English vs. ESL
 

In regards to how English is taught, what are the major differences between teaching English in a country where the students first language is English versus teaching in a country where the students' first language is something other than English?

I think the end goals are the same, to teach the students a competent level of English that will allow the student to successfully operate in an English-speaking society.

However, are the grammar points taught the same? Are the strategies and goals the same? Or, do the English grammar rules taught change based upon the society where English is being taught?

Re: English vs. ESL
 

Well EFL and ESL are quite different. EFL is generally structured around acedemics. It's taught and tested like math. Most of the time the real 'use' of the learning on the students part is for testing, not for speaking.

Whereas true ESL is more like support. Students have so much exposure and chance to use the language, the teacher is just guiding learning.

In general ESL doesn't focus on teaching grammar points like EFL.

Re: English vs. ESL
 

Here's a quirky question...

Is EFL is defined as the primary language IN THE CULTURE or IN THE CLASSROOM?

Re: English vs. ESL
 

I'm not really sure what you mean.

However, EFL is English as a Foreign Language. Its primary objectives aren't English as a second language, meaning they aren't trying to create fluent speakers but instead introduce a foreign language and culture as educational material.

Re: English vs. ESL
 

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight. The goal of EFL is to study English to pass tests, while ESL's goal is to teach English the students can actively use?

If I have my definitions correct, what is the importance of EFL? I mean, in the world that we are living in today, English is needed, but 10 years I think it's going to be pretty much essential in every part of the world, except for closed-off countries, like N. Korea.

I just don't see the point of EFL. Are there theories behind teaching EFL instead of ESL? For example, once students are exposed to EFL for a certain amount of time, they then switch over to an ESL environment?

Re: English vs. ESL
 

The approach to teaching ESL and teaching EFL differ to some extent. Mark is absolutely right when he says that ESL instruction is more like support. As a result, the teacher may construct a lesson with the understanding that the students will leave the class and immediately use the language.

In EFL instruction, the classroom may be the only exposure to English during the week. So the teacher must use classtime to not only present new target language, but to adequately practice it. Equally important, the teacher must provide the opportunity for free(r) activities in which the students mix the target language of the lesson with previously studied material and personal areas of interest. For example, students study the future tense in terms of plans (be going to). They then interview classmates on plans for the weekend, asking follow-up questions to gather more information. Everyone not only uses the target language, but also other aspects of English. If research is to be believed, this improves retention.

Another point of EFL instruction focuses on motivation. Students studying English in a non-English speaking country will likely see less need for English. The could become less motivated as a result. Part of the class, especially with adults, is to show all the myriad uses and needs for English, as well as to demonstrate how their lives can be enriched by becoming capable speakers.

Re: English vs. ESL
 

Based upon your post Hue, if EFL students have possibility of becoming less motivated because they don't see the need for English in their everyday society, wouldn't that make an even stronger argument for using the internet more in English class...showing students the vast possibilities of what you can do on the internet if you know English?

Besides surfing the internet and playing English games in the classroom, what would you suggest to increase the motivation of students in an EFL environment?

And, shouldn't ALL English teachers, including the English teachers who are from the same nationality as the students, be fighting harder to make English more real to the students? I mean, if you attack English from the it's-only-another-subject viewpoint, I would think this is part of the problem that creates the 'EFL environment' to begin with.

Lastly, do you think it is possible to create an ESL sub-culture or bubble within an EFL community? Meaning, create an ESL classroom within the walls of an EFL society?

Re: English vs. ESL
 

Patrick - Imagine your PE teacher trying to push you to Olympic gold. Not everyt person in PE class is going to become a professional athlete. Not every student in art class will become a painter. Those that have those dreams and ambitions will seek out the support they need to accomplish their goals.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have PE class because everyone isn't going to go pro, nor does it mean we shouldn't have art class because they won't all be painters. We shouldn't cancel music because the students aren't going to be professional musicians and we shouldn't expect all our science students to become biologist, rocket scientists and engineers.

I'm not trying to dampen your excitement or anything, but it's OK if they don't all speak at the end and it's not a waste of time is all I want to say.

We are providing an educational foundation for students via EFL classes. The goal is not that every student learn to speak but to provide a decent foundation for further studies for those that will need to go on learning English in higher education, privately or abroad in an ESL environment.

****

An internatiuonal school in Tokyo would be the "ESL bubble" in an EFl environment that you were asking about. Japanese students that go to these schools but aren't completely fluent in English would attend ESL classes or have ESL support.

Re: English vs. ESL
 

Sorry, I rushed to get that last post off before my 4:00 class started. I think it makes sense, minus the typos, but I wanted to add a little more.

I know it seems that there is a commitment or apparent commitment on the part of the Japanese education system to turn out English speakers. They invest a lot of money and time (both students' time and teacher hours.) BUT something is missing ...

I think you hit the nail on the head with the ESL vs. EFL thing.

Of course with more time, better trained staff and greater exposure we can increase knowledge but the fact remains that young students don't need English and have very little to no exposure to English outside of the classroom. English is something used by a few to communicate with those from outside of Japan. It is not needed for functioning within this society. That makes it EFL.

Getting them on the internet in search of English isn't going to make it any more real than the US movie they just watched, the song they just played on their iPod, the CocaCola they're drinking, or the Harry Potter notebook they used to do their homework. They are aware of western culture and that English is the medium.

The only tangibile use for English is passing tests, and therefore that's where the energy within the public school system lies. Testing is what motivates the masses here.

You could also pray that the administration would see that the current system doesn't promote healthy speaking and more time is not the problem (a minimum of 6 and up to 10 years doesn't need 2 more years to make the difference.)

However, you also have to think about what fluent English speakers would really do to Japanese society. When you teach language, you also teach culture and cultural differences. However, when you teach a student to the point of fluency in a second language you don't just teach them to understand cultural differences, you teach them to be different. That bleeds into the current culture and like it or not the U.S. is already a dominant culture affecting so many facets of other cultures. Is it such a good thing to paint that brush across the entire country?

I don't think so.

it's OK to be a subject teacher, build a foundation and inspire students, but people need to be aware that not every students is going to be a 'pro' English speaker. Second language acquisition is a talent just like any other. For some it's easy for others its very hard and some will never be able to do it no matter how hard they try.

There are plenty of students striving to be 'pro' English speakers and there is a place right near you that could use your help to make that happen ... If helping those that desire to be fluent speakers is what you want to do, then think about it, but if staying in the public school system is your choice, you have to understand that choice.

Re: English vs. ESL
 

Hi mesmark,
I teach English as a second language in Venezuela and Yes!!! there is a big diference.
Most of my students do not have a real good knowledge about grammar not even in their native language what causes a tremendous frustration for them, and a big stress for us teachers. I agree with your point of view, our goal is to teach them how to comunicate but I think teaching an English to an English speaker is easier because grammar rules do not change at all. You have to see how hard these students try and at the end they reach their goal but the cry their heart out.

Re: English vs. ESL
 

Help me to understand it... Putting it concrete: English lessons in Australia for foreigners, in daily or weekly lessons, with no tests are ESL. English lessons in a Brazilian classroom for Brazilians students are EFL. Is that right? What about English lessons in Australia preparing for tests? Sorry if this is silly...

Re: English vs. ESL
 

right.

right.

still ESL.

You can have testing in both environments. It's really the environment and the students daily need for/use of the language that defines ESL or EFL. You can have ESL classes in an EFL environment like the international school in Tokyo example.