Talk:Teaching English as a second language

[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)

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. Number 57 17:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

---

• Teaching English as a second language → Teaching English as a second or foreign language
• Teaching English as a foreign language → Teaching English as a second or foreign language

– Merge and rename: Same topic, and per WP:NOTDICT and WP:CONTENTFORK, we do not need and should not have two separate articles for the same thing under two slight-variant names. Proposed name will be WP:CONSISTENT with the learner-side equivalent article at English as a second or foreign language, and their home, Category:English as a second or foreign language.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

---

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.

Requested merge: February 2016

• Teaching English as a second language + Teaching English as a foreign language → Teaching English as a second or foreign language
  • Teaching English as a second language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Teaching English as a foreign language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Teaching English as a second or foreign language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Merge Same topic, and per WP:NOTDICT and WP:CONTENTFORK, we do not need and should not have two separate articles for the same thing under two slight-variant names. Proposed name will be WP:CONSISTENT with the learner-side equivalent article at English as a second or foreign language, and their home, Category:English as a second or foreign language.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done Klbrain (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• 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)
  • I think that would effectively constitute a two-way WP:CPM, though I'm open to admin input on that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
• Merge These are the same concepts. However, I am not sure what the name of the article should be. See discussion below. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• 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")! Paine  21:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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 -

• TEFL, teaching English as a foreign language
• ESL, English as a second language
• EAL, English as an additional language
• ELT, English language teaching
• TESOL, teaching English to speakers of other languages
• 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)