In teaching English, say it first, grammar later

With Thai students seemingly unable on the whole to improve their English-language skills, it is becoming increasingly urgent for the Education Ministry to sweeten the bitter pill and coax youngsters into swallowing it. The country’s ability to become fully developed depends on it.

Innumerable government efforts in the past have failed because they lacked sustainability and comprehensive support. None failed for lack of cash – a great deal of taxpayers’ money has been invested without bearing fruit. On the contrary, there are well-documented approaches that will ensure better and faster results without the need of a massive budget.

First, we must change the way English is taught. The daunting grammar lessons that dominate the English curriculum in Thai schools have been shown to be of less use than focusing on the rudiments of conversation. Students should be learning with their ears, gradually absorbing the subtleties of the language, just as they did in learning to speak their native language as infants. They should be encouraged to listen and then speak English without having to worry about grammatical errors.

Secondly, in revamping the curriculum with the help of linguists from Cambridge University, the ministry should insist on a thorough evaluation of the situation now and of what’s been attempted in the past. We need to discover precisely why Thai students entering university still can’t speak English after 12 years of classroom instruction.

Thirdly, learning English should be fun, making effective use of attractive, interesting materials. Grammar can come later, once the students feel more at ease with the language. 

Fourthly, to enhance the materials physically in hand, teachers should make better use of free and widely available online resources. Lessons abound on the Web in the form of comic strips, music, movies and e-books, all catalogued to match specific ages, abilities and interests. It’s even possible to set up a virtual classroom online.

Thirty million Thais are on Facebook, for example, and youngsters are especially adept in using the social media to communicate. Why not encourage them to utilise the networks to groom their English too?

Fifthly, the ministry can benefit from the burgeoning potential of digital TV. Some operators would surely be happy to produce or at least sponsor programmes for kids learning English. A dedicated English-instruction channel could easily reach every household in the country, with adults listening in and learning as well.

In assessing the logistics of countrywide broadcasting, the government also has to consider ways to “share the wealth” in general in terms of English capabilities. Students outside the cities are all too often left behind when it comes to efficient schooling. An online curriculum would require Internet access in all rural schools if it is to be widely effective, and lessons broadcast on TV would necessitate sufficient television sets.

Crucially, the teachers must first understand the lessons themselves so they’re able to assist and explain rather than merely switching on the TV.

Finally, the ministry must make overseas scholarships more available for younger students, the better to learn a new language at the prime age. Other countries offer an array of student-exchange programmes, including Singapore, our Southeast Asian neighbour, where English is an official language.

The time has passed for government policies based on generous budgets alone. If we want to see our students’ English proficiency improve, we need an all-around effort that’s strong on creative ideas.