|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gordon wrote: |
Fluffyhamster (where did you come up with that name?  ),
I agree that a good TEFL does not have to be a "name brand" like CELTA or Trinity. However, not all teacher training centres use their trainees to make money. When I did my CELTA they had volunteer students as our guinea pigs and this certainly created more work for the centre as they had to sift through the students for the appropriate levels. |
Sorry, Gordon, I should've been clearer. When I said:
| Quote: |
| Basically, teacher-training is a way of generating extra income by using the foreign learners the school already has as cannon-fodder for trainee teachers whilst drawing on the experienced teachers-turned-trainers from the school to all help make a tidy sum from said trainees. |
,
I just meant that volunteer students + paid up fees trainees = Nice big fat juicy training course fees for the school. We weren't making money for the school by our actual teaching (at least, I hope we weren't - most lessons were obviously of very poor quality!). Now that you've brought it up though, I'm sure I've heard though of some centres charging students a nominal fee for such lessons (could have been on something like englishdroid.com, though!!!). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ooh, hiya Guy. Yup, my analogy was a bit crap. I also apologize for not picking up on that bit you wrote (though I did read it at some point, before the thread got hit with umpteen posts, including my silly ones). I'm gonna go browse now and let some normality and calm return... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 9650
Location: Mexico City
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
No worries as the Aussies say.
I catch where you're coming from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kcat
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guy Courchesne wrote: |
I didn't say that I don't trust TEFL International. In fact, I said...
| Quote: |
| Again, I have no problem with TEFL international. I have hired a total of two of their graduates and they were both very capable teachers. Cheers to Bruce et al. |
A teacher is never defined by the acronym of the course that they took. A teacher is a person with experience or not, objectives, or not. If someone went through a CELTA course somewhere on the planet, fine, I know they took a course. That tells me very little about what kind of teacher they are. TEFL is the same.
I trust experience and the person. Like I said, I teach a TEFL course myself. I impart my own experience through a program
but nothing is standardized, God help us if it ever becomes an assembly line.
Now, like you say, a teacher with no 'acronym' after their name, which I take to mean as having zero experience, well, that person is a blank canvas in my eye. TV reception isn't the analogy I would use, though I understand where you are coming from. Most people doing the hiring, at least in Latin America, are more savvy than that, and average isn't brass ring one reaches for. |
I am not hoping to argure anything but I want to simply mention that I come with no acronym save BA, and only a few years of teaching experience and references that have gotten me work. I sought more for personal reasons but I was not certain as to where I ought to look for it, that's all. The lack of acyonym did hurt me until I wished to teach in countries like Thailand or European countries. Now I'm looking into university programs. Again, thank you for your input.
Last edited by kcat on Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kcat
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| Ooh, hiya Guy. Yup, my analogy was a bit crap. I also apologize for not picking up on that bit you wrote (though I did read it at some point, before the thread got hit with umpteen posts, including my silly ones). I'm gonna go browse now and let some normality and calm return... |
For what it's worth, I appreciated all of the posts in this thread as the one asking the questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kcat
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| Hiya kcat, I wasn't referring to you when I said 'newbie', but, well, to newbies in general! In fact, I didn't re-read right back to the start of the thread and kind of forgot what you actual situation/needs were - hope I don't upset anyone with what I wrote! Anyway, I just wanted to say that in the UK, prior to the RSA Prep. Certificate there really wasn't much idea of how to teach English on a mass scale (that is, to provide the teachers needed), and whilst we have to thank those pioneering trainers for all they did in paving the way, they didn't get everything right and still don't have all the answers; even the HE institutes offering MAs in Applied Linguistics or TESOL don't always strike one as offering that much. |
I understand, and thank you for your help and opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CostaRicaTEFL
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well hello all,
This thread has turned quite interesting. Guy, seems you work for none of the Big Three (and I say that playfully) which explains your efforts to downplay external moderation and dismissive tone about the acronyms.
However, your statements as to whether you have something against TEFL seem somewhat contradictory, which is fine. We're competition and, I would guess, better known than the program you work for? Why wouldn't you want to give an impression that external moderation is not important? Personally, can't imagine being a teacher without getting on-going feedback on the my teaching. I think that also applies to the program I teach in. I want external validation.
Theoretically, don't know that CELTA vs. TEFL Intl. vs. whomever is the point. There are numerous issues involved and the choice is a very personal one. It's not a one-size-fits-all-situation. And, yes, in the final outcome, the program design and ability of the trainers is paramount and certainly there are bound to be some dedicated people out there doing some good training. However, would I encourage someone to attend a course that is not validated? Never.
As for who I am: sorry, thought my handle and the use of certain pronouns made it pretty clear I work with TEFL Intl.
ckat: sorry you didn't join the course. Your reason was your own, though it was surprising to me. As for the legality of teaching: you were not told it was LEGAL to teach without a degree, you were told it is possible, which is true. We give job assistance. Part of that is an honest assessment of the job market. One of the realities of the job market is that some people will hire people without degrees. Do we encourage it? No. Do we recognize it happens? Yes. Do we tell people without degrees that their choice to attend the course is theirs, is personal, and what the realities of work are? Yes. Does everyone take the course to go get a job right away? No. Further, a reality of the industry is that a large percentage of people in the industry do, indeed, work illegally, with or without the degree. In every country. Do I like that? No. Will I tell prospective attendees the reality of the situation? Yes. How else are they going to make an informed decision?
General point: I wasn't trying to defend TEFL Intl, I was simply correcting some mistatements made on the forum. I don't have much of an opinion about CELTA. I do know our course is better suited to prepare you to deal with various age levels. However, they do have other certs for that.
General point two: The comment that the TEFL/TESOL cert from TEFL Intl./ Trinity/Cambridge whomever/ is not useful is incorrect. The implication of the post that it's not useful to get a job in the US, Canada or other English speaking country is correct. For one, those are ESL, not EFL positions. Two, it's a different industry, essentially. Three, the TESOL is an introductory cert, not an advanced cert, so why would you be expectiong it to be considered equivalent to a Master's or B.Ed. or some such?
Not interested in a debate about which program is better, just wanted to clear up some incorrect statements about TEFL Intl.
Been interesting,
CostaRicaTEFL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Posts: 4124
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| s for the legality of teaching: you were not told it was LEGAL to teach without a degree, you were told it is possible, which is true. We give job assistance. Part of that is an honest assessment of the job market. One of the realities of the job market is that some people will hire people without degrees. Do we encourage it? No. |
But do you take the punters money anyway? Isn't that the question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CostaRicaTEFL
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Jones wrote: |
| Quote: |
| s for the legality of teaching: you were not told it was LEGAL to teach without a degree, you were told it is possible, which is true. We give job assistance. Part of that is an honest assessment of the job market. One of the realities of the job market is that some people will hire people without degrees. Do we encourage it? No. |
But do you take the punters money anyway? Isn't that the question? |
This is irrelevant, is it not? This thread is not about ethics, it's about misinformation. However, One, I don't make the decisions about who is or isn't on the course. Two, as I stated, each person takes the course for their own reasons, none of which are up to me, so I don't understand your question in the first place.
I have a responsibility to tell them what we do, they have a responsibility to decide what they want to do with their time and money. For example, I have had a trainee who was actually just under eighteen. We vetted them thoroughly, decided they were mature enough (our standard age limit is 19) and accepted them. Since they were just under 18 I almost considered having them sign an affidavit that we were NOT endorsing underage work, but they were turning 18 literally a week or two after they completed the course, so.... And their reason for getting the cert? Volunteer work. They were already making arrangements to volunteer in India. Should I say no because they didn't have a degree? Not a simple yes/no.
Pura Vida! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 9650
Location: Mexico City
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| efforts to downplay external moderation and dismissive tone about the acronyms. |
No, I made no such 'downplay'. I point out the utter lack of external moderation. The key question you didn't address is who externally moderates TEFL or CELTA for that matter. There are a number of threads in the Teacher Training forum on this topic. I object to the use of the phrase as being misleading to those who wonder about external moderation and accredited course providers.
It would be fantastic to see a true external body not necessarily to oversee a curriculum (since every program is different anyway) but rather to monitor admissions and credibility in advertising. ITC in Spain comes to mind.
I'm not interested here in arguing what program/course/acronym is better either. Reading back, you can see that I was talking about the individual teacher.
TEFL Int, CELTA, the people I work for, everyone advertises...we haven't even taken online courses into consideration. My point, and there's only one, is that the bs about external moderation should stop. It only harms everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Posts: 4124
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| When CELTA was run by the RSA (is it still?) the examiners would come from the UK. Their costs were one of the reasons CELTA xourses were so expensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My CTEFLA has the RSA and UCLES crests emblazoned on it, and I imagine the CELTA is still the same.
Yeah, it must cost a lot to fly in the Cambridge people to validate a training centre, even if they only visit each one once a year; and given the very (and deliberately*) limited nature of initial training courses, such visits and validations do not guarantee "quality" at all.
*CostaRicaTEFL said:
| Quote: |
| The comment that the TEFL/TESOL cert from TEFL Intl./ Trinity/Cambridge whomever/ is not useful is incorrect. The implication of the post that it's not useful to get a job in the US, Canada or other English speaking country is correct. For one, those are ESL, not EFL positions. Two, it's a different industry, essentially. Three, the TESOL is an introductory cert, not an advanced cert, so why would you be expectiong it to be considered equivalent to a Master's or B.Ed. or some such? |
I'm not having a go at CostaRica here, I'm just using the quote as a springboard into a general rant about the inadequacies of intitial training: I find it is interesting that there is this division between "basic meat and potatoes" and "advanced new and improved super-strength washes whiter than white" teaching methods (as reflected in the divisions between certificate-level and diploma and/or MA level).
Sure, people often improve and become more "teachable", receptive and ready, through experience, but I can't help feeling that a lot of so-called advanced methods are, when you boil them down, quite basic and not so difficult to grasp, and that a lot of the basic things are, in fact, more rhetorical flourishes than having any real substance and worth. The net result of current divide-and-rule-and-make-more-money approaches to training is that many so-called "experienced" teachers (min. certificate level) really don't have a clue what they are doing and are not being as effective as they could be, whilst many so-called "well qualified" teachers (Dip and/or MA) are hardly rocket scientists (they sometimes do actually still have to teach that thing called English from time to time, and probably go about many things in ways that are very little different from experienced but less well-qualified teachers). I think there is a strong case to be made for covering e.g. the DELTA syllabus at and as the initial, bare-minimum level (that is, combining certificate and diploma level qualifications; perhaps a flimsy certificate could be offered for those who absolutely insist on getting into teaching as soon as possible, but I for one wouldn't've minded going into more depth and saving a bit of money by covering DELTA-level stuff in the first month rather than certificate-level, totally-separate-bog-standard-qualification pap).
The main purpose of training should obviously be to show people how to do something in general, but it should not be in the business of setting limits or ever implying 'This is all that is possible for you to do at this moment and forever more', which is what a lot of training feels like and seems to be saying. I'd really like the genuine gaps and problems in teaching to be identified rather than papered over, and some time spent on considering ways in which those gaps could be filled (often this would only involve bringing together the work of two or three often less well-known authors, rather than just trying to get by and muddle along with the very generalizing views of the set text's one). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kcat
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CostaRicaTEFL wrote: |
| Stephen Jones wrote: |
| Quote: |
| s for the legality of teaching: you were not told it was LEGAL to teach without a degree, you were told it is possible, which is true. We give job assistance. Part of that is an honest assessment of the job market. One of the realities of the job market is that some people will hire people without degrees. Do we encourage it? No. |
But do you take the punters money anyway? Isn't that the question? |
This is irrelevant, is it not? This thread is not about ethics, it's about misinformation. However, One, I don't make the decisions about who is or isn't on the course. Two, as I stated, each person takes the course for their own reasons, none of which are up to me, so I don't understand your question in the first place.
I have a responsibility to tell them what we do, they have a responsibility to decide what they want to do with their time and money. For example, I have had a trainee who was actually just under eighteen. We vetted them thoroughly, decided they were mature enough (our standard age limit is 19) and accepted them. Since they were just under 18 I almost considered having them sign an affidavit that we were NOT endorsing underage work, but they were turning 18 literally a week or two after they completed the course, so.... And their reason for getting the cert? Volunteer work. They were already making arrangements to volunteer in India. Should I say no because they didn't have a degree? Not a simple yes/no.
Pura Vida! |
I dont know how to reply to all participants but here is some feedback (neutral b ecause they have no competetive need as they are HD for a MA program in N. America (Ontario, and yes, a university), I did not ask permission to use their name:
Hello "",
TESL Ontario and TESL Canada publish the institutions that are
recognized
as providing appropriate education and training for certification
purposes. If you go to the TESL Ontario web site at
http://www.teslontario.org/new/cert/cert_ontcert.htm
you'll see a pull down menu on the right for "Recognized Training
Institutions". All the institutions recognized so far are in Canada
(all
but one in Ontario). You'll notice that just about all the programs
require more classroom time than can be put into a one-month course. I
doubt that such a program would become eligible, regardless of where
it's
offered. Please note that there is considerable discussion about
whether
the requirements should be increased (especially in terms of classroom
hours/duration of a program) and whether distance program should no
longer
be eligible (the lack of direct contact and interaction is seen as
problematic by many professionals). Institutions that are granted
certification need to re-apply periodically, so no institution is
guaranteed its status unless standards are maintained.
Taking a one-month course may be very helpful to an individual who does
not
have access to much professional education and development and your
friend
may find it very helpful if it's the only education she can obtain and she doesn't mind the price (I might add that the idea behind the advertising is often "learn and feel like you are taking a holiday in an exotic place-"education merged with vacation" and it does do that). However, these short programs tend to be
unrealistically
expensive and your friend should check carefully into the credibility
of
the program (many such programs are offered by individuals who have no
TESL
experience themselves!). She should understand that organizations such
as
TEFL International are in existence primarily to make money...If she is
serious about a career in TESL, she might consider taking a program
that is
recognized world-wide (such as a program given at a university if she already has a BA)
I hope this helps!
Best,
""
H.M. """, "" University |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kcat
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guy Courchesne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| efforts to downplay external moderation and dismissive tone about the acronyms. |
No, I made no such 'downplay'. I point out the utter lack of external moderation. The key question you didn't address is who externally moderates TEFL or CELTA for that matter. There are a number of threads in the Teacher Training forum on this topic. I object to the use of the phrase as being misleading to those who wonder about external moderation and accredited course providers.
It would be fantastic to see a true external body not necessarily to oversee a curriculum (since every program is different anyway) but rather to monitor admissions and credibility in advertising. ITC in Spain comes to mind.
I'm not interested here in arguing what program/course/acronym is better either. Reading back, you can see that I was talking about the individual teacher.
TEFL Int, CELTA, the people I work for, everyone advertises...we haven't even taken online courses into consideration. My point, and there's only one, is that the bs about external moderation should stop. It only harms everyone. |
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:24 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CostaRicaTEFL wrote:
Stephen Jones wrote:
Quote:
s for the legality of teaching: you were not told it was LEGAL to teach without a degree, you were told it is possible, which is true. We give job assistance. Part of that is an honest assessment of the job market. One of the realities of the job market is that some people will hire people without degrees. Do we encourage it? No.
But do you take the punters money anyway? Isn't that the question?
This is irrelevant, is it not? This thread is not about ethics, it's about misinformation. However, One, I don't make the decisions about who is or isn't on the course. Two, as I stated, each person takes the course for their own reasons, none of which are up to me, so I don't understand your question in the first place.
I have a responsibility to tell them what we do, they have a responsibility to decide what they want to do with their time and money. For example, I have had a trainee who was actually just under eighteen. We vetted them thoroughly, decided they were mature enough (our standard age limit is 19) and accepted them. Since they were just under 18 I almost considered having them sign an affidavit that we were NOT endorsing underage work, but they were turning 18 literally a week or two after they completed the course, so.... And their reason for getting the cert? Volunteer work. They were already making arrangements to volunteer in India. Should I say no because they didn't have a degree? Not a simple yes/no.
Pura Vida!
I dont know how to reply to all participants but here is some feedback (neutral b ecause they have no competetive need as they are HD for a MA program in N. America (Ontario, and yes, a university), I did not ask permission to use their name:
Hello "",
TESL Ontario and TESL Canada publish the institutions that are
recognized
as providing appropriate education and training for certification
purposes. If you go to the TESL Ontario web site at
http://www.teslontario.org/new/cert/cert_ontcert.htm
you'll see a pull down menu on the right for "Recognized Training
Institutions". All the institutions recognized so far are in Canada
(all
but one in Ontario). You'll notice that just about all the programs
require more classroom time than can be put into a one-month course. I
doubt that such a program would become eligible, regardless of where
it's
offered. Please note that there is considerable discussion about
whether
the requirements should be increased (especially in terms of classroom
hours/duration of a program) and whether distance program should no
longer
be eligible (the lack of direct contact and interaction is seen as
problematic by many professionals). Institutions that are granted
certification need to re-apply periodically, so no institution is
guaranteed its status unless standards are maintained.
Taking a one-month course may be very helpful to an individual who does
not
have access to much professional education and development and your
friend
may find it very helpful if it's the only education she can obtain and she doesn't mind the price (I might add that the idea behind the advertising is often "learn and feel like you are taking a holiday in an exotic place-"education merged with vacation" and it does do that). However, these short programs tend to be
unrealistically
expensive and your friend should check carefully into the credibility
of
the program (many such programs are offered by individuals who have no
TESL
experience themselves!). She should understand that organizations such
as
TEFL International are in existence primarily to make money...If she is
serious about a career in TESL, she might consider taking a program
that is
recognized world-wide (such as a program given at a university if she already has a BA)
I hope this helps!
Best,
""
H.M. """, "" University |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kcat
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CostaRicaTEFL wrote: |
Well hello all,
This thread has turned quite interesting. Guy, seems you work for none of the Big Three (and I say that playfully) which explains your efforts to downplay external moderation and dismissive tone about the acronyms.
However, your statements as to whether you have something against TEFL seem somewhat contradictory, which is fine. We're competition and, I would guess, better known than the program you work for? Why wouldn't you want to give an impression that external moderation is not important? Personally, can't imagine being a teacher without getting on-going feedback on the my teaching. I think that also applies to the program I teach in. I want external validation.
Theoretically, don't know that CELTA vs. TEFL Intl. vs. whomever is the point. There are numerous issues involved and the choice is a very personal one. It's not a one-size-fits-all-situation. And, yes, in the final outcome, the program design and ability of the trainers is paramount and certainly there are bound to be some dedicated people out there doing some good training. However, would I encourage someone to attend a course that is not validated? Never.
As for who I am: sorry, thought my handle and the use of certain pronouns made it pretty clear I work with TEFL Intl.
ckat: sorry you didn't join the course. Your reason was your own, though it was surprising to me. As for the legality of teaching: you were not told it was LEGAL to teach without a degree, you were told it is possible, which is true. We give job assistance. Part of that is an honest assessment of the job market. One of the realities of the job market is that some people will hire people without degrees. Do we encourage it? No. Do we recognize it happens? Yes. Do we tell people without degrees that their choice to attend the course is theirs, is personal, and what the realities of work are? Yes. Does everyone take the course to go get a job right away? No. Further, a reality of the industry is that a large percentage of people in the industry do, indeed, work illegally, with or without the degree. In every country. Do I like that? No. Will I tell prospective attendees the reality of the situation? Yes. How else are they going to make an informed decision?
General point: I wasn't trying to defend TEFL Intl, I was simply correcting some mistatements made on the forum. I don't have much of an opinion about CELTA. I do know our course is better suited to prepare you to deal with various age levels. However, they do have other certs for that.
General point two: The comment that the TEFL/TESOL cert from TEFL Intl./ Trinity/Cambridge whomever/ is not useful is incorrect. The implication of the post that it's not useful to get a job in the US, Canada or other English speaking country is correct. For one, those are ESL, not EFL positions. Two, it's a different industry, essentially. Three, the TESOL is an introductory cert, not an advanced cert, so why would you be expectiong it to be considered equivalent to a Master's or B.Ed. or some such?
Not interested in a debate about which program is better, just wanted to clear up some incorrect statements about TEFL Intl.
Been interesting,
CostaRicaTEFL |
And Sir, I wish I could tell you that those words were used but I was told otherwise. I was told blatantly DISHONEST information and I was shocked because I KNOW otherwise having lived in the country spoken about. THE REP AGREED WITH ME AND PRETTY MUCH SAID THEY COULD CARE LESS, and even went so far as to treat me rudely. I might have taken the course had they not been so terribly rude to be honest...I fault the representative for that, it was a rep that ansered direct questions falsely |
|
| 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
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
