Presentation, Practice and Production Approach to Language Teaching - Dissertation Example

?Presentation, Practice and Production Approach to Language Teaching Between the Critiques and the Proposed Alternative Methods 0.   Introduction It is a generally accepted phenomenon that learning English as a foreign language is not an easy task for students. In the same vein, teaching English as a foreign language comprises a delightfully challenging scenario for the teacher. Ediger, Dutt, and Rao (2003), thus, recognise the importance of the cooperative effort between mentor and learner in this regard. Equally important is the formation of an association between the language forms and their meanings (Ediger, et al., 2003). Cook (2011) maintained that the term foreign language refers to “a language acquired in a milieu where it is normally in use” (p. 140). Meanwhile, a second language may be defined as “one that becomes another tool of communication alongside the first language … [and] is typically acquired in a social environment in which it is actually spoken” (Cook, 2011, p. 140). The aforementioned distinction, therefore, is grounded on two dimensions: social and location. The social dimension deals with meeting the communicative need of the learner whereas the location dimension has something to do with the usage of the language in the native locale of the learner (Cook, 2011). Richards and Rodgers (2001) emphasized that current issues in language teaching has been around for centuries and has remained unchanged. Throughout the centuries, the study of foreign languages has shifted importance from one language to the next. In a world where six out of ten individuals speak a language which is different from their mother tongue, speaking two or more languages has become the norm rather than an exception. Five hundred years ago, Latin was the prominent language used for education, commerce, religion, and government, particularly in the Western World. During the 16th century, other languages rose to prominence such as French, Italian, and English. These languages eventually supplanted Latin as the language of choice for verbal and written communication (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). Though Latin was relegated as a subject of study in schools, it has become a model for instruction for foreign languages. Instruction was composed of grammar rules, declensions and conjugations, translation, and writing sample sentences. In addition, parallel bilingual texts and dialogues are utilized in teaching. For modern languages, the mode of instruction remained the same in most aspects. Students are provided textbooks on abstract grammar rules, vocabulary lists, and sentences for translation. However, this approach was grounded on the grammatical system of the language, limiting its ability to facilitate genuine communication. This traditional approach to foreign language instruction was referred to as the grammar-translation method (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). In the United States, the grammar-translation method was known as the Prussian method, due to its German scholarly origins. This method has seven characteristics: (1) the goal of foreign language study is grounded on mental discipline and intellectual development; (2) reading and writing is prioritized over speaking or listening; (3) vocabulary instruction is confined to reading bilingual word lists, dictionary study, and memorization; (4) the sentence is the basic unit of teaching and practice; (5) accuracy is prioritized; (6) grammar instruction is deductive in nature; and (7) the speakers native language is utilized as the medium of instruction (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). The grammar-translation method was widely used for European and foreign language instruction until the 1940s. However, it has been subject to much criticism, mainly on the grounds that its approach to teaching foreign languages mostly involved pointless memorization of vague grammar rules and vocabulary, and translation of stilted or literary prose, much to the frustration of countless students. Mounting opposition to this approach led to the development of new methods of foreign language instruction by the middle and late 19th century (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). Long and Doughty (2011) emphasized the significance of foreign language teaching and learning based on its social, political, and educational context. First, globalization, immigration, and the need for individuals to learn a language other than their mother tongue have encouraged the growth of foreign language instruction in numerous countries. A country’s decision to provide a special status or priority to a particular language or languages may significantly affect motivation to learn the language. This also applies to political decisions regarding official languages, which provide substantial benefits to those who choose to undergo language training. However, decisions on the declaration of an official language have some negative impact in certain situations. For example, Malaysia’s declaration of Bahasa Melayu as the sole official language was met with opposition by the ethnic Chinese and Tamil citizens who also favour English to be included as an official language. Likewise, in South Africa various ethnic groups continue to debate on the establishment of an official language, as well as an official medium of instruction in schools (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). Sweet (as cited in Richards and Rodgers, 2001) suggested four principles which should be considered in the development of teaching methods. First, lessons should be carefully selected. Second, lessons should have a clear and definite scope. Third, lessons should cover the four vital learning areas of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Lastly, lessons should progress from simple to complex (Richards & Rodgers 2001). The movement to reform language instruction has produced a number of principles of which majority of reformers agree on: (1) spoken language is considered as primary and takes on an oral-based methodology; (2) findings of phonetics are applied to teaching and teacher training; (3) learners should hear the language before being exposed to its written form; (4) words are presented in sentences written in meaningful contexts, and not as isolated, disconnected elements; (5) grammar should be taught inductively; and (6) translation should be avoided in most cases. These scientifically-based principles reveal the shift towards applied linguistics (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). It is along this line that the study is being proposed in order to shed light on what instructional approaches to foreign language teaching have been found to be most beneficial among TEFL practitioners. 2.0.   Statement of the Problem From the brief history of foreign language teaching, it was revealed that the challenges from the past remain in today’s TEFL experiences. The grammar-translation method, though widely used was met with tons of criticism. This study will, therefore, attempt to evaluate the presentation practice and production approach in language teaching as a better alternative to grammar-translation method and the other approaches being proposed for teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL). Specifically, the following research questions will be addressed: 2.1. What is the level of acceptance of selected language teaching methods among TEFL practitioners, namely: 2.2.1. Grammar-translation approach 2.2.2. Presentation, practice and production (PPP) approach 2.2.3. Direct approach 2.2.4. Reading approach 2.2.5. Audiolingual approach 2.2.6. Community language learning 2.2.7. Silent way 2.2.8. Communicative functional notional approach 2.2.9. Total physical response approach 2.2.10. Natural approach 2.2.11. Suggestopedia 2.2.12. Communicative language teaching 2.2.13. Content-based instruction 2.2.14. Task-based instruction 2.2. Are there significant differences in the level of acceptance of each teaching method among all practitioners who have experienced using the method? 2.3 Which attribute(s) of the presentation, practice and production approach is/are most beneficial to teaching English as a foreign language? 2.4. Which attribute(s) of the presentation, practice and production approach is/are not advantageous for teaching English as a foreign language? 2.5. What is the perception of the TEFL practitioners of the PPP approach with respect to the alternative approaches considered in this study? 3.0.   Significance of the Proposed Study The proposed study will be significant to the academic community, particularly those who are involved in teaching English as a foreign language, as well as to TEFL teachers. Findings of the study will be able to offer some form of comparison on the utility of selected approaches in teaching English as a foreign language grounded on the experiences of teachers who are familiar with one or more of the methods. Such practice-based evaluation will serve as a beacon for the academic community in the formulation and evaluation of effective TEFL curricula. Likewise, teachers handling TEFL will find the results of the study beneficial in dealing with the challenges of their everyday routine. Additionally, TEFL practitioners will benefit from the findings of the study in terms of the benefits and / or disadvantages of the PPP approach, because this will allow teachers using PPP to tailor-fit their lessons to get around the disadvantages which will be revealed in the study. 4.0.   Academic Context of the Study Following is a concise review of related literature to ground the current study with respect to the other language teaching approaches. The direct method was the best known of the naturalistic approaches to language learning. The following comprises its most salient points: (1) the target language is utilized for classroom discussion; (2) only ordinary vocabulary and sentences are taught; (3) oral communication skills are honed through gradual progression centred on question-and-answer sessions between teacher and student; (4) grammar is taught inductively; (5) new teaching points are taught orally; (6) demonstrations, objects, and pictures are used for concrete vocabulary while association of ideas is used for abstract vocabulary; (7) speech and listening comprehension are taught; and (8) emphasis on pronunciation and grammar (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). The direct method has been successfully utilized and adapted by numerous foreign language teaching schools in Europe and the United States. However, this only applied to private institutions. The implementation of this approach in public secondary school settings failed in most cases. The failure is attributed to: (1) overemphasized and distorted similarities between naturalistic first language learning and classroom foreign language learning; (2) failure to acknowledge the practical realities of classroom settings; and (3) lack of a solid basis in applied linguistic theory. The direct method relied on the proficiency of native speakers in the foreign language for teaching. Thus, the adherence of teachers to the principles of this method based on proficiency is not guaranteed (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). Audiolingualism or ALM is a language learning method which emphasized oral proficiency over reading and writing. ALM is composed of sessions where students learn and repeat dialogues with the teacher. Sentences based on dialogues are practiced with the use of oral drills. An essential element of this methods involved practice dialogues in a language lab. ALM does not consider reading as a priority and only gets introduced in the third year of study (Lems, Miller & Soro 2010).  ALM in the classroom is primarily focused on mimicry through imitation of pronunciation and model sentences, memorization of dialogues, and drills utilizing substitution tables or pattern practice. However, ALM was criticized for its distortion of structural linguistics and behaviourism theories. In addition, ALM has failed to produce skills for normal conversation (Hinkel, 2011). The silent way method was introduced in the 1960s and works on the premise that students should be encouraged to learn on their own and should develop a personal responsibility for doing so. As it name implies, the teacher stays silent for most of the time. The method encourages student to work with each other to determine what they need to learn. Cuisinare rods and a series of wall charts are utilized as learning aids. This method fosters the need for students to be independent and responsible. However, the method has some drawbacks. First, some student may not benefit fully from the approach, particularly those who need more teacher input in order to understand certain concepts. Second, language is learned in a fragmented manner rather than as a whole. This places its reputation as a legitimate learning tool in question (Norland and Pruett-Said, 2006). The community language learning method or CLL has its roots in psychology, particularly the utilization of counselling learning techniques. The method is considered humanistic, taking the whole person learning approach by recognition of the different aspects that make up an individual. Through the practice of humanistic techniques, a student is encouraged to combine his thoughts, feelings, and knowledge with the learning experience gained from studying the target language (Byram, 2004). Teachers take on the role of counsellors while students become the clients. The target language is identified as the ‘problem’ which the counsellor will provide advice for. The teacher-student relationship creates a supportive ‘community’ which reduces student anxiety and improves learning. Moreover, CLL facilitates the progression of students from dependence towards autonomy. However, CLL may not benefit certain personality types, particularly those who are not used to a sharing environment. Such an environment may cause confusion and anxiety, while some students may become threatened or turn hostile. In addition, CLL requires that teachers undergo specialized training (Byram, 2004). The presentation, practice, and production method or PPP is based on a grammatical and functional view of language which utilizes aspects from several language teaching methods such as grammar-translation method, direct method, and communicative method. Language training in PPP is categorized into 3 parts: presentation, practice, and production (Baker and Westrup, 2000). In the presentation phase, the teacher introduces a new lesson to the class by creating a realistic situation wherein students will be able to relate to. A target language model which will be utilized in practice is then presented. To facilitate learning, language elements are presented gradually in small chunks and correction of errors are performed immediately (Knapp and Seidlhofer, 2009). For each new language, a teacher must be able to: (1) provide a clear definition and description of the language; (2) describe how and when the language is used; and (3) demonstrate what the language sounds like (Baker and Westrup, 2000). In addition, teachers should ensure that students know how to properly form the vocabulary, grammar, and functional language. Proper spelling should likewise be observed. To facilitate learning, teachers can utilize the following techniques: (1) use of real world examples and situations; (2) use of audio samples of the language; and (3) use of mime to demonstrate and action or emotion (Baker and Westrup, 2000). The practice phase is composed of drills, repetitive exercises, information gap activities, dialog creation, and controlled role-plays. Language elements are practiced to ensure knowledge accuracy of the target language. Students can practice the language through listening, repeating, writing, and reading activities. Such activities can be done individually, in pairs, or as a group (Baker and Westrup, 2000). Lastly, the production phase involves the utilization of the target language by the learner through activities which allow them to actively apply the language (Knapp and Seidlhofer, 2009). It is encouraged that activities should emulate real world applications or situations. Dialogues depicting real-life situations can be used to enable students to apply what they have learned. At this stage the teacher can only offer assistance when the student asks for it (Baker and Westrup, 2000). The PPP method has the following advantages/benefits: (1) it is based on effective learning principles; (2) it provides an easy-to-use framework for lesson planning; (3) it ensures that students learn to utilize the language; (4) lessons are divided into phases to maintain student attention; (5) provides a balanced mix of teacher and student interaction; (6) provides balanced instruction for language skills; (7) it utilizes all methods of language teaching; (8) demonstrates flexibility for different learning levels and context; and (9) provides opportunity for students to increase their accuracy and fluency in the language (Baker and Westrup 2000). Based on the preceding literature review, it may be said that the current study fits into the context identified, PPP, being a general approach in teaching English as a foreign language. The key issue which the study will attempt to resolve is the acceptability of PPP being a very general approach, compared to the rest of the approaches considered in this study, which are specifically TEFL approaches. 5.0.   Outline of the Dissertation         5.1.   Aims The study aims to examine the presentation practice and production approach in language teaching as a better alternative to selected approaches in handling TEFL. 5.2    Objectives The study has the following objectives: (a) Evaluate the level of acceptance of selected language teaching methods among TEFL practitioners; (b) investigate the relationship between TEFL practitioner profile and their level of acceptance of each approach they have experienced; (c) identify the advantages and weaknesses of the PPP approach based on their own experiences; and (d) elicit the perception of the TEFL practitioners pertaining to PPP compared to the other alternative approaches. 6.0.   Methodology The study will use the descriptive method of research by employing quantitative techniques. A minimum of 180 respondents made up TEFL practitioners who have experienced using two or more of the language teaching approaches considered in this study. The minimum sample size was based on a priori statistical power analysis one-way analysis of variance with the following parameters: (a) a medium effect size of 0.25; (b) an alpha error probability of 0.05; (c) a statistical power of at least 80% and (4) 4 groups. Respondents will be selected using purposive sampling. The main data gathering instrument will be a survey questionnaire which will be subjected to face and content validity scrutiny, as well as internal consistency reliability analysis. A draft of the questionnaire will be pilot-tested with at least 15 respondents who possess characteristics comparable to the intended respondents of the proposed study, including the geographical environment, with the use of purposive sampling. Respondents for the pilot study and the main survey will be requested to sign informed consent forms. Data gathered will be statistically process using descriptive measures using frequency distribution, mean, and ranking. The following inferential measures will be employed: Levene’s test, independent samples t-test, and one-way analysis of variances. Statistical analysis will be performed using the statistical software SPSS Version 17 (2008). 7.0.   Risk Analysis The respondents who will voluntarily participate in the study will be exposed to minimal risk of harm considering that the study will only involved in a paper-and-pen survey, where the respondents and their responses will be treated under the highest standards of confidentiality. Likewise the respondents will be protected by ethical research practices by safeguarding their anonymity, privacy and exposure to risk of harm. Respondents will not in any way be involved in experiments that will necessitate invasive protocols. 8.0.   Conclusion The proposed study is both feasible and practicable in terms of the availability of resources and research methodology, the minimum risk involved, and its significance to the academic and TEFL communities. 9.0.   References Baker, J & Westrup, H 2000, The English language teacher’s handbook: How to teach large classes with few resources, VSO, London, GBR. Byram, M (ed) 2004, Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning, Routledge, New York. Cook, V, 2011, ‘Teaching English as a foreign language in Europe’, in E. Hinkel, ed, Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, vol 2, Routledge, New York, pp. 140-154. Davies, P & Pearse, E 2000, Success in English teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford, GBR. Ediger, M, Dutt, BSV, and Rao, DB, 2003, Teaching English successfully, Discovery Publishing, New Delhi, IND. Hinkel, E 2011, Handbook of research in second language training volume 2, Routledge, New York. Knapp, K & Seidlhofer, B (eds) 2009, Handbook of foreign language communication and learning, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, DEU. Lems, K, Miller, LD & Soro, TM 2010, Teaching reading to English language learners: Insights from linguistics, Guilford Press, New York. Long, MH & Doughty, CJ (eds) 2011, The handbook of language teaching, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Mora, JK 2010, Second language-teaching methods, viewed 3 August 2011, < http://www.moramodules.com/ALMMethods.htm> Norland, DL & Pruett-Said, T 2006, A kaleidoscope of models and strategies for teaching English to speakers of other languages, Libraries Unlimited, Westport, CT. Richards, JC & Rodgers, TS 2001, Approaches and methods in language teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, GBR. Richards, JC & Rodgers, TS 2001, Approaches and methods in language teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, GBR. Read More