|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:44 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Francis-Pax wrote: |
Proof texting individual studies is not proof. Each study is only one piece of evidence that must be scrutinised. That is something that you learn in a beginner research methods course. You didn't really prove anything.
But moving to more of a reflective comment about the CELTA, it is important to keep in mind that CELTA promotes a particular way of teaching. It is very dogmatic in terms of what is 'good' and 'bad' practice. And, as a person currently doing a doctorate in education and carefully looking at these issues, I take serious issue with that. However, this is not to say that it does not have value.
I don't like reading comments on here that express unilateral generalisations such as CELTA holders can teach and MA holder can't. That is just complete nonsense. |
The references were from a larger piece, and that's what I pulled out (quickly) for this thread (I am not going to bust my ass for a Dave's thread). However, I think it is pretty clear the literature (not just what is listed in my post) supports the importance of a practicum (not necessarily a CELTA, but a practicum) in teacher development.
Maybe you have something that says theory only is the way to go in teacher training?
I have heard the criticism about the CELTA being dogmatic before. I can say this - since leaving the CELTA, the Cambridge cops have NOT been following me around to see that I do it "their way". They have their methods, they teach you those methods and then they assess how well you took those methods on board. And they only have a month to do so. Every course has sort sort of assessment, right? I know PADI (my dive association) does. CELTA is a basic introductory course in teaching, and it is a good one in my opinion. One of the reasons Cambridge wants you to wait two years before applying to the Delta is so that you can take what you learned in the CELTA and go out and develop it further. That's what I have done. And the MA really helped me do that. Cambridge never told me I couldn't do that.
I agree with you about the over-generalizations, but I don't think "I'm With You's" post was completely wrong, either. There ARE a lot of programs without practicums (I did one), the CELTA is good for classroom skills and an MA is good for the theory. He also suggested to do both, and I agree with that.
The whole "CELTA or a Masters" discussion is just WAY to general to be able to come to any sort of conclusion (IMHO). It all depends what you want to do. If you want a uni job, in Korea, you're going to have to get an MA whether it is better than a CELTA or a Delta or not. If you want to be good at the job, and you've never had a practicum, I would suggest getting one. An MA will get you in the door, but the competition is getting tougher and you'll have to be good at your job to keep it. Does your practical course have to be a CELTA? No, but it is one of the most accessible ones out there.
Anyway Francis-Pax, good luck with your doctorate. Delta is up next for me - then a break... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Francis-Pax
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| diver wrote: |
| Francis-Pax wrote: |
Proof texting individual studies is not proof. Each study is only one piece of evidence that must be scrutinised. That is something that you learn in a beginner research methods course. You didn't really prove anything.
But moving to more of a reflective comment about the CELTA, it is important to keep in mind that CELTA promotes a particular way of teaching. It is very dogmatic in terms of what is 'good' and 'bad' practice. And, as a person currently doing a doctorate in education and carefully looking at these issues, I take serious issue with that. However, this is not to say that it does not have value.
I don't like reading comments on here that express unilateral generalisations such as CELTA holders can teach and MA holder can't. That is just complete nonsense. |
The references were from a larger piece, and that's what I pulled out (quickly) for this thread (I am not going to bust my ass for a Dave's thread). However, I think it is pretty clear the literature (not just what is listed in my post) supports the importance of a practicum (not necessarily a CELTA, but a practicum) in teacher development.
Maybe you have something that says theory only is the way to go in teacher training?
I have heard the criticism about the CELTA being dogmatic before. I can say this - since leaving the CELTA, the Cambridge cops have NOT been following me around to see that I do it "their way". They have their methods, they teach you those methods and then they assess how well you took those methods on board. And they only have a month to do so. Every course has sort sort of assessment, right? I know PADI (my dive association) does. CELTA is a basic introductory course in teaching, and it is a good one in my opinion. One of the reasons Cambridge wants you to wait two years before applying to the Delta is so that you can take what you learned in the CELTA and go out and develop it further. That's what I have done. And the MA really helped me do that. Cambridge never told me I couldn't do that.
I agree with you about the over-generalizations, but I don't think "I'm With You's" post was completely wrong, either. There ARE a lot of programs without practicums (I did one), the CELTA is good for classroom skills and an MA is good for the theory. He also suggested to do both, and I agree with that.
The whole "CELTA or a Masters" discussion is just WAY to general to be able to come to any sort of conclusion (IMHO). It all depends what you want to do. If you want a uni job, in Korea, you're going to have to get an MA whether it is better than a CELTA or a Delta or not. If you want to be good at the job, and you've never had a practicum, I would suggest getting one. An MA will get you in the door, but the competition is getting tougher and you'll have to be good at your job to keep it. Does your practical course have to be a CELTA? No, but it is one of the most accessible ones out there.
Anyway Francis-Pax, good luck with your doctorate. Delta is up next for me - then a break... |
The thing is that I have an issue with the way you have framed the entire thing, but I don't have the time or energy to really go into it. There is no incentive for doing so, and I don't need to prove anything.
I was sucked back into Dave's from another thread that was brought up after a long hiatus. I actually dislike spending a lot of time on here. In fact, I don't like coming here at all. I have not visited in ages. It is too negative and immature. So little of what is discussed here is relevant to me anymore. Same stuff, even after years and years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Francis-Pax wrote: |
I was sucked back into Dave's from another thread that was brought up after a lot hiatus. I actually dislike spending a lot of time on here. I have not visited in ages. It is too negativity and immaturity in the discussions. So little of what is discussed here is relevant to me anymore. |
Oh well, then...I hope you didn't get any on you.
I am sure I speak for all of us, though, when I say how much we appreciate you stopping by. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Francis-Pax
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| diver wrote: |
| Francis-Pax wrote: |
I was sucked back into Dave's from another thread that was brought up after a lot hiatus. I actually dislike spending a lot of time on here. I have not visited in ages. It is too negativity and immaturity in the discussions. So little of what is discussed here is relevant to me anymore. |
Oh well, then...I hope you didn't get any on you.
I am sure I speak for all of us, though, when I say how much we appreciate you stopping by. |
Hhahah... You made me laugh! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mandrews1985
Joined: 12 Sep 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, it appears my question caused some pretty interesting dicussions. I thank those that specifically responded to my post.
I'm going to post another question that has came from this discussion, but I'll do it in a new thread to keep this thread specific to the title.
Thanks,
Mark. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hank the Iconoclast
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Francis-Pax wrote: |
| Hank the Iconoclast wrote: |
| Francis-Pax wrote: |
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't agree. The practical component of the CELTA course is very dogmatic in terms of presented models of teaching and evaluation. I do not think that the CELTA way of teaching is particularly better. A good MA TESOL provides much more background on language teaching methods, language awareness, and knowledge about second language acquisition. There is no research that substantiates that a teacher with a CELTA knows more about teaching (theoretically or practically) than people with an MA without a practicum, so your comment is not grounded in anything. |
Well, you also don't agree with the British Council, International House and many other reputable language institutes who don't take anyone on without a practical qualification. Nothing new there, many people don't agree with big organizations' ways of looking at things but they do have a lot of experience in language teaching and presumably have done their own research into what works for them in the class room. |
You have misconstrued my comments. The CELTA and DELTA are credentials that have a lot of weight for those organisations. They still are considered to be 'good qualifications' in non-tertiary contexts -- especially in Europe or other places influenced by the British ELT tradition. My comments were not speaking to that. Please look carefully at what I was replying to.
You also need to bear in mind that there is a conflict of interest between the BC/IH and Cambridge ESOL. Both of these organisations offer CELTA/DELTA courses and administer Cambridge ESOL tests. They have a vested interest to perpetuate the qualification. It is a profitable industry. I am taking more of a critical view.
Again, I point to something I wrote before. The nature of ELT is changing. This includes how qualifications are viewed in light of the development in the field. The CELTA and DELTA emerged at an early stage of development in ELT long before the degrees that are offered now (and in many cases by distance education).
ELT like any professional practice in education changes and becomes more professionalized and academically mature as time goes on. These are points that are difficult to understand in context to new teachers in ELT, especially for those who have only taught in the Korean context. However, from my point which includes having taught in multiple countries over a long period of time and higher studies (certificate, masters, doctorate), the evolution is very clear. |
QFT. While I see value in getting a CELTA, it's definitely something to do before you come to Korea or midway through your first year. DELTA would be useful too with a MA, but I got certified in the States (while doing my student teaching at an international school) as I found that much more useful for my career. It also reinforced a lot of things I learned in my MA in ESL/EFL. |
I am not sure why you quoted me above. It sounds like you are disagreeing with what I wrote; however, if you read my first post to this thread, you will see that I recommend doing a CELTA and MA for those planning to stay in ELT for the long haul. |
I agreed with your point about the nature of ELT and that it's evolving. I do agree that teachers should do both. I was just saying that I did my practical teaching experience at an international school instead of a CELTA. If I had not and if I was planning on staying in Korea teaching at a university, I would definitely have pursued the DELTA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I agreed with your point about the nature of ELT and that it's evolving. |
It's been evolving since it started. The question is which practices are going to become obsolete and which are going to be the next big thing. I was in ELT when the internet first arrived and was heralded as a catalyst for revolutionary change in the way EFL was going to be taught etc..etc..I remember trying to teach blended courses way back in 1998. It wasn't a success then and it hasn't really been since. EFL students still generally prefer face to face classes. Students doing MAs in theoretical subjects will of course prefer online courses because they're cheaper and they can earn living at the same time. If you think teaching is all about theory then online learning will suffice but for those who think the practice is equally important, as for the EFL students, it won't. I've been training Korean and native speaker teachers for many years and the refrain I hear time after time, whenever I ask for feedback on a course is they find the practical stuff dead useful but are not too bothered about the theory. You can draw your own conclusions
Last edited by edwardcatflap on Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Francis-Pax
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I agreed with your point about the nature of ELT and that it's evolving. |
It's been evolving since it started. The question is which practices are going to become obsolete and which are going to be the next big thing. I was in ELT when the internet first arrived and was heralded as a catalyst for revolutionary change in the way EFL was going to be taught etc..etc..I remember trying to teach blended courses way back in 1998. It wasn't a success then and it hasn't really been since. EFL students still generally prefer face to face classes. Students doing MAs in theoretical subjects will of course prefer online courses because they're cheaper and they can earn living at the same time. If you think teaching is all about theory then online learning will suffice but for those who think the practice is equally important, as for the EFL students, it won't. |
1998 was a very long time ago. Technology has changed substantially since then. Your personal experience is limited. Here in the Middle East, technology integrated in all learning. In the UAE, for example, using iPads in the language classroom is compulsory. So your generalisations are limited to the contexts you have experienced.
Your comment about distance MAs being cheaper is not necessarily true. I can think of several examples where that is not the case. You also have a very unsophisticated understanding of theory. You talk about it as if it is divorced from practice. I don't really have time to go into this, but I think you have a tendency to make sweeping generalisations without understanding the constraints of your claims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
1998 was a very long time ago. Technology has changed substantially since then. Your personal experience is limited. Here in the Middle East, technology integrated in all learning. In the UAE, for example, using iPads in the language classroom is compulsory. So your generalisations are limited to the contexts you have experienced.
|
IPads are compulsory in one of the places I work at now in Korea and the students' faces drop when they see you bring them into the class room. And please Francis can you drop the 'I've got more experience in more countries than you facade' (you haven't) and the attitude that you're somehow giving your valuable time up to slum it with people who are less sophisticated than you. It's all a bit childish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Francis-Pax
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| Quote: |
1998 was a very long time ago. Technology has changed substantially since then. Your personal experience is limited. Here in the Middle East, technology integrated in all learning. In the UAE, for example, using iPads in the language classroom is compulsory. So your generalisations are limited to the contexts you have experienced.
|
IPads are compulsory in one of the places I work at now in Korea and the students' faces drop when they see you bring them into the class room. And please Francis can you drop the 'I've got more experience in more countries than you facade' (you haven't) and the attitude that you're somehow giving your valuable time up to slum it with people who are less sophisticated than you. It's all a bit childish. |
I am not saying that I have more experience in different countries than you. Maybe you just feel insecure. I am only talking about my experiences in different contexts. Our experience with iPads are not the same as yours. We are doing very innovative things with iPads and project based learning where I am currently teaching. We have exactly the opposite experience. Maybe you just don't know how to teach with that type of technology. Or, it could be that it doesn't work in your particular context despite all of your knowledge and experience with the technology. This does not invalidate your experience. It just means that you need to be more careful about generalising your experiences to other contexts.
When I wrote that you experience is limited, I also implicitly state that my experiences are limited too. We are not God. We are just finite human beings that are limited to space and time. Your experiences are different from mine. The important point here is that we do not say that our experiences are the only way it is. We need to be flexible and realize that so much is relative to context.
When I write that you display an unsophisticated view, it does not mean that I am more sophisticated. It is also note a comparison between you and me. It is a comment on what you have written, not your person. I am sorry to say that your understanding of the relationship of theory and practice is elementary. You have made sweeping statements that are difficult to support and without evidence. You tend to generalize too much. You need to be humbler with your claims.
Last edited by Francis-Pax on Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:09 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
When I write that you display an unsophisticated view, it does not mean that I am more sophisticated. It is a comment on what you have written, not your person. I am sorry to say they your understanding of the relationship of theory and practice are elementary. You have made sweeping statements that are difficult to support and without evidence. You tend to generalize too much. You need to be humbler with your claims.
|
It's an Internet message forum. You know, like having a conversation in a pub only in writing. Why don't you forget about your PHD for a while and try to interact in a normal fashion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Francis-Pax
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| Quote: |
When I write that you display an unsophisticated view, it does not mean that I am more sophisticated. It is a comment on what you have written, not your person. I am sorry to say they your understanding of the relationship of theory and practice are elementary. You have made sweeping statements that are difficult to support and without evidence. You tend to generalize too much. You need to be humbler with your claims.
|
It's an Internet message forum. You know, like having a conversation in a pub only in writing. Why don't you forget about your PHD for a while and try to interact in a normal fashion? |
I am interacting in a normal fashion. Your expectation of what is normal is clearly different than mine. I thought we were two intelligent people having a reasonable conversation. Is that abnormal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I am interacting in a normal fashion. Your expectation of what is normal is clearly different than mine. I thought we were two intelligent people having a reasonable conversation. Is that abnormal? |
Sorry but if you really don't know the difference between the way you have interacted on here and the way most people would expect people to interact on an informal Internet forum, explaining this to you would involve more work than designing a syllabus for an entire writing course and I really don't have the time. Good night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
diver,
If you had an MA worth the paper it's printed on, you'd know you shouldn't be blindly quoting Krashen, particularly on his input hypothesis. i+1...cute concept, but over simplistic since language acquisition isn't a linear process. It also ignores that students have control over the intake. Looks good on paper, that's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diver
Joined: 16 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
diver,
If you had an MA worth the paper it's printed on, you'd know you shouldn't be blindly quoting Krashen, particularly on his input hypothesis. i+1...cute concept, but over simplistic since language acquisition isn't a linear process. It also ignores that students have control over the intake. Looks good on paper, that's all. |
I'm sorry...which Krashen quote has got you all upset? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
