Job Discussion Forums

alexcase · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 215 Location: Seoul

I think you are both right. It is probably one of the biggest problems the teachers face but almost certainly not one of the main reasons students will be unhappy. For one thing, it will be very difficult for most of them to divide the lesson from the materials. To give an example, when I was a teacher trainer we spent an hour showing the trainees what a good and bad textbook could be and when they saw the real examples they all picked the prettiest!

Temujin · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 90 Location: Osaka

Symphany · Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 117

Temujin, alot of people like to take easy potshots at teachers who are "untrained"( ie don't have a BEd, masters or PhD in a teaching related subject). I take offense to that considering I did a year long certificate course in TEFL before I came over, and I have met others who have English and other humanities majors who are hard working and do just fine helping students to progress.

Its not the teachers who prevent students from learning (in many an institution I might add) its the system that hampers them from doing their jobs that carries most of the blame. Have you had a look at the Nova textbook and what the teachers have to go on for an entire 40 minute lesson with no extra help?

Nova uses a conversational approach, which is used at more than one school that I can think of, and although it isn't bogged down with grammar it is a system that can help the student if the teacher has enough of his or her own capabilities to do so. This can come in a short amount of time, or a long one, depending on the individual teacher's ability to bring it out of the students.

The point the OP was trying to make and that I agree with is that the book could be more grammar focused. Not to the point that the lesson becomes an introductory grammar course, because we lose the conversational element at that point, but enough grammar built into the lessons to be actually useful.

Back to the issue of the teachers being "untrained" I'd imagine a good deal of Eikawa see the fact that teachers have been educated for a minimum of 16 years in their home countries, which are English speaking and that they wouldn't have earned degrees if they weren't able to carry on a conversation in English. The companies and consumer demand set the guidelines, and at this point in time we don't need PhDs to begin teaching low level English conversation at conversation schools for a pittance.

As far as becoming more advanced in the job, which can only help the teachers and the students more, that's where proper materials and extra training come in, and would give everyone less of a headache at the end of the day.

furiousmilksheikali · Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:35 am Post subject: Re: Text

SeasonedVet · Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 236 Location: Japan

Sorry I made a mistake in my previous post. I said

SeasonedVet · Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 236 Location: Japan

Temujin wrote

jotham · Joined: 05 Jul 2007 Posts: 77

Temujin · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 90 Location: Osaka

I wasn't criticising anyone in particular, I was just saying that I wouldn't want to pay for a lesson with an untrained teacher. If you did train before you came then I don't quite see why you're taking offense. I do however think that the majority of lesson quality complaints result from the fact that a majority of new Nova teachers only receive 3 days of training. I don't really think that the textbook is any major factor, certainly not in comparison to this glaring and fundamental issue.

chollimaspeed · Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Posts: 120

Remember, NOVA's textbooks are the big issue! Changing the texts could sort all their problems out!

Laughing

Noxness · Joined: 29 May 2007 Posts: 15 Location: Toronto, ON

SeasonedVet · Joined: 28 Aug 2006 Posts: 236 Location: Japan

chollimaspeed wrote:

flyer · Joined: 16 May 2003 Posts: 539 Location: Sapporo Japan

gaijin4life · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:28 am Post subject:

Having done time at eikaiwa, though luckily not Nova, I can understand where the 'they dont need grammar; they just need to speak, speak, speak..' argument is coming from.

Also, as most J students tend to mostly get grammar instruction at school, - give or take a genki foreign ALT bouncing around the place, it is true that students generally lack opportunities to speak.

Having said that, in my experience of workn at eikaiwa, most students still need or appreciate a grammar point that links to whatever they are speaking about .. Ofcourse students learn in different ways, but from what Ive seen, a bit of grammar doesnt hurt in the speaking practise.

My 5 cents worth .. Very Happy

Hoser · Joined: 19 Mar 2005 Posts: 694 Location: Toronto, Canada

I don't buy that 'they learn grammar in school' bit. If that were true (I'm sure they're taught it but do they actually learn it?) then it wouldn't be such god awful shiite in my lessons. If they really did have their grammar down then we could simply focus on things like listening and pronunciation and intonation and slang and idioms. But mid-level students constantly make basic errors that I (a very poor Japanese speaker) would never make in Japanese.

alexrocks · Joined: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 75 Location: Kyoto, Japan

Hoser, if you're such a poor speaker, then how would you know when you're making mistakes? Students of a foreign language can make the same mistake for years, all the while thinking they are speaking correct grammar--until someone finally takes the time to correct them. It's certainly happened to me while studying Japanese.