Job Discussion Forums

[spiral78]

I realize it's been discussed before, but it looks like some of our forum names have been hijacked recently by unscrupulous online course providers to give the impression that we endorse their courses, or online courses in general.

Not getting into any specifics of that, but I think it might be useful for those of us who give advice here on training courses to weigh in on where/when they are/aren't accepted.

One purpose of this thread would be to define where online courses ARE acceptable. That's not anywhere I live/work (Europe, Canada), but I understand some places do accept them.

So, fellow oldbies. What do you think on this?

[spiral78]

Western/Central Europe: No in almost all cases.
That's because these regions attract a high number of teachers, and CELTA and equivalent onsite courses have become the standard - simply because most newbies on the job market have one.

Canada - No because the Canadian government regulates private language schools all the way up to university programs, and ESL teachers must have a cert that's accepted by the Canadian government. The criteria is the supervised teaching practice with real students; CELTA or equivalent.

[santi84]

Canada will accept a few high quality blended programs but they are run through public colleges and require supervised in-person practicums. Trinity Western University's MA TESOL is offered via distance and highly respectable but again, requires some on-site work. So, I'd have to say no, because purely online TESL is not accepted.

Here in Canada, just for some people's info ( ), CELTA only qualifies for TESL Canada Level 1 (100 hours + 10 hours). TESL Canada Level 2 (250 hours + 20 hours) is more desirable. These certificates generally take 2-3 full semesters at a university and the practicum alone is a full month of working (they say 20 hours but I wasn't allowed to use any pre-written materials in mine, so that was a lot of prep work!).

I don't have CELTA but I do have TESL Canada Level 2 which is a lot more work ( but according to some, not as good, I guess

[nomad soul]

That's a no for online certs in Saudi Arabia---employers are explicit about this. The rest of the Gulf doesn't specify online or onsite, but they tend to list CELTA/Delta/TESOL/Trinity... which implies face-to-face training. That's not surprising since this region mostly employs MA degree holders.

[Sashadroogie]

Regulations are scanty and vague in Russia. No need for any EFL cert at all depending on the type of visa. However, most schools will not accept online rubbish. Mainly because Russian learners tend to eat alive those teachers with just an online cert.

Celta or Trinity are the norm. Ways around it? Of course. But not really advisable.

Don't waste your money on online nonsense, no matter the promises made on those shady courses' shadier websites.

[coledavis]

Agree with Sasha. Russian students will eat you alive and the local teachers will read the future with your entrails.

[Sashadroogie]

Too right. No future for online cert holders, though. Not long-term. Not even short-term.

[AGoodStory]

Here in the northeastern US, most employers require (minimally) an on-site 120+ hour training course with supervised TP of actual, not fellow trainee, students--CELTA, Trinity, SIT often preferred, but others that meet the "CELTA equivalent" criteria are usually acceptable. Competition is stiff, however, and most jobs will go to experienced MA holders, even when the employer does not require an advanced degree. Candidates with a generic training course will have to make clear that it is a high quality equivalent. (This is most important for inexperienced candidates, and becomes progressively less important with more experience.) Those with on-line courses only, and no further qualifications, are unlikely get as far as a first interview.

With that said, however, I've noticed a couple of different themes to the "on-line training" discussions here that strike me as contradictory and, perhaps in the future, in need of adjusting. Or at least given some thought.

For the most part, experienced hands tend to agree that on-line courses do not offer adequate entry-level teacher training. Even when the course is followed by a supervised practicuum component, newbies who ask about this combination are almost always told not to waste their time.

But we also have discussions which recommend that newcomers take a CELTA course. And with some regularity, when logistics are discussed, we point out that there is now an on-line (or blended) CELTA, and that "a CELTA is a CELTA is a CELTA," as Cambridge and IH and others are energetically maintaining. Now, granted it has an on-site supervised TP component--just as there is with the more reputable on-line providers like Ontesol, ITTO, etc.

So it seems to me that EITHER:

1. An on-line CELTA is NOT to be considered an acceptable cert (and we should stop recommending it), OR,

2. Other on-line programs (followed by a live supervised TP component, and meeting all the other requirements of the on-line CELTA) must be considered "on-line CELTA equivalents" in the same way that generic on-site programs are now considered CELTA equivalents if they meet the same criteria.

In any event, Cambridge's development of the on-line version of the CELTA must surely affect the conversation as time goes on.

.

[Sashadroogie]

That's a fairly good point and one that needs clarification.

Even if an online course provider includes some sort of teaching component, this still does not make it an equivalent of a Celta. There are several reasons for this. Most importantly, who is doing the observing of trainees? What are their qualifications? How is this observation regulated? What criteria are applied?

With a generic online course, nobody knows the answers, but one can probably guess that the typical course provider is just making it up as they go along. With a Celta or Trinity, this is not the case. Celta trainers and observers have to be trained up, meet a common standard etc. Celta assessment includes an external assessor. I doubt many online courses incorporate this practice either, thus weakening both their assessment objectivity and reliability and also their claims to Celta equivalence.