn as well in the class with the teacher who does no projects. But you can. Sounds like students will need to adjust how they work in different classes in order to get the most out of them.

I am sorry, but that is pure, grade-A BS. I wasn't applying myself enough? Oh, I suppose you were there then to see me get a minimum of 110% (a+) in every single foreign language class I've taken? I was THE MOST enthusiastic student in almost every class since that was and is my favorite subject. And I didn't apply myself? Sorry, that's just insulting.

The only reason I did well in foreign language language classes like those was because I did work outside of class.

And I know your next argument. "Different students learn differently." That's great. But that's goes against what you've been saying. A teacher is supposed to motivate students to learn and all that jazz. You know what? They have failed in almost every single case. The sorry excuse for language skills that I heard everyday in my foreign language classes from other students proves that the teachers failed at their task with *all* of the students.

I may not be an expert on pedagogy b/c I've only ever been a student, but I do know one thing: kids (like myself) were not learning. That's the whole point. The reason behind the projects don't matter. If the kids don't learn, it's worthless.

I understand the learning about culture thing. But, that doesn't mean we can skimp on the language-acquisition. Like it or not, it is a "foreign *language*" class. The pathetic-ness of my classmates' skills in some cases was enough to make me cry. Why? Because you don't learn anything from silly games!

I think in short, teachers use games to show the students that whatever subject they're learning isn't 100% boring to motivate self-study because all things come down to self-study or group-study with classmates. Class time is a good time to provide guidance or steer the students in the right direction.

I agree you don't learn anything from the games. Game time is when Student X can show off his/her skills. I loved the games because I usually won, but not always, so there was always that competition factor, at least in my classes.

mattyjaddy Wrote:Another aspect being ignored is a student's role in their own learning. I say that if you learned nothing from silly projects and useless games, then you weren't applying yourself enough.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that. Not all games are created equal.

And even well-created games, with lots of language use, don't necessarily work at every level, or with all classes.

mattyjaddy Wrote:So you say you can't learn from them. Well, you are one person. Maybe your classmate can. But maybe your classmate can't learn as well in the class with the teacher who does no projects. But you can.

I think this is closer to the mark. Just because one person can't learn from a particular lesson doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't putting forth effort. The lesson was just obviously not in a learning style suited to them.

mattyjaddy Wrote:Sounds like students will need to adjust how they work in different classes in order to get the most out of them.

That would be nice, but I don't see it ever happening. To the contrary, it is the teacher who ends up having to adjust their teaching style to each class.

Unfortunately, that happens just as rarely.

igordesu Wrote:I am sorry, but that is pure, grade-A BS.

Please try to calm down. We're trying to have a civilized debate here, and I don't think anyone has yet to purposefully attack anyone else's character.

igordesu Wrote:I may not be an expert on pedagogy b/c I've only ever been a student, but I do know one thing: kids (like myself) were not learning. That's the whole point. The reason behind the projects don't matter. If the kids don't learn, it's worthless.

And that's why you keep trying something different until you find something that does work.

And I can tell you from personal experience that I've had well-constructed games get students who normally do nothing in the class to speak a lot of Japanese. And I can also tell you that doing a language class with nothing but grammar and vocabulary study, shadowing and dialog practice would bore most students completely out of their minds.

Different strokes for different folks. Which is why in (I believe it was) my first post in this thread, I said that it's essential to have a very wide variety of activities in the classroom. Start the class with grammar study out of the textbook, follow it up with a writing activity, follow that up with speaking practice, follow that up with a game, etc. Because each of the above activities is going to appeal to a different student. It's highly unlikely that any one of the above would appeal to every single person in the class.

igordesu - Your post happened to be the most recent post to mine and was relevant to it, but as mine wasn't addressed to you specifically, it shouldn't be read as such. This is a forum with many people. Your post may have provided the spark, but my post was addressing the general trend of people posting here to ignore the role of the student in a classroom.

Edit: (Sorry igordesu, I just re-read my first post. The initial paragraph was indeed meant for you which is easy to see. But I didn't specificially address it to you as the rest was really a response to everything so far. I should I have posted it separately or made that clearer by saying so. I can see why you reacted how you did.)

If we are going to rely on personal experiences here, then from my experience in a regular public high school French class (5 "years" - 2 were on block scheduling) where we did a mix of working from the textbook, watching movies, reading magazines, doing skits, playing games, doing projects, etc. etc., (each of these was done at each level multiple times) one can make massive amounts of progress in language acquisition. I graduated and tested into 3rd year French classes at a major state university where I easily earned As in classes that were conducted 100% in French (the first two of which were taught by a native speakers).

But if I look around at other evidence, I will remember that there was only one other student in my high school class like me. I will remember that some of my classmates struggled to keep up in class, even with the games. I'll remember that they grew bored, began disliking French, and made class miserable when we focused on grammar for too long. I'll remember that while I was highly motivated to learn French, others were mildly interested, doing it for the grade, not at all interested, or convinced of their inability to learn. This completely ignores the students who were there but had no intention of even trying to learn; the teacher must still try to teach them. And if I look further, I'll see that all teachers are not created equal. I'll see that some teachers can successfully teach with NO games while others can do so WITH games. Just as there are unsuccessful teachers of each type. I'll also notice that in many cases, there are resources available to the students; if they don't learn well from what the teacher is doing, then perhaps they could take it upon themselves to learn. But then again, there are some cases where the teachers are bad and there is a paucity of resources for the students.

My main point, which I could have said more clearly, was lay off the teachers a bit. Or if your gonna criticize them, start criticizing classmates who make teachers waste energy dealing with their horrendous behavior, start blaming parents who raise kids to act the way they do, or look closely at your classroom habits to see if you really did all you could. (And just to be clear, this paragraph is echoing my previous post, so the "you"s here are the general "you"s not specific ones.)

Enjuku - There are a lot of assumptions being made here. It seems many people assume that games and projects are all "easy" to create and prepare and "easy" to do. It seems people assume they are only/mainly for providing entertainment. It seems that I was assuming, even through my sarcasm (I should have had quotes around silly and easy), that the teacher has planned whatever game or project with actual learning in mind, what should always be in mind for anything done in a classroom.

I think it should be the responsibility of teachers to help students learn various ways of learning, studying and reviewing and then eventually giving them the responsibility of figuring out which work best for them and using them. By doing so, students can adjust their classroom behavior to each teacher and eventually professor. (There of course are problems with this model, but I think it might be better than the current trend to ask teachers to "differentiate" for every student in period of every class at every level.)

Learning/teaching style? Effort? Which is the student's responsibility and which is the teacher's? Is there a balance? How do you know it's the right one?

Enjuku (or anyone with any teaching experience in language for that matter),

how would you go about motivating someone who doesn't ever speak to speak up more (in the case of skill both being an issue and non-issue)?

Also, let's say you are at a higher level class and you find that a/some students are somewhat below the class level and are not improving as the class progresses (they can still make the grade, but their progress has plataeud/they still have trouble with the basics), what would you suggest?

I'm down on people who are down on school. Of course students who study outside of class are better than students who don't, it's making them study outside of class which is the trick. My initial suggestions on how to make language classes interesting were just a grab bag list of ideas off the top of my head. I'm not going to spend hours talking about sumo or something, I'm just going to use sumo as the topic when I present my content. Using manga and anime is hardly going to be a walk in the park for students or the teacher, but it's more interesting than reading some textbook article about the 'bubble' era in Japan. Manga and anime are hard, they are real native materials, there is no dumbing down, they are used by natives, written by natives.

An example. Maybe I want to teach the imperative -て form. I just go and find five examples from manga or anime and use them to illustrate it's use. Of course I could go through a textbook chapter with boring examples, but it's not interesting, and it's not even real generally. It's such a basic teaching idea, using authentic materials. Good textbooks these days use articles sourced from newspapers and other real materials.

mattyjaddy Wrote:I think it should be the responsibility of teachers to help students learn various ways of learning, studying and reviewing and then eventually giving them the responsibility of figuring out which work best for them and using them.

I think this would be very, very difficult to do. You're asking people to change their fundamental personality from one class period to the next.

When I talk about learning styles, I'm thinking of very different approaches to acquiring new information. One student likes to sit quietly without saying a word, observing, listening, reading, intellectually dissecting in their own mind. Another student likes to observe and think, but also ask a lot of questions for verification. Yet another student could care less about observing and intellectualizing, but rather prefers to just 'dive right in' and learn by doing.

And so on.

Myself, I'm of the first type. And I had a very 'experimental' type of professor in graduate school who really liked some far-out, touchy feely teaching styles (check out the suggestopedia thread for one idea). I was in complete agony in her class (sadly, I was forced to take no less than three classes with her - and at one point was her teaching assistant for one term).

I think there's a bigger difference in learning styles than many people here are assuming.

mattyjaddy Wrote:Learning/teaching style? Effort? Which is the student's responsibility and which is the teacher's? Is there a balance? How do you know it's the right one?

Well, in light of what I just wrote above, the matter of teaching style (and adapting to students' learning styles) is the responsibility of the teacher. Putting forth effort is, ultimately, the purview of the student.

However, although there is nothing a teacher can do about what a student does outside of the class, there are many things a teacher can do inside the classroom to help motivate the students to put forth more effort. And I personally believe that a teacher who does not do so is short-changing their students.

sutebun Wrote:Enjuku (or anyone with any teaching experience in language for that matter),

how would you go about motivating someone who doesn't ever speak to speak up more (in the case of skill both being an issue and non-issue)?

Use a keisaku? :o

Seriously, though. Not every student is quiet for the same reason. You have to try different things until you find something that works.

Of course, talking to the student is always a good idea. Students are human beings, and there can always be a lot of mitigating circumstances outside of school (great/crappy home life, great/crappy social life, great/crappy job, etc.) that can affect that student's behavior in the class. Snap decisions based on their behavior right now is the proverbial 'judging a book...'

sutebun Wrote:Also, let's say you are at a higher level class and you find that a/some students are somewhat below the class level and are not improving as the class progresses (they can still make the grade, but their progress has plataeud/they still have trouble with the basics), what would you suggest?

This is one of the toughest things to deal with as a teacher. Someone who is really trying, but just still doesn't get it.

Maybe the person just doesn't have a penchant for languages (such people do exist, trust me). What do you do?

I have no idea.

I had a wonderful girl in my beginning Japanese class back in high school who tried so very, very hard. She was one of the few that took fastidious notes, always asked questions, showed up to every test study session, etc. And yet just couldn't get it.

I tried very hard to find some way of presenting the material in such a way that it would click with her, but I never did find that way.

Again, let me say that of the many, many different kinds of jobs I've had in my life, teaching was the most challenging. There were so many times when I just had to admit that I didn't have a solution. I mean, you are dealing with complex, living humans - not machines or books or food or stock reports or anything else that doesn't come near the diversity and intricacy of sentient beings.

Enjuku - That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that students experiment with various ways of interpreting the information teachers provide them with the guidance of the teacher. Subsequently, the teacher retains the role of information provider (in a style that fits his/her personality and beliefs about education/theory in his/her specific subject) while the students are left to pick from those ways the ones that work best for them. This may be difficult, as you say, but I'm not sure it's any more difficult than a teacher having to adjust lesson plans to the learning styles of 20, 30, 40+ students for each of 3, 4, 5, 6 classes each day.

To answer my own questions, when you put the responsibility of teaching/learning styles on the teacher, I believe you are also putting the majority of the effort on the teacher as well.

@mattyjaddy:
I do agree that students learn partly based on their motivation. So I can understand the lay off of the teachers bit. I can understand how "horrendous" the behavior of some students is, etc. They're just horrible. And I suppose that's why I'll lay off of Enjuku a bit now, lol...

@enjuku
Seriously, I've never had you as a teacher, so I don't know what your classes are like. So, I suppose I can't really go any further here. It really is in my *own* experience that these games and projects didn't work (indeed, NONE of them did for like 5 teachers). It would be unfair to judge all teachers based on this. And if you really can achieve the goal of facilitating learning/acquisition of language with your students through using "silly projects and games," then more power to you. You are truly a talented teacher.

While we're at it, lol, there are two major problems I have with these games and projects. First, they are often merely a cover for trying to facilitate the learning a vocabulary list (or grammar rule, etc.). I mean, in my experience, after the "project's over" you don't deal with that stuff ever again in the class b/c you've "learned it." Second, it often boils down to the teacher providing you with vocab and a grammar rule, and then telling you to go create sentences or whatever from that. See, I had a problem with this loooong before I read Khatz' site. I hated it that teachers skimped on the examples. Like khatz says, "language is not a creative process." That was one of my major problems.

So, I guess I *could* concede that "silly projects and games" could work if they got students exposed to more native material (or at least encouraged them to expose themselves to it). Then again, to be fair, I hated teachers that forced these projects on students like me (who could learn much, much more efficiently in other ways) just because there were other kids in the class who wanted to learn that way.

But whatever, I'm not judging you as a teacher. I'm sure you could make stuff like this work for all the students...

igordesu Wrote:While we're at it, lol, there are two major problems I have with these games and projects. First, they are often merely a cover for trying to facilitate the learning a vocabulary list (or grammar rule, etc.). I mean, in my experience, after the "project's over" you don't deal with that stuff ever again in the class b/c you've "learned it."

I always used games to review and reinforce the usage of vocabulary and grammar, not teach it. In other words, we learn the vocab and grammar, and then use the game (or some other activity) as a setting in which they can practice using the language.

And as far as "project's over," I think this goes against one of the basic principles of foreign language teaching pedagogy. That is, recycling. Material should be continually reused, reviewed and (occasionally) relearned.

igordesu Wrote:Second, it often boils down to the teacher providing you with vocab and a grammar rule, and then telling you to go create sentences or whatever from that. See, I had a problem with this loooong before I read Khatz' site. I hated it that teachers skimped on the examples.

I've always taught language in context. Like you (and Khatz), I don't see how anyone can learn how to use a word unless they see it in a sentence (usually more than one). I never asked students to reproduce any new grammar or vocabulary until I had provided them with ample examples of its use.

igordesu Wrote:I'm sure you could make stuff like this work for all the students...

Well, actually, my original point is that I can't make this stuff work for all the students. Which is why I try to employ as many different ways of presenting the material as possible.

Just for the record, my classes weren't always games, games, games. I had a lot of translation exercises, writing activities, conversation practice, etc.

Next week is when the new semester at the school begins, and, on 1/22, will be my chance to come in an implement a new kind method in my Japanese class. The posts you all have made really go to show what different ideas people have about teaching/learning in general, and, especially, how a language class differs between other types of classes.

It is true that you can't assume your students are going to be any certain way; some could be dedicated, some could care less. You are going to get this in any class, even the elective and potentially 'fun' classes, which include language courses. This is true for high school, as well as college, though the high school lethargy-level tends to be higher as a whole until graduation looms on the horizon and they generally rush to get their act together if they've been slacking. There is, of course, no catch-all method that is going to cause all the students to become excited about their subject, do their homework, and pay attention in class. But, I *do* believe you can increase the likelihood % of interest and dedication 'honing the craft' through teaching your subject, so to speak. And it's totally possible for a teacher of high school students to do, because I know of certain teachers that I had then who were able to do just that.

What I noticed that these teachers had in common is that they were able to make their subject sufficiently intriguing without the students fully realizing it. This is kind of a consequence of the AJATT method, the 'winnable games' component. It is possible to have a class that incorporates some of what phauna spoke of, the elements of Japanese culture that many of them are already fans of (hence why they're taking the class!), but have the kind of lesson structure and bona fide learning environment the more serious students expect.

It can be a tricky balance, but I saw it work for myself when I was in my 10th grade English class. It was a split class of freshmen and sophomores, and it's fair to say that half of the students were relatively responsible about the class and half were not (irrespective of grade). Interestingly, their responsibility factor had little to do with whether English was a subject that they loved and more to do whether or not they were a hard-working student in general. I was one of the responsible ones, always a nut about getting my homework done far, far in advance (except for math! that was always a weak spot, but I tried my best), and irrespective of my opinion on the teacher and the material covered, I would have done what I had to do to complete it, and there were students who were much the same. Others were there because they had to be; English is a core subject after all.

Walking into our first class, we were met by a trivia question and basket of lunch-suitable snacks. Sometimes it would be a question about a current event, but as the classes progressed it often had more to do with what our recent homework assignment was about and the stories we had to read. Soon, it became quite an ordeal at the opening of every English class, with a bevy of students from other classes even drifting in to get a shot at the snacks! For the class itself, we covered the usual suspects, classic stories, plays, etc., but the assignments our teacher came up with went beyond the usual 'answer these questions and turn in your paper' bit, like making the plotline for your own fantasy story (after we read some Anne McCaffrey), and collaborating with other students on other special projects, watching movie versions of what we read. Sure, we had to do tests, oral reports, memorize poems to recite, and so on, but because there was a fun environment, even the mundane seemed do-able because the class was just so darn likable! There was the mix of the obviously 'fun' and the obviously 'serious', but even the slightest dash of what a student wouldn't expect seemed to make all the difference for all concerned. The class retained its substance, while being flavored with some spice!

Despite my English class example, it cannot be compared to English or to other subjects as if it is on the same level, because with a foreign language, there are, as has been stated, the extra complications of it being a student's choice, something that can be/must be fostered to a greater extent through self-study, and the possibilities of an additional writing system to learn. How much progress is made is, again up to the interest and dedication % shown, which can be upped over time (or decreased, if the teaching method becomes stale). I hear what alyks, igordesu, and activeaero are saying about the language learning experience getting watered down if one goes overboard in the "fun" department, because contrary to intent, it can drain the life out of the subject matter. That being said, I think a proper amount can be injected without this occurring. Implemented correctly, as my former English teacher was able to do, even previously unmotivated students participated, completed homework, and found the class enjoyable on the whole just because she decided to bring a few enjoyable, not forced, distracting, or fruitless, elements into the class, while keeping all else intact, and nurturing the students who loved English and would be motivated anyway. It was win-win, interest+dedication was soaring, and most students that were in that class remember it as being a great experience and her as being a great teacher.

@EnjukuBlack, thank you for sharing your Japanese teaching experiences; this is very similar to the sort of method I had in mind! @KMarkP: I also plan to incorporate material from a variety of media, I think it is best to keep things fluid like that @mattyjaddy: This is a website I haven't seen, and looks like it could prove quite useful; thanks TPRS is a method new to me also
@igordesu: Even after all of what I've said, I totally get your skepticism over these so-called games and projects. Heck, I still have it now! If I am interested in learning something, and namely going to a class for it, I don't want to fool around with anything that could potentially waste my time, especially if it is being shoved down my throat. I always did the majority of my studying completely on my own, because I have that motivation. Not all students do: some do, some don't. That's where you have to find the balance, so that as many students possible get what they need out of the class.

The results of what I decide to implement will be seen soon enough.

I think it might be fun to ask:
"Is it better to have a native [foreign language] speaker or a native [your native language] speaker teach you Japanese?"

Educated elites will tell you the foreign native speaker is better but it doesn't seem so obvious to me. A native [your native language] speaker will be better at grammar explanation, while the foreign speaker will be better because their accent is a native one (for the students to listen to and parrot). I bet research has been done on this subject. It might be interesting to read said research.

Heisig's foreword says his book isn't well suited to a classroom environment. I was wondering whether you plan to use Heisig and what is your reasoning for this choice? I also wonder what textbook you will use and why. God knows there's so many (English/Japanese) textbooks out there.

jcdietz03 Wrote:I think it might be fun to ask:
"Is it better to have a native [foreign language] speaker or a native [your native language] speaker teach you Japanese?"

Educated elites will tell you the foreign native speaker is better but it doesn't seem so obvious to me. A native [your native language] speaker will be better at grammar explanation, while the foreign speaker will be better because their accent is a native one (for the students to listen to and parrot). I bet research has been done on this subject. It might be interesting to read said research.

Heisig's foreword says his book isn't well suited to a classroom environment. I was wondering whether you plan to use Heisig and what is your reasoning for this choice? I also wonder what textbook you will use and why. God knows there's so many (English/Japanese) textbooks out there.

Personally, I prefer the Japanese grammar to be as much from the native perspective as possible (a la Tae Kim or Mangajin/Manga Way).

I think you could apply the same concepts of self-study as discussed in this thread to Heisig, encouraging the use of Anki and perhaps integrating RTK Lite or something like that--and I bet having the communal, story-sharing aspect would make it even better of a classroom activity than studying sentences and the like.

Edit: The 1st page of this thread seems to have the good stuff, in regards to RTK. Some good ideas there. I'm horrible at teaching, so I'm useless on this subject. ;p

I'd like to report back on how my classes have been going- I've decided to split the class up in this way: the first few minutes, students finish up any homework they need to do, discuss problems they've run into with grammar, etc. The bulk of the class is made up of material from beginning Japanese textbooks (despite the flack, Japanese for Busy People is very clear in its presentation, and the students seem to pick up on the sentence formulas and vocabulary quickly; Japanese for Everyone is also helpful to illustrate points). I have tried to structure my instruction in the same way that an SRS unit works- introduce a batch of sentences and the words they contain, then ask again for students to define their meaning. Aside from working through the texts, we're tackling hiragana and katakana simultaneously. This is the website I used 'way back when' to learn the kana, which I am implementing as well: http://www.sf.airnet.ne.jp/~ts/japanese/cover.html
I am using an iKnow Japanese Core 2000: Step 1 (we should be able to get into Step 2 and part of 3, at least, for this semester) account for the whole class, which has been super-effective, and I'm encouraging them to get separate accounts of their own to practice as well, and the Hiragana and Katakana courses as well. The school ordered copies of the Easy Kana and Easy Kanji books as well. I've assigned the students Easy Kana, though Easy Kanji seems really counter-intuitive. Sure, practicing the stroke order and learning about radicals is all good and fine, but using this book would do little to facilitate memorization and understanding in the way that the RTK method does, so I don't plan on using it. They've also ordered Japanese the Manga Way and Mangajin's Basic Japanese Through Comics, which are fun and accessible to reinforce the points I discuss, and throw some culture in the mix.
As well as it's gone so far, it is still in the experimental, initial phase and I hope to implement more as time goes on.