Hi
Found this site with some interesting articles.
http://www.isfla.org/Systemics/
Monday, March 29, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Ecclectic ramblings of an English teacher
Hi
Thank you all for your patience.
I am slowly coming to the conclusion that I am not a teacher, like Mike who sees his role as a coach I see my role as a facilitator of the English language. In this role I believe there is a necessity to draw upon whatever resources we can and in my practical experience, the private schools I have worked in may not the resources readily available or willingly accept change. Regardless of this, currently, my viewpoint is the lexical approach, genre and SFL provide rich resources waiting to be exploited by us as we “facilitate” the students learning of the English language.
The problem and critique of the lexical approach is the lack of a detailed learning theory and the memorization of an abundant number of “chunks” (Thornbury, 1998). However given the theoretical basis of noticing is not clearly defined, input that becomes intake is likely to be enhanced by the lexical approach and I tend to agree “it is likely to be helpful to make learners explicitly aware of the lexical nature of language” (Lewis, 2000, p.161), and without focusing explicitly on the grammar. This was clearly illustrated in the idea of “a game” (Lewis, 2000) where the generalisations and analyses provide incomplete rules. However students want explanations and what can I do except use the standard grammar descriptions? Clearly the answer is more training but in what! SFL offers an approach to provide an explanation which is more complete than the traditional grammar approach and I view it as something we as teachers can draw upon to explain to students as required when they are being exposed to lexical chunks. Of course this is provided I know SFL which at present I find daunting!
The school I work in has prepared its own materials and has a set syllabus which I have taught and the focus is on form, vocabulary, listening, reading and communicative competency Assessments for students are based on the first four “skills” and the last is by the teacher being observed. There is little time to do anything else as there are tests based on this material every six weeks. Success in these tests results in the students moving up to the next level as they have demonstrated they have attained the necessary competency for that level. There is no writing assessment and clearly the grammar points, which they have “mastered” is ineffective when the students write a short essay. Writing is left for the IELTS and EAP classes.
My criticism is not directed at the approaches but the practical application in the classroom. In particular, the issues revolve around private language schools, which need to cater to the whims of the international student and they tend to take a factory mentality approach with teaching staff. Firstly, International students have preconceived ideas of what makes a good teacher, teaching methodology that is “radically different” to their expectations results in complaints, especially if they do not have a productive component in the lessons. For instance, “we do not have a chance to speak or use English”, “we want to speak more English” resulting in a focus on communicative competency. However there are other students who see this as unhelpful as they want to study a degree programme or go to a New Zealand university so they have specific English requirements such as doing an IELTS course or an EAP course. Here the benefits of having a repertoire of “approaches” that we as teachers can draw upon are invaluable. For instance “reaching in” to the genre approach and using moves for the different types of text from letters to more academic expositions I believe offers students more in terms of noticing and understanding the English language for their specific requirements.
Secondly, teachers do not have enough time to prepare materials especially when they are teaching at least 5 hours a day and have to supervise activities as required for pastoral care. However it does not mean that we should not try to learn more or get more training, it is getting the institution to recognise the teachers are an asset to be developed rather than be used.
To conclude the more I learn the less I know but I find it stimulating as we explore the approaches.
L8ter
Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocations: Further developments in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Thornbury, S. (1998).The Lexical Approach: A journey without maps? Modern English Teacher.
Thank you all for your patience.
I am slowly coming to the conclusion that I am not a teacher, like Mike who sees his role as a coach I see my role as a facilitator of the English language. In this role I believe there is a necessity to draw upon whatever resources we can and in my practical experience, the private schools I have worked in may not the resources readily available or willingly accept change. Regardless of this, currently, my viewpoint is the lexical approach, genre and SFL provide rich resources waiting to be exploited by us as we “facilitate” the students learning of the English language.
The problem and critique of the lexical approach is the lack of a detailed learning theory and the memorization of an abundant number of “chunks” (Thornbury, 1998). However given the theoretical basis of noticing is not clearly defined, input that becomes intake is likely to be enhanced by the lexical approach and I tend to agree “it is likely to be helpful to make learners explicitly aware of the lexical nature of language” (Lewis, 2000, p.161), and without focusing explicitly on the grammar. This was clearly illustrated in the idea of “a game” (Lewis, 2000) where the generalisations and analyses provide incomplete rules. However students want explanations and what can I do except use the standard grammar descriptions? Clearly the answer is more training but in what! SFL offers an approach to provide an explanation which is more complete than the traditional grammar approach and I view it as something we as teachers can draw upon to explain to students as required when they are being exposed to lexical chunks. Of course this is provided I know SFL which at present I find daunting!
The school I work in has prepared its own materials and has a set syllabus which I have taught and the focus is on form, vocabulary, listening, reading and communicative competency Assessments for students are based on the first four “skills” and the last is by the teacher being observed. There is little time to do anything else as there are tests based on this material every six weeks. Success in these tests results in the students moving up to the next level as they have demonstrated they have attained the necessary competency for that level. There is no writing assessment and clearly the grammar points, which they have “mastered” is ineffective when the students write a short essay. Writing is left for the IELTS and EAP classes.
My criticism is not directed at the approaches but the practical application in the classroom. In particular, the issues revolve around private language schools, which need to cater to the whims of the international student and they tend to take a factory mentality approach with teaching staff. Firstly, International students have preconceived ideas of what makes a good teacher, teaching methodology that is “radically different” to their expectations results in complaints, especially if they do not have a productive component in the lessons. For instance, “we do not have a chance to speak or use English”, “we want to speak more English” resulting in a focus on communicative competency. However there are other students who see this as unhelpful as they want to study a degree programme or go to a New Zealand university so they have specific English requirements such as doing an IELTS course or an EAP course. Here the benefits of having a repertoire of “approaches” that we as teachers can draw upon are invaluable. For instance “reaching in” to the genre approach and using moves for the different types of text from letters to more academic expositions I believe offers students more in terms of noticing and understanding the English language for their specific requirements.
Secondly, teachers do not have enough time to prepare materials especially when they are teaching at least 5 hours a day and have to supervise activities as required for pastoral care. However it does not mean that we should not try to learn more or get more training, it is getting the institution to recognise the teachers are an asset to be developed rather than be used.
To conclude the more I learn the less I know but I find it stimulating as we explore the approaches.
L8ter
Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocations: Further developments in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Thornbury, S. (1998).The Lexical Approach: A journey without maps? Modern English Teacher.
Chanjuan Du Week 4(SFL)
When I first read Chapter 1 of Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (2nd ed), I found it was practical and functional indeed. From our first introduced teaching method--lexical approach to genre, one theme is the focus: "real English" in the "real social world" expressed via communication. That's why terms like context of culture, context of situation sound quite familiar. It elaborates the definition of "field", "tenor", and "mode" concerning the context of situation. Meanwhile, the two linguistic levels as content level and expression level are shown by a figure clearly. (Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks,& Yallop, 2000).
However, I nearly forgot this is only the first introductory chapter of a book. Then when I started to deepen more, I got stunned. Just as Thompson (2004) states that students may be understandably daunted, not only by the abstruse explanations but simply by the amount of new terminology. It is true that I tried very hard to understand and distinguish between a Value and a Token, a Material Process and a Behavioural Process, a Range and a Goal. At the beginning it seemed clear but after a while it became confusing with each other again, which is quite disappointing.
According to Thompson (2004), "One important implication of the functional view of language is that context and language are interdependent."(p.9) Meanwhile, communication is bi-lateral, so we should The delicate analysis of grammar function is more theoretical. In practice, what we need to know is just to pay attention to what, whom and how to talk. After all, in social communication, the important thing is only to understand others and make ourselves understood better.
By the way, the concept "tenor" reminds one common question in listening comprehension test: What is the most probable relationship between the two speakers? Now I know why there is such question designed in a test.
References:
Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks., S., & Yallop., C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (2nd ed). Sydney: NCELTR
Thompson, G. (2004) . Introducing functional grammar (2nd edition), Oxford University Press, Inc, New York
However, I nearly forgot this is only the first introductory chapter of a book. Then when I started to deepen more, I got stunned. Just as Thompson (2004) states that students may be understandably daunted, not only by the abstruse explanations but simply by the amount of new terminology. It is true that I tried very hard to understand and distinguish between a Value and a Token, a Material Process and a Behavioural Process, a Range and a Goal. At the beginning it seemed clear but after a while it became confusing with each other again, which is quite disappointing.
According to Thompson (2004), "One important implication of the functional view of language is that context and language are interdependent."(p.9) Meanwhile, communication is bi-lateral, so we should The delicate analysis of grammar function is more theoretical. In practice, what we need to know is just to pay attention to what, whom and how to talk. After all, in social communication, the important thing is only to understand others and make ourselves understood better.
By the way, the concept "tenor" reminds one common question in listening comprehension test: What is the most probable relationship between the two speakers? Now I know why there is such question designed in a test.
References:
Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks., S., & Yallop., C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (2nd ed). Sydney: NCELTR
Thompson, G. (2004) . Introducing functional grammar (2nd edition), Oxford University Press, Inc, New York
Friday, March 26, 2010
Mike on SFL week 4
Darryl described the subject of SFL as 'dense'. Aptly put, but in my view perhaps even an understatement!
That said, I can certainly see the great value in SFL for the non-native immigrant learners that I work with. With its focus on the purposes and uses of language (Gerot and Wignell, 1994) and the context-text connection (Butt, et al., 2000), especially the recognition that all communication is culture- and situation-bound (Burns and Knox, 2005), SFL offers my students a powerful approach to grammar teaching, indeed potentially the fostering of language acquisition. Indeed, from what I'm aware of anecdotally, the use of SFL coupled with genre analysis in ESOL educational contexts in Australia, indeed in education more broadly in that country, has become widespread because of its positive results.
Alas, I am dubious/sceptical that SFL could be an approach that I could comprehensively employ with my students, that is to build a syllabus around, for reasons similar to those explored by Adam Kilburn (1999). At best, I might experiment with SFL, but not without considerable difficulties, including as Kilburn suggests difficulties that "arise from my own weaknesses when it comes to grammar knowledge" (p.35), and certainly with my complete lack of knowledge about SFL. Gaining such knowledge to the point where I felt that I had command of SFL sufficient to feel comfortable using it in the classroom will take me considerable time and effort, which I am prepared to invest in comining months (years!?). So I've taken out several books on the subject from the AUT library -- two of which I highly recommend to any of you (Gerot and Wignell, 1994; Gerot, 1995). Both are eminently fathomable -- literally, SFL for dummies (like me).
Apart from this, there are issues (again, explored by Kilburn, 1999) that compound my scepticism about the efficacy of SFL as a mainstream approach in my classroom. Kilburn (1999) talks about the problem of the "institutional culture" (p.34) from the point of view of the institutional demands that teachers should provide students (expllicitly or implicitly) with what the students think they want as opposed to what they actually need. Additionally, there is the problem of student perceptions and expectations about good teaching based on learners' past experiences of methods employed by previous English language tutors over the years. The explicit traditional grammar syllabus through which they have all been programmed in over the years back in their home countries is, as Kilburn describes it, conservative and limited. Teachers, he says, are reluctant to break the mold despite abundant research (e.g. Ellis, 1993) documenting the limitations of ttraditional ,explicitly taught grammar syllabuses.
I suspect it will take, as Kilburn suggests, a considerable push on both the learners and the educational institutions by convinced teachers before SFL really takes hold within New Zealand's ESOL circles. As a teacher, I can experiement with it in a kind of middling (or is that muddling?) way, working with my learners to become more familiar with top down ways of viewing language and get them more confident in dealing with language which is culture-determined Kilburn, 1999). Then, as I become more capable myself with SFL and discover course books and instructional materials providers that employ an SFL approach, or develop materials myself over time, I might expect eventually to see syllabus shift occurring.
However, in so far as the prospect of SFL really catching hold in New Zealand in years to come is concerned, it's going to take a big push by educational institutions (who are, unfortunately, market driven; i.e. 'give customers what they want') to convince NZ educators and education officials, expecially funders such as the Tertiary Education Commission and arbiters of qualifications such as NZQA to buy in to the virtues of SFL. Unfortunately, unlike Australia, the New Zealand government has dragged its feet over the years on developing a comprehensive national language policy upon which to build a progressive framework that will scaffold ESOL teaching advancement in this country.
Ka kite ano,
Mike
References:
Burns, A. and Knox, J. (2005) Realisation(s): Systemic-functional linguistics and the language classroom. In N. Bartels (ed), Applied linguistics and language teacher education, pp. 235-259. New York: Kluwer Academic.
Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., and.Yallop, C. (2000). Chapter 1 in Using Functional Grammar. An Explorer's Guide (2nd ed.). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL quarterly, 27, 1: 91-113.
Gerot, L. (1995). Making Sense of Text. Cammeray, NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprises
Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Cammeray, NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.
Kilburn, A. (1999). Square holes and round pegs: ELICOS and Functional Grammar. Do they fit? Interchange 35: 31-35.
That said, I can certainly see the great value in SFL for the non-native immigrant learners that I work with. With its focus on the purposes and uses of language (Gerot and Wignell, 1994) and the context-text connection (Butt, et al., 2000), especially the recognition that all communication is culture- and situation-bound (Burns and Knox, 2005), SFL offers my students a powerful approach to grammar teaching, indeed potentially the fostering of language acquisition. Indeed, from what I'm aware of anecdotally, the use of SFL coupled with genre analysis in ESOL educational contexts in Australia, indeed in education more broadly in that country, has become widespread because of its positive results.
Alas, I am dubious/sceptical that SFL could be an approach that I could comprehensively employ with my students, that is to build a syllabus around, for reasons similar to those explored by Adam Kilburn (1999). At best, I might experiment with SFL, but not without considerable difficulties, including as Kilburn suggests difficulties that "arise from my own weaknesses when it comes to grammar knowledge" (p.35), and certainly with my complete lack of knowledge about SFL. Gaining such knowledge to the point where I felt that I had command of SFL sufficient to feel comfortable using it in the classroom will take me considerable time and effort, which I am prepared to invest in comining months (years!?). So I've taken out several books on the subject from the AUT library -- two of which I highly recommend to any of you (Gerot and Wignell, 1994; Gerot, 1995). Both are eminently fathomable -- literally, SFL for dummies (like me).
Apart from this, there are issues (again, explored by Kilburn, 1999) that compound my scepticism about the efficacy of SFL as a mainstream approach in my classroom. Kilburn (1999) talks about the problem of the "institutional culture" (p.34) from the point of view of the institutional demands that teachers should provide students (expllicitly or implicitly) with what the students think they want as opposed to what they actually need. Additionally, there is the problem of student perceptions and expectations about good teaching based on learners' past experiences of methods employed by previous English language tutors over the years. The explicit traditional grammar syllabus through which they have all been programmed in over the years back in their home countries is, as Kilburn describes it, conservative and limited. Teachers, he says, are reluctant to break the mold despite abundant research (e.g. Ellis, 1993) documenting the limitations of ttraditional ,explicitly taught grammar syllabuses.
I suspect it will take, as Kilburn suggests, a considerable push on both the learners and the educational institutions by convinced teachers before SFL really takes hold within New Zealand's ESOL circles. As a teacher, I can experiement with it in a kind of middling (or is that muddling?) way, working with my learners to become more familiar with top down ways of viewing language and get them more confident in dealing with language which is culture-determined Kilburn, 1999). Then, as I become more capable myself with SFL and discover course books and instructional materials providers that employ an SFL approach, or develop materials myself over time, I might expect eventually to see syllabus shift occurring.
However, in so far as the prospect of SFL really catching hold in New Zealand in years to come is concerned, it's going to take a big push by educational institutions (who are, unfortunately, market driven; i.e. 'give customers what they want') to convince NZ educators and education officials, expecially funders such as the Tertiary Education Commission and arbiters of qualifications such as NZQA to buy in to the virtues of SFL. Unfortunately, unlike Australia, the New Zealand government has dragged its feet over the years on developing a comprehensive national language policy upon which to build a progressive framework that will scaffold ESOL teaching advancement in this country.
Ka kite ano,
Mike
References:
Burns, A. and Knox, J. (2005) Realisation(s): Systemic-functional linguistics and the language classroom. In N. Bartels (ed), Applied linguistics and language teacher education, pp. 235-259. New York: Kluwer Academic.
Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., and.Yallop, C. (2000). Chapter 1 in Using Functional Grammar. An Explorer's Guide (2nd ed.). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL quarterly, 27, 1: 91-113.
Gerot, L. (1995). Making Sense of Text. Cammeray, NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprises
Gerot, L. and Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Cammeray, NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.
Kilburn, A. (1999). Square holes and round pegs: ELICOS and Functional Grammar. Do they fit? Interchange 35: 31-35.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Chanjuan Du Week3(genre)
The teaching approach focusing on genre is another interesting point besides lexical approach. Additionally, comparing with the two approaches we've learned so far, I shall say that lexical approach is more suitable for teaching English speaking,while the genre, English writing. Bhatia.V.K(1993) made a survey about genre , most participant teachers revealed that genre is limited in teaching writing course. However, whether speaking or writing, both belong to or involve in communication. If students "are to feel encouraged and motivated, real meaning and communication must be part of classroom activity, even at low levels of linguistic ability. Nothing is more motivating than real communication." (Lewis, M. (2002) :P39)
According to Bhatia V.K(1993), the development of applied discourse analysis has gone through at least 4 levels of linguistic description, which are register analysis, grammatical-rhetorical analysis, interactional analysis and finally genre analysis, from surface to deep level. What discourse analysis needs is a modle rich in socio-cultural, institutional and organizational explanation. Genre analysis is just such a modle. What we were presented in class, like those genres concerning "good(bad) news letters and academic research papers, is really practical in socio-cultural contexts. Following creative genre teaching, students will feel at ease to accomplish what they are required.
This reminds me of two parts of my teaching scheme in China: Text-structure analysis and Writing. Students are required to write an article following the same structure. One of the most impressive patterns is the "Problem-Solution-Evaluation" pattern. The topics are in a wide range: environmental protection, traffic jam, internet, and so forth. With clear presentation and instruction of certain structure, students are usually very productive and high-efficient, but without much diversity of course. It is a kind of genre teaching.
Apparently, teaching with genre is very practical and gives students a road map to know where to go and how to go there. Therefore, nowadays many test takers just memorize so-called "universal writing modle" to prepare for the writing part of each exam, including TOEFL and IELTS. But at the same time, another interesting concerning it is that because of too many identical formats in all kinds of tests, examiners get bored and may give a low mark to a seemingly perfect "modle-follow" article. Is it really the case? I'm not sure but I really wanna know.
References:
Bhatia V.K.(1993) Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Longman Group UK Limited
Lewis M. (2002) The Lexical Approach: the state of ELT and a way forward. Australia. : Thomson Heinle
According to Bhatia V.K(1993), the development of applied discourse analysis has gone through at least 4 levels of linguistic description, which are register analysis, grammatical-rhetorical analysis, interactional analysis and finally genre analysis, from surface to deep level. What discourse analysis needs is a modle rich in socio-cultural, institutional and organizational explanation. Genre analysis is just such a modle. What we were presented in class, like those genres concerning "good(bad) news letters and academic research papers, is really practical in socio-cultural contexts. Following creative genre teaching, students will feel at ease to accomplish what they are required.
This reminds me of two parts of my teaching scheme in China: Text-structure analysis and Writing. Students are required to write an article following the same structure. One of the most impressive patterns is the "Problem-Solution-Evaluation" pattern. The topics are in a wide range: environmental protection, traffic jam, internet, and so forth. With clear presentation and instruction of certain structure, students are usually very productive and high-efficient, but without much diversity of course. It is a kind of genre teaching.
Apparently, teaching with genre is very practical and gives students a road map to know where to go and how to go there. Therefore, nowadays many test takers just memorize so-called "universal writing modle" to prepare for the writing part of each exam, including TOEFL and IELTS. But at the same time, another interesting concerning it is that because of too many identical formats in all kinds of tests, examiners get bored and may give a low mark to a seemingly perfect "modle-follow" article. Is it really the case? I'm not sure but I really wanna know.
References:
Bhatia V.K.(1993) Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Longman Group UK Limited
Lewis M. (2002) The Lexical Approach: the state of ELT and a way forward. Australia. : Thomson Heinle
Genre Analysis - How low can you go?
Kia ora colleagues,
The numerous papers I've been reading on genre analysis (GA) (and its close cousin discourse analysis) have generated many questions. Honing down the implications of GA as an Approach to language teaching and learning, I found myself thinking about how it might be applied in the ESOL class I teach (which I have described in last week's posting).
My first question centered around whether or not GA can be effective with lower level students; or perhaps put another way: to what extent it can be helpful in working at or below the intermediate ability level. I am sceptical about its efficacy for ESOL learners at these lower levels, but would like to understand it better. Assuming that my scepticism is perhaps misplaced, however, then my next question concerns whether, and to what extent, my taking a GA approach with my ESOL class of approximately intermediate level migrant ESOL students would impact on the course syllabus. Would it entail merely minor adjustments or complete rethinking/reformulation of the syllabus? Would I have to throw out all the materials I've developed or collected over the past year and a half and start anew, or could I just integrate or mesh the GA approach in some fashion with what I'm already working with?
My first question about the efficacy of using GA with lower level students is prompted by a claim by Michael McCarthy in his preface to Discourse Analyis for Language Teachers that discourse analysis (which I think is a closely related cousin of GA) is "not a method of teaching languages; it is a way of describing and understanding how language is used" (McCarthy 1991, p.2). McCarthy later amended his position, writing with Ronald Carter another book on the subject in 1994 in which they supported the idea of providing students with a metalanguage by which to analyse the language they were learning. Flowerdew (1993) also discusses a number of what he terms "metacommunication tasks" in which learners analyse and discuss a piece of discourse.
Now, working with metalanguage or metacommunication suggests to me firstly a fairly sophisticated level of cognitive abilities and secondly a reasonably fluent and accurate skill in the target language through which my students would be trying to communicate the rather complex ideas flowing from their mental ruminations. They're struggling enough to learn basic communication in the target language, let alone capture, store and retrieve some new metalanguage! And, would they even be motivated? What is more, Genre Analysis seems to me to be heavily concentrated on reading and writing communication (important, of course, but perhaps better suited to EAP/ESP?).
I don't doubt that, Discourse and Genre Analyses can indeed contribute appropriate subject matter for the advanced English learner. Additionally, and very importantly, such approaches can help them to critically examine the many, often quite distinctive cultural and
discourse-community assumptions associated with various types of communication in the target language (and in comparison with their native languages). So, I remain sceptical but open to what, in terms of real value, can such approaches offer students operating at the lower language levels.
Perhaps making GA work at these lower levels is simply a matter of scaling back the Approach and incorporating elements of it that might be useful without getting too entrenched in the metacognitive, analytical component. Paltridge (2001) examines conversation in light of the genre approach and its application in the language learning classroom, despite differing views in the literature as to whether conversation should be treated as a genre in language learning classroom at all (Swales,1990). Paltridge (2001) points out that focusing on conversation conventions such as openings and closings, internal structures, turn-taking, repair, etc. is as important as teaching grammar and vocabulary. He concludes that "focusing on them in the context of conversation as a genre provides both a context of use and a communicative setting that learners are already familiar with, even though they are not always sure of the different sets of rules for participating in their second language." (pp. 39-40)
Finally, to my second and related questions briefly... How much adjustment to the course syllabus might I need to make in order to incorporate a genre analysis approach? I think I can get by in the near term being opportunitist about applying GA in the context of my current syllabus (and assuming I can find appropriate elements of it to use in my intermediate level context). Over time, I could begin to critically examine components of the coure syllabus with an eye to aligning them more completely with genre analysis providing a substantially greater proportion of the pedagogical underpinnings, as appropriate.
Ka kite ano,
Mike
References:
Flowerdew, J. 1993. An educational, or process, approach to the teaching of professional genres. ELT Journal 47 (4): 305-16.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. (1994). Language as Discourse. Perspectives for Language Teaching. Essex: Longman Group.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cmbridge University Press.
The numerous papers I've been reading on genre analysis (GA) (and its close cousin discourse analysis) have generated many questions. Honing down the implications of GA as an Approach to language teaching and learning, I found myself thinking about how it might be applied in the ESOL class I teach (which I have described in last week's posting).
My first question centered around whether or not GA can be effective with lower level students; or perhaps put another way: to what extent it can be helpful in working at or below the intermediate ability level. I am sceptical about its efficacy for ESOL learners at these lower levels, but would like to understand it better. Assuming that my scepticism is perhaps misplaced, however, then my next question concerns whether, and to what extent, my taking a GA approach with my ESOL class of approximately intermediate level migrant ESOL students would impact on the course syllabus. Would it entail merely minor adjustments or complete rethinking/reformulation of the syllabus? Would I have to throw out all the materials I've developed or collected over the past year and a half and start anew, or could I just integrate or mesh the GA approach in some fashion with what I'm already working with?
My first question about the efficacy of using GA with lower level students is prompted by a claim by Michael McCarthy in his preface to Discourse Analyis for Language Teachers that discourse analysis (which I think is a closely related cousin of GA) is "not a method of teaching languages; it is a way of describing and understanding how language is used" (McCarthy 1991, p.2). McCarthy later amended his position, writing with Ronald Carter another book on the subject in 1994 in which they supported the idea of providing students with a metalanguage by which to analyse the language they were learning. Flowerdew (1993) also discusses a number of what he terms "metacommunication tasks" in which learners analyse and discuss a piece of discourse.
Now, working with metalanguage or metacommunication suggests to me firstly a fairly sophisticated level of cognitive abilities and secondly a reasonably fluent and accurate skill in the target language through which my students would be trying to communicate the rather complex ideas flowing from their mental ruminations. They're struggling enough to learn basic communication in the target language, let alone capture, store and retrieve some new metalanguage! And, would they even be motivated? What is more, Genre Analysis seems to me to be heavily concentrated on reading and writing communication (important, of course, but perhaps better suited to EAP/ESP?).
I don't doubt that, Discourse and Genre Analyses can indeed contribute appropriate subject matter for the advanced English learner. Additionally, and very importantly, such approaches can help them to critically examine the many, often quite distinctive cultural and
discourse-community assumptions associated with various types of communication in the target language (and in comparison with their native languages). So, I remain sceptical but open to what, in terms of real value, can such approaches offer students operating at the lower language levels.
Perhaps making GA work at these lower levels is simply a matter of scaling back the Approach and incorporating elements of it that might be useful without getting too entrenched in the metacognitive, analytical component. Paltridge (2001) examines conversation in light of the genre approach and its application in the language learning classroom, despite differing views in the literature as to whether conversation should be treated as a genre in language learning classroom at all (Swales,1990). Paltridge (2001) points out that focusing on conversation conventions such as openings and closings, internal structures, turn-taking, repair, etc. is as important as teaching grammar and vocabulary. He concludes that "focusing on them in the context of conversation as a genre provides both a context of use and a communicative setting that learners are already familiar with, even though they are not always sure of the different sets of rules for participating in their second language." (pp. 39-40)
Finally, to my second and related questions briefly... How much adjustment to the course syllabus might I need to make in order to incorporate a genre analysis approach? I think I can get by in the near term being opportunitist about applying GA in the context of my current syllabus (and assuming I can find appropriate elements of it to use in my intermediate level context). Over time, I could begin to critically examine components of the coure syllabus with an eye to aligning them more completely with genre analysis providing a substantially greater proportion of the pedagogical underpinnings, as appropriate.
Ka kite ano,
Mike
References:
Flowerdew, J. 1993. An educational, or process, approach to the teaching of professional genres. ELT Journal 47 (4): 305-16.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. (1994). Language as Discourse. Perspectives for Language Teaching. Essex: Longman Group.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cmbridge University Press.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Lexical Approach
Hello team,
Here are some of my thoughts about the Lexical Approach and language teaching.
The Lexical approach is an essential subject in English language teaching. From being a second language learner to a language teacher, I experienced how difficult for English learners to learn lexis and put them into meaningful chucks. Although I am measured as a fluent English speaker, I still struggle with multi-words chucks sometimes. I often doubt myself in chucks like ‘one on one tutoring’ or ‘one to one tutoring’, ‘How’s going?’ or ‘How are you doing?’ etc. It would be great if someone could clarify what’s different between these chucks in a same context.
In the past, the lexical approach wasn’t considered as significant subject to introduce by language teachers. Even now, some language teachers don't use lexical approach in their classroom teaching. And also they don't teach students in a natural way, I mean the way how native speakers speak. For example, they teach students to speak like 19th century, such as “How are you?” “I am fine, thank you. How are you?”, “How old are you? “I am 20 years old. How old are you?” and so on. Unfortunely, these kind of the words which make them talk like robot and they don’t understand other words which used in everyday communication by native speakers. Last year, I was teaching intermediate level students in a language school. One day in the school, I saw a student and greeted to her “how’s going?” That student smiled at me and thought a while and replied, “I am going to classroom.” Another example, I was greeting to all students before starting the class one morning, “how are you this morning?” They replied “I am fine, thank you. How are you this morning?” The examples show that when students are taught in a mechanical way, they would struggle with the words which used by native speakers, and more problem is to affect their communication skills. However, in recent study shows that the lexical approach and language teaching has been drawn enormous attention by scholars. There are many journals and books about the lexical approach demonstrated how its magnificent role in language teaching.
Yet, “In implementing the lexical approach that what we actually do in the classroom may not change very much as a result of our own change in thinking about centrality of Lexis in the language and the language learning process. But we can bring about a gradual change in learner’s perception of the language and lead them towards greater autonomy in identifying multi-words chucks in language study (Michael Lewis as cited in Baigent, 1999).
Reference:
Baigent, M. (1999). Teaching in Chunks: integrating a lexical approach. Modern English Teacher, 8(2), 51-54.
Here are some of my thoughts about the Lexical Approach and language teaching.
The Lexical approach is an essential subject in English language teaching. From being a second language learner to a language teacher, I experienced how difficult for English learners to learn lexis and put them into meaningful chucks. Although I am measured as a fluent English speaker, I still struggle with multi-words chucks sometimes. I often doubt myself in chucks like ‘one on one tutoring’ or ‘one to one tutoring’, ‘How’s going?’ or ‘How are you doing?’ etc. It would be great if someone could clarify what’s different between these chucks in a same context.
In the past, the lexical approach wasn’t considered as significant subject to introduce by language teachers. Even now, some language teachers don't use lexical approach in their classroom teaching. And also they don't teach students in a natural way, I mean the way how native speakers speak. For example, they teach students to speak like 19th century, such as “How are you?” “I am fine, thank you. How are you?”, “How old are you? “I am 20 years old. How old are you?” and so on. Unfortunely, these kind of the words which make them talk like robot and they don’t understand other words which used in everyday communication by native speakers. Last year, I was teaching intermediate level students in a language school. One day in the school, I saw a student and greeted to her “how’s going?” That student smiled at me and thought a while and replied, “I am going to classroom.” Another example, I was greeting to all students before starting the class one morning, “how are you this morning?” They replied “I am fine, thank you. How are you this morning?” The examples show that when students are taught in a mechanical way, they would struggle with the words which used by native speakers, and more problem is to affect their communication skills. However, in recent study shows that the lexical approach and language teaching has been drawn enormous attention by scholars. There are many journals and books about the lexical approach demonstrated how its magnificent role in language teaching.
Yet, “In implementing the lexical approach that what we actually do in the classroom may not change very much as a result of our own change in thinking about centrality of Lexis in the language and the language learning process. But we can bring about a gradual change in learner’s perception of the language and lead them towards greater autonomy in identifying multi-words chucks in language study (Michael Lewis as cited in Baigent, 1999).
Reference:
Baigent, M. (1999). Teaching in Chunks: integrating a lexical approach. Modern English Teacher, 8(2), 51-54.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Greetings,
It seems we've covered a lot of ground in a short space of time. I thought I'd begin by describing my teaching context and how it relates to what we've been discussing and reading about before commenting on points that I regard as significant found two of the texts from last week's readings.
I teach a CESOL (Certificate in ESOL) course for Open Wananga (Te Wananga o Aotearoa). It's designated as Level 4, which means I have students who've been studying with us now at least 3 semesters and might be described as being within the intermediate range (pre to upper). It's a full time course (20 hours a week) comprised of immigrants, mostly of 'Asian' thnicity, primarily Korean and Chinese (including Taiwanese), with relatively fewer southeast Asian, and Indian adult learners (almost all over forty). However, there are also some Eastern Europeans and Russians. Many of them have lived in New Zealand for many years (e.g. 15 years), and began their studiens of the Enlgish language in intermediate and secondary levels of schooling back in their countries of origin. Yet most often you wouldn't believe it to hear them speak.
Their motivations are varied. Many enjoy the socialising. Many of them live in ethnic ghettos and get by just fine never speaking English on a day to day basis, but their children go to NZ schools and are being 'kiwi-ised. As parents, they're eager to better understand what their kids are up to in school and their social lives. If any of my students have a job (most do not), then they are exposed to, indeed immersed in, the English language on a daily basis and they are highly motivated to improve their English language skills abilities.
The course itself is built around themes or topics and strongly content-based. The first four themes are explored over the first eight weeks: Memories, Education, Fashion, and fourthly Animals. Sounds a bit corny, perhaps, but I work hard to make it meaningful, stimulating (in terms of discussion) and thoughtful, and I take a critical approach. For example, with animals we take a deeper look at the importance of biodiversity to the survival of our planet and, indeed, humanity and so critically examine the threats that are unravelling the delicate balance of life on Earth which could even lead to our (or our civilisation's) demise. Later in the course, we explore 1) Teamwork (students work in teams to complete a project, 2) Problem Solving, 3) Conflict Resolution and finally 4) Te Ao Maori and Intercultural Communication. Bascially, the course is about using the English language to explore, critically examine and discuss ideas, drawing conclusions from what we've leaned (not about the language necessarily, but about the ideas we've explored). It goes well beyond a "task-based approach" to teaching ESOL. And the students are really challenged.
I've gotten a lot of positive feedback from students Ive taught during the past two semesters. However, that's subjective feedback. The objective feedback comes through assessment -- i.e., the students successfully complete the tasks assigned to them over the 18 weeks, producing the required outcomes and meeting the various performance criteria. However, I have observed that although the topics and what they must do to complete the associated tasks generate a lot of fluency, the students' accuracy falls well short of anything "native-like" in most cases (there are a few exceptions, of course, with a few students who have reached post-intermediate stage).
I suspect part of the problem with accuracy lies with the pedagogical approaches used back in their homeland schools (e.g. probably grammar translations and/or notional functional), along with intense fossilisation and coupled with the fact that they have generally failed to immerse themselves in the English speaking environment here (among other things).
Focus-on-form(s) (on the infrequent occasions I do it that way), error correction, feedback on errors seem to fall on deaf ears generally, and students carry on as before. My experience is that I have very little control over what my students actually learn and reproduce in their spontaneous language use. What to do?
By way of response, the readings from Lewis (2000) and Hoey (2005) have been inspirational to me. Lewis's (and others') writings on the Lexical Approach that I've read highlight the importance of and appropriate means to "acquire" the language. The learner through noticing comprehensible input should be able to produce the language in a more natural and accurate (i.e, native-like) manner. The methodology allows learners to experience language (items or natural langauge phrases) as they arise in natural contexts and to learn from their experience. This meshes well with the course syllabus I'm currently working to. My students are continually confronted by authentic materials that embody real, relevant language, which they must notice, interpret, exchange with others and use in performing the requisite tasks.
Lewis did throw me a couple of curve balls: the idea that teaching does not cause learning raised the question for me of "then what the heck am I doing in the classroom everyday?". After some reflection, I came to the conclusion that I'm not a 'teacher'; I'm a coach. The students are responsible for their learning. My job is to help my students explore the language through creating the correct environment and by providing them with high-quality, authentic input. Iprovide training so as to enable them to notice relevant aspects of that input, and compare those features with their own intra-language so that they might be able to notice the gap -- on their own (i.e. independently; not through my telling them what's wrong with what they've said or written; or explaining all over again the rules of grammar that they know full well already).
The other idea that Lewis brought through, which is one that I baulked at, was his claim that classroom interaction does not support language acquisition. "You cannot acquire a language by producing it." (Lewis 2000, p. 159). Nor, he says, does the normal practice by students of what is noticed contribute to acquisition. While this may be the case, surely acquisition is just one of various other purposes or aims that a teacher (or the student) may have in the LL classroom which interaction supports. Most students want to practice their speaking, if only as a confidence booster. Another purpose for production is that of assessment. How does a teacher (or the student for that matter) determine whether progress is being in the absence of any production?
How is a student to notice the difference between what is communicatively effective in their interlanguge and what is formally 'correct' and thereby have reason to modify their current intergrammer if they do not engage in communicative production? Indeed, in what appears to me to be a contradiction, Lewis (2000), in discussing his OHE model in which E stands for 'experiment', says that "Experiment involves using the language on the basis of the learner's current intergrammar (that is, his or her current best hypothesis), thereby stimulating new input at the appropriate level to provide examples, which confirm or contradict some part of the learner's current hypothesis. Mastery happens -- if ever -- when new input serves only to conform the learner's intergrammar" (p.178).
Finally, to a point made by Hoey (2005) in his writing about what he called "lexical priming" with respect to collocations: a point he made that caught my attention got me thinking about the fluency vs. accuracy dichotomy if referred to in the beginning of this blog (they are rather fluent, but significantly inaccurate in speaking). My hunch is that so many of my students are quite seriously fossilised to the extent that I might hypothesise that they have some quite strong, but inaccurate lexical primings of their own stored away in their mental lexicons, in the same way that native speakers have correctly stored and can retrieve their own, correct lexical phrases that are primed. As Hoey defines them, primings (of words) nest and combine and in quite certain contexts. Hoey makes the point that lexical primings may crack, and one of the causes is education. So if a word is primed for someone to collocate with a particular other word and a teacher tells the person that it is incorrectly primed (e.g. you and was) the result is a potential crack in the priming. Could this form the basis of an approach, or at least a tool, for cracking wrong primings in my learners in order to crack open the fossilised forms and replace them with correct forms?
I think this may tend to support and idea for some action research I want to put into effect in my classroom at some point his semester (apart from fuller intergration of the Lexical Approach into my class work). I plan to make audio recordings of my students' discussions about the news, which we do everyday at the beginning of class for about 15 minutes -- talk about a news item they saw, heard or read about in the news media the night before. These records would provide a compendium of error types which I would then categorise, backed up by authentic interlanguage examples. I could then use selected examples in class as part of a lesson in which students are exposed to (listen to) the audio recorded errors and then engage in a whole class discussion (under my coaching) to search for lexical chunks/phrases that a native speaker might use instead to say the same thing. That's an action research plan that's in the development stage at the moment.
Ka kite ano, Mike
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: a new theory of words and language. London: Routledge
Lewis, M. (2000). In Lewis, M. (ed.), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications
It seems we've covered a lot of ground in a short space of time. I thought I'd begin by describing my teaching context and how it relates to what we've been discussing and reading about before commenting on points that I regard as significant found two of the texts from last week's readings.
I teach a CESOL (Certificate in ESOL) course for Open Wananga (Te Wananga o Aotearoa). It's designated as Level 4, which means I have students who've been studying with us now at least 3 semesters and might be described as being within the intermediate range (pre to upper). It's a full time course (20 hours a week) comprised of immigrants, mostly of 'Asian' thnicity, primarily Korean and Chinese (including Taiwanese), with relatively fewer southeast Asian, and Indian adult learners (almost all over forty). However, there are also some Eastern Europeans and Russians. Many of them have lived in New Zealand for many years (e.g. 15 years), and began their studiens of the Enlgish language in intermediate and secondary levels of schooling back in their countries of origin. Yet most often you wouldn't believe it to hear them speak.
Their motivations are varied. Many enjoy the socialising. Many of them live in ethnic ghettos and get by just fine never speaking English on a day to day basis, but their children go to NZ schools and are being 'kiwi-ised. As parents, they're eager to better understand what their kids are up to in school and their social lives. If any of my students have a job (most do not), then they are exposed to, indeed immersed in, the English language on a daily basis and they are highly motivated to improve their English language skills abilities.
The course itself is built around themes or topics and strongly content-based. The first four themes are explored over the first eight weeks: Memories, Education, Fashion, and fourthly Animals. Sounds a bit corny, perhaps, but I work hard to make it meaningful, stimulating (in terms of discussion) and thoughtful, and I take a critical approach. For example, with animals we take a deeper look at the importance of biodiversity to the survival of our planet and, indeed, humanity and so critically examine the threats that are unravelling the delicate balance of life on Earth which could even lead to our (or our civilisation's) demise. Later in the course, we explore 1) Teamwork (students work in teams to complete a project, 2) Problem Solving, 3) Conflict Resolution and finally 4) Te Ao Maori and Intercultural Communication. Bascially, the course is about using the English language to explore, critically examine and discuss ideas, drawing conclusions from what we've leaned (not about the language necessarily, but about the ideas we've explored). It goes well beyond a "task-based approach" to teaching ESOL. And the students are really challenged.
I've gotten a lot of positive feedback from students Ive taught during the past two semesters. However, that's subjective feedback. The objective feedback comes through assessment -- i.e., the students successfully complete the tasks assigned to them over the 18 weeks, producing the required outcomes and meeting the various performance criteria. However, I have observed that although the topics and what they must do to complete the associated tasks generate a lot of fluency, the students' accuracy falls well short of anything "native-like" in most cases (there are a few exceptions, of course, with a few students who have reached post-intermediate stage).
I suspect part of the problem with accuracy lies with the pedagogical approaches used back in their homeland schools (e.g. probably grammar translations and/or notional functional), along with intense fossilisation and coupled with the fact that they have generally failed to immerse themselves in the English speaking environment here (among other things).
Focus-on-form(s) (on the infrequent occasions I do it that way), error correction, feedback on errors seem to fall on deaf ears generally, and students carry on as before. My experience is that I have very little control over what my students actually learn and reproduce in their spontaneous language use. What to do?
By way of response, the readings from Lewis (2000) and Hoey (2005) have been inspirational to me. Lewis's (and others') writings on the Lexical Approach that I've read highlight the importance of and appropriate means to "acquire" the language. The learner through noticing comprehensible input should be able to produce the language in a more natural and accurate (i.e, native-like) manner. The methodology allows learners to experience language (items or natural langauge phrases) as they arise in natural contexts and to learn from their experience. This meshes well with the course syllabus I'm currently working to. My students are continually confronted by authentic materials that embody real, relevant language, which they must notice, interpret, exchange with others and use in performing the requisite tasks.
Lewis did throw me a couple of curve balls: the idea that teaching does not cause learning raised the question for me of "then what the heck am I doing in the classroom everyday?". After some reflection, I came to the conclusion that I'm not a 'teacher'; I'm a coach. The students are responsible for their learning. My job is to help my students explore the language through creating the correct environment and by providing them with high-quality, authentic input. Iprovide training so as to enable them to notice relevant aspects of that input, and compare those features with their own intra-language so that they might be able to notice the gap -- on their own (i.e. independently; not through my telling them what's wrong with what they've said or written; or explaining all over again the rules of grammar that they know full well already).
The other idea that Lewis brought through, which is one that I baulked at, was his claim that classroom interaction does not support language acquisition. "You cannot acquire a language by producing it." (Lewis 2000, p. 159). Nor, he says, does the normal practice by students of what is noticed contribute to acquisition. While this may be the case, surely acquisition is just one of various other purposes or aims that a teacher (or the student) may have in the LL classroom which interaction supports. Most students want to practice their speaking, if only as a confidence booster. Another purpose for production is that of assessment. How does a teacher (or the student for that matter) determine whether progress is being in the absence of any production?
How is a student to notice the difference between what is communicatively effective in their interlanguge and what is formally 'correct' and thereby have reason to modify their current intergrammer if they do not engage in communicative production? Indeed, in what appears to me to be a contradiction, Lewis (2000), in discussing his OHE model in which E stands for 'experiment', says that "Experiment involves using the language on the basis of the learner's current intergrammar (that is, his or her current best hypothesis), thereby stimulating new input at the appropriate level to provide examples, which confirm or contradict some part of the learner's current hypothesis. Mastery happens -- if ever -- when new input serves only to conform the learner's intergrammar" (p.178).
Finally, to a point made by Hoey (2005) in his writing about what he called "lexical priming" with respect to collocations: a point he made that caught my attention got me thinking about the fluency vs. accuracy dichotomy if referred to in the beginning of this blog (they are rather fluent, but significantly inaccurate in speaking). My hunch is that so many of my students are quite seriously fossilised to the extent that I might hypothesise that they have some quite strong, but inaccurate lexical primings of their own stored away in their mental lexicons, in the same way that native speakers have correctly stored and can retrieve their own, correct lexical phrases that are primed. As Hoey defines them, primings (of words) nest and combine and in quite certain contexts. Hoey makes the point that lexical primings may crack, and one of the causes is education. So if a word is primed for someone to collocate with a particular other word and a teacher tells the person that it is incorrectly primed (e.g. you and was) the result is a potential crack in the priming. Could this form the basis of an approach, or at least a tool, for cracking wrong primings in my learners in order to crack open the fossilised forms and replace them with correct forms?
I think this may tend to support and idea for some action research I want to put into effect in my classroom at some point his semester (apart from fuller intergration of the Lexical Approach into my class work). I plan to make audio recordings of my students' discussions about the news, which we do everyday at the beginning of class for about 15 minutes -- talk about a news item they saw, heard or read about in the news media the night before. These records would provide a compendium of error types which I would then categorise, backed up by authentic interlanguage examples. I could then use selected examples in class as part of a lesson in which students are exposed to (listen to) the audio recorded errors and then engage in a whole class discussion (under my coaching) to search for lexical chunks/phrases that a native speaker might use instead to say the same thing. That's an action research plan that's in the development stage at the moment.
Ka kite ano, Mike
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: a new theory of words and language. London: Routledge
Lewis, M. (2000). In Lewis, M. (ed.), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications
Friday, March 12, 2010
Chanjuan Du Week2
Being born at the very end of 1970's in a rural area of China, I feel lucky as well as unexpected to have access to higher education and then be an English teacher myself.
Traditional English"grammar-translation" method prevailed in China in 1990's (and still now as well), especially in rural areas, with few resources concerning real English communication. The process was usually: vocabulary-sentences-text-grammar-exercises, which sounds pretty boring. But believe it or not, via the traditional way, I got a systematic picture of English grammar rules and I can apply them to using.
Lightbown, P.,& Spada, N.(1999) state that "most of us teach as we were taught or in a way that reflects our ideas and preference about learning". Looking back on my own learning and teaching experiences, I suppose it is the case, to some extent at least. After being exposed to the lexical approach, I start to retrospect what I did to my students. I may be constrained too much by coursebooks and national standard syllabus.
However, according to Lewis, M.,(2002), "one can change syllabus without changing method, or change method without changing syllabus". Meanwhile, I still think that traditional grammar-based method has its own advantage in teaching in a systematic way. Therefore, effectively combining the two may be a right orientation.
References:
Lewis, M. (2002) The Lexical Approach: the State of ELT and a WAY Forward, Australia. : Thomson Heinle
Lightbown, P.,& Spada, N.(1999) How Languages are learned, Oxford : Oxford University Press
Traditional English"grammar-translation" method prevailed in China in 1990's (and still now as well), especially in rural areas, with few resources concerning real English communication. The process was usually: vocabulary-sentences-text-grammar-exercises, which sounds pretty boring. But believe it or not, via the traditional way, I got a systematic picture of English grammar rules and I can apply them to using.
Lightbown, P.,& Spada, N.(1999) state that "most of us teach as we were taught or in a way that reflects our ideas and preference about learning". Looking back on my own learning and teaching experiences, I suppose it is the case, to some extent at least. After being exposed to the lexical approach, I start to retrospect what I did to my students. I may be constrained too much by coursebooks and national standard syllabus.
However, according to Lewis, M.,(2002), "one can change syllabus without changing method, or change method without changing syllabus". Meanwhile, I still think that traditional grammar-based method has its own advantage in teaching in a systematic way. Therefore, effectively combining the two may be a right orientation.
References:
Lewis, M. (2002) The Lexical Approach: the State of ELT and a WAY Forward, Australia. : Thomson Heinle
Lightbown, P.,& Spada, N.(1999) How Languages are learned, Oxford : Oxford University Press
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Focus Group 1
This is where you'll begin blogging about the contemporary and alternative language teaching issues that are introduced in the Focus lectures.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)