Job Discussion Forums

[Sashadroogie]

Fluffy, Russian teachers with MAs and PhDs in linguistics take the Delta. They say that the benefit for them is the same as it was for me. Re-assessing how one teaches in a classroom, examining the assumptions that underlie what we do, usually adjusting our practice as a result of input sessions and, and... observation feedback! That's the part that most find painful and beneficial at the same time, as you may well do too. Based on previous postings at least.

It is one thing to pore over the books. It is quite another to think that you can put theoretical knowledge so gleaned into practice. Very often we cannot, and so we can benefit from a knowledgeable peer group. Sure, some ground will be familiar to you. Much of it was to me too, but that was of no import. A deeper understanding is in the offing, even of ideas we have already read up on.

Depends how open you are to it, of course.

[fluffyhamster]

Again, you aren't really telling me anything with that, Sasha. (Thanks all the same though). I mean, I'm not the one always going on about how MAs and PhD's only know how to lecture their way out of a paper bag. Did these Russians have only linguistics (theoretical, not applied ~) qualifications? Did they not have any basic certs (assuming these aren't a prerequisite for the Delta)? Did they have any language teaching experience? Had they done absolutely no reading at all in Applied Linguistics? Were they distrusting of their intuitions, and/or of data? Why did they feel their schools were not good enough, and that UCLES would have all the answers? Many questions, see?

[fluffyhamster]

Actually Sash, maybe don't bother. Here are some things that a person that I respect a lot (and who incidentally has never patronized me) had to once tell me about the Delta:

As a career move the DELTA definitely has a lot to recommend it as it sends a signal that you're a serious teacher, not just someone using TEFL to survive while you spend a few years travelling and "find yourself". Here in the UK, it substantially increases your chances of being kept on when work is slack, and you get paid more.

Unfortunately my experience was that it worked very much on the assumption that there's one way to teach and consequently you spend the first few weeks working out what your observers want to see, then doing it in order to pass. I found I learned more from the others on the course than from the course itself.

My observed class was very unlike my typical classes. It was a case of jumping through the hoop but that's what you have to do if you want your fish (Bark! Bark! Clap! Clap! CLUB! CLUB!).

I read The English Verb for the first time on my Dip course, though I probably would have read it anyway... Apart from that the course content was mediocre, but as those of us doing the course had taught in loads of different countries there was a great pool of experience to learn from. Then again, you can say that for most EFL staffrooms; you don't need to shell out �1500 to talk to someone who's worked in the Middle East or Kazakhstan.

As for MAs, I'm not in a position to comment. I did look into doing an MA in Applied Linguistics, but as I already have a degree in Linguistics (which included an option in AL), when I rang up a university and asked "what will be new for me on this course?" the answer they gave was "not much".

[Sashadroogie]

Fair enough, Fluffy. You obviously do not see the need for further training. Your cert course from nearly twenty years ago and your undirected reading and research since then has served you well enough. Unfortunately, you have no evidence at all that your teaching is in any way a cut above any other cert-level teacher of even just a couple of years' experience. This may not matter much in your teaching context now, but if you are planning a return to the UK, then cross out any opportunities in, say, FE classrooms. Apologies if you find that distasteful, or patronising - it is not meant as such. Just, I too have friends and colleagues, and they lament the lack of a Delta for that very reason.

By the way, as you asked, these Russian colleagues had many years' teaching experience. published research on English grammar and phonology etc. 'The English Verb' would have been very low level for them too, but that is not what they were seeking, which was insight into the practicalities of EFL. Your friend who you quote must have done a lot more than just 'work out what the observers want to see, then do it..' I have no doubt that his observed class was not typical of his usual class - I'm sure it was better. Better than most of his previous lessons. And it is that demonstration of the ability to deliver higher quality lessons which is the cornerstone of the Delta.

But, if you do not want anything like that, fair enough. There are always discussions here on Dave's to take part in.

[fluffyhamster]

Undirected reading? Hardly. I've pursued connecting interests without any prodding from the likes of you, Sasha!

It seems you think that everybody needs to be directed to read, and monitored chapter and verse, and that developing personal interests and direction is almost impossible otherwise.

But no doubt there really are a few decidedly average (or worse) pursuers of mere bits of paper, who have to be dragged kicking and screaming even more than I would through those to them literal bootcamps they reluctantly subject themselves to, seeing as they are apparently so incapable of educating themselves.

I take your point though about FE being more for the Dippers. My friend said similar.

I think you are missing the point about hoops when you say that you're sure his observed class was untypically good. Maybe 'good' according to a standard, but no more and no less (certainly, little more). Education generally is groaning under the weight of measures meant to improve standards, but which more often than not stifle creativity and vision. Guidelines are not that inspiring, but a lack of them might be.

[Sashadroogie]

The likes of me? Fine. Such heightened language. But not really fair, as I am not the one who would be 'prodding' you anyway. Your course tutors would.

I am not willing to get bogged down in another debate on observations. Those points have been made already. But it is important to know that on a course like the Delta, one has to put one's money where one's mouth is and deliver an observed lesson that meets the required standard.

I mentioned my Russian colleagues as they are generally more qualified than my native English speaking colleagues on taking the Delta. They were far from clueless, but were trained in grammar-translation methods more than communicative ones. Yet, despite many years of experience and training, they still felt that there was something to be said for continuing their own professional development through a course such as the Delta. If they can be open-minded and self-aware enough to know that there is value seeking guidance, I do not see why we cannot be too. Perhaps that is THEIR secret.

Fluffy, if you feel that you have reached a high enough level of professional development already, then fair enough. Pity that nobody else can ever actually know that this is the case, however.

[fluffyhamster]

I think it's fair to say the likes of you, Sasha. You are (or have been) a trainer, right? And you are always prodding me to basically "put up or shut up". Even though you have yet to furnish me with details of the specific benefits of the Delta. The net effect is one of empty elusive exhortation rather than intriguing and interesting-sounding invite.

Let me give you an example of what I mean by 'invite', an "Invitation to..." (i.e. Some Good Reasons for...). We could all positively bang on in a general sense about Corpus Linguistics, right? ("Sorry" for the empirical, language-based slant again, but it's easier to provide specifics for that than methodology, and indeed CL can help suggest ideas for activities). But those we would be trying to convince of the value of CL might reasonably ask for actual instances where it had proved its worth to us personally, and be disinclined to simply take our word for it or be directed to "secondary" (well, primary) sources. Here then is my personal "Invitation to CL", my providing a selection of reasonably clear and personally memorable specifics rather than just claiming 'innumerable examples' and the like:

Online corpora such as the BNC @ BYU have enabled me to
-establish precisely which lexical verbs appear in which compound tenses (especially the rarer of such tenses), thus aiding the contextualization of such forms no end (say goodbye to invented~questionable examples!)
-search for intuition-taxing but possible strings such as prep + -ing + -en (e.g. is the surrounding context in the example ?Thank you for having sent me the brochures found in e.g. British English, or is it more just a feature of say Indian English?)

Corpus-based grammars or facts have enabled me (esp. when offline!) to
-examine a good range of adjectives that can follow the noun they describe (e.g. the people responsible)
-consider never used to as a potential replacement for didn't use(*d) to

Corpus-based learner dictionaries and frequency lists have enabled me to
-establish word frequency i.e. what is core versus more peripheral vocabulary, and in speech versus writing
-identify and select valuable phrases and functions that may not be included in most textbooks, i.e. to develop new or fuller treatments of topics, functions, and notions, esp. by searching accompanying powerful CD-ROMs

I could give more examples, but the grammar/grammar terms and issues involved would require a bit more explaining (for the benefit of newbie or casual readers) than the above ones.

That may look a somewhat paltry list (for demonstrating the value of empirical investigations and methods), but at least it's an illustrative start. Back to you and the Delta's riches, Sash.

[Sashadroogie]

Check your corpora to see how offensive the phrase 'the likes of you' is. No comment of mine was intended to insult you, so I am not sure why you feel you can use language like that.

Anyway, in answer to your question, the Delta is not about training someone in the intricacies of lexicogrammar. An MA in linguistics would focus on that more. ( Probably you don't need to do one of them, though, as you have read all the books anyway.) No, the Delta focuses on teaching, which is something notably absent from your list of what you have learnt. Also absent is any mention of the learners in your classroom. How exactly do you help learners to learn? How is all your research applied in your teaching context? Could it be done more effectively? That is what the Delta is all about. Not the teacher, not grammar exclusively - but developing skills in order to aid the learning process. The language learners', not the teacher's.

Might not be riches, and indeed sounds fairly obvious and basic. But it is hard to believe how many EFLers out there fail to grasp that most mundane of truths.

[Sashadroogie]

Another benefit of a course like the Delta, or any MA course, is that trainees need to write coherently when they are submitting assignments. There are many posters who could do with some serious assistance in this regard. The usual academic assumption is that if one cannot express one's thoughts coherently on paper, then this is strong evidence that the thought itself is muddled - though other unkinder words are sometimes applied.

Nothing like red pen slashed across your opus to force you to consider the reader : )

[spiral78]

[Sashadroogie]

I myself found course book and materials analysis to be most worthwhile on the Delta. What are the assumptions that underly course book design? Do we agree with them, from our experience? How can we adapt materials to better fit in with our assumptions? How does one course book differ from another? ( For example, is the assumption that fluency precedes accuracy, as in one book, or vice versa in another?)

Many teachers complain about how lacking their course books are. Learning to exploit material is a skill nobody could argue is a naturally occurring one. The Delta will sort that out for you.

[Sashadroogie]

Testing. A huge area in language learning, and quite a mathematical one. The Delta will only provide the barest of introductions to this, but the key concepts are covered fairly well. Reading up on this is one thing. Actually having to design a test and submit it for feedback is quite another.

[spiral78]

Yes, I did the test design thing on my MA. I hope I never have to design another one (NOT my thing) but if I do, I'll do it far better than I could have before.

[Sashadroogie]

Syllabus and curriculum design. Another massive area, and one which I have to admit I found both challenging and tedious. I would never have read Nunan, but for the needs of the Delta course. Still, it was a necessary step along the way. At least now I know that this is not a direction my career will ever take.

[Sashadroogie]

Phonology. Yes, this is done quite well on Celta courses, but it is again a hugely technical area, and one which I think the Delta helps trainees a lot in. It did for me, at least. Can be read up on on one's own, but so, so much easier when someone else guides you for a bit. Still remember my experimental PTA on this. Was an eye-opener for me.