How living in Taiwan has helped my career

The other day I was talking to a friend who'd relocated from Taipei to Hong Kong (a journalist). He called Taipei a "professional backwater" and for a lot of industries, I can see where he's coming from. I don't think it's right or fair - I mean the city is about the size of Chicago and is the capital of one of the most prosperous and modern-industry-heavy countries in Asia - but he's got a point that successful professionals in Taipei are underpaid, the best tend to leave for Shanghai, Beijing, Japan or the West, and that a lot of times you just have to move because, I dunno, your crappy joke rich-people-are-trolling-us newspaper has decided to close down its Taipei office because now I guess it's OK to report on Taiwan from a totally different country - China. (I'm looking at you, Wall Street Journal, though that's not where my friend worked). I do think this is in part due to bad domestic policy - this is what allowing wage stagnation to continue has wrought - and in part due to purposeful and strategic marginalization by China that the crappy joke rich-people-are-screwing-us Ma administration has let grow unchecked.

But, with a few posts in recent months that included criticisms of Taiwan as a difficult place to build a career as a foreigner, I felt that perhaps a post about how Taiwan has actually benefited my career was in order. This will mostly be useful for English teachers, of which I am one: one of the few jobs it is fairly easy for a non-Taiwanese to come here and do.

Most obviously, Taiwan gave me the chance to actually try my hand at teaching longer term and as a possible career goal. That's not something that's so easy to do in the USA or, I gather, most western countries. I am in the USA right now for a family visit (for once there's no bad news) and I reflected during my recent trip to Hong Kong, where I spoke to this friend, and this morning in my dad's house, on what my life would be like if I hadn't chosen Taipei to spend the last decade.

If I'd moved on from Taiwan to another country to teach, I can't say for sure what it'd be like but I'm not at all sure I'd have the same level of professional development (CPD) that I have gained from living in Taiwan, simply due to time and funding. More on that below. Most countries underpay English teachers, and those that don't often require long hours, are very expensive, or just don't have the technological infrastructure to do well in online classes if they don't have in-country CPD.

If I'd stayed in the USA...oh god. I know many people prefer the stability of a salaried office job, but anyone who's met me knows that sort of work just doesn't suit me. I get restless if I'm in one place too long, or have to spend very long hours there. I get bored with routine more easily than many. I don't like being expected to clock in and out at certain hours when that's just not how my best work gets done. I have a strong personality that doesn't quite fit with most office politics, where 'normal' is the new beige. It sounds very self-centered and entitled and "kids these days" although I'm in my 30s, but better that I know this about myself and act on it than put myself and others through the torture of my trying to work such a job, yes? I find most office work meaningless on a personal level, even as I acknowledge that some of it must be done and others do find meaning in it.  So, with my remarkable lack of talent at doing office work I don't find meaningful, and my penchant for saying what I think regardless of the social consequences, and my intractable inability to act 'beige', I probably wouldn't have gotten promoted very quickly and would probably still be wondering why I'm on the bottom rungs at a company that's given me a job that I could do far better at, but lack the motivation to try. I wouldn't even be able to afford training for something different, so I'd feel stuck. I'd still be taking the bus 2 hours to work and back each day and struggling to pay rent on the fringes of a major city, working a 2nd job to have any savings at all, watching my 20s melt into my 30s with little change.

Doesn't that sound lovely?

Taiwan, in short, gave me the chance to do something else. I can't imagine I would have been able to afford the path to becoming an English teacher in the USA.

Anyone who reads this blog semi-regularly knows that I'm a big proponent of teacher training. I really don't buy the argument that all you need is the right personality or talent and some classroom practice - if anything it's condescending to teachers who have worked hard to perfect their craft to imply that any reasonably extroverted upstart who isn't a total dullard could just sort of figure it all out in a few months through magic or something. But, what I haven't perhaps made clear is that I'm also a fan of experience, and getting someone fresh off the plane into a job where they can see for themselves if they like it and are suited to it as a career before committing to an expensive degree program is something I support.  After all I got my start that way. I'd only insist that such opportunities come with somewhat standardized, respectable on the job training and continuing with the job would require getting (school-funded) qualification such as CELTA after a year or two.

But you can't do that in the USA - you might be able to volunteer or get a job at an unaccredited school/institute, but you won't be able to get a real job paying a living wage teaching English in the USA unless you commit to perhaps more money than you want to spend getting certified to do something you've never even tried. Most such jobs seem to require a Master's or teaching license. I can see how promising new talent may decide to just take office jobs rather than commit to that.

So, thank you Taiwan, for making it possible for me to discover a career that suits me in a way my home country could not.

You could say that a lot of countries provide this - you can teach English anywhere. Yes, almost anywhere, but Taiwan has the advantages of being more livable than say, China (or the Middle East for women with strong feminist beliefs), with better wages than most of South America, all of Europe, Turkey and most of Southeast Asia (I hear wages in Vietnam are pretty good but are awful and exploitative in Thailand). It's not as expensive as Japan or Europe - perhaps only in Korea can you save more as jobs there tend to provide perks such as flight reimbursement and free accommodation.

So, in Taiwan you can live fairly well and potentially save enough to pay for CPD - which schools should be paying for or helping to fund but generally don't.  That's actually pretty rare in this profession! I'm not sure if I lived in a more expensive country if I'd have been able to afford Delta at all, or if I'd had to commit to one full-time job. You may have to go abroad for CPD in Taiwan - more about that and other issues below - but at least for me, Taiwan has given me the flexibility and funds I need to get it done.

Taiwan also allowed me to become a permanent resident fairly easily - not something a lot of countries necessarily do. This allowed me to sort of 'create a job' for myself in which I work part-time in corporate training, part-time in the IELTS world, and part-time for my private clients. This is not something I could have done as easily (and legally) in, say, China where permanent residency is hard to come by, or Korea where you need a job offer and work visa to even come in, and so that job - paying for your flight and accommodation and all - is more likely to expect you to work for only them. Even in Taiwan without permanent residency schools that sponsor your work visa can and do ask you to be available for them at set hours - you lose a lot of flexibility, but the fact that I was able to get PR fairly painlessly is a big plus in favor of Taiwan. That sort of freedom has really helped my career because I've had more chances, through being free to work whenever and for whomever I like, to not only get a Delta in my spare time (something that may have been torturous at a full-time job) but also to expand into other ELT specialisms. I don't know that I'd have had the chance to do both specialized private teaching, corporate training and IELTS in a more traditional job setup, and it has been very good for me professionally.

Notably, I could not have done this in the USA either, in part because there's just less demand for English teachers (and what demand there is seems to mostly be in public schools, and I don't teach kids) but also because that sort of freelance work requires a fair amount of bouncing around the city. I do not like to drive. Other than possibly New York - and maybe not even there due to long transit times - I couldn't do the sort of all-around-town commuting that I do on a reasonable schedule without a car. It's a life goal for me to never have to own a car, so this is a big deal.

That's not to say that Taipei is a totally professional place for English teaching, or that it's necessarily the best place to start a career. Certainly about 99% of the cram school industry, where most untrained "Engrish teechers" work, is also a crappy joke, Taiwan has no important professional conferences in ELT, whether academic or professional, and even real employers don't always treat you as a professional. I've been lucky in this regard but even friends of mine who've worked at actual universities complain about treated like grunt workers. There are no good training or qualification programs in Taiwan - you have to go online or go abroad. Most jobs don't care if you're qualified or not. Those in ELT research who actually want to participate in the academic side of the field rarely publish from Taiwan, and professional development is almost never paid for or even encouraged (again I'm lucky in that for me it is encouraged, but I can't help but notice it hasn't been paid for, and that's one other reason why I freelance rather than committing to one employer. No employer has a package quite good enough to get me full-time). The idea of working at a university and having a research budget as well as funding to travel to international conferences, as my friend in the same field in Japan does, seems to simply not exist in Taiwan. So, there's room to improve. A lot of room.

But it would be unfair to slam Taiwan totally. We have a very small community of ELT professionals - I probably know the majority of Delta holders in the country - but I've found a great deal of support in that community. I met my Delta tutor randomly through an online forum post. Other professionals have allowed me to observe classes, accepted me into training programs and given me advice on my way up. Those who 'get it' really get it, and there are few enough of us that perhaps it does mean we support each other more.

And on a more personal note, I grew into my own in Taiwan. I am not the same person who got on a flight from Dulles to Taipei 10 years ago - now I know how to work hard, I know how to deliver results at work (even if I am a bit temperamental or have high expectations at times), I know what I want and I feel like I have an actual career. I discovered that career through working in Taiwan, and I'm not entirely sure the conditions would have been right for it to have happened in another country. I couldn't stay in China, I love Japan but have serious reservations about what it would be like to live there, Korea is not as laid-back, and other countries don't pay particularly well. I've had the chance to try out different types of teaching and had work opportunities I likely wouldn't have had elsewhere. I recently had the opportunity to work in a professional capacity with a public figure I happen to personally admire and respect, on a topic I am very passionate about, and I enjoyed it greatly. I never would have had that chance if I'd just stayed in the USA and worked some crappy joke office job or slogged through work at a cram school in Japan. I wouldn't even be the same person - the professional English teacher who is passionate about her field - who would have had such an opportunity.

So, while my friend has a point about Taipei as a "professional backwater", I just can't entirely sign on to that perspective. Taiwan made me the English teacher and person I am. I  have come to love Taiwan as a second home, and care about it as a nation. I had none of those things in 2006 and while I suppose I could have the same feeling about any country I'd chosen to spend these years in, I chose Taiwan, so Taiwan means something to me.

Thoughts on Delta: a more general approach

First, I'm sorry for the boring title.

Secondly, I've been toying with the idea of starting an ELT blog, separate from Lao Ren Cha (but obviously with lots of links between the two). I haven't decided to commit to it just yet, and I'm curious about outside opinions - a good way to go, or just keep my ELT commentary to Lao Ren Cha, even though it's not quite the focus of this blog? The argument for a new blog is obvious - it would be more targeted. The argument against is that I have enough trouble finding the time to maintain this blog and I'm not sure I have time at all for another.

Anyway, here are some reflections on doing Delta in a more general sense, contrasted to my previous post on doing the Delta specifically in Taiwan.

The good:

I was impressed with the level and methods of assessment on Delta - basically all three modules taken together assess you in three distinct ways: a task-based exam (Module One), a portfolio (Module Two) and a paper (Module 3). In my opinion (and according to good testing practice) this gives you a full, accurate look at what a teacher is capable of in a variety of situations, from theory to teaching to syllabus design, and how much they've progressed. I liked that no one method was used, which also ensures that someone who is, say, not particularly good at tests, or papers, or what have you, still has a chance to shine in another module with some other assessment method. I especially liked this as, although I have always thought of myself as a good test-taker, I flamed out on the Module One exam and while I did pass, I didn't get the Merit or Distinction I had been gunning for, which I do think I was capable of earning. It was a relief to have other ways to prove myself in later modules.

I also learned a hell of a lot. It's fairly common to hear folks, most of whom have never attempted Delta, to slam it as empty credentialism, a money-making scheme for Cambridge. It's no surprise - they do the same thing for CELTA, and often claim "all you need to know" you can pick up from experience. I reject this notion on its face - yes, experience is valuable, but input from people more experienced and knowledgeable than you as you gain that experience is what makes it truly worthwhile. If you spend 5 years teaching, with no input or feedback beyond what's in your head, the experience is still great but it is simply not going to be worth as much as if you spend 5 years teaching, and throughout those years are observed, get feedback, are assessed, attend input sessions, gain a strong theoretical background via training (so you'll know why good strategies work, not just "weird tricks". Teaching isn't a diet fad) and attempt higher-level teaching accomplishments such as good syllabus design with guidance rather than with a slapdash "let's see what works" approach.

So, I'm just not on board with that side of the debate, and as I see it the proof is really in the papers: I know more after Delta - significantly more - than I did before. Period. Though a lot of CELTA was pretty common-sense (though not necessarily easy for everyone to implement in practice), a lot of the theory and practice in Delta is not always, or particularly, intuitive and by Module Two - at least if you are trying to write the best possible language skills/systems assignments (LSAs) - you are delving past the introductory textbooks and deep into some fairly technical research papers and journal articles. Sometimes you're just looking for citable confirmation of things you know to be true (also a valid thing!) but at other times you're coming across completely new ideas. For example, when I did my LSA on helping pre-intermediate learners use the definite article, I was already aware of the idea of "the-flooding", but what I didn't know was the extent to which it had been studied and documented. But when I did my final LSA on discourse (hedging for intermediate learners in a business e-mail writing class), I was quite surprised to learn that the concept of hedging was far broader than I'd originally thought, and it was challenging to narrow my focus enough to write a solid essay and plan a focused class on a sub-topic of same.

I appreciated that it is carefully delineated into sections with distinct learning goals that, while they don't have to be taken in order per se, build on each other.

Module One: If you do Module One first - which I recommend you do - you get the theoretical foundation you need to do well in the other two modules (which can then be taken in any order). The exam seems daunting when you begin, but by the end you'll look back on it as the easiest part of the Delta. If you take a step back and look at what the exam aims to accomplish, if you study well you'll gain:
- A fairly solid background in terminology (if concepts can only be fully understood through having language to describe them, which I do believe to be true, then this is worthwhile)
- An overview of systems - all of them, as you won't know which will appear on the exam
- An overview of basic concepts in testing and assessment
- The chance to look more deeply at the assumptions that underlie language teaching materials, and which materials are appropriate for learners at what point and different ways of approaching different learning targets
- An overview of, with the chance to interact and think about beliefs about teaching
- The ability to apply these concepts to feedback on actual learner work

Module Two: Module Two helps you dive into your actual classroom practice and re-examine your habits and norms, thinking more deeply about what you do in class, why, and how it affects learners, while giving you the chance to learn in fairly great detail about four (out of a possible eight) skills/systems areas. You choose two skills from reading, listening, speaking and writing - one choice must be receptive, the other productive - and two systems from discourse, phonology, lexis and grammar. Then you narrow down your focus to look at one area within your selected skill or system - for example, when I did an assignment on listening I chose connected speech in authentic listening - to learn and write about it in some depth before teaching a class on that topic (as a result your choices ought to reflect what your learners need at the time) and getting detailed feedback on it. The classes themselves are a bit fake-feeling, I mean, the learners are learning something useful but in real life teaching is never so carefully compartmentalized into 40-60 minute increments. If you look at it another way, though, that narrow time focus also allows you to examine, almost microscopically, your habits and practices and how they affect learners. When you go back to teaching "normally", you'll be more inclined to think deeply about what you are doing, why, and what learners are getting from it.

Module Three then takes a step back and has you working with syllabus design and course planning, including needs analysis and assessment - all things any well-trained teacher would do well to get outside their own head and their own coping strategies to learn about. You also have the chance to "specialize" - to choose one area of ELT to focus on - which looks good on a CV (all of the very best teaching jobs, at least in the private sector, like to see some form of specialization). What dedicated teacher wouldn't want a chance to learn about the principles of syllabus design, and then apply those principles to designing a syllabus for a real group of learners, getting feedback on your work as you go? What teacher wouldn't be well-served by reading more of what experts say on testing?

So, let's say you do Module One, and to improve your chances of getting full points on the systems task (it used to be Paper One Task Four but that may have changed), you do the work in About Language. You learn about phonology, the basics of grammar and the basics of lexis (semantics, morphology), and perhaps you bone up on these latter points though an introductory Linguistics textbook. To make sure you are best able to look at class materials, textbook materials and student work - and get maximum points in those areas - you get a crash course in discourse fundamentals via Beyond The Sentence. Later, when you do Module Two and it's time to choose a skill or system, you have a reasonably strong foundation from which to do so, and you can build on that by looking more in-depth at a more narrowly-focused topic. With that knowledge you dive into how to sequence individual classes, and what to plan in them, in Module Three, and your Module One background in testing and assessment helps you in that paper, as well.

Think about that - does it sound like "meaningless credentialism" to you? Then consider what all of the anti-training types are really saying - I don't want a fundamental knowledge of theory and systems! My coping strategies are good enough! It's not necessary for me to be observed on my teaching and I don't need any feedback! I don't need to know the basics of syllabus design or testing. It is not important for me to have read up on what people before me, who have a wealth of expertise, research findings and knowledge, have to say about teaching certain skills or systems. I do not need external feedback on my self-reflection at any point - everything I need I can come up with in my own head because I'm a super genius, or something, able to duplicate in moments the work of years of others' dedicated research, and fabricate brilliant new teaching ideas without any contact with other ideas or professionals! Or alternatively, teaching isn't a real profession, any idiot could do it and there is nothing more to it than throwing out some vocabulary and grammar and doing some drills, perhaps with a game. It is not necessary to think about it any more deeply than that. 

Does anyone with either attitude sound like someone you'd want on your team?

I also like that doing these three modules pushed me to do what I might not have otherwise done - or otherwise done as well, sans feedback - such as reading up on the practice of Business English teaching or gaining a fundamental knowledge of assessment. It gave me the chance to work with ideas I might not have otherwise gotten the chance to work with, such as syllabus design, as it's surprising how few schools require any sort of syllabus from teachers.

Finally, I like that I was able to do the whole thing at a distance, without leaving Taiwan, and more cheaply than a regular postgraduate degree. This can be done through The Distance Delta or Bell. They are more or less the same, the only difference being that The Distance Delta wants you to do an orientation abroad for Module Two, which is not required at Bell. The Distance Delta, however, gives you access to International House's online library, which Bell does not. I like that, while many countries and institutions don't necessarily recognize it as such, the Delta is recognized in Europe as equal in level to a Master's degree (they're both rated Level 7 by Ofqual), and when you finish you do come out feeling like you have a Master's worth of knowledge, or nearly so, along with something most Master's programs don't provide - in-class practicums with assessment and feedback. And when I do get a Master's, I like that it will likely entitle me to an exemption from some courses or modules.

In fact, you could say I appreciate that the way I did it is not the only way. You can do the modules separately as you are able, you can do them online, you can do them face-to-face (though it's hard at times to find a center that will deliver a single module face-to-face), you can do them part-time or full-time, you can do them in one go in an intensive course, or as part of a Master's in at least one case.

But of course, with all of that good stuff, there's also bad:

I hate to harp on price, because while a lot of people will accuse Delta of being nothing more than a moneymaker for Cambridge, I actually get the feeling it doesn't turn a huge profit. Remember your tuition has to cover tutors, assessors, overseers (the folks who consistently review the Delta requirements and tweak them as needed), office space, assessment development, writing and handbook updates, IT, certification creation and printing, administration, accounting and more. And a lot of the fees charged are so that the centers offering the courses can turn a profit, only some (if any?) of it actually goes back to Cambridge. For a few hundred pounds for Modules 1 and 3, and a few thousand for Module 2 (a chunk of which goes to your local tutor), I doubt this is the cash cow that some people think it is.

But, having taken all of that into consideration, honestly, Module Two especially is quite financially burdensome for English teachers. We are not rich, generally. We don't make heaps of money. I get that education costs money and somebody's gotta pay, and perhaps if you have a fantastic salary in South Korea (where pay is better than Taiwan relative to cost-of-living, though I've heard it has not gone up in correlation with the increased standard, and cost, of living there in recent years) it's no big deal, however, there is a point at which I question how fair it is to make good, justifiable CPD (continuing professional development) something that is a financial strain for a career teacher.

With this in mind, another issue isn't with Delta itself but with the industry. In any other professional industry not only would qualified people get priority in hiring, but CPD directly related to one's work would be sponsored in part by the company. British Council does offer this, but basically nobody else does.

Another flaw is with some of the assessment methods. I know I praised them above, but that doesn't make them perfect. For instance, while I understand why the exam is timed (you can't have people writing pages and pages of stuff just to try to squeeze more points out of inefficient or off-the-mark writing), the time given is just an eensy bit too short to be reasonable. An extra 15-30 minutes for each paper would set a limit on how much could possibly be written while offering a reasonable amount of time in which to do the test, which raises its validity. Right now, part of what you're tested on is how fast you can write, and that's not really the assessment criteria that counts. Creating a computer-based test where answers can be typed would also be a help in the modern world. And I'm not just saying this because I used up most of my Paper One time on the old Task 4 (a massive systems task) and didn't even get to Task 3 (yet I still passed) - even if I'd gotten the score I feel I was capable of, I would still be saying it. It's just not write to set a test and then set timing for it that is clearly, obviously, too short. (I have the same complaint about IELTS writing, by the way. Far too short a time to produce something good written by hand).

I have less of a problem with the Module Three paper and the Module Two portfolio, and I realize why there are limits set on what you turn in. My only (small) complaint is that what is expected is not always realistic, especially for the assessed classes. In reality, for a systems lesson, one hour is barely enough time to intro the topic, do an activity to set the target language, do meaning, form, pronunciation and use and then practice it with limited feedback. I would do all of that in an hour and a half, but if you move just a tad too quickly (yes, too quickly) you can get it done in an hour. It is not enough time to include extended practice. It is not enough time to answer more than one or two in-depth learner questions, and maybe not even that. It is not long enough to extend the practice as long as you might like or give as much feedback as you'd like. It is not enough time to explore any sort of teachable moment or extra 'noticing'. The result is that while you learn a lot about your teaching, you never quite teach a class like that again, because in the real world it's simply unrealistic. Plus, the feedback you get often includes notes like "it would have been good to include extended practice in collocations" or what have you, and you're all yeah I think so too, but that is not possible in a one-hour class, JEEZUS. You want to see that, GIVE ME MORE TIME.

What's more, when you choose a topic, you're not supposed to be thinking about the class you're eventually going to teach - you're meant to concentrate on the paper first and then plan a class related to it, using one or more of the teaching suggestions given in the paper. But the class you teach has to be important for the learners, fit in with what they already know and what they need (and the course in general), be pitched to their level and needs etc. - how can you choose a topic and write a paper without thinking about what you will eventually teach? (A lot of Delta veterans admit that it's not possible - you must start out considering your eventual learners, and then basically pretend you didn't).

My only qualm with Module Three is that it continues the tradition of giving you not quite enough time to do the best possible job - you design a 20-hour course, which is great except most courses are longer than that, and the word limit for each section is just a bit too short to include everything they seem to want, which again means you are assessed on the compactness of your writing (forget having any sense of style or attempting to make it pleasurable to read) rather than the ideas therein. And I say this as someone who got a Merit. Otherwise, while I actually cried during this module, after it was all over I'd say it was my favorite of the three. I suspect I'm in the minority on that, though!

Overall, I don't see many faults with the design and implementation of Delta, but there are a few concerns worth mentioning. The timing of the Module One course was just about right, and while Module 3 went by a bit more briskly than I would have liked, it was basically okay. But Module Two was way too fast - it seems to me it'd be smartest to give candidates two full weeks between all assessed lessons (so about 3 weeks total) and an extra week for the experimental lesson somewhere in the middle. But in practice, one LSA (assessed lesson + paper) has to be done in two weeks, and often, just due to the way one's work plan rolls out, it's in the time between LSAs 2 and 3, which is generally when you should be doing your experimental lesson. So you suddenly have way too much work to do and way too little time to do it in. More reasonably, courses might simply start two weeks earlier, allowing again for candidates to do their best work within a reasonable time frame rather than being assessed based on how well you work under pressure, rather than the quality of the work you do. I'm not just saying this to complain - I haven't received my results yet but I received Distinctions on at least two papers and a Merit on a class, and I didn't fail any LSAs - I genuinely feel it would be a better experience for everyone to do it this way.

In short, it would be great if Delta could give us adequate time and word count to do the best we are capable of, rather than making it so we are measured not just on the quality of our work but on how well we cram our work into somewhat unreasonable deadlines and parameters, which I feel does detract from overall validity.

My other qualms with Delta aren't really related to Delta itself - things like the difficulties many face in having a reliable, useable class for Module 3 or finding a local tutor for Module 2 (or having access to appropriate classes for it), and how unsupportive a lot of employers can be - not my employers, but I have seen this happen.

Finally, I'd just like the ELT industry to respect Delta more. There's no reason why governments can't recognize it as a valid teaching credential. Certainly not all Master's degrees (which are accepted in Taiwan regardless of their relevance to the field) nor a teaching license for children is as pointedly directed at teaching adults as the Delta. I'd like to see more sponsorship of it by employers - my employers were supportive but I did notice that neither one offered to help sponsor me. I felt like it was seen as something I could do (and pay for) independently, I don't know, for fun or something, and otherwise was not related to their employment of me, when in fact it's directly related to my development as a teacher. Naw, I'm not mad, I'd just like to see more of a British Council attitude to Delta in the industry overall.

Doing the Delta in Taiwan: final thoughts

I've meant to write a blog post detailing my Delta experiences in Taiwan for a few months now, and with results coming any day now, I've been reminded that it's been put off for far too long (in my defense, immediately after finishing Module 2 this past December I came down with bronchitis).

Overall, we did manage to do all three modules in 3 years, and could have done them faster. I would say the only reason we chose to do one every September for 3 years was money, and yes, money was a consideration (Modules 1 and 3 aren't that expensive but Module 2 is; besides, it may not look like heaps of money but we also like to travel and have things like student loans to pay).

But really, the main reason I think we didn't push through and do one in March, the next in September and then another one the next March, to finish in a little over a year, is that while a Delta isn't a Master's degree, it's still extremely stressful. It's hardcore and takes up basically all of your free time. Although I feel I have better 'academic endurance' now, after the first two modules I did, I just didn't feel ready to start a new one just a few months after the last one ended.

So, although it took us 3 years, we've proven it can be done from Taiwan. We're not the first or only Delta holders here - there are a small group of them across the island, mostly in Taipei, who mostly seem to know each other, but we are two of the very few who did the entire thing from Taiwan (there are likely a few others at, say, British Council whom I don't know personally). Others either left to do the three-month intensive course, or had Deltas when they arrived. A few are in the midst of doing the modules, as well.

I'm going to start with this - specifically doing the Delta from Taiwan. If you're reading for reflections on the Delta in general, well, that will probably be my next post!


Some good things about doing it here:

- Getting books: Websites like Book Depository (free shipping!) and Bu ke Lai make it easy, if you order in advance, to get the books you need. Sometimes used bookstores like Whose Books (Shilin, back behind the MRT and Gongguan) have used copies, as well. Of course Caves has a solid ELT selection, but it's easier to go in person than to try and order online.  It's not that easy to get books here - see below about that - but it's not that hard, either. While it's no Tokyo, London or New York, I imagine Taipei is far easier for Delta candidates than, say, those stationed in Africa, the Middle East or most of rural China. Not having restricted Internet is great, because while China probably wouldn't ban sites you'd need to get articles and studies, you just never know.

- Weird working hours: these often seem to be a bane in this industry and seemingly especially in Taiwan (I could write a whole critique of capitalism based on what the free market has done to ELT here), but when doing the Delta they are not necessarily a problem - bring a book or printout of the journal article you need to read, and you can get work done at odd times of day rather than feeling stuck at a job all day, unable to study. Split shifts are great for this, as you can find a cafe or just go home and do a bit of studying before heading back to class.

- The lower cost of living: this means that, if you're willing to be a bit skint (this assumes you make enough money at a job where you are reasonably professional enough to be well-paid, it might not hold up if you're at, say, Hess where joke wages mean a joke job...#sorrynotsorry), it's easier here to free up your time and still be able to afford to live. I don't know how I could have afforded to live while working more or less part time to do the Delta in the USA, where I was always, always broke even when I was working full time at a salaried job (and even when I had a second job on top of that, which would have made the Delta impossible!). The generally lower hours of an English teacher (more in the range of 18-25, maybe 30 with prep time, rather than a full-time 40) are also beneficial.

- Good Internet - no seriously, due to various family issues I've been in the US a lot over the past two years, and the Internet there just isn't as good as the excellent fiber optic cable Internet in Taiwan (which Chunghwa Telecom will upgrade for you for free, or at least they used to). You'll be doing the courses almost entirely online, so having access to superfast Internet not slowed down by "ho hum, looks like one section of cable actually rides on 1920s phone lines, and I can't fix it, no fast Internet for me, dum-de-dum" which you get in the US).

- The time difference! Man, when the deadline is 9am GMT, that means you have until late afternoon in Taiwan to finish your assignments! Woo! A Sunday night deadline (as is the norm for Module 3) means Monday morning for you.

- British Council - they are fairly active in the ELT community here and there you will find the greatest concentration of qualified teachers. They are able to hold Module 1 exams and are a good place to go to do your Module 2 observations. There isn't always a British Council wherever you are, which may be a hindrance.

- Fairly reliable group classes - I mean, unless you're at, say, Global Village. But it won't be like my friend who worked in Saudi Arabia at an actual university and was having trouble getting everything ready, on time and energetic for students who weren't that interested in an actual education (and she's a good teacher, that wasn't the problem).

- People here who do Delta really care about their teaching and their learners - I'm sure they do everywhere, that's not to poop on Delta holders in other countries, but there are enough challenges (below!) and little enough professional payout (though we'll see), and it's hard enough to find a tutor and pay for the course on low Taiwanese salaries, that those who do decide to go for it REALLY want it. You won't find anyone who does it because 'that's what you do' or because they were asked to, but maybe weren't even that enthusiastic. I'm sure such people exist (I'm also sure they're in the minority, as Delta is stressful enough that you wouldn't stick with it without a good reason), but you generally will not find them in Taiwan. It makes for a good community of professional teachers who care about their learners, their own competence, and the industry.

- It's a good filter - it's far easier to tell good schools from bad, good jobs from bad and good bosses from bad (as well as suss out the attitudes of your coworkers, who may not be bad but may not value professional development, which is at least useful to know about them) when you have done something like Delta, based on how they react to it. Do they look worried that now you are going to cost more? You don't want to work for them anyway. Do they seem excited that you care about your career and learners? Great, you've found a winner! Having one is also good for getting to know the professional ELT community in Taiwan, small as it is. It puts you on the map as a serious person and just by dint of observing teachers and finding a tutor you are likely to meet others who are at the level where you want to be.

- It leads to some good opportunities - good employers will give you pay raises and more responsibility, it'll be easier to get an 'in' as an IELTS examiner (for example), the qualification looks good to potential students (it is something of a credentialist society), you are in a better position to take on teacher training roles - perhaps someday as a CELTA tutor or other type of teacher trainer? - and it helps you specialize, leading to more lucrative work.

- It simply makes you a better teacher, which I do believe and which is worthwhile regardless of where you are. But more on that in another post.

...and now for the bad:

- Finding books: yes, I'll put this here too. The cheapest books are usually used books bought via Amazon or associated sellers, and it is impossible to get a good rate on shipping to Taiwan. To get the best possible rate, which was important as I was going part-time every semester except the last one to give Delta my all, we had used books shipped to my in-laws at the far cheaper domestic rates, and they were kind enough to forward them all to us in one big box. I don't know how we would have otherwise gotten some of the titles we needed. And unlike a major Western city or even perhaps a city like Tokyo, there is no library you have easy access to that will have the titles you need.

- Exam snafus: there are two registered exam centers for Module 1 in Taiwan - British Council Taipei and a YMCA location. The British Council location wasn't listed on Cambridge's website at first, and nobody seems to know why. It was hard to convince them, once we did manage to register, that there was a special rate for Distance Delta candidates at BC. They originally wanted to charge us a ridiculously high rate per paper (there are 2, so for 2 of us that's 4 fees) which would have cost almost as much as the course! YMCA's contact window was not very helpful and avoided our questions about fees, so we can assume they'd be high, or he wasn't very good at the 'communication' part of his job.

- Finding a local tutor for Module 2:  We were lucky, we had an offer of a tutor from someone who is personally invested in raising the bar of English teaching in Taiwan and we arranged to do the course in time, as there's a fair chance he'll move to Australia in the not-too-distant future. There are plenty of qualified people to be tutors, but many, if not most, are very busy people and not necessarily able to take on the fairly heavy workload of tutoring a Module 2 candidate. I have heard of people who want to do Module 2 in Taiwan and just...don't, because they can't find anyone to tutor them (and in fact this is one reason why we left it to the end - finding that tutor seemed impossible when we started).

- Low pay - Delta is not a particularly expensive qualification compared to similar-level qualifications in other professions and especially compared to a Master's degree, but it can't be denied that the pay in Taiwan is below average for East Asia. This is usually OK as the cost of living is also on the low side, but when you start looking at programs that cost in the hundreds or thousands of pounds, well, it's just not that easy to finance them on the salaries provided by Taiwan's stagnant economy. I'm fairly well-paid as English teachers go and I found it hard to come up with Module 2 tuition (1 and 3 aren't so bad, they're in the hundreds).

- Lack of a CELTA (or decent alternative to one) program in Taiwan - though I hear this is going to change, the lack of a good practicum-based initial certification program creates another hurdle to anyone who arrives in Taiwan, gets a job with no certification, and (like me) actually decides to stick with it because they find something of value in the profession. Before they can even consider Delta, which can be done remotely from Taiwan, they have to do CELTA, which can't. That means a 4-week vacation from work (at no pay, though to be fair even jobs that offered paid vacation probably wouldn't pay for such a long leave), tuition fees, an international trip and international accommodation and living expenses when you may be maintaining an apartment in Taipei (or another city, but Taipei is by far the most expensive place to live). It's no wonder that so many English teachers never even begin, because while getting a CELTA is supposed to be less of a commitment time-wise (and to an extent financially) than getting a Delta, in Taiwan the opposite is true and the folks at Cambridge would be wise to consider that in their market analysis. I hear, several times a month, from teachers who actually do want to get a CELTA but can't because they can't afford to leave for that long. Offering one in Taipei would help to mitigate the problem, especially if it were a part-time program.

- Lack of any sort of face-to-face Delta courses in Taiwan - I mean hey, if we can't even get a CELTA course running, a Delta course isn't going to happen either. But a face-to-face Delta course would make it easier for those who don't do distance learning well, and would help in having a tutor automatically provided. Also, for the Distance Delta, Module 2 requires a face-to-face orientation (with a fee) that is only two weeks, but that's still a fairly big expense, especially as few if any such orientations are held near Taiwan or in relatively cheap places to stay. (This is why we did Distance Delta for Modules 1 and 3, but moved to Bell for Module 2, and I'd recommend you do the same).

- An unprofessional ELT industry/work environment for most people - people will argue over and over about whether training is important to a good teacher but I'm gonna stop that on my blog at least with "yes, of course it does". It's a no-brainer that a teacher who gets professional feedback, assessment and mentoring is going to be a better teacher than one left to their own devices. This can be informally done, yes, but training programs such as CELTA and Delta are quality programs that provide proof that it was done. This is not to minimize the importance of experience, but to point out that experience with guidance and outside feedback is going to be better than experience where you spend the entire time finding coping strategies inside your own head.

So, related to that, it astounds me that schools in Taiwan are just so unprofessional in this way. I am lucky to work for two schools (and have a bevy of private students) that do care about professionalism and training, but my situation really is not the norm. It's terrifying how many schools would rather hire an inexperienced teacher for NT$600/hour than a trained one for NT$650 or a very well trained one for NT$700 or $800, or a salary (without then overworking them). The dollar is the bottom line, and quality doesn't seem to matter - that's not to say all qualified teachers are good quality but yes, generally, the overall quality of education will go up. The result is fewer job opportunities for experienced, trained teachers, and not really much more pay (you'd be lucky to get a 10% jump) for those who do seek professional development. That encourages people not to do something like the Delta, because it's a big time and money investment for not that much payout in Taiwan. On one hand, it's good to narrow down the job field to only the best jobs, on the other, it stinks that the industry is so unprofessional when it could be better. It's also no wonder that the English level in Taiwan, while not bad - I'm not one of those "Taiwanese can't speak English!" types -  could be better.

- Unsupportive bosses: again I didn't have this problem. The directors and managers at the two places where I take group classes were quite supportive of my doing the Delta, but I recognize that my situation is not the norm. When I worked at my former company, in theory they were supportive of Brendan's and my doing the CELTA, but in practice they completely screwed Brendan visa-wise by first approving our leave, and then suddenly, just before our trip, refusing to hold his visa/work permit while we were gone. Technically legal but a super crappy thing to do and the top reason, among others, why both of us quit. It would have been understandable if they'd said it was impossible to hold two visas when we first asked, or before we paid for the trip, but to wait until a few weeks before is just unprofessional and crappy, and if you hadn't noticed, I cannot and will not forgive them Other bosses might refuse to modify your schedule, not give you classes with a minimum of 5 learners (especially important for Module 2, and to some degree Module 3 although for that you may design a course for a one-on-one class) or give you other necessary support to finish.

- Visa issues for those who do modules abroad: if you don't want to do a distance course, or want to do something intensive abroad rather than spending a whole semester on it part-time, depending on the module, employers may not be overjoyed to hold your visa/work permit while you are gone, which pretty much forces you to do it as a distance course. If you do all three modules intensively, it will take 3 months and almost no employers are willing to hold a visa for that long, which means a visa break, which can create problems. (I didn't put this under 'unsupportive bosses' because it is understandable to a degree why an employer would not want to do this, my point is it creates problems, not that it is entirely the school's fault). Not everyone handles distance learning well, or likes the format. Distance learning also means finding a local tutor for Module 2, which can be difficult for the reasons above, so making it harder to take an intensive course where a tutor is provided is problematic.

* * *

I know it sounds like there are more downsides than upsides to doing a Delta in Taiwan, and there is some truth to that. It is definitely not as easy here as it would be in a city where you had more access to books, were paid more, where schools and employers were more supportive of professional development, local tutors were easier to find and you could expect a bigger career boost, or could take a course locally.

But it is important to remember that some of those upsides are pretty big ones - the lower cost of living making it easier to work part-time and the less rigid work schedule are two big ones, and it is certainly better to do it here than many other countries that have even fewer ELT resources, where it is more difficult to order them. It may have been easier resource-wise to do it in the West, but I might not have been able to afford it! So, it's not all bad.

And all in all, even though it's not always a huge boon to one's career in Taiwan, although I am willing to bet more opportunities will open up to me for having it in the long run, it is good for development generally and a worthwhile thing to do, and what's better in terms of getting something done than intrinsic motivation?

Questions? Comments? I'm always available!

A Cambridge Delta Reading List

Well, I'm finally done. I actually have been for some time, but I got bronchitis and some other stuff happened and I'm only now finally feeling like writing about my Delta experience. I've written about this before, but only from the perspective of having done one or two modules. Now that I've done the entire Delta, I feel more qualified to write holistically about my experiences.

That'll take awhile though, so I thought I'd start out with an essential Delta reading list. Sandy Millin has one going, and though I generally agree with hers, my recommendations are not quite the same.

Obviously most people are unlikely to be able to read all of these before they start a Delta, so I've starred (*) the ones that are the best choices for pre-reading

Some of these titles are only helpful for one module, some will inform your understanding and learning in all three, but all provide the essential knowledge needed to do well on Delta:

*About Language (Scott Thornbury)

This provides an essential overview of the language system of English, which will help you quite a bit on Module 1 Paper 1 Task 4 (though I've heard they've changed around the tasks, so this may now be Task 5), inform your systems assignment decisions (especially if you do a grammar assignment) and papers in Module 2, and be useful to know when figuring out what learners need in Module 3. What's more, it gives you the essential background in basic phonology that make it possible to skip a foundational phonology text (though you may want to read about connected speech and intonation elsewhere, perhaps in Field's book on listening, recommended below). All in all, an essential text as you won't pass Delta without a knowledge of systems.

Testing for Language Teachers (Arthur Hughes) - only the first few chapters are necessary

This will help you out in Paper 2 on Module 1, in the task where you analyze a test for strengths and drawbacks. It will also inform your choices of assessment methods in Module 3 and give you solid background knowledge - though nothing you can cite - for assessing progress in your Module 2 classes. Overall a working knowledge of key concepts in testing is necessary to do well on Delta.

Syllabus Design (David Nunan)
(* only for Module 3 pre-reading)

This is almost entirely for Module 3, but you can't write the paper without having read this text or something similar. I chose this text over others (e.g. Kathleen Graves' Designing Language Courses) as it's short and to the point, so it's a good book to read before you attempt to write your Module 3 paper.

*How Languages are Learned (Patty Lightbown and Nina Spada)
This is solid general background reading and will help quite a bit on Module 1, Paper 2 Task 4 (the one where you try to suss out the assumptions of other language teachers based on some sort of excerpt), as well as inform your choices in Modules 2 and 3.

Beyond The Sentence: an introduction to discourse analysis (Scott Thornbury)

Extremely useful for all three modules - obviously for a Module 2 systems lesson on discourse, but also in Module 1 for Paper 1 tasks 3 and 4 (in which you analyze lesson content and a learner's production, where a knowledge of how that lesson and how that production is organized - or not - in terms of discourse), as well as in Paper 2 tasks 2 and 3 (where you analyze coursebook materials, and being able to provide ideas taken from a fundamental knowledge of discourse will help earn marks). It will also help you in Module 3, in terms of deciding if a dip into discourse-related topics would be suitable for your group of learners. All in all I found this to be one of the more enlightening Delta books I read, as I began with zero knowledge of discourse.

How to Teach Grammar (Scott Thornbury)
(good to read as you are looking at Module 1 Paper 2 tasks 2 and 3, or Module 2 for a grammar systems assignment)

Of all the skills and systems books out there, this is the only one I'm putting in the "core list" as it is the most informative one across a range of topics. It specifically focuses on grammar, but "grammar" is such an open-ended word, and the teaching methods discussed in the book (inductive and deductive learning, guided discovery, the relationship of lexis to grammar etc.) so adaptable, that it can be used to inform a number of teaching decisions even on non-grammar topics. Plus, "teaching grammar" is such a bugbear for many language teachers, and has such a bad reputation among those who have an outdated view of what 'teaching grammar' means, that it's essential on all levels.

An A-Z of ELT (Scott Thornbury)

This is not a book to 'read', though I suppose you could do so. It will help you in the terminology sections of Module 1 (the first two tasks) but the real key is to understand the concepts that underpin the terms, which will help you through the rest of the course.

*An overview text of ELT as a profession
(Can be skipped if you have already read such a book)

If you haven't read one already (perhaps for a CELTA course), an overview of ELT would be a good book to digest before starting. Tricia Hedge's Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom or or Jeremy Harmer's The Practice of English Language Teaching are good options.

*An introductory course book in Linguistics 
(if you haven't already read one)

This would be a smart thing to read as well, as you'll be expected to be familiar with a lot of the terminology and basic concepts. Except for the syntax chapter, which I couldn't follow to save my life, I recommend Linguistics for Non-Linguists, though any decent introductory text for a Linguistics 101 course would be suitable.

* * *

That's about it for a core reading list, but of course that's not all you're going to be reading. During the course, you're going to want to read more on skills and systems - especially for Module 2, but even for Module 3 it's useful to have this knowledge as you decide what your learners would benefit from in the course you design.

With that in mind, here are the best books I've found for macroskills:

Reading: Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language (Christine Nuttall)

This is really the seminal book on reading, and is updated regularly.

Listening: Listening in the Language Classroom (John Field)

Similarly, this is the seminal book on listening and it really informed my skills essay on connected speech. Other books are out there but this is the winning choice.

Writing: How to teach writing (Jeremy Harmer)

This is a fairly easy foundational text in teaching writing. By the time I got to my Module 2 skills assignment on writing (the second-to-last thing I ever did for Delta) I found it a bit too foundational. But it's great for citations and for anyone who doesn't know how to start a skills assignment in writing - far more so than other books on teaching writing that are out there.

Speaking: How to teach speaking (Scott Thornbury)

The aim of the "How to" series really is to act as foundational texts for newbies in the profession, but for citations and a basic working knowledge, without being overly fusty or theoretical, this is your best choice.


And here are some choices - admittedly incomplete - for systems:

Pronunciation: How to teach pronunciation (Gerald Kelly)

Discourse: I haven't found a great book for this, I would say "Beyond The Sentence" (in the core list above) is the best you are going to do for now, though it's more about core ideas in the field than actually teaching them.

Lexis: I didn't do an assignment on this so I don't have a good suggestion. Anyone? I don't know how good the "How to" book is on this (not every book in that series is good - I found "How to teach with technology" to be rather useless).

Grammar: As above, "How to teach grammar" (Thornbury)

I'll be back in November

Just wanted to pop in and let whatever readers are left know that I'm still alive and haven't given up blogging! In fact I have lots to write - trips to Jinmen and Taimali, a decent hike from the fields of Yangmingshan to Jinshan, tons of opinions (these can be summed up with "the KMT is bad"). Some thoughts on English teaching as this is now my actual profession and not just something I do so I can live abroad.

But I'm in the middle of Delta Module 2 and whereas in the other modules, I found time to pop in now and again, this one is killing me. The workload is so horrendous. I haven't had a day off since early September, though I sometimes take the evening off on weekends. I just don't have time to blog, or clean, or do things a normal human needs to do for a normal life. I had to get a new phone recently - my old one just died - and I was mostly pissed that getting it took a few hours away from working Delta Module 2 (long story why it was a few hours!). I eat, sleep, bathe and poop Delta, and teach at the same time.

We - my husband is doing it too - are so stressed that on an impulse we bought tickets to Indonesia over Chinese New Year, because I need a vision of a thatch-roof room on a white sand beach with a little balcony where I can read for pleasure and occasionally dip in the ocean and snorkel or swim to get me through this. Good thing Chinese New Year is 9 days long this year so we can somewhat justify a trip we hadn't planned!

I finish on November 24.

So...see you in November!

The Tale of Lance Lightning

I've sort of hesitated in writing this post because it forces me to come to terms with my past.

That sounds way creepier than it really needs to, but it probably got your attention!

Back in 2002-2003, when I was living in China, I had a coworker who was teaching at another branch of our small provincial English language center. He had a very memorable name - we'll just change his name to "Lance Lightning" - and was an retired-military Englishman with a grizzled-in-a-wiry-sort-of-way air about him.

We traveled to Kunming and Dali together - this is not as weird as it sounds - we got along quite well (I tend to get along with grizzled-Englishman types, the more sarcastic the better) and generally hung out going to tourist spots together, meeting up after breakfast because I was a poor kid staying in hostels and he could afford proper hotel rooms.

At one point, Lance mentioned something about teaching - some educational concept I hadn't heard of - and I asked him about it and where he'd learned it. It was probably something I really should have known about before embarking on a year of teaching abroad, like classroom management. He said he'd taken a CELTA course before coming and, quite offhand, that he did so because "if I was going to move abroad to do this, I thought I'd better to it right or it's not worth doing at all."

That's just the sort of person Lance was. And although I was a feckless 22-year-old at the time, that attitude appealed to me. It's a part of why we got along - he didn't suffer fools (and I suppose that because he suffered me as his weird pink-haired coworker-and-traveling-companion, that I must not have been as much of a fool as I now see myself as having been, and I probably liked the validation).



Me and my weird pink hair in Kunming, late 2002 - it was way pinker than this old photo makes it seem.

Anyway, I remember wishing I'd had the forethought and money to have done it that way.

In Kunming, Lance and I stopped at one of the famous temples - either Yuantong or Golden, I don't remember which. It was cool and overcast, a bit drizzly. So much for the famous Kunming weather! Leading up to it was a very long staircase of marble or granite, really onerous to climb. Being a retired army guy, Lance jogged up at a comfortable pace and met me at the top. I climbed comfortably for some time but was huffing and puffing and pushing myself forward by the end.

"Well, you made it," Lance said. "The key to getting up a long stairway like this isn't how strong you are. It's got nothing to do with muscles. It's all about the respiratory and circulatory system. If those are weak, you won't pump the oxygen you need to give you the energy to get to the top. You're not fat" (at the time I wasn't overweight, now I am), "but it looks like you've got some working out to do."

My first reaction was defensiveness - hey, I wasn't that unfit! - but I tamped that down. He was right (I mean I'm not sure about the exact physiological aspects, but generally speaking, he wasn't off base).

In later years I would look back at that moment - it wasn't just about climbing stairs. I wanted to teach as well as Lance could jog up and down those steps. Confidently, knowing what I was doing and how I should proceed, seemingly effortlessly (though it's anything but). Just as one might work out to improve respiration and circulation, I wanted to work out my mental muscles to be a competent, trained teacher.

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.

Over the next few years I backpacked around Asia, tried to work in finance, couldn't bring myself to care enough about the field to achieve anything within it (and I did try - I just inherently wasn't interested), got an evening job teaching ESL to Korean immigrants, saved some money and moved to Taiwan where I taught English again without any sort of qualifications or credentials for a few years before finally getting my act together and getting a CELTA, then moving on to Delta and IELTS examiner training. Eventually, I will get a Master's. I need it if I ever want to work in this field in a Western country.

Fast-forward to now, and that offhand comment from Lance is quite possibly a part of why I've since swung so far in the other direction - I have the zeal of the converted. I know the CELTA course is a quality course because I've done it. It won't make you a star teacher, but it will give you the basic competency you need to move on to better performance - something you aren't going to get from experience alone.

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.

Here's the thing - Lance wasn't a career teacher. He wasn't a seasoned professional. What I respected - and still respect - about this worldview is that he saw a fairly affordable basic course that would allow him to do his "retirement" job with a basic degree of competency, and he shut up and took the damn course rather than construct some unrealistic narrative in which he didn't need it, a narrative that would have insulted teachers, the profession of teaching, and the generations of hard work and research in education, pedagogy and second language acquisition that people have put into the field, all to make himself feel better about not taking his new job seriously. You don't need to be a career teacher to do this. You don't need to plan to stay in it for more than a few years. Even so, you can do better than showing up and pretending your accent and face is enough.



A dragon carving somewhere in the Golden or Yuantong temple, Kunming, China, late 2002.

Now, I advocate pre-service teacher training (as in, taking some sort of English teaching course before you actually begin working as an English teacher), specifically the CELTA, Trinity or equivalent, and will go so far as to say that a.) I think this, or something like it, should in fact be a legal prerequisite for employment in ELT in all countries and b.) I do not view ersatz "English teachers" who lack such qualifications as professionals.

I'll go even farther than that - not only should all English teachers have to get a basic, respected qualification (CELTA, Trinity or equivalent) but that if someone wants to open an English language center, they either need to be, or need to hire, someone with adequate credentials in ELT in order to ensure that the training, curriculum, materials, hiring etc. are all in line with sound educational practice. In short, to ensure that the school wasn't run by businesspeople whose only concern was profit and who were not concerned with the actual quality of the product being provided.

Perhaps it would be acceptable for someone to go abroad and teach English for a year or two without a CELTA if and only if the school in question had a qualified head teacher on staff who trained all new hires, and whose training was examined and approved by a higher accreditation agency or a committee within the Ministry of Education of that country. After a few years, however, it should be required that they either get a CELTA or equivalent (or take the TKT), or leave the field in that country. Government incentives to schools that help sponsor their long-term teachers to gain these credentials would be a solid step forward.

"But Jenna," you're probably thinking, "you didn't do that. You started as a backpacker-teacher! How can you then say that you don't think others should be able to do exactly what you did?"

And you'd be right. So before writing this post I had to think long and hard about why I now feel the way I do, and if it's fair to do so when I benefited from a system that allowed me to get a pretty well-paid job (by Taiwan standards) without having even remotely close to the qualifications I should have had to get it.

Here's what I've come up with: if I could do it all again, I wouldn't have started teaching without doing something like the CELTA first. In 2002, after graduating from college, deciding not to go into Peace Corps (long story), and choosing instead to spend a year in China teaching English, I would have instead delayed my trip by 6 months, saved enough to pay for the CELTA and living expenses in a relatively inexpensive country like Thailand, and done that before moving on to that first teaching job in China.

After all, the CELTA course cost a pretty packet for 2 people to do, with an apartment back home to pay rent on, along with living in a fairly expensive city like Istanbul, but it wasn't so expensive that I as a singleton couldn't have pulled it off in, say, Chiang Mai at age 22.

22-year-old me would have been pretty pissed to learn that she couldn't go teach English abroad without first laying out a few thousand dollars for a basic teaching qualification.

22-year-old me was also an entitled, spoiled idiot. An spoiled idiot who did not understand that she was not so special as to not need basic teacher training before, you know, teaching. That professional fields require, by their very nature, some sort of training to be taken seriously in. That I might have a natural knack for teaching but that's not enough to make one a professional- level teacher, or a "teacher" at all. I was playing teacher, like a kid might "play doctor" or "play firefighter" (or "play lawyer" if kids were inclined to do something that dull to kid sensibilities). That being a native speaker did not qualify me to teach English, just as being "good at math" or even "highly educated in math" does not qualify one to teach math. That being a native speaker of a language is not the same as understanding the underlying systems of that language, and even if you understand those, being able to teach them using sound pedagogy is a different skill entirely. That teaching is so much more than knowing something - knowing how to impart it is equally if not more important.

So yeah, 34-year-old me would tell 22-year-old me to suck it up, save up the extra money and do the damn course. Then she could bum around for a bit, but eventually, if she were to get serious about the job, she'd have to find a job under a real director of studies and improve her craft before moving on to higher qualifications.

With that in mind, reading articles like this bring me back around to that thing about my past that I don't like to admit: that I took the easy route, and that I regret it. I should not have been allowed in front of a class of students who were paying (or whose parents were paying) for the experience. It was one giant facepalm, and I didn't get better until I got some decent pre-CELTA training. My entire professional existence was probably one huge facepalm, in fact, until approximately 2009 when my experience finally caught up with my training. I was doing alright by the time I did the CELTA, but I was not a professional:

"It can easily be the case that native speaking teachers working abroad, in large part because they do not speak the local language, are excluded from the decision making process at their schools. This leads to the native-speakers feeling frustrated because they are not being taken seriously as professionals, while the non-native teachers sit quietly thinking, “Well, you’re not really professionals, are you? You were only hired because you’re a native speaker.”

And that's exactly it. If you're only hired because you happen to speak a language (or in many cases, simply look like you do), then how are you a professional? Professional work requires training and development. It needn't be a teaching license if you're not working with kids. It needn't be a Master's, just as you can be a financial professional with Series 7 and 66 certifications but don't necessarily need an MBA or degree in Finance.

As such, no, I don't think that what makes a good teacher is necessarily the piece of paper to say that they did this or that course - although the content of the courses themselves help. It could be done through more informal on-the-job training, but, honestly, most schools don't even offer that and those who do offer training of such varying quality that it simply cannot be the basis of "professionalism" unless it's either standardized by an accredited authority, or there is a way to show measurable outcomes (in much the same way that a business professional may start out with an unrelated degree but proves themselves through measurable outcomes that lead to promotion). The only way I see this happening in teaching is for everyone, at some point, to take a similar training course just as, say, financial advisors have to do with those Series 7/66 licenses.

22-year-old me would have been butthurt to hear that she was not a "professional". 22-year-old me was an idiot. 34-year-old me accepts it, and is still worried that, not yet having a full Delta, she is not quite professional enough. Incidentally, the end of that conversation with Lance about some aspect of teaching practice entailed me admitting I had no training whatosever, and Lance saying "you're pretty smart. You'll be fine." I see no reason why others can't be "pretty smart" too, and have no problem with kicking those who aren't out of the field.

What worries me is that a lot of these "native speakers hired as teachers" isn't just that they aren't qualified, as I wasn't (and so I can only imagine that in the classroom a large number of them are variations of the walking facepalm that I once was), it's that, like 22-year-old me, they get super butthurt if you say so. They don't like to hear that they aren't professionals, that perhaps their opinions aren't as valid as teachers with training, that there is a reason employers view them as replaceable and interchangeable and don't take them seriously (although I also get the feeling that employers purposely look for "teachers" they don't take seriously as native speakers without qualifications are much easier to "manage". If you are some rando businessman who started a school to make money but you don't know jack about teaching, then it can be quite inconvenient indeed to have a teacher with some training challenging your decisions, most of which are pedagogically crap).

They want to construct a narrative in which one learns to teach by doing it - forgetting first of all that "doing" doesn't mean much if it's not augmented by training and feedback from a professional who can point out where you're going wrong better than you can, and so if you learn by doing without that meaningful feedback (which most teachers at these schools don't get, as most schools don't have a competent, qualified head teacher or Director of Studies), you'll just pick up a bunch of bad habits that you won't even know you have (and will get very defensive about being called out on). Second of all that if you try to "learn to teach by teaching", along your path to learning you've just stepped on a whole bunch of people who've paid you to learn how to do something, and not even gotten a quality product out of their investment. How is that fair?

A system like the ones I proposed above - force English centers to have some modicum of professionalism before they open or to maintain their business, and force teachers to either come in with a qualification or only allow them to work for businesses that can provide training, and even then only for a specified period of time - would not be onerous. The regulations would be quite manageable for any business that takes itself seriously - any business you'd want to have around, in fact. It would get rid of the bottom-feeders and barrel-scrapers, and free up a saturated market so that better quality schools could open, hiring better quality teachers. It would be a net win. Sure, some schools would go out of business but as I see it, good riddance. And sure, some foreigners would find the CELTA/Trinity requirement too onerous and not choose to teach English. Again, I'm fine with that. We could use fewer "native speaker backpacker-"teachers". Open up the market to higher quality. And it would be a definitive step towards improving the profession and maybe those of us who take ELT seriously getting a little respect as teachers for once.

And, come on, all you "native speaker teachers" with no credentials? You can be better than whiny-ass 22-year-old me. Almost anyone can. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. 

Delta Module 3: the Git 'r Done Edition

After writing up a recommended pre-course reading list for Delta Module 3, I have some more thoughts and advice I'd like to share:

1.) Become very familiar with Word and Excel, especially creating graphs. This will save you a lot of time later.

You're going to need to be able to do things without problem such as reducing file sizes, scanning and inserting JPGs and PDFs, creating graphs in Excel and inserting them into Word, and creating page breaks or having only some pages in a longer portrait-oriented document render as landscape. Figuring it out as you go, if you're not already a whiz at Office (and I'm not - I was a terrible admin assistant), wastes time. This is especially important if you use a Mac, as the tutors for the online courses tend to use Windows and usually don't know how to help Mac users.

2.) If you think the paper lacks some construct validity, you're not alone.

My main issue has to do with word counts (below). I get why the limits exist and support that, I just think the limits decided upon are unreasonable and should be modified, not abandoned. I wrote about this regarding Module 1 as well. 

While obviously your grade is assessed based on the quality of your curriculum design, it is also to some extent assessed based on how well you can cram your individual writing style into their parameters, and how adept you are at cramming information into their teeny-tiny word counts. I have never delivered a baby, but I would compare trying to cram the amount of information I wanted to include into the word count they gave me as roughly similar to pushing a fairly large (think 10-12 pound) baby out of an itty-bitty vagina. It is entirely possible that a writer who does not have, and is not good at, creating a compact writing style might get a lower score just for that reason, regardless of how good the paper would have been without such stringent guidelines.

Maybe I'm just not very British about the whole thing, but, I do feel that the paper ought to be assessing how well we understand and apply the fundamentals of curriculum design, not how well we pack information into insufficient word counts. It does not entirely succeed in this regard as the word counts are simply not sufficient.


3.) If you think the recommended reading is a bit dated (a lot of it is from the '90s or earlier), you're also not alone, but there's a good reason for that.

I'm actually OK with this simply because a lot of really good seminal works were written in that time, after the Communicative Approach had become more of a standard thing and less of a groundbreaking new approach that, like the release of a new technology, inevitably had a few bugs to work out, but before that approach started to feel a little stale as it does today, but with nothing better having come along to replace it (rather like our End of History and the Last Man liberal democracy). And those works tend to be updated and come out in new editions. So, I'm fine with Bailey and Graves and Nunan because their publications remain relevant. The only thing to watch out for are un-updated books that haven't accounted for the emergence of computers. Like so:



4.) Yes, the word counts and other requirements are persnickety. Whoever designed the word counts is on my permanent hit list. Either way, listen carefully and do exactly as your tutor or course leader says.

I'm not anti-word count. I'm anti-British word counts.

I'm used to an academic system where you are given wide parameters - usually font size, spacing, margins and a generous variance in page requirements (say, 8-10 or 12-15), possibly font selection itself. What this does is create some basic standardization so you don't get two-page papers nor do you get 200-page papers when you wanted about 20-page papers, but someone with a terser writing style can write, say, 8 pages and someone who likes a few rhetorical flourishes can write 12 pages. There's room for individuality and creativity, and nobody would think anything of it if the paper didn't meet exact specifications.

This is a good system because it acknowledges that there is very little difference, nor is there any reason to freak out, over, say, an extra paragraph or have a page longer or shorter. It's really okay - what matters is the quality of the paper, whatever the size. None but the most anal American would care if your paper were, say, 4503 words rather than 4500.

And yet, this is what Cambridge essentially freaks out over. Your paper should be about 4500 words. You can write as few as 4000 (but 3999 and HOLY SHIT CALL IN THE NATIONAL GUARD YOU FAIL), and as many as 4500 (but 4501 and HOLY SHIT WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE FROM ZOMBIES). It doesn't make any sense - what is the difference in quality between 4500 and 4501 words? Or 3999 and 4000?

Wouldn't someone who wrote 4570 words well be turning in an inferior work by editing down to 4500 when it really sounded better with the extra 70 words?

The variances allowed in American page limits allow for this. Cambridge on the other hand has clearly eaten too many scones and not enough vegetables and needs a nice long sit on the pot to just relax.

I'm not saying abandon word limits - some standardization is needed. Or even to change to page limits - why not keep your precious word limits, but make them more flexible? How about 4000-5000? Or (heaven forfend!) 3500-5500? Wouldn't you get better quality papers with more freedom? Papers that inject a little individual flair into the whole thing rather than a string of passable but unengaging academic crap?

Along with this, the word limits given for the information asked for is simply not sufficient. What's asked for is reasonable. For example, for Part 2 it makes sense to want a candidate to describe and justify their needs analysis and diagnostic test strategies, write about their analysis of the results, and end with a short class profile and course priorities. What doesn't make sense is to ask for this in 900 words. 1500 words is more reasonable, and you'd get better quality work from it. Furthermore, you'd be assessing based more on the content rather than how well it's crammed inside a too-small package, increasing construct validity.

It also forces any sort of individuality or unique voice from your paper - my writing style was so quashed that it barely reads as having been written by me. I had to do things like replace "and" for every closely related set of nouns with a slash (so "speaking and listening" was replaced with "speaking/listening" because it was one word rather than three). This may sound like a conceit, but Cambridge says that they prefer paper that speaks to individual experience and insight - how can you do that if you are not provided sufficient word count?

Finally, every word processing program counts words differently. Microsoft Word for Mac counted my paper at 4498 words, but Word 2007 on a PC counted them as 4570. So, we were told to note the word processing program we used to account for any discrepancies.

But if you're going to do allow such discrepancies, then why have a word count at all? What purpose does it serve to be so exact when my handed in paper is 4498 words and another candidate's is 4500, but when viewed in the same program mine is 70 words longer, but would still be accepted even though the other candidate's would not be if it were 4501 words? It makes. no. sense.

As for the requirements, yeah, they want very specific things. While that does quash individuality to some extent, I get the reasoning behind this. Just don't ignore anything your tutor says. If your tutor says "you may want to provide further justification", then do that. If your tutor says "this could be addressed later", then move the point to be addressed later.

You don't have to agree. You just have to do it. Is this realistic? No. But there you go.

5.) Is there a slight bias toward one kind of syllabus? Yes. But technically you can do anything you want as long as you justify, justify, justify.

Cambridge folk and your tutors will swear up and down that there is no bias towards any kind of syllabus - it could be a process or product syllabus, negotiated or synthetic, whatever you want as long as it suits your goals and class needs and you can justify it. With one exception: as you have to submit some kind of course plan, you can't use a totally free-form syllabus reliant on Dogme or the Natural Approach*.

But, I swear to you, I observed a bias. As assessment is a required aspect of your course, a product syllabus with "can do" statements or clear assessment "at the end of this course, students will be able to" goals is the clearly favored syllabus for this assignment. Perhaps it is because a product syllabus requires less justification generally: the end goals of that syllabus and how they line up with the class's priorities, which are why it's called a product syllabus at all, are their own justification, but a process syllabus that focuses on how and what will be taught, with assessment merely measuring what was learned without pre-set ideas of what the outcome should be requires further justification as to why that process was chosen and why it's not necessary to state your desired outcomes or achievement levels.

But, that still boils down to "you don't have to work as hard to justify a product syllabus" which makes a product syllabus easier to use for this assignment, which I feel creates a bias in favor of it - less need for justification requires less verification and agreement on the validity of that justification after all.

Someone using a process syllabus is going to have to explain why they aren't using a product one (which takes the form of justifying a lack of defined end goals) but someone using a product syllabus does not have to justify why they didn't use a process one.

Add to that the tightfisted (or tight-other-body-parted) word count requirements that don't leave a lot of space to justify your choices, and there is a clear bias in favor of choosing a path that requires less justification - there isn't enough space to do justice to a more involved choice.

That doesn't mean you need to use a product syllabus - just that you're going to have to fight harder for your process syllabus, which is arguably not fair.

*I still think this sounds like the title of a porno movie

6.) Get reading done early - you will need that time to analyze and write about your results and ideas.

See my previous post, linked above.

As much as you think you can put it off, you can't. You will need more time than you ever imagined to design, roll out, collect, analyze and write up your diagnostic test and needs analysis (which should be related, by the way - your needs analysis results should inform the kind of diagnostic test you design - for example if the learners you're working with don't need to focus on listening and don't report any problems with listening you wouldn't design a diagnostic test focusing on listening, obviously). So get crackin' on that reading NOW and thank me later.

7.) The assignment itself may only be 4500 words, but the appendices you will attach bring it up to 100+ pages.

Yes, that's how much supporting information you need. Remember, for everything you write about in parts 2, 3 and 4 of this assignment, you'll need a buttload of data or sample materials supporting your choices. You're not writing a 17-page paper. You're writing a 117-page paper, even if it's not considered such when you submit.

8.) It's easier to choose a standard class with standard needs. However, doing this may also make it hard to be creative.

Brendan and I ran into this.

During the assignment, I was definitely the more stressed-out spouse, with my unusual class who didn't want to do role plays, communicative activities, games or take any sort of tests and which, while being a Business English class, didn't really want many of the topics commonly associated with Business English with the exception of presentations. When they talked about what they needed - to be able to socialize with coworkers, higher-ups at work and industry peers, for example, the common Business English methods for that were not interesting to them. They weren't there, as most BE students are, to improve in specific ways for work purposes: they were there for a reason not commonly found in BE - to have fun.

It was very hard to create a class for them within the BE parameters - and yes, there is a bias in favor of using a class that to some degree fits a typical profile of a class in your chosen specialism (there kind of has to be - otherwise how can you be assessed at how well the course you've designed fits within the specialism you've chosen?). Although, what this bias does is compartmentalize learners into classes that fit into specialisms that may not reflect them well for reasons that may be arbitrary. (I could see, however, Cambridge parrying this with "a Business English class doesn't fit in the BE specialism simply because it takes place in a business for colleagues and paid for by the company, that class may well be General English despite superficial similarities to Business English", and they wouldn't be wrong).

This gave me, while not real ulcers, definite ulcer-like pains. For the longest time it was unclear whether my class fit the BE profile sufficiently, but I didn't have another class to fall back on.

On the other hand, because my class was so unusual, I had a lot of room to be extremely creative in how I approached it. I had to be: I couldn't do the standard stuff as they didn't want it. I suspect this creativity-by-necessity may have contributed to my getting a Merit on the assignment.

Brendan had the opposite experience: his class fit the exam class mold perfectly. He was far less stressed during the assignment as the needs of the class were clear and well within the parameters of the specialism profile. The path was clear for him and he got to use a product syllabus (as above, it is its own justification!). I chose a process syllabus because it made sense for my class, and had to justify up the wazoo why I didn't choose a product one. He chose a product syllabus because it made sense for his class but at no point had to explain why he didn't choose a process one.

And yet, because his class was so straightforward, it was easy and smart to use well-established, straightforward approaches and materials. There isn't a lot of room for creativity and change when the norm actually works, after all.

So, despite his paper likely being better situated within the Delta Module 3 rubric, it may have actually been harder for him to have achieved a Merit.

We'll never know.

Advice? Try to be creative - if you do it well and justify it, it pays off.

9.) If you think you have enough charts and graphs, you don't.

MOAR GRAPHS

When I did my first diagnostic test result appendix, I was told that for assessing speaking, I did not need to type out transcripts of what was said and then analyze every little grammar, lexical, pronunciation etc. error, that I could mark based on overall impressions and then give some examples of how I came to those impressions. I thought I'd done a pretty good job with that, when I was told it was not sufficient.

In the end I did actually type out transcripts of what was said - although I chose snippets of conversation that exemplified my impressions rather than analyzing the entire 3 hours of spoken discourse, and analyzed those for the above issues. I had been told I did not need to, but I did.

Then I graphed those issues, comparing the number of grammar errors, lexical errors, register errors and pronunciation errors in a pie chart to see which were the most prevalent, separated out for monologues (such as a presentation) and discussion (a group conversation), using the total number of non-target forms to inform my assessment of their overall level.

I originally had maybe 5 or 6 graphs for the spoken part of the diagnostic test. After rejiggering it with the additional analysis, which took an entire working day, I had graphs and charts in the double digits.

And I still only got a Merit, not a Distinction, despite doing more than I was told I would have to do.

You need more graphs.

10.) Advice and guidance for Module 3 generally tell you to set aside a few hours a week for it (I think in the range of 7-10). This is not true. Treat it like a part-time job: 20 hours a week or thereabouts is what you'll need to do well.

Not much to say here. Expect to spend several hours a week and at least one entire weekend day on this, and toward the end expect to devote entire weekends to it.

11.) I definitely recommend taking the three-month online course over the two-week crash course after which you write your paper.

I can't say much about the two-week course - perhaps if it comes with post-course tutor support as you devise your curriculum and write the paper, it won't be so bad. But considering the amount of reading I had to do, and the level of detail of the requirements and how to meet them that I had to understand and apply, I really don't feel two weeks could have done anything other than confuse and terrify me. Doing it over several months means that you don't have to worry too much about the next part of your assignment: you do each one in turn, and breaking it down like that and connecting them as you go makes a complex project easier.

12.) I'm not encouraging you to be a pirate per se, but I just want to point out that you need a lot of books to get a healthy number of citations and have a good number of sources informing your ideas, and if you don't have access to an ELT library at work or school, well...

...I mean, it's not good to pirate intellectual property. But without some form of access, doing this on your own could cost you literally hundreds if not up to a thousand dollars in books, especially if you buy all new. Not a lot of these books are available in e-book format at a discount.

First, try to buy used. Second, save on shipping by having orders consolidated by a friend or relative in a country with cheap shipping, sent to you as one box. Third, pay full price but order from Book Depository where shipping is free around the world, or in Taiwan, Bu Ke Lai which will deliver to a 7-11 near you (Caves also has an extensive ELT offering and is a pleasant walk to the corner of Minzu and Zhongshan Roads from Minquan W. Road MRT, as does Crane which delivers). AbeBooks is also a good resource but hard to use for maximum savings.

If none of those options helps you bring down the cost of books, I'm not telling you to pirate so you definitely should not check out all of the titles available as PDFs online, nor should you seek out help even though there are people out there with PDFs who are willing to help a serious teacher out.

I'm just saying. It's really not right how expensive books can be for some candidates without access, which creates a system of privilege between the haves (British Council teachers?) and the have-nots (freelance Business English trainers?). I discussed this regarding Module 1 reading in a previous post. I don't like such systems, and mum's the word if you decide to tear down some walls. Knowledge shouldn't be something only accessible to those who have enough money to pay for it.

13.) Be ready for some culture shock if you're not British or "close enough" British (like Australian or Kiwi*). Basically if you're American.

Partly the word counts, partly the British English, partly the foreign and somewhat baffling qualification and award system, and partly the way they use language. I don't think Cambridge ESOL intends to come across this way, but something about things like "stronger candidates provided a correct definition" and "weaker candidates had weak arguments" or "candidates are recommended to spell terms correctly" (page 7) just...come across as a bit snobby-posh to Americans, I guess.

Oh, and get used to British indirectness. "You may wish to revisit this" means "this sucks, fix it". "This is a good point that could be improved with further discussion" means "okay, but you're going to have to say more". "Are you sure this is the best strategy?" means "this is a bad strategy". "How does this connect to what you said earlier?" means "Either this doesn't connect to what you said earlier, or I don't see how it does". "I'm not clear on this" means "you were not clear on this". "I'm not sure" means "you are wrong".

Also I'm not sure if this is a culture difference thing but some of the examiner's report comments on Delta modules strike me as odd. For example, the 2011 report for Module 3 says that weaker candidates started with a course in mind and chose the specialism later, letting it act as a kind of title, when it needs to be front-and-center. Which, yeah, you need to keep the specialism in mind at all times, but the only way I could see to avoid that issue would be to choose your specialism and then choose from among a selection of suitable learner groups. And that strikes me as quite a privilege - I wish I'd had that option. But, I only had one reasonable option for my learner group, and if I had to choose Teaching English to Poopydinguses because it was the only specialty that fit my only real choice of group, then consarnit I was going to choose Teaching English to Poopydinguses. Not everyone has the luxury of choosing a specialism first and a course that fits it later.

*JOKING!

Calm down.

14.) At some point you just have to go all "Git 'R Done". 

I reached a point in my paper when I was devising a class that, while mostly good, I knew would in some ways be unacceptable to my learners. They would never want to do the formative assessment I devised, nor would they want to do any sort of homework, for example. They would be far more interested in discussing the media I chose rather than doing any sort of specific language work with it. In most classes you can make them take their medicine, that is, give them what they don't want so they can achieve what they do want. But with my class, they didn't have any specific goals for what they did want other than "speak better English", "be more fluent" and "have fun". The last was a very specific and strongly-stated goal. As such we'd been using Dogme, and it'd been working. Their employer was fine with this - implicitly encouraged it, even! But, I needed language work and other activities in my course plan - filling it with discussion would not have been acceptable as it would have been rather formless. So, I designed activities and language work I knew they would never want to do, and I would never make them do (even though I might make a different class do them).

I kind of felt like, "if I'm supposed to design a course that learners will both be happy with and benefit from, and I have to include these sorts of things, but I know they won't be happy with it, and I would never actually teach it that way despite this being a course tailored to those learners, then why am I doing it at all? What is the point of a course tailor-made to learners to Cambridge's satisfaction that the learners themselves won't want to do?"

My learners knew that I was using them for Module 3, and overtly said that they did not want anything to do with the formative assessment that I was required to design. They said outright to put it in the paper to pass but please never give it to them, or if I devised an observation-based assessment, to never tell them about it as they didn't like the anxiety of being observed that way. I knew I would never deliver the formative assessment as written.

But, you know? Git 'r done. I put it in there and got my Merit. A merit for a great course, tailored to specific students, who would prefer that it not be tailored in quite the way Cambridge expected it to be.

Whatever. Git 'r done.

15.) In the end, it's worth it.

You'll be stressed and full of suppurating ulcers, and you'll start feeling really stabby toward the end, but you gain a lot of insight into what goes into planning a solid course, and practical knowledge of syllabus and curriculum design that would be harder to pick up as quickly or practically in any other way. One thing I can say is that I improved a great deal and that has informed my teaching. That makes all the ulcers worthwhile.