Job Discussion Forums

[2 over lee]

There seems to be a few warring factions on this one, I�d just like to add my two cents.

In China, possibly, the English teaching jobs can be put into two catergories: General English and Academic English. The latter often causes more problems because it must involve teaching some critical thinking. Given these two (very broad and not all inclusive) catergories, what then, in mind of the linguistic and cultural backround of the students, do we need in a teacher here? ( I�m actually not in China but will use here to describe it.)

To teach for the purpose of improving students English ( not just to become their personal favourite) a teacher who can put more East in their West is BEST ( dumb phrase I know). I�ve over generalised jobs above by making two catergories, I�m going to do the same for teachers. From my own experience, and to a lesser extent from reading this board, teachers seem to fall into four catergories:

1. THE NEWBIE: in their early 20s, has not taught before, may either have a TEFL cert and\or bachelor�s degree.

2. THE TEFLER: has a few years experience teaching in a number of countries. Is an adherrent to ESL teaching methodologies.

3. THE SINOPHILE: here (quite obviously) out of interest in China. Speaks Chinese and has TEFL and\or degree.

4. THE OLD SCHOOLIE: retired teacher of some sort in the west. The most hard working and least adaptable group. Usually have Master�s degree or higher.

Probably the most important groups to discuss are numbers two and four. Having being observed in my teaching by both two and four, it�s fair to say they have some quite conflictiong views. When observed by a TEFLER they went thoroughly through my lesson plan, were concerned with my methodology in classroom management, whether I elicited rather than gave answers, and that I did not talk too much. The old schoolie was looking for more dicipline, a performance, indepth knowledge of subject and whether students were attentive. The old schoolie who observed me did not like TEFLERS, claiming they just handed out photocopies and stood back. If I were to take over a class from an old schoolie, that would be difficult as they certainly make the class, �theirs�. In contrast, the TEFLER will work methodically so anyone can step in. In TEFL theory students should be able to work well alone, the teacher is more of a facillitator.

In reality, given the idiosyncrasies of the Chinese student, maybe a mix between the two ideologies is needed. The teacher talk time of 10% ( of the lesson) recommended in TEFL courses is clearly bollocks when applied to China. The firm guiding hand of an old schoolie with the TEFLERS knowledge of second language teaching would be a fine combination.

A third and important factor which can make a teacher successfull here is supplied by the Sinophile. The Sinophile has a much greater appreciation of what goes on behind those insipid, blank, sleepy stares ( replace this with bright, eager, laid-back is you must!). Once while studying Chinese I had a very difficult lesson (one on one) when reading a chapter ( of an intermediate Mandarin text) on Taoism. The concept of Wu Xing ( without shape) was supposed to be discussed. This concept was: everything you can see has an invisible counterpart ( kind of Yin Yang), was completely foreign to me. I had not come accross this in my English education, and it was then very difficult to talk about it in Chinese. FT�s in China (especially old schoolies) often make the mistake of insisting on discussing rather �western�matters. For example a majority of students have no grasp of western psycology and philosophy. The Sinophile may be the one to accept oriental reserve and realise in his job, to improve the mechanics of his students English, he should stick to the following
(and I suggest all FTs gain some knowledge in these topics, not just from western texts!):

- Chinese history
-core sciences- information technology
-bigb usiness in America
-joint venture companies

The above topics were the only ones I got success from when teaching Business English to both third year and MBA students at JiaoTong University in Shanghai. They have also proved good topics at higher levels of general English. I�m also convinced putting a lot of your western prejudices aside can help the teacher of children. However that�s not my field, so I won�t elaborate.

Teaching critical thinking in China is one thing which seems to bring many a FT to their knees begging for mercy ( no exception here!). In the two jobs I�ve had which required me to teach this, I have had success in one and failure in the other. It�s interesting to look at the relative circumstances:

1. I was teaching IELTS, critical thinking needed to be taught for a 250 word essay required in the exam. The questions from old exams ( never similar ones of my own devise) were lapped up. The class were happy and successful.

2. I taught EAP to students on an International Foundation Year, heading to Uni in the UK ( for as yet unspecified courses). I had very little success bringing up topics such as legalisation of pot ( this always went back to the opium wars) and capital punishment (yawn). The class couldn�t link writing these essays with their immediate test on Friday.

I�m rambling on a bit and must get to the newbie. The newbie is the future, some will cut it, others won�t. Often the newbie, for many suspect reasons, is that most desired by Chinese employers. Old schoolies should not feel imbittered by working with this group. They should do what I�ve suggested, take on a little Eastern thought and realise this is the way it is. They cannot have collegues as much on their wavelength as in the west. It would seem I�m attacking the old schoolies-true-BUT, I have more than once admired their work ethic. Often old schoolies and academics have been chosen to make curriculums for ( seemingly) always Curriculumless language schools and Univesities. Good. I only ask them to reserch a little bit about ESL methodology, and remember the curriculum is not all about how they would teach it!

The good teacher in China is a combo of the Sinophile ( his insights into the Eastern mind), the Tefler ( his knowledge of ESl methodology) and the old schoolie(his work ethic and verbose manner which, is a hit with Chinese students).

Must head to beach.

[Roger]

I find this a very convincing analysis, especialluy the typology of FTs.

I am the No. 4 type, in a manner of speaking (with hardly any teaching experiewnce in a Western country).
I believe that it is my mission to enable Chinese English speakers to perform communicative acts with speakers of other mother tongues by using English as well as those speakers themselves perform. This means there is a common lowering of certain standards but a raising of all standards (at the same time): the Chinese English speaker definitely must learn to relate to other cultures (he or she has, I venture to say, probably the greatest need to learn that... compared to Russians, Africans, Indians, Arabs who all have had exposure to other cultures).
This boils down to teaching Chinese to think outsider their Chinese box. It means individuation (students nmust become individuals and speak their proper minds), which is a quantum leap away from their communitarian way of thinking (and being manipulated by the powers that be).
Evidently, we cannot expect all our students to succeed.

[Talkdoc]

2-Over-Lee � Congratulations on what is a very thoughtful post. I would disagree that the debates, you alluded to, were indicative of or motivated by �warring factions.� Old Dog and I, to name two, have continued these discussions through e-mail correspondence and are far more in agreement than not. Old Dog has been primarily addressing himself to ideals whereas I have been writing about what I observe in practice. I don�t view these discussions as a matter of right or wrong and, if I can speak for him, I don�t believe he does either. And we are each enjoying the company, I believe.

In my, admittedly, limited experience with teaching in China, what I have observed (and have previously posted on) is that neither degree nor TEFL certificate successfully discriminate on the effectiveness of a �teacher� in China, given the limitations of our role here. The principal factor that does seem to predict success in the EFL classroom is the ability to establish rapport with those in your charge; whether they be Chinese businessmen (corporate clients), seven-year old elementary school children, or Chinese college students taking an IELTS preparatory course for the purposes of studying abroad. Someone who is naturally gifted in and comfortable with working with elementary school students, for example, may not be able to obtain the same good results with an entirely different population of students; but I do not think the result (good or bad) is predominantly predicted by formal education, prior teaching experience or a four-week certification course - especially in China.

Participation in a four-week training class (irrespective of how much foreign teaching experience one may accumulate thereafter), in which the only two requirements for enrollment are approximately 1500 dollars (US) and a high school diploma, is not the only way (nor necessarily the most desirable way) to obtain proper sensitivity to a foreign culture and an appreciation for the methodology required for teaching a foreign language. Many of the former Western academicians and professional educators (�old-schoolies�) you refer to, have taken post-secondary and graduate level courses in linguistics, language acquisition and cross-cultural studies (but your classification schema, above, does not account for that). I agree with you that the ability to appreciate and, I would add, embrace the differences between cultures is of paramount importance in being an effective teacher in China (or any foreign country, for that matter); but, from what I see, that appreciation is not necessarily obtained or predicted by participation in a four-week TEFL course but, rather, by one�s ability to be adaptive, receptive and respectful vis a vis cultural differences. And those qualities are never acquired, ever, through any sort of education or training I am currently aware of (although they are certainly informed by them for those already in possession of those personal traits).

What we would like to think we are doing and what, in fact, we are actually doing are sometimes two different things. I taught IELTS for six months in Shenyang. Although I would definitely agree that critical thinking would improve a candidate�s potential score, I am not quite as certain as you that we were expected to teach it (or, even, that it can be "taught" aside from modeling and repeated exposure via the Socratic method, for example) nor do I believe �critical thinking� can be acquired, for the first time, from an examination preparatory course. At least in the school I was teaching in, the curriculum consisted of intensive rehearsal and rote. If, throughout the course of that, those capable of it were able to obtain some analytical understanding of what was being tested, that was a highly desirable and serendipitous by-product of the training. As to whatever advantages are inherent from some brief training in �EFL methodology,� the methodology is typically guided, subsumed (built into, if you will) and directed by the teaching materials themselves. And, as I will argue shortly, I simply do not believe adherence to a specific type of methodology is necessarily predictive of successful teaching, in any country.

I taught psychopathology for over 15 years to graduate-level psychology and social work students. The way I approached that course was to teach it from an entirely conceptual perspective; by providing a theoretical orientation, as a base, and then demonstrating how that theory could be applied to understanding mental and emotional disorders. There are well over 500 mental and emotional disorders listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (IV) of the American Psychiatric Association (including sub-classifications) so I saw no point in attempting to have my students memorize clusters of symptomatology (that�s what the Manual is for; to be used as a reference). However, in the name of affirmative action, my university typically admitted two or three �disadvantaged� students, every year, who were products of poorer educational systems. These students struggled enormously with my teaching approach � because it required a quality most of them were sorely lacking in; critical thinking. These were students who were primarily educated by rote (typically from southern states) and were trained (even in college) on how and where to find the �correct answers;� although they were never quite sure what to do with them once they had them. In a country that teaches primarily to examination scores, something gets dropped or, at the very least, receives short shrift. What I have found personally from my students, is that those who do possess critical thinking abilities (and there are many who do) have their well educated and intelligent parents to thank for that far more than their 14 years of education. Even now, as I walk through the halls, I hear full professors rehearsing their students on the memorization of words, formulas and phrases. Hundreds of students can be observed, prior to class each and every morning, "preparing" for class by reading sentences and formulas outloud and then looking aside to repeat to themselves what they have just read. I have never observed this phenomenon in any of the three universities I have previously taught in.

Related to the discussion on what constitutes a good teacher in China, is the body of research on what constitutes a good and effective psychotherapist (and this is a field in which you will truly find �warring factions�). Radical and cognitive behaviorists would like to believe they hold the key to mental health while classically trained psychoanalysts claim to know better. And the humanists hold both schools of thought in utter contempt. But what the research shows is that the variables that constitute and predict a �good therapist� are not formal education (between and above the master's degrees in the various mental health professions), theoretical school of thought or years of experience; what predicts outcome in psychotherapy is primarily the �goodness of fit� between the therapist and the patient; it�s really that simple. It�s mostly about being able to establish rapport with the patient for the purposes of being helpful. The ability to establish rapport is certainly influenced (I would say honed) by formal education and training but it is not mostly accounted for by those pursuits.

What constitutes a good teacher in China? I still suspect the answer to that question has little to do with formal education, training, certification courses and even prior Asian teaching experience. I firmly believe the answer is almost entirely accounted for by someone is who intelligent, patient, caring (conscientious), interpersonally warm, adaptive and responsive to the needs of others. And, although those qualities do not distinguish a good teacher in China from one in Australia, for example, in a country (such as China) where we are predominantly hired as oral English practice teachers (irrespective of the specific name of the course or the type of facility it is being taught in), particularly in regard to our Chinese students who are very timid, insecure and apprehensive about their English language skills, those traits are far more important, in my estimation, than one�s particular form of sinophilia or any amount of technical (academic) knowledge could ever be.

Doc

[Sinobear]

I concur with the above; however, the word sinophilia gives me the creeps.

[badtyndale]

An intelligent and eloquent thread. Pause for thought - the watchword is 'adaptation'. One of the problems experienced by different teachers in China concerns their suitability for differing positions. This is not a situation that is made any easier by 'the get yourselves over here and we'll find you a job' market. A little more scrutiny by both employers and employees would make for better relations all round. Or am I being too idealistic?

[Spiderman Too]

I am a category 2 teacher.

In each of the Asian countries in which I have taught, I have not tried to radically change the student�s way of thinking, or behavior. For example, when teaching �corporate� students I will explain that, in �western� countries, a subordinate who has good reason can question the instructions of a superior but I am careful not to imply that my students should do so because I know that causing loss of face is to be avoided at (almost) all costs in many Asian societies.

I consider that my most important task is to build-up the students� confidence towards speaking English. To help them express, in English, whatever thoughts and ideas they already possess; not to change their thoughts and ideas. I correct my students errors but I do not criticize them. I avoid the words �wrong� and �no�, and other negative utterances. I encourage students to help each other and that includes them correcting the mistakes of their classmates.

I allow students to finish expressing themselves before pointing out their errors; to do so while they are expressing themselves results in a visibly apparent awkwardness, tongue-tied(ness) and inability to continue.

[Roger]

During my last visit to the Philippines, I discussed the qualitative differences between the Philippine and Chinese English, and my Filippino hostess immediately observed that Chinese do far worse because their English teaching is marked by too many national, i.e. Chinese characteristics. I could not agree more with her.

To begin with, the very term "education" in China seems to revolve around the idea of amassing "knowledge". Apart from their mother tongue, any other language is "knowledge". This is radically different from what it is to most people the world over - i.e. a practical skill.
Surely, grammar is "theoretical" knowledge, but applying it has more to do with neural functions and psychomotor ability than with "knowing" the lingo? Maybe Chinese students "learn" too much, and practise too little. The very ivory-towery approach to learning. And most Chinese teachers never get beyond surface knowledge of English; they fail to internalise what they have learnt.
Also, if students never use the target language as individuals they have no chance ais thought up by their teacher who also translates every word into Chinese; when they have to function in a real-life situation with a non-Chinese speaker they are typically stumped. Their teachers never let them explore the language and its functions. What little writing they do, their teachers correct half of those mistakes (and half of them they don't see). The student never learns to correct their mistakes himself/herself. I see this every time I return their essays with a ton of red marks on each sheet of paper; I never see corrected essays again! Never! I don't know if my American colleagues do it the same way as our CHinese teachers do - insert the corrected forms! Well, I NEVER do that! It's plain wrong.

So, our students lack not so much confidence (this, they lack too, but this lack of self-confidence has nothing to do with the subject called English). They lack self-confidence because they are never allowed to stand taller than their peers in the classroom. The communitarian approach stifles any attempt at emancipation by any individual.

But acquiring a second language is far more than acquiring knowledge; it is the foundation of acculturation. You learn more than how to stly. Inm this respect, we are being thwarted by an insensitive Chinese English teaching approach that's frozern in a time warp.

[badtyndale]

Well, I don't really fit into any of 2 over lee's categories (square peg-round hole... or is it round peg-square hole? Either way I'm an anomoly) but I'm definitely not a 1 or a 3. Parts of the other two categories do apply but neither is definitive and both are incomplete. (Now, you're asking where is this leading or is it just rambling?) My point is simply that individuation is important in both teaching and learning, and that the comments made on this matter are important things to consider. Different cultures/societies have differing policies/modus operandi in differing aspects of formal education and it is difficult to imagine that any EFL teacher would have a comprehensive knowledge of these influencing issues. We learn as we teach and total preparedness is not required or desired, as long as we remain flexible to adapt (build rapport, facilitate change, question practise or method etc.) and are open to criticism - it also helps to be able to self-reflect. Little of this is/can be taught during a certificate course. Some of these ideas may be alluded to but I feel that they are quintessentially products of teaching experience, of which there is little practise during a TEFL course.

To return to the title of this thread, "What kind of English teacher is needed for China?"
If we are to stereotype the Chinese student, as often we do on this forum for many reasons - not least of all because the stereotype does bear witness in reality to a significant proportion of the populus (is that fair comment?), then we must consider some of the background issues that influence the education system. Herein lies the fundamental difficulty in addressing the main question because we are faced with intransigence and obstacles to good intentions.

The title question, as it stands, can be read from (at least) two distinct viewpoints:

What kind of teacher is needed to fit in with and achieve demonstrable success within the present system whilst satisfying the concerns of overseas educators and the notion of verifiable practical communication?

What kind of teacher is needed to change/develop attitudes within the present system and achieve demonstrable success within the present system whilst satisfying the concerns of overseas educators and the notion of verifiable practical communication?

Over to you, China Movie Magic...

[ChinaMovieMagic]

(From Promoting Change in China's Classroom)

In Why Drama Works: A Psycholinguistic Perspective, Susan Stern at UCLA brings together a wide range of research relating to the power of role play for creating an enjoyable and effective second language environment:

*MOTIVATION "The purposefulness of dramatic activity
can provide a strong instrumental motivation for
language learning...Moulding emphasized that drama
provides the context for a meaningful exchange in
which participants see a reason to communicate, and
focuses on 'how to do things' with the language rather
than on merely 'how to describe things.' Malley and
Duff explained that language teaching has tended to
kill motivation by divorcing the intellectual aspects
of language (vocabulary + structures) from its body
and emotions, limiting instruction to the former.
Dramatic techniques restore the body and emotions to
language learning, thereby restoring emotion."

*SELF-ESTEEM "An analogy between acting and martial
arts suggested by Via explains one way in which drama
helps self-confidence. Just as a yell accompanies the
strike in order to build the confidence and increase
the energy of the attacker, so a strong and clear
voice (necessary when performing) gives the language
learner confidence. Drama also raises self-esteem by
demonstrating to L2 learners that they are indeed
capable of expressing themselves in realistic
communicative settings."

*SENSITIVITY TO REJECTION "L2 learners who are afraid
of what others may think of their less-than-perfect
command of the language will be inhibited in using it.
This is especially true of adults. Several educators
have found that drama creates a
non-threateningsituation which can reduce and even
eliminate sensitivity to rejection."

*EMPATHY 'Guiora explains that emphathic capacity is
dependent upon the ability to partially and
temporarily suspend the functions that maintain one's
separateness from others (usually called ego
boundaries)...Guiora et al. hypothesize that ability
to approximate native-like pronunciation in a second
language is related to the flexibility or permeability
of one;s ego boundaries.

*SPONTANEITY "Mann explains that persons in the
spontaneous state completely forget the existence of
the audience or cease to be completely about its
reactions,,,'In varying degrees the person in such a
state acts as though inspired. He draws on resources
which neither he nor his friends may have thought he had
at his disposal.' If this state can be induced in L2
learners via drama, the usual gap between thought and
statement which ceases to exist in the native
language might cease to exist in the second language
as well."

[Spiderman Too]

badtyndale

[ChinaMovieMagic]

The fatal drawback in Confucian education was its inflexibility and its commitment to the status quo...This dedication to an established order paralyzed the imagination of the people. Thus progress came to a halt. (Cowles Encyclopedia,1967)


RE:

[badtyndale]

Perhaps I didn't make my meaning entirely clear:

[ChinaMovieMagic]

H. Douglas Brown offers teachers "Ten Commandments"
for Good Language Learning.

These words can also be seen as useful for English-teachers-in-China, not excluding ourselves:

1. Lower inhibitions---via role plays/songs/small group work
2. Encourage risk-taking--praise students/give fluency-only exercises
3. Build self-confidence--encourage students, have them make lists of their strengths
4. Develop intrinsic motivation--focus on real-life rewards-for-learning, BEYOND the Exam
5. Promote cooperative learning--via small group work/class-as-a-team
6. Encourage them to use right-brain thinking--use movies&tapes, have them read passages rapidly, do oral fluency exercises without corrections
7. Promote ambiguity tolerance---encourage students to ask teacher/each other questions; keep theoretical answers brief and simple
8. Help them use their intuition---praise students for good guesses; correct only selected errors, e.g. those interfering w/learning
9.Get students to make their mistakes work FOR them---tape record oral production and get them to identify errors
10.Get students to set their own goals--have them make lists of what they will accomplish in a particular week/lifetime

[2 over lee]

Some things have hit home for me in the replies here:

Batyndale wrote:

[2 over lee]

One more thing: I agree Doc that a 4 week course is not a great help in aquiring the neccessary skills to becoming a good ESl teacher. However my catergory the TEFLER was meant to mean a person who had studied ESl methodology (in a formal way or not) considerably beyond this point. In ESL teaching which, is fairly mechanical at beginner to pre-int levels, I think knowledge of methodolgy to be invaluble to a teacher and even more important than the (also very important) personal qualities you mention.