Nome: Ricardo Lacerda
Idade: 19 anos
Escolaridade: superior incompleto
Tempo de aprendizagem : 10 anos 


I started studying English 10 years ago, when I was 9 years old. Before that, I had not had any kind of experience with the language, however I have always been very curious about it and I took the first step, asking my parents to enroll me in a school. This was Follow Me, at that time a big chain with several branches all over the country. I do not remember it quite well. I can recall a cartoon, about a big green monster called Muzzy, that came from the outterspace in a spaceship. What was interesting about it, and now I see it, was that the video had a sequence, and we watched it at least once a week. The students were very curious about what was going to happen to the characters, and the vocabulary and structures taught in the classroom was then seen on the video. There was also a book of songs, with which we practiced the listening skills. There was not much emphasis on oral skills, nor pair work with conversation, although there was interaction among the students through games and other activities. I do not see many communicative characteristics in this course, it had more of the structural approach. It was very good and profitable and it povided me a very good language basis.

Around one and a half year later, at that same school, I went to the teenager-adult mode.This I remember quite well, it was completely structural based. The grammar structure to be taught was written on the board and explained. There was also a video explanation and a listen-and-repeat practice. There was more focus on the oral skills. Oral practice was completely oriented by the teacher. S/He used to give a question as a model and then tell students to ask the same question to each other.

Example:
T: How old are you?
S1: I am 13 years old.
T: Good. Now ask her.
S1: How old are you?
S2: I am 12 years old.

Free practice and improvisation were not estimulated. This way classes were completely teacher-centered and the level of language practice and production was too shallow. Although I am pretty sure I could have learned much more if they used a more communicative methodology, this course was also very important to my language learning process. The grammar I learned with it gave me a very good background. But the same did not happen to all of the students. I have always found English easy to learn, so it was easy for me to be an applied and interested student. However, students who had difficulties with the language had a lot of problems due to this approach. They did not understand, found the classes boring and useless then, finally, left the school. If you are learning a language for the sake of the language, you have to be interested on its structures and technical details, otherwise you will get frustrated because the course will not fulfill your expectations.

In 1997 I went to MAI English School. New school, new teachers and a completely different approach. Students talking a lot more about things that, apparently, did not have anything to do with the class. A lot of songs and games were used, activities using the computer. ‘Yes, it is fun – I thought – but am I going to learn anything?’ The answer came later, and it was positive. Looking back now I have no doubts to say this was the most communicative course I have experienced. In the classroom, there was a lot of pair and group work. Portuguese was strongly avoided. We talked a lot in the classroom about subjects, some were brought by the teacher, others just poped out of nothing and briefly became interesting discussion topics. As I entered already in an upper-intermediate level, we had a bit of grammar, but it was introduced as natural as possible, always contextualized. Being the most communicative of all, this was the course I had the most interesting experience with the language, and where I practiced the most too. I stayed three and a half years at MAI and I liked it very much. However, when I started my FCE preparation course there, I felt like there was something missing. The material was excelent and so were the teachers, but maybe I needed something to push me harder. That was definetely the right school for practicing, but, at least for me, it was not the best one to learn, or to prepare to such exam.

Then I went to Centro Cultural TFLA. My choice, for the time, could not have been better. I stayed one year and a half there and got out with an A in my FCE. Not just for the mark, because I do not believe they can prove much, but I felt that was the time I learned the most of the language I had ever done. Portuguese was completely forbidden in the classroom. As we were all advanced students, this was not big deal. I think what they did was to adapt the class and the method to the necessities of the students. But as this was such an especific kind of course for an especific purpose, it is not the best situation to evaluate a method.

However, I had the opportunity to teach in this school for six months, and then I could really see what was their approach and how it worked. The one which gathers the most characteristics I can recall is the Direct Method, where only the target language in used in the classroom, students are encouraged to think in the TL and thoroughly involved with realistic cultural and linguistic situations. And there were some aspects of the communicative approach, such as the development of all four skills being done since the very begining, a lot of interaction between students is encouraged, and also spontaneous and creative practice.

I have had the lucky to make the right choices at the right moment. A good grammar basis, then sometime to practice and assimilate what I had learned, adding some more knowlegde to the former. And finally a deeper study, going through all the most complicated issues of the language. Now, in the University, I still have the chance to work with everything I have learned, and going even deeper in the structures of the language, understanding how it works and why.