Job Discussion Forums

[Wolf]

I've read recent threads with interest. So here is the great question:

What is a qualified teacher in the world of EFL?


East Asia (Taiwan, South Korea, China, Japan) has laws stating that you need a Bachelor's degree. That's for the law. Many people here say that's not enough.

Okay, then there's a TEFL cert. You can do many of these full time in a month. If you have a BA plus a cert starting out, are you "qualified?"

No?

There are diplomas as well (less effort than another degree but more than a cert.) These take longer to do. Some can be done part time, via distance learning, etc. So how about a post grad diploma plus the BA?
Then there's a BEd. This is what makes you a teacher at "home," in most cases. But, while they train you how to prepare a syllabus etc they're not EFL specific.

Then there's an MA in TESOL (or whatever actual degree name may vary.) Takes a long time and is expensive, esp on top of a recent BA. Distance learning abounds, but it takes more time.

Oh, and the grand poobah, the Ph.D. I hope that of some guy came onto this site and said "Hi, I just spent 10 years getting my PhD in Applied Linguistics. Do you think that's enough to start with?" the answer would be "yes."

Okay, there are other factors too. Personality. Experience, the greatest teacher of them all. In fact, some fo the distance learning MA programs I saw won't take you unless you have about 2 years TEFL experience already. The University of Burmingham's distance learning MA program - many of their particpants are teaching in South Korea and Japan. In other words, they're all teachers who have been teaching for years and are now doing the MA. Are they "qualified?"

This is a darn slippery field to get qualifed in, at least in my experience.

So what factors contribute to making a qualified teacher? And, perhaps more importantly for newbies, what ought you start with?

[Sherri]

I think there are other factors that have to be considered--one is age group. The CELTA does not prepare people to teach children for example. Also the needs that kids have at different stages in their development have to be considered. I think people who teach in kindergartens need to understand more about how very young children acquire language to be effective. Their needs/learning styles are different to that of high school students and therefore require different qualifications.

Also it depends not just on the country but the type of school. There are plenty of schools here in Japan, where I am, the so-called conversation schools that just want a native speaker to talk and entertain. You just need the right personality to teach at these schools. If you have any training or experience, you would get very bored and frustrated.

So in order to really answer your question, which is a good one, I think the factors have to be narrowed a bit. In general I have found that schools get the teachers they deserve. The schools usually ask for the combination of qualifications and experience that suit their program and their learners.

[Roger]

Have ytou ever thought of what advantage you might have in the TEFL/TESL world if you could read and analyse some literary works, say James Joyce, Harold Pinter, Andre Brink, John Steinbeck or John Grisham, to mention but writers of the 20th century?

[Showem]

[dduck]

[Showem]

[leeroy]

I suppose most would argue that to be qualified in a profession means to have a first degree in that subject - or at least something relevant. But with the nature of ELT and the diversity of situations that English Teachers find themselves, other factors can sometimes overtake formal qualifications in terms of importance.

[PanamaTeacher]

I think that people that teach esl/efl without either some experience or training in the area and think they are helping are deluded.

Here in Panama there are many "false beginners" among the student population because they have been given first level courses by people who could not tell the difference between a noun and a verb.

Chattering in english to a bunch of non-english speakers and asking them to repeat is not a class, it's a rip-off.

Worst, the people that pay for these types of classes are really, really desperately poor; so, the money one makes to fund their adventure can be the lifetime savings of some family that is trusting the "teacher" to bring the magic of english into their miserable lives. It's colonial explotation all over again.

So, if you want to teach esl/efl try to do it without making victims out of your students.

[guest of Japan]

Roger, I've thought about your idea of having a degree in English lit many times and I have trouble seeing it's value in EFL.

When I was being interviewed for my present job my major competitor was a guy with a degree in English lit. He had no teaching experience, yet my employer liked his English credential more than my history credential even though I had been a high school history teacher. I was quite perturbed by his preference because I've read every book required to get an English Lit degree.

I'm not saying I could teach English Literature, but I couldn't think of a more useless credential in my present job since my students strugglle with the question "How are you today?"

I'd be interested to hear your justifications for your arguement. Thanks.

[PanamaTeacher]

Being able to appreciate and teach English Lit has saved my life because I tutor private classes after school to kids who attend private bilingual schools here. It pays $15-20 an hour. It also helps me teach SAT and GMAT classes. Not all students are lower echelon english speakers and being able to teach more difficult areas of English generates more income.

If you think that "to be or not to be" is part of a quiz on use of infinitives you are limiting your ability to make a buck selling English classes.

[Glenski]

From Roger:

[Roger]

I still think that a teacher ought to be able to get a piece of literature across to his or her students, and if he or she fails at this then the question should be asked: is that person a TEACHER or a DUMMY?
Furthermore, if you think that you cannot teach such "difficult" things as literature to YOUR students perhaps YOU are the problem. I do not believe that LITERATURE is DIFICULT per se, nor that it is an ACADEMIC subject.
English literature is as much language as is spoken English, with the deciosive advantage that it leaves traces behind that you can retrace. It is more useful as it offers the student as much opportunities at immersion as he or she desires, whereas organised 'oral English" classes have a definite time-frame and a cut-off time, besides suffering from the low attention span of most students in them. What do your students "learn" during conversation? It is nothing but training Pavlovian reflexes, monkey business in most cases, especially in CHina where students do not volunteer any answer to any question, and if you force them to speak they lapse back into their local vernacular. Most of you guys have a useless job, practising 'oral English' that offers no chance of assessing any progress, and most of you have low self-esteem, and consequently no respect for teachers as such!
No wonder expat teachers have to maintain such a low profile in Far East Asia!
And, even less of a wonder that locals here waste too much of their precious time and resources trying to mimick foreign sounds without understanding ten percent of what's going on between native English speakers in a sitcom or a movie - everything has to be dubbed and translated.
You all probably have some pretty old-fashioned ideas of what learning an L2 is all about - it is, above all, learning TO THINK, not just imitating pseud-English sounds!

[PanamaTeacher]

Roger--You are harsh on the others even if you are right in part. I agree with you that teaching kids how to read is essential. However, I think that the reading has to be consistent with the level of the kids, just like when we were in grade school. As the kids advance let's switch them to the good stuff.

Moreover, some people don't develop reading skills in their first language, and it is twice as hard to try to teach those skills in the context of a foreign language. I mean can little Pepe or Hue Ho read Shakespeare in their own language? Probably not.

Maybe teaching literature is not within the abilities of every teacher and learning literature is not within the abilites of every student.

[johnslat]

Dear Roger,
Let me begin by saying I'm an English major ( BA in English, MA in English Ed ) and I certainly agree with you that teaching one's students to THINK can often be a major part of our job. But except in very rare instances, I'd say, using texts such as the ones you mentioned ( James Joyce - ah, most of his oeuvre is hard enough to teach to native speakers ) just wouldn't work in many, perhaps almost all, of our classrooms. An appreciation of the finest writers of a language is greatly desirable, but those writers so often require a command of the subtleties, nuances and scope of that language far beyond what the learners most of us see every day are capable of. If you are in a job where you CAN teach Joyce to your students, I sincerely envy you.
Regards,
John

[PanamaTeacher]

I tried to read Ulysses to see what all the fuss was about but I could not penetrate beyond the first sentence which I recall consumed the first three pages. What is the book about, anyone?