Caitrin

Wow. The old "victim blaming doesn't exist" canard, and only three replies into the thread.

Clueless dude being a clueless dude. There's a significant difference between the reaction a woman gets versus the reaction a man gets for doing the "same thing." There isn't a comparison, and it's ridiculous to make such a comparison.

"Men fear women will laugh at them. Women fear men will kill them."

and lol at everyone freaking out about 4 people sharing a house. Its not necessarily to be cheap its mainly work related and its really normal actually, Ive been sharing places with other guys for the past year. And yea its better to have roommates to party with cause it prob gets boring alone. But if someone can point me in the direction of a luxury condo thats 500usd> im on board

Ah, now we start to get the whole story

Is this work related with or without work permits ?

Sounds to me like either a bunch of "digital nomads" or "boiler room" operation that would require four people sharing

I noticed it too and thought the same thing.

Of course digital nomads, if they make enough, often needn't be this stingy. If I was in a different stage in my life, I'd be doing it too, because I could make enough writing to cover a fairly comfortable lifestyle in CM, based on the week I spent there. It's pretty much the only place in Thailand I'd consider living. However, I'm already settled, and unlikely to move to Thailand for a longer term than about 90 days for an extended vacation.

Actually, I'm a woman.

And really, I was just contradicting your comment that "all others are derived" from RP. That's not true. I'm glad you introduce other accents. That's definitely a very good thing. I just wanted make it clear that what we have amongst all of the current Englishes (plural) is parallel development. Your English has not maintained itself unchanged throughout the centuries while all others have diverged from it. That's not how language works.

Kaorop... May I ask if you actually spent a great deal of time studying the evolution of human language as part of your teaching course of study? I ask because the idea you're espousing here about "mother tongue," is... not to put too fine a point on it, total bilge. The various versions of English, including the English used in the South-East of Merry Old England, are never not in flux. It is not the tongue it was when American pronunciation and vocabulary began to diverge. The same is to be said of Australian pronunciation. Or we could speak of modern Parisian French versus that spoken in Marseilles or Quebec.

Just one example is the vocabulary word, "rubbish." It dates from well after the point of American independence. Before that, "trash" was used by the English in England.

If you're teaching your students that your form of English is "the original," you are passing on an inaccurate account of English's evolution, both in the "motherland" and in her various "colonies." Quite imperialist of you, but also quite wrong.

The midwest US accent is about as close to SAE as is naturally to be found in amongst Americans, in my opinion. Having lived all over the country. However, SAE is actually constructed. It's a real accent for those who are raised in educated households with generations of high levels of education, typically, especially if those families have moved around a lot, but otherwise it's not found "in the wild." It's the accent one is taught through education, sometimes intentionally. In my course of study at the university level, I took diction classes, which focused on SAE, and clearly enunciating it. The clear enunciation is probably the most important part of teaching understandable English, but using standardised accents, again, opens up a much larger range of learning material, in my view.

English should be taught using "Received Pronunciation".

Sadly few "english" teachers in Thailand would meet the standard!

So you are advocating that Thai students should be taught a pronunciation and accent that only a very few people of Southern England and the aristocracy speak.

What about all the other English spoken around the world?

More Thais will be exposed to Aussies, Yanks, non RP Brits, Canucks and Europeans, etc, than posh English accents.

"Why can't the English teach their children how to speak? This verbal class distinction, by now, should be extinct. If you spoke as she does, sir, instead of the way you do, why you might be selling flowers, too. An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him. As soon as he opens his mouth, he makes some other Englishman despise him. A common language I'm afraid we'll never get!

"Oh, why can't the English learn to... set a good example to people whose English is painful to your ears? The Scots and the Irish leave you close to tears. There are even places where English completely disappears...

"Where in America, they haven't used it for years!"

Frankly, as I have argued earlier in the thread, I feel like you should use the "standard, educated" pronunciation used in your mainstream journalism. If that's received pronunciation for Oncearugge, then he should use that pronunciation. For me, despite Henry Higgens' comments to the contrary, it's SAE or "Broadcast English," the educated, academic pronunciation in the United States. For others, it will be other types of pronunciation. The point here is "standard, educated" and "mainstream journalism." The goal is to give your students a pronunciation which will allow them to understand and communicate in English in the widest possible manner. And for that, we need to teach in one of the standard pronunciations, but we don't need to teach only in what one might hear in the quads of Eaton.

Can I fake Received Pronunciation? Yes, I can. Should I have any reason to do so? Of course not. The idea is ridiculous.

Agree that devil is in the details and doesn't mean it is automatically 'bad' if not direct election of senators, so long as the choosing process is fair and in a way that allows for checks and balance and the avoidance of corruption

I am not sure many know or remember ... But even in the US, Senators were not always directly elected ...

It wasn't until 1913 that the 17th amendment was ratified in the US allowing for direct elections of Senators... Before that, Senators were choosing by the state legislatures ... And was like this for more than 100 years..

Also understand that the House of Lords in the UK are also appointed.. Not directly elected ....

Also don't think any would say that the US or UK are some how 'undemocratic countries'...

So I don't say appointing senators is a bad thing, just want more info on how they would be appointed to make a final opinion

I think it's covered in both in U.S. History and U.S. Government (both standard high school courses), that the original compromise was that senators would be indirectly elected. People chose their legislatures which then chose the senators. Pretty sure you're not supposed to be able to pass those courses without being tested on that fact.

I can't speak to what any non-USian knows about this. I think the Aussies are supposed to know this, because when I studied in Canberra, I learned that the Australian institution was heavily based on the American institution intentionally, and several of the weirder traditions were brought over, too, until after the initial Senate sessions, Aussies were like, "This is stupid. Why do we do this?" "Because the Americans do it." "...okay, let's not do this anymore. It's dumb." The filibuster is a good example. It was done like maybe two or three times before the Senate in Australia decided it was a stupid rule and got rid of it.

So... you mean a normal day at work for a U.S. Envoy?

Indirectly elected should be like the electoral college or the former state of senators in the United States, or the prime minister in many parliamentary systems (who are elected by their constituency, but not by the nation as a whole, and then placed in the position of prime minister by their party).

If this is simply allowing families or corporations to choose senators, that's hardly election indirect or otherwise. Now, if sectors/trades/industries have elections where everyone from janitor to CEO has a vote, then it might produce something more akin to direct election, and it would mirror the idea behind the U.S. senate, where the House of Representatives was by population, but each state receives two senators. If each sector/trade/industry gets two senators, no matter how large or small, but the House of Representatives is based on population... That could actually produce a system of checks and balances that makes sense to me. That doesn't sound bad.

...Not sure I think that's really what's going on here, though.

One Day, false. "Right to work" is nothing of the sort. It's more like the "right to fire."

What One Day is not explaining, and this is relevant to the topic if we're speaking about why unions have the numbers in the U.S. to generate reviews like this one about Thailand, is that courts have ruled in the United States that if a shop is a union shop, all employees, union members or not, must be represented by the union if the employee and the management go into dispute. Going into dispute is really expensive, especially if there have to be strikes, or public communication written and printed, attorneys retained, etc. Unions responded by asking for state laws protecting their right to demand that if they were required to represent non-members, that these non-members either choose to become members or to provide a portion of dues to the union in case those non-members go into dispute. So called "right to work" states remove the laws that allow unions to do this. This can be crippling to a union, especially a small one.

Disclosure, I am union member and president of my local, and have been active in both American and Japanese labor movements.

Japan needs to attend to our own issues with our social healthcare schemes before suggesting we start "passing on our advice." As someone currently in a labor dispute with my employer over matched contributions to the social healthcare and pension systems, I would appreciate the Japanese government paying more attention to making sure employers are in compliance without employees having to jump through hoops to get a problem noticed before they start offering services to "advise" other countries.

It seems to me that this talk about immersion has missed the point re TEFL; TEFL is not actually so much an "immersion" method as such it was designed primarily to teach classes of mixed nationalities and therefore no common language.

In the case of Thailand as I said earlier it was been found expedient to use variations of this method, but the principal is neither immersion nor single language classes but a method of teaching REGARDLESS of the learner's language.

Both Lorn and I pointed that out about what has been labeled here as TEFL (which is a sort of "branding" of a far more generalised concept). Lorn specifically mentioned different L1s, and I mentioned where these kinds of courses are most effective--in an English speaking country for the benefit of immigrants, such as the U.S. or the U.K.

Thai and English are significantly far apart in the family tree of human languages that I still maintain that at some point explanation of concepts is important in L1. Thai students have far more in common with its East and Southeast Asian neighbors than many different L1 learners in an immigrant country which uses English. I still think when speaking about Thailand specifically, we need to look at two ideas: what constitutes study of language and what our purpose is. I don't believe that the goal of my French classes was actually to teach me French, rather I believe it was a sort of "social studies." An addition to the idea of a "well-rounded liberal arts education." If it wasn't, why make the credits mandatory despite rarely producing speakers? I feel like English in the Thai school system, as well in the school systems of several other nations, is used the way my schools used French.

If we want a methodology to work, whatever it is, including "English-only" classes, we first need to make sure everyone is on the same page regarding the goal, and right now, I think the teachers in this thread are at cross purposes with the educational system. We may well want to build foundations for or help create students who go on to become effective speakers of English, but I don't feel that's the actual desired goal for the system as a whole.

I had received the distinct impression that you were claiming that the British Council and Cambridge advocated, and offered Kerr as proof, universally using English-only classrooms. If English-only classrooms really are the best, then why would there clearly be evidence in the gloss that some teachers wish not to do so? Why acknowledge the option if not wishing to do so would mean those teachers are denying their students the best option? I don't think I made it up, I thought it was what you've been advocating all along and claiming Kerr as an appeal to authority who backed you up.

I have taught in multiple countries and with a wide variety of ages, and I cannot say I have experienced the situations you describe. I would call my students "beginners" as well, but by 12 years old, I can already trust they know numbers, greetings, colors, and lots of vocabulary. What they lack is target sentences and grammar and the ability to use their vocabulary (most of which are nouns, lots and lots of nouns) in order to communicate. They may believe they can't learn English effectively or that English is very hard, but I assure you, "throwing them into the deep end" would cause even my best students to become sullen and resentful, rather than creative and motivated. They would, correctly, see my behavior as abandonment.

Your priority does not really seem to be teaching your students English, but rather creating a sort of... nutritious soil where future English learning may grow. This is important, but far more akin to what I do with five year olds than what I do with fifteen year olds. So we're not really looking at comparable situations.

Shawn, I'd agree more with your most recent post more than any of your previous ones.

That said, I would say that frustration with wanting to be able to understand why in the framework which makes sense to you (which would be L1) can lead to a student shutting down. If such frustration is seen by a teacher and ignored and this is recognised by the student, now not only is the student shutting down, but the student will see the teacher, assume the teacher does not care, and then the teacher becomes at best a non-entity, and at worst, an enemy. I've both experienced as a student and watched it happen with coworkers. If a student is struggling with a conceptualisation, especially if it has been demonstrated many times in many ways and explained in English already, this is a perfect time to let the student know you care and work with them, and that may indeed require, and indeed often does require, helping to connect their understanding of their own grammar to the grammar you are trying to teach. This isn't translation, it certainly isn't transliteration, because you're not saying there's a 1 to 1 connection. There never is. Ignoring an obvious desire to learn which would require such an explanation is showing disrespect for your students. They'll remember, and you'll never be able to teach them anything, because you will have lost their respect or lost your chance at earning their respect.

As for the "friend who knows grammar is enough" position, I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. Just as I put forward the claim I am a professional who deserves to be paid for what I do because not everyone can do what I can do, I will happily pay a professional language instructor to help me fill in the important gaps I have. That's why they worked hard to become instructors. That's why not everyone can do what they can do. And that's why they deserve to be paid, but likewise, I expect to have an environment and method of instruction conducive to actually succeeding. I don't trust my social circle to provide that.

"You are therefore shown that it is possible to teach without using the students' L1. If you got the impression that this was seen as the ideal then that was either a mistake on your part or the trainer's personal view- it is not Cambridge or British Council's policy."

It was made pretty clear, thanks, and it was written in the book, so no blaming the tutor, lol.

To quote one of Cambridge English's course writers, "Our aim is to work towards a policy of English only in language for classroom management and explanation." Philip Kerr

And one of the British Council, "Don’t be tempted to lapse into the students’ language to explain, regain control or reply to a question. Patiently reply in English." Clare Lavery

The basic instruction given to starting out teachers is to only use English, to simulate immersion, other techniques such as sandwiching come later, but the onus is on using English.

"The results show that while students in English immersion programs perform better in the short term, over the long term students in classrooms taught in two languages not only catch up to their English immersion counterparts, but they eventually surpass them, both academically and linguistically."

I am not surprised, but what is the situation in Thailand? We are struggling to get the students past beginner level, it is not that relevant to us if students hit a wall later with immersion that could be most easily crossed using a two language environment, as we are not getting that far. What is interesting is their research shows that immersion sees faster results at the beginning, which is what we are looking for.

1) I tracked down the entire article from which you lifted that quote. I don't see any explanation by Kerr about if he is referring to L1 learners in an L2 country or an L2 teacher in an L1 environment. But let's assume he's universalising. He says his own aim and that of his colleagues is to work towards a policy of English only. The author of the article herself, in the above gloss says:

Continuing our look at the use of translation in the classroom, Philip Kerr, author of the award-winning Translation and Own-language Activities, provides a useful technique for any teacher wishing to move towards an ‘English only in language for classroom management’ policy.

Pretty important part you left out there, because it clearly states that this advice for teachers who wish to do so, not evidence that all teachers must do so. That's significant. I won't bother to look up Lavery, but I'd suspect it's a similar situation of not providing the full context.

2) You might be looking towards "only the beginning," but I'm looking at providing foundations that move slow but steady throughout life, and I have a group of students who I plan to keep up with for years, maybe even decades, expecting them to not just be students, but friends, and colleagues. I will not sacrifice long term foundations for short term gains, even if I believed that immersion only was possible, which I have already denied. Immersion classes are not true immersion environments, as I may just keep repeating, because everyone loves beating dead horses. Especially me.

Flawed as it may be due to previous teaching, the end state in relation to the starting point is a normal way to assess.

I do, I remember they way they tried and failed to teach us French and German by combination of explanation in English and prescribed forms. It was not until I immersed myself in a new language, threw out the dictionary and learned how to ask questions that I became fluent in a second language. By the time I wanted, or perhaps needed, to know why, I knew how to both ask and understood the reply in the second language. I appreciate what you are saying regarding how this actually transpires within the classroom and the largest obstacle here in Thailand is the large class size. I do not give much explanation to 15 year olds, sometimes they want it but all I can see is how little good all the previous explanation actually did for them, I do not want to waste our precious immersion time on that. And, explanation in their native language is a part of language translation as being able to question and receive explanation is possibly the most important marker of achievement in fluency.

You're in the perfect situation to learn, all you need is a sympathetic friend to tell you what is what.

You make some valid points, I agree that a mixture of approaches is what is needed but I believe that a course should provide that in English wherever possible. A good course begins by teaching the language necessary to understand the instructions for the rest of the course. When we walk into a new class who have already begun learning English we could neglect to check that language and just go ahead and start teaching what ever we think they need to learn, that is where problems begin.

Well, all learners can learn through immersion, it is the only method that allows ALL learners to achieve, if we had to chose just one then it would have to be immersion.

But you are correct. immersion works best when truly immersed, of course some students are motivated enough to restrict themselves to speaking English and so get a good deal of practice outside of the classroom, but that is unusual. For the rest, there is so little chance to immerse yourself in English in Thailand; there is very little English TV, few signs are in English and few areas have many English speaking people. I believe that it will take a nationwide initiative concentrated on changing this before we see much of an improvement in the future, and it should start by immersing the youngest through TV, following the example of Europe's success stories.

1) Well, yes, hence my point about "period of instruction." That has an "end state" but it isn't the actual end state of learning in its entirety. So really we're saying the same thing.

2) I see significant difference between my French education and how I teach my students in a combination of L1 and L2. I don't recall my French classes ever being fun. I don't recall them ever being about pop culture or current events or anything I was interested in. I don't recall my French teachers offering explanations in interesting and entertaining ways. In fact, I don't recall being encouraged to ask questions. I certainly do not recall my French teachers speaking to me in a combination of L1 and L2 in the hallways or at school events or when seeing me outside of school. These are all things I do for my students. I also do all grammar explanation in both L1 and L2, I start with L2 (my L1, obviously) and write and circle and draw and what not. Then I repeat the explanation in L1 (my L2) with the same writing, circling, drawing, gesturing, etc. This is not something I recall my French teachers ever doing. What I recall instead is lists and lists and lists of conjugations, lots of rote memorisation, and lots of translation and back again work with little verbal engagement in L1 or L2. This is in no way similar to how I conduct my lessons or my general attitude.

15 year olds are awesome, and frankly, teenagers get a really bad rap from adults. Adults, you're the ones who pretty much suck and are largely hypocritical, so why demand respect from teenagers you haven't earned? Not like it's the teenagers who keep on ruining the world. If you don't believe 15 year olds deserve explanations, and more importantly, they don't trust you enough to ask for explanations, then you need to take a long hard look at whether or not you're treating them as important people with their own thoughts, opinions, dreams, etc. And while it's true that an eventual goal will be to give students the tools to ask for explanations in L2 and receive and understand those explanations in L2, I still feel you do a great disservice to explanations in L1. Maybe we just disagree methodologically, but if we do, we do. Imagine how boring the world would be if we all agreed, but I believe there is not only no harm, but great benefit to helping students conceptualise grammar points of L2 in L1 when combined with practical application of said grammar in "immersion" activities, or even better yet, real immersion environments.

3) Actually, I believe that I've gotten as far as I can relying on the kindness of friends. You seem to think that's all it will take, but I know that's not the case. In order for me to be at a level fluent enough to go through Japanese education courses and earn a Japanese teaching license, I require a far higher command of spoken and written Japanese which includes a lot of grammar forms that I've proven mere proximity to without explanation cannot be attained. Just as I argue here that English students eventually will require, even in immersion environments, the same sort of grammar explanations, be it in L1 or L2, that native speakers learn in mechanics overviews, so too will I need to have a trained, qualified Japanese instructor be able to answer my complex grammar questions with a detailed answer in both Japanese and English. Native speaker friends are not substitutes for qualified instructors, just as any native speaker with a bachelors' is not a substitute for a qualified English instructor.

4) Immersion is a tool. It is not a methodology which exists independently. It's not like you could choose immersion alone even if you wanted to do so. Even in my own example of an obviously real immersion environment, I have already demonstrated my need for other tools to get beyond a certain point. Indeed many of the textbooks I have used on my own are not immersion, because they have explanatory footnotes in English. My kanji dictionary is Japanese and English. Show me any supposed "immersion only" methodology, and I'll point out where other methods are employed alongside it, even if someone is trying to put forward the claim that "immersion" itself is a methodology, I'd find that highly suspect. You say if you had to "choose one," but I disagree that immersion can be "chosen" in such a way. Immersion activities or environments are always place alongside other tools. There is no "immersion and nothing else" formal class arrangement. It does not exist. You're trying to draw a false dichotomy.

I am indeed discussing teaching English as a foreign language classes... which happens in most schools in Asian countries, including Thailand, last time I checked (which was rather recently, like January). Are students in Thai secondary schools not Thai students being taught English as a foreign language? I think we're having a disconnect when it comes to terminology here, because I thought this entire topic was about cutting the numbers of native English teachers in Thai schools and replacing them with Thai teachers of English. From the context, I was under the reasonable impression we were discussing public/private primary/secondary schools, not "conversation schools."

Thank you, Lorn.

I think you've confused my "immersion only fails in a 45 or 50 minute class three times a week" with "immersion only fails entirely" and with "immersion should never be used as a tool." Which I never said at all.

I stand by my belief that trying to teach 13-18 year olds English using only English in three fifty minute classes a week is a fool's errand, and neither Cambridge nor the British Council, nor any other respectable, accredited institution would disagree.

You may think they wouldn't disagree, but what evidence is there to suggest that? Every publication they release is designed to be delivered 100% in English, even courses written for specific learners, such as the English for Spanish learners courses by Cambridge, although having footnotes in Spanish, are designed to be delivered by the teacher entirely in English.

You may find it easier to get through the material that you have prepared by using the students native language, but how is their learning effected by this?

Is this a rhetorical, or would you like me to answer it? Because I can and will, but I'm not sure you're actually looking for an answer, because anyone who has spent significant time as a public school language instructor would know the answer to this. Especially the answer to your second question. And do you mean effected or affected (I'd think the latter, but before I am incorrectly pedantic, I want to make sure you're not referring to the learning's end state)?

Obviously I am talking about the end state of their learning as that is when you should know how successful your teaching has been. So, do students taught in total immersion learn less than those given some translation? Have you researched this?

I wouldn't say obviously. The sentence "How is their learning affected by this?" not only makes sense, but is a much more common construction than "How is their learning effected by this?" Not to say the latter construction is wrong. I just haven't heard it very often, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt. And you will never know how successful you are as a teacher if you're measuring for an end state. Learning is a process accomplished over many years and in conjunction with many other teachers. The best you can do is attempt to employ rubrics that help you find out what has been accomplished over your period of instruction, but that doesn't represent the entirety of knowledge acquisition. How can it?

And yes, I have done research on the various applications of immersion, and I have already offered my conclusions based on that research combined with my own experience. It's not about immersion vs translation. This is not an all or nothing, one or the other, zero-sum situation. Immersion has its place, as does translation. More to the point, translation isn't the same as grammar explanation in L1.

For your additional comment about offering explanation to low-level learners, it depends on what you mean by low-level learners. Of course I would not spend time explaining grammar concepts to five year olds. But I most definitely would spend time explaining grammar concepts to fifteen year olds. Do you not remember being fifteen? Do you not recall wanting to understand the basis for what you were learning and why that knowledge operated as it does? Language is a perfect example of a conceptual framework where a devoted student might well ask, and should be encouraged to ask, "why does this work this way, and not work that way?" Yet because it so important, we often need to not wait for a student to ask. We need to tell them.

Demonstration is great for giving examples of how but it doesn't explain why. When it comes to primary language acquisition, as children we learn how by mimicry and experimentation (which leads to things like "I goed to the store" or thinking all yellow things can be called "yellow" alone as a noun and not as an adjective), these errors are corrected through the why in our language and literature coursework. Even in primary school, why helps students understand what experiments are successful and what experiments fail. Depriving second language learners of the why is not conducive to creating fluency with command of both mechanics and style and the understanding of how to apply different forms in different circumstances to produce the best result. In a real immersion setting, you can ask because you have acquired the ability to do so in L2. But secondary education classes rarely allow students to have the necessary ability to ask in L2 like I will ask a coworker or a neighbor or a friend in Japanese, "hey, you know, I think I've mastered this grammar form, but do you know why it is that way, or where I can find out about it?" because after so many years, I do have the vocabulary to do so.

Total immersion works if it really is total. But secondary school situations are not total immersion. You cannot really call "English-only" English classes in secondary school true "immersion" if the student doesn't have to speak English anywhere but the 50 minutes she or he is in class. There's no impetus to prioritise the language acquisition. So students don't... Just like my eight year total of French is highly misleading, because it actually did contain English explanation of French grammar, and I still didn't learn it, despite whatever my grades and test scores said, because there was absolutely no survival impetus for me use it regularly. I did, and do, retain the ability to read French because I enjoyed French history and novels, which provided an impetus for me to use that skill. But that's all I can do in it.

I have not taken one single formal Japanese class, but it is my daily, functional, surviving language. So, of course, my command of it is highly functional. But I still make a lot of grammar mistakes because I've not been able to sit down and have complicated grammar forms explained to me in English, so my knowledge of Japanese grammar is based entirely on my conceptualisations of what I think I've heard. And sometimes I'm wrong. I'm right more often than not and just like a primary language acquiring child, I can be understood by others, but I lack the formal corrections and explanations of why I am wrong to help me attain further fluency.

You need multiple tools and multiple approaches, not just to help students with differing learning styles, but because all of these tools and approaches help create a comprehensive language acquisition experience. I cannot believe that this would be something which would be considered at all controversial to any English language teaching institution. I would be flabbergasted to learn any granter of an English teaching certification would find fault with this viewpoint. They might not agree with in what ratios or percentages various tools are utilised, but to merely argue that only one tool is necessary at all times in the case of all learners is a position I would not believe they would hold.

And 5000 words? That's nothing, you should read some of my twenty page academic papers.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can assure you that like most language institutes in Thailand, the British Council do not require or encourage the use of Thai in the classroom. Signs stating "English only" are often displayed.

Well, I'd be hard pressed to believe that the British Council is operating classes in secondary schools where the sole exposure these students are getting to explanations of how English works is in English, three times a week, for fifty minutes a class. I doubt very highly that even if it was happening, it would be effective. In fact, I am positive it is not happening, and would be happy to contact the British Council and ask.

I think you've confused my "immersion only fails in a 45 or 50 minute class three times a week" with "immersion only fails entirely" and with "immersion should never be used as a tool." Which I never said at all.

I stand by my belief that trying to teach 13-18 year olds English using only English in three fifty minute classes a week is a fool's errand, and neither Cambridge nor the British Council, nor any other respectable, accredited institution would disagree.

You may think they wouldn't disagree, but what evidence is there to suggest that? Every publication they release is designed to be delivered 100% in English, even courses written for specific learners, such as the English for Spanish learners courses by Cambridge, although having footnotes in Spanish, are designed to be delivered by the teacher entirely in English.

You may find it easier to get through the material that you have prepared by using the students native language, but how is their learning effected by this?

Is this a rhetorical, or would you like me to answer it? Because I can and will, but I'm not sure you're actually looking for an answer, because anyone who has spent significant time as a public school language instructor would know the answer to this. Especially the answer to your second question. And do you mean effected or affected (I'd think the latter, but before I am incorrectly pedantic, I want to make sure you're not referring to the learning's end state)?

Not enough, not near damn enough. But then, I'm of the opinion your L2 should be the L1 of the students, as you should be able to give grammar or etymological explanations in the students' L1 if necessary. Immersion is important, but immersion can only get you so far.

The major component of my early Japanese learning (before I decided to become a Japanese national) was a desire to explain to my students in Japanese difficult concepts in English. Often because I found the JTEs' explanations lacking or unclear or just plain wrong, and I wanted to do something about it.

It should be pretty obvious by now, if it wasn't already, that while I am all for native English teachers of English, I expect them to work hard at their chosen vocation. If you don't see teaching as a vocation and are not willing to go all out in whatever position you find yourself, get out. You're a detriment, and you bring down prestige, wages, and benefits of all teachers, and devalue the credentials they have obtained.

immersion can only get you so far.

If 'only so far" is speaking like a native then you are correct. If you think there is any other method that sees a higher success than communicative techniques, then by all means let us know, and while you are at it why not let Cambridge, the British Council and the rest who disagree with you know your secret.

I think you've confused my "immersion only fails in a 45 or 50 minute class three times a week" with "immersion only fails entirely" and with "immersion should never be used as a tool." Which I never said at all.

I stand by my belief that trying to teach 13-18 year olds English using only English in three fifty minute classes a week is a fool's errand, and neither Cambridge nor the British Council, nor any other respectable, accredited institution would disagree.

these posts would indicate that these people do not understand the most basic concept of TEFL - it is a method for teaching English, using English only and provided by native English speakers.

If you don't do this it isn't strictly TEFL.

Many schools actually ban the use of local native speaking in their classes.

Many schools also use Thai teachers to explain the grammar - in Thai as this is considered more effective......however grammar -based language learning is not for all.

This is not true. Any structured attempt to teach English as a foreign language is by definition Teaching English as a Foreign Language. You may be confused by specific pedagogical methodologies employed by "TEFL" certification granting institutions, but their methodologies are not the end all be all of teaching English as a foreign language.

Immersion is a tool, but it is not the only tool. Many schools do ban the use of the local language. I have been in situations where I have not been permitted to use the local language. I have developed my own opinions based on nearly a decade teaching and my own language education (in French, in Japanese, in Gaelic) to come to the conclusion that this does not work in a typical public school classroom setting. It works very well when combined with an apprenticeship or internship where you're learning the language in tandem with learning to function in an environment where that language is used, but 45 or 50 minutes classes a few times a week of immersion simply do not offer the conceptual tools needed for students to "program" themselves to use the second language. In that setting you need the students to create a "transliteration to translation" tool until they are comfortable enough to be placed in immersion environments as previously mentioned.

I think immersion settings are great, but they require real immersion, and the only way to get that is to place students in an enclave, community, or country where the language is spoken for actual daily survival.

No you are quite wrong - it does what it says on the tin "Tech English as a FOREIGN LANGUAGE"

I would agree that it is not the only way and often it is propitious or expedient to modify this but the basis of TEFL is to use the native language; learning is supposed to happen as it did when we acquired language, by example not by grammar. This doesn't mean that the teacher can be unaware of the linguist machinations that are occurring.

BTW - I also reject your proposal that because you know of one "african" teacher you couldn't understand, then ALL african and Indian teachers are no good - if you worked for me you'd be sacked for expounding those kind of racist views.

Your response makes no sense at all. Language acquisition in a classroom environment can never mimic primary language acquisition unless it is the language of instruction of all subjects. That's what I mean by real immersion. If I place you in an immersion environment for eight hours a day where all of your classes are English, sure, you will learn English. Just as my Japanese has dramatically improved any time I have spent significant time attending the other classes of my students, including math, science, music, social studies, etc. One of my students, a native English speaker, speaks far better Japanese than I do. Not just because she is younger, but because she has spent three years in Japanese classrooms trying desperately to keep up in Japanese where it is her only method of survival.

TEFL classes that use immersion only when not held in an environment where the target language will be the language of survival (say a TEFL course for immigrants in the U.K. or the U.S.) can never be as effective as TEFL classes that include L1 explanations of L2 target language in addition to "immersion" activities. There simply isn't the time or the social stress to successfully reinforce those neuron connections. I don't know where you're getting this stuff, but it absolutely does not represent what occurs in reality.

And have no idea whose "racist" comments you are referring to, definitely not mine. There are plenty of English teachers from all over the world who have put in the time and effort to gain both the educational training as well as the ability to produce clear, articulate English in the media wide standard of their regional accent. You've confused me with another poster.

I wonder how many French teachers, say, in the UK are actually French nationals or French native speakers. The notion that one needs to be a native speaker to teach a language is flawed. The notion that you need to be a good teacher to teach a language is not. That is far more likely where Thailand's problems lie.

I went to an underfunded comprehensive in one of the lowest achieving areas of the UK, all of our foreign language teachers were native speakers of the language they were teaching.

did they speak English too?

How many TEFL teachers speak Thai and can communicate with their pupils?

these posts would indicate that these people do not understand the most basic concept of TEFL - it is a method for teaching English, using English only and provided by native English speakers.

If you don't do this it isn't strictly TEFL.

Many schools actually ban the use of local native speaking in their classes.

Many schools also use Thai teachers to explain the grammar - in Thai as this is considered more effective......however grammar -based language learning is not for all.

This is not true. Any structured attempt to teach English as a foreign language is by definition Teaching English as a Foreign Language. You may be confused by specific pedagogical methodologies employed by "TEFL" certification granting institutions, but their methodologies are not the end all be all of teaching English as a foreign language.

Immersion is a tool, but it is not the only tool. Many schools do ban the use of the local language. I have been in situations where I have not been permitted to use the local language. I have developed my own opinions based on nearly a decade teaching and my own language education (in French, in Japanese, in Gaelic) to come to the conclusion that this does not work in a typical public school classroom setting. It works very well when combined with an apprenticeship or internship where you're learning the language in tandem with learning to function in an environment where that language is used, but 45 or 50 minutes classes a few times a week of immersion simply do not offer the conceptual tools needed for students to "program" themselves to use the second language. In that setting you need the students to create a "transliteration to translation" tool until they are comfortable enough to be placed in immersion environments as previously mentioned.

I think immersion settings are great, but they require real immersion, and the only way to get that is to place students in an enclave, community, or country where the language is spoken for actual daily survival.

I wonder how many French teachers, say, in the UK are actually French nationals or French native speakers. The notion that one needs to be a native speaker to teach a language is flawed. The notion that you need to be a good teacher to teach a language is not. That is far more likely where Thailand's problems lie.

I went to an underfunded comprehensive in one of the lowest achieving areas of the UK, all of our foreign language teachers were native speakers of the language they were teaching.

did they speak English too?

How many TEFL teachers speak Thai and can communicate with their pupils?

Not enough, not near damn enough. But then, I'm of the opinion your L2 should be the L1 of the students, as you should be able to give grammar or etymological explanations in the students' L1 if necessary. Immersion is important, but immersion can only get you so far.

The major component of my early Japanese learning (before I decided to become a Japanese national) was a desire to explain to my students in Japanese difficult concepts in English. Often because I found the JTEs' explanations lacking or unclear or just plain wrong, and I wanted to do something about it.

It should be pretty obvious by now, if it wasn't already, that while I am all for native English teachers of English, I expect them to work hard at their chosen vocation. If you don't see teaching as a vocation and are not willing to go all out in whatever position you find yourself, get out. You're a detriment, and you bring down prestige, wages, and benefits of all teachers, and devalue the credentials they have obtained.