Job Discussion Forums

[redsoxfan]

So that got your attention! I am somewhat playing devil's advocate here, if for no other reason than to hear others' thoughts. I've taught with the Callan Method, and I for one, think it is quite effective in the following manners:

First, it takes about 12 months to complete the method, if it is taught properly. Most students, upon finishing, will have learned the lion's share of the 4000 vocab words. That's a lot. They also understand spoken English very well. I find that I can speak conversational English to Callan students on, let's say, stage 5 or 6, and they understand me quite well. Mind you, they have only been studying English for a little over half a year. They are used to the rapid-fire approach of the method, so a conversational rate of speaking is generally no problem for them. Additionally, Callan students, after about a year, will have spoken English much, much more than students learning by traditional methods. The Callan method consists almost entirely of listening and speaking, with token amounts of reading and writing. Again, after only one year of study, most students really do know the vocab, can understand spoken English far better than traditional method students, and have hopefully developed the courage to speak. After all, hearing yourself speak a foreign language can be strange, and many English students could speak much better than they do, but they've convinced themselves that they can't speak--only read and write.

Now, a few criticisms. The method is in desperate need of a revision. Every other textbook is revised, why not Callan? Using "should" for the first person conditional? "I should go to the cinema if I had money." And "Shan't." C'mon, I think students should be taught to speak articulately, but that's too much. Also, the grammar is taught in English. I really don't think that grammar should be taught primarily in a secondary language, especially when the students are not already conversationally fluent. Can you imagine learning Polish grammar in Polish, when you had only been studying Polish for 3 months?! Now, in defense of the Callan method, there is, at my school, a grammar round-up section at the end of each stage which is always done by a Polish teacher, who translates each question into Polish.

I have often heard the criticism that students, even after completing the whole course, cannot speak independently. This is true sometimes, but it is also disputed by the students who can speak English. I would ask such folks this: What method can teach students to be conversationally fluent in English in one year? I've had students who've begun studying by Callan method who had studied English for years and couldn't say peep. They learned more in a month with Callan than they'd learned in years through textbooks. Granted, much of the fault of this lies with their teachers, who certainly didn't push them hard enough. But then again, this is yet another strength of the Callan method--it checks against the plethora of bad teachers who waste students' time. How many English teachers are good teachers, with reference to both public and private schools? I dunno.

I do think that students often emerge from Callan with a sort of robot complex. They are used to being prompted, and poor students sometimes use this as an excuse to put thinking on the back burner. However, poor students, I believe, still learn more through Callan. Basically, I think that if a student attends class and has half a brain, she will have a very strong basis from which to begin to speak conversational English independently. Even if she needs to shake off a few bad habits acquired from Callan.

The reason that many teachers, many of whom having never taught Callan method, foam at the mouth at the very mention of the word, is this: If the claims of the method are true--that is, that it teaches English four times faster than traditional methods (I think maybe 3 times faster in reality, but who knows), the qualifications of English teachers are rendered less important. I think often, though certainly not always, the knee-jerk reaction to the method is based on ego more than a genuine concern for teaching English efficiently.

My girlfriend taught me Polish with Callan method (with some heavy-handed editing of irrelevancies like the grammar) and my sentiments were only confirmed.

Let the roasting begin!

[Alex Shulgin]

There could be a single perfect language teaching method, if all learners were the same. They aren't, so there isn't.

The best method is always the one which works best with that particular student. Rigidly following one method will inevitably mean some students don't learn as well or as fast as they could.

[redsoxfan]

Yes, that's true. I, for one, am a visual learner. I will continue to ask for translations of the same word into Polish until I see it. But I think the "differences" between students are often exaggerated--the real differences are that some students are more intellegent, better at languages, harder-working and more attentive than others. Look, the Callan method is just questions and answers, over and over. That's what a language is--questions and answers. If a student has problems with the very notion of questions and answers, well...I don't know what to tell you! Maybe he or she should repeat a lower stage of the method, or study harder at home. Or attend class--because, in my experience, there is a noticeable correlation between class attendence and ability in my Callan classes.

Furthermore, for a moment, forget the name "Callan." The underlying logic of the method is so clearly correct to me: introduce a few new words, and ask questions and elicit answers. Then introduce a few more...just keep building off what the students know. It's so natural, simple and efficient. Also, the reason that Callan students usually learn faster is that there is no wasted time--and you can only have no wasted time--not even 15 seconds a class--when you have a rigid method that is planned out precisely. Otherwise, there is so much time wasted. When I taught traditional methods last year, I was so frustrated because I knew that the amount of English--that is, words/minute--being spoken was a small fraction of what it should be. Look, when a student spends four seconds trying to think of a word, that's four wasted seconds for every student in the class. And when every student wastes four seconds per word, twice per sentence, the effect is that the amount of CORRECT English being spoken is a small fraction of what it should be. Until students can speak English rather well, the teacher should tell the student the correct word, the student should say it, and the class moves on. Traditional methods, to me, are usually sloppy in their logic. Learning a language efficiently requires a scientifically sound method. Traditional courses, to me, are usually the equivalent of stabbing blindly in the dark for success. Callan is almost military-like in its form; it's not pretty, it's not funny, it's annoying, but it works.

Finally, I want to make it clear that I am only advocating the method until the intermediate level. After a student is at a solid intermediate level of English, she should switch to more conversational and, dare I say, traditional methods, with a heavy dose of grammar. The Callan method puts most students at an (almost) intermediate level in about a year. That's impressive. The poor students would be even worse if they didn't study with such a method. That's just my two cents. If you want more criticisms of the method, I would be more than happy to oblige, because there are plenty of things that are bothersome!

[gregoryfromcali]

[slodziak]

The Callan is method is taught extensively throughout Europe and Asia; for any method to prove this popular it must have something to it. While I have no personal experience teaching or being taught the Callan way I know students and teachers who have. It is fair to say that most of the negative criticism comes from teachers who seem to find the method restrictive and dull. However I have been told that there is a relative amount of flexibility afforded the teacher in certain schools; in some cases the teacher only has to use Callan as a base on which to build there own style of lesson. Students on the other hand seem rather more positive in their appraisal of learning the Callan way � on the whole they believe it really works for them. I have to say from meeting some of them they are right; they communicate with me with a lot of confidence and accuracy � quite impressive.

However this reply is more a response to this quote:

[The reason that many teachers, many of whom having never taught Callan method, foam at the mouth at the very mention of the word, is this: If the claims of the method are true--that is, that it teaches English four times faster than traditional methods (I think maybe 3 times faster in reality, but who knows), the qualifications of English teachers are rendered less important. I think often, though certainly not always, the knee-jerk reaction to the method is based on ego more than a genuine concern for teaching English efficiently.]

While I am sure that redsoxfan has written this more as an instrument to stir the ardor of a well qualified teacher like myself than any well thought through ridicule on the virtue of qualifications I nonetheless feel obliged to reply.

Comparing the speed a student can learn English to the rendering less important of teaching qualifications is banal claptrap. There are several reasons why I say this, I list a couple of them below.

Firstly, as a student you want to know your teacher has mastery not only over their own language but over many of the grammatical and lexical laws that govern it; you want to know that you can stop your teacher at any point, ask a question and get an answer based in sound linguistic knowledge � a qualification (or lack of one) while by no means guaranteeing the ability of your teacher to do this, is at least an indicator of what you might expect from them. As a Callan teacher I would feel much happier and more confident in my teaching if I knew I had the respect of my students because of my ability to answer questions satisfactorily and that I was backed up with a good qualification.

Secondly, while it is clear that the �military� like method of Callan works it is equally apparent to me that a more dynamic style of teaching is also highly effective. Students like flexibility in the classroom. A key skill of a teacher is to spot when students are beginning to get bored with an exercise and then change - keeping the classroom alive and fun. I am not saying that Callan is boring for students (even though the promotional video on the Callan website (http://www.callan.co.uk/engindex.htm) shows a bunch of students who seem to have passed their tedium threshold sometime in the last century) I am saying that they learn more effectively in a dynamic classroom. Students have to be motivated to learn; at the beginning of the course the motivation can be an intrinsic need for self betterment or an extrinsic desire to help their career, if you add to that an extrinsic joy of going to lessons you know you have a student who is going to learn well. Again qualifications are an important way of gaining this skill. I know that without the CELTA I would be stuck in many situations in which the students have ceased to find my lessons interesting. Gaining qualifications beyond the CELTA have only added to my confidence in attracting and maintaining student motivation.

I could go on but I don�t want to bore anyone who has already been generous enough to read this far.

I am interested, redsoxfan, in how long you have been teaching the Callan method and how long you wish to continue teaching it. Is it something you can see yourself doing for the rest of your career? I am in English teaching for life, I enjoy it and I find it very rewarding. Without the chance of gaining more knowledge and having qualification goals in front of me I would feel much less inclined to feel satisfied with what I was doing. Do you feel the same?

You could be right about ego though.

Well done for getting me riled; it�s a good post and I look forward to reading more replies.

[redsoxfan]

gregoryfromcali wrote:

[gregoryfromcali]

[gregoryfromcali]

By the way if you read my reply this morning I've edited my post since then.

[redsoxfan]

This posting is a response to the thoughts of gregoryfromcali:

[biffinbridge]

Cue,reponse,reward=A.L.M..
Panned by everyone in modern T.E.F.L...............used mainly in the U.S. military these days.I mean the teachers don't even need any qualifications.Anyone can read a scripted lesson.

[redsoxfan]

[Mark Loyd]

You might change your mind if you had to teach the American Language Course from Defence Language Istitute, Still in use in some Gulf countries.

[Alex Shulgin]

[redsoxfan]

Alex Shulgin wrote:

[biffinbridge]

As my father was a fighter pilot,my brother in a tank regiment and my brother- in- law a Royal Marine ,I really fail to see how I can be accused of being 'against the military.'.....so here we go.
I suggest to any Callan teacher that you read Harmer's 'The Practice of English Language Teaching' if you want a quick overview of the numerous, different approaches,methods and techniques that one can use in the E.L.T. classroom.
Direct approaches based on repetition have long been shunned by just about every serious academic in the E.F.L.. world.These days teachers are more concerned with more learner centred teaching approches/techniques like Guided Discovery and Task Based Learning....finely tuned language input has been replaced by rough tuning although it must be said that any lesson involving new language input will inevitably include a stage that concentrates on accuracy.How can you encourage learner independence when the lesson is completely reliant on a parrot up front?
Callan,like Berlitz sell a package and we all know that it's just bull**** marketing without any real academic content.Compare a book like Cutting Edge to a book like Streamline Departures and you'll see why the cue response method has been discarded by any school that requires its teachers to have qualifications.
Nuff said.