Job Discussion Forums

[eslstudies]

Grammar is only one aspect of language. Context, modality, field and tenor are all areas of great importance not covered by the concept. I've got no idea of CELTA as I did my TESOL work through a university, but knowing grammar and teaching a language as a holistic entity are different things.

[coffeedrinker]

I did the celta and while they recommended a book on grammar, I believe, there was very very little in the course along the lines of "this is past perfect; if + past perfect, would have + past participle is third conditional; we say going to when it's an intention and use will for spontaneous decisions."

We generally figured out what each of us would teach (divided the book or however), and then it was up to us individually to think about how to present a the grammar point - and not every lesson was a grammar lesson. There were observations to see other teachers in action, sometimes teaching grammar, but the focus was more on doing the research if necessary (and it usually was necessary) on whatever particular grammar point came up and then the assessment made based on our actual performance...sometimes what you learn is also what doesn't work...

There was some explicit instruction on techniques like using examples or context to illustrate some grammar point, using timelines for tenses, but it was more about the strategy than the grammar points in particular - and really, I don't think it is possible to "teach" all grammar points in that time frame...some come up, and my impression is that you are not penalized for not knowing a lot about grammar to begin with, but it is important to figure out - somewhat independently - how to convey whatever grammar point you "get" and/or to reflect on how it could be conveyed better or in other ways.


Sorry to be so long winded...
I do agree with the OP that the sending of this letter, especially because of the timing, doesn't give a particularly good impression of the school. But this is my impression of how grammar fits into the celta, so maybe it provides more insight into how it will be/what they expect.

[Gordon]

[coffeedrinker]

oh, no, you qouted me before I went back to correct my bad grammar!

see, knowing grammar isn't actually that important...thank goodness they didn't assess me on my eslcafe posts...

[Gordon]

[Aussie Chick]

The school has responded:

[Gordon]

[fluffyhamster]

Yet more mistakes from those dolts:

[fluffyhamster]

And of course, another reason you could fail is because of the potential failings of the trainers themselves: unclear and/or arguable statements, unconvincing activities, favoritism, general failure to convey or even adequately cover whatever point or area etc etc.

[denise]

[eslstudies]

[denise]

Eslstudies,

I think psycho- and sociolinguistics are a bit beyond the scope of a four-week course. TEFL training courses (and I confess that mine wasn't a CELTA, but all these years I've assumed they are basically the same, plus or minus the brand name) are more practical--crash courses in methodology and techniques, enough to prepare teachers to plan and deliver lessons. I think anything beyond that comes up in MA programs. Maybe new teachers should have that training, but there are plenty of employers out there willing to hire them with only TEFL certificates and there are plenty of TEFL certificates that don't cover more than the basics.

...Unless I'm wrong and the CELTA is in fact different? I'd bet, though, that when they say "analysing and explaining language," they do mean teaching specific grammar points or being able to explain them as they come up (e.g., in student errors) even if they are not explicitly teaching them.

And people with backgrounds in psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics should ideally be qualified for different types of teaching--not just in the standard language institute. I think they'd be over-qualified for those jobs.

Anyway, back to AussieChick's problem...

d

[coffeedrinker]

My impression from my celta - now 5 years ago - was that in general the grammar portion involved using some appropriate context, eliciting some of the rules (using "guided discovery" I guess they referred to it as), being able to clarify those rules with examples, and then providing "restricted" and "freer" practice. This kind of boils down to following, with some adaptations, a good book, and not going into a whole lot more detail than required to do the practice exercises.

In mine, they covered correction techniques but I don't remember feeling expected to deal with (as in explain) any random grammar point as it might come up in student errors....

Looking back I feel like the ability to prepare a thought out lesson on whatever (sometimes but not always a grammar point) was most important - so thinking analytically about potential problems and planning to address them was important; "just knowing" a variety of grammatical rules or explanations off the top of your head was not (though of course students may well expect that when you start teaching)

From Gordon's post - and other examples I've heard elsewhere - it seems like the celta is fairly uniform, so this may be what they are getting at too.

[Henry_Cowell]

[VanKen]