This paper is going to discuss the merits and demerits of some methods of English language teaching, it will cover the following points
– Introduction.
– The history of English language teaching. (giving birth to the first teaching methodology).
– Light on the direct method.
– Audio-lingual as a good example of direct methods.
– Communicative language teaching.
– Being eclectic is the best way.
– Conclusion.
English language teaching methods have come a long way in the past 60 years. Before the 1950s, language instruction in general was a rather tedious and soporific that relied heavily on drills, repetition, translation and probably knuckle rapping.
The emphasis, at least in the United States, was placed entirely on reading ability and not at all on communicative ability. This was mostly because the American people at that time had little opportunity or reason to communicate with people of different language backgrounds. It was not until the U.S. entered World War II that the government realized how vital oral and aural abilities were in foreign language education, and it was out of this realization that many of the ESL teaching methods used today were born.
Methods of teaching languages are many. Some have had their heyday and have fallen into relative obscurity; others are widely used now; still others have a small following, but contribute insights that may be absorbed into the generally accepted mix.
The direct method
The direct method, sometimes also called natural method, is a method that refrains from using the learners’ native language and just uses the target language. It was established in Germany and France around 1900. The direct method operates on the idea that second language learning must be an imitation of first language learning, as this is the natural way humans learn any language – a child never relies on another language to learn its first language, and thus the mother tongue is not necessary to learn a foreign language. This method places great stress on correct pronunciation and the target language from outset. It advocates teaching of oral skills at the expense of every traditional aim of language teaching.
According to this method, printed language and text must be kept away from second language learner for as long as possible, just as a first language learner does not use printed word until he has good grasp of speech.
Learning of writing and spelling should be delayed until after the printed word has been introduced, and grammar and translation should also be avoided because this would involve the application of the learner’s first language. All
above items must be avoided because they hinder the acquisition of a good oral proficiency.
The Audio-Lingual method
The audio-lingual method has students listen to or view recordings of language models acting in situations. Students practise a variety of drills, and the instructor emphasizes the use of the target language at all times. Dialogue and drills are mostly used with the Audiolingual Method. The lesson often starts with a dialogue to provide a context for teaching language forms. Dialogues are used for repetition and memorization. The students repeat each line of the new dialogue several times to emphasize correct pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation. After that, drills are presented focusing on specific grammatical patterns selected from the dialogue.
The audio-lingual method was used by the United States Army for “crash” instruction in foreign languages during World War II. Due to weaknesses in performance, audio-lingual methods are rarely the primary method of instruction today.
Students are imitators of the teacher’s model or the tapes he supplies for model speakers. They follow the teachers’ directions and respond as rapidly accurately as possible. Students are often passive. They are not encouraged to initiate the interaction because it may lead to mistakes. To clarify the nature of their role, Richards and Rodgers (2004) illustrated that, “Learners play a reactive role by responding to stimuli, and thus have little control over the content, pace, or style of learning”.
Students are reduced to puppets and parrots. This is not exaggeration because, quite often in the early stages of learning, learners do not understand the meaning of most of what they are repeating.
The idea is that there is a fixed body of knowledge that the student must come to know. Students are expected to blindly accept the information they are given without questioning the instructor (Stofflett, 1998). The teacher seeks to transfer thoughts and meanings to the passive student leaving little room for student-initiated questions, independent thought or interaction between students (VAST, 1998). In fact, repeated research has found that teacher-centered lessons can be nonproductive, and in some cases, detrimental to the students’ learning process (Zoller, 2000).
Communicative language teaching
Communicative language teaching (CLT) is an approach to the teaching of languages that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language. Despite a number of criticisms, it continues to be popular, particularly in Europe, where constructivist views on language learning and education in general dominate academic discourse.
Student-centered learning poses a question to the students, who then work together in small groups to discover one or more solutions (Yager, 1991). Students play
an active role in carrying out experiments and reaching their own conclusions. Teachers assist the students in developing new insights and connecting them with previous knowledge, but leave the discovery and discussion to the student groups (VAST, 1998). Questions are posed to the class and student teams work together to discuss and reach agreement on their answers, which are then shared with the entire class. Students are able to develop their own understanding of the subject matter based on previous knowledge, and can correct any misconceptions they have.
Which approach is the best approach to be used?.
Each approach has something to offer. There is no single acceptable way to go about teaching language. There has been a growing realization that people learn in different ways, and that approaches which suit one person may not suit another. For example, some outgoing personalities love to experiment and can hardly wait for the chance to try speaking the new language. Others, more reserved, prefer to listen and understand before speaking. Some people find that studying the grammar is an important step for them in establishing a framework for their language learning. Others never study the rules, but find that putting themselves in situations where they have to communicate is enough to trigger their learning. So no single approach or method is appropriate for all learning styles. A good lesson will therefore be one in which the teacher use different activities taken from a variety of sources. By varying the technique, the students will be given the chance to shine.
My teaching approach will most probably be an eclectic approach, using different methodologies and techniques
largely depending on the existing competencies and the expectations of the learners. Every effective teacher endeavours to extract the best advantages from each method, and exerts most of his effort to make these advantages affect –positively- the learners’ abilities. When teaching English, the teacher should always adapt whatever approach or method appropriately to the needs and abilities of the student. One should constantly examine the method used in the most efficient way possible.
These were pros and cons to all of these methods, and most ESL/EFL teachers today employ ’’bits and pieces’’ of each to suit their teaching style and their students’ needs, but one thing is for sure: knuckle rapping is definitely out.