Most of the time, when we talk about "being bad at language", we usually jump into conclusion that it means "being bad at language in GENERAL".
I used to think like that when I realized that I wasn't as good at English as I thought.
But when I compared my English with my classmates in university, I'd also realized that my English skills were not that bad: Being able to use English directly without needing to translate it first in my head, giving presentation without needing to look at a paper or memorizing the phrases (all I need is just an outline)...
Then what made me feel like I am a "bad" English learners?
After thinking for awhile, I think "maybe I've fallen into the 3rd case":
Case 1: Knowledge (Bad) - Skill(Bad).
This is the most common case,especially in schools, in which learners struggle with learning new stuff (new words, new grammar structures...),leave alone using it.
Case 2: Knowledge (Good) - Skill(Bad).
Also a common case.
In this case, the learners could learn new things and remember them.Their knowledge keep expanding and they could ace an English exam.
However, they could hardly (or maybe even couldn't) use what they've learnt in real life like holding a conversation in English.
Case 3: Knowledge (Average) - Skill(Average).
This occurs when the learners have already reach a decent level with acceptable skills and amount of knowledge.
But instead of trying to learn new things, they stop and just keep on using what they've learnt over and over again.
In my case, my English is bad it's not because of my skills but my lack of knowledge (vocabulary,grammar...)
What's your opinion about this?
Do you have any advice for me?
June 2015
Vote now! 