Job Discussion Forums

[Sashadroogie]

That raise an important question, TIR: was it that teacher who was not bad, due to his intrinsic qualities, or was it the online course? I'd opt for the former every time, in the absence of any concrete information...

[Teacher in Rome]

The teacher I hired had great intrinsic qualities, and a bit of teaching basics picked up from the online course. (There was also a weekend workshop element to the course, but very little - if any - supervised TP.)

[vabeckele]

Dear Mohassanach,

I have exactly the same educational background as you do. And after a couple of years of taking teaching of English seriously I have come to the conclusion that the CELTA is the only cert to take. I think having done bucket loads of presentations at university and perhaps in board rooms, you probably know whether you can 'hold an audience'. That, in my humble belief is most of the battle won. However, there are two things I needed and still need to consider: The CELTA is the one all of the employers are looking for (whether I like it or not). My chances of being hired are a lot slimmer without it. Secondly, a look into the field of ESL is a worthy thing to do. It gave me an appreciation of the systems behind the instruction and although the students maybe not appreciate it, it does give a teacher subtle nuances to a particular problem that makes explaining it, clear.

Fortunately, as with teaching business, the books have all been written for you, just read the materials and off you go. You know as well I do getting out of university with 7 years of business studies does not prepare you for a classroom. There are no short cuts when it comes to gaining experience.

[spiral78]

[santi84]

I agree with Spiral. This is always a problem here in North America - teachers who come back from (exclusively) teaching in Asia and think that their students will learn English by listening to them speak so much. That's what movies and radio are for.

I also disagree that CELTA is the only one to take. Many universities offer TESL certificates. They take longer, they cost more, and they are a lot more work, but they are very valuable and can contribute towards a degree.

[Glenski]

[Mohassanach]

Thank you very much all! I think I have an idea what I need to do next.

[Sashadroogie]

Have never been to Japan, so I wouldn't know much about who holds with said mantra. However, I can only say that in my experience in various EFL contexts one pattern is clearly discernible. EFLers who spent their initial career in the Far East had a massive problem with TTT upon moving to countries in Europe. This was equally true for those who had worked in Japan. Their defence, if it can be called that, was along the lines that if the teacher didn't talk, then no one would. Certainly not the students.

Another notable feature was their lack of any onsite certificate like the Celta, which would at least make teachers aware of basic classroom methodology. Very, very few trainees, so few as almost to be negligible, who successfully complete a Celta or equivalent would ever be guilty of giving lectures. At least without being aware of how ineffective it is. So yes, I would say that that is vastly different to other parts of the world.

The moral of the story is: get an onsite cert, and don't waste your and your learners' time with online bosh.

[spiral78]

[santi84]

[Glenski]

Very enlightening experiences from those of you who dealt with teachers from Asia.

Thinking aloud here...
I wonder how many were from Japan, or if you could divide a breakdown on countries they came from.

I also wonder how many of us that have remained in Asian countries have learned to teach properly. Less teacher-focused, that is. Just wondering if the types who left were only the ones who couldn't learn that!

[Sashadroogie]

While it would have been helpful to have kept a database to record all the particulars of all the colleagues I have ever worked with, sadly I never did this. I was not planning to publish any academic treatise on the various weaknesses of professionals based in the Far East, hence my lack of concrete, verifiable data. Perhaps other posters have been keeping accurate records? Let's hope so. In the absence of anything else, we'll have to go with my initial assumption that Japan, Korea and China accounted for the majority of m'colleagues based in the Far East, and that the split was fairly evenly divided between them.

As for those who have remained in Asian countries, I have no idea about their abilities, save what I read on fora like this one. It makes for dismal reading though. Yet, the lack of teacherly awareness resonates with what I have encountered face-to-face. And it stands in marked contrast to boards about other regions of the world.

I sincerely hope my impressions are seriously skewed - for the learners' sake, at the very least. However, I fear the worst, due in the main to the previously stated lack of emphasis on credentials or proper training required to gain entry to that region... It shows through, even in posts on this forum.

So, again. the bottom line is: get a proper cert, and forget online ones. You may end up in an environment where there is next to no academic development at all to be had, so starting off with a strong grounding is even more essential

[rtm]

[spiral78]

I have only anecdotal experience, and it's clearly very limited, so of little (if any) value. But since we're on the topic, I'll throw it in.

I remember three teachers (all quite separate from each other, didn't know each other at all, ever) who'd spent considerable time teaching in Japan (over a decade in each case).

The default mode of each one was to stand in the front and centre of the class with papers in hand; they spent much time doing this. In one case, even when the students were meant to be practicing their presentations, the teacher couldn't bring herself relinquish the front position. They wrote extensively on the board, and it never occurred to put the marker in the hands of students.
One of them was fond of playing a game that involved a ball-tossing scheme. It fell flat here, as did the other 'tried-and-true' games she tried.

All these teachers, as I mentioned, were in Japan long-term, but in each case, that period began back in the '90s. Maybe some things have changed since they were successful there. Maybe they were at the end of a less enlightened period.

I can say with certainty that none had any training in ESL/EFL, and none were used to monitoring or observation of any kind. And, yes, at least one of them (I think 2) had been at universities.

As for Korea and China, I know teachers who've served time in both. Those with no training tend to be awful, and those who've gone on and got qualifications are generally OK to great (and none want to return to any part of Asia).

I have to support Sasha's general theme: teaching without any training in a part of the world that doesn't require any isn't ideal for teachers who want to continue in the job longer-term, or to teach elsewhere.

However, I've got a bit of sympathy for teachers who start out in such a situation, particularly those like some on these boards who take steps to gain further qualifications.

[Sashadroogie]

Yes, Spiral, that rings true to me...

It is also true that it is problematic to lump all of 'Asia' together. Technically, I have taught in Asia too, though that has little bearing on this topic, as it was the other end of Asia. That is why I specified three Far Eastern countries. I think it was also made clear that I do not claim to have any direct knowledge of working there. ( Incidentally, I, like many others in Europe, have taught students from these countries, so we have some understanding of how 'Asian' students are - albeit in a completely different classroom setting.)

Even so, it is very hard to resist forming opinions, based on countless teachers and their difficulties in places where I worked, about why it may be that they all seem to share the same profile. It may very well be a case of the misconstruing the evidence of nearly all of them having been based in the Far East, yet it is such a prominent common feature that it is hard to put it down to just co-incidence.

The idea that the teachers I have encountered are the dross that was filtered out is an appealing one. But again, I have my doubts about that. It seemed clear that these poor teachers had never had any development training sessions or seminars etc. because this was something absent from the system itself. No need to know what grammar is, or how to deal with it in class. Lexis? What's that fancy term? Phonology? Like walking on the moon. And they had been there for years, in some cases.

The strangest aspect of all was that those who had worked in a uni setting, MA or not, seemed to fare little better. Virtually clueless in the classroom and eaten alive by the learners. I wouldn't presume to know why exactly this is so, but it is certainly the view from this side of the world that the context where they started bears no relation to EFL as we know it, and is all the more ineffective for that.