Job Discussion Forums

[Kent F. Kruhoeffer]

I voted 'no' in the OP's poll. Speaking the language of your host country is helpful, VERY helpful - not only as a teacher but when it comes to life outside the classroom - but, it's not necessary, imo. People can and do get along fine in foreign countries without speaking a word of the local language. On a personal note, I've always made the effort to pick up at least the 'basics' of the language in the country where I'm living, but that's usually more out of respect than necessity.

[denise]

If it were a requirement, I'd be limited to Spanish-speaking South America and Central America, and yet I've survived and even thrived in many other places.

I do think that at the very least, maybe on the flight over, you should learn things like "hello", "please", and "thank you." And once you're there, by all means learn enough to order food, ask when the train is leaving, etc.--these things will just make your life easier. And move beyond that as interest and time allow. I've used self-study books, taken informal classes offered at my schools, and had conversation partners. I didn't progress very far, but the experience of learning I think helps your credibility as a teacher.

But as a prerequisite... those of us who have globe-trotted in this job or who don't know exactly where to go next and have options in different countries would need to be septi-lingual. (Yes, I know that some people are already, but it's quite a high expectation!)

d

[Kent F. Kruhoeffer]

PS. I can swear fluently in 9 languages now.

[denise]

[Girl Scout]

No. That is not what our job. We are English teachers. We need to know our own language and be able to use it properly (language use on a forum does not count) and explain at a level our students can grasp.

[spiral78]

Thanks, guys.
To re-iterate, the poster I'm referring to in the poll insists that it is necessary to have basic fluency in the language before landing, otherwise the newb is doomed to 'crash and burn.'

Obviously, proficiency in foreign languages is HIGHLY desirable.

But if we required all newbies to be functional in, say, Czech, before they arrive, we'd have nearly no teachers in Prague. The literally thousands who DO arrive without Czech skills in advance perform all over the scale, from badly to absolute star level.

INTEREST in learning the local language may well be an indicator of how well a teacher is going to do overall, but saying that newbies HAVE TO HAVE some level of the language before landing is ridiculous. In my view

[ITTP]

I also voted NO.
From experience I feel that schools tend to prefer teachers who have little or no experience of the local language; a more authentic native speaking teacher experience (which is what their students are paying for).

[denise]

[ls650]

[johnslat]

Dear fluffyhamster,

"Hi Johnslat. Since when did the average English teacher have to 'speak before an unfriendly crowd at the local university (or at embassy gates), much less...in front of a television camera and give a clear, engaging and cogent discussion of U.S. foreign policy'?"

Aha - yet further proof (if any were needed) that I am not an "average English teacher."

In 1979, when I was at Pahlavi University (now called Shiraz University) in Iran, the Islamic Revolution was starting to heat up. As I was teaching a class, a crowd of students on strike attempted to enter the classroom and either persuade or intimidate the students in my class into joining them.

So, naturally, I "spoke to the unfriendly crowd" to tell them why, by acting as they were, they were infringing upon the right of my students to be in class if they wanted to do so, and to point out that their behavior was, in fact, very similar to that of the Shah's goons.

They left and class continued.

But OK, OK - it's a darn good thing they all spoke English, because, since I'd been in Iran for about only 4 months at that time, my Farsi really (to use the technical, linguistic term) sucked.

Regards,
John

[Mike_2007]

I voted no. It's not necessary to know the students' L1 in order to teach them English. If it were, we wouldn't have students coming to language classes in countries where the first language is English and learning successfully.

However, if you are teaching abroad you'll probably be a more successful teacher if you do learn your students' language. I've learnt both Turkish and Romanian and leaving aside for the moment the issue of getting more out of the whole living abroad experience, knowing the languages has helped me in several ways.

- It allows me to predict exactly where I'm going to encounter problems with their acquisition of English so when I'm planning a course I know that certain subjects will need more work than others.

- It helps me understand why they make certain mistakes and to spot misunderstandings which might otherwise pass unnoticed. For example. the Romanian word for 'sensitive' is 'sensibil'. If you were unaware of this and a student described someone as being 'sensible' you probably wouldn't think to double check.

- It helps me understand the difficulties of learning a foreign language, the frustrations, the importance of practice time, how tiring it is when you are a low-level learner to speak a foreign language for an extended period of time, and so on.

So no, it's not 'necessary' but it will certainly make you a better, more effective and more understanding teacher.

Cheers,
Mike

[naturegirl321]

In the classroom it's not necessary, but it makes your daily life a lot easier.

[denise]

[naturegirl321]

But it happens a lot, especially in places like China. You meet a local who speaks English and then have no need to learn the local langauge. I consider myself an immigrant, bought a house here, married a local and in November will be getting citizenship.

[jpvanderwerf2001]

You don't need to know the native language well, although basic things like being able to read definitely helps. I've never avidly studied the language of any of the places I've taught, and have had a fruitful eight years of teaching.
I still don't know Russian too well, but have a very good job, a Russian wife, have plenty of social contacts and have managed to live here for three years. So I guess language isn't everything.
I'm not saying learning the language of the place you're at isn't a good thing--it is, and I commend those who take it on--it's just not essential.
In my experience, those who say you must have the local language are those who are in the country to learn the language and the culture and can't fathom why someone would move to another country and not be interested in those things. However, the fact of the matter is that some people go simply to teach English (as it's their job/career), and are less inclined to study up on language/culture.
I do not see one as better than the other, simply a case of different motives.