Why Teach English?

The movie “Please Teach Me English,” though more of a romantic comedy than anything else, depicted scenes which showed the different theories in teaching and learning English as a second language. The primary setting is a classroom in a language learning institution in Korea. In the classroom are the Korean adult learners and a female teacher who appeared to be an American or Canadian. The English teacher applied different methods when teaching her class.
During the first class meeting, the teacher required each student to choose an English nickname and emphasized that it was an integral part of the learning process. Requiring the students to do so leaves the impression that they need to live the English language and not just study it objectively. In the latter part of the movie, the teacher even encouraged her students to speak in English even outside the classroom. In one scene, the teacher applied the mim-mem-re method. She did this by asking a student, nicknamed Elvis, to repeat the word 'zoo' after her again and again. Also applied was the total physical response, as shown in the scene where the teacher asked her students to repeat names of countries after her, reciting them while mimicking a corresponding action. One approach used by the teacher was the communicative approach. In the latter part of the film, she asked her students to form a circle and this became their sitting arrangement from then on. She also teamed up the students in pairs, having them as English study partners. A traditional approach was also used in the classroom: there was a point where the teacher, in her frustration, imposed that only the English language will be spoken inside her classroom. Among the teacher's techniques, the most efficient was pairing up her students, wherein she required them to meet outside the class to work on their English. On of the least effective was the use of total physical response, which only elicited annoyance from her students.
Looking at the film, though it's fictional, I can say that the more recently developed approaches and methods are more efficient in a second language learning classroom. A traditional classroom will only tire students. It's effective, as I have experienced in real life, but too much of it might only ward off the students. I know of a Korean student. She studied English in Korea in high school, She says that her teacher only knew the grammar and only taught such but wasn't capable of communicating in English. From what I've heard from her, I could infer that the grammatical and academic approach are not the best ones to apply in a language classroom. After all, language is not an objective and technical study alone but socio-cultural as well.
Realizing these, I'm trying to figure out how to teach phonics without having to use drills alone. I'm currently tutoring an adult English learner. Her primary problem in using the language is pronunciation. We've been doing drills and apparently, they are effective. The student is doing better pronouncing words in English but the whole process is just...tiresome. It gets very exhausting even after only thirty minutes, especially for the student. And my ideology about leaning is that learning is fun. How can I enjoy teaching if my students are not enjoying themselves?
I have another student. He's 12 years old, enrolled in the 4th elementary grade level. In each of our sessions, we basically read from a book for an hour. Here and there are questions thrown to test comprehension , retention of information, and eliciting prior knowledge. And that's it. It's basically boring. \a struggle though is that it's what his mom has asked us to do. I think that a major skill required of a teacher is creativity. How does a teacher facilitate learning in a very enjoyable way?
There lies the question.
And it ought not to be rhetorical; never merely thrown out into the air.
I think that everything just boils down to “What is relevant?” What are those integral parts; points that students need to pick up and where does one (teacher) go from there. Studying language, for me, is not just a classroom activity and hence should not be contained inside the classroom. I t is more of an application study. Therefore pragmatics are important.
And from what I've learned in class, the three things that a teacher has to consider when preparing a lesson (And yes, a teacher MUST always be prepared: physically, mentally, and emotionally—and even spiritually, depending on context) are the (1) task, (2) relevance to the student, and (3) applicability. All of these needs to be catered too.
Much more, language is a need. Language in itself is relevant to any student, in differing degrees. It all comes to presentation then of the learning process, and not of the subject matter.
For me, learning. And learning any subject for that matter ought not to be a burden. Study is painstaking but rewarding. Knowledge should not be hated. And knowing that, the teacher (whether in a formal classroom or not) really does play a big role. Bottom line is: I need to take my job seriously. What a student learns is what s/he lives. Therefore, if I am to make my classroom un-objective then I ought to remind myself always that I am not just in touch with my students' intellects alone but other aspects of their lives as well...

Regarding the film, I'll be frank. I don't think it's the best movie for a critique on language learning theory application but it's there. Anyway, perspective is relative. One sees what one chooses to see. And about the film's content's applicability, I believe that language learning is the same across all places. Contexts differ, people differ, but in the end it's still language learning. Besides, if I am to compare applicability in Korea and in the Philippines, it's too general. I'm quite confident that each type of student is represented in both countries. SO yeah, there is no difference. The observation should be done inside the classroom.