Job Discussion Forums

[miso_ramen]

Well there's nothing simple about the present simple. But anyway, there is a place for using L1 in the classroom but it should be kept to a minimum in my view- its more effective for English to be the only language used. If you're continually using L1 to explain grammar or whatever then you're making it too easy for them, if its in English, and using all the aids available to a teacher (visual, mime etc) then they have to think more which helps them to learn. Its harder for the teacher and harder for the students but its more effective.

I would have thought that this is universally applicable, but I haven't taught in China so maybe it wouldn't work in a Chinese classroom.

[johntpartee]

[Denim-Maniac]

[Non Sequitur]

Not a 'good fit' at all for OP.
Not qualified enough for the International School market and over qualified for the standard Chinese uni FT gig.
Having not taught in China, yet posting on the China job related forum with a somewhat 'lofty' view of how things work here, isn't a good start.

[Denim-Maniac]

In his defence Non Sequitur - Its not lofty, just standard EFL ideas. Granted, they are rarely applied in the university sector, and only sometimes applied in the private sector, but that doesnt make them any less valid IMHO. The idea of communicative language teaching encompassing all skills isnt revolutionary or new, but standard practice.

Of course Ive also had Chinese students tell me they should learn grammar from a Chinese teacher, who can then explain in Chinese, but that method is flawed. At least it would appear to be just by the anecdotal evidence presented in this thread. University level students who still make mistakes with bored / boring - excited /exciting show that. Using the simplest of PPP models, its clear that the structure being used covers the 'Presenting' and also the controlled 'Practice', but rarely do Chinese teachers engage students in meaningful 'Production'. As a result students lack communicative competence and accuracy in structures they learnt many moons ago.

Subscribing to the notion that Chinese teachers should be left to do the grammar stuff just further reinforces these errors with students and sells both them and the teacher short IMO. The very method you are supporting (not just you, its a common voice in these parts) is, I would suggest, directly responsible for the student shortcomings discussed in this and many other threads. Its also why adult training centres exist with lots of ex-university students enrolled as the current system has failed them to some degree.

And I dont think Chinese schools really believe it either. Look at how they sell their Chinese classes for foreigners. Its NEVER on the basis of an English Chinese teacher but almost always on the basis of QUALIFIED teachers of Chinese using immersion.

Anyway, Im waffling again ... but I think its an interesting topic. The teaching of grammar and our role in doing it / leaving it for Chinese teachers. I feel (and have been told by Chinese colleagues) that they dont trust the average FT to teach grammar as most lack ability and qualifications to do so.

Agree with you that the OP shouldnt try the uni route though.

[Trevor Wadlow]

There is a lot of sound advice here. However, a number of unversities offer EAP jobs. It is challenging applying the communicative approach to what looks very fairly dry but that is part of the challenge. An example is the AIEN Institute at Shanghai Ocean University. They pay fairly well and are open to eager teachers who may have no experience of EAP. I taught there for three years and left only because I needed more time to do the Trinity Diploma.

I took one of the University Oral jobs that are spoken of here. It is delightful even if the pay is not so great. I teach less than three days a week but this gives me the time to address all kinds of problems as well as design really effective lessons. Of course, students are often unmotivated but there are all kinds of reasons for that. I gave mine a questionnaire to determine why they are studying English. The results were very useful. How good does a student's English have to be if he doesn't plan to work abroad and simply needs enough to communicate with foreign clients at his Chinese company?

Just a thought. I hope this is useful.

[Non Sequitur]

Thanks Denim and Trevor.
I stand by my 'lofty' description. OP hasn't taught in China and over the totality of his/her posts seemed to lack insight into student-centred learning.
Not to mention a curious misunderstanding of 'you' and 'you're' usage.
The Chinese public education system is in the market for FTs to undertake Oral English tuition. That they (the Chinese schools) don't make use of the FTs, even as links to literature being taught by Chinese teachers (see my Merchant of Venice comments) is lamentable. But, that IS the situation. We either participate in the market or move on.
Trevor highlights an excellent point about the Oral English FT situation (lack of structure and resources) and that is the wonderful opportunity it gives the motivated FT to put together great lessons, which address the students needs, their total boredom with the Chinese teaching style and the wide variability of spoken English skills.
FYI I've only taught in one outfit (public system) which appeared to stream its students by ability.
In actual fact I think the bosses accepted payments from students to be placed in the A stream.
The A class had 60+ students, B about 50 and C around 25 - when they all turned up that is. About 25 of my A students only turned up on assessment day.

[rogerwilco]

[miso_ramen]

The AIEN institute looks interesting so I'll have a look at it. Does anyone else know of any unis/organisations that offer something similar? i.e. the type of teaching that the CELTA/Trinity equips you for.

non-sequitur, I'll agree to disagree. If you think my ideas are lofty then good luck to you. And I think the "you're" was a slip on my part- having wrote it late at night after a few beers. I know the difference between your and you're.

[Denim-Maniac]

I know Im going to sound argumentative here ... but why the heck would an employer expect someone to have an academic understanding of Shakespear just because they are foreign? I read The Merchant of Venice as part of my GCSE English in 1984. Didnt read any other Shakespear before or after that. Cant imagine Im alone in that. That would be my idea of hell TBH ... to be given a class to teach English literature, a subject I am not trained in.

[L00kingforwork]

In many universities the FT's classes will be labelled as Oral English. However, because many of these courses lack a curriculum and/or teacher resources, the FT has complete freedom to do whatever s/he wants. Therefore, echoing what Trevor and NS have already said, you can make your classes as CLT as you want. Still, as NS has mentioned, the classes should be student-centered. A simple student needs analysis at the beginning of class will be a good start.

[Non Sequitur]

[Denim-Maniac]

Sorry NS - I bloody hate Shakespeare. Im reading A Game of Thrones at the moment and Id rather have students study that. As long as the associated role-play included a few beheadings and lots of 'yes m' lord' dialogue.

[MisterButtkins]

You guys must work at better colleges than me. My English majors struggle to understand verb aspect/tense combinations besides simple past and simple present. Even the simple past, some of them do not use properly. Also, 'How are you doing?' gets answered as 'What are you doing?'

[johntpartee]