How would YOU like to learn a language?

It was either Barry Smith or Jess Lund, both at Michaela Community School in London at the time, who suggested to me during my visit there that a good question to ask yourself, when thinking of theory and methodology, is “How would you like to learn a new language yourself?” The point being made was that we may choose to teach a certain way based on a range of factors, including how we were taught ourselves or the prevailing methodology of the time. Barry in particular believes that teachers are too prone to following “orthodoxy”, whether it be communicative methodology, use of games, tech use or 100% target language.

So, what about the answer to that question? To start with I imagine we would have different answers to it depending on our experiences, personal preferences and attitudes towards methodology. Secondly, it’s a valid question to ask because we are so heavily predisposed towards certain methods by our personal language learning journey and our training. Thirdly, how we choose to learn may depend partly on the language being learned - notably, does it have an alphabetic spelling system and similarities with English?

For the record, my own bias stemmed from how I learned in school, an approach which was reinforced by my training at London University around 1980 (the oral-situational approach) and what I subsequently learned about communicative language teaching when I taught holiday English courses. A few years later I was to become influenced by Krashen’s natural approach and much more recently by lexico-grammar, as espoused by my friend Gianfranco Conti.

What sort of language lessons would I like now? And why?

I’d want immediate access to the written word and as much comprehensibility as possible by means of glosses or parallel translations.

I’d like to watch and listen to dialogues with access to a transcript as soon as possible. I’d prefer the input to be adapted authentic, since authentic is usually too fast to process.

I’d like to start reading aloud dialogues from the start, with an opportunity to substitute elements (words or chunks). That would involve repeating aloud and focusing on accurate pronunciation and phonics. I take pride in being able to mimic well and find that a pleasing aspect of language learning.

I would prefer the syllabus to be mapped out via topic and situation (communicative need), not grammatical progression. I’d be happy to deal with complex structures early on, probably because of my existing level of sophistication as a language user and explainer.

I would want resources to be interesting and strongly focused on listening, reading and speaking - not so much writing. I would enjoy song in particular.

I would like some ad hoc grammar explanations to satisfy my curiosity and help me form sentences accurately. I think conscious, explicit knowledge of rules such as verb endings or adjective agreements would help me during careful speech.

I would like lots of interaction with fellow learners and an expert teacher. Being a language teacher already makes you a very critical student.

I would want spaced repetition and recycling to be integral to the course, as well as a significant cultural input.

I would not want to learn lists of words or verb conjugations.

I would not want to do translation. Not communicative enough.

I’d prefer a focus on high-frequency vocabulary, but wouldn’t mind specialist vocab in areas which interest me. I’d prefer to learn vocab in context, not from flashcards. An occasional topic list might be useful.

I’d be happy to play games if I thought they has a clear communicative or learning purpose.

I’d be happy to use digital tech if it helped give me interesting input and/or interaction.

I would want the teacher to correct me if I were uncertain. But I would try not to get too hung up by accuracy. (This is hard for me.)

I would like to have someone to practise with me at home and an opportunity to use the language abroad.

*****************************************************************************

Now when I look at my own list I find it doesn’t correspond in all regards with the teaching approach I employed for a long time. In what ways is it different?

I stuck to a syllabus based on grammatical progression, avoiding one tense until another was well-practised, for example. I did not use parallel texts very much, preferring to avoid using English as far as possible. My classes did quite a lot of writing and practised grammar with questioning and drills. I sometimes presented vocabulary in an explicit way with flashcards.

On the other hand, I tried to keep the focus on interaction, target language and communication. My classes did lots of pair work and teacher-led interaction. I also built in lots of spaced repetition and opportunities to reuse language.

Finally, it has to be said that teachers are somewhat restricted by the syllabus they teach. Perhaps not as much as they believe, though.

How would YOU like to be taught?






- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad