I really like Cainntear's post on the issues with this and would like to add my two cents:
Points 1 and 2 don't go well together. Many people need just some of the skills much more than the rest. Or they may perceive each of them as totally differently difficult. This reminds me far too much of all those very generic and not too clever tutor profiles, that say "I'll tailor the classes to your unique needs, such as tourism". The "unique needs" become just empty words, if you immediately assume that the learner's needs are the most generic ones.
3:the communicative methods are in some ways a great improvement, but in others a huge curse in today's language learning resources.
If language is chopped into just solving various communicative situations, it can be extremely boring and the learners miss out on the bigger picture. Instead of learning a grammar feature and then all the awesome situations it can be used for, many coursebooks and teachers present one purpose scenarios, and limit the learners (which leads to a rather unpleasant feeling that i've heard from various people. Like "I've been learning for so long, and have completed a coursebook, but I still know so little, because I've learnt to deal with just one situation in each lesson"). Plus it leads to the unfortunate discouragement of the beginners, like the French learners thinking there are no rules to the language and just dumb memorisation, when they are given tons of unexplained grammar in the first two units of a communicative textbook.
Plus if you mean communicative as "totally dependent on a native speaker" (as you write a lot about natives and teachers), then you are immediately discouraging all the people, who simply cannot hire someone for tons of hours. Either for financial reasons, or totally different ones (irregular work schedule, health issues, lack of available teachers etc). This is also a problem with the point 6. Yes, detailed corrections from a qualified (!) native speakers are ideal, but not only difficult to obtain, but also unnecessary for the learners primarily after just the comprehension skills (which leads back to the first problem I mentioned).
And "just hire me" is not a learning method, let alone an ideal one.
4.Cainntear described the problems with the "authentic" material so well! Normal authentic stuff is necessary and accessible from B1 or B2 on. But at the lower levels, it can't really be that authentic. And as the "authentic" stuff is totally reworked by the teacher anyways, it may even end up being more boring, than the totally artificial stuff. Assimil is known for fictional but quite amusing dialogues (which facilitates learning, as the time spent with the coursebook is more enjoyable, and people are also likely to remember the funny stuff), while majority of the resources obsessed with the false "authenticity" gets limited to rather predictable and boring things.
No idea what does 7 mean. When you consume authentic and context based content, such as a book or a tv series, of course you reflect on it, or you speak or write about it. No need to specifically allow such "review". Not sure what you mean.
victorhart wrote:Not really. The idea here is that vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation content is extracted from your conversation and writing and that you are later able to review that content, with context, in dynamic ways. In the method I've developed, this is done using a trained teacher and technology my team has developed.
Well, there's a problem. In my opinion, an ideal language learning
method is independent from any teacher. A teacher is, in my opinion, supposed to be just one of the resources, to be hired when needed, but not the main part. They are supposed to be one piece of the puzzle, most probably just the source of feedback and corrections.
You seem to confuse an ideal learning method, with an ideal teaching method (and even so, I wouldn't say your method sounds ideal). It is definitely nice to look for the best method with which your students should be taught. But that doesn't make it the best learning method.
My student who is in her fourth month of study engages beautifully with Dr. Seuss, Shel Silverstein, and a variety of other classic children's literature authors. My advanced student engages superbly with academic texts on philosophy, political science, and public administration. I've found this to be consistently the case.
But these two are not the same person. The advanced student is now using authentic material of course, but they probably weren't using only authentic material back at the beginning level. So, what is "consistently the case"? The advanced learners are supposed to "engage with" authentic material no matter how they got to the advanced level. No matter whether they were using children's books at the lower levels, or mostly just textbooks with content of limited authenticity.