That was a good reading and discussion of chapter 2. Now it boils down to this: Are we teaching the students the English language skills they will use to conference with their kids' school teachers, ask for a raise from their American boss, bargain with a native-speaking car dealer for a deal, and so forth? They certainly need the language to communicate and fulfill their needs. But what language? The language which is grammatically correct but sounds bookish or the everyday usage which may not be grammatically correct but delivers the meaning? Shall we do both? Let me hear your comments.
Again, you can post your answers to the tasks here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I haven't read ch.2 yet so keep that in mind with my answer. I categorize language for the students into 4 areas: Formal (talking to strangers, police, teachers, immigration officials, etc.), informal (friends, family, acquaintances, others), slang (they hear slang, idioms,and the like so I tell/define common things they hear), and swearing/ cussing (inappropriate language they should never use, I don't go over ANY words, but encourage them to ask me if they hear a word and i will tell them if it is one of these). There is overlap, of course. I teach this in a short lesson and then refer/integrate it throughout the term(s). I give examples of each of the first 3 areas as well as words/phrases/sentences used for different situations. They seem to follow.
So, I guess my leaning is to teach them language for all situations they commonly find themselves needing.
Maybe someone can add to or tweak my lesson. I'm not convinced this is a good idea, but the students seems to be motivated.
Well, I don't think our textbook really helps us to teach language skills based on situations. Like Dr. Green shared at the meeting, it would only work that way if we stepped away from the structure of the textbook and taught thematically. Perhaps there is a way to manipulate the text lessons into themes? I believe most ESL learners need to first be comfortable to speak without worrying about mistakes and then focus on primary grammar rules or sentence structure. So I guess, I would agree to teaching both -- grammar and teaching with meaning.
To address the question of, what "type" or "sort" of English we are teaching our students, it seems that we need to pursue a deeper investigation of our student's life and social contexts. Ch. 2 was very interesting as it highlighted some of the developments in the field of language teaching methodologies since 1960. One observation that i had, had to do with the perceived move from more technical/linguistic based focus (as in the autolingual method) to more of a contextual based focus (as in the CLT) One a side note, i wonder how much of this move towards contextual language teaching has originated due to increased immigration trends within U.S. history.
TASK 5:
I tend to use more of the drills/repetitive practice activities and exercises in my teaching. I think that the use of drilling and repetition & emphasis on grammar and language mechanics is actually more effective for higher level students than lower level students (in general). **A intercessory note here is that it would be very interesting too, to do a cultural study related to Chinese social norms and educational methodology** I think that lower level students could actually benefit more from CLT and dialogues with classmates to mimic common environments where students would need to use their Eng. Lang. Skills. I think this actually can give students more confidence to become more independent learners.
Task 6:
SKills-based- may be too detail oriented at expense of overall picture.
functional- may be too big picture, without enough attention to detail (lack of focusing on listening/speaking areas that can be improved.)
I think both forms should complement each other.
Post a Comment