News Forum - Top tips for effectively teaching English to Thai students

[Khunmark]

10 hours ago, cowslip said:

In fact the principle of TEFL is based on your definition of acquire knowledge - in actual fact it's all a process of learning as any teacher will be able to use as tools

With due respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about. TEFL is structured learning and there are no ‘tools’ in osmosis. You may wish to read up on language and linguistics before posting next time, instead making it up as you go along.

[cowslip]

17 minutes ago, Khunmark said:

With due respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about. TEFL is structured learning and there are no ‘tools’ in osmosis. You may wish to read up on language and linguistics before posting next time, instead making it up as you go along.

sadly many people like yourself don't understand the basic principles of TEFL - so no respect there I'm afraid.

and "osmosis" - is just a gimmicky word means nothing

[Tango]

@cowslip hopefully your not a teacher? To many spelling mistakes.

[HolyCowCm]

Article's picture: Everyone can make mistakes. 

[cowslip]

6 hours ago, Tango said:

@cowslip hopefully your not a teacher? To many spelling mistakes.

Do you really think so? If that is your criteria I would suggest you need to review how one teaches EFL

"Spelling mistake" - what's you definition? and what do you think the cause is?

 

"hopefully your not a teacher?" - how about your own English?????

"first cast out the beam out of thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of " [mine]

[cowslip]

10 hours ago, Khunmark said:

With due respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about. TEFL is structured learning and there are no ‘tools’ in osmosis. You may wish to read up on language and linguistics before posting next time, instead making it up as you go along.

You're actually making a false dichotomy here - learning is  learning; it may be "taught" or "acquired' but these expressions are just little half nuggets picked up by those selling TEFL courses - mostly they are irrelevant or redundant - they certainly aren't helpful.

How did you learn you mother tongue?

 

PS - you are confusing linguistics with education.

[oldschooler]

23 hours ago, Khunmark said:

Acquired knowledge occurs through the process of osmosis. Learnt knowledge occurs through the process of a structured educational program.

He’s explained that. His question was rhetorical. Which HE then answered. Do try to keep up.

[oldschooler]

1 hour ago, cowslip said:

You're actually making a false dichotomy here - learning is  learning; it may be "taught" or "acquired' but these expressions are just little half nuggets picked up by those selling TEFL courses - mostly they are irrelevant or redundant - they certainly aren't helpful.

How did you learn you mother tongue?

PS - you are confusing linguistics with education.

Yes indeed. All knowledge is either acquired or not acquired.

[oldschooler]

12 hours ago, cowslip said:

sadly many people like yourself don't understand the basic principles of TEFL - so no respect there I'm afraid.

and "osmosis" - is just a gimmicky word means nothing

Yes. It’s a Biology term misapplied here to learning.

[cowslip]

4 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

Yes. It’s a Biology term misapplied here to learning.

OR

 

the process of gradual or unconscious assimilation of ideas, knowledge, etc.

[TheDirtyDurian]

1 hour ago, oldschooler said:

Yes indeed. All knowledge is either acquired or not acquired.

And some people acquire less than others....

[Khunmark]

On 11/2/2023 at 8:27 AM, cowslip said:

sadly many people like yourself don't understand the basic principles of TEFL - so no respect there I'm afraid.

and "osmosis" - is just a gimmicky word means nothing

Just like ‘intelligence is a gimmicky word. Eh, Cowslip.

[Khunmark]

16 hours ago, oldschooler said:

He’s explained that. His question was rhetorical. Which HE then answered. Do try to keep up.

Except that he edited his post after I responded to it. Do try to keep up.

[Khunmark]

16 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Yes. It’s a Biology term misapplied here to learning.

From the Oxford dictionary; the process of gradual or unconscious assimilation of ideas, knowledge, etc. 

Have you ever wondered why you were never given a list of irregular verbs to learn  in primary school?

Your ignorance is on display once again, keep up the good work!

[Khunmark]

18 hours ago, cowslip said:

You're actually making a false dichotomy here - learning is  learning; it may be "taught" or "acquired' but these expressions are just little half nuggets picked up by those selling TEFL courses - mostly they are irrelevant or redundant - they certainly aren't helpful.

How did you learn you mother tongue?

PS - you are confusing linguistics with education.

The distinctions certainly are helpful when you get a poster making the false claim, that because a person developed language competency in the present of a native speaker, that the native speaker is therefore sufficiently capable of teaching the language.

In all likelihood you acquired spoken English from your parents and siblings prior to compulsory education. It does not follow that your siblings and parents are automatically equipped to teach TEFL because you mastered the English language in their presence.

[rkhguy]

On 11/2/2023 at 7:49 AM, Tango said:

@cowslip hopefully your not a teacher? To many spelling mistakes.

Is this intended as a joke?

Incorrect spelling of "your" and "to", intentional or not?

[cowslip]

4 hours ago, Khunmark said:

Just like ‘intelligence is a gimmicky word. Eh, Cowslip.

can you show me the way "intelligence" is "gimmicky"?

However "IQ" is certainly a gimmick used by the unintelligent

[cowslip]

4 hours ago, Khunmark said:

It does not follow that your siblings and parents are automatically equipped to teach TEFL because you mastered the English language in their presence.

As you are now saying the difference is a construct largely of TEL and irrelevant to real life teaching - the basis of TEFL is to "acquire" a language in a natural way.- the way you learn you native tongue

Knowing this you can structure a course.

It is not usually adhered to as changes of "convenience" are used by EL teachers largely to make life easier for they themselves or due to the constraints of a teaching environment impose by education authorities and unimaginative nabobs who know nothing about education.

[oldschooler]

5 hours ago, cowslip said:

can you show me the way "intelligence" is "gimmicky"?

However "IQ" is certainly a gimmick used by the unintelligent

Disagree on IQ which is one of THE most scientifically accurate test of pure intelligence,I.e.Reasoning Ability.

Jordan Peterson and Charles Murray are strong IQ proponents and are hardly unintelligent 

IQ certainly not useful in isolation when Culture excluded but it’s a massive predictor of an individuals’ Advancement  & success.

IQ when applied to ethnic groups throws up some interesting but consistent outcomes.

Anglo- Saxons average IQ 100 yet invented and built practically the entire Modern World.

Jap av. IQ 120 yet invented Nothing of significance. Culture Reasons?  Copied all from China then West.

Ashkenazi ( European) Jews also worlds highest Av. IQ 120 & have won over 100 Science Nobel Prizes.

Sub- Saharans & Aborigines av. IQ 70-85 perhaps shows no advanced civilizations are possible below av. 90-95 IQ. Certainly at 80 IQ not even simple factory or construction work is possible. 

Luckily for all, IQ always follows a Bell Curve distribution within groups so even Kalahari Bushmen & Aborigines produce Geniuses, Doctors, Engineers…… just very very few …..
 

 

[oldschooler]

10 hours ago, Khunmark said:

From the Oxford dictionary; the process of gradual or unconscious assimilation of ideas, knowledge, etc. 

Have you ever wondered why you were never given a list of irregular verbs to learn  in primary school?

Your ignorance is on display once again, keep up the good work!

Osmosis is an original scientific process not applicable to primates ( humans). 

Not knowing it had been stupidly & wrongly applied to human learning is yes technically ignorant but only in the most trivial insignificant way, like you not knowing my favorite color. Use of the strong term “ignorance” in such circumstances is a sure indicator of a tiny & feeble intellect, as you have already shown you possess. 

[cowslip]

25 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

Disagree on IQ which is one of THE most scientifically accurate test of pure intelligence,I.e.Reasoning Ability.

Jordan Peterson and Charles Murray are strong IQ proponents and are hardly unintelligent 

IQ certainly not useful in isolation when Culture excluded but it’s a massive predictor of an individuals’ Advancement  & success.

IQ when applied to ethnic groups throws up some interesting but consistent outcomes.

Anglo- Saxons average IQ 100 yet invented and built practically the entire Modern World.

Jap av. IQ 120 yet invented Nothing of significance. Culture Reasons?  Copied all from China then West.

Ashkenazi ( European) Jews also worlds highest Av. IQ 120 & have won over 100 Science Nobel Prizes.

Sub- Saharans & Aborigines av. IQ 70-85 perhaps shows no advanced civilizations are possible below av. 90-95 IQ. Certainly at 80 IQ not even simple factory or construction work is possible. 

Luckily for all, IQ always follows a Bell Curve distribution within groups so even Kalahari Bushmen & Aborigines produce Geniuses, Doctors, Engineers…… just very very few …..
 

Only someone with low IQ would believe that!

 

The science was actually based on fraud.

 

It is also the favourite pseudoscience of racists 

[oldschooler]

2 hours ago, cowslip said:

Only someone with low IQ would believe that!

The science was actually based on fraud.

It is also the favourite pseudoscience of racists 

Your “ low IQ” statement is emotional, unscientific and baseless. You’re better than that ….

I will investigate that “ fraud” ….. appears complete bs…. from who ? jealous fake self- loathing pseudo- “ scholars” perhaps ? 

any IQ racist use by whites would backfire as Jews & Japs more intelligent !

No Einsteins or Da Vincis or Any Serious Inventions or Philosophy or Civilizations have emerged from Southern Hemisphere ethnics ….. but nothing to do  with IQ then ……. Er, no ……..

[oldschooler]

Wikipedia “History of the Race & Intelligence Controversy” quite interesting.

Fraud is not mentioned. So that’s as I thought complete unscientific Nonsense.. 

Appears Genetic, Environment and Culture all play a part.

If we look at the terrible Geography of Southern Hemisphere lands vs. highly favourable Europe & East Asia, for example, the Environmental & resultant Cultural differences simply MUST have played a huge part in IQ with resultant poorer Genetics in the Worlds South. Genetics might explain 15% IQ gap, the article says.

That would leave 85% gap explained by Environment ( maybe 50% at least, with 35% Culture perhaps). 

Regardless of the IQ Difference Reasons, the outcome that they obviously exist, is perfectly clear, as I previously summarised. This outcome cannot be reduced by Education, the article says.

Basically if your Parents were both Low IQ, you inevitably will probably be too.

Exceptions exist though. Da Vinci, whose IQ surely must have been 200 + , well beyond Genius, was born to humble lower middle class parents who achieved little in life with probable IQ around 100 each….. 

[Khunmark]

4 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Wikipedia “History of the Race & Intelligence Controversy” quite interesting.

Fraud is not mentioned. So that’s as I thought complete unscientific Nonsense.. 

Appears Genetic, Environment and Culture all play a part.

If we look at the terrible Geography of Southern Hemisphere lands vs. highly favourable Europe & East Asia, for example, the Environmental & resultant Cultural differences simply MUST have played a huge part in IQ with resultant poorer Genetics in the Worlds South. Genetics might explain 15% IQ gap, the article says.

That would leave 85% gap explained by Environment ( maybe 50% at least, with 35% Culture perhaps). 

Regardless of the IQ Difference Reasons, the outcome that they obviously exist, is perfectly clear, as I previously summarised. This outcome cannot be reduced by Education, the article says.

Basically if your Parents were both Low IQ, you inevitably will probably be too.

Exceptions exist though. Da Vinci, whose IQ surely must have been 200 + , well beyond Genius, was born to humble lower middle class parents who achieved little in life with probable IQ around 100 each….. 

IQ testing serves no useful purpose in society. It is instructive that it was employed as an instrument by proponents of eugenics to marginalise certain sections of society. So what is the practical application of IQ testing beyond creating division? 

[rkhguy]

 

The following discussion shows how complex the questions surrounding IQ testing are. When they refer to "intellectual" Nobel prizes they mean that they exclude the peace prize.

"Countries Ranked by Population to 'Intellectual' Nobel Prize Ratio

This investigates whether there was a correlation between number of intellectual Nobel Prizes won by a country and the average IQ score of that country. For a proper comparison, the population of each country was divided by the number of Nobel Prizes it had gotten. The only Nobel Prizes excluded from the count were the Peace Prizes. Strictly speaking, the correlation was calculated on the ranksof the countries on the IQ and Nobel Prize lists.

The Spearman Rank Order Correlation (r) came out to be 0.258046 with a p of 0.2462680. The correlation is not significant (at p<0.05).

And if it were, it would only explain 6.7% (r squared) of the Nobel Prize winning rank. See below for a chart of the nobel prizes per country and a graph showing the lack of correlation with IQ rank. "

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/nobels.aspx

• Most of the population data (in thousands) are from the World Almanac and Book of Facts 2000 (for 1999) Mahwah, New Jersey: PRIMEDIA Reference, 1999.
• The Nobel Prize data was tallied from the World Almanac and Book of Facts 1999 and from http://www.nobel.se/index.html. 
• There was sometimes more than one country listed for a Nobel Prize Winner—each country got credit. 
• The population data for the USSR is from 1980.

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Images/IQNOB4.gif

(sorry, I can't seem to paste the graph into the post)

As I understand it, since the graph is of rank, you would expect the line to be 1/1, highest rank in IQ would have the highest rank in Nobel prizes.

So for example, Britain has an IQ rank of 10th, but has a Nobel rank of 4; and the USA has an IQ rank of 16th, but a Nobel rank of 9. 

Possibly the total number of Nobel prizes granted is not sufficient for a statistically significant comparison. 

 

Any statisticians want to weigh in?

My guess is that the probability of winning the Nobel prize is determined by such a large number of factors that examining the relationship with national average IQ is meaningless.

I have a related question simply related to size of talent pool.

Since China and India have the largest talent pools to draw from, shouldn't they dominate the international competitions in track and field?

I use track and field because it seems to be less affected by the popularity of particular sports.

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by rkhguy