Eight Approaches to Language Teaching - Essay Example

Language Teaching Styles Introduction There are different language teaching styles and these styles often affect a teacher’s efficacy and the learner’s or student’s learning process. These language teaching styles are often fashioned to fit the needs of the population, especially those who have particular qualities which set them apart from the general population and from the known standards of learning. This paper shall evaluate two language teaching styles, more particularly, the audio-lingual and the communicative styles. It shall indicate, with examples, the potential uses of these styles within a specific teaching context. This study is being undertaken in order to assess the usage of these learning styles as part of the teaching process, in the hope of seeking improvements and updating strong points for the benefit of the teacher and, most especially, the learner or student. Discussion Eight Approaches to language teaching There are eight known approaches to language teaching. These approaches have been conceptualized in view of the fact that teachers and education institutions have recognized the fact that there is no right and single way to teach foreign languages. The Center for Applied Linguistics acknowledges the fact that there is no superior means of language teaching which would also fit all students in all settings. It identified eight language teaching methods which are being used today. According to Doggett (2003, p. 165), these methods include the Grammar Translation Method which focuses on improving student’s participation in the target literature the teacher’s method in teaching the language. Doggett (2003, p. 165) discusses that students are given target language lines and are then asked to answer the questions which follow. This class is structured with the teacher exerting much control over the learning process. Doggett (2003, p. 165) goes on to discuss another method which is the direct method. She discusses that this method gives students the ability to perceive meaning directly through language, since no language translation is allowed. She also emphasizes that visual aids and pantomime are incorporated in the learning process in order to clearly express the meaning of words and concepts. Doggett (2003, p. 165) also discusses the audio-lingual method of language teaching, which is based on the behaviourist concept which suggests that learning language is about gaining the right language habits. In this case, the learner repeats patterns until he can produce such patterns naturally. According to Doggett (2003, p. 165), the silent way is based on the idea that teaching should not be given as much importance as learning and therefore, students must come up with their own inner criteria for correctness. The four basic skills of reading, writing, speaking, and listening are taught from the beginning. The suggestopedia method, based on Doggett’s discussion is aimed at assisting students in eliminating the psychological barriers to learning. In this instance, a person’s learning environment is subdued (2003, p. 165). The community language learning, as discussed by Doggett (2003, p. 165) considers students as whole persons who have feelings, intellect, and a desire to learn. They know that by understanding the student’s fears, students would feel more secure and would be able to harness more energy for learning. Doggett (2003, p. 165) goes on to discuss about the total physical response method which starts by prioritizing listening comprehension and adapting the early stages of mother tongue acquisition and then proceeding to speaking, reading, and writing. The students indicate their comprehension by acting out commands given by the teacher. Finally, the communicative method emphasizes the importance of teaching communicative competence, not linguistic competence (Doggett, 2003, p. 165). In this sense, functions are given more importance than forms. Students often work with genuine materials in smaller groups on communicative activities and at which time, they learn to negotiate meaning. The Audio-lingual Approach The audiolingual approach is a language teaching method which, according to Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 53) emerged towards the end of the 1950s when people’s interest about foreign languages increased. Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 53) pointed out that this interest was prompted by the fact that Russia seemed to be making certain advancements in science and the American experts recognized the fact that in order to keep abreast of these advancements, it also needed to learn how to speak foreign languages. The usual method of learning other languages was focused on the Reading method which was not sufficient in learning foreign languages. Hence, the shift to this method of learning was seen. Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 53) discussed that the National Defense Education Act of 1958 even helped fund the language learning process in the enhancement of learning materials for teachers and students of foreign language. The potential teachers were even called upon to attend as many trainings as they could in order to learn about the principles of linguistics (Richards and Rodgers, 2001, p. 53). Based on the discussion by Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 53), the language teaching specialists then focused on “developing a method that was applicable to conditions in US colleges and university classrooms”. They also based their program on the Aural-oral Structural Approach conceptualized by Fries and fellow linguists. In the end, the audiolingual approach was, according to Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 53), a combination of the following: the structural linguistic theory, contrastive analysis, aural-oral methods, and behaviourist psychology. This method, as discussed by Coady and Huckin (1997, p. 10) gives more attention to pronunciation and intensive oral drilling to basic sentence structures. In this case, the students were taught proper grammar and sentence structure through exercises and by repeating sentences out loud; the functions of the different words in the entire sentence structure was not given much attention (Coady and Huckin, 1997, p. 10). In effect, the audiolingual approach taught students the basic sentence patterns by letting them repeatedly read words out loud until they would get used to the sound of the words put together in the sentence. Strengths of the audio-lingual approach One of the advantages of this approach is that it emphasizes aural-oral skills. Rahman and Melhim (2009) discuss that the main emphasis on the listening and speaking process is that those who can hear well and speak well will also be able to read and write well. This gives the audio-lingual approach a major edge among the different approaches of learning. Teachers always seem to give particular attention to the proper pronunciation and intonation of their students. The authors further point out that as students focus on their intonation, they also start to understand the importance of intonation as they recognize the questions and the commands according to the intonations used (Rahman and Melhim, 2009). Since teachers usually exert more effort in correcting their student’s early errors during the early learning years, these errors are then remedied before they become persistent language issues. Moreover, as emphasized by Rahman and Melhim (2009), regular language drills help students become more familiar with contextual situations in their target language; thereby, giving them the chance to participate in conversations with a more native affinity for the language. According to Rahman and Melhim (2009) another advantage is that the audio-lingual approach stresses on the cultural history and background of the speakers using the second language. By understanding the culture behind the language, students become more familiar with the various peculiarities of the language and the culture. With these advantages, the audio-lingual method appears to be an encouraging method for language teaching. Yule (2010) points out that as the students are allowed to speak only after fully receiving input from their listening, their understanding or comprehension of the language comes ahead of their actual performance or speaking. In effect, they are given the opportunity to gain confidence about their oral and aural skills before actually being asked to perform or display their language skills. Vivian Cook (2008, p. 208) discusses that the “audiolingual style is not about learning language for its own sake, but about learning if for actual use, either within the society or without”. This would prove disadvantageous to language learners because it helps engage the language learning process towards actual use within and outside the practical context. Disadvantages of the Audio-lingual approach Students complain that this approach is tedious and monotonous. They find it uninteresting and the language drills too mechanical. This approach may seem to work well for children, however, adults do not have the same enthusiasm for it. Based on Rahman and Melhim’s assessment, in some ways, these adults show low retention for it (2009). In so many ways, Margolis (2009) points out that this approach causes low student motivation as a result of pattern drills which can quickly become boring exercises. Those who oppose this method view the mechanical exercises as its major fault or weakness. They further point out that the students are not actually learning to speak spontaneously as native English speakers actually do. Instead, they are memorizing uniform phrases and repeating these phrases mechanically. Diller (1970) points out that these mechanical drills prompt the student to focus on the mechanics of the grammatical structures of the phrases spoken; he is not however required to think of himself within the language as he is participating in the drill. The audio-lingual approach also focuses too much on mechanical and fixed drills which are too structured and stilted. According to Margolis (1982) there is much doubt whether or not these drills actually prepare the speaker for more spontaneous conversations. Another disadvantage of this approach as discussed by Rahman and Melhim (2009), is that its use of audio-visual tools is only appropriate if used correctly. If it is overused, the actual dialogue between the student and the teacher takes second place. Students must actually have a more spontaneous interaction if they really want to learn their target second language well. For language teachers to focus too much on audio-visual tools is to limit the students actual human interaction and exchange; and these are all crucial to the development of second languages (Rahman and Melhim, 2009). In focusing on a more stilted language learning process, there is a restrictive learning of the vocabulary. In effect, spoken words become entities on their own and are hardly thought of as specific units of meaning. To illustrate, students are taught the phrase, “I am doing fine, thank you”. This becomes their standard reply when asked, “how are you?” And even if they are or are not actually feeling well, their response is the same. In other words, Rahman and Melhim (2009) point out that they are being drawn into a specific stereotype. Expecting such speech patterns to eventually lead to spontaneous speech seems to be too much to expect out of this limited learning language method. In the audio-lingual-based classroom, the student’s motivation to learn more somehow becomes compromised. Students view learning as mechanical and too much patterned and it fails to lead into a spontaneous competence. As further emphasized by Rahman and Melhim (2009) the students sometimes just memorize phrases and use these at inopportune times because they actually do not understand and appreciate the language they are using. This approach focuses much on memorization and in effect, the student’s skills rely more on short-term memory. Cook (2008, p. 209) also points out that the audiolingual approach has no fall-back position. In other words, “if it does not succeed in getting the student to function in the second language, there is nothing else to be gained from it – no academic knowledge or problem-solving ability” (Cook, 2008, p. 209). In the end, this approach serves a limited purpose in the academic and linguistic sense of language learning. The Communicative language teaching approach According to Bran, (2007) the communicative language teaching (CLT) is based on the concept that the main function of language use is communication and that its main goal is for students to gain communicative expertise (Bran, 2007). This approach arose in Britain as a response to the gaps seen in the Situational language learning which was being used in Britain at that time (Cook, 2008, p. 153). According to Cook (2008, p. 153), the situation learning approach focused on teaching students different languages based on situations. However, the situational language methods “were incapable of accounting for the fundamental characteristics of language – the creativity and uniqueness of individual sentences” (Cook, 2008, p. 153). It also gives much focus the function as well as the structure of language. Meaning is given primary importance in this approach. Consequently, its focus is to use real-life situations which prompt actual communication. According to Canale and Swain, (1980) communicative expertise refers to the ability to display appropriate social behaviour; it calls for the active participation of the student during the production of the target language. Ma (2009) discusses that this approach involves different abilities, including the knowledge of grammar and vocabulary; the ability to say the right things in certain social gatherings; the ability to start, participate in, and to end a conversation; and the ability to communicate efficiently and to reduce barriers caused by communication gaps. Based on Jeremy Harmer’s discussion (2001, p. 84), this approach is concerned with the re-evaluation of the different aspects of language to teach and also on shifting the emphasis on how to teach the language. This approach focuses, as further discussed by Harmer (2001, p. 84), not just on grammar and the vocabulary, but also on the importance of the different language functions. This approach to learning a language is also founded on the process of teaching the student to use the language in different contexts and purposes (Harmer, 2001, p. 84). This gives the student more depth in the usage of the language he is learning and to use such language in a wider and a more encompassing language application. Harmer (2001, p. 85) also discusses that communicative language teaching covers students in a realistic communication wherein the right words they would use is not as important as the “achievement of the communicative task they are performing. Thus role-play and simulation have become very popular in CLT, where students simulate a television programme or a scene at an airport – or they might put together the simulated front page of a newspaper” (Harmer, 2001, p. 85). The important consideration in these cases is the fact that students actually want to communicate something; in effect, they must have a purpose or goal for communicating. According to Harmer, (2001, p. 85), these students must be focused on what they are communicating, not so much on the form of their language they are using. This process of learning language is more about the content, and less about the form of the language. Strengths of communicative language learning approach There are various advantages or strengths which can be seen in the communicative language learning approach. This approach helps incorporate the language at a deeper level for the learners. Overland (n.d) discusses that it helps him resist language atrophy and to retain literacy skills for a longer period of time. This approach also encourages private dialog among students. He also discusses that students who have the ability to manipulate language are also highly capable of expressing their own opinions and of engaging in private conversations and exchanges. According to Overland (n.d) there is much support in the idea that in order for a learner to progress well in the process of learning a new language, he must move beyond object regulation and forward to self-regulation. This approach also helps set forth an immersion environment of instruction. Cook (2008, p. 156) discusses that the communicative language learning process is advantageous because of the following paramount reasons: it focuses on teaching the student to communicate effectively; it does no focus on drilling the students; it focuses on teaching the students comprehensible pronunciation; it allows the student to use any device which helps him learn; it allows the student to use his native language where appropriate; it allows the student to learn the language through trial and error; it gives the students time to interact with other people in pairs or in groups; it sustains the student’s interest to learn the language through intrinsic motivation. Based on a paper released by Nanjing University (n.d) this approach helps overcome the threatening factors in second language learning. The teacher in this approach helps to decide the type of conversation needed by the learner and to evaluate the foreign language inductively. In other words, the teacher can also become a learner and in some cases, the student is allowed to step up and assist the teacher. In effect, the student-centred focus of this approach helps motivate the student, allowing the learner to control the process of language learning. This approach also allows the learner to review language which he can learn and use in new situations. It also allows the learners to apply structure or characteristic patterns of sentences and conversations. Through the teacher’s translations, the learners are able to trigger a more complex grammar than what they actually use. McDonough and Shaw (2003, p. 28) also discuss that the communicative language learning approach is favourable because it considers wider considerations of the appropriate and the accurate; it also considers a wider range of language by including the texts and the sentences as well; and it provides motivating language practice. All in all, this approach makes the language learning process very engaging for the learner. Disadvantages of the communicative language learning approach There are however weaknesses of the communicative language learning approach. In this approach, the Nanjing University (n.d) discussion points out that the teacher can sometimes be too non-directive. The student often needs the guidance of his teacher or instructor during the earliest stages of learning wherein the learner often struggles with the foreign language. With support and encouragement from the teacher, the learner can be prompted to persist in the learning process. Another issue with this approach is that it seems to rely heavily on an inductive strategy of learning (Nanjing University, n.d). Although inductive strategies are important to the process of learning a second language, the first few days of struggling in the learning process can be prevented by a more directed learning. In the second and third stage of learning, when the learner has gained more independence, the inductive method can be more applicable. An issue with the communicative language learning according to Nanjing University (n.d) is also apparent when it is dependent too much on the translation capabilities of the teacher. Instead, the fact that translation is a complex process must be considered because if some small aspects of the language are not translated well, there may be an ineffective understanding of the target language. McDonough and Shaw (2003, p. 28) also point out that this approach may not apply to all proficiency levels, with beginners not adjusting well to the processes of teaching. The authors also cast some doubt on the application of this teaching method in “all teaching contexts, regardless of objectives, ages of learners, length of course, mother tongue of teachers...” (McDonough and Shaw, 2003, p. 28). They point out that some teachers who are not native English speakers may not be confident in their role as teachers; moreover, the cultural elements of the language may not always fit the social context upon which language learning is based (McDonough and Shaw, 2003, p. 28). In the end, this approach has different unsettled issues which have to be addressed before its full application can actually achieve its desired outcomes for the learners. Conclusion There are different language learning approaches which eventually assist students in learning a second language. This study discussed two of these methods. The first is the audio-lingual method which largely focuses on teaching students how to pronounce words and how to incur a correct intonation to these words. This method is advantageous in the sense that it helps to ensure that the learner would relate the pronunciation and intonation of the words first before he actually speaks the words. It also helps him gain confidence in the pronunciation of the words before he actually pronounces them. It is however disadvantageous because it largely relies on mechanical language drills which do not enlighten the student on why and in what context the words can be spoken. It has little room for flexibility in the actual language learning context. The communicative approach is focused on the importance of teaching communicative competence in the actual practical setting of communication. This approach is permissive and student-centred. It allows the student to learn through private dialog and through more practical conversations and settings. Its issues mostly revolve around too much permissiveness from the teacher. It also relies heavily on the translation of the instructor which may not always be right. Through this paper we can glean a clear picture of these two approaches and the different appropriate approaches which can be utilized in order to ensure efficient language learning process. Works Cited Bran, M. (2007) Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction. Pearson Highered. Retrieved 02 March 2011 from http://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/hip/us/hip_us_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0131579061.pdf Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics. Coady, J. & Huckin, T. (1997) Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cook, V. (2008) Second Language learning and language teaching. London: Oxford University Press Diller, C. (1970). Linguistic theories: Teaching a living language. New York: Harper & Row. Doggett, G. (2003) Eight Approaches to Language Teaching. Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved 10 March 2011 from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/eightapproaches.pdf Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. London: Oxford University Press. Ma, T. (2009) On Communicative Language Teaching — Theoretical Foundations and Principles. Asian Social Science, volume 5, number 4, pp. 40-45 Margolis, F. (1982). Encouraging spontaneous speech in the audio-lingual classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 15, 127-131. Nanjing University (n.d) Advantages and Disadvantages of CCL. Retrieved 02 March 2011 from http://www.ecmd.nju.edu.cn/UploadFile/19/9124/25.doc Overland, P. (n.d) Benefits and Strategies of Communicative Language Learning. Ashland University. Retrieved 02 March 2011 from http://personal.ashland.edu/poverlan/holes/comm-lang-lrng-ovrview.pdf Rahman-Abdel & Melhim, A. (2009) Re-evaluating the Effectiveness of the Audio-lingual Method in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, volume 5, number 2, pp. 1-65. Retrieved 10 March 2011 from http://www.americanscholarspress.com/content/IFOTS-Two-2009.pdf#page=39 Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press. Yule, G. (2010) The Study of Language. New York: Oxford University Press Materials and methods in ELT ( a teachers guide) 2003 Read More