“assignment 2”
Pre-twentieth-Century Trends
Based on the statement of a brief survey from Celce Murcia that prior to the twentieth century, language teaching methodology vacillated between two types of approaches: getting learners to use a language (speak and understand it) VS getting learners to analyze a language (to learn its grammatical rules).
Both the classical Greek and medieval Latin periods were characterized by an emphasis on teaching people to use foreign languages. During the Renaissance, the formal study of the grammars of Greek and latin became popular through the mass production of book made possible by the invention of the printing press.
The Direct Method became very popular in Frence and Germany, in 1886 it also became popular in Europe. The International Phonetic Association developed the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and became part of the Reform Movement in language teaching in the 1890s. The work of these phoneticians focused on the teaching of pronunciation and oral skill, which they felt had been ignored in Grammar-Translation.
Later, the Modern language Association of America, based on the Coleman Report (Coleman 1929), endorsed the Reading Approach to language teaching. The Reading Approach, as reflected in the work of Micheal West (1941) and others, held the sway in the United States until the late 1930s and early 1940s, when Word War II broke out and made it imperative for the U.S. military to quickly and effeciently teach foreign language learners how to speak and understand a language.
The Audiolingual Approach (Fries 1945), which drew heavily on structural linguistics (Bloomflied 1933) and behavioral psychology (Skinner 1957) was born.
Nine Twentieth-Century Approaches to Language Teaching
- The terminologies that crucial in this chapter
1 | Approach | Something that reflect a certain model or research paradigm—a theory if you like (this term is the boardest) |
2 | Method | Is a set of procedures, i.e a system that spells out rather precisely how to teach a second or foreign language (more specific than approach) |
3 | Technique | Is a classroom device or activity and thus represents the narrowest of the three concepts. |
· Community Language Learning (Curran 1976)
· Total Physical Response (Asher 1977)
· Suggestology, Suggestopedia, or Accelerated Learning (Lozanov 1978)
At this point Celce-Murcia will outline eachof the nine approaches listed above.
1. Grammar-Translation Approach(used to teach classical languages to the teaching of modern languages)
2. Direct Approach (a reaction to the Grammar Translation Approach and its failure to produce learners who could communicate in the foreign language they had been studying)
3. Reading Approach (a reaction to the problems experienced in implementing the Direct Approach, reading was viewed as the most usable skill to have in a foreign language since not many people traveled abroad at that time, also few teachers could use their foreign language well enough to use a direct approach effectively in class)
4. Audiolingualism ( reaction to the Reading Approach and its lack of amphasis on oral-aural skill; this approach became dominant in the US during 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, it draws from the Reform Movement and the Direct Approach but adds features from structural linguistics (Bloomfield 1933) and behavioral psychology (Skinner 1957) )
5. Oral-Situation Approach (a reachtion to the Reading Approach and its lack of amphasis on oral-aural skill, this approach was dominant in Britain during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, it draws from the Reform Movement and the Direct Approach but adds features from Firthian linguistics and the emerging professional field of language pedagogy)
6. Cognitive Approach (a reaction to the behaviorist features of the Audiolingual Approach; influenced by cognitive psychology [Neisser 1967] and Chomsky linguistics [Chomsky 1959, 1965])
7. Affective-Humanistic Approach (a reaction to the general lack of affective considerations in both Audiolingualism and the Cognitive Approach, e.g. Moskowitz 1987 and Curran 1976)
8. Comprehension-Based Approach (an out growth of research in first language acquisition led some language methodologiests to assume at second and foreign language acquisition, e.g., Winits 1981, Krashen and Terrell)
9. Communicative Approach (an outgrowth of the work of anthropological linguists [e.g., Hymes 1972] and Firthian linguists [e.g., Halliday 1973] who view language first and foremost as a system for communication)
II. Classic Communicative Language Teaching
Communicative Language Teaching for Twenty-First Century
According Sandra J. Savignon within the last quarter century, communicative language teaching (CLT) has been put forth around the world as the “new” or “innovative” way to teach English as a second and foreign language. Teaching materials, coure descriptions, and curriculum guidelines proclaim a goal of communicative competence.
Not long ago, Americans structural linguistics and behaviorist psychology, were the prevailing influences in language teaching methods and materials, second/ foreign language teachers talked about communication in terms of four language skills; listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Speaking and writing were collectively described as active skills, reading and listening as passive skills.
Today, listeners and readers no longer are regarded as passive. They are seen as active participants in the negotiation of meaning. The skill needed to engage in speaking and writing activities were described subsequently as productive, whereas listening and reading skill were said to be receptive.
While certainly an improvement over the earlier active/ passive representation, the terms ‘productive’ and ‘receptive’ fall short of capturing the interactive nature of communication. The communicative competence needed for participantion includes not only grammatical competence, but pragmatic competence.
There is general acceptence of the complexity and interrelatedness of skills in both written and oral communication and of the need for learners to have the experience of communication, to participate in the nogotiation of meaning.
The term communicative attached itself to programs that used a functional-national syllabus based on needs assessment, and the language for specific purposes (LSP) movement was launched.
Other European developments focused on the process of communicative classroom language learning. A system of ‘chains’ encourage teachers and learners to define their own learning path through principled selection of relevant exercises (Piepho 1974; Piepho and Bredella 1976).
Supplementary teacher resource materials promoting classroom CLT became increasingly popular during the 1970s (e.g., Maley and Duff 1978). Meanwhilem, in the US, Hymes (1971) has reacted to Chomsky (1965) characterization of the linguistics competence to represent the use of language in the social context, or the observance of sociolinguistics norms of appropriacy. Halliday’s meaning potential, similary his focus was not language learning, but language as social behavior.
At the same time, in a research project at the Uneversity of Illinois, Savignon (1972) use the term ‘communicative competence’ to characterize the ability of classroom language learners to interact with other speakers, to make meaning. At a time when pattern practice and error avoidence were the rule in language teaching, this study of adult classroom acquisition of Frence looked at the effect of practice on the use of coping strategies as part of an instructional program.
The coping strategies identified in this study became the basis for subsequent identification by Canale and Swain (1980) of stratrgic competence which—along with grammatical competence and sociolinguistics competence—appeared in their three component framework for communicative competence.
The classroom model shows the hypothetical Integration of four components that have been advanced as comprising communicative competence, they are grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociocultural competence, and strategic competence.
•Grammatical competence is not linked to any single theory of grammar and does not include the ability to state rules of usage.
•Discourse Competence is concerned not with isolated words or phrases but with the interconnectedness of a series of utterences, written words, and/ or phrase to form a text, a meaningful whole.
•the familiar concept is coherence and cohesion.
•Sociocultural Competence extends well beyond linguistics forms and is an interdiciplinary field of inquiry having to do with the social rules of language use.
•Sociocultural competence requires an understanding of the social context in which language is used, the roles, the information, and the function of the interaction.
•Strategic Competence is the coping stategies that we use in unfamiliar contexts, with contraints doe to imperfect knowledge of rules or limiting factors in their application such as fatigue or distraction
In recent years, many innovations in curriculum planning have been proposed that offer both native and veteran teachers a dizzying array of alternatives Games, yoga, juggling, and jazz have been proposed as aids to language learning. Rapidly increasing oppurtunities for computer-mediated communication, both syncronious – online char room – and asyncronous – the full spectrum of information and interaction available in the internet, etc.
The Range Options
- Language Arts
- Language for a purpose
- My language is me: Personal English language Use
- You Be, I’ll Be. Theater Art
- Beyond the classroom
No comments:
Post a Comment