Job Discussion Forums

[ecalpemos]

Hi, I am a qualified teacher, a B.Ed (HONS), and am teaching in London. I know that a TEFL course will not make me a better teacher but it will be something which allows me to work more easily in other countries teaching adults. Anyone have any suggestions about the type of TEFL course which would suit me best, I would like to work in Asia initially but am then going to move on and would like the chance to work with some of the bigger organisations like ACE or British Council.
Thanks in advance for your time.

A

[camo]

if you have any success finding a good course please let me know ecalpemos!
Im in the exact same situation.

[naturegirl321]

CELTA or Trinity are the big names. Other than that, any course with 120 hours and 6 hours teaching students SHOULD be good, but look at its website and do searches here to find out about its reputation.

[Justin Trullinger]

Look. If you're sure you're not gonna learn anything, why bother? I run a rather good TESOL course, and teachers who have experience and training in another area of education, and assume it means they already know how to teach English, when they have experience, for example, in high school social studies, are a real pain. Teaching experience and training is a help, don't get me wrong, but unless your experience and training are in teaching English to non-English speakers, you don't know how to do it.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong; if so, sorry. But your "I know it won't make me a better teacher" comment struck me the wrong way. I'm sure you're a good teacher, doing what you do now. But if what you do now isn't EFL, a good TEFL/TESOL/CELTA course really could help you to be more ready, and more effective, at EFL. THat's what they're for. Helping people starting out in EFL to be ready.

NG is right, Trinity and CELTA are big names, and pretty reliable. I'd add SIT TESOL.

But if you're not interested in learning to teach EFL, that's fine too. WIth your current quals, without further investment, there's no reason you couldn't work in international schools. The pay's good in most of these, and you get the overseas experience without further training.


Best,
Justin

[spiral78]

I have to second Justin's remarks. I, too, transferred out of another field of education into TEFL (and now have an MA in the field). The approaches and methods used in language teaching (especially working with adults) are very different to those used in other fields of education.

While having teaching experience carries some benefits, they can be outweighed by adherence to tactics that aren't applicable to language learning.

[denise]

I agree with Justin and spiral78--not only because teaching a language is NOT like teaching a content course (I don't kid myself--I can teach language and teaching methodologies, but put me in, say, a math class, and I'd be lost). I recall some of the trained teachers on my TEFL course having a harder time than us total newbies, because they had learn new strategies and forget what they had been doing in their own classrooms. They couldn't simply teach EFL the way they taught second grade.

I also think it's sad when teachers think that more training won't help them improve. Teachers should ALWAYS be willing to learn something new.

And then there's the age factor--"normal" teachers (like, content teachers) tend to teach children or teenagers, maybe university-aged students. You want to teach adults? They're different.

d

[ecalpemos]

Hi again, sorry if it came over the wrong way but I have fourteen years of teaching experience, nine of which are in teaching English to non-english speakers. It is just that having spoken to ACE in Viet Nam, they tell me that my qualification means nothing to them and I will need a TEFL to work with them. If I were simply to turn up and apply it may be another thing but the TEFL seems to be the thing to do. I have of course thought about international schools but would like to combine teaching with another source of income while abroad and these schools do not leave too much time over. With all due respect I do not think I am being arrogant when I say that a four year degree and fourteen years of teaching experience stand me in good stead, the four years of a B.Ed do occaisionally touch on pedagogics. I do not think that four more weeks will make me a better teacher but I do know that it will make me vastly more employable. What I am after really is advice about the form of the course, I am not complaining about having to do it and I am aware of the different ways you can work outside of your home country, I really just need to know about the TEFL. Thanks.
A

[ecalpemos]

I really hope this last post did not come across as arrogant, I am writing quickly at work, I do not want it to sound arrogant, I appreciate all replies, just want to make my situation clearer to get the best responses. Thanks
A

[spiral78]

You've been teaching English to non-native speakers for 9 years - that's relevant.

However, the key question is whether you have any specific training in the field. If not, yes, of course you need some.

I've been in the field a long time, and, honestly, I learn new stuff every day. A good course won't be a waste of your time, in addition to qualifying you for the job(s) of your choice.

My experience and qualifications are stronger than yours (12+ years, BEd., MA TESL/TEFL) and I am not afraid to say that another four weeks of (good, refresher) training would always enhance my own teaching skills to some degree.

A standard basic TEFL training course is 120 hours face-to-face, and includes at least 6 hours of supervised teaching practice with real students (not peer trainees). CELTA is the name brand, but some generic certs also meet the standard.

There are such courses in London, or another option might be to take one in a close-by European city (in Prague, for example, there are several reputable providers, both of name brands and decent generic certs).

[fluffyhamster]

Didn't ACE tell you what certificates they favoured? Even though they're all pretty much of a muchness, they might prefer e.g. the CELTA. If so, and you really want to work for them, then it would make sense to simply go for what they demand/recommend, no? Or are you just wanting us still to agree that the certificates are indeed a bit of a waste of money (especially for somebody like you). If so, I have no problem with that. Most education is an enforced/monitored read-through of books that cost far less than the courses they're "for" (and again, you have the experience with which to relate to and contextualize, visualize etc what such books contain).

[spiral78]

Most education is an enforced/monitored read-through of books that cost far less than the courses they're "for" (and again, you have the experience with which to relate to and contextualize, visualize etc what such books contain).

fluffy, I usually agree with you, but in this case - what reputable teacher training course is based on a course book? The point is the hands-on, supervised teaching practiced with feedback from qualified trainers. That's always valuable, in whatever format.

In my own case, it's team-teaching with qualified colleagues. In my earlier days, it was the supervised teaching practice with feedback from qualified teacher-trainers. The core of a training course is not a force-fed read-through of books!!

[Justin Trullinger]

Who are ACE, and are they selling a course by any chance?

Looks like I've read the situation a bit wrong. And as I said before, sorry.

What have you got, quals wise? If you're gonna do a TEFL, get a good one- search this forum and you'll find a lot of info about what makes a good one. (If you gotta do it, and pay for it, you might as well learn something.)

But I have to say, your experience, and whatever other quals you may have, would certainly seem worth investigating, to me, in an application. If ACE thinks otherwise, are you sure you want to work for them?

YOu might look into SIT TESOL. I believe there's a course in Vietnam, and know there are several in near you in Europe. (I'm on the one in Ecuador- you're welcome, but it's kind of the wrong direction.) I'd recommend them because the level of training their trainers have had is higher than the "TEFL course" norm, and it's more likely to be stimulating to someone who isn't in the classroom for the first time.

I agree with Spiral that with any and all training, you get out of it what you put into it. So if whichever course doesn't help you become a better teacher, that's your choice, and seems to me like a wasteful one.

But I think I understand the frustration of a trained, experienced professional who has been dismissed out of hand for lack of a fairly recent entry level qualification. And if I were you, I'd be quite skeptical of an employer who values a 4 week cert over a B Ed and a decade of experience.


best,
Justin

PS- Now you know; this profession (and it is a profession, for those of us who make it one), is sometimes absolutely crawling with high school and elementary teachers with no language teaching background who tell us that they can do it because they are "real" teachers. Many of us resent it. Next time, make sure we know your background.

[fluffyhamster]

Haven't you heard of reading lists, Spiral? They can help provide a common frame of reference (especially the grammar books) for trainees (assuming they read them and are "on the same page"). (Amazing I know, but nevertheless true! ).

[spiral78]

Yeah, ok, but all the decent TEFL teacher training programmes I know use reading lists as out-of-classtime stuff - the 120 whatever hours is usually nearly ALL active discussion and hands-on trying stuff out.

[fluffyhamster]

I am still a little sceptical of how active and hands-on things can get when a fair percentage of trainees had and still have to be forced kicking and screaming through e.g. a bare-minimum grammar bone-up. ELT discussion and TP often remains more a matter of simply surviving (made easier by the ostensible communication that can always be claimed was taking place, what with the subject content and message being the same garbled mess in most cases), of not doing tooo badly considering, rather than being in any sort of position to easily ace whatever the "mind" is put to. Partly this is the trainees' fault, but partly the trainers (like I say, they often assume or bypass a lot that they could either be less tight-lipped about themselves, or not demand at all of the trainees if there is simply not time for anyone to do the language justice in research if not execution). What I'm implying here is that pre-qualification preparation could ideally do with being much more extensive, and it would be nice if people could save on the certificate course fees and put the money towards more tangible and in-depth stuff (as in books, I would argue), which would all for me logically culminate in doing "just" an MA (and hopefully being better prepared for it). But again, they are expensive and seem to imply that teachers cannot and do not ever attempt to educate and improve themselves. Anyway, for those who complete courses which they consider were helpful and a good investment, who am I to judge beyond the certificate level (which to me is no great achievement, and therefore not such a wonderful investment...but again, that is just IMHO and experience. Some people don't buy or even look at half the books that I do, so they've got to and will sure get their knowledge and education even on such certificate courses! Sorry if that sounds very haughty but it is a fact, and I for one can get a bit tired of the helpless self-pitying whining that some so-called "teachers" indulge in both before and sometimes also after apparently 'otherwise fantastic training').