Discuss a range of key approaches/methods in second language teaching that have been identified and gained traction in the literature as best practice. Illustrate how two (2) of those methods can be applied in a contemporary classroom including examples of interactions and written communication among second language learners and with their teacher.
Methods of language teaching have evolved rapidly between the late eighteenth century and modern days. Advancements in transportation and technology have been driving people’s mobility to higher levels across geopolitical boundaries, favoring the rise of wider international economies and labor dynamics. This process has also made it easier for people to move across linguistic boundaries, and the resulting pursuit of multilingualism has been a powerful driving factor for approaching language teaching methodologies in pragmatic and systematic ways. This essay will discuss a range of language teaching methods and the approaches they follow, providing examples of how two of them in particular (Communicative Language Teaching and Total Physical Response) can be applied in a contemporary classroom. The distinction between “approach” and “method” in this essay will follow the terminology formulated by Anthony (1963), according to whom an approach is the establishment of a set of assumptions used in the processes of teaching and learning, and a method is the way an approach is used to teach (and learn) a language in a systematic way. Also, this essay will use the terms “target language” and “first language” to indicate, respectively, the language being learnt in the classroom and the language usually spoken outside of the classroom.
The Grammar-Translation method was historically used to learn classical languages like ancient Greek and Latin, and is based on structural linguistic theories. In a Grammar-Translation classroom the teacher is usually in full control of the classroom activities, which are focused predominantly on the target language literature in a highly structure fashion, but taught exclusively in the students’ first language. The primary skills used are therefore reading and writing, with speaking and listening being underdeveloped or even disregarded altogether. Students learn how to translate literary texts of varying complexity, memorising grammar rules, constructs, and vocabulary. Just as in a Latin class students would learn to read and translate classical authors like Cicero and Caesar very early, students in a German class would learn to read and translate Goethe and Schiller. The emphasis is on producing the correct form of the target language through translation, therefore errors are not tolerated and are corrected by the teacher right away. This teaching method is driven by the belief that the most important aspect - the essence - of a language is its structure, and in order to learn and appreciate the language one needs to learn and appreciate its structure above all. Since grammar represents by definition the building blocks of linguistic structure, it is only natural to drive all intellectual efforts towards the understanding and the mastery of grammar and metalinguistic aspects of the language. One of the main criticisms of the Grammar-Translation method falls on the belief that building an encyclopaedic knowledge of linguistic rules and structures is synonymous with mastering a language. François Gouin’s first-hand experience with learning German at the end of the nineteenth century is an evident case to show the exact contrary, in which he was able to translate literary works but was completely unable to understand the spoken language - “not a single word” (1892, p.31).
Given the inability of the Grammar-Translation method to develop the communicative abilities of language students, new teaching methods started to appear. Building on his prior failures in the study of the German language, Gouin devised what came to be known as the Series Method: a way of building up linguistic knowledge through practical examples, transforming “perception into a conception” (1892, p.39). A Series Method class is therefore conducted entirely in the target language, using simple sentences at first in order to introduce an action or a situation. Sentences are then progressively enriched with more linguistic features towards higher and higher levels of complexity. For example, the teacher might start a basic class by walking to the desk and performing a series of simple actions while describing them to the students:
I walk to the desk.
I grab the chair.
I pull the chair.
I sit on the chair.
I grab a book.
I put the book on the desk.
As sentences are connected, and as complexity increases only in relatively small increments between sentences, meaning is inferred from sensory context and grammar is learnt by induction. The principles of small incremental comprehensible input and learning language through language use were further developed by Krashen in a more comprehensive theory of second language acquisition (Krashen, 1982). The Series Method then evolved into what is known as the Direct Method, based on Gouin’s principle that second language learning should not be much different from first language learning. The fundamental cognitive approach of the Series Method is retained, but the classroom becomes an interactive partnership between teachers and students instead of being entirely teacher-driven. The main belief behind the Direct Method is that students must be able to directly associate language and meaning, focusing primarily on developing speaking and listening skills. Students are therefore encouraged to initiate interaction and to correct themselves and each other when possible. One of the main criticisms of the Series Method and the Direct Method was the lack of solid theoretical foundations (Brown, 2000). Also, it presented a number of practical challenges because teachers needed to develop a new set of skills in order to direct the learning away from structured static study focused on grammar towards interactive dynamic activities focused on meaning.
As the mobility of people and resources increased dramatically during and after the Second World War, the need arose to find some ways to teach and learn foreign languages in the fastest possible way: from a military perspective, knowing the languages of enemies and allies was a distinct competitive advantage; from a socio-political perspective, masses of migrants fleeing conflict zones needed to be integrated in the host countries; and from a functional-practical perspective it was necessary to cross linguistic boundaries in order to efficiently drive socio-economic and industrial redevelopment, especially in Europe and in Northern America. As a result, the Audio-Lingual Method was developed on the foundations of behavioral psychology and adopted with relative success, focusing on learning specific linguistic structures within predefined practical linguistic domains. A common exercise in the classroom would be to present a situational dialog to the students and direct them to imitate and repeat each part of the dialog multiple times at specific intervals, aiming for accuracy in the language production. Over time, the presented dialogs would exhibit variations and drive the learning of different linguistic patterns. Imitation and repetition would then inevitably build up familiarity and confidence in the production of the target structures and the cultural context inferred by the presentation of those structures. One of the characteristics of the Audio-Lingual Method is overlearning: the process of getting so intimately familiar with a set of linguistic structures and patterns that their usage becomes automatic in circumstances and dialogs that bear similarities to those experienced during the learning process. With such a heavy focus on learning linguistic patterns, attention to grammar and metalinguistics is not a high priority and is often disregarded altogether, in favor of learning it inductively by analogy. Criticisms of the Audio-Lingual Method arose after Chomsky’s reservations on the relevance of behaviorist psychology in language learning (1959), and after all the main assumptions behind this teaching method were analytically dismantled by Rivers (1966).
Given the challenges and criticism found in the earlier mechanical forms of language learning, teaching methods were starting to shift away from heavily mechanical approaches, looking for techniques and strategies that would combine the focus on linguistic patterns with some form of meaningful context. Context is, of course, intended to be meaningful for students, and therefore teaching methodologies needed to be more mindful of the students’ personal characteristics and the ways in which they actually learn. In order to successfully assimilate language, learners need to use it in some practical context, and this context needs to be meaningful. Krashen later developed this and other concepts much further, noting that language acquisition is a subconscious process in which “language acquirers are not usually aware of the fact that they are acquiring the language, but are only aware of the fact that they are using the language” (1982, p.10). Following both cognitive and affective approaches, the Total Physical Response method took shape. In the Total Physical Response method, teachers give commands to students, and students execute those commands by performing physical actions. Teachers may well join in, and commands are carefully modified and recombined in order to provide students with linguistic content that, even though it might be a bit beyond their comprehension (Krashen, 1982), is still understandable by inference or induction. Learners are not expected to engage in language production and they are free to do so whenever they feel ready. It is very important to recognise that, even without writing and speaking, “there is a huge amount of listening, understanding and internalising going on” (Scrivener 2011, p.324). This needs to be considered under the evidence that listening is a skill that children develop long before speaking, and following the approach that learning a target language is cognitively analogous to learning a first language, hence the focus on kinaesthetics and the manipulation of the environment (Asher, 1978).
It is worth looking at the Total Physical Response method in a little more detail and provide an example in a contemporary classroom. In a basic classroom for children the teacher might be leading in with the topic of “morning activities”. The teacher would introduce a sequence of sentences, one at a time:
Wake up
Stretch
Sit up
Stand up
Scratch your head
Scratch your belly
Walk to the bathroom
Look at the mirror
Make a funny face
Make a serious face
Brush your teeth
Dress up
Eat breakfast
Wash up
Pick up your school bag
Pick up your hat
Open the door
Go outside
Turn around
Close the door
Turn around
Go to school
The teacher would act each command and encourage all students to do the same. Using different commands that have a common syntactical structure (e.g. “make... ...face”, “pick up...”) helps students infer both lexicon and grammar, while the acting and participation help associating words and sentences with direct experiences that are much more likely to get assimilated into long-term memory than any purely mechanical linguistic exercise. The similarities with the Series Method and the Direct Method are evident, but the Total Physical Response goes much further, building a tight coupling between language, sensory information, and the manipulation of the learner’s environment through actions, in a dynamic interactive setting where students and teachers actually participate in building and reshaping the linguistic context being studied, becoming themselves part of the overall teaching and learning canvas.
With Total Physical Response, Language learning started to be considered something more than a purely mechanical process leading to the formation of habits, and eventually functional linguistics started to develop. The focus was shifting towards teaching language as a means for communication and expression, under the belief that building communicative competence would then lead to – and ultimately include – linguistic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980). Increased importance was then given to the social and situational contexts in which linguistic interactions were taking place. According to Halliday (1973), language evolved as part of the process of performing specific functions in a social context; it logically follows then that language should be learnt and taught within defined social and functional contexts, rather than being extracted or abstracted from them as a totally independent domain. Communicative Language Teaching follows a functional/communicative approach, aiming at building up the linguistic tools that allow language users to convey meaning through communication. Errors in language production are part of the natural learning process and are therefore accepted, as long as they do not interfere with the exchange and negotiation of meaning. Students are encouraged to interact with each other and to give feedback to each other. The teacher provides the initial setup for classroom activities and loosely manages the classroom dynamics while students tackle the activities in small groups. Activities are usually centred around specific linguistic problems defined by information gaps that exist within a given social context, and students will have to decide how to best fill those gaps, choosing what to say and how to say it, establishing and maintaining the flow of information within their groups, engaging “with text and meaning through language use and discovery” (Savignon 2002, p.22). Linguistic forms are taught relative to the functions being targeted, but are neither emphasised nor strictly enforced, with the focus being on negotiation of meaning and discourse. The role of the teacher is that of facilitator, while students can focus on their own learning process and progress through authentic communication (Brown 2000, p. 43).
Communicative Language Teaching is considered to be the “generally accepted norm in the field” (Brown 2000, p.42), but there is no specific syllabus, as it is more of a generic term to indicate more a philosophy than a defined methodology, and is consequently open to interpretation. It is therefore worth providing an example of how Communicative Language Teaching principles may be applied to a contemporary classroom. Considering an intermediate-level classroom for adults, the teacher might decide to focus on the development of fluency and direct the class to perform some role-playing activities. For example, the teacher would lead in with a presentation of pictures that set the stage at a restaurant. Students would first describe and discuss the pictures in small groups in order to frame the social and linguistic contexts. Each student in a group would then be given a role to play, e.g. customer, waiter, chef, concierge, and a specific situation (or a number of situations) to be developed, like booking a table, suggestions for a meal, dealing with a difficult customer, making a mistake in the order, or handling an expired credit card. Students would improvise throughout the class and continuously provide feedback through discourse, thereby putting them in charge of their own and each other’s learning.
This essay has examined a number of key methods in second language teaching that have raised interest in linguistic circles and academia. Since the systematic study and analysis of language teaching methodologies started relatively recently in humanistic terms, there is still much to say as to how language teaching methodologies will evolve in the future. The very notion of a language classroom has changed so much over time, from a room with walls and desks to a distributed virtual space that only exists as a stream of digital information. Contemporary teaching methods for languages as well as other subjects seem to have some common aspects, like the encouragement of interaction, the use of varying instructional methods to meet diverse student needs, and the active involvement of students in the learning process (OECD 2008, p.6). As time goes by and societies evolve, new linguistic challenges will emerge and the language teaching profession will have to provide at least some of the means in the social transformation to work on those new challenges, creating valuable personal assets and competitive advantages.
References
Anthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, method, and technique. English Language Teaching, 17(2), 63-67.
Asher, J. J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: the complete teacher’s guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (fourth edition). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1, pp. 1-47.
Chomsky, N., (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner's verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), pp. 26-58.
Gouin, F., (1892). The art of learning and studying foreign languages (second edition). London: G. Philip & Son.
Halliday, M. A. K., (1973). Explorations in the function of language. London: Edward Arnolds.
Krashen, S., (1982). Second language acquisition theory. In Principles and practice in second language learning and acquisition (pp. 9–32). Oxford: Pergamon.
LIN8002 Methodology in teaching a second language: Study Book. (2013). Toowoomba: University of Southern Queensland.
Richards, J. C., (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W., (1966). The psychologist and the foreign-language teacher. The French review. 39(4), pp. 636-638.
Savignon, S. J., (2002). Interpreting communicative language teaching contexts and concerns in teacher education. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning teaching. The essential guide to English language teaching (third edition). Oxford: MacMillan.
No comments:
Post a Comment