Letters | Traditional teaching methods leave Hong Kong language learners lost for words
- Despite the availability of more effective approaches, Hong Kong clings to traditional teaching methods that are more expensive, time-consuming and frustrating

Stephen Krashen – the linguist best known for proposing the five hypotheses of second language acquisition – once said, “We focus too much on how we are all different, but not enough on how we are all the same.” Being a visual or auditory learner, as language learners are encouraged to find out for themselves, has no effect on language acquisition because we all do it the same.
Despite growing up in Hong Kong, I struggled to learn Chinese. I thought I just didn’t have the talent to learn languages, but once I put Krashen’s theories into action two years ago and taught myself Japanese, I found out very quickly that it was the way schools teach languages that were flawed.
A typical second-language class uses a textbook and focuses on grammar, vocabulary and technical study instead of “comprehensible input”, which Krashen says is the key to language acquisition.
Classes focus too heavily on tests, which is reflected in our society as well, but test results don’t necessarily mean proficiency in daily use. Many Hongkongers supposedly have an “N1” – the highest level on the Japanese Language Proficiency Test – but it doesn’t necessarily mean they speak Japanese well. N1 doesn’t test output, meaning someone could clear the test without being able to speak a word of Japanese, yet people still bring this up as if it means anything.