Job Discussion Forums

[VladJR87]

So my question, or fear rather, is this...

Is CELTA certification more about training you to teach, or teaching you about English? I will not lie, I can learn pretty quickly, and as a History and International Studies Major my command of English is by no means poor... but even compared to many native speakers I feel like my knowledge of English is horrible. Until I had a buddy glance at some of my paperwork I had not even remembered there was such a thing as prepositions!

This test I just completed for BKC-IH should be a fairly fair indicator (most of my friend's comments I ignored, I only made changes I feel I would have accurately been able to make, with a little more research [the website they recommended to use was down when I first did the test]).

I am fairly confident this test was not about how good you are with English, but rather to test your ability to "learn from a book," recognizing the fact that they are not getting individuals with doctorates in English, the next best thing is someone who can figure things out without needed constant direction and assistance.

That being said, every time I have studied foreign languages there was little involved as far as advanced grammar goes. Heck, most of this was more advanced English than I was ever taught (superlative structures, passive voice, modal verb...)

Did everyone else feel this way before they got underway?

[Glenski]

[VladJR87]

[mimi_intheworld]

[Sashadroogie]

CELTA is about training you to teach. There are language input sessions, of course, but trainees are expected to learn the grammar and vocabulary terminology themselves. There simply isn't enough time to cover language in every detail.

But as has been said, you'll only really pick it all up when on the job anyway. For every lesson you teach, you'll plan for it and do your own research. Everyone, it seems, has to pay dues this way for the first year or so.

Don't worry too much about it. Just buy Murphy's and start reading up on it all yourself.

Good luck.

[santi84]

[VladJR87]

I've got an interview next week!

I'm nervous, I hate interviews, and I hate talking on the phone. Wish me luck! Time to scan threads for any hints and tips .

[nickpellatt]

And also the reality of native speaker education in the UK. The only native speakers I know with a good handle on grammar from an ESL perspective, are those who have learnt another language.

They learn grammar for the new language, and can retro-apply some grammar rules or structures back to English.

In addition to the other advice, I would suggest buying actual course books. I really like Face 2 Face books, as they introduce lots of the 'rules' when introducing new grammar points. The teachers books go one step further by adding more details that can be presented to students in forms of examples or typical errors. This type of resource is the best way for me to learn as it provides context along with the examples and rules.

[Isla Guapa]

[Sashadroogie]

Learnt most my explicit grammar from Latin class. Ah, those were the days. No communicative faffing then. Just serious grammar-hammer.

[spiral78]

Hej, I did the Latin stint as well. Four Full Years....it was surreal.

But I must say that it's occasionally useful in terms of vocab and accepting the fact that Nouns can change Form in Some Languages....

[Sashadroogie]

Change in Angliski too. Just not as much....

[Glenski]

[mozzar]

I don't see a real need to teach native speakers the grammar of the language. Just because the younger generation doesn't know the structure of a language doesn't mean they use it worse than previous generations. I'd rather have them study literature and see the best of what can be created with the language.

[spiral78]

By that rationale, they shouldn't be taught basic mathmatics, either, as they can all use calculators...

I think it's something about training minds, and structure and disciplines are useful practice.