Thread: Whats a qualified teacher?

i think some of the curent threads have, in my opinion, some very poor analogies about teaching and qualifications.

I spent 13 years of my life studying general subject matter with "qualified" teachers. Then I went to university and all of my teachers were apparently "unqualified" because they had never studied Education, just specialized in their field of study. That went on for the rest of my education, right through my MBA (which,according to some websites, I really do not have lol). Some of these teachers were horrible in the classroom. But they were experts in their field of study. They could have REALLY sued some teacher training, though.

Now, lets take a look at the poor TEFLers you guys like to disparrage so often.

All of us natie speakers are experts at the English language. Our usage level is Native and completely fluent. And if we have any kind of decent education we should be able to spell and string together a sentence or two. Believe it or not, we are experts in English language compared to the rest of the world.

Now, can we teach? Teaching language is quite different than teaching other subjects. Good teachers get a great deal of student participation. If you get some training, even as little as four weeks, will give many some basic skills that can make them successful English teachers. Will four weeks be ALL we need? Of ocurse not. Thats just a drivers permit to teaching english. All good teachers learn through their expereinces how to continually improve their teaching techniques and, obviously, more training is better than less training.

I am biased, I get it. But just because someone has "only" a four-week TESL does not make them a poor or unqualified teachers.....

underqualified as opposed to unqualified, imo.

I have met some amazing teachers who never had day 1 of training.....

Me too.

So your argument is that training is meaningless?

Originally Posted by bruceveld

They could have REALLY sued some teacher training, though.

Now, lets take a look at the poor TEFLers you guys like to disparrage so often.

All of us natie speakers are experts at the English language.

Of ocurse not.

expereinces

Kinda shot down your own argument there mate.

A qualified teacher is one who kids learn from in a positive way.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by bruceveld

They could have REALLY sued some teacher training, though.

Now, lets take a look at the poor TEFLers you guys like to disparrage so often.

All of us natie speakers are experts at the English language.
Of ocurse not.

expereinces

Kinda shot down your own argument there mate.

if you look in a dictionary (its a big book with lots of words) you might find there is a difference between TYPO and MISSPELLING.

Oh when trolls resort to typo flames.....

Learning how to teach can expose you to ideas and experiences that make you a better teacher.

Learning how to teach for 160 hours will expose you to fewer ideas and experiences that learning how to teach for 4 years or 6 years.

Experience in teaching, whether derived on the job or in specialized training, matters.

I think I'll let my betters chip in on this one before I spew forth my opinion.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

A qualified teacher is one who kids learn from in a positive way.

Well put MtD

Fuck it...I haven't ranted in a while!

Whats a qualified teacher? Hell, thats easy! A teacher that meets the legal requirements to be employed as a teacher. "Qualified" means, to me, that there is a predetermined set of requirements that a teacher has to have before they can teach. Thus, the teacher is "Qualified".

Originally Posted by pai nai ma

Learning how to teach can expose you to ideas and experiences that make you a better teacher.

Learning how to teach for 160 hours will expose you to fewer ideas and experiences that learning how to teach for 4 years or 6 years.

Experience in teaching, whether derived on the job or in specialized training, matters.

more is better.

We get it.

But accoding to the prevailing logic of this board, only people with degrees in education are "qualified" to teach. this means that the entire US Higher Education system, considered to be the best in the world by many, is staffed almost entirely by unqualified teachers.

In my opinion, and I have seen a lot of TEFLers, most native speakers with a degree, a personality and 120 hours of training can be at least adequate English teachers.

Now a person qualifed as a teacher doesn't mean that person is or even can be a teacher. Two different things...qualifications vs. the ability to teach.

I would also argue that while being a qualified teacher isn't exactly the same as being a properly credentialed or a quality teacher -- thier is a place where the three intersect.

Training, experience, mentorships, practicims, and obervation/feedback are all very helpful in improving as a teacher. Improve to a certain level and you are qualified/crdentialed/good at what you do.

Originally Posted by bruceveld

All of us natie speakers are experts at the English language. Our usage level is Native and completely fluent. And if we have any kind of decent education we should be able to spell and string together a sentence or two. Believe it or not, we are experts in English language compared to the rest of the world.

I have to disagree; I am native english speaking and many times Thais have asked me to speak slower or clearer regarding my use of the English language. I'm certainly not an expert as you suggest that we all are.

Being a UK native (or any other native English speaking country for that matter) results with many different accents and dialects; I for one am extremely lazy sometimes when speaking English. Although I make a different effort when speaking to Thais than Farang I will still have shortcuts in my dialogue.

Simple things like "Bottle of Water" I easily say without pronouncing the T's and therefore misunderstood. Though I have never sat in an international English lecture I'm sure that the standard of English is far superior than most native English speakers. There are posters on here who's second language is English and they consistently write posts with a high standard of English not tainted by regional accents, slang and laziness.

Originally Posted by bruceveld

if you look in a dictionary (its a big book with lots of words) you might find there is a difference between TYPO and MISSPELLING. Oh when trolls resport to typo flames.....

There is a difference but there is also effort to be considered.

Originally Posted by pai nai ma

Learning how to teach for 160 hours will expose you to fewer ideas and experiences that learning how to teach for 4 years or 6 years.

Here is my question to you.

Which would be more beneficial? 160 hours of training + 6 years of expereince or just 6 years of training?

As Diane Larson Freeman says, we don't know much about teacher training but we know teachers learn more by actually teaching than by any other means.

You sell the bare minimun, Bruce. From what I read most of your students leave happy. Cool! Are they qualified/properly credentialed/good teachers?

Originally Posted by bruceveld

In my opinion, and I have seen a lot of TEFLers, most native speakers with a degree, a personality and 120 hours of training can be at least adequate English teachers.

Adequate is all you're looking for now Bruce?

Originally Posted by Mr Pot

Originally Posted by bruceveld

All of us natie speakers are experts at the English language. Our usage level is Native and completely fluent. And if we have any kind of decent education we should be able to spell and string together a sentence or two. Believe it or not, we are experts in English language compared to the rest of the world.

I have to disagree; I am native english speaking and many times Thais have asked me to speak slower or clearer regarding my use of the English language. I'm certainly not an expert as you suggest that we all are.

Being a UK native (or any other native English speaking country for that matter) results with many different accents and dialects; I for one am extremely lazy sometimes when speaking English. Although I make a different effort when speaking to Thais than Farang I will still have shortcuts in my dialogue.

Simple things like "Bottle of Water" I easily say without pronouncing the T's and therefore misunderstood. Though I have never sat in an international English lecture I'm sure that the standard of English is far superior than most native English speakers. There are posters on here who's second language is English and they consistently write posts with a high standard of English not tainted by regional accents, slang and laziness.

Originally Posted by bruceveld

if you look in a dictionary (its a big book with lots of words) you might find there is a difference between TYPO and MISSPELLING. Oh when trolls resport to typo flames.....

There is a difference but there is also effort to be considered.

ALL of these variations, and our ability to deal with them all seemlessly, SHOWS we are experts in English. And all the dialects are all valid and "correct" English. Unless you are English--then you believe there is only ONE way to say everything... lol

Originally Posted by bruceveld

Which would be more beneficial? 160 hours of training + 6 years of expereince or just 6 years of training?

assuming the quality of the two experiences is the same, then the answer is easy -- 6 years trupms 160 hours.

Bruce, you arent arguing that your training exceeds an MA are you?

pai nai ma... they are qualified if the country where they seek employment says they are. I have seen some course "stars" go out and fail because they did not take their jobs seriously. I have seen some marginal passes go on the be praised by their employers as excellent teachers.

CSFFAN,as a minimum standard, adequate is all you can expect in 4 weeks. Hopefully, with 6 months + experience they are better.

Originally Posted by bruceveld

ALL of these variations, and our ability to deal with them all seemlessly, SHOWS we are experts in English. And all the dialects are all valid and "correct" English. Unless you are English--then you believe there is only ONE way to say everything... lol

Surely the only way to reach that expertise is to be raised in the said country and exposed daily to the idiosyncrasies of each nations particular language; and also, earlier the better.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Whats a qualified teacher? Hell, thats easy! A teacher that meets the legal requirements to be employed as a teacher. "Qualified" means, to me, that there is a predetermined set of requirements that a teacher has to have before they can teach. Thus, the teacher is "Qualified".

And in Thailand, in terms of ESL, there is only the broadest and most cursery of requirements -- I dont think its even defined as to the number of hours or whether you do observed teaching. It's a joke.

Originally Posted by pai nai ma

Originally Posted by bruceveld

Which would be more beneficial? 160 hours of training + 6 years of expereince or just 6 years of training?

assuming the quality of the two experiences is the same, then the answer is easy -- 6 years trupms 160 hours.

I competely disagree. That person walks out of their training as a completely inexpereinced teacher. At year seven the guy with all the training may be an all star. But the guy with the experience trumps the recent grad.