Job Discussion Forums

[coledavis]

I'm not disagreeing with the effectiveness of drill and examples and fun, honest! It's just that you can't expect to get away with completely grammar-free teaching - and I suspect that's in a lot of places - and in some places, grammar is central. Sashadroogie is quite right of course; a lot of my work has been in Russia, where this is just so true. Having said that, when I tried to get out of explaining grammar in London - with students from all over the world (and mainly non-Russians) - I soon found that I could only get so far.

In summary: sure, there are techniques which underplay grammar, but I don't think you'll do well for your students if you hide from it for ever and a day.

[spiral78]

Oh, I'm not advocating avoidance of grammar - it's the structure of the language, after all, and provides very useful (vital) patterns for students to follow.

What I've argued doesn't work is a teacher (or textbook) trying to predict what grammar any given student or class is going to be 'ready' to 'acquire.'

In my teaching context, grammar and patterns are focused on as they arise in the course of doing different kinds of communication tasks. They're not built in. Works for us - and our students don't complain of a lack of focus - but this entire university is a different kind of learning experience than they've had before and the fact that language courses are also different is easier to swallow.

[steve69]

[coledavis]

[fluffyhamster]

[Sashadroogie]

Not so sure that it actually is the purpose of any training course to teach teachers what grammar is in every detail, or how to teach all aspects of it. A couple of days of grammar boning-up would still be insufficient for most pre-service trainees. A CELTA type course can only broach these areas in the broad. A DELTA level course won't even teach teachers grammar at all, as this is by then assumed knowledge, but does focus more deeply on ways of teaching it. Not so sure that any training is a waste of time in any respect though. Just look at the people in EFL which zero training. They are truly much worse than even the meanest CELTA trainee.

[spiral78]

Amen.

Gotta string of Phd holders here with zero teacher training. Recipe for disaster.

[fluffyhamster]

Well, I suppose it might help if I now gave an actual, suggestive example about sufficiency versus apparent insufficiency of training!

(Sashadroogie wrote: A DELTA level course won't even teach teachers grammar at all, as this is by then assumed knowledge, but does focus more deeply on ways of teaching it.)
>

[Sashadroogie]

Not sure what you expect a teacher-training course to be. If you want an in-depth knowledge of grammar, or phonology or semantics or pragmatics, then you'd probably be disappointed with any course that wasn't a more full-on linguistics course. Take modality in English - there are massive tomes out there on just this area which I'd guess could rival the Oxford Chinese Dictionary for complexity and attention to detail. But is this something that would really be appropriate for a month long pre-service teacher-training course? Can't see that flying when a very high percentage of new trainees have problems with the basic concept of verbs, tenses, nouns etc., never mind how to impart anything meaningful to learners.

By the time teachers want to do a Dip level course, it is assumed that they would have independently figured out/done more research on grammar etc. If they have not, then they'll have problems with conditionals or whatever. But is no more the job of a Dip tutor to sort out a trainee's lack of knowledge of grammar than it is to teach them vocabulary or how to write an academic text, or indeed, how to write clearly. I do not think that this is copping out on the trainers' part, but more that we as trainees are expected to do our own work, the same way as Fluffyhamster clearly is. I don't see why that would be an issue. We are not newbies any more...

[coledavis]

REPLYING TO FLUFFY HAMSTER:
"Yes, I think that training is a waste of time (or rather, wastes, has wasted a lot of time) if "knowledge...of teaching tenses took quite a long time to develop" (following any so-called training). Not having a go at you, CD (you seem pretty informed), just saying, what is the point of training that doesn't prepare one as well as it might? When they could have e.g. gone thoroughly through that textbook or two (certainly its contents in terms of grammar) over the space of at least a few days as part of the training. Plus I don't see such a dichotomy between raw knowledge and its actual transmission (especially not 'lexicogrammatically' speaking) - if one is more confident in terms of the former, surely one will be able to more quickly and confidently think of ways to convey it (rather than having to spend time checking up on grammar). And like I am always saying, certs rarely look beyond the level of the sentence and leave teachers (by that, I mean the "not-too-bothered" ones, even though they might have been "properly trained") to flounder through their teaching lives spewing faux classroomese discourse in quite vain attempts to teach conversation certainly."

Following your main points in order:
1. What is the point of a course that doesn't teach you everything?
That's why Russians (etc) tend to do a five year specialist degree in both English and the teaching of English. That's why people often do both a TEFL course (CELTA/Trinity/whatever) and a more advanced course later on. There is no way that a course lasting a few weeks can teach 'everything'. This does not, in my opinion, mean that one should react by saying that you shouldn't bother to have any training at all.

2. CELTA/other TEFL courses should go through the grammar for a few days as part of the course. Having decided to get as much in as possible over four weeks, and it is intensive, there is a lot to get through, including seeing as much good practice as possible and getting as much of your own practical experience as possible, as well as TEFL teaching techniques, etc. I can't speak for other courses, but the CELTA insists on the grammar being covered at home before the course starts. For good reason: this can be studied at home.

3. Is there a dichotomy between raw grammar and its teaching?
Yes, I think there is. Timelines? Psychological viewpoint of present perfect? Should you present all variations of personal cases (first person, third person, etc) or present snapshots? And you need not only to think about it but get in the habit of doing it.

4. "And like I am always saying, certs rarely look beyond the level of the sentence and leave teachers (by that, I mean the "not-too-bothered" ones, even though they might have been "properly trained") to flounder through their teaching lives spewing faux classroomese discourse in quite vain attempts to teach conversation certainly."
Well, perhaps you should stop saying it, Fluffyhamster! Firstly, I don' t know what you mean by 'beyond the level of the sentence'. Secondly, I don't remember being taught a specific discourse for the classroom (although I suppose brainwashing is possible over four weeks). Thirdly, all training courses will be used as springboards by some and as things to forget by others. This is humanity. The number of car 'accidents' and 'mistakes' by doctors are testament to that. Please don't blame the training for something some idle clot does subsequently. If they've been trained and chosen to ignore their training, that is hardly the course's fault.

[fluffyhamster]

[coledavis]

Hi Fluffyhamster.
Re. lengthening the course: as will be noted by the number of people on these forums wanting to avoid the expenditure on such a course ('is an online course for me?' type threads), good courses are expensive. That's because of intensive use of highly trained teachers over a prolonged period. Obviously, lengthening the course will make the situation worse. While some may welcome more of a bottleneck, it will of course be the haves who will get trained at the expense of the havenots.

I think I get the point about the discourses, but I don't remember getting any transcripts (again it could have been the brainwashing). Teachers were generally able to 'be themselves'. I say that with some reservations about CELTA shibboleths (some student-centred ideas, but that's for another thread sometime when I'm feeling extra bolshie). On the whole, however, most of my fellow students came out doing it with their own personal styles intact, but for training to work, there has to be some ironing out, otherwise I rather think it would be ineffectual.

Ok, everybody learned a particular formula for staging a lesson. However, it wasn't pretended that it was the only one, merely that (a) it was accessible as a style for new teachers and (b) there wasn't time to introduce others (which might have confused people learning a lot of basic techniques at once - boardwork, eliciting, active listening, explaining grammar) and (c) gave everybody a laugh as people during their initial vocabulary pre-teaching had to mime a variety of concepts with varying degrees of success.

[Sashadroogie]

Can't speak for all DELTA centres, but the one I went to, in Istanbul, did 'cut it'. The head trainer there would have been more than able for any smarty-pants challenges by know-alls on any and every grammar point. The others in his team were pretty sharp also. The course did what it said on the tin.

As for focusing so so much on grammar on a CELTA course, reading the comments here I get the same sinking feeling I usually get when I have to telephone interview modern languages teachers. Every second or third French, German or Italian teacher, university linguistic graduates to the man, will positively lambast me with a lecture on the intricacies of whatever language structure they wrote their thesis on, endless details, ad nauseum exceptions to tenuous rules, blah blah blah - all in answer to a bog-standard question like 'how would you teach past forms to elementary learners?'. This is what inevitably happens when teachers train up for four years in linguistics courses, it seems: they ignore teaching and believe that lecturing on grammar is the way to go. Even Russian students, who demand 'structure', soon tire of this boring, dead, lifeless waste of classroom time. Learning does not occur, strangely enough. The students just tune out.

So, on a DELTA course, for instance, one might be asked to go off and research a given language point, alone or in teams or whatever. Then after making a presentation to one's peers, the trainers can and do provide input, where needed. This is education. This is real training. This is far more effective than a droning lecturer, bandying terminology. And I would have thought it would be something welcomed by the auto-didacts on this forum also, no?

No shares in UCLES, by the way. Just not impressed by any of the alternatives on offer by its critics.

[nickpellatt]

Im with Sasha here.

My grammar is still not up to speed really, and Im slowly learning and developing my knowledge. I have frequently posted requests for books and help, but sooo much of what I see is delivered in the style that Sasha mentions. Its just too highbrow, and I want it delivered to me in the same way it needs to be delivered to the elementary student. I just dont get it otherwise. Learning it from a reference book, or from a lecture on a DELTA course, isnt going to cut it for me (and I suspect lots of other teachers). Learning it isnt enough ... how to make it relevant in class, and accessible to learners through activities etc is more important.

Thats what courses do tend to focus on IMO. They dont teach grammar, but they try to show ways in which it can be made accessible to both teachers and learners of English. I cant speak highly enough of my course really. It didnt fill in all the gaps of knowledge that I have, but it gave me the tools to think critically about how to attempt to present language and grammar. I wouldnt say I can do it well enough yet...so perhaps the course did lack a little....a course combined with books, the right books, really helps though!

[Chancellor]