Why and what methods?

I´m going to start with a story of my experiences learning a language. It may be mundane perhaps, and it may even sound to you to be extremely unoriginal, but I think it serves to remind us of the simple difference between the "right" way and the "wrong" way to learn a language.

At university, I decided to learn Spanish. The professor was a native speaker and I liked her very much. She conducted the entire class in Spanish and perhaps uttered five words in English the entire year. However, I have to say, I "squeezed" by with a passing grade and finished with absolutely no ability to have a simple conversation. End of story one.

Years later, and by coincidence, I somehow landed in Barcelona, Spain, with a freshly-printed teaching certificate in my hand, no teaching experience and even less Spanish. And yet, within six-months and no formal learning, I could have pretty good conversations with people and conduct all my daily affairs with relative competence.

So what was the difference between the two experiences?

Most people would agree that one of the best ways to "learn" a language is to live in the country where it´s spoken, which is true for various reasons:

• It allows one to continually practice listening to the language being used in various contexts by various different people thus providing the learner with practice not only in understanding but also with "real" examples of language use.
• It allows one the opportunity to use the language in a variety of contexts--either conversationally or transactionally
• It allows one to learn and understand first-hand the cultural nature of the language
• Nothing quite like the necessity of "survival" provides one with the same level of motivation that living in a foreign country does
• Perhaps the simplest reason is that it´s the most "natural"--that is, it mimics most closely how we learned our first language

So why do I even mention this, if after all, I´m writing something which seeks to help teachers of English to teach in a classroom? I mention it because I think that teachers, especially those who are living in a foreign country and doing exactly what I´ve just mentioned, easily forget or conveniently choose to ignore this very simple fact. In doing so, they completely abolish any semblance of "real world" learning for the stuff of textbooks--which I liken to processed food with loads of additives and artificial flavours trying to imitate the real thing. Yes, processed foods are quick and easy to consume but don´t you feel worse for having eaten them? Does your health improve from having eaten them? 

So, if probably one of the best ways to learn a language is to live in the country where that language is spoken (you probably have some experience with that), then the solution should be to try to mimic those conditions as closely as you can in class? A no-brainer, right? The problem is, how?

If you think about it when we communicate, either through gestures, body language, signals or by use of spoken or written language, it´s all for a purpose. Even when we listen or read we do so with purpose. Now think back to the last class you taught. Think of a specific activity you asked your students to do. What was its purpose? If the answer is "to learn English"  or "to learn a specific grammar point" then ask yourself if that was enough motivation alone to keep your students engaged in what they were doing--and I mean every single one of them. If the answer is "no" or "maybe not" then it´s likely that there lies the problem. You see, if in our everyday lives we do everything for a purpose--be it to achieve something or just to pass the time pleasurably--then isn´t it a bit ridiculous to assume that students are going to do every activity, every bit of homework, every listening activity you trudge through, solely for the purpose of a long-term or perhaps never-achievable goal of learning English? Mind you, I´ve had many students for whom that was enough but they were a minority--that being the minority who never complained, who did every grammar exercise I could throw at them, who asked intelligent questions and who, despite all this, still weren´t speaking as well I thought they could have after so many years of study.

So why shouldn´t we at least make an effort of putting this one element which every "real-world" communicative activity we do contains, back into the content of our classes? And while we´re at it, why not also make students feel that what we´re talking about in class is important or more important than how we talk about it? I mean, how often is someone going to say "If I were rich, I would buy a bigger house" in a real conversation? Why not just make the class about real conversation? 

But wait, I´m getting ahead of myself here. One thing at at time. One thing at a time...