Sunday, September 16, 2012
Discussion 3 - Effectiveness of Language Teaching
Effective language teaching takes a lot of different approaches. Using only a single approach, like the drill to kill method, will never be as effective as a broad spectrum of methods. There is no single aspect of language teaching that needs to be taught the most, because they are all important. While it is very important for the teacher to speak the target language to the class, I do not think this should be one hundred percent of the time. Even at higher levels of classes, using only the target language most of the time is fantastic because it forces students to circumvent any words they don't know in response, and try to increase their fluency. However, if a student does not understand something the teacher is trying to explain and does not know the metalinguistic terms in the target language, learning any kind of grammar becomes increasingly difficult, which is why any advanced grammar should not be taught in the target language.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that advanced grammar should not be taught in the target language. I think it is perfectly acceptable, if not necessary, to have examples written in the target language to show how this grammar rule is applied. However, it is very difficult to understand the grammar lesson if you can't understand what the teacher is even saying.
ReplyDeleteI think it should be part of the teachers' goal to get the students to the point where they CAN understand the metalinguistic terms in the second language and therefore be able to learn certain grammatical concepts in the target language. After all, we learned our English grammar in English, why not try to replicate that in the new language as much as possible?
ReplyDeleteAdvanced grammar could be taught in the target language if students are at that level of understanding, though it can't hurt to say certain rules in the target language and using the student's native language. After all one of the 5 C's is Comparisons, which includes the student demonstrating understanding of the nature of language through comparisons of the language studied and their own. I don't want to say that everything should be said in both languages, but the teacher should decide when it is appropriate to use which language.
ReplyDeleteToday I tried explaining the difference between the verbs ser vs estar, which in English translates to, "to be," and I compared it to the verb in Spanish hacer, which translates to "to make" or "to do." I gave her the example that if I say, "I am going to do pancakes," the meaning might still be understood but it is the incorrect way to say it, compared to, "I am going to make pancakes." Also, if I said, "I am going to make homework," the meaning would also be confused, so that is why using the correct form of the verb "to be" in Spanish is so important, so there is no confusion in meaning.
I agree that speaking the target language in the classroom as much as possible is very important and beneficial to the language learning. And that when explaining a concept that students don't yet have the knowledge base to understand, it is can be helpful to explain it in the native language. However, I also agree with Mary Foster, in that sometimes students do have the knowledge to be able to understand complex grammar when it is explained in the native language. The teacher should be able to judge whether the material is at, beyond, or just one level above (i+1) the student's proficiency in the target language.
ReplyDelete