Tema ( 5 páginas ) + apuntes interesantes sobre el tema para ampliar, profundizar, etc. Tema 13
Historia de la evolución de la didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras: de los métodos de gramática-traducción gramática-traducción a los enfoques actuales.
INTRODUCTION In the long search for the best way to teach a foreign foreign language language (FL), any !ifferent !ifferent a""roaches a""roaches,, or etho!s, etho!s, ha#e been !e#ise!$ %ach etho! is base! on a "articular #iew of langue learning an! usually recoen!s the use of a s"ecific set of techni&ues an! aterials$ 'bitious clais are often a!e for a new teaching etho!, but none has been shown to be intrinsically su"erior$ The conte"orary attitu!e is fleible an! utilitarian it is recogni*e! that there are ways of reaching the goal of foreign language co"etence, an! that teachers nee! to be aware of a range of etho!s, in or!er to fin! the ost a""ro"riate one consi!ering the learner+s nee!s an! the obecti#es of the course$ In other wor!s, there is no single -best- way of teaching foreign languages$ The successful language teacher shoul! not liit hi.herself to one etho! only, only, eclu!ing all others because a etho! which is a""ro"riate with one class on one occasion will not necessarily suit suit the sae class at another tie$ For ost of us, our etho! is "ersonal / an enseble of our techni&ues, tric0s of the tra!e, ways of "resenting aterials, ways in which we analyse an! structure the content$ Out of all the etho!s use! throughout the history of FL teaching, the following ones are wi!ely recogni*e! because of their influential role 1$ 2raar/translation 7uanistic a""roaches in our FL curriculu$
3$ Natural etho! 4$ Direct etho! 5 'u!io/lingual etho! 6 8$ The Counicati#e a""roach, which is the ost wi!ely use! to!ay an! the one recoen!e!
3$ FOUND'TION9 OF FOR%I2N L'N2U'2% T%'C7IN2 :%T7OD9 ;asically, ;asically, all the etho!s in#ol#e one or ore of the following essential i!eas - Translat Trans lation ion , which in#ol#es "ro#i!ing co"arable nati#e language wor!s, "hrases or sentences for un0nown target language ites$ - Use of the target language in actual or simulated situations in which the "u"il "artici"ates$
0nowle!ge / for instance, instance, graar structures/ structures/ through the - Linguistic analysis, which concerns the a""lication of linguistic 0nowle!ge selection, organi*ation an! gra!ing of the target language$ l anguage is ac&uire!, which will tell us, for ea"le, whether - Awareness of cognitive principles relate! to how a foreign language syntactic rules or other linguistic co"leities co"leities are best learne! (i) through in!uction (or inference) or (ii) in a ore gui!e! way by "ro#i!ing e"lanations$ The ain differences in the !ifferent FL/teaching etho!s !e"en! on the sort of s0ill or s0ills e"hasi*e!, an! the use of s"ontaneous language$ For ea"le, the graar/translation etho! e"hasi*es rea!ing/writing, with no role for the use of s"ontaneous language, whereas the au!io/lingual etho! e"hasi*es listening/s"ea0ing$
Grammar-translation
The graar/translation etho! relies hea#ily on cogniti#e ability an! !eri#es fro the tra!itional a""roach to the teaching of Latin an! 2ree0$ Un!er this a""roach, graar is i"ortant =erb !eclensions, etc, are set out, with tables, an! #ocabulary lists are learne!, lea!ing to translation fro other tongue into the target language an! #ice/#ersa$ Little or no attention is "ai! to "ronunciation$ 2raar was taught in a se&uential anner$ Language was erely a !e!ucti#e "rocess fro the !ata or a set of rules "resente!, the learner ha! to create sentences in the FL through transfer techni&ues$ It was therefore a deductive a""roach in which the s"o0en for of FL "laye! #ery little "art in the learning "rocess The un!erlying ustification for such a etho! reste! u"on the belief that what shoul! be taught was not the language itself but the faculty of logical thought an! ental !isci"line$ This a""roach has se#eral disadvantages: Notions of graar an! ac&uisition of translation s0ills are fostere! at the e"ense of oral s0ills, so the stu!ent !oes not learn to counicate$ The worst effect of this etho! is "robably on "u"ilsoti#ation$, which lea!s to frustration, bore!o an! in!isci"line$ This ty"e of language/learning is not a rewar!ing or satisfying acti#ity$ Language learning shoul! be fun an! bring soe oy an! "ri!e in achie#eent with it$
The natural method was !e#elo"e! in the early 1>yh century as a reaction to the graar/translation etho!$ Its nae coes fro what was consi!ere! to be the natural way to learn a language an! is therefore largely base! on the o!el of other tongue ac&uisition$ 2raar was not taught at all$ ;oo0s were rarely use! an! writing was also use! with a!#ance! stu!ents$ The ain e"hasis is on the s"o0en language$ The teacher only use! the target language uch the sae as a "arent s"ea0s to the chil!$ The Natural etho! is ins"ire! in the wor0s of Rousseau an! Coenius, a 1?h century language etho!ologist who was the first to use oral etho!s for counicati#e "ur"oses$ The wor0s of Coenius stress the i"ortance of the senses rather than the in!, the i"ortance of "hysical acti#ity in the classroo$ 7e is best 0nown for his use of "ictures in language teaching$ The natural etho! has ha! an i"ortant influence on later etho!ologies$ The Direct Method was also a reaction against graar/translation, an! is largely a !e#elo"ent of the Natural etho!$ It was base! on the belief that 1 @nowing a language was being able to s"ea0 it, so there was "riacy of s"o0en wor!$ This etho! also lai! great stress on correct "ronunciation fro the outset$ 3 9econ! language learning ust be an iitation of first language learning, as this is the natural way huans learn any language, an! so the other tongue has no "lace in FL lesson$ 3 Arinte! wor!s (rea!ing) ust be 0e"t away fro secon! language learner for as long as "ossible (sae as first language learner, who !oesn-t use "rinte! wor! until he has goo! gras" of s"eech)$ 4
5
The learning of graar. translating s0ills shoul! be a#oi!e! because they in#ol#e the a""lication of the other tongue$
2raar is not the "riary ai an! it is learnt through in!uction$ The Direct etho! becae establishe! towar!s the en! of the 1>th century through such a!#ocates as Aaler an! Bes"erson, who sought to i"ro#e u"on the natural etho! by "ro#i!ing "roce!ures base! on linguistic an! "sychological 0nowle!ge$ The ain i"ro#eents were the use of "reselecte! an! gra!e! aterials an! oral "attern !rills for eori*ation$ Disadvantages of the Direct :etho! The aor fallacy of the Direct :etho! was the belief that the secon! language shoul! be learne! in the way as the first language was ac&uire! / by total iersion techni&ue$ Ob#iously, there is far less tie an! o""ortunity in schools, co"are! with a sall chil! learning his other tongue$ It is also obectionable whether the first language learning "rocess is really a""licable to secon! or foreign language learning$ 9oe !isci"les of Direct :etho! too0 it to etrees an! refuse! to s"ea0 a single wor! in the stu!ents+ nati#e language$ To a#oi! translating new wor!s, etree Direct :etho!ists ha! cu"boar!s full of realia$ %"lanations becae cubersoe an! tie/consuing$ 'n!, of course, conce"ts li0e but or ne#er ob#iously nee! ie!iate translation$
7owe#er, the Direct etho! "a#e! the way for ore counicati#e, oral base! a""roaches, an! therefore it re"resents an i"ortant ste" forwar! in the history of FL teaching$
Audio-lingual / Audio-visual method. In the i! 1>8E-s / three new technological ai!s cae into general use in the classroo language laboratory, "ortable ta"e/recor!er an! fil/stri" "roector$ The "otential offere! to language teaching by the ta"e/recor!er was enorous as it offere! the "ossibility to bring nati#e s"ea0ing #oices into the classroo$ Ta"es coul! be use! with ta"e recor!er or in language laboratory$ %arly au!io/#isual courses consiste! of ta"e! !ialogues, acco"anie! by fil /stri"s which were !esigne! to act as #isual cues to elicit res"onses in the foreign language$ :ost au!io/lingual courses consiste! of short !ialogues an! sets of recor!e! !rills$ The etho! was base! on a beha#iourist a""roach, which hel! that language is ac&uire! by habit foration$ It was base! on assu"tion that foreign language is basically a echanical "rocess an! it is ore effecti#e if the s"o0en for "rece!es written for$ This a""roach has its roots in the U9' !uring
Disadvantages of 'u!io/=isual.'u!io/Lingual :etho! The basic etho! of teaching is re"etition$ 9"eech is stan!ar!ise! an! "u"ils turn into "arrots who can re"ro!uce any things but ne#er create anything new or s"ontaneous$ Au"ils becae better an! better at "attern "ractice but were unable to use the "atterns fluently in natural s"eech situations. On the whole, au!io/lingual etho! "referre! !rills to the natural use of language in contet$ On the "ositi#e si!e, the 'u!io/Lingual . =isual a""roach ar0e! the start of the technological age in language teaching an! it intro!uce! i"ortant new eleents$ It e"hasise! the nee! for #isual "resentation an! "ossibility of eliciting language fro #isual cues$ It "lace! far ore weight on use of the foreign language in classroo by both teacher an! "u"ils, an! the language use! was of far greater "racticality$ Humanistic approaches consi!er the following "rinci"les to be i"ortant the !e#elo"ent of huan #alues, growth in self/ awareness an! in the un!erstan!ing of others, sensiti#ity to huan feelings ans eotions, an! acti#e stu!ent in#ol#eent in learning an! in the way learning ta0es "lace, for ea"le by ta0ing "art in setting goals an! obecti#es$ Un!er this ty"e of a""roach the teacher becoes a hel"er, or a facilitator$ These a""roaches are, therefore, stu!ent/centere! rather than teacher/centere!$ The ain a""roaches that coe un!er this grou" are - Suggestopedia, base! on the suggestion an! !e#ise! by 2eorgi Lo*ano#, - the “Silent Way , which 0ee"s the aount of teaching at a iniu an! encourages learners to !e#elo" their own ways of using the eleents of language intro!uce!$ The goal of the 9ilent
that learners "ass through fi#e stages$ Fro !e"en!ence on the teacher to in!e"en!ence fro the teacher, as they "rocee! to astery of the foreign language$ -Total Physical esponse! which !eri#es its nae fro the e"hasis on the "hysical actions that learners ha#e to a0e, as they are gi#en si"le coan!s such as 9it, 9to", 9tan!, etc$
'n! finally, the CMM!"#CA$#%& A''(ACH The Counicati#e '""roach is not a highly structure! etho! of teaching$ It is rather a broa! assebly of i!eas fro a range of sources which ha#e coe to be acce"te! as -goo! "ractice- by any conte"orary teachers$ It was !e#elo"e! in the 1>8E+s an! ?E+s as a result of the recognition of the ina!e&uacy of tra!itional graar.translation etho!s an! also of -structural- etho!s with e"hasis on eaningless "attern !rills an! re"etition$ New syllabuses all o#er %uro"e too0 into account needs o) di))erent pupils$ Tra!itional aca!eic syllabuses ha! assue! learner-s goal was in/!e"th astery of target language$ ;ut for less aca!eic "u"il a ore ie!iate -"ay/off- was necessary, in ters of use)ulness )or practical purposes. The Counicati#e '""roach has the following characteristics / It focuses on language as a e!iu of counication an! recognises that all counication has a social "ur"ose the learner has soething to say or fin! out$ / The ter communication" ebraces a whole s"ectru of functions (e$g$ see0ing inforation. a"ologising. e"ressing li0es an! !isli0es, etc) that "re"are stu!ents for real/life counication / New syllabuses base! on counicati#e etho! offere! soe counicati#e ability fro early stage$
- Counicati#e classroo acti#ities "ro#i!e useful o""ortunities for learners to use the target language in a eaningful way$ There is e"hasis on eaning (essages they are creating or a tas0 they are co"leting) rather than for (correctness of language an! language structure) / as in first language ac&uisition$ / The use of target language as noral e!iu for classroo anageent an! instruction / reflects naturalistic language ac&uisition$ / It is a pupil-orientated a""roach because it is !ictate! by "u"ils- nee!s an! interests$ / There is strong accent on functional. usable language$ Learners shoul! be able to go to foreign country, "re"are! for reality they encounter there$ They nee! to be able to co"e . sur#i#e in a #ariety of e#ery!ay situations$
/ The FL Class shoul! "ro#i!e o""ortunities for rehearsal of real/life situations an! "ro#i!e o""ortunity for real counication %"hasis on creati#e role/"lays. siulations. sur#eys. "roects / all "ro!uce s"ontaneity an! i"ro#isation / not ust re"etition an! !rills$ / There is also e"hasis on acti#e o!es of learning, inclu!ing "airwor0 an! grou"/wor0$ / Ariacy of oral wor0$ %"hasis on oral an! listening s0ills in the classroo$ / %rrors are a natural "art of learning language$ Learners trying their best to use the language creati#ely an! s"ontaneously are boun! to a0e errors$ Constant correction is unnecessary an! e#en counter/"ro!ucti#e$
/The Counicati#e a""roach is not ust liite! to oral s0ills$ Rea!ing an! writing s0ills are also !e#elo"e! to "roote "u"ilsconfi!ence in all four s0ill areas$ /2raar can still be taught, but less systeatically, in tra!itional ways alongsi!e ore inno#ati#e a""roaches$ The a""roach recognises that there is a role for learning graar$ / %tensi#e e"erience of target language hel"s "u"ils$ They nee! to hear "lenty sai! about the to"ic in the foreign language at regular an! recurrent inter#als, so they are e"ose! to the to"ic an! can assiilate it$ (Not ere "assi#e ac&uisition of certain leical ites)$ /The Counicati#e a""roach see0s to "ersonalise language an! a!a"ting it to interests of "u"ils$ :eaningful language is always ore easily retaine! by learners$ / Use of i!ioatic. e#ery!ay language, without eclusion of slang wor!s$ They not ust learn graatical. ea/orientate!. foral language$
/ It :a0es use of to"ical ites with which "u"ils are alrea!y failiar in their own language / This oti#ates "u"ils, arouses their interest an! lea!s to ore acti#e "artici"ation$ / :aterials ust relate to "u"ils- own e#ery!ay li#es an! e"erience $ /9"ontaneous an! i"ro#ise! "ractice hel"s to ins"ire confi!ence in co"ing with unforeseen, unantici"ate! situations$ / The Counicati#e a""roach see0s to use authentic resources$ :ore interesting an! oti#ating$ In Foreign language classroo authentic tets ser#e as "artial substitute for counity of nati#e s"ea0er$ News"a"er an! aga*ine articles, "oes, anuals, reci"es, tele"hone !irectories, #i!eos, news bulletins, !iscussion "rograes / all can be e"loite! in #ariety of ways$ / It is i"ortant not to be restricte! to tetboo0$ The tetboo0 is only a tool . starting/"oint$
Fin del tema #puntes interesantes sobre el tema
1850s – 1950s: Grammar Translation 7ow language was taught in ost schoolsG graar was taught as a set of rules (e$g$ #erb conugations) after the classical languages, Latin an! 2ree0G "ractice was !one through written eercisesG the e!iu of instruction as the other tongueG #ocabulary was learnt #ia translate! lists, often relate! to the co"rehension of written tetsG written tet was seen as the Hreal+ language, su"erior to the s"o0en #ersionG written tets were translate! an! co"osition in L3 was regar!e! as the a"e of language abilityG s"ea0ing an! listening were seen as less i"ortant, an! e!iate! #ia Hcon#ersation classes+ which were tagge! on as etras to the ain course$ 1890s – now: Direct Method
9"ecific to the ;erlit* chain of schools, starte! in the U9'G the brainchil! of the entre"reneur hiselfG s"ea0ing an! listening were the ost i"ortant s0illsG the e!iu of instruction was %nglishG stu!ents learnt se&uences of strictly/chosen (i$e$ centrally/scri"te!) graatical "hrases by listening an! re"etitionG graar Hrules+ were a#oi!e!, an! re"lace! by "hrases (which of course ha! graar !isguise! in the)G #ocabulary was learnt either inci!entally, as "art of the "hrases being taught, or #ia lists grou"e! un!er ty"es of situationG its o!ern incarnation sur#i#es in the oni"resent language "hraseboo0s, an! the etho! is still the basis of lower/le#el teaching in ;erlit*+s ubi&uitous an! successful language schools$ 1960s – 1970s (U!": !udio#lin$ual method % tructuralist &iew o' lan$ua$e ' Hscientificise!+ #ersion of the !irect etho!G the new science of linguistics suggeste! that language was a set of Hstructures+ (e$g$ Hthis shirt nee!s washing, en!ing, ironing, etc+G Hhe has washe!, irone!, fol!e!, etc the clothes+)G graarrules were an illusion, so it was ore i"ortant to focus on these Hstructures+G #ocabulary was seen as an a!unct to the structuresG s"ea0ing an! listening were the ost i"ortant s0illsG the learning etho! was base! on beha#iourist "sychology J stiulus/res"onse learningG language eercises for s"ea0ing were ostly listen an! re"eat (i$e$ !rilling), an! re"eat an! eten!G language eercises for writing were ulti"le choice an! ga"fillG thin0ing was !iscourage!, autoaticity of res"onse was fa#oure!G the language laboratory e"itoise! the au!io/lingual a""roach an! was eant to re#olutionise language teaching J the reason that it !i! not !o so was si"ly, as with co"uters nowa!ays, that ost learners nee! "eo"le as teachers, not achinesG a lasting legacy of this a""roach is the uch/lo#e! substitution table$ 1960s –1980s (U": tructural#situational method (a)a ***" This was a "ragatic (i$e$ U@) #ersion of au!io/lingualisG the 0ey !ifference fro the au!io/lingual a""roach was that the language "resentation an! "ractice was situationalise! an! so was always gi#en social eaningG s"ea0ing an! listening were the ost i"ortant s0illsG this a""roach ga#e rise to the i!ea of AAA ("resentation, "ractice, "ro!uction) J here, a gi#en language "oint, say the Aresent 9i"le Tense for routines (calle! the target ite), was "resente! (A) an! gi#en controlle! "ractice (A) an! then gi#en further sei/controlle! "ractice (A) (often calle! Hfree "ractice+) in say a role/"layG it all too0 "lace in one lessonG all the techni&ues of au!io/lingual etho! were use!, but the faous Hsituation+ was a!!e! (ies, "ictures, soun!s)G it was assue! that what we taught !uring these three stages was what the stu!ents shoul! learn, an! "un!its reaine! focuse! for !eca!es on how to o"tiise this "rocessG this e&uation of teaching an! learning is now seen as a false goalG AAA has been rubbishe! recently by "ro"onents of tas0/base! etho!ology, a criticis in y #iew base! on a !eliberately false characterisation of AAA (see 'rticles 5 an! 6)$ 1970s – 1980s: +umanistic a,,roaches %anating fro the U9', an! "articularly cha"ione! by %arl 9te#ic0, this o#eent was base! on the assu"tion that language classes were "laces of fear for language learnersG s"ecifically associate! with the 9ilent
1970s –1990s: -unctional s.lla/uses – ommunicati&e an$ua$e Teachin$ 1 %anating fro the wor0 of the Council of %uro"e in the 8Es, the first tranche of the counicati#e -re#olution- was base! on the i!ea of grou"ing bits of language accor!ing to counicati#e functions (in the U9' calle! Hs"eech acts+) li0e a"ologising, re&uesting, an! a!#isingG it was rare for a !irect relationshi" between function an! language to be establishe! because functions can be e"resse! by a #ast range of e"ression an! non/#erbal cuesG howe#er, where a clear !irect relationshi" coul! be foun! (e$g$ #my apologies$ for a"ologising, #do you mind if %$ & pres simple, for as0ing "erission), it was regar!e! as a atter of con#ention only, to be use! for teaching "ur"oses, not for authentic linguistic !escri"tionG these Hbits+ were calle! He"onents+, so a nuber of Hcon#entional e"onents+, co#ering the range fro foral to inforal, coul! be relate! to each 0ey functionG stu!ents were taught these e"onents, often, isgui!e!ly, at the e"ense of graarG no ob#ious method was suggeste! by !efining anguage in this way, so the listen/an!/re"eat an! re"eat/an!/eten! etho!s "ersiste!, an! rightly so, because, as such "hrases !e"en!e! for their usefulness on accurate rhyth an! intonation, #arious fors of !rill lent thesel#es well$
1975 – now: ommunicati&e methodolo$. – ommunicati&e an$ua$e Teachin$ 2 The secon! "art of the counicati#e Hre#olution+ really too0 off by the early KEs, ostly ra!iating out fro the U@G the 0ey "rinci"le was the se"aration of classroo wor0 into Haccuracy+ wor0 an! Hfluency+ wor0G accuracy wor0 was for concentrating on learning new bits of language (graar "atterns, functional e"onents, #ocabulary, etc)G fluency wor0 was for getting the stu!ents to s"ea0 freely (say in !iscussions)G uch confusion was cause! when teachers were traine! to see these as closely lin0e! together, with accuracy wor0 leading to fluency wor0 (see AAA abo#e), which is actually not "ossible (see below)G the basic "rinci"le of all counicati#e acti#ities in the classroo, whether accuracy/base! or fluency/base!, was the #information gap$ , which has reaine! with us e#er sinceG the Hcounicati#e re#olution+, #ia the inforation ga", has been #ery "rofoun! an! real, an! has course! through e#ery as"ect of etho!, whether accuracy or fluency oriente!G as an ea"le of the accuracy/oriente! inforation ga", we can ha#e Hcounicati#e !rills+ (e$g$ stu!ents inter#iew each other about their !aily routines to get controlle! "ractice of Aresent 9i"le for routines)G an! as an ea"le of a fluency/oriente! inforation ga", we can ha#e free !iscussion, where the stu!ents !iscuss a real thing without interru"tion an! the teacher ta0es notes of the ista0es an! fee!s these bac0 afterwar!s$ In the U9 in the late ?Es, an influential #ersion of secon! language learning theory was !e#elo"e! by 9te"hen @rashen, which "ostulate! that learners Hac'uired$ language if fe! a !iet of genuine counication (as !oes the chil! ac&uiring the first language), but they only Hlearnt$ language if fe! a !iet of classroo eercisesG the result was that any teachers starte! to belie#e that (unconscious) Hac&uisition+ was "rofoun!er, ore real, an! therefore better, than (conscious) Hlearning+G these teachers !eci!e! that the classroo ha! to becoe an iersi#e Hbath+ of authentic counicationG this attitu!e "ersists to!ay in any classroos, at the e"ense of conscious learningG in fact, any #ariations of the learning/ac&uisition o!el ha#e since eerge! (inclu!ing those of ;ialysto0, Long, an! Rutherfor!), an! a cobine! "rocessing o!el sees to be the current fa#ourite, which is to say that the classroo learner "robably o"erates both echaniss J learning an! ac&uisition J all the tie, with soe interchange between the twoG it is now thought, increasingly, that teachers cannot strongly influence how these echaniss are use! by their stu!ents$ 1980 – now: Test#Teach#Test HTest/teach/test+ was an in#enti#e #ariation of tra!itional AAA, "articularly a""ro"riate to teaching functional e"onents but also a!a"table to graar "oints an! leisG the stu!ents are gi#en a tas0, such as a role/"lay, without any "rior teaching of the rele#ant language "oints, an! this is the first T%9T "haseG if the stu!ents ha#e "robles an! a0e ista0es, the teacher 0nows that they ha#e to teach the biggest errors, an! this teaching (also 0nown as HAresentation+) is the T%'C7 "haseG this is followe! by the stu!ents !oing further "ractice eercises of these target ites, which is the secon! T%9T "haseG all in all, this is a "o"ular an! resilient "iece of etho!ology which brings together a nuber of "rinci"les, an! has stoo! the test of tie$ 1985 – now: 3e$otiated s.lla/us :ostly rele#ant to eecuti#e an! ;usiness %nglish stu!ents where nee!s are s"ecific an! focuse!G it has becoe the nor for any "rofessional language training organisationsG base! on the "rinci"le that we first fin! out what stu!entswant an! test the to fin! out what they need! an! then negotiate the syllabus with theG it has recently ha! a big i"act on general %nglish classes tooG it is es"ecially goo! when the syllabus is eerging an! fleible an! is being negotiate! on a regular basis !uring the whole courseG because it is !iaetrically !ifferent fro school/set syllabuses an! ea/oriente! syllabuses, it has to be a""lie! carefully, !e"en!ing on whether it is a""ro"riate to the s"ecific contet$ 1985 – now: Tas)#/ased a,,roaches This is #ery rele#ant to business %nglish teaching, an! has been soli!ly "art of ;usiness %nglish teaching since the late KEsG since the i!/>Es it has becoe uch ore establishe! in 2eneral %nglish teachingG it is a etho!ological i!ea which atte"ts to get away fro AAA altogetherG stu!ents are not taught language "oints in a!#ance, but rather are gi#en counicati#e Htas0s+ to "re"are forG these tas0s re&uire the to as0 the teacher to Hgi#e+ the whate#er language bits they ight nee! in or!er to fulfil the tas0G an ea"le woul! be Hha#e the stu!ents in grou"s "lan a recreational wee0en! in Lon!on for a #isiting frien! coing to Lon!on+G here, the language they nee! will be !iscussion e"onents, tele"honing language, arrangeent language, leis of sightseeing, etcG each grou" woul! be gi#en what language they nee! by the teacheras they as( for it) in the final "hase, the stu!ents actually !o the co"lete tas0 an! they Huse+ the language they ha#e as0e! for an! been gi#en$ The best "lace to fin! a clear outline of this a""roach is >8)G the best 2eneral %nglish tetboo0 series using this a""roach is the *Cutting +dge Series* by Aeter :oor an! 9arah CunninghaG in the ;usiness %nglish contet, teachers ten! to use the tas0/base! a""roach as a atter of course, with tele"hone role/"lays, eetings, negotiations, an! "resentationsG a big &uestion still being wi!ely !iscusse! is whether the stu!ents, on being Hgi#en+ the language they nee! for their tas0, then nee! soe controlle! "ractice so that it becoes ore assiilate! J in
other wor!s, !o stu!ents nee! soe for of ra"i! AAAG since it a""ears to ha#e gaine! i!eological "o"ularity es"ecially in the U@, there ay be a !anger that the tas0/base! a""roach !oinates teaching to the !etrient of the other etho!ologies which ha#e e&ual #ali!ity$ 1990 – now: e4ical &iews o' lan$ua$e 's early as the 1>?Es, aca!eic linguists notice! that the language was full of set "hrases (e$g$ you !on+t say, onwar!s an! u"war!s, a an+s gotta !o what a an+s gotta !o, the 0noc0/on effect of, it+s a goo! ob (that) $ $ $, etc, etc)G in 1>K8, a faous !uo, Aawley an! 9y!er (1>K4) showe! that these set "hrases are actually "art of a eorise! store of "re/fabricate! Hchun0s+ which, once learnt, each nati#e s"ea0er has automatically at their !is"osalG when s"ea0ing, they sai!, we a""ear to use these chun0s li0e single #ocabulary unitsG since then, notably through the writings of :ichael Lewis in the early 1>>Es, the Leical =iew of Language has becoe a central "lan0 of both ;usiness an! 2eneral %nglish teachingG it "articularly affects what we teach J leical chun0s rather than single ites of #ocabulary, (e$g$ to ma(e an appointment! to do ,usiness with! to penetrate the mar(et! mar(et forces! healthy competition! an a,solute disaster! etc) J and , soe ha#e argue!, leical chun0s in "lace of grammar (e$g$ should & infinitive is seen by soe as a leical chun0 not as a "iece of graar)G nowa!ays, it is noral to see leical e"ressions as the ain leical content of a tetboo0 unitG a big challenge which still reains is how to "re#ent the leical a""roach !oinating teaching to the !etrient of the other co"onents of the language learning tas0, such as graar, synta, an! "honology (see 'rticle ?)$ 1995 – now: ut,ut # -eed/ac) 'gain originating ainly in the ;usiness %nglish fiel!, this is less an a""roach, ore an attitu!e of in!, base! on the i!ea of an iersi#e bath of counication fro which useful language focus then arises J if we si"ly set our stu!ents off in authentic counicati#e acti#ities in the classroo, we can use the ensuing language Hout"ut+ as !ata for fee!bac0 (or Hreforulation+)G this fee!bac0 is one for of language focus, an! can ta0e any fors (see 'rticle 5 on language focus) such as in!i#i!ualise! fee!bac0 sheets, o#erhea! sli!es full of errors for class !iscussion, full/scale ree!ial "resentations, etc$ ' really interesting etension of this i!ea is HReforulate Out"ut Lightly but Often+ / ROLO (%erson 1>>>)G the teacher listens to the stu!ents !iscussing soething, notes the "robles !own, an! then goes through a se&uence in#ol#ing eliciting, conce"t &uestions, an! gui!ing &uestions, so that the stu!ents coe to a reforulate! #ersion of the selecte! language errors fro their !iscussionG these correcte! errors get recycle! in a siilar way, lightly but often, o#er the net few lessons$ 1995 – now: 3oticin$ (also )nown as consciousness#raisin$" 9oe stu!ies into the "sychology of classroo language learning showe! that there is little relationshi" between what the teacher teaches in one lesson an! what stu!ents learn in that lesson as conscious learningG at the sae tie,
functions (i) to "ro#i!e free/s"ea0ing scenarios in which we can assess the stu!ents+ current state of "rogress an! assiilation (ii) to show what language "oints still nee! ore focus an! "ractice i$e$ language focus #ia reforulation (see Out"ut/Fee!bac0 abo#e)G these acti#ities are a for of inforal testing) they !o not function as the H"ro!uction+ "hase of a AAA a""roach, because that is by !efinition a sei/controlle!, an! therefore accuracy/oriente!, "hase$ 1999 # now: Grammaticisation Recently, #ery uch in the -noticing- oul!, there has been a growth of interest in classroo tas0s which hel" the stu!ent to see graar in its global, an! truly counicati#e contetG soe o!ern aca!eic linguists+ ta0e the #iew that language is -graaticalise! leis- (rather than the #iew fro the last 1EE years that it is -leicalise! graar-)G using this "rinci"le for language syllabuses, soe schools ha#e !is"ense! with graar, an! gi#e the title Hleis+ to any language Hbits+ which once ight ha#e been calle! graarG as for language eercises, we can use global tet eercises (using sei/authentic an! authentic tets) in which the -graar- has been ta0en out (i$e$ the inflections, the articles, the infiniti#e ar0ers, etc), an! which the stu!ents ha#e then to "ut bac0, e$g$ .ederal eserve /an( e0pect lower interest rate today eleven time this year! drive them low level four decade$ G this is #ery oti#ating for the learners, it is #ery in!i#i!ualise!, an! it is #ery efficient for the teacher, who only has to s"en! tie clarifying the language ites which are causing "roblesG the Hgraaticisation+ a""roach is becoing increasingly "o"ular (see Thornbury 3EE1, for an etensi#e !iscussion of the i!ea), but it is i"ortant to 0ee" it in "ers"ecti#e with the other a""roaches to teaching graar, which all ha#e their rele#ance 2002: The Modern nte$rated an$ua$e Teacher
1. # s$eeping c%ange
' nuber of years ago, FL teaching e"erience! a great change$ U" to then, ore graatical a""roaches ha! been use!, with wor!/lists an! translation, an! an e"hasis on written language an! s0ills$ The criti&ue against this a""roach starte! in the sities when the counicati#e nature of language was stresse!$ 9ince then the o#eent becae all enco"assing, but few "eo"le here 0now the naes an! "ublications of the %uro"eans who !i! the groun!wor0 for this swee"ing change in the last two thir!s of the 1>th century$ To cite a few In the 1K8Es (eighteen/sities) the 1erman 1ottlie, 2eness an! the .renchman Claude 3arcel stresse! natural counication as the core acti#ity of language learning an! the nee! to connect !irectly to the foreign language, thus a#oi!ing the !iscursi#e !etours of graar an! other tongue$ In the 1K?Es (eighteen/se#enties) the i!eas of these an! other "ioneers caught on an! we saw an international aturing of the con#iction that soething fun!aentally !ifferent ha! to be !one to i"ro#e language learning$ In any countries, etho!s base! on !irect counication an! on authentic in"ut s"rang u"$ Es , this #ast o#eent of change "ro!uce! hun!re!s of stu!ies an! new tetboo0s "ublishe! an! a""ro"riate e!ia !e#elo"e! to bac0 this !irect way to teach languages$ This #ast o#eent of change was calle! the Refor o#eent with the Direct :etho! as its ain a""roach$ O#erall the "rinci"les were ie!iate contact with the target language, li#ely interaction, no translation, no wor!/lists, in!ucti#e rule/foration for graar, e"hasis on oral use$ 'll o#er the E5) an! 7enry 9weet, The practical study of languages 4 1K>>) too0 into account as"ects such as the "eculiar learning situation in school en#ironents, the "sychological "rofile of the learner, the i"act of graatical notions, the a""lication of fre&uency nors to ensure better "rogression, the !ynaic relations between the s0ills, an! so on$ Though counication an! functionality were 0e"t as the ain goals of language learning, the research le! to a new era of well thought/out, balance! etho!s, which are often calle! the eclectic etho!s, an! which woul! last through the first half of the 3Eth century$
/ /
saller le#el a s"ecific tetboo0 of such a etho!, which is ore concrete as a""lication, but ay !e#iate ore or less fro the etho! it clais to followG broa!er le#el a grou"ing of s"ecific etho!s that ha#e a coon e"hasis or core i!ea, such as, in fact, the Direct :etho! which I entione! in the intro!uction$ The so/calle! counicati#e a""roach of the "ast 36 years is also a congloerate of #arious s"ecific etho!s$ In that sense the wor! Qa""roachQ is better suite! as it suggests a broa!er front in which s"ecific etho!s can eist$ 9oeties the ter Qetho!ologyQ is suggeste! as a grou"ing of siilar etho!s$
&. 'ain trends in t%e &t% centur 'fter the !eise (en!) of the Direct :etho!, the "erio! between 1>1E an! 1>5E was one of intense research an! "ublication of i"ortant wor0s$ The etho!s fro this "erio! are calle! Qeclectic etho!sQ, an! reflect a search for balance, an! a#oi!ance of etrees$ There were any #ariants un!er #arious naes, one of the ost wi!ely use! being Qthe acti#e etho!Q$ In!ee!, these etho!s !i! not reect the goo! that the Refor :o#eent ha! stresse!, naely counication as a #ital as"ect of language learning$ Dialogues in !aily situations reaine! the core aterial in ost tetboo0s, but with careful gra!ation of content, an! clear i!entification of new leicon an! graar, with any a""ro"riate eercises for correct integration, inclu!ing translation eercises$ On the other han!, one strategy was es"ecially stresse! the i"ortance of "rogressi#e rea!ing in the foreign language$ Intensi#e rea!ing of gra!e! rea!ers was therefore strongly recoen!e!, to the "oint that the 1>4Es are soeties referre! to as the "erio! of the Rea!ing :etho!$ ;y 1>5E beha#ioris an! a #iew of language as habit/foration becae the eerging tren!$ 's the 9econ! 6Es$ Then two historic e#ents ga#e an incre!ible i"etus to the etho!ology of beha#iorist habit/foration$ (1) In the U$9$ it was the 9"utni0 shoc0 of 1>6? the reali*ation that the Russians were ahea! in s"ace s"urre! i"ortant refors in e!ucation$ For foreign languages a re#ise! 'ry :etho! was launche!$ This was the au!io/lingual etho!, also calle! the New @ey$ It stresse! "ractice through !rills$ There was no translation, no graar, an! uch e"hasis on au!io/oral habit/foration, in line with beha#ioris$ It a!e etensi#e use of the ta"e/recor!er$ (3) In France it was the in!e"en!ence of the French colonies aroun! 1>8E that ga#e the i"etus to "rofoun! refor$ In or!er to 0ee" these new states un!er French "olitical influence, the French go#ernent a!e a assi#e effort to i"ose French as the lingua franca$ ' s"ecific etho!, 92'= (Q9tructuro/global au!io/#isuelQ), base! on beha#iorist "rinci"les with au!io, "ictures an! sli!es, was a!o"te!$ It was launche! with incre!ible eans through newly create! national agencies, such as L+'lliance Franaise, not only in all the e/colonies, but also in alost e#ery country in the worl!$ In any countries, the au!io/re#olution was i"ose! by the e!ucational syste an! gratefully stiulate! by the "ublishers an! the sellers of ta"e recor!ers an! language labs$ In the U$9$, eanwhile, a QnewQ o#eent was growing, but this tie outsi!e the regular school syste$ Renewe! attention was being "ai! to etho!s that coul! hel" a!ults gain a &uic0 "ractical coan! of a language, geare! to sur#i#al counication in business, !i"loacy, an! touris$ The o#eent !own"laye! graar an! stresse! the ie!iate use of "ractical sentences$ It recei#e! its aca!eic i"etus fro research in secon! language ac&uisition by a!ults in iersion situations, of which 9te"hen @rashen is the ost cite!$ ' siilar !e#elo"ent too0 "lace in %uro"e where the young %uro"ean Counity launche! in the early 1>?Es a #ast research o#eent aroun! counicati#e nee!s for a!ults to foster "rofessional echanges between the eber states$ The new 0eywor!s were the 0eywor!s becae QfunctionsQ an! QnotionsQ, an! the conce"t of intercultural co"etence$
Fro these !i#erse, an! often ill/!efine! ten!encies eerge! a o#eent calle! the counicati#e a""roach$ The counicati#e a""roach inclu!es any s"ecific etho!s, soe stressing the ie!iate "ro!uction of language, others as0ing to "ost"one s"ea0ing in fa#or of a rece"ti#e "hase, still others stressing the eoti#e as"ects of language learning$ ;ut all ha#e as their core conce"t "racticality/in/action$ The counicati#e a""roach li#e! its hey!ays in the 1>KEs$ 9ince the i!/1>>Es a growing current is se"arating itself un!er the nae "ost/counicati#e language learning$ It o""oses the i!ea that language learners are ust role "layers in a worl! of functions, !irecte! by criteria of "racticality, an! that a etho! shoul! ta0e account of the way stu!ents learn$ The "ost/counicati#e tren! stresses the in!i#i!ual nee!s an! learning styles of the stu!ent within a constructi#ist #iew of learning$ These "ast few years eclectic a""roaches (or Qre#ise!Q counicati#e a""roaches) are thus again eerging in #arious fors$ In the "resent, conce"ts such as Qlearner/centere!Q, Qcollaborati#e learningQ, eaningful learning, etc, ha#e eerge!$ 'n! of course, we nee! to ention the internet, which has o"ene! the "ossibility of web/base! interacti#e "rograes an! acti#ities that are #ery oti#ating for stu!ents$ 'n! we shoul! ention also well/!esigne! CD/ros for language learning which stu!ents also enoy using$
