January 7, 1998 by Peggy Minier
Grammar Translation Method
See handout regarding "Developing a framework for the systematic description, analysis and comparison of different methods of language teaching."
Lesson of Hungarian example. See handout. To begin, Pat talked to us in English (native language) and gave us instruction to fill in the exercises provided on the handout. After giving us time to complete the worksheet, volunteers wrote their answers onto the blackboard. Then Pat corrected each response. After this exercise, we talked about the method.
Grammar Translation:
- was used especially from the 1840's through the 1940's
- results in a lot ABOUT the language, but doesn't result in the ability to speak the language.
- students typically used a dictionary (rather than learning vocabulary).
- method was used to study Latin, Greek (Classic languages) through the Classic texts (i.e., Plato, or The Illiad)
- the second side is particularly indicative of the method as it shows that the material used is not usually informative nor useful.
*Teacher role is very traditional/authoritarian
- explains RULES
- provides correction (100% required)
- teacher is the source of all materials, all information, all answers
*Student behavior:
- do what they are told to do
- learn the patterns/vocabulary
*How does language occur?
- Pattern is given. Students repeat – learn by rote, and in a deductive environment
- memorize (verb) paradigms and vocabulary
- there is little interaction with the teacher. The teacher gives instruction and the students are to perform (usually individually)
-Attention to students' feelings is not considered. Nothing is done to lower student affective boundaries
*Theory of language
- structures, rules of grammar, sentence formation are what is considered. Language is learned through literature.
*The culture of language is not really addressed:
- Culture (with a big 'C') is present, but due to the use of literature better than through instruction by the teacher.
-culture (with a little 'c') (dealing with LIFE, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors) is not taught and would only be learned by the students incidentally through the interaction provided as grammar instruction.
*Role of the native language:
- it is the vehicle for foreign language instruction and learning
- native language would be the language used in the classroom for everything (i.e., instruction, directions)
*Error Correction?
- All errors are corrected, and immediately!
- the goal is always 100%
See also the handout given which provides a modified worksheet on each method. Pat says many may want to make a copy of this worksheet for each method as a study-sheet.
Class notes by Marie J. Blondiaux
Oral-Situational Approach
As an illustration to this approach, Dr. Rounds claimed she was a teacher of hungarian. In a first time she showed us a pen/pencil/book/chair and told us in Hungarian: "This is a pen/pencil…" Then she made us repeat several times: "This is a pen/pencil…" Then she asked us: "What is this?", pointing at the same time at the pen/pencil… and we all had to repeat together. At last she ask us separately: "What is this?" She never spoke in English.
Oral-Situational approach is a structural primacy method whose goal is to teach a practical command of L2 trying to copy the way children acquire L1. The learner is expected to apply L2 outside the classroom and there should be a move from oral use to an automatic use in speech, reading and writing.
Aspects of this approach:
*TL only is used
*Direct association of TL to situation: teacher says "ceruza", showing a pen.
*Audio & repetition: Focus on Listening and speaking.
*Inductive grammar.
*Conscious choice concerning the vocabulary
*Teacher-centered approach. He/she is the conductor and accuracy regulator. There is some guided student interaction, but the teacher controls the input. The students cannot choose the subject.
*Errors are to be avoided at all costs. The teacher corrects them immediately.
General Remarks:
*A feeling of boredom
*Students also feel like parrots
*Need a good memory
*More difficult for students with a visual memory
January 14, 98 Lecture Notes by James Arritt
Audio Lingual Method
Relies heavily on memorized dialogue, often with no written texts. The method holds that a student should never see anything written before he has mastered oral/aural content.
The AL method correlates to a behavioristic model of learning employing the Stimulus, Response, and Reinforcement pattern.
The teacher role is to be an actor, a modeler, and a reinforcer. The teacher also determines the context for the oral presentation.
Crictique of AL.
A drawback is that it doesnt necessarily reflect real-life situations. If, for instance, speech deviates from the memorized script, the student can be thrown into confusion. Language should be flexible, not rigid.
Roots of AL Method
ALs roots lie in the Grammar Translation and Direct Methods. The Grammar Translation method fell into disfavor because it did a poor job of teaching students to speak and understand the foreign language. Direct Method worked well but it was impractical because of the high demands it placed on the teacher. The Direct Method requires a native or near native speaker to be teacher: the teacher only speaks in the target language.
The Direct Method spawned the "informant method" which became popular during the World War II era when the US Government needed fluent speakers of many different languages and needed them fast. The informant method differed from the Direct Method in that it did required a lot of translation, as well as speech in the native language. The informant method paired native speakers of the target language with learners in
small, intense classes. Students learned well with this method, but later analysis questioned whether it was due to a superior method or to superior student motivation (or some other factor).
Contrastive Analysis
Another antecedent to AL was Contrastive Analysis. CA was an approach derived from behaviorism that tried to do a careful analysis on the ways the target language differed from the native language. Once these differences were isolated, the class was sculpted to present these differences to the language learner. The approach did not concern itself
with the areas in which the target language was similar or the same as the native language, as these areas were thought to be already understood.
CA only gives part of the story. It can not account for all of second language learning difficulties.
Summation of AL, CA, structuralism and behaviorism all contributed to AL.
In AL, accuracy is important. Errors should be stamped out because if they are left unattended, they may lead to poor language habits and perhaps fossilized errors.
The biggest difference between Oral Situational and the AL method is that AL is more grounded in behaviorism.
ALs goals.
The short term focus and goals are good pronunciation. Its long term goal is to have the students acheive native-like speech (an overly ambitious goal). AL has students to learn structure as well.
ALs techniques
Mimicry and memorization are often utilized. Planned parrothood. Language labs became popular when this method was in vogue. Students are very often drilled on the target language's grammar. Accuracy is valued; indeed, evaluation is measured by proficiency on drills.
Direct Method
Demonstration:
A part of the class was devoted to a demonstration of the method. Dr. Rounds drew on the board a map of the United States that contained the bordering countries, oceans, major rivers and lakes, and mountain ranges. She placed an overhead with a paragraph explaining the locations of each of the above mentioned things. She asked different students to ask predetermined questions and later proceeded to ask questions.
Class comments:
1. It incorporates visual and auditory demonstration.
2. It requires oral response from students.
3. The students' answers came from the text and had to be in complete sentence.
4. There is no translation during teaching.
Dr. Rounds comments:
1. In a direct method, students are only repeaters, their feelings are not considered extensively.
2. The direct method was not intended to have a structural focus.
3. The emphasis was on communication and vocabulary practice.
4. Early forms of direct method were intended to be structural, discouraged translating. Teachers would act out, draw pictures, or point to make him/her self understood. Latter forms of direct methods leave structural design and translation decisions to the preferences of teachers.
5. Direct methods are factual and descriptive of culture. Culture should be part of language learning.
6. A major focus is on communication and understanding of the language rather than grammar.
7. Error correction: Errors are corrected by encouraging self correction or by asking the correct answer from other students in the classroom.
8. Reinforcement: Reinforcement depends on the individual teacher.
9. Evaluation: No systematic form of evaluation is used. Evaluation is done by asking questions to students during the lesson. There is a close match between evaluation and what the student has learned.
A Natural Approach
Demonstration:
Dr. Rounds presented a picture with people and explained the different names of the clothes they were wearing. She then had students point to the pictures to respond to specific questions such as: Could you point to the jeans? She also asked these types of questions to individual students.
Class comments:
1. The teacher moved from non linguistic responses (pointing), to yes/no answers, to responding with a name.
2. It is difficult to know if students are pointing to the correct object in the first type of questions.
Dr. Rounds comments:
1. The natural approach was developed by Tracy Terrell, a Spanish teacher in California. Thus, this approach became very popular in California in the 1970's. The combined ideas of Terrell and Krashen became the natural approach to second language teaching. This approach follows the Monitor principle which is based on the following:
a. time
b. knowledge of the rule
c. focus on form
The natural approach is also based on the affective filter principle which states that students learn best when the affective filter is low.
Finally, the approach is based on the acquisition/learning distinction hypothesis which states that there are two ways to become competent in a second language. We can become competent by acquisition or learning. Acquisition is an unconscious process through which students become proficient by using language. Learning, on the other hand, is conscious and requires explicit teaching. Learning and acquisition, however, are not transferable. Learning does not become acquisition or vice versa.
2. In the natural approach, students are asked to point first because this lowers students' anxiety and increases their confidence which are important prerequisites for language acquisition. The teacher waits until students are ready to respond. The method is grounded on the idea that students will speak when they are ready to speak.
3. Learning comes from comprehensible input. However, students have to be at the right level of transfer to higher learning.
4. The goals of the teacher are comprehension and communication. The teachers strive to teach the students how to communicate their needs in a warm affective environment. Thus, no correction is provided to the students as this would be a barrier to an affective environment.
A sketch of recent and current trends: 1880 – 1980
Period Decade Main features
I 1880-1920 Reform/Direct Method
Phonetics
II 1920-1940 Compromise Method Modern Foreign Language Study
Reading Method (U.S.A./Canada)
BASIC English
III 1940-1950 Linguistic approach to language teaching
American Army Method, Intensive language teaching
1950-1960 Audiolingual (U.S.A.) and audiovisual (France/Britain) methods
FLES
Language laboratory
Psycholinguistics
1960-1970 Audiolingual habit theory vs. cognitive code learning (Carroll, 1966)
Impact of Chomsky's theory, Sociolinguistics
Method research (Scherer-Wertheimer, Pennsylvania Project, etc.)
Method analysis (Mackey, 1965)
IV 1970-1980
* Breakaway from method concept through New methods
1. Curriculum emphasis, Speech acts, Need analysis, Discourse analysis, Language for special purposes, Immersion, Proficiency levels
2. Human relations emphasis, Individualization, 'Autonomie de l'apprenant', 'Humanistic techniques'
3. Language learning research emphasis, First and second languages, Child and adult Acquisition/learning, Error analysis, Interlanguage studies,
4. Silent Way, Community Language Learning, Suggestopedia, etc..
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 à Communicative Approaches
* Referring to the diagram of Accuracy and Fluency, Teacher Controlled vs. Learner Directed, there are four sections:
A: accuracy / whole class, Group games
Teacher is a conductor
B: accuracy / pairs, dialogues w/ alternatives
Teacher is a organizer or monitor.
C: fluency /whole class, simulation
Teacher is a simulator.
D: fluency / pairs, get information from others, always report results
Manager, or consultant.
Then how to divide time?
For elementary students, accuracy 70 %, fluency 30%
For intermediate or advanced learners, accuracy 30%, fluency 70%.