Responses are outlined in Figures below. This, combined with the considerably higher number indicating that they would introduce signals of reason and result suggests that these teachers are much more aware of grammatical signals and of their significance than they are of the semantic relations that underlie and motivate that grammatical signalling.
Participants were also asked which of a range of genres they would introduce at different levels. The responses are indicated in Figures 14 — 17 below. This presupposes the inclusion of the past simple tense, something that is often not introduced in beginner level textbooks in spite of the fact that use of regular past tense constructions need not necessarily present learners with any major difficulty.
Survey participants were also asked whether they would be able to provide a list of the expected specific outcomes of each of their English courses that is, a list of what students can do in English as a result of the course. Three of the participants did not respond to this question and 17 indicated that they could not do so or did not know whether they could do so. Only 62 attempted to do so. Of the 62 examples provided, only 15 were potentially measurable and linguistically grounded and some of these, as indicated in the comments included in the following Table in which examples are provided are problematic in some way.
Hold a basic conversation in English relating to shopping for food Year 1- general English. Examples such as company for dissatisfaction these refer, in general terms, to Intermediate level 4 — English activities that will be included communication. What the examples of course outcome statements provided by the survey participants suggests is that the majority of them have difficulty in clearly specifying what they expect the outcomes of their courses to be.
This suggests that the literature on learning outcomes has had little impact on the majority of these language teachers. Although it is not possible to infer from this either a that this is true in the case of language teachers in general or b that literature on other areas of the teaching and learning of additional languages has had an equally small impact, this study does indicate that these are possibilities worth pursuing.
It may be that there is a major disconnect between the teaching of English as an additional language teaching and research on teaching English as an additional language. If this is the case, it seems likely that research on the teaching of additional languages, much of which relates directly to the teaching of English, is having even less impact on the teaching of other languages.
Endnotes 1. References Bachman, L. Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bruce, I. Cognitive genre prototype modelling and its implications for the teaching of academic writing to learners of English as a second language. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Waikato. Campbell, R. The study of language acquisition. Lyons Ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Canale, M. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy.
Schmidt Eds. London: Longman. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, Council of Europe. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crombie, W. Discourse and language learning: A relational approach to syllabus design.
London: Oxford University Press. Process and relation in discourse and language learning. Habermas, J. Toward a theory of Communicative Competence. Inquiry 13, Hymes, D. On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jakobovits, L. Foreign language learning: A psycholinguistic analysis of the issues. A Genre-based approach to academic writing. German in the New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
Oller, J. Issues in language testing research. Rowley, MA. Swales, J. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. The task stage in which learners perform the task, the planning stage as to how they will report to the class and the report stage when they report what and how they did the task orally or in writing.
As the last stage, Language focus consists of analysis and practice. In the analysis, the learners examine lexical items or structures in the recording or text.
In addition to this, the teacher may provide Practice for that lexical item or structure Willis, b. TBLT is not without its shortcomings. Ellis handles the issue as follows: 1. TBLT may not be well-suited to cultural contexts: Task-based teaching implies a particular cultural context that may be in conflict with cultural contexts where learning is not seen as a collaborative and experiential activity.
TBLT requires teachers to be proficient in L2 3. It reinforces the stereotypical view that English-language teachers should be native speakers. What is appropriate for a second language teaching context may not be appropriate for a foreign language context.
Apart from those shortcomings, Ellis adds the following: 5. The sequencing of tasks are difficult. Published materials are not readily available. The Study stage involves conscious attention to linguistic forms.
Harmer equates it to the explanation and Practice of the PPP model. In this stage, the focus is on how something is constructed, whether it is a grammatical structure, a specific intonation pattern, the construction of a paragraph or text, the way a lexical phrase is made and used, or the collocation of a particular word. As for the Activate stage, the activities and tasks are designed to get what the students know and to use the language as communicatively as they can Harmer, ESA offers more flexible lessons allowing the lessons move between different stages.
Harmer , , offers three types of lessons provided by the different ordering of Engage, Study and Activate. The first one is the straight arrow in which the lesson sequence is ESA. The last lesson procedure is the Patchwork lesson which involves a variety of sequences. A sufficient account of the ARC model can be found in Scrivener : Restricted use: This stage focuses on form, accuracy and practice.
Restricted use involves activities where the language available to the learners is in some way restricted — For example, doing an exercise on a grammatical item, reading a coursebook text, writing in a guided way, listening coursebook tasks etc.
Authentic use: This stage focuses on meaning, fluency and pleasure. Authentic use is the opposite of restricted use, there being no restriction on the language. For example, free communicative activities, discussions, writing stories or poems, reading novels or newspapers, listening radio or TV programs etc. Clarification: It involves clarification about a language item on its meaning, form and use.
The teacher use self or guided discovery to explore the language item, gives examples, analyze learners elicit or repeat things. Scrivener , p. In this sense, one can say that labeling systems are for experienced teachers that know an effective activity-ordering in a lesson. All the language teaching models have advantages over each other in teaching practice, but they also have disadvantages compared to each other.
Although PPP is the most common language teaching model, it is firstly criticized with not allowing for recycling or movement between the different stages.
Secondly, it is in fact suitable for teaching grammar, rather than, teaching skills. Finally, it is especially suitable for learners at lower levels. Because of these deficiencies, many scholars offered variations on and alternatives to the PPP model. The teacher at these models should be proficient in L2, like a native speaker. Besides this, the two models are stricter in the lesson procedure than PPP in that they must include discovery activities, which may not be suitable for all learners, who are especially at lower levels and whose learning styles mismatch with this kind of activity.
When the aforementioned models are taken into consideration, it can be inferred that there is no perfect and unique model suitable for every student. Learners as individuals prefer various lesson procedures in accordance with their level of language proficiency, culture and learning style.
Scrivener states that language teaching models are paradigms, as well. Thomas Kuhn gave paradigm its contemporary meaning when he adopted the word to refer to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline at any particular period of time. Apart from the influence of linguistics, learning theories has also influenced the language teaching models. The most influential of these learning theories is the constructivist learning theory. As part of constructivism, learner-centeredness took part in language teaching models especially in TBLT and further versions of the PPP model.
This change in the approach to language teaching made a paradigm shift in language teaching methodology, in this sense, in language teaching models. This shift can be pursued in language teaching models with two key components of the learner-centeredness.
The first one is placing more responsibility in the hands of the students to manage their own learning, and second, teachers taking roles as facilitators of knowledge to help learners learn how to learn. In this way, teachers can foster learner autonomy by creating and maintaining a learning environment through which students can develop their language and learning skills to become autonomous learners.
This seems to be sound advice. Teachers should be open to new ideas and decide for themselves on what works best for their particular students. If so, teachers need to be trained for making decisions about the suitable methods and models during teacher training process. As prospective teachers, they should be familiar with the methodological paradigms in methodology courses in order to choose what works best for their students as well as themselves.
Conclusion In this study, the main aim is to review the language teaching models in FLT literature. References Anderson, J. The architecture of cognition. Anderson, J. Skill ccquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem solutions. Psychological Review, 94 2 , Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Worth Publishers. Bowen, T. Task-based learning. Teaching oral English. London: Longman. Ellis, R Task-based language learning and teaching.
Oxford, Oxford University Press. Evans, D. A review of PPP. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Harmer, J. Is PPP dead? Modern English Teacher, 5 2 , How to teach English. The practice of English language teaching 3rd Ed. Harlow: Longman. Harmer, J The practice of English language teaching. Hedge, T. Teaching and Learning in the language classroom.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Howatt, A. A history of English language teaching. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd Ed. Chicago and London: Univ. Lewis, M. The lexical approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications. Implications of a lexical view of language. In Willis, D.
Willis Eds. Oxford: Heinemann. Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. Learning and teaching English. Oxford: Oxford UP. McCarthy, M. Carter Spoken grammar: what is it and how can we teach it? Syllabus design. Nunan, D. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge. Pica, T. Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research.
Gass Eds. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Prabhu, N. Second Language Pedagogy. Richards, J. Approaches and methods in language teaching Second Edition.
Scrivener, J. Learning teaching: A guidebook for English language teachers. ARC: A descriptive model for classroom work on language. Skehan, P. A cognitive approach to language learning.
0コメント