Do you prefer monolingual or multilingual classrooms?

[imron]

Does anyone here think a class for professional translators of Chinese <-> English should be (1) completely conducted in Chinese

The difference between a Chinese->English translation class for professional translators and an ordinary Chinese language class should be obvious I think. One has an explicit requirement on English and also requires a relatively advanced level of Chinese, the other has no such requirement of either language and so I don't think that is a good example.

[jkhsu]

I think direct translations should be avoided where possible as it would risk that concepts are mapped incorrectly.

Exactly. Direct translations are offered in textbooks and dictionaries. It's the more complex translations that an "expert" teacher is supposed to help with. Of course, there will always be something lost through translation but a good translator can choose the right words / phrases to include as much of the original meaning as possible.

As Roddy said, there are a lot of articles about this topic supporting both sides.

[roddy]

Exactly. Direct translations are offered in textbooks and dictionaries. It's the more complex translations that an "expert" teacher is supposed to help with.

If only it was possible to put complex information in books. Oh wait, it is. What was your point again?

[jkhsu]

The difference between a Chinese->English translation class for professional translators and an ordinary Chinese language class should be obvious I think.

I think the issue at hand is the definition of the "ordinary Chinese language class" and the knowledge of the teacher.

Any native Chinese can teach a beginner level Chinese class if they have some knowledge of English in the USA. This is the case with many private after school programs here. However, a university professor who is fluent in English with a degree in Chinese literature and experience learning Chinese as a foreign language can offer more insights to students in my opinion.

[jkhsu]

What was your point again?

If books and dictionaries contained everything, why even bother going to class?

[roddy]

Speaking practice. Next?

[jkhsu]

That's it? What would be considered a good school and good teacher then? Just how strict the class is?

[jbradfor]

Speaking practice. Next?

Not. Well, maybe you could argue that it should be, but at least the classes I've attended the percent of time I've spoken is near zero. In a large class (30-40 students), it has to be that way. If that's all there is to it, then we should only learn by learning to read and write on our own, and then have 1-on-1 practice speaking. That's certainly not how classes are taught, esp in universities.

[imron]

I think the issue at hand is the definition of the "ordinary Chinese language class"

How about we go with "not a translation class", i.e. just a class for someone learning the Chinese language, which has no inherent requirement on any other language, compared to a translation class, which does.

[roddy]

but at least the classes I've attended the percent of time I've spoken is near zero. In a large class (30-40 students), it has to be that way

It doesn't have to be that way. Smaller classes are obviously better, but you can get plenty of speaking time even out of large group classes. Monitoring them is more difficult, and so you'd probably want to make sure everyone is well-prepared and that the task isn't too challenging. The biggest problem is often lecture-hall type seating which makes it difficult to get students to circulate around different partners.

[imron]

it has to be that way

When I was teaching English, I had a no Chinese language policy in class. Any student speaking Chinese in the classroom (even during the break) had to stand up in front of the class and sing "I'm a little teapot short and stout" (complete with actions). They all thought learning that song in the first class was great fun - until I told them what it was going to be used for After watching one or two of their classmates having to go up the front and sing this, the class very quickly learns to only speak in English.

The problem then becomes how do you make people speak, rather than just remaining silent. Even with a class of 30-40 students this is not so difficult, you just need to have adequate preparation and planning. The method I would use was first to introduce certain vocabulary/sentence patterns and then provide a well-defined activity that required the students to make use of those things (granted, this was intermediate level, so explaining things in English was a lot easier than if this had been a beginner level class). Then I would split the class into pairs or small groups and students would need to speak and discuss amongst themselves in their groups while I walked around visiting each group and helping out where needed. At the end, I would summarise common mistakes people were making and/or add any other insights I thought were relevant. Then repeat.

The end result was that in a class of 40 students, each of them were getting plenty of speaking time, they were also getting individual attention while I walked around, and they were also learning about common mistakes they should avoid. Even though later on I could speak Chinese, I never used Chinese in the classroom, and I don't think the students were worse off.

I also think back to the time when I was studying Chinese in Beijing. All of the classes were conducted in a monolingual manner, and in fact if anything, it's often easier to explain more complex constructs in the target language rather than the student's native language. Just think of all those little words in Chinese that all seem to translate to the same thing in English - often an explanation in Chinese can clear up the discrepancies straight way.

[jbradfor]

I think it's great that you taught that way, it's better than listening to a teacher drone on and on.

but.....

You get 97% of the same effect by telling them to do the activity at home with a group of friends. With 30 students, each one is really only getting 3% of your attention when they talk.

This goes back to jkhsu's question in post 45, what is the point in going to class (besides having someone force you to do the activities and motivation)? I still don't think it's speaking, as one could do that outside a class, given motivation and (ideally) some structure.

Anyway, I think this has been a very interesting thread. What I got out of it is that monolingual vs multilingual is less important than having a good (or great) teacher and having the student be motivated.

[imron]

You get 97% of the same effect by telling them to do the activity at home with a group of friends.

No you don't, because when you tell them to do that, none of them do In class at least you can force them.

With 30 students, each one is really only getting 3% of your attention when they talk.

True, but the amount of personal attention any one student is going to get in a class of 30 is always going to be small. It then becomes a question of how to maximise the benefit each student can get with only a small amount of personal attention, and making sure you're giving them enough stuff to do without your personal attention, so that they can still learn something and don't just drift off or start doing other things.

what is the point in going to class (besides having someone force you to do the activities and motivation)

I think having someone force you to do the activities and motivation is actually probably the big thing, and also having someone to guide you in your studies and someone you can then ask about things you don't understand that you've encountered in your own learning. 师父领进门，修行在个人 and all that.

[roddy]

With 30 students, each one is really only getting 3% of your attention when they talk.

It's better than you getting 0% of their attention while you lecture them

It'd work out a lot higher than 3% though. Sure, the numbers are too high and something around 12-16 would be much preferable. But once you've been teaching a while you can wander round a classroom listening to the buzz and the mistakes just jump out at you - think of the way you can hear your name across a crowded room. If you've set the activity up correctly it'll be an error they shouldn't have made and can correct themselves, so you tap them on the shoulder and repeat the mistake with a frown, they correct it, that serves as reinforcement for everyone else within earshot, and you continue on patrol. If the same mistake is happening often you've not set things up properly so you call for quiet, explain again, then wave them on.

To get back to the original question a little - assuming your students all share the same L1, and assuming again that you can speak it (these are big assumptions, btw) there might be the occasional case to be made for using said L1. However I think it's a dangerous precedent to set. Students who know that, if they fail to understand for long enough, they'll get an L1 explanation, are less likely to try to understand. Rather than using L1 for 'difficult' things, you'd be better off asking yourself why you can't make the explanation simpler, or if you even actually need to explain that. When you do need to use L1, disconnect it if possible from the normal classroom context. Give the explanation out on a handout, or have a student give it, or (and I think I actually did this once) have the students quickly file out of the classroom for the explanation and then back in again - because the classroom is L2 only.

Also, a language classroom can be a remarkable place if you have some favorable combination of teacher, resources, students and environment. You really can have people walking in eager and ready to learn, and walking out an hour later having enjoyed themselves and learned to do new stuff. That's a fun thing to be a part of, and I miss it sometimes.

If your experience of language learning is a provincial Chinese university, or an exhausted inner-city high school, or just a second-rate private school anywhere in the world . . .well, that probably wasn't so remarkable.

[jbradfor]

If your experience of language learning is a provincial Chinese university, or an exhausted inner-city high school, or just a second-rate private school anywhere in the world . . .well, that probably wasn't so remarkable.

Mine was at one of the top 20 universities worldwide (UC Berkeley) -- I wouldn't call it remarkable either.

[creamyhorror]

Primarily monolingual is best IMO, *but* only if explanations can be made in English. When I underwent one-to-one tuition while in school, my tutor was sometimes unable to explain to me what a word meant or implied (because she could only do it in Chinese). This sometimes happened in normal classes too, where it was easy to miss an explanation before the teacher moved on. And of course we were only allowed Chinese-Chinese dictionaries then so forget using *those* - not that we would have bothered checking the dictionary for everything. Textbooks had no English in them either (hell, I didn't know how to read the instructions or additional notes).

Under such conditions, slightly multilingual teaching would *really* have helped.

[valikor]

Once the students know some Chinese, the monolingual or 99% mono-lingual classroom makes sense to me. As for beginners, I am not sure. When I was a beginner, the class was in English. My Chinese is okay now. A friend of mine said that his teacher in college started 100% Chinese from day 2. He speaks better Chinese than any non-native speaker that I've met in 2+ years in China. Of course that doesn't prove this is the best method, but it definitely proves that it *can* work.

[Silent]

For excelling in language learning I think motivation and out of classroom study/activities are far more important than the methodology used in class. Sure a good teacher and method may make it a lot easier, but without motivation and extra study/practical use outside the classroom it will be hard to go skyhigh.

[paperbagprince23]

When it comes down to it, people don't learn language by studying complex grammar structures and rules; you learn it by examples.

Somebody above mentioned how teaching the 把字句 would be difficult without using the native language. However, when I first learned Chinese, had the teacher said something like "You place the "ba" in the beginning of the noun and follow it by a verb followed by a directional", I would have been pretty confused. However, if the teacher just gave me a couple of 把字句 sentences and told us to make our own, naturally students will learn how to use it. Then, perhaps, after all is said and done, the grammar could be explained-but even then I think it should be explained in Chinese. Student's have to learn these grammar rules in Chinese eventually-why not start early.

Not to mention the fact that, once you start to speak even a little bit of the mother tongue, you will slowly use it as a crutch. When ever I taught English in China, I would be careful not to let my student's know I spoke any Chinese. If my student's found out that I could, they would ask me how to say a word, instead of trying to describe it to me the best they could. Switching back to Chinese; which of these situations sound more beneficial to students:

1. 学生： 老师， glove 怎么说啊

老师： 手套

学生： 啊， 对了； 我找不到我的手套

2： 学生： 老师， 我找不到我的东西！

老师: 什么东西？

学生： 是一种衣服； 冷的时候要戴着。。。

老师： 是大衣吗？

学生： 不是。。。是， 手。。。手。。

老师： 啊！ 手套。

学生： 对了； 老师我找不到我的手套。

Just having student's trying to figure out what words mean and how to use grammar will help them. Student's learn best when they are able to connect their own dots; this means figuring out their own conclusions about grammar. If they come to their own logic about grammar, they will remember it a lot more clearly. This is true with any subject, especially with language. However, once the pandora's box of the mother tongue is opened, you can never shut it. Not only will the student's try to sneak in as much of the MT as they can, the teacher will as well.

I cast my vote for monolingusitcal.

[Guest realmayo]

I guess there are too many variables implicit in the initial question (what kind of class, level, number of students) for a definitive answer. I'd add one thing: when I first learned Chinese, not seriously but just so I could chat with taxi drivers during what I figured would be at most a year in the country, I had some one-one classes where we occasionally followed a textbook but which were mainly talking in Chinese. I was a complete beginner. Initially the conversations were of course extremely basic, but because they were conversations rather than just drills, I would want to give an answer that included words and grammar that I didn't know. Being able to ask 怎么说.. followed by the word in English meant that real conversations were possible. So most of my grammar and vocab was learned simply because I needed to use it in conversation. This wouldn't have been possible if the teacher couldn't speak English. (It also wouldn't have been worthwhile if my teacher didn't write down every new word and piece of grammar as he taught it to me, and at the start of the next class test me on what he had taught me.) After a year of classes for three hours a week, no other studying except a bit of homework, I was really very happy chatting in Chinese -- and I'm not gifted at learning languages, as my subsequent struggles with Chinese have proved. I'm certainly not saying this is the best method for learning Chinese, but it seems to me an instance where using L1 and L2 gave much better results (given the narrow requirements that I had) than would have been the case if it was all in L2.