Mainstream Language Teaching Methods - Assignment Example

Mainstream Language Teaching Methods I. Mainstream This section examines the making and correction of errors through the analysis of mainstream language teaching methods, specifically the corrective process of student errors in language learning. Researchers like Lori Helman of the University of Nevada have pointed to the importance of demonstrating the need for second-language educators to consider students’ original language when determining instruction in student errors. This method allows the English-language learner to develop their intellectual capabilities without being handicapped by their initial English errors and brings the students to the point where they become fully proficient in the second-language. The general approach for correction begins with teaching common elements between the two languages and then working with areas that are different. Teaching English-language Learners (2004) expands on Professor Helman’s ‘Common Elements’ stage of instruction urges educators to utilize Spanish or English cognates in structuring a lesson that emphasizes the similarities between the two languages to aid in their instruction. The essential argument is that when considering student errors, there is significant linguistic research supporting the effectiveness of “cross-linguistic transference”. That is, that because Spanish and English are similar the Spanish speaker will have an easier time developing English language skills if their errors are seen in regards to the structural differences and similarities in the two languages. It recommends starting lessons by having students recite or memorize a list of Spanish cognates and then to gradually assimilate their English counterparts. It calls this the sheltering technique, as in “cognates provide a little ‘shelter’ from the storm”. This is a transitional mode of instruction that clearly works best with primary-student language learners, as it lowers their “affective filter,” where they begin to filter out information when they feel overwhelmed or stressed-out. Perhaps the most insightful portion of the corrective process is how the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) urges teachers to adopt an approach that incorporates the positive aspects of the learner’s home language because “when teachers…believe in the important role of primary language in literacy learning, English-language learners show higher levels of academic achievement (Helman 152).” Ultimately, the argument is that the correction of student mistakes should be understood in terms of the structure of their home language, as this is the predominant difficulty that language learners face when engaging in the language learning process. II. Communicative Competence In discussing contemporary research into the correction of errors within the communicative competence spectrum, it’s necessary to formulate a working terminology of the theory. In Fundamental Considerations of Language Testing, Bachman offers an extremely dichotomous definition of communicative competence. In large part, Bachman is making the case that separate components of language exist that can’t be measured in objective, starkly grammatical terms. That while Organizational Competence, or “those abilities involved in producing…grammatically correct sentences” is a major component of language, communicative competence functions to illuminate the necessity of teaching, “…language users and the context of communication” – that is, pragmatic concerns (Bachman 87). The issue becomes particularly muddied when discussing Strategic Competence, as some researchers identify this aspect of communication as compensatory to the Linguistic and Pragmatic elements. It seems that Bachman differs from past research here in that he includes Strategic Competence in as vital a position of communication as the Pragmatic and Organizational Components. The correction of errors within the communicative competence spectrum is best understood within the actual process of learning. One example situates a second language learner reading a foreign textbook and encountering difficulty, not because of its grammatical or vocabulary elements, but because of the textual positioning of sentences. Communicative competence theory argues that this difficulty occurs because there are rhetorical elements that function in-addition to the lexical structure of the text; therefore, teachers must take into account these extra-linguistic elements into account when correcting errors. While it’s appropriate to focus on the correction of mainstream lexical elements, evidence for the inter-dependence of linguistic and pragmatic elements of communication indicate “that none of the components of communicative competence can be ignored (Faerch, Phillpson 176).” In Word Knowledge, author Cheryl Zimmerman writes, “The meaning that you assign to a new word is closely linked to what you already know…the association of words to personal experiences facilitates the learning of new information (Zimmerman 18).” That is, teachers cannot “teach” all that the students need to know about the meaning of a word through regular correction of errors, so the lesson should ultimately abandon traditional assumptions of ‘errors’. That is, the correct means of proceeding with foreign language teaching would not correct specific mistakes, but view them as a natural process related to the negotiation of meaning. That is, allow students to negotiate word meaning through contextual and strategic means. The old vocabulary definition tests and similar corrective measures should be discarded. In its place, daily word presentations could be instituted: By communicative competence standards, students would be assigned a word and be required to explain it to the class by relating it to a personal experience or visual or verbal entity. For instance, if the word was ‘ecstatic,’ the language learner would describe a situation they felt ecstatic in, an American song that is ecstatic, and a Western picture that produces these emotions. The rest of the class could engage in the lesson and offer personal interpretations, furthering the corrective process. Ultimately, in this view the traditional concept of the ‘error’ and ‘correction’ is understood as a process of negotiation. III. Audiolingual The audiolingual method of language teaching is the antithesis of communicative competence theory. Even as the approach has fallen out of favor with contemporary practitioners, it’s important to examine the correction and errors techniques to understand their shortcomings, and continued applicability. Unlike the mainstream and communicative competence measures discussed earlier, the audiolingual’s method of correction takes a strictly grammatical stance, as it corrects student’s grammatical errors directly (Richards & Rodgers 2001). It’s easy to see how this method has much in common with the behaviorism of B.F. Skinner who posits the learning process on conditioned responses to external stimuli. The audiolingual method assumes that there are objective grammatical elements, and through rote memorization and frequent and direct teacher correction of errors students with incorporate these elements into their language learning process. English lessons are structured in a very strict and rigid manner, with the intention of ‘educating’ students with as much information, in as efficient a way as possible. This resulted in lessons being drilled into students, with rote memorization of vocabulary and grammar a major component of language lessons. IV. Changes in Perspective Since 1950 With advances in communicative competence theory that demonstrated the extra-linguistic elements of the language learning process, the audiolingual method fell out of favor in the later part of the century. However, the correction process implemented through audiolingual methods is still incorporated in many individual lessons today, but its central role as a foundational element of language instruction has been surpassed by more progressive theories. While there are a multitude of reasons for this shift in linguistic attitudes, advances in syntactic theory, with particular reference to Noam Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures (1969) decentered the view of language from a body of structural interdependencies, placing increased emphasis on the role of individual agency in negotiating meaning. In this regard, the traditional significations of the ‘error’ have changed entirely. Whereas previous incarnations -- notably audiolingual –understood corrections in regards to fixed grammatical elements, the emergence of and increased acceptance of communicative competence theory towards the end of the 20th century, allowed for an understanding of language learning within extra-linguistic and strategic elements. In this regard, errors are no longer understood in simple formulations of right and wrong, but determined through the actual communicative efficiency of the discourse. References Bachman, Lyle F. (1990), Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. London: Oxford University Press. Faerch, C., Haastryg, K. and Phillipson, R Learners Language and Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Helman, Lori A. (2004). Building of the Sound System of Spanish: Insights from the Alphabetic Spellings of English-Language Learners. Richards, Jack C. and Therdore S. Rodgers (2001), Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam (1969). Syntactic Structures. Boston: MIT Press. Zimmerman, Cheryl. (2008). Word Knowledge. London: Oxford University Press. Read More