Skip to main content

Is there a consensus on language teaching methodology?

It is well established that we are in a "post methods" or eclectic period when it comes to how best to teach languages. Having been down various roads, maybe cul-de-sacs: grammar-translation, audio-lingual/visual, strong communicative and no doubt others, we seem to be in an era when most teachers accept the need for a suitable balance of target language/comprehension and grammar-vocabulary teaching/controlled practice.

When I read what teachers write online I do wonder sometimes whether teachers feel confused about what works best. Should I be using more target language? Should I be teaching grammar more explicitly? Should I feel guilty about using English or translating? Is there actually a consensus about what works best? Or are we just confused?

It would be reassuring if there were a body of reliable research to support a particular approach, but, despite some claims to the contrary, I do not believe there is such a body of empirical data which tells us clearly and objectively what is best. When one factors in the various contexts in which language teaching occurs and the fact that different teachers may make different methods work for them (especially if they believe in them), one has to ask where we can find the evidence we need which goes beyond the anecdotal.

With this in mind, I was interested to read something from Ofsted which was published some time ago and which Helen Myers brought to our attention again in the MFL Resources forum. She reproduced the post on her blog here. She was responding to an article in the Guardian which had suggested that language teachers were guilty of using phrase book methods to teach.

Ofsted has an enormous body of lesson observations and progress data to draw on and they have a pretty good idea, therefore, about what seems to work. This is important evidence.

Helen picked out a section from a report written in 2011 entitled Modern Languages: Achievement and Challenge 2007-2010 which I shall also reproduce. It is worth noting that this report was written after analysing the practice of 90 secondary schools, two thirds of which were considered "good" or "outstanding". Ofsted wrote:



1.        The following strengths were commonly observed in teaching that was judged to be good:

  • well-managed relationships: teachers took care to build up students’ confidence and encourage them to take risks
  • teachers’ good subject knowledge, including knowledge of the examination syllabus
  • clear objectives in lesson plans, ensuring that prior learning was recapped, and that the lesson had a logical structure so that planned outcomes were reached
  • effective use of the interactive whiteboard to present and explain new work
  • good demonstration of the target language by the teacher to improve students’ listening skills and pronunciation
  • lively and varied lessons which students enjoyed
  • effective, collaborative work in groups and on paired tasks
  • careful monitoring of students’ progress.
2.        The following additional strengths were noted in the outstanding teaching seen:
  • teachers’ expert use of the target language
  • planning that took students through a logical series activities and catered for the needs of all students
  • pace and challenge: students were expected to do a lot of work in the lesson
  • thorough practice of new work before students were expected to use it
  • very effective use of activities bringing the whole class together to test learning, monitor progress and redirect the lesson if necessary
  •  intercultural knowledge and understanding built into the lesson
  • language learning strategies taught very well to develop students’ understanding of learning the language
  •  very good deployment of teaching assistants and foreign language assistants in lessons.
You would need to read the more of the report to put the above points into clearer context, but viewed in isolation they still provide a solid framework for a methodology. Is this something on which to build a consensus? Good relationships, plenty of high quality target language use, clear instruction, variety, thorough practice, grammar (I believe this is implied), effective, monitoring, pace and challenge, collaborative work and cultural content.


Comments

  1. Teachers should use modern approach to teach languages to students. Use of computers, LCD displays, sound systems to give pronunciation examples may help a lot.

    Regards,
    Junu
    Spanish School Costa Rica

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree. Thank you for commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So true! I'd like to answer your rhetorical question anyway: I think we are just confused, that's all :)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The latest research on teaching vocabulary

I've been dipping into The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (2017) edited by Loewen and Sato. This blog is a succinct summary of Chapter 16 by Beatriz González-Fernández and Norbert Schmitt on the topic of teaching vocabulary. I hope you find it useful.

1.  Background

The authors begin by outlining the clear importance of vocabulary knowledge in language acquisition, stating that it's a key predictor of overall language proficiency (e.g. Alderson, 2007). Students often say that their lack of vocabulary is the main reason for their difficulty understanding and using the language (e.g. Nation, 2012). Historically vocabulary has been neglected when compared to grammar, notably in the grammar-translation and audio-lingual traditions as well as  communicative language teaching.

(My note: this is also true, to an extent, of the oral-situational approach which I was trained in where most vocabulary is learned incidentally as part of question-answer sequence…

A zero preparation fluency game

I am grateful to Kayleigh Meyrick, a teacher in Sheffield, for this game which she described in the Languages Today magazine (January, 2018). She called it “Swap It/Add It” and it’s dead simple! I’ve added my own little twist as well as a justification for the activity.

You could use this at almost any level, even advanced level where the language could get a good deal more sophisticated.

Put students into small groups or pairs. If in groups you can have them stand in circles to add a sense of occasion. One student utters a sentence, e.g. “J’aime jouer au foot avec mes copains parce que c’est amusant.” (You could provide the starter sentence or let groups make up their own.) The next student (or partner) has to change one element in the sentence, and so on, until you restart with a different sentence. You could give a time limit of, say, 2 minutes. The sentence could easily relate to the topic you are working on. At advanced level a suitable sentence starter might be:

“Selon un article q…

Google Translate beaters

Google Translate is a really useful tool, but some teachers say that they have stopped setting written work to be done at home because students are cheating by using it. On a number of occasions I have seen teachers asking what tasks can be set which make the use of Google Translate hard or impossible. Having given this some thought I have come up with one possible Google Translate-beating task type. It's a two way gapped translation exercise where students have to complete gaps in two parallel texts, one in French, one in English. There are no complete sentences which can be copied and pasted into Google.

This is what one looks like. Remember to hand out both texts at the same time.


English 

_____. My name is David. _ __ 15 years old and I live in Ripon, a _____ ____ in the north of _______, near York. I have two _______ and one brother. My brother __ ______ David and my _______ are called Erika and Claire. We live in a _____ house in the centre of ____. In ___ house _____ …

Preparing for GCSE speaking: building a repertoire

As your Y11 classes start their final year of GCSE, one potential danger of moving from Controlled Assessment to terminal assessment of speaking is to believe that in this new regime there will be little place for the rote learning or memorisation of language. While it is true that the amount of learning by heart is likely to go down and that greater use of unrehearsed (spontaneous) should be encouraged, there are undoubtedly some good techniques to help your pupils perform well on the day.

I clearly recall, when I marked speaking tests for AQA 15-20 years ago, that schools whose candidates performed the best were often those who had prepared their students with ready-made short paragraphs of language. Candidates who didn't sound particularly like "natural linguists" (e.g. displaying poor accents) nevertheless got high marks. As far as an examiner is concerned is doesn't matter if every single candidate says that last weekend they went to the cinema, saw a James Bond…

Worried about the new GCSEs?

Twitter and MFL Facebook groups are replete with posts expressing concerns about the new GCSEs and, in particular, the difficulty of the exam, grades and tiers. I can only comment from a distance since I am no longer in the classroom, but I have been through a number of sea changes in assessment over the years so may have something useful to say.

Firstly, as far as general difficulty of papers is concerned, I think it’s fair to say that the new assessment is harder (not necessarily in terms of grades though). This is particularly evident in the writing tasks and speaking test. Although it will still be possible to work in some memorised material in these parts of the exam, there is no doubt that weaker candidates will have more problems coping with the greater requirement for unrehearsed language. Past experience working with average to very able students tells me some, even those with reasonable attainment, will flounder on the written questions in the heat of the moment. Others will…