This posting carries on from my previous one, starting with a summary of some key points and then adding some thoughts about what really matters in the programmes.
As I noted above, Celta programmes are quite varied, so it
makes little sense to generalise about 'the Celta method' etc based on the
experience of one (or a small number) of programmes. And therefore, if you do want to
generalise (e.g. in saying that the programme is outdated) you need to refer to
what they do all have in common - i.e. the syllabus and assessment criteria.
The courses are taught (and internally assessed) by experienced
classroom teachers. That's generally a strength of the programme, especially as
compared with many university qualifications, taught by lecturers who don't
spend much time, if any, actually teaching nowadays. However, that can also be a
limitation. Teachers have a tendency to get stuck in their ways and may have
their own particular obsessions with one aspect of language or learning.
My advice is mainly for trainees to turn a blind eye to these (i.e.
including my own, if I happen to be your trainer), unless it really impacts on
your performance, in which case talk it over with the visiting assessor. I'd say
exactly the same about working or training with anyone. You can learn a lot from
other people, even if some of their beliefs are foolish.
For the record,
in assessing many Celta courses in various places, I haven't seen much reference
to multiple intelligences, learning styles etc. For me, these are nonsensical,
but largely harmless distractions. And it's been a long time since PPP type
lessons were the norm in Celta courses (in my own experience, not since the
1980s.
In some areas of teaching there are genuine differences of
emphasis - which just represent those which are common throughout our field. For
example, some teachers and trainers see a value in writing up phonemic
transcription on the board and in handouts. I personally don't. Some believe
students should always do a gist task before a detailed task. Again, I don't.
Some believe that language should always and only be taught in the context of an
authentic text. Another one I don't go along with. And the list could go on.
I'm happy to discuss and justify my points of view with whoever, but I'm
not in the business of forcing them on anyone. Compliance behaviour really isn't
much use in terms of a person's long-term development as a teacher - it's much
better if they can see the rationale for doing something a particular way - and
also that teaching is a matter of making decisions based on judgements about
student learning, rather than implementing overlearned routines.
Anyway,
I don't see my own views as especially dogmatic - and in any case, they've
changed through reading more and through experience - and I don't see much
really dogma of this type out there in the courses I see or the trainers I meet.
And most the feedback from trainees (generally provided anonymously) is pretty
positive.
In the end, these differences of opinion or practice make very
little difference to the core business of Celta courses, which is the basics of
effective language teaching: an opportunity for the novice teachers to show
(others and, more importantly, themselves) that they can analyse language or
texts from the point of view of student difficulties, define clear and relevant
learning aims for a lesson based on helping students with those difficulties,
select appropriate activities and resources to help them achieve those aims,
sequence them logically, give clear and effective instructions, manage the class
so that students can complete the activities and give the students accurate,
clear and positive feedback on their achievement.
When did that become
out of date?
Martin McMorrow Academic English Podcast
No comments:
Post a Comment