Job Discussion Forums

[spiral78]

It's a topic that comes up frequently. In this thread, I'd like to divorce the topic from any specific newbie seeking advice, so that we can rationally discuss the pros and cons of entry-level courses that are done partly on-line.

I think there is general agreement that courses that are entirely on-line are substandard in most regions - this is a 'given' for this thread - at least in my intent!

My reason for this post is that those of us who consistently opt for entirely on-site newbie courses have been called 'stuck in the last century' and other less-than-flattering (or professionally respectful) stuff.

I want to add that, like others here for whom I have a high level of professional respect, I do NOT shun distance learning in entirety. I, too, have a distance, or research-based MA.

The distinction is that a distance/research based MA is undertaken by practicing teachers, with live classrooms in which to apply theory to practice - and the writing tasks demanded by good provider universities are demanding to the level that successful writing is publishable (and, like others on this forum, I've had a few of my 'modular' MA papers published, along with my dissertation). Publishable in itself is not such a big deal - the point is that the research done by an MA candidate is subjected to some serious scrutiny from both tutors and quite likely in the public eye.

*****************************************

I think there are solid reasons for entry level courses to be entirely on-site, such as the CELTA and other generally-respected courses are.

1. Most of 'us' (regulars) maintain that a basic cert course should be done on-site, based partly on the market realities - it's hard to compete successfully if one has a cert that doesn't include the real-student teaching component that pure online newbie courses obviously don't have.

2. There are other, more important reasons (in my opinion) that entry-level courses should be done entirely on-site.

A. Having worked on entry-level generic courses in the past, and being involved in training at 'my' uni now, I can vouch for the fact that it really takes constant collaboration and evaluation on my part to reasonably determine whether a newbie candidate has the team skills, openness, focus, listening skills, and critical thinking skills to
BECOME a decent entry-level teacher.

Trying to evaluate this from someone's writing in response to a set task, or their answers to an on-line test, means that one knows FAR less about a candidate and how he/she works with others - a VITAL skill in any classroom.

A few hours of supervised teaching don't really tell me much about how any candidate works with others consistently. If I am going to put a 'stamp of approval' on a newbie, I want AT LEAST this level of contact - 100 hours. I, as the supervising entity, can lose credibility if a newb crashes and burns.


B. Learning about the theory connected to successful language teaching from ground zero really requires a living laboratory. There are FAR too many variables for this to be done entirely on paper (online, obviously).

If I were less tired, I could probably add C, D, E, etc....However, having had a challenging day, I'll turn this over now to other posters. I expect even stronger points (Justin:)) than I've been able to muster so far.

[Chancellor]

[spiral78]

I thought that by you saying above "I think there is general agreement that courses that are entirely on-line are substandard in most regions - this is a 'given' for this thread - at least in my intent" that it really didn't need further discussion. So, this first point of yours seems unnecessary

I wanted to be crystal clear. I'm allowed to be redundant sometimes:)

Sitting in a classroom listening to some teacher lecture for hours on end and maybe doing some group work with classmates doesn't really say much about a person's potential for teaching since being a student is a whole lot different from being a teacher. If you really want to find out whether someone can be a team player, is open to others, can maintain focus, has good listening and critical thinking skills, etc., talk to that person's current and former employers and ask the right kinds of questions in an interview.

I am not sure what on-site courses you have taken/given/designed/been directly involved in in any way, but listening to teachers lecture for hours on end followed by a groupwork is not a feature of good training courses - or most language classrooms that I have been directly involved with. If lectures are a key feature, then I agree that can be done on-line. But I would argue that it's an ineffective way to transmit ideas in general.

And spreading those few hours out over the course of a month does? Besides, as a course provider it's your job to teach teachers how to teach, not determine whether someone plays well with others (works well with others consistently) - that's for a prospective employer to discover if that's what the employer is looking for.

Working well with others is an essential quality of a successful teacher who works with adult students.

Perhaps this point is indicative of the gap between your perceptions and mine - I am involved with the sector of the teaching market that works exclusively with adult (or near-adult) learners.

[nickpellatt]

Generally, Im a fan of distance learning. My perspective is probably biased because being able to complete a BA (which should be finished within the next few days) is something I could never have done without the distance learning option. I also think it has offered few, or possibly even no disadvantages, when compared to a traditional on-campus degree.

Id even go a step further and say its a better option. My degree is modular, but the focus has been on, or around English Language studies, and during the summer I worked with a teacher who was following the traditional degree route doing a similar (although not identical) course. He had a set book list and 5 hours of lectures a week, I had a set book list, interactive CD/ROM, online forums and a tutor to email etc. On an academic course, the distance learning option certainly seems better to me.

And that leads me to my point really. Teaching, in my limited experience, isnt just an academic course to follow ... its far more practical than that, and this is why I personally feel the best option is on 'on-site' one. If the current standard is generally accepted as being the 120 hours on-site with observed teaching practice (which really isnt very much anyway) I dont see any reason to change this.

Isnt it more like a vocational qualification rather than academic? That doesnt mean its worth any less, but it does mean it has to be delivered in a different way to an academic course. Everyone knows that a Trinty/CELTA etc is still the absolute minimum, and is merely an introduction to the world of EFL, rather than the complete package ... it requires only a one month commitment, which in the grand scheme of things isnt very much ... why would we want this qualification to require even less commitment?

I dont think its about not moving with the times, I do recognise the value of distance learning with strictly academic courses, but I really dont see an entry level cert as purely academic ... its far more hands on than that.

My Trinity course didnt have lectures in the way an academic course would ... lectures could be replaced with distance learning ... but had interactive input sessions which just wouldnt work away from the classroom in my opinion. EFL (certainly at entry level) is more about 'doing' ... and like lots of other vocational type qualifications, they simply have to be learnt in a classroom.

Ill expand a bit on my course experience - it isnt just the teaching practice that would need to be replicated with an online course.

One of the modules on my Trinity was the 'unknown language' module. This involved a new teacher (who we hadnt met until he walked in the class) entering the class and teaching us a new and unknown language entirely in that language. This was quite an essential part of the course for me as it put us into the students shoes, allowing for a greater understanding of the learning process from a students perspective. This consisted of 4 x 60 min lessons, which were conducted entirely in the TL, bar the last 10 minutes when we discussed the teaching methods used.

We also had a structured lesson observation module, which involved watching 4 different teachers teach actual classes within the school. Each of these lessons were between 45 - 60 minutes in length. I think the value of watching a real teacher take a genuine lesson in a real classroom is also very worthwhile. In terms of professional development, many places encourage this long after training as well.

So those two modules are another 8 hours worth of on-site course experience that definitely have added value, and would be hard, if not impossible to recreate with an online option.

Added to this, I think I learnt quite a lot simply by watching my tutors, especially one who often took the input sessions in the way he would take his EFL class. Being able to watch him set up our sessions provided lots of pointers and help towards me setting up my own lessons.

We learnt a lot by doing too ... all those simple activities some of the more experienced members of the board take for granted, where introduced to me in the physical setting of the classroom, where I didnt just observe the activities, but participated in them too. When I did my online course with i-i, I think activities like the 'name game' (soft ball thrown from person to person saying names out loud) were just short texts included in a book. On the course I actually played them on my first day (after watching the tutors set them up of course). Ditto with a 'find someone who' activity ... another activity I had read about, but never done before the course.

Those things (for me at least) were an essential part of the course and the learning process ... I just dont think all this can be recreated via online study.

[Chancellor]

[spiral78]

having students there before you in the classroom doesn't really do anything to help you find out whether someone can be a team player, is open to others, can maintain focus, has good listening and critical thinking skills, etc.

Chancellor, I teach in a university based on the PBL/TBL learning system. Google PBL if you are unfamiliar. The qualities you name above are CORE to my teaching/learning context - as they are to good training courses for newbie teachers.
And, yes, in this context we can most definitely determine quite a lot about exactly these qualities from working with students in a well-designed learning situation.

Your use of the phrase 'having students before you in the classroom' indicates that you have no experience with learner-centred classrooms, which are a vital feature of learner-centred teaching in general, and good entry-level training programs, such as those I've been involved with.

Our classrooms are set up similarly to business conference rooms, or with tables configured so that we work in small groups. The instructor has no special place in the classroom, but takes a seat somewhere unobtrusive. He/she may stand to make a point, elaborate on the answer to a question, or to intervene if students get vastly off track or are running over time, but his/her role is primarily that of a facilitator. I do not 'run' the classroom - students are responsible for organising tasks. This is true when I am teaching students and when I am teaching teachers.

I wrote: Working well with others is an essential quality of a successful teacher who works with adult students. You answered: While this is certainly true, it isn't for you to determine, it's for the prospective employer to determine. Besides, it isn't something you can teach in a classroom. If someone hasn't learned to work well with others by the time he or she has reached adulthood, that person isn't likely to learn it or, if he does, it's going to difficult for him to learn. About the only place I've seen that have really been able to "teach" it is military recruit training and maybe police or firefighter training academies.

It's not always a matter of 'teaching.' It's a matter of whether someone has the capability to do the job with training and experience. Someone who I can see does not work well with others isn't someone whom I will put a stamp of approval on. Yes, I can see this in a month-long, intensive training course, as can other EXPERIENCED teacher trainers.

Sorry, but it seems your personal experience is quite limited. Do you want to let us know what direct involvement you have with training teachers?

For the record, I worked on the original Via Lingua course in Prague way back in 1999/2000, and helped with the background and piloting of another Prague-based course in 2005. I currently work both in hiring and teacher training at the university where I am based, helping to train teachers who work in a variety of languages, with a focus on the learner-centred classroom. This is in addition to my teaching of 'regular' students in PBL classroom environments.

[spiral78]

By the way, my own teacher-training creds are far below those of some other regular posters (Justin, for certain, among them) whose input I would welcome. I am not the goddess of teacher training, but I will continue to object to being accused of 'having my head in the sand' when I object to the idea that an entry-level course can legitimately include an online component.

[johnslat]

Dear Chancellor,

" . . . . having students there before you in the classroom doesn't really do anything to help you find out whether someone can be a team player, is open to others, can maintain focus, has good listening and critical thinking skills, etc."

Really? Do you mean that you are unable to determine if a student in your classroom is or is not focused on his/her tasks, can or cannot think critically, etc?
I don't think I have any extraordinary degree of perception, but I do believe that it's not all that difficult to get a good idea about the items mentioned.

"About the only place I've seen that have really been able to "teach" it is military recruit training and maybe police or firefighter training academies."

Marriage also works - or doesn't. Hence, divorces.


Whether working well with others can be taught is, I'd say, at least debatable. Is it an intrinsic quality - you either have it or you don"t, something in the genes? I doubt that it is, and if I'm correct, then, those who have it must have been taught it at some time or another.
Of course, teaching it would almost certainly be easier if the one being taught were younger, but, as an old dog myself, I know for a fact that old dogs CAN learn new tricks.
After the age of around, say, seven or so, individuals have probably developed pretty much into being who they are. After that, an argument could be made that "people don't change." I'll go so far as to concede that likelihood, but while personalities may not be subject to change, I believe (actually, I know - based on personal experience) behavior can.

Regards,
John

[Justin Trullinger]

I've been watching this thread for a while, meaning to contribute. What's been stopping me is that I really have TOO MUCH to say on this subject. So I'm going to try to break it, bit by bit.

When considering a TESOL/TEFL/CELTA course, most people are considering it as a way to learn to teach, but also as a tool to help get a job. So one important thing to consider is the level of recognition a given certification has in the market.

Thinking about onsite courses, distance(online) courses, and "blended learning" courses (with distance and onsite components), it seems to me that the onsite courses tend to have the most recognisable names and programs.

This morning, I did a quick call around to various schools in town, and asked them about qualifications they recognise and require, asking specifically about the three categories I mention. Two of the three had a preference for one of the name brand certs (SIT TESOL and CELTA) which are offered locally.

Three schools said they would only accept onsite qualifications. The one where I work shares that view, so that's four total.

Two more required "a cert," but didn't care which cert it was. They would accept a blended learning cert, but since they're also accept an online only cert, or an onsite cert for that matter, it doesn't seem clear that there's any advantage to anything with these two. They seemed surprised, in fact, that all certs aren't the same. These are two of the lower paying tier in town.

Three more institutes require no qualifications at all. Funnily enough, while one of them is low pay and no benefits, the other two are pretty decent employers from what I've heard. One is pretty high pay, though they work you hard for it, and the other medium pay for medium workload. These two, while requiring no teaching qualifications at all, offer a fairly small pay increment for having any kind of TESOL cert. (Again, they seemed unclear that "TESOL/TEFL/ETC" are used on some very different qualifications.)



My conclusions:

In Ecuador, an onsite qualification, especially if done locally, opens the greatest number of doors.

Some doors are open to you if you have an online cert, though fewer.

The blended learning option is not a well-known or well understood idea here, and as a result isn't really thought of one way or another. It's accepted by places that also accept the online certs, or by places that require no cert, but not by everybody.


So if you're coming to Ecuador, and want the greatest number of doors open to you, I'd strongly recommend doing an onsite program. It might be best to do one locally, though I don't have as much data to back that up.


Another aspect of recognition is the name brand thing.

I know, I may be accused of being "anti-generic" here, but here goes.

I'm a DOS. Like most DOSes, especially in the non-profit sector where I spend my time, I'm chronically overworked. Not asking for sympathy, but it's the truth. I work between 50 (when not also teacher training) and 70 (when teacher training) hours in a normal week. Some weeks, it's worse. (So I don't feel bad about typing this on the office internet.)

I'm responsible for hiring, and receive between 1 and 4 applications in an average day. When I have time, I like to consider them carefully and thoughtfully, but I rarely have time. Many of them have TEFL qualifications I've never heard of. When I investigate, I usually find out that the qualifications I haven't heard of are of dubious quality. But investigating, depending on the course, could take me anywhere from ten minutes to an hour of internet research.

In the last year, it's happened only a very few times that I've investigated a "no-name" course and found it to be a good course. It's happened more times than I can count that I've investigated a course with an unknown name and discovered that it was basically a "buy a cert online" scam, or some variation.

So, when I really don't have enough time to investigate thoroughly, I'm playing the odds. If an application has a cert I don't know, I'm going to play it safe and choose another applicant whose cert I do know.

You may say I'm wrong to do this. You can say that I may occasionally overlook a good applicant with a good qualification simply because it's new to me. You're undoubtedly right that this is possible.

But my situation is real. I don't believe it is uncommon. A lot of DOSes in similar circumstances will make similar decisions.

With this in mind, I would recognise that newbies get not just an onsite first qualification, but a reasonably well-known one.

It may be unfair, for all I know, but these are the qualifications that, it seems to me, will be MOST helpful in the job-hunt. Even if it's unfair, newbies should know about it.


Best,
Justin

PS- This is all based on my experience. I'm looking forward to hearing from others about theirs. I'd ask, though- try to keep it experienced based. Separate from why any given qualification should be considered equivalent to any other, is it? How do you know?

[spiral78]

In my role screening applicants for job positions here, I'd say this:

I know of some generic certs that do meet the standards of a CELTA.

However, when I'm looking through CVs, if I don't know the name of the cert, meaning I'm not personally familiar with it AND it hasn't got a recognised name - I throw out the CV.

We can afford to do this, having far more applicants than openings, but basically I'm with Justin - if a newbie is going to do a cert course, the name brand will open the most doors, in my opinion.

[Justin Trullinger]

So it really looks like the blended learning options and the distance only courses are falling into the same category in terms of the job doors they open. This is a shame- I have some reservations about some of the blended learning options I've seen, but a lot of them seem legitimately superior to the distance only possibilities.

Okay- next question. How good are they? My thoughts-

A lot of the time, when distance learning comes up on these threads, one of the arguments that gets thrown around is that, as many reputable universities have distance learning programs, distance learning is reputable.

I strongly agree that distance learning can be reputable. But since, when we talk about TEFL certs, we usually aren't talking about university programs, the argument seems a little incomplete. The fact that there are good distance programs out there indicates that it is possible- but this does NOT mean that all distance, or blended learning programs, are good or reputable.

So- what are the arguments for and against, in terms of quality?

Online?

Onsite?

Blended?


Hoping for some interestng stuff.

Best,
Justin

[Chancellor]

[Justin Trullinger]

[spiral78]

Those who would throw out a CV just because they're not familiar with the course provider are like people who say "Well, I've never heard of State University of New York at Stony Brook (just as an example, you could enter the name of any relatively unknown government university), so, I'm not even going to consider this person to have a degree."

It's a matter of time. I have 50 CVs, one position, 28 hours of teaching to do in addition to considering possible candidates for one freelance job...No, I'm not going to take the time to research an unknown TEFL cert.

A university, as Justin notes, is a lot easier - there are official ways to find out. A cert from some private provider, not.

[robin8989]

ok I am here as invited earlier today by Justin....
what a conversation!
tell me where one would actually find a university tefl program in the US that would be recognized. and this was a chapter about onsite vs online vs blended programs that got really complicated. you all write that you have received so many CVs and resumes and that you ignore certain ones. that seems really frustrating to me as a mature person with sincere intent and good qualities and credentials that I would miss some trick that you guys as the hiring staff know about and I dont. help me out.
what forum is best for good info regarding what REALLY is necessary to work.
many of us are working and will be leaving jobs and income to find a program, and dont want to waste time with something that will be ignored.