SLA Lg teaching methods & approaches
An Overview of Language Teaching Methods and Approaches
“…there is, as Gebhard et al.(1990:16) argue, no convincing evidence from pedagogic research, including research into second language instruction, that there is any universally or ‘best’ way to teach. Although, clearly, particular approaches are likely to prove more effective in certain situations, blanket prescription is difficult to support theoretically. The art of teaching does not lie in accessing a checklist of skills but rather in knowing which approach to adopt with different students, in different curricular circumstances or in different cultural settings (Klapper 2001:17).
Such pedagogic choices are most effective when underpinned by an appreciation of what support theory, or indeed the range of theories available, can bring to practice. But what experience of theory does the average higher education teacher of ab initio, or language teaching in general possess?
“…in view of the fact that many junior academics in language departments are required to spend a considerable amount of their time teaching practical language classes, and that many of them come to the task from an academic research background, often involving a topic in the fields of literacy, cultural, historical or area studies, it is surprising and a little worrying that departments are not doing more to prepare staff for a substantial part of their academic role. Bearing in mind the typical background and profile of senior academic linguist, it would be unreasonable to expect most language departments to mount a programme of raining independently; nevertheless, there is much room for collaborative provision with Education and Staff Development or, where one exists, a language centre. Unless the decision is taken to hive off language teaching to a specialist centre or to dedicated, trained language-teaching staff, it might be thought that departments should ensure that anyone embarking on a career in languages is at the
“…there is, as Gebhard et al.(1990:16) argue, no convincing evidence from pedagogic research, including research into second language instruction, that there is any universally or ‘best’ way to teach. Although, clearly, particular approaches are likely to prove more effective in certain situations, blanket prescription is difficult to support theoretically. The art of teaching does not lie in accessing a checklist of skills but rather in knowing which approach to adopt with different students, in different curricular circumstances or in different cultural settings (Klapper 2001:17).
Such pedagogic choices are most effective when underpinned by an appreciation of what support theory, or indeed the range of theories available, can bring to practice. But what experience of theory does the average higher education teacher of ab initio, or language teaching in general possess?
“…in view of the fact that many junior academics in language departments are required to spend a considerable amount of their time teaching practical language classes, and that many of them come to the task from an academic research background, often involving a topic in the fields of literacy, cultural, historical or area studies, it is surprising and a little worrying that departments are not doing more to prepare staff for a substantial part of their academic role. Bearing in mind the typical background and profile of senior academic linguist, it would be unreasonable to expect most language departments to mount a programme of raining independently; nevertheless, there is much room for collaborative provision with Education and Staff Development or, where one exists, a language centre. Unless the decision is taken to hive off language teaching to a specialist centre or to dedicated, trained language-teaching staff, it might be thought that departments should ensure that anyone embarking on a career in languages is at the
References: Anthony, Edward M. 1963. “Approach, method and technique.” English Language Teaching 17: 63-57 Brown, H Council of Europe. (2001b). A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment – A General Guide for Users. Strasbourg:Council of Europe. (Document DGIV-EDU-LANG (2001) 1) Fox, R Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (1994) Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gebhard, J.G., S. Gaitan & R. Oprandy (1990) “Beyond prescription: the student teacher as investigator” in Richards and Nunan: 16-25 Klapper, J Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman Krashen, S Long, M. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Richards and T. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press Marckwardt, Albert D Nunan, D. 1991 Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers New York: Prentice-Hall. Prator, C.H. and Celce-Murcia, M. 1979. An outline of language teaching approaches. In Celce-Murcia, M. and McIntosh, L. (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. New York: Newbury House. Quist, G., 2000 “Language Teaching at University: A Clash of Cultures.” Language and Education 14.2: 123-139 Richards, Jack C and Nunan, D Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. 1982. “Method: Approach, design and procedure.” TESOL Quarterly 16: 153-68 Richards, Jack C Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. 2001 (2nd edition) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Swain, M Swain, M. & Lapkin(1995) Van Ek, J.A Wilkins, D.A. 1976. Notional Syllabuses. London: Oxford University Pr