A. Characterizing the Essentials of language teaching methods
Five
principal dimensional characteristics of language teaching method:
1.
Language
Focus: Speech Communication vs, Literacy
Speech
Communication focuses on speech
and the use of speech in communication, whereas literacy focuses on reading,
writing, and the translation of written words. In speech communication there
are usually provided a speech environment in which students may learn the
target language. Reading and writing may be used, but only to reinforce what is
initially learned in speech. In speech-based focus, it is considered that Grammar-Translation
method as their ultimate enemy, since they consider speech communication to be
primary in the learning of language. Further, the problem with starting out
with literacy when the goal is speech is that students may never get to the
speech stage unless they go to university where they may come into contact with
fluent instructors.
2.
Meaning
Learning: Direct Experience vs. Translation
In
providing the meaning of target language items, translation may be used, as is
commonly the case with the Grammar-Translation Method. The native language is
used to provide the meaning for the target language. Direct Experience means acquiring
meaning by being exposed to actual objects, events, or situations in which the
target language is used.
3.
Grammar
Learning: Induction vs. Explication
Explication
involves explanation, in the native language, of the grammatical rules and structures
of the second language. In learning the same by induction, however, students
would have to discover the order of constituents on their own. It would be
necessary for them to hear sentences of the sort, ‘Mary caught the ball’, while
experiencing a situation in which such an action (or a picture of the action)
occurs. In this way they would discover for themselves, through self-analysis,
i.e. induction, that English has a Subject + Verb + Object ordering.
4.
Psychological
Orientation: Mentalist vs, Behaviorist
The psychological presumptions of a method can have a great effect on how that method is formulated and used. A Behaviorist would prefer, for example, to mechanically drill students on sentences while a Mentalist would prefer to have students think about sentences and their structure and learn about them in this way. For the Behaviorist, there is nothing for a learner to think about; thinking is irrelevant for language learning, only habit formation is important. On the other hand, in a Mentalist approach to language, students may be given more time to puzzle over speech and less time for drill. For the Mentalist, a sentence is more than a sequence of overt words, for underlying those words is an abstract mental structure that involves a lot of abstract operations in its formation.
5.
Linguistic
Orientation: Mentalist vs. Structuralist
According
to the Structuralist (Bloomfield, Fries, Pike), a sentence like 'The dog
jumped' would be analyzed as a simple order of word classes (Article + Noun +
Verb or at best a sequence of phrases (Noun Phrase (the dog) + Verb Phrase (jumped).
On the other hand, a Mentalist grammarian would explain the sentences by
discussing the syntactic or semantic relations that underlie those sentences. Thus,
a Mentalist could say that in 'John is easy to please', 'john' is the
underlying object of 'please’, while in 'John is eager to please' , 'John' is
the underlying subject of 'please’. In practical terms, a teacher would have
quite different conceptions to offer students with respect to such sentences.
B.
Traditional
Methods: Grammar-Translation, Natural, Direct, Audiolingual
1.
The
Grammar-Translation Method
Grammar–Translation
(GT) essentially involves two components: (1) the explicit explanation of
grammatical rules using the native language, and (2) the use of translation, in
the native language, to explain the meaning of vocabulary and structures. Translation
is the oldest of the components and is probably the oldest of all formal
teaching methods, having been used in ancient Greece and Rome and elsewhere in
the ancient world. The advantages of GT are (1) Non-fluent teachers can teach
large classes, (2) Self-study is possible, (3) Adapts to changing linguistic
and psychological theories.
2.
The
Natural Method
The Natural Method (NM) developed
as a reaction to Grammar–Translation and was the outgrowth of scientific thought
on the nature of language and language learning. The model for the Natural
Method of second-language learning was the child learning its native language.
This meant adherence to the natural sequence of the child’s acquiring its first
language, i.e. (1) speech comprehension, (2) speech production, and, much
later, (3) reading and (4) writing. Grammar was not taught directly. Rather,
grammatical rules and structures were to be learned through induction
(self-analysis) by experiencing speech. in a situational context. Meaning was
to be gained through experience and exposure to objects, situations, and
events; translation was to be avoided. Typically, teachers would not use
prepared situations or material. Learning was through ‘spontaneous’ conversation
and demonstration, all of which was done in the target language and supported
with gestures and actions. The teacher used language appropriate to the
students’ level of understanding, much in the way parents would with a child.
The method was totally oriented
towards
the acquisition of oral skills. Student participation in situational activities
was the essence of this kind of second-language learning.
3.
The
Direct Method
The
Direct Method (DM), appearing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
developed from the Natural Method. Like the Natural Method, it emphasized the
learning of speech, acquiring meaning in environmental context, and learning
grammar through induction. The advocates of DM, while approving of the Natural
Method, sought to improve upon it by providing systematic procedures based on
scientific knowledge of linguistics and psychology. DM theorists believed that
by applying scientific knowledge from psychology and linguistics, language
learning could be made more efficient, with the result that students would learn
faster than they would under the spontaneous and unplanned lessons of the
Natural Method.
4.
The
Audiolingual Method
The
phenomenal rise of the Audiolingual Method (ALM) was due to the popularity of
the new American linguistic and psychological theories which it incorporated
into its foundations. The great popularity and influence of America itself in
the world, following the end of the Second World War, is a factor here. The
language analyses provided by American Structural linguists, particularly
Charles Fries and the stimulus and response learning psychology provided by
American Behaviorists endowed ALM with great credibility. The Direct Method,
which implied a Mentalist psychology, went out of fashion, except in
Continental Europe.
C. Offbeat
methods: Cognitive Code, Community Language Learning, Silent Way, Suggestopedia
1.
Cognitive
Code
Cognitive
Code (CC) arose in the 1960s as one of the first reactions to the Audiolingual
Method and one of the first to apply Chomsky's ideas to the teaching of a
second language. With changes in psychology and linguistics, a new approach to
second-Language learning was needed. Cognitive-code learning refers to a theory
of second language teaching and learning rooted in cognitivist psychology and
structural applied linguistics developed in the 1960s. The theory emphasizes
the central role of cognition in the conscious and explicit learning of the
rules of a language as a code. Examples of cognitive learning strategies
include:
·
Asking
students to reflect on their experience.
·
Helping
students find new solutions to problems.
·
Encouraging
discussions about what is being taught.
·
Helping
students explore and understand how ideas are connected.
·
Asking
students to justify and explain their thinking.
2.
Community
Language Learning
Community
Language Learning (CLL), or Counseling Learning as it is sometimes called, was originated
in the 1960s by Charles A. Cur ran, a counsellor-therapist
and priest who regarded the second-language learning situation from the point
of view of small-group dynamics and counselling. Community language learning
(CLL) is a language-teaching approach in which students work together to
develop what aspects of a language they would like to learn. It is based on the
Counselling-approach in which the teacher acts as a counselor and a
paraphraser, while the learner is seen as a client and collaborator.
3.
Silent
Way
The Silent Way is the name of a method of language teaching devised by Caleb Gattegno. It is based on the premise that the teacher should be silent as much as possible in the classroom but the learner should be encouraged to produce as much language as possible. The general goal of the Silent Way is to help beginning-level students gain basic fluency in the target language, with the ultimate aim being near-native language proficiency and good pronunciation. There are three advantages of silent way method such as: 1) The interaction of students not only with teachers but also with each other 2) The errors are corrected by students themselves, and this error is become the feedback for teacher to help the students 3) Silent way teachers are less spoken; therefore, they are available to their students and free to observe them.
4.
Suggestopedia
Suggestopedia is a language teaching method originated in the 1970s by Bulgarian psychologist
Georgi Lozanov. The name combines the terms "suggestion" and
"pedagogy", the main idea being that accelerated learning can take
place when accompanied by de-suggestion of psychological barriers and positive
suggestion. Suggestopedia purports to produce in students an altered state of
consciousness which is conducive to learning. This state, termed 'hypermnesia'
(super memory),
is
brought about by certain relaxation techniques which serve to build the confidence
of the learner and thus to break down the 'antisuggestive barriers'.
D.
Contemporary
Methods: Total Physical Response, Communicative Language Teaching, Natural
Approach
1.
Total
Physical Response
Total
Physical Response, frequently refer red to as TPR, is very much a 'natural '-
type method: speech understanding precedes speech production, which, in turn,
precedes reading and writing. Only the target language is used in the classroom
and meaning is derived from actual objects and situations, Students are
encouraged 10 induce rules on their own and speak when they are ready. Again,
as with other natural -type methods, things go best with a small number of students.
TPR is best viewed as a teaching technique which can be applied in beginning to
intermediate c1asses. It works especially well with children, and with adults
it may be best utilized in combi nation with other methods. TPR should not be
viewed as a self-contained method applicable to all language-teaching contexts.
With such flexibility, it may well be considered the best of the speech-based
teaching methods.
2.
Communicative
Language Teaching
In
the early 1970s, Wilkins (1972) proposed a system of dividing communicative speech
into two aspects: functions and notions. Functions are things like requests,
denials, complaints, excuses, etc., (They are called Speech Acts in linguistics.)
They are expressed through who le sentences. Essentially the learner is
provided with a means for performing a given function. For example, learners
may be told that there are various ways to make a request: they may be told
'Shut the window', 'Please shut the window', 'Would you shut the window?',
'Would you mind shutting the window?', 'Will you be so kind as to shut the
window? ', etc. (Wilkins, 1976, p. 5I).
3.
The
Natural Approach
The
Natural Approach (NA) is the name given by Terrell (1977,1982) and Krashen
(Krashen & Terrell, 1983) to their 'new philosophy of language teaching'
developed in the early 19805. It is to be distinguished from the nineteenth-century
Natural Method, although NA has a number of similarities with that and with other
natural speech-based methods such as the Direct Method and TPR. (Really, not
so 'new' after all.) Yet, perhaps the Natural Approach is more of an attempt to
provide a theoretical description of the processes involved in second-language
acquisition than it is a body of innovative techniques for teaching.
E.
Some
Research Studies Comparing Effectiveness of Methods
1.
Grammar-Translation
and Audiolingual Compared
In
a comparison of the Grammar-Translation method with the Audiolingual method,
Scherer and Wertheimer (1964) found that GT produced higher scores in reading
and writing while test scores in speaking and listening were highest for AL.
That is, unsurprisingly, higher scores were found on the factors which the
method emphasized.
2.
Total
Physical Response and Audiolingual Compared
Other method comparisons have been made by Asher (Asher et al., 1974), comparing Total Physical Response and the Audiolingual Method. The findings in this short-term study demonstrated a superiority for T PR for beginning students. Whether T PR could maintain this edge over AL and other methods with intermediate and advanced students, and over a longer period of time, has yet to be demonstrated.
3.
Natural
Approach and Grammar-Translation Compared
In a study comparing the Natura l Approach with Grammar-Translation using Spanish learners, Hammond (1988) found that students studying under the Natura l Approach scored only slightly higher than those under Grammar-Translation. In terms of grammar learning, NA did as well as GT: thus, even without explicit grammar teaching, NA students learned by induction as well as did the GT students. Thus, students can learn grammar thro ugh induction just as well as they can thro ugh explication. However, as to the use of grammatical structures in actual communication, there would likely be an additional benefit of learning for NA learners since teaching through induct ion usually provides the learner with a communicative ability that is often superior to that of students taught through GT. Further study might well confirm this supposition.
F.
Goals
Must Be Considered in the Selection of a Method
It
is safe to say that students will learn something from any method. No method is
a total failure because, in all methods, students are exposed to the data of a
second language and are given the opportunity to learn the language. However,
to the disappointment of all, there is no magic method. No method has yet been
devised that will permit people over the age of 12 or so to learn a second
language as effortlessly as they did their native language. Still, teachers can
do much to make the experience for a learner rewarding and enjoyable, whatever
method is employed.
In
judging the relative merits of teaching methods, one must consider goals. Just
what is the purpose of having people learn a second language? If the ability to
speak and understand a second language is the primary goal, then a speech-based
method would be best for them. If, on the other hand, the ability to read and
write is the primary goa l, then Grammar-Translation should be the meth od of choice.