Link Up

Login
Password
	Remember me on this computer
	Forgot your password?
	Register

TEFL Training Programmes

One of the most frequently asked questions in the field of EFL or at least the one that I am most frequently asked is, 'What constitutes a good teacher training programme'? Admittedly, teachers or potential teachers do not phrase the question as such. Instead the question is most frequently asked in one or the other forms that follow: Does Language Link accept teachers who have such and such qualifications? or Does Language Link recognize such and such qualifications? Regardless of the form that this question takes, the essential underlying assumptions around which either question is asked are, Language Link, being a professional school of foreign language study, would only give employment to teachers with acceptable qualifications. and This being the case, Language Link is well placed to give advice on what is an 'acceptable qualification'. To begin with, I do not dispute the verity of these two statements. That said, answering the question, 'What constitutes a good teacher-training programme?' is not an easy undertaking. There are a number of reasons for this of which slander is not one. I do not mind calling a spade a spade, however writing an honest evaluation often depends upon one's point of view. Therefore, rather than point out a particular programme by name, I would prefer to discuss the merits i.e., advantages of different types of programmes as well as their disadvantages. Before doing so, however, I wish to point out that most teachers (I've heard as many as 70%) are without a Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) qualification. If this is true, then it stands to reason that ANY teacher training programme has got to be better than the alternative i.e., not having any training at all. By the way, should it not be obvious, being a native English speaker is NOT a qualification. Likewise, the fact that one has been speaking English all his/ her life CANNOT be construed as an acceptable alternative to training or experience. Finally, as long as I have alluded to 'training', then believe me when I say holding a degree in English, literature, journalism, linguistics, and so on, is NOT a suitable substitute. To believe otherwise, is to believe that you are also qualified to teach English to a class of native English speakers. And whereas most accept that they would not be qualified to do so (and would never attempt this without having the proper teaching credentials), many of this same number somehow believe that going into a classroom of non-native English speakers is somehow different and that they would be successful in such an endeavour. Before continuing, let's recap the three essential points that I have just made: Most English Foreign Language (EFL) teachers do not hold an EFL qualification. Being a native English speaker is not a suitable substitution for training. Holding an English/ English related degree is not equivalent to holding a TEFL qualification. If you accept this as true, then the implication is stunning. Does this mean that 70% of those who teach English as a foreign language are BAD teachers? In order to answer this question and to give the answer a non-offensive tone, consider the following. Having worked in the field for over fifteen years as both a teacher and school director, I thoroughly believe that most foreign students of English fall into one of three categories. They are: Happy students who like their teachers and are learning English Happy students who like their teachers but are not learning English Unhappy students who neither like their teachers nor are learning English In order to proceed, it is preferable to relate these students to their teachers. That is, teachers fall into one of three categories. They are: Teachers who have happy students who are learning English Teachers who have happy students who are not learning English Teachers who have unhappy students who are not learning English Unfortunately, though this is true, it is not true that one can easily place teachers into one of these three categories based solely on their having attended or taken an organized teacher-training programme. Of course this does not answer the question, and I do intend to answer the question. I only wish it to be understood from the start that being a good EFL teacher involves more than just having a 'certificate'. That's the good news. The bad news is that there is no such thing as a born EFL teacher, and despite what your loved ones (especially mothers) have told you, the 'animal' simply does not exist. Of course, and to give nature its due, I readily admit that certain people are 'cut out' to be EFL teachers (possessing the right type of personality and temperament), while others are not. Therefore, an EFL teacher, and by this I mean one who is fully prepared to accept the roles and responsibilities demanded of an EFL teacher, cannot be created through the simple act of taking an organized teacher training programme. You're either the right type, or you're not. Likewise, an organized teacher-training programme can do little to change this situation. Unfortunately, as long as the demand for English foreign language teachers remains high, wrong teacher types will continue to enter the field and many of these will have qualifications. One last point, which I believe needs stating, is that good EFL teachers evolve. With or without a teacher-training programme, the right teacher type will eventually evolve into a good EFL teacher. What a teacher training programme does, however, is speed up this process. That said, employers still prefer EFL teachers to have qualifications. Otherwise, the right teacher type will be learning from his or her mistakes 'on the job', and should it not be obvious, employers do not like and should not have to pay for this trial and error learning. Anyway, with the foregoing information as a backdrop, let's again recap. In addition to the first three points which I shall again state in the hope that they will sink in, Most English Foreign Language (EFL) teachers do not hold an EFL qualification. Being a native English speaker is not a suitable substitution for training or experience. Holding an English/ English related degree is not equivalent to holding a TEFL qualification. add the following: There's no such 'thing' as a born EFL teacher, Certain people are 'cut out' to be EFL teachers while others are not. The right type of person can evolve naturally into being a good EFL teacher The process of becoming a good EFL teacher can be speeded up by taking/ attending a teacher train programme. Given this, what then constitutes a good EFL teacher-training programme? Stated differently, 'What knowledge, skills and abilities are EFL employers looking for in their newly hired EFL teachers?' By identifying and listing the knowledge, skills and abilities found in the competent EFL teacher, it should thereafter be an easy task to describe and discern what constitutes a good EFL teacher-training programme. A. Knowledge: Knowledge falls into three broad categories. Grammar and Phonetics: The first category, and unfortunately that which is most lacking in EFL teachers today, is a thorough knowledge of the terminology and grammar of the English language. Without this, it is impossible to succeed in the TEFL field. For any who consider learning grammar to be a waste of time for native speakers let me assure you that it is not. Without this knowledge you will never become a real EFL teacher. Though Teaching English as a Foreign Language is not an easy endeavour, it is made unnecessarily difficult by failing, or worse refusing, to learn the grammar of the English language. Likewise, teachers should have knowledge not just of English but also about English. Phonetics, though considered less important than grammar, plays a critical role in assisting the student to understand proper pronunciation. This is especially true when it is necessary for students to visualize the difference between what they think they are saying and what they are saying in reality. Taken one step further, teachers who take the time to compare the students' native language with their own particular dialect of English will have a greater understanding of the potential problems that students are likely to have pronouncing various sounds (phonemes) or sound combinations i.e., words and phrasal units . Methodology: Knowing what to teach is only one side of the coin. Knowing how to teach is the other. This brings us to the second broad area of knowledge needed by the successful EFL teacher- knowledge of TEFL methodology. There are many approaches to language learning and teaching. Probably the most widely used one today is called The Communicative Approach based on the theory that language is communication. In order to create an environment conducive to the learning of English, the EFL teacher must be able to facilitate the communication process in the classroom. A thorough knowledge of the Communicative Approach is therefore essential. Trade tools: Finally, TEFL, like many fields of endeavour, has a set of tools which helps and supports the EFL teacher to convey the ideas necessary to the students' learning of English. These, for the most part, come in the form of books, cassettes (or CDs), videocassettes (or DVDs), computer programmes, flashcards and so forth. In order to assist the student to learn grammar and to enhance the classroom environment, the EFL teacher must know what literature and materials are available, how to evaluate their worth as teaching aids and how to exploit those that are deemed worthy. B. Skills: To be effective, an EFL teacher must possess the skills needed to present, practice and produce language in the classroom. S/he must also be able to check that the language taught has been correctly incorporated. All this must occur within a stable classroom environment conducive to learning. Given this, all of the following skills are, without exception, deemed de rigueur to the competent and capable EFL teacher: how to teach the language skills- speaking, reading, writing and listening how to teach grammar and vocabulary how to elicit, drill and correct errors how to check for understanding how to plan lessons how to conduct classroom activities (games, role plays, simulations, information gaps etc) how to organise pair and group work how to develop student rapport how to manage classrooms C. Abilities: With regard to the skills listed above, EFL teachers must be able to adapt these skills to the various learner settings in which they will, at one time or another, be found. Learner settings may be divided by the students' age, type of English being taught and/or language ability. As such, they include: the teaching of young learners and/or adults the teaching of General English, Conversational English, Business English and/or Examination Preparation the teaching of same or mixed ability classes. Though the preceding lists are by no means definitive, they do serve to highlight two points. First, Teaching English as a Foreign Language is a professional field of endeavour and second, one should not seek to enter this field without some type of formal training. As previously mentioned, there is no such thing as a 'born teacher'. To believe otherwise is ludicrous. Having identified the knowledge, skills and abilities that professional EFL teachers should have, what then can be said of the various teacher-training programmes found on the market today? Currently, TEFL training programmes come in all shapes and sizes. For ease of writing and understanding, I shall divide TEFL courses into three categories: online courses, short taster courses and full-length (note, I didn't say long) practical courses. In assigning these designations, I have used arbitrary criteria which I shall explain. Likewise, it should be noted that some courses have characteristics that overlap others. Where possible, I will mention these. Online courses: As an employer of EFL teachers, I am somewhat suspicious of the effectiveness of online courses. Though I would not put them into the same category as schools that offer medical degrees by correspondence course, they have a number of similar limitations. Prior to discussing these, I do wish to point out their pluses. First, online courses are available everywhere regardless of location, provided you have a computer and access to the Internet. Second, the subscriber can work on his/her course at times convenient to him/her. Third, depending upon the particular course in question, most are 'affordable'. Lastly, although I have never subscribed to any of the commercially available online TEFL courses, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they are well written and academically sound. Given that an online TEFL course possesses all these characteristics, it would appear, at first sight, to be a solid investment. Unfortunately, for all the 'good points' that an online TEFL course may have, there is one factor which undermines them all (at least all to my knowledge), they do not, more precisely cannot, incorporate a practical teaching component. It is here that online TEFL courses start to remind us of the aforementioned 'schools that offer medical degrees by correspondence course'. Without real live patients, or in our case students, how is it possible to evaluate the extent to which the TEFL theory taught and the practical advice given has been both understood and incorporated? Sitting for interactive tests and/or writing papers is not sufficient. Only by approaching the operating table can the physician truly test his or her abilities. The same holds true in TEFL. Only by entering the classroom and confronting live students can a new teacher trainee discover his/her limitations. Before continuing, I would do well to define the term 'practical teaching component'. The practical teaching component of a TEFL course is the course time allotted to allowing the teacher trainee to put into practice the teaching skills that s/he has been taught (notice I didn't say learnt) during classroom input sessions. So as to maximize the benefit of observed teaching practice, most 'full standard courses' allow trainees to practice their skills (or lack of them) on guinea pig students at two distinct levels of English language proficiency. Usually elementary and intermediate learners of English are recruited for this 'privilege'. In either case, the trainee is observed by an experienced teacher trainer who, following lesson's end, asks for and gives feedback concerning the teacher's classroom performance. One last point deemed worth mentioning is that teacher trainees are marked as pass or fail with regard to their classroom performance. Should the trainee be unable to pass the majority of his/her practical teaching assignments, s/he fails the course and does not receive a TEFL certificate. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons for classroom failure is the trainee's inability not just to demonstrate the various skills required of competent teachers but also to integrate them into a solid classroom performance. Again, I am suspicious of TEFL courses, online or otherwise, which cannot or do not include a practical teaching component. Online courses do not give teachers the opportunity to try out the techniques that they have read about in front of classes of live students nor do they put the teacher under the pressure of 'live fire'. Teaching English as a foreign language neither takes place in a vacuum nor is it a single task activity, it is a multi-task event. Instead of reading about how to present language and responding to test questions, and then reading about drilling techniques and then responding to test questions, and then reading about eliciting techniques and then responding to test questions and so on and so forth, teaching is about being able to put it all together into a solid classroom performance. Nowhere on an online TEFL course will you be interrupted by students who say, 'I don't understand'. Nowhere will you be confronted by students who refuse to speak English and continue to talk in their native tongue (referred to as the L1). Nowhere will your classroom management skills be put to the test. Nowhere will you be tested on your ability to properly grade language or provide enough material to cover a ninety minute lesson. Nowhere will you be confronted by students who say that the activity you are doing is boring or not interesting and ask to do something else. I could continue, but I think the point has been made. As for me, I like my teachers to have had butterflies in their stomach prior to teaching for me. Lastly, though some online courses may also allow trainees to submit a videotape of them teaching a sample lesson for evaluation (of course, for an additional fee), this is not sufficient. Feedback is only useful if it can be followed-up on by subsequent observations. So as not to end on a sour note, I ask you to remember that up to 70% of EFL teachers are without EFL qualifications. Given that, online courses, if academically sound, do at least give you a foot up on the ladder. That said, most reputable schools are going to tell holders of such qualifications that these qualifications are not sufficient for entry into the field. Some schools such as Language Link will tell holders of online TEFL certificates that, should they wish to seek employment, they will need to apply as intern teachers which will necessitate that they attend a four week Initial Training Programme (skills training + practical teaching component) and thereafter weekly seminars and insets devoted to developing their abilities. Short Taster Courses: Short taster courses refer to short-term, on-site TEFL courses of durations from two days to two weeks. Some go by the name 'TEFL seminars'. Though I have chosen to use the word 'taster', it should be noted that I have not coined the term. In reality, the term refers to short-term TEFL courses (many of which are run by reputable schools) which allow individuals 'thinking about' teaching English as a foreign language the opportunity to sample or get a 'taste' of what a 'real' TEFL course would be like; this of course, for a small fee. Again, though it is hard to be all-inclusive, I shall try to summarise their characteristics. For the most part, such courses do not include a practical teaching component, or if they do, it is either a trial (more precisely 'try') lesson or it incorporates time during which the trainees observe teacher trainers conducting lessons. Regardless, the problems inherent in such 'do once' or 'observe once' courses have already been alluded to. If the taster course includes a 'do once' teaching component, how is the teacher trainer able to judge whether the feedback that s/he has given will lead to the trainee's further development as a teacher unless s/he has the opportunity to observe him/her again (and again). As for 'observe once' courses, that's a lot like watching a doctor operate and then saying that you're able to imitate his/her performance. Enough said. Secondly, the shorter the course, the less the input and scope of training the trainee will receive. Conversely, the longer the course, the more likely it is to incorporate more of the skills training that all teachers need. Given the short durations of some of these taster courses, an online course might, with respect to input, offer the trainee more by way of input and quality. Finally, regardless of the taster course's length, the trainee is at least freer to ask 'real time' questions than would otherwise be possible online. Unfortunately, the shorter the course, the less time the trainee has to realize what exactly his/ her questions are. Again, real taster courses were never meant to be an end in themselves (the goal was not to make you a EFL teacher) but rather a means to an end (to discover whether EFL was for you). Full-length Practical Courses: What is a full-length practical course? Essentially, a full-length practical course is one that provides the trainee with enough time to receive adequate input concerning the skills training, as well as some of the knowledge and abilities demanded of qualified EFL teachers. Likewise, such courses include a practical teaching component. Usually such courses include 100 - 120 contact hours and are run either intensively over four weeks (full-time) or semi-intensive over a few months (part-time). Class size is usually limited to 12 - 18 trainees. Finally, like the other categories of TEFL courses, prices vary greatly. In order to more fully understand 'full-length practical courses', I shall try to break them down by course content. Before doing so, however, it absolutely essential from the start that you understand, full practical courses have not been set up to teach the trainee grammar. Most often such courses accept applications from potential trainees who must complete some form of 'pre-interview task' to quote someone else's term. The pre-interview task is not a grammar test but rather a language awareness test. It is designed to assess the applicant's level of knowledge 'about the English language'. By way of example, an applicant might be asked the difference between the following sentences: He's been to London. He's gone to London. or the following words: high tall Of course, these are the easy parts. Another section might ask you, 'How would you teach an EFL class the difference between these two sentences (or these two words)?' The goal is to determine whether the applicant is an educated speaker of English. By the way, admission on a full-length practical course can be denied for failing in this endeavour. Another point worth mentioning again, the applicant, should he be accepted as a trainee, will not learn grammar on the course (OK, some courses touch on grammar and even have a short grammar test but usually as an 'add on' or a 'feel good' component). Because such courses are too short to adequately teach grammar, many assign applicants a 'pre-course task', better known as a 'Self-access Grammar Module', which the trainee should complete prior to attending the course. Once the trainee starts his/her course, s/he can expect morning input sessions during which the following are usually covered: English grammatical structures and their functions The teaching of lexis, pronunciation & discourse Error analysis and correction Current teaching methods The learner, the teacher & the teaching/ learning context Effective lesson planning & preparation Classroom management Classroom resources and textbooks A brief study of a foreign language A review of the above will show that classroom sessions are dedicated to some teaching of knowledge (e.g., current teaching methods) and to skills training (e.g., error analysis and correction). Most courses also include a brief study of an unknown language such as Swahili. The reason for this is two-fold. First, as many native speakers have never before undergone a real language learning experience, this is a good opportunity to help the trainee develop a little empathy for the 'pain or pleasure' that s/he is about to cause students in their guinea pig classes (and beyond). Secondly, the trainees will have the opportunity to observe an experienced teacher trainer teaching a foreign language using one or other of the methods associated with the Communicative Approach. Hopefully, trainees will witness first-hand its effectiveness. Afternoons are usually devoted to supervised lesson preparation. The day before each teaching practice session, trainees have the opportunity to discuss their proposed lesson plans and materials with a course tutor. This enables the trainee to receive support, guidance and feedback before the supervised/assessed teaching practice sessions and make any suggested adjustments. Starting late afternoon and running into the evening is teaching practice. All trainees undergo a minimum of six hours of assessed teaching practice. As previously mentioned, trainees teach students at two distinct levels: Elementary and Upper-intermediate. Trainees are required to submit a lesson plan and a copy of all materials to be used to the course tutor before the lesson. Following the teaching practice, trainees usually write a self-evaluation of their lesson, which is used as a basis for feedback given by the course tutor. Lastly, throughout a full-length practical course, the trainee will be assigned a series of papers to write that focus on different aspects of teaching and learning a language such as language analysis, materials evaluation, reflections on classroom practice and a case study of a learner. As is obvious, full-length practical courses are usually designed to be intensive in nature and as comprehensive as possible. Oftentimes, such courses are accused of being too intensive and too comprehensive. Regardless, many employers see such courses as providing the minimum preparation needed for teaching English as a foreign language. Before ending this tome, I believe there is one last area which should be addressed and that is accreditation. Are such courses accredited and by whom? For convenience only, I will divide full-length practical courses into two groups. Into the first group I shall place the University of Cambridge CELTA and the Trinity College London TESOL. Into the second group, I shall place all others. With respect to the first group, both certificates are validated by their respective academic institutions and both are recognized by the British Council as minimum qualifications needed in order to teach English as a Foreign Language. Should you not be familiar with the British Council, the BC was established by the government of the UK to promote British language and culture. That said the BC is represented in the United States and the CELTA and TESOL are offered at a number of locations throughout the US. With respect to EFL employers, these certificates are, for the most part, recognized globally by almost all schools where English is taught as a foreign language. I say ' for the most part ' as certain schools prefer a university diploma (of any kind) thinking that this is the hallmark of a teacher. Unfortunately such schools usually engage teachers to run conversational courses. This is not the same as teaching language. In any event, the Cambridge CELTA and its Trinity TESOL equivalent are viewed as standards by 'reputable schools'. However, that said, this should not be understood as inferring that other TEFL Certificate programmes are not 'reputable'. Around the world, there are a number of organisations which offer teacher training courses other than the CELTA or TESOL. These certificates are recognised in-house. Thus, trainees are evaluated by the same teacher trainers who teach them (one might infer that this is kind of like the fox looking after the chickens). The CELTA/ Trinity TESOL, on the other hand, must hire independent assessors who, at the expense of the training school, are flown in to moderate and assess trainee performance. Thus schools are 'kept honest' by this process. So as to give you an indication of how much this costs, the Language Link CELTA costs US$ 1250. Of this amount, approximately US$ 250 must be paid out for assessment. It's costly, but then again the trainee earns a CELTA and employers know that the trainee was honestly and independently assessed by a third party. Again, I caution the reader, I am not suggesting that schools which offer other certificates such as ITC, Vialingua, etc are not reputable companies. Language Link has hired numerous teachers from these companies and we have been satisfied with their performance as teachers. However that said, you cannot compare the prestige of a CELTA or TESOL Certificate with other certificate courses. Again, I am not saying that other courses are not as good, I am simply stating a fact- employers hold the CELTA/ TESOL in the highest regard. That said, many large companies which hire lots of teachers also offer their own in-house variety of the CELTA. This includes Language Link which, in addition to offering the CELTA, also offers its own in-house TEFL qualification. Normally such schools employ large numbers of teachers, thus they cannot always depend upon having enough CELTA/ TESOL qualified teachers applying for positions. This year, Language Link Russia employed 189 English foreign language teachers. Having previously alluded to 'the fox looking after the chickens', Language Link's Internship Programme is a reputable and 'honest' programme. Yes, trainees are assessed by the same people who train them. However, that said, their are two differences. First, Interns do not have to pay for their training programme, so if they are not to standard, The School is free to say, 'I'm sorry, but I cannot put you in front of a class of students as your classroom performance is substandard.' Second, The School will say this, if need be, as Language Link students are paying clients. Thus, The School will not risk its reputation. In conclusion, as the foregoing sections attest, Teaching English as a Foreign language is a professional field of endeavour with its own body of knowledge. Anyone considering undergoing a TEFL training programme should give serious thought as to what they are about to pay their money for. Cutting corners may be cost effective at the outset, but sooner or later you will pay the price. So shop around and shop smart.