As I observed what was happening in the classroom in the
beginning of chapter one it seemed like a normal language classroom to me; it
didn’t seem extra special in any way.
However, when I continued reading about all the questions that go into
the planning and the reasoning behind why it was carried out the way that it
was then it made me realize how much more goes into teaching. It really is a balance between research,
theory, and principles and classrooms, teaching, and practice (Brown, 10). It all fits together and connects.
I
really appreciated the way Chapter 2 points out the difference between a method,
approach, and a technique. All of these
things are interconnected and I think some people use them interchangeably when
they are each a little bit different. A
method is an overall plan for the systematic presentation of language. An approach is the theoretically
well-informed positions and beliefs about the nature of language (Brown, 17). Techniques are the specific activities
manifested in the classroom that are consistent with a method and works within
a certain approach (Brown, 14).
Albert
Marckwardt talks about how language methods are always changing and
shifting. I know that there are so many
methods and theories and I think that every one of them has their strengths and
weaknesses. I tend to think the best way
is to take different parts of each one and form your own based on the needs of
the students. I found it very
interesting that the Grammar Translation Method is what is seen in almost every
high school language class and that there is no theoretical basis or research
that shows that it’s effective. It
surprises me that teachers still teach in this way when it clearly isn’t an
effective way to learn a second language.
It also saddens me that the reason it’s still being used is because it’s
easy for the teachers. Usually what is
best for students creates more work for teachers, but it’s the teacher’s job to
do what is best for their students.
I liked
different aspects of the Direct Method.
Like I said before, I don’t think one method should be used to the
exclusion of all others but I think there are some good techniques that can be
gained from this method. I like that new teaching points are done
through modeling and practice and that it’s more naturalistic instead of
memorizing random unconnected words. The
Audiolingual Method seems a little over kill to me. I think it’s too heavily
teacher-directed. It seems more
stressful and doesn’t seem to teach long-term communicative proficiency. Cognitive code learning seemed to bring back
an awareness of grammar and rules in language learning, which is definitely
important in the language learning process.
I like how Community Language Learning involves the whole person (culture,
education, developmental, and communicative processes) in the context of
community. Suggestopedia is something I
had never heard of and it almost reminds me of hypnosis. I don’t think one can become proficient in a
language by being passive. I don’t think
the Silent Way could work either since communicating in the target language is
so important. The teacher seems too
distant and students need more guidance and correction. However, I do believe that discovery learning
is great and can help children learn independence and responsibility. They just need lots of other supports and
more than just that. I like the
kinesthetic component of Total Physical Response and I think some of those
activities can be beneficial in the classroom.
I like how the Natural Approach is more about acquisition and communication
in the target language, however I think it needs more focus on form.
My question is what does it look
like when a good teacher transfers theory and research into teaching a
classroom of students? Is there really
one best method or is it always changing based on the learners? How does a teacher know which theories and
methodologies will most benefit his/her students?
No comments:
Post a Comment