Job Discussion Forums

[veiledsentiments]

But it's never too late to hit that 'edit' button. Takes less time than typing a new post. You can even edit your posts from last year if you like...

VS

[lall]

Yeah! You can even edit the title of the thread(s), the author of which you are.

Back to the topic, there's nothing like bad grammar, spelling, et al in any prose or poetry that can somehow, (at least for me, it does), distract the reader from the gist of the matter.

I've taught Technical English to engineering students and have stressed upon the importance of correct English, as even a misplaced comma in a contract document can have costly consequences.

[Tom Le Seelleur]

These are the tips by teaching UK guru Geoff Petty. He prefers to refer to what makes an effective teacher.

1. Goals and purpose
� Teaching schemes, and assessment schedules, are at hand
� Aims and objectives are made explicit, and are appropriate for students and syllabus etc
� Context: The relevance and importance of the objectives are stressed persuasively. Links are made to related learning
� Resources are at hand
2. Planning
� Active learning: The lesson requires students to apply and develop the learning described in the objectives.
� An effective plan: well paced, varied, active, interesting, challenging and logically structured
� Individual needs are met: tasks are a mix of mastery and developmental tasks and appeal to different learning styles
� Methods are appropriate to students, objectives, and context
� Key skills are integrated and developed
3. Content and presentation
� Content and instructions are explained clearly at the correct pace, level, breadth, depth, length, and in a logical order
� Presentation is lively and interesting
� Subject knowledge of the teacher is sound
� Voice is clear and easily heard
� Understanding is checked e.g. by question and answer
4. Atmosphere and relationships
� Atmosphere is positive, enthusiastic, purposeful, and warm.
� Inclusivity: Efforts are made to value and include all learners
� Rapport: Efforts are made to achieve mutual respect
� Student � student relationships are good or developed
� Dignity: Learners are treated with respect and dignity, especially when the don�t deserve it (!)
5. The student experience
� Interest: student interest is engaged and sustained.
� Participation: all students take part and keep on task
� Activity: Students develop and apply knowledge and skills, some of the tasks are high order, challenging, and relevant
� Check & Correct: learning, and work in progress is checked and corrected
� Praise/rewards for effort, progress, completion of tasks etc are frequent. Criticism is constructive and positive
� Weaker students are supported and rewarded for effort and the completion of ordinary learning tasks
� Able students: are challenged but supported if necessary
� Autonomy: Students take enough responsibility for their own learning. There is evidence of self-motivation.
� Cooperation: students have an opportunity to work in pairs or groups and to support each other
� Creativity: Students have an opportunity to take control, exercise initiative, and make individual responses
6. Resources
� Adequacy: Resources are adequate, appropriate, effective and up to date
� Handouts OHTs etc are clear, well designed, fit for purpose, and well produced. Extensive writing of notes unnecessary.
� A variety of media and methods are used
� Safety of the equipment and its use are ensured
� Accommodation is appropriate and well managed
� Room layout is appropriate and effective
Achievement of objectives
� Clarity: learning is summarized, clarified and put in context
� Achievement: Students demonstrate that learning has taken place
. Professionalism
� Timekeeping: Teacher arrives and finishes on time and expects their students to do the same.
� Dress and manner are appropriate and professional

[lall]

Yikes! That is a long list, TLS.

You're right. Some of them are attributes of a good teacher.

However, note that the OP has posted a politically-sensitive sub-question.

Eha and John Slattery (in alphabetical order) have done justice to the question.

Yet, the question remains, "What makes a good English (with emphasis on English) teacher?"

IMHO, teaching students about correct spelling and grammar would be as important as teaching them the Englishness of English .

It is generally presumptuous on our part to stress upon the cultural aspects of English and the English-speaking world, when teaching foreign students, because it is wrongly assumed (Let me add the following rider -ie., "IMHO", lest some Netizens begin gunning at my opinion) that the student needs to think in English to be able to express himself well in English.

I've known non-native English speakers write and speak perfect English while being equally competent in at least two other languages.

I'd rather have an Arabic teacher who teaches me correct spelling, grammar, syntax and diction than one who emphatises with me or one who immerses me in the culture.

[eha]

Truly an impressive list. However, my initial problem with the 'checklist' approach to good teaching remains: it would be perfectly possible for someone who was an absolute $hit to get a very high rating on such a 'skills-based' checklist. S/he could make certain that everything required by the assessor was on offer in his/her observed class--- yet s/he could be an underhand, conniving, undermining, unpleasant piece of goods who smarmed all over his/her students because that's what gets contracts renewed; but who had no grasp of human decency as a universal quality rather than as a career-enhancing strategy. In fact, I've known a good many people I was supposed to call 'colleagues' who corresponded to this type--- the point is: shouldn't a teacher be a role model for decency in the first place, at a deeper level than ticking off a list of easily- provided external skills? On this list, even 'Professionalism' is reduced to two points--- punctuality and dress.
I'm afraid my requirements for professionalism go a lot deeper than just looking the part and turning up on time.

[johnslat]

Dear eha,
Amen! I think at least part of the problem in defining "what makes a good teacher" - of English or any other subject - is that teaching, in my opinion, is both a "science" and an "art', one, moreover, practiced not in the relative isolation of the lab or the garret, but through personal interaction with other people.
I'm sure one could be, say, a great physicist or composer, for example, and still be a perfectly horrible human being (Wagner comes to mind), but I don't think one can be a good teacher if, as you so colorfully described it, one were an absolute $hit.
While I hate to get all nebulous and "humanist" on you patient readers, I'd say a lot of being a good teacher depends on those darn intangibles of personality and character.
And that may help account for the fact that it IS so hard to "evaluate" teachers and to award "raises" based on "merit."

Do the students get good grades? Maybe he/she is only teaching to the test or even "helping" the poorer ones "do better."
Do the students like the teacher? Maybe he/she is trying to win the Mr/Ms
Congeniality contest rather than caring about what the students actually learn.
Does the administration like him/her? Yikes - the odds are pretty good he/she is a fawning, back-biting conniver.

It all reminds me of Justice Potter Steward's comment about "hard-core pornography":

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[1]

Yup, me too.

[eha]

'b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "
Unfortunately, John, not everyone knows 'it' when they see 'it'. Many teacher observers are just into skills-type checklists, and wouldn't have a clue what you meant just now, when you suggested that an element of moral depth might be a necessary component of good teaching. Of course, that IS admittedly very difficult to 'evaluate'--- which should give us a bit of insight into the whole concept of 'evaluation'. Such arrogance!

[lall]

Aren't we missing the point?

An English teacher's expected to do just one thing, which is "Teach English".

Don't you think that teaching the following (grammar, spelling, syntax and diction along with information on the various accents prevalent around the English-speaking world) should take precedence over the moral/empathy/cultural issues?

The students are here to learn correct English, not Philosophy, Theology or Psychology. They could well do without a course in the cultural sensitivities, mores and aspects of the Western world, especially if that's to be had at the expense of learning the basics such as grammar, etc.,

Regards,

Lall.

Note: They'll (the students) learn, on their own, that the sentence, "I played with myself" has risqu� connotations as opposed to "I played by myself", though it wouldn't hurt to drop such information for their consumption, during lessons. However, overloading them with extraneous information is always at the expense of the basics.

[Tom Le Seelleur]

What do teachers believe in?

If you went into class and asked the teacher to say what, in teaching terms, they believed in, what answer do you think you would get? What do you believe in, if it comes to that? Do you believe, for example, that all students should be treated equally? If you do, then how does this belief manifest itself in your behaviour in class?

One way of trying to work out why we do the things we do � one fairly easy method of introspection, in other words � is to try and think of the metaphors we use when we think about our chosen profession. What is teaching like? Is it like gardening or conducting or acting? Which profession would be the best preparation for it?

When we are able to understand what it is we think we believe in � through metaphor or even more directly � then we can measure the activities we ask our students to be involved in and measure those activities against the beliefs we hold.

[eha]

lall: you see, to me the 'point' of education is not to transmit a lot of factual information about grammar, chemistry, whatever. Of course we do this; it's the basis for the job. However, to me, more is required to call someone a 'teacher' or an 'educator'. And I'm not talking about 'loads of extraneous information''; I'm talking about what the student learns about acceptable behaviour from watching his/her teachers. In fact, I'm against 'teaching culture', although such activities can be fun as a classroom extra. Rather, take a situation like this: I'm in one classroom telling students that Behaviour X is unacceptable from an educated person, while Colleague McJock is next door gossiping to his students and actually MODELLING that behaviour for them. That's the kind of thing I mean by focussing on 'professionalism'--- it's not just a few external skills: it suggests that one has actually developed in some way from one's education. And by the way, don't say such things don't happen; believe me, they do. And the students see them happen and are confused.

[007]

[johnslat]

Dear lall,
It's not only WHAT you teach that's important, it's HOW you teach it. And of course, the subject matter you're teaching should be the primary objective; no one is suggesting otherwise.
But if you think that the "personality/character" of the teacher isn't at all relevant to student learning in the classroom, I'd say you're quite wrong.
Regards,
John

[lall]

From my point of view, the following is the way I perceive matters:

Firstly, should the subject being taught be mathematics, chemistry or solid state electronics, it would largely depend on the core competence of the teacher to properly transfer knowledge to his/her students. His/her "professionalism" would, I think, take second place.

When it comes to teaching languages, especially to beginners, I believe that the stress should be on issues like grammar and the like. However, soft skills and "professionalism" would also be important, since the social behaviour of the teacher would have a considerable impact on the way students perceive the cultural aspects of that particular language.

Teacher behaviour would be of paramount importance only when it comes to teaching philosophy, psychology, theology and such associated subjects.

[007]

[lall]

Pardon me, folks!

Some clarifications are in order. (Let me mention it here that there's no offence meant, should anyone feel any offence that my post here seems in direct contradiction to their views).

So, here goes!

Remember, this is a thread that concerns teaching English in the ME, with emphasis on the "ME".

Here, I'd go as far to say that that the English teacher in the ME is reqd. to have, at least, a superficial knowledge of Arabic, to be able to transmit the nuances of the English language to his/her students.

If he/she doesn't have that, my advice'd be to stick to strengthening the basics (grammar, spelling, etc., including the correct use of punctuation, the comma be damn*d) of your wards.

Would you be comfortable with an Arabic teacher who wasn't perfect with regard to his/her basics? Believe me, you'd discover his deficiencies in his tutoring of the basics (Note: Not his/her knowledge of the basics), over the period of your training.

Don't imagine that your average Arabian student is otherwise, where English is concerned.

To strengthen my view, here's an analogy.

My maths. (Oops! math.) teacher wasn't too good in English. Yet, I learnt to filter out his errors, because my English teachers were good at their jobs. That my maths. teacher was good at his job too, is borne out by the fact that that most of us scored higher in maths. than the nearest competing school. My English teachers are fondly remembered, too.

In fact, we fondly remember them during our occasional get-togethers, more for their core strengths than for their individual personalities.