Teach English in Junchu Zhen - Zhuzhou Shi

This essay examines two methodologies that are used in the teaching of language. Each methodology has identifiable strengths and weaknesses and will be critiqued and positioned in regard to their practical significance within a classroom context. Firstly, I will discuss the attributes associated with the Grammar-translation method and it’s traditional, deductive teaching strategies, with a strong focus on reading and writing skills. Further, we will observe the Communicate approach, which draws upon constructivist theories and suggests that language is acquired best through social immersion, with meaningful communication being its core purpose. Accompanying each methodology, I will provide a description of in-class strategies that are commonly linked to their purpose. Finally, I will provide my own critical perspective and discuss how they will inform and influence my future pedagogical practices. The Grammar-Translation method was developed in the 18th century in Germany to advance language acquisition through analysing and comparing a native language with a target language (Duff, 1996). It was created to develop accuracy in reading, devise more efficient grammar teaching methods and allow the ease of language ‘translation’ (Durrani, 2016). Alan Duff (1996) suggests that translation is a natural and essential process for communication in a world full of natural languages. A strong ability to translate helps to shape our overall understanding of foreign language. Grammar-translation is valuable as it allows the learner to understand the finer details of each language and contrast these differences to their native tongue. It is then that the learner can establish learning strategies based on similarities of each language and formulate their own interlanguage. It may also help the learner to identify errors and produce appropriate corrections when they are encountered (Xia, 2014). The Grammar-Translation method includes activities that are based around the analysis of written language. A teacher will often deconstruct and explicitly teach each grammatical feature of a language. This is done in a systematic sequence from more basic concepts to more complex ones (Duff, 1996). For example, the teacher will begin a lesson by introducing and defining a grammatical rule of the target language within their native language; this rule will then be explored throughout the lesson with the teacher providing ongoing instructions. However, when using this method there are various constraints that may interfere with language development and acquisition. Firstly, considering that lessons are generally teacher-centred, the students must take a more passive role, strictly practicing reading and writing, which does not give them ample opportunity to exercise listening and speaking of the target language (Xia, 2014). Many activities are based around rote learning which may become monotonous and difficult to maintain concentration. Finally, as students memorise grammatical rules and make continuous comparisons with their native language this leaves less time to immerse in significant real-life situations that may promote effective communication. The communicative approach to language teaching was developed from the concept of “communicative competence” which was devised by Dell Hymes in the 1960’s. According to Hymes (1972), the concept of communicative competence involves having knowledge of a target language and the ability to use that knowledge appropriately in any given context. Durrani (2016) suggests that language learning is not only about obtaining the awareness of the rules of grammar, but in acquiring the capacity to utilise language to partake in meaningful communication. He explains that humans do not only learn how to create and understand correct sentences as isolated linguistic components; but also how to use sentences in a suitable way to achieve communicative purposes and to maintain the identity of any communicated message. Therefore the communicative approach is grounded on the idea that successful language learning arises through having to communicate real meaning. This approach was derived from concepts and theories that converge around the constructivist paradigm. The constructivist theory of learning is based on the perception that learners build their own ideas instead of obtaining them whole and precise from a teacher or authority figure (Renukadevi, 2016). That is why the communicative approach is based around problem-solving and inquiry-based learning activities. This enables students to articulate and test their thoughts, locate inferences and conclusions, and express their knowledge in a collaborative learning environment (Renukadevi, 2016). This is useful as it converts the student from being a passive receiver of learning material to an active participant in the learning process. Lessons that surround the communicative method are solely based on getting a message across. This means that errors do not have the same importance in activities based on fluency; as long as the message is understandable, any mistakes are perceived as elements of natural communication (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Some notable constraints would likely be grammar-based examinations, class size, and with focus mainly directed to real life scenarios, this may also restrict the students from being exposed to valuable literature. I believe that it is essential to integrate a balanced approach. Each methodology has positive implications on language acquisition and development and if utilised correctly within lesson planning, could have extremely positive potential. The major challenge will be testing each strategy and refining the instructional aspects to ensure flowing lessons that cater for students from different backgrounds and stages of language learning. Ideally, I will create a classroom setting that incorporates both inductive and deductive practices. For the students to grasp complex concepts it is necessary to dissect the rules first. However, once it is clear that the students have an understanding of core grammatical concepts and basic vocabulary, it will be much easier to implement inductive activities into lessons. This will then focus more on developing communicative competence through meaningful, real-life scenarios. I will not only focus on accuracy but also create lessons that allow students to develop fluency in speaking. Consequently, I will endeavour to link the different skills: ‘listening, speaking, reading and writing’ together, since they all have importance in the real world, and design lessons that have relevance to real life contexts. Reference list Durrani, H. (2016). Attitudes of Undergraduates towards Grammar Translation Method and Communicative Language Teaching in EFL Context: A Case Study of SBK Women's University Quetta, Pakistan. Advances In Language And Literary Studies, 7(4), 167-172. Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In C. J. Brumfit&K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 5-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Renukadevi, D. (2016). Communicative Approach in Teaching English as L2: An Overview. Language In India, 16(4), 75-79 Xia, Y. (2014). Language theories and language teaching-from traditional grammar to functionalism. Journal Of Language Teaching And Research, 5(3), 559-565. doi:10.4304/jltr.5.3.559-565