TOWARD INFORMED APPROACHES

TOWARD INFORMED APPROACHES

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A.    Background

The history reof language teaching despicted in the previous chapter, characterized by a series of “methodical” milestones, had changed its course by the end of the 1980s. the profession had learned some profound lessons from our past  wanderings. We had learned to be caustiously eclectic in making enlightened choice of teaching practicess that were solidly grounded in the best of what we knew about second language learning and teaching. We had amassed enough reaserch on learning and teaching that we could indeed formulate an integrated approach to language-teaching practices. And, perhaps ironically, the methods that were such strong signposts of our century-old journey were no longer of great consequence in making our progress. How did that happen?

B.     Problem

What the approachs in the postmethod era: toward informed approaches?

C.    Purpose

To know about the postmethod era: toward informed approaches.

CHAPTER II

DISCUSION

A.    THE DYSFUNCTION OF THE THEORY-PRACTICE DICHOTOMY

The now discarded concept of method (with a capital M) as a discrete set of unifield techniques designed to meet a variety of contexts carried with it, in some opinions (Glarke, 1994; Kumaravadivelu, 2006b), an implicit assumption about the relationship between what we have customarily called “theory” and “practice”. By theory, professional journals and books sometimes implied a creator, or theorist, who carried out research and proposed the rudiments of an organized set of  hypotheses, and sometimes then further proposed a methodological “application” of the theory (hence the perhaps misguided term, “applied linguistics”). the practice part of the formula was thought to be the province of classroom teachers who all too gladly accepted the theorist’s pronouncements, which came in the form of a method. The relationship between the theorist and practitioner was (and in some cases, still is)similar to that of a producer of goods and a consumer or costumer.

Mark Clarke (1994) very eloquently argued againts such a relationship in analizyng the “dysfunction” of the theory-practice relationship. He and others since then offer strong arguments against perpetuating this “misleading dualism”. Not only does such an understanding promote the notion of “a privileged class of theorists and an underprivileged class of practitioners”, but it also connotes a separation of researchers and teachers and, at worst, a one-way communication line from the former to the latter.

Recent work in the language-teaching profession shows a marked departure from the artificial dichotomy of theory and practice. In this newer mode of viewing the profession, teachers are researchers and are charged with the responsibility of reflecting on their own practice. Calls for “action research” and “classroom-based research” reflect a new and healthier attitude toward the relationship of research and practice. It has become increasingly inauthentic for university professors to generate ideas from the protective walls of an ivory tower without experiencing them in person in the classroom. Likewise, more and more teachers are engaging in the process of systematic observation, experimentation, analysis, and reporting of their own experiences in classroom around the world. You need not think of theorists as people that are removed from  the arena of classroom reality, nor of teachers as anything less than essential participants in a dialogue.

B.     AN ENLIGHTENED, ELECTIC APPROACH

It should be clear from the feregoing that as both an enlightened and electic teacher, you think in terms of a number of possible methodological options at your disposal for tailoring classes to particular context. Your approach, or rationale for language learning and teaching, therefore takes on great importance. Your approach includes a number of basic principles of learning and teaching (such us those that will be elaboreted on in the next chapter) on which you can rely for designing and evaluating classroom lessons.  Your approach to language-teaching methodology is a theoretically well-informed global understanding of the process of learning and teaching. It is inspired by the interconnection of all your reading and observing and discussing and teaching, and that interconnection underlies everything that you do in the classroom.

But your approach to language pedagogy is not just a set of static principles ”set in stone.” It is, in fact, a dynamic composite of energies within you that change, or should change, with your experiences in your learning and teaching. On the basis of what you know so far about second language acquisition and the pedagogical process, and for a paticular context you’re familiar with, think about:

a.       Which side of a continuum of possibilities you would generally lean toward,

b.      Why you would lean that way, and most importantly,

c.       What contextual variables might influence a change away from your general inclination.

Your approach also will differ on various issues from that of a colleague of yours, or even a supervising teacher, just as “experts” in the field differ in their interpretations of research on learning and teaching. There are three reasons for variation at the approach level:

a.       An approach is by definition dynamic and therefore subject to alterations and modification as a result of one’s observation and experiences;

b.      Research in second language acquistion and pedagogy almost always yields findings that are not conclusive, but are subject to interpretation; and

c.       We are constantly making new discoveries about language learning and teaching, as our professional stockpile of knowledge and experience builds.

C.     COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

Is there currently recognized approach that is a generally accepted norm in the field? The answer depends on whom you ask. For many (Savignon, 2005, among others), Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is an accepted paradigma with many interpretations and manifestations. For others (Kumaravadiveu,2006a, for example), CLT is laden with issues of “authenticity, acceptability, and adaptability” (p.62), and instead we are exhorted to embrace task-based language teaching (TBLT) as a more appropriate model.

Characteristics of a CLT Aprroach

1.      Overall goals. CLT suggests a focus on all of the compenents (grammatical,discourse,functional,sociolinguistic,and strategic) of communicative competence. Goals therefore must intertwine the organizational (grammatical,discourse) aspects of language with the pragmatic (functional,sociolinguistic,strategic) aspects.

2.      Relationship of form and function. Language technique are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic,authentic,funtional use of language for meaningful purpose. Organizational language forms are not the central focus,but remain as important components of language that enable the learner to accomplish those purposes

3.      Fluency and accuracy. A focus on students “flow”of comprehension and production and a focus on the formal accuracy of production are seen as complemantary principles underlying communicative techniques. At time fluency may have to take on more importance than accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully enganed in language use. At other times the students will be encouraged to attend to correctness. Part of the teacher’s responsibility is to offer appropriate corrective feedback on learners’ errors.

4.      Focus on real-world contexts. Students in a communicative class ultimately have to use the language,productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts outside the classroom. Classroom tasks must therefore equip students with the skills necessary for communication in those contexts.

5.      Autonomy and strategic involvement. Students are given opportunities to focus on their own learning process through raising their awareness of their own styles of learning (strengths,weaknesses,prefences) and through the development of appropriate strategies for production and comprehension. Such awareness and action will help to develop autonomous learners capable of continuing to learn the language beyond the classroom and the course.

6.      Teacher roles. The role of the teacher is that of facilitator and guide, not an all-knowing font of knowledge. The teacher is an empathetic”coach” who vaines the students’ linguistic development. Students are encouraged to contruct meaning and with the teacher.

7.      Students roles. Students in a CLT class are active participants in their own learning is emphasrized, but not at the expense of appropriate teacther-centeret activity.

These seven characteristic underscore some major departures from earlier methods and approaches. In some ways those departures were a gradual product of outgrowing the numerous methods that characterized a long stretch  of history. In other ways those departures were radical. Structurally (grammatically) sequenced curricula were a mainstay of language teaching for centuries.

AUDIOLINGUAL METHOD                                                                  

1.Attends to structure and form more than meaning

2.Demands more memorization of structure based dialogues.

3.language items are not necessarily contextualized.

4.language learning is learning structures, sounds,or words.

5.Mastery or ‘’overlearning’’is sought.

6.Drilling is a central technique.                        

7.native speaker like pronouncation is sought.

8.grammatical explanation is avoided.

9.communicatives activities come only after a long process of rigid drills and exercises.

10.the use of the student’s native language is forbidden.

COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH

1.      Meaning is paramount.

2.      Dialogues,if used,center around communicative functions and are not normally memorized.

3.      Contextualization is a basic premise

4.      Language learning is learning to communicate

5.      Effective communication is shought.

6.      Drilling may occur, but peripherally.

7.      Comprehensible pronouncation is sought.

8.      Any device that helps the learners is accepted varying according to their age,interest,ect

9.      Attempts to communicate are encouraged from the very beginning

10.  Judicious use of native language is accepted where feasible.

D.    TASK BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING                                                                           

            On of the most prominent perspectives within the CLT framwork is Task Based Language Teaching ( TBLT ).while some researchers ( Kumaravadivelu,2006a ) argue that TBLT is a significantly diffrent approach, other proponents ( Ellis, 2003 ) would claim that TBLT is at the very heart of CLT.this approach puts the use of tasks at the core of language teaching. While there is a good deal of variation among experts on how to describe or define task, Peter Skehan’s ( 1998a, p.95 ) concept of task still captures the essential. He defines task as an activity in which

-          Meaning is primary;

-          There is some communication problem to solve;

-          There is some sort of relationship to comparable real world activities;

-          Task completion has some priority;

-          The assessment of the task in terms of outcome.

Perharps more simply put,’’ a task is an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective’’ ( Bygate, Skehan, and Swaln,2001,p.11 ). In some cases, task and technique may be synonymous a problem solving task / technique; (a role play task / technique, for example). But in other cases, a task may be comprised of several techniques ( for example, a problem solving task that includes, let’s say, grammatical explanation, teacher initiated questions,and a specific turn taking procedure ). Tasks are usually ‘’bigger’’ in their ultimate ends than techniques. No small effort is demanded in designing effective tasks, as Jhonson ( 2003 ) and Nunan ( 2004 ) ably demonstrate. Characteristic of TBLT

1.      Tasks ultimately point learners beyond the forms of language alone to real-world contexts.

2.      Task specifically contribute to communicative goals.

3.      Their elements are carefully designed and not simply haphazardly or idiosyncratically thrown together.

4.      There objectives are well specified so that you can at some later point accurately determine the success of one task over another .

5.      Task angagelearners,at some level,in genuine problem –solving activity.

E.    LEARNER –CONTERED INSTRUCTION

The term applies to curricula as well as to specific techniques.it can be contrasted with teacher-centered  instruction ,and has received various recent  interpretations learner-centered instruction includes. 

1.      Tecniques that focus on or account for learners needs,styles,and goals .

2.      Techniques that give some control to the student (group work or strategy training,for example)

3.      Curricula that include the consultation and input of student and that do not presuppose objetives  in advance.

4.      Techniques that allow for studet creativity and innovation.

5.      Techniques that enhance a students sense of competence and self-worth

F.     COPERATIVE LEARNING

Cooperative learning is sometimes thought to be synonymous  with collaborative learning.to be sure ,in a cooperative classroom the students and teachers work together to pursue goals and objectives.but cooperative learning “is  more structured,more prescriptive  to teachers about classroom  techniques ,more directive to students about how work together in groups [than collaborative  learing ]” (oxford,1997,p.443). in cooperative learning models ,a group learning  activity is dependent  on the socially structured exchange of information between learners. In collaborative learning ,the learner engages “with more capable others (teachers,advancedpeets,etc),who provide assistance and guidance” (oxford ,1997,p.444). collaborative learning models have been developed within social contructivist (see chapter 1 of  PLLT) scools of thought to promote communities of learners that cut across the usual hierarchies of students and teachers.

G.    INTERATIVE LEARNING

Interative classes will most likely be found:

1.      doing a significant amount of pair work and group work

2.      Receiving authentic language inpit in rea-world context

3.      producing language for genuine ,meaningful communication

4.      perfoming classroom task that prepare them for actual language use”out  there”.

5.      practicing oral communication through the give and take and spontaneity of actual conversations

6.      writing to and for real audiences,not contrived ones

H.    WHOLE LANGUAGE EDUCATION

A term that once swept through our profession and is still in common use is whole language education.Unfortunately,the term has been so widely and divergently interpreted that it  unfortunately lost the impact that it once had (see Rigg,1991,for an excellent review of whole language education ). Initially the term came from reading research and was used to emphasize:   

a.       The”wholeness”of language as opposed to views that fragmented language into its bits and pieces of phonemes,graphemes,morphemes,and words;

b.      The interaction and interconnections between oral language (listening and speaking) and written language (reading and writing );and

c.       The importance ,inliteraresocieties,of the written code as natural and developmental ,just as the oral code is.

Now the term has come to encompass a great deal more.whole language is a label that has been used to describe:

a.       Cooperative learning

b.      Participatory learning

c.       Student-centered learning

d.      Focus on the community of leraners

e.       Focus on the social  nature language

f.       Use of authentic,natural language

g.      Meaning –centered language  54

h.      Holistic assessment techniques in testing

i.        Integration of the “four skill”.

Two interconnected concepts are brought together in whole language:

1.      The wholeness of language implies that language is not the sum of its many dissectible and discrete pats.

2.      Whole language is a perspective “anchored in a vission of an equitable ,democratic,diverse society edelsky because we use language  to construct meaning and to construct reallity,teaching language enables learners to understand a system of social practices that both constrain and liberate.

I.       CONTENT-BASED INTRUCTION

Content-based intruction intruction ,according to Brinton ,snow and wesche(1999,p.vii)is “the integration of content learning with language teaching aims. More specifically,it refers to the concurrent study of language and subject matter,with the form and sequence of language presentation dictated by content material .”such an approach contrasts sharply with many practices in which language skills are taughtvirtually in isolation from substantive content. Through CBI ,language becomes the  medium to convey informational content of interest and relevance to the learner.language takes on its approriate role as a vehicle for accomplishing a set of content goals.

Several models of CBI have now emerged. Theme based instruction may be the most common offshoot of CBI ,in this model language remains the primary aim of course , but special attention is given to meaningful ,relevant themes as a point of departure for instruction in language .sheltered content instruction is a from of CBI in which the teacher of  SCHOOL subject (say ,SCIENCE or history)  modiflesthe presentation of material to help 12 learners process the content.

J.      OTHER CANDIDATES FOR CLT APPROACHES  

At the heart of the lexical approach is the hypothesis that the essensial building bloks of language are words and word combinations,and that lexis therefore plays a central role in designing language courses and classroom methodology.Michael Lewis (1997) is perhaps the best-known advocate for a lexical approach to L2 teaching.his contention is not unlike that of Kharsen (1997) ,who maintained that one can “do” almost anything in a language with vocabulary,and once those lexical units are internalized,other (grammatical and discourse ) elementsof language can be acquired ,given a meaningful context.

A lexical emphasis has some obvious advantages.some times in our penchant for communicative interaction,we over look these basic foundation stones of language. And certainly a strategic language learner can accomplish a great deal with words alone. It remains somewhat unclear,however,how such an approach differs from other approaches ( which certainly allow for a focus on lexical units).nor is it clear how”an endless succession of phrase-book utterances ,’all chunks but no pineapple,’….can be incorporated into the understanding of a language system” (Harmer,2001,p.92).

CHAPTER III

CLOSING

A.    Conclusion

Your approach to language teaching is obviously the  keystone to all your teaching methodology in the classroom.by now,you may be able to “ profess” at leas some components of a personal approach to language lerning and teaching and have a beginning of an understanding of how that approach enlightens –or will enlighten-your classroom practices.many aspects of your approach will predictably mirror those that have been espoused here,especially since you are just beginning to learn your teaching craft. That’s quite acceptable.but do keep in mind the impotance of the dynamic nature of the theoritical stance of even the most experienced teachers.we have much to  learn,collectively,in this profession. And we will best instruct ourselves,and the profession at large, when  we maintain a disciplined imquisitiveness about our teaching practices. After All,that’s how we got to this point after a century of questioning.