I'm not sure when the expression "talk and chalk" first came into use or who originally coined the phrase, but I first came across it when reading Martin Wolff's paper on "Holistic English." (Paper URL: http://www.usingenglish.com/esl-in-china/holistic-english-1.pdf)

Although his work, a culmination of five years of research and teaching in China, is geared more toward a new approach for teaching Oral English in China, I've found it useful to keep in mind in terms of other subjects in the EFL environment as well. I didn't, however, mean to imply that the old talk and chalk method doesn't have its uses. But, clearly, when we look at the level of English possessed by English major graduates in China, we have to start asking some serious questions about the efficacy of old methods and should hope that FTs in China will make an effort to move past some of those methods - despite the recalcitrance of administrators and school owners.

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment regarding the need to get our students beyond the surface. I've often discussed with my students the need for them to become students "of the language;" that is, not just students learning the language. For example, this year, in my reading classes, I urged them to look more closely at Greek and Latin affixes as a means of improving their lexical base without always having to stick their noses in their translators, which only detracts from their reading enjoyment and, therefore, defeats the whole purpose. Many of them were shocked when they realized how helpful it was to learn more than the very minimum they had been taught in middle or senior school, such as adding "al" or "ion" to a word and how that changed its grammatical usage. I've also tried to make them aware that they need to move beyond the expectation of a teacher spending hours and hours throughout the term simply writing vocabulary words on the board and explaining and/or acting out the definitions. Using context and being students of the language would be far more beneficial to them, and they're beginning to understand that. I've also found it helpful to make sure they have a clear understanding of frequency words which account for a huge bulk of written material and to take pride in the fact that they know far more words then they may realize they know because they're constantly getting bogged down by the introduction of advanced vocabulary in textbooks that are way beyond the level of comprehensible input, or I + 1. (Krashen: Comprehensible Input plus one step higher.)

Beyond all that, though, I think we've all had our moments of disbelief in China in terms of how difficult it is for our students, and their Chinese teachers for that matter, to think outside the box. In fact, before coming here nearly six years ago, I attended a seminar about teaching in China and this problem of there being an absence of critical thinking skills was the essence of the seminar. When I notice something that indicates a student is moving in the direction of being more of a critical thinker I'm nearly overwhelmed with joy. Not because I've managed to somehow contribute to it but because for some reason the light finally came on through no help from me except perhaps encouragement coupled with something that demonstrates that there is often a solution to a problem that doesn't always immediately present itself.

Well, sorry, this post seems to be wandering all over the place. I'd better have that second cup of coffee and get on to marking final exams. Yuk.

You're quite right; those who would be screeners are would be screeners. Seriously, though, I think it's safe to say that a little more discretion would go a long way. It's not that they're incapable of making informed decisions, it's simply that they don't care enough to give it the necessary attention. As long as they've got a reasonable facsimile of an FT in front of the class, that's all that really matters to them. If there are problems that arise, they will or will not deal with them later. More often than not it's about damage control rather than doing what's best for the students in the first place.

You're also quite right about textbooks. Yes, they are almost always too advanced; moreover, since they are rarely edited or proofread properly, there are numerous mistakes in them. Also, there is a huge need for more authentic material in Chinese classrooms. My guess, though, is that those who make the decisions regarding what textbooks to purchase are getting lucrative kick backs on the books they choose. Hard to get past that kind of corruption. Of course, they will rarely ask advice from FTs about material selection. I guess that would mean admitting that they're not capable of making those decisions without the assistance of a foreign teacher. Can't have that, can we?

Then of course there's curriculum development. What could a well trained, experienced FT know about that? Not much I guess. I was, however, allowed to pilot a course of study last year that went over very well with the students. By the time the second term rolled around, though, I ended up having to teach all 15 classes myself because the two other teachers who had been teaching it with me felt unqualified to do so. Sadly, they wouldn't put in what little effort would have been required for them to be effective and threatened to quit if they were made to continue teaching that subject. This year, the students were hoping to continue with the same course of study; however, the Dean shot it down because he was afraid there would be a repeat of teachers refusing to teach it after they found out it wouldn't be the standard "talk and chalk" teaching that virtually anyone with a degree of any kind can pull off with a little practice.

Yes, maybe next year at the new job, things will be a little better. In fact, the Dean there has already assured me that I can get involved with some projects that interest me and that I feel would be beneficial to the students. However, you're right, the Chinese are great at saying yes. That often means they want to think about it more or they would rather not say no with the hope that the subject won't come up again. Of course if you call them out on that, the reply is usually that you don't understand Chinese culture - or something like that.

Yes, Mr. Sun has pointed to a glaring problem that needs to be addressed. Where I'm currently employed, a college that is growing rapidly, I've seen the number of Foreign "teachers" jump from 9 to 25 in only three years. The year before I came on board there were only three. A few years back, when I still had the Dean's ear (I don't anymore because of my outspoken advocacy for the rights and well being of our students), I tried to get him to explain how he chose teachers for particular assignments. I never got far with that discussion, no matter how diplomatically I approached it, so I would leave the office convinced that he made use of the "dart board method;" that is, I felt he must be putting the names of teachers on a dart board and then choosing a class from a hat full of class names and then closing his eyes and throwing the dart at the board. In other words, it seemed quite random.

Last year, the Dean began asking returning teachers what they wanted to teach and in some cases asked the new teachers. Some teachers who said they didn't want to teach writing ended up teaching writing, and some who said they wanted to teach writing ended up not teaching writing. It would seem, then, that he was just being polite and in fact got so much enjoyment out of his dartboard method that he couldn't change.

At the beginning of this term a new Associate Dean was hired. Since her office was right next to mine, I popped in on occasion to welcome her and to get an idea of what her duties would be. After she'd been there for a few weeks, I finally asked her outright what her specific duties were. She stated that from now on she would be in charge of the foreign teachers. Seizing the opportunity to revisit the issue of who was teaching what and why, I asked her if she had looked at resumes and CVs. She replied that she hadn't had time to do so. I left her office wondering what she had had time to do.

Clearly, Mr Sun has hit the nail on the head. A screening process is needed. A screening process, that is, that not only addresses the suitability of a teacher beyond the fact that they can walk upright...lol..... but also how they would be best utilized as teachers. A quick read of resumes and CVs would help, but obviously a more in depth interview process is needed also; one that would at least allow for an educated guess as to where a teacher should be placed. Of course, we have to also look at the problem of administrators often being ill suited for their jobs. For example, is the Dean of our college actually qualified for the position? I would say no. He refuses to listen to the complaints of students when a teacher is obviously misplaced. Examples: Writing teachers that couldn't write their way out of a paper bag and who spend their time in the classroom pleased with the sound of their own voice as they lecture on and on and rarely give the students the opportunity to write and have their writing evaluated. Communication teachers who make their students write despite their pleas for a more communicative approach. Americans with totally unrelated degrees teaching British Literature. Brits teaching American culture.

What the hell is going on? These, by the way, are only a few examples, and it should be noted that out of this staff of 25 teachers only about five of us have had prior teaching experience in our home countries and in China. Only two of us have had specific training related to second and/or foreign language acquisition. Many of these teachers are still hung up on the old "talk and chalk" method. Few of them are interested in perfecting their craft. Most just put in their time.

Lately I've been feeling the guilt by association syndrome, so I've decided to move on. Next year I'll be at a different college at this same university. They have a reputation based on their professionalism; moreover, they staff only five FTs and have a rigid screening process. They seem content with keeping their enrollment at a certain level and are known for addressing the needs of students. This doesn't mean they're perfect. I'm sure I'll find problems with them and they'll find some deficiencies with me as well, but at least we will all be doing our best to serve the students.

I guess I need to add that since this is mostly about Mr. Sun's assertions I have written little about the glaring problems on the Chinese side. Lest I be accused of being an FT basher, I better add that I'm well aware of the many problems associated with the Chinese side. However, as this industry is growing extremely fast and because their is no shortage of foreigners applying for positions as teachers, the need to develop a more serious screening process is a good starting point.

So,what's wrong with the standard contract?Surely that should be the starting point.I've no complaints about it.I think it's fair to FT's.
It doesn't need a clause relating to probation specifically.After all,it's the same as continuous probation!And if there were a probationary period,that wouldn't preclude dismissal thereafter either.
When Chinese employers become reputable,they'll attract better quality jobseekers,so needn't employ the 'bottom of the barrel' as a last resort.The buck starts with them!

This is not your homeland. We can discuss the variables of contracts in our home countries if you'd like, but I'm not particularly interested in that. This is China. Topsy, turvy China where the unexpected is the norm. A probationary clause can work both ways if you negotiate it as such. Been there, done that. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

You seem to have a particular zest for argumentation. What's that all about? Getting a bit cantankerous as the years go sailing by? Or are you just stuck in the doldrums and feeling a bit of anxiety? Just kidding...............lighten up dude.

Yes; as I understand it, middle schools, to get around that problem, generally use the license of local universities in order to hire foreign teachers.

As for streamlining the system, I'm not sure what the scholar you mentioned means by ending the practice of grouping all overseas teachers together. Could you explain that a little further, please?

Balk or baulk: The word can be spelled either way; however, "balk" is more common in America.

When the purpose of the probationary period is to reduce salary for a certain amount of time, I also find it unacceptable. If, however, it is there to determine suitability, I have no problem with that. In addition, a probationary period can work to the advantage of the employee; if he/she finds that the job is not what they anticipated, they can then opt out and move on without consequence or complication.

I suppose that some FTs consider it as just one more annoyance, especially since it can be argued that those who make the determination of suitability are rarely qualified to do so. Fair enough, but I think what they're looking for in most cases is not one's skill as a teacher; that is, they are more concerned with conduct that may or not be appropriate in the particular classroom environment in which they are placed. For example, I can't imagine that I would be suitably placed as a teacher of young children. I'm not all that patient with children. Nevertheless, I may be interested in giving it a try because of the lure of a higher salary or perhaps the desire to work in a certain city - or whatever. In that situation, I think it quite fair that we, the school and I, are both protected by such a clause.

Great posts from Raoul!

On the flip side of that, though, it has caused them to hesitate or baulk altogether at the idea of firing a teacher who has proven himself or herself to be totally inappropriate. The probationary clause helps that problem, but, all too often, situations arise after the probationary period has expired.

I've only had contracts with clauses re a probationary period offered to me by two potential employers out of a total of 30 in 15 years here in China.And one of the two was a recruiter,trying to reduce my salary for the first two months of my employment.!I'm strongly opposed to such a clause,and I'm not alone!Wily employers will use it to pay less salary during probation.Suggesting the erosion of the employment conditions of your fellow FT's here will certainly not endear you to many of them,that's for sure.Indeed,some will say you are a Chinese,and I wouldn't blame them for saying so.Click on the link below to view the standard teaching contract in both languages.Its conditions do not include probationary periods.Said contract is the one that is used very often by public sector educational establishments employing FT's,and long may that continue.Maybe 50% of private schools use it too.I've worked for two private schools that offered said contract.
http://www.eslteachersboard.com/cgi-bin/forum/index.pl?read=55160

Yep,whatever Raoul Duke may be,one things for sure;he is someone who ain't no grovelling weasel, and therefore deserves respect.
In my opinion,too many louwai in China are unlike him in the sense that they willingly go with the flow here,as do their subserviant fellow Chinese employees,thus compromising those louwai who didn't come here to be people pleasers and smile while being cheated by their unscrupulous Chinese employers.

Thanks, JN.

Responses actually varied quite a bit.
But I think you're assuming a different approach than I actually took in many cases; maybe my own phrasing helped that. The real point of the old "John Wayne toilet paper" line is in the not taking crap off of anyone.

You don't begin the process by screaming and threatening and pounding your shoe on the table. You begin by holding civil meetings and smiling a lot and quietly presenting a case based upon facts, reason, and your contract....but sticking to your guns, and yes, not taking any crap off of anyone.

This actually worked pretty well in most cases. Chinese employers are accustomed to Chinese employees, and the near-dictatorial hold the employers have over them. The employers will try to bluff through a lot of nonsense, on the assumption that the employee will simply lower their head and submit to whatever the boss wants, the way Chinese employees all too often do. When they see that a foreign employee is going to resist, and they are confronted- civilly- with the fact that they have absolutely no basis for the ripoff they're trying to pull, in many cases the employer will back down and cancel the unfair changes they tried to foist on you. Sure, this doesn't exactly endear you to the employer, because you've denied them the unfair and unearned advantage they were trying to steal from you, but it is at least still possible to work together.

In one or two cases this approach didn't work, and I in fact DID go Khrushchev on them; this generally culminated in my showing them the clauses of my contract that had been violated, declaring the contract void, and resigning. Sure, I had to find a new job- which in China can often take well over 15 minutes- but I felt a helluva lot better. ;-{) And Mr. big important school-owner mans was left with a gaping hole in his teaching staff, and egg all over his face.

The point I really wanted to make is that sure, there are some adjustments we have to make when working in China...but under no circumstances should we ever allow ourselves to get ripped off, thinking it's just the local system. NO job on earth is worth our taking abuse, and there are generally so many unfilled jobs out there that moving on is usually quite feasible for us. Chinese employers pull their little scams because, usually, they WORK...and foreign teachers who go along with them are part of the problem, not part of the solution. They help preserve and perpetuate a system that's rotten to its very core.

If the message ever gets out that NO foreign teachers are going to play these little games and let the owners/managers abuse them and steal from them, and that the old tactics no longer work, you're going to see China changing so fast it'll make your head spin.

So saddle up, Pilgrim...

Actually, this post makes all the sense in the world. (Although I think Calvin was usually much more selfish than Hobbes... ;-{) )

If you're able to come to China and be prepared to see your contract used as toilet paper, your pay being unthinkably low and your hours unthinkably long because Mr. big important school-owner mans makes more profit from you that way, your end-of-contract bonuses withheld because the owner decided he'd rather keep the money himself, your vital visa/residence documents you were promised never delivered, your being foisted into all sorts of non-contractual activities on little or no notice because the school benefits from having your foreign face around, your apartment being an unlivable dump, your classrooms totally unmanageable while you have no power to discipline a student, your grades changed around to fit the management's bribe- and relationship-structures, and other fun and games some schools can pull on you, and just smile and roll with the flow and tell yourself this is just the Chinese way, then you're going to get along just great. The Chinese school owners will just LOVE you, that much is for sure.

I guess I was never sufficiently broad-minded. I was stuck in the rut of thinking that if a Chinese school gives you a fair shake, as many do, you work hard and be a good employee for them and praise them every chance you get. But if the school tries to pull a ripoff that ANY culture- including the Chinese- KNOW is unconscionable, as many more do, you resist it with every fiber of your being, and you scream bloody murder to the authorities and the TEFL media. I'm not talking about some wanker who got fired for being drunk in class and has an axe to grind, I'm talking about the many genuine abuses that still happen within this system on a frequent basis.

Of course, your laoban or waiban, whom you should indeed make every reasonable attempt to get along with, really likes it when we silently swallow whatever crap they choose to throw our way, and then quietly go our merry way when the contract is over. That way, you see, they have no pressure to change their nefarious but profitable practices...and so, of course, they never will change them.

Sadly, I don't play along with this. China turned meek little me into "John Wayne toilet paper": I'm rough and I'm tough and I don't take crap off of anybody...and if China doesn't like it, they can kiss my...well, YOU know. ;-{)

Raoul