As I said earlier on, I think it depends on the qualification. We’re comparing apples and oranges if we compare practical hands-on teaching qualfications with largely theoretical ones. I’ve done the latter too and have sat there asking myself why I’m there. Unfortunately one of the main faults with the UK’s PGCE which qualifies schoolteachers for the state sector is that while it might qualify them to teach, it doesn’t prepare them to.
I worked for 10 years teaching ESL in S. Korea and Taiwan before going back and getting an MA in Teaching and a teaching license. What I learned most from the program was that I was already a teacher. Before I started that program I was teacher. A real one. A teacher who thought about what my students needs were and tried to meet those needs in creative, engaging, and effective ways. In the MA program, I studied learning theory and methodology–I did NOT learn to be a teacher. In fact, those in the program who had never taught before were pretty well dismayed at how little they were learning about actually teaching.
An none of that was anything at all about teaching ESL/EFL. As far as that goes, it had as much value for ESL teaching as taking a course on wine tasting would value a future math teacher.
I don’t know that it was harmful. It just wasn’t particularly helpful other than being required for gaining employment as a teacher in the States, or in public and private schools outside the States.
It has been mentioned by a few posters here that some of the comments are a bit too much about personal experience.
Wow - I think that’s great!
That’s exactly why (good) teaching is not “trainable” or a result of professional credentialism. Good teaching is intrinsically personal and results from personal experiences and self-examined development!
When I think of the good teachers I have had, my benchmark for calling them good was that that I learned something of value from them or they transmitted some of their enthusiasm about a subject to me.
The good teachers I had all seemed to be enthusiastic or passionate about teaching, but other than that, I doubt that any of them would suggest teaching qualifications are the basis (or necessary) for good teaching.
I agree actually. On another thread I listed what I believe to be the characteristics of a good teacher - something like hard-working, cares about the students, loves their job - not that they have xyz quals. I suppose I’m answering more from the perspective of what I’m looking for when hiring. You can’t assess very much at interview, nor even if you get the teacher to do a demo (not that I do that). Qualifications tell you that an external awarding body has independently assessed that person and found that they passed their own standards. If it’s a reputable organisation then you can have some faith in the qualification. You know that that person can perform to a set standard if they choose to. They sometimes choose not to of course.
If someone comes to you without qualifications it’s much harder to predict what they’re going to do. It’s more of an act of faith to employ them. I sometimes think of questions that will give me some clearer idea about that person - for example, I once asked an applicant to tell me about an individual learner he had taught and he couldn’t think of one! He said he could tell me about groups of learners but not individuals. I think when you’re hiring it’s the great unknown. You aren’t actually looking for fantastic teachers. You understand you can’t tell that at interview. You’re just looking for someone you know can be halfway competent, and if they’ve passed certain quals that weighs the probability towards success.
The problem for me is that teaching credential programs generally:
a) Do not present all the methodologies available, even for a short time (FL programs in the States nearly never even mention CI-based instruction, let alone teach candidates how to do it, and CI is not some lunatic fringe in the States at this point);
b) Have no evidence showing that what they include as content is directly related to success in the classroom (and what is “success in the classroom”? Not getting fired? Liking your job? Good test scores on student papers?)
c) Are far too location-specific (in the US, one state’s requirements are different from the next. Even within a certain state, requirements are not consistent. I could have gotten a K-6 extension to my certificate by taking one additional course, but because that course was not available anywhere, I had to settle for getting a 5-6 extension by taking two additional (different) courses. WTF?? The state education department has no idea about internal contradictions in its own regulations, nor does it care.
I guess if teacher credentialing made any sense, I might be more supportive of it.
That being said, having the certificate has made me more desirable in the eyes of some parties. I’ll be doing a three-day session later this month validating test items for a new national Chinese language teachers’ exam in the US, probably mostly based on having both a graduate degree and a certificate. They did not ask whether I knew anything about item writing or test design. Hmmm. This should be interesting.
Any teachers who are serious about EFL teaching can’t go wrong by doing a DELTA. It’s pretty comprehensive.
[quote=“Petrichor”]I agree actually. On another thread I listed what I believe to be the characteristics of a good teacher - something like hard-working, cares about the students, loves their job - not that they have xyz quals. I suppose I’m answering more from the perspective of what I’m looking for when hiring. You can’t assess very much at interview, nor even if you get the teacher to do a demo (not that I do that). Qualifications tell you that an external awarding body has independently assessed that person and found that they passed their own standards. If it’s a reputable organisation then you can have some faith in the qualification. You know that that person can perform to a set standard if they choose to. They sometimes choose not to of course.
If someone comes to you without qualifications it’s much harder to predict what they’re going to do. It’s more of an act of faith to employ them. I sometimes think of questions that will give me some clearer idea about that person - for example, I once asked an applicant to tell me about an individual learner he had taught and he couldn’t think of one! He said he could tell me about groups of learners but not individuals. I think when you’re hiring it’s the great unknown. You aren’t actually looking for fantastic teachers. You understand you can’t tell that at interview. You’re just looking for someone you know can be halfway competent, and if they’ve passed certain quals that weighs the probability towards success.[/quote]
Or they could just kind of game the system. They have to be careful not to appear like they’re just telling you what you want to hear, but it’s probably not too difficult for someone to go online and find a list of interview questions and solid answers. Or, someone who is kind of sharp or a good salesman could just make a story up on the spot and bullshit their way through the whole interview. Some people are really articulate in interviews and some simply aren’t. In many ways, they’re kind of a weird situation that isn’t really that indicative of anything other than someone’s ability to take interviews. They can definitely be gamed and I’m sure that experience (i.e. the number of interviews an applicant has done in his or her life) counts heavily also. A cynical person might even go for job interviews for jobs he or she has absolutely no intention of ever accepting simply to practise.
[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]
Or they could just kind of game the system. They have to be careful not to appear like they’re just telling you what you want to hear, but it’s probably not too difficult for someone to go online and find a list of interview questions and solid answers. Or, someone who is kind of sharp or a good salesman could just make a story up on the spot and bullshit their way through the whole interview. Some people are really articulate in interviews and some simply aren’t. In many ways, they’re kind of a weird situation that isn’t really that indicative of anything other than someone’s ability to take interviews. They can definitely be gamed and I’m sure that experience (i.e. the number of interviews an applicant has done in his or her life) counts heavily also. A cynical person might even go for job interviews for jobs he or she has absolutely no intention of ever accepting simply to practise.[/quote]
The big advantage for Taiwanese employers is they can always fire the guy pretty much at will if he proves to be rubbish. I’m not sure why they don’t do this more often. The tactic they seem to use is to cut an employee’s hours and generally make life difficult until he leaves voluntarily. Perhaps it’s a cultural thing I don’t get.
If I were an employer I would try to take an employee on part-time first, check out his performance for a couple of months and then decide whether to offer him a full-time position. Of course, they’ve shot themselves in the foot with that one with their racist work visa regulations. Doh!
tomthorne: I guess it depends upon the kind of job. If you’re talking about a highly technical/professional field, yes.
Most jobs here (and anywhere else in the semi-developed or fully developed world) are basically menial tasks though. The average white collar worker in the world is a dime a dozen, and especially here. Is there even any point in trying to get someone smart or competent for the average office job?
I have students who I know are going to be office fodder. They’re morons now. Morons don’t suddenly materialise out of thin air at the age of eighteen or twenty-two. These guys turn up to school. They turn up to life. One day, they’ll turn up to a job. That’s all anyone can expect from any of them. You can’t fight a horde of zombies because there’s always another one to replace the one you just got rid of.
Anyone smart is either not going to apply for the average office job anyway, or they’re going to move up or out in short order, so you’ll have to replace them anyway (probably with a zombie). If one zombie is as good/bad as another, why waste the time trying, pretending there will be a different outcome this time?
In some ways, I think the way workers are treated here is appalling. In other ways, I think, “Fuck 'em. They deserve all they get.”
[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]tomthorne: I guess it depends upon the kind of job. If you’re talking about a highly technical/professional field, yes.
Most jobs here (and anywhere else in the semi-developed or fully developed world) are basically menial tasks though. The average white collar worker in the world is a dime a dozen, and especially here. Is there even any point in trying to get someone smart or competent for the average office job?
[/quote]
Of course not. They’re not given any kind of authority, wouldn’t accept it if given, can’t and won’t be making any decisions. If they had a chance to move up, compete for better in some way, they might seem smarter. But thinking is not rewarded in this culture, it’s all but punished. So, in this self fulfilling sense, the education system here does prepare people to be good citizens.
housecat: Oh yeah. In some weird way, I actually think the education system here is actually more functional than the education system in many Western nations. In many parts of those countries, it’s completely dysfunctional, as are the kids who come out of it. Even the most useless kids at my school will probably get jobs somewhere. In Australia, they’d be the third generation on welfare and/or pregnant by 15 or stealing cars.
Shh! It’s a backhanded compliment, but don’t tell anyone I said anything remotely positive about the education system here though. My reputation as a serial cynic will be forever ruined.
Hello! There are some very interesting posts here. I haven’t worked in Taiwan (I plan to move there 2012) so can’t comment on the schools or the teaching techniques that are expected out there. I work 7am-2pm in an office and then do volunteer work in the evenings at a local community centre helping kids and adults with their literacy skills. I have received positive feedback from both students and qualfied teachers. I do have a BA in English Literature but no formal teaching qualifications.
In my (limited) experience I would say that forming a good relationship with and understanding the students needs, gaining their confidence in your ability to ‘teach’ them is a good starting point. I am considering taking somekind of teaching qualification although I’m not sure which one.
I find this forum very informative.