Job Discussion Forums

[Qaaolchoura]

I've got a couple questions, based on the handful of cases where an interviewer was nice enough to explain why they rejected me.

1. In one case, the interviewer told me I didn't seem to know how to manage a classroom, makes enough sense (though it's kind of a Catch-22). He also claimed I didn't know as much about grammar as some applicants, whereupon it occurred to me that the way I was going about answering grammar questions might not be the best way about it. Namely, I was applying descriptive linguistics. I rank rules by how important they are to getting the meaning across and not sounding awkward, pick the top two or three the speaker doesn't already know, and try to explain them in the simplest way possible.

I've used this method to help friends learn features as modals and phrasal verbs, however invariably interviewers seem to ask questions only about the present tense and present perfect. Which makes sense of course, my friends are already quite advanced and interviewers are naturally interested in more basic features. While I do consult references, I've been trying to make it clear that I understand grammar without a textbook, but I'm wondering if my method might have had the opposite effect intended. It occurs to me that I might a. sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, b. sound like I'm being condescending towards the interviewer, and/or c. give the impression that I don't consult the textbooks. However given that all the questions seem to be quite similar, I'm wondering if I'm trying too hard. Should I get a reference book, memorize the rules for the present simple and perfect, and recite then verbatim?

2. Given that the Queen's own English is the "prestige dialect" in most of the world (even in Mexico, from my experience), and more than half my interviewers thus far have been British, I'm wondering if I should try to un-Americanize my English somewhat (actually, my dialect has a lot in common with Canadian English, but only in features where it also differs from the British kind). Obviously trying to speak with Received Pronunciation would make me look pretentious, but would the same apply to syntax and vocabulary? Should I be trying to use British idioms and avoiding any Americanisms I know aren't used in England?

3. After getting a rejection that said basically "no, we don't need teaching experience, but still you've only got a BA and a TESOL certificate, so we're not going to consider you," I figured that I was missing something, and in the manner of an Ivy League applicant I decided to pad my resume until I could sleep on it. I've done this by, among other things, highlighting my linguistics knowledge, work I've done designing lessons for kids in high school, and my familiarity with second language learning, as both a learner, and working with non-native speakers on linguistics and educational research. However not only do interviewers not ask about these things, but I'm wondering if it might set up unusually high expectations for the questions they do ask (there's only so many ways to explain the present perfect). Should I go back to the basics and attempt to awe them with my nasal monotone and Nixonian charisma, or should I keep up with the resume padding (and possibly take it further)?

Thanks,
~Q

[tttompatz]

Where are you from (country of passport) and where are you trying to find work (it is a big planet)?

In most places (at least in Asia), with a BA and TESOL, finding a job as an ESL teacher is about as easy as stepping off a curb.

It has also been my experience that in most places, the preferred choice of English is the North American flavor as compared to the British flavour.

.

[denise]

I've got questions, too...

How are you applying? How are the interviews conducted? Online, over the phone, etc. Have they asked to see a video of your teaching? If not, what questions are they asking that would determine that you don't know how to manage a classroom, and what answers are you giving them? And what sort of classroom--one full of screaming five-year-olds or one with just a handful of calm, mature adults?

Generally, if you're using too much meta-language to explain grammar, it's beyond the grasp of low-level students. It sounds like you're trying too hard to show what you know, rather than how you can explain it. Can you give us some specific examples of what you have been asked, and how you have responded? And you shouldn't need to consult a reference book for most of the items that typically come up in a language classroom... Of course there are exceptions, but if you're teaching lower levels, then except simple verb tenses, pronouns, other simple stuff... No need to rank/categorize rules. Just explain the rules that are already there! Present simple/past perfect is a great, and simple, example to use to show your interviewers that you know how to explain simple rules to people.

I really didn't understand this part at all: "I rank rules by how important they are to getting the meaning across and not sounding awkward, pick the top two or three the speaker doesn't already know, and try to explain them in the simplest way possible." Does that mean that you decide which grammar rules you will and won't explain to your students? If you told me this in an interview, I would take it as a way to cover the fact that you didn't know how to explain grammar rules. In many jobs, there is a set syllabus (which often just follows the chapters of a book), and you should be able to cover everything.

And if the interviewers expect only British accents, vocab, grammar, etc., then, well, I wouldn't work for them anyway... Way too narrow-minded and out of touch with reality.

d

[Qaaolchoura]

I've been trying to find a job in Turkey. I'm now going to fly over there at the end of the month, my concern, of course, is that I'll make the same mistakes as here. I've applied over the internet for jobs not just in Turkey, but Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Russia, and interviews have been over phone or Skype. Even though Skype has a video option, I haven't had a singular interviewer who wanted to use it. And I haven't taught a sample lesson, though I've designed and discussed them.

Most of the jobs I've applied for have been with adults. The questions usually deal with error correction and management of inappropriate behavior (one of the big ones is the student who knows every answer. I don't think any school has liked my solution, though I was that student and it did, in fact, work on me). I've also had a few weird ones. For example one school asked me what I'd do if one student was using the present perfect progressive in a class on the present perfect. I said basically that I didn't see anything wrong with that, and if it confused his fellow students, the next unit was probably a good time to introduce it.

I don't use any meta-linguistic terms to explain grammar, either to interviewers or in my lesson plans. (I'm trying not to use it here either, but you can see I'm slipping.) I use a few simple rules and examples. I guess what I'm saying is that importance depends on the context of the situation. One school asked me to explain "for" and "since" using the present perfect, in which case negations become very important, however if I were introducing the present perfect (as another school asked), negations are fairly straightforward, and I would cover them through practice. Likewise, in introducing the present perfect, it's necessary to use "for" and "since", but I wouldn't explain them until a later lesson.

Here's how I explained present perfect vs simple past on a sample handout.

[artemisia]

Either I�m being slow on the uptake after a tiring week or I�m just getting a bit dimmer as time goes by (always possible) but I find some of what you�ve posted hard to follow. If I find it hard to follow then this could be part of what you�re identifying as a problem:
�My thought process is completely irrelevant to employers, what's bothering me is that the results it's producing seem not to be what they're looking for�.
As Denise posted: �It sounds like you're trying too hard to show what you know, rather than how you can explain it.�

Why not just simply ask here: �I need some ideas. In a job interview, how would you present the way you teach xxxxx (language point)?� Not only would you hopefully get practical examples you�d also have something concrete to use to evaluate your own methods. Some posters on this site have been interviewers and could give you pointers on what they�d (not) be looking for....(there was a thread on this recently). Instead, it seems to me, you�ve gone to some length to explain your theoretical background and have talked around the subject of teaching (which makes responding more complicated):

[Sashadroogie]

Brevity is good for both the CV and for explaining language to students. Speaking generally, the one thing that is a sure-fire way to set off alarm bells is a long-winded, over-complex response to basic language teaching situations. Interviewers do not want a 'lecturer' who can expound at length on grammar in the abstract. They are looking for teachers who can demonstrate realistic ways in which to present language to learners. E.g. use a text/dialogue which has lots of examples of the target language; outline a context where that TL would be used; use a self-discovery approach; use traditional PPP, whatever. But explain clearly what the LEARNERS will be doing throughout the lesson. Make sure the interviewer sees that your lesson will be student-centred, communicative and all the rest.

Queen's English is not the point at all here.

[Justin Trullinger]

I'm going to speculate that maybe you're worrying too much and trying too hard?

A couple of thoughts- your native accent is unlikely to be a problem. If it is, to one school, pass on that school. There is simply nothing you can do to approximate the Queen's own English without making yourself ridiculous. And of course, has anyone told you they want you to speak a "prestige dialect?" Don't worry so much.

About resume padding: Don't. Unless you're willing to actually lie, you can't make your experience be more than it is. All you can do is make yourself look long winded and self important. Put the real, relevant stuff on there. And relax.

About grammar explanations, use the KISS principle. Do not get long winded. Do not be afraid to say "I haven't taught that yet- if a student asked me, I'd apologise for not having time for it today, look it up, learn it, and do it tomorrow." Do not use bit words. Do not expand the question. And DO NOT MAKE IT UP. I've seen this a lot in interviews- if they throw you a curve, say you don't know, explain how you would deal with it in the class, and move on. If you make it up, you will invariably say something that you would later have to retract, if you taught it. Better to admit that you're new, keen, self aware, and able to handle surprises professionally.

Finally- remember that, at the low end of teaching, or any other field, volume is key. How many apps have you sent? How many interviews? If it's only 3 or 4, please don't assume there is a problem. Don't start doing weird stuff, assuming that you're fixing the problem, just because a tiny number of schools has chosen not to hire you.

All schools would prefer an experienced teacher with perfect grammar knowledge and high level quals. So what? Not all schools can get them. The only thing you need to do is persist- keep applying. After 5, or 10, or 15 interviews, somebody will give you a shot. Provided that you aren't hurting their ears with a weird Dick VanDyke accent, causing hernias when they try to lift your resume, and using a thesaurus to compose your grammar explantions.

Just relax, be real, be persistant, and be patient. It isn't hard to get a job in this field, but it isn't hard for them to get a teacher either. So just hang in there.


Best,
Justin

[artemisia]

[Glenski]

I also think you're too verbose. I've just proofread a paper by a linguist, and it was a bear to get it down to something comprehensible to the journal's audience (who are not linguists).

If you are asked how you would teach X vs. Y, give them examples, don't go spouting theory or that you learned without any textbook yourself, and for goodness' sake don't memorize grammar rules from Swan's Practical English Usage only to regurgitate them! Interviewers want practical examples of how you would operate in a classroom.

"Oh, I'd have a gap fill / info gap exercise for starters..."
"I'd provide a brief explanation on paper/the board, talk about some examples, then get students to try by doing worksheets, then drills..."