"In most English classrooms across China, you will find teachers practising their English skills." This remark, by the head of the foreign language school of one of the country's leading universities, was a damning, but accurate indictment of the state of language teaching across the country.

Every year thousands of students emerge from schools and universities, some with years of English study behind them, and yet most are unable to actually use the language.

The comment was made at the end of a semi-final heat of CCTV's nationwide English Speaking Contest.

Later this month, the final will be held in Beijing.

The standard of English had been impressive, particularly in light of the fact that the young people concerned have never studied outside of a non-English setting. Their prepared speeches and, to a lesser degree, their impromptu presentations on a topic selected on the day of the contest were of a high quality. Indeed many did far better than a lot of native speakers might have done.

But it quickly became apparent that for the majority, 75 per cent at least, a problem existed. Their language skills were limited to written and memorized words and good pronunciation.

The majority failed to understand the spoken words and questions put to them by the judging panel. Invariably, they misunderstood the questions, and answered in part or in a way unconnected to the question. Some even responded in a way that utterly ignored the queries, demonstrating that the speakers never learnt to listen effectively.

They could handle predictable prompts and questions, but unrehearsed questions threw them.

For all their years of study and understanding of the structures of English, most had not forged the link between themselves as learners and the language in such a way that they identified with it.

Friederike Klippel, author of a number of English as a Foreign Language resource books, highlighted in the preface to "Keep Talking" the necessity of teaching communicative skills.

"Learning a foreign language is not just a matter of memorizing a different set of names for things around us, it is also an educational experience," he writes. "Since our language is clearly linked with our personality and culture, why not use the process of acquiring a new language to gain further insights into our personality and culture?"

For that reason many of the resources produced by experts in the field -- the Oxford and Cambridge university presses publish some of the best -- focus on the learner and getting him or her to use the language.

For the past 40 or so years in Britain and Scandinavia, in particular, teaching methodology has developed into a sophisticated, scientific and practical study, resulting in some of the best and most effective material.

Language is not a passive thing. It is vibrant, meaningful and should be imbued with the personality of the speaker. It is the tool by which human beings relate, and enables the exchange of ideas, knowledge, wisdom and understanding. If it is taught by rote, memorized by passive recipients, it cannot flourish and becomes no more than meaningless, mechanical repetition.

Activities in the classroom that get students talking have to be employed if China is to realize its goal of English as the nation's second language. Many years ago, it was officially declared to be so. Unfortunately there remains a yawning chasm between the idea and the reality.

Current English teaching methodology in the nation's classrooms, including many prestigious establishments, can, for the most part, be fairly compared to the discredited system of learning adopted by candidates to the Mandarin examinations of bygone days -- memorizing then reciting in order to pass set tests.

The pre-occupation with rote learning is seriously handicapping the ability of China's students to actually learn English, a core area of their degree syllabus.

Globally, most language teaching has been geared towards phonology (pronunciation), lexis (vocabulary) or structure (grammar), repetitious practice and passing, largely unrepresentative examinations.

The 1970s and 1980s, however, saw greater prominence given to the area of verbal communication, a major shift in methodology, one which has continued and with great effect, particularly in continental Europe. Instead of students using the language in more or less controlled exercises until a high degree of mastery of its structures has been attained, they are instead being encouraged from the outset to engage in dynamic, individual and meaningful oral and listening practice.

One argument often voiced in China against adopting the more student-focused methodology -- in teaching jargon, a high ratio of student "talk-time" -- of pair-work, group-work, mingling, role-play and so on, is "our classes are too big." Until a few days ago I would have agreed that this did indeed pose a problem. But the experience of another qualified teacher, who has been teaching at a university in China for six years, showed me otherwise.

A background of reading mathematics at Oxford suggests a logical and ordered mind and perhaps this helped her overcome what I would have considered insurmountable, practical difficulties in adopting communicative-based group work with a class of 100.

"The noise is quite deafening and the time spent going round monitoring is shorter, but it can, and does work," she maintained. One student she despaired of ever getting to make utterances in English was "like an unstoppable torrent" at the end of the semester, she recalled.

(China Daily December 3, 2003)