Thai officials to slash number of foreign English teachers

[brewsterbudgen]

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

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

did they speak English too?

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

Not many, but as others have pointed out, it's not required or desirable in most TEFL classes.

[MRH1959]

There can be many reasons for this proposal from the Government, both good and 'not so good' reasons.

Having 'teachers' hitting on students, or similar problems, would be understandable.

Looking after their own 'Thais' that may be proficent in doing this teaching is also understandable.

I converse with some 'Thai English teachers' and help to correct 'their' mistakes and offer some advice. Good teachers are never paid enough for what they do [no matter which country they are in] and Thailand won't be able to hold any capable teachers, as they will migrate to a better opportunity.

I have been involved with advertising for the Thai Ministry of Education, and although it may be due to the present Government situation, I feel there is a loss of interest in 'spreading the wings to engulf a better future with the improved presence of the English language'.

Not everybody is capable of teaching good English , as not everyone has an open understanding or attitude that the students crave for.

[Shawn0001]

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

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

did they speak English too?

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

They did, but that was a long time ago and all the taught methodologies since have seen a focus on not using the native language in the classroom. It is believed that if the learner discovers the answer then it will be memorable, rather than as we used to think, that you could just tell them the answer and tell them to remember it.

[Shawn0001]

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

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

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

immersion can only get you so far.

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

[fey]

My wife does training seminars for other Thai English teachers and she knows most just of them are useless and lazy. They make no effort to improve their English.

I have taught over a dozen seminars to elementary and high school Thai English teachers--the last one being to over 300 teachers in a large training seminar sponsored by the Thai Ministry of Education.

Sadly, I agree with the above poster.

Basically, you just teach and train the small handful sitting on the front row who are truly trying. The vast, lethargic majority sit, engrossed in their smartphones on Facebook, and simply see the seminar as a chance to get out of the classroom for the day--and they will tell that to you to your face with no shame.

These one-shot-a-year seminars just don't cut it. I retired from the circuit, quite disillusioned. I pity the Thai teachers who will now be set up as role models after a six-week whizbang seminar.

Adequate training has to start at the university level, using a yes-it-is-possible-to-fail standard of evaluation, and filter out the dolts who decided to major in English because they couldn't get into any other faculty.

if people are sitting there on their smartphones you need to exert some discipline into your classroom.

their all losing their faces being that lazy and their poor grades will reflect this.

this is also known as 'defacing their face'.

Edited November 16, 2015 by fey

[Caitrin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited November 16, 2015 by Caitrin

[IMA_FARANG]

I am lost for words. The people making these decisions are "Brain Dead"

--------------------------

I don't mean to be rude but I think he term you really meant was, "I am at a loss for words".

[Caitrin]

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

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

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

immersion can only get you so far.

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

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

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

Edited November 16, 2015 by Caitrin

[Shawn0001]

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

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

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

immersion can only get you so far.

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

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

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

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

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

[brewsterbudgen]

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

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

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

immersion can only get you so far.

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

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

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

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

[Caitrin]

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

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

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

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

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

[theguyfromanotherforum]

British council is a joke and so are your stupid celta courses.

I'm a god damn Serb and I never learned English in my native country studying from non natives.... Which are by the way 100 million times more proficient in English than a Thai teacher.

You can intellectualize as much as you want but Thais don't have any desire to learn a foreign language.... Any language not just English.

There are always exceptions, but "general"ly that's not the case.

[KhaoNiaw]

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

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

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

immersion can only get you so far.

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

Immersion and communicative approaches are completely different things. Long term immersion research studies have produced quite complex results which do not simply show immersion=good v non-immersion=bad, or vice versa.

Pure communicative language approaches were largely left behind in the 1980s, leaving the type of semi-communicative approach used by Cambridge, British Council etc,. all main players in the EFL industry with a vested interest (books, courses, audio-video material etc.) in promoting a particular approach. There's nothing wrong with that except that it can sometimes manifest itself in a rather homogeneous approach which ignores local learning styles. Good program planning and teacher awareness are important elements often lacking here.

[Caitrin]

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

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

[Artisi]

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

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

Go right ahead - you will be able to churn out another 5000 words on the subject.

[Shawn0001]

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

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

I would be very surprised if the British Council are teaching low level English learners by offering verbal explanations of how English "works". I expect that, like all other modern course providers, they are teaching by demonstration and not explanation, the explanations can come once the students have learned enough to understand them.

[Shawn0001]

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

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

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

immersion can only get you so far.

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

Immersion and communicative approaches are completely different things. Long term immersion research studies have produced quite complex results which do not simply show immersion=good v non-immersion=bad, or vice versa.

Pure communicative language approaches were largely left behind in the 1980s, leaving the type of semi-communicative approach used by Cambridge, British Council etc,. all main players in the EFL industry with a vested interest (books, courses, audio-video material etc.) in promoting a particular approach. There's nothing wrong with that except that it can sometimes manifest itself in a rather homogeneous approach which ignores local learning styles. Good program planning and teacher awareness are important elements often lacking here.

Communicative approaches require immersion, what would a teacher do in creating an immersion situation which was not also a communicative approach?

[pedro01]

"Under the "train-the-trainer" program, a group of 500 Thai teachers who teach English in government schools nationwide will take part in an intensive six-week training course taught by English specialists from the British Council"

And then those 500 will be out of a job, right?

[Shawn0001]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Naam]

595 replies. out of that approximately 95% arrogant, derogatory and insulting comments, some of them plain stupid. most probably from the crème de la crème of the local expat community

Typical pot-shot at fellow posters while ignoring the need to speak to the topic at hand. Peruse his posts. He's a broken record. Fail.

there's no need to criticise in a most arrogant, insulting and generalising way a political decision as well as Thai citizens by those who are nothing but tolerated guests in this country!

some posters seem to forget that they are neither Bwanas nor Sahibs and definitely not N'kosis with certain entitlements but only paid servants.

[duanebigsby]

Top 6 countries don"t have NES teachers (or you can count on fingers of one hand) so I think NES teachers aren"t necessary for teach English what also proves link below. You need to be a good dedicated teacher. I meet bad and good NES or Thai teachers.

In my eyes main reason is system, for example first day in my school I have been told that every student must pass. I dissagreed, so now I can"t assess them, Thai teachers do????

So if you combine this with Thai nature (sabai sabai) you get result.

And education here is just a damn good business.

And before someone stays hangin" on my English Im not teaching English language. But every well-intentioned criticism is welcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF_English_Proficiency_Index

The top 6 countries don't need NES teachers because they have enough fluent teachers of their own country.

Most of Asia doesn't have enough good, local fluent English speakers, thus the need for NES.

When Thailand has 100,000 or so proficient English teachers who are fluent, then they won't need NES. right now, they do need them.

I agree, but again in current system even 100,000 or so proficient English teachers can"t do nothing.

85,000 teach for visa reasons. to be near the thai girls! with foreigner its all about the girls.

You obviously have no idea whatsoever either about Thai schools or foreign English teachers.

Almost every foreigner at my school is happily married and not here for the women.

Don't paint every foreign English teachers with the same ignorant brush.

[nev]

What is NOT said above, but I have read elsewhere, is that 43,000 Thai teachers of English were tested and only SIX reached the required level of proficiency in English.

What standard are the other 42, 994? And what percentage of fluency is that? Only 0.01395% of Thai teachers tested in English were reasonably fluent.

It boggles the mind that the cretins in the Ministry could even contemplate such lunacy.

<deleted> if you tested 43,000 bar girls instead of Thai teachers I am sure you would come up with more than 6.

[Fookhaht]

My wife does training seminars for other Thai English teachers and she knows most just of them are useless and lazy. They make no effort to improve their English.

I have taught over a dozen seminars to elementary and high school Thai English teachers--the last one being to over 300 teachers in a large training seminar sponsored by the Thai Ministry of Education.

Sadly, I agree with the above poster.

Basically, you just teach and train the small handful sitting on the front row who are truly trying. The vast, lethargic majority sit, engrossed in their smartphones on Facebook, and simply see the seminar as a chance to get out of the classroom for the day--and they will tell that to you to your face with no shame.

These one-shot-a-year seminars just don't cut it. I retired from the circuit, quite disillusioned. I pity the Thai teachers who will now be set up as role models after a six-week whizbang seminar.

Adequate training has to start at the university level, using a yes-it-is-possible-to-fail standard of evaluation, and filter out the dolts who decided to major in English because they couldn't get into any other faculty.

if people are sitting there on their smartphones you need to exert some discipline into your classroom.

their all losing their faces being that lazy and their poor grades will reflect this.

this is also known as 'defacing their face'.

Discipline?? Classroom?? You propose making 45-year old Khun Ying stand in a corner with her dunce cap on, in a hotel ballroom? Well at least she might get a great selfie out of the experience--with 100 of her colleagues looking on.

Get real.

Teaching adults in their 30's to 50's is different than teaching teenagers and younger. Especially those who may be there for a one-day seminar, and you are a guest speaker.

I suggest you reread the post to see what group I was referring to.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Fookhaht

[duanebigsby]

Well apart from the problems already given by other posters there is the point about who and where the foreign teachers come from. I have some friends who come from Africa, India etc. and they are here teaching English. They may be okay at written English but their pronunciation/accent is a real problem. While I was holding conversation (only) class in a vocational college one of the points I mentioned was that of various accent. My friend from an African state, had finished his English Proper (grammar etc) class I asked him to join us. 75% of what he said was not understood. I feel that if a school is going to teach English, and any other language for that matter the teacher be standard native speaker.

the teacher should have a teaching decree, not just be a native speaker

Insisting on B.Ed degrees will instantly kill English learning in Thailand.

In Canada a teacher makes 45-55k a year. How are you going to convince that person to pay their own way to Thailand and get a job that pays 12k ?

With a TESL, I can teach ESL to non English speakers in Canada, why isn't that good enough for here?

Because you will be teaching TEFL at a language school in Canada that needs to ensure you are up to scratch to ensure its survival. If you are crap all the students will leave and it will go out of business. People with a 4 week "qualification" left pretty much to their own devices in a government school is a totally different situation. I doubt there are many 4 week TFFL or TSFL courses which make you qualified to teach Spanish or French at a high school in USA or the UK.

The USA and UK are light years ahead of Thailand, they can afford to demand higher qualifications.

Thailand is a backwater of ESL and they need all the help they can get. If that means TEFLlers then that's what they should do.

Again, demanding Western standards for ESL training in Thailand will kill the program.

Every country has some crap teachers.

[Caitrin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited November 16, 2015 by Caitrin

[Lorn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Today I finished the intensive DELTA at IH Newcastle. L1 in the classroom is a topic we looked at during the course. What they teach you at DELTA level blows everything you learn at CELTA level out of the water (including the overreliance on ritualistic practice). With my new knowledge, in short, I would say let learners use L1, especially at beginners level. Don’t force learners to speak – let them speak when they’re ready."

http://eltblog.net/2014/11/07/controlled-use-of-l1/

You can also read more about the topic here.

http://chiasuanchong.com/2012/08/01/the-celta-trainers-diary-part-1-and-using-l1-in-the-classroom/

As Caitrin has explained earlier, courses and materials were originally designed for students coming into an English speaking country. They were also designed with the expectation that all your students would have different L1s. You are therefore shown that it is possible to teach without using the students' L1. If you got the impression that this was seen as the ideal then that was either a mistake on your part or the trainer's personal view- it is not Cambridge or British Council's policy.

A lot of research has been done on total immersion. Most seem to disagree that it is the best way to teach but it's difficult to say it has "proven" to be less successful because of all the variables at play.

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

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/march/teaching-english-language-032514.html

[Caitrin]

Thank you, Lorn.

[brewsterbudgen]

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

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

No, the British Council doesn't (to the best of my knowledge, but I don't work there) provide classes in Thai secondary schools. I thought we were discussing providing TEFL classes to Thai students, in which there is no requirement, or necessity, for the TEFL teacher to use Thai.

Edited November 16, 2015 by brewsterbudgen

[Caitrin]

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

[Shawn0001]

you will never know how successful you are as a teacher if you're measuring for an end state

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

Do you not remember being fifteen? Do you not recall wanting to understand the basis for what you were learning and why that knowledge operated as it does?

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

but I lack the formal corrections and explanations of why I am wrong to help me attain further fluency.

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

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

to merely argue that only one tool is necessary at all times in the case of all learners is a position I would not believe they would hold.

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

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