In recent years, there has been a surge in high-priced "English coaching" services, often costing 150,000-200,000 JPY per month, with total costs exceeding 1 million JPY. These services are characterized by methods like "thoroughly managing study time" and "enforcing a spartan-like self-study regimen." However, this has been met with skepticism, with many asking, "Isn't it just expensive and pointless?" and "Is it really necessary to pay someone to manage my self-study?"
To get straight to the point, English coaching has clear scientific limitations. While it's true to some extent that "more study time leads to better English," the latest research in SLA (Second Language Acquisition Theory) and educational psychology suggests that there is "a wall that cannot be overcome by management alone."
This article will objectively examine the effectiveness and risks of English coaching based on concrete data from academic papers.
1. The Limits of 'Managed Self-Study' and Dropout Rates Shown by Data
The biggest selling point of English coaching is the "thorough management of autonomous learning (self-study)." But how much can language proficiency truly improve with this kind of self-study-based learning that lacks professional instruction?
A Study by a U.S. Government Agency: Nielson (2011)
A well-known study by Katharine B. Nielson examined the effectiveness of the "provide tools and a curriculum for self-study" approach.
【Study Overview】
- Paper: "Self-study with language learning software in the workplace: What happens?" (2011)
- Method: Employees of a U.S. government agency were given popular language learning software and instructed to self-study for six months.
- Results:
- High Dropout Rate: Many learners could not maintain motivation and abandoned their studies midway.
- No Correlation: There was no significant correlation between "study time" and "proficiency improvement."
- Stagnation in Accuracy: While some dedicated learners showed improvement in pronunciation and fluency, there was almost no improvement in grammatical accuracy or the ability to use complex sentence structures.
Based on these results, Nielson concluded that "simply providing self-study materials is insufficient, and face-to-face support and instruction are necessary." In other words, it is scientifically suggested that managing the 'quantity of self-study time' alone does not guarantee the quality of language acquisition.
2. The Danger Lurking in Self-Study: 'Fossilization'
Advice like "just speak a lot" or "focus on output" is common, but it hides one of the biggest risks in SLA (Second Language Acquisition Theory): "Fossilization."
How Incorrect English Becomes Ingrained in the Brain
'Fossilization,' a term coined by linguist Selinker (1972), refers to the phenomenon where a learner's incorrect grammar or pronunciation, if left uncorrected, becomes permanently fixed in their brain and can no longer be corrected.
According to a research model by Vigil & Oller (1976), if a learner's errors are not met with "Corrective Feedback," the brain recognizes the incorrect form as acceptable because it gets the message across, and the learning process stops. An environment common in coaching where there is "management, but no correction of English (or the coach lacks the ability to do so)" can be considered a dangerous environment that promotes fossilization.
How 'Correction' Accelerates Growth: A Meta-Analysis by Li (2010)
Conversely, how does learning effectiveness change when proper instruction (teaching) is introduced? A meta-analysis (a method of integrating and analyzing the results of numerous past studies) conducted by SLA researcher Shaofeng Li reached the following conclusion:
【Study Overview】
- Paper: "The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta-Analysis" (2010)
- Result: Corrective feedback has a moderate to significant positive effect on second language acquisition.
In essence, it has been scientifically proven that intervention from a professional instructor who says, "That's not quite right, here's how you say it" (Teaching), accelerates a learner's growth. This boost cannot be obtained through self-study management alone.
3. The Psychology Behind 'High-Priced Coaching'
Despite questionable learning effects, why do so many people feel that expensive coaching was "effective"? It's possible that psychological biases, separate from actual learning outcomes, are at play.
The Placebo Effect of the 'Sunk Cost Fallacy'
In behavioral economics, there is a concept called the "sunk cost effect." According to a study by Arkes & Blumer (1985), once people invest a significant amount of money or time into something, they try to justify their subsequent decisions to avoid feeling that the investment was wasted.
- "I paid 200,000 JPY, so it must be effective."
- "After investing this much, I must be improving."
Learners who undergo expensive coaching may feel the effects are greater than they actually are due to this cognitive bias (placebo effect). While this can help maintain motivation, it needs to be considered separately from the intrinsic value of the service (i.e., whether their English proficiency actually improved).
The Side Effects of 'Forced Learning': Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
Approaches like "report your progress daily" or "be reprimanded if you don't do it" fall under External Regulation. Research by psychologists Noels et al. (1999) shows that in environments with strong coercion or control from teachers, the learner's "Autonomy" is undermined.
The stricter the management, the more likely a learner is to fall into a state of coaching dependency after the service ends, thinking, "I can't study without someone managing me." This poses a risk to long-term, sustainable English learning. The ultimate goal should be to become an "autonomous learner" who can study independently without being managed.
4. A Scientific and Experience-Based Guide: Who Coaching is For and Who It's Not For
By combining SLA research data with ELT's experience supporting over 10,000 non-native English learners, a clear line emerges between the groups for whom coaching (study management) works and those for whom it doesn't.
A. When Coaching is Effective (Who It's For)
The core of coaching—"enforcing a large volume of input and study habits"—is highly effective for the following purposes:
1. Beginners: Those who want to build a foundational 'stamina' for English and develop study habits
For those at a beginner level who want to "get used to the sounds of English" or "start speaking basic phrases," coaching is very effective. Coaching schools have students do a large volume of training like shadowing and dictation under a coach's supervision. This method forcibly creates an "input flood," as described in SLA, and is an optimal approach for beginners to experience an initial breakthrough, feeling like they can "understand a little more English" or "speak more smoothly." If used as a "boost phase" to prioritize quantity over quality and make studying a part of daily life, coaching has significant value.
2. Test-takers: Those aiming for a specific score on exams like TOEIC or VERSANT
There's a reason why many coaching schools emphasize "TOEIC score up by XX points" or "VERSANT score up by XX points" rather than claiming students "learned to speak English." Standardized tests have set formats, and the "correct answers" are clear.
- Preparation is formulaic: The scope is limited, making it easy to create a self-study curriculum.
- Compatible with self-study: Tasks like memorizing vocabulary and doing practice problems can be self-contained using answer keys, without needing feedback.
When the goal is this clear and the learning can be fit into a "mold," reaching a target score in a short period through intensive management is a realistic outcome.
B. When Teaching (Instruction) is Necessary (Who It's Not For)
On the other hand, for those who already have a basic foundation and are seeking "real-world communication skills" rather than just a score, management alone has its limits.
1. Intermediate to Advanced Learners (CEFR B2+): Those seeking practical English skills
This includes learners who can handle daily conversation but want to acquire English that is effective in professional settings like business or academia. At this level (CEFR B2 and above), the goal is not just "to be able to speak," but to acquire "advanced communication skills," such as using appropriate expressions for the context and structuring arguments to persuade others. Here, "formulaic self-study" is not enough. The domain of pragmatics—understanding "why this word is chosen" or "how to say this more politely" in complex contexts—cannot be mastered without instruction (Teaching) and correction from a professional instructor.
2. Those at risk of 'fossilization': Fluent but inaccurate speakers
The most dangerous thing for intermediate learners is having "English that gets the message across but is full of mistakes" become permanent (fossilization). While fluency may increase through self-study methods like shadowing in a coaching program, if no one points out grammatical errors or unnatural phrasing, those mistakes will never be corrected. As research shows (Li, 2010), "Corrective Feedback" is essential to break through this barrier. For intermediate and advanced learners to reach the next level, they need an environment where they are "corrected" by a professional, rather than just being managed.
Conclusion: Coaching for an 'Initial Boost,' Teaching for 'Fundamental Acquisition'
ELT's answer to the question "Is English coaching pointless?" is as follows:
- It is highly meaningful as a "boost" for beginners starting their learning journey.
- For intermediate and advanced learners aiming to acquire practical communication skills, coaching without instruction is likely to be "pointless (or have limited effectiveness)."
If your goal is not "I want a TOEIC score of XXX or higher" but rather "I want to debate on equal footing in business" or "I want to engage in intellectual work abroad," what you need is not management, but high-quality instruction.
【References and Citations】
This article was created with reference to the following academic papers and research data.
- Nielson, K. B. (2011). "Self-study with language learning software in the workplace: What happens?" Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 110–129. Link to paper
- Li, S. (2010). "The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta-Analysis." Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. Link to paper
- Vigil, N. A., & Oller, J. W. (1976). "Rule Fossilization: A Tentative Model." Language Learning, 26(2), 281–295.
- Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). "Perceptions of Teachers' Communicative Style and Students' Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation." The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 23–34. Link to paper
- Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). "The psychology of sunk cost." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140. Link to paper
