Zhuangzi wrote:tests to determine learners starting levels are not necessary
In a 1-2-1 context, such as you are offering online, okay, such tests aren't necessary. But for a class, they are necessary, not because a teacher could not in principle cope, or more advanced students would necessarily mind listening to less stimulating chat between a teacher and the less able students (I've had classes like this and usually they go fine, or at least as well as can be expected), but because the lower-level students perhaps would probably not be able to keep up with language way above their level; that is, students below a "certain" level (I'm not sure I could exactly yet formulate it in functional or whatever terms!), who know very little, should really be in a class of their own.
Above this point of "knowing enough" to get by, ask questions, acquire and improve, differences in level are of course much more arbitrary, and the primary distinction is ultimately just between knowing "something(s)" and knowing "enough" (enough to consider an end to the expense of formal instruction?).
(I believe it was Michael Lewis who made me aware of the something/not enough and enough (or something like that) distinction).
instruction in grammar is overdone
Explicit instruction is often overdone and probably ultimately unnecessary, but knowing some terminology can be useful for more advanced students referring to dictionaries; exercise books must be popular with students for a reason; and a knowledge of grammar (actually, I prefer the term
lexicogrammar) does help also the teacher, to ensure that important aspects of the language are being at least implicitly addressed and covered.
That is, the problem with purely incidental learning is that if no sophisticated analysis is ever carried out (by somebody with an explicit knowledge of grammar and linguistics generally) to determine exactly what the "interesting and varied" texts do and don't actually contain, linguistically, or the language that is likely to be stimulated by those texts (i.e. the topics/topical language that will probably be picked up on, the generally envisaged direction of the discussion that follows on from those topics e.g. subtopics, arguments etc), potential difficulties will remain regarding the ease with which a teacher can fill any unforseen gaps when they suddenly and unexpectedly become apparent, and in the student's future ability (once the course is over) to succeed as well as they might have otherwise in just such a variety of "unforseen language" situations.
A further advantage of a more "complete" course (possibly using e.g. "concentrated", example-wise, coursebooks such as COBUILD's previous English Course) is that it will provide a rich range of more concrete options, directions and realizable goals, all of which will undoubtedly motivate a student to remain studying with the teacher even after all the essential lexicogrammar has been covered (at this point the student will probably realize they are managing to say and feel capable of saying almost anything!).
classrooms are inefficient
Classrooms are as inefficient as the teachers want to make them, and changing to 1-2-1 is no guarantee of efficiency on the part of the teacher.
There are actually some advantages to being in a class (especially if it is a multilingual one) that you just don't get in 1-2-1.
But yes, personally I would be pretty wary of joining a language class and would try to find a good private teacher instead. I'd study the language somewhat beyond a beginner level first (e.g. complete a basic self-study course) so I could at least have some idea of what was being said in any trial lessons that might be being offered.
I suppose if I were that serious, I'd consider a postgraduate or immersion programme. If those were prohibitively expensive my last choices would be community college/adult education-style evening classes and, as a last resort, a language school. But hey, who knows, some language schools might actually be okay (that is, have okay teachers, at least ones better than me anyway LOL).
distinctions between academic, spoken and written English are not helpful
These distinctions are actually, if you would prefer to be studying spoken English than writing research papers on subatomic physics or whatever aspect of Shakespeare.
But sure, some e.g. science e.g. writers adopt a pretty conversational tone in their writing, and a spoken course that presumed people didn't want to or couldn't ever really talk about complex or academic, higher matters to some degree at least would obviously be being unambitious.
most textbooks are boring and ineffcient
I don't know, there must be some good ones out there (perhaps we could try to name a few). There are a few books that spring to mind, but they aren't really comprehensive enough to act as general courses and can therefore only really play supplementary roles. I suppose it also depends on what your definition of "boring" is. I have a Chinese self-study textbook that doesn't have a single illustration, and strange-looking/offputting expansion drills at the end of each unit, but it is actually one of the most succinct and fun/funny, quirky (that is, for a textbook) little tomes I have ever come across (the expansion drills I now know are actually "backchaining" ones, these can be - and were - quite useful in helping with longer sentences). The imagination and "daring" shown in a writer's selection of examples might not be acceptable to some (in this PC world of ours), but for those who'd learn a language better if the text even remotely resembled "life as we know it", these are "issues" that any writer should perhaps consider including in a coursebook. I think ESL students would love it if foreign teachers of English in their home countries wrote a similar book (and who knows, perhaps similar books do exist!).
At the end of the day, though, yes, most textbooks, especially ESL ones, are so earnest, dull, patronizing and unambitious (or, at the other extreme, too zanily slangy etc, without ever becoming serious about explaining the everyday language, or indeed even the truly "darker" things in life) that it is difficult to come up with any overwhelming recommendations.
I could go on
Go on, then!
Modern technolgoy makes it possible...for the learner to automatically grade any content to his or her needs.
I didn't quite understand that, could you perhaps expand on it?
The role of the teacher is to convert the learner from a passive object into a motivated learner. If that is not done the learner will not learn. If that is done the teacher has done his/her job and need just continue to provide some feedback, the odd explanation on request and continued encouragement and stimulus.
See my comments about "grammar", above. It needn't be explicitly taught, but the teacher should be trying to ensure that all the necessary vocabulary and frequent patternings (phrases, lexicogrammar rather than just too plain slot-and-fill structure) is getting a look-in.
This is all a little overstated and refers primarily to adults but is there anyone out there who can agree with any of this? Or is the entire world wide ESL community just one big self-gratification and job protection conspiracy?
'The ESL world' is a construct unique to each individual teacher, comprizing the sum of their education, and major, training, reading, experience, where they presently live, relations within that community (how English and English people are viewed by it if it is the teacher lives in a foreign country, or how ESL is viewed as a career if the teacher lives in an English-speaking country), their present job with all that entails (students, classes, duties, coleagues, bosses etc), prospects, external contacts, interest in "feeder" disciplines etc etc. I think my ESL world has improved through joining and participating in Dave's, at least.
,
The actual The Linguist links have disappeared from SK's blog. 
