Hi Linguisticus. My previous post was not necessarily aimed at you, but it is not surprizing to see that you felt like it was. If you read it as being hostile, then that's more of a reflection of how you personally view things, but not how they are always meant.

To answer your first question, if the two styles of teaching can be mutually useful, yes, I really do think successful language teaching can be had from them. It happens all the time, and not just in China. A teacher needs to teach the grammar needed to make language conherent and interesting, and the Chinese are exceptionally efficient at it. (Try using a communicative approach for students that have had little grammar instruction, especially in China. They'll tune you out pretty quick. At any age they want methods of instruction to which they are accustomed. Thois is how they have learned to organize their own learning and study habits, and the resistance to breaking those habits is fierce.) Other methods of teaching used in other countries are not nearly so successful or efficient. Having points of grammar taught in your native language so they are well understood streamlines the process.

In your sixth paragragh you state that the Chinese system is skewed toward theory and not practice. I shall assume you mean in language arts teaching. The unfortunate reason for this is that still very few of their foreign language teachers have lived in or even visited other countries, either because of social limitations or because of economic reasons. They just haven't had the ability to travel as much and as widely as many of us. They fully acknowledge that is their main limitation to teaching a foreign language, at least to the extent that the learner would be functional and interesting. The other unfortunate part of this is that those who do study abroad and learn and develop language skills at a higher level either don't return, or are not interested in the low paying jobs in schools. They have usually gone abroad for business/politics/science training.

There is nothing wrong with "theoretical knowledge", or at least the ability to think in theoretical ways. There is theory behind everything in life, and anybody that tries to approach learning (or teaching) something without understanding the theory of it is doomed to failure. Therein probably lies the problem with so many "backpacker" English teachers; they just don't have any concept of theory or training. Their value is limited to only being another foreign voice to listen to, and certainly the Chinese are fully aware of this problem. These teachers are easily spotted, even by kids, are are dealt with summarily, albeit in a very Chinese way.

In your next paragragh you talk about "thinking in the target language". That's the greatest hurdle to leap for any language learner. Once they can achieve that, the language will become much more interesting and fun for them. That is the value of immersion, that is the value of not allowing dictionaries in the classroom (or in English corner, or social situations), and that is the value of students befriending foreigners and teachers. (And I firmly believe students should befriend foreigners on their terms, not foreigners trying to make friends with students. The social implications of that are deep in any culture.) In the current environment, that is what is most widely available to them.

No single teaching approach is above criticism, and none should be entirely relied upon. Experienced teachers tend to find approaches they are most comfortable with, usually by blending different techniques. Generally, triphasic approaches are most useful, and frankly not only do students get lost, but most teachers are not clever or energetic enough to attempt anything more complex. Teaching plans, curricula and approaches are frequently modified, according to the group to be taught. Children are taught in different ways than adults, and early learners are taught in different ways than students with previous instruction. Even different topics need to be taught in different ways. Language cannot be taught the same way as science, math, or social studies. In many ways they can't be. Algebra by immersion just wouldn't work. You can't throw somebody that is struggling with square root functions into a chemistry or physics lab and expect them to learn much. Just like you couldn't pick up a Chinese adult with little previous English language training and plunk them down in Wichita or Toronto or Stratford and expect them to learn at a rapid rate. They would go through their daily life using and learning little English until they discover ESL classes at the local community center or college. Somebody needs to organize their learning (use theory) and teach them grammar and vocabulary in a classroom. Its still a tediously slow process, because ESL classrooms are generally multilingual, so the "mother tongue" can't be used. Students in this situation need to force it down their own throats (rote) if they are to be successful, and the dedicated students become quite obvious. Immersion happens outside the classroom.

As far as language, or any subject, being compulsory, its just up to the student to excel or not. How many courses did you take in school you didn't particularly like but had to take because it was required for graduation? Did you maintain high marks, or do just enough to get by and pass? Some students do as well as they can in all their classes, fully knowing they will probably never put some of that knowledge to use, and that is quite admirable. Other students learn only as much as they need to progress on to the next level, and that wisdom is quite admirable in its own way. Teachers quite often take offence when students don't always have the same enthusiasm for the subject as the teacher does, but that's just the nature of things. We all just don't get excited about the same things.

I tend to agree with your conclusion, but I don't share your same sense of doom about the problem. Students will always be limited by the abilities and training of their teachers. If teachers develop a lifestyle of learning for themselves, are enthusiastic about what they teach, provide an environment conducive to learning, and remember to have fun with it all, its the best they can do. Otherwise, too bad for the students.