Hi Tony,

 I think this is a really interesting question. Recently, Ramin Akbari wrote an article attempting to give the post-method movement a bit of a wake-up call, reminding scholars like Kumaravadivelu that the reality in classrooms around the world is still very much method-based. 

Personally, I feel that we teachers ought to be more interested in our principles than our methods. But I don't think it's easy for us to do so. CELTA and DELTA courses still seem to be pretty method-heavy, with an emphasis on surviving in the classroom (and probably justifiably so, since many of the people taking the courses have little intention of training for ELT as a vocation). My first few years as a teacher were spent trying out different methods, as if methods were all that there was to teaching.

I think our principles emerge from the experience of (and reflection on) teaching, and also from reading about it, doing training courses etc.  Perhaps the first stage in that is keeping a close eye on what the students seem to be doing in our classes? For example, I abandoned PPP (about 3 months after doing my CELTA) when I noticed that it controlled the discourse in the classroom so tightly. I didn't think that could possibly be helpful. In fact, when I think about it that way, it seems that all my experiences with methodology have served to push me away from a method based approach.

Now, I'd say my principles include:

- maximize interaction (with the teacher, with other students, with various texts)

- find ways to get students reflecting on their own language usage (e.g. by finding ways to record themselves)

- encourage autonomy - e.g. by encouraging self corraction of writing; but also by allowing students to select topics to speak/write/read about in class/self-assign homework etc. 

- encourage the development of classroom dynamics by encouraging the students to discuss and select what they want to do, making sure everyone knows each others' names, etc, trying to relinquish control of the classroom.

That's about all... I think if I can do those things over an eight week course, my students stand a really good chance of improving. 

     Peter

Peter, thanks for the link - I'll read the paper tonight.  Kumaravadivelu's 'postmethod condition' paper is about 15 years old now so it was nice to find something up-to-date. 

Other than the rise of 'CLIL' as a recent 'method', it seems most methodology textbook writers are happy to sit on the 'principled eclecticism' fence without really offering any help to teachers to critically assess methods or principles, including those put forward by Kumaravadivelu.

In my own experience, my DELTA was not overly method based, but there was little time to discuss the justification of teaching principles - basically it suggested a trial and error approach until you find something that works in your context. 

But how does a teacher determine when a principle/method is working? The liberal application of principles to all and any context is just as inappropriate as doing the same with methods. 

Do teachers just apply the methods or principled they were trained in?  Do they learn more from colloeagues or students?  I am interested in the origins of priniciples - whose principles are they anyway? :-)

Could the principles you outline above (interaction, self-reflection, autonomy, group dynamics) be said to be culturally specific?  Are they appropriate in your context or are they intrinsic to learning English rather than, say, learning Japanese? 

Thoughts please?!?

Tony

Hi Tony,

I realise that my experience only represents one way of becoming an EFL teacher, but it is a very common situation.  As often happens, I "accidentall" became an EFL teacher. I had no training until I did a CELTA after 8 years of experience. As a freelancer I effectively had no colleagues, and I would only have contact with any group of students for a couple of months. So my principles were formed from my own experience initially. Much later on when I started going to conferences etc. I had other input, and finally I did an MA in Applied Linguistics for Language Teaching. What was very gratifying was that the more I found out about the theory and background to language teaching, the more I found that most of how I taught reflected a fairly coherent method or group of methods.

Does that make sense? :-)

Regards,

Kevin

Thanks Olywn,

I will check out the Laudrillard (I saw it referenced in your EAP course too).  I think that is a very useful general principle that could be applied to almost any teaching/learning context.  It seems to reflect a Vygotskyan approach to teaching as providing a scaffolding for the learner. 

But it does assume learners can actually describe their understanding/performance.  As teachers we are probably more used to testing understanding/performance.  So now I wonder how can learners assess their own performance/understanding to relate this to their teacher?  Surely there will be a divergence in how students and teachers do this based on experience, training, etc?  

I have taught many Eastern European and East Asian students that perceive grammatical competence as the most important learning aim.  As a teacher schooled in CLT, my 'principles' have encouraged me to try and get the learners to think more about communicative competence - but is this what they want? Am I imposing my principles on them?  I am basically maneuvering them to assess themselves according to my criteria.  

Also, what about differences between what teachers or learners perceive as their teaching or learning aims and what the curriculum or university expects them to learn (like in Dead Poets Society).  And if we introduce performance as an indicator of learning, we need to think about how this is assessed and according to whose critera.

I am starting to think there is as much cultural politics involved in principles as methods...

Tony

Hi all,

Principles and feelings are what matters, methods can not be imposed neither approaches,  teachers should be trained into becoming critical readers as regards methodology: they should perceive what is to be used and what is to be discarded.

cheers

Pilar

Hello all,

Nothing can be surely imposed. I rather have my own mixture of 'ingredients' when in class. As a CELTA trainer, I do incorporate different methods into class but at the same time, I use a lot of my 'gut' feelings to be able to assist my students in the best possible way in that particular context. As Pilar states, we need to work toward training teachers or becoming teachers ourselves who can form our own thesis of what works best, with also the best intentions of adapting ourselves, in the best possible way, to the syllabus, context we work in. At the institution I work for in North Cyprus, it is suggested that teachers hold student-centered classes where most of our students come from highly teacher-fronted educational backgrounds. It becomes quite a challenge then for teachers to apply methods taught in courses such as CELTA but with some regular training of their students and bringing in their own genuine and thorough 'self-reflection' into their own teaching on what is indeed or not helping students, teachers, I think, can then achieve a lot toward helping their learners.

 Best to all,

Sezgi

Thanks Pilar and Sezgi,

Pilar: What happens when the teacher's principles and the student's principles don't match? Whose principles should be adopted?  And remember, many teachers around the world may not have the freedom to adopt or implement teaching principles contrary to their curriculum, or head teacher.  

Sezgi: I am happy to hear your learners are happy learning in a different way to what they were previously used to.  However, the introduction of notions like learner-centred aproach have met with some criticism in many teaching contexts (see writers like Stephen Bax, Deborah Cameron, David Block, Claire Kramsch, etc). 

Training teachers to be 'critical' is as troublesome as teaching student's to be 'critical' - according to whose definition of 'critical'?  Teacher? Teacher trainer? Student? Academic? We must remember the university or company they work for will have a great influence on the extent to which teachers can be principled, and to which principles they can adhere (see Akbari, mentioned above).

Thoughts please?

Tony

hi Tony,

Thanks for reminding me of other realities and  of lack of freedom to choose what one may think works best. You are right about the definition of being "critical" and what it may mean, when I talk about being critical as a teacher trainer I talk about being open enough so as to allow your trainees to follow the teaching style that best suits them and their students. Luckily, educational policies in the place where I live, allow for this freedom. Yet, freedom may also mean that you have the liberty of doing or not doing anything at alll, or ,what is worse that you are free to choose the easiest path and conform with things the way they are. When I talk about being critical I mean being critical about what you choose as the right thing to do in the classrooms and the how to do it and  being  critical about yourself. Once again, I´m talking about this from a very personal point of view, from my reality. Thanks from letting me see that this may not be commonplace. Now, how can  teachers make their ways when they are against the principles of  the companies they work for? Does this mean that you may teach them to keep their principles to themselves and adhere to those of  the company? if so, is it any good to teach them to become critical about principles? I would love to hear about this.

I mean, this may change the whole essence of teaching.

Cheers

pilar

Hi Tony and others,

A teacher should be  a synthesis of many principles, because there are different

groups (I mean learners) , a principle which works effectively  in one group ,

doesn't work in an another  group and we use other principles according to level

of knowledge  of learners. Choice of principles depends on level of knowledge of

learners.

I try to use problem oriented teaching  which consists of such components:

learner centred principle , individualization principle(for development of

autonomous thinking),interactive , critical thinking principles.

The ideas of those people whom you mentioned(Akbar...)  have not been

spread in  our region, but I think these  ideas are

fixed in general teaching process of human being.In spite of different

mentality we  use the same teaching - learning strategies.

Hi Tony:

     This is in response to your statement, "I am very interested in exactly how teachers form their views of what is good practice," your question, "what teaching principles do you follow and why," and the issue of the shift in emphasis from teaching methods to teaching principles. I will address these issues in that order.

     First, a definition of terms is in order.  I refer to philosophy, theory, method, and technique collective by the term approach.  By the term theory, I mean a theory that can be falsified.  My use of the term method follows from the manner in which I define the term approach, and is a radical departure from its use in the literature (the terms are used interchangeable in the literature by various authors).  My position is that there are three, and only three, methods: 1) instructed only (not supported by theory), 2) uninstructed only (not supported by theory), and 3) some combination of instructed and uninstructed (supported by the Theory of Neuronal Group Selection and the Theory of Bias Shift discussed below). Thus, the definition of the term approach that I use leads me to conclude that if any proposed way of teaching does not include a philosophy or a theory, then it is neither a teaching approach nor a teaching method. It might be more properly classified as a notion about how to go about teaching.

GOOD PRACTICE

     What I regard as good practice is a teaching approach (philosophy, theory, method, and technique) that can be falsified.  A teaching approach can be falsified by 1) finding a contradiction in the philosophy, or by 2) falsifying the theory. Additionally, an instructor should use an approach with due regard for the fact that it consists of a philosophy that, if properly constructed, cannot be falsified, and a theory that not only can be falsified, but also, and perhaps more importantly, cannot be proven to be true.  Such an attitude in the employment of an approach would, I hope, go a long way toward avoiding the display of a hubris attitude flavored with an anti-social, dogmatic stance, thus, leaving one receptive to criticism and the willingness to modify one's approach as circumstances require.  Thus, if a newly minted approach doesn't work as expected, then an examination of the failure can be conducted for the purpose of determining the source of the problem and modifying the approach as necessary.

     I came to form this particular point of view regarding what constitutes good practice as a result of a desire to learn Mandarin and being told that it would be impossible for me to acquire native-speaker level Mandarin pronunciation because I was beginning my study of Mandarin as an adult.  I disagreed with this pronouncement, but for no good reason other than it wasn't what I wanted to hear.  The existing literature was heavily in favor of the Critical Period Hypothesis and both the strong and weak versions were not supportive of my goals. So, I decided to conduct some research regarding the teaching/learning of a foreign language by adults so that I could resolve the problem of acquiring native-speaker level Mandarin pronunciation.  Along the way, I discovered that listening comprehension was another major problem area. This research took me into the fields of philosophy, neurobiology, neurolinguistics, and psycholinguistic in addition to a careful examination of the existing research and its methodology.

WHAT TEACHING PRINCIPLES DO YOU FOLLOW AND WHY?

     I ended up formulating my own approach.  I examined the so-called teaching methods (the Grammar Translation Method, the Audio-lingual Method, and the Communicative Language Teaching Approach, for example); however, I rejected them.  Although methods such as the Grammar Translation Method and the Audio-lingual Method are grounded in a theory, I rejected the theories as being inadequate for the acquisition of a foreign language to the level of accuracy and fluency of a native speaker.  I rejected the Communicative Language Teaching Approach (how can you not like that name!) because it used mimicry to teach pronunciation (as stated by Kenworthy (1987, p. 69), "many learners will be able to produce new sounds simply be imitating what they hear" (Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English pronunciation. NY: Longman.  However, if this were true, then the acquisition of L2 pronunciation would be a non-problem) and because it is not based on a valid theory (Chomsky doesn't have a theory because his "theory" cannot be falsified).  So, finding nothing to my liking, I decided to formulate my own approach to teaching/learning a foreign language specifically aimed at adult learners.

     The approach that I formulated consists of a philosophy (a metaphysic), a falsifiable theory, method, and techniques.  Specifically,

1.  A metaphysic was formulated that does not address the issue of why there is something rather than nothing, how it come into existence, or what we should be doing with our time, but one that focuses on describing the nature of the universe.  The metaphysic was constructed using the following criteria: 1) it must have explanatory power, 2) it must be coherent, 3) it must meet a standard of simplicity, 4) it must be constructed by using logic and experience, and 5) it need not be falsifiable, just free of any contradictions. Briefly, very briefly, the conclusion I came to was that the universe is relational in nature.  I know, I know, geee imagine that, who wouda guessed?  However, knowing this consciously as a result of having begun with 3 initial assumptions is a whole lot different that knowing the same thing unconsciously.  This conclusion leads to the prediction that 1) any brain that develops in such an environment would be one that categorizes relations (for example, cause and effect is one kind of relation), and 2) that any language created by the brain would not only express relations as categorized by the brain, but also, as a matter of necessity, would itself be relational in its structure.  As noted by Craig (1988, p. 340), "any meaningful language will have to mirror the structure of the world" (Craig, E. (1998).  Metaphysics.  In Edward Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language. London: Routledge).

2.  A theory of SLA was developed.  The theory of SLA relies upon Edelman's (1987) global theory of the brain, the Theory of Neuronal Group Selection (TNGS) (Edelman, G. M. (1987). Neuronal Darwinism: A theory of neuronal group selection. NY: Basic Books) and a theory that I formulated specific to SLA, the Theory of Bias Shift. Briefly, very, very, briefly, Edelman's findings are: 1) in order for learning to take place, "perceptual categorization must both precede and accompany learning" (Ibid, p. 7); 2) learning occurs only when there is "some element of novelty, surprise, or violation of expectation" (Ibid, p. 296); 3) It is the sum total of all a learner's experiences that create the context in which learning takes place; however, learning in this context does not include habit formation. Rather, "it is specific to a context" (Ibid, p. 296); 4) memory is both associative and serial in nature (Edelman, 1989, pp. 114-117)(Edelman, G. M. (1989). The remembered present: A biological theory of consciousness. NY: Basic Books); 5) "neurons in a group are more closely connected to each other than to the neurons in other groups" (Edelman, 2001, p. 46)(Edelman, G. M. (2001). Building a picture of the brain.  In G.M. Edelman & J-P Changeux (Eds.), The brain (pp. 37-70). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction). The Theory of Bias Shift states that, "as a result of learning that results in categorization, there occurs a shift in bias from category formation to category utilization as a consequence of a shift in bias affecting attention (with its accompanying psycholinguistic effects).  This shift in bias affecting attention results in an accompanying shift in bias from implicit learning to explicit learning. ... It should be realized, however, that explicit instruction is not an adequate condition for adult acquisition of the pronunciation of an L2, but only a necessary condition.  Any explicit instruction, to be sufficient, must (a) be presented in such a manner as to comply with the TNGS and its implications for neurolinguistics regarding the necessary conditions for learning to take place, and (b) must occur in such a manner as to allow for the psycholinguistic effects resulting from a shift in bias affecting attention" (Jenkins, D. H. (2006). The acquisition of American English segmentals by adult native speakers of Mandarin. Masters Abstracts International, 44 (04), p. 1583. (UMI No. 1430462), (p. 55 of the thesis).  Additionally, 1) "as responses to inputs from the environment become automatized over time. ... there occurs a shift in bias in favor of focusing attention on those aspects of the environment that have been previously identified as the most salient and in reaction to which responses have been learned" (Ibid, p. 58); 2) "explicit instruction is necessary in order for an adult learner to attend to non-salient features of the environment ... Elements in the environment that have already been discriminated against as having no saliency do not create any ‘element of novelty, surprise, or violation of expectation' (Edelman, 1987, p. 296); thus, learning that depends upon recognizing features of the environment that are not salient for prior learning, but that are salient for new learning, does not occur.  Consequently, such non-salient features just be brought to conscious attention explicitly" (Ibid, p. 59-60); 3) "a shift in bias affecting attention as a result of prior learning results in a shift in bias from implicit to explicit learning.  This is the consequence of the presence of non-salient features of an L2 that necessitate explicit learning" (Ibid, p. 61); 4) "an inability to notice the saliency of an input when specifically attending to it does not preclude learning from taking place if the learning is explicit in nature [the timing of lip rounding in the production of the AE word "boot," for example]" (Ibid, p. 61); 5) "the neuronal groups associated with repeating words are not the same as those involved in initiating pronunciation. Thus, training in pronunciation that involves learners learning to correctly repeat the pronunciation of a word that they have heard an instructor pronounce will not result in the learners being able to correctly pronounce the word without hearing it first" (Ibid, p. 27-28).

3. The method, a combination of instructed and uninstructed learning, is consistent with the philosophy and theory.

4.  The techniques are those that are consistent with the philosophy, theory, and method.  More specifically, they are explicit and consistent with the TNGS and the Theory of Bias Shift.  They are designed to ensure, as much as is possible, that students infer what I intend in order to minimize the possibility of the students incorrectly categorizing the new information.

To digress for a moment, I disagree with those who take the position that it is possible to have a theory without a philosophy because research findings are used to formulate a theory.  The reason I disagree is because research findings are interpreted based on one's philosophical point of view.  For example, adherents of two different philosophies of history, geographical determinism and economic determinism will interpret historical events differently and provide different rationale for the causes of events in history. So, just as there is no disembodied brain, there is no theory without a philosophy.

     So, I do not use teaching principles, I use an approach.

SHIFT FROM AN EMPHASIS ON TEACHING METHOD TO TEACHING PRINCIPLES     

     Regarding the shift in emphasis from teaching methods to teaching principles, this is a non-issue for me.  My teaching career, if I may call it that, began with my own approach already in place.  My personal take on the matter, however, is that teaching principles is just another teaching method absent any pretense at being supported by a falsifiable theory.  My personal opinion is that those who are abandoning teaching methods in favor of teaching practices will not experience any improvement in their teaching outcome.  It has been said that the teaching of a foreign language should employ teaching techniques that are known to work; i.e., teaching by principles (Michael H. Long, personal communication).  However, by what means has it been determined that a particular teaching practice works?  It worked on April 1, 1884 with student group A, so therefore is it a teaching technique that works?  My preference is to use my approach rather than reduce it to an overly generalized list of principles.  Someone who reads a description of my particular approach and doesn't understand it, but goes away with the idea, "relate new information to old information," and uses that information as a teaching technique, will be using a teaching principle, but someone who does understand the approach will be using the same information in the context of an approach. The former will not be able to correct a problem with the use of the information in any principled way, while the latter will be able to do so.

Dan Jenkins (Foreign Expert, English Department, China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing, China)

Hi Dan

Many thanks for the thought-provoking article.  Have you written any research paper on 'your' approach.  Please let me know.  My email id is rayanal@yahoo.co.uk

Albert

Dan! Wow, what a comprehensive post - it will take me a while to read (and think) through your response but I will reply to you as soon as I have had the chance. 

It looks like this is something you have spent some time preparing(?).  If you have some articles or blog postings somewhere please link to them.  

I am considering research topics and methods for my MA dissertation and would appreciate any useful articles or links.  

In the meantime, thanks to everyone who has contributed so far.

Tony

:-)

Hi Tony!

I'm also doing an MA about a very similar topic.. The preliminary title is called "German Immersion and Second Language Teaching Methods: Which teaching methods are the best in the immersion school classroom? A study by grade level."

 I am confident that everyone knows that the content-based method is "the answer". But is it???

I'm  quite interested in what everyone has had to say so far. I haven't had time to read anything on this blog yet. My research is based on immersion schools in the US. Maybe we can brainstorm.

Noelle

Thank you for answering,  Mr. Jenkins!

The reason why I said the method of choice in a German Immersion school would be content-based, is because an Immersion school is one were the curriculum is in the target language. That means math and science and all the other subjects in the spectrum. The language is not the subject of focus.  HOWEVER, there is a difference between the math you learn from a math teacher who is a native of the target country, and the math you learn from a language teacher, which is, that the math teacher knows a whole lot more of math than the language teacher.

 What I'm trying to say is that what the language teacher is doing is using a method called "content-based teaching". But the math teacher is simply trying to get his students to understand the concept of math, but using his native tongue (the target language). My question is: What methods does he use to get the students to understand him - and how developed are they in their language, anyway? I want to hold interviews and have the teachers answer this by grade level. But I can't just have open-ended questions, or I'll be trying to figure out which methods they use (even if they are unaware they are using them).

I hope I have answered some of your questions. I seem to be reeling in them, myself

Noelle

Actually, I am going to send off a questionnaire to all the math and science teachers of these immersion schools. (First off, I am hoping they only teach in those areas and therefore have less of an idea about language teaching methods). I am not going to any of these schools because I would have to be rich in order to do so.

I am hoping to get an idea of how they teach to children initially don't speak the language. The children will have listened to, and interacted in, the target language in pre-k5 (and sometimes pre-k4), so ideally they will have the some understanding.

Yes, it is all content learning, but the Teachers will use ways (aka methods) to get the children to understand what they need to. I'm hoping to find out which methods they successfuly use (albeit unconsciously) and those will be the preferred methods, or the methods I would suggest to teachers who specifically teach the language. The methods that don't work for them will not labeled "bad" methods, but they won't work in immersion schools in specifically non-language oriented classes.

 I am quite certain that there will be flaws in my research, but I think it's important to be able to have ample evidence that something is wrong, too. So I will be happy whatever the outcome. I know that many teachers would be happy to find "approved" methods. 

Hi Tony,

After reading all of these very learned responses I am going to simply add that it really doesn't matter what methodology is used, what equipment or books are available nor are things like location or financial circumstances really that crucial...

To be a great teacher with great practice, one simply must have a deep love of teaching. 

The students feel your passion, your joy of being in the room with them, sharing knowledge.  The enthusiam you have for the subject you're teaching convinces them that they want to be a part of that happiness.

Good practice = inspiring good practice of their own.

.02c

Karenne

Thanks Karenne,

So does that mean good teaching has more to do with the personality of the teacher than their training?  Does that mean that good teachers are born good teachers rather than become good teachers?  

Does a little love for teaching and a whole lot of reflective practice and training not prepare a better teacher than one a whole heap of passion but not much training?

Tony

Def not!

When I was DOS in Ecuador, had two teachers who can use as examples here:

Teacher D was a no-hire because she didn't have a teaching qualification. She was super nice in the interview and really keen to learn. Unfortunately or fortunately that week I'd taken on a major client, the rest of my staff were up to their eyeballs and my new recruits from overseas weren't due for 6 weeks. 

EIL was the best (or in the top 3) schools in Ecuador and although I didn't want to risk our rep. I ended up taking her on - figuring she could handle the "conversation" lessons and I could move everyone else around while training her the basics of teaching. 

D, in the two years that I worked with her was one of the very best teachers I had the pleasure of working with (and I had a brilliant staff - we had a tough app procedure). 

Her enthusiasm and dedication to making sure that her students learned, her extra hours of lesson-planning, her laughter - - I will tell you that when I observed her I felt like I was watching magic appear.  Her students were so keen to please her, they learned.

Am not sure that she was "born" to be a teacher - she's actually doing social work now.  But in that window of time it was what she wanted to do.

2. TeacherB.  O GOD.

What a mistake he was.  Impressive bio - digital portfolio, this was 7 - 8 years ago?  Masters in Applied Linguistics.  No desire to teach, no idea why he took the trouble to travel across the ocean and be with us as getting him to be involved in the community was nigh on impossible. No connection to the students. Talked over their heads, actually he would explain to them what was going on in their heads (which I also do, but in a fun way, I hope)...  was all rather droll and I can't count the number of students who asked to be removed from his lessons.

Re your: does the personality influence good teaching.  No, it's not personality, as in introvert vs extrovert -nice person, not nice person... am trying to say that the root cause for being in the classroom stems out of the desire to share one's knowledge. 

You can be shy and love teaching - actually shyness and mavens (hoarders of information) often go together...  and I'm not sure about the whole heap of passion but little training... the whole heap of passion thing usually leads to a whole load of training... or maybe, it's the willingness to learn, willingness to fall down splat, willingness to get back up and try a different methodology?

Teacher B thought he knew it all and couldn't bear it when I told him that I thought he should be using more supplementary materials or to ease off a bit on his lecturing style...

If I think again of Dom, she really questioned everything she did (she was so nervous at the start) and actually was the most reflective teacher I've met to date - she wanted to do a good job so badly that she did ??

Random thoughts, hope that helps Tony

K

It has been very interesting to read the many contributions here. Before starting to write a resonse to your question 'What teaching principles do you follow and why?' I thought it would be quite easy to do but I'm realising that there are so many things that have influenced how I work with learners now that it's been difficult to isolate the main principles.

However, I think most of those influences tend to feed into two main principles: one, that to learn a language you need to use it, do things with it, in actual communication; and two, that the learning should, in some way, be relevant to the learners' lives and aspirations with learners being encouraged to recognise progress according to what they are increasingly able to do outside of the classroom (as well as in it).

Why I follow these principles is simply because this is how I believe languages are learned most effectively from reflecting on my own learning experiences (and what I've heard or read of others' experiences) and from reflecting on learners' feedback, reactions, uptake etc. I also like to support these beliefs with reading articles, books, etc to reassure myself that I'm on the right track!

A personal experience that sticks with me most (and which is probably quite common) is that, after six years of learning French in school, I arrived in France as an au pair unable to converse in the language! After a few months in the country with no more formal language learning, I was quite fluent. Similarly, and very recently, I was in Germany with my daughter who has now heard that she got an A in advanced higher German in the Scottish SQA exams but who found everyday interaction difficult to deal with. She exclaimed in exasperation to me on a train "When am I going to need to talk to anybody here about the environment?"

Training, initial and ongoing, is of course necessary too as it provides us with a variety of ways (methods?) to encourage interaction and more authentic language use and to provide relevant input and feedback.

I realise this is a very brief and very personal response but I hope it is of some help and best of luck with your dissertation!