Job Discussion Forums

[Justin Trullinger]

Yeah, we probably get a bit long winded around here, don't we?

My first thought is that it's important to research the specific places you want to work. Ask employers in your target area what they will accept. Nothing else will give you that direct information.

COnclusions from this thread, as it is so far:

1) (undisputed, as far as I can tell) Online only courses are generally considered to Mickey Mouse, and are unlikely to get you much that you couldn't get unqualified.

2) (maybe a little more controversial) Blended learning courses are almost certainly better, in terms of what you'll learn, but we have yet to see convincing evidence that they're really much more help in the job market.

3) (most controversial conclusion) THere seem to be a lot of people here who think that getting a well-known qualification is a significant advantage. (Usually CELTA, SIT TESOL, or Trinity.) Others think this is wrong, in the immoral sense, but don't argue that it's true. So you may want to consider a name brand.

In terms of getting a university cert in the US that would be recognised, do the employer research about your target area. Virtually anywhere in the world, a teaching license or education degree from your home country will open a LOT of doors. Great big doors, often leading to well-paid jobs. But shorter university courses vary a lot in quality and prestige. If you're in doubt, put links to courses you're considering on the forum here, and someone will help check them out.



Best,
Justin

[nickpellatt]

[Justin Trullinger]

So will Spiral!

[Chancellor]

Translation: "We can't be bothered to look at other course providers so we're just going to consider people who took the brand name courses, thereby continuing the incestuous relationship between employers and the brand name course providers and preventing other course providers from becoming better known."

[spiral78]

Yeah.

There are literally hundreds of locations providing the name-brand courses.

And there are lotsa private outfits aspiring to come up with their own courses. Some of these are honest, sincere, qualified, and offer good-quality products. Many are not.

If I know the course provider on a generic cert, and I know it's a reputable course, I totally think the cert's OK. I do at least make some effort to keep up when I can with the generics offered in my region. But offering teacher training is something basically anyone can do - and I haven't time to check if the 'anyones' are qualified and that their product really meets minimum (or better) standards.

The name brand courses, like all franchised businesses, must meet standards to use the name.

It's legit, assuming that you're a good capitalist. You can open a McDonald's franchise, or you can start your own MikeyDennis's hamburgers. Your MikeyDennis might be better/cheaper/etc. BUT....

Personally, if I'm driving down some lonesome, unknown highway and the franchise is next door to the unknown....I'm going to eat at the franchise, and trust that it's less likely to give me food poisoning.

Sorry for the bad/ugly metaphor.

[Justin Trullinger]

[robin8989]

ok, so now two forums doing the same thing. I am not sure where tp post my stuff, I see answers in both NEWBIE and GENERAL DISCUSSION. how can be sure my question will be seen.....which would be better?

hangin in there
Robin

[spiral78]

In this case, a double post is probably permissable
Don't worry - the regulars are on the job on both threads!

[Justin Trullinger]

Knock yourself out Robin. Post where you want, and we'll do our best to find it.

I'd like to reframe conversation here- So far we've addressed whether distance, blended, or onsite courses offer better work options to newbies.

We seem to be divided into three camps-

While we all seem to agree that the well-known onsite courses offer the best possibilities, some of us feel that:

A) This is right and normal.

B) This may be regrettable, but is understandable under the circumstaces.

C) That this is wrong, and that those who perpetuate it are at fault.



Okay- I'm in "B" on this. But all of us who have posted here are clear on our positions.

Next question- Are blended learning courses (with distance and onsite elements) as good as onsite only courses? Please explain your opinions.

[spiral78]

I'm also in the 'B' camp, for the record.

Justin, thanks for bringing up my original second point again. I'll be looking forward to yours, and other's, contributions to this part of the topic!

I'll start by going back in part to my OP.

Again, to repeat for the record, the discussion below is limited to entry level courses. At the MA+ level, I think a distance/research-based study, where theory is applied and examined in a working classroom, is entirely reputable and useful.

In my opinion/experience, there 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. Watching him/her work with other trainees, instructors, AND students is invaluable in this evaluation process.

I remember not one but two guys who were just barely OK in practice teaching lessons, but who both totally lost their tempers with peer trainees and trainers on a couple of occastions (constructive criticism doesn't exist in some people's lexicons) - one guy going so far as to put his fist through a wall. NOT certifying someone so volatile in a team-working situation!

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.

I still think there are lots more good reasons and look forward to the input of others!

[robin8989]

Hey Justin
As a newbie, I am in the category of "not going to take the risk" on anything other than one of the "big 3" onsite companies, especially with all those dollars being spent. I want to be taken seriously and get a job!
It is too strenuous to be seen as a frivolous undertaking, that anyone can do just because they see it is a great way to see the world. I read with interest spiral78s words on the evaluation process with some of her student trainees. Whoa, I would not want either of those people teaching anyone I know. So the person to person training is invaluable.

What other field where you are responsible for being in close contact with people/students of all ages, could you imagine NOT having a lengthy meaningful supervised training? Why would this training be "less than" a regular traditional teaching training standard?

my thoughts, with alot of input from many here, I have made my newbie decision

Have been posting in Newbie forum. you could read my thoughts there. You are very helpful and thoughtful in what you write. Thanks.

best back
Robin

[spiral78]

Good job, newb:)
Thanks for your own rational input on the questions - it's appreciated.

Yeah, I'm biased because you agree with me/us - but even if you didn't, the rational process of someone considering the questions from the 'outside' is valuable to those of us on the 'inside.'

[Justin Trullinger]

Thanks Robin8989.

I worried that this thread (and a couple of others) were getting a little thick and argumentative, as several of us with a lot of experience in the field got into some nit-pickiness...

I think what it comes down to is the "something for (nearly) nothing" rule.

If the good looking cert programs on the market cost (for example) $1000, then the program offering the same for $100 is quite suspicious.

Going with good face to face training avoids a lot of worries.


Another question for this one- Does anyone here have experience with non-intensive onsite courses? I have a little- the SIT course I work with can be delivered in various ways. It's always "onsite," but can be a four week intensive, or can be delivered extensively in up to 6 months.

All the courses I've worked on, though, have been 4 week intensive except for one 8 week course.

Maybe extensive format onsite courses would be another alternative for people who want training but don't wish to dedicate a full month to it?


Best,
Justin

[santi84]

[naturegirl321]

What university was it at?