Job Discussion Forums

[nomad soul]

I was recently sent a PM asking about the SIT TESOL (US-based School for International Training, Graduate Institute's TESOL cert course), specifically, how it differs from the older and more widely-known CELTA. I don't have any personal experience with either course but came across the following interesting description of the SIT TESOL:

[buravirgil]

A post to the Cafe by Christine in 2008

The DELTA was approved for graduate level coursework only three (or four) years ago?

Six (of nine) semester hours of my coursework were graduate level. It was from fellow students in Linguistics (most completing a Master's, with one PhD candidate) that I adopted the opinion certifications undermine the market value of academic accomplishment. I was from the English department. I figured they knew more about the market. My presentation at a TESOL conference was largely attended by Education graduates (working teachers) interested in an ever growing immigration.

Dewey (cited as integral to the SIT TESOL) is a major influence/inspiration, but in my experience Bloom (and its revision) served more challenges. But teacher training in ESL forgoes much of developmentally defined learning theory to prioritize no small amount of theory and method for language acquisition.

At what cost is no meager source of contention.

[mmcmorrow]

Yes, it's hard to say. There's been quite an overlap between CELTA, SIT TESOL and the Trinity Cert over the years. If I'm not mistaken, at least one of the SIT tutors who set up their one month cert course had previously worked at IH in London for many years. And other SIT tutors / professors have had CELTA experience (e.g. Susan Barduhn, who was a pretty active CELTA assessor - not to mention President of IATEFL, back in her London days).

It's clear that SIT places a strong emphasis on reflective practice - but I'd be interested to know how much they can get into a short course in which students will pass or fail based on external criteria. Reflection doesn't flourish easily in a context of assessment criteria, particularly if there's anxiety about failing. BTW, I don't think it's exceptional that the course gives a 'letter of learning' to teachers who fail the course - I've always regarded it as standard practice to provide a report to all teachers who have completed the course, focusing on what they have achieved, even if they haven't done enough to pass.

I assume the differences are a question of degree - after all, the CELTA course itself manages to squeeze in a bit of reflective practice - teachers need to write reflections on all their teaching practices and one of the four assignments 'Lessons from the Classroom' is reflective.

But the emphasis on reflective practice isn't just a question of what's in the curriculum or assessment criteria, but what kind of culture of learning and teaching there is in the institution in which the training course takes place - and this can vary quite considerably across the hundreds of different centres where CELTA courses run. Probably there isn't as much variation in the SIT TESOL course - mainly because it doesn't run in many places - and I guess they also place a lot of emphasis on the culture in accrediting particular institutions to run the courses.

Martin McMorrow, Massey University, New Zealand

[esl_prof]

I've been exploring the possibility of becoming a trainer for the SIT TESOL Certificate course, largely due to the influence of one of my colleagues (who is an SIT trainer) at my current school, so I've asked this question a few times myself over the past few months.

From what I can tell, the biggest difference is the method of delivery which is based on experiential learning--similar to the methodology advocated by Paulo Freire and those theorists/practitioners who have followed in his footsteps. Essential the teacher/trainer creates an experience in the classroom, debriefs the experience (in which trainees/students inductively arrive at the principles/concepts the teacher/trainer seeks to communicate), and then facilitates identification of ways that the trainees/students can apply those principles and concepts in their own teaching/language usage. Courses such as CELTA or Trinity might, as mmcmorrow suggested, include a reflective component but they tend to be more didactic than experiential.

As for content covered, I suspect that SIT is not significantly different than CELTA or Trinity. In any case, their course objectives can be found at the link below and easily compared with those of CELTA and Trinity:

http://graduate.sit.edu/documents/graduate/SIT-TESOL-cert-course-objectives-and-criteria-for-certificate.pdf

[buravirgil]

[HLJHLJ]

[Sashadroogie]

[buravirgil]

You had related elsewhere your experience with some CELTA trainees that were argumentative, whinging, etc.
Looking at those pre-requisites, SIT has had its share of troubles as well; They have had to be pro-active.

Not that they need my affirmation, but esl_prof is correct to equate the two trainings as HLJHLJ stated they can both be applied to a degree.

[Sashadroogie]

Citations were what was asked for. Otherwise, there is a risk of misquotation, or putting words into other people's mouths. Thought you of all posters would be in favour of proper referencing.

[scot47]

SIT is even more touchy-feely, as you would expect from those liberals in Vermont !

I still say the best training is achieving competence and even fluency in a foreign language ! I would banish monoglots from the EFL classroom !

[esl_prof]