|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sojourner1

Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Location: Where meggi swim and 2 wheeled tractors go sput put chug alugg pug pug
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject: Korea needs ESL courses and to require certification |
|
|
I'm not only talking about getting certification to teach in Korea, but also about being the first foreigner in a school without a curriculum or established program.
I know I could do a better job in teaching English and Korea deserves the best since it's putting the most money, time, and effort into English schooling. Who pays ESL teachers the most in Asia? Who spends the most time in school? Who studies the most? Korea. Flame me on this, but it's the truth.
I noticed that CELTA, TEFL, and TESOL courses are widely available AND required in other countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, and America, but not in Korea. Had I known I would teach longer than 1 year, I would had just taken the course during college or at least a minor in education as to prepare for the long road ahead, but I lacked career planning and didn't know what field I would enter after graduation like so many do today due to uncertainties in a changing global economy. And then I wanted it 2 years ago before I came to Korea my 1st time, but couldn't afford it as I was just a broke graduate barely getting by. I guess I'm yearning for an opportunity at professional development as to be the best I can do as to have job satisfaction and respect. This could be done with a trip to Thailand or Vietnam, but I want one that's relevant to Korea. If Korea got a course, I bet many would take it as I don't know anyone who wouldn't like to be better as to get confidence and job satisfaction and be more respected.
Yes, it's true that if Korea required an ESL certification such as a TESOL for $1000 or more and didn't pay airfare and apartment rents, few would come teach unlike in lower paying countries such as Thailand where foreigners actually want to go teach for the experience of living in tropical SE Asia. Maybe they have a little money in their families to work with. I don't know how otherwise they work for peanuts and pay for those courses, housing, and flights out of pocket. I do want to get certification and try teaching in other countries as well, but it's not financially feasible as I'm not rich nor are my parents while I saddle a huge load of student loan debt and I attempt to save for the inevitable hard times ahead in the future.
I believe it would in the best interest of Korea and native teachers alike to have some training upon arrival or even a course if arriving teachers haven't taken one it as to get a better idea on how to do this job correctly rather than going into the classroom with only guesses on how do a good job. Of course, this whole ESL thing is of a highly experimental nature. It gets worse when there's no curriculum and communication with K-teachers is difficult or impossible and your confused on how to plan and proceed while you're the first to start a new English program. I can look at this as an opportunity to learn and grow professionally or as a burden due to a lack of knowledge, planning, and resources.
Of course, much of what we do is self explanatory and obvious, but it does get really weird at times. I still don't know much as it's typical for Koreans to not tell you everything you should know as every situation is very different. Yes, there is a 10 day EPIK orientation, but there's actually not due to the rush to get foreign teachers started. They run those twice a year at a resort, but it's really more of a chance to get to know other EPIK teachers and understand the business side of things. I didn't do this since I'm coming in at a different time, but they're talking I might have to do it in August. This would coincide with the already agreed upon Summer vacation time in August with my schools and education office since they want me in the Summer camp until August 14th.
You've got to know what you're doing through education and experience to be confident and competent to take charge and do well at it without someone helping you with ideas, lesson plans, and facts since many of us don't have that someone or something. This fact applies to any job requiring knowledge, strategy, and leadership where you're the first and only one of your kind. I'm referring to being the first elementary foreign English teacher in my local area.
It would be beneficial if the Korean Ministry of Education made it a requirement that all new teachers without certification take a 2 week certification course that includes practicum before starting the job. I can honestly say that I taught for 1 year in a hagwon and still don't know as much as I'd like to nor have the skill I'd like to have as to be confident and completely competent, but then it's more about attitude and relationship building than actual teaching performance. My best option is to find out everything I can and study up more with an online course and find good materials to develop a program and lesson plans.
I know EPIK has some things for me look at in the .hwp Korean word processor when I get time in the school office as I don't have that program on my American laptop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tob55
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: Required training |
|
|
| In a best case situation it would be proper and right of require the training, but many people will not go for it, thinking they are not receiving this or that. The best Korea has done is to allow numerous programs to operate as a means of providing the educational training they need. It isn't a win-win situation at all. However, with rapid changes taking place on a regular basis, it will take some time for the MOE to figure out which way they will go. Not everyone will be happy with their decision, and others will applaud it. It is sure to lead to some major concerns and criticisms. Your are right, training is needed, but unfortunately Korea doesn't know which way to go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Location: you boys like mexico?
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Demand outstrips supply here. Certs would dry up supply even further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nicholas_chiasson

Joined: 14 Jun 2007 Location: Samcheok
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| in most countries qualifications equal payment. In Korea...a CELTA is worth in some cases as little as 1,200 a year. I'd have to teach ESL for 3 years just to recoup the associated costs of getting one. Seems like a mighty poor business move. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thiuda

Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can download a reader for HWP called 한/글 뷰어 2007. Click on the diskette icon to initiate the download.
Last edited by Thiuda on Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thiuda

Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nicholas_chiasson wrote: |
| in most countries qualifications equal payment. In Korea...a CELTA is worth in some cases as little as 1,200 a year. I'd have to teach ESL for 3 years just to recoup the associated costs of getting one. Seems like a mighty poor business move. |
I disagree with your simplistic view on the matter. First of all, aside from direct monetary rewards, an accredited certificate may open career avenues to the holder the they would not have had without a certificate. A certificate signals to a potential employer that the person is willing and able to qualify themselves further, which puts them a step ahead of the competition, and may allow them to earn more in the future.
Second, you're forgetting that being more qualified leads to an increase in teaching ability and in ones confidence in the classroom, which in turn leads to a more rewarding experience teaching, and may also lead to a decreased workload as one isn't learning the Basics-of-the-job on the job. This alone would make qualifying yourself further worthwhile.
Also, someone who is going to do an accredited certificate is likely to stay in the education industry for longer than three years, so even if one were to stay at $1.2k a year more for the entire time of ones teaching career, it would start paying dividends in the fourth year.
Finally, for some people furthering their education isn't just a ticket to higher earnings, some may do it out of curiosity, others because they take pride in being professionals. These same people may consider a CELTA the first step into an MA programme, at which time there is the potential that their CELTA may earn them advanced standing, which in turn would lead to a significant savings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ttompatz

Joined: 05 Sep 2005 Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
| I disagree with your simplistic view on the matter. First of all, aside from direct monetary rewards, an accredited certificate may open career avenues to the holder the they would not have had without a certificate. A certificate signals to a potential employer that the person is willing and able to qualify themselves further, which puts them a step ahead of the competition, and may allow them to earn more in the future. |
How long have you been here?
This happens in the real world... not in Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thiuda

Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
| Thiuda wrote: |
| I disagree with your simplistic view on the matter. First of all, aside from direct monetary rewards, an accredited certificate may open career avenues to the holder the they would not have had without a certificate. A certificate signals to a potential employer that the person is willing and able to qualify themselves further, which puts them a step ahead of the competition, and may allow them to earn more in the future. |
How long have you been here?
This happens in the real world... not in Korea. |
I'm in my eighth year, not that my period of sojourn really matters.
Imagine, if you will, two identical twins applying for the same job. They both look the same, they both graduated from the same uni...etc., the only difference between the two is that one has a CELTA and the other does not. Who would you hire? And, besides, an accredited certificate will not just look good in Korea, but in other countries and industries as well. While you might argue that someone who switches from EFL to marketing might have little use for the CELTA, it would show that the person being considered for a marketing position is willing to continuously improve themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would even go further.....
What "new" teachers need is not certification but actual content they can teach easily and without stress. This is how you grow as a teacher -- when you aren't sweating about how to survive.
This is my line. I swear that teaching English isn't the "difficult" thing so many make it to be. With a little training and very basic materials, most people can do it with success and really be uplifted and empowered through the benefit they are providing others (never mind the income they receive).
Unfortunately, there aren't enough trainers available to be able to accomplish this. The ones out there doing something are mostly profit mongering and making it seem like you have to study years and know how many angels dance on the head of a pin, before you can ever think of teaching "right"....
I reject this premise and any attempt to make teaching English into some elitist marshmallow pie. Sure, all the rest is commendable --- schooling, training, new programs etc..... but the fact remains, it is language and all you need are solid materials, adaptable structure and the art of being human......
So yeah, people need training but the right training and most importantly, "content" that works and can give them the time to relax in class and discover the teacher everyone is. ......
DD
http://eflclassroom.ning.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thiuda

Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
I would even go further.....
What "new" teachers need is not certification but actual content they can teach easily and without stress. This is how you grow as a teacher -- when you aren't sweating about how to survive.
This is my line. I swear that teaching English isn't the "difficult" thing so many make it to be. With a little training and very basic materials, most people can do it with success and really be uplifted and empowered through the benefit they are providing others (never mind the income they receive).
Unfortunately, there aren't enough trainers available to be able to accomplish this. The ones out there doing something are mostly profit mongering and making it seem like you have to study years and know how many angels dance on the head of a pin, before you can ever think of teaching "right"....
I reject this premise and any attempt to make teaching English into some elitist marshmallow pie. Sure, all the rest is commendable --- schooling, training, new programs etc..... but the fact remains, it is language and all you need are solid materials, adaptable structure and the art of being human......
So yeah, people need training but the right training and most importantly, "content" that works and can give them the time to relax in class and discover the teacher everyone is. ......
DD
http://eflclassroom.ning.com |
I agree with your post to a certain extent, but the way I see it, training (and/or experience) precedes "content that works." You can have great materials at your disposal, but if you're not trained to use them properly you'll still be an ineffective teacher. Conversely, a trained teacher with no materials and just a little prep time would still be able to put together an effective lesson. Besides, a trained teacher doesn't require others' "content that works," they'll put together their own, keeping in mind their own strengths and weaknesses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I agree with your post to a certain extent, but the way I see it, training (and/or experience) precedes "content that works." You can have great materials at your disposal, but if you're not trained to use them properly you'll still be an ineffective teacher. |
I disagree with your post to a very certain extent.
Training NEVER precedes content. You don't grow roses from a desert but rather from a rich dung heap......
Meaning, materials and content are the soil NOT training. Each teacher / person is different and brings their own "experience" as a person to the teaching table. Training them in a strict sense without letting them encounter the content and allowing them not to prejudge the teaching environment is NONSENSE.
People are adaptable and approach language from many, nay, an infiinite angle(s). You don't "train" teachers actually. You give them confidence to see what is there and use it as "they see fit" and are....each teacher is different and training can only happen after the fact, after the teacher has enough experience to know who they are as a teacher and what their teaching style, their teaching presence, their philosophy, their "end" is. Not BEFORE.
Teaching is not paint by numbers.....
So I really think that what will benefit new teachers most is CONTENT that allows them to find out the teacher they are. So many never get there because they are too busy throwing lifelines into the water.......
I swear, I've seen so many potentially good teachers DESTROYED by the mere fact they were "trained" before they had enough experience to use and filter said training. They become automatons, teachers by rote and design and method and taught a subject, not students. The wrong approach, especially with language. You teach students, however multiple - never a subject. That's the rub. So many treat language and English as a traditional, fill in the blanks subject. It isn't.....the brain says it ain't so...and so does Mickey...
So we agree to disagree...
DD
http://eflclassroom.ning.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I agree with your post to a certain extent, but the way I see it, training (and/or experience) precedes "content that works." You can have great materials at your disposal, but if you're not trained to use them properly you'll still be an ineffective teacher. |
I disagree with your post to a very certain extent.
Training NEVER precedes content. You don't grow roses from a desert but rather from a rich dung heap......
Meaning, materials and content are the soil NOT training. Each teacher / person is different and brings their own "experience" as a person to the teaching table. Training them in a strict sense without letting them encounter the content and allowing them not to prejudge the teaching environment is NONSENSE.
People are adaptable and approach language from many, nay, an infiinite angle(s). You don't "train" teachers actually. You give them confidence to see what is there and use it as "they see fit" and are....each teacher is different and training can only happen after the fact, after the teacher has enough experience to know who they are as a teacher and what their teaching style, their teaching presence, their philosophy, their "end" is. Not BEFORE.
Teaching is not paint by numbers.....
So I really think that what will benefit new teachers most is CONTENT that allows them to find out the teacher they are. So many never get there because they are too busy throwing lifelines into the water.......
I swear, I've seen so many potentially good teachers DESTROYED by the mere fact they were "trained" before they had enough experience to use and filter said training. They become automatons, teachers by rote and design and method and taught a subject, not students. The wrong approach, especially with language. You teach students, however multiple - never a subject. That's the rub. So many treat language and English as a traditional, fill in the blanks subject. It isn't.....the brain says it ain't so...and so does Mickey...
So we agree to disagree...
DD
http://eflclassroom.ning.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spyro25
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
i'm with DD on this one, there is a marked difference between teacher training and teacher education (becoming a better teacher).
However, I also believe a certain yardstick is needed for employers to determine the willingness of an applicant to embark on personal development. I believe the CELTA or equivalent does just that, and while I certainly don't believe it makes 'better' teachers, i do believe that it shows a willingness on the holder's part to get a better idea about key issues in second language learning and teaching theory.
its a minefield this one....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thiuda

Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Training NEVER precedes content. You don't grow roses from a desert but rather from a rich dung heap...... |
To me, training is the acquisition of practical and theoretical skill sets, allowing, in our case, the ESL/EFL teacher to more effectively convey the content of their lesson. To me, training is the fertile soil on which "content that works" grows.
What I'm talking about is accepted pretty universally; you wouldn't go to someone who calls themselves doctor, but had never been trained as a one. A doctor requires theoretical and practical skills that even the sharpest scalpel is useless without.
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Meaning, materials and content are the soil NOT training. Each teacher / person is different and brings their own "experience" as a person to the teaching table. Training them in a strict sense without letting them encounter the content and allowing them not to prejudge the teaching environment is NONSENSE. |
Of course each teacher and person is different and brings their own personal experiences to the teaching table, what's your point? What does "training them in a strict sense" mean?
An inexperienced teacher, fresh out of university, can gain much from a little formal training. It will provide an introduction to the tools and tricks of the trade and provide the teacher with the resources necessary to continue their own education following the completion of their formal training. Consider for example action research, a great tool to improve ones teaching; if one isn't trained in its use, one can't use it.
| ddeubel wrote: |
| People are adaptable and approach language from many, nay, an infiinite angle(s). You don't "train" teachers actually. You give them confidence to see what is there and use it as "they see fit" and are....each teacher is different and training can only happen after the fact, after the teacher has enough experience to know who they are as a teacher and what their teaching style, their teaching presence, their philosophy, their "end" is. Not BEFORE. |
I disagree with your assertion that people approach language from many, or even an infinite number of angles; language has a structure, this limits the angles that one can approach it with. If you're talking about language education, rather than language itself, then, of course, each teacher will approach the subject differently, but in the end their teaching is focused on making students familiar with the target language - training can facilitate this process.
People are adaptable, yes, but, as a student or parent, I don't want you to be ignorant of the subject matter that you're teaching. Being a native speaker just isn't enough - just like talented artists and athletes still need to formalize their skills to be great, native speakers of English still have to receive some form of training in language education to be effective teachers.
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Teaching is not paint by numbers..... |
No kidding. Being trained makes you more open for effective ways to teach, not less.
| ddeubel wrote: |
So I really think that what will benefit new teachers most is CONTENT that allows them to find out the teacher they are. So many never get there because they are too busy throwing lifelines into the water.......
I swear, I've seen so many potentially good teachers DESTROYED by the mere fact they were "trained" before they had enough experience to use and filter said training. They become automatons, teachers by rote and design and method and taught a subject, not students. The wrong approach, especially with language. You teach students, however multiple - never a subject. That's the rub. So many treat language and English as a traditional, fill in the blanks subject. It isn't.....the brain says it ain't so...and so does Mickey... |
I'm sure that there are some more or less beneficial types of training, but when you say that teachers have been destroyed by training, or have even become automatons, your resorting to hyperbole to get your point across. Teacher training, and education in general, doesn't instruct teachers to stop thinking for themselves, it helps them think more critically about the task for which they are preparing themselves - I know not one trained teacher who treats English as a fill in the blanks subject, while many inexperienced, untrained teachers use exactly this kind of instructional method.
Maybe you could tell us a little about your own training. This might allow us to better evaluate where you're coming from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tigerbluekitty
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
|
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think the Koreans are very meticulous when it comes to learning English compared to people in other countries.
What most Koreans seem to want are "Chemi so! Chemi so!" lessons and the ability to do light shallow conversations, no more than that.
Sometimes I think all they want is an entertaining white monkey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|