Language pedagogy
Language pedagogy is the discipline concerned with the theories and techniques of teaching language. It has been described as a type of teaching wherein the teacher draws from their own prior knowledge and actual experience in teaching language. The approach is distinguished from research-based methodologies.
There are several methods in language pedagogy but they can be classified into three: structural, functional, and interactive. Each of these encompasses a number of methods that can be utilised in order to teach and learn languages.
Development
The development of language pedagogy came in three stages. In the late 1800s and most of the 1900s, it was usually conceived in terms of method. In 1963, the University of Michigan Linguistics Professor Edward Mason Anthony Jr. formulated a framework to describe them into three levels: approach, method, and technique. It has been expanded by Richards and Rodgers in 1982 to approach, design, and procedure.Methodology
In the late 1800s and most of the 1900s, language teaching was usually conceived in terms of method. In seeking to improve teaching practices, teachers and researchers would typically try to find out which method was the most effective. However, method is an ambiguous concept in language teaching and has been used in many different ways. According to Bell, this variety in use "offers a challenge for anyone wishing to enter into the analysis or deconstruction of methods".The methods of teaching language may be characterized into three principal views:
- The structural view treats language as a system of structurally related elements to code meaning.
- The functional view sees language as a vehicle to express or accomplish certain functions,.
- The interactive view sees language as a vehicle for the creation and maintenance of social relations, focusing on patterns of moves, acts, negotiation and interaction found in conversational exchanges. This view has been fairly dominant since the 1980s.
''Approach,'' ''method'' and ''technique''
In 1963, the University of Michigan Linguistics Professor Edward Mason Anthony Jr. formulated a framework to describe various language teaching methods, which consisted of three levels: approach, method, and technique. According to Anthony, "The arrangement is hierarchical. The organizational key is that techniques carry out a method which is consistent with an approach." His concept of approach was of a set of principles or ideas about the nature of language learning which would be consistent over time; "an approach is axiomatic". His method was more procedural; "an overall plan for the orderly presentation of language material, no part of which contradicts, and all of which is based upon, the selected approach." Finally, his concept of technique referred to the actual implementation in the language classroom; "a particular trick, stratagem, or contrivance used to accomplish an immediate objective." He saw techniques as being consistent with a given method and by extension, with a given approach.A method is a plan for presenting the language material to be learned and should be based upon a selected approach. In order for an approach to be translated into a method, an instructional system must be designed considering the objectives of the teaching/learning, how the content is to be selected and organized, the types of tasks to be performed, the roles of students, and the roles of teachers. A technique is a very specific, concrete stratagem or trick designed to accomplish an immediate objective. Such are derived from the controlling method, and less directly, with the approach.
Anthony's framework was welcomed by the language teaching community when it was introduced, and it was seen as a useful way of classifying different teaching practices. However, it did not clearly define the difference between approach, method, and technique, and Kumaravadivelu reports that due to this ambiguity there was "widespread dissatisfaction" with it. Anthony himself recognized the limitations of his framework, and was open to the idea of improvements being made to it.
''Approach,'' ''design'' and ''procedure''
Richards and Rodgers' 1982 approach expanded on Anthony's three-level framework; however, instead of approach, method, and technique, they chose the terms approach, design, and procedure. Their concept of approach was similar to Anthony's, but their design and procedure were of broader scope than Anthony's method and technique. Their design referred to all major practical implications in the classroom, such as syllabus design, types of activities to be used in the classroom, and student and teacher roles; procedure referred to different behaviors, practices, and techniques observed in the classroom. These new terms were intended to address limitations in Anthony's framework, and also gave them specific criteria by which they could evaluate different "methods". This evaluation process was a key way that their formulation differed from Anthony's, as Anthony's framework was intended as purely descriptive.Despite Richards and Rodgers' efforts to clearly define approach, design, and procedure, their framework has been criticized by Kumaravadivelu for having "an element of artificiality in its conception and an element of subjectivity in its operation". Kumaravadivelu also points to similar objections raised by Pennyworth and by the Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. Brown also questions the suitability of Richards and Rodgers' term design; he points out that in English teaching design is usually used to refer specifically to curriculum design, rather than the broad definition Richards and Rodgers used. Most current teacher training manuals favor the terms approach, method, and technique.
Structural methods
The structural approach treats language as "a system of structurally related elements for the coding of meaning" and emphasizes competencies in phonological units, grammatical and lexical items. It examines language products such as sounds, morphemes, words, sentences, and vocabulary, among others.Grammar–translation method
The grammar translation method instructs students in grammar, and provides vocabulary with direct translations to memorize. It was the predominant method in Europe from the 1840s to the 1940s. Most instructors now acknowledge that this method is ineffective by itself. It is now most commonly used in the traditional instruction of the classical languages, however it remains the most commonly practiced method of English teaching in Japan.At school, the teaching of grammar consists of a process of training in the rules of a language which must make it possible for all the students to correctly express their opinion, to understand the remarks which are addressed to them and to analyze the texts which they read.
The objective is that by the time they leave college, the pupil controls the tools of the language which are the vocabulary, grammar and the orthography, to be able to read, understand and write texts in various contexts. The teaching of grammar examines texts, and develops awareness that language constitutes a system which can be analyzed.
This knowledge is acquired gradually, by traversing the facts of language and the syntactic mechanisms, going from simplest to the most complex. The exercises according to the program of the course must untiringly be practiced to allow the assimilation of the rules stated in the course. That supposes that the teacher corrects the exercises. The pupil can follow his progress in practicing the language by comparing his results. Thus can he adapt the grammatical rules and control little by little the internal logic of the syntactic system. The grammatical analysis of sentences constitutes the objective of the teaching of grammar at the school. Its practice makes it possible to recognize a text as a coherent whole and conditions the training of a foreign language. Grammatical terminology serves this objective. Grammar makes it possible for each pupil to understand how his mother tongue functions, in order to give him the capacity to communicate his thought.
Audio-lingual method
The audio-lingual method – also known as Aural-Oral Method – was developed in the United States around World War II. The government realized that they needed more people who could conduct conversations fluently in a variety of languages, work as interpreters, code-room assistants, and translators. However, since foreign language instruction in that country was heavily focused on reading instruction, no textbooks, other materials or courses existed at the time, so new methods and materials had to be devised. Soldiers needed to converse with people in lands they were stationed so they had to learn new languages quickly. The U.S. Army Specialized Training Program created intensive programs based on the techniques Leonard Bloomfield and other linguists devised for Native American languages, where students interacted intensively with native speakers and a linguist in guided conversations designed to decode its basic grammar and learn the vocabulary. This "informant method" had great success with its small class sizes and motivated learners.The U.S. Army Specialized Training Program only lasted a few years, but it gained a lot of attention from the popular press and the academic community. Charles C. Fries set up the first English Language Institute at the University of Michigan, to train English as a second language for foreign language teachers. Similar programs were created later at Georgetown University, University of Texas among others based on the methods and techniques used by the military. The developing method had much in common with the British oral approach although the two developed independently. The main difference was the developing audio-lingual methods allegiance to structural linguistics, focusing on grammar and contrastive analysis to find differences between the student's native language and the target language in order to prepare specific materials to address potential problems. These materials strongly emphasized drill as a way to avoid or eliminate these problems.
This first version of the method was originally called the oral method, the aural-oral method or the structural approach. The audio-lingual method truly began to take shape near the end of the 1950s, this time due government pressure resulting from the space race. Courses and techniques were redesigned to add insights from behaviorist psychology to the structural linguistics and constructive analysis already being used. Under this method, students listen to or view recordings of language models acting in situations. Students practice with a variety of drills, and the instructor emphasizes the use of the target language at all times. The idea is that by reinforcing 'correct' behaviors, students will make them into habits.
The typical structure of a chapter employing the Audio-Lingual-Method was usually standardized as follows: 1. First item was a dialog in the foreign language to be memorized by the student. The teacher would go over it the day before. 2. There were then questions in the FL about the dialog to be answered by the student in the target language. 3. Often a brief introduction to the grammar of the chapter was next, including the verb and conjugations. 4. The mainstay of the chapter was "pattern practice," which were drills expecting "automatic" responses from the student as a noun, verb conjugation, or agreeing adjective was to be inserted in the blank in the text. The teacher could have the student use the book or not use it, relative to how homework was assigned. Depending on time, the class could respond as a chorus, or the teacher could pick individuals to respond. Julian Dakin, in 'The Language Laboratory and Language Learning', coined the phrase 'meaningless drills' to describe this kind of pattern practice, which others have also described as "mimicry-memorization." 5. There was a vocabulary list, sometimes with translations to the mother tongue. 6. The chapter usually ended with a short reading exercise.
Due to weaknesses in performance, and more importantly because of Noam Chomsky's theoretical attack on language learning as a set of habits, audio-lingual methods are rarely the primary method of instruction today. However, elements of the method still survive in many textbooks.