Job Discussion Forums

[dragonpiwo]

The longer I teach (20 years so far), the more I think that there is a total disconnect between what theory books and trainers tell you and what actually goes on in practice.

Trainers waffle on endlessly about VARK, andragogy, the 4 flavours of assessment (validity, sufficiency, authenticity and currency) and the latest trendy theory. For example, blended learning seems to be the rage in my part of the world right now.

This is what I've observed over the years mostly in the Middle East. Many of my pals have observed the same.

1-The 'principles' of adult learning are often not met. Business English students and Oil and Gas trainees quite often don't want to be there, they aren't motivated, they don't like independent learning, prefer syllabus led instruction and so on.
2-VARK-fine with 1 to 1 teaching but hopelessly impractical with fairly large groups.
3-Assessment seems to have become an end in itself. It used to be that you taught a level and exam practice came later. Competency-based assessment requires the tests to be written before the syllabus ie it's just teaching to a test. I personally believe that CBT is great for a small group of firemen but hopelessly impractical when you've got numerous groups with mixed-abilities learning a language.
4-Competency-based assessment doesn't require a timeline but in the EFL context, it's often attempted in very time restricted scenarios.
5-Blended learning requires lots of stuff to be done outside the classroom, so how can a teacher ever prove the work is authentic when collecting said work as evidence? If it's no authentic, it obviously isn't valid.
6-Sometimes the reality is that there's no clean-cut break between andragogy and pedagogy.
7-Educational consultants are paid staggering sums of money to 'get it wrong'.

[currentaffairs]

Some good points. Have you seen any improvements in those 20 years?

[dragonpiwo]

Improvements yes.

1-Technology in the classroom. I like it but I think it shouldn't be over-used.
2-Better published materials, especially in ESP.

However, I still feel that face-to-face instruction in groups of about 10-12 is where it's at.

Generally speaking, the theories are like fashions that come and go and most of the EFL theories are highly contested. Very little is black and white. It's a perfect world for snake oil salesmen.

Powerpoint is totally overrated. Useful yes, but some teachers feel a need to make every lesson have a PPT presentation and I think that's just wrong. Too heads up, often hides poor teaching etc etc.

I must say my personal interest is in CLIL in the Oil and Gas industry.

[adventious]

I'm reading a blurring of assessment for training versus education, e.g., those flavours of assessment you cite that are a set of qualitative criteria and termed "rules" or "principles" used to evaluate evidence (of performance). I'd term it as an example of standards and practice.

Contrasted to a process of documentation(Wikipedia) by which several types of assessment are given distinction regarding their purpose and reference. Beginning with knowing the difference between formative and summative and culminating with the construction of norm- versus criterion-referenced assessments.

I largely agree (I deferred the business of training a long time ago) that training programs (largely for profit and proprietary) are prone to idylls and trends because they are, ultimately, a product. Like VARK? It's research is long exhausted (fewer and fewer dissertations) and didn't prove to be as fundamental as first purported. Learning styles are great to design for if you have the resources, but few societies will afford the scale of it because most societies aren't particularly generous when it comes to schooling their masses. But can it punch up a pitch? You know it can.

I can't agree EFL method is highly contested. My courses ended in 1990. The distinctions of acquisition and learning haven't been substantially challenged that I read. But all it takes is for someone to praise Swan in this thread and I'm proven wrong.

[dragonpiwo]

Formative, summative and holistic (ha) testing are just terms for what most schools/unis/companies actually do anyway. The principles of evidence are also obvious.
However, by dressing it all up in more modern academic language it seems to be trying to sell itself as something new, which it isn't.

[adventious]

[currentaffairs]

I would have to disagree about PowerPoint and using technology in the classroom.. It is almost the reverse I think: the lack of technology is often a sign of bad/lazy teaching!! Keeping up with the trends in a tech sense, e.g., using blogs, web resources, interactive learning, and all the other things can add a real edge to proceedings.

[dragonpiwo]

You'll note that technology was one of the improvements I listed as positive change. I use social media, 6-minute English for its podcasts and sites like Mindtools regularly. However, I have a particular beef with teachers who format every lesson in Powerpoint (there are plenty of them). It's like a click and play lesson for many teachers, often leading to lessons in which student-student interaction is minimized. This is what I have observed with my own eyes over a period of time. I know for a fact that some teachers enjoy the process (and perceived adulation) of a PPT and think much less about how it serves the needs of those being trained. Of course, some institutions demand it as they see it as a sign of professionalism and 'withitness'. I've also noticed there are loads of places which have all the hardware but no software. That's because the management can tick a box and tell people they are using the latest stuff. It's also because they have to spend their budgets or the budgets get cut . I also know teachers often use tech lessons as an opportunity to 'skive'. Moving on to blended learning, I think it only works if you have motivated students and support from the admin. Sadly both of these things are often missing in the ME, where I've been for almost 2 decades. Touched on quite a few points here and I'm sure people working in different contexts have had vastly differing experiences.

[adventious]

I'm with the dragonwipo on "the evils of PowerPoint", a searchable phrase, and prescribe a linguistics course covering pragmatics.

[santi84]

Do you enjoy PowerPoint as a student? I find it irritating. Sure, it's easy for us when we teach, but it's dull from the other side of the desk. I suppose it could be useful for something dry like sentence structures. Just my observation.

[bograt]

I don't get it, PowerPoint is just a medium. It's like saying you don't like blackboards. You can put pictures on it instead of having to make flashcards and write words/sentences before the lesson so you don't have to waste time writing them on the board during the lesson. You can leave it at that if you so choose.

[dragonpiwo]

Yes, it's just a medium but to some it's the main aim of their lesson.

[adventious]

@bograt-- as dragonwipo replied, the criticisms are about a degree of reliance. But I think you're correct to make the point you do. The more choices I have the better. Your analogy of a chalkboard reminded me of being in the middle east when our third dean in two years replaced the dry-eraser boards with SMART boards (no software, of course) and solicited the staff for appreciation. I risked some standing to say: I'd prefer both.

After he bugged out, I designed a galley to author exams so a team's efforts could be collaboratively generated and edited across several mediums. One end of our office was a reference wall, the other was a widescreen display. Three meter long dry-eraser boards ran along either side. The display was plugged into an air-gapped PC with a wireless mouse and a document viewer. Our auditing procedure was tight and we got a lot of work done. 9000 students used our exams. All without a testing contractor.

I hate the way those guys dress.

[scot47]

Powerpoint is hokum but the locals fall for it because it is a shiny thing and involves TECHNOLOGY.

[bograt]