The article "Direct Approaches in L2 Instruction: A Turning Point in Communicative Language Teaching?" by Marianne Celce-Murcia, Zoltan Dornyei, and Sarah Thurrell discuss the changes in communicative language teaching (CLT) since its conception. This method uses an indirect approach where students supposedly learn language forms, patterns, and grammar through exposure to the language, using "lifelike communicative situations...to acquire communicative skills incidentally by seeking situational meaning." This sounds really great in theory but because CLT was developed in aversion to strict formal grammar teaching, what is called a direct approach, it seems to overcompensate. It seems that some formal grammar instruction is still necessary for students to learn a second language. It cannot simply be done by immersion. The article claims that what is needed is a thoughtful mix of both types of teaching, sort of a guided freedom. Kumaravadivelu calls this a principled communicative apprach, which "has the potential to synthesize direct, knowledge-oriented and indirect, skill-oriented teaching approaches."
I totally agree with this article. In fact, it felt like obvious information to me because I take a very pragmatic approach to teaching. I do not see anything wrong with mixing the good parts of different methods and tweaking the weak parts.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
English for Academic Purposes
Stephen Evans and Christopher Green discuss research they did on English for Academic Purposes in their article "Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary students." They gave a large pool of university students a survey about their perception of their ability to read, write, speak, and listen in English. English is the main language for academia in Hong Kong, which creates problems for students who come from secondary institutions who use Chinese for instruction. Therefore, an EAP program is necessary to help these students with the rigorous demands of their university education. The results show evidence that students have the most trouble with academic writing and students have low confidence in this area. Students seem to have much more trouble with the language than the organization and content of their texts. In the area of reading, students have a great deal of trouble understanding new vocabulary that is specific to their content area and do not have the strategies to understand difficult words. Overall, the results suggest "that the cumulative effect of inadequate vocabulary for processing information and producing assignments is probably the key factor in creating students' negative overall view of their competence in English."
This seems very relevant to me as an English language teacher. I will need to be sure to concentrate on increasing my students' vocabulary and helping them become independant and self-sufficient when they get stuck on words. The latter is the most important because I will not always be there to help them figure out a word. They need the tools to help them advance on their own.
This seems very relevant to me as an English language teacher. I will need to be sure to concentrate on increasing my students' vocabulary and helping them become independant and self-sufficient when they get stuck on words. The latter is the most important because I will not always be there to help them figure out a word. They need the tools to help them advance on their own.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
One Theory to Rule Them All
"The Need for an Integrated Theory: Connecting Modules" by Evelyn Hatch, Yasuhiro Shirai, and Cheryl Fantuzzi discusses the problem of far too many and various studies and theories about second language acquisition. We need to integrate everything into one theory "that matches what we have learned from experience." They also feel that where most of the current research focuses on the internal processes of the learner, there needs to be more emphasis on teaching language. They see a problem with asking questions in regard to isolated subsystems that do not consider others in an effort to avoid the possible confusion resulting from two broad of a study. However, as researchers try to make the "research feasible" by narrowing the focus, they "may advance explanations that are faulty." Hatch, Shirai, and Fantuzzi believe that advances in technology and computers can help us manage and integrate all the different elements of second language acquisition, as well as help us test them.
I have a hard time believing that there could be just one theory encompassing all of second language acquisition. There are just so many things going on and so many variables to consider. I do feel like all the theories could be narrowed down. I think we need a few solid theories that could be compared and considered together. It just seems like we cannot even manage to put very many solid theories forward on specific parts of SLA that are not messy (this article gives an example of one) or highly criticized, so how would we manage to make one clear theory that everyone agrees on for the whole process?
I have a hard time believing that there could be just one theory encompassing all of second language acquisition. There are just so many things going on and so many variables to consider. I do feel like all the theories could be narrowed down. I think we need a few solid theories that could be compared and considered together. It just seems like we cannot even manage to put very many solid theories forward on specific parts of SLA that are not messy (this article gives an example of one) or highly criticized, so how would we manage to make one clear theory that everyone agrees on for the whole process?
Monday, April 14, 2008
More Second Language Acquisition Fun
Cem Alptekin's article "Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT" discusses the problems with "the pedagogic model based on the native speaker-based notion of communicative competence" (57). Alptekin outlines the four competencies in language that a person must have to be considered proficient (according to this theory) as grammatical, which is the knowlege of syntactic, lexical, morphological, and phonological features, sociolinguistic, which is the social rules of language use, discourse, which is being able to hold a conversation, and strategic competence, which is the ability to overcome gaps in information or misunderstandings to continue the conversation.
Alptekin sees this theory as a problem in education, especially in teaching English as a Foreign Language. The fact that the goal of communicative competence requires enculturation ignores the many different dialects in English, assuming an air of utopia and "that one set of language patterns is somehow inherently superior to all others"(59). Alptekin argues that there is no perfect native speaker and quotes Rajagopalan who says that it could be considered "the visible tip of an insidious ideological iceberg" (60). Another issue is that it does not consider the different purposes of English for people around the world, especially as a business language between two nonnative speakers. American or British social norms would have no effect on their conversation, thus it is not important to help these speakers in learning English.
Alptekin offers up some new criteria for a new pedagogic model for teaching English for the purpose of "international and intercultural communication." English in this situation should not be taught by a monolingual native speaker, it should aim to make learners comfortable speaking English in any setting, and it should incorporate the background of the language learner (63).
I thought this article was interesting, but relatively vague. I would have preferred to see some examples of lessons that taught without culture imbedded in it. I also thought that this was not applicable for my goal of teaching English as a Second Language in the United States. I will have to be constantly thinking about my lessons in terms of culture so my students can be successful here. Alptekin also brings up the fact that many places are coming up with their own rendition of English, such as German English and Dutch English, as a means of using English without the culture of native English speaking nations and with "distinctive features in the areas of pronunciation, lexis, syntax, and pragmatics." Alptekin does not think this is necessarily a solution and that English needs to be taught as "an international language, whose culture becomes the world itself" (62). I don't believe this to be possible, though. To learn a language you need context and culture has a lot to do with context. The language will be shaped in the perspective of whoever is teaching it. I was exposed somewhat recently to Jamaican English and found it extremely difficult to understand and it makes me wonder about the other versions of English, even someday a possible International English. I would have to learn Jamaican English to be able to effectively communicate with someone who speaks that version of English. If we don't keep some sort of standard for teaching English internationally, when does English stop becoming English and start becoming a whole other language?
Alptekin sees this theory as a problem in education, especially in teaching English as a Foreign Language. The fact that the goal of communicative competence requires enculturation ignores the many different dialects in English, assuming an air of utopia and "that one set of language patterns is somehow inherently superior to all others"(59). Alptekin argues that there is no perfect native speaker and quotes Rajagopalan who says that it could be considered "the visible tip of an insidious ideological iceberg" (60). Another issue is that it does not consider the different purposes of English for people around the world, especially as a business language between two nonnative speakers. American or British social norms would have no effect on their conversation, thus it is not important to help these speakers in learning English.
Alptekin offers up some new criteria for a new pedagogic model for teaching English for the purpose of "international and intercultural communication." English in this situation should not be taught by a monolingual native speaker, it should aim to make learners comfortable speaking English in any setting, and it should incorporate the background of the language learner (63).
I thought this article was interesting, but relatively vague. I would have preferred to see some examples of lessons that taught without culture imbedded in it. I also thought that this was not applicable for my goal of teaching English as a Second Language in the United States. I will have to be constantly thinking about my lessons in terms of culture so my students can be successful here. Alptekin also brings up the fact that many places are coming up with their own rendition of English, such as German English and Dutch English, as a means of using English without the culture of native English speaking nations and with "distinctive features in the areas of pronunciation, lexis, syntax, and pragmatics." Alptekin does not think this is necessarily a solution and that English needs to be taught as "an international language, whose culture becomes the world itself" (62). I don't believe this to be possible, though. To learn a language you need context and culture has a lot to do with context. The language will be shaped in the perspective of whoever is teaching it. I was exposed somewhat recently to Jamaican English and found it extremely difficult to understand and it makes me wonder about the other versions of English, even someday a possible International English. I would have to learn Jamaican English to be able to effectively communicate with someone who speaks that version of English. If we don't keep some sort of standard for teaching English internationally, when does English stop becoming English and start becoming a whole other language?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)