Está en la página 1de 4

ISSUE PAPER SEPTEMBER 2001

Language Teaching Methodology


THEODORE S. RODGERS, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII

Background Schools of Language Teaching


Language teaching came into its own as a profes- Methodology
sion in the last century. Central to this phenomenon Within methodology a distinction is often made
was the emergence of the concept of “methods” of between methods and approaches, in which meth-
language teaching. The method concept in language ods are held to be fixed teaching systems with pre-
teaching—the notion of a systematic set of teaching scribed techniques and practices, whereas approaches
practices based on a particular theory of language and represent language teaching philosophies that can be
language learning—is a powerful one, and the quest interpreted and applied in a variety of different ways
for better methods was a preoccupation of teachers in the classroom. This distinction is probably most
and applied linguists throughout the 20th century. usefully seen as defining a continuum of entities rang-
Howatt’s (1984) overview documents the history of ing from highly prescribed methods to loosely de-
changes of practice in language teaching throughout scribed approaches.
history, bringing the chronology up through the Di- The period from the 1950s to the 1980s has often
rect Method in the 20th century. One of the most been referred to as “The Age of Methods,” during
lasting legacies of the Direct Method has been the which a number of quite detailed prescriptions for
notion of “method” itself. language teaching were proposed. Situational Lan-
guage Teaching evolved in the United Kingdom while
Language Teaching Methodology a parallel method, Audio-Lingualism, emerged in the
Defined United States. In the middle-methods period, a vari-
Methodology in language teaching has been char- ety of methods were proclaimed as successors to the
acterized in a variety of ways. A more or less classical then prevailing Situational Language Teaching and
formulation suggests that methodology is that which Audio-Lingual methods. These alternatives were pro-
links theory and practice. Theory statements would moted under such titles as Silent Way, Suggestopedia,
include theories of what language is and how lan- Community Language Learning, and Total Physical
guage is learned or, more specifically, theories of sec- Response. In the 1980s, these methods in turn came
ond language acquisition (SLA). Such theories are to be overshadowed by more interactive views of lan-
linked to various design features of language instruc- guage teaching, which collectively came to be known
tion. These design features might include stated ob- as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Com-
jectives, syllabus specifications, types of activities, municative Language Teaching advocates subscribed
roles of teachers, learners, materials, and so forth. to a broad set of principles such as these:
Design features in turn are linked to actual teaching •Learners learn a language through using it to com-
and learning practices as observed in the environ- municate.
ments where language teaching and learning take
•Authentic and meaningful communication should
place. This whole complex of elements defines lan-
be the goal of classroom activities.
guage teaching methodology.
•Fluency is an important dimension of communica-
tion.
•Communication involves the integration of differ-
Theories of ß Instructional ß Observed
Language and Design Teaching ent language skills.
Learning à Features à Practices •Learning is a process of creative construction and
involves trial and error.
Figure 1. Language Teaching Methodology However, CLT advocates avoided prescribing the
set of practices through which these principles could

ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS • CENTER FOR APPLIED LINGUISTICS • 4646 40TH ST NW • WASHINGTON DC 20016-1859 • (202) 362-0700
LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGY

Methods and Teacher and Learner Roles

Method Teacher Roles Learner Roles

Context Setter Imitator


Situational Language Teaching
Error Corrector Memorizer
Language Modeler Pattern Practicer
Audio-lingualism
Drill Leader Accuracy Enthusiast
Communicative Language Needs Analyst Improvisor
Teaching Task Designer Negotiator
Commander Order Taker
Total Physical Response
Action Monitor Performer
Pantomimist Inventor
The Silent Way
Neutral Observer Problem Solver
Counselor Collaborator
Community Language Learning
Paraphraser Whole Person
Actor Guesser
The Natural Approach
Props User Immerser
Auto-hypnotist Relaxer
Suggestopedia
Authority Figure True Believer

Figure 2. Methods and Teacher and Learner Roles

best be realized, thus putting CLT clearly on the ap- in alternative ways. For example, should second lan-
proach rather than the method end of the spectrum. guage learning by adults be modeled on first language
Communicative Language Teaching has spawned learning by children? One set of schools (e.g., Total
a number of off-shoots that share the same basic set Physical Response, Natural Approach) notes that first
of principles, but which spell out philosophical de- language acquisition is the only universally success-
tails or envision instructional practices in somewhat ful model of language learning we have, and thus that
diverse ways. These CLT spin-off approaches include second language pedagogy must necessarily model
The Natural Approach, Cooperative Language Learn- itself on first language acquisition. An opposed view
ing, Content-Based Teaching, and Task-Based Teach- (e.g., Silent Way, Suggestopedia) observes that adults
ing. have different brains, interests, timing constraints,
It is difficult to describe these various methods and learning environments than do children, and that
briefly and yet fairly, and such a task is well beyond adult classroom learning therefore has to be fashioned
the scope of this paper. However, several up-to-date in a way quite dissimilar to the way in which nature
texts are available that do detail differences and simi- fashions how first languages are learned by children.
larities among the many different approaches and Another key distinction turns on the role of per-
methods that have been proposed. (See, e.g., Larsen- ception versus production in early stages of language
Freeman, 2000, and Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Per- learning. One school of thought proposes that learn-
haps it is possible to get a sense of the range of method ers should begin to communicate, to use a new lan-
proposals by looking at a synoptic view of the roles guage actively, on first contact (e.g., Audio-Lingual
defined for teachers and learners within various meth- Method, Silent Way, Community Language Learning),
ods. Such a synoptic (perhaps scanty) view can be while the other school of thought states that an ini-
seen in the chart above (Figure 2). tial and prolonged period of reception (listening, read-
As suggested in the chart, some schools of meth- ing) should precede any attempts at production (e.g.,
odology see the teacher as ideal language model and Natural Approach).
commander of classroom activity (e.g., Audio-Lingual
Method, Natural Approach, Suggestopedia, Total What’s Now, What’s Next?
Physical Response) whereas others see the teacher as The future is always uncertain, and this is no less
background facilitator and classroom colleague to the true in anticipating methodological directions in sec-
learners (e.g., Communicative Language Teaching, ond language teaching than in any other field. Some
Cooperative Language Learning). current predictions assume the carrying on and re-
There are other global issues to which spokesper- finement of current trends; others appear a bit more
sons for the various methods and approaches respond science-fiction-like in their vision. Outlined below are

PAGE 2
LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGY

10 scenarios that are likely to shape the teaching of “language: the basic human technology” as sources
second languages in the next decades of the new mil- of content in language teaching.
lennium. These methodological candidates are given
5 Multintelligencia. The notion here is adapted
identifying labels in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek
from the Multiple Intelligences view of human tal-
style, perhaps a bit reminiscent of yesteryear’s method
ents proposed by Howard Gardner (1983). This model
labels.
is one of a variety of learning style models that have
1. Teacher/Learner Collaborates. Matchmaking been proposed in general education with follow-up
techniques will be developed which will link learn- inquiry by language educators. The chart below shows
ers and teachers with similar styles and approaches Gardner’s proposed eight native intelligences and
to language learning. Looking at the Teacher and indicates classroom language-rich task types that play
Learner roles sketched in Figure 2, one can anticipate to each of these particular intelligences.
development of a system in which the preferential
Appropriate
ways in which teachers teach and learners learn can Intelligence Type
Educational Activities
be matched in instructional settings, perhaps via on-
lectures, worksheets, word
line computer networks or other technological re- Linguistic
games, journals, debates
sources. mathematical puzzles,
Logical
estimations, problem solving
2. Method Synergistics. Crossbreeding elements
charts, diagrams, graphic
from various methods into a common program of Spatial
organizers, drawings, films
instruction seems an appropriate way to find those hands-on, mime, craft,
Bodily
practices which best support effective learning. Meth- demonstrations
ods and approaches have usually been proposed as Musical
singing, poetry, Jazz Chants,
idiosyncratic and unique, yet it appears reasonable mood music

to combine practices from different approaches where group work, peer tutoring, class
Interpersonal
projects
the philosophical foundations are similar. One might
reflection, interest centers,
call such an approach “Disciplined Eclecticism.” Intrapersonal
personal values tasks

3. Curriculum Developmentalism. Language field trips, show and tell, plant


Naturalist
and animal projects
teaching has not profited much from more general
views of educational design. The curriculum perspec- Figure 3. (Adapted From Christison, 1998)
tive comes from general education and views success-
ful instruction as an interweaving of Knowledge, In- The challenge here is to identify these intelligences
structional, Learner, and Administrative consider- in individual learners and then to determine appro-
ations. From this perspective, methodology is viewed priate and realistic instructional tasks in response.
as only one of several instructional considerations that 6. Total Functional Response. Communicative
are necessarily thought out and realized in conjunc- Language Teaching was founded (and floundered) on
tion with all other curricular considerations. earlier notional/functional proposals for the descrip-
4. Content-Basics. Content-based instruction as- tion of languages. Now new leads in discourse and
sumes that language learning is a by-product of focus genre analysis, schema theory, pragmatics, and sys-
on meaning––on acquiring some specific topical con- temic/functional grammar are rekindling an interest
tent––and that content topics to support language in functionally based approaches to language teach-
learning should be chosen to best match learner needs ing. One pedagogical proposal has led to a widespread
and interests and to promote optimal development reconsideration of the first and second language pro-
of second language competence. A critical question gram in Australian schools, where instruction turns
for language educators is “what content” and “how on five basic text genres identified as Report, Proce-
much content” best supports language learning. The dure, Explanation, Exposition, and Recount. Refine-
natural content for language educators is literature ment of functional models will lead to increased at-
and language itself, and we are beginning to see a tention to genre and text types in both first and sec-
resurgence of interest in literature and in the topic of ond language instruction.

PAGE 3
LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGY

7. Strategopedia. “Learning to Learn” is the key 10. Full-Frontal Communicativity. We know that
theme in an instructional focus on language learn- the linguistic part of human communication repre-
ing strategies. Such strategies include, at the most ba-sents only a small fraction of total meaning. At least
sic level, memory tricks, and at higher levels, cogni- one applied linguist has gone so far as to claim that,
tive and metacognitive strategies for learning, think- “We communicate so much information non-verbally
ing, planning, and self-monitoring. Research findings in conversations that often the verbal aspect of the
suggest that strategies can indeed be taught to lan- conversation is negligible.” Despite these cautions,
guage learners, that learners will apply these strate- language teaching has chosen to restrict its attention
gies in language learning tasks, and that such appli- to the linguistic component of human communica-
cation does produce significant gains in language tion, even when the approach is labeled Communi-
learning. Simple and yet highly effective strategies, cative. The methodological proposal is to provide in-
such as those that help learners remember and access structional focus on the non-linguistic aspects of com-
new second language vocabulary items, will attract munication, including rhythm, speed, pitch, intona-
considerable instructional interest in Strategopedia. tion, tone, and hesitation phenomena in speech and
gesture, facial expression, posture, and distance in
8. Lexical Phraseology. The lexical phraseology
non-verbal messaging.
view holds that only “a minority of spoken clauses
are entirely novel creations” and that “memorized
clauses and clause-sequences form a high proportion
Conclusion
This paper provides an overview of 10 potential
of the fluent stretches of speech heard in every day
paths that language teachers might find themselves
conversation.” One estimate is that “the number of
traveling in the opening years of the new millennium.
memorized complete clauses and sentences known
I know that teachers will be blazing many new trails
to the mature English speaker probably amounts, at
of their own, and I encourage them all to share their
least, to several hundreds of thousands” (Pawley &
experiences with their colleagues.
Syder, 1983). Understanding of the use of lexical
phrases has been immensely aided by large-scale com-
puter studies of language corpora, which have pro-
References
vided hard data to support the speculative inquiries Christison, M. (1998). Applying multiple intelligences
into lexical phraseology of second language acquisi- theory in preservice and inservice TEFL education
tion researchers. For language teachers, the results of programs. English Teaching Forum, 36(2), 2-13.
such inquiries have led to conclusions that language Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic
teaching should center on these memorized lexical Books.
patterns and the ways they can be pieced together, Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teach-
along with the ways they vary and the situations in ing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
which they occur.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles
9. O-zone Whole Language. Renewed interest in in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
some type of “Focus on Form” has provided a major Press.
impetus for recent second language acquisition (SLA) Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for lin-
research. “Focus on Form” proposals, variously labeled guistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like
as consciousness-raising, noticing, attending, and fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language
enhancing input, are founded on the assumption that and communication. London: Longman.
students will learn only what they are aware of. Whole
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and meth-
Language proponents have claimed that one way to
ods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cam-
increase learner awareness of how language works is
bridge University Press.
through a course of study that incorporates broader
engagement with language, including literary study,
process writing, authentic content, and learner col-
This report was prepared with funding from the U.S. Department of Education
laboration. (ED), Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), National Library
of Education (NLE), under Contract No. ED-99-CO-0008. The opinions expressed
do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of ED, OERI, or NLE.

ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS • TOLL-FREE PHONE 800-276-9834 • E-MAIL ERIC@CAL.ORG • WWW.CAL.ORG/ERICCLL
recycled paper

También podría gustarte