Do One-to-one Language Classes Live up to the Hype?

By Kelly Jarman

The one-to-one format for language classes exploded in popularity after the Covid lockdowns shifted language learning online. Large platforms such as Preply and Ringle offer one-to-one classes to students across the globe. The advertising for these services boasts that, instead of being in a classroom with a group of learners, students can get one-on-one time with a teacher and improve more quickly. While I would hate to generalise, I feel that there are many of us teachers out there who say something similar to students who are trying to decide between a group course or individual study.

The question is: do one-to-one lessons live up to the hype, and what can we do to deliver on the potential they bring?

There are elements of the one-to-one format that offer great advantages. For example, the teacher can give direct feedback to the student without worrying about them losing face in front of others. Being able to design a customized course for an individual student and being able to construct the curriculum with the student’s input can allow for student-centered classes.

However, most online platforms use ready-prepared material where students can select from a list of topics or don’t provide materials at all. As for private students, while the same potential is there for providing highly-customised lessons, many readers of this article will be familiar with the student who can’t be more specific than simply wanting to ‘improve their fluency’ – and if they don’t know more than that, how can the teacher provide an effective and personalised experience to them?

I took one-to-one Korean classes through an online platform and had a chance to see how these classes work from the student’s perspective. I had signed up for the class to take advantage of a company benefit and to help me use more Korean at work. At first, I was delighted that I could hold a long conversation with my teacher, who was helpful and friendly.

However, the classes did not have a syllabus or textbook and after a few months I realized I was attending mainly to make use of the benefit. Our discussions had no purpose and we just chatted about life in Korea. My teacher spent most of the time correcting the same pronunciation and grammar errors over and over again.

The most memorable incident from the class came when I mentioned to my teacher the difference between an overseas employee and a foreign employee based in Seoul. To me, the difference was clear – but not to my teacher, who was clearly confused. Suddenly the classroom dynamic changed as I was explaining something to the teacher rather than forcing myself to make idle conversation. However, the teacher was embarrassed by their lack of knowledge on corporate HR and quickly moved on to the next topic.

I eventually dropped the class but my manager at the time decided to give me some extra motivation by holding our one-to-one meetings for work entirely in Korean. I had to use Korean to set expectations and discuss serious issues such as my work performance. I surprised both my manager and myself by speaking in Korean for the entire meeting.

My manager had accidentally created a more effective one-to-one class for me as they had set up an information gap and given me a meaningful task. I had to communicate information to them and use language in a more precise way. Whereas my classes with my Korean teacher didn’t require me to be formal or indirect, I had to be careful and precise with how I spoke to my manager.

My discussions with my Korean teacher may have seemed communicative as there was lots of speaking. However, Rod Ellis writes that in the communicative approach a teacher has to participate in an activity with the pupil as an equal partner instead of as a teacher (1982, pg.76). The fact that my online teacher tried to change the topic when we were talking about the corporate world runs counter to this idea.

Notwithstanding the frequent claim that they can provide superior results than traditional classrooms, online one-to-one classes often fail to implement a communicative approach and fall short of their promises.

My own experience has borne this out: I have taught one-to-one classes for over seven years for business English, IELTS, and general English and I must admit that my one-to-one classes were not highly communicative. My lesson design process was to choose a textbook page or article that I thought was relevant and then go through it with the student. I had my role as a teacher and the student expected me to be prepared and to teach them about the topic. The general format was to go from controlled practice to open practice in a similar way to a PPP class.

I had completed a CELTA but it did not address one-to-one classes. I was put in what must be a similar situation to many teachers where they were trained for group classes and then given one-to-one classes without understanding how to make them communicative. As a result I relied on the materials that were shared with me and my manager’s instructions without an understanding of how I was helping my students.

A pivotal moment came when I was told that a student I had been teaching for over a year twice-a-week had read out loud from a script in a meeting held in English. They had probably had 100 hours of one-to-one instruction on top of their extensive academic studying but could not perform under pressure. I saw this as my own failure. I had been helping them as much as I could, but I had neglected to push them, and I certainly hadn’t roleplayed corporate meetings in a way that was authentic enough to give them the confidence to do it for real.

The term for this in the communicative approach is communicative competence, which describes how learners can use language appropriately and coherently to communicate. My one-to-one student had a deep knowledge of the language from studying for tests and taking my one-to-one class but didn’t have communicative competence.

However, the experience that I had had with my own manager prompted me to change my approach. In doing so, I have been influenced by the ideas of Wilberg, who proposes structuring one-to-one classes with the student producing first and then the teacher giving feedback as “auditing” (1987). Auditing involves writing down the student’s language errors and then working with them to correct these utterances – or, if the problem is one of advancing the student’s level, to add more advanced language to them. The student then compares their language errors to the new version and describes the difference. The student notices how English is used correctly and then restructures their knowledge (ibid, pg. 27-28).

I implemented Wilberg’s proposal in my one-to-one classes after my students started to give me recordings of their meetings or presentations. I reviewed them on my own before class and then audited it in our class. I got to observe a student using language in a meaningful way in authentic situations. A major benefit of this approach is that the student had more control over the class and had to explain the class content to me. This required them to treat me as an equal and made our interaction more meaningful. My students found that their classes were more relevant to them, more practical, and more enjoyable.

These experiences have led me to appreciate the centrality of methodology, regardless of the mode of delivery, and that one-to-one classes do not have any intrinsic advantages over traditional classrooms. The rise of online platforms and their claims that one-to-one classes are superior to group classes can lead to teachers ignoring methodology when planning classes. Many teachers can be lured into the simplistic thinking that an individual lesson at their school means just talking to their student. But in every case, the teacher should strive to find out precisely what the student wants – and what they need – and they should do what they can to help the student achieve their truest aims.

Bibliography

Ellis, R. (1982) “Informal and formal approaches to communicative language teaching,” ELT journal, 36(2), pp. 73–81.

Wilberg, P. (1987) One to one: a teachers’ handbook. London: Language Teaching Publications.

Biography