|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
anyway
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 109
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: No passion for teaching amongst many ESOL "teachers |
 |
|
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| The happy medium of course is to not get too full of one's own importance, whilst at the same time recognizing that one can at least help oneself; recognize one's limits, but not to the point of feeling that one is worthless and cannot make any difference even to oneself/one's way of thinking. |
Well put!
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| Anyway, back to ELT. |
No...NO...NOOOOOOOOO!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coledavis wrote: |
fluffyhamster said
"I think the problem is that many people want something for nothing (pedagogic success as teachers, untold wealth heaped upon them for doing a job for which there is "unfortunately" no real shortage of labour), whilst on the other hand there are many who exaggerate the difficulties and like to make people feel more helpless than they really need be (I am thinking of the so-called educational establishment here, which likes to maintain quite a stranglehold, if not on knowledge itself, then at least in certifying it to some abstract but oh-so-lucrative ideally monopolized "standard"). "
I agree about people failing to realise that they are indeed in a buyers' market. Even with a degree, now that more people have degrees than at any time in the past), TEFL is a very large labour force. And the ability to qualify with a four week course does little to change that situation.
I do not, however, go along with this idea of the standard being abstract. I think most CELTA course participants come away with basic teaching standards to maintain should they so wish and I suspect the same is true of the Trinity. I think it is a conspiracy theory - note the word 'stranglehold' - put around by those who opted for cheaper alternatives as post-facto rationalisation, perhaps another side of those people wanting 'something for nothing'. Quite frankly, objecting to a four week course as some form of stranglehold is tantamount to singing 'we don't need no education - leave those kids [backpackers] alone ... another brick in the wall'. |
I actually have a CTEFLA, and studied Chinese at postgrad level. I didn't think much of the standard of the CTEFLA however, and really don't see why I (or indeed others) should always have to stump up yet more money on a DELTA and/or MA when I've bought and digested most of the books on their reading lists already (and over a far less crammed, "regurgitate what they want to hear" period than many who seem to do a "higher-level" qualification after only teaching for a year or two - doesn't that often short gap alone in uptake between the lower and higher certs suggest that it is economic rather than educational motives that move many to "better" their salaries at least? I mean, one of the undercurrents of this thread is that supposedly better-qualified teachers may in fact be worse, or certainly little better, than many apparently lesser-qualified. Still, where would we be without certificates to prove a bare minimum, what! And the boffins of course get into producing such good material for the plebs to gratefully use, etc etc). It would be nice for example if for some positions employers actually considered opening their nets up wider and/or doing a more thorough job of interviewing and didn't just go by certificates all the time in selecting only the "best" and "brightest". (Would you agree that education seems to be becoming ever more inimical to people even developing let alone having their own opinion on anything? Of course there will be a consensus emerging between the lines of whatever one reads, but diverging opinions actually helped to shape that consensus - or at least used to. Now we are expected to ever remain consumers; becoming a producer, even for very limited consumption, seems a bit frowned upon nowadays).
Of course, there are certain areas (e.g. actual linguistic ability) which can be tested and estimated, but I am not sure that language teaching itself is one of them (unless very indirectly, through seemingly very limited and/or flawed, often too theory-loyal SLA case studies), and when I look through course prospectuses, I often find myself wondering if e.g. those omnipresent required modules on SLA (especially the ones pushing UG overboard almost) are really going to help e.g. me teach the facts of English to e.g. Japanese learners.
Last edited by fluffyhamster on Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:41 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coledavis
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 1838
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We don't 'always have to stump up yet yet more money on DELTA and/or MA'. Most employers seem happy
with a TEFL and experience, unless you want to manage; and I don't think it unreasonable then for people
to invest in a further qualification. As for materials: I think these vary in quality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deicide
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 1005
Location: Caput Imperii Americani
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Tips yes and my foreign tongues are (at least I am told) exceptional. I call it self study. |
Well, I am a champion of 'self study' too (see the recent Newbie 'First post, some China questions' thread, for some discussion of how one might best learn Chinese), but I would hesitate to call my own abilities exceptional simply on the basis of some (likely exaggerated, excessive) praise!
Still, I'd be interested to know how many languages (and obviously which ones) you are claiming a pretty high level in, Deicide, and how you rate yourself compared to, say, Steve Kaufmann ('The Linguist').
Me, I won't be saying I am that good at Chinese until I "deign" to take the HSK Advanced level - that, or some sort of professional-level, accredited interpreting (rather than more paper-based translating) certificate, which likely won't be for quite a while yet.
| Quote: |
| Never said it was effortless...or even implied it. In fact it requires tons of hard work (by the L2 'learner'). |
I still rather suspect that anybody who will only accept being called a learner when the word is enclosed in scare quotes isn't going to be progressing by leaps and bounds - but hey, that's only my opinion.
| Quote: |
| BTW...scientists KNOW that that is NOT how L1 acquisition works with mommy telling son how the grammar is. Within the Parameter System (see Syntax, Principles and Parameters) each child merely adjusts his parameters to the structure of said language. More than that is not required. |
I've heard about Minimalism, thanks, but I'm not sure though that I'd call all the linguists working in the innatist camp scientists (there seems to be too much theorizing, and not enough empirical data driving and modifying that theorizing. IMHO innatism took a major wrong turn when Chomsky dismissed fact-gathering and organizing as mere dreary cataloguing - as if it that process, continued and done ever more thoroughly, wouldn't throw up a further theory or two! - from which it still hasn't quite recovered). |
You sir, have besmirched my honour... 
Seriously, I can't believe I am defending Minimalism here but I did do my MA in Theoretical Linguisitics and specialised in Syntax and Semantics and my thesis was about syntax and semantics as well so I feel honour bound to say something.
There is A LOT of empirical testing. This is usually done within the framework of the tree structure (which you might be familiar with). To clarify principles and parameters: it is generally thought that languages have one predominant head-structure (layman's terms word order where the verb is the key element) and that parameters are arranged along the underlying word order so Japanese (which you know) is agglutinating and head final (Verb Last) with structures that correspond to its directionality, postpositions instead of prepositions, etc. Humans are born with all the possible parameters already present in their heads but whereas an English child sets his parameters for SVO a Japanese sets his for SOV and an Irish child sets his for VSO. Because the grammar is a reflection of the directionality of the language, the rest follows, as it were.
The idea that children 'learn' a language case by case has been almost proven to be wrong. Icelandic has over 300 irregular (strong verbs) with differing vowel gradation (whereas they all fit into specific patterns), the idea that an Icelandic child learns each and every one is simply wrong.
Testing of syntactic theories is regularly done within the framework that is present. Now I do have my problems with Minimalism and Chomsky but...you said that none of it is backed up by empirical evidence, which is simply not true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coledavis
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 1838
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, there is a lot of evidence relating to learning, including language learning. I'm not sure however about if there is any about the effectiveness of otherwise of training. I wanted to do this relating to another of my professions, careers guidance, but the powers that be weren't interested.
I'm glad to say that after years of Chomskyism and regular triumphalist comments about B.F. Skinner being 'refuted', it has now become clear that children really do learn basic grammar rules and then accumulate, occasionally wrongly applying these rules, as opposed to Chomsky's daft idea of a natural language acquisition device. Why daft? When I studied psychology, I made the too obvious point that an Anglo-Saxon baby adopted by Chinese people would find a completely different language structure to be 'hardwired' than that of his or her race, and vice-versa, which makes a nonsense of LAD. As it should.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deicide
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 1005
Location: Caput Imperii Americani
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coledavis wrote: |
Yes, there is a lot of evidence relating to learning, including language learning. I'm not sure however about if there is any about the effectiveness of otherwise of training. I wanted to do this relating to another of my professions, careers guidance, but the powers that be weren't interested.
I'm glad to say that after years of Chomskyism and regular triumphalist comments about B.F. Skinner being 'refuted', it has now become clear that children really do learn basic grammar rules and then accumulate, occasionally wrongly applying these rules, as opposed to Chomsky's daft idea of a natural language acquisition device. Why daft? When I studied psychology, I made the too obvious point that an Anglo-Saxon baby adopted by Chinese people would find a completely different language structure to be 'hardwired' than that of his or her race, and vice-versa, which makes a nonsense of LAD. As it should.. |
Uhmm...I think you gravely misunderstand parameters and they have nothing to do with race. The 'Anglo-Saxon' child has all the parameters for Chinese in his head (both languages are head initial, i.e. SVO) and even if they weren't he would simply set the parameters to that language. Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying here. What exactly are you trying to say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coledavis
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 1838
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My comment is not about race. It is just that the transposition of situations shows the daftness of the idea that a language structure is 'hardwired'. As for 'parameters', I don't understand what you mean by that in this context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deicide
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 1005
Location: Caput Imperii Americani
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coledavis wrote: |
| My comment is not about race. It is just that the transposition of situations shows the daftness of the idea that a language structure is 'hardwired'. As for 'parameters', I don't understand what you mean by that in this context. |
No one has ever claimed that 'language structure' is hardwired. Language is hardwired in the brain of humans. All human beings, regardless of race, are hardwired for language and can acquire any language. I just explained parameters above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What I actually said was that there seems to have been too much theorizing, and not enough empiricism, rather than no empirical research at all, and I meant that more in the overall timeframe of the innatist programme (people generally still hearken back to Chomsky's original ideas despite the changes that have occured in the way the analyses are now done). I appreciate that the empirical basis of this particular brand of linguistics has improved somewhat in the past few decades. (Whether that data is being forced to fit the theories rather than the theory the data is another matter though). But hey, your having an MA and mentioning heads, word order and Icelandic irregular verbs Deicide is all rather intimidating and might even put me off of seriously considering more functional (and dare I say more empirical all along) typological stuff, RRG etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deicide wrote: |
| No one has ever claimed that 'language structure' is hardwired. Language is hardwired in the brain of humans. All human beings, regardless of race, are hardwired for language and can acquire any language. I just explained parameters above. |
And the exact difference between 'language' and 'language structure' (languages plural, I take it?) would be...? (Actually, it's OK, I think I get it, it's those 'parameters'. Useful stuff! Simply install a fuse box and some switches into a brain, flick a few to up or down, and hey presto, it's blackout-meltdown time!  ).
Last edited by fluffyhamster on Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:07 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coledavis
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 1838
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deicide wrote: |
| coledavis wrote: |
| My comment is not about race. It is just that the transposition of situations shows the daftness of the idea that a language structure is 'hardwired'. As for 'parameters', I don't understand what you mean by that in this context. |
No one has ever claimed that 'language structure' is hardwired. Language is hardwired in the brain of humans. All human beings, regardless of race, are hardwired for language and can acquire any language. I just explained parameters above. |
Yes they have. I did study psychology, got a degree or two in the subject and there were regular descriptions of hardwiring in relation to language acquisition. Regrettably, I was there.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deicide
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 1005
Location: Caput Imperii Americani
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| What I actually said was that there seems to have been too much theorizing, and not enough empiricism, rather than no empirical research at all, and I meant that more in the overall timeframe of the innatist programme (people generally still hearken back to Chomsky's original ideas despite the changes that have occured in the way the analyses are now done). I appreciate that the empirical basis of this particular brand of linguistics has improved somewhat in the past few decades. (Whether that data is being forced to fit the theories rather than the theory the data is another matter though). But hey, your having an MA and mentioning heads, word order and Icelandic irregular verbs Deicide is all rather intimidating and might even put me off of seriously considering more functional (and dare I say more empirical all along) typological stuff, RRG etc. |
I used to speak Icelandic reasonably well; but it has been years. Sadly I probably couldn't hold a conversation anymore. You don't use it, you lose it. In my experience this is nowhere more true than in languages which is why it irritates me that I have to piss off to the Mideast when one of my top goals is to perfect my French...sigh.
I want to be young again...with time...and opportunities.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coledavis
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 1838
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As for hardwired for language, well yes, but those parameters are so wide as to be irrelevant to comparisons of Chomsky, Skinner, Bruner etc etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sashadroogie
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 11061
Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chomsky, Skinner, Bruner. I wonder how popular they'd be in a TEFL classroom... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sashadroogie wrote: |
| Who's moving goalposts? |
You are. First you talk only about popularity. Then you throw out talk of having an "unenviable postion of a trying to teach a no-show, no-win corporate class with the usual time constraints."
Moved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
