Post # 5: Maximizing Language Learning

            Kumar Chapter three discusses the opportunities for maximizing learning. The author states this as the first duty as a language teacher. Even though the amount of learning that takes place depends on the students, it is the teacher’s job to “create the conditions necessary for learning to take place” (Kumar 44). The learner needs to use the conditions provided by the teacher in order to maximize their learning. This chapter explains how teachers can create learning opportunities inside and outside of the classroom. One of the suggestions for creating learning opportunities inside the classroom is teacher questioning. Teachers should ask types of questions that “trigger meaningful interaction” (Kumar 49). I do something similar to this when I’m tutoring students in Spanish. When explaining something, you need to ask questions that help guide the students towards the correct answer. The chapter has examples of conversations where the teacher asks questions that get all students involved in the conversation. For example, episode 3.1 shows a conversation about the meaning of the word euthanasia. Instead of the teacher explaining to the one student what it means, she asks the other students. With the other students participating in the conversation and the teacher guiding the discussion when necessary, the students reach a definition of what euthanasia is. Overall I like this learning strategy but I think it would work better in smaller classes since students are more willing to participate when there are less people and all students are able to get involved since there aren’t a lot of them. A way to create learning opportunities outside of the classroom is to connect with the local community. I think this is a great idea for L2 learners, especially if the TL naturally exists in that community. It would give students a chance to use the L2 they’ve been learning in the classroom while serving the community at the same time. This strategy isn’t used as much as it should be in my opinion, probably because it would take a lot of work to organize it.

            Brown chapter four looks at twelve overall principles of L2 learning which form the core of an approach to language teaching. Some of the cognitive principles listed, intrinsic motivation and strategic investment, we talked a lot about in 344 since they are important determinants for SLA and a learner’s ability to master a second language depends on them. Language learners must be motivated and invested in learning the language. Chapter 16 branches off of chapter four, talking more about principle 5: strategic investment. The chapter looks at strategic investment’s implication for teaching methodology. This part of language teaching is known as standards-based instruction (SBI). SBI is about “how your language classroom techniques can encourage, build, and sustain effective language-learning strategies in your students” (Brown 258). SBI has its roots in the study of “good” language learners. Successful learners were first identified and then observed and questioned in order to determine the factors that contribute to their success. The chapter discusses how it’s important for students to become independent learners beyond the classroom. In order to do this they must identify their strengths, weaknesses, and preferences. I feel that it is important for learners to know how they learn but that it can be difficult for them to figure their styles out by answering questions like the ones in figure 16.2: the learning styles checklist. Whenever I had to rate how statements like these apply to me or describe me, I never really put much effort into it. If students enjoy learning the L2 they will easily be able to recognize what things work best for them and maximize their learning.     

Post #4: CLT and TBLT

            Two of the articles this week discuss CLT and the third talks about TBLT. In Bax’s article he explains how the dominance of CLT has been useful, but argues that it has neglected “the context in which language teaching takes place” (Bax 278). With CLT being such a dominant method, there’s the common assumption that the only way to properly learn a language is by the use of CLT. Bax believes that the use of CLT needs to be toned down and that something new needs to be put in its place. His suggested approach is called the Context Approach. Some characteristics of this approach include: considering the whole context and the idea that methodology is only one factor in language learning. Whereas on the other hand, with CLT, it’s believed that without the method it is impossible to learn a language and it is considered the only methodology that matters. I agree with Bax. I think that communication is definitely necessary in order for SLA to occur, but I also think that communication can be included into lessons without the use of the CLT method. I never realized that the CLT method doesn’t take into consideration the context in which learning takes place.

            Hu’s article also discussed the method if CLT but is different than the one Bax wrote since it’s specific to the use of CLT for language teaching in China. Hu explains how they are trying to adopt the use of CLT in Chinese classrooms but that is hasn’t made the expected impact that it would since it conflicts with the Chinese culture of learning. This is a problem since the aspects of the culture that conflict with CLT are “deep rooted in the Chinese culture of learning” (Hu 94). CLT and the Chinese culture have different assumptions about the “respective roles and responsibilities of teachers and students…encourage different learning strategies...and reward different qualities in learning” (Hu 102). There are obviously many sociocultural differences between the two. The author feels that educational policy makers and teachers must make pedagogical choices after taking into account the sociocultural differences which could interfere with what they decide. I agree that sociocultural differences should be taken into account when creating and determining the use of pedagogical methods. I always thought that CLT and the other methods we discussed in class are only used in the US. Are they used in other countries as well? After reading the two articles, it seems that CLT is a highly criticized and controversial language teaching method.

            Skehan’s article talks about TBLT. The reading from last week stated how some people consider CLT to be a framework of TBLT. Skehan never really goes into detail on describing TBLT, but we briefly discussed TBLT last week, comparing it to CLT. TBLT involves the use of two tasks: the target task and the pedagogical task. The pedagogical task, which takes place in the classroom, is used only to prepare students for the target task, which is done outside of the classroom. I like how the ultimate goal of TBLT seems to be getting students to use the TL outside of the classroom. This seems like a great goal for all language teachers to have for their students. In Bax’s article, he talks about the problems with CLT and proposes the use of the Context Approach instead. I wonder whether he created that approach before or after TBLT was thought of. Does TBLT take into consideration the context of language learning, unlike CLT? Would Bax approve of TBLT as a replacement method for CLT?

Post #3: Postmethod Pedagogy

            This week, the chapters in Brown and Kumar both discuss Postmethod Pedagogy. Brown chapter three describes how the postmethod era came about since people wanted a way to unify the approach to language teaching and because they wanted to put to rest the limited concept of method which was used in the previous century. This chapter also goes into detail about Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT). Some of the main goals of CLT include: a focus on all components (grammatical, discourse, functional, sociolinguistic, strategic), focus on comprehension and production of the TL, and a focus on real-world contexts. TBLT is said to be within the framework of CLT, although some researchers do not agree with this idea. TBLT involves the use of tasks at the core of language learning. These tasks contribute to communicative goals and “point learners beyond the forms of language alone to real-world contexts” (Brown 52). Kumar’s article also discussed CLT and TBLT. The article says that CLT was created as a response to the failing of the audiolingual method, which focused “exclusively and excessively on the manipulation of the linguistic structures of the target language” (Kumar 2006, 3). The audiolingual method didn’t seem to promote the acquisition of communicative ability in the TL. CLT was created in hopes of “moving classroom teaching away from a largely structural orientation...to a largely communicative orientation” (Kumar 2006, 3). I agree with the idea that TBLT is within the framework of CLT. CLT is very important in language teaching. It is important for language learners to be able to produce the TL and not just know the grammar rules of the language. In order for the learners to be able to properly produce the TL, teachers need to make sure they include a lot of communicative activities during class time.  

            Kumar chapter two discusses the meaning of the word method. In order to classify methods, Kumar splits them up into three different groups: language-centered methods, learner-centered methods, and learning-centered methods. He also explains how many researchers are dissatisfied with the notion of methods. This idea goes back to our second week of readings which included Prabhu’s article about how there is no best language teaching method. It makes sense how many researchers dislike the idea of methods since this theory creates so many unanswered questions. Because of these criticisms, the Postmethod Condition emerged. Postmethod pedagogy involves a “three dimensional system consisting of pedagogic parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility” (Kumar  2003, 34). The boundaries between these three parameters are blurred since the characteristics of each overlap one another. It seems like many SLA theories include parameters or parts that overlap one another or are all interconnected. The overlapping of the parameters makes sense but I think that it’s one of the reasons why there is so much debate and unanswered questions in the field.