Talk:Teaching English as a foreign language/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV & Korea

I've added the pov to this page. I particularly find the comments about South Korea don't sound very neutral. There is some good, interesting information in this article, but please check its neutrality. Gareth Hughes 16:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ive added some stuff to south korea which will hopefully remove th need for a pov (which i shall attempt to delete)

Seems to me the point of view is purely those who are teaching short term courses. That's not all of TEFL! It reminds me of those week-long computer courses, people think they can become well paid computer programmers in one week worth of training. I went to an immersion-study program for Spanish in Guatemala. If you've never been you'd be surprised what an industry it is down there. There are literally HUNDREDS of schools, and they all want your money. They're selling you the opportunity to learn by hanging out with native speakers. Some of them use some pretty shady techniques, like having seemingly unconnected people hang out with you and act like they understand everything you say so that you feel like you're getting the hang of it. It's pretty lame. But there are good schools, too, and good people. I think TEFL is similar. Any time there is a lot of money to be made, people will try to make it, and the industry gets crowded with a lot of bad eggs. I think this article is crowded with the bad experiences of a relative few, if we have to have a section on how bad South Korea is, it would be nice to balance it with other countries. Tristanreid 15:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"The terms (TESL and TEFL) are mutually exclusive."

IN theory they are, but in practice they are often used interchangably. There is a vast amount of overlap between the two terms and they have far more in common than there are differences. Davidreid 03:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have tried to clarify here and at related pages such as English as an additional language. Constructive comments very welcome! BrainyBabe 19:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

TEFL and TESL are often used interchangably because TEFL is the British term whereas TESL is more an American term. However, in the UK TESL means teaching English to immigrants. So they aren't quite the same.GordyB 14:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Link spam

I don't get it ... why are certain for-profit companies given free advertising prominently on this page ? Isn't there some kind of rule against this ? I'm a teacher in Korea at the moment and have been for almost 3 years. Many of the sites that you point to are large for-profit corporations that have absolutely no independent monitoring.

Why does eslcafe get so many mentions when the owner of that site rakes in millions of dollars on the back of the teachers who contribute and give advice on his forums ? ... while the owners do absolutely nothing to help the industry in general. Eslcafe.com is a site which frequently erases helpful posts from teachers because the admin doesn't like their content. Also users are often banned for just expressing verifible truths that are well-known in the industry.

This whole page is questionable. Why is wikipedia endorsing these 'reputable' companies ? Does wikipedia give out free advertising and endorsements ? Who has taken it upon themselves to vouch for these for-profit companies ?

Only websites that are non-profit and don't bring in $$$$ from job ads or advertising or TEFL courses should be mentioned in the body of the text here. Like every other wikipedia page I've seen, any other links should be ranked at the bottom so as not to appear like full endorsements.

I've removed most of the link cruft. The article should probably be on someone's watch list if it isn't already. I can assure you that a couple of those urls will not be back, however. - Amgine 20:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the huge amount of link spam as well. I disagree with some of the links being pulled out from the external links though. For instance, one site that is operated as a non-profit for teachers to report their teaching experiences was pulled. It is called TeflWatch. I put it back in since presents another side of the TEFL Industry. The article does need some work done on improving the layout and the information given. --Che1959 10:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed additional link spam on the page, this time from a free website for freelance teachers. The advertising blurb was in the text, maybe if it was just an external link it would be ok, but turning the text into an advertisement is not good. --Che1959 09:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition to this, the link to the Basic Global English website that I've added was deleted and I would like to know why it is considered link spam. Should I just add the link that leads directly to a Basic Global English article from an academic journal? --Sinatra 15:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the link to TEFL Watch as it was included by the owner of that site, as an act of blatent self-promotion and contrary to his claims that it's not for profit, he does carry ads and has admitted he does make money from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldma (talk • contribs) 12:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam

A lot of practical links have been removed for organisations in the field ave been removed...yet I am sure wiki will have an entrys for ford sony etc etc.

all of the practical job hunting advice was totally cut even regarding the British council! So I have reinstated it.

Also it seems crazy to me to not include links to commercial organisations. Yes the are money grubbing capitalist b****’s and yes they have exploited us terribly and yes they are the basic starting point for each prospective teacher . . .so I cant really see the point in not including the links to them…after all I have just spend two paragraphs saying what a bunch of con men they are! - ;) .however I have stuck links for them in the external section as recommended,

Just re reading through this article I cant help wondering if the links were removed by competitors. Certainly a lot of good advice has been cut.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.110.150 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not supposed to give advice. Read WP:NOT.mgekelly 14:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey I'm just trying to contribute here...the gudide isnt exactly short or well indexed :)

WikiPedia's mission is to be an encyclopedia. WikiGogy's (wikigogy.org)'s mission is to help teachers of English as a foreign or second languages collaborate on lesson plans and best practice in our field. Encyclopedias are an essencial starting point in any topic of study. The middle and end must be elsewhere so that an encyclopedia can remain an effective starting point. --Roger Chrisman 00:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway have amended the entry taking advice above in mind

Have put back stuff about celta..its certainly essential in Europe if you want more than a traveling proffesion but mentioned others to keep it even

Put back British Council schools lists and lesson planing links.

Removed some advertisng from external links.

Please note the coucil is a governmental organisation, and a (not for profit) charity. It does have some langauge schools , but if the council has a school somewhere its usualy beause its so poor the place cant afford a for profit making school Yes it does organise the Cambridge exams world wide..but that is a govemental thing.. the organisation is a charity...ok-?

Dont understand why Dves els grey list is removed but its ok to add others . . . the idea that this guy is a milliobare just coz he got there first is . . .

Will aslo add links for CELTA and trinity as they are essential links for any one wanting to teach in europe- Could the person deleting them please note that although these insitutions make money they are not for profit eductaional insitutions are are the back bone of the efl establishment of the British English teaching world. Any one wanting to train needs to know about them. Removing them as SPAm is ......—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.110.150 (talk • contribs)

You've added some good stuff here, but a lot of it is not what you should expect to find in an encyclopedia. Warning potential teachers is important, but should be done off Wikipedia and linked from this article. The fact that this article is at presetn godawful does not mean that it's ok to put more crap on here, no offence. mgekelly 17:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Guardian

And more crap is just exactly what the new edit looks like, well at least the external links do. I really think user should post in the talk page to explain the changes they make. So I am cleaning up the huge external links list and changing it back to a more manageable layout. Several sites that had remained for a long time unmolested have been deleted in favor of links to British newspaper articles. --Che1959 13:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

For the life of me i dont understand why the info on teaching was cut from the article so i put them all back. Whats wrong with the guardian...its is a major world newspaper....AND THE NEWSPAPER FOR EFL!

Why are they there... because they link to more info maybe? These links arn't easy to find with google. Anyone intrested in a particular market needs them.

Che1959 seemS more intrested in deleting and insulting than adding . . . . or reading the comments i put in explaining the changes....if my stuff is SO crap why not re write it yourself or why not write you own that is better? If you don't know anything about EFL and you dont actualy check what you cut..why are you here?

• They were deleted because this is not a weblog. It is an online encyclopedia. A great idea would be for you to create a webpage with all of those links(I agree they are valuable links, just not valuable in an encyclopedia) and then make a link to the all of the articles. In fact, I have taken the liberty to copy down all of the links and in a day or two, if you haven't done the same, I will make up a webpage with the links and post an external link to it. By the way, I do know TEFL. I have been teaching TEFL for 9 years in Honduras, Mexico, Korea, Thailand and Japan. I know the market well. --Che1959 08:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

please do so ..but why cut before you do it?

---

I’ve taken the time to dig thru the FAQs and I believe this is what you refer to

"Wikipedia is not . . . . . Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. “

How a list of links to articles relevant to TEFL across the world is not relevant here i simply do not understand. A blog is a medium for passing my day by day thoughts . . just because news blogs like Drudge list news articles does not make a list of articles a blog.

These links are very relevant for someone wishing to be informed about the profession

Clearly the article needs a little rephrasing in places to meet these criteria, however the constant wars over what should be allowed in the links and particularly the removal of the article links is as inappropriate as the abusive language in these discussion columns

Before you cut these again please explain exactly how this is not relevant to the issue.

Linking

REF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL

Over the last few months a lot of interesting links have been cut justified by phrases such a Blog or link spam

Having dug a bit further into the FAQs I believe the following should clear this up

Good

“Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article . . . in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.”

“Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.”

“An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible.”

Bad

“Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories.”

“A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns”

“Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content. See External link spamming.”

“Blogs, social networking sites . . and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.”

Link Spamming

“A few parties now appear to have a spambot capable of spamming wikis from several different wiki engines, analogous to the submitter scripts for guestbooks and blogs. . . . Typically they insert external links. Like blog spam, their aim is to improve their search engine rankings, not to directly advertise their product”.

So links that are allowed include

Relevant articles that add content or cant to quoted for copy write reasons Relevant commercial institutions but not irrelevant commercial links spammed by a bot

Blogs home made directories etc

Sites primarily aimed at selling stuff… so you cant exclude Daves ESl coz it has some adds on it. Also schools and other institutions should be allowable, as should employment buros and publishers (as most of these offer other information other than jobs)

---

• • • • Great Point you make,

or so you think, but the fact is simple,

WHY are you so agressive ??

spamming 20 or 30 articles links into the wikipedia is plain stupidity. One link to it is ok, 15 links is spam, 28 links is criminal. 

Criminal? This is wikipedia what is crimminal about it?

And what is is this adding a link to the private site's information on the CELTA, the official CELTA link is already present. 

See below

Also, the formatting of the links you add is amatuerish.

See below

I don't know what your point is, but I will revert any changes you make in your attempt to vandalize the site.

See below

Can you tell me if it is possible to make up just 1 link to add for all of those guardian articles? See below _________

Do you understand the meaning of the word SPAM...it means advertising . . .this is not advertising...

still I agree that so many links is a pain...however there is no central guardian reference for these articles...EFL stuff crops up,,, and then a search is necessary...if you wish we can compromise on a general link to the guardian and the telegraph...but we cant find a link to a directory of articles. They Guardian is a newspaper not a blog.

If this so offended you why didn’t you look at the guardian and see if there was a central index? Why just cut cut cut...is it a power trip...? Why not try to be positive?

I have no interest in advertising anyone ..if I did I would spend time running my own profit making tefl site instead of having conflicts with you

A private blog is clearly not allowed and so we cant do that

If you had checked the CELTA web site you would see it has never fully listed institutions ..the link you cut lists every course presently running

As for companies...well I am not sure what is right to include here but does it make sense not to include recruitment companies? .. the rules do not forbid companies that make a profit.. only web sites with excessive advertising… these are relevant links

There is no mention in the rules of how many links are ok .. this is <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">just your personal opinion

It also makes clear sense to include publishers...so why cut Macmillan books on teaching methods? They are a very important part of our TEFL infra structure..

Why are you so aggressive.? .. yes sometimes my stuff is not fully formatted ..but every time I come to spend a little time making it better you have been slashing away...sure the whole wiki idea is to spend time improving in a constructive tolerant and open minded way...is this how you are behaving? Are you saying all my stuff on Europe is wrong? Will you cut that now I admit to writing it?

So what compromise do you want to make? I contributed 60% of the material on this page so I want it to be good...im happy to argue a bit over its content but you seem to think you have absolute control over it.

What is my aim: to produce a useful informative site for someone new to the business that wants to start in the TEFL world... a quick stop to all the relevant info a place to give newbies the info to not make the wrong decisions

What’s you aim...? have you contributed any thing to this page...? why do you not change my stuff if it is so bad...? lots of other people edited my stuff and improved it ...have you done anything positive here? You have a wide range of South American experience could you perhaps add a little paragraph on the places you’ve worked or know about...? id be fascinated to know how things are there. I guess your from the US…the site is weak on training in the US….is there a US alternative to the CELTA…? I sure have seen a lot of adverts but I have no idea what’s ok out there. . . . Why not add something and why not agree on some compromises?

best regards

• • • • • You are destroying this talk page, you are destroying the main page. What is your vested interest in posting those articles while eliminating ALL of other links? We can go on and on, just as soon as you change it, I will change it back. I agreed on compromise, basically one link to all of the article links, but you wouldn't have it. You don't get your way so you destroy. You basically eliminated my last post on the talk page. You will probably do it with this one. At this point, I consider you a wikivandal. --Che1959 23:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the link to the BOC Recruiting. While I am sure the company is a good company, allowing one recruiter to post a link opens things up to every recruiter. The other job links provide information. Ajarn.com is the largest TEFL site in Thailand and has hundred of job listings. Not mentioning it would be doing a disservice to any academic study of the TEFL profession. The same goes for ESLCafe, ESLBase and Teflwatch. --Che1959 13:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

He carm down che..appolgie if my repliy tyle wa out of order..please read what i aid before you fly off the handle

Che what are you talking about? All i did wa add a alink to the guardian. I didnt put any of the link in that upset you o deeply. There i no index page so i just linked to the 2 paper with tefl mayjor tefl content. I didnt add any recruitment I did what you said.Nothing more.

Sections removed

I removed the sections of this article which constituted a "how to" guide. Giving advice to readers is not part of Wikipedia's mission - it is a violation of our WP:NPOV policy. If someone wants to incorporate this advice into a Wikibooks module, they are welcome to do so. I also think this article needs to be more verifiable, with statements attributed to reliable sources. So I added the unreferenced tag. Rhobite 16:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding link for TEFL course provider

Island TEFL is a TEFL course provider on Koh Samui, Thailand, offering 4-week certified TEFL courses throughout the year. Volunteer placements, teaching in local Thai schools are also available.

Wish to add a link to our site: http://www.islandtefl.com

TEFL course providers have no place in the wiki, it is not a place to advertise, it is a place to give an overview of the different types of course but not to site individual providers of courses, nor is it a place to recruit or market your services

Thailand

I have removed the following from the article for two reasons:

1. It is out of proportion with all the other countries mentioned by a factor of 5-10.

2. Many of the problems stated are true of other countries as well -- arguably for MOST of the countries where most traveller-teachers choose to live and work (fake degrees, visa difficulties and the blind eye, poor package of benefits, tensions between native English speakers and often better trained local teachers, the culture of education). There is no point repeating it for each entry.

If someone wishes to re-write this ("In many countries such as XYZ...") then I would support much of the material being reintroduced into a more general section.

Officially, schools require a degree to work as a teacher, and in some areas to be eligible for a work permit, however in practice many teachers find that a CELTA or other TEFL certificate suffices on its own.

Fake degrees and TEFL certificates are openly available to buy on the Khao San Road in Bangkok, which has led to schools in Thailand employing a large number of fraudulent teachers. In many cases this is encouraged by the schools wishing to facilitate work permits for their teachers. The quality of the fakes is poor and so they are easily spotted. Common mistakes are spelling errors, wrong formatting (e.g. the certificate is landscape not portrait), and incorrect fonts.

Even those who do not want to follow this path often find themselves working illegally, though again labour laws are rarely enforced and many teachers can work illegally for years, by either working on an easily available non-immigrant visa, and in many cases on a 1-month tourist visa, which can be renewed simply by border-hopping every month. Many schools do not themselves know how to process an application for a Teachers Licence and Work Permit. There are occasional crackdowns however, and those caught can find themselves at best, looking for a new job and at worst, locked up in Thai jails until they can come up with the money to be deported, although this is very rare.

Schools generally do not pay for round-trip airfares or receive many other benefits aside from the given salaries. Local teachers wages are very low, at around 250 dollars per month, with native speaker salaries averaging between USD 500–1000 per month. While this can afford a fairly comfortable lifestyle in Thailand, it is amongst the lowest TEFL salaries internationally, and many long-term expatriates find they can no longer afford to return to the West.

The relatively high salaries in comparison to the local salary can lead to a certain resentment among local staff who feel that they are being usurped by less-qualified, and better-paid people, while the foreign teachers lack long-term motivation to remain in Thailand, therefore staff turnover can be very high in many schools.

The culture of education in Thai schools can often come as a shock to foreign teachers, with class sizes of 50-plus, unmotivated students who are forced to learn English due to Thai government policy, a shyness to question teachers, a culture of plagiarism, and an unwillingness to study anything that is not fun. Even at the better schools with dedicated English Programs, many teachers also find that they are forced to pass students who fail tests, and in some cases do not even attend class.

BrainyBabe 17:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is not a dumping ground

I invite all editors of good intentions to be especially vigilant in keeping this page clean and useful. I have just removed paragraphs inserted under Hong Kong, entirely out of keeping with the encyclopedic overview of the nature of the Wikpeida project. I suspect that they were pasted by one of the individuals associated with the research they are drawing attention to. So that other editors can see what we are dealing with here, I paste it below.

Good Practices of English Teaching and Learning

The Government's Education and Manpower Bureau commissioned Hong Kong University to conduct a research entitled "A Study of Good Practices of Secondary Schools for Students' Enhancing English Proficiency" from 2003-04.

The Major Findings

This research found that successful schools for English teaching and learning are schools that 1. maximised resources and opportunites for students to engage in a meaningful use of language in both formal and informal curricula 2. included all stakeholders in the promotion of English learning 3. allowed enough flexibility in the curriculum to enable teachers to address the particular students' needs

The Consultancy Team

Prof. Amy.B.M.Tsui Dr.K.K.Tong Dr.Stephen Andrews Dr.Albert Wong Mr.Raymond Lam Mr.Gary Harfitt Ms. N.Tarvares Ms.M.Lo Ms.M.Ng Ms.Wendy Leung Ms.Cathy Cheung Mr.David Kwan Ms.Gloria Chung Mr.Hayes Hei Hang Tang Ms.Hofan Chau Mr. Joffee Lam Ms. S.Poon Mr.W.K.Lock Ms.W.Y.Wong

The Web Site http://good-practices.emb.hkedcity.net

BrainyBabe 16:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, a link on the wiki (I think it's in the Honk Kong section) goes to this. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.154.173 (talk • contribs)

Rationale for removal of excessive links, especially commercial ones

I am removing the excessive links that have grown up around this article. Please note the following Wikipedia policies:

What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia:External links: Links normally to be avoided: "Links intended to promote a site, especially if that site's primary purpose is to advertise or sell products or services"

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a directory : "Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business...It is not the Yellow Pages."

Also see Wikimedia essay (not policy, but indicative of user feeling): [[1]] "Although external links on content pages provide useful information, Wikimedia projects are not search engines or link repositories. They should be kept to a useful minimum, and provide relevant and non-trivial information that isn't present in the page."

Please help to keep this article encyclopedic in spirit. Wikipedia is not meant to be a how-to manual. BrainyBabe 09:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I have removed, with some reasons:

I am not willing to argue for one training provider to be listed if other providers are excluded (though other editors may wish to do so). It is a simple matter to search for training providers on the web, and any potential teacher should do so. BrainyBabe 09:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. Wikipedia is not a list for external links. -- Chris53516 (Talk) 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dave's ESL Cafe is the biggest informational site for teachers on the net and provides a treasure trove of information. TEFLWatch provides in depth information for teachers on the seedier side of TEFL teaching. Both links are needed for anyone attempting to discover more about TEFL teaching. They are very international in nature. While Dave's is for profit, TEFLWatch is not. --Che1959 23:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We've removed these before and will remove them again. There's a reason for it. Please read Wikipedia:External links. – Chris53516 ^(Talk) 05:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you may have removed them again, but the tefl blacklist needs to be there. If you are familiar at ALL with the TEFL industry, you know that there needs to be a balancedview of the profession. Teacher need an outlet, arent you in favor of free speech? --Che1959 12:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My two cents' worth: Dave's is so big (because he was in the right place at the right time) that it comes up in the top ten Google results for ESL. In that sense it doesn't much matter whether we include it or not -- we can add it because it is useful, or remove it because it is so easy to find. TEFL Watch is a greylist, and I can see that it is beneficial to include one such site to add a quick reference to other POVs. BrainyBabe 13:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Either remove or do not remove.Leaving an incomplete list of removed links is not very nice. Once you're are her already doing your business, delete all the Hess and co pages as well. Thanks!

• the almost complete list of links to be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.73.49.69 (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Blatant advertising, no original research, unverifiable claims, lacks neutral point of view...

This article is a disguised advertisement for short certificate courses. Vague language "The basic qualification..." unverifiable claims "Typically..." and removal of links to sites that dispute the value of short certificate courses (TeachItaly.com) indicate this article should be deleted. - omadaf

Don't follow you, you believe the article should be deleted because it doesn't attack short certificate courses? Maybe you should add info in the article rather than asking for it to be deleted.. If I am not mistaken, an encyclopedia article should not be original research, but report on original research. Please clear it up. --Che1959 03:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I feel this page still needs quite a bit of work in various areas. Firstly, I think the comment about John Mark Carr having been 'aquitted' of Jon Benet Ramsay's murder should be changed or removed straight away. He was never tried for this offence, so can't have been acquitted.

I think the random section on methodology at the end should also be removed or included in a longer section on methodology. The comment that blended learning has been a subject of much discussion by TEFL teachers recently begs too many questions. What TEFL teachers? And couldn't the same be said for almost every other method of instruction? In any case, there are other sections concerned with methodology.

The sections on employment etc, I think, need to be expanded and organised into continents etc. And there should be sections on the different sectors within TEFL - one to one, business English etc.

In regard to training, I think more information can be given to the different routes into the profession and what the cert, dip and degree courses are typically like. Obviously, this is a bit of a contested area, but so are many others. I would have thought some description could be done without slipping into biased or self-interested opinions / recommendations.

There could also be a history of TEFL section, perhaps at the end. I'm happy to contribute / participate if / when I have time.

Removal of paragraph on Exploitation

I have removed the following new paragraph added by an anonymous editor. It repeatedly claims to speak for a majority, but offers no evidence or sources for that. Some of the points are no doubt valid for some teachers, but it would need to be rewritten and sourced if it is to fit into an encyclopedia. BrainyBabe 07:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus among repatriated EFL teachers points to the fact that younger teachers, particularly recent college graduates, will find that they are abused by their employers, either in the form of egregiously low pay, inconsistent hours, little or no respect, or ambiguous and misleading contracts. There are rarely exceptions to this, even if this is your chosen career path. If you are a recent college graduate looking to spend time abroad, ilearn a new language, and truly integrate into the culture, the general consensus is that this is not the way to do it -- even if you are working within a structured program. The large majority of English teachers are unsatisfied with their jobs, the only recompense being the novelty and allure of their chosen host country. This has said to lead to a feeling of suffocation within an ever-constricting Anglophone bubble amounting to greater depression and regret. Those content with their experience abroad have reported that enrolling at a local university, take language classes, travel, and teach English on the side in the form of private tutoring is a good alternative.

Basic Qualification

The basic qualification for TEFL / TESL is an undergraduate degree in any subject, plus a TESL or TEFL certificate.

I have edited it to ideal qualification. In reality the basic qualification is to be a native speaker. In korea, most new teachers only have a 4 year degree, in fact the basic requirement to teach is just a 4 year degree. In other countries, like Mexico, I know teachers teaching with work permits who only have a high school diploma. I think putting that TEFL certificate here as the "basic" misleads a lot of people. That's why I changed the wording to ideal. I think that is more accurate. --72.249.77.153 03:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Need for vigilance

I find it worrying when one of the contributers on this page also promotes one of his sites on the main page! from reading this page its obvios that he has promoted more of his site as well, even to the extent that he once replaced a link (now thankfully removed again) thaat a more enlightened contributer had removed once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthintefl (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page needs especial vigilance and have put your comment in a new section to highlight this. As I've said above, this page attracts linkspam. I have concentrated my attention on what I regard as a more serious article, English language learning and teaching. Please add TEFL to your watchlist; your efforts to improve it are very welcome! BrainyBabe (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It unfortunately attracts a lot of shills. Per the external linking policy, I have put one site removed back in. Censoring a site because your school pays to you attack a website is very bad and Wikipedia shouldn't allow it. --Lobbynoise (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lobbynoise, che1959 or whatever you are calling yourself at the moment, I did not remove a site, others may have, you may have put it back in, if so I would hope that others will remove it again. Your accusation regarding shills is now raging over at least 4 Thailand or TEFL sites, you have been asked, under your various usernames to back up your accusations with fact. This back up evidence, is something you have consistantly failed to produce. if you wish to produce it and thus prove your claims then feel free to do so. Else realise that the emoval of the links to your TEFL sites are exactly what they are, the removal of spamlinks. For thos who may wish to know the names of some of these sites, they include; TEFLNews.org, Teflwatch.org, teflkids.xxx and many many more, they are basically a roundrobin adsense generating scheme that the person known here as che1959 has set up to gain revenue, thus he neeeds as many links to these sites as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthintefl (talk • contribs) 05:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And anyone who disagrees with youhas to be only one person. Yeah right. The links that were removed meet the requirements on the Plicy of External Links and this is a debate that was settled more than a year ago. You are taking your message of hate for the person because he posted on is site that you were caught taking money for a school to be shill for them. Now you are shilling on Wikipedia. Shame on you. --Lobbynoise (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, as I understood the policy for external links, a contributor cannot post links to his own sites, whilst claiming they are non-profit sites, when in actuality the owner of the sites (che1959 here but also under different usernames elsewhere, and from the voice also lobbynoise here) has admitted they are profit making. "“A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns”" this quote is from further up the page, you are indeed correct, the point was sorted a year agao and che1959 did break that rule! QED

You are quite correct that he did make such a post on his site, and indeed on other sites. He refuses to provide substaniating evidence for that claim nor indeed for his other outragious claims and accusations. Hate? Well yes, in common with many teachers in the Thai TEFL community I do not like him, he has over the last few months made himself the enemy of many, many teachers in GThailand and elsewhere, as is evidenced on many teachers forums, where his sites are being discussed. In fact the only place where this is not being discussed is on his own site where, he heavilly censors the posts of others.

Why am I saying 'he'when I mean ÝOU

Yet again the owner of TEFLwatch.org has placed a link to his site within the main page, It has now been removed. The same owner of the site had also made unsubstaniated allegation on the main page, and this has also been deleted. If the owner of Teflwatch.org would care to substantiate his allegations and prove them to be factual that I have no objections to the following line being replaced; "Some schools have begun to pay websites to give them positive reviews and when that has failed, they have hired shills to attack the websites that try to print the truth." However as the owner of TELFwatch.org, known here as Che1959 and probably Lobbywise, has beeen asked on various forums to provide proof for his claims and consistantly fails to back up his allegation I feel that it is only right and proper to Remove them. For thos other editors here who wish to check for themselves if the allegations by Che1959 AKA Nemisis have been substaniated I welcome them to check out the site at www.teflwatch.org, both the front page and the forum will provide interesting reading and as a counterpoint it is suggested that the same readers then check out Ajarnforum, ELTworld and look for usernames such as whitey, nemisis and che1959 tp gain an inkling as to the makeup of this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthintefl (talk • contribs) 05:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

TEFLWatch has done one thing that appear to be outside the posting limits of Wikipedia. Posting serious allegations of criminal actions of others without providing any credible evidence

Respected forums in the TEFL community such as AjarnForum.com, TeakDoor.com and ELTWorld.net have all sponsored posts asking for the admin of TEFLWatch to explain all of his actions.

TWTopper (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I have changed my username, I just tried to log on with my old one and it would not accept my password. Foolishly I used the same password that I once used on Teflwatch. I suspect therefore that the admin there has hacked my old username "Truthintefl" and may well start to use it for his own nefarious purposes. Please note that any posts after 05:26, 18 January 2008 signed by "Truthintefl" will not be mine and if anyone has admin rights I would appreciate it if the uses of that name be logged against an IP address! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthintefl2 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

None of those sites have sponsored posts about the site in question. Why are you lying here? I do remember back when the TEFLWatch wikipedia page was removed, it was removed because it was felt that an external link on this page served a better purpose for teachers. Someone can go back to the vote on the page and see that it lost by just a vote and the decision.

If you have a beef against the website in question, deal with it. I think teachers need to be aware of sites that help them get a full picture of the TEFL industry. TEFLWatch has been cited by media outlets such as the International Herald Tribune, GMA News, the Rocky Mountain News, the Bangkok Post and the Philippine Information Agency. I think you need to take your campaign elsewhere. A personal agenda is not what you should be pushing when you are editing a Wikipedia page. --Lobbynoise (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

" I think teachers need to be aware of sites that help them get a full picture of the TEFL industry." I fully agree that teachers do indeed need to be so aware, But I also believe that teachers shopuld be advised to visit sites that actually help them. You cannot deny that even with its pretensions of being a worldwide forum (and here I would cite ELTworld as doing a far better job of this) The vast majority of the traffic on the site in question has been Thailand based. Now when the consensus of the users (Teachers)on Thailand largest and most respected teachers forum is that the linked forum on the main page has lost its credibility, should the Wiki page continue to advertize a site, that its users are ignoring, and the majority think is a waste of time and effort?

There has been much debate recently and again a year ago as to what constitues a viable link on the main page, by way of being a resource for teachers. Quite a lot of this debate has centered around the site TEFLWatch.org. Its administrator goes under the name Nemesis on the site but by many other names elsewhere such as Che 1959 here and on ELTWorld, Whitey on Ajarnforum and TEAKdoor. http://teakdoor.com/teaching-in-thailand/22979-has-teflwatch-sold-out-65.html give an interesting eyeopen to the true nature of the man who claims to be the TELFers protector! One has to ask oneself why do we need enemies when we have protecors like this? One also has to ask, does Wiki want its pages associated with someone who can put out such garbage without a single shread of evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthintefl2 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Commercial Links

The Wiki is an encyclopedia and neither it nor its talk pages are a Dumping Ground such as a blog or forum à la Ajarn.com, Dave's ESL Café, Thaivisa.com, or TeakDoor. Most of this talk page is itself a prime Deletion Candidate. Any commercial links or references will be removed.WP:EL#ADV

It should be noted, however, that links which contain "some" commercial information and a LOT of good solid information are also at risk. The editors seem to think that poorly offered information with no commercial side to it is of more value than good quality information with an advert on the site. Take (http://www.icalweb.com/wiki) - which is often used as a link here. It has plenty of good information there of use to people interested in TESL or TEFL. And yet the wiki is not allowed because on the same site they offer a TESL certificate. However, links which are actually referenced as "out of date" are allowed. Why?

Take another example. The wikiology site (http://wikigogy.org/Category:Grammar) has 13 entries in this category. It is allowed because it's not associated with a commercial organisation. And yet the wiki cited above has 147 articles on grammar (http://icalweb.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Grammar) and yet is NOT allowed.

Unfortunately there are people on this site who are depriving others of valuable content in order to satisfy their own rather peculiar sense of what is right or wrong. Or perhaps they just work for another commercial organisation! --Boldautomatic (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum. It's "often used as a link here" because you're continually re-adding it, and it's continually being removed. It fails to satisfy WP:EL, but instead of addressing that, and the question of your interest in the organisation, you prefer to cast aspersions on anyone who disagrees with you. At least you came to the talk page rather than continuing to edit war and breach WP:3RR. _GB^T/C 18:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than be patronising, can you confirm that you would prefer to have poor quality links or links to places with minimal content than links to high-quality sites with plenty of content but who offer something commercial? --Boldautomatic (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What was patronising about the previous post? I was serious - filling out a report at WP:AN/3RR is a real hassle that I'd rather not have to bother with. And anyway, you present those two options as though they're the only two - neither is the lesser evil. Personally, given the nature of the links that this page attracts, and the lack of completely independent sites about TEFL and TEFL-related organisation, I think this is probably one of those topics that would be better served by not actually having any external links whatsoever.

Oh, and by my count that would be the third time that you've failed to confirm whether you have any interest in the organisation concerned..._GB^T/C 18:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting - is good content such as found in the ICALwiki (again, almost 150 pages on English grammar) less important to you than sites with poor content but with no commercial interest because the good content also offers a TESL Certificate? I'd appreciate an answer to this question. --Boldautomatic (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So your position now is that it's a grammar wiki? Well, how is that relevant to an article on teaching English as a foreign language, then? _GB^T/C 19:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check out the link - there are articles on TEFL there as well. But back to your point, I suppose we should delete the other wiki link as well. What say you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldautomatic (talk • contribs) 07:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and done. And on that note, and with your latest little jibe on my talk page, I'm done talking with you. _GB^T/C 08:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My attempt to add balance to this article has been deleted, which is evidence that this article is disguised commercial advertising to promote the sale of TEFL courses of questionbable value. Here's another attempt I'm adding today: "A free online TEFL course is available from some experienced teachers" with link. I predict it will be deleted also.Teachitaly (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link farm. If you have a free learning resource then you could add them to wikiversity or to wikibook. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A bit confused

I have some information from a handful (7-8) references that I am planning to add but I am a bit confused about this article. Specifically, this article is about 'Teaching English as a Foreign Language' yet the lead in of this article actually points to the article English language learning and teaching and states:

“There it explains the distinctions between the different types/methods of teaching English to non-native speakers providing a full explanation of abbreviations (e.g. the difference between ESL and EFL, or TESOL as a subject and an organisation”

If we're going to have an article about TEFL then distinctions of (teaching)ESL, the subject and such things as pedagogy are what belongs in this article right? Specifically TEFL vs teaching English for example. While there is certainly a place for information about the TEFL experience, why is the section "Teaching techniques" at the bottom instead of at the top?Statisticalregression (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Teaching English as a foreign language

This being a proper name - noun - the grammatically correct rendition would be :

Teaching English as a Foreign Language.

English is always a 'foreign language' - for someone - which would make the entry one dealing with ethnological dimensions of teaching non-primary English speakers, rather than an exposition of TEFL. Examinator (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's convention is to use lower case except for proper names, see WP:LOWERCASE.--~TPW 12:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Job advice for native English speakers

This article read like an advice to native English speakers where they can easily find a job. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Andries (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Article doesn't tell what TEFL is

My problem with this article is that it doesn't tell me what TEFL is. Is it a company? Is it a profession-wide certification comparable to ordinary teacher-certifications required to teach in public schools? Or is it simply an abbreviation for "teaching English as a foreign language"? I don't mind the job-related aspects of the article, but it needs to be more comprehensive in its layout and information. Winter Maiden (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger with English as a foreign or second language

It looks like the topics of this article and English as a foreign or second language were originally separate, but the latter article has changed to include all instances of learning English, inluding TEFL. I think the content of these two articles could be usefully merged to create a more balanced article overall. This might involve summarizing some sections to keep the length to an acceptable level. What do people think? — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 12:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, but in any case, I don't see why the article is restricted to English taught by antive speakers. While it makes a difference in terms of employment and wages, it is not particularly relevant for the pedagogy whether the teacher is a native speaker or not. Kdammers (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Korea

The section of South Korea is extemely inadequate. It mentions changes in the law ca 2008 but 2010 and 2011, that are more profound. it is totally geared to non-university teaching and E2 visa-holders (ignoring <ital>Kyopos</ital>, people married to Koreans, E1 visa-holders etc. - all of whom do not have to follow the regs. discussed) but then specifically mentions universities as locales for teaching. 05:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Current methods

This section is truly inadequate. There are a number of other methods (having Wik articles, by the way) that are used but not even hinted at in the article. Kdammers (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Korean severance pay

"Korean labor law provides all workers with a severance pay equivalent to one month's salary is paid at the end of a contract" - I really doubt this (depending on the definition of "workers"): university instructors normally do not get any severance pay. Kdammers (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Internationally recognized programs

Footnotes 6 and 7 are used as support for a statement that only CELTA and Trinity are internationally recognized. The first sort appears to be a blog from one teacher in Spain. The second one is a British newspaper article that seems to only consider UK programs in its statement (the whole article is Brit oriented). But look at what WSI says: http://www.wallstreetinstitute.com/jobSeekers/teachingstaff/certifications.aspx, where SIT and other programs are described as ones which "Reputable employers worldwide recognize" after first giving priority to CELTA and Trinity. (The WSI is a division of Pearson, a leading ELF publisher.)

Kdammers (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, WSI says that "[Cambridge ESOL CELTA and Trinity CERT TESOL] are the only certificates on the market that are externally accredited and externally moderated"(emphasis in the original). Not sure of what this means, mind you. Yes, we need to add those other courses. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 6 is used once for something I can't find in the source. The other use of it raises the question of the quality of the source. It appears to be one teacher's unsupported opinion on a sub-page of a commercial site for teaching in Italy. Kdammers (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, footnote 6 links to a page where a teacher says online TEFL certifications are scams to take your money and then they advertise an e-book written by the teacher. I think it's spam and should be removed. It's also inaccurate as many employers do accept online TEFL certifications. 66.87.2.234 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

NNESTs in Europe

"In Europe, being an English native speaker is required" -- This is not true. For example, there are thousands of Germans teaching English in public schools in Germany. The number of native speakers teaching English in them is very small. Also, the section on Scandinavia points out the equivalent situation there. Perhaps the sentence should read some-thing like, 'if you are a foreigner, you must be a native speaker of English to teach in [many/most/all?] countries in Europe." But I don't know if that is what is meant, so I won't make that change. Kdammers (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Camps

In a number of countries, e.g., ROK, English camps are a common place of employment for EFL instructors. This should be incorporated into our article. Kdammers (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage

There is a Wikivoyage article Teaching English, written as an intro for travellers who might teach. I should likely be linked here. 99.224.165.88 (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it in a new External Links section. ;-) --AtomicSource (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)