welcome !!!
This document briefly reviews the history of language teaching methods, leading up to currently accepted approaches. As we examine the progression of language teaching methods, we can see how each of them was influenced by the perceived proficiencies that students were believed to need. Changing methods also reflect our changing beliefs and theories of how the nature of language and language teaching.
We will begin with the way that
Latin was taught throughout European history, even into the 20th century: Lists
of unconnected sentences exemplifying particular grammar points, memorized
rules, with no pretense to usefulness in actual communication. As an offshoot
of this, the mid 1800’s saw the rise of what is called the Grammar-Translation
(GT) method. In GT, the goal of language instruction was principally an ability
to read the foreign language, and language learning was seen as an exercise in
mental discipline and intellectual development. GT emphasized an analysis and
memorization of grammar rules, translation of sentences between the first
language and the foreign language, with a focus on reading and writing. The
sentence was the basic unit of teaching, and students were expected to maintain
high standards of accuracy. The syllabus was organized around grammatical
sequences, and the native language was used as the medium of instruction. It
should be noted that Grammar Translation is still the preferred method of
language learning in many parts of the world today.
In the late 1800’s the Direct
Method came into use based on the natural language learning principles that
were observed in children. In an attempt to make second language learning more
like first language learning, meaning was conveyed directly through
demonstration and action. Classroom instruction was carried out in the target
language, with speech and listening comprehension being of primary importance.
Sentences consisted largely of everyday vocabulary and concrete concepts.
In the first half of
the 20th Century, British linguists systematically studied the principles and
procedures that could be applied to the selection and organization of the
content of language courses. In this approach, lexical and grammatical content
was carefully selected and graded
and then presented to students.
This Oral Approach was characterized by the belief that spoken language should
be taught before written forms are presented, the target language is used in
the classroom, vocabulary and grammar were graded from simple to present, and
new language was introduced in the context of situations. This concept of
Situational Language Teaching became very prominent, in which language activity
was described “as part of a whole complex of events which, together with the
participants and relevant objects, make up actual situations” (Halliday,
McIntosh & Strevens, 1964:381).
During the World War II era the
United States military funded language courses with a focus on aural/oral
skills, believed to be important as America became more involved
internationally. The “Army Method” emphasized pronunciation, pattern drills,
and conversation practice while de-emphasizing grammar and translation. In the
1950s this approach became known as the Audiolingual Method (ALM).
Audiolingualism was based on descriptive analyses of languages and was heavily
influenced by behavioral psychology. Those who studied a foreign language in
high school in the U.S. in the 1960s or 1970s, will undoubtedly recognize many
of these features of ALM:
Material presented in dialogs
Reliance on mimicry,
memorization, and overlearning
Structural patterns taught using
repetitive drills
Grammar taught inductively by
analogy rather than deductively by explanation
Use of audiotapes and language
labs
Emphasis of pronunciation
Emphasis on error-free utterances
and immediate reinforcement of successful responses
ALM remained popular for many
years, but eventually began to fall out of favor as it was criticized for its
failure to develop communicative abilities.
In the 1970s, research
on language teaching and learning began to emerge from its position as a subset
of linguistics and developed into a field of its own. In this period, a number
of “designer methods” (Nunan, 1989) began be marketed as the best way to learn
a foreign language. Among
these was Community Language
Learning, Counseling-Learning, Suggestopedia, and The Silent Way (see Brown,
2007 for a full description of each).
Two approaches from this period
which had a longer lasting impact on the field are Asher’s Total Physical
Response (TPR) and Krashen and Terrell’s Natural Approach. TPR, based on
observations of child language learning, promotes listening before speaking.
Further, the student’s listening is accompanied by a physical response. The
listening and physical actions are believed to create less anxiety for the
learner as he would be less self-conscious. TPR thus focuses on the imperative
mood, as learners are commanded to perform sequences of actions: “Stand up.
Walk to the door. Open the door. Return to your seat. Pick up your pencil. Hand
your pencil to Mary.” Eventually students feel comfortable enough to
incorporate their own questions and responses into the process. While many
benefits of TPR can be seen, on the whole it still falls short of promoting
spontaneous, unrehearsed language in students.
The Natural Approach similarly
emphasizes comprehension over production in the early stages of language
acquisition. In this method, comprehensible input is seen as critical for
triggering the acquisition of language. The language provided to the students,
optimally, should be what is known as i + 1; that is, understandable to
the learner and just a little beyond the learner’s level in order to “push”
their acquisition. In the Natural Approach, students build personal
communication skills necessary for everyday life via a variety of classroom
activities such as games, role plays, and small group work. Krashen and Terrell
posited that learners move through three stages of language acquisition:
Preproduction stage in which
listening comprehension skills are developed
Early production stage in which
learners struggle to develop meaningful communication, and teachers correct
only global errors that interfere with this goal
Discourse production stage in
which learners produce longer stretches of language through discussions,
open-ended dialogs, role plays, and other extended discourse
The generally
recognized and accepted approach to language teaching, which developed in the
last decade or so of the 20th Century and continues today, can be captured
under the umbrella term of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Simply put,
CLT aims to develop real-life communication skills in learners, helping
learners to develop linguistic fluency as well as
accuracy. A primary goal is to
provide students with the functional ability to perform competently outside of
the language classroom. To this end, teachers are more of a facilitator in
language tasks and activities, rather than dominating a tightly controlled
language lesson. In this learner-centered environment, students develop
autonomy in cooperative and collaborative tasks the enable them to continue to
learn in real-world contexts.
The main principles of CLT are as
follows:
Meaning is paramount
Contextualization is a basic
premise
Attempts to communicate are
encouraged from the beginning stages of acquisition
The target language is learned
through the struggle to communicate
Communicative competence is the
desired goal
Fluency and acceptable language
are primary goals
Students are expected to interact
with others
Intrinsic motivation comes from
an interest in what is being communicated with the language
Communicative
competence, while variously defined, is a basic tenet of Communicative Language
Teaching. Essentially, it is the goal to develop in students the ability to
convey and interpret messages and to negotiate meaning within specific
contexts.
0 Response to "Language Teaching Methodologies"
Posting Komentar