Job Discussion Forums

[007]

Dear English teachers

What makes a good English teacher/lecturer?
And can we conclude that the criteria used for a good English teacher in the West are the same, for example, in the Middle East?

Any thought?

[spiral78]

I think respect for the culture/history/society of your students is one universal key.

Sure, language is tied to culture, and we can't ignore the fact that English carries with it some cultural aspects that are different from those of many/most of our students.

But to present those things as DIFFERENT, not 'better,' is important.

One example is the way time pressure affects English. All the way from expressions "Time equals money" "Time well spent"
to ways that we go directly to the main points when speaking or writing, with much less preamble or, what we call 'beating 'round the bush'
to ways that we highlight and signal important information verbally and in written English
Our societal feelings about the value of time is mirrored in the language we use and the ways we use it.

I think we need to teach this openly (if students understand the motivations behind the language, they can use the language they know in a wider range of situations)

BUT this can be sensitive - it's really important to ensure that students feel that you aren't teaching them to BECOME LIKE westerners, only to UNDERSTAND us, so that they can communicate more effectively.

[johnslat]

Dear 007,
Very interesting question - and a very interesting sub-text. When you asked

"And can we conclude that the criteria used for a good English teacher in the West are the same, for example, in the Middle East?"

you seem to be addressing the issue of differing standards of "being a good teacher" in different parts of the world. And I, for one, do happen to think that the standards can vary quite a bit.
So first, let me address this question: "What makes a good English teacher/lecturer" in a "general" sense.

1. A thorough knowledge of his/her subject matter.
2. The ability to communicate that knowledge in an interesting, understandable fashion.
3. A "caring attitude" towards one's students (empathy)
4. Being primarily intrinsically motivated.

Of course, I'd apply those criteria not only to "English teachers", but to teachers in any subject area.

Now, for EFL teachers in particular, I think some more qualities are essential (or at least highly important.)

1. Adaptability
2. Xenophilia
3. A predilection towards cultural relativism rather than ethnocentricity
4. A good sense of humor
5. A plethora of patience

Now some of these qualities don't necessarily have to be inherent in an individual right from the start. In my case, for example, I went to Saudi Arabia a rather impatient man. But I gradually developed my "patience muscle."
However, other lands, other mores. In many countries, a sense of humor isn't high on the list of "necessary teacher qualities." I believe in Japan, for example, teachers (at least Japanese teachers) tend to be a lot more "stand-offish", distant and somber (no, I didn't misspell sober) than many "Western" teachers. And Japan is also, I believe, a good example of a land where the teaching style is usually markedly different from that of many/most Westerners. To my knowledge, the "lecture" style is much more prevalent there, as opposed to the "participatory - let's all get in groups and discuss this" style favored by many "Western" teachers.
In my capacity as coordinator of the English Language Center at the IPA in Riyadh, I had to "observe" many teachers in action (something I was never fond of doing since I believe that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" - when you observe an object, you change it - applies.) From my admittedly limited experience of observing Arab teachers, I'd say that
the lecture method was also favored more and that a sense of humor wasn't considered all that necessary.
Well, that's all I have time for now, but I'll give this some more thought and may repost later.
Regards,
John

[eha]

Good responses from spiral and JohnSlat. I�d just like to add a point or two about empathy: everyone always goes on about �empathy for one�s students�, as if one could just switch on a quality like empathy as a kind of classroom aid, but which doesn�t matter much once you get out of the classroom. As far as I�m concerned, a capacity for empathy is a character quality, not a career move--- I see a lot of teachers who are very careful to be EXTREMELY empathetic to their students, but who can show very different qualities in their dealings with their colleagues. Empathy is not just something to be cultivated across cultures; in fact, I�d go so far as to say that I�d seriously mistrust anyone who was empathetic to those of a different background from him/herself, but who showed different personality traits in dealing with those of his/her own culture.

Which brings us to the question of whether the same skills, qualities, etc. apply across cultures. Well, as far as I�m concerned, the qualities I respect in a teacher (or in anyone else) are basic human qualities, which are not exclusive to one culture or another. I�ve always felt many of the applications of cultural relativism to be extremely patronising, as if the speaker was saying: �well, we�ve got to make allowances: Westerners ( or Arabs, Japanese, Eskimos, Whatever) don�t have our cultural standards.� Listen: we�re all human beings. We may have a few superficial differences, but the basics� mutual respect, reciprocal empathy, are the same for us all. If these don�t exist, then you won�t have a decent academic atmosphere; and if people in academia can�t aspire to the most fundamental level of common human decency, what can we expect of the rest of the world?

[ghost]

Eha and John Slattery make some very cogent points, and I agree with both. Impressive writings and musings by both!

I did a 'test' at my College in Korea, where I evaluated two foreign instructors.

Instructor 1 - Irish, young, handsome, jolly, but hardly an intellectual. Plays the guitar.

Instructor 2 - Canadian, middle aged, showing age a little, serious, cerebral, and very knowledgeable about ESL/EFL and Korean culture. A voracious reader.

Both instructors taught the same course ('Reading and Writing') to Korean teachers in training, and used the same lesson plans -exactly the same lesson plans - they were duplicates.

At the end of the 4 week session, it was disconcerting to see, that the evaluations from the Koreans gave a 90% success rate for the Irish Instructor (the young one who often played the guitar in class), and only 55% for the Canadian scholar - who was not popular with the students.

Remember- both teachers taught the same lesson. I observed both teachers, and the Irish guy was competent, but his knowledge base was no greater in comparison with the Canadian middle aged guy. The Canadian guy delivered his class in an interesting way, throwing in many cultural references about Koreans, foreigners, etc....

When the evaluations came out, I asked Canadian why his marks were so low, and he replied that he thought Koreans only like 'dancing monkeys' in the classroom, who 'edutain' rather than 'educate.'

Because of the evaluations, the Canadian teacher will not be able to extend his contract in Korea. One has to feel sorry for him, and my full sympathy goes to him and to his family.

Ghost in Korea (www.gifle.go.kr)

[johnslat]

Dear eha,
"I see a lot of teachers who are very careful to be EXTREMELY empathetic to their students, but who can show very different qualities in their dealings with their colleagues."

Actually, I wouldn't even call such an individual "empathetic"; I'd call him a hypocrite/phony. Character/personality traits such as empathy and integrity are not so selective. Can an individual "betray" his own nature? I'd say "yes", on rare occasions; the novel "Lord Jim" is a insightful examination of just such a situation. But for the most part, such traits are consistent.
I agree with you that "cultural relativism" (like "political correctness") can be carried too far. A culture that engages in, say, female genital mutilation, is not one that, in my opinion, merits an "understanding" attitude (Oh well, it's just part of their "culture", so it's not as if they were doing something "wrong.") However, although I do believe that the "basic human values" are universal (although it might give me pause to make an exclusive listing of those), I think we also have to realize that not everyone in the world is going to have the same values as we do, and that while it's only "natural" to think that we have the "right" ones, there are many instances when we need to at least accept the fact that others might be quite content with customs that we find either "archaic" or "mistaken."
For example, visitors to Saudi Arabia might assume that Saudi women all chafe under the restrictions imposed upon them. But while some, perhaps even many, might do so, it's simply not the case that all do. Not all (or, I suspect, even many) Saudi women are dying to emulate women of the "West." While they might desire more "freedom" in some areas (such as being able to drive, for example - and even that's not a universal desire among them), at least some (and possibly many) are content with other aspects of their lifestyle that most 'Western" women would consider to be restrictive and "sexist."
So, I do think we have to beware of "judging" other cultures solely on our own standards of what's "right and proper."

[eha]

johnslat:
'Actually, I wouldn't even call such an individual "empathetic"; I'd call him a hypocrite/phony'

Well, that's what I was saying too! I think we're on the same side: for example, I certainly never imagined that 'all' Arab women want the phony freedoms of the West! (Actually, I have a feeling even Western women are beginning to wake up to that one).

Ghost: did I read your story of the assessment of the two instructors on another thread? Where is it? Your findings are SO TRUE: some of us have been saying for years that student evaluations are an exercise in futility. Way back in the Dark Ages, no-one asked me what I thought of my lecturers, and if they had, I�d have written what I thought: that I simply didn�t have either the experience of the subject or of life, to go around passing judgement on my teachers. What makes a �good English teacher� seems to depend on the eye of the beholder-- and I�m not just talking about students.
Isn�t life full of injustice, though?

[scot47]

Interested to see that philoxenia(xenophilia) is considered by johnslat as important.

I am APPALLED at the number of colleagues I come across of all ages and many nationalities who simply do not like "Johnny Foreigner".

[007]

[eha]

'I think basic human qualities without �pedagogical/technical/competence� qualities will not make a good teacher/lecturer'

Quite. And conversely, pedagogical/ technical/ competence qualities, without the 'basic human qualities' referred to, don't make good teachers either. They might make a successful military leader or captain of industry or hitman; it all depends on how you define 'success'.

As for the question of student 'evaluation' of teachers--- indeed, anybody's 'evaluation' of anyone else-- the whole concept is so superfical and hubristic, like so much of what's going on in education today, that it's hardly worth discussing it. As you say, the idea of using it, even as part of administrative decision-making, is ludicrous. But then so much administrative decision-making is.

[eha]

Sorry: 'superficial'. Didn't use the preview; is a lack of attention to detail a sign of a bad teacher?

[johnslat]

Deer eha,
It must certianly is.

Reagrds,
Jhon

[eha]

John: potts and ketles come to mind, not to mention moats and eyes.

[veiledsentiments]

[eha]

Thanks, VS; I only TEACH editing; I can't be expected to practise it in my own time as well! Anyway, some errors you just don't notice until it's too late.