If this is true.

[Rocketsurgeon]

It's not as if the Thai education system can get any worse is it?

Let everyone have a go

My thought's exactly, just because someone has a degree in say social science doesn't mean they can teach English better than someone who has served a apprenticeship.

Not so much. Four solid years of reading hundreds of pages in History a week. No nonsense professors, written midterms and finals that are marked down not only for lack of clarity but punctuation. As opposed to even the best vocational training of say an Electrician who was never required to even spell his name correctly. Oh, did I mention two papers a term and a senior paper which are six units, span an entire year and are as important to passing within the department as algebra and writing are at a general level.

Can people without degrees teach conversational English? Maybe, but why even go there, why lower the bar? Finally, seems ironic that you are pushing students to achieve higher and go off to university when the best their teacher could do was barely pass high school.

You can leave your Northern English accent at the door as well as all the atrocious slang that permeates the goat pen.

[nellyp]

It goes without saying you don't have to go to university to learn

pedagogy but you have to learn it somewhere, unless it's genetic.

Also logical is that a degree in pedagogy doesn't mean squat unless

you know how to apply it. The difference between being degreed or

not should also be obvious;someone who devoted 5 years to becoming

an educator and someone who is desperate to stay in Thailand cause he's in love.

The institution hiring teachers has the obligation to provide the best it can,

even in Thailand. Completion of university with it's degree makes you a member

of a brotherhood. That degree is all the personnel manager has to show his/her

superiors that you might be a candidate, unless you're a really smooth talker in Thai.

I'd be lying if I said I was good at it from the start. Took me about 4-5 years to become

a good teacher. I'd like to apologize to all my students who endured me during that time frame.

So, how did reading all those books help you? In 4 or 5 years, I would be embarrassed if I could not teach. It appears that you started from nothing, which would be the same for a plumber. Some people can teach from day one, whether plumber or not, whereas some are rubbish all of their lives, whether they have a B.A in social science or an M.Ed in English

[lostinisaan]

It goes without saying you don't have to go to university to learn

pedagogy but you have to learn it somewhere, unless it's genetic.

Also logical is that a degree in pedagogy doesn't mean squat unless

you know how to apply it. The difference between being degreed or

not should also be obvious;someone who devoted 5 years to becoming

an educator and someone who is desperate to stay in Thailand cause he's in love.

The institution hiring teachers has the obligation to provide the best it can,

even in Thailand. Completion of university with it's degree makes you a member

of a brotherhood. That degree is all the personnel manager has to show his/her

superiors that you might be a candidate, unless you're a really smooth talker in Thai.

I'd be lying if I said I was good at it from the start. Took me about 4-5 years to become

a good teacher. I'd like to apologize to all my students who endured me during that time frame.

So, how did reading all those books help you? In 4 or 5 years, I would be embarrassed if I could not teach. It appears that you started from nothing, which would be the same for a plumber. Some people can teach from day one, whether plumber or not, whereas some are rubbish all of their lives, whether they have a B.A in social science or an M.Ed in English

Do your best and become a member of 1900's brotherhood. Lol.

[1900]

It goes without saying you don't have to go to university to learn

pedagogy but you have to learn it somewhere, unless it's genetic.

Also logical is that a degree in pedagogy doesn't mean squat unless

you know how to apply it. The difference between being degreed or

not should also be obvious;someone who devoted 5 years to becoming

an educator and someone who is desperate to stay in Thailand cause he's in love.

The institution hiring teachers has the obligation to provide the best it can,

even in Thailand. Completion of university with it's degree makes you a member

of a brotherhood. That degree is all the personnel manager has to show his/her

superiors that you might be a candidate, unless you're a really smooth talker in Thai.

I'd be lying if I said I was good at it from the start. Took me about 4-5 years to become

a good teacher. I'd like to apologize to all my students who endured me during that time frame.

So, how did reading all those books help you? In 4 or 5 years, I would be embarrassed if I could not teach. It appears that you started from nothing, which would be the same for a plumber. Some people can teach from day one, whether plumber or not, whereas some are rubbish all of their lives, whether they have a B.A in social science or an M.Ed in English

So how did readinig all those books help? Are you serious? And write all those papers? Are you serious? I started from nothing? Does that mean I went to university after completing grammar school? It's easy to see you have no formal education. Please tell me you're not a teacher in Thailand.

[zeichen]

"So, how did reading all those books help you? In 4 or 5 years, I would be embarrassed if I could not teach. It appears that you started from nothing, which would be the same for a plumber. Some people can teach from day one, whether plumber or not, whereas some are rubbish all of their lives, whether they have a B.A in social science or an M.Ed in English"

Spoken like someone without a background in Education or any deep knowledge of pedagogy. Teaching is a skill and not some God given ability. Those with certain temperament tend to last longer or might even be more likeable but that doesn't equate to being a good educator.

It takes a min. of 4-5 years for any teacher to fully mature. No one steps in on day one as an effective teacher.

Typically speaking first year most teachers work on classroom management. They tend to either be too approachable or not enough. The 2nd year they go the extreme the other way and the 3rd find the balance. 2nd year most teachers develop extra skills for lesson planning and dive deeper into understanding the student's needs but usually not until the 3-4 year do they find the fit that is right for themselves.

The theoretical knowledge and practice you get during university allows for deeper understanding and a basis for your decisions. It is similar to the concept of a tech school vs a degree in engineering. Though students that go to tech school tend to adjust better to the work force the first year or so, in the long run they don't have the theoretical knowledge to further themselves. They plateau or hit a ceiling. Whereas the engineer will continue to further their knowledge base and are better at deeper problem solving and pro-acting.

Same with a trained educator vs. those that are just good at public speaking and entertaining.

[1900]

Maybe the key word is, literacy. Am I wrong in my thinking a person who is devoted to reading novels, text books, academic papers, or even daily news stories, is more literate than the guy who quit school at 16 and sits in his basement reading his DC Comic collection?

Even if your gig is teaching ABCs in Thailand there exists a lot of unforeseen scenarios a young undereducated "teacher" would have to address. Sure, there are many ways to educate yourself. And all of that counts to the person in question, and his mom .. but it doesn't hold up in the academic community.

I'd bet there exists thousands posts on this and other teacher websites where you see the non-qualified defending themselves.

For what the gigs pay in Thailand, the crappy climate, the social injustice, the poverty, the illiteracy, the insecurity of civil stability, why would anyone qualified to do better not be doing better?

[casualbiker]

Maybe the key word is, literacy. Am I wrong in my thinking a person who is devoted to reading novels, text books, academic papers, or even daily news stories, is more literate than the guy who quit school at 16 and sits in his basement reading his DC Comic collection?

Even if your gig is teaching ABCs in Thailand there exists a lot of unforeseen scenarios a young undereducated "teacher" would have to address. Sure, there are many ways to educate yourself. And all of that counts to the person in question, and his mom .. but it doesn't hold up in the academic community.

I'd bet there exists thousands posts on this and other teacher websites where you see the non-qualified defending themselves.

For what the gigs pay in Thailand, the crappy climate, the social injustice, the poverty, the illiteracy, the insecurity of civil stability, why would anyone qualified to do better not be doing better?

No. But you are presuming that someone who left school at 16 is a drop out. Which is wrong!

In many countries around the world people in their 40's and 50's would have left school at 16 and gone on to get a successful career based on career based skills and probably in company training. Degrees were not so important back then, people skills were. Nowadays you need a degree to get an office job!

Those 40-50 year olds may (or may not) be avid readers. To disregard that is no different to you saying " I'd bet there exists thousands posts on this and other teacher websites where you see the non-qualified defending themselves" you're doing the same but in reverse, you are defending having a degree by belittling those that don't.

I agree that some form of teacher training should be implemented, possibly the teaching diploma/ PGCEi but I disagree that a bachelor's degree makes you a teacher!

Teacher training helps you become a better teacher.

[nellyp]

It goes without saying you don't have to go to university to learn

pedagogy but you have to learn it somewhere, unless it's genetic.

Also logical is that a degree in pedagogy doesn't mean squat unless

you know how to apply it. The difference between being degreed or

not should also be obvious;someone who devoted 5 years to becoming

an educator and someone who is desperate to stay in Thailand cause he's in love.

The institution hiring teachers has the obligation to provide the best it can,

even in Thailand. Completion of university with it's degree makes you a member

of a brotherhood. That degree is all the personnel manager has to show his/her

superiors that you might be a candidate, unless you're a really smooth talker in Thai.

I'd be lying if I said I was good at it from the start. Took me about 4-5 years to become

a good teacher. I'd like to apologize to all my students who endured me during that time frame.

So, how did reading all those books help you? In 4 or 5 years, I would be embarrassed if I could not teach. It appears that you started from nothing, which would be the same for a plumber. Some people can teach from day one, whether plumber or not, whereas some are rubbish all of their lives, whether they have a B.A in social science or an M.Ed in English

So how did readinig all those books help? Are you serious? And write all those papers? Are you serious? I started from nothing? Does that mean I went to university after completing grammar school? It's easy to see you have no formal education. Please tell me you're not a teacher in Thailand.

You seem to feel that my views discount me from having any education, which is a huge leap in thought. I have a degree in teaching, and therefore believe I have a right to an opinion on it.

You seemed to be stating that, even though you went through the rigours of tertiary education, you needed time to adjust to being a capable teacher. This is a position that most new teachers face, hence my remark about being a plumber or having a degree in social science.

You say that teaching is a skill, and I agree with that, but it is not a skill that only those with higher education can master. There are plenty of teachers here with degrees that have no idea how to help a student learn. You can tell these people, as they are stuck in a grammar translation, audio lingual loop, that promotes little ability to communicate outside of the parroted sentences that they have been taught. They also do not understand the cognitive development theories espoused by the likes of Piaget and Vygotsky, and will assume that all students have an ability to understand in the same way. Krashen and Chomsky agree that motivation is one of the key factors in enabling learning, and enthusiasm for teaching is something that people with a lower standard of education can still have, and which can be infectious among their students.

Higher education is a great thing, but to believe that "any" higher education will help you teach is wrong.

By the way these statements about my lack of education show how little attention was paid to writing any research papers you surely must have done. In an argument you should use facts not supposition or opinion. It would have, perhaps, been wiser to ask about my education than to write it off because I didn't agree with you.

If you would like a discussion about second language acquisition, the roles of a teacher (there are many), how to promote intrinsic motivation, or the development of cross curricula learning materials I could indulge you. The thing is, would you actually understand any of it.

By the way, to consider yourself a teacher, it is a wise move to take your teachers hat off and consider the students rather than yourself. After all, we are promoting learning not teaching... aren't we

[nellyp]

"So, how did reading all those books help you? In 4 or 5 years, I would be embarrassed if I could not teach. It appears that you started from nothing, which would be the same for a plumber. Some people can teach from day one, whether plumber or not, whereas some are rubbish all of their lives, whether they have a B.A in social science or an M.Ed in English"

Spoken like someone without a background in Education or any deep knowledge of pedagogy. Teaching is a skill and not some God given ability. Those with certain temperament tend to last longer or might even be more likeable but that doesn't equate to being a good educator.

It takes a min. of 4-5 years for any teacher to fully mature. No one steps in on day one as an effective teacher.

Typically speaking first year most teachers work on classroom management. They tend to either be too approachable or not enough. The 2nd year they go the extreme the other way and the 3rd find the balance. 2nd year most teachers develop extra skills for lesson planning and dive deeper into understanding the student's needs but usually not until the 3-4 year do they find the fit that is right for themselves.

The theoretical knowledge and practice you get during university allows for deeper understanding and a basis for your decisions. It is similar to the concept of a tech school vs a degree in engineering. Though students that go to tech school tend to adjust better to the work force the first year or so, in the long run they don't have the theoretical knowledge to further themselves. They plateau or hit a ceiling. Whereas the engineer will continue to further their knowledge base and are better at deeper problem solving and pro-acting.

Same with a trained educator vs. those that are just good at public speaking and entertaining.

Fair play, you make some excellent points here, especially about the way teachers learn classroom management. my point is still this. if you put that engineer into a classroom with his mate, they are both starting from ground zero, and who is to say which one would be a better teacher.

Once again, I would like to say that deciding somebody does not have any higher education because they hold a different view shows a lack of tolerance and understanding (both great teacher traits). Would you say Einstein was obviously not a scientist because of his dislike of the theories related to Quantum Physics?

[zeichen]

Piaget, Chomsky and Krashen. Can you please cite someone from this Century please. What a joke, You have a degree in education. From when 1950? Get with the new century. You are really up on your buzz words on EFL but most of what you are talking about is old and not current theories. Perhaps get some books from this Century. You do realize that you are educating students to live in the world you grew up in right? You need to prepare them for skills that don't even exist today. This is done by instilling critical thinking and not just improving their conversational ability in a foreign language.

"Higher education is a great thing, but to believe that "any" higher education will help you teach is wrong."

I think the subtle point most of us are trying to make is that it is more likely the case that someone with an education has a slight advantage to those that don't. Not everyone with an Education is a teacher, no one is saying that. But to say that someone with a high school education or lower has advantage or even the same starting ground is ridiculous.

[Rhys]

Interesting replies... yet I would add, many will say it is the job of the instructor to motivate...yet, with students with poor attitudes for language learning...why bother...

Put those students who don't have a clue about language in aggie school and the those who show the appearance of a learner..in vocational school. Thus as in Thailand's educational system those that can.. go abroad.. then come and take advantage or with some the western trained Thai English teacher.. ..their noses are so far up in the clouds.. brown rice turns color..

A teacher... theories and applications always at odd.. the linguist vs the teacher in the trenches... in the end.. you make the difference anyway you can...

[zeichen]

"Once again, I would like to say that deciding somebody does not have any higher education because they hold a different view shows a lack of tolerance and understanding (both great teacher traits)."

I didn't decide that you don't have an education or knowledge in education because I disagree with you. You show it in your lack of knowledge by spouting off garbage that someone can walk into a classroom on their first day and teach. That shows you are misguided. If you want to retract that statement, then of course I wouldn't have said what I did.

If you stated that regardless of background people can overcome obstacles and eventually acquire the skills to be a teacher, then who would be arguing with you.

Perhaps re-examine your preposterous statement that uneducated laborers and college graduates have the same potential as educators.

If you were a parent and had to chose a teacher for your precious child without knowing them ahead of time who would you chose someone with a degree in Education, an unrelated advanced degree, or someone who was trained as an electrician?

"Would you say Einstein was obviously not a scientist because of his dislike of the theories related to Quantum Physics?"

NO, but I wouldn't also call him a genius because he played the violin to concentrate. You really make the worst analogies.

[Rhys]

"Once again, I would like to say that deciding somebody does not have any higher education because they hold a different view shows a lack of tolerance and understanding (both great teacher traits)."

I didn't decide that you don't have an education or knowledge in education because I disagree with you. You show it in your lack of knowledge by spouting off garbage that someone can walk into a classroom on their first day and teach. That shows you are misguided. If you want to retract that statement, then of course I wouldn't have said what I did.

If you stated that regardless of background people can overcome obstacles and eventually acquire the skills to be a teacher, then who would be arguing with you.

Perhaps re-examine your preposterous statement that uneducated laborers and college graduates have the same potential as educators.

If you were a parent and had to chose a teacher for your precious child without knowing them ahead of time who would you chose someone with a degree in Education, an unrelated advanced degree, or someone who was trained as an electrician?

"Would you say Einstein was obviously not a scientist because of his dislike of the theories related to Quantum Physics?"

NO, but I wouldn't also call him a genius because he played the violin to concentrate. You really make the worst analogies.

Interesting points.. in Thailand...Khun Somchai does not give a hoot if his child studies with a Ph.D. in Computational Linguistics vs someone giving conversational practice.

Sorry... Einstein.. gave that famous quote about insanity and wanting things to change..

Teacher.. a complicated concept for a westerner in the Thai system... many want to help, many gave up, many take it one day at a time..

Thus.. an educated teacher, administrator, decided that it is cost effective to teach 1500 students in a large auditorium, A class in English language learning has the right to call themselves an "educator" more a Dh..

This is just an example of the actual practices in Thailand...right here and right now.... All messed up, all jumbled.... in the end, a student wants to learn.. well have it.. but trying or improve curriculum planning...not going to happen.. and of course you know why... Greed and incompetence

[nev]

Some excellent replies, and I have enjoyed reading the for and against.

I am 57 semi retired and only really work when my contacts in Sydney call with a job offer, I am in no position to take up a teaching position and I am not qualified to do so but I have been offered teaching jobs in local schools near here who badly need native English teachers.

So no need to worry your jobs are safe, and I respect all native English speakers who work here for little money compared with back home and put up with the obstacles the MOE throw at you.

[Rhys]

Some excellent replies, and I have enjoyed reading the for and against.

I am 57 semi retired and only really work when my contacts in Sydney call with a job offer, I am in no position to take up a teaching position and I am not qualified to do so but I have been offered teaching jobs in local schools near here who badly need native English teachers.

So no need to worry your jobs are safe, and I respect all native English speakers who work here for little money compared with back home and put up with the obstacles the MOE throw at you.

The NEST too.

[zeichen]

"Interesting points.. in Thailand...Khun Somchai does not give a hoot if his child studies with a Ph.D. in Computational Linguistics vs someone giving conversational practice."

I guess we live in different Thailands. I dont' work in government schools nor do I live around lower income families or those with mainly agricultural backgrounds. Where I am most parents are very concerned about their kids education and future. They want their children to be around other children with similar backgrounds and want their teachers to live up to a certain standard. Titles are very important in Thailand and always have been. Schools will hire someone with an unrelated Phd over a well experienced educator with only a Bachelors in Education and licensed in that subject. Though the PhD may actually do a fine job, the one with the appropriate qualifications would be most people's first choice if things were equal. Titles mean a lot in Asia specifically in Thailand. Schools that can boast to parents that all of their teachers are trained at the Masters level in the appropriate fields and with the proper qualifications will always get more applications.

The problem is that most parents trust the schools in the area to ensure that the teachers are qualified. Management don't often live up to their job and usually suffer from the penny wise and a dollar poor conundrum. Unfortunately most parents are too busy working and providing for their families to really know what is going on in the classroom. When a student's report card shows improvement over the year, the parent is satisfied and has some bragging rights regardless if the child possesses the skills or not. For example one colleague I worked with would brag that his grading system was simple 1st quarter he gave out a 3.5-4 out of 5 to everyone student with the few exceptions. Then each quarter would add 1/2 point. Parents were always so happy to watch how their student would improve.

School's often do this kind of garbage to keep the money rolling in. So it really isn't the problem of the parents not caring, it is that people have too much faith in a system that is so beyond corrupt, that only the rare few students who actually have teachers that know how to work within the system but still perform within the guidelines of teaching's best practices have a chance.

Then there is the old adage that students learn in spite of our best efforts not as a result of them. An experienced teacher uses their formative tasks and assignments not only to evaluate their students but the effectiveness of their own lessons.

Frankly if the government made it a requirement that private schools charging a fortune as they do have to limit class size to under 30 and require 20+ hours of professional development to renew teacher's license every year, and simply fired every single teacher that failed their subject test, we would be on the right path.

[casualbiker]

"Interesting points.. in Thailand...Khun Somchai does not give a hoot if his child studies with a Ph.D. in Computational Linguistics vs someone giving conversational practice."

I guess we live in different Thailands. I dont' work in government schools nor do I live around lower income families or those with mainly agricultural backgrounds. Where I am most parents are very concerned about their kids education and future. They want their children to be around other children with similar backgrounds and want their teachers to live up to a certain standard. Titles are very important in Thailand and always have been. Schools will hire someone with an unrelated Phd over a well experienced educator with only a Bachelors in Education and licensed in that subject. Though the PhD may actually do a fine job, the one with the appropriate qualifications would be most people's first choice if things were equal. Titles mean a lot in Asia specifically in Thailand. Schools that can boast to parents that all of their teachers are trained at the Masters level in the appropriate fields and with the proper qualifications will always get more applications.

The problem is that most parents trust the schools in the area to ensure that the teachers are qualified. Management don't often live up to their job and usually suffer from the penny wise and a dollar poor conundrum. Unfortunately most parents are too busy working and providing for their families to really know what is going on in the classroom. When a student's report card shows improvement over the year, the parent is satisfied and has some bragging rights regardless if the child possesses the skills or not. For example one colleague I worked with would brag that his grading system was simple 1st quarter he gave out a 3.5-4 out of 5 to everyone student with the few exceptions. Then each quarter would add 1/2 point. Parents were always so happy to watch how their student would improve.

School's often do this kind of garbage to keep the money rolling in. So it really isn't the problem of the parents not caring, it is that people have too much faith in a system that is so beyond corrupt, that only the rare few students who actually have teachers that know how to work within the system but still perform within the guidelines of teaching's best practices have a chance.

Then there is the old adage that students learn in spite of our best efforts not as a result of them. An experienced teacher uses their formative tasks and assignments not only to evaluate their students but the effectiveness of their own lessons.

Frankly if the government made it a requirement that private schools charging a fortune as they do have to limit class size to under 30 and require 20+ hours of professional development to renew teacher's license every year, and simply fired every single teacher that failed their subject test, we would be on the right path.

You're last paragraph is interesting as it would be exactly the same people doing the professional development that currently do the O-net and A-net tests... And they are beyond laughable. Zeichen you are lucky in that you don't presently seem to have any interaction with Khurusapha or the MOE.. Some of us took test from Khurusapha.. What a joke!

[zeichen]

I took two of the tests a few years back. The technology one was easy. The teacher methodology was just insane. I translated one of the O-net tests into English back in 2010 some of the questions were just bizarre.

So, yes I do understand that circle. Yes, about the professional development. The school I worked at 2 years ago had 3 teachers from a university in BKK come in and do a training. The sad thing was none of the panelist had teaching qualifications. One was fresh out of Uni in an unrelated field. The other two had different backgrounds with a few years teaching experience. They were just conversation teachers though. We were all licensed teachers in our home countries teaching subjects not EFL. So we were polite but really gained nothing from the 2 day course which was not paid and ruined our weekend.

I really do understand the dilemma, but still some of the solutions to the problems are simple and don't cost a lot of money from the school or government.

I am always shocked when a school here charges as much as a school in South Korea or China where I earn 2-3 times the salary. Another issue that schools could remedy is replacing the 40 staff in the office for 4-5 qualified ones. One school I taught at in the US had over 1,500 students. The office staff consisted of 6 people including principal and vice principal. Go to most schools in Thailand and there are at least 2 dozen office workers. My last school here had 6 people in the finance department. 4 receptionists, 1 personal assistant to each of the 6 directors, There were departments heads for each of the 12 sections that didn't actually teach, there were 3-4 academic directors total. There were 30 homeroom teachers that took attendance dealt directly with parents and wrote reports but only taught 1-2 classes a day.

It really is insane how inefficient so many schools are.

The good thing is that things are definitely better than they were when I started and many younger new teachers are trying to change the system from within and just waiting for the dead weight and archaic practices of the old crones just to retire.

[nellyp]

Maybe the key word is, literacy. Am I wrong in my thinking a person who is devoted to reading novels, text books, academic papers, or even daily news stories, is more literate than the guy who quit school at 16 and sits in his basement reading his DC Comic collection?

Even if your gig is teaching ABCs in Thailand there exists a lot of unforeseen scenarios a young undereducated "teacher" would have to address. Sure, there are many ways to educate yourself. And all of that counts to the person in question, and his mom .. but it doesn't hold up in the academic community.

I'd bet there exists thousands posts on this and other teacher websites where you see the non-qualified defending themselves.

For what the gigs pay in Thailand, the crappy climate, the social injustice, the poverty, the illiteracy, the insecurity of civil stability, why would anyone qualified to do better not be doing better?

Reading is without doubt a great way to increase knowledge and understanding. As long as you can decode the written text, and take new knowledge and understanding from it. Reading does not always lead to a greater understanding of the world, but it is certainly key.

It is funny how reading a DC comic is thought to be so bad. As far as I can tell reading comics is a perquisite for nerds all around the planet. Many of whom are intelligent and go on to be leaders in their respective fields

[nellyp]

Piaget, Chomsky and Krashen. Can you please cite someone from this Century please. What a joke, You have a degree in education. From when 1950? Get with the new century. You are really up on your buzz words on EFL but most of what you are talking about is old and not current theories. Perhaps get some books from this Century. You do realize that you are educating students to live in the world you grew up in right? You need to prepare them for skills that don't even exist today. This is done by instilling critical thinking and not just improving their conversational ability in a foreign language.

"Higher education is a great thing, but to believe that "any" higher education will help you teach is wrong."

I think the subtle point most of us are trying to make is that it is more likely the case that someone with an education has a slight advantage to those that don't. Not everyone with an Education is a teacher, no one is saying that. But to say that someone with a high school education or lower has advantage or even the same starting ground is ridiculous.

The reason that I used these examples is that they at the core of what I was talking about. Piaget set the foundation for cognitive research, even though his research is not comprehensive due to the small sample he used, and Vygotsky's model is still used all over the world. If you are prepared to dismiss the research of Cholmsky and Krashen, you are dismissing a lot of the research used as the base for most research today. By the way none of these theories were around before 1950 and neither was I.

As for coming into this century, I realise that you do not know everything about me (though it appears you think you do), and it is therefore impossible for you to know that I continue to develop my teaching through courses with Shaping the Way We Teach English and the British Council. I also read and watch lectures on teaching. I watched a very interesting one on teaching young learners just yesterday. (http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/herbert-puchta-teaching-very-young-learners-%E2%80%94-what%E2%80%99s-hot-what-not?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=bc-teachingenglish) because I believe I need to improve when teaching this age group.

I must agree about your views on critical thinking, but again you assume I know nothing about it and do not implement it. My classes are often based on a cooperative learning approach to get students to discuss questions, rather than me simply giving an answer. Research and group discussions are a great way to help students gain critical thinking skiils, but I am sure you are aware of the difficulties in this approach here. Many students are simply used to copying off a whiteboard and learning by rote (even though the 1999 education act told teachers to concentrate on student centered learning), and find it difficult to adjust to a regime where they need to work things out for themselves.

We are certainly going in circles here, but I still do not agree that a teacher with a degree will be better than one without one (teaching degree aside). A teaching degree certainly gives you many more tools and an understanding of methods and, but that is only for teaching degrees. I also think that somebody without a degree could walk into a classroom on day one and be as good as somebody with a degree. Especially in a country where most teachers have to have patience and an empathy with their students that cannot be taught in any class.

[zeichen]

"By the way none of these theories were around before 1950 and neither was I."

I am sorry they don't have sarcasm where you come from? OK change it to the 60's to be accurate. My point was that they are definitely not contemporary theorists and there have been leaps and bounds since then.

"If you are prepared to dismiss the research of Cholmsky and Krashen, you are dismissing a lot of the research used as the base for most research today."

Now who is the one assuming? You don't think that I have read them? Of course I did 20 years ago. But I don't go around spouting off about them now as there are definitely things that are more relevant and effective today.

I must admit I watched about 4 minutes of that awful presentation you linked and wondered exactly what you got out of it. Takes him over 8minutes before he actually gets to his first point about learning stages. He also quotes from the same researchers several different times. So it seems to me that he is just focusing on one school of thought and not taking a universal approach to his presentation.

"I realise that you do not know everything about me (though it appears you think you do"

Perhaps you are not reading your own words. I make my assessment from what you wrote. It is clear that you are not thinking deeply about what you are spouting off. You make grandiose claims without any real statements to support them. Do you think that you background in education hurt you? You also didn't answer my question about if they were your kids and who would you prefer to teach them.

How many teachers did you have in your life that either weren't educators or weren't experts in their field? Did you ever have an electrician teach you social sciences? Did you ever have a highschool drop out teach you a foreign language?

You really spout off so many buzzwords and cliches that come directly from TEFL programs and not really the same jargon that you hear in departments of education. I wonder if you are a TEFL trainer because you really don't come across as someone with a degree in education or someone who has been an educator in his own country.

"A teaching degree certainly gives you"

No degree doesn't give you anything. A degree is the piece of paper you get once you have gained the knowledge from your education. So i agree with that statement. However those that have attained a degree in Education have a lot more than just a few skills. They have a foundation to build on. Someone fresh off the boat without any formal education who has spent his /her life working some trade has even less to offer.

You really keep spouting the same garbage but don't really back it up. Would you really go back and not study what you did? If you don't think that your background in education has helped you be a better teacher, then why is it a requirement around the world? Is every country just stupid?

[casualbiker]

"By the way none of these theories were around before 1950 and neither was I."

I am sorry they don't have sarcasm where you come from? OK change it to the 60's to be accurate. My point was that they are definitely not contemporary theorists and there have been leaps and bounds since then.

"If you are prepared to dismiss the research of Cholmsky and Krashen, you are dismissing a lot of the research used as the base for most research today."

Now who is the one assuming? You don't think that I have read them? Of course I did 20 years ago. But I don't go around spouting off about them now as there are definitely things that are more relevant and effective today.

I must admit I watched about 4 minutes of that awful presentation you linked and wondered exactly what you got out of it. Takes him over 8minutes before he actually gets to his first point about learning stages. He also quotes from the same researchers several different times. So it seems to me that he is just focusing on one school of thought and not taking a universal approach to his presentation.

"I realise that you do not know everything about me (though it appears you think you do"

Perhaps you are not reading your own words. I make my assessment from what you wrote. It is clear that you are not thinking deeply about what you are spouting off. You make grandiose claims without any real statements to support them. Do you think that you background in education hurt you? You also didn't answer my question about if they were your kids and who would you prefer to teach them.

How many teachers did you have in your life that either weren't educators or weren't experts in their field? Did you ever have an electrician teach you social sciences? Did you ever have a highschool drop out teach you a foreign language?

You really spout off so many buzzwords and cliches that come directly from TEFL programs and not really the same jargon that you hear in departments of education. I wonder if you are a TEFL trainer because you really don't come across as someone with a degree in education or someone who has been an educator in his own country.

"A teaching degree certainly gives you"

No degree doesn't give you anything. A degree is the piece of paper you get once you have gained the knowledge from your education. So i agree with that statement. However those that have attained a degree in Education have a lot more than just a few skills. They have a foundation to build on. Someone fresh off the boat without any formal education who has spent his /her life working some trade has even less to offer.

You really keep spouting the same garbage but don't really back it up. Would you really go back and not study what you did? If you don't think that your background in education has helped you be a better teacher, then why is it a requirement around the world? Is every country just stupid?

Zeichen.. You keep referring to TEFL teachers etc.

A question.

Do you think that you need an education degree to teach English as a foreign language in government or normal program school?

And I'm not talking about the rules but your thoughts. Ok.

[zeichen]

"Do you think that you need an education degree to teach English as a foreign language in government or normal program school?"

I teach subject matter to students that are second language learners. I have also worked with non native speakers for over 20 years. Though I don't teach EFL I understand how to adjust my lessons to suit their needs. A few colleagues I had last year were by the book AP English teachers from the US with over 20 years experience. They knew grammar like nobody, they knew how to teach literature as well as any professor I had. The problem is that they were used to teaching native English speakers in the US. They didn't know how to adapt their lessons to the culture, or scale things appropriately. A bad student was one that didn't have a good grasp of English. Whereas when I took over her class I found that many of the best students were the ones with a lower ability and with the right approach, they excelled.

I don't teach EFL currently, though I have for many years off and on and I have never worked at a Thai government school.

A good private school here with less than 30 students in a class is pretty much the bottom where I would teach. I admire those that stick it out in government schools as their hands are tied.

I have worked with a few government schools helping them get teachers and find a match. It is hard because they have some ridiculous requests. Often preferring someone who failed every single question I asked because they look young and friendly. One guy was so dynamic and really knew what he was doing. His lessons were well thought out and was the only teacher that actually wrote the objective on the board and used a rubric that accurately assessed the activities for the lesson. The school passed on him because he was 50 and they were afraid he wouldn't do what they wanted. They liked the 20 somethings that don't have a clue.

I think that people teaching EFL with a background in education as well as linguistical theories and cultural understanding have an advantage to those without degrees or with unrelated degrees.

I don't think any one thing makes one teacher better than another. However, if you take someone without a degree and they become an effective educator wouldn't they improve as well if they also furthered their knowledge by getting a degree in the field they work?

I do think that someone with a university education has an advantage to those that don't have any education. Not everyone is going to be an effective teacher no matter what they studied or how many degrees they have. I have met people with masters and PhD's in Education that are absolutely worthless in the classroom, they were pretty good at teaching teachers though.

I have never in my life met anyone without a degree that really was an effective teacher. I met a few that faked it quite well. Some that had good classroom management skills. Some that were very entertaining and approachable. Some that had an adequate understanding of grammar, language development. The few that were adequate were also parents which I think does make a huge difference when teaching young learners.

The amount of knowledge one needs to have to be an effective teacher is immense even if teaching in one's home country. Then compound that with cultural differences, language barriers, government restrictions, insane management. EFL teachers should actually have higher qualifications than teachers in their home country.

Current studies are showing that here in Thailand students are under performing in their accuracy in English as well as a serious decline in the ability to write. The recent entrance exams for the English essay were shockingly low.

Thailand spends a lot on education per capita especially on English instruction. There are more native teachers than ever before but the proficiency is actually down compared to 20+ years ago.

[casualbiker]

^^^^ Did you actually answer my question?

I don't know about 20 years ago but I think that in the past 10 years more students (people) are actually happy to interact and speak English with a foreigner.

[zeichen]

Yes, I had a long winded response but in the middle I answered it directly

"I think that people teaching EFL with a background in education as well as linguistical theories and cultural understanding have an advantage to those without degrees or with unrelated degrees."

[casualbiker]

I think that people teaching EFL with a background in education as well as linguistical theories and cultural understanding have an advantage to those without degrees or with unrelated degrees.

Very true. But to be fair it wasn't really a direct answer. But I understand your point.

But they are also extremely unlikely to work in a Thai mainstream school on the type of wages on offer ie 30-45k baht.

That's why in most countries TEFL conversation teaching has lesser regulations than subject teaching. Because let's not forget, in the majority of mainstream Thai schools the kids have education degreed teachers. They are Thai, Filipino or both!

You suggested in your post that NES foreign teachers were to blame for Thai students English. Yet most teachers I know teach one 50 minute period out of 5 or 6 English periods. The rest are Thai or Filipino teachers. Obviously Intensive and EP have more exposure, which is generally reflected in the students better English.

[Rhys]

So gents.. where does it leave us...ELL or ELT will always remain the same in Thailand...

YES.. dude.. there are several versions of Thailand Educationally speaking... Parents on the Boards of Private schools while having good intentions of the child's education.. are....

[zeichen]

"That's why in most countries TEFL conversation teaching has lesser regulations than subject teaching."

Well to be honest most countries actually require the same standards from EFL teachers as subject teachers. In South Korea most public school jobs require a degree and a TEFL and several years experience or a degree in education. Their academy jobs called Hagwons only need a degree in any subject but they are just fluff where most people actually ask their students what page in the book they are on. China has really upped its requirements over the past few years and will eventually be very hard for those without certification to get decent jobs. HK has always had higher standards, Japan is all over the place with different regulations for different types of teaching. The Middle East has some of the highest hoops to jump through. The difference between those countries and Thailand is that they actually pay for it.

"You suggested in your post that NES foreign teachers were to blame for Thai students English"

Not at all. Just that even with more NES teachers and more exposure to English their academic ability in English isn't improving. Conversationally yes, there is a big change now compared to 10+ years ago.

The native speakers are currently not part of the solution either unfortunately. Not necessarily their fault though. One of the problem is that most TEFL trained teachers stick with communicative approach only and don't teach in a holistic manner. Another problem is as you said not enough exposure or contact hours with the native speaker. Or the real crippler having more than one English teacher in a semester.

The system where Thai English teachers focus on grammar and reading and the native speaker focuses on communication is such a poor format. A qualified native speaker can easily teach all aspects of the language especially once students have already a basic foundation.

Most TEFL graduates have an almost hatred for Thai English teachers who translate for their students. Even though studies actually show the effectiveness for translation methodology for absolute beginners. The problem is when it perpetuates. The kick in my teeth is the Thai invention of V1, V2, V3. You ask any student any verb and ask them, they can tell you as an automated response but they have no practical understanding of its function. Obviously the NES who teaches the kids 1-2 hours a week isn't to blame. They are just not utilized to their fullest potential. Korea had the same problem. They threw millions of dollars on this 10 year project to put native speakers in every public school in the country. It was an absolute gold mine for teachers but absolutely worthless for students.

So no matter what the qualifications a teacher has unless management, core standard curriculum set by the government and a definite objective for what the students are suppose to achieve is formalized teachers will spin their wheels with little to no progress.

Teaching is an uphill battle in any country, but here it is an uphill battle with a long walk down all by yourself.

[SlyAnimal]

It's definitely an uphill battle here. After studying a little bit of Thai last year, I'm always quite interested when I walk into a class and find the Thai:English translation lists on the board. Often I find that the translations are very context specific, and I always wonder if this has been explained to the students. But based on how many of the teachers don't necessarily understand the difference between "fun" and "funny", I think I know the answer.

I think as well that teaching methods/goals between different types/levels of schools are completely different. I.e. Zeichen, you're obviously teaching at private schools where the students are at a much higher caliber than those of us battling it out at government schools. As a result, I can see why you're going to look down on a someone without a degree who now wants to teach English, as in the world in which you live/teach, there is no place for them.

However, in the world of government schools, that any NES could potentially be a great teacher, with or without a degree. As although I believe that someone with a degree has a higher likelihood of being a better teacher, for what we're teaching, the difference is pretty marginal.

As we're usually just teaching the students the basics, as 50m per week, 1 term per year, in a classroom of 40 kids isn't much to build a learning foundation upon. Thus so long as the basics are covered, which 99% of NES should be able to cover, then that should be enough to competently teach provided they have the right personality and work ethics etc. Admittedly, the 1% of NES who would be incapable of effectively doing this will almost definitely fall into the category of not having a degree.

Although in saying that, the degree requirement is good as it creates an academic requirement for teachers working in an academic institution. As teachers are role models, I believe that this is important, but it's got to be balanced against the fact that it's excluding a large number of teachers who could potentially be exceptional teachers with a bit of experience/training.

In the district where I live, there are, to the best of my knowledge only 3x NES teachers. All 3 work at my high school, which has 2600+ students. There's another high school with about 600 students as well as all of the primary schools that feed the 2x high schools. I don't know if the local Farang would be good/competent teachers, or even if they'd be willing, but if degrees weren't a factor then there would be a bigger supply of NES teachers. With a bigger supply of NES teachers, some of those students might actually have a chance of learning English from a teacher that can actually string together a grammatically correct sentence.... then maybe we wouldn't need to teach teenagers how to answer basic questions like "How are you?".

But that's all a dream, we're probably so far out in the countryside that no one would want to teach for the pittance those schools would offer anyway. Better to just think about the big rich schools instead, those are the ones who might actually end up using English in their careers, as poor kids should know their place and just keep growing rice.

What would be really good though, would be if they perhaps setup a proper course which NES teachers could do which qualified us to teach in Thailand. Something which didnt just look at text books and theories, but also looked at the real environment in Thailand. They could run courses over the summer or similar and make it a requirement for all teachers instead of a degree.

[zeichen]

"As we're usually just teaching the students the basics, as 50m per week, 1 term per year, in a classroom of 40 kids isn't much to build a learning foundation upon. Thus so long as the basics are covered, which 99% of NES should be able to cover, then that should be enough to competently teach provided they have the right personality and work ethics etc. Admittedly, the 1% of NES who would be incapable of effectively doing this will almost definitely fall into the category of not having a degree."

Very true. I think the point I am making is that those positions are actually a waste of tax payers money and time for the students. South Korea stopped the majority of its government funded English classes in all public schools. They did it for 10 years in a similar fashion to what Thailand is doing and threw a lot more money at the problem and had pretty much the same results.

Personally, I would rather have my child get extra math or science classes or art, music, etc and actually accomplish something than spend that time in an English class and have them barely make a sentence or respond to a question after 12 years of school.

I know that I am alone on this but I really think that the importance of learning English really needs to be re-evaluated. If it was an elective for those students that really wanted it, not parents forcing their kids, you would have more happy teachers and better results and the kids that aren't going to be able to communicate anyway after 12 years aren't any worse off.