Job Discussion Forums

[naturegirl321]

The Communicative, Direct Method, Auto-Lingual, and tons of others arte out there.
Has anyone found a good one that works?

I was taught the Direct Method, but since then have heard it's not really that good.

[Glenski]

Whatever you use depends on the situation and age of your students. No single method works with all situations or ages.

[RK]

I suspect there are probably as many methods as there are teachers.

It seems to me that there are general principles of language teaching. eg accurate modelling by teacher (or teaching resources), focus on students producing target language, language should be appropriate to students' language level, language should supported by context, etc, etc. I don't think there is any one method guaranteed to work with all learners all the time. I know there are teachers who think using textbooks is a lazy approach but I find a good text which has been tested can be a great support and labour-saver. Usually the textbooks at least give you ideas of different activities recycling the same language. Then you can build on the lessons from the text book by adding activities suited to your students' needs/interests. I figure that if I incorporate different activities and materials using different methods of teaching, hopefully I will have something to offer most of the class.

Sometimes, of course, there is no choice. There is an external exam and you have to teach using the "get through this boring material as fast as possible" method.

[leeroy]

"Principled Eclecticism" (sp?)

At least that's what my master (tutor) told me. Don't stick to one, but use all of them here and there depending on the circumstances.

In truth, though, I tend to stick to communicative and direct methods - grammar translation is impossible with ESL students and the other ones (Silent Way, Suggestopedia, etc..) are weird.

[Roger]

I am not swure I understand the question: what is a "method" supposed to achieve? How does it "work"?
If you are looking for a method that is better suited to help a teacher help his or her students acquire language, then my answer would be: The method as such accounts for maybe 25%, the materials for another 10%, and the teacher for somewhere between 10 to 15% of the input in the effort to acquire a language; the remainder is the student's share (more than 50%).
If you don't force your learners to show an active and acute interest in the subject, and actually require them to do things on their own, then what can you, your method and your textbook/VCD achieve?
The student is the first barrier.
You have proof of this claim in the poor performance of CHinese students - zero interest, zero active, zero quality materials, but teachers with high educational backgrounds (supposedly so, anyway).

[Capergirl]

[naturegirl321]

[FGT]

I favour the eclectic approach - some NLP, a touch of communicative, a modicum of lexical; sometimes PPP, sometimes TTT. Whatever works: use it. If you don't learn about other methods, how can you criticise them? Maybe there is something that can be utilised. Then you can develop your own method. Particularly if you stay in one place for a long time, you can fine tune it (and continue to learn and adapt) to suit the needs/learning patterns of your students.

It's a bit like cooking. You add the vegetables, spices, flavourings etc as you see fit to bring about a finished result. But you don't always use exactly the same recipe. You can always improve your cooking according to the new foods you eat or the new recipes you learn or the shortcuts that you develop. Furthermore, you don't serve the same meal to all your guests. And, if you are a good cook, you can produce a delicious meal from the worst possible ingredients.

[sprightly]

i was big on "communicative language learning" which sounds great and all about empowerment of the student blah blah...
which is great if your students want to learn, AND come from a culture where student empowerment is seen as healthy.

if you don't have one or both of those, you may just want to give them what they're used to.

but yes; what works depends on your personal teaching style, the students' learning styles, and how much they're actually motivated.

[naturegirl321]

[leeroy]

I had always thought of TTT as Test Teach Test,

like

* Get the students to tell you what they think the differences are between different conditional sentences.

* Teach them whatever they got wrong/didn't know.

* Test them to make sure they got it.

NLP is "Neuro-Linguistic-Programming". I started reading a bit about it, but threw the book down in disgust. Anything that involves getting the students to "close their eyes and imagine the texture of a biscuit" has no place in my classroom, thankyouverymuch...

PPP is Present, Practice, Produce.

It's cool to criticise this as being outdated, but personally I think it's OK.

* Present language (like the Past Perfect) on the board, and/or with recognition from a reading, listening, whatever.

* Practise it, i.e. focus on the form, meaning and usage.

* Produce it, use it in freer practice, more "naturally".

The Lexical Approach seems, to be honest, a bit like stating the obvious. As Michael Lewis says, it's not really a replacement for other approaches - rather something to bear in mind with your existing ones. He defines

"collocation" (words that often go together, like "commit suicide" or "go shopping")

"semi-fixed expressions" (phrases that can change a bit like "If I were you/him/her")

"fixed expressions" (like "and that was that.")

and a couple of other things I don't remember. The idea is that we don't just teach single words, but entire "lexical chunks" (groups of words together). Saying all this, I've only read articles - not the book(s).

[shmooj]

The lexical approach has fairly revolutionised the way I approach almost every aspect of English. There is so much in it. Michael Lewis's book on The English Verb also had a huge impact on the way I approach grammar teaching.

Awareness Raising/Noticing/Focus on Form: these have also provided masses of help for me and my students. I would recommend any materials based on these approaches especially for kids who love the discovery aspect of these approaches. My kids would not have learnt even half of what they have over the last few years without the techniques these methods apply.

NLP has always given me the creeps a bit. Sorry if I offend - I'm not trying to but it just kind of makes me feel uneasy. I have a sneaking suspicion there are many others who feel the same but are worried about attracting the ire of the PC brigade. I did however, follow and enjoy a recent series on one aspect of NLP in English Teaching Professional magazine. I liked what I read there through it was a little hard to figure out how I would apply it to my scenario - maybe more useful in future. Frankly, anything involving the word "Programming" in it frightens me when applied to teaching.

[arioch36]

So amny terms. I feel like I am back in the military, where PPP was watch, do, teach

Audiolingual, is that where the teacher says the word, and the students repeat? About a step further. For the non english majors in China, sometimes they get a english teacher who literally can not speak english. But he knows when to push the stop, start and pause button on the tape recorder. And the student repeats what the tape recorder says. Would thi be the modern version of audiolingual?

Good student bad method bad teacher = good students

Bad student (ie , playing computer games day and night)

Bad student, good teacher, good method = bad student.



Yes or no?

[Capergirl]

[FGT]

TTT = test, teach, test

In defence of NLP, I think it really boils down to different students having different learning styles and therefore teachers should provide a wide variety of input/activities to suit the greatest number of students. Visuals, music and physical activities can all be beneficial. Like most things, it's just common sense with a poncy title!