Job Discussion Forums

[Steinmann]

I ran across this rather blunt advice at http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Job-Teaching-English-in-Asia:

"Don't bother with getting online teaching certificates, or ones that you get from a twenty hour weekend workshop. They are a waste of time and money. Any reputable school will tell you that you need a CELTA or a Trinity College TESOL certificate. Any worthwhile certificate course will have:

At least 120 hours of training
Classroom observation of experienced teachers
A minimum 6 hours of observed teaching practice with real language learners
Several written assignments

Any course offering anything less than the above, is a scam."


Is that about the size of it? Anything other than a CELTA or a Trinity College TESOL certificate isn't worth the paper it's printed on?

I'd be curious to hear opinions.

[nomad soul]

[HLJHLJ]

The 4 requirements listed are the important bit. CELTA and Trinity are well known brand names that offer them. If you do a different certificate that meets those requirements, you will need to spell it out to potential employers so that they know what your certificate covered.

If the course doesn't tick those 4 boxes (well the first 3 at any rate), then it's not usually worth spending your time and money on.

I don't think it matters much any more whether the theory instruction is face to face or distance (the new online CELTA ought to be the last nail in that coffin).

[Steinmann]

[Steinmann]

[spiral78]

On your endorsement in ESOL, it will depend on how many hours of ESOL instruction were included, and the details of your practicum in teaching language(assuming there was one). You'll need to highlight these two elements so that potential employers can clearly see if your programme is equivalent to (or surpasses) a CELTA/equivalent course.

The problem with an ESOL endorsement in non-Anglophone countries is that there are distinctions between teaching ESL in an Anglophone country and EFL in a country where English is a foreign language.

For example, in ESL classrooms, students tend to come from a mixed background of languages and it can be far easier to ensure that they are using English all/most of the time. An EFL classroom lends itself far more to L1 use. The motivation levels of students can also be very different between the two; and ESL class is normally full of students who presumably need to use English in their everyday lives; it's not the case in most EFL contexts. Some awareness of the differences will be appreciated by potential foreign-country employers.

So far as online vs onsite CELTA, they should be seen as equal by employers - each includes the key practicum with real students.

By the way, ditto on what others have said regarding generics. So long as they include the hours and the teaching practicum, they are normally accepted by reputable employers. The key is that you must highlight the important components on your CV/resume so that they know your generic meets the standard.

[HLJHLJ]

I may be wrong on this, but it is my understanding that employers won't know whether a CELTA was in-house or online, as in the certificate will just say 'CELTA'.

[Steinmann]

[HLJHLJ]

Cambridge are making a point of marketing them as equal, so they should be seen as equal. Which is why the title on the certificate matters. But sometimes employers develop foibles about all sorts of random things, so no-one can guarantee whether or not certain employers will develop a preference for one or the other. It's a new course.

[spiral78]

To be very honest, I personally as an employer prefer an on-site certification, even if we're talking about a CELTA.

The reasons:

Taking an on-site course requires the candidate to show up every day for a month on time, suitably prepared, and ready to work.
He/she has time to demonstrate good (or poor!) team-working skills with trainers and fellow trainees.

Attending on-site for just a week or less doesn't give the trainers enough time, IMO, to assess whether the candidate has the general social/work skills to succeed at his/her work.

I've seen people fail entry-level training courses not only because their lessons weren't up to snuff, but also because they were consistently late, unprepared, and unable to work effectively with others. This behaviour isn't necessarily going to be apparent only over a week; a month gives a much better assessment.

These aspects of teaching (punctuality, preparedness, ability to work well with others) are vital, IME, and I wouldn't personally take a chance on a candidate who hasn't demonstrated them over the period of at least a month-long course.
However, keep in mind that I'm in places where there are plenty of teachers around to choose from - we can afford to go for those we consider will really be the 'best.'

[DebMer]

What about someone who does an online certificate with the required hours, but no observed teaching, and that someone is already teaching ESL. In my case, I've taught ESL for two years, but have never been formally observed in the role of ESL instructor.

And have I understood correctly (from past posts) that a person with MATESOL doesn't need the cert.?

[nomad soul]

[spiral78]

[scholar]

The wiki is way overblown. It seems to convey what the writer wishes to be true, not reality. In Asia, TEFL certification isn't required for the typical job. In China, if it is required in certain provinces due to visa regulations, then ANY certification is fine. It could be from Scholar's Online School of EFL. It just has to be a certificate and say "EFL."

[DebMer]

Thanks for your replies, Nomad and Spiral.