@drac

How quintessential British “I can get by abroad as long as I know how to ask for chips.”

Made me think of this (51s)

@malvern rider is that UK philly or the proper stuff, as I understand it there is quite a difference in composition and subsequent quantity.

@thegeneralist I assume Tzchech is Czechia which was a made up name that nobody in the Czech Republic asked for?

Loving Simon semtex’s answer. Lot of truth in there.

So – teaching kids about things that are in their immediate environment and they are interacting with is actually an effective technique after all? How interesting.

The chips episode worked because it was of interest to the kids, not because they were in the immediate environment. This idea that stuff has to be in the immediate environment for kids to understand it is daft. If we extend that arguement even more then we should only use examples of stuff in the room to teach arithmetic, ethics , history etc. That would be even more stupid than just learning vocab based on what the kids can see.

My 9 year old daughter has been learning to identify relative clauses. As a former English teacher I have no idea why she’s being taught this, as it’s an entirely useless skill that has no bearing on one’s ability to write. I can only assume Gove was involved.

JP

I can only assume Gove was involved.

Yep…or in science wiring a 3 pin plug was taken off the curriculum due to it not being possible to buy plugs these days or get appliances without them. Guess who put it back!

None of Gove’s changes was based on empirical research hence the £800m wasted on university technical schools that weren’t wanted, esoteric grammar lessons for little kids, removing American literature from English etc etc. It was under his tutelage that universities inflated grades to improve their league table standing. In the 70s 8% of students went to university and you knew who would get a 1st or a 2.1 and you could get a grant, these days 50% of students go and 70% of them get a 1st or a 2.1 and they’re charged a fortune for this spurious qualification.
In answer to the original question, the minister via civil servants imposes changes on school curricula and exam boards and Ofsted inspections and league tables are used to bully schools into conformity.

I think I can beat that OP…

Next week, daughter number one will be making…… wait for it……. hot chocolate!

Yes that’s right, hot water with cocoa powder mixed in and squirty crème on top. I shit you not.

That’s not how you make hot chocolate (you’re probably thinking of using instant hot choc powder? Cheating). It’s not even how you make cocoa.

Whatever, your daughter will be able to teach you the right method, next week…

mmmm cheesecake.

https://www.fifteenspatulas.com/best-hot-chocolate-from-scratch/

What sort of imbecile? I’d expect language teaching experts. I mean, let’s just imagine for a minute that a load of research has been done, and they have discovered that teaching language structure and grammar, and gaining familiarity through common objects that are actually present is more effective than abstract things that aren’t?

Maybe, just maybe, they think that teaching about the language is more important than just learning a shitload of phrases? Maybe, just maybe, you don’t actually know that much about language teaching to kids who find it hard, because you’re so gifted and amazing?

Except that’s not how languages are learned naturally and the evidence is that we in the UK teach languages exceedingly poorly. I lost count of the numbers of Scandanvians or Dutch and now most European kids who just started by watching TV in English and speak fantastically well.

On the original point, I sometimes teach food to y7 pupils and there are various reasons for what is taught. Firstly, there will be a massive range of skill levels coming into the lessons. I’ve had everything from 11 year olds who can happily cook a meal to those whose parents will not even let them use a knife or peeler in the kitchen. Then there’s budget constraints (we have to provide ingredients for those in receipt of free school meals which can be a fair proportion of the class). Also we have an hour to remind them of skills, carry out the cookery, clear up, assess the work and possibly demonstrate the skills for next week.

To that end, the recipies we teach at y7 (alongside some theory lessons about safe and hygienic working, measuring, balanced diet and similar) are:
Fruit salad – to teach basic knife skills and safety.
Bread based pizza – again, knife skills and using ovens.
Cheese scones – measuring, baking, rubbing in etc.
Chicken goujons, with a dip or 2 as an extension task.
French toast – including presentation skills and serving/eating the final items in lesson
Fruit muffins
Vegetable chowder
Fruity flapjacks

Just to make things more interesting, there’s the whole allergies and intolerances to deal with and those kids whose parents haven’t bothered to buy ingredients…

Hopefully that sounds reasonable!

Except that’s not how languages are learned naturally and the evidence is that we in the UK teach languages exceedingly poorly. I lost count of the numbers of Scandanvians or Dutch and now most European kids who just started by watching TV in English and speak fantastically well.

Young children have very high neural plasticity. They can acquire languages through incidental exposure. After adolescence, neural plasticity is greatly reduced and we cannot learn languages in the same way that young children do. Instead, we need structured explanations and deliberate practice to proceedurize the language, followed by massive incidental exposure to automatize it. If you think about it, young children almost never fail to acquire high proficiency in a language through exposure, no matter how terrible their caregivers are, but adults always find learning a new language to require massive effort, no matter how skillful their teacher is. The same applies to learning any skill – young children pick things up amazingly quickly, whereas adults really struggle to learn new skills, doing wheelies on a bike is a perfect example.

Young children have very high neural plasticity. They can acquire languages through incidental exposure. After adolescence, neural plasticity is greatly reduced and we cannot learn languages in the same way that young children do. Instead, we need structured explanations and deliberate practice to proceedurize the language, followed by massive incidental exposure to automatize it.

That was my point … just keep it interesting. (i.e. not rubbers and pencils)
I still picked stuff up mostly until my early 40’s (obviously not like a 5yr old)…. although I then needed the structure to get past that… though my fluency in languages is almost inversely proportional to the amount of structure/effort at the beginning.

I guess what I mean is the stuff that comes easily sticks way better than the stuff I had to structure myself to learn.

That was my point

No, that was not your point, unless you are so poor at English that you say the opposite of what you actually mean.

….unless of course you choose to send your children to a faith school but why would you do that unless you were a believer?

In real life here in England, our catchment school is a faith school, and by opting not to send our eldest there we are technically risking her not getting a place at any of our three chosen schools. People less resentful than us have and doubtless will continue to send their children there.

The chips episode worked because it was of interest to the kids, not because they were in the immediate environment. This idea that stuff has to be in the immediate environment for kids to understand it is daft.

Is there an academic citation for that? I mean, I’m only theorising here, but it would make sense. I very much don’t think that unqualified people just sit around pulling curriculum ideas out of their arses, which is what you lot are doing.

We were taught French via ‘useful’ phrases like how to book a hotel or a campsite. No-one remembered anything, we were all totally shit. Except me, because I listened to people booking campsites whilst I was actually in one and needing a place to stay. So it was relevant to my actual situation. If you’d taught me how to order chips whilst I was trying to book a campsite, there’s a good chance I’d have forgotten I think.

My Mum was a French teacher, I’ll ask her next time I go up. When her kids left school they were vastly better at French than we were. She taught according to the guidelines and teaching materials, so I think there’s probably something in it.

I think that one of the reasons Scandinavians are so good at English is because as well as being taught well they get a lot of practice. Because they have prime-time American and British TV shows (Corrie anyone) that are subtitled, not dubbed. This is a superb way to reinforce what you’ve learned. You may have learned ‘this is a pencil’ at school, but then you understand ‘this is a banana’ when someone on screen is holding a banana. The pencil is just the vehicle for learning the statement. Because in a school you can hold up a pencil as you teach it, because there’s one there.

My Mum used to teach French almost entirely in French right from the start. So I’d expect the use of visual props was quite important. But I’ll ask her.

It’s also worth noting that we all learn differently, so some people (my wife is one such) need visual cues to learn things, whereas I can do the abstract. So whilst learning grammar really helps for me, it doesn’t for her.

No, that was not your point, unless you are so poor at English that you say the opposite of what you actually mean.

I was responding to a quote of a quote and trying to keep it brief.
For clarity young kids don’t need structured teaching to learn ‘a language’ to a level that can be built upon, they just need engaging exposure to the language or even simply non-negative* engagement with the language. It takes effort NOT to learn a language at 5-10 or less and most kids are not prejudiced enough to make that effort unless the experience is made unpleasant or boring.

Kids effortlessly learn their mother tongue(s), often imperfectly but at a perfectly serviceable level if you class “let’s go and make a sandcastle” as serviceable. If perfectly acceptable means the sandcastle gets built then the correctness or otherwise of the grammar is subsidiary.

Even as adults we retain enough plasticity to adsorb languages we just have to add in more effort and we create more barriers. I’m not claiming the plasticity stays the same, I’m just saying not learning a language you are exposed to takes both deliberate and unconcious effort.

*Asking for a ruler or pencil repeatedly and sitting learning conjugation are more obvious negatives but non negative is not always obvious.