In the previous post, I wrote about Chapter 1 of Charles Dodson's book Language Teaching and the Bilingual Method (1967). Chapter 2, called Foreign-language Learning and Teaching, is where we start to get into the meat of his ideas while preparing us for Chapter 3 when we get to see what his method consists of in more detail.
To begin with, Dodson presents us with a somewhat familiar dichotomy betqween what he calls the Indirect-Grammatical Method and the Direct-Oral Method. In between he places what he calls 'eclectic methods'.
Indirect-Grammatical method ------------- Eclectic methods --------------- Direct-Oral method
This is reminiscent of other dichotomies or dimensions which have been described in the history of language teaching. Think of:
- formal v informal
- natural v classroom
- learning v acquisition
- grammatical v conversational
- conscious v unconscious
- explicit v implicit
I have written in detail about the history of these dichotomies here.
Dodson says that in grammar schools (which is where most pupils studied languages in 1967), teachers mainly used eclectic methods, with a leaning towards the indirect-grammatical. In the previous chapter he had already mentioned that some eager teachers begin teaching using Direct Method (nearly all target language) but soon discover this does not work when faced with challenging classes who have little contact time with the subject.
I think it's worth pointing out that, although Dodson is critical of both ends of this spectrum, he is most scathing about grammar-translation which he feels serves pupils very poorly. Why? It neglects listening and speaking, is too hard and turns the vast majority of pupils off. Grammar is too complex to be taught piece by piece and this sort of synthetic approach is just unsuitable for nearly all students. (Dodson refers occasionally to IQ, but we might now talk more about aptitude or ability - even though some are squeamish about these terms.) He points out that in O-level exams at the time, pupils made a huge number of translation errors which must have been dispiriting. Learninga language was largely about getting things wrong!
He is also highly critical of arguments made in some quarters that teaching through grammar rules is somehow character-building - an exercise in logic. The same was argued for Latin, by the way. (I detect echoes of this view when I read people arguing that language learning needs to be challenging intellectually and that there is something trivial about what might becalled phrase book learning.) As an exercise in demonstrating just how hard it is to learn grammar rules, he lists a set of function words indicating case and gender, followed by a set of verb inflections and short vocabulary list, all in an invented language. It is immediately apparent how complex this would all seem to the average child, let alone a highly educated university graduate.
On the other hand, he has little time for Direct Method. Let me explain why. Dodson explains that in the limited time we have with students Direct Method is very inefficient at providng the multiple contacts pupils need with high-frequency language. He takes the case of the teacher who tries hard to explain a new word without recourse to translation or imagery. A lot of 'extraneous' language is used, pupils lose comprehension, and time which could have been spent re-using the word many times is lost. Dodson is well aware, as he demonstrated through his experiments described in Chapter 1, that pupils need many contacts with a word or sentence before they can retain it, Direct Method is therefore plain inefficient, as well as being off-putting for many pupils.
Furthermore, the avoidance of the printed word, at least in the early stages (as was frequently recommended at the time), is a hindrance to learning. In Chapter 1 I referred to his experiments which suggested that allowing access to spelling soon after initial exposure and repetition helped pupils retain language.
He then goes into detail about the differences between the infant learning their first language and the school-age child learning a new language. In essence, the infant is learning how to live through language, whereas the second language learner at school already has a lot of life knowledge, along with plenty of linguistic knowledge from their first language. The motivations are different in each case. 'This is a pencil' won't wash with most school students, unles thye are happy to play the game with you.
I mentioned above the importance of efficiency. Dodson likes to refer to 'listening contacts' and 'speaking contacts'. Interestingly, he considers the latter more important for learning. Controversailly he writes:
"Direct association between the foreign language and reality is not dependent on the way the second-language learner recognizes sentence meaning, but on the number of times he (sic) says this senetnce after he knows what it means."
These days, given what scholars say about the priority of input over output, Dodson's claim appears dubious. But it is worth remembering what cognitive science tells us about the importance of saying and writing things in terms of memory (it's called the production effect). What modern scholars would say is that output may strengthen the system, but it does not build the system. You need new input to do that.
So what techniques might generate the multiple 'speaking contacts' Dodson would like to see? He considers audio-lingual drills, which he dismisses as boring. (The one he describes are!) He is also critical of question-answer drills, fashionable at the time. His argument here is that it takes a lot of teacher skill to get students to utter desired responses through question-answer. Amusingly, he writes:
"This complexity of preparation can only be tackled by a teacher with an extremely high I.Q. and deep insight into human behaviour, together with a saint-like diligence."
He goes on to argue, essentially, that QA sequences are too hard for most pupils, likening the process to climbing Mount Everest. (Anecdotally, I was a skilled QA user, but found that QA drills did suit higher-aptitude pupils with very good powers of concentration. I wonder if TPRS advocates of 'circling' (QA) ever feel the same way.)
Eclectic methods
Teachers who hesitate between Dodson's indirect and direct methods are faced with a dilemma, he explains. If you move towards grammar-translation, you may increase the 'intellectual content' of lessons, but you will decrease the number of 'active speaking contacts'. But if you move towards the direct end of the spectrum you (1) deny pupils the knowledge of grammar which may help the develop oral proficiency, (2) still reduce active speaking contacts (because it is inefficient, see above) and (3) make it harder for the teacher. (You need fluency and skill with QA - not all teachers have these. I knew teachers with very little spoken fluency but who could run grammar-translation lessons adequately. many teachers today are asked to teach a language beyond their specialism.)
He then lists 15 points which should be satisfied for a language teaching method to succeed. Space does not allow me to list them all, but he says that the 15th is the most crucial:
"The method must ensure that the pupil is given the opportunity of having a larger number of contacts with the foreign language than he receives with present methods."
To sum up, you can begin to get a very rough idea of what Dodson will go on to advocate. From the first two chapters and his list of 15 conditions we can expect the following aspects to emerge:
- Simple to apply for all teachers, whatver their knowledge and skills
- Focus on speaking and listening, but don't ignore the written word
- Maximise 'speaking contacts' (which inevitably means listening contacts too)
- Tightly control what pupils can say
- Don't ignore grammar
- Take advantage of the first language, in oral and printed form, e.g. when presenting new vocabulary or using texts
- Don't let lesson get too hard or too boring
- Maximise intercommunication between teacher and student
- Avoid word-by-word translation techniques
- Give pupils interesting things to say and write about
- Testing should be integral to the method
Comments
Post a Comment