Quote:
Originally Posted by guyy
That depends on the person.
I like language as language. To me, linguistic structures are interesting, and i enjoy the challenge of spitting out new phonemes. It's the attempts to sugar-coat language learning that make it tedious to me. Still, i wouldn't say "Don't teach in ESL schools because the teachers lack a solid base in linguistics & is a sort of cultural imperialism." I know some people might enjoy doing it, that ESL works for some kinds of students, & some kind of teachers in some kinds of situations. Will it work for you? You sort of have to try it to know.
|
I think we are referring to different types of teaching methods. What I mean is: think of the average language class in high school during the 80s, or think of the old "learn it yourself" tapes that are based on 1 to 1 translation and rote memorization of rigid grammar rules.
Of course looking at structure and so on has its place, and I wouldn't recommend a place that is 100% immersion and communicative method without the basic structures.
Unfortunately, several programs are still heavily based on 1 to 1 translation and grammar memorization, which I would avoid if at all possible.
But we seem to agree that teaching ESL as a way to opening doors for a job teaching CJ doesn't work. Teaching ESL is a great way to open doors to teach ESL. Which, given how hard it has become for even published, experienced PhDs to find full time jobs, seems better than adjuncting with a masters. Part time employment teaching at universities and CCs nowadays is nothing short of abuse. No control over hours while usually getting paid around 2k per class you team, which means about a 4/4 teaching load just to make what a McDonalds employee makes. ESL at least has some independence and is not necessarily tied to the formal post-secondary institutions.