Job Discussion Forums

[Bella Clava]

Hi everyone. Hoping for a discussion from some forward-thinking members.

After reading a number of threads in different forums, I�m somewhat confused as to why in today�s world many posters thumb their noses at those who hold distance-learning qualifications - particularly TESOL certification. Yes I�m aware of the arguments presented � the most often being the lack of observed teaching, for which there are several solutions - televised (real-time) and recorded classroom teaching come to mind. Another is the quality of the program and course content. Thorough research and comparisons with higher education programs will filter out the garbage and money-grabbing �paper-mill� programs quickly enough.
Of course all programs can (and should) be supplemented with additional readings � also available on-line. Peer input shouldn't be a problem if the program has a tutorial feature, and there are always lots of public forums such as this one to 'hash over' anything of concern.

My confusion is that a few of these naysayers have actually gone on to announce their intention to pursue a particular course of study - often a higher degree than they currently hold, through (surprise) an on-line program � of which there are many, and which are offered by many of the most reputable institutes.

Why the double standard? Comments?

[tttompatz]

[GambateBingBangBOOM]

That was a good answer.

I'd only add that universities do offer distance 'certificates' in TESOL. And they require an under-grad etc, exactly the same as a masters. The certificates are shorter, though (and can often be upgraded to the masters later by doing more courses). A certificate in the UK or Australia (the countries through which most fo the distance programs seem to be done) is a single term (full time) program. It's a year in Ontario, Canada, but in cannot be done by distance in Ontario and the Ontario programs practicae throughout the year.

And so I would say that to be sure people should look at doing qualifications from real universities and colleges.

[Justin Trullinger]

Hi there-

I think I may be one of the posters mentioned in this:

[spiral78]

The answers to this post so far are clear and accurate, IMO. I'd like to expand a bit further on this point, in a logistical sense:

There is also a significant difference between an entry level program of 30 days or less where the observed practicum is a very necessary part of the short training interval and a post grad program where the focus tends to be more on the academic side rather than the practical side and the duration of the program is 12 or more times longer.

On the 30 day courses I've been involved in, it's clear that a prospective teachers' daily demeanour has an impact on how successful (or not) he or she wll actually be in a classroom. This is entry-level: does the candidate show up on time and with a presentable appearance every day? Are his or her basic social skills up to par? Is he or she able to create a professional kind of rapport with the practice teaching students? How is the atmosphere in his/her practice lessons? Is the atmosphere productive for the students? Or intimidating? How does the candidate respond to student errors in real time? Is he or she able to work effectively with other trainees in team and pair work?

All of these (and more) are very important aspects of beginning teaching, which cannot be answered in a distance course of study.

And, while they might sound basic, I've personally seen MANY violations of what one would consider simple etiquette. We all know the trainees who come in late and visibly hung-over on a regular basis. I recall the trainee who felt that a visible belly button ring was appropriate in a business class with suited-up professionals (she continued to entertain this misconception even after being told as tactfully as possible that it was not). I have seen male trainees put a fist into a wall after receiving feedback that included points for improvement, which they interpreted as criticism (such feedback can certainly come up in real language schools, obviously). Trainees whose knee-jerk reactions to a student error are NOT in the recommended range. Trainees who are unable to hide their attraction to students through the course of a 60 minute lesson. Trainees who flirt openly with students in a practice lesson. Trainees who other trainees refuse to work with in pairs or teams because they do nothing - or do work that is so off target that it will impact the whole team or the pair negatively.

It goes on and on.

I am not a trainer just now, but I can state unequivocably that I would never put 'my' seal of approval on a candidate whose daily work I had no opportunity to observe.

My distance MA was research-based, meaning that I applied theory to practice and wrote up the results for my tutors. They thus had a pretty clear vision of much of what I was doing in my classroom - and there was an on-site practicuum built into the programme. However, as an earlier post points out, at this stage I already had five years of practice behind me, and good references from the schools I'd worked with. Clearly, the basics of professional behaviour and general classroom tactics were at an OK level.

On a newbie course, this is an important part of what we're training for - not a given, demonstrated by some years of successful work in the field already.

Definitely not a double standard, by any means.

[bulgogiboy]

I think this question has been answered competently by other posters, but I'd just like to point out one thing:

You can do the two most prestigious TESOL diplomas (DELTA and Trinity DipTESOL) via distance, even taking up to a year to complete them, with the practical observation/written exam taking part in-person at an elected centre. For some reason they don't seem to do this with the lower-level certificates, but, if they did, I think it would be perfectly acceptable, and of equal worth to the kind of intensive CELTA that a lot of us did.

And by the way, I hear certain employers view the distance MA in TESOL just as suspiciously as distance certificates, in the Middle East region in particular, so I have read on this forum. Isn't it true that distance MAs hold very little sway with some employers in the ME?

[spiral78]

I did an MA TESL/TEFL by distance (though I completed a 30-day on-site component, which was optional). There were two Saudi teachers also on the programme - their government had paid for them to upgrade their quals.

So, not a definitive or general answer, but certainly some ME employers are convinced that a reputable distance MA can be acceptable.

[bulgogiboy]

[Justin Trullinger]

No definitive answer on the "distance degrees in the middle east" is possible, of course- I've heard of folks with distance MAs having problems in the middle east, but two people I know with distance MAs are now in the ME, one in Qatar, one somewhere in Saudi.

ANother thing to point out regarding distance courses- Distance programs at higher levels, like Diploma and MA programs, require that the trainee have prior training and be verifiably employed in a teaching circumstance appropriate to the course. In these cases, the ideas that the OP floated (Televised observation and similar) become very useful.

In certificate level courses, though, this often isn't an option. The principle market for certificate level courses is amongst people with no prior teaching qualifications. They generally don't have teaching jobs, and can't get them, because they have no quals at all.

Most certiificate participants are taking the course in order to be able to get a job- you can't, therefore, expect them to have a job in order to get the cert. And most folks without a job, don't have anyone to teach for a televised observations. Most distance certificate programs don't have the resources to arrange or provide them with students.

Best,
Justin

[naturegirl321]

I know that by doing distance ed, you have to put forth a bit more effort into finding the materials, organising time to study, and getting feedback. Sitting in class has advantages as well since you can interact, but with technology today, you can do that just as easily sitting at home.

However, TEFL certs are different than MA courses. TEFL certs are often practical whereas MA courses are usually theoretical. In order to learn how to teach, you have to practice. This is probably the reason why distance ed TEFL certs aren't as respected as on campus TEFL ones, but why most MA courses, distance or on campus, are pretty much equal.

[fluffyhamster]

IMHO the "approved" cert providers are the real 'paper mills' in all this, in that the 'doing' (rather than just 'observing') that Justin refers to in his first post above essentially equates to just 'observing then simply copying' (regardless of the flaws or question-begging idealizations there may well be in the model being so obediently and faithfully reproduced). One would have to be an absolute fool not to realize what is "required" on these courses in order to pass them "successfully".

Anyway, if the providers were a lot more honest they'd admit that they are charging quite a bit for what is (or less forcefully, what may ultimately be - not that Spiral goes quite as far as saying that however!) a process of establishing that somebody is reasonably punctual and polite (that, or they have a wad of money going spare!).

The real problems a new teacher will however face once actually in the job usually owe a lot more to lack of subject knowledge plain and simple ('What is this form called "again", how should it be best analyzed, and what decent activities are there to practise it and/or related forms?') than being unable to get up on time, or actually lacking rapport or whatever else may or may not hopefully compensate (for said lack of knowledge at least).

So the reality is that providers are in fact putting their seal of approval on many, with no real idea (or rather, no real concern) for how they may in fact perform in a job despite all other indicators to the contrary (I mean, being well-presented in nice clothing does not a necessarily good teacher make, though it does admittedly sure help them appear sharper!).

[Justin Trullinger]

Hi again-

I feel like this thread has wandered off topic. What "you" (several, but no plural second person pronoun available in my variety of English) are saying is interesting, but seems to me not to relate to the OP. If the question is about distance versus presencial, if you see what I mean.

I hear what you're saying, fluffyhamster. I want to emphasize, though, that you're generalizing a lot about "approved" cert providers. Not all courses are the same. Specifically:

[naturegirl321]

[fluffyhamster]

I'm not sure that we've gone so far off-topic in asking what's so good about on-site "intensive" cert courses (it's the natural flip-side to certainly the 'What's so bad about distance certs' line), but I'm sure not one to seriously question the comparative worth/value of most distance-based Masters. (That is, I don't really see that particular "double-standard").

The key to me isn't 'distance' versus 'attendance' (presencial?! Espagnol? 'Presential' though, maybe! LOL), but simply how much learning is involved, and I don't think providers are honest enough about the patchiness of what will be imparted on even their most well-run shorter courses especially.

But ultimately I accept that most current on-site certs are better than nothing, and I suppose I would really have to, if I were in a position that required me to hire teachers and pronto (I'd still try to find out who was really interested in teaching and not go just by paper credentials and/or pat answers however).

I do still wonder though just how many supposedly "qualified" teachers have turned out to be real disappointments to their (genuinely) long-suffering employers. Probably quite a few! Which (if you'll permit the argumentation) makes me then wonder how good these certs really all are at sorting the wheat from the chaff, or at least preparing some halfway-baked loaves. (The counterargument though is always 'Imagine how much worse the situtation would be with no certs, which is what you seem to be suggesting, Fluffyhamster!'. But nope, my argument is simply, 'Imagine how much better it would be for everyone, especially the teachers, if the certs were genuinely better and always improving rather than just "standardizing" things!').

I think the thing you've got to realize (or explicitly confirm) Justin is that SIT isn't the "market leader", the CELTA is, and I'll say again that I didn't/don't think much of the latter. That is of course just my personal opinion, but it still counts, and I'm not alone (though I guess the "satisfied" customers do outweigh the "dissatisfied" overall).

[spiral78]

But it isn't real work, it's mere easy, limited, hoop-jumping, clapping-for-fish practice. Of course trainers should fail or give the lowest possible grades to those who aren't trying at all or have silly issues, but the majority who are "doing OK" might perform worse than you'd think once in the real drink

Hmm. The courses I've worked on haven't been so form-based that we expected a 'performance' that was in some restricted range. It's not hoop-jumping - but I'm not a CELTA trainer!

Of course some 'trained' newbie level teachers (and some with higher quals too!) turn out to be a disappointment on the actual job. We've all got strengths and weaknesses, and finding onesself in a job that's a bad fit is always possible. For myself, it's teaching kids (of whatever age).

And some few trainees look good in the course and simply can't pull it together after, regardless of who/what they are trying to do.

Still, overall, as someone who has both trained and hired, a good on-site course is the best indicator we've currently got to judge whether a candidate has a decent shot at success. It's not perfect, but it works reasonably well, in my experience.