English Teaching and Learning

I just read a blog post about how 'native' speakers are better teachers than 'non-native' teachers. It seems to be a hot topic at the moment, and understandably divisive. Jobs and opportunities depend on the distinction. But, as a supposed 'native' myself, I'd like to do away with these ridiculous terms. Firstly, and plainly, these terms are useless when applied to English language teaching: A native English speaker, by definition, could have been born in any country on Earth. It is dependent simply of the speaker's first language, which in itself is dependent (usually) on the speaker's parents. According to Wikipedia in 2015 there were 54 official states in which English is the official language. 'Native speaker' is often used as shorthand for 'person from an Anglosphere country' (Australia, UK, US, Ireland, New Zealand, and Canada). In reality, millions of 'native' speakers from countries outside these regions a...

Technology; cold, relentless, and idolised by much of humanity, is here and doesn't look like it will lose its momentum any time soon. English-language teachers, on the other hand, are often light, whimsical, caring entities, prone to having a fondness for people over machines, and a tendency towards the 'real' over the 'virtual'. With this hyperbolic introduction, I wanted to set up a dichotomy, which in reality perhaps doesn't exist. Many teachers nowadays do indeed use technology to educate, many in fact rely upon it completely as they teach through Skype to learners the world over. Others though, we must have seen, are well, not too keen to move with the times and much prefer a handout to an attachment. Let's think briefly (technology has apparently rotted my ability to think about anything more than briefly) on the implications of technology in education in general, and then its affect on English-language teaching.  The O mnipresence of Technolo...

There are lots of blog posts, academic articles, and ongoing heated discussions in the actual and virtual ELT staff rooms all over the world about whether we should teach grammar at all. Those who argue for the teaching of grammar say that we need to know the rules of a language to be able to use it properly. They say grammar gives us the skeleton from which to hang the flesh.  Those against it argue that English in particular is not a grammar-based language and in fact, all a language-learner needs is access to level-appropriate, authentic 'input' and a thirst for learning. Having listened to both sides of this argument, and having applied both of them to my own teaching, I can make a couple of tentative observations: 1. Sometimes students want grammar like children want candy. But just because they want it, should we give it to them? Well, if the child is paying your wages, then yes, maybe you should. But is it good for them? It is not a meal in itself but will do no...

I've seen many different teaching styles, some more effective than others. I have my own opinions about what the habits and practices of good English teachers: what they do, what they don't do; what they say, what they don't say. What they wear, what they eat... OK, the last two we can leave up to the employers.. but all-in-all, I felt sure I knew what was 'good', when I saw it. Recently someone who works for once of the main English test conductors told me that one of the questions she asked the candidates was 'What makes a good teacher'? The answers, she said, were often surprising. Does a student know what's best for them? Does it matter of the student doesn't like the teacher? I always thought of a teacher as being like a doctor. Someone who knew best for the 'patient'. The expert, with specialised knowledge that could be called upon to 'treat' the subject, and make him or her better. I usually felt that it didn't re...