The four week Celta Teacher Training Course has certainly been an experience, and not necessarily in the way I had expected. There have been lots of things brewing and stewing in my mind over the length of the course so I've tried to organize my thoughts and experiences as best I can

Expectations

This is the premiere teacher training designation most employers want. I know I was an untrained teacher going in and was hoping this would be a gap to bridge between people that have gone to teachers college to get a teaching licence. I was hoping to get validation on skills I had developed on my own, refine other techniques I had been using, and learn new ones.

I'd have to give a mixed review on this. While I did validate some things I do (such as monitoring and microteaching), and helped refine my Instruction Checking Questions from simply "do you understand?", they didnt really want to bring in any of my experiences from the outside world and relate things to realistic situations.

The course operates in its own reality of what happens in a perfect world. First two weeks I knew half the techniques there were showing me will work with my middle school kids. They did not want to address any problems but just continue to plow things thru of how things should operate in the ideal world.

I still leave with many gaps in my teacher development which this course did not address and I will continue to seek on my own or elsewhere.

Tutors

While they are genuinely nice people, each of the three people that taught us stated they had been with this organization for four years. To some degree they have lost touch with the outside world and how things are done in organizations outside of their own

I would consider this employee training to work with the International House group of language schools. They taught us their way of doing things, not taking into account these methods do not work in every situation and some schools want things to be done differently

They were genuinely surprised when I mentioned in July just before the course I was told to do a video resume discussing my teaching philosophy, a teaching demo video, and sample curriculum I had designed. The EFL jobs market is changing very rapidly as too many people enter and employers criteria are changing.

If people stay in jobs for many years they don't have personal experience of what is taking place in the jobs market, thus can not advise graduates on what to expect and how to handle it

Trainee Students

The students taking this course are either experienced teachers or new entrants to the field. The Celta model works best on people that have never taught before, have no experience or basis of reference, thus can be molded to 'the Celta way'.

Experienced teachers like myself run into problems of questioning things, applying real world expereince, pointing out what doesnt work and cant be down with their own students, or trying to modify things to best suit their students.

This type of independent thinking is not supported by the program and will cause problems

English Students

I genuinely liked the local Hungarian adults that were coming to our teaching practies and bonded well with them. They felt I was experenced, had taught before, and enjoyed my classes

We taught one group the first two weeks then a second group the last two. At the end of the first groups two weeks they organized a surprise party for us trainees. They dimmed the lights and brought a tray of cake slices with a giant streaming flare on top. The second group made a quiz about us on their last day using questions about each of us and the grammar each of us had taught. It was nice they took the time and showed they cared about us as indiviudals and our teaching methods

I did try to adapt things in my earlier lessons to stimulate the studens more. They pare paying and fiing up their evenigsn to come to their classes. They want to develeop their english, feel challenged, and upgrade their levels.

I was to learn the hard way that I should disregard the students needs and just focus on my lesson plan. The priority is to deliver a lesson that meets the course framework. Whether they benefit or feel challenged is irrelevant. They are just lab rats to teach a demo class to and the priority is to develop and deliver a lesson that fits the template of the course framework

Celta vs Tesol

I did my Tesol in 2010 over five days and was not that impressed witih the school. They focusesd too much on getting a job and I felt like they didnt focus enough on the skills needed to be teacher, implying you neednt worry. The Celta did the reverse, and focussed too much on what a teacher would do in an ideal setting, ignoring the outside world, particularly the jobs market.

The Celta was four weeks, the Tesol was five days. Over the five days the Tesol covered
- how to develop a teaching philosophy
- how to make a lesson plan (presentation, practice, production)
- how to read a contract
- how to negotiate a job offer
- pitfalls to look out for
- adjusting to life overseas
- resume workshop making corrections to our own
- job placements with referrals to schools in China and Middle East
- websites to look for jobs and post your resume
- design your own lesson from scratch using your own original ideas and teach to group
- assignment to make your own lesson plan (4 lessons)
- they will review a contract if you already have an offer
- all course materials are available online for any student to log in from worldwide, while Celta kept claiming their own copywrite and didnt want it in electronic format

At the time I felt it was too focussed on placing people in jobs so that they can get their commission and a bit a a Mickey Mouse course just to make us do a bare minimal to give us a certificate. However, they did expose us to a lot more of the job market which the Celta couse never did.

I asked about develping a teaching philosphy, which I know and already learnt on the Tesol, but was told it was outside the range of the course (which lasted four weeks) and is best covered in a Delta course (even though people will already start being asked this when they send out resumes)

Does not Support Creativity

As a teacher I always have to create my own lessons adapting material from the book or creating filler matterial if we are not using the book that week. Me and my teacher collegues create successful original ideas that work well with our students or have been adjusted from prior from previous unsuccessful attempts

Of the eight lessons we taught we were not allowed to have any original input until lesson 7-8 (even then following a set framework). During lessons 1-4 I was coming to planning meetings with original ideas which were being ignored or rejected, instead being 'fed' the stages of a lesson which were not my original ideas leaving it open to interpretaton what exactly the intent was

When I tried to use my own initiative and creativity I was faulted for it. It went so far as giving me a 'fail' on lesson three when I wanted to challenge the students with something new instead of repeating the same useless vocablulary they know and understand, and are never going to use again.

These are grown adults paying to be here and we are patronizing them and treating them like they are stupid just to fulfill our lesson stages. I probably had the most real world field experience in the group yet I was the only one to get a 'fail' on one lesson

I then realized this is a business and is more concerned with covering themselves then developing innovative teachers. If we deliver a **** lesson to the students they will complain, drop out, and it will affect the schools reputation and revenues. Fair enough

It also makes it easier for them to grade by 'feeding' us the same lesson that is delivered every month. This makes it easier for them to evaluate a good lesson from a bad lesson if they see the same one every month, but does not help develop teacher creativity in the real world when they are asked to create original lessons

Overall Impression

I wouldnt call it a waste of time, I did learn some new things I can use, but it didnt completely meet my expecations either. I still leave with many gaps that were not addressed. The course operates in its own bubble of the ideal world and how things are done in the IH group of schools.

It does not reflect real world experiences, real world employers, feedback from sts that have taken the course and how they are adapting it to the real world. All the DVDs we watched were staged videos fom IH schools. It would be more useful to see a video from a non IH school to see how they are adapting and dealing with these challenges.

It also totally ignores problem students, which is what I dealt with for three years, and unmotivated students that do not want to do the work. I've had special needs students, interpersonal issues betwen students (including when the Princiapl and Vice Principal were sts in my adult classes in school I taught at)

Second week into the course quite a lot of issues are starting to disappoint me and are not what I expected this highly respected teacher training course to be.

First of all I'm being asked to remove all personality and character from my lessons. I like to develop friendship and rapport with students but this is all 'unnecessary chatter'. We have to be very formal with instructions like 'now look at the handout... now read, etc... '. I have to take out all banter and think before every word I say.

That is just so unnatural and will make your lesson so boring and you a boring teacher. I always like to make my lessons fun and want the students to think of me as their friend or buddy but this format is too constraining and formal.

Teaching in the past often the text book is not that great so you have to deviate and create your own material. So long as you teach the content and the students comprehend and use the language then the lesson was a success.

This is cause for reprimand in this cause. You must not deviate from the book or bring any original material outside of what was discussed in lesson planning. That is not how I taught in the past nor does that develop a strong teacher.

For lesson planning they have their own templates as they teach the lesson every month. This makes it easier for them in comparative terms to evaluate a good lesson from a bad one as they see the same one during every course.

However, this is not developing the teacher on how to develop their own lessons if we are always 'fed' a lesson that we are to deliver. We are only responsible for the documentation and delivery, NOT the creation.

Any time I suggest my own ideas they simply revert back to their template they want us to deliver. There is no discussion of my idea, why it is not good, how it could be modified. Two weeks into a four week course I have yet to create an original lesson.

This is fine for a novice who has never taught or created a lesson but isn't that the point of the course to develop these skills?. If halfway into the course people still have not created their own original lessons how are they prepared when they are asked to do this on a regular basis and haven't had practice testing and delivering their own material with no trial or error?.

The course is still operating in its own theoretical bubble. It simply assumes students will do a handout. There is no addressing of behavioural problems or motivation if students will not do it.

In my classes in the past I knew my students and I would tailor or customize my lessons to their level and interests. Again, you can not deviate from the text or lesson concept we have been 'fed'.

These students have paid and given up three hours of their time everyday and have an expectation to improve their English. However, we are not allowed to show concern for the students and should just treat them as lab rats for the purpose of our lesson delivery training.

If you think the lesson is too easy, boring, or not challenging we are not to deviate in any way from the book or proposed lesson template. If the 'given' template does not have enough material for 45 mins I can not bring my own ideas and have to find ways to drag the 'given' lesson even if you know the students are not being challenged.

A lesson plan is only a theory. When you teach live there are things that dont work, new ideas that come up, and better ways of doing things. The lesson should be adjusted for the next time it is taught. That is not really addressed and the lesson plan is treated as sacred document that can not be deviated from in any form when teaching live.

Also our lead in time is very rushed. I like to work on things a few days head so that I'm not rushed so work on ideas and some prep work ahead of our lesson planning meeting. The lesson planning meeting is the day before you teach. All my ideas are ignored and they only want to teach their fixed template and 'feed' us this lesson format. Then I now have 24 hours to rush and do everything according to their fed instructions.

I don't understand what kind of training this is and why this is such a sought after designation by employers? Its not preparing teachers, its not allowing you to use your own initiative, ideas, or creativity, you can't customize things accordingly to your students interests or level, and are reprimanded for any independent thought or creativity.

Its training you to be a robot so I'm wondering what do they even need us for when they can learn from a CD-Rom? I'm contemplating writing a letter to Cambridge when I'm done but as is normally the case if others dont nothing will change.

The consensus among grads is that they dont use what they have been taught and you just have to 'play their game their way' for four weeks just to get your certificate. Its very unrealistic and doesnt develop or expose you to a lot of realistic scenarios you will come across, and is draining your enthusiasm.

Basically I have to be a 'compliant robot' for the rest of the course, not think, bring any personal character or ideas.