In my 16th year, at school, something happened to my brain. I learned to learn.
It was only a small change, I admit, but it brought about a huge change. Within a term I leaped effortlessly to the head of the class in those subjects that dealt largely with concepts—Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and to a certain extent Mathematics.
I figured out that all I had to do was listen. I would listen to the teacher with the aim of understanding what he was talking about. I asked questions until I did. And then I sat back, satisfied, and relaxed. That’s all I had to do, and it worked.
I never did anything else. I didn’t memorize information. I didn’t complete the exercises. I hardly did homework. I didn’t study, although if I was interested I might do a little reading around the topic.
Since then, this approach has always succeeded. The only times I’ve ever done poorly with my academic work was when I strayed from those principles and tried to learn via conventional methods. If I treated the subject ‘seriously’ and formally, then it wouldn’t go well. I’d stress out. I’d fail. I’d quit.
Now then, what if I was to use this approach with learning a new language? (At school I’d dropped Latin and French the previous year . . .)
Instead of trying to memorize rules and vocabulary, I would just notice patterns and see how the language worked. I’d expose myself to it in a light, wide and shallow way. I wouldn’t analyze, study or try to learn in any way. I’d just express interest.
Therefore, I wouldn’t feel the slightest strain. I wouldn’t put any pressure on myself. I’d avoid all stress. It would be fun. It would be easy.
And I'd go to the top of the class again, I’m absolutely certain.
The theme of individuality and individualization crops up often here. That's because it's so important with language-learning. One of the main reasons that a language should not be learned in a classroom is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to allow everyone to do their own thing in a confined space. Ask any teacher.
Your route and your methods must suit you. They need to be individually tailored. And the tailor must be you.
So you try something and see. You observe. You make an adjustment. In short, you tweak your way toward a system, or an approach, that works perfectly for you.
It must fit you like a glove.
It could take you as long as a decade or learn a language using a mass-produced approach.
It should take you only a year or two if you individualize what you do.
This is not what you think, not at all. I'm just talking about chat here. Nothing more. Nothing to see here, people, move on please.
I've run conversation classes. As a teacher I matched students with volunteers. Gave them prompt sheets to give them something to talk about.
Usually there would be several English learners with one volunteer, or, if there were enough, we'd pair them up: one on one.
But these conversations would often turn into mini-lessons, mini-classes. Which isn't ideal.
And then I'd sit in and try to gently steer the activity towards regular conversation. That involved me responding to the volunteer in a manner in which I wanted the students to adopt, and also model for the volunteer how I'd like he or she to interact.
It struck me then that it is very valuable for students to see, and be a part of, a group that had native speakers speaking with one another.
They'd see the conventions we use. They'd be able to sit back and then join in when ready. This reduced any pressure that they might be under. And the language used would as a result approach more authentic English.
I've since read in Kato Lomb's book: Polyglot, How I Learn Languages that she encourages the same approach.
