Native or Non-native opinions welcome
Did You Enjoy English in School?
I did not enjoy English at all in school because classes were based on doing grammar drills. However, many years later when I developed passion for learning a language in my case English I actually enjoyed it. Nowadays I listen to audiobooks and read whatever stuff I get my hands on. I totally discard my native language for the time being.
Non-native.
Non-native.
No -- I was a techie. The only classes worse than English were the foreign languages.
Native speaker.
I don't mind the English language but I hated English class because it had very little to do with the language, or even with literature. That class was just packed full of downright bullshit with things like creating "static images" (lol, how can it be English if there aren't even any words?), "analysing" films (the trees in the forest he's walking through are phallic symbols, representing the repressed sexual desires of the 19th century nobleman), designing advertisements (again, what does it have to do wit anything?), talking about random stuff like racism (not a social studies class!), blah blah and blah (teacher starts to bullshit), discussing this and that but not discussing the language. We studied grammar for only 4 weeks total during a period of 5 years, and that was in chunks of 1 week sessions, at the beginning of which we would start from the beginning each time. We never tended to make it past what a subordinate clause is.
As for the literature aspect, it was pretty crap. Even when we read Shakespeare no one actually read it because the teacher handed out "summary notes" which basically had the plot summed up in modern language, which is all you need to know to pass.
I don't mind the English language but I hated English class because it had very little to do with the language, or even with literature. That class was just packed full of downright bullshit with things like creating "static images" (lol, how can it be English if there aren't even any words?), "analysing" films (the trees in the forest he's walking through are phallic symbols, representing the repressed sexual desires of the 19th century nobleman), designing advertisements (again, what does it have to do wit anything?), talking about random stuff like racism (not a social studies class!), blah blah and blah (teacher starts to bullshit), discussing this and that but not discussing the language. We studied grammar for only 4 weeks total during a period of 5 years, and that was in chunks of 1 week sessions, at the beginning of which we would start from the beginning each time. We never tended to make it past what a subordinate clause is.
As for the literature aspect, it was pretty crap. Even when we read Shakespeare no one actually read it because the teacher handed out "summary notes" which basically had the plot summed up in modern language, which is all you need to know to pass.
Learn good english
[url=http://www.ecenglish.com/Destinations/Learn-English-in-London]english courses in the uk[/url]
<a href="http://www.ecenglish.com/Destinations/Learn-English-in-London">english courses in the uk</a>
[url=http://www.ecenglish.com/Destinations/Learn-English-in-London]english courses in the uk[/url]
<a href="http://www.ecenglish.com/Destinations/Learn-English-in-London">english courses in the uk</a>
This is a good topic heading.
It was a long time since I was at school. However I recently did a Higher in English at Aberdeen College. The first teacher we had was excellent, and I came away from classes with my head buzzing with ideas. The teacher would ask various members of the class for their interpretation. It was quite obvious who got it, and who didn't. One of the problems was that success in the class seemed to depend on previous knowledge rather than on something that was being taught. I felt that there was a certain 'fisson'.
Frisson
a sudden, passing sensation of excitement; a shudder of emotion; thrill: The movie offers the viewer the occasional frisson of seeing a character in mortal danger.
Other problems were that the class was dominated by one or two individuals. I also felt that we were being asked to see 'interpretations' that simply did not exist for me. Some 'word associations' may be very common. A poet might be evoking very common feelings and responses with a certain set of words or images. However not everyone comes from the same social background. The set of links 'connotations' that might exist for one person, might not exist for someone else.
Unfortunately that teacher suddenly left without explanation. Instead she was replaced by a teacher who was teaching to a script that I found incomprehensible. What exactly were we expected to do? When were we being marked (assessed) and when were we being taught?
I retook the year and the next teacher was very pleasant but somewhat boring. I realised that the majority of the people in the class were 'not very good at English' and had to be taught the most elementary things. What is the tone of this passage is it (a) ironic (b) sarcastic (c) humorous. Again, it seemed to be English taught to a formula.
My main complaint was that the whole process was 'politically correct' and we all split up into small groups to discuss things. Which bearing in mind to generally low standard of the people in the class seemed to be a waste of time. Furthermore, when the teacher introduced a new bit of writing, I often found that I knew more about the passage than he did - period - meaning of words used - etc.
I got the impression that the teacher did not actually want to teach anything in case it might be controversial so he was hoping that members of the class would correct each other.
I did not get a particularly high mark in the exam. But I think that this was because I was not 'politically correct' and 'playing the game'. I had my doubts of the 'objectivity' of the marking process. I don't know how many of the marks were awarded on the basis of the teacher's subjective assessment.
During the academic year I had a massive row with the Head of Department over a test in which there were ten words that I had never come across before - colloquial Scottish words or modern abbreviations such as OMG!
The questions in the exam were very open ended. Describe a film etc etc.? However as we only studied one film it was fairly obvious which film we would be describing.
The film we studied was 'The Shawshank Redemption' which I disliked for a number of reasons. In the exam I decided to answer the film question by discussing 'The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie' which we had studied as a book under the first inspired teacher. I had ordered the film as an import from America as the film was no longer commonly available in the UK. I do realise that this was a dangerous strategy but I felt I had to do something to avoid being bored stiff. I also felt in some ways that it was a better film to study as it dealt with a Scottish subject.
Sexuality was a big taboo, which must have made teaching English very difficult.
It was a long time since I was at school. However I recently did a Higher in English at Aberdeen College. The first teacher we had was excellent, and I came away from classes with my head buzzing with ideas. The teacher would ask various members of the class for their interpretation. It was quite obvious who got it, and who didn't. One of the problems was that success in the class seemed to depend on previous knowledge rather than on something that was being taught. I felt that there was a certain 'fisson'.
Frisson
a sudden, passing sensation of excitement; a shudder of emotion; thrill: The movie offers the viewer the occasional frisson of seeing a character in mortal danger.
Other problems were that the class was dominated by one or two individuals. I also felt that we were being asked to see 'interpretations' that simply did not exist for me. Some 'word associations' may be very common. A poet might be evoking very common feelings and responses with a certain set of words or images. However not everyone comes from the same social background. The set of links 'connotations' that might exist for one person, might not exist for someone else.
Unfortunately that teacher suddenly left without explanation. Instead she was replaced by a teacher who was teaching to a script that I found incomprehensible. What exactly were we expected to do? When were we being marked (assessed) and when were we being taught?
I retook the year and the next teacher was very pleasant but somewhat boring. I realised that the majority of the people in the class were 'not very good at English' and had to be taught the most elementary things. What is the tone of this passage is it (a) ironic (b) sarcastic (c) humorous. Again, it seemed to be English taught to a formula.
My main complaint was that the whole process was 'politically correct' and we all split up into small groups to discuss things. Which bearing in mind to generally low standard of the people in the class seemed to be a waste of time. Furthermore, when the teacher introduced a new bit of writing, I often found that I knew more about the passage than he did - period - meaning of words used - etc.
I got the impression that the teacher did not actually want to teach anything in case it might be controversial so he was hoping that members of the class would correct each other.
I did not get a particularly high mark in the exam. But I think that this was because I was not 'politically correct' and 'playing the game'. I had my doubts of the 'objectivity' of the marking process. I don't know how many of the marks were awarded on the basis of the teacher's subjective assessment.
During the academic year I had a massive row with the Head of Department over a test in which there were ten words that I had never come across before - colloquial Scottish words or modern abbreviations such as OMG!
The questions in the exam were very open ended. Describe a film etc etc.? However as we only studied one film it was fairly obvious which film we would be describing.
The film we studied was 'The Shawshank Redemption' which I disliked for a number of reasons. In the exam I decided to answer the film question by discussing 'The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie' which we had studied as a book under the first inspired teacher. I had ordered the film as an import from America as the film was no longer commonly available in the UK. I do realise that this was a dangerous strategy but I felt I had to do something to avoid being bored stiff. I also felt in some ways that it was a better film to study as it dealt with a Scottish subject.
Sexuality was a big taboo, which must have made teaching English very difficult.
I found English in school to be politically correct in a different sense to Robin Michael's experience.
The material was definitely not PC , we studied stories about rape, incest and niggers (as long as it was expressing "realities" and not glorifying these things).
There was however PC in the MARKING. These days they are becoming more and more afraid to fail a student. To tell someone their essay is "terrible" would be almost an offence. Most teachers would even be hard pressed to write "this essay is bad". Instead they focus on "finding the positives" and "constructive criticism". The students are no longer even ranked or given percentage marks, but rather "pass" and "did not achieve" (yes, the word "fail" itself is like a slur). Those who "do not achieve" usually get to keep attempting the test until they pass. The excellent students are not even acknowledged because this might make the other students feel they are not equal.
The material was definitely not PC , we studied stories about rape, incest and niggers (as long as it was expressing "realities" and not glorifying these things).
There was however PC in the MARKING. These days they are becoming more and more afraid to fail a student. To tell someone their essay is "terrible" would be almost an offence. Most teachers would even be hard pressed to write "this essay is bad". Instead they focus on "finding the positives" and "constructive criticism". The students are no longer even ranked or given percentage marks, but rather "pass" and "did not achieve" (yes, the word "fail" itself is like a slur). Those who "do not achieve" usually get to keep attempting the test until they pass. The excellent students are not even acknowledged because this might make the other students feel they are not equal.
I didn't like the English classes when I was in a school. As Ak says most of the classes were based on the grammar. I remenber the first sentence I learnt when I was in school, it was: "Look at number one, what is it?" What was the first sentence you learnt in the school?
I wrote in one of my essays that this novel is a about a big black woman. You can imagine the alarm bells ringing inside the head of my teacher. She immediately underlined the offending words. I then went on to explain myself a bit more.
The novel was about a big black woman:
The No. 1 Ladies Detective by Alexander McCall Smith
http://www.alexandermccallsmith.co.uk/
http://www.alexandermccallsmith.co.uk/lda/index.aspx
I had a very high opinion of this particular teacher. However I could understand her problem. The more she inspired her students, the more they would write, and the more work that she would have to mark.
I had a very low opinion of the teacher who followed. I did an essay on 'The No. 1 Ladies Detective'. I started the essay with a description of how the author sets the scene on the first page. My new teacher had gone to a Web Site and found a very similar description of the book. He then showed me this without comment. The suggestion being that I was guilty of plagiarism. I found this extremely irritating. Particularly as I had noticed with the previous teacher that the clever students often had a very similar response to a book.
Another thing that I resented was the choice of subject matter. I will give 'The Shawshank Redemption' as an example. The film contains Christian imagery and has an extremely unlikely ending. If you compare the Shawshank prison to a Concentration Camp, the reality was that very few people escaped and the people in charge are rarely caught. However we were supposed to watch this complete load of rubbish, with several very unpleasant scenes, and comment on it as if it was a serious work of literature.
The biggest mistake the first teacher made was to say that we could choose any novel we wanted to study. Coming from an academic background she probably thought that the student would choose either something by Dickens or Jane Eyre. I went to Waterstones, the bookshop and a novel with a reduced price and a racy cover caught my eye. I started to read the first few pages which were of a love scene and I was hooked.
Emily Maguire ‘Taming the beast'
http://emilymaguire.typepad.com/taming_the_beast/
>>
Sarah Clark's life is irrevocably changed at the age of fourteen when her English teacher, Mr Carr, seduces her after class. Their affair is illegal, erotic, passionate and dangerous - a vicious meeting of minds and bodies. But when Mr Carr's wife discovers the affair he has to choose between them and moves to another city with his family.
<<
I don't know why they did not think it was suitable?
I was pleased to see recently that the head of Aberdeen College lost his £140,000 a year job because of a breach of the peace at his home.
11 Feb 2009 ... Aberdeen College head Rae Angus quits after charge on claims of wearing ... over claims he was spotted wearing "inappropriate" dress. ...
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/article2225676.ece
The novel was about a big black woman:
The No. 1 Ladies Detective by Alexander McCall Smith
http://www.alexandermccallsmith.co.uk/
http://www.alexandermccallsmith.co.uk/lda/index.aspx
I had a very high opinion of this particular teacher. However I could understand her problem. The more she inspired her students, the more they would write, and the more work that she would have to mark.
I had a very low opinion of the teacher who followed. I did an essay on 'The No. 1 Ladies Detective'. I started the essay with a description of how the author sets the scene on the first page. My new teacher had gone to a Web Site and found a very similar description of the book. He then showed me this without comment. The suggestion being that I was guilty of plagiarism. I found this extremely irritating. Particularly as I had noticed with the previous teacher that the clever students often had a very similar response to a book.
Another thing that I resented was the choice of subject matter. I will give 'The Shawshank Redemption' as an example. The film contains Christian imagery and has an extremely unlikely ending. If you compare the Shawshank prison to a Concentration Camp, the reality was that very few people escaped and the people in charge are rarely caught. However we were supposed to watch this complete load of rubbish, with several very unpleasant scenes, and comment on it as if it was a serious work of literature.
The biggest mistake the first teacher made was to say that we could choose any novel we wanted to study. Coming from an academic background she probably thought that the student would choose either something by Dickens or Jane Eyre. I went to Waterstones, the bookshop and a novel with a reduced price and a racy cover caught my eye. I started to read the first few pages which were of a love scene and I was hooked.
Emily Maguire ‘Taming the beast'
http://emilymaguire.typepad.com/taming_the_beast/
>>
Sarah Clark's life is irrevocably changed at the age of fourteen when her English teacher, Mr Carr, seduces her after class. Their affair is illegal, erotic, passionate and dangerous - a vicious meeting of minds and bodies. But when Mr Carr's wife discovers the affair he has to choose between them and moves to another city with his family.
<<
I don't know why they did not think it was suitable?
I was pleased to see recently that the head of Aberdeen College lost his £140,000 a year job because of a breach of the peace at his home.
11 Feb 2009 ... Aberdeen College head Rae Angus quits after charge on claims of wearing ... over claims he was spotted wearing "inappropriate" dress. ...
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/article2225676.ece
<<Another thing that I resented was the choice of subject matter. I will give 'The Shawshank Redemption' as an example. The film contains Christian imagery and has an extremely unlikely ending. If you compare the Shawshank prison to a Concentration Camp, the reality was that very few people escaped and the people in charge are rarely caught. However we were supposed to watch this complete load of rubbish, with several very unpleasant scenes, and comment on it as if it was a serious work of literature. >>
That's ridiculous. Just because something is unlikely doesn't make it bad. I guess half the literary canon is rubbish because the events depicted are unlikely. Some of the most unlikely stories ever were the works of Shakespeare himself. For example, the Twelfth Night is so silly with all the sex-changing, and the tragedies of Othello are way overblown. I guess Shakespeare is garbage. As for unpleasant scene, if you want to make a serious commentary on life, you need to reflect life as it is - unpleasant in many, many instances.
That's ridiculous. Just because something is unlikely doesn't make it bad. I guess half the literary canon is rubbish because the events depicted are unlikely. Some of the most unlikely stories ever were the works of Shakespeare himself. For example, the Twelfth Night is so silly with all the sex-changing, and the tragedies of Othello are way overblown. I guess Shakespeare is garbage. As for unpleasant scene, if you want to make a serious commentary on life, you need to reflect life as it is - unpleasant in many, many instances.
Non-native speaker from Germany
It's true what AK and EU say: The first years (from fifth to ninth grade I'd say) do consist of heavy grammar. But that isn't a bad thing, is it? You can't learn a language without any grammar.
A few years ago it was decided that English should be taught from third grade on (instead of fifth grade, like before). These two additional years are without any grammar lessons. My sister's now about to enter fifth grade and I can assure you that she's practically learned nothing in those two years. All they did was listening and speaking along to children's rhymes without knowing what they actually meant.
To answer the question: I did enjoy English classes when we we're still actually taught something. But since eleventh grade it's just the same as German classes (remember I'm from Germany): mostly discussions. It's a waste if you ask me because our English could be greatly improved if we just got more native speakers' input.
The problem with that is that you can't grade someone on how they're watching a movie. It's much easier with discussions. In Germany (from eleventh grade on), the final grade consists only to 50% of the grades you get on tests and exams. The other half is participation in class.
Our Department of Education is full of airheads. That's something both students and teachers agree on.
It's true what AK and EU say: The first years (from fifth to ninth grade I'd say) do consist of heavy grammar. But that isn't a bad thing, is it? You can't learn a language without any grammar.
A few years ago it was decided that English should be taught from third grade on (instead of fifth grade, like before). These two additional years are without any grammar lessons. My sister's now about to enter fifth grade and I can assure you that she's practically learned nothing in those two years. All they did was listening and speaking along to children's rhymes without knowing what they actually meant.
To answer the question: I did enjoy English classes when we we're still actually taught something. But since eleventh grade it's just the same as German classes (remember I'm from Germany): mostly discussions. It's a waste if you ask me because our English could be greatly improved if we just got more native speakers' input.
The problem with that is that you can't grade someone on how they're watching a movie. It's much easier with discussions. In Germany (from eleventh grade on), the final grade consists only to 50% of the grades you get on tests and exams. The other half is participation in class.
Our Department of Education is full of airheads. That's something both students and teachers agree on.
I did not enjoy English at school, primary, middle, high or college.
I am a math-science person, and English was always the bane of my academic wist (existence).
I am a native English speaker. For us, English class is a little different probably from English class for non-natives, where focus is applied to the language itself. For natives, English class also includes Literature, and Interpretation, and Symbolisms, and Reading, and Writing, and Papers, UGH! So it's not exactly the same.
I would to God it were only the black and white stuff.
I am a math-science person, and English was always the bane of my academic wist (existence).
I am a native English speaker. For us, English class is a little different probably from English class for non-natives, where focus is applied to the language itself. For natives, English class also includes Literature, and Interpretation, and Symbolisms, and Reading, and Writing, and Papers, UGH! So it's not exactly the same.
I would to God it were only the black and white stuff.
I liked English classes. Of course, for me, they were mainly literature (we got the grammar stuff out of the way in the early grades, since we were all native speakers). I like to read, so I enjoyed most of my English classes very much, and took extra ones in college, even though they didn't have anything to do with my degree. It was fun to be exposed to different types and styles of writing, different eras in history, and to various viewpoints.
Its interesting to me to read everyone's posts. I attended school in the 1960's in the US (yeah, certified old fart) before political correctness was even a vile thought. Unfortunately it was my generation that germinated that horse dookie and inflicted it on most of you. For that I sincerely apologize, even though I wasn't involved personally.
We used to diagram sentences in junior high (now middle school), something which I've heard is considered hopelessly archaic now, but which I have always thought to be helpful. My high school English classes included writing that was actually critically appraised and in college we'd submit poems and short stories anonymously then discuss and critique them in class. Only the teacher knew who the author was. That way you could say what you wanted without anyone knowing who you were embarassing, as long as the writer could maintain a poker face. Though people didn't insult one another, no one including the teacher was too intimidated to say what they thought and offer a critique. The writer could admit authorship if they wanted. Whether they did nor not usually depended on what kind of opinions were given about their work. You had to have a thick skin but it really helped your writing. You also had to become adept at defending your points and discussions were boisterous at times. I don't know if I could survive what some of you have described. Maybe I could if I had someone to wake me up afterwards. It saddens me to read some of your descriptions. There was no underlying political agenda in English class, no sublte coercive thought control.
In high school English class we were assigned novels, short stories and poetry to read. Anything we chose to read we did on our own. Then those assignments were discussed or we would have to write reports on them. We also had to learn and practice poetic forms, writing our own sonnets for example. We had a lively school literary magazine and all the contributors and editors were students with a faculty advisor. In elementary school we were required to memorize a certain number of lines of poetry per year and the poem was chosen by the teacher. I remember one year each of us took turns reciting on stage before the whole school assembly. High pressure yes, but it made us learn it. Although seen as important, self esteem was not emphasized so obsessively and was considered largely outside the purview of the educational system.
We used to diagram sentences in junior high (now middle school), something which I've heard is considered hopelessly archaic now, but which I have always thought to be helpful. My high school English classes included writing that was actually critically appraised and in college we'd submit poems and short stories anonymously then discuss and critique them in class. Only the teacher knew who the author was. That way you could say what you wanted without anyone knowing who you were embarassing, as long as the writer could maintain a poker face. Though people didn't insult one another, no one including the teacher was too intimidated to say what they thought and offer a critique. The writer could admit authorship if they wanted. Whether they did nor not usually depended on what kind of opinions were given about their work. You had to have a thick skin but it really helped your writing. You also had to become adept at defending your points and discussions were boisterous at times. I don't know if I could survive what some of you have described. Maybe I could if I had someone to wake me up afterwards. It saddens me to read some of your descriptions. There was no underlying political agenda in English class, no sublte coercive thought control.
In high school English class we were assigned novels, short stories and poetry to read. Anything we chose to read we did on our own. Then those assignments were discussed or we would have to write reports on them. We also had to learn and practice poetic forms, writing our own sonnets for example. We had a lively school literary magazine and all the contributors and editors were students with a faculty advisor. In elementary school we were required to memorize a certain number of lines of poetry per year and the poem was chosen by the teacher. I remember one year each of us took turns reciting on stage before the whole school assembly. High pressure yes, but it made us learn it. Although seen as important, self esteem was not emphasized so obsessively and was considered largely outside the purview of the educational system.
<<I attended school in the 1960's in the US (yeah, certified old fart) before political correctness was even a vile thought. >
Speaking of political correctness, I attended a segregated school in 1956-1957 in the eastern suburbs of Louisville, KY. I remember that we had daily prayers at the start of the school day and occasional whippings/beatings by the teachers, or perhaps the vice princpal? I wonder how well this would go over today.
All this stopped when I moved to NY in 1958, but we still had things like Christmas trees (and also Haunkkah stuff), and the pledge of allegiance.
Decades into the future, things people will probably look back with horror at the politically correct things that go on 2009 schools (like teaching/learning -- some mentally-challenged kids might feel left behind, Phys Ed -- handicapped kids may feel left out, Art/Music -- blind/deaf kids may feel excluded, etc.)
BTW -- I didn't like English class.
Speaking of political correctness, I attended a segregated school in 1956-1957 in the eastern suburbs of Louisville, KY. I remember that we had daily prayers at the start of the school day and occasional whippings/beatings by the teachers, or perhaps the vice princpal? I wonder how well this would go over today.
All this stopped when I moved to NY in 1958, but we still had things like Christmas trees (and also Haunkkah stuff), and the pledge of allegiance.
Decades into the future, things people will probably look back with horror at the politically correct things that go on 2009 schools (like teaching/learning -- some mentally-challenged kids might feel left behind, Phys Ed -- handicapped kids may feel left out, Art/Music -- blind/deaf kids may feel excluded, etc.)
BTW -- I didn't like English class.