The one where learning is a complex process!!

While I was preparing for the second session of teaching classes, I was so much worried about what will happen in class, 'cause I didn't have all the resources and those that were available for me, were like singing an old song. Learning from the viewpoint of different schools of thought in methodology was sth we had to cover for Ma entrance exam, nothing new there. Of course Nunan's focus on task-based orientation toward better learning is what I'm really interested in 'cause no one's tried this methodology completely yet, at least in Guilan.
During the class time I confronted with new issues like differences between learning and acquisition, classroom learning versus naturalistic learning and two different points of view presented by Krashen and Ellis regarding these issues.
The first one relates to the concepts of declarative vs. procedural knowledge. Acquisition is a subconscious process which moves from knowledge of "how" to knowledge of "that". (Pro. to dec. process) while learning is a conscious process – by process it's not meant just getting information but comprehension, attention and recalling the material as well – that is encouraged by some instructions given by teacher. In this sense Krashen is in favor of acquiring material to have a longer impact on mind; 'cause getting information from environment and naturally makes the learner choose the best topics that are for her own learning sake and there is no pressure on he/she to produce as soon as possible (producing language when the learner is developmentally and mentally is ready for), as against in classroom learning. He also believes that no instruction can change the natural order of acquisition, learner learns whenever he/she wants; the concept is related to the low affective hypothesis too in a way that learners should not feel too much anxiety in expressing themselves – of course a little amount of it would be beneficial for better learning and creating competitive motivation. Krashen also states that if comprehensible input is given to the learner – the modified and simplified input to increase understanding – then the amount of learning will enhance.
Then we turn to Ellis viewpoint about classroom and naturalistic learning. He distinguishes them from sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic and educational aspects.
Sociolinguistically these two types of learning differ in terms of participant – in CL they are all students and aware of the fact that they're here to learn while in NL they have other roles in society as father, sister, etc. - ; location – in CL the place is of course the classroom environment where everything is ready to help students to get knowledge while in NL the location is the big big world with all its distractions - ; topic – In CL selected topics are about and for learning language while in NL various topics are presented from them learner peripherally get knowledge – and purpose – in CL the intention is exclusively learning but in NL learner (or maybe it's better to call him just the person) has different purposes of interaction, mostly survival ones.
Psycholinguistically the difference is in formal and informal learning; respectively instructed learning through presentation of grammatical rules and international learning through providing opportunities to communicate. Though these 2 types may overlap in both CL and NL but the former fits more in CL. From educational viewpoint CL & NL are different in case of formal training – deliberate attempt to teach, suitable for CL – and apprenticeship – learning by doing, suitable for NL – which here the superiority is with CL. We also became aware of one important question regarding teaching in the modern term. There are three orientations toward available methods;
• It's better to imitate and apply them to classroom situation without further investigation.
• It's better to teach L2 similar to the principles of L1.
• Researches must be done in case of classroom needs and problematic areas by teachers themselves – an insider who is aware of the problems.
The idea of the third viewpoint is interesting to me. How teachers can do this? I mean, even if they do researches and find the shortages of existed methods in application how can they find cures for such illnesses while the Methodists themselves couldn't find?? Although it's true that modern teachers as learners among the learners – the concept that I love more than the teacher title – must be more active, passionate, informant and ready but how can they create such an environment within the bigger and more restricted area of educational system, esp. like ours when majority of colleagues prefer going on traditionally up to eternity??? Are we just studying ideals or we're the ones who're responsible for finding solutions???