{September 2, 2010}   To study… or not. That is the problem.

This past days someone started a debate regarding English teachers. As one of them, I listened carefully to all the comments, and then talked.

People were saying that to be a teacher you don’t need to study.

They said that to teach English you just need to know English. Extra knowledge (i.e. grammar, phonetics, didactics…) does not count.

They also said that if they could get a job without the knowledge, it was because they didn’t need it.

And there I started.

To teach English, you don’t have to know just English. You have to know its roots and the cultures where it is spoken. You need to know the basics of grammar and phonetics (if not, how will you teach it?). But, for God’s sake, you must know didactics to teach.

It’s not the same to teach kids at preschool than high school students. Adult learners are a very different thing, too.

It’s not the same an activity created to be used following the Audio-Lingual method than an activity that allows multiple intelligences to be on stage.

Then, I added something about salaries. I don’t expect to earn the same than a non trained person. But well, those are just expectations. In real life, I’ve met an actress that was head of the English department, lots of FCE students working as teachers… so, what should I expect?

Is Argentina the only place where non-trained people work as teachers of different languages?What about other places? Are qualifications losing their value?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

et cetera
%d bloggers like this: