The problem with some people in ESL is that they don't think in a comprehensive way, and don't want try different methods to see if they work. Many schools adopt a "one size fits all" approach, and that's one reason why I think training centres ( and even some universities ) in Asia are rubbish. How can anybody teach well in a totally inflexible work/teaching environment where there is never any variation or flexibility in regard to the teaching? The, "follow our method" philosophy ( one method ) for example crap like the "EF method".

Nobody suggested a one size fits all method. However there are techniques that are proven to work better with YL classes. This is just common sense. A six year old doesn't have the concentration span to sit quietly at a desk copying from the board, nor do they have the language ability to to have a discussion. So the methods used to get a young learner to the stage they can do that are different to how you teach someone already at that level. Children respond to different things and that is why a YL teacher must be so adaptable.

Maybe something like TPR has limited use in a classroom, it may have some benefit for SOME young learners. If Beth considers herself to be a real teacher she will know that a needs analysis needs to be conducted whenever a teacher starts at a new school or university ( yes Beth, I used to do that, because I know one learning style is not suitable for every class ) In some classes a lesson plan may need to be drastically modified to take into account the different learning styles of the students. And that is the same whether it is a middle school or a university.

I think you're getting yourself confused. The use of TPR in a YL classroom has no direct correlation to a needs analysis for an individual student. TPR is just one, albeit very effective, method of L2 acquisition. As said before, TPR may account for 5-10 minutes of an hours lesson, there are other less physical methods used for the rest of the lesson. A needs analysis may show a learner to respond better to a certain settle of teaching, but that doesn't mean the lesson focuses on just one style; a good lesson should be balanced and exercise all skills and styles of learning.

There seems to have been a concentrated focus on visual and kinesthetic learning styles in the last few years, especially in China and SE Asia, mixed in with the usual rote-learning techniques and repitition drills. This is wrong because they are just two of many different styles, and to use just one methodology is not right. Looking at PPT's and short videos all day is not real teaching, but many middle schools ( and even universities ) in China for example are heading in this direction. I was also dismayed ( really not that long ago ) to hear two Western qualified teachers, real teachers with education degrees ( I know they were real ) say that they play "games" with English major students and that it was the "latest teaching strategy" according to American research. I would love to know more about that "research".....lol!

Most of this has little to do with the topic, which is methods of teaching the under-10 age group. Games are a great motivator for any age group for getting learners to engage in L2. So long as the game has a structured focus, they are of great benefit to any class. You contradict yourself as you start by stating teachers who don't want to try new.methods are in the wrong, and then go on to dismiss out of hand other methodologies that you don't understand the benefits of. Either we must be open minded and research the benefits of new methodology, or we stagnate and continue doing what we have always done at the detriment to both the student and our own professional development. I am constantly researching new classroom techniques, at seminars, webinars or through different educational websites... Over the years I have discovered things that work with my style of teaching and things that don't, and I will take my experience in the area of YL teaching over your opinion any day!

BTW, your point about Ashen is very valid, he was a psychologist, and lacking in knowledge in regard to the field of linguistics

And herein lies the danger in taking Turnoi at his word without looking in to something yourself... You fall in to the same pit of ignorance he wallows happily in! Asher studied linguistics and educational development and is supremely qualified in his field and also an experienced educator in his own right. Don't simply regurgitate incorrect assumptions just because you want to back up your chum. Do your own research, otherwise you come across as unqualified to discuss this topic as he does.