A reply to a discussion on Translation in class

Thanks for your interest, Stephen. The age-old debate - personally I tend to steer clear of 'nevers' and 'always' when it comes to what is best in teaching situations - these can vary in many ways and dogma can be a real obstacle. Nonetheless, you need to be guided by ideas about what is most beneficial and effective - that's the point of having teachers.

My own guide (we're talking mono-lingual teaching situations here) is that relying on L1 in the classroom is doing learners a disservice, although it's what a fair number of them ask you to do. It can be a lazy short-cut - I think it probably often is - but there are several good reasons not to translate for convenience. 

One very practical reason (in the case of English mother-tongue teachers) is that it gives an unfair 'advantage' to teachers who know their students' language well, over their colleagues who don't - and some students might think teachers 'better' or 'worse' as a result. I've observed teachers mis-translate words in class - another good reason for the practice to be discouraged. It's also true that while some students want translation, many others dislike it - they find it de-motivating and a waste of valuable time.

From a learning point of view, regular use of translation doesn't do learners a favour - it teaches them a 'shallow' relationship with the new language, and although lessons will seem 'easier' it will make out-of-classroom interaction in the the new language more 'laborious' and stressful. There's also the fact that some things simply don't translate - this applies both for lexis and grammar.

However ........  translating new words can be a lazy shortcut, but refusing to do so can become a very long and circuitous diversion - like eating a kilo of celery to gain just a handful oif calories (I like celery but it's not a good source of energy). Lesson time is limited - a talented and perceptive teacher can often get meaning across economically and effectively - but in many 'no-translation at any cost' classrooms there's a lot of time and frustration before mission is accomplished (often by classmates whispering the translation anyway).

Do I translate? Yes - sometimes. At beginner level with new classes I will use some Italian (when I'm teaching Italian students - or Italian-speaking students, as is the case here), although not to teach the language content but to give little interludes of advice and information about what we are learning. I like to give a brief outline of the course and about what lessons will involve, and maybe to remind students about how things are going from time to time. 

I often point things out about English - unlike some languages it has no genders: "wow, that's easy!" - and what sort of things are difficult and take everyone time to begin to grasp. So, I translate for 'welfare' reasons rather than as a teaching tool. Sometimes students check with you that they have understood something - I acknowledge these 'translation for confirmation' requests, rather than pretend not to understand. 

One other thing  (this is much longer than I'd expected). Translation is a useful skill and I try to do short spontaneous translation activities - with elementary and first-intermediate levels. When we read short dialogues (phone-calls are good), I might also ask for an off-the cuff translation - not word-by-word but just what was said. 

This is a real-life need - it's not unusual to have to report and translate a phone-call or e-mail, or translate for a friend in a social setting. This is a useful and enjoyable translation activity to sprinkle in to lessons. It has to be quick, so accessible content is required.

Desirable Difficulties ... interesting stuff!

New information in small nibbles rather than full mouthfuls, variety (interleaving) rather than topic-based lessons, spacing, retrieval, ‘low-stake quizzing’ …


It's interesting to see how the work of Prof Robert Bjork at the learning and forgetting lab at UCLA throws into question traditional paradigms -- and the findings seem to sit neatly with what we've been doing in the development of SpeakYourMind. Interesting food for thought - and more for the drawing board.

http://bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu/research.html

more on motivation (final part)

So where does a teacher not have control? There are the unpredictable personal factors: you can't control what kind of mood a student walks into the classroom with -- it wasn't your fault he just had an argument at work. Of course you have influence once they are in the classroom and you make decisions as to how to deal with that situation.
On a more permanent level, where the teacher usually has no control is more to do with organisational aspects of courses and it is these that can make a teacher's life so difficult in how they limit the potential of the teacher’s skills, experience and talent, and can ultimately erode the teacher's motivation and sense of self efficacy. I’m talking primarily of class-size and class streaming.

Earlier we looked at modality -- if the modality of learning is to respond to most learners’ needs and preferences, by which we mean a primarily speaking-based lesson format, large groups are pretty much destined to impair the potential of lessons in providing interest and motivation. When groups go beyond a certain number, say more than 12-15, teachers have to bend over backwards and resort to a variety of strategies to keep people talking and communicating.

Under CLT, pair-work has become a stalwart of lesson procedure and this can work well - or it can become tedious, dispiriting and of little use. Many students don’t like spending more than a limited time with a peer when they have a real teacher in the classroom. Nonetheless, pair-work has become orthodox practice -- it's bad if you don't do it – but it is more useful and valid as a class management strategy than as a teaching strategy.
Working on projects or tasks in groups is another common form of activity that has been imported from other teaching situations and where it in line with the idea of developing teamwork skills and learner autonomy. But whether this is within the remit of an English course for adult learners is open to question, especially where developing speaking skills is the declared priority and where lesson-time is very limited.


So where the teacher has limited influence over motivation is in creating workable conditions for successful and relevant learning – this is where the school has the key role. With large classes, teachers and students are left pretty much to make the best they can of things, but whatever happens there will be little room for useful speaking for the majority of students.

Well prepared, well organised and enthusiastic teachers will be able to offer interesting enough lessons for all - and very challenging and productive lessons for a few. Poorly prepared and unenthusiastic teachers will sit back and watch as their students proceed with the tasks that have been issued them. The ‘good’ students will do as much as they can in their own time and they will be able to bring that useful learning into their lessons with them. Those who have no time or no inclination will just float along with the current that isn't moving very fast if anywhere at all.
In many situations (public education), large class-size is a simple fact of life, so speaking will always have little space and students will have little real benefit in terms of improving communication skills. However, for private schools class size is a decision they can make. Clearly there are financial implications. In situations where there is little competition, schools are free to fill classes with paying students and make a hefty earning -- on the other hand they might decide, responsibly, to limit class size for students’ (and teachers’) benefit and be willing to accept lower margins on earning.

So it is very likely that students will be happier and therefore more motivated in a small group. But it's not just down to numbers. A large group of students all at similar levels and with similar aptitudes is more likely to be a useful context for learning than a small group of students who are very poorly matched -- this is basically setting up a class for failure and frustration. Again for very many teachers, having to deal with mixed ability or mixed level classes is a fact of life but it needn't be like that. Schools too often tend to pass the buck and present teachers with largely unworkable conditions, the idea being that if they are trained teachers it's their job to sort things out. Forming well-graded and well-streamed groups of students involves far more hard work for a school than bunging people together out of convenience. The thing is that most people are used to mixed ability groups, because that's what happens at primary school and secondary school, so even students tend to accept this as simply being ‘normal’ and tend not to complain too much. Again the result here is that much of the teacher's time and effort is spent simply managing lessons rather than getting on with good focused teaching -- often teachers become events organisers or entertainers more than anything else.
Very often placement testing is a perfunctory ritual: standardised multiple-choice tests, often online for convenience again, and, maybe, a brief and superficial oral test. More often than not the outcome of this test is pretty predictable with students ending up in one of the catch-all nets: elementary, pre-intermediate, intermediate or advanced. I don't know how many people I've met who have been stuck in a constant loop of intermediate courses.

The school then has the primary role in establishing the right conditions for good learning and the right conditions for student motivation to remain intact. So here could be the list of key components which can allow motivation the highest likelihood of survival:

• Workability of conditions
• Skill and intuition of teacher
• Appropriateness of method
• Relevance of content

More on motivation

(cont).......... So, methodology has a role: a classroom method that seems appropriate, relevant and respectful to intelligent individuals is likely to enable the right conditions for ‘fertile learning’.
Language has to be presented in the right modality; for example, learners who identify speaking as their priority are more likely to respond positively to a spoken modality rather than work primarily from books or become passive members of an audience in a lecture style format.


Relevance of content is important of course -- language has to be related to what learners perceive as being useful in practical language-using situations. The course also needs to be accessible and learning has to be manageable.
Approaches diverge on this point, but I believe that structure is something that many learners approve of - the randomness, eccentricities and originality of language are not aspects that should be emphasised in the language classroom, certainly not at most levels (I want to differentiate between ‘language’ course and ‘cultural’ courses which deal with literature or creative writing etc. – combining the two things has caused more harm than good for generations of school students worldwide).
I'm not suggesting that the life be squeezed out of the language, but if the course is well-thought out enough to allow students to be aware that things do connect up and that simple things do lead on to other things (which, in turn, will be more straightforward to learn having grasped the preceding simple things) students will feel empowered - they will feel that they are just about in control of the language that they have so far learnt : it's not some slippery mystery that is constantly beyond their reach.

In this respect the structure of the course should allow constant mini goals -- the chance for students to see success throughout the lesson - as well as setting longer scale milestones which enable students to mark their progress over the months.
Most people need regular reward in order to keep the minute-to-minute motivation that sees them through lessons, but this needs to be balanced with a sense of challenge -- lessons mustn't be dumbed down. The recognition of achieving even small tasks which were unachievable in previous lessons is important – as is acknowledgement of this from the teacher. Constant patting on the back can backfire but giving credit where credit is due will consolidate a sense of self-efficacy when it comes from a respected source.

to be continued ..........

Successful teaching - the art and craft of synthesis and simplicity

Thinking back over the last school year - we've held five teacher-training courses, in different schools in three different countries and in different sets of circumstances.
Taking SpeakYourMind out there into the wide world is a relatively new and challenging experience but the hard work that has gone into it is paying off and we are learning good lessons along the way.

I have got a lot of pleasure out of getting to know and working with dedicated long-term TEFL professionals who have been open-minded and keen to look at something new. It's been interesteing too to meet and have long discussions with long-experienced teachers who could only see teaching in terms of their own vision of what that involves and could not take on board the basic premises of SyM. At the other end of the scale there have also been bright, interested trainees with no formal teaching experience. Yes, and there were lots of people in the middle - the silent army of TEFL: CELTA and a year or three's experience, keen and conscientous but with half an eye on a different career elsewhere in future.


Two main things have emerged from these experiences. A lot of teachers with long classroom experience have really liked SyM's 'directness'; the fact that the whole lesson is active, focussed and immediate. Getting across the importance of freeing the lesson of 'books and board' takes time, but when new teachers see the point and see how their skills are really challenged as a result, they enjoyed the direct, person-to-person nature of lessons.
They also really appreciated the fact that they could rely on the course material and that lesson-planning and gathering from resources would no longer be part of their busy working days.


The other thing that emerged is that SpeakYourMind makes teaching and learning look so simple. When trainee teachers observed lessons either in-person or on video they tended to think (so they told me afterwards) 'Well, that looks pretty straightforward.' The lessons flow easily and everything seems natural and friendly.


In reality, trainees often got a unexpectedly rude awakening when training got under way. The training programme is a pretty intensive 5 days including (normally) 2 hours teaching practice daily from day 2 (and homework!). What seemed so 'simple' as observers, is, they soon began to find out, the product of a combination of practical teaching skills, classroom techniques, understanding of the design and intricacies of the material, quick-thinking, intuition, and 'experience'. Walking is simple - almost everyone does it pretty often. But not on a tightrope, juggling and whistling a jaunty tune. Teachers began to see that the greater the 'familarity' with classroom procedure and material, the freer they were to teach and to enjoy their students. That 'familiarity' comes with preparation, concentration, practice and feedback.

As trainers, we don't expect people to run before they can walk, but 5 days is not long and the programme is no leisurely stroll. Each day sees ups and downs, learning is no steady straight line on a graph, but on all courses Day 5 saw breakthroughs and satisfaction.
This aspect - the apparent simplicity of lessons and learning - is something that has begun to really sink in. I think now, that this is probably the most important point of all in SpeakYourMind, that it addresses the complexities of learning and of language and arranges or models them into a form and a means of presentation that is straightforward, accessible and (very often) enjoyable.


Simplicity is a good thing - we want it in the things we use and the things we do - and if SpeakYourMind seems 'simple' that is to its credit. Just remember not to judge things on appearance.

'So, it's good for new teachers'

Yesterday I took part in an online tutorial as part of the conversations series on WizIQ. They host people from various fields of teaching and it is hosted very capably and courteously by Dr Nellie Deutsch.

There were a few technical hitches at my end, despite all the effort I had been making beforehand to make sure everything would work smoothly. I had to change microphone after 5 or 10 min of faffing around with plugs and dials and buttons and things, and my video connection never worked at all as I discovered later. I felt like I was in an isolation chamber.

Never mind, the people taking part could see Nellie and the live chat board seemed to be pretty active with people joining the class and asking me and each other questions and making comments. It's a very good format for this kind of discussion–next time I'll make sure I can keep track of the comments as they happen, but Nellie was very good at summing up the most relevant questions and posing them to me.

At one point Nelly invited Jesse davis - a teacher who had worked with SpeakYourMind in Japan - to recount his experiences and one of the things he pointed out was how that after having taught in Japanese English schools where he'd been pre-much dropped in a room left to get on with it and pretty much just amuse the students, he had learned with SpeakYourMind a great deal about basic classroom skills and classroom rapport and was given for the first time a set of criteria by which he could assess how learning was proceeding.

In the chat-box a comment soon appeared, “so it's good for beginner teachers". I couldn't tell from the context whether or not the implication was “it is only good for beginner teachers ", but that is a comment that I have heard in the past.

First of all, if it is a good method for new teachers, that's great! It's designed to be teachable - to be intuitive and straightforward enough for people who have the right teaching qualities, but not the experience, to be able to do a decent job right from the start.

Being good for new teachers is a far better thing than not being good for new teachers. I don't know exactly what percentage of teachers currently working in schools around the world are in their first year, but I imagine it's a significant amount. It's also very common for a teacher's first year to be almost their last year: in fact, the figures claim that on average TEFL teachers have an average career span of 18 months. So in this kind of context, being able to provide a method that helps new teachers work well becomes a very important asset.
Good teachers are, however, a school’s greatest asset of all.
In our own experience we have been lucky enough to have very high retention rates of staff over the years–fairly seldom over the last 10 or so years have we had teachers who have only done one academic year with us. The same applies to most other schools using SpeakYourMind in other countries. It may be the case that teachers stay simply because it's an easy option–they enjoy their place of work, so what reason do they have to leave? But I'm pretty sure that teachers stay largely because they very much enjoy the teaching and I'm sure that if you ask them they would certainly say they have grown as teachers because they have been able to see potentials within the teaching method and the material which simply were not accessible to them as new or relatively new teachers.

Teachers don't have the challenges that they would have working in more conventional environments, such as being able to improvise activities or having to prepare materials and presentations, even though this can be a burden more than a challenge. But teachers do face a challenge every time they open the door and walk into a classroom. The material is there for them -- the same material they've used hundreds of times – but because it's a very direct, personal, individual-to-individual lesson format, the lesson itself will be unique. The challenge comes in the dynamic nature of the lesson, the moment-to-moment assessments and decisions, the responsiveness to needs and moods, and the ability to emotionally and intellectually engage students.

I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that every teacher will be happy working with what is, after all, 'a method' There are teachers who need to have free rein and there are teaching situations where that is appropriate -- but the idea of SpeakYourMind is to be able to give students as complete a lesson as possible when the time for learning is limited. And apart from the classroom teaching itself, I think one of the things that keeps experienced teachers interested and fresh is the sense of reward they get from seeing real results from students over time. So, if the people you teach are satisfied, that will be important to any teacher – new or not.

Behind Bars - English lessons in prison

Nothing major to report – all proceeding well. Good attendance, good feelings and good progress – as good as you could hope for.
The group is a bit mixed. Although we have lost our ‘star’ (Julian the ‘English-through-Cartoon Network’ learner) there are still two students who can get by with the English they learnt at school (and in one case university) – they are still ‘elementary’ and we’re encountering plenty of gaps, but they have the advantage of knowing that they know some English – it has a sense of ‘familiarity’ to them. At the other end of the scale there are two guys who started totally from scratch and who also happened to miss most lessons over the first few weeks. They are straggling but are not detached – they are certainly very keen.
Oddly enough, one lives in the German-speaking Tirol region of Italy, although he wasn’t brought up there. At the beginning of the course he said he couldn’t speak and German, but the English lessons seem to be unearthing lots of buried bits of it. Pretty often he’ll say things in German, to his own surprise and embarrassment and everyone else’s amusement.
When you have one hour and a group of 10 or 12 to teach you have to make judgements about how to fairly do use your time and divide your attentions. The group does have a substantial ‘middle’ – seven or eight guys who are all pretty much similar in terms of initial level – all virtual beginners – and in terms of general aptitude. This ‘core’ guides the pace of the course.
Of course, you’d love to be able to do ‘everything’, to do what’s best for ‘everyone’ – but if you chase that too far you can end up doing not enough for anyone. Ultimately you have to make judicious compromises and do, on the whole, the best you can for most.

Shift away from topic-based teaching

This post is in reply to an enquiry we received from a teacher who was curious about SpeakYourMind but was puzzled by the design of the teaching material she had been sent as a sample.

“I see exactly where you are coming from in terms of the questions you ask about the design of the teaching material -- in fact it brings home just how big our job is in showing our work in a different light. By now I'm so used to the background thinking that I forget perhaps just how much we have to work on emphasising the underlying differences between Speak Your Mind and orthodox teaching in its various forms.

You're quite right, there is no real logical link between ‘themes’. 'A Theme' or ‘a Topic’ is not what holds a SyM lesson together - certainly not in the conventional sense. There are multiple underlying strands, but these are more to do with the on-going development of learning and of the language itself than with lesson-wide 'topics'.
The succession of ‘unrelated’ mini-topics that you see in the SyM books or that you listen to in a classroom, pick up and rework previously introduced words or grammar – the unrelated topics in a single lesson are in reality pulling together language that is being learnt over a larger time-scale. The single lesson is not ‘self-standing unit’ that it is in conventional teaching and the role of the ‘topic’ or ‘theme’ is not dominant, and the focus of interest on language and learning is more at the forefront. With SyM language is not confined to the lesson where the relevant theme has been dealt with – language is presented relatively briefly and then recycled regularly over time in a way that theme-based books do not manage and that is largely beyond the scope of teachers in theme-based lessons.

In conventional topic-based lessons, relevant new language may only erratically emerge, or its appearance may be perceived as secondary to the ideas being communicated. New language may appear and then just as easily disappear, to be recovered only by the conscientious students (or those fortunate enough to have the time) who will later go back and seek it out. Theme-based lessons -- and theme-based course books -- do not provide adequate principled recycling of language, so what ultimately remains from each individual lesson may be insubstantial in terms of learning -- the lesson may have left and enjoyable impression, but little in terms of tangible progress. This is not to say that we believe that learning is only measurable in terms of new words learned – ‘feeling at ease with a language’ is as much a part of what we aim to achieve as anything else, but motivation and a sense of self-efficacy are often intrinsically linked to a real sense of improvement and advance.

Of course, people have an affinity with theme-based lessons – they comply to tradition. When we study geography or history or literature, we settle on a subject that requires a depth of understanding and analysis -- skipping from one thing to another may not be the most appropriate approach. Apart from this academic tradition, in CLT -- which is still often regarded as being 'modern' -- topic-based lessons tend to be attractive because they mimic discussions that a group of interested people may be involved in in their own language (and usually through their own spontaneous choice): it's like dinner-table talk. Because the lesson then resembles one familiar aspect of a ‘real-world experience’, it gains validity in the eyes of the teacher and also, although not necessarily, in the minds of the students.
Nevertheless, real-world experience often involves situations or actions that are not theme-based in this way, and which require us to quickly shift our attention and focus. We might sit at a dinner table and switch our attention from one conversation to another. SpeakYourMind lessons usher in a succession of ‘topics’ – language is not de-contextualised at all, it’s just that the ‘contextualisation’ is rapid – there is no long pre-amble or peripheral distraction. The material and the teaching style are designed to ensure that engagement and personal interest is there – the dialogue does not become a detached formal exercise.
The human brain is well equipped to react to topic-shifts (concentration, elaboration and learning may actually benefit). We also have to bear in mind that students on a language course are fully aware of the fact that they are in a ‘learning situation’ which does not need to replicate a ‘real-world situation’ such as the dinner-table discussion, in order for it to be effective and interesting. I think there is a lot to be said for keeping learners alert and active and prepared at any moment to switch attention from one thing to another, and I think that in many teaching situations the advantages of variety can outweigh the advantages of sameness.
Of course, when the idea of the lesson is to have a discussion, you need to establish the right conditions for that to happen successfully and naturally. If on the other hand, the idea of lessons is to introduce new words and new grammar relatively briefly, knowing that it will all be re-presented and practiced in the following lessons, the focus and the dynamics of the lesson become different. A classroom is another aspect of the ‘real world’ and students are involved in a 'real-learning' situation rather than in a replica of a 'real-discussion' situation.
In reality there is continuity in SYM lessons, and there is plenty of continuous exposure to accessible language which allows students to become aware of how the language they are learning is interconnected and how it is applicable to many different topics and situations.
The language grants them the power to express themselves. Communication happens – in class students do express opinions and experiences, but this is also a consequence of the learning activity, ‘real-life’ situations are not the exclusive source of learning.
This whole aspect of the course is probably the biggest single barrier that we face when explaining or introducing the course to new teachers -- students seem to have a far more intuitively positive response to the idea.
It is working on this shift of mindset that takes up a lot of our initial training programme: accepting it as a sound principle and then feeling comfortable with it in terms of application in the classroom. It soon becomes a simple and natural thing, but of course to fresh eyes the structure and design of the course may well seem rather incoherent and haphazard. In reality it is far from it, the design is far more detailed, subtle and thorough than you will find in any other text book as far as I know. Once the teacher is able to see things with a sense of perspective, the ‘logic’ of what happens in the classroom becomes evident. It's like holding a written page up close to your eyes -- you can't make sense of anything, they’re just blurred shapes: but as you move the page further from your eyes, letters appear, then words then sentences -- the overall form is apparent.”

Structured Interaction

Structured Interaction Method
SpeakYourMind needs to stand as a real alternative - so often I hear or read it judged according to sets of standards or principles that simply don't apply.

So often students get caught between the hard work of 'arid drills and study’ (grammar-based book-and board methods and audiolingual methods (often confusingly called ‘direct methods’)), and the attractive vagaries of theme-orientated CLT.

Finding a middle way – a balance that can harness a principled approach towards lexis and recycling and yet creates contexts and trigger meaningful interaction - is what we have been working on for the best part of twenty years and it continues to be a fascinating journey.

Extended recycling of lexis and grammar is essential, especially in situations where learners are getting only two or three hours a week and little or no exposure to English outside their classrooms. It is essential both in terms of making learning efficient and in terms of maintaining motivation – learners can see how what they have learnt before was worth learning and thus gain a sense of achievement. The design of the SyM teaching material ensures that recycling occurs regularly, long-term: learning is seen as a part of an continuous process rather than presenting 'the language to be learnt' in a succession of one-off episodes.

There seems to be no doubt that frequency-of-use is a primary factor in how memory stores vocabulary, but it doesn't come down to mathematics. Quantity is important - if a word is given exposure ten times it is more likely to be remembered than if it is heard or read five times -but ‘quality’ will have a significant impact too. If the encounter with a new word is able to summon up significant associations of some kind, the impression is more likely to be lasting. An association can be significant in different ways – in terms of personal or emotional context, or in its ‘language-learning’ context - how useful or interesting it is in the mind of the learner.
Words need to trigger learning-awareness, which repeated encounters will recall, re-elaborate and deepen.

to be continued

TESOL conference Rome: Mr Perez, pens and Tunbridge Wells

TESOL conference Rome: Mr Perez, pens and Tunbridge Wells

Last week I went to the TESOL conference in Rome: probably the major teaching event in the annual calendar. Attended primarily by English teachers at high school and middle school, there are nonetheless a fair number of representatives from private schools (PLS’s to use publisher’s jargon as I learnt). Over the two days there is a wide and varied programme of presentations and workshops -- around 60 in all.
We were present with a stand in the exhibition area, along with the big-boy publishers and examination boards. It was our first public outing and although attendance at this conference was worryingly down on previous years, it proved to be a useful experience.

On the whole it was very encouraging to see so many teachers’ curiosity and interest in something different. There was fairly general acknowledgement among teachers that, for several all too well known reasons, getting a good job done in prevailing circumstances proves arduous and elusive far too often. We had to point out that SpeakYourMind is currently available only through associate private schools: not because teachers at private schools are ‘better’ than those with in the education system, but simply because, in theory at least, private schools are able to establish better conditions for successful learning - primarily in terms of class size and in terms of streaming classes for level and, ideally, ability.
Talking there to teachers I did perceive a sense of predictability: the publisher's new products tended to be not much more than new marketing. New ideas were only new to the people who hadn't encountered them yet: certainly in the few presentations I was able to attend there was nothing particularly original. Corpus linguistics is extremely revealing and helpful but it’s also a popular and spacious bandwagon: some of the conclusions I heard drawn from corpus ‘evidence’ were open to different interpretations, and I think that reliance on these sources can be distracting to teachers in the front line. ‘Authenticity’ and ‘motivation’ were other popular themes, although it’s disappointing when speakers and writers cook up the evidence to suit their own menus – such as presenting examples from out-of-date Peruvian course-books to highlight the demotivating effects of ‘artificial’ language (“I am Mr Perez – are you Mrs Perez?”) and therefore the advantages of using ‘authentic’ language (“… and she’s like, ‘why did you do that?”).

Back to the exhibition area and our encounters with teachers: among the interest and curiosity there was naturally enough a more critical voice. I had been expecting this but was surprised by the vehemence when it happened. I can't help thinking of this teacher as ‘disgusted of Tunbridge Wells’ – she did rather fit the stereotype. As we spoke (spoken preliminaries, rather than ‘discussion’) and I was looking for a student book to illustrate how the course was organised and the content presented, I could see her eyes guiding her towards the beginner’s course-book - and instinct guided me towards deflecting this move: I had a premonition of the ensuing confrontation. “This looks like a Berlitz book from the 50s,”' she scoffed. She had me at an unfair advantage here, not having taught then myself. I began to explain that the course incorporated ideas and procedures from different traditions and approaches and reworked them in the light of newer thinking, but she would have none of it.
Flicking to the opening pages she found the food required to fill her outrage: “Pen, clock, table! Haven't you people heard of communicative teaching?”. “Yes of course - and we have moved on from there.”
“Have you indeed! How can you teach ‘pen’ and ‘book’?” “It depends what you have in mind - in a classroom teaching situation it can be a useful way to get things started.” I tried to engage her in an exchange of views but her raised hackles got in the way. “I'm not interested, I'm not interested”, and off she marched, her sensibilities thoroughly offended.
Well, being addressed as ' you people ' hardly creates the rapport that allows the kind of communication that this teacher was such a stern proponent of in the classroom. Also the suggestion that ‘we people’ had been living in some sort of cave for the last thirty years was a bit objectionable too.
However, I knew where she was coming from. I am not a diehard fan of pens, pencils, clocks, phones, doors and windows; but at the same time this long-standing Situationalist approach to teaching beginners is not as harmful as some teachers believe. They formed the basis of drills used to ‘imprint’ structures in the 50’s - because structures were the key to language, so the thinking went. Of course, now we know that mastery of structures does not automatically lead to communicative autonomy, but that, in turn, does not mean that structures or sentence patterns have no place in language learning.
In the SpeakYourMind course we are very clear about recognising the limitations as well as the uses of starting in this way. There are advantages of teaching the words for the things that occur in your physical surroundings, learners can see them and touch them - it's very direct and immediate. In the initial set of objects and words that our beginner learners encounter they come across almost the complete range of phonemes, as well as beginning to learn about stress patterns - so important in English – so it’s not just ‘structures’.
Teachers and students are aware that starting in the classroom with classroom objects is purely a convenient way to get going – it kick-starts the language learning. As language quickly grows, the confines of the physical classroom dissolve, and more likely and plausible interaction can emerge. Even the very early lessons involving pens, watches, phones, switches, tables and so on can, in reality, become challenging and fun in the hands of a talented and informed teacher - it's not a question of some brutal taskmaster squeezing the life out of language and chipping away at the poor learners’ brains to engrave words and structures indelibly and inalterably.

But I think the most important point to dispel is the idea - common among many teachers - that when we are teaching language we are in some way reliving the learning experience that occurs in growing individuals as they learn a language.
Of course, no one would set about teaching their toddler in such a formal restrictive and disciplined way. Children ‘discover’ language in all its complexities and subtleties, and learn over the course of years and through hundreds of thousands of different types of experiences and encounters.
We cannot try to replicate this experience - and we certainly don't have the time to do so - in the classroom. When adult or teenage learners come to a classroom, they come with the benefit of many learning experiences with different degrees of formality and modality, and are well equipped to cope with learning strategies that do not correspond exactly to what might be described as ‘natural’ or ‘real’. But of course, a classroom is a classroom and not the ‘natural world’ or the ‘real world’ (but ‘real worlds’ have classrooms too).
To assume that an approach which is evidently contrived and artificial will somehow necessarily impair learners’ receptiveness, or ‘damage’ them in some way, is to do little justice to their intelligence.
Of course if a teaching programme continues to present a language in a lifeless and implausible way, learners will lose interest and motivation, and as experience has shown, will not provide learners with the skills required to become confident and effective language users.

Yes, we have heard of the communicative approach and we well appreciate and approve of its aims, and we recognise the advances and benefits that it has brought. Communication is at the heart of what we teach, although we would make a distinction between communication as the exclusive ‘means’ and as the ‘end’. Communication is a consequence of what happens in the classroom more than being the starting point of what happens at all costs.
This is what I meant when I said to disgusted of Tunbridge Wells that we can move beyond CLT, which so often seems to end up becoming trapped in a hall of mirrors. So I am genuinely sorry that pens and books figure in our first lessons, but we do not live in caves and we do not use the pens to club our students into submission.