How do we become good language learners?

As language researchers began to move away from the idea of methodology into the post method era, a few different ideas came about. Teaching by way of principles and strategies seem to be the new lens that researchers and teachers are using to look at language. Teachers want to teach students how to take ownership of their own learning through these new principles and strategies. Instead of teaching them by a specific method, it is better to have a set of beliefs upon which you base your lessons, and then teach the students certain strategies so they can continue their language learning independently. In chapter four of Brown, he talks about Cognitive, Socioaffective, and Linguistic principles to language learning. All of these principles encompass different approaches to language learning. In chapter 16 of Brown, he ties that in by talking about strategies based instruction, the idea of teaching students how to learn language on their own. There are certain ways that they can learn more effectively. Kumar goes along with similar ideas, talking about how teachers can help learners become more involved in our classrooms. He says, “Recognizing the learner’s voice also means recognizing their attempt to create learning opportunities for themselves and for other participants in the class” (Kumar 49). Kumar also stresses student involvement in the learning process.      

In chapter sixteen of Brown’s book, he talks about what makes a good language learner. The comprehensive list that he puts forth may sound trite at first, but it really is true! I have noticed that some of my best teachers over the years have encouraged me to employ many of the techniques and tricks listed. One of the things that caught my eye the most was this; “learn to live with uncertainty by not getting flustered and by continuing to talk or listen without understanding every word” (Brown 259). This stood out to me because it’s something that I personally have struggled with over the years. I don’t like being wrong and making mistakes, and that’s something that I have had to grow in a lot. I always wanted to understand everything perfectly and make no mistakes. However, once I started to let go of little mistakes and realize that they can help me learn, I improved so much. I think that this is something I want to emphasize with my students in the future. If I can make them feel comfortable in the classroom and with me, then it will be easier for them to open up and learn, even if they are making mistakes. I want them to become life-long learners of language. That’s something that I struggle with: how do we teach students to become successful language learners? How do we teach them autonomy and ownership of their language learning?

Downsides of CLT

Communicative Language Learning is a method that although once very popular, is slowly losing its high ranking among methodologies for various reasons. In Hu’s article, he discusses why CLT is losing whatever popularity it did have in China. In the article “The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching” by Stephen Bax, he talks about all of the reasons that CLT is no longer effective and why we should shift our thinking. The third article by Peter Skehan discusses the multifaceted aspects of Task-based instruction, a method rooted in CLT. Specifically in the first two articles, they discuss much of why CLT is becoming less useful and/or popular. Hu lays out some reasons why CLT hasn’t taken off in the PRC. Many of the reasons have to do with a fundamental difference between the educational values of the Chinese and the underlying principles which CLT represents. CLT as a method values an egalitarian relationship between teachers and learners, something which contrasts the Chinese educational philosophy. In general, the teacher is the authority in the classroom and they are ultimately responsible for whether or not a student fully grasps the subject matter. This is an excellent example of CLT’s lack of focus on context. Although CLT is a great method that can be very useful in many classrooms, it is not always beneficial in every situation. In Bax’s article he talks about how many modern thinking teachers believe that CLT is the end all be all. It is the ultimate method to use and “a country without CLT is somehow backward” (Bax 279). However, he argues that these teachers are putting way too much stock in the method of CLT and not considering other factors that could inhibit this method being used effectively. For example, in the Chinese culture, “learning is equated with reading books” (Hu 98). Classrooms in China believe that books are the best way to gain knowledge, it is a concept deeply rooted in their culture. CLT is a method that does not highly value textbooks; rather it values the students’ input and contribution to classroom discussion. If one were to consider the effect of cultural context, they would realize that it would be very difficult to incorporate CLT into a traditional Chinese classroom. The method of Task-based instruction would also be a very difficult one to use in any context. One of the tenets of TBL is Negotiation of meaning which “concerns the way learners encounter communicational difficulties while completing tasks, and how they do something about those difficulties” (Skehan 3). This concept would also be a very difficult one to work into a Chinese system. Although they may be open to the idea of negotiation of meaning, because of their education philosophies, it could be substantially hard to break through those walls and begin real world problem solving activities.

                When reading the Hu’s article about Chinese educational culture, there were several tenets of their philosophies that I found actually very similar to the American ideals of education. “It is a firm belief in the Confucian tradition that through education, even a person of obscure origin can achieve upward social mobility” (Hu 97). Although this is listed as a Chinese value, this very much echoes the American dream. With an education, you can do anything, you can rise above your origins. Another quote from Hu is this, “education can bring along social recognition and material rewards” (97). These values caught my eye because even thought the author was discussing another culture, it very much reminded me of some American values. Are we a society that welcomes CLT as well? Do we take education too seriously to be able to participate in some of the more lighthearted activities involved with CLT?

In Bax’s article, he talks of an “obsession” with CLT. Many teachers today believe that CLT is the ultimate method. If a teacher is not using that method there is something wrong. He gives examples of teachers who are shocked and amazed that despite the absence of CLT, “many students still manage to learn to speak good English” (279). I believe that there a few different reasons for this. Methodology isn’t the only factor in learning a language. The teachers themselves have a profound impact on how well a student learns. Even though we have been talking in class about different methods and what the best method could be, isn’t that a very small part of learning a language? Granted, it is important, but there are so many other factors! Context, environment, teacher attitude and skill level, culture, student background, the list goes on and on. Even if we just focus on the teacher, that’s a huge factor. These teachers who were amazed that students could learn without CLT probably weren’t considering other factors. Some teachers can make any method fun and get the point across to the students. Grammar translation method, although dry and traditional, can be taught very well by an outstanding teacher. Furthermore, different students learn in various ways. Personally, I learn very well using traditional methods such as GTM and Direct Method. It’s possible that although these methods are older, some students grasp concepts better through them than CLT.

 Which ultimately has more effect on a student’s learning, the teacher and their personality, or the method employed? Would you still “demote CLT to second place” as Bax states, or do you think that despite the ignorance of context, it can be a useful method? 

Postmethodology

The three readings discussed postmethod pedagogy. In Brown’s work, he focused on several different methods that were used during the postmethod era, which focused on advancing the language teaching methods that had been used previously. Some of the specific methods that the texts talked about were Communicative Language Teaching, Task-Based Language learning, Learner-Centered Instruction, Cooperative learning, Interactive learning, whole language education, and content-based instruction. These were some of the newer methods introduced during the postmethod era. One of the previously used methods that is contrasted with these new ideas is the Audiolingual Method, a very interesting method that was highly popular at one time. However, there are some downsides in comparison with newer ideas. For example, when compared with the Communicative Language approach, the audiolingual method has some downfalls. One of the huge differences is that in audiolingual, reading and writing in the TL are not permitted until speech is mastered, while in Communicative Language Teaching, reading and writing can be introduced at the beginning along with speech (Brown 49). This flexibility of methodology is more helpful. Another method that Brown discusses is Cooperative Learning. In cooperative learning, “students work together in pairs and groups, they share information and come to each other’s aid” (Brown 53). This method focuses on team work, instead of competition, a common thread in the postmethod era.

In Kumaravadivelu’s article and in his book, he talks about the switch from method-based to postmethodology, as well as the different perspectives that one can take on methods. For example, some of the different types of methods are language-centered, learner-centered, and learning-centered. First of all, language-centered are concerned with linguistic forms, or the grammatical makeup of the language (Kumaravadivelu 25). Although these focus very well on rules and structure, they don’t always lead to proficiency as well as other methods. Learner-centered methods “are those that are principally concerned with language use and learner needs” (Kumaravadivelu 26). This method has components of the academic and linguistic side of language learning, in addition to the communicative and realistic functional needs of the learner. Lastly, learning-centered methods are focused on the learning process, or the method being used to teach. An example of this would be the Natural Approach (Kumaravadivelu 26).

The task based language teaching method is one that I had not explicitly heard of before, although I’m sure that it has been loosely used in some of my classrooms over the years. When I first started reading through the description of this method, it didn’t sound very revolutionary or interesting to me. However, after delving deeper into what they’re really talking about, I started to understand it more.  The idea is that the students are doing small tasks throughout the class that relate to language learning, although it may not seem direct at first. Usually they have a string of small tasks that are relatable and then end in an all-encompassing task that brings the big picture together. I really like this method because it seems effective, and very simple for the students to follow. I believe that having students complete small tasks that have a larger goal is a really good idea, because it breaks down the goal into several small steps. Then at the end, the students have learned a lot without even realizing it. This quote from the reading caught my eye, “Be careful that you do not look at task-based teaching as a hodgepodge of useful little things that the learner should be able to do, all thrown together haphazardly into the classroom” (Brown 51). As Brown states, these tasks aren’t useless; they all play a part in the overall goals of the class. Is this a method that students would learn well from? Or do you think that because they aren’t aware of the goal of the tasks, they wouldn’t do well? Is task-based language teaching an effective way of exposing students to real-world situations, or is it superficial?