Module 5: Discussion: Reading Reflection
For this discussion activity, you will respond to several opinion-based questions.
We should not worry too much about students producing perfect structures right away; it is best for teachers not to overcorrect.
I agree with this statement for a myriad of reasons. I realize that Principles 6 and 7 of CLT and TBLT center on both form and error corrective feedback, however, however, I believe negative feedback results in increased anxiety and the value in offsetting that affect (Principle 8) outweighs perfection. (Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction, Pages 19 and 21).
Language is best learned interactively in a social environment; in an ideal class, students work together a lot.
The Kumaravadivelu article (pg. 66) points out that there have been multiple TESOL methods over time and I am aligned with Prabhu (1990) who argued “that there is no best method…” Prabhu takes the individualized approach to teaching as the most ideal and I think that is even more important today with the rise in various mental health experiences in the classroom, more neuro-divergent students in the classroom, and more competition with external factors such as technology as a distraction (versus a teaching tool). That being said, I don’t believe an individual could reach any level of proficiency or comfort with speaking a new language without social interactivity and practice. I would highly prioritize this in my classroom, but I’ll fall short of generalizing on its value.
Conscious knowledge of grammar rules is necessary to speak a language proficiently.
Not necessarily and not according to a one-time TESOL preferred methodology, Grammar-translation. In this case, even after strict grammar education, students were encouraged to “go abroad and immerse themselves to become a fluent speaker.” Likewise, the CLT method, grammar took a back seat to communication. I might add that as a native English speaker, I find I’m often incorrect on Adult ELL worksheets and yet, here I am. Of course I endeavor to improve, but I believe I am what any person would call proficient.
Native speakers have an advantage in teaching grammar rules because they know how rules operate intuitively.
I do believe native speakers have an advantage in communicating in English, but not necessarily in teaching grammar rules. Especially if some time has lapsed between grammar instruction in compulsory education and application as a classroom teacher, the reason for the rules and the rules themselves become muddled and obscure. A non-native speaker could possibly be more likely to have memorized the rules for the sake of learning the structure of English. I did not learn grammar rules as part of my undergraduate teaching degree (or my masters) and I believe most native teachers in the classroom are at the mercy of provided curricula to figure out how to teach grammar rules.
The use of students’ L1 should be discouraged in a language classroom.
I particularly appreciated Allwright’s exploratory practice (EP) in the post-method perspectives. The premise is based on the importance of the quality of life in the classroom and socially (Kumaravadivelu, p. 68). Combine this with the need to decrease anxiety in order to increase motivation and desire in learning (Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction, p. 21) and there you have it – I say wrong. L1 usage should be allowed to the extent that it helps a student with L2 acquisition.
Authentic (non-pedagogic) materials and communication activities (e.g., tasks) linked to “real-world” contexts should be used in S/FL classrooms as much as possible.
I believe this is true. Although it is older, debated, and clearly out of fashion, Ellis (2003) provided a definition of TBLT that I think actually fully supports authenticity in instruction. The attention to meaning, engagement with grammar, use of authentic communication, importance of social interaction, and the integration of language skills, the majority of Ellis’ definition of TBLT, can only be acquired and maximized in authentic settings.
Generally speaking, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) works better than any other method in L2 learning and teaching.
Of all the things I highlighted in this week’s reading, it is the Kumaravadivelu article (pg. 66) that sticks out the most to me (as previously mentioned). I don’t think CLT has the degree of disadvantages as the articles point out if implemented in a child-centered way. Structurally, it feels like a good roadmap, but using an integrated, flexible, adaptive approach to teaching each student to their needs, necessary now more than ever in the wake of the Covid disruption, is the best way.
References
Brandl, K. (2008). Principles of communicative language teaching and task-based instruction Download Principles of communicative language teaching and task-based instruction. In Communicative language teaching in action: Putting principles to work (pp. 1-38).
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends Download TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. Tesol Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms Download Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243-249.
Reply Eric Wolford
For the question, "Authentic (non-pedagogic) materials and communication activities (e.g., tasks) linked to “real-world” contexts should be used in S/FL classrooms as much as possible," I generally agree, but given the word limit imposed by the assignment, I don't feel that I was able to elaborate on this point. I think the primary issue to this approach is trying to establish the relevance of these tasks. For some tasks, like creating work documents to apply for a job, the relevance is fairly straightforward if you have adolescent students who are on the cusp of looking for a job, However, some of the tasks that Brandl illustrated in his chapter are generally irrelevant for this day and age (why create an address book when you can easily ask for someone's contact info via text or iMessage?) and others rely on the educator assuming the tasks that are necessary for students. While it is important to assume some potential outcomes for students (such as future employment or post-secondary education), I think a task-based approach to language education succeeds when student input is incorporated into the instruction.
Reply Michelle Johansen
Hi Melinda, I think you and I were generally on the same page about most of these statements. Honestly, as I read through your responses, I could see the strength of your arguments, and I appreciated that your points were so strong. It gave me a lot to think about. I was really nodding my head at your response about native speakers and teaching grammar. I'm a native speaker, but I'm terrible at some grammar components. Don't even get me started on commas!!!
I agree with this statement for a myriad of reasons. I realize that Principles 6 and 7 of CLT and TBLT center on both form and error corrective feedback, however, however, I believe negative feedback results in increased anxiety and the value in offsetting that affect (Principle 8) outweighs perfection. (Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction, Pages 19 and 21).
Language is best learned interactively in a social environment; in an ideal class, students work together a lot.
The Kumaravadivelu article (pg. 66) points out that there have been multiple TESOL methods over time and I am aligned with Prabhu (1990) who argued “that there is no best method…” Prabhu takes the individualized approach to teaching as the most ideal and I think that is even more important today with the rise in various mental health experiences in the classroom, more neuro-divergent students in the classroom, and more competition with external factors such as technology as a distraction (versus a teaching tool). That being said, I don’t believe an individual could reach any level of proficiency or comfort with speaking a new language without social interactivity and practice. I would highly prioritize this in my classroom, but I’ll fall short of generalizing on its value.
Conscious knowledge of grammar rules is necessary to speak a language proficiently.
Not necessarily and not according to a one-time TESOL preferred methodology, Grammar-translation. In this case, even after strict grammar education, students were encouraged to “go abroad and immerse themselves to become a fluent speaker.” Likewise, the CLT method, grammar took a back seat to communication. I might add that as a native English speaker, I find I’m often incorrect on Adult ELL worksheets and yet, here I am. Of course I endeavor to improve, but I believe I am what any person would call proficient.
Native speakers have an advantage in teaching grammar rules because they know how rules operate intuitively.
I do believe native speakers have an advantage in communicating in English, but not necessarily in teaching grammar rules. Especially if some time has lapsed between grammar instruction in compulsory education and application as a classroom teacher, the reason for the rules and the rules themselves become muddled and obscure. A non-native speaker could possibly be more likely to have memorized the rules for the sake of learning the structure of English. I did not learn grammar rules as part of my undergraduate teaching degree (or my masters) and I believe most native teachers in the classroom are at the mercy of provided curricula to figure out how to teach grammar rules.
The use of students’ L1 should be discouraged in a language classroom.
I particularly appreciated Allwright’s exploratory practice (EP) in the post-method perspectives. The premise is based on the importance of the quality of life in the classroom and socially (Kumaravadivelu, p. 68). Combine this with the need to decrease anxiety in order to increase motivation and desire in learning (Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction, p. 21) and there you have it – I say wrong. L1 usage should be allowed to the extent that it helps a student with L2 acquisition.
Authentic (non-pedagogic) materials and communication activities (e.g., tasks) linked to “real-world” contexts should be used in S/FL classrooms as much as possible.
I believe this is true. Although it is older, debated, and clearly out of fashion, Ellis (2003) provided a definition of TBLT that I think actually fully supports authenticity in instruction. The attention to meaning, engagement with grammar, use of authentic communication, importance of social interaction, and the integration of language skills, the majority of Ellis’ definition of TBLT, can only be acquired and maximized in authentic settings.
Generally speaking, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) works better than any other method in L2 learning and teaching.
Of all the things I highlighted in this week’s reading, it is the Kumaravadivelu article (pg. 66) that sticks out the most to me (as previously mentioned). I don’t think CLT has the degree of disadvantages as the articles point out if implemented in a child-centered way. Structurally, it feels like a good roadmap, but using an integrated, flexible, adaptive approach to teaching each student to their needs, necessary now more than ever in the wake of the Covid disruption, is the best way.
References
Brandl, K. (2008). Principles of communicative language teaching and task-based instruction Download Principles of communicative language teaching and task-based instruction. In Communicative language teaching in action: Putting principles to work (pp. 1-38).
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends Download TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. Tesol Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms Download Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243-249.
Reply Eric Wolford
For the question, "Authentic (non-pedagogic) materials and communication activities (e.g., tasks) linked to “real-world” contexts should be used in S/FL classrooms as much as possible," I generally agree, but given the word limit imposed by the assignment, I don't feel that I was able to elaborate on this point. I think the primary issue to this approach is trying to establish the relevance of these tasks. For some tasks, like creating work documents to apply for a job, the relevance is fairly straightforward if you have adolescent students who are on the cusp of looking for a job, However, some of the tasks that Brandl illustrated in his chapter are generally irrelevant for this day and age (why create an address book when you can easily ask for someone's contact info via text or iMessage?) and others rely on the educator assuming the tasks that are necessary for students. While it is important to assume some potential outcomes for students (such as future employment or post-secondary education), I think a task-based approach to language education succeeds when student input is incorporated into the instruction.
Reply Michelle Johansen
Hi Melinda, I think you and I were generally on the same page about most of these statements. Honestly, as I read through your responses, I could see the strength of your arguments, and I appreciated that your points were so strong. It gave me a lot to think about. I was really nodding my head at your response about native speakers and teaching grammar. I'm a native speaker, but I'm terrible at some grammar components. Don't even get me started on commas!!!