Thanks for your reply. I enjoy sending ideas back and forth. Clearly my message needs polishing and this is a great help.
Somehow, it seems that because I use and agree with certain teaching techniques that require what I myself have termed "tounge awareness" with pronunciation I have become a "traditional approach" teacher who is against communicative learning. But this is not true.
Both my graduate and undergraduate studies were steeped in communicative practices and theories. The first few years of my teaching, furthermore, were almost entirely communicative based. What I realized after a few years, however, was that, although there were exceptions, my classes had great energy, atmosphere, enabled communication, cultural exchange, but did not result in accuracy. "I go store" communicates quite well, for example, but it doesn't impress the manager of Target (a retailer in the US who hires refugees). So, I began to explore with many techniques and discovered a number of them that turn out to be highly effective for fast and lasting results. Among these are ones that have been labled "traditional" because they share some elements of what used to be done, but all of them are actually a combination of techniques and the ones that work best for me have to do with generating student awareness more than anything else and, in this way, are more similar to Buddhism than traditional approaches.
The way I see it is that there are two aspects of language use in terms of speaking and writing: fluency and accuracy and both of them are important. Therefore, my classes spend time with both approaches and I tell my students what the purpose of an activity is before we go into it (this is an activity where I want you to forget about grammar and perfection and simply talk in English freely to communicate as much as possible -I give examples and we develop this skill -because it is a skill- over time, or The purpose of this activity is to help you becpome aware of the differences between your speech and that of a native speaker and to help you to make any changes that you feel will bring you closer to your speaking goals). When I use some of the techniques I have discovered that work to help students become aware of their grammar for themselves, and recycle that experience several times I find that the result is far better than "traditional grammar apporaches with PPP where, I agree, they generally forget whatever it was, or even communicative apporaches where they generally lack awareness of the language so that they keep making the same mistake unconsciously. These results are obvious and measurable and easily tested. I know that it has worked, for instance, if I ask a student, "What did you do over the weekend?" and she says, "I visited my aunt and we played cards. Then I relaxed at home and read a book." with perfect grammar and good pronunciation. I find it much preferable to something like "I went aunt and cards play." But this is not to say that every moment or utterance is held to high standards of correctness. Again I do both and I let the students know which is which. In this way we honour the creative and communicative aspect of language as well as the formative one.
Although we clearly have some differences, I feel that actually we share much in common in our thinking and ideas. I am a natural reformer and am actively seeking ways to change what is going on in our schools and how we approach education. I agree with the observation you have made of the restlessness of youth and that a promise of a good job doesn't motivate them. There are a large number of issues that educators face when confronting youth and much of them, I believe, are found in the entire top down this is what you need to learn because I said so approach that does not allow for human variation, creativity, self awareness or freedom.
Part of our challenging in communicating, I suspect, is that I am discussing a totally different group of learners. University students in Oman who are priviledged enough to get into the place where I teach, believe it or not, are very motivated though their idea of hard work is far from what western civilization has become accostomed to (which is probably a good thing because we tend to work ourselves to death -literally). Rufugees in America who have children and need to support them and have come from war torn places where they were faced by death, oppression and starvation are very motivated to get a good job.
Additionally, different cultural traditions have different expectations and attitudes about what learning and teaching is and, even with a great technique, if it goes against what the students believe, there will be much trouble. Have you ever taught any Russians? More than any other group, I have found that Russians respond magnificently to grammar. They love grammar, ask for, remember it, and use it well, quickly. I'm not trying to create a stereotype here, but every Russian student I have taught has asked for and about grammar and seems to respond very well to it. What I have found is that, rather then getting them to forget about grammar and just be communicative, I do well to honor and tap into the flow of energy that they have placed in grammar and then use it, along with other techniques.
"You say that some people are not understood when they speak. Please do me a favour and ask them how they were taught."
Most of the people who are not understood were either not taught at all, or were taught by other people who couldn't be understood. I have had, however, many people who began getting language teaching from another teacher in the school who doesn't really know how to teach pronunciation who enter my class unintelligible and leave it having made great progress. This includes people who came from what has been called "communicative classes". This goes back to my original point. In terms of pronunciation, authentic materials are great for sound awareness in terms of recognition. For speaking, however, the only authentic material that exists is the human voice and if we don't use that and develop it, progress will not occur at the level it could were we using it. I don't really see how anyone could deny this. I used to be into tennis and watched a lot of tennis on TV. I know that this helped me a lot. The greatest learning, however, always ocurred when I picked up the racket and started using it because this is the truly authentic moment for speech production -the moment of use. My technique here is really just common sense. If I see a student who is holding the racket in the wrong way, I point it out and show them how to hold it. Then when they swing the next time, the ball goes over the net. They smile, I smile. It works. Call it whatever you want. Many communicative teachers will say, wait, don't interupt the flow of conversation, let it come naturally. Naturally, the ball goes into the net and play stops. Over time, however, it is true, the learner, if properly motivated, will likely begin to get it over the net. But I know from experience that a little bit of coaching will bring them there 10 times faster. But a little coaching need not become all that occurs. Allow the students time to experiment and play with the ball, then provide them with some intensive one on one instruction, watch them soar.
"I am sorry but what you are suggesting hasn't worked in Greece and i think the communicative approach is working so far in Skandinavia and in Western Europe (please any colleague from these countries correct me if I am wrong). In Sweden, at the beginning of the 20th century, the children were sitting in a circle to enable communication. "
In all honesty, I don't believe you understand what I am suggesting and therefore highly doubt you have ever really tried it out yourself, not to mention the greater Greek population of teachers. You seem to be stuck in an either or point of view. I am coming from a both and perspective. I feel it is much more import to look at what works and experiment with everything rather stick to one set of ideas. And again, as you yourself have stated, I am communicative. Communicative methods are very important. I just don't find them to be the be all and end all of what we can accomplish, nor do I think that to espouse them requires a total rejection of everything else. And again, this is particularly in terms of accuracy in pronunciation and grammar. When fluency and meaning are being discussed, I am communicative hands down. There is also a fundamental difference between adolescents and adults. Over all, adolescents do tend to pick up more implicitly then adults in my experience and I am aware that more of my practice has been with adults than children and that this experiences highlights the need for some focus on form.
"I don't understand what is the connection between a libelar and a communicative ESL teacher. I am sorry but do you think that all communicative teachers are liberals too? "
By liberal here I was not referring to your political orientation, but to your indicated acceptance of imperfect pronunciation. In this meaning an "our way of pronouncing is the only way" teacher from the UK would be "right wing" and a teacher -like yourself- who believes that it is OK to have an accent and that the point is communication, would be "liberal".
"What does it have to do with an approach that exists and has good results for so many years?"
Have you read any of the research? An overall assessment will reveal quite a mixed bag. If we want to believe in it we can find evidence to support it. If we want to disbelieve in it, when can find evidence to discount it. I have found that the truth usually rests somewhere in the middle. There is an articles in TESOL Quaterly's 40 years anniversary issue entitled: "TESOL Methods: Changing Tracks, Challenging Trends" on p. 59 that I like, not because it discounts CLT, which it doesn't, but because it puts it in a broader perspective and encourages us to keep looking further.
But I do feel that I agree with many of your ideas and am glad that you are out there doing what you are doing! I also appreciate the chance to communicate. I suspect that what I am trying to say is not always very clear and this helps me. Thanks