Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Cherbear]

Recently I've been asked about my teaching philosophy. I'm not even sure what is meant by that, so I ask the question: what is your teaching philosophy?

[tob55]

[harlowethrombey]

It's like an expanded mission statement.

What does being a teacher mean to you?

Why is teaching important?

What methods do you use to teach?

What metaphors can you apply to teaching?

Just how many pages can you stretch this BS?

[VanIslander]

With teaching philosophy, to each their own. Here is mine:

I train students to learn and develop a skill (rather than memorize content) and as such my lessons are student-oriented (rather than teacher centered), focussed on their abilities to listen, speak, read, write in holistic combination (rather than studying grammar, spelling, listening in isolation). Tests are done for diagnostic reasons and are mostly an ongoing series of quizes and informal demonstrations through constant interaction. And it's a wholly immersed environment to facilitate their participation: 'English only please. My class room is Canada, an English country'.

My role as teacher is to facilitate their use of English, more like a coach, cheerleader and cop (not at all like a lecturer) and that means I do a lot of pair and group work with them, monitoring and providing feedback as they go about doing tasks. I reward them by having a game at the end of class, which is nothing more in most cases than a thinly disguised review exercise designed to give some glory to those who mastered the lesson. I show my approval, am co-dependent in a way: they do well, we're all happy, they don't do well I'm troubled and we work on solving the problem through further practice, at the worst of times not getting the end of class "game". Once in a blue moon they get the extrinsic reward of unique candy from my home country. A new class gets an extrinsic reward more often, until the habit of performance, competition and basic effort level is established, I being a bit tougher tastmaster early on, based on the idea that a teacher who is strict at first establishes the foundation to be able to relax things later on, once a basic understanding of the ground rules and the class dynamics are set.

Because students need to be active, there are no free rides in my class. It's my way or the highway. A student is sent to the hallway if they don't participate (unless visibly ill). Students of lower than average ability are included in all tasks even if they have to do half the work or need special assistance from a high level student - I believe in the use of peer resources and will even establish a mentor type relationship by putting a top student together in pair work with a slower student, with instructions on how help is to be given (e.g., give hints not answers, show how it's done through other examples, etc). There are no teacher's pet in my classroom, or rather - the pets change each day - I showing approval of successes and developed abilities, so that student who never could quite pronounce a sound well suddenly getting it is an occasion for everyone to cheer, everyone has a stake in everyone else succeeding, after all, the sooner they all get it, the sooner we get to the review exercise ("game!").

The role of a book in my teaching is secondary, is like training wheels for a new class, mostly it's just another resource material once a class gets into the routine of my classroom, so a book is rarely covered 100%, usually some parts are ignored, others expanded on, material covered outside of sequence. I use teacher's manuals when I first look at a book, to mine it for activities to be done, seeking to design a lesson from the end backward: first think of what I want the students to be able to DO, then figure out what they need to KNOW to be able to do it.

I teach independently, fit in very well with the academy structure of being the one native English speaking teacher on staff who does his own thing. I have developed my philosophy over six years, three years at each of two similar hagwon situations, ideal for my approach. I choose the texts for my classes, flexible to use franchise books as long as in the ways I usually use them. I don't use CDs or tapes or computers or any other thing between the students and I (except as background for songs). I don't think I ever had a class where the students were expected/allowed to just listen and watch. They have to always SHOW what they have learned somehow or the other, as determined in lesson preparation and continually in a hundred little ways in class.

I never have had - nor would I take - direction in my teaching from management. I draw a distinct line between my responsibilities as a teacher, and the academy's powers as a business. They set the time and length of classes and determine who goes in which classes, and I at most can make recommendations; similarly, I decide what exactly to teach and how in my classroom, and they at most can make recommendations.

If an employer is unhappy with my teaching they could always fire me. I work hard and try my best and will live or die by what I do. I believe that is an acceptable and reasonable situation, given I've good references from each of my two past 3-year teaching positions and I plan to continue to thrive in this profession according to the teaching philosophy I have used to date.

[Demophobe]

A teaching philosophy needs research and should evidence real knowledge on the subject, not unfounded opinions and unjustified beliefs.

[Fishead soup]

[VanIslander]

[Goku]

A major problem with the education industry is the huge disagreement about teaching philosophy among teachers.

In the ESL industry it's even more split.

Teaching philosophy usually ecnompasses how you believe students learn and by what methods.


While for a greater part of my career (6 months) I did do the the games. But later, my philosophy greatly changed face when I realized my kids didn't learn much this way.

But many teachers would disagree and all with valid points. All teachers have different ways to approach learning and teaching based upon experience, knoweldge, theory etc.

I have always been a firm advocate of learning through mnemoics, association, task based activities, and alternative creative ways of learning. However, in a Korean school system it's almost impossible due to language barriers, classroom management considerations, and the unfamiliarty to the students of this teaching style.

Which unfortunately based on all these considerations, leads me to believe the easiest path of learning is rote repeition. A grim dismal fact, but regardless is probably most helpful to the students.

We all have our different backgrounds that affect what we believe. The fact is, if you don't have one, you should probably develop one.

Take into considerations your knowledge about child physhcology, cognitive learning, language aquisition theory, confinents of the structure in your school system to forumlate a working philsophical appraoch to teaching studetns

[Demophobe]

[Juregen]

[Demophobe]

[Juregen]

[I'm no Picasso]

[Demophobe]

No beef, just talking.

The poster I responded to, the one you are defending, has a thread where they stated they were late often because of playing video games.

I found it compelling that they would then come on a thread like this. Perhaps I shouldn't have commented so extensively.

I am not saying I am so great; read, don't imply so much. I simply said what I think a teaching philosophy is and isn't. I don't expect to change anyone here, as shouldn't you.

@Juregen:

Your first comment doesn't lead me to your subsequent interpretation of what you were trying to say. Your first comment looks like bait, that's all.

As for what most teachers do, I am not sure that you or I are in a position to make any statements at all. I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that a mix of styles is good, as there is no one style that suits all.

When it comes to other aspects that comprise a teaching philosophy, they need knowledge, not experience. I know many truly great teachers whom I look up to and respect greatly that don't have extensive theoretical knowledge; they have found sound, effective, proven methods that work for them through research regarding what they are teaching. I think they would all agree that they needed to read first and that the information gleaned from researching has complimented their style and enriched their class.

I have heard this before and it bears repeating: Education doesn't make a good teacher (as an is-all/end-all, but it makes a good teacher better. I believe this to be true.

[ekul]

I teach therefore I am.

(Sorry)