MY DIGITAL BOOK DESCRIBING A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE WHICH SPANS ALMOST 25 YEARS AND EXPANDED INTO AN ACADEMIC STORY OF MY RESEARCH DUE TO A VARIETY NEW INFORMATION REVEALED DUE TO THE FIRST PUBLISHING.
AT THE TIME I WAS WILLING TO PLACE MY LIFE ON THE LINE TO ACHIEVE JUSTICE
JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS PUBLISHED BOOKS IN NO WAY MAKES THEM A DECENT HUMAN BEING.
SINCE FIRST PUBLISHING THE WEBSITE, THE UNIT MANAGER IN THE STORY, ASKED ME TO CONTACT HIM. THIS RESULTED IN AN EXTENSIVE EXCHANGE OF EMAILS WHICH HAVE NOW BEEN ADDED TO THE SITE. PLUS ANOTHER INTERESTING INTERACTION WHICH IS A FINE EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE ACTING WITHOUT ANY BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE CAPABLE OF MAKING ANY LOGICAL DECISIONS.
HAVING REFLECTED ON WHAT WAS SAID I HAVE DECIDED TO ALSO ADD MY OWN RESEARCH AND IDEAS ON EFL TEACHING. I DO THIS TO BLOW MY OWN TRUMPET IN RELATION TO DELLAR AND WALKLEY WHO HAVE PRODUCED NOTHING OF THEIR OWN, COPYING OTHER PEOPLE'S CONCEPTS ON LANGUAGE TEACHING ADDING NOTHING NEW. THEIR CONTRIBUTION BEING WHAT TO TEACH AS OPPOSED TO HOW WE LEARN, THE CRUX OF THEIR CRITIQUE OF MYSELF AS OUTLINED IN THE STORY, LET ALONE THEM PRODUCING ANY UNIQUE IDEAS ON LANGUAGE.
MY CREDENTIALS WHICH I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE ARE ALSO FAIRLY UNIQUE IN EFL.
ON WITH THE STORY
I wish to make clear this is not a criticism of the University of Westminster and its upper management, although I believe there was a certain level of naivety. They could only respond to the lies and distortions presented to them by the EFL Unit management team which was influenced by the personal relationships involved and professional arrogance of certain lecturers as outlined in this history. A case of academic power play based on published writings and personal loyalties.
One has to wonder how senior managers ignored the clear written evidence available to them at a University, an environment supposed to be about scientific study seeking Factual Reality in favour of personal prejudicial Emotional Realities.
Luckily a new Vice Chancellor came in and in the end I was paid a substantial sum of taxpayers money. A sum which if the full truth had been known, if the upper management had properly analysed the situation fully without relying solely on the EFL management and Dellar and Walkley there would not have been the need to be paid and the unit would possibly still be in existence. If Hugh Dellar and his clique were as brilliant as he makes himself to out to be, the EFL unit would have survived like it had through many trying times we had had in the 20 years I was there through the professional respect and the working cooperation attitude of the staff. A very important aspect which clearly shows the lack of management oversight is that the Language Laboratory system which had run successfully for over 12 years with very positive responses from students, (both term feedback and surveys carried out by myself, available for scrutiny, sadly ignored,) was closed down without consulting or debate with all the staff, (over 18) due solely pressure from a small clique of teachers numbering about 5 or 6 led by Dellar and Walkley. The EFL unit is no longer in existence!
This is also a case study in Emotional Reality Vs Factual Reality. The saga of Dellar and Walkley and irrational emotionally driven arrogant bullying at the University of Westminster, where I worked for 20 Years An academic analysis of bullying in academia and associated social exclusion. This story commences, as do so many stories in our working lives, a long serving manager retires and a new young manager is appointed who brings in their own little clique of young practitioners who think they know better than anyone else. Experience way, way behind theoretical analytical thought processing and thriving on whatever new terminology which caught their inexperienced minds. A harsh analysis which can be backed by clear evidence.
In this particular case it was all about the value of Language Laboratories in the teaching of a foreign language, an academic setting where one would expect respectful debate since Language Laboratories have been used from way back in the 1960’s. Also, I believe there was a certain level of distaste for team teaching, a unique aspect of the University and an arrogance towards an older generation of lecturers.
The thoughts of Brita Haycraft, the founder of International House a leading global organisation in the world of English Language teaching, from their historical records: “The language laboratory was a massive beast requiring a large room with 15 booths and Alan instructed Anwi Buckingham in its mechanisms who then lead each new litter of teachers, teacher trainees and trainees into its mysteries for years to come. It was a totally absorbing lab hour for students once or twice a week, and lang labs would be established in every new IH school to come: Rome, Algiers, Paris, Barcelona, Cairo, etc., always following Anwi’s lab discipline and continued by Sheila Sullivan in Piccadilly with affiliates worldwide dependent on her wisdom, assisted by the whole team of teachers taking turns in the lab. This self-correcting with a tape recorder is probably the fastest route to mastering a new language and, as I saw in Tbilisi in 1989, used by the Soviets to train their simultaneous interpreters and secret operators – most effectively”. I actually worked with both Anwi Buckingham and Sheila Sullivan when I worked at International House and was also at the forefront of video use, possibly the first teacher in the world to video a class play and using it to stimulate memory.
The EFL unit at the University had been using team teaching for decades and the five lower classes would have a 40-minute session in the LL once a week since it was felt the more advanced classes had passed the need for ear training and concentrated self language analysis. For some unknown academic reason, the certain members of the new intake of teachers objected to this system believing, it seems, there was also a system of rote teaching taking place in the LL without any evidence whatsoever to support their Emotional belief, since at no time had anyone observed a lesson until the fateful session in 2001. How do I know this, because a senior manager with no contact with the EFL unit told me that rote teaching was no longer a teaching technique. Where did she glean this information regarding me? Where did anyone obtain the information since no manager or teacher had ever observed my teaching outside or inside the LL, other than the session in 2001, sitting at the console of the Language Laboratory where the students were working on a language exercise at their own pace.
The LL had also been updated by myself to run a computer system where I used the Reward Course CDs with videos and LL sessions with visual aids showing intonation patterns, a unique feature. None of this was discussed at any time in any decision on the value of Language Laboratories, in fact there was not a single session where all teachers of the EFL unit were present to discuss the use of the LL or the updated computer system being utilised to help students to both learn new vocabulary and analyse sounds and grammar forms whilst discovering their sound comprehension and pronounciation problems particularly with an emphasis on all the contracted forms which occur in all languages when we are s;peaking at normal speed.
Eventually in an effort to educate people on how LL lessons can be very productive in the language learning process, the LL teacher, myself, in charge of this process, someone who had been specialising in the process for over almost 30 years and as in other schools a specialist as opposed to individual teachers having to learn the technical details of using a complex electronic process, suggested people came in to learn the modern materials developed in this learning process, which was agreed with the manager of the unit. It was a learning process for the teachers.
However, a couple of teachers whose names are the subject of this story believed that they knew better than anyone else how to teach people to learn another language and believed they were going into the LL to observe and give their considered opinion on the teaching ability of Russell Crew-Gee, bearing in mind they had spent little or no time ever using a LL. It also seems that they had also come to a conclusion on the professional competence of the Language Laboratory teacher in charge, without ever observing him teaching. Dellar’s first lie, believing he was qualified to observe and comment on the lesson. In fact, all the teachers of the 5 classes visiting the LL were asked to attend a training, and familiarisation session. The 5 teachers were attending a training session, 3 of whom asked a variety of questions whilst 2 asked not a single question. Bearing in mind Russell had been teaching for 29 years at International House, London, University of Westminster, in London and at schools abroad as a Director of Studies and teacher, as opposed to the 10 years Dellar and Walkley had been teaching.
The above is the lie Dellar later promoted as to the reason for the meeting, making out he was somehow superior to other teachers and was being used to comment on my teaching ability. A perfect example of how Dellar resorts to lying again and again. As shown by this second lie, since before this meeting Russell had never once complained about them or any other teacher nor is it in his nature to be confrontational unless in defense of an attack upon him, an aspect of most people's characters. He FIRST used the complaints system after his teaching and character had been attacked by them in the meeting defined below. This Dellar comment was also written at least 4 years after he had complained about the personal attack on his competence in this meeting and Dellar and Walkley had sent him to Coventry refusing to even say "Good Morning" to him to signify whenever they could their contempt for him.. The reality of the meeting was nothing to do with commenting on Russell’s class as clearly shown by the minutes of the meeting. The meeting was about how best to utilise a Language Laboratory if we were starting from scratch however it descended into an attack on the professional competence of the LL teacher. The teachers attending were all teachers who had been asked to observe how computer programs were be used to help students achieve a student centered learning process. Teachers education on the use of technology.
So, what exactly did Dellar observe? He sat at the main console with a headset on listening to his students doing a listening comprehension, recording and writing exercise. He did not ask a single question on what happened in the LL. Below are the minutes of the meeting which resulted in me being sent to Coventry socially for my remaining 5 years at the University and subjected to a number of lies and contrived complaints as seen above. The friction arose from my complaint to management that their comments at the meeting were a very personal and direct attack on my teaching abilities. To this day I do not know why Dellar and Walkley took such a personal dislike of myself and their determination to discredit me in whatever way they could. Reminiscent of gangs of children picking on other children to enhance their feelings of power over others possibly!
As we can see from the minutes, which I would point out are not a very clear report of how the meeting progressed, was not about commenting on Russell Crew-Gee’s teaching it was about the role of a Language Laboratory within a language teaching environment.
Any independent reading of these minutes would conclude that other than Caroline who described what happened in the vast majority of schools which used LL, the meeting descended into a critique of Russell’s ability to run the LL and his actual ability to teach, note the negative language associated with his contribution to the meeting by one of the new managers. There was no venom in my response, resignation was my tone throughout. It was not just the Summer school where students were handed over to a dedicated LL teacher, this was the same process throughout the year, Russell being the teacher for all sessions, as clearly outlined by Dellar. An example of the numerous inconsistencies in the minutes.
The minutes also do not reflect what actually occurred, they are very truncated to say the least. They miss out the fact that Andrew’s challenge of Russell was saying that the students had come to him after the class and complained they had not understood something Russell had taught. Strangely something which he had been teaching for years and which he then demonstrated on the white board at the meeting. It was also highly unlikely the students had gone to Walkley after the class because he was teaching about ten minutes away in another building that day. He changed this story to a female student coming to him the following day, and then he changes the story to make out he was talking about something Russell had brought up before he left the meeting or something which is not very clear.
Just by chance Russell saw this email on a manager’s computer sometime later which the manager had failed to disclose in the complaint Russell raised as a result of the personal attack he felt was directed at him by Dellar and Walkley at the meeting. Conspiracy? Caroline, the only truly independent person in the meeting, testified that the meeting became personal although this was rejected by senior management.
The Walkley email changing his story, which he changed 3 times in total:
He mentions here that the students did not understand the whole meaning of the sentence. Not correct, a single contracted grammar word was the problem because the students wrote down all the words they could understand and were confused by the concept of the sun going in. A further confusion occurs when a student thinks "son". A problem, easily explained through visuals on the white board, the sun plus a cloud, a problem which students had struggled with, every time this published exercise had been used over many, many years, and specifically chosen due to these vocabulary and pronunciation problems. We can see precisely the problem the student had since they underline it in the feedback report, see the first student in the feedback reports from level 3, second group in the student feedback survey towards the end of this story. Walkley eventually changed this to one student asking him. How can the situation have three different explanations? As every policeman will tell us, someone who changes a story cannot be relating reality since there is only one reality if we are recounting a Factual Reality. This problem with particular contracted forms had been a perenial problem year after year and class after class. the experience of many years. guarantee it is still a major problem for learners of any language.
Also Dellar says it's revision and Walkley is saying students didn't understand the whole meaning of the sentence. A complete contradiction particularly since the process is both a revision and learning environment which they would have understood if they were not so intent on belittling Russell on his teaching ability and knowledge of EFL. Plus what is wrong with revision, it is the fundamental process of learning, repetition, particularly when it is also introducing new concepts.
Do they not do any revision in their choice of activity in any teaching session? Who are they to challenge Russell's right as a teacher to chose the language of any session as a highly experienced teacher?
One student had a similar problem in Dellar’s class as seen in the example below, a phonics problem, the pronunciation of phonic sounds in combination. Actually, a problem students have, in fact all of us have, when learning a foreign language is the contracted forms of grammar words, something which Dellar blew a raspberry at when I pointed it out at the meeting. Well, here is a perfect example in a student’s own interpretation of what they heard, something which I had come to learn over the years of using a language laboratory in order to understand the listening problems we have. It is in fact the exercise Dellar’s students had. Dellar also lied because at no time did I ever persuade students their pronunciation was bad, except obviously in cases where an individual actually had poor pronunciation which interfered with their ability to make themselves understood, which is precisely the role of a teacher to point out if a student’s pronunciation is incomprehensible, is this not the role of a teacher who is being paid for face to face lessons? In this particular class there were no students whose pronunciation was incomprehensible. What Dellar mixed up was a student’s inability to understand the pronunciation of particular contracted combinations of grammar vocabulary, something I had observed at all levels up to Upper Intermediate over the years of analysis of students written reproductions of what they thought they heard in the LL exercises. Something which cannot be acheived in a classroom. Dellar is fond of distorting Factual Reality to suit his Emotional Reality. This is confirmed by his student’s own written evidence. Also Dellar did not consult with the students since it would have been lunch time when they were free and they would not be meeting up with him to discuss this single class since they had been attending LL classes for many weeks by then and if they were not happy they would have expressed their displeasure by the time this particular session took place. Dellar is very happy to create his Emotional Realities to suit whatever scenario he is using to pursue his self-aggrandisement. Written evidence makes this quite clear. See a photocopy of one student’s written work, showing the problems that contracted grammar forms pose for learners of foreign languages. I only provided guidance in dealing with this problem, by taking the student back to the point of the comprehension error and asking them to listen to the sound only, not guess at the meaning and try to just concentrate on the sound only and repeat it. I would love to learn what inspired Dellar to believe I was an incompetent teacher from this process and I was belittling the students, a process I had been doing for years with never a complaint, only thanks for guiding the student away from guessing to copying sound. Ear training, aural comprehension. Dellar a man consumed by prejudice? Clear example of an intermediate student having a problem understanding what one would expect to be simple grammar, “does” instead of “There’s”. An analytical process because the student is working by themself and the teacher can discover precisely the listening problems students are having when proper techniques are used to teach or revise structures in a self-learning process, no better process of learning. This according to Dellar and Walkley is an impossibility, unable to accept the evidence of their own eyes. A thought which has constantly entered my thoughts, is maybe they think it is a reflection on their teaching which concerns them.
It is irrational as a language teacher to refuse to believe a student could confuse /dz/ and /ðz/. In fact it is irrational for any teacher to ignore a mistake a student has displayed in their own words.
At this point I am going to bring this up to date because on the 17th April 2024 I attended the IATEFL Brighton 2024 conference where I attended a talk by Hugh Dellar. His talk was about 'listening' which is of particular interest to myself because having been a promoter of Language Laboratories throuhout my 40 years of teaching English, listening and understanding human sounds has been a driving force in our ability to learn how to speak a foreign langauge.I placed myself at the very front, in a place which i believe he actually recognised me. I obviously cannot be 100% sure however during his talk at one point whilst talking about about contractive forms in language and the problems we all have , terminology which he did not use, he painted a caracture picture of a some kind of authoritarian language laboritory teacher who was encouaging students to capure the exact sounds they were hearing. he then said he was present and a Chinese student of his was having problems with a sound combination he had captured which according to the student's interpretation was "tyre not". Instead of presenting this as a golden opportunity to explain to a student that like in many languages some sounds can be more than one interpretation he belittled the process of striving to capture exactly the sound the student was hearing in order to seek the words being used. A postive teaching process can occur where the teacher says, " Yes that is an interpretation however it does not make sense, can you think of other words which might be being used, for example there might be two words not one in 'tyre'. Try splitting it into two and what do you get" CERTAINLY WORDS DELLAR DID NOT USE. The picture he painted was like that which I have painted here, a negative image, he was unable to present the positive process by which the ability to faithfully hear and reproduce a sound in a foriegn language, the art of being able to speak a language whereby he was unable to utilise it to TEACH or EXPLAIN how to learn. Also the "tie a knot" example was not in the exercise he heard whist with me. Strange it was a Chinese student like the exercise above. Was he painting all LL teachers as teachers who belittle their sudents, because it certainly wasn't my class? How often do we all confuse one sound for one word when in fact it is another which can only be clarified by the structure of the combination of sounds. For someone presenting a talk on how to help the listening and understanding process in learing English he failed miserably on this occasion. I have a strong impression he was having a dig at me and as usual lied yet again as he has done throughout the saga created by him and Walkley.
Further to this was the response from three members of the National Geographic who treated me with distain, and telling me they would not be interested in publishing my research, Emolinguistics, because, and this is super amusing, I had during our conversation interupted one of them while she was speaking, a perfectly normal process in the multitude of conversations we have as human beings, if something is said which we believe to be contrary to Factual Reality and therefore this proved I did not have a character which they would be happy to work with!!!!!!!
Back to the process of ENCOURAGING students to repeat the sound they hear and try not to guess at a sound which they are not sure about, which we can all do when we hear a sound we are confused by, is the demeaning process Dellar accused me of. The reason the two, Dellar and Walkley interpret it this way is, I presume, is their Emotional belief Language Laboratories do not help us to learn foreign languages or is it because Russell Crew-Gee advises or reminds students of this process. Who knows their motivation!
Further to this, the above exercise is a published exercise, not one I wrote, and had used over many years particularly if working in with the class teacher when they are using this structure during the week., The student was practising, a listening comprehension, speaking, and writing exercise, with teacher help and analysis to correct any mistakes. An exercise of a conditional construction. Compare this with Hugh Dellar’s One minute English on YouTube where all he is doing is explaining a particular language form which he employs advanced language to explain, which means a learner at this level ought to be able to find out the meaning of it through a simple Google search these days or consult a learner’s dictionary. What is so special about his One Minute English? Google ‘One minute English’, he is far from being the only one posting YouTube videos using this title, check out Google, so nothing special.
Google, Language Laboratory apps or similar terms and there is a whole new world which employs all the language skills required to learn a language, listening, understanding, speaking and practising. Far superior to just listening to a person speaking/explaining the meaning of a phrase or lexical phrase and in most cases a single example of usage when there are many contexts of usage, plus no reference to the emotional impact on a listener .
Getting back to the past, after all the teachers had been in to observe their classes I gave a questionnaire to all the students in each level and the below are students ideas on whether they can learn a language in a Language Laboratory in anticipation of the negative responses from Dellar and Walkley, since beforehand, there had been some evidence to suppose there was going to be dissent. The responses are all an average of what all the students wrote. As seen in the minutes above, I asked that they were shown to all members of staff although they never were. The students’ comments are in direct contrast to Dellar and Walkley’s comments. Bearing mind also they had spent little or no time in a LL in their career, in comparison to someone who had spent hundreds of hours using and developing the best learning techniques to utilise in a Language Laboratory. As I recall it was at the point where I was going to read a sample of the student’s comments that Dellar and Walkley walked out. Dellar lied when he said students had been convinced their pronunciation was bad. I had definitely made no mention to the class their pronunciation was poor, I had no need to and this was not the first LL session the students had had and their written evidence, see below, is at odds with his statement he had conversations with the students after the class, which as already mentioned, is highly doubtful since he left at the coffee break and would not have seen the students until the following day.
My evidence is based on not only my 30 odd years of experience teaching thousands of students, commencing at International House in London and based on student surveys carried out on more than one occasion. One a survey, on all aspects of learning techniques in the classroom, carried out on students at all levels at the University of Westminster, and overseen by another lecturer, put the Language laboratory in the top three techniques most helpful in learning. A form of questions in a survey which I believe had never been carried out before.
As a result of this personal attack on my professional competence I made a formal complaint, since it was implying I was consistently belittling students, (note how this word has been placed in inverted commas) and as a result of this Dellar and Walkley sent me to social Coventry, an act of bullying and an act of disgraceful academic ignorance. Due to their relationship with the new management they managed to persuade senior management that my complaint had no substance, contrary to Caroline’s evidence. The minutes of the meeting and the students evidence make a mockery of this interpretation plus their unprofessional behaviour towards me and the independent teacher’s evidence. Our personal feelings towards our work mates need at all times need be suppressed in the interests of professional harmony and best practise and, at the very least, acknowledging normal social greetings is vital for the mental health of all employees particularly if the process is being used to intimidate another employee. Their actions sanctioned by management are the worst form of employee bullying, letting a colleague know day after day they have no respect for them whatsoever is bullying on a par with the worst forms of abuse at work.
The following is an example of Dellar’s arrogance towards people who he feels are beneath him. The last person I would ever wish to kowtow to. If I was to identify a feeling towards him it would be pity since he is way too full of his own importance as shown quite emphatically in the following quote from just one of his gaslighting explanations in attempting to belittle genuine complaints of his deliberate distortions of Factual Reality. Furthermore, other than knowing about his coursebook, which having read it, was not a book which I would use. I also was not aware of his DELTA or MA TESOL qualifications.
Not blowing his trumpet, then please explain to me what other interpretation could be placed upon his listing of what he considers to be overwhelming evidence of his own competence and ability to be the arbiter on what constitutes top class language teaching. Knowing EFL as I do, plus the world of EFL academia it is not like other disciplines in determining what makes a top class language teacher. Decent human beings and highly intelligent practitioners set out to help those who lack knowledge or experience, to guide not bring people down. Best practise in the workplace is to help those who in any way lack the skills to pass on knowledge to other human beings, not hinder their progress and actively act to destroy their career. When it happens in an area of ignorance by the accusers then it is even more damning. There are a multitude of learning techniques as there are students who have a multitude of different learning abilities and techniques. The Dellar and Walkley method is way, way beyond perfect. I have met many excellent teachers who had no qualifications other than a month’s training course which was the norm back in the 60’s and 70’s, let alone the teachers throughout time with no formal qualifications.
In terms of linguistic knowledge one of Dellar’s clique actually argued that pronunciation and intonation were one and the same, which is strange just linguistically, since why would there be two words to define the use of volume, tone, individual sounds and sound combinations for single sounds and words and a combination of speed, volume and tone displaying emotional messages let alone the meaning of the words and sentences. A very bizarre conversation.
Paper qualifications are no guarantee intelligence exists in all areas of life and this situation is clear evidence of this Factual Reality. In the world of EFL there have been constant changes in the form in which the teaching needs to take place, a distinction one year could be a pass in another, so there is no guarantee a particular course is the ultimate teaching method we all need to apply. To name a few over the years of the in vogue method.
GRAMMAR TRANSLATION APPROACH
DIRECT APPROACH
READING APPROACH
AUDIOLINGUAL APPROACH
COMMUNITY LANGUAGE LEARNING
THE SILENT WAY
THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH
FUNCTIONAL NOTIONAL APPROACH
TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE APPROACH
THE NATURAL APPROACH
THE LEXICAL APPROACH
THE TASK BASED APPROACH
What is missing in all these approaches is a student imput and the different processes required at all the different levels of Language learning. The basis of my teaching is Task Based since this encompasses all the other approaches in one way or another. The LL is very much a tasked based process with the added aspect of self learning and understanding whjch is a very productive thought processing.
Dellar says students can learn nothing in the Language Laboratory they cannot learn in the classroom. Well, the reverse is true and more so because learners can record and listen to themselves and compare and contrast something they cannot do in a classroom. A recording facility was a major breakthrough in the world of language learning, let alone the music industry and record keeping when it first appeared, followed by computers. I refer you back to Brita Haycraft’s comments at the beginning and now the language learning programs which are in our pockets today. In a LL there is no necessity for a teacher once the student understands the technical process whereas a classroom requires a teacher, which kind of makes a mockery of Dellar's supposition, just to play with the concepts. There is also the the personal satisfaction aspect, the ego of being in charge of other humans, a revelling in the attention, an aspect which could well be applied to Dellar when one sees his presence on the internet. Is it about promoting learning techniques or about promoting Hugh Dellar?
These two people were the cause of me retiring early due to their influence and friendship with our line manager. Between them they managed to persuade senior managers of the University, who had no contact with the EFL unit, that apparently, I was using the rote system of learning, since a senior manager told me in a meeting this was not the way to teach any more. The fascinating aspect of all this is that not a single person had actually sat in on one of my general English, speaking skills or FCE evening classes at any time and all this revolved around a single 40 minute session in the Language Laboratory, sitting at a console listening to students and if necessary, talking to them on a headset or visiting their console to see what they had written and if necessary, helping them comprehend the sounds they were having difficulty understanding and an unknown reason for their Emotional personal dislike.
The year I left, the system of the 5 lower classes having a LL session once a week had been cancelled, without, as already mentioned any consultation with all teachers and it was up to individual teachers if they took their students into the lab. The only person who used the LL was, surprisingly, Andrew Walkley and I observed his use. To say it was amateurish is an understatement, he had the students practising phonic sounds, single language sounds which is a pointless exercise to do in a Language Laboratory. Words in combination is the language learner’s greatest listening problem, students with a particular single sound problem can be helped in the classroom on a one to one basis. Since as professional teachers, we all know and understand the particular sounds each nationality has problems with. I had a recording of this lesson.
One aspect which was totally bizarre was the cancellation of the Summer Course use of the Language Laboratory, where since it was a Summer Course I had used songs to provide stimulation for the students. The session was loved by all the students. Each student initially listened and tried to write down all the words of a famous song from singers like the Beatles and Dylan, songs with a social theme. They then were put in pairs to compare each other’s written versions, 3’s if necessary, depending on numbers, to correct. They were then given the complete lyrics and linked up together to sing and record themselves. This would be done with me playing the song from the centre console and them singing. Having done this, I would then play their recording over the main speaker, switching from pairing to pairing. Afterwards I would go through any problems they might have. This was very rewarding and gave all the students a good sense of achievement and covered all the language skills. Not once was I asked or observed in order to assess if this was a successful use of the LL on a Summer Course. A highly motivating lesson enjoyed by all the students judging by the burst of applause which broke out EVERY time after listening to their renditions. Practising my philosophy of making student’s learning an emotional experience, the best form for memory retention.
I lost another 7 or 8 years of teaching due to these two individuals who at the end of the day are no better at teaching people to speak and write English, than thousands of other teachers, particularly since they specialise at the advanced level as opposed to the difficult level of beginners, elementary and intermediate. Their Summer Course at Lexical Lab is a direct rip off of the University of Westminster summer course from what I have gleaned from their publicity. To destroy a colleague’s livelihood because for some unknown reason you took an emotional dislike to them and used an emotional dislike of the Language Laboratory as an aid to learning to attack their teaching ability is a disgrace to best working practise. People who have seen Dellar's lessons which he publishes on YouTube have made comments like, "boring".
You can see at the beginning of this story what students who I taught thought of my teaching style which shows it must have been an excellent learning experience. There many more comments which I have not publshed here.
My wife became a primary school teacher due to my inspiration, and she learnt French and Italian and is now learning Spanish on a recording machine without a single face to face lesson, all aural and no visual. Ok, we visit France every year and we have italian friends we meet up with, however nobody actually teaches her, all is done by listening and practising. She is also now head of Modern languages at an Outstanding primary school. She also happened to attend my highly successful evening First Certificate exam course, which was designed in a very specific manner which I believe is not used by any other teacher
The modern Language Laboratory in the palm of your hand. https://www.fluentu.com/blog/language-lab-app/ The art of self-learning the most successful form of learning a language. Knowing when to consult an expert is part and parcel of that process, it’s amazing how much we can learn without the ‘teacher’. Google ‘Using a phone as a language laboratory’, there’s whole new world out there.
I have had dream since I first started working in a Language Laboratory back in the late 70's, one day we would put a helmit on and be transported to a foreign country, as if we were in an environment such as a shopping scene and all the conversations would be with an apparent live image of a person in the target language. There would possible also be a teacher character helping and correcting, possibly switching from the shopping context to a writing context for recording purposes.
A dream which now, purely subject to cost, I have researched it, could become a reality with the arrival of VR. Will VR be the classroom of the future or will we still be relying on Lexical Labs, (An interesting choice of name??) as opposed to AI Labs digitilizing our linguistic development.
In these Emotional turbulent times with human scientific knowledge beyond anything we have known before there is going to be need for 'The Emotional Being', the source of all our angst to beginning studying the impact of our Emotional linguistics and the conflict our Emotional concepts which are at variance with each others ideas about Reality. Just a little bit of practical philosophy. Time to actually study 'Emotion'?
Respect for our fellow human beings and in particular with our work colleagues with whom we spend the vast majority of our lives, is the art of Emotional Intelligence and a whole lot more. Had we worked together as opposed to some form of academic and personal emotional distortion of the Factual Reality of learning and best professional working practise, who knows what the unique style of team teaching might have achieved. I was not the only person to suffer from Dellar’s distain for his colleagues.
Dellar and Walkley will not engage in academic debate to defend their beliefs, they are apparently above this process of academic peer review, they walk away from debate and discussion, block responses, denying best practise in favour of the singularity of the Lexical approach, one of a multitude of fads which have come and gone over the ages which at the end of the day is just a marketing idea to promote the idea of joining all words together to create a multitude of concepts which have evolved throughout time, We all know from our own mother tongues that communication is not just a single word or linking words to develop a variety of concepts together to create highly complex human concepts, it is the joining of all linguistic items to express not just their Factual concepts it is also about controlling the Emotional concepts which are inherent within all linguistic items. In the minutes of the 7th March 2001 you have seen it says Russell drew attention to a survey he had carried out with the students. As already mentioned, it was at this point Dellar and Walkley walked out since he was about to read out the results. Below are just three examples from each of the classes which were observed by the people present at that meeting. The answers make a mockery of the personal negative comments made at the meeting and the biased negative distorted impression created by the person who took the minutes. This survey was not seen by any of the senior management in the investigation which took place following my complaint of a personal professional attack.
The next part shows student’s thoughts on the Language Laboratory lessons which were observed and the subject of Dellar and Walkley’s attacks on my teaching, the only true assessors of the impact of teaching techniques and materials and a teacher’s character in a classroom. Factual Reality Vs Emotional Reality, the student’s impressions on the LL sessions which were observed by the 6 teachers in attendance at the 7th March 2001 meeting and examples expressing the overall feelings of all the students. All other comments available. All contradicting the negative impressions given by Dellar and Walkley in the meeting on 7th March 2001 and are all very positive towards the learning process and the materials. As stated Dellar and Walkley walked out of the meeting when I revealed I had a student survey.
Student Surveys Classes 1 to 5
Now for two strange complaints from students, one very bizarre. This is relevant to Hugh Dellar’s latest accusations on the TEFL Worker’s Union (Twitter) X where he said I had more complaints made against me than any other teacher he had worked with. A libellous statement, more on this later. The only time my name had ever been mentioned negatively in an end of term feedback form in all the years I worked at the University. The first one is from a student who arrived at the very first session in the Language Laboratory and who I had never met before and acted in the most bizarre manner. I start all my first lessons with a class by going through an introduction lesson which I use with every class I first meet. It revolves around where they live in their homeland and the language to describe where their home town is within the country and the vocabulary required to do this successfully. The student sat slouched in her chair with her back to me, and when I turned to her she grudgingly participated. Very, very strange behaviour, why would someone act like this with someone she has never met before? The first session ended at the break, and I never saw her again in any lesson. Hence, very bizarre for someone to make an assessment on a teacher. The session after the break was an introduction into how to use the machines. The second student’s complaint to management was that this same introduction lesson, his complaint being the other teachers had already done one. Bizarre since, one, a teacher needs to introduce themselves and secondly because my lesson is totally different because as mentioned I use the opportunity to talk about the geographical location of where the students live and the vocabulary and phrases associated with this plus at times reference to their parents, since I had found over the years that even advanced students are not very competent in describing where they come from if it is not from a capital city, this being the majority of students. The second student only attended two classes.
The second student put in a very strange complaint. As explained his complaint to management was that I did an introduction lesson, his complaint being the other teachers had already done one. Bizarre since, a teacher needs to introduce themselves and secondly because my lesson is totally different. As mentioned he only attended two classes. The point of this end of term complaint as shown below, is very strange from an Iranian upper intermediate student who came up with a concept which is very culturally specific,
I acted like a sergeant major in the army and primary school teacher. The reality is that such attitudes are an anathema to myself, particularly with adults, it is just not my character. This leads me to believe that the student recounted something to another teacher and the teacher interpretated it in this way and guided the student on what to say, in fact expressing that teacher’s emotional reality with regard to myself. Not provable, however clear circumstantial evidence although it could be argued it could have been someone outside the learning environment. Even stranger since he only attended two of my classes. I explained the situation to some other students who were only too willing to sign a statement denying I in any way acted in this manner. Below are the complaints and the rebuttals. The other students’ rebuttal to the complaints, who signed them at the end of term get together after being informed of the complaint. Only three were still around at the time. They were shocked that the two students had made a complaint since one had attended the Language Laboratory for half a session, and the other on two occasions. The complaints and rebuttals.
The Factual Reality of me, my teaching and my students opinions Just a small selection from hundreds of thanks over 30 years of teaching. Plus an Email received after a student had left. Do any of these unsolicited complements sound like an army drill sergeant or primary school teacher, although the primary school teacher’s I know are highly caring non aggressive in character? What is interesting is that there is nothing about the materials or techniques, obviously since neither student attended enough classes to make any comment, one for the first, and two for the other. An insight into my philosophy of life. I get out of bed everyday with the intention to make a stranger smile and if possible, laugh. I achieve my aim each and every day. Does this sound like a Sergeant Major character?
Now Hugh Dellar’s character versus mine. Who is confrontational? Email sent after discussion with the line manager who in fact edited my words to the managers words.
He confirms his bullying attitude and desire to make me feel threatened and disrespected. I repeat once again, how can anyone make an assessment of a work colleague and their ability in whatever profession if one has never seen the colleague in all aspects of a full working environment and refuses to read the comments of clients because of some unknown emotional dislike of the colleague. This form of bullying is seen throughout all professions although according to a neuro consultant I saw after an MRI to check out the head pains I was experiencing at the time, the patients he saw most, with problems like my own, were all mainly from the world of academia.
Now to the present. Having purely by chance seen a post on the TEFL Workers Union on Twitter, now X, praising Hugh Dellar, who it turns out is not a member, and who has a free advert for his business on their Labour Lessons page on their website, I posted a highly libellous statement accusing Dellar of being a bully. I was not surprised by his response, although most people would surely deny such an accusation, he seemed to embrace the concept since he laughed just like bullies do, and made highly libellous statements about my teaching and character. His post a perfect example of the arrogance of a bully who thinks they are above reproach. I put my money where my heart was in the belief that a Union would have the deep humanitarian sympathy required to take an independent view of what constitutes a bully, both in social terms and law. So far, my accusations have been treated with contempt and every manipulation of linguistic concepts have been employed to undermine my accusations. Although I am a member of the Union, I am blocked from participating on the X page and on Facebook, my comments on anything related to bullying are deleted. So much for condemning bullying and the morality of the admin running the Union. One law for one and another for the rest. Who you know not what you know and personal loyalties refusing to recognise disgraceful human behavior even having been notified of the totality of the situation.
The question also arises, Dellar was not on the management team so how would he know about any complaints made by any students regarding any other member of staff, unless of course he was perhaps the instigator of any complaint, something which I have already referred to. I have dealt with the sole complaints above.
Vexatious complaints: This is the man who complained I sat too close to him in a café across the road from the University and opened a paper in front of him!!!!!!. A café I had been frequenting for years before he even arrived and who knew me well. Guess what, extra information volunteered. So much for vexatious complaints. Independent opinion on the character of Walkley. Strangely enough I was criticised by management for gathering witness statements which exonerated me, contrary to natural justice, which also happened in another case where I asked another colleague to act as a witness regarding an untrue complaint made against me.
In terms of having tables turned, I ended up by being criticised by the unit manager for saying “Morning Hugh” in the staffroom when he was the only person who did not reply to my general greeting, and which he made a complaint about. Tables turned meaning reversing the accepted etiquette of life?
Since when has it been harassment to wish someone a cheerful “Good morning” using their name, since I was very careful to use a friendly intonation pattern, an easy process being a highly experienced EFL teacher researching the impact of Emotion in words. I was being forbidden to say good morning to a colleague. It is in writing. It would be laughable if it wasn’t part of a long-term process of bullying in collusion with the unit management. As for a grudge, not in any way, justice for EFL academic reality and best working practise, fighting against coercive and controling behavior. Work place bullying covers many areas, racism, sexual harassment, verbal, non-verbal and physical insults and it needs to be confronted in all its forms in the work place. Furthermore, having a positive, cooperative and respectful emotional understanding of our colleagues, as opposed to creating division for personal gain or emotional dislike is what makes the workplace a positive and successful environment for everyone, best working practise, acceptance and constructive positive attitude towards all our colleagues. In the world of teaching, I have met some of the most innovative and unconventional people who have had the respect of their students, practising the art of teaching. My Speaking skills class which I created with another teacher originally and developed after she left, was over 12 years old when I left the University and was the basis of a university credited exam in Speaking.
Emolinguistics.org.uk being inspired by the language taught on my original course. Dellar says he is a trained teacher trainer, if this is so then he ought to be helping people who he believes require help in teaching techniques in order to become a better teacher not do everything in his power to drive someone out of the profession.
As for complaints, all in Dellar’s mind since he can provide no evidence whatsoever other than saying students complained personally to him, inadmissable hearsay evidence as opposed to myself who has provided clear written evidence, from his own students, which totally disproves his accusation, since the concepts of the words of many students prove I could in no way be a teacher who would be subjected to many complaints. On every occasion I have had a student make a comment about another teacher throughout my years as a teacher and Director of Studies, I have talked to the teacher and would never dream of saying any of the teachers I ever worked with were subject to many complaints although I can say that there were more than just one over the years who I did get negative comments about by students, including some at the University. Dellar says he is a trained teacher trainer, and I repeat, if this is so, best practise is helping people who he believes require help in teaching techniques in order to become a better teacher not do everything in his power to drive someone out of the profession however first and foremost is to actually observe the teacher concerned teaching before making any assessment.
If I had so many complaints as Dellar implies why were all my classes full of students, particularly my specialist individual afternoon and evening classes and if the Language Laboratory classes were demeaning them how is it all 5 classes were full week after week.
Want to know who I am as a teacher and my contribution to understanding the concepts of human language and my deep interest in human communication and the influence Emotional Intelligence has on our intellectual knowledge and Factual Reality? This will make a wonderful case study of how Emotional Reality contrary to all the evidence, trumps Factual Reality. See Emolinguistics.org.uk
It has taken a bit of time to put this together since there is a wealth of material which I have sifted through to create the basic Factual Realities behind the source of bullying which I was subjected to. Having said that, to this day I really have no idea what I personally did to Dellar and Walkley or their little clique to receive such emotional comments which transpired in the August 2001 meeting and became a highly vicious personal bullying campaign. Dr Michael Heller also suffered as he has clearly presented in his written statement, hence there is evidence Hugh Dellar is not a particularly nice human being with a penchant for bullying to satisfy his arrogance towards those he takes a personal dislike to.
Now as opposed to receiving a sympathetic response or concern from the TEFL Workers Union, I am being subjected to the same evasive techniques employed by those who for emotional loyalty reasons supported Hugh Dellar at the University. A refusal to understand the difference between their emotional interpretation, referring to Dellar’s comments regarding student complaints and vexatious complaints as “snarky” when in reality they are disgraceful professionally libellous comments. They have inspired this trip to the past.
What am I trying achieve after such a long time? I still have sleepless nights with my mind going over the injustice which I suffered to such an extent I was driven to the point of possibly taking my own life to have my case heard independently and without prejudice based on two people in a meeting witnessing a personal attack on the professional competence and character of a colleague. Like all people who suffer from all forms of abuse and who suffer mentally for years there is a desire for the whole world to know of these abuses and for the perpetrators to be exposed for who they are.
A hunger strike on Regent Street in the name of justice for a first-class teacher who was highly regarded by his students, as you can see from the comments of thanks and appreciation of his students. A career ended prematurely due to who knows exactly what, since as already pointed out the only time the instigators of this bullying and victimisation had observed his teaching was in a training session for THEM in a Language Laboratory sitting at the console with a headset on listening to their student practising an exercise which practised almost every language skill. Was it his age, or even his double-barrelled name or what, which created so much hatred in their minds? It cost the taxpayer a lot of money and the teacher a way of life both personal and professional.
What am I wanting from this process:
- The hope that the two people can find it in their apparent humanity to recognise the injustice in their actions and recognise that they are not life’s gift to teaching EFL and to offer up a heartfelt apology by admitting their errors.
- Recognising my students over many years are the only judge of my competence, their words speak out clearly in my defence. The nicest compliment I ever received or should I say enjoyed the most, was being told I was like the Robin Williams character in ‘The Dead Poet’s Society’.
One can but live in hope.
