Do Skills Lessons Often Lead to Lazy Teaching and Students Not Progressing in Their Language Learning?
Karolina Kaczmarek, Poland and UK
Karolina Kaczmarek holds MA in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages) from the University of Westminster and BA in Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching Methodology from the University of Wrocław. At present she works for ITN Mark Education and plans to do PhD in Applied Linguistics at the Birkbeck University of London. Her interests encompass multilingualism, language identity, second language acquisition as well as classroom discipline and language teaching methodology. Email: mekaro@gmail.com
Menu
Introduction
Some major differences between the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) and Lexical Approach (LA)
Fluency and accuracy, which one is more important?
Skills teaching in the view of learner’s motivation and autonomy
Skills teaching and the teacher’s role
Classroom atmosphere and skills teaching
Democratic vs. formal classroom environments
Conclusion
Bibliography
Language teaching has never been a facile issue, therefore throughout the years methodologists have been working hard to design a method/approach that would promote an effective language teaching. As observed, one such approach is skills teaching. On the one hand, appraised for its communicative goal and immense language input. On the other, hugely despised for negligence of accuracy in language teaching, where production of speakers who are incorrect grammatically but regarded as fluent seems obtrusive.
This article aims to investigate skills teaching lessons from disparate perspectives. Firstly, it mentions differences between accuracy and fluency oriented teaching evident in contrasting teaching methods such as: Grammar Translation Method and Lexical Approach. Secondly, it analyzes skills teaching by focusing on implications behind student’s progress or lack of it. Thirdly, it discusses teacher’s role and student’s role in lessons aimed at a skill notion. Last but not least, it focuses on possible pros and cons of the classroom atmosphere that can either facilitate or debilitate student’s progress.
In order to explain what skills teaching is, it is worth focusing on the differences between Grammar Translation Method and Lexical Approach as these two methods present the shift from accuracy to fluency oriented teaching, which at the same time, may be regarded as the foundation of skills teaching. Although, there are plenty definitions of skills teaching, let us quote the definition formulated by Nunan (2003:12) who sees it as the ability to “distinguish between knowing grammar rules and being able to use the rules effectively and appropriately when communicating”. But is this grammatical correctness so important in language learning? Let us see this aspect from the GTM’s point of view first.
Thus, Grammar Translation Method is used to teach about a language. Study of classical languages such as Latin and Greek, is introduced to help learners to understand literature and culture of these languages. As Larsen-Freeman (2000:12) writes, it is believed that “through the study of grammar of the target language, students would become more familiar with the grammar of their native language and this familiarity would help them to speak and write their native language better”. In short, it all means that learning a foreign language is a vehicle that enhances intellectual growth of an individual.
As much as this method is appraised, it seems to be criticized as well. The reason for its’ criticism may be the fact that this method is mainly teacher-centred. Similarly, the majority of methodologists claim it does not help students to build their confidence when using language for communication purposes. What it does teach is the art of translation and the knowledge of “facts and rules” (Richards & Rogers, 2001:5).
Not surprisingly, it is very soon that GTM starts to be highly criticized, and slowly the issue of communicative language use in the methodology of language teaching comes into existence. As follows new methods are introduced, among which Lexical Approach appears.
Contrary to GTM, in Lexical Approach “communication of meaning” is the primary goal of language teaching. In order to achieve this goal “lexical nature of language” is stressed, as it is believed that “language consists of chunks, which when combined, produce continuous coherent texts” (Lewis 1997:7, 15). Accordingly, some of the four skills categorized as: writing, speaking, listening and reading are practiced. Whereas the first two are considered as productive skills, the latter are perceived as receptive ones (Harmer, 2007:265). Nevertheless, all four resemble vehicles by means of which a learner acquires their mother tongue. What is more, in Lexical Approach it is not only the aspect of communication that is stressed. Also the use of “authentic materials” becomes essential as it trains students in dealing with real life language, which can be hard to grasp for non-native speakers (Harmer, 2007:273).
Nevertheless, as much as it may be true that Lexical Approach is closer to the first language acquisition process (the art of acquiring our native language), it is still ambiguous whether it promotes progress in foreign language learning or produces speakers who lack grammatical knowledge (accuracy) but are able to “get the message across” (fluency).
The following paragraphs view skills teaching from the fluency/accuracy perspective mentioned by various researchers, since it is believed that these two aspects determine language teaching efficiency. As Ur (1996:103) stresses, in the case of skills teaching more focus is put on “fluency rather than accuracy”. However, she points out that negligence of accuracy does not have to be considered bad. Contrary to this, Krashen (1989:59) argues that accuracy oriented teaching does not add much to “language competence” both in children and adults. According to him only “comprehensible input” i.e. information that is clear to students accounts for second language acquisition. Later he points out that thanks to this input, teaching methods used nowadays are regarded better than other methods.
On the contrary, there are researchers who claim that by focusing on fluency only, i.e. when teaching speaking, one produces individuals with narrow knowledge of a target language. Here, the argument is, whether skills’ teaching is enough, or should there be any content present in the language. As Richards and Rogers (2001:219,220) write, content based learning (aiming at skill concept in its syllabus) leads to more “successful program outcomes than alternative language teaching approaches” because it gives students opportunities to work with materials that contain “meaningful content”. Yet, it can be assumed that only when combining accuracy and fluency, can a particular approach be regarded as effective.
Another issue affecting skills teaching may be the role of a learner and their participation in the classroom. Subsequently, much of the learning success may depend on learners themselves as their aim ought to be a successful completion of the learning activity. In the following paragraph aspects of l's motivation and autonomy will be discussed, as it is believed that these concepts may affect learners’ progress in skills’ teaching lessons.
To begin with, motivation is one of the factors that can influence progress in skills teaching. It is proved that motivated learners are successful learners. As Penny Ur (1996:274) stresses, motivation is very much “responsible for achievement in learning a language”. Again, one should bear in mind that motivation ought not to be considered as a fixed notion i.e. a learner may be more motivated in one situation than in another. To illustrate, Ellis (1994:513) explains that motivation can alter from time to time due to “external factors”. These external factors may be: pressure from parents or promotion at work to name just a few. In the skills lesson, however, motivation can be affected by the “authenticity of materials”, where the level of language implemented may be incomprehensible to the students but still challenging them to understand it (Harmer, 2007:273). Yet, not all learners, even when motivated want to take risks. What a learner might have to understand is that success in learning is also their responsibility.
Secondly, it is this responsibility, often recognized as autonomy that may account for better language learning. As Benson (2001:189) explains, autonomy is the ability of taking responsibility and control of one’s learning. Accordingly, he points out that “autonomy induces proficiency in language use”. However, it is arguable whether autonomous learners learn more than non-autonomous ones. Likewise, many researchers regard this matter as a secondary issue. Still, it is important that the students have some degree of autonomy as this can facilitate learning and make lessons more interesting, ipso facto restraining both parties (teachers, students) from dull lessons.
Also, the role of a teacher is important. As follows, in skills’ teaching teachers should always be realistic, therefore all goals of a lesson should be clear and the lesson itself ought to be useful to learners. Additionally, teachers should provide learners with comprehensible input, which according to Krashen (1989:9, 10) can achieve more than teaching grammar structures. Accordingly, Gough (1996, cited in Lewis 1997:143) points out that activities used in skills lessons are supposed to be learner-centered, “helping learners help themselves outside the classroom”. More importantly, teachers should make themselves “redundant, intervene when needed and avoid over-correction of learners’ errors or pushing them to speak”.
Still, the issue of progress in skills’ teaching remains inexplicable
First, it is worth to ask what accounts for the progress in learners? As Williams and Burden (1997:36) claim, learners learn better when the content of the lesson is meaningful to them. At the same time, they underline that the learner must be actively involved in a task. Subsequently, to meet learner’s expectations and to get them involved in a lesson, requires the teacher to be aware of the learners’ needs. And it is teacher’s responsibility to “identify and try to meet learner’s needs within the context of the classroom group” (Williams and Burden, 1997:36).
In addition, the idea of skills teaching regarded as ‘lazy teaching’ may account for an approach in which teachers fail to understand learner’s needs and expectations, when providing a badly selected material for the lessons or, worse, too difficult one for students to understand (as highlighted in the case of materials authenticity). Moreover, such a situation may lead to learners’ lack of progress in general. Therefore, it is righteous to assume that there is a small percentage of learners who benefit from classes in which teachers demonstrate lack of interest in their needs.
To illustrate, the desirable example of an ideal teacher presented by Seymour Ericksen (1984, cited in Williams and Burden 1997:47) will be quoted. In his book 'The Essence of Good Teaching', he describes a study in which the views of learners and administrators about teachers are analyzed. The conclusion of that research reads as follows: “an outstanding teacher should be an inspiring instructor who is concerned about students, an active scholar who is respected by discipline peers, and an efficient organized professional who is accessible to students and colleagues”.
In this sense, it could be assumed that and ideal teacher should be the one who is both aware of personalization and usefulness of the material they use. Yet, one can question whether useful materials according to the teacher are also useful to the learner. For instance, in skills teaching lesson a teacher who thinks that issue of global warming is of high importance may fail to interest the students by presenting them with abundance of scientific data and failing to make a connection to the usefulness of the topic being discussed. Here, meaningfulness comes to voice. As Williams & Burden (1997) note the progress lays in an individual comprehension of the world. It means that only when one understands the things they are supposed to learn will they achieve in doing so.
As we can see, there is undoubtedly some truth in the idea presented above; however, Erickson’s statement aims to present an ambiguous image of a teacher. Yet, hardly few of these conditions can be met in a natural setting. Consequently, such a stance seems to be far-fetched and needs reconsideration.
To contradict, Nunan (2004) in relation to Task Based Teaching, where impact on skills teaching is evident, states that the teacher, no matter how much determined, would not force an individual to learn. Therefore, making the teacher responsible for student’s failure to progress is an unjust statement. Although the success in the classroom should be perceived strictly as cooperation, one can argue that cooperation does not necessarily mean partnership. According to Ur (1996:279) it is evident that not only younger learners but also adults opt for clear demands from the teacher. In addition, learners must respect the teacher and consider them as an authority, whose judgment they highly value.
Yet, the degree of authoritarianism becomes uncertain. To answer this uncertainty Ur (1996:279) points out that it should be remembered that overused demands can be very harmful to students, depriving them of “personal responsibility for their own learning or long-term motivation to continue”.
Next paragraphs will discuss the notion of classroom atmosphere in skills teaching. As follows, classroom atmosphere can have positive or negative influence on skills teaching or any teaching method. It should be remembered that learning is more efficient in a classroom where the sense of e.g. security is apparent. In their book Williams and Burden (1997:195) state that there should be more research conducted on the significance of classroom climate. Subsequently, the sense of security can be maintained by the guidance from the teacher. Therefore, the teacher who, for example, focuses on teaching listening comprehension should provide an appropriate atmosphere i.e. set the students for a listening activity by confronting them, provide them with aims of the listening and specifying the goals of an activity. In this way, a certain atmosphere that enables students to achieve aims of the lesson is established.
It should be emphasized that classroom atmosphere in skills teaching differs from the one observed in classes taught through GTM. In skills teaching more attention is given to students’ active role in language learning. To illustrate, notions such as independent work and “problem solving skills” are more visible in the “flexible classrooms” (Williams & Burden, 1997:196). This means that in a place where more freedom is allowed, learners tend to be more in charge of their own learning. Moreover, such learners seem to involve themselves to a greater extent than in situations where teacher dominates.
On the other hand, it could be argued whether more freedom in the classroom does promote learning. There is, undoubtedly, some truth in the idea that learning should be student-centered. That is, learners should share ideas about learning and teaching with the teacher so that the relationship between them is more like that of a partnership. Yet, one could question the outcomes of such an approach. Advocates of a traditional way of teaching, i.e. teacher-centered classrooms may argue that in a situation where much freedom is allowed, students simply diverge from the lesson aims and focus on ‘play’ and not on the learning aspects. As Stevick (1982:7) states “the teacher should be in control of the lesson, so that the learners can feel that they are in firm hands”. He explains it later by saying that only in this way can students “relax and focus entirely on the activity presented to them”. This example may help teachers in assuring that during skills teaching their students will be learning rather than just spending their time in the classroom.
Another issue against skills teaching regarding much freedom in the classroom would be the view that in such cases the authority of the teacher is threatened and that the teacher may in the end lose control of the lesson. It all means that learners who are not mature enough to be made responsible for their learning should not, at the same time, be allowed to decide about the content of the lesson. But again, one could reason that the definition of maturity and the teacher's ability to justify which learner is mature or not is a concept based on numerous factors. Opponents of skills teaching could also argue that this manner of teaching is perceived as regarding less skill or preparation because more initiative is placed on the student’s part.
Yet, it seems that only by preserving the proportions in the lesson’s procedure, one might reach the satisfactory solution. Accordingly, Bruner (1960, cited in Williams and Burden 1997:25) stresses the balance that should be kept between the “the degree of structure imposed on a lesson and the amount of the flexibility that is built in to allow learners to discover principles, concepts for themselves”. Also Rogers (1982, cited in Williams and Burden 1997:37) highlights the necessity of equipping learners with “optimum conditions for individualized and group learning of an authentic nature”. He adds that it is important not to forget about “sense of freedom and a counterbalancing sense of responsibility” that should be worked on, as he argues that these notions are often missed in individuals who fail to comprehend the “full implications of humanistic teaching”. In other words, the balance in the roles should act for the natural flow of the lesson so that both sides are satisfied and most importantly, learners can explore their needs and expectations. By doing so, they would end up with the sense of progressing in the learning of a language. They would understand, e.g. the aim of the lesson and their own aims enclosed within the material to be learned.
Democratic vs. formal classroom environments
Consequently, it is necessary to remember that there is no firm answer to the issue of power disposition. A good illustration of this is a research on the democratic and formal classroom environments, which have shown that the difference between those two must not lead to some learners achieving better than the others. As it was discovered, learners from democratic environments were more satisfied and “self-reliant” and manifested “more positive interpersonal relationship”. At the same time, the latter group who was involved in a formal way of teaching had the tendency to “score higher on the measures of vocabulary, reading and mathematics achievements”. (Williams and Burden, 1997:196). Yet, the question arises whether democratic classrooms, apart from producing communicatively efficient students, do not contribute to negligence of other aspects of language i.e. syntax, phonology, grammar etc.
Considering the previous points, it is difficult to account for formal or democratic environment and state which one adds to students’ progress in language learning or, on the contrary, debilitates it, as these two have both advantages and disadvantages. In order to handle this matter, one has to think about learners and teachers as the ones who have individual expectations as to learning, teaching, and therefore should not be mixed with each other.
To conclude, skills teaching which aims at fluency e.g. in communicative competence, cannot be viewed as either good or bad an approach. This paper has presented different factors influencing skills teaching, namely: teachers’ role, learners’ role and classroom atmosphere. Accordingly, the balance between teachers’ and students’ contribution during the lesson is stressed and described as a relationship based on shared responsibility. Subsequently, teachers are seen as facilitators, knowing students needs and aiming to cut down on overcorrection. Learners, on the other hand, are assumed to be more autonomous in their learning. They present intrinsic motivation and bear responsibility for their learning. Lastly, the issue of classroom atmosphere influenced by both teachers and learners, and their mutual input proves to be relevant. As follows, all these factors are believed to contribute to progress in the case of skills teaching. However, no deduction whether in favor or against skills lessons is made, it is because skills teaching, as observed, has both advantages and disadvantages and requires more in-depth analysis. Still, it should be remembered that both teachers and learners, as discussed above, are part of the learning process that involves their previous experiences, feelings, needs and views and makes the whole process of skills teaching a good example of a humanistic approach to teaching and learning, respectively.
Benson, P. (2001) Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. 4thed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Krashen, S. (1989). Language Acquisition and Language Education. London: Prentice Hall International.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Nunan, D. (2003). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C. and Rogers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stevick, E.W. (1982). Teaching and Learning Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, M. and R.L. Burden (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Please check the Methodology and Language for Secondary Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Train the Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
|
