I wonder if students actually realise that a large part of the problem they experience with improving their speaking and listening skills is psychological and not linguistic.

I have met many learners of English over the years who desperately want to improve their speaking and listening skills but through some deeply ingrained, almost reflex, belief they assume that what they need is more grammar and correction. I can only put this down to the way educational systems, and ELT the world over, has stuck by a remit of a) teaching to tests and b) either completely ignoring the psychology of language learning or failing to integrate psychologically supportive techniques into ELT curricula. It is an enormous and complex problem that places like China and India are trying to come to grips with at the moment. Both educators and students habitually prescribe 'more of the same' in terms of tuition even though it is not helping to address the issues that they clearly perceive to exist. At its root I would surmise that the concept of what does and does not constitute a proper educational programme is dictated by people who prefer others to follow the path that they themselves followed. This could explain why change is so slow and awareness and credibility is so hard to earn for something a bit different. Think of how many students in China are learning English in school or university. If they genuinely felt that the classes were giving them what they needed there would not be the huge rush to online language exchange and real practice websites that is currently taking place. The learners, through the internet, are trying to find their own way to improve the skills that they know they need to improve.

How many teachers recommend online speaking and listening practice to their students or the use of structured and pre-taught conversation topics prior to real practice with a fluent or native speaker?

This kind of learning is relatively cheap, many online language exchanges are free to join and use, and materials, such as EOT materials, are inexpensive to get hold of. But to recommend that some self-study (or teaching and guided facilitation by a teacher) with some exercises and a dictionary, followed by a series of short conversations that use the just studied or revised language, I really feel makes some teachers feel threatened. They fear losing their authority and credibility as the only perceived authoritative point of focused help for their students. So materials and instruction that require more of their time, not less of it; more teacher talk time and less structured real practice; more grammar bashing and correction; ultimately serves who?

We've probably heard these before but most educators would struggle to argue constructively against them:

“If a child can't learn the way we teach, maybe we should teach the way they learn.” Ignacio Estrada

“Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand.” Chinese proverb (I think the interpretation of the word 'involve' is key, to me it means real and unpredictable contact with the task in question to many ELT professionals it means 'talk to your classmates and me'). Check this out on our website for a more up to date interpretation of these words, scroll down to the 'learning pyramid': http://www.languagesoutthere.com/categories/language-teaching-methodology-brain-friendly

“The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."” Maria Montessori.

There is much lip-service paid to reducing teacher talk time and providing learner centred lessons, but as long as you teach a language in a controlled environment, i.e. a classroom and do not test learners in the only way that can give them deeply intuitive feedback about their progress and successes, you will always have learners who fear the ultimate test.