I'm off work and can now add a few more thoughts about Dr. Cotton (I'm pretty sure he has a Ph.d)
He was a school principal in England. He must have a degree in education from a British university.
He has taught English in Africa, Europe and North America.
Neuro-linguistics isn't as fancy as it sounds. Lots of psychologists study how the brain works and the resulting implications for learning, in this case how to acquire a language.
As Hamsterbait says, Dr. cotton did not invent the methods he teaches at his seminars. He culled such methods from the considerable research others have done in the field. I wouldn't say there is anything wrong with that in and of itself.
The governing body most definitely DID NOT in any way contribute to this research or to the methods for language acquisition promoted by Dr. Cotton. The most credit they deserve is that someone in the organization found out what Dr. Cotton was doing and decided it would help advance the work.
The governing body gets the credit and adulation for any progress attributable to the language acquisition methods because Dr. Cotton is a dyed-in-the-wool witness who wouldn't think of taking any credit for himself. He most assuredly does see God's hand in his work and would naturally give credit to the organization.
His methods are designed to give language learners maximum opportunity to actually use the language, as opposed to sitting and doing grammar exercises or memorizing verb conjugations. He emphasizes the need to get up and move around the classroom, communicating in the language as much as possible.
As for learning more from his methods in 5 days than one could learn at Cambridge in 5 years, there is a grain of truth to that. What he means, but excludes for effect, is that formal linguistic training has traditionally not equipped teachers with practical, effective methods for helping others acquire a foreign language. Linguistics courses are often technical, emphasizing methdods for determing the relationship between languages, language change, computational linguistics, gender roles and language use, etc. Someone with that background would be as prepared to teach a foreign language as an automotive engineer would be to teach driver's ed. It could be done, depending on the automotive engineer, but the background doesn't neccessarily help the instructor as much as the more down-to-earth qualities of patience, driving experience and a willingness to sit in a car with someone who's never driven before. (BTW more linguistics courses are emphasizing ESL and practical classroom experience. I've had two interns from a local university spend half a semester in my ESL classroom over the last three years).
I can't help but add one more thing. I'm aware of Dr. Cotton's methods. I've used them in the past but have found that students prefer more traditional methods. I agree with his approach in theory, but have a hard time overcoming student reluctance to try unorthodox methds.
Voltaire
