The occasional ramblings of a freelance lexicographer
Friday, September 19, 2014
Lumpi ist mein Hund: German for no particular purpose
I’ve just been preparing for an EAP event in Zürich on 27
September and it got me thinking about my own experiences of learning German;
not altogether successfully.
My first contact with German was at secondary school where I
studied it for a year around the age of 13. This was back in the days of the
audio lingual method and we used a course called Vorwärts which involved
watching a slideshow about an apparently typical German family, the Schaudis,
and their supposed day-to-day life. We watched the slides, listened to the
audio (presumably on tape) then repeated. It was successful in the sense that I
can still remember many of the sentences we learnt verbatim to this day.
Unfortunately, they weren’t always particularly useful - here’s a selection of
the ones that stick in my mind (apologies for the spelling, as far as I
remember, we only drilled them orally):
Der Hase ist tot.
(The rabbit is dead.) Hilfe, hilfe, mein Bein ist gebrochen.
Hast du eine Hansaplast?
(Help, help, my leg is broken. Have you got a sticking plaster?)
After a bit of googling, I found somewhat of a cult
following for the Schaudi family – Mr and Mrs Schaudi, their son Hans, his
‘friend’ Lieselotte and not forgetting Lumpi the dog - which has backed up many
of my recollections of the slightly obscure language input - although not
admittedly the bit about the plaster!
Some years later, when I finished university, I spent 6
months in Basel working as an au pair and thought I’d better try and learn
something more useful, so I enrolled for weekly German classes at the local
Micros Klubschule. I really enjoyed the classes. There was a fascinating mix of
different nationalities and we had a really nice young teacher. Looking back,
he did a fantastic job with such a diverse mix of complete beginners and was
actually part of my inspiration for becoming a language teacher in the first
place. And from what I remember of the course, I think it was mostly useful
stuff, with lots of basic everyday phrases and vocabulary.
The only slight
drawback was that the course taught High German (standard German, if you like,
as spoken in Germany), but the language I was surrounded by in Basel was mostly
Swiss German, a different dialect with a very different accent and quite a few
completely different words and phrases. This was quite confusing, especially because,
as a beginner, I had no feel for what was High German and what was Swiss
German, so I ended up speaking a rather odd mix of the two. This didn’t matter
too much while I was in Switzerland as people mostly got the gist of what I was
trying to say (albeit at a very basic level). However, when, at the end of my
stay, I travelled back through Germany, I got quite a different reaction. Some
people just looked at me a bit puzzled and took a while to work out what I
wanted, but I remember one guy in a cafe who couldn’t quite suppress a giggle.
I don’t think he was being mean, but clearly my dodgy accent and odd hybrid
dialect did just sound rather comical. As a result, it was many many years
before I risked speaking even a few words of German in public again.
The point being that for any language learner it’s important
to understand what they’re learning, why and how they can use it. In English
for Academic Purposes (EAP), the purpose, as the name suggests, should be
obvious, but that isn’t always the case. Over the past 10 years of working in
EAP as a teacher, teacher trainer and materials writer, I’ve discovered that
different students, teachers and institutions can all have quite different
expectations about what learning academic English should involve. And when
students’ expectations don’t seem to match what they’re being taught, they
easily become demotivated and disenchanted, switching off at best and at worst,
being openly hostile.
In my session in Zürich, I’ll be talking about how we can deal
with students’ expectations and keep them on side by making the rationale for
what we do in class clearer; by explaining to students exactly what we’re doing,
why and how it fits in with their own academic studies.
I’m looking forward to visiting Zürich, meeting teachers and
finding out what teaching EAP in Switzerland is like. You never know, I might
even be brave enough to try out a little bit of German …
If you’re in the area and would like to come along, you can
find out more information and register for the event here (it’s free, you just
need to sign up).
It's not every day that I go to work in an abaya and hijab, but last week I spent 4 days in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia giving professional development workshops to English teachers on the female campus at King Saud University. I have to admit to a little trepidation before the trip and I didn't know quite what to expect, but in the end, apart from the heat, the early starts and the Riyadh traffic, it turned out to be a really rewarding experience.
Students at the university spend a year studying English as part of a preparatory programme, so it's a large department with more than 200 English teachers on the female campus alone; an amazing mix of nationalities, some from the region, others from further afield. Many of them are very well qualified and all are keen to develop their professional skills further. So the workshops were fun and lively with lots of great ideas coming from the teachers. I was there with a colleague (on behalf of OUP) as part of the start-of-year teacher induction, giving orientation sessions to the books they'd be using through the year (New Headway Plus, Headway Academic Skills and Q Skills).
As we chatted to the teachers and the PD team, it was really interesting to build up a picture of what English teaching at university level is like in Saudi Arabia. It soon became clear that whilst very well resourced in terms of staff, training opportunities and facilities, the teachers still face quite a challenge matching expectations to reality.
The intake of students seems to be very varied, from the high-achieving, highly-motivated girls with almost native-speaker levels of English who are going on to study Medicine, largely through the medium of English, to those who arrive with little or no English (despite supposedly 7 years of English at school) who are going onto courses where they are unlikely to use much English and who have, perhaps unsurprisingly, very low levels of motivation. Yet the expectation is that by the end of the year all students will have reached a good B2 level and be ready for academic study in English.
It's a situation that I've heard about in several countries - and one that is apparently becoming more common as institutions across the world switch to English-medium instruction - but this was the first time I'd come across it first hand. It's clearly a challenge not just for teachers, managers and curriculum development teams on the ground, but for the ELT industry as a whole, including materials writers like myself. So all in all, it was not just a fascinating experience, meeting lots of lovely people, but also provided plenty of food for thought as I head into the autumn back at my desk.
Last summer, I went to a talk by Russell Stannard about
using screencast software, Jing, to give feedback on student writing. I loved
the idea, but didn’t have time to download it and try it out at the time. Last
week though, I led a week of teacher training workshops on teaching writing
skills (part of the ELT summer seminar at Exeter College, Oxford) which seemed
like the perfect opportunity to give it a go.
At the end of the first session on Monday, I asked all the
trainees to email me a short piece of writing; a profile of themselves in
50-100 words. The plan was to give each of them feedback using Jing in time for
the session on 'giving feedback on writing' scheduled for Thursday.
For those of you who haven’t come across screencasts before,
it’s really very simple. You download a free piece of software. You
can then open the student’s writing on screen and record a short (five minutes
max.) video of what you’re doing on screen, i.e. correcting/highlighting issues
in the student’s text, along with an audio commentary. When you finish, the
software creates a link which you can send to the student and they just click
on this to view the screen cast. Here’s an example, it’s a mock-up rather than
a real student text, but you’ll get the idea:
It’s a fantastic way of giving feedback because it gives the
student the sense of really personal attention from the teacher and so will
hopefully have much more impact than standard written feedback, which let’s
face it, tends to get ignored. It also gives you more flexibility to chat and
explain things that you just never including writing and to emphasize what are
significant issues to focus on. So what’s not to love?
Well … although the actual recording doesn’t take long (in
this case, I used an average of 2-3 minutes) and the process isn’t complicated,
it did end up being much more time-consuming than I’d expected just going
through all the steps needed:
open the student’s email and save the document
to my computer
open the document and read through the text to
get an initial idea of the standard and what to give feedback on
record the screencast
download the link and paste it at the end of the
add any extra brief text comments in the
margin to remind students of the voice comments
save the revised document
compose an email to the student including the
link and attaching the revised document - although I composed a standard
message which I sent to all students, the emails had to be sent separately,
checking carefully that each had the correct link and attachment!
With practice, I got the whole process down to around 15
minutes per student, but with 27 in all it took over five hours! Compared with
probably 1-1½ if I'd done it old-school style with pen and paper. It ended up
taking every spare minute I had over those few days and I absolutely cursed the
whole stupid idea!
Having said that, the response I got from the trainees when
we looked at it was really positive and did make it feel worthwhile. Lessons learned though … it’s definitely not a technique to use
with large numbers of students. If I was going to use it again it would be:
feedback on group writing tasks (with only say 4
or 5 texts to look at per class)
individual feedback, but only for a small
handful of students each week, so that everyone gets their turn over the
duration of the course
for whole class feedback, with one recording for
the whole class, or perhaps for something I didn’t have time to finish in class
(à la flipped classroom)
Anyone else tried screencasts or other ways of giving voice feedback? How did you get on?
Last weekend I was in Frankfurt for an EAP Day organized by
OUP and ELTAF. The teachers were a mix of those already involved in EAP and
those just interested to find out about it, but all were happy to join in and
ask questions, even when I plunged them straight into EAP activities first
thing on a Saturday morning!
One of the sessions was on EAP vocabulary and as I’ve done
before, I started off by asking everyone to write a single word on a blank card
that they thought of as typically academic.
In the workshop, I talked about
the three categories of vocabulary needed by EAP students developing their own
- general vocabulary: words in the top 2000 most frequent
words in the language, but with a special focus on those apparently common
words which have more specific academic uses (table, find, string, etc.)
- core academic vocabulary: as per the Academic Word List
- specialist vocabulary: especially terms used in specific
So how did the teacher’s intuitions about academic
vocabulary match up to these different areas?
36% of the words chosen were Top 2000 words. Many clearly
fitted into the category of words that are useful in an academic context and
have slightly different everyday and academic senses, such as critical, examine
and practice. Critical (and criticize and critique) came out as part of the
discussion we had about subtly different academic uses. Notice the difference between
these two definitions from a general learner’s dictionary (OALD) and the Oxford
Learner’s Dictionary of Academic English:
OALD: critical adj: expressing disapproval of sb/sth and
saying what you think is bad about them
OLDAE: critical adj: involving making fair, careful
judgements about the good and bad qualities of sb/sth
Another 36% of the words chosen by teachers were on the
Academic Word List, so solid core academic vocabulary, like significant,
criteria, data, assessment and thesis.
The remaining 28% were words which don’t fall into either of
the other two categories. Some of these – purport and construe – were clearly
very formal and potentially academic in register (both appear in OLDAE), but
just not frequent enough to make it onto the AWL. The others form an
interesting little group which I may have to consider adding into my workshop
next time I give it, and that’s what could be described as words that students
won’t actually use in their academic writing, but need to talk about studying.
So there were words like dissertation which are about academic study generally
(you could add seminar, tutorial, deadline, extension, plagiarism, etc.) and
also linguistic metalanguage, such as collocation – the essential terminology
you need to talk about language learning (you could add register, hedging,
To get to this breakdown, I used the
Vocabulary Profiler on the Lextutor website, which picks out AWL words and
classifies the remainder in terms of frequency. It’s a really useful (free)
tool which I gave a demo of in the workshop. I know though that when I've shown
it in the past, teachers have come back to me afterwards and said they couldn’t
get it to do what I’d shown them. Because the website has so many different
tools available, it can be a bit difficult to navigate if you’re not familiar with it. The following link will take you
straight to the AWL highlighter tool: http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/ I’ve also put together a short demo:
At the end of the session, I asked everyone to go back to
their cards and to classify the word they’d noted down at the start into one of
the three groups. 57% of people classified their words correctly, although to
be fair, several others chose words which arguably ought to be on the AWL but
Thanks to everyone who came for such an enjoyable and
stimulating day, I hope you all went away with some food for thought.