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

Delayed dictation

What is “delayed dictation”?

Instead of getting students to transcribe immediately what you say, or what a partner says, you can enforce a 10 second delay so that students have to keep running over in their heads what they have heard. Some teachers have even used the delay time to try to distract students with music.

It’s an added challenge for students but has significant value, I think. It reminds me of a phenomenon in music called audiation. I use it frequently as a singer and I bet you do too.

Audiation is thought to be the foundation of musicianship. It takes place when we hear and comprehend music for which the sound is no longer or may never have been present. You can audiate when listening to music, performing from notation, playing “by ear,” improvising, composing, or notating music. When we have a song going round in our mind we are audiating. When we are deliberately learning a song we are audiating.

In our language teaching case, though, the earworm is a word, chunk of l…

Responsive teaching

Dylan Wiliam, the academic most associated with Assessment for Learning (AfL), aka formative assessment, has stated that these labels have not been the most helpful to teachers. He believes that they have been partly responsible for poor implementation of AfL and the fact that AfL has not led to the improved outcomes originally intended.

Wiliam wrote on Twitter in 2013:

“Example of really big mistake: calling formative assessment formative assessment rather than something like "responsive teaching".”

For the record he subsequently added:

“The point I was making—years ago now—is that it would have been much easier if we had called formative assessment "responsive teaching". However, I now realize that this wouldn't have helped since it would have given many people the idea that it was all about the teacher's role.”

I suspect he’s right about the appellation and its consequences. As a teacher I found it hard to get my head around the terms AfL and formative assess…

Sentence Stealers with a twist

Sentence Stealers is a reading aloud game invented by Gianfranco Conti. I'll describe the game to you, then suggest an extension of it which goes a bit further than reading aloud. By the way, I shouldn't need to justify the usefulness of reading aloud, but just in case, we are talking here about matching sounds to spellings, practising listening, pronunciation and intonation and repeating/recycling high frequency language patterns.

This is how it works:

Display around 15 sentences on the board, preferably ones which show language patterns you have been working on recently or some time ago.Hand out four cards or slips of paper to each student.On each card students must secretly write a sentence from the displayed list.Students then circulate around the class, approaching their classmates and reading a sentence from the displayed list. If the other person has that sentence on one of their cards, they must hand over the card. The other person then does the same, choosing a sentenc…

The age factor in language learning

This post draws on a section from Chapter 5 of Jack C. Richards' splendid handbook Key Issues in Language Teaching (2015). I'm going to summarise what Richards writes about how age factors affect language learning, then add my own comments about how this might influence classroom teaching.

It's often said that children seem to learn languages so much more quickly and effectively than adults. Yet adults do have some advantages of their own, as we'll see.

In the 1970s it was theorised that children's success was down to the notion that there is a critical period for language learning (pre-puberty). Once learners pass this period changes in the brain make it harder to learn new languages. Many took this critical period hypothesis to mean that we should get children to start learning other languages at an earlier stage. (The claim is still picked up today by decision-makers arguing for the teaching of languages in primary schools.)

Unfortunately, large amounts of rese…

Dissecting a lesson: teaching an intermediate written text

This post is a beginner’s guide about how you might go about working with a written text with low-intermediate or intermediate students (Y10-11 in England). I must emphasise that this is not what you SHOULD do, just one approach based on my own experience and keeping in mind what we know about learning and language learning in particular. Experienced teachers may find it interesting to compare this sequence with what you do yourself.

You can adapt the sequence below to the class, context and your own preferred style. I’m going to assume that the text is chosen for relevance, interest and comprehensibility. The research suggests that the best texts are at the very least 90% understandable, i.e. you would need to gloss no more than 10% of the words or phrases. The text could be authentic, or more likely adapted authentic from a text book, or teacher written. It would likely be fairly short so you have time to exploit it intensively, recycling as much useful language as possible.

So here w…