The Callan Method

[Longbow212]

I have just started to take a private lessons at a small local agency with one office. The lady that owns the company is very nice but does not appear to have a background in education or a large amount of teaching experience. One thing she insists on is that I teach using the callan method. She believes this is the most superior teaching method available. The reason for this appears to be because it worked well for her so she thinks it will for other people. The callan method website proclaims that it teaches people 4 times faster than 'other methods' and is backed by research (no references were given).

Today I took a 6 year old for a lesson. I was not given a lesson plan of anykind before the lesson and went in there and just used my judgement and experience to teach the student. The student was very happy and appeared to be learning and enjoying the lesson. The owner came in and asked if i could adhere to the callon method (for which i have no training and only examples on youtube to go off) and gave me the teachers guide which she had written up herself as an using the callon method and an adaptation to a syllabus. I did as told to the best of my ability but after 5 mins found that the student was showing many signs of lack of interest. IMO the callon method has disadvantages and advantages like any other. I feel it could be used to for teaching from a different angle for 5-10 mins as part of a lesson. I think its biggest downfall is that it is very ridgid in the format information is presented and bombards the student with a lot of information and prompts a lot of answers rather than requiring students to formulate a sentence from there own vocabulary.

Please take a look there are lots of examples on youtube. I would be really interested to know what you think about this, i feel this is rather a bad method particularly for children or for intermediate or upwards or complete beginners but maybe I am just not understanding the method enough.... I feel like I am letting the student down by not being able to use my knowledge, judgement and experience to teach from a syllabus and prepare my own lesson plans that allow for different strategies and methodologies to be used as necessary to make the lesson interesting.

[PeaceBlondie]

Hi,

Callon or Callan? What training and experience do you have? Did you agree to teach this method at hire? Are you teaching EFL? Fortunately for you, our rules forbid criticizing posters' grammar and spelling.

[Longbow212]

May I offer my sincerest apologies for failing to check the grammar and spelling of my text before hitting the post topic button. I find it most distressful to even contemplate the idea of offending the sensitivities of any closet spelling police lurking in this forum. In future I will review all my posts and ask for a second opinion before posting.

The title should correctly read callan (not callon, although depending upon your opinion of the methodology Callon may perhaps be more suited as it somewhat resembles the word colon......)

The interview was very casual, I was simply advised that they use this methodology here and I guessed I would have got trained on it as opposed to shown clips on youtube and then essentially told to give it a shot.

I have since decided that I will very kindly explain to her what I think of this method and that I don't feel I can be an effective teacher using it. I work in an international school with some very experienced EFL teachers and they believe the method is trash also. I am prepared to be flexible and try new ideas out but as present my opinion on this is not good and I honestly cannot see how I can work with this particularly with no training in it.

[PeaceBlondie]

I ain't the stinkin' grammar/spelling enforcer. Au contraire, al contrario.

[Scott]

I've never heard of the Callan/Callon method, but most methods are rather rigid and don't tend to work well unless the teacher is trained in doing it. A great deal of how well students learn--or at least their motivation--has to do with the interest and enthusiasm of the teacher.

Methods are a lot like religion--they tend to work well when there is a little flexibility.

The method I use is the KISS method. Keep It Simple, Stupid! Works for me and isn't too rigid.

[Trickcyclist]

"If you are going to fail, fail quickly." Lee Travino

if you like the system and the teacher(s) its good and you will learn, if you don't like the system you will never learn.

Everything one does in life is a test. You try it and it works for you, or, you try it and it does'ent?

[Trickcyclist]

just spoke with Thai who learned English at callan and feedback was:

in the beginning the system was off-putting, but, the method, which I believe is constant repetition

helps to cement the learning process in the brain and after a time the student begins to understand

and speak..

[Longbow212]

I feel it could be integrated into a lesson once you have taught the answers to the questions and then have a quick fire session using it for 5-10 minutes while also using language learnt in previous lessons as part of the questions etc.

The Thai callan website looks like a scam/pyramid scheme and the owner has believed the BS.

I think audiobooks (such a pimsleur) would be much better than callan for audio-linguistic style learning, they would be cheaper and more convenient also.

[thaicbr]

Vigil. To teach Callan correctly you do need to be trained also the classroom has to be set up in a certain way (lectern and objects stuck to the wall). If you haven't had the training and the classroom has not been set up then you cannot teach it.

It is very simple, tell your boss you will teach conversation but not the Callan method unless she pays for you to get trained. If teaching conversation.I have had very good results withthe book 'English for Life'

also the 'Thai callan website' is just some guy who has adapted the Callan method to teach Thai. There are 2 good language schools in BKK that teach using the Callan Method. I trained and taught it for a month.........Didn't like it.

Allan

Edited October 19, 2009 by thaicbr

[femi fan]

The interview was very casual, I was simply advised that they use this methodology here and I guessed I would have got trained on it as opposed to shown clips on youtube and then essentially told to give it a shot.

This is the thing though. It's not 'methodology'. It's a method as you have called it, and the disadvantage with every single method in teaching english to non-native students is that it's restrictive, and uniform. It fails to recognise that not all students, people, are the same, and therefore they learn in different ways at different paces. One method imposes a teacher belief system on all students regardless of their individuality.

The distinction is to think of methodology, which really just describes a teacher's way of teaching, not a teacher teaching someone else's way of teaching - a method.

The communicative approach is thus named because its main objective for students is to help them learn to communicate, primarily by speaking. It will employ and combine bits of various methods creating a nice mix that will be attractive to most if not all students.

In my experience as soon as an administrator or head teacher wishes to impose a method for teaching, they expose their key lack of understanding of education and the people receiving it.

One method might be fine if humans were all the same. But we're not!

[femi fan]

Here's an approach to teaching that i feel underlies and guides a successful methodology in teaching english, it's called the River of Teaching... it says that teaching materials and style should be or have:

R elevant

I nteresting

V ariety

E ngaging

R ecycling

Forget about methods!

[phetaroi]

I'm sorry, but I agree with PeaceBlondie.

You asked people to give on a teaching technique...which I was going to look up...but even you couldn't decide on how to spell it. In terms of spelling, as you prepare a post, incorrect spelling generally shows up as underlined in red. We aren't sure from your initial post, but we assume you are here teaching English.

I also find it odd that you mentioned that the method (however it is spelled) claims to be so successful, but provides no documentation of that. But then you independently decided to use your own best hunch of how to teach. What was your documentation of success?

You appear to think that you are an independent contractor, rather than an employee.

May I offer my sincerest apologies for failing to check the grammar and spelling of my text before hitting the post topic button. I find it most distressful to even contemplate the idea of offending the sensitivities of any closet spelling police lurking in this forum. In future I will review all my posts and ask for a second opinion before posting.

The title should correctly read callan (not callon, although depending upon your opinion of the methodology Callon may perhaps be more suited as it somewhat resembles the word colon......)

The interview was very casual, I was simply advised that they use this methodology here and I guessed I would have got trained on it as opposed to shown clips on youtube and then essentially told to give it a shot.

I have since decided that I will very kindly explain to her what I think of this method and that I don't feel I can be an effective teacher using it. I work in an international school with some very experienced EFL teachers and they believe the method is trash also. I am prepared to be flexible and try new ideas out but as present my opinion on this is not good and I honestly cannot see how I can work with this particularly with no training in it.

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

I'll throw in my two cents here. I just completed teaching my first Callan course. Callan became popular during WWII for training British spies. The vocabulary has never been updated for the system, so you are still teaching relatvely useless words like "Master Brown", "pupil", and "ash-tray" in Stage 1. I would have to say that the method is good for vocabulary acquisition. However, the system completely falls apart when you try to teach grammar. The high level of repetition and pace of the class I found to be boring for the instructor and a little exhausting for Thai students. I think it can be useful when alternated with a conversation course. All IMHO.

[Scott]

Let's stay off the grammar and spelling in posts, please. Not all systems have the underlining of misspelled words in red--mine doesn't.

[femi fan]

You appear to think that you are an independent contractor, rather than an employee.

Which perhaps leads us to the central point of this thread, and is an important question for the teacher to ask themselves, especially an english teacher:

with their own training and intuition and experience to call upon, they also have to take into the institution's requirements of them including any curriculum and method demands, and the needs of their learners to take into account, there are various forces pulling on the teacher, and nor do they usually pull in the same direction. Teachers have a juggling act. Who and what to follow?

Methods imposed on english teachers are limiting by nature. So, if a teacher has a more inclusive, interesting methodology to use in their classrooms, for the better of both their learners and themselves, then do they follow that, or bow down to the institution's conflicting demands which will lead to a downgraded and less quality educational experience?

Or, more importantly, how to find a solution that keeps everybody happy. But it should begin with the learners. Methods might be useful in particular contexts for particular students, but on the whole teaching using one single method is offering a learning experience that is of inferior effectiveness and quality.

[phetaroi]

You appear to think that you are an independent contractor, rather than an employee.

Which perhaps leads us to the central point of this thread, and is an important question for the teacher to ask themselves, especially an english teacher:

with their own training and intuition and experience to call upon, they also have to take into the institution's requirements of them including any curriculum and method demands, and the needs of their learners to take into account, there are various forces pulling on the teacher, and nor do they usually pull in the same direction. Teachers have a juggling act. Who and what to follow?

Methods imposed on english teachers are limiting by nature. So, if a teacher has a more inclusive, interesting methodology to use in their classrooms, for the better of both their learners and themselves, then do they follow that, or bow down to the institution's conflicting demands which will lead to a downgraded and less quality educational experience?

Or, more importantly, how to find a solution that keeps everybody happy. But it should begin with the learners. Methods might be useful in particular contexts for particular students, but on the whole teaching using one single method is offering a learning experience that is of inferior effectiveness and quality.

It is an interesting discussion.

I am only speaking from the perspective of an American teacher, assistant principal, and principal.

In the U.S., in general, teachers are given quite wide latitude for much of what they do. There is, however, some basic structure which -- by the contract that they signed -- they agreed to abide by.

A good example is the "Read 180" program in my old district. It was expensive, but showed statistical proof of the speed of reading improvement students were making.

Some (primarily older) reading teachers in the system wanted to keep teaching reading the way they wanted to...essentially by hunch...and we should just believe in their hunch. The school system said no. We hired you to teach our Board of Education approved curriculum. Either fulfill your contract or go elsewhere to teach by your hunch.

I disagree with you about "bowing down". If you hire a contractor here in Thailand to build you a house based on the architectural plan you had designed, and then he built you a house that was completely different and not to your liking...is that okay? No, he signed a contract to be paid to do it your way. It's no different in a school. A teacher signs a contract to "do it" the way that the school said to do it...and in return they are paid. That's what I mean by saying that teachers are not independent.

So the teacher decides he/she doesn't like some particular program that the school requires they teach by. To me, an honorable teacher has the following alternatives:

1. Follow the contract their signed to teach the way the school wants them to teach.

2. Look for another school where they can teacher the way they want to teach.

3. Convince the original school that they need to be given more latitude or teach by a completely different system.

The trouble with trusting teachers to "do their own thing" is that "their own thing" may or may not be effective. I can look back to my own high school years and tell you exactly why Grover Swank (yes, that's his real name) was a great teacher and Mrs. Hanley a very average teacher. You know who your own best and worst teachers were. Certainly over the years you had some lousy teachers. Should they lousy ones have been trusted to do their own thing?

[femi fan]

Certainly over the years you had some lousy teachers. Should they lousy ones have been trusted to do their own thing?

Was it not the lousy ones that followed the institution's requirements...?

Joking really (but with a seed of truth?), real answer coming up.

[femi fan]

It is an interesting discussion.

I am only speaking from the perspective of an American teacher, assistant principal, and principal.

In the U.S., in general, teachers are given quite wide latitude for much of what they do. There is, however, some basic structure which -- by the contract that they signed -- they agreed to abide by.

A good example is the "Read 180" program in my old district. It was expensive, but showed statistical proof of the speed of reading improvement students were making.

Some (primarily older) reading teachers in the system wanted to keep teaching reading the way they wanted to...essentially by hunch...and we should just believe in their hunch. The school system said no. We hired you to teach our Board of Education approved curriculum. Either fulfill your contract or go elsewhere to teach by your hunch.

I disagree with you about "bowing down". If you hire a contractor here in Thailand to build you a house based on the architectural plan you had designed, and then he built you a house that was completely different and not to your liking...is that okay? No, he signed a contract to be paid to do it your way. It's no different in a school. A teacher signs a contract to "do it" the way that the school said to do it...and in return they are paid. That's what I mean by saying that teachers are not independent.

So the teacher decides he/she doesn't like some particular program that the school requires they teach by. To me, an honorable teacher has the following alternatives:

1. Follow the contract their signed to teach the way the school wants them to teach.

2. Look for another school where they can teacher the way they want to teach.

3. Convince the original school that they need to be given more latitude or teach by a completely different system.

The trouble with trusting teachers to "do their own thing" is that "their own thing" may or may not be effective. I can look back to my own high school years and tell you exactly why Grover Swank (yes, that's his real name) was a great teacher and Mrs. Hanley a very average teacher. You know who your own best and worst teachers were. Certainly over the years you had some lousy teachers. Should they lousy ones have been trusted to do their own thing?

Teaching english is different to the teaching of just about all other subjects, so some of what you say i can agree with for general education, but not specifically for second language education.

But either way, education for so many kids proves to be mundane, uninspiring, irrelevant, and is stuck in the realm of knowledge acquisition, rather than transferring skills. At least that is the impression i get from the students and kids themselves. Now if this is correct, then some serious questions need to be raised as to why. One reason i believe is the methods used to teach, and the influence of syllabus (curriculum) on the learning materials. Too much is imposed on the teachers from high above. Teachers and learners lose out. The educational system in general is rooted poorly, and does little more than churn out obedient citizens for the demands of society. Society works from the top-down to the detriment of the millions of people. The same in education, where methods and materials are decided upon from high above.

Too much meddling in general with teachers, many of whom have inordinate amounts of administration work and marking work to be doing. Methods are a limiting approach to education. And much else that is wrong follow on from using methods.

[Scott]

I am not a particularly big fan of 'methods'; especially methods that imposed on teachers, but they do serve an overall purpose of taking students from point A to point B. We've had a lot of teachers who have decided to do it their own way and this has resulted in serious flaws in the overall learning of the students. There needs to be an orderly progression in learning from one year to the next and the teachers need to know that students have actually studied a particular topic before they can expect them to use it.

In Thailand we have a lot of teachers whose background is not in education and who lack experience. For such teachers, a set and well prescribed method and curiculum can save everyone a lot of problems.

For experienced and trained teachers they can usually incorporate a method into their existing teaching techniques and meet both the requirements of their employer as well as using a dynamic and interesting approach to educating their students.

[femi fan]

For experienced and trained teachers they can usually incorporate a method into their existing teaching techniques and meet both the requirements of their employer as well as using a dynamic and interesting approach to educating their students.

That would be their methodology then!

Basing their teaching on a particular method is fine, especially as you say for inexperienced teachers, but rigidly adhering to it is a mistake i believe. Which i realise is not what you're advocating.

I guess i'm just insisting on the difference between using a method, and having a basic methodology in one's teaching.

[Ijustwannateach]

The debate over professionalism versus technicality is all the rage in academic discussion these days, and has no simple answer.

I would agree with Phetaroi that if a teacher signs a contract, he should be fully informed and abide by the contract. And in that particular case, I would avoid his school and its contracts like the plague.

An argument against the apparent reported 'benefits' of the Callon method would be to question what the true value of the 'statistical improvement' observed was, and if it offsets the potential value of the results of other classroom treatments- but to ask those questions is not particularly beneficial for an administrator who already sees 'good numbers' and thus justifies his own existence and bloated salary. Technician-style teaching work devalues the performance of seasoned, good teachers who do know what they're doing and perhaps have other goods in mind for the students than whatever it is 'The Holy Statistics' happen to measure, assuming they are well-designed enough actually to measure those things- excluded elements might be, for example, quality of life and humanisation of both students and teachers. It downgrades teachers to the classroom equivalent of sysops. And whatever statistics are used, they will not sum up the true experience of being in the classroom, which would be better described in research terms by detailed interviews by students and teachers who had participated in both systems.

[phetaroi]

The debate over professionalism versus technicality is all the rage in academic discussion these days, and has no simple answer.

I would agree with Phetaroi that if a teacher signs a contract, he should be fully informed and abide by the contract. And in that particular case, I would avoid his school and its contracts like the plague.

An argument against the apparent reported 'benefits' of the Callon method would be to question what the true value of the 'statistical improvement' observed was, and if it offsets the potential value of the results of other classroom treatments- but to ask those questions is not particularly beneficial for an administrator who already sees 'good numbers' and thus justifies his own existence and bloated salary. Technician-style teaching work devalues the performance of seasoned, good teachers who do know what they're doing and perhaps have other goods in mind for the students than whatever it is 'The Holy Statistics' happen to measure, assuming they are well-designed enough actually to measure those things- excluded elements might be, for example, quality of life and humanisation of both students and teachers. It downgrades teachers to the classroom equivalent of sysops. And whatever statistics are used, they will not sum up the true experience of being in the classroom, which would be better described in research terms by detailed interviews by students and teachers who had participated in both systems.

Well, I tend to disagree with a lot of what you said, although you certainly said it well.

First, since you said you would avoid my school (I guess you mean system) like the plague, you'd be making a mistake. You'd be avoiding working is one of the most internationally respected school systems in the world (not my analysis, but that's what the superintendents of the international schools in Jakarta and Bangkok [iSB] told me). You'd be avoiding a school system where teachers have a major influence in designing curriculum. You'd be avoiding a school system with an outstanding pay scale and benefits for teachers...including its own retirement system that is added to teachers' retirement pay beyond that of the state. And you'd be avoiding it based on not really reading what I wrote. You ignored that I mentioned that, in general, the teachers are given wide latitude in making their own instructional decisions.

When you say, "beneficial for an administrator who already sees 'good numbers' and thus justifies his own existence and bloated salary," that is nothing more than the typical teacher knows better than administrator argument, even though almost all school administrators were once teachers. It's nothing more than an insult. In the reading situation I discussed, it was a system mandate, not my mandate. The transitions between reading programs happened to come just as our long-time reading teacher retired. She always did a good job. Reading scores for her students averaged a 1.5 year improvement for each 10 month term. Pretty good. Of course, under the new reading program, the average improvement for students was over 3 years per each 10 month term...AND USING THE SAME STATISTICAL EVALUATION TOOL. Oh, and by the way, the students loved the new teacher just as much as the old teacher. Both were warm and fuzzy; the new teacher was no technician.

A good principal doesn't just leave teachers alone. He or she challenges each teacher to do their best. He brings best practices to light and encourages teachers to try new techniques, not just rely on the same old style the teacher's favorite teacher used. He encourages teachers to understand the research on how students learn, most of which has been uncovered only within the last dozen or so years. He also kicks some teachers in the proverbial ass. He also occasionally fires a teacher. He keeps parents off teachers' backs...unless of course the teacher is wrong...which they are sometimes. The good principal knows good teaching, partly because he probably did it himself for a decade or more, partly because he's spent hundreds of hours watching many other teachers teach, partly because he evaluates testing data and is held accountable for it, and partly because he worries less about making teachers feel good than he does making students feel good while being successful learners. And, he knows that he sees the big picture of the whole school, not just the teacher's view from inside one classroom with a closed door.

And when a teacher who's being challenged by the principal says, "You've forgotten what it's like to be a teacher," he says. "No, I remember very well how challenging your job is. On the other hand, you've never been an administrator, so you have no idea what my professional job responsibilities are."

I'd estimate the percentage of excellent, good, and poor administrators is roughly equivalent to the percentage of excellent, good, and poor administrators.

[Ijustwannateach]

Well, if it is your system that mandates it, I'd avoid the system, then, unless I fully agreed with the Callan method. In looking at their website, I find that it is geared (by their own admission) towards schools which do not have the funds to employ fully qualified linguists. To be honest, at this stage in my career I am more interested in taking charge of my own classes and designing my own approaches for the curriculum I must follow; I agree that if I were a less experienced or qualified teacher it would be helpful to have a "method" provided by someone else (and it may be a welcome crutch for a school system to use. However, if your school is so well-known and connected with other international systems like ISB, why are you teaching English as a foreign/second language anyway? Shouldn't you be using foreign textbooks and teaching English using a language arts/grammar approach?

It is also aimed at getting the students to pass a certain qualification level of the Cambridge certificate system- so is that the 'statistical instrument' used? If so, then it is no surprise that a system aimed at improving results on a particular test would achieve statistical results on that test. The question is: are they really learning English, or do they just do well on that test? What other qualitative measures are used to determine fluency and proficiency?

I agree with the characteristics you stated about administrators, by the way- but it is partly because '[an administrator] evaluates testing data and is held accountable for it' that I say there is a tension there which can lead to reinforcement of technical rather than professional stances on the part of teachers.

Sorry if I am 'anti-' but I think in recent times the proliferation of meaningless, unhelpful paperwork and technical responsibilities have hampered schools and teachers, and are primarily a result of administrators try to justify their jobs. It's not all their fault; part of it comes from parents not accepting their own responsibilities. However, as a teacher and a professional, I don't accept that I should bear the burden of that deferred responsibility without resistance.

[phetaroi]

Well, if it is your system that mandates it, I'd avoid the system, then, unless I fully agreed with the Callan method. In looking at their website, I find that it is geared (by their own admission) towards schools which do not have the funds to employ fully qualified linguists. To be honest, at this stage in my career I am more interested in taking charge of my own classes and designing my own approaches for the curriculum I must follow; I agree that if I were a less experienced or qualified teacher it would be helpful to have a "method" provided by someone else (and it may be a welcome crutch for a school system to use. However, if your school is so well-known and connected with other international systems like ISB, why are you teaching English as a foreign/second language anyway? Shouldn't you be using foreign textbooks and teaching English using a language arts/grammar approach?

It is also aimed at getting the students to pass a certain qualification level of the Cambridge certificate system- so is that the 'statistical instrument' used? If so, then it is no surprise that a system aimed at improving results on a particular test would achieve statistical results on that test. The question is: are they really learning English, or do they just do well on that test? What other qualitative measures are used to determine fluency and proficiency?

I agree with the characteristics you stated about administrators, by the way- but it is partly because '[an administrator] evaluates testing data and is held accountable for it' that I say there is a tension there which can lead to reinforcement of technical rather than professional stances on the part of teachers.

Sorry if I am 'anti-' but I think in recent times the proliferation of meaningless, unhelpful paperwork and technical responsibilities have hampered schools and teachers, and are primarily a result of administrators try to justify their jobs. It's not all their fault; part of it comes from parents not accepting their own responsibilities. However, as a teacher and a professional, I don't accept that I should bear the burden of that deferred responsibility without resistance.

I'm not going continue the discussion at hand because you haven't read my posts. You may have skimmed them. You missed many, many points. Okay, mai pben rai.

I also know that you are a dedicated professional. I have read many of your posts, and I can see that you are not one of the loud mouths in this and other Thai education forums. You have educational substance and an excellent grasp of most things of which you write...other than your knee-jerk reaction toward administrators.

I do want to question your very last phrase in this posting. Just let me get it straight. You believe that when a member of a group does not agree with things that the power establishment of the group has put in place, that that member should be free to resist? This is a test of principles.

[Ijustwannateach]

As you note, I have avoided responding to some of your points from the post before last; largely because I did not feel they were entirely relevant- the discussion of the reputation of your school system, for instance (which may be true and impressive but does not influence me in respect to what I like to see or not in management of a professional teaching position), or specific responses to what you characterised as the job of an administrator (on which I was pretty much in agreement with you). If I've missed anything else from that post, please do remind me. I was focussed on the points that still applied to the professionalism vs. technicality argument which I feel is at the heart of the dispute which arose in this thread over making decisions about requiring teachers to teach according to a 'system' or method.

In fact, professionally we are entirely in agreement over contracts, for instance, as I already stated- if your contract includes such a provision, them's the rules. If things were changed during the middle of a contract in a way I didn't like, I would have a bit more of an ethical dilemma but probably would concede the point until I had a chance to find a new job.

I still think that the expanding bureaucracy and technical micromanagement which have become a trend in teaching are at least the defensive fault of administrators- and that the pendulum needs to swing back the other way more towards administrators supporting and responding to teachers (*and* students) rather than being in a role of 'telling them what to do.' As you yourself point out by referring to administrators as 'the power establishment,' the present-day balance of power is with the bureaucracy (this is not historically true). However, with that power you also have more responsibility seated with you- there's the rub. The current imbalance is why you need the statistics (any positive statistics- the value of those in question we are still not able to appraise in this discussion), and that's one of the main supporting points for you in adopting this Callan method. The increase in improvement you cited could just as easily have been from a better fit between focus of the Callan method and the statistical test itself, for example, but that's not the important point from a generic administrative stance.

This isn't, of course, about you personally- if you didn't provide these types of results, you wouldn't be doing the kind of job an administrator nowadays must do, and they would find someone else. From what I can tell, you must be an excellent administrator! (I hope that softens my arguments! ) In fact, everything at your school may be improving and hunky-dory; however, I have an instinctive distrust of having this proven 'statistically.' Maybe there are better ways of doing things that are less amenable to statistics? Does the test really show an improved aptitude for English itself, or only a better ability in test-taking?

As for your last point: well, it is a grey area. Certainly one should abide by contract while agreeing to accept compensation. On the other hand, as Foucault would say, there is a dialectic between the ones who are powerful and those who are subject to power, in that the ability to define and relate concepts and terms is not solely held by the powerful- they require a certain consent by those they govern to implement structures, and there is almost always a bit of wiggle room in terms of what both parties regard as being worth going to the trouble of expressing as a conflict- and terms themselves have a certain vagueness which agrees with a range of implementations which all still might be said to hold with the letter of the law. To the extent that one can make the meaning of contractual terms be in favour of what he/she feels is right to do, I feel that resistance (or deviation might be a better word, as the intent itself will not always be to resist) is not only justified but inevitable. On the other hand, if this breaks out into open defiance ('I won't do that!'), then there should either be a good reason of conscience justifying it- if the students were put at risk in some way, for instance- or the person should consider working at a place more in line with his ethical stance.

I know that it's not a simple yes or no answer, but consideration of what to do in such conflicts is not simple either!

Appreciate this classy level of discourse.

[Ijustwannateach]

On a technical note, since this IS a teacher's forum, I've corrected the spelling of the method name, i.e. Callon => Callan.

[femi fan]

It is also aimed at getting the students to pass a certain qualification level of the Cambridge certificate system- so is that the 'statistical instrument' used? If so, then it is no surprise that a system aimed at improving results on a particular test would achieve statistical results on that test. The question is: are they really learning English, or do they just do well on that test? What other qualitative measures are used to determine fluency and proficiency?

I agree with the characteristics you stated about administrators, by the way- but it is partly because '[an administrator] evaluates testing data and is held accountable for it' that I say there is a tension there which can lead to reinforcement of technical rather than professional stances on the part of teachers.

Sorry if I am 'anti-' but I think in recent times the proliferation of meaningless, unhelpful paperwork and technical responsibilities have hampered schools and teachers, and are primarily a result of administrators try to justify their jobs. It's not all their fault; part of it comes from parents not accepting their own responsibilities. However, as a teacher and a professional, I don't accept that I should bear the burden of that deferred responsibility without resistance.

Good to read.

In particular with the teaching of a second/foreign language, we need to know what an institution's major objective is for its children or students. Is it to meet stats and figures and levels, or is it to guide learners to effective communicative skills?

Training students to pass exams or training them to communicate in the wider world? It is easy to produce stats for the former version of teaching, but not very possible for the latter.

[starmonkey]

I've never heard of the Callan/Callon method, but most methods are rather rigid and don't tend to work well unless the teacher is trained in doing it. A great deal of how well students learn--or at least their motivation--has to do with the interest and enthusiasm of the teacher.

Methods are a lot like religion--they tend to work well when there is a little flexibility.

The method I use is the KISS method. Keep It Simple, Stupid! Works for me and isn't too rigid.

hats off to you scott , one of the few posts that talks sense and doesn't milk it's own ego. there is no magic ( this is the best method ) teaching technique. it all comes down to a happy, enthusiastic and believing teacher ............. and students who are prepared to work.

any method needs training and belief , one man's poison .... blah blah blah.

if you teach beginners , think like a beginner. if you teach ........ you get my point.

p.s. if anyone does find "the magic method" please share.

Edited December 21, 2009 by starmonkey

[wolf5370]

I just wanted to quote this and comment:

Today I took a 6 year old for a lesson. I was not given a lesson plan of anykind before the lesson and went in there and just used my judgement and experience to teach the student

I have never been given a lesson plan, I have been given books to follow for a particular curse, I have been offered a choice from a selection of books and I have been allowed to make my own choices based on the title of the course. At all times I made my own lesson plans and whiteboard plans etc. I make a point to use at least part of the first lesson as apre-test (even if a placement test has alreadey been applied by the school). This set the scene for me, gives me a good idea of level and some indication of momentum I should aim for - though this is self adjusting of course.

As to the rest, I'm with Phetaroi really: if you are hired to do a job, then do that job; if you do not like it up front, then don't sign on the dotted line; and if its sprung on you later, then roll with it and don't take the renewal.

We have all had poor texts to teach and some have been forced to use poor teaching methods (or shoiuld I say ill-fitting, either the student or teacher), but that's part of the game. It's why we get paid the big bucks (that was a joke by the way!)

Edited December 21, 2009 by wolf5370

[phetaroi]

hats off to you scott , one of the few posts that talks sense and doesn't milk it's own ego. there is no magic ( this is the best method ) teaching technique. it all comes down to a happy, enthusiastic and believing teacher ............. and students who are prepared to work.

any method needs training and belief , one man's poison .... blah blah blah.

if you teach beginners , think like a beginner. if you teach ........ you get my point.

p.s. if anyone does find "the magic method" please share.

I don't think there is a "magic method", but I think you make it a little too simple.

If you have a class of students, assuming you aren't a bad teacher, most will probably do quite well. The question is those who don't. We had a math teacher in my middle school in the States. I was always on her about her high D/F rate. "Well, I taught it, they just didn't learn it. It's the students' fault." For the 60-70% of students in her classes, all was well. But a 30-40% D/F rate is pretty high. In the middle of one year an opportunity came for her to transfer to high school. Fine with me. I signed the transfer quickly. We found a new math teacher and the D/F rate for the same students plummeted. And mind you, we were giving department wide tests at this point, so this is not based on just one teacher being more lenient. So what was the difference? The first teacher had one basic teaching method. For most it worked decently. But for a large minority, it just wasn't working. The second teacher had a primary instructional method, but if it wasn't working he said, "Okay, I'll pull this out of my bag of tricks and see if this works." If it didn't, he'd try something else.

I have seen "happy, enthusiastic and believing teacher(s)" who are walking disasters in the classroom. They're happy, but their students, the parents, and their colleagues are not.

Our system was rather out in front in terms of teacher training. Typically for about a 3 year period the system would emphasize some particular teaching method, then move on to another. Teachers often said, "Well, now they have forgotten that and time to move on to something different." No, the correct answer was, "Now we've gotten really good at that and now it's time to learn another tool."