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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I like the way you use the term "overcompensate". Might argueably allude to an esteem issue in the specialized discourse community. That or it makes me think of Dewey's admonition to avoid extremes and either /or thinking.
Post a Comment