This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
education and
education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Teaching English as a second or foreign language#Teaching English as a second language]] The anchor (#Teaching English as a second language) has been
deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
[Untitled]
This article,
Teaching English as a second language (TESL), is brief because it is new. It is important to keep it here because it complements the longer
Teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) article. It is not appropriate to use that longer article to write about this one because they are different although related topics. TEFL and TESL are easy to conflate and doing so should be avoided. The teaching profession uses these two distinct acronyms because these two topics are mutually exclusive -- a teacher will generally be in one or the other situation, not both at once. They are not synonyms. Clarity is served by maintaining distinct articles here. Cheers, --
Roger Chrisman (
talk)
01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Requested move 2 February 2016
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: procedural close. As pointed out, this is more of a merge request than an RM. No reason not to be bold and do the merge. If there are any objections, start an RfC.
Number5717:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Procedural close Requested moves is not for merging article
WP:PM is for that. Further, merging two articles to a new name does not require moving anything, just start a new history at the desired location with a edit summary detailing the former articles being merged there --
70.51.200.135 (
talk)
06:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment if this is merged, I think a new history should be started at the redlink title, with an edit summary indicating the originating articles, and no page move should be performed. The source articles would then just redirect to the new article. --
70.51.200.135 (
talk)
05:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)reply
A merged article involves having history from two or more different source pages, so it is *not* a Cut-and-Paste-Pagemove. The edit histories originate from different pages, so there is no renaming of articles involved, since a merged topic is a new topic. Unlike a subtopic merger, where a major topic and a minor topic are merged together into the major topic, this is effectively a merger of mostly equals, so just start a new history. The new history will not bias the article's edit history favoring one type of education over the other type, showing no bias in the historical versions of the article. --
70.51.46.39 (
talk)
15:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge. When I was in Ethiopia, English teachers used "
TESL techniques" ("TESL" rhymes with "wrestle") in their classes. It's my understanding that "second language" has been deprecated, since for many students English becomes their third, fourth, even fifth or sixth language. This article should be merged into
Teaching English as a foreign language, which keeps that title, and then this title should be redirected to the
TEFL article. Having said that, I am not averse to the usage of the new, red-linked article title herein proposed. After much thought, the merge should definitely take place from "second" to "foreign" language; however, I do not support a page move nor a merge to the red-linked title that contains both "second" and "foreign" together –
TEFL is enough – in the vast majority of cases, "second" is redundant to "foreign". OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")!Paine21:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Any additional comments:
I do not know what the name of the merged article should be. At first look, and unless anyone has supporting evidence otherwise, I think that I favor "English as an additional language" because this term seems to be supported by respectable nonprofit organizations including the
British Council and because it seems to be less used by less reputable for-profit schools.
This is a great educational concept but there are a lot of sketchy industries around this field of study. The name for the concept seems to be fought over by for-profit schools selling classes and certifications. I worry that if this Wikipedia article has the wrong name, then less worthy interests might be supported and the term that is most internationally respected might be de-emphasized. I regret to say that I cannot make a good judgement about what the best term is. Here are some names that I see used -
preparing students for
TOEFL, "test of English as a foreign language"
To some extent, all of these terms are used as marketing terms. Each term seems to be promoted by its own collective of dubious online schools which promise quick and high paying jobs after paying for their classes. All of these names get significant numbers of Google hits. I do not know which term has the most legitimate academic and social backing, and which ones are most promoted by companies more interested in getting money for themselves than in providing good value and education to their students.
Blue Rasberry (talk)01:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)reply