|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stella T. Clark
Jane E. Berne
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Introduction In recent times, two communicatively-oriented approaches to classroom language teaching have emerged: proficiency-oriented instruction and acquisition-based instruction. As one example of this divergent trend, a mid western university French department follows a proficiency-oriented approach while the Spanish program is acquisition-based. Both departments claim to be engaged in communicative language teaching according to Savignon's definition of allowing learners «to express, interpret, and negotiate meaning»80 (1983: 8). As can be seen from the outline presented in Appendix 1, both language programs also share surface similarities in textbook choice, amount of material covered as well as a concern for uniformity across sections. It will be argued that despite surface similarities and a common goal of developing communicative language ability, there are large methodological differences. The purpose of the present study is to observe and assess the teaching practices used by both departments in order to find out just how different proficiency oriented and acquisition-oriented classes are. The basis for comparison is Richards and Rodgers tri-partite analysis of methodology as outlined in Richards & Rodgers, 1986 (28). Background
In this analysis, approach is defined as «theories about the nature of language and language learning that serve as the source of practices and principles in language teaching» (Richards and Rodgers, 1986: 16). Design refers to the instructional system and how it is developed and organized, i.e., the objectives of the method, the syllabus model, types of learning tasks and teaching activities, along with the roles of the learners, the instructors, and the instructional materials (20). The third element, procedure, encompasses «the moment-to-moment techniques, practices, and behaviors that operate in teaching a language according to a particular method» (26). The Study
The present study was carried out by means of a series of 16 classroom observations in which the researcher took field notes on classroom activities. Of the sixteen classes observed, eight were French classes and eight were Spanish classes. For each language, the classes that were observed were equally divided between first year classes and second year classes. Notes included a description of the activities used by the
instructor, the type or types of interaction(s) involved, and the language of
the interaction. In addition, brief descriptive comments were made about the
general classroom environment, especially the configuration of the classroom,
the level of rapport between class members, and the type of rapport between
learners and instructor. A second part of the study involved examining
materials used by instructors in both departments (i.e., hand-outs,
dictations, quizzes, tests and textbooks). The final component of
Procedure
The first part of the discussion will focus on the procedural element of the Richards and Rodgers model by describing and comparing classroom activities used by the various instructors involved in the study. Procedure is the most basic element of the model and also the easiest to describe and compare since classroom activities used by an instructor represent real, observable behaviors. First, with regard to the French classes, the classroom activities observed varied according to the instructor. The activities can be divided into two basic types: those meant for explicit grammar explanation, drill, or review and those meant to encourage the application in «communicative contexts» of structures and vocabulary that had been taught. The different types of activities that were observed are outlined in Appendix 2. The majority of the activities were of the grammar type at both levels. Even the one reading activity that was observed was intended to point out the contrast between the passé compose and the imparfait. Across levels, instructors used the target language for an average of 25-30 minutes of the class period, but overall, use of the target language appeared to be an individual phenomenon. The activities were usually initiated by the instructor who would interrupt the learners to correct pronunciation or point out a grammatical structure. In terms of the homework assignments, learners were assigned exercises from the textbook which were occasionally handed in, but mainly reviewed in class. The learners were also required to turn in a composition in French once every ten days. The composition topics for each level were assigned by the department as a whole in order to foster uniformity across sections. Following recommendations outlined in Omaggio, 1986, instructors corrected the compositions carefully, marking errors in spelling, concordance, tense, and aspect. The learners then had an opportunity to re-write the composition with the corrections. Whereas for French it was possible to categorize activities as either explanatory or applicational, it was not possible to do so for Spanish because all activities observed were applicational in nature. However, the activities can be divided into activities for directed communication and activities to foster spontaneous communication. A brief outline of the activities observed appears in Appendix 3. The activities observed varied according to the instructor, but were alike in that each instructor used the target language during the entire class period, a policy which is departmentally mandated. Both directed and spontaneous activities were generally instructor-initiated, and were intended to provide comprehensible input and/or some degree of interaction. No instances of overt error correction were observed. The one reading activity that was observed was not intended to focus on grammatical structure. The point of the reading was to help the learners practice reading skills in Spanish. The instructor prepared the learners for the reading by having them focus on the structure of the text and guess the meaning of unknown words by using the context. In addition, the instructor had the students relate the topic of the reading to their own experience in an effort to increase their comprehension of the material. In terms of homework assignments, all learners were expected to complete assigned exercises from the textbook or workbook and to turn in these assignments once a week. These assignments represented the only systematic exposure to grammar explanation and drill that learners in the Spanish program received. The learners were expected to go through and correct their own homework while the instructors' role was to look over and record the assignments when they were handed in. In addition, every week the learners in the Spanish program were required to turn in two entries from a dialogue journal in which they wrote in Spanish about their thoughts, opinions, and feelings as well as about things that they had done or were going to do. The topics of the journal entries were never assigned and the instructors did not correct journal entries, but rather made comments and asked questions about what the learners had written (see Semke, 1984).
Design
The second part of this discussion will focus on the design element of the Richards and Rodgers model. As stated earlier, design refers to the instructional system and how it is developed and organized and includes notions such as objectives and syllabus models as well as the role of the instructors, learners and materials. In terms of its design, French adheres quite closely to the Teaching for Proficiency method as outlined in Omaggio, 1986. For most of the instructors, this method consisted of using modified grammar-translation techniques in combination with a variable number of interactive activities intended to foster a degree of communication. Omaggio posits a series of five hypotheses for organizing instruction according to the Teaching for Proficiency method along with four corollaries to the first hypothesis (Omaggio, 1986: 35-36). These hypotheses and corollaries represent the objectives of the method. As was indicated in Appendix 1, French followed a traditional structural syllabus in the presentation of grammatical material while the vocabulary was organized thematically by chapter. With regard to determining the types of activities to be employed by the French instructors, the most important factor appeared to be a concern for linguistic accuracy as expressed in Omaggio's third hypothesis. As was stated earlier, the majority of the activities involved explicit, deductive grammar explanation in English and/or drills. Generally, there was very little time allotted for communicative interaction and creative language practice as described in corollaries 2 and 3. In addition, errors were overtly corrected in both oral and written activities. The role of the French instructors was mainly that of explaining grammatical structures and encouraging accuracy by correcting learner errors. In most cases, the learners were passive recipients of information given by the instructor. Their participation beyond answering questions from the instructor, drills, and reading dialogues was generally limited. There was some learner to learner interaction, but it mainly consisted of scripted interviews or conversations in which the instructor did not participate except to offer explanations or answer questions. Finally, with respect to the role of the materials, all of the French classes observed were book bound to the extent that the material to be covered was determined by the text book. However, use of the textbook in class varied according to the instructor. Most of the instructors would have the learners refer to the textbook during explicit grammar instruction and during the presentation of dialogues. The differences appeared in the use of the textbook during drills and interactive activities. Some instructors used drills and interactive activities taken directly from the textbook while others prepared their own drill and interactive activities based on material presented in the textbook. Spanish adheres to a design based on two methods. The principal method used was the Natural Approach as outlined in Krashen and Terrell, 1983. Many of the instructors combined the Natural Approach with humanistic activities such as those described in Moskowitz, 1978. According to Krashen and Terrell, the principal objective of the Natural Approach is «to develop personal communication skills -both oral and written» (67). In order to facilitate this development, Krashen and Terrell list several principles and corollaries which govern the Natural Approach (20-21). These principles and corollaries represent further objectives of the method. Regarding syllabus model, Spanish, like French, followed a traditional structural syllabus in the presentation of grammatical material and the vocabulary was organized thematically by chapter. This represented a departure from Krashen and Terrell's third principle. However, in terms of determining the type of activities to be employed by the Spanish instructors, the other principles and corollaries were strictly followed. First, following the first two principles and their corollaries, expectations regarding the amount of oral production by the learners did vary according to the level of acquisition. The activities were consonant with the expectations and therefore varied from early-stage activities in which the learners could respond non-verbally or with simple answers to later-stage activities in which the learners engaged in lively discussions in Spanish. Learners were encouraged but not forced to participate. In addition, errors were not corrected overtly. Second, according to the fourth principle, the affective filter was
also an important factor in determining the type of activities employed
Unlike the French instructors whose role was to explain grammar and correct learner errors, the Spanish instructors' principal role was to provide the comprehensible input necessary for acquisition. As part of their role of providing comprehensible input, the Spanish instructors often participated in the activities along with the learners and did not simply stand by and direct the activities. The learners' role was to process the input and then use what they were able to process from the input. Therefore, learners were encouraged to participate actively and express them selves, not simply to receive information passively. Finally, regarding the role of the materials, the Spanish program was book bound in that the grammatical material to be studied followed the material presented in the textbook. However, the instructors rarely used the textbook in class; instead, the textbook served as a reference book for the learners. With the exception of reading texts, the majority of the activities used by the Spanish instructors were prepared by the individual instructors themselves. Approach
The final part of the discussion will focus on the approach element of the Richards and Rodgers model which concerns itself with theories of the nature of language and language learning. As followed by the French instructors, Teaching for Proficiency represents a combination of two opposing theories of language learning: behaviorist theory and cognitive code-learning theory. Behaviorist theory was the basis for the audiolingual approach to language learning and concerned itself with the notion of habit formation. In many respects, the emphasis placed upon accuracy and error correction observed in the French classes was a reflection of this notion. Learners were corrected in order to keep them from developing bad habits -this was particularly true in the area of pronunciation. All of the French instructors were careful to model correct pronunciation and to correct pronunciation in the learners' speech. Cognitive code-learning theory was developed as a reaction to the behaviorist theory of audiolingualism. Carroll argued that according to cognitive code-learning theory, language learning represented «a process of acquiring conscious control of the phonological, grammatical, and lexical patterns of a language largely through study and analysis of these patterns» (1965: 278). The learners' understanding of the structures of the target language was more important than their facility in using those structures. Facility was assumed to develop automatically with the use of the language in meaningful situations (Carroll, 1965: 278). This theory of language learning was very evident in the use of explicit, deductive grammar explanations by the French instructors. The instructors were careful to make sure that the learners had reasonable control over the grammatical structures and vocabulary before attempting to use them in context. Another defining feature of proficiency oriented instruction is that language development is viewed as a progression through levels of ability with each level subsuming the previous levels in an «all before and more» fashion rather than in a strict linear fashion. In order to be judged proficient at a particular level, the learner must be able to sustain performance of the functions and content associated with that level of proficiency with the appropriate degree of accuracy even though he or she may sporadically perform at a higher level. The contexts and functions become «more complex» as the learners move up the scale and the expectations for accuracy become higher. Language learning is therefore viewed as a progression from simple tasks where not much accuracy is demanded to complex tasks where a high degree of accuracy is demanded. However, the learners' progression through the various stages is not linear because as Omaggio claims, as one goes up the scale, progressively more language skill is needed to attain the next level (1986: 12). The basis of the Natural Approach method is the theory of Second
Language Acquisition developed by Krashen. Krashen's theory of Second Language
acquisition consists of five hypotheses: the Acquisition/Learning Distinction; the Natural Order Hypothesis; the Monitor
With regard to the first hypothesis, Krashen defines learning as conscious knowledge of a language whereas acquisition is defined as a subconscious process by which learners pick up a language (1982: 10). Krashen's Natural Order Hypothesis posits that the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predictable order (1982: 12). The Monitor Hypothesis posits that acquisition initiates our utterances in a second language and is responsible for our fluency while learning serves only to monitor or edit utterances during or after production (1982: 15). According to Krashen's Input Hypothesis, one acquires a language by understanding input that is a little beyond our current level of acquired competence (Krashen & Terrell, 1983: 32). In other words, as Savignon states, «vocabulary and structures will come from experiences in interpreting meaning in both spoken and written discourse» (1983: 31, emphasis original). Therefore, unlike a proficiency-based approach in which learners progress from structure to meaning, learners in an acquisition-based approach progress from meaning to structure. Finally, with his concept of the Affective Filter, Krashen posits that affective variables act to impede or facilitate the delivery of input to the language acquisition device (Krashen, 1982: 32). The primary goal of the Spanish instructors was to facilitate the learners' acquisition of Spanish. Consequently, the Spanish instructors were particularly concerned with the last two hypotheses. As has been mentioned previously, the main function of the Spanish instructors was to provide the comprehensible input deemed necessary for acquisition. Additionally, they employed various strategies and activities in an effort to maintain a low affective filter environment in the classroom. Conclusion
In conclusion, the purpose of the present study was not to evaluate the effectiveness of one method with regard to the other, but rather to present a descriptive comparison of the two methods in an effort to provide back ground information which could serve as the foundation for future research. As a result, the design and procedures used in the present study do not permit one to draw any empirically-based conclusions about the effectiveness of one method with regard to the other. Nevertheless, it is possible to conclude that none of the differences observed in the teaching practices followed by French and Spanish instructors was due to the textbooks used in the two departments nor to differences in the basic structure of the courses. Instead, these differences reflect the different methods to which the departments subscribe. Further more, while both methods purport to have a similar if not the same goal for instruction, namely, the development of communicative language ability, this goal is spelled out quite differently at the level of approach which results in radically different designs and procedures. Due to the descriptive nature of the present study, many questions remain unanswered. However, it is hoped that these questions serve as the catalyst for future empirical research81. Clearly, the field of methods comparison research remains an important and fertile area for second language researchers to address. Works Cited Carroll, J. 1965. «The Contributions of Psychological Theory and Educational Research to the Teaching of Foreign Languages.» Modern Language Journal 49: 273-81. Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. D. & T. D. Terrell. 1983.The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Hayward, CA: Allemany Press. Moskowitz, G. 1978. Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language Classroom. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Omaggio, A. C. 1986. Teaching Language in Context: Proficiency-Oriented Instruction. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Richards, J. C. and T. S. Rodgers. 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: A Description and Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Savignon, S. J. 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Semke, H. D. 1984. «Effects of the Red Pen.» Foreign Language Annals 17: 195-202. Appendix 1
Similarities in Spanish and French Classes
Appendix 2
Activities Observed in French Classes A. Activities to introduce or practice grammatical structures 1) Book exercises as class activity a. substitution chain drill 2) Correction of homework assignments in class 3) Other drills a. verb conjugation drills b. substitution drills 4) Dictées 5) Dialogues a. read orally by class b. comprehension questions in French c. follow-up cultural discussion (usually in English) 6) Reading a. learners followed along as instructor read b. group work to answer questions in French on specific items from reading B. Activities to apply grammar in a context 1) Interviews with prepared questions 2) Robot activity in which two learners in a group gave commands to a third learner who acted out their commands like a robot 3) Advice activity in which students imagined that they were doctors who were giving advice to a woman who was trying to lose weight 4) Creation/Presentation of dialogues based on dialogue read in class 5) Discussion of reading and dialogues (usually carried out in English) 6) Murder mystery activity (facts and clues given in French, but possible solutions discussed in English)
Appendix 3
Activities Observed in Spanish Classes A. Activities for directed communication 1) «Firma aquí, por favor» activity in which learners and instructor circulated with a sheet of prepared questions or statements in order to get information about class members 2) Subjunctive/Indicative activity in which learners reacted to a series of controversial statements by preceding each statement with the expression which best described their beliefs/feelings about the statements 3) Vocabulary review activities a. Games (Bingo, Twenty Questions) b. Activities with pictures and other visuals c. Total Physical Response d. Listening comprehension quizzes B. Activities to foster spontaneous communication 1) Creation/Presentation of stories and dialogues loosely based on material that was being studied 2) Class discussions on a variety of topics (mostly carried out in Spanish with some use of English by learners) a. incident which occurred on campus during power failure b. holiday customs in Latin countries and U.S.A. c. favorite relatives 3) Reading a. guessing meaning of some words and identifying major divisions in text b. activity to awaken learner interest in reading by relating the topic to their own experience c. learners read small portion of text silently d. learners acted out activity described in reading e. group work to answer questions about reading. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
