Difference between revisions of "Second Language (L2) Learning and Teaching Approaches"
From SiLang Wiki
| (2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
All this means that learning a second language (L2) today is no longer considered as a leisure activity; rather it is a serious engagement that can bring benefits in the context of work or education. The change of the status quo in communication introduces a new perspective in language teaching. It emphasizes the need for innovative, modern, and effective approaches towards language teaching independently of the language in focus. On the other hand, experimenting with different approaches in language teaching is not a new phenomenon that is the result of the emerging socio-economical status. Throughout the years there have been numerous approaches and attempts to adjust L2 acquisition methods to specific learning needs and objectives. This process has resulted to a number of language skill building methodologies that emerged and then disappeared. Others are still in use either in their original or in hybrid form: | All this means that learning a second language (L2) today is no longer considered as a leisure activity; rather it is a serious engagement that can bring benefits in the context of work or education. The change of the status quo in communication introduces a new perspective in language teaching. It emphasizes the need for innovative, modern, and effective approaches towards language teaching independently of the language in focus. On the other hand, experimenting with different approaches in language teaching is not a new phenomenon that is the result of the emerging socio-economical status. Throughout the years there have been numerous approaches and attempts to adjust L2 acquisition methods to specific learning needs and objectives. This process has resulted to a number of language skill building methodologies that emerged and then disappeared. Others are still in use either in their original or in hybrid form: | ||
| − | * | + | *'''The direct method''', which is also known as the natural method. While it is not limited only in L2 teaching it serves language learning well. It was established in Germany and France around 1900 as an answer to the unfulfilled promises of the older grammar translation method; according to the latter students are asked to focus on written practices and improve linguistic skills like the use of grammar and vocabulary through direct application. The novelty introduced by the direct method lies in the expectation that learners are only allowed to use the target language during learning. The main features of the direct method are the use of real life visual materials and vocabulary, the fact that learners explore grammar rules through the use of the target language, and the central role of spoken language, including speech and listening comprehension exercises, with an emphasis on native pronunciation. |
| − | * | + | *'''Grammar-translation'''. It is a method of teaching that stems from the traditional method of teaching Greek and Latin. According to this method, learners are exposed to grammar rules and consequently are asked to apply them in a translation scheme that involves sentences in the native and the target language. A grammar-translation class has mainly 2 goals: to develop students’ reading ability so that they feel confident in reading literature in the target language; and to help learners build reading and writing capacity. Contrary to more modern methods the grammar-translation approach overlooks the two main communicative skills, namely speaking and listening effectively. Teaching is conducted in the students’ native language and grammar rules are learned through a drill and practice procedure that is offered rejected in modern language classrooms as not effective. A significant negative aspect of the grammar-translation method is that more importance is attributed to the form, i.e. grammar, rather than to the content, i.e. communication. |
| − | * | + | *'''Audio-lingual method'''. The audio-lingual method draws on the work of American linguists such as Leonard Bloomfield. It also draws on the work of behaviorist psychologists such as B.F. Skinner. It is also known as the army method, a term that is attributed to the urgent need for building at least basic language communication skills of American servicemen posted all over the work in the outbreak of World War II. The core idea of the method is the application of a system of reinforcement through a “trait”, i.e. learner’s negative or positive feedback scheme. This method has direct references to behaviorist theory which clearly professes that the “stimulus-response” can promote learning; in this case, language learning. It can be argued that the audio-lingual method is similar to the direct method as both share the concept of using the target language in order to explain new vocabulary and grammar. A significant difference is that the audio-lingual method focuses on the correct use of grammar rather than on vocabulary. It is often used in the context of a language. The language teacher presents the correct model of a sentence and the students repeat it. The method is based on memorization in form with the rationale that once having sufficiently practiced the students will be able to use the content spontaneously in conversation. In audio-lingual oriented instructions lessons are mainly based on static drills in which the students have no control on their own output. One particular response is expected for each exercise with an emphasis on a “wrong” or “right” outcome. In the 1950s the theoretical underpinnings of the method were questioned by linguists such as Noam Chomsky. Chomsky pointed out the limitations of structural linguistics. Once the scientific credibility of the method came under scrutiny it was only a matter of time before its effectiveness was questioned. Despite being discredited as an effective teaching methodology in 1970 audio-lingual approaches are still used until today. Current applications of the method focus on individual lessons and tasks addressing strictly specific objectives. |
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
Please click here to go back to the [[Learning methodologies specific to language instruction]] page. | Please click here to go back to the [[Learning methodologies specific to language instruction]] page. | ||
Click here to go back to the [[Main Page|home]]page | Click here to go back to the [[Main Page|home]]page | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== References==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Kubota, K (1998), “Ideologies of English in Japan” World Englishes Vol.17, No.3, pp. 295-306 | ||
Latest revision as of 16:52, 28 November 2013
Globalization as a phenomenon of the past twenty to thirty years has increased the need for communication between people that originate from different countries who are in need of communicating in multiple languages in business contexts. Areas such as tourism, trade, technology, media, science, education, and international relations act are the common place in which effective communication is needed at any cost. Many countries including Japan (Kubota, 1998), China (Kirkpatrick & Zhichang, 2002), and the countries represented in the siLang consortium through partner organizations expand their education policies to more than one foreign languages either in the primary or in the secondary education level. Certain countries such as India, Singapore, Malaysia, Pakistan, and the Philippines that are linked to others through historical and other relationships make official use of a second language, English or French in many cases, mainly for administrative purposes.
All this means that learning a second language (L2) today is no longer considered as a leisure activity; rather it is a serious engagement that can bring benefits in the context of work or education. The change of the status quo in communication introduces a new perspective in language teaching. It emphasizes the need for innovative, modern, and effective approaches towards language teaching independently of the language in focus. On the other hand, experimenting with different approaches in language teaching is not a new phenomenon that is the result of the emerging socio-economical status. Throughout the years there have been numerous approaches and attempts to adjust L2 acquisition methods to specific learning needs and objectives. This process has resulted to a number of language skill building methodologies that emerged and then disappeared. Others are still in use either in their original or in hybrid form:
- The direct method, which is also known as the natural method. While it is not limited only in L2 teaching it serves language learning well. It was established in Germany and France around 1900 as an answer to the unfulfilled promises of the older grammar translation method; according to the latter students are asked to focus on written practices and improve linguistic skills like the use of grammar and vocabulary through direct application. The novelty introduced by the direct method lies in the expectation that learners are only allowed to use the target language during learning. The main features of the direct method are the use of real life visual materials and vocabulary, the fact that learners explore grammar rules through the use of the target language, and the central role of spoken language, including speech and listening comprehension exercises, with an emphasis on native pronunciation.
- Grammar-translation. It is a method of teaching that stems from the traditional method of teaching Greek and Latin. According to this method, learners are exposed to grammar rules and consequently are asked to apply them in a translation scheme that involves sentences in the native and the target language. A grammar-translation class has mainly 2 goals: to develop students’ reading ability so that they feel confident in reading literature in the target language; and to help learners build reading and writing capacity. Contrary to more modern methods the grammar-translation approach overlooks the two main communicative skills, namely speaking and listening effectively. Teaching is conducted in the students’ native language and grammar rules are learned through a drill and practice procedure that is offered rejected in modern language classrooms as not effective. A significant negative aspect of the grammar-translation method is that more importance is attributed to the form, i.e. grammar, rather than to the content, i.e. communication.
- Audio-lingual method. The audio-lingual method draws on the work of American linguists such as Leonard Bloomfield. It also draws on the work of behaviorist psychologists such as B.F. Skinner. It is also known as the army method, a term that is attributed to the urgent need for building at least basic language communication skills of American servicemen posted all over the work in the outbreak of World War II. The core idea of the method is the application of a system of reinforcement through a “trait”, i.e. learner’s negative or positive feedback scheme. This method has direct references to behaviorist theory which clearly professes that the “stimulus-response” can promote learning; in this case, language learning. It can be argued that the audio-lingual method is similar to the direct method as both share the concept of using the target language in order to explain new vocabulary and grammar. A significant difference is that the audio-lingual method focuses on the correct use of grammar rather than on vocabulary. It is often used in the context of a language. The language teacher presents the correct model of a sentence and the students repeat it. The method is based on memorization in form with the rationale that once having sufficiently practiced the students will be able to use the content spontaneously in conversation. In audio-lingual oriented instructions lessons are mainly based on static drills in which the students have no control on their own output. One particular response is expected for each exercise with an emphasis on a “wrong” or “right” outcome. In the 1950s the theoretical underpinnings of the method were questioned by linguists such as Noam Chomsky. Chomsky pointed out the limitations of structural linguistics. Once the scientific credibility of the method came under scrutiny it was only a matter of time before its effectiveness was questioned. Despite being discredited as an effective teaching methodology in 1970 audio-lingual approaches are still used until today. Current applications of the method focus on individual lessons and tasks addressing strictly specific objectives.
Please click here to go back to the Learning methodologies specific to language instruction page.
Click here to go back to the homepage
[edit] References
Kubota, K (1998), “Ideologies of English in Japan” World Englishes Vol.17, No.3, pp. 295-306
